Dear boycott-riaa.com administration,

I disagree with a very small portion of the boycott-riaa.com content. Listed among 'who to boycott' are numerous record labels as well as Billy Corgan. While I am a Smashing Pumpkins fan, it is not blindly that I believe Billy Corgan is fighting the good fight as much as you and I.

Billy Corgan has repeatedly expressed the need for consumers to be able to hear music before they decide to purchase. While Corgan has stated that music should not be taken without the artist's permission, he did state that the current system needs to be changed. Billy Corgan, as part of the Smashing Pumpkins, released a full-length album, Machina II, for free through the internet after Virgin Records refused a commercial release. Corgan kept the Smashing Pumpkins holding consistently to alternative values, keeping ticket prices well lower than those that could have been reaped. Tickets for the Smashing Pumpkins second to last show, played November 29th, 2000, sold for only $30. The show was also broadcast live over the radio for those unable to recieve tickets.

Throughout his career Corgan has repeatedly spoken on the issues of popular culture, radio, MTV and the corporations behind them. It was revealed in late 2003 that Corgan's first solo album may be released in a non-traditional manner, possibly i-tunes, or a similiar web-based distributor. With his recent signing to Warner Brothers, I cannot say how this issue stands currently.

Furthermore, Billy Corgan has always pushed the limits of his art, and his music. I understand the need to change the RIAA, but it should be changed to allow greater freedom and greater artistic endeavors through music, not prevent them. A unilateral boycott sends a strong message, but it damages the good as well as the bad. To stand aside from all RIAA activity is often to be limited solely to the indie music scene. Our consumer dollar must be withheld in an effort to initiate change, but we can also produce change by putting ourselves behind the acts that deserve support. Every compact disc sold to an artist that endorses ideas apart from the RIAA's set standard, every artist that truly believes in their music and its' importance, is as much a message as this protest. Not only should we revoke our dollar, but we should not be afraid to use it where it strenghtens a cause.

I ask that you reconsider the totality of who you try to affect in your effort to level copyright laws in association with major-labels. I support these ideals, and this effort, however in the case of Billy Corgan, you are severly mistaken.

Sincerely,
Name Withheld

This would be a good idea... If we could control who geta the money when you buy a CD. True Corgan (Who looks like Satan in the Passion BTW) gets paid when you buy his CD, but so do Carry-Sue and all our other friends at the RIAA, not to mention that that money goes to help sue people. If Fairtunes.com was still around (Is it?) You could argue that you should buy good artists CDs (In this case Smashing Pumpkins) and pay the artists through that, but...

" I understand the need to change the RIAA, but it should be changed to allow greater freedom and greater artistic endeavors through music, not prevent them. "


This means no riaa including those under their labels GENIUS.

"To stand aside from all RIAA activity is often to be limited solely to the indie music scene. "


And this is supposed to be something bad?

"Our consumer dollar must be withheld in an effort to initiate change, but we can also produce change by putting ourselves behind the acts that deserve support. "


This means indie bands, genius.

You see, purchasing a CD is like a tampon, You may get what you want, but it comes with a string attached or in this case the string is RIAA and its "sue every f-ing person" campaign. Once buying the CD, you are funding these maggots to sue kids and old people with Depends on their hides.

-_-

Damn I need to control my sarcasm

"Every compact disc sold to an artist that endorses ideas apart from the RIAA's set standard, every artist that truly believes in their music and its' importance, is as much a message as this protest. "


Once again, this means indies, genius. Are you trying to say only signed bands truly believe in their music and importance?

"To stand aside from all RIAA activity is often to be limited solely to the indie music scene. "

well considering the indies outnumber the RIAA artists ten to one I'd say that's expanding your horizons.

Why not write him and ask him to put up a section on his site for people to voluntarily pay him directly? say.. for used cds that dont put out any revenue to the RIAA.

If Billy Corgan is so much for our rights why does he continue to put out his "visionary" music under a label that pays the riaa to sue customers, huh genius?

I will glady send Mr. Corgan a check. All he needs to do is give me an address to mail it to.

"To stand aside from all RIAA activity is often to be limited solely to the indie music scene. "


This one is still totally pissing me off. Only an F'ing retard would make such a stupid statement.

If this is typical of a Smashing Pumpkins fan I'm glad I never bought any of their stuff.

Unfortunatly I can not agree. I love the fact that Corgan is fighting the good fight, and would love to hear his current views. But we are not boycotting bands for being signed with a label. We are boycotting the product the big labels put out. Which often has little to do with the actual artist. An album is not the best representation of an artist's talent. As I see it we are boycotting because buying those albums lines the RIAA's pockets. It is unfortunate that good people are being hurt, but good people are being hurt by these big labels as well. The system only seems to perpetuate and get worse. So the line has to be drawn. My recomendation to Corgan would be to go indie. They are big enough to hold thier own without a prblem anyway.

My stand is simple,reasonable, and consistent...If the label that owns your copyright to your songs is a member of the RIAA....your songs get boycotted....

Liberal use of RIAA radar as a reference tool helps in your purchase decision.

"While I am a Smashing Pumpkins fan, it is not blindly that I believe Billy Corgan is fighting the good fight as much as you and I."


And a huge thank you to Billy Corgan. But if we boycott his cd, HE DOESN'T LOSE ANYTHING!! Only the label. Remember?

"Corgan gets paid when you buy his CD"

What, $2? Where does the other $16 go? And when the RIAA sues someone for having a Smashing Pumpkins song, does the money go to the band? No.

You want to support the band, try www.musiclink.com.

Last time I checked, Warner Music was still very much a part of the RIAA. Ask Corgan how many of the copyrights he owns. Ask him if he even has any control over who is and is not sued over his music.

Supporting RIAA acts does nothing to support the future. It only serves to maintain the past.

"To stand aside from all RIAA activity is often to be limited solely to the indie music scene."

Got a problem with that?

"Our consumer dollar must be withheld in an effort to initiate change, but we can also produce change by putting ourselves behind the acts that deserve support."

This would be the Indie acts.

Picking and choosing which major acts to boycott? Sounds like a compromise to me. Still puts money in the RIAA's pocket and none into pockets of Indie acts.

If Warner Brothers says that sharing of Smashing Pumpkins music is authorized and legal, then I'll listen to them. Until then, I'll stick with what's safe -- and that's where my money goes, too.

Once again, that's indie music.

If he wants his dollar, I can send it. In fact, I'll send him 10.

"why does he continue to put out his "visionary" music under a label that pays the riaa to sue customers"

Probably because he sold his soul to make music like so many others. There's probably not much he can do.

Wow guys/girls, its not really a good reflection on this site to call people who submit their opinions on the subject retards.... He is entitled and he makes a valid point, but the fact is we are past the point of trying not to hurt artist under the labels that are sympathetic to consumers. They probably wont always be under labels, and they could be locked into long term contracts. Just like all those people that got sued and were forced to sign a contract saying they wouldn't talk about anything. This is not the first mainstream artist I have heard of that is sympathetic to our cause. As I said before, it isn't a good enough reason to pay the riaa.

purfus,

I completely agree. And he certainly has a completely valid point. It's just that boycotting his CD doesn't really hurt him anyway.

The man's not retarded. Remember he said Corgan was fighting the good fight like "you and I."

Thank you for the submission.

I agree, it might even help him to get out of the record deal. If they dont want him anymore cause no one buys his albums, he can go indie with his music. Pipe dream I'm sure....

corrigan is locked in a contract like the rest of us.. he cant escape the stone walls of the bastille, so we shouldnt call him a hypocrite for yelling his support from inside.

True, I applaud his efforts to support what is right from the "inside" but until Billy drops his label affiliation he is subject to boycott. It's that cut and dry.

Any major label artist who goes indie will gain our support. A major label artist who attempts to gain our support without dropping the label is trying to play us for suckers. (I still think that's part of what happened on "Grey Tuesday.")

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

I think he should rename his band...
"Smashing the RIAA"..certanly would up his street cred w/ me

Umm, awehr, he WAS locked in a contract, up until the point he CHOSE to sign with another label...probably so maybe they would actually release his stuff.

twlnki,

Interesting. He could be as popular as he is now (solo) without being signed to a label. Everyone already knows his name.

-random thought
I just had a flashback to a music video of Jewel being a total whore after signing. Her first album was so good too.

If Billy Corgan wants to really "fight the good fight like you and I", under no circumstances can he do this while under an RIAA contract. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Even if you are fighting from within.

While it's true, he may have some contractual obligations to fulfill, why didn't he skip the RIAA labels when Smashing Pumpkins broke up? If he was still contractually bound, that's fine. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't boycott his CD's.

If Billy really wants to fight this fight, he MUST NOT BE REPRESENTED by an RIAA label. It is as simple as that. While I certainly admire many of his actions mentioned above, the bottom line is that he is still represented by the RIAA. If you upload a Smashing Pumpkins CD, you WILL BE SUED for it. Don't fall victim to this "pretzel logic" trying to justify compromising our position.

YOU ALWAYS HURT THE ONES YOU LOVE. I don't mean any offense to the writer of this letter. But you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. I am a huge David Bowie fan. When his latest CD came out, I sent an email to his site explaining that I was sorry, but that I could NOT purchase his new CD and explained why. The RIAA isn't going to listen to filesharers. But if enough artists get the point that we will not buy anything distributed by the RIAA (AKA NO SALES!) then maybe the RIAA will get a little scared. I would leave to see a mass protest by artists. But I think this unfortunately is only wishful thinking. mass protest=no record deal=no $

Oops. Meant "love to see a mass protest"

If you want Billy Corgan's music, why don't you go on over to:
archive.org/audio/etree.php

He allows their (Zwan) live recordings to be there. Only the artist has control over their performances and anything that's not released. The official releases are signed over to the label in a contract. If they don't own it, don't get it...

sometimes i think people who reply go over board. how many artist's have released a whole cd just off the net?and it was fucking legal too. i can only say i know of the pumpkins doing this, maybe there are more artists but i don't know who if any. i'm sure i'll get some smartass comment(s) about this............so what i'm paying the riaa most of the profits when an album comes out but it shows billy or any other artist out there that some people care more about the MUSIC then the god damn riaa and how they get most of the profit.........i think so many people have forgetten about the music and care more and the stupid ass riaa and how much an album costs. yes artists make most of their money off concerts and merch. umm well news flash: not every fucking person ( like me ) has the time to go to any concert they want to. so i buy an album if i know the band and know it's not gonna suck. every album i've bought this year is from a band that i've known of and none of that poser The Darkness HORSESHIT music. i think so many people are just like the riaa. and how all of it comes down to all they really care about is the fucking money and not the music. so when corgan's solo album comes out under WB and the riaa gets most of my money to sue people i'll be listening to the MUSIC and what billy has to say and not give a flying fuck about the damn riaa.

That's your decision. But we can't put exceptions on this site unless the artists get their word in over here. If he contacts the site and gives us support, then he can most likely count on people buying his album. But if a fan wants to exclude them from the boycott because they are a fan, it can't be done. The fan has the choice to buy the album. That's perfectly fine. I know if I had more money, I'd go right out and buy quite a few albums. But I'm not going to try to change things because of that.

In the end, it's going to take the artist to speak out before we consider changing anything.

another thing that i don't get. why the hell isn't METALLICA in that list of "who to boycott" ?? if you wanna talk about sell outs metallica is at the top of the list as far as i'm concerned. i mean come on these guys sorta went against everything they were for b/c they were "losing" money and wasn't Lars kinda the head artist behind the whole suing napster. ok actually he was the riaa's puppet but still he still felt napster was a "threat".....god forbid i download a live meticalla song or cover. i know i'll just go down to walmart and buy the latest live concert cd from metallica.

Their label is being boycotted. There isn't an artist that's singled out to be boycotted. Metallica is at the top of everyone's list by default.

i agree with want you said undeath..........i do wish corgan and other artists would get off the damn labels and stop giving the riaa all this power and then the riaa would be no more.

Where is the list posted of who to boycott?

I am shocked! I thought boycotting meant not buying the riaa cd's, yet it sounds like some of you still are.

Some of my favorite artists would have to be resurrected for me to break the boycott, so I think I am not going to be tempted.