boycott-riaa.com - Article: Hilary Rosen Ignores the Real Thieves

Hilary Rosen Ignores the Real Thieves

Posted by Bill Evans on November 1, 2002 at 6:14 AM (printer friendly)

By: Robert Kramer, IBOB Digital Productions 10/30/2002
In Hilary Rosen's response to Janis Ian's supposed "angry tirade against virtually everyone in the music community," Hilary seems to neglect to consider a few other alternatives to the reasons why there might indeed be a 7% decline in the shipments to music retailers.

In all the discussions about the "poor retailers" experiencing a drop in legitimate CD sales, no one seems to want to bring up the possibility that maybe the quality of music being currently offered by some so-called major label artists might be one of the problems.

Perhaps the public is starting to slowly wise up to the fact that, despite how much money you throw at something to promote it and call it gold, the record buying folks might simply be tired and worn out of all the negative, violent and dissonant garbage the record companies and retailers are charging champagne prices for nowadays. Give the public a choice between ten different types of garbage, and garbage is *all* they have to pick from.

Sure, there is always going to be different styles of music that some prefer over another. I don't like Rap or Heavy Metal, for example, so guess what... I don't BUY Rap or Heavy Metal CD's.

Many hundreds of thousands of people just don't like rap or heavy metal music, either. Guess that'll impact sales. Can't blame file-sharing for that.

I also don't download or upload *any* current or former artists music on the internet, because, despite the technological advances, its not a convenience for me to get my music that way.
I like to buy CD's at the store when there is some artist I want to listen to, and from the crowds I see at my local record stores, MANY thousands of people must feel the same way, so you can't use file-sharing and downloading as an argument.

It's easy to attempt to justify action against file-sharing and uploading, and point to it as the reason why the retailers are wringing their hands. But in all the discussions, why isn't somebody mentioning which types of music are experiencing the supposed downturn?

Also, could another reason be because the record companies aren't telling us the whole story? I see full page ads in Rolling Stone, Billboard and other major "music industry" trades promoting some of the new music being offered.
Record companies spend a lot of cash advertising in these trades. They also use legal payola in the form of promotional considerations to the radio stations (many of which are now owned or operated by the majors) in exchange for getting their high-priced garbage to get played on the radio.

Does anyone see a pattern emerging here??

Why am I, as an independent artist (read that as an artist who does *not* have a major-label contract), being prevented from getting MY OWN MUSIC to be played on internet radio?? Because the music industry monopoly who pulls the strings says that the internet radio broadcasters have to pay a prohibitive amount for broadcasting music over the internet, using "getting my fair share" as justification, and further, are told they are not allowed to play a certain amount of the same artists songs in a row. As a result, many internet broadcasters have ceased broadcasting. Major market broadcast radio has no such restrictions. Why not? Shouldn't radio stations be paying artists their FAIR SHARE for the FREE USE of their music??

Is Hilary Rosen REALLY concerned about getting the artists their fair share?? What about all the FREE promotional copies of music given away by the major label distributors that artists aren't getting a dime for?? If "stealing is wrong," then its wrong for EVERYONE, the radio stations included. Notice how no one wants to address the radio station issue?? There's a reason for that.

Wake up, Hilary Rosen. The labels would have to admit they've been in bed with the radio stations all these years, and that the radio stations pay NOTHING to the artists for the use of their music.

That's not about to happen anytime soon. And this doesn't even address the little creative accounting practices used by the record industry to manipulate the demographics to "prove an economic downturn" in record sales. Sure, payola is illegal. Go on, Hilary, prove it doesn't happen.

Anyone remember the little debacle Frank Zappa had with Warner Bros. some years ago? Look it up. Among other things, WB used a little accounting trick, they inventively called "pressing overruns," to try and slick artists out of deserved cash.

They'd have the plants press, say 200,000 units, for example. Then they'd show 100,000 shipped and sell off the extra 100,000 at a discount to sleaze bags who would then turn around and sell the boxes of albums off the back of some truck to record stores. The whole thing was creatively buried in their ENRON style accounting practices and it took awhile before artists finally broke their little scheme. The artists never saw a DIME from the sales of those "pressing overruns".

Remember, the industry gauges their figures on HOW MANY UNITS *SHIPPED*, NOT *SOLD*. Are those figures really telling the whole story about record sales?? I doubt it.
After all the discoveries of outright thievery uncovered in corporate America in this last year, it would be fascinating to have someone dig into some of the major label distributors finances. I'm *sure* they're all above reproach and have kept the highest moral and ethical standards in dealing with the artists money, right, Hilary??? Riiiight.

I can just picture record executives being hauled off in handcuffs on TV and courtrooms FILLED with major-label artists and fans to witness the "Trial of The Century" as they uncover the billions of dollars STOLEN over the years from truly deserving artists, musicians, producers and those on the front lines of music. It'd make the ENRON hearings look like simple shoplifting by comparison.

I guess stealing is only ok when the thieves are allowed to run the industry, right Hilary??

Robert Kramer's website
Janis Ian's Article
RIAA Response to Janis Ian's Article

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


kneo24	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 6:23 AM When I read that bitch Rosens response, I also noticed how she didn't even touch on anything that Janis Ian said. I'm also laughing at the fact that it took her so long to actually think of a response to it since it even says in the article that Ian wrote that Rosen contacted her not too long after it was written. It's as plain and simple as this. Hillary Rosen has the intelligence level of an eight year old. I'm surprised she's still president of the RIAA.

ArtfulDodger	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 6:23 AM Death to Hilary. get rid of her and then we can be free once again to download just like we used to in the old days before the RIAA discovered Napster and the internet.

goldenpi	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 9:28 AM She would be replaced by someone just as bad.

W-B	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 10:55 AM I.I.N.M., Ms. Rosen currently occupies the position of Chairperson and C.E.O., while Cary Sherman is the president. (Whereas a year ago, Ms. Rosen was the prexy, and Mr. Sherman but a mere RIAA lawyer.) But I refer you to the last line of The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again," to show that this really doesn't change anything: "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss." Whoever runs the show, it's the same old story: The RIAA and the multinational entertainment-media complex whose record divisions comprise its membership are all too perfectly willing to plunge Western civilization into the equivalent of the proverbial "thousand years of darkness" so as to selfishly hold on to their last remaining $$$$.

mcarp555	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 11:52 AM This is the last paragraph of the RIAA response (see link above): "Angry tirades against virtually everyone in the music community may help get headlines for a contrarian, but it does nothing to advance a thoughtful dialogue about how to address these serious issues." There is an incredible amount of bombastic rhetoric on BOTH sides of this issue, and neither the RIAA, NOR the "innocent music fans" can claim to have entirely clean hands. The people in the middle being hurt most by all this hot air are the artists themselves. On one hand, the standard label contract is Draconian, and is only a step above indentured servitude. On the other, greedy consumers who don't give a damm have no qualms about literally stealing someone's hard work for their own enjoyment. The point made above by Ms. Rosen is correct; nothing will be done until there is real dialogue. Calling people "bitches" and wishing death upon them does nothing to advance any cause. Neither does the RIAA smoke-screening of finances. Meanwhile, artists suffer, Net radio sinks further and further. What can be done? Maybe it's time for recording artists to unionize. Refuse to record for major labels until such time as the true financial situation is revealed. Let the union bargin with labels. Let the union propose enforcable limits on what should and shouldn't be downloaded, or made availible for promo useage (Ms. Rosen says in the article that artists should have the option of selecting how much should be promotional. How many on WEA or Sony really have that control?). The artists need protection from management and the public. This is why unions were formed in the first place. If the RIAA is really open to the causes they mention, a show of good faith would be to admit some of their accounting is unfair, biased, and possible illegal. Don't hold your breath.

Svensta	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 2:04 PM Something to consider though. We all believe that this 7% drop in sales is NOT, as they claim, the result of piracy but a measurable drop-off in the quality of music being offered. My rebuttal is this: The record companies have been doing business in this manner since it boomed. They are all about having someone write a song, molding young fresh faces to sing it, and marketting the HELL out of it. Regardless of your personal opinion of the music, this system WORKS. THere's about 30 years of proof behind it, ever since the record companies started creating bands and writing songs for performers (Remember that Frank Sinatra never wrote a single song of his own) Now I am not comparing Ol Blue Eyes to Justin Timberlake, but why should this suddenly STOP working for the RIAA? I think one has to realize that this new reality boom and those American Idol / Pop Star etc shows are showing the public that their stars are just well-constructed PR vehicles and have NOTHIGN to do with their OWN music! I mean Britney's agent and record label rep just hand her her next album and she is funnelled off to go she her dance teacher to learn her new moves. There's NOTHING being done on her part, but smiling and cashing the checks and singing a bit. Maybe people are rejecting this now that the curtain has been drawn back on national TV and the Wizard is really a team of 10-20, 35 year old songwriters.

mcarp555	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 2:29 PM Well, you're right Sven. In the early 60's, the labels got in on rock by offering teen idols (Fabian, Ed Byrnes, etc.). Then the British Invasion changed the direction. The labels responded in the 70's with the Osmonds, Partridge Family, Bobby Sherman. This led through Disco to the Punk Movement. It's a very back and forth situation; the 80's had Duran Duran & Adam Ant vs. U2, Springsteen, etc. I think now we're at another pivotal change. People have had enough of the current wave of phoney stars, but the music scene is so fragmented now (do you like Jungle dub techopunk or Country crossover rap emo?), that it may be hard for anything to rise up and offer a real alternative. The next two or three years promise to be the most interesting in popular entertainment in thirty years.

thumbtack	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 3:24 PM Of course the economy has nothing to do with it either does it? When times get tight people tighten their belts a bit. They tend to start looking for value in their purchases they make with their discretionary income. The discretionary income is the first to be hit when times get tight, before the necessities of life, such as food, housing, clothing. $18 bucks for a CD of 10 of 12 songs, or DVD with a movie, interacive features, such as making of the movie, edited scenes, choice of dolby surround, 5.1, etc that entertains you for a couple of hours rather than 45 minutes. The movie industry is setting all time high sales records right now. At the same time people are staying at home more. I can name a lot of businesses right now that wish their sales were only down 7% for the year. Add to the mix the fact that a lot of people who are not buying major label music but independent music and he have the formula that easily begins to explain why Hilary is moaning and groaning. They can't begin to accept the fact that while their system may work for some, there are other models out there that are beginning to see the light of day. My music purchases have gone from 13 or 14 Cds per year to 51 or 52 last year and right now I am at 40+ for this year. Thats over 90 CDs in the past two years and not one of them is on a major label. Personally I would like to thank Hilary Rosen and the recording industry for driving me away. I've gotten some wonderful music, and will most likely rarely, if ever, buy major label music again. OF course there are a few exceptions, Diana Krall (whose CD was given to me for Christmas last year and Sade who I received on my birthday.)It gives one a good feeling to actually know the artist gets the majority of the money, rather than a record label who extorts their artists through accounting fraud, inflated expenses, and unfair contracts.

kneo24	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 4:07 PM I never intended to advance any cause by calling her a bitch, mcarp. Don't be so quick to jump to assumptions like you always do.

leflaw	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 5:07 PM Time for the United States Recording Association.

Frawgster	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 5:31 PM None of the issues in Ian's article were addressed by Hilary. Her "response" is, in my opinion, meaningless. When one responds to someone(thing), he/she addresses the issues presented by the original piece (verbal, written or otherwise). Now that I think about it, I can't remember one instance when has the RIAA ever addressed any of the concerns of listeners.

thumbtack	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 6:08 PM But Frawg they do...Listeners say "This is what we want"...The The RIAA says "No you don't" and we paid for a survey to show you that you don't....The sue Aimster/Madster then allow AOL Instant messenger ( which is what Numair used to transfer the Mp3 files he downloaded during the Grammys. Clearly a program that contibutes to copyright infringement.

W-B	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 6:22 PM Re, the points on the economy: Let us not forget, as I point out every so often, the downsizing of people's wages in the years since Ronald Reagan was President (i.e., driving wages down to the level of what people across the border make), combined with the effects of NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc. Wal-Mart employees who basically work for what amounts to slave wages. People working up to 16 hrs. / day @ 7 days / wk. to make what they used to get in the ol' 40-hour, 5-day workweek - if that. Certainly one can't discount these factors I just mentioned as being as contributory to the decline in CD sales as the dropoff in music quality, the industry's imposition of arbitrarily discriminatory "copy protectionist" schemes and across-the-board anti-consumer jihad, their arrogant refusal to even remotely listen to their potential customers, their de facto gentrification of CD prices, and so forth. As for Frank Sinatra: He DID co-write (or, at least, was credited as co-writing) one of his more famous numbers -- "I'm A Fool To Want You." But I admit, in this area that was more of an exception.

NeoFlash	Date: November 1, 2002 @ 8:20 PM It may just because the music sux.

rscrabb	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 12:38 AM I think Hilary sounds like a broken record, saying the same things all over again. So far this year, i have bought way over 100 new cds, and cd sales are down seven percent. Hmmm, i bet you that the sales would be in a double digit decline if i stop buying new cds.

thumbtack	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 1:28 AM Then Stop rscabb!! (unless they are independent musicians)!

scottjw	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 1:44 AM Is there some way to organzie a protest of current copyright law, or file-sharing, or any of these issues, or all of them?? I never hear of anything like this, and without it, politicians will just think we all agree that everything the labels say is right. My university's student newspaper has recently published 3 articles in a series on why file-sharing is illegal and immoral. I wrote them a furious response, and am very happy to know they will be using it as a guest column, so I'm hoping many people here will see the other side of the story (we have 30,000 at this school, approx.). Aside from the NET act, there is nothing that says that sharing copyrighted files is illegal, and the NET act only covers cases when people have more than a certain dollar amount (and how do they know you haven't paid for that music anyway? If you buy a CD, rip it, and then lose it, you still purchased the music) of copyrighted material. In any case, file-sharing is the entertainment industry's only real competition, and I hope the industry goes down in flames... I'm tired of everyone being a cultural prostitute.

LarsIsMyBitch	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 3:36 AM Scott - The RIAA is writing colleges informing them to PUBLISH articles saying that file-sharing is illegal. THAT way, when the colleges get busted, they could claim that they didn't have any involvement. It's paying lip service to the RIAA. I'm surprised to hear that they're letting you take the defense, but more power to ya! But just refute the obvious, keep it simple, and don't use the words "Rosen, bitch, whore, freak" in the same sentence.

LarsIsMyBitch	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 3:44 AM And Robert Kramer makes a great point. Compared to all the new bands in the 70's and 80's, how many NEW acts per year do we get? 4? If my choice is Britney, J-Lo, Eminem and Korn, maybe they should take the fact that 2 acts that sound the same, one that's offensive, and one that's not-so-bad-but-could-be-better JUST DIDN"T DO WELL, and get better A&R guys out in the clubs where the real music happens... But that means that they'd have to admit to their shareholders that they spend more money advertising Britney than getting an act that people LIKE. They invested heavily into Frank Sinatra, and he spent a better part of his life entertaining. I don't see anything coming from the current line up, unless you consider that the J-Lo Britney types will someday be like the Anna Nicole Smith show. I'm still dying to know the "terms" and "agreements" in the contract between the Record Companies and that poor girl who won the American Idol contest. I'll bet they ripped her GOOD.

scottjw	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 4:08 AM Lars, I don't use any of those words, just the facts as stated by the law, common sense, and the RIAA's own website ;).

ChillinBuzz	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 8:34 AM I ran off the entirety of the Foo Fighters' latest offering from the net. It's impressed me so much that I have it down on my Christmas list, as a prezzie to myself :) If I hadn't had the ability to listen to it in the way I chose, I may never have bought it. This is what they should be concentrating on, utilising their resources to promote the music by allowing the choice to stay in the customers' hands rather than trying to wrestle it from our grasp and going away empty-handed. :)

W-B	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 2:53 PM In that respect, as noted before, the RIAA is not too dissimilar to the former Soviet Union and its onetime "satellite" states (such as still-Communist China), in that THEY seek to dictate the terms of everything, and that the public should be left with absolutely NO choice whatsoever. That, plus their advocacy of Big Government intrusion into the realm of digital technology and egregiously violating people's privacy. :-\

Sw0rdbreaker	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 3:18 PM The reason the RIAA is so upset over this "piracy" is the simple fact that they can't capitalize on the 1 hit wonders anymore. You'll notice how so many artists have only 1 song played on the radio and then they advertise their new CD, however when you buy said CD you find that the song played on the radio was the only good one and the rest are crap. People are trying before they buy, downloading a handful of other songs on the album and finding that they all are crap. So if there is 1 good song, 13 crap tracks, and no single available... why in the world would anyone pay 15 dollars for one song? This probably accounts for 1 or 2 percent of the revenue loss for the RIAA. The rest of it probably has to do with people actively avoiding buying CDs whether they download or not simply because the RIAA's greedy nature is coming to the forefront and the consumers are doubting whether or not they actually want to support it. I myself fall into this group, I have no intention of ever buying another CD whether file sharing is abolished or not because I will not support an oganization that gets paid for advertising music someone else wrote. We also should take into account that the if file sharing becomes a popular method of exposure for the artists, the RIAA will no longer have a place in our society and they will fade away. In short, the RIAA is desperately trying to prevent anything that would alert people to the fact that they are not necessary and I only hope tht they fail.

Sw0rdbreaker	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 3:26 PM One thing I forgot to mention, the RIAA is all about their arguement that "Piracy hurts everyone, online and offline" Along with the mentality that file sharing is stealing. Someone explain to me how anyone at all gets hurt if someone who has no intention of buying a CD because they don't have the money, or just flat out don't like it enough to buy, goes and downloads a song. Who exactly is the loser? The only arguement I can see is that the RIAA will have to jack up CD prices another 5 cents due to "lost" revenue. Just some food for thought.

mcarp555	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 5:29 PM Who gets hurt? What about the artist who writes & records the song? How does he get paid when you just "download a song"? If whatever band you like can't afford to make a living recording songs (for you to download), and stops recording, who's the loser then? The band, for having to work at McDonalds, or you for not having new material from your favourite band? Never mind the RIAA, the label, the record store, the distributor, the kid working at the record store - YOU lose, and the band you like lose. This is like the Japanese ignoring whaling bans. When they kill all the whales, then what will they do???

scottjw	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 6:48 PM mcarp555, the artists don't get paid whether we purchase their CDs or not... hence why most of them end up either broke or owing their labels... downloading doesnt hurt anyone, surveys have shown this... think of Napster, they complained sales were down, but for that year (and you can look on RIAAs website) their sales were actually up 11%, which is astounding considering all the "piracy" that was happening.

mcarp555	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 7:27 PM I'm not talking about just acts signed to the major labels. I'm talking about every artist who loses sales with attitudes like SwOrdbreakers. Like I said, forget the RIAA for a minute. Here's a hypothetical example. In a perfect world, any artist would be free to sell music to the public directly. This would include offering as much or as little as free downloads as the individual artist would desire. If I'm playing 180 nights a year, selling CDs both online and at gigs, WHO gets hurt if YOU decide to offer my entire catalog for FREE on your website? I think we're moving towards a model in which musicians will eschew the traditional route of having a major label, prefering to deal directly with the public. When there are no more major labels to hurt, who will rampant filesharing affect? Once we establish the idea that any moron with a modem has a god-given right to have any music they want at no cost, you start to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, right now, most artists on major labels can only be screwed even more than they appear to already be. But what about the future? Artists without labels trying to survive making music. Which is more important, my right to say "No, you cannot download my song for free", or your right to say "If I can get your song without paying you, I deserve it"?

kneo24	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 9:23 PM mcarp, you're acting just like hilary rosen. You're ignoring all of the facts. Go ahead and make up your own SHIT, because that's exactly what it is. Pure shit. You're failing to see that downloads only help artists, not the opposite. If someone wants to piss and moan about downloading because it will hurt their sales, then they shouldn't be making music in the first place.

mcarp555	Date: November 2, 2002 @ 9:56 PM I see. So you're in the second camp - As long as you get free music, who cares about the musician trying to make a living. Please let me know what you do for a living, and how soon can you start doing it for me for free? After all, why should I pay you if I can get you to do it for me for nothing?

Alveoli	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 12:34 AM mcarp apparently does not really understand the issue at hand here. Noone is suggesting musicians shouldnt be paid for what they do. First of all, the downloading of music from the internet no more robs an artist of income than if someone tapes or digitally records music off of broadcast radio or tv. Read Kramers original post, mcarp. Radio stations have never paid a penny for the artists music they get from the record labels. THEY USE IT FOR FREE, and use it as MUCH as they want, as MANY TIMES as they want. And tell the people here YOU'VE never videotaped a movie off of tv or recorded a radio program. Its the same thing, only the mechanism is different. If the RIAA was -truly- concerned with passing legislation to get artists money from those who typically used their music for free, they'd be going after the radio & tv stations. But of course, they wont ever DO that, since the RIAA, the radio stations, and the major label distributors (who own and license the radio networks) all sleep together. Each recording artist who is under contract by a label is paid based on a specified percentage against expenses incurred by the label to produce, package and promote the artist. Many contracted artists get an advance, (read that as a LOAN) by the label, after which, when an artist RECOUPS their initial advance from sales and appearances, their percentage is adjusted based on performance. At no time does the artist EVER receive any income from having their music broadcast on radio. (UNLESS specifically negotiated for in their contract, like they do for music on tv or in movies) Most times, many contracted artists are consistently "on the hook" and "in the red" to pay back advances to the record label, which is why many of them used to end up in the $1.98 bin. If the artist doesn't "re-coup" their advance to the label within the specified contract period, the label either adjusts their percentage downwards, or cuts them off altogether and refuses to put any more money into promoting them. The issue with the RIAA is NOT about getting artists money. They are a LOBBY group for the recording industry who wants to monopolize the internet and put the small indie internet radio broadcasters out of existance so that independent artists WHO ARE NOT the property of any major label will no longer present a competitive threat to their little shell game. The whole downloading issue is merely a convenient smokescreen. In reality, it has no impact on sales or profits of the record labels. Of course, if the RIAA eventually gets its way, it WOULD mean major labels could NOW be scarfing up LICENSING FEES from any internet broadcasters who could afford to stay in business. Now, follow this because its important, mcarp. THAT MEANS THAT internet broadcasters would be paying the recording industry "royalty or licensing fees" for broadcasting INDIE artists who aren't WITH a label, as well as well-named artists. Therefore, indie artists who are not under the control of a label WON'T GET PAID any royalties from that income. Get it? The major labels will then be able to legally STEAL money from indie artists. BUT because that will potentially open up the internet broadcasters for a whole bunch of royalty lawsuits, guess what...they'll simply refuse to play any more indie artists music, effectively bottling everything up in a nice tidy package, and all in favor of the RIAA and the major labels. (And you thought MICROSOFT was a monopoly!) It might be helpful for you to become a little more familiar with the way the industry works before you soapbox this issue. Read "Confessions Of A Record Producer" in its ENTIRIETY and get familiar with the way the music industry really operates.

mcarp555	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 1:55 AM Oh, I understand that perfectly well. And I agree that labels have no business collecting fees regarding artists not signed to major labels who are struggling for airplay. But as I have maintained from the start, all of this is the real smokescreen. We would not be talking about any of this if Napster, etc. did not tell a whole generation of teenage boys that they can get CD or near CD quality music off the net for free. There is not a single industry I can think of that is dealing with customers believing they have the right to take something for nothing. And I'm not talking about any artist who chooses to make free downloads available; my point is that it should be up to the artist. Not a 13 year old in NY who decides the RIAA is evil. That's nonsense. I'm asking the question: who will decide what a consumer will get, and what they will pay for? Do I, as a musician, have the right to say, "No, if you want to hear my music, I need you to buy the CD", or do you have the right to say, "Screw you; I'm striking a blow against large companies by refusing to pay you for your CD." Why do people not call the head of the Motion Picture lobby a "bitch"? Because movies are not widely availble for download. At least not yet, and not as widely as music. Why are the makers of almost 95% of all consumer electronics in the United States not targeted as "unfair" for maintaining a monopoly of what they make and offer to us? Most people DON'T care about the RIAA. They DON'T care about indie artists. They DON'T care about net radio. But they know if they lose these fights, suddenly the potential for getting music they would have had to buy five years ago is diminished. Why do I think if you survey any average group of 17-25 year olds, they won't give a flying flip for any of those things. But ask them if they were suddenly unable to download nearly anything they want, watch the storm of indignation rise. And that's my point. Who cares about the RIAA? Not many. Who will make the decisions about p2p and how it relates to 'fair usage'? And why?

ArtfulDodger	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 3:51 AM after reading this lengthyyyyyy thread I am here to tell ya "THEY DO PAY ROYALTIES TO ARTISTS OR PUBLISHERS TO HAVE THEIR SONG OR SONGS AIRED ON THE RADIO." Where in the world do you people get your info from??? seriously? just because you can record a song off the radio for free that doesnt mean the radio station "GETS" it for free. and even though I am a diehard P2P user, I agree with McCarp as he's the one making the most sesne. its not stealing tho, I share but I already own most of the songs I have on 45 records! Songs that havent been on the market since 1950!!!

ArtfulDodger	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 3:55 AM also, why do you think the RIAA has gone after net radio broadcasters??? To have them pay the fees or royalties to the artists and or publishers to broadcast their song list. but we know that those fees are going to go in Rosen's pocketbook not the artists.

thumbtack	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 3:58 AM They only pay royalties to the publishers and songwriters, the performers get no royalties from airplay. Performers only get royalties from webstreaming and if their label decides to treat downloads as a song sale not a licensed tune. Universal recently changed that to include downloads they are the only one so far. And It would be improper to Jack Valenti a bitch...he's a prick...http://www.strangler.org/

thumbtack	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 4:00 AM As does the publisher songwriter get royalties on webstreaming and downloads. It cost the webcasters more to stream than it does a radio station to play.

mcarp555	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 5:45 PM Bill, doesn't the performer get a mechanical royalty, like with regular radio?

kneo24	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 6:54 PM mcarp, if you would put two and two together, you'd see that downloading hasn't hurt musicians at all. I still don't see the point them complaining about free promotion. Please show me a non funded RIAA study that proves otherwise. The consumer should be able to sample the product before they buy it. It's not really any different than buying something, not liking it, and then returning it back to the store. Downloading is just so much easier. Less effort and time. If the person likes it enough, more than likely they will go out and buy it. If they don't like it, they won't keep it on their computer. You've done nothing but blame a very small percentage. If some jackass artist like Eminem wants to bitch about free promotion, then let them. Are they really afraid that someone might not like their music?

scottjw	Date: November 3, 2002 @ 8:32 PM The way I see it, I do not agree with the way the music industry operates, how it bullies universities and ISP's, and treats its customers as theives (all of them), and so downloading from major labels really only hurts the labels. If I download a song or buy a CD, the artist will see basically none of it anyway, so what difference does it make? Even though downloading obviously doesn't hurt sales much (look at the Napster case, industry sales up 11% that year), I am not going to financially support this organization if they are going to be assholes to everyone and try to make technology and customers change before they adopt a new business model. Take a look at what Palladium will be, and TCPA, this is what the entertainment industry needs in order to control every aspect of our consumption of anything "fun." Since this is obviously being implemented in the near future, they will win total control over our computers, and the part of us that enjoys music. If they can control that, then they have it made financially until the world ends. What about being able to choose what we listen to or watch? I'd certainly let the entire entertainment industry fall flat on its face so I could get a chance to hear my cousin's band on the radio, or to get my own band heard independantly. It's all about choice, and the way things are going, our choices are running out.

mcarp555	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 1:42 PM sigh It's obvious that no one is really listening. Or the people with common sense are too smart to post (unlike the rest of us). Kneo, how many record stores do you know that allow you to buy a CD, take it home, then bring it back the next day if you don't like it? None, except for maybe some used stores. Why? Because they think you might take it home and tape it! Duh! I'm not against free promotion. I'm against the artist having no say in how much promotion is they want. If Weezer has their whole catalog for free on the net, good for them. If Tool says one song from each album only, don't they have the right to do that? I guess you're the only person downloading who's not burning CDs of their favourite songs and never buying the CD. Scott's attitude is more typical: If I say the industry is screwing artists, who cares if I never buy another CD? After all, I can, right? But you buy a car even tho the auto industry screws people. You buy tomatoes even tho migrant labour is screwed by the food industry. Once again: You only stand on principle for music because you can get music for free. Damn near all of you. Because how many of you were refusing to support the music industry five or ten years ago. None of you. None. You were all happily buying CDs and never giving it a second thought. If there never was a Napster, a Mozilla, a Gnutella, how many of you would be preaching about the evil record industry? Before you start throwing brickbats at me for questioning the system, get off your own little pedestal first and look in the mirror. Will anyone stand up and admit it? Say it out loud: "Yeah, I don't care about anyone in the music business other than myself. I burn songs and have no intention of ever paying for them." Well?

kneo24	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 2:11 PM mcarp, fuck you. You're a complete dumbass. You act like no one fucking cares about anyone except themselves. You even make idiotic attempts to pass this off as fact. You're the one whose on this high and mighty pedestal. You have also still ignored a lot of the other facts. You've also failed to realize that sometimes it takes a catalyst for people to realize that certain things are happening. How about if you take your window licking opinion somewhere else where some moron might actually buy into it.

kneo24	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 2:14 PM There's another huge point you've missed mcarp, it doesn't matter what a lot of artists say can and cannot be done with the music that they make. It's not theirs, it's the record companies.

kneo24	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 2:23 PM One last point that I forgot to bring up, this goes way beyond downloading music. If you had half a brain you would see that.

mcarp555	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 4:19 PM Well, it's good to know you can always fall back on abuse to make your point when logic fails you. Sorry I taxed your ability. I'll stop wasting my own time trying to use reason.

scottjw	Date: November 4, 2002 @ 5:26 PM mcarp, I'm insulted... I don't feel personally that the auto industry screws people over, at least to the extent that the music industry does, and I haven't purchased a car from any authorized dealer EVER. I don't purchase tomatoes, either. In any case, I only have the energy to take on one issue at a time, as far as debating and informing people goes. None of us can take on the whole world all at once, so stop generalizing, we are discussing the entertainment industry, not the food industry. You say that we result to insulting people because we can't argue our points, yet you acuse us of lacking common ense for holding our views, so what makes it right if YOU insult US? It is not about free music at all, I paid for my cousin's band's CD, if I was only concerned about free music I would have just downloaded it. I used to pay for CDs by major artists after downloading their songs, but after finding out that the artists generally don't see a cent (and after finding out the shittiness of the industry and the legal and immoral ways its trying to stay afloat), I must say I don't give a fuck about paying for their CDs, at least not until some things change. Stop being a hypocrite mcarp, you have the right to voice your opinion, but you obviously think you are better than us and can insult us at will (yet if we insult you, good god, the world will stop so you can point that fact out). If you think we are all mindless "corporation haters", then stop posting here and go away. Secondly, if you think you are going to change anyone's opinion you are just naive. We are discussing something, not trying to change the minds of other people (which is generally impossible because of the hard-headed nature of human beings). So, I must say mcarp555, fuck you and the arrogant horse you rode in on.

Spica	Date: November 5, 2002 @ 7:07 AM ok, i hear some old material here. for example, someone says the artists should have the right to control how their files get distributed. well, what about MY right to communicate any of my information to whoever I want, whenever I want? Because that's all that mp3's are - MY information, on MY harddrive, found BY ME. I say MY rights override the artists' "rights" - ALWAYS. And it doesnt matter to ME how much money they WANT to be making. Maybe I WANT to charge people 100 bucks for listening to me fart, because I say it may have _potential_ entertainment value to someone. But I can hardly do that, now can I. dont agree with me? too bad.

ibobdigital	Date: November 5, 2002 @ 9:47 AM Ignoring the previous post altogether, let me refer back to mcarp. Allow me to say that although many people here don't agree with his viewpoint, he still has a right to his opinion, so, in his defense, lets not engage in name-calling and insults towards him or anyone. He apparently stands for the ethic of the artist having control over the material. I can't disagree with his ethic there. He's at least trying to reflect part of what we've really all been saying all along...the artist should have a certain amount of say so in controlling what is done with his music. There are other issues involved besides just illegal downloading, however, and I believe the point of my original article on this whole deal(it certainly opened up quite a response!) was the fact that the RIAA is gradually attempting to control and monopolize what can and cannot be played on the net. This point was pivotal for me personally, because, as an "indie" artist, I used to be able to get my music played on many internet radio programs, some of which folded because they could not afford to keep broadcasting. This is exactly what the RIAA intended to lobby for, using the "give the artists their fair share" line as their noble pseudo-cause. Not that its wrong to give the artist "their fair share:, the only trouble is, the artist stands to receive none of this additional income. As a matter of fact, the labels are the only ones who truly benefit from this new so-called "royalty". Any artist who is under contract is paid according to the terms of their contract, and many of the majors had it set up at one time so that all income from songwriting and mechanicals went directly to their conveniently located in-house publishing division, not the artist. Then, after deducting expenses and re-couping advances,etc, the artist would receive their percentage. Of course, this resulted in many re-negotiated contracts, and there was also a flood of artists who started their own labels and publishing companies after getting out of their original contracts. Any fees collected from webcasters will, as a result, go straight to the label. You can bank on that. Todays un-labeled Indie artists who've struggled to get their material out there and heard by the public are being hurt by this whole phenomenon, and the music industry has created a monopoly to squeeze the independent artists out of the picture. They can't get their material in rotation on commercial radio unless they pay the radio stations for the privelege, and of course, everyone knows that payola is illegal. "Promotional considerations", however, is another matter. Where do you think all those free tickets that radio stations like to give away come from? The labels supply them in batches to hundreds of radio stations all over the world on a regular basis. Thats also lost revenue that the artist never gets. We're not talking a few dollars here, folks. You know what ticket prices are going for these days. Can you say over a million dollars in free "giveaways" that are royalty exempt?? In all fairness, these giveaways have already been written into the artists contract, which the artist agreed to when they signed on the dotted line. Illegal downloading, on the other hand, is an unethical but natural result of technology. In all likelyhood, because the record industry will never be able to completely stop this phenomenon,(even though they're trying new technologies that are creating even more problems than it solves, like copy-protected CD's that won't play on some CD players..) they'll probably do what they did with blank cassettes and CD's when they worried about their "lost revenue"; they'll lobby for a surcharge to be put on the sale of blank media that kicks back to them, or they'll threaten to raise prices on major label CD's. That, in turn, will encourage, not stop, more illegal downloading) I'm more concerned with the fact that non-labeled indie musicians are having their internet exposure squashed by the very industry they're trying to break into. Theres something ironically cruel about that...

kneo24	Date: November 5, 2002 @ 4:06 PM If you have a problem with people insulting mcarp, then he shouldn't have insulted us in the first place. What goes around comes around. Also, no one ever said he didn't have a right to his opinion, it's just that some people here feel that he should take it elsewhere since we're sick of his "holier than thou" attitude.

RIAAistheMOB	Date: November 5, 2002 @ 7:34 PM I am personally disgusted with the RIAA and the Music Industry. I have Napster and file-trading to thank for making me aware of what this organized crime system is really all about. Before these issues became big news I assumed that they and most other big companies were largly ethical. Boy was I a fool. Just to stave off any indignant rebuttals from mcarp, let me just say that I don't download music. I do, however, take advantage of fair-use to make mp3 copies of my own original, paid-for music CDs so that I can burn compliation CDs to listen to in my car. The mp3 capable CD player in my car allows me to keep most of my music collection in my visor, as opposed to lugging around several bulky cases. If mcarp or anyone else wants to get on my case for that, more power to 'em. That said, the Music Industries attitude and treatment of both consumers and artist have soured me to the point where I simply do not purchase their product anymore. So far, their tactics and principles have prevented me from purchasing 8 new CDs this year alone. I normally like to support the artists that I like, but I can't bring myself to support a corrupt system. Each time I considered buying a CD, these are the factors that prevented me from doing so: 1 - Not knowing who is benefitting from the purchase (and an almost certainty that it's not the artist) 2 - Not knowing whether the CD has been "altered" to prevent me from listening to it on whatever device I choose or, in fact, whether it may damage my computer. 3 - Not knowing whether the money I spend on this CD will be spent to further restrict my freedoms in the future. 4 - Not knowing whether I will be wasting $15+ on something I won't even like, with no ability to return it. Until the RIAA and the Music Industry can show to me and the world that they are rethinking their unethical business model, stop insulting consumers and start giving artists thier due, I will not purchase another CD (unless it's from an indie artist.) As long as I am making lists, let me offer a list of the real reasons I believe music sales are down: 1 - Unreasonable price hikes 2 - Total consumer disgust with the industry based on it's business practices and treatment of consumers as criminals 3 - Downturn of the economy 4 - Inability to change with the times and adjust it's business model to meet the needs, wants and expectations of consumers 5 - Greater interest and availability of Indie music, thanks to the internet I think that there is a very, very small number of true "pirates" out there and that they don't affect the bottom line now any more than they have all along. I also believe you can't treat your customers like dirt, call them names, take away their rights and most of the benefits of the products that you offer while charging them outrageous prices and then expect sales not to go down. It is going to take a long time for the industry to rebuild consumers' trust, because right now, I believe everything they say publicly is a lie.

ibobdigital	Date: November 5, 2002 @ 11:20 PM kneo24...Insulting someone who has insulted you doesn't change anyones mind, and brings noone any further to help foster understanding of the issue. Mindless bickering is pointless, and only contributes to more conflict. Thats why the world is in such a state, because people don't want to be the first one to stop. The "he did it to me first.." attitude has been responsible for millions of deaths over the years, and I think its about time people learned that it doesn't accomplish anything. And it certainly doesn't prove anybodies point. Instead of arguing why you think its ok to get someone back, maybe its time to grow up a little and get past the childish bickering. "kill noone you disagree with...it only proves their point..." dr. bizarro

kneo24	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 3:56 PM Well excuse me for being human. I'll go to a robot factory and have them turn me completely into one. Me insulting back is not even nearly the same as me going around killing people that don't agree with me. Those comparissons are a bit out of whack. Plus, I don't get why you people think I want to change mcarps mind. I don't understand why you people can't understand that I did in retalliation because I was sick and tired of mcarp insulting me, and everyone else in just about every single post he makes. One person can only hold their tongue so much before they say something.

ibobdigital	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 7:29 PM The comparison was only made because its the same stubborn immature mindset of people who just can't drop something. If mere words shake your ground, your beliefs must be pretty fragile. And I'm not suggesting you hold your tongue. Just your need to keep "retaliating". Flinging insults automatically invalidates whatever point you might try to make, valid or not. It means your ability to support your point of view with the facts is hampered or undeveloped. Again, "he did it to me first" is a pretty weak position, no matter whos right or wrong. We all got your point. You were shaken and insulted by mere words. Lets move on to something more important.

kneo24	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 8:03 PM such ignorance... I was not shaken at all. By only saying that is a direct insult at me, and that as you have said invalidates whatever point you were trying to make. Nice Job of proving nothing, hypocrite.

ibobdigital	Date: November 6, 2002 @ 10:22 PM Correct. I proved nothing. You just proved it for me. And we can all tell that you weren't shaken in the least. Are you able to move on now?

Esper	Date: November 11, 2002 @ 2:11 AM Alright... the mcarp issue. That doesn't happen. Nothing thats being said either by the RIAA or this site actually happens. Realistically none of this happens, these are all statistics and worse-case scenarios, which is what pisses me off about this whole deal. The fact that the RIAA has the audacity to label so many people as thieves and go to such extents to prove a point that REALISTICALLY is anything from factual blows my mind. The public relations nightmare from all this has turned consumers off in such a way that its no surprise that sales are down. But for you to say that me downloading a single song will put an artist into McDonald's is just plain idiocy. I'm sorry, Im not one to hurl insults, but thats as idiotic as the statistical nonsense that's thrown around. This ENTIRE issue has been the grossest missuse of statistical inferrence I have ever seen. If Im not going to buy a CD, (which I assure you I will not ever purchase a CD again, and am considering moving as far away from DVDs and just sticking with normal VHS tapes from here on to avoid THAT impending disaster), then my downloading a song REALISTICALLY does no damage, aside from the moral implications. Period. If I share it with others, that IDEALISTICALLY could be considered an argument. But lets not bullshit ourselves here. My downloading a song I will not pay for hurts nobody. I refuse to buy CDs because they've been overrun with crap, (refer to Swordbreakers "1 hit wonders" comment). There is so much garbage music, (and I mean total garbage) out today it sickens me. I have never seen garbage so densely packed into such a compact medium. It should almost be considered an innovation in garbage handling. REALISTICALLY, if I download a song, I had no intention to pay for on CD, and the chain stops there, then nobody is getting hurt. The artists are not losing money they never had, and Im not sharing it with anyone who is taking it and not buying a CD BECAUSE OF IT, (emphasis on that, because in reality, thats what it takes). The lack of availability of peer-to-peer isn't going to make me buy more CDs. Period. Thats the fundamental understaning in "Everyone loses". Idealism: If I download the song, Im taking away from sales because IM NOT BUYING IT, (unless someone else has a different economic model they'd like to present). Applied to a massive level, this has devastating effects. Reality check: The flaws to this theory are limitless. First of all, you cannot apply this theory to a massive scale, because so many people react differently to downloadable music. It's PROVEN, (refer to Scottjw's 11% Napster remark to name a well known instance) that SOME, not all, but SOME people download music and get the exposure to the CD they would like to be able to own the convenience of having a portable version, suitable for their car stereo or CD player, etc, (which is one reason I think this whole copy protection thing is nonsense. Not everyone listens to CDs on a CD system or portable CD player, so the whole idea of alienating an entire GROUP of CD users in the name of copy protection makes NO sense, because as a consumer I can guarentee I would never replace, my existing CD playing devices, nor would I obtain new CD playing devices just to listen to music -- its not that important a part of my day, but thats a little off-topic). I personally didn't start listening to music until the advent of Napster, (I was removed from the music community), hand to my heart, Napster was the exposure to mainstream music that made me want to invest more time in listening. So REALISTICALLY, (There's that darned word again), not everyone is going to go out and start up there own little music black market stall. MCarp, in all sincerity, I don't see how you can realistically defend that point. The worst case scenario of stealing an artist out of house and home simply isn't the case, and p2p is at a flourish right now because of the RIAA's constant consumer attacks and PR nightmares. REALISTICALLY, this is all the biggest load of nonsense and probably one of the biggest screwovers in American history. Between the technologically uneducated legislatures and the big corporate monopolies and the thieving consumers stealing artists and their little wide puppy-eyed children out of house and home, I've never seen or heard of such a surrealistic handling of these matters. SURREALISM: thats the only word fitting for this, because REALISM, just doesn't apply. And on a final note: MCarp, I really hope you don't listen to the radio, and I dont think I even have to defend this point. Because the way they overplay those few hit singles on the radio is enough to make SOME people totally sick of a song. How are songwriters supposed to compensate for things like this occasional REVERSE effect of radio publicity? (Which you cant honestly tell me doesn't happen...) And by the way asshole, I am in that 17-25 age group and I DO give a flyin flip. So take your holier-than-thou attitude and go move to China. Your broad, sweeping generalizations are an insult to the already idiotic sweeping generalizations in this issue. Artists working at McDonald's... what nonsense...

Esper	Date: November 11, 2002 @ 2:27 AM Bah... it's disjointed.. but its all there.

RIAAistheMOB	Date: November 11, 2002 @ 10:59 AM I agree with Esper's take on the whole situation. It's ridiculous how both sides take statistics that don't prove anything and interpret them to fit their own agenda. And these survey results that are constantly being thrown out there are a joke. They ask a thousand people a set of narrowly worded, yes or no questions and then determine that the results represent a clear indication of the attitudes of millions of consumers. Yet, when asked, they won't specify what questions were asked, to whom (i.e. what demographic) and what answers were given. All they will provide is their own interpretation. It's all meaningless.

ibobdigital	Date: November 14, 2002 @ 2:36 AM Well-stated, Esper. The mis-use of manipulated statistics combined with the pseudo-morality on "starving artists" having their "art" stolen by downloading is simply ludicrous. Alas, some people just need to jump on a bandwagon to champion a manufactured ethical cause to feel a part of some movement. The same issue could be stated about videotaping your favorite tv program. Its the same landscape, just different medium. Downloading as a cause of lost revenue to "artists-soon-to-be-Mcdonalds-clerks" is a non-plus issue. If musicians were that easily stopped by lack of revenue, real or imagined, there'd BE no RIAA to give us all a pain in the ass, since there'd hardly be any need for new technology... With the flood of albums on the shelves these days, (much of it as you correctly state garbage), I don't think we're gonna see Marilyn Manson working at McDonalds anytime soon...of course, its a very bizarre image...