Obama Taps 5th RIAA Lawyer to Justice Dept.
- Thread starter futurebeachbum
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
[/b]
Only if you charge a user tariff, charging mileage as well as per song fees. Then, of course, you must properly report your earnings to the IRS on a quarterly basis transferring the tax/fees you collected on behalf of the IRS into their hot little hands, usually due on the 15th of the month following the quarter end.
:funn:
Below is a paragraph from Amazon's t's and c's that govern mp3 downloads:
Share? Lend?
Can you legally play an mp3 downloaded song with friends in the room?
Can you lend a burned CD to a friend?
Doesn't sound like it to me.
Until recently, itunes was extrememly constrictive. They have loosened somewhat in the face of competitors like Amazon.
Is that the stuff I just click through and never read?
Remember bootleg recordings at concerts? My big brothers did this all the time.....definitely not allowed. I don't think they sold their tapes, but they certainly shared them. Hhmmm, maybe they did sell them.....
Remember bootleg recordings at concerts? My big brothers did this all the time.....definitely not allowed. I don't think they sold their tapes, but they certainly shared them. Hhmmm, maybe they did sell them.....
Yeah, that's the stuff. :funn:
Mahvelous! I'm a violator! I wonder what the sentence might be?
But, seriously! Look at how they rig that up!? If you don't agree, it doesn't go to the next screen, which is most likely the screen providing the button for the download unless you're on iTunes. So, if I actually took the time to read it and decide I want to line through something (one item I disagree with) and initial it, I can't get to the download! I don't think their argument would hold up in court.
This pretty much sums it up! We all do this - and frankly I am not worried that I will be hauled before a court because I let a friend listen to a CD or song that I paid to download and didn't profit from in any way.
It has occurred to me that they could slow down the click through. Perhaps time you on the average adult reading fine print thing before actually getting to the next click. If you go too fast, like I obviously do, they block you from the download. For me? I would just move on at that point. 
The basic problem is that the RIAA isn't interested in A) the rule of law (of course, neither is the administration in the case of contract law and AIG for example) or B) the best interests of the artists that they (theoretically) represent.
Their primary interest is in maintaining their current, somewhat monopolistic business model, while simultaneously resisting the wheel of progress.
A good parallel would have been buggy whip distributors being able to control the manufacture and distribution of automobiles in the late 19th and early 20th century. Autos were clearly a threat to their prevalent business model and had they been able to prevent them from happening, they could have secured their business with no changes to the existing model.
The recording companies (notice, I never mention the artists) could have easily embraced and owned the digital distribution model 10 years ago, but they chose to fight it. Plus, they chose to fight it using illegal methods and to pulll as many unethical stunts as possible to protect their position.
Ultimately, once this battle is resolved, artists will do their own production and PR. At that point, they will be in control of their own Intellectual Property destiny.
Then, instead of an artist being 'owned' by a label, a new, for-fee model, where companies provide marketing and distribution channels, will have to arise. At that point, the artists will be in charge of their own futures and able to protect themselves as much or as little as they see fit.
Once that happens, assuming the record companies haven't screwed the pooch with consumers too much in the meantime, the system will reach some form of equilibrium again.
Most artists make their real money from performances, not recordings. Performances are NOT threatened by new technology. Downloaded recordings are just another way to enlist fans.
The new model that will inevitably rise,will probably support this and provide the artists with more income in the long run. For a good example, google Jonathan Coulton.
Their primary interest is in maintaining their current, somewhat monopolistic business model, while simultaneously resisting the wheel of progress.
A good parallel would have been buggy whip distributors being able to control the manufacture and distribution of automobiles in the late 19th and early 20th century. Autos were clearly a threat to their prevalent business model and had they been able to prevent them from happening, they could have secured their business with no changes to the existing model.
The recording companies (notice, I never mention the artists) could have easily embraced and owned the digital distribution model 10 years ago, but they chose to fight it. Plus, they chose to fight it using illegal methods and to pulll as many unethical stunts as possible to protect their position.
Ultimately, once this battle is resolved, artists will do their own production and PR. At that point, they will be in control of their own Intellectual Property destiny.
Then, instead of an artist being 'owned' by a label, a new, for-fee model, where companies provide marketing and distribution channels, will have to arise. At that point, the artists will be in charge of their own futures and able to protect themselves as much or as little as they see fit.
Once that happens, assuming the record companies haven't screwed the pooch with consumers too much in the meantime, the system will reach some form of equilibrium again.
Most artists make their real money from performances, not recordings. Performances are NOT threatened by new technology. Downloaded recordings are just another way to enlist fans.
The new model that will inevitably rise,will probably support this and provide the artists with more income in the long run. For a good example, google Jonathan Coulton.
I think this is more directed at "Filesharing " and Filelending" sites that attempt to get around the copyright rules by playing with language. Once you pay for and download a song, it should be yours to do whatever you want, and any law is impossible to enforce past that, at this point anyway. I believe this is just an attempt to prevent commercial sales (or sharing, lending, or any other method of distribution) of someone else's property on any kind of large scale.
Because I am a fairly honest person, I would ask a friend to buy the product if he/she liked it after hearing it through me. But because many people aren't doing it that way, expect some sort of copy protect device to be implanted in players in the future.
Companies and individuals are simply trying to protect what is legally, creatively, and ethically theirs, not prevent us from enjoying music with our friends.
Last edited:
As I stated in post #4 above, I agree that the record companies were ignoring my (and many other's) warnings because of their own greed. They own the artist's material in every way and make rediculous profits from them. They were also afraid their distribution networks would become obsolete. I just don't think we should be too alarmed by what is happening at the DOJ.
I think record companies will soon be somewhat impotent and any monopolistic model is not inevitible. Anyone can create, produce, and release music from a home studio...not on the scale that a big record company is able to do yet, but the day may not be as far off as some may think.
Indie record labels are popping up all over the world. The large conglomerates have little or no control over what they do. Frank Zappa proved some time ago that this business model is not only possible, but probable and profitable.
I would still like to think that downloads are more than a way to get fans to come to live performances. I still think people want music to be the soundtracks of their lives. I still think music can be an inspiration in and of itself regardless of how it is obtained. I still don't think any judge or lawyer will be able to change that. I still don't think that is what President Obama has in mind by appointing these people. And, I still have hopes that downloads will someday sound better than they do now. I have a dream...Oh sorry!