Xazy

First article
Their secrets might get out, which can open them to get sued, as well as potential illegal activity.


Second article
This is the funnier one, the fact that the artists who they are defending, are not getting the money. Between the 2 of them, I am going to love to see what happens in the next few months!

Push-Pull

Interesting. And amusing. I've got several friends who will be VERY interested in this.....

__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me-

"Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown-

DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

Willravel

Phantastic! I can't wait until the RIAA's ability to attack supposed file sharers is suddenly and drastically reduced.

Shauk

your link to the 2nd article links to a tfp new thread window


fix it!

silent_jay

Here's a link to the second article:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272008...ent__99428.htm

__________________
Absence makes the heart grow fonder

Xazy

Done, not sure how i messed up the cut and paste, but fixed.

Martian

I'm on my way out the door for a bit, but have been aware of and following both of these cases. I will post my more in-depth thoughts on what exactly is going on here hopefully later this evening, but for now I just wanted to address this:

The RIAA doesn't defend artists. It defends labels, who claim to be acting in the artist's best interests.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Martian

So it's no longer yesterday evening (clearly), but I did say that I'd offer my thoughts for any who care to hear them. Here we go.

First of all, since we're not in Tilted Music, I think a breakdown of the players in this little drama is necessary. First and foremost we have the RIAA.

The RIAA was formed back in the fifties, with the original stated goal of overseeing something called the RIAA eqaualization curve. The details of this get a bit technical, but the short version is that vinyl records record some frequencies better than others and a bunch of industry leaders got together to create a recording standard that helped address this; the RIAA was the body set up to govern that standard. One would think, then, that since the use of vinyl has declined drastically the RIAA would have outlived it's stated purpose, but as we all know that isn't the case. It almost did happen that way, but cassette recorders in the 80's gave the RIAA a new reason for being. Suddenly consumers had the power, in their homes, to create copies of the music they purchased. The big players in the recording industry (then collectively known as the "Big Six;" Sony, EMI, Polygram, Warner, BMG and Universal) were very upset at this new development, as those around for those days may recall. The argument they trotted out then and have ever since like a tired pony is that piracy takes away from their ability to promote and nurture new artists, leading to stagnation in the music scene. Anyone who can compare the music of the eighties to today's offerings, however, knows this is patently untrue.

And here we find two other players in our little act. The first is the labels. They make a big deal about representing the artist's best interests, but this is generally a lot of noise. In fact, it's been found that in something like 95% of the cases where the books have been audited, the labels haven't paid the artists all of the royalties owed. I think I've ranted and raved on this subject in the past, so suffice to say for now that the labels don't represent the artists; they represent the labels, and the artists have formed an uneasy partnership with them out of necessity.

So! Onto the two cases presented above. First there's the RIAA vs Ms. Anderson. The background here is that the RIAA sued a Ms. Tanya Anderson for filesharing and attempted to hold her liable for something like 1500 songs to the tune of $750 per song. Needless to say this adds up to a lot of dough, but it usually does. The RIAA's legal strategy is generally to file a suit for an exorbitant amount of money and then offer a much lower out-of-court settlement, The defendant, looking at paying $1m or more if they lose the case, usually takes the settlement. Ms. Anderson however, did not and further it became clear as the case developed that she had no interest in filesharing, nor the technical ability to do so. The RIAA dropped the case, but really by then it was too late. Tanya Anderson filed a countersuit and that pretty much brings us up to speed.

I for one have no sympathy for the RIAA on this. They've been running this campaign of intimidation for years now, and Ms. Anderson isn't the first to suspect that they've been using illegal methods to do it. It was more or less inevitable that they would be called to task on it sooner or later, particularly when a significant portion of their victims claim innocence of filesharing to this day. They've been relying on the fact that a $1.5-$2 million lawsuit is enough to cow most average citizens into taking the settlement of several thousand and thus avoiding the case ever going to trial. The larger implications of this are very difficult to predict until we know exactly what the RIAA has been up to and for how long, but it's certain not to turn out well for them.

The second case is interesting, because it highlights the problems that artists have when dealing with the Big Four. The problem is that in the artist/label relationship the label has traditionally held all the cards,but this is changing and quite swiftly at that. Something like 25% of all music sales last year were independent artists and that number is on the rise still.

So big changes in the music industry, highlighted by these two major cases. Labels either directly or through their pitbull of the RIAA are alienating consumers on one side of the equation and artists on the other; this is their way of dealing with the fact that they're pretty much redundant in today's music industry. Artists are able to produce independently and provide the results directly to consumers, meaning that the Big Four have become pretty much unnecessary. I don't pretend to know what's going to come next, but I have an idea that it's going to work out better for everyone than the current business model.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Hain

Always sounded like extortion to me.

So they are banging two groups up the ass and only pretending to give one the benefit of the reach around? That is bad juju.

As for them becoming useless, yes. I have seen them becoming so for a long time. Until artists start releasing their music in lossless formats, I will still want the physical CD from the artists, though.

Hehe.

Cynthetiq

Yes, their claim that the artists are screwed and not making any money because no one is buying music.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Martian

That's just it. The Big Four and the RIAA are making a stink about how album sales are down, which is true from the perpective of physical copies. But if we look at the music industry as a whole, including things like licensing, live performances and online distribution the music industry has never been doing better. Some people (myself included) are inclined to attribute this to filesharing, since it generates more interest in bands. iTunes isn't even the best possible market for this sort of thing but it's making money hand over fist right now, because Steve Jobs is one of the few people who have been able to get the Big Four to play ball. This whole head-in-the-sand approach they're taking isn't going to work and is ultimately more harmful to themselves than anyone else; if they were willing to roll with the punches so to speak and adapt to the new way of doing things they'd be fine. Whether or not they'll do this in the end remains to be see, but I certainly wouldn't be upset to see a larger number of independent labels taking their place.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Derwood

i laugh at both sides. consumers are idiots for illegally filesharing, and the labels are idiots for their stubborness in adapting new technology to their marketplace. i feel sorry for no one but the artists

Martian

I'm not sure I understand this stance. For one, it seems that artists are actually benefitting from filesharing. If they can adapt to the new system (see Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, etc) they have everything to gain from this. Further to that, it was filesharing that started the whole thing. If nobody had engaged in filesharing the labels wouldn't be under pressure like they are now and we'd still be using the same broken system that was in place before Napster reared it's head.

Filesharing is a medium. New media, when technology advances sufficiently to support them, demand to be used. Once computers and internet connections became fast enough to allow it, filesharing was an inevitability. It can't be litigated out of existence and it simply cannot be stopped. Further, there's no reason why it should be; filesharing networks are becoming the new radio stations, allowing bands to get exposure and build followings like they never could before. Look at the explosion of indie bands making good lately. Modest Mouse, Death Cab for Cutie, Arcade Fire, Bedouin Soundclash, the list goes on. Where a scant five years ago mentioning Pavement in a room full of people garnered nothing but blank stares, you are now almost certain to have at least a few people know what you're talking about. These bands are thriving and doing far better than they ever could have prior to the advent of a way to get their music out to the larger public efficiently.

I would argue that nobody deserves pity in this case, except perhaps the thousands of people who have been sued by the RIAA and forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money for crimes they may not have committed. The Big Four are reaping what they've sown, the consumers are doing what consumers always do and the artists have a chance at more success than was ever possible under the old system (discounting the top 5% or so, who as often as not achieved that status due to label practices rather than on their own merit anyway). The future of music may well be the punk DIY ethic taken to it's extreme, with bands forming small collectives and releasing their music online without any major label involvement whatsoever. At worst, I could easily see a large split in the power structure, with a large number of small labels producing music instead of a few very large ones. This is still better for everyone involved, since it promotes a healthy level of competition and gives the artist more choice in who they sign with, meaning they'll get a better deal than would otherwise be possible.

But, y'know, that's just my two cents and then some.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

roachboy

i agree basically with martian, though my impatience with/about the dinosaur that is the riaa would have made me much less inclined to explain it as well.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Derwood

my point was only that people were knowingly engaging in an illegal activity. i wasn't judging filesharing one way or the other. people think that marijuana being illegal is ridiculous too, but you accept the risks of smoking/buying/selling it knowing it's illegal.