|
|
|
RIAA needs to be disbanded, says Moby
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 20 June, 2009
Following the recent jury decision against alleged file sharer Jammie Thomas, in which the woman was fined $80,000 USD for each of the 24 songs she shared via P2P, the popular artist Moby has written a blog entry claiming the RIAA "should be disbanded" for using the wrong techniques against people who are just trying to listen to music.
His full post:
"The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Senior Member
28 product reviews
|
20. June 2009 @ 18:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Finally, the artists are speaking up as well and not just the consumers. I agree 100% with Moby's statements. His voice will at least get heard as compared to the average person.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
MikeKurt
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 19:06 |
Link to this message
|
President Obama has hired 5 members of the RIAA legal department to run the US. Justice Department.
Good luck disbanding the RIAA, it's only gotten stronger.
And think for a minute, do you really think a jury would award damages of $80,000 per song to someone who made a petty mistake if they were not either threatened or bribed?
|
|
ripxrush
Junior Member
|
20. June 2009 @ 19:16 |
Link to this message
|
i still don't quite get the thinking they can gat $80,000 for a song that costs $1-2 depending on where purchased or say $20 for the cd! i have heard of a candy bar being stolen & the store $ being fined $250-$500 but $80000 is silly! Even if i sold that candy bar for $1 i still just cant justify it! u bet if you stole a car you wouldn't get that big of a settlement!
|
|
Pride1
Member
3 product reviews
|
20. June 2009 @ 19:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
honesty
|
|
jillagain
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:05 |
Link to this message
|
Not long ago we found Sony had placed spyware on audio CDs in an attempt to control music piracy. In that act, they opened up millions of innocent people's computers to computer criminals. I wonder what that would be worth to this same jury? In this RIAA trial, the plaintiffs didn't need to prove anyone actually accessed any of the 24 songs on the hard drive, even once! And they didn't have to prove she intended to steal anything. Using that same logic, Sony should be held liable for several billion dollars.
|
|
latendres
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:14 |
Link to this message
|
Lets not complain to each other
Recording Industry Association of America
1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States
Administrative Contact:
Association of America, Recording Industry dns@riaa.com
1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States
2027750101
Technical Contact:
Association of America, Recording Industry dns@riaa.com
1025 F Street, NW
10th Floor
Washington, District of Columbia 20004
United States
2027750101
|
Member
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Real music and any other form of art is about passion not money.
If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard. Fame and fortune is an added bonus that comes from the consumers who appreciate art enough to pay for the real thing. These people are always going to make money.
The talentless middle men are the biggest thieves of all.
|
|
TysonRex
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:39 |
Link to this message
|
The following link is on RIAA's website to report piracy. I think it's also a good link to speak your opinion about this absurd lawsuit.
http://www.riaa.com/reportpiracy.php
The following is what I wrote at that link. Feel free to copy and paste, or use your own words. Remove the quotes if you C&P.
"The consumer ALWAYS has the last word, since without his/her dollar, you, and the companies you represent, have no way to survive.
Congratulations on winning the most ludicrous lawsuit I have ever heard of. You can be assured, MY money will STAY in MY pocket, and I will now boycott Capitol/EMI recordings, and whenever I have the opportunity to tell others to do so, I will. Maybe, I will even illegally download a few songs, which I've never done before. Catch me if you can....
Your days are numbered RIAA. You're sick! You're truly twisted."
Of course, as for your personal contact info, give them anything but. May I suggest EMI's phone number (parent company of Capitol Records, who was the plantiff)? That number is +44 (0)20 7795 7000.
The "guilty" website for illegal downloads could perhaps be found here: http://www.emigroup.com/Financial/Other/Default.htm
YOU ARE THE CONSUMER, and YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE LAST WORD!!!
|
|
fgoodwin
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:44 |
Link to this message
|
Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.
You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Why aren't they doing that?
|
|
MikeKurt
Newbie
|
20. June 2009 @ 21:49 |
Link to this message
|
@latendres
And what are we exactly supposed to do with that information latendres?
Write them a nice letter and ask a bunch of powerful crooks to play nice?
Or did you have something sinister in mind?
Illegal behavior will only make them even more powerful.
What you do is cut off their money supply, their precious profits is why they got so powerful and paid to get Obama and the rest of the cronies in Congress in the first place.
It's the oil companies (R) against the media companies (D) for control of our government. I can live without paying for media, can't live without oil to heat my furnace.
Choice is easy.
|
|
Run4two
Junior Member
|
21. June 2009 @ 01:02 |
Link to this message
|
Mike Kurt states, "It's the oil companies (R) against the media companies (D) for control of our government. I can live without paying for media, can't live without oil to heat my furnace.
" Thank you for stating that there is an unseen power struggle happening. We are so far from doing right by the people it's ludicrous.
Fgoodwin states, "Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.
You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Why aren't they doing that?"
I don't know Moby's contract, but it is common practice in the recording industry to sell your rights to songs you created to the label. He probably doesn't own his music and cannot legally upload content without himself being prosecuted. Big brew ha ha years ago with Weird Al using "Gangsters Paradise" by Coolio. Coolio wouldn't agree to it but had no legal recourse as he didn't own it. Weird Al had obtained permission from the label.
|
|
fgoodwin
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 01:07 |
Link to this message
|
Run4two, yes indeed, what you say is true for music already recorded.
But nothing is stopping Moby & other artists from posting new songs on the web and giving them away for free (again, to the extent the new stuff isn't also covered under a contract). I see so many folks complaining about RIAA heavy-handed tactics, but so far, I've seen just about ZERO artists giving away their new stuff for free, and instead they keep signing recording contracts.
If RIAA is so bad, why do artists keep signing contracts?
|
|
Kitsch1
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 02:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by fgoodwin:
Moby and you commenters have this all backwards.
You shouldn't be complaining to RIAA. You should be complaining to artists like Moby, who talks a big game, but if he really feels sorry for people (like the defendant) who "just want to listen to music", then Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Why aren't they doing that?
Wow. What a genius you are? I can download all of Moby's songs for free anyway. Why does he need to do the work? Oh yeah, by the way, artists are giving away their music for free. Nine Inch Nails, Radio Head, Saul Williams. Furthermore, you don't even know what you are talking about. The lawsuit is not about downloading illegally: it is about making content available to be downloaded. You can download as much music as you want and the RIAA can't do anything about it owing to privacy laws. In other words, it is illegal and punishable to give music away.
|
|
Kitsch1
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 02:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by fgoodwin:
Run4two, yes indeed, what you say is true for music already recorded.
But nothing is stopping Moby & other artists from posting new songs on the web and giving them away for free (again, to the extent the new stuff isn't also covered under a contract). I see so many folks complaining about RIAA heavy-handed tactics, but so far, I've seen just about ZERO artists giving away their new stuff for free, and instead they keep signing recording contracts.
If RIAA is so bad, why do artists keep signing contracts?
Yeah, well said...all artists are happy with their contracts: prince, radiohead, coutney love, nsync,nine in nails, to name a few. Why do they sign contracts: oh yeah, the record labels have the money and the power to decide who becomes famous or not. Funny how you forget about the payolla scams that all of the major labels were involved in. Why don't you do some reading before you open your prodigiously ignorant trap.
|
|
toncuz
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 03:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
First, we have to get rid of our archaic notion that anyone can put a piece of music on OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES and then try to make money with the same music over and over again.
Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do. These pigs want to make money on the same product over and over again. If I pay for something, I own it and should have full rights to it. These pigmeisters really want us to "rent" their music.
There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete, so they want the courts to back their piggish scheme to make money on music again and again for years.
I say...if you want to use MY AIRWAVES...then that music is free for me to use any way I want. If you want to make money with live music, go ahead. If your piggish greed makes you stop recording music, find a real job.
|
|
fgoodwin
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 10:16 |
Link to this message
|
Kitsch1 writes that it isn't about downloading illegally. Maybe you should tell that to Moby, since he writes (and I quote): "The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music".
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your second post; my point is, if recording artists aren't happy with the record labels and their contracts, there are other ways to distribute their music. Instead of blaming RIAA, they should find ways to distribute their music w/o a middle man.
OTOH, if they need the labels to market them, then they need to stop complaining, or find a better way themselves. But of course, the truth is, as fans, most of you could care less how music is distributed as long as you can download it for free.
|
|
thesimone
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 11:24 |
Link to this message
|
Found this thread while reading google news this morning and just had to add my 2 cents:
As an independent artist who actively sells and promotes my music, having a major distribution deal is part of my model. All of my tours and records have been self-financed, from studio musicians to promotion/advertising, etc. As a band, we travel as inexpensively as possible - 2 vehicles on a 1,000 mile tour adds up in gas not to mention cost of living on the road (while paying bills back home). The lifestyle isn't glamorous but we do what we love to do - make music and grow our fan base.
@toncuz: "Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do"
I agree that it should be about the art - yet self-financing our 'passion' gets very expensive.
There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete...
Our model is very realistic - we give away music, cd's and merch to promote and advertise. Where we make our money is at the shows where we take the time to meet our new friends/fans. Generally, we sell a good amount of merch at the shows too.
@Kitch1: it is illegal and punishable to give music away.
You're unfortunately correct - but it's only enforceable if the label owns the underlying composition to your work (or other specific rights/licenses). Prince had to change his name in order to get out of his multi-year contract - but it worked for him.
@fgoodwin: Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Depending on our copyrights, we may be able to do that. Lots of big stars (not me) are good artists but (imho) cr4ppy businessmen. Too many have 'signed on the dotted line', giving away the rights to their songs to the powerful labels.
@kiwi1: If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard.
Yeah, it's tough b/c technology has made it so easy for anyone to produce a cd, etc and the market's so saturated with talented (and not so much) people who can be heard. Instead of artists complaining about all this, they should get creative and find ways to promote their music. Just look at Ani DiFranco sometime and you'll see that indie musicians like me have some excellent business models to learn from.
Thanks guys - just wanted to vent a bit. It's a tough market and I feel for the poor woman who's getting sued. I think it's too dramatic and not useful nor helpful for artists or the industry. I strongly support free downloads/filesharing and, if the media industry weren't so archaic, they would see the benefits too. What a great way for unsigned artists to be heard as well as a great promotional tool for the big name stars.
It happens anyway so why fight it?
Simone
Download my music here
Be my friend
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. June 2009 @ 11:27
|
|
Kitsch1
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 12:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by fgoodwin:
Kitsch1 writes that it isn't about downloading illegally. Maybe you should tell that to Moby, since he writes (and I quote): "The riaa have sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset of minnesota for $2,000,000 for illegally downloading music".
I have no idea what point you are trying to make with your second post; my point is, if recording artists aren't happy with the record labels and their contracts, there are other ways to distribute their music. Instead of blaming RIAA, they should find ways to distribute their music w/o a middle man.
OTOH, if they need the labels to market them, then they need to stop complaining, or find a better way themselves. But of course, the truth is, as fans, most of you could care less how music is distributed as long as you can download it for free.
Firstly, it was your claim that JTR was sued for downloading music. She was sued for distributing copyrighted material. RIAA agents downloaded the music from her, which is the only way that one can legally prove that the transaction took place. The RIAA can not go willy-nilly looking through people's computers looking for copyrighted material.I think that the judges made a reversible error: I don't see how a person can be held responsible for keeping their front door unlocked or his or her hard drive assessable. The crime is distribution of copyrighted material, not the ability to distribute copyrighted material.
Secondly, my post was a response to your obvious question: why are artists signing contracts if the RIAA is so bad. I answered the question as to why and you have no comment about it. Instead you want to tell us how artists that are unhappy with their label should distribute their music. To make things clearer, record labels control the industry: if you want your music heard on the airwaves, you sign a contract. You don't sign a contract because you think the RIAA is good or the record label is good.
Just for the record, Radiohead's In Rainbows made way more money than all of their record label crap. In other words, you will continue to see other artists distribute their music freely.
|
|
WmS
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
Absurd legal awards will not help the RIAA to sustain their members? stranglehold on distribution. They might as well be selling typewriters. Their desperate action against Thomas-Rasset, like those of a cornered (paper) tiger, was a tacit acknowledgement of their future. Their ?mission? to promote their member?s ?creative and financial vitality? is a red herring. Their real mission is to protect the financial interests of distributors. Anybody want to buy a typewriter? And where is it written that a recording artist should make 100 times that of a teacher? Artistic creativity will survive the demise of RIAA. To the RIAA, if you are looking for people who share music files I stand up and say: ?I am Spartigus.?
|
|
Jeff_Jenn
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
Simone, thanks for your perspective on this question. It is a rare thing to hear from someone who is actually in the business.
I personally think $80,000 per song should be considered cruel and unusual punishment, but what she did was wrong and she should be punished at some level. Keep in mind that she is not being "charged" any money per song. She is a thief and she is distributing stolen merchandise, and she is being fined for what she chose to do.
If you are angry at the RIAA and record labels, then the courageous and morally defensible way to protest is to simply live without what they are selling. Write letters to the labels and tell them that you are not willing to buy their product until they live up to your standards, and then follow through by living without their product until they change. We have public boycotts of products all the time and it is a very effective way to change how corporations behave. You don't need a celebrity to do this. You just need a lot of normal people.
If you feel so strongly about it that you think it is morally justifiable to break the law, then you should follow Martin Luther King Jr.'s and Ghandi's example and accept the consequences of your actions. Willingly go to jail and pay the fine. People will be a lot more willing to listen if you show that you are really willing to stand up for what you believe.
There is no honor or respect in stealing, and you cannot build up a widespread public movement by acting like a shoplifting child. The ugly and frustrating fact is that the record labels do own the song, based on the contracts the artists signed. The record companies are willing to sell you access to that song for a fairly low price. If you are not willing to pay that price, then have the courage to live without it! If enough people genuinely say no, then the record companies will have to change to stay in business. If you have to steal, then you are acting like a bully and are no better than the record labels.
|
|
toncuz
Newbie
|
21. June 2009 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
Everyone who believes the music industry is ripping us off should boycott them completely until they charge 10 cents per download. When that happens, then we should support their efforts. Can someone explain to me why anyone is still downloading or distributing music on P2P sites anyway...when anyone can "capture" any tune from video sites?
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
21. June 2009 @ 18:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
As ive said before the recording companies just are like big babies that have lost their market share and now cry because they are not needed anymore in this technological constant changing world. They are the middle man that are not needed anymore to get the artists music heard.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
22. June 2009 @ 07:19 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by thesimone:
Found this thread while reading google news this morning and just had to add my 2 cents:
As an independent artist who actively sells and promotes my music, having a major distribution deal is part of my model. All of my tours and records have been self-financed, from studio musicians to promotion/advertising, etc. As a band, we travel as inexpensively as possible - 2 vehicles on a 1,000 mile tour adds up in gas not to mention cost of living on the road (while paying bills back home). The lifestyle isn't glamorous but we do what we love to do - make music and grow our fan base.
@toncuz: "Real artists don't care about money...businessmen do"
I agree that it should be about the art - yet self-financing our 'passion' gets very expensive.
There are no "real" artists complaining. Their business model is obsolete...
Our model is very realistic - we give away music, cd's and merch to promote and advertise. Where we make our money is at the shows where we take the time to meet our new friends/fans. Generally, we sell a good amount of merch at the shows too.
@Kitch1: it is illegal and punishable to give music away.
You're unfortunately correct - but it's only enforceable if the label owns the underlying composition to your work (or other specific rights/licenses). Prince had to change his name in order to get out of his multi-year contract - but it worked for him.
@fgoodwin: Moby and all the other recording artists should put their songs up on a public FTP site and allow their legion of fans to download the music for free.
Depending on our copyrights, we may be able to do that. Lots of big stars (not me) are good artists but (imho) cr4ppy businessmen. Too many have 'signed on the dotted line', giving away the rights to their songs to the powerful labels.
@kiwi1: If there weren't billions of dollars in the industry (despite the piracy) We'd still have music and performance from passionate and artistic people who just want to express themselves and be heard.
Yeah, it's tough b/c technology has made it so easy for anyone to produce a cd, etc and the market's so saturated with talented (and not so much) people who can be heard. Instead of artists complaining about all this, they should get creative and find ways to promote their music. Just look at Ani DiFranco sometime and you'll see that indie musicians like me have some excellent business models to learn from.
Thanks guys - just wanted to vent a bit. It's a tough market and I feel for the poor woman who's getting sued. I think it's too dramatic and not useful nor helpful for artists or the industry. I strongly support free downloads/filesharing and, if the media industry weren't so archaic, they would see the benefits too. What a great way for unsigned artists to be heard as well as a great promotional tool for the big name stars.
It happens anyway so why fight it?
Simone
Download my music here
Be my friend
Well said, I have been able to speak to a few artists who agree but at the same time have signed the contracts, yet do showcase the music legit as you have done on Soundclick (new site to me by the way thanks for that)
At the end of the day most recording artists agree the waty they make their money is by way of tours etc, as you will be forced down one path with a label, but it is necessary to some degree within any business model as they still have control over the industry.
I think they should be boycotted by both sides, artists and consumers. I can listen via the website, if I like I will buy. I will come and see you in concert if I like you, I will buy your merchandise and promote you that way to. The first gig I went to in years was Shinedown's UK Headliner (OH what a night that was) previously I hadn't bought their albums. Bought a signed copy of Leave a Whisper for only £12 GBP whilst there!!!!! Bargain. have bought their other albums since but next time they are playing and I can go, I'll be there spending more money on merchandise and signed albums.
On a personal note to Simone, I think I'm impressed (normally takes a couple of tracks to let me know though. So far though, come over to the UK and give us a tour I think I'll go :) Good luck!!!
|
|
thesimone
Newbie
|
22. June 2009 @ 12:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Jeff_Jenn:
Simone, thanks for your perspective on this question. It is a rare thing to hear from someone who is actually in the business.
There is no honor or respect in stealing, and you cannot build up a widespread public movement by acting like a shoplifting child.
Well put - it's too bad that this happens so often. As an artist, sales via my music/performances/merch is the only way I can finance my career while supporting a modest lifestyle. I don't have the benefit of a bank (read: record label) funneling investment dollars/loans my way - so stealing my music is literally like taking the PB&J off of my proverbial table :) Regardless of the stature of the artist and how much money they may appear to have, stealing is a crime no matter how you slice it.
Originally posted by Serialluv:
On a personal note to Simone, I think I'm impressed (normally takes a couple of tracks to let me know though. So far though, come over to the UK and give us a tour I think I'll go :) Good luck!!!
Right on and thanks for the kind words! Would love to cross the pond again - toured Europe in the past and love the country/people :)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
22. June 2009 @ 13:49 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Right on and thanks for the kind words! Would love to cross the pond again - toured Europe in the past and love the country/people :)
Look forward to it, note on your site it says possibly in the Midlands, looking forward to it.
|
|
