This website and movement is absolute crap. All of you people out there who support this movement need to take a serious look at society and the way it works. I am an industry professional and a studio amanger and the downloading of music has hurt me abd my business and I am not a musician or a record label. Because of what you people do, your stealing of music, there are no longer big budget recording deals being given to artists. So now, artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality recording studios. Now, because of all you people who download music, musicians record most of their music at home on their pro tools rig. What this means is this: Music sound quality will go down the drain (and it already has). Ever wonder why most new bands sound like shit live? It's because they are used to computers fixing everything for them. Secondly, it's not just the artists and record labels that are being hurt, its the recording studios, vendors, distibutors, etc... My company personally is being hurt because the record labels aren't making enough money to send their artists to high quality recording studios, like mine or the Hit Factory (which, if you read the daily news, you would know just announced they are closing their doors at the end of february after 30 years of making music). Why you may be asking yourself why, well here's the answer, because of assholes like you all, who for whatever reason don't believe people should be paid the work that they do. When you go to work everyday at McDonald's, wouldn't you be upset if the people just walked around the counter grabbed whatever they wanted and walked out. Pretty soon the McDonald's would have to close due to theft and lack of profits and you'd be unemployed. Think about that next time you go download a song. THE BOTTOM LINE: PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO, MUSICIANS ARE NO DIFFERENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW MUCH THESE PEOPLE WORK, AND THAT IN FACT MUSIC IS THEIR JOB, CONTACT ME AND I WILL SEE ABOUT SCHEDULING A TOUR AT MY RECORDING STUDIO. ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HELP CHANGE PEOPLE LIKE YOU I AM WILLING.

Somebody get this wangtard a wahburger and some french cries.

Now folks, it is rare that we get to debate someone who is "gunning" for us.

Let's keep it civil and "win" by use of logical and reasoned debate instead of just calling rude names.

The first thing I have to ask is pretty simple. Who says the music industry, as it is now should continue to exist? That your income and thereby the welfare of your family is at issue? Ever hear of job changes?

Though their approach is a bit different, the majors are all for selling on the net. Sound system folks are one thing, but what do you think happens and is happening to mom and pop. The very place that for so long was the mainstay of music industry income. Basically they been abandoned by the same industry that you cry is hurting.

Heres the truth, if you put out less product and you reduce the shelf space across the nation, what happens to income? Does not the same lack of income come down tight times and some folks not surviving in the jobs they would like to have. Instead having to pick jobs like much of the nation just might be working at McDougals or whatever.

Can't be theft to d/l a legal song. All here can show you were to go to get such and it isn't far away.

There are problems in the industry of music. Times are changing, better or worse, one thing is for sure; this ain't Kansas anymore. The industry fails to recognise that there are less dollars to go around. In addition to that, competion for those same dollars exists in other forms. From games, movies, video rentals all have their draw and are far more popular than we any of us were kids.

The biggest problem to start with is that there are no set figures to work with. The music industry isn't what we should say as "forthcoming" with those figures. So who's yardstick are we using? There is a constant flow of contractictory data coming out.

While the music industry is screaming that it is going bankrupt, is the cause downloading? How can they be in such dire straights, financially wise and yet still post improving sales to stockholders? I mean it is one or the other, can't be both. In this is part of what I mean by yardstick. Figures don't match.

This fella's business might be suffering, but it is NOT the fault of consumers and music fans, nor of the independentmusicians (99.9 percent of whom could not afford the service anyway.) This fella seems to simply have bought into the RIAA's big LIE.

Let's point out to him that it is the record labels who increasingly limit the number of artists that are commercially viable. It is the record labels whom he has chosen to near exclusively do business with.

I will ignore the offense I take at his insinuation that independent music is "crap" for the moment... but I MUST respond to his belief that only a handful of musicians, chosen apparently by some "record industry" should be able to make their music available to the world.

There are a vast number MORE independent musicians than RIAA slaves in this world. This fella is simply doing business with the wrong crowd of clients. The sooner he learns this, the quicker he might be able to turn his business around.

This guy needs to read the mission statement, which doesn't advocate downloading RIAA music it actually wants everyone to STOP DOWNLOADING RIAA music (also to stop buying it, too).

His problems aren't with downloaders, it is with the perennial ripping off of music artists by the music cartel finally reaching a breaking point. So now the trend for artists is not to be shafted by the big four into ridiculously high recording studio costs and to do recording on their own.

He is stuck with a dying business model because artists don't need a leeching middleman to get to their fanbase anymore. The natural reaction is to blame the fans for not buying crappy music from the crappy artists selected by the music cartel.

Having a better quality recording will never make Britney Spears sound any better.

Just because you invested the money into a very nice studio (that we'd all give our left testicle to have) does NOT entitle you to the sole and exclusive right to make money in the business of recording. You don't get to "own" a monopoly on things in this country, you only get a right to compete with your business. It is up to you and the economy/market as to whether or not you fail.

The RIAA needs to learn this lesson too!

While I am at it, here is something else that is cutting into the flow of money going to the music industry.

When tape formats were the thing and when vinyl before it were the standard, it was common place to have to replace them. Face it the format wasn't as sturdy as the cd and dvd. It has been quite sometime since a new format has come out that took the publics fancy. The cd did that. Because cds don't wear out like the earlier formats, less money is being spent in the replacement of worn out goods. Again this translates to less money coming into the music idustry. What I am saying here is that it ain't all downloading on the net that is killing the majors. It is a fundamental change in how things are done.

When enough of them happen, you get something called the end of an era. The music industries woes go far beyond the threat of p2p.

p2p has never been a threat to the "industry"

the RIAA would have us and congress believe that lie so that the RIAA can more easily dominate p2p for their own evil monopolistic gain.

we are NOT here to defend p2p per se.

we are here to level the playing field.

He's just worried about his business.

Hey buddy, all I can say is that creating your own make shift studio with the money you make doesn't necessarilly end up making your recordings sound "CRAPPY". In fact, a makeshift studio can work the same as your nice big fancy shmancy place. Hell, even better. Because for a freakin' fraction of the cost he can have it at his or her home. Forever. To record whenever he or she feels like it.

Is that a DOWNLOADER'S fault? Uhm, no. You're going down the wrong pipe, fella. You want to get mad at those programmers that allow these things to happen, like Cool Edit and Pro Tools, Fruity Loops, and hell, even FREE software like Anvil Studios. Then, also , the hardware people, because they're allowing people to buy it, and making studio in their own home, for, GASP, THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS LESS? Why that's PISH POSH!

Again, you're preaching to the totally wrong crowd. And BTW, Indie music sounds, and is way much better than the clients that go through your doors. Lower your prices maybe? Because that means you have to compete now. Like badly. You know. It's called a business, and you have to adapt to competition. Why not strike back? Make your own program to sell for home? Call it Mr. Whiney Pants Home Studio, from the guys at Whiney Pants Studios.

Also, we don't advocate DOWNLOADING RIAA songs. They suck. They all sound the same. They don't change. We're all stuck ni the freakin' late 90's here. That and the company's business standards and practices have got to get out of the stonage. No one's got 20 bucks to buy garbage music anymore. Why spend 20 bucks for 4 or less tracks you're really excited for when you can turn around and purchase a really good film on DVD for the exact same price, plus a bajillion special features, and, if you're lucky enough, for that same price, you also get both wide AND fullscreen! WOW! What do I get with my RIAA music? 10 (if that) really bad songs, and oh, incompatibility with my computer and my computer sound system. Hmm. That's too bad, since I don't have a STEREO in my home, nor a CD PLAYER in my CAR. Guess that CD can't go anywhere.

So I guess I'll buy from the indies, who let me hear their stuff for free, and allow me to enjoy it and make a decision based on my tastes.

But what do you care. They're all crap, right?

Quit your bitching and learn to compete. You're in America. Land of opportunity. And lots of people just got the opportunity to go around all these jack asses charging up the ass just to get themselves heard by buying their own equipment and climbing up on their own.

(Oh and by compete I don't mean to whine to your congressmen saying CHEATERS CHEATERS. Cuz then you'll really hear from us).

Recording studio operators are probably hurting. So I can have sympathy with them. But connecting this with downloading is simplistic at best.

First of all, U2 can afford top recording studios, but their latest record sounds like crap. The previous one, too. Rush's latest studio album sounded awful. Tears for Fears' latest wasn't exactly a model of recording studio art, either. How do I know these records sound bad? Because I bought them, or because a close friend bought them and was able to borrow them. These and many other bands can afford the best studios, but choose not to care!

I used to sample recordings with p2p and buy the ones I liked (even with the poor quality on many CDs which makes them little better than Kazaa downloads). But all that was before the RIAA started suing people for sampling before buying. Yes, I bought a load of albums in the Napster and post-Napster era before the lawsuits started. They declare war. I shut my wallet. Frankly I don't need any new music. There is very little new product even worth downloading. The new albums I think would be worth purchasing, even in the absence of a boycott, I could count on one hand.

But in spite of many disgruntled consumers and p2p freeloaders, CD sales were up in 2004. Still, I'll bet demand for studio time was down, because average people don't value sound quality very highly, and certainly the record labels don't rate it very highly. And who needs high sound quality for a rap record anyway?

So, you are like the manufacturer of buggy whips -- you have a product that people don't want as much of -- high quality recording equipment and expertise. Sorry, that is what happens when technology changes, and I can now do multitrack in my own home with my computer. And it will sound just as bad as the new U2 album. LOL (I mean, I like the music, but the recording quality is sad compared to what George Martin did with the Beatles.)

Here's another problem you are up against. Many of the people with the greatest disposable income are more interested in buying remastered versions of things that have already been recorded. So you will get no piece of that, or at best a tiny piece.

Bottom line, there are many factors, of which p2p is at best a small piece. You are going to have to adapt or die, like everyone in a competitive capitalist system. Did you read the Harvard Business School study carefully tracking p2p downloads with store sales? They found ZERO effect of downloading on sales. Read it and weep, friend.

Anyone have an e-mail for this *****?

I'd rather have a tour at McDonalds thank you, because they don't blame me for thier business model not working. Also I like the burgers. I believe I speak for everyone here that we have not stolen a single thing of you, the artists or the vendors, yet you are accusing us of theft without any evidence whatsoever.

Are are you speaking of potential money if I had decided to bought your crap? Well if you've bought mine crap I'd be richer as well so I guess you are stealing from me then.

There is a thing called evolution everywhere, even for corporations. Corporations that aren't viable enough close down, it's only natural, I bet several corporations close down every day so what makes you think yours deserve special treatment?

(Actually, every time I read your message I wish for the immidiate closure of whatever your studio was called.)

I download music, lots, do you know what I call it? Evolution (and a bit of cheapskate too). When I can get music I like, for free, why should I pay you, the RIAA/simular for music I wouldn't even listen to if they paid me?

I've been in very expensive recording studios and come out with shit. Not because I don't have an ear for music. I just don't have much of an ear for music production. Some folks go to special training for such things. Learning how to get the right EQ and effect on each instrument (Of which vocals and live analog instruments are the hardest). Getting the mixdown right is tough.

Those big speakers in studios might make it sound a lot better than it really is. That's why it's always a good idea to take a recording out and play it on as many hi-fi systems and portable's as possible.

A lot of the manufactured pop acts thrown at us by studios don't write their own material or can even play an instrument. All they have is the looks and perhaps can hold a note (And even that can be fixed in the mix). It 'costs' not only studio time but the cost of a songwriter, someone to play the music and a production person/crew/engineer. Sometimes the producer can play too which helps. They know how to get the best out of the studio suite to get that slick sound usually (Unless they are crap).

Now in a home based rig you can get the equivalent of and have lots of time to try and get it right and experiment because you don't have the studio pay clock ticking.

The downside is the neighbours might be a problem with noise and you don't get those big expensive mics and sound isolating booths. You can get the equivalent sound though with some carefull thought. You can still buy a good mic and use a digital mixer or computer mixer to emulate the same functions of a pro mixing desk.

But I understand his beef. He's just moaning at the wrong people. He should be moaning at the music business in general for the way things are.

Actually the whole problem with the music, movie, and software industries is copyright protection. For some ignorant reason Congress decided that you get to own your "Intellectual Property" for 70 years past your death. Lets put this into perective, what would have happened if this law existed in 1920, we would all still be driving nothing but fords becuase he would have patented the combustible engine and no one could have used it till he was dead for 70 years. Big business has made the mistake of trampling on the little guy for the first time, you exspect me to care when companies like Enron exsist, please. I don't care about this guys failing business, it happens get over it, the Movie and Music industries are Dinosaurs watching the meteor fall on them and instead of trying to get out of the way their only concern is making more money. By the way I patented the word Boycott so everyone here owes me money, ie Super Bowl" HAHA

"CONTACT ME AND I WILL SEE ABOUT SCHEDULING A TOUR AT MY RECORDING STUDIO."
So, like, whats your address?

The author of this letter to me did not specifically say that it was ok to give out his e-mail, so I won't... but I think his recording studio's web-page is at http://residentialrecording.com (Not %100 certain if this is the correct studio, so don't go willy nilly sending them nasty notes until we are sure!!!)

Downloading music is to blame for all of this?? Wait awhile, wait awhile.... It wasn't US THAT DOWNLOADED MUSIC that decided NOT to release singles anymore, to make consumers buy the WHOLE CD for one song. It was the RIAA record labels.

It wasn't US that decided to scale back new releases, or the signing of new artists. It was the RIAA record labels.

It wasn't US that had developed slave-like contracts to entrap artists, and require that artists pay for everything out of THEIR own dollar. It was the RIAA record labels.

It wasn't US who ignored the fact that sales ACTUALLY INCREASED during Napters' first years, and then lied to Congress and the public saying that downloading was hurting sales. It was the RIAA record labels.

It also wasn't us that developed these new tools artists can use to make music, whether or not it is good for the music industry. I only wish I could say that this was the RIAA record labels, but many of the conglomerates these labels are associated with are involved.

Before you start crying about how your business and those like yours is failing, I suggest you study ALL the facts, not just those that give you someone convenient to blame.

I'd like to point out one tidbit of truth he spoke:

"So now, artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality recording studios. Now, because of all you people who download music, musicians record most of their music at home on their pro tools rig. What this means is this: Music sound quality will go down the drain (and it already has)."


yes.. this is true.. the RIAA artists make crap now with crappy mastering.

Pro tools is NOT the problem however it is part of the solution. Don't try to spin pro tools as some crappy little program. It is a full featured editing suite.

finally, if you think downloading came before obnoxious boy bands youre dead wrong. The quality of music dropped through the floor long before downloading became big. I can tell you! why? because i was at your target age when downloading first took off, and I can tell you I already had to sift through tons of garbage to find good music back then.

I suggest as an industry professional you look at what was changed between 1993 and 1997, because that's where you went wrong in my honest opinion. It had nothing to do with your favorite scapegoat: the internet.

...actually, let's not send any nasty notes at all. Just debate him here. (I already told him that I would put this up as a thread, so he knows to come look.)

Who knows, we may even 'convert' the guy if we play nice.

He better learn to read the writing on the wall...or on the CD. Just like the record companies, his problem is not downloading. His problem is that technology is eventually going to render his business obsolete. And I guess he won't go gentle into THAT good night!

I went to the website for The Barn at Longview. Nice place. I'm sure you charge a bundle, Ben. You have beautiful accommodations for musicians to play. How many RIAA bands can play live?

I think you should direct your anger at the labels who don't care about live performance. Lip-syncing is the norm. They don't care about musicianship. And now that they are turning their attention to making money from downloads, they don't care about quality.

Why isn't he writing a nasty letter on the Pro-Tools Forum? I can't figure out why some one would spend tens of thousands of dollars to record in a studio when for the same money you could own the equipment. That is why he's going broke. Duh.

I am gonna wade in here again to say that being a skilled professional audio engineer is NOT something we should sneeze at nor automatically dismiss as "obsolete." It takes as much talent (sometimes more) to do the job well as it does to be a musician. A pro-level, A class studio environment run by efficient staff is very desireable for any serious musician. I relish the opportunities I have had to be in the studio. (I wish I could afford to record that way more often.)

SOME of these pro-studios may die off due to the advances in home recording technology, but there will always be a place for the better ones that are run by smarter managers. They are still needed and desired, they won't all disappear.

this guy needs to realize shit happens!! i remember the steel industry dying, im from northwest, pa. lots of jobs lost. move on, file sharing cant be stopped. maybe he can jockey a register in a video store?!

I feel sympathy for the guy I really do. However things are changing. The video production facility I used to work for closed down. We specialized in video editing services with tape editors and soon Adobe Premiere stations. But soon the amount of business started to dwindle. We certainly didn’t blame it on downloading! The industry was shifting. People could buy their own systems for under a grand (less that a third of the price we charged to edit an entire production) and edit themselves. Sure just buying the software didn’t automatically make you an editor, but for many people and companies having a system on-site and “learning as you go” was more economical in budget terms. Same thing is happening with desktop publishing and graphic arts as well (Like my wife went through. Give the Admin. Assistant the software, add it to her job description, stop farming work out and fire the Graphic Artist saving several thousand dollars and benefits a year. Sure the quality changes, but money talks in this day and age) Times are changing, it’s not just you, it’s several other industries.

actually, as an expert at the functions pro tools offer you he could easily get a good job professionally instructing people on the full functionality.

I'm familiar with the interface of protools.. as i remember it's got more knobs and doohickies than you can shake a stick at.. powerful but useless unless you learn how to properly utilize it.

All of you have made some excellent points, DeadMan and awehr especially.

a) I don't know what this guy is reading but it's not the articles and comments posted on this site.

b) Not a musician or a record label, but owns a studio. Another slug expecting the world's musicians to line up at his door and give him money.

c) All the studios I've been to in the last five years use ProTools. So I bought ProTools. Now I don't need the studio.

The Bottom Line -- The recording studios, vendors, distibutors, etc. are needless links in the chain designed to separate the musicians from their hard-earned bucks. They are no more necessary than the people that used to get paid to push the buttons on the elevator.

We can punch our own buttons, thank you, without the pressure of knowing that if you drop one note, it's going to be another $50-$500 for another hour of studio time. We can now just pick that one note up and put it in the proper place because you can look at the audio track and see it.

The high-end studios also are responsible for the general underlying lack of dynamic range in today's recordings. Run everything through an aural trash compactor and call that mastering, that's the usual motto. Nuance doesn't survive the transition to mp3 or FM radio compression very well so we just don't need it any longer, right?

"My company personally is being hurt because the record labels aren't making enough money to send their artists to high quality recording studios"

That is the best news I've heard in a year. We're winning. The giant is starving.

Since you may be asking yourself why, well here's the answer, because of assholes like you, who for whatever reason think that musicians need assistance from talentless toads to achieve the sound they desire.

George Martin used two 4-track tape decks duct-taped together to make Sgt. Pepper's. I can record 16 tracks at once. I don't need you unless you can play an instrument or sing.

We are not obligated to pay exorbitant sums for minimal use occupations such as yours any longer. The fact that you would come here and tell the 20,000 acts at dmusic.com that they are thieves and assholes will no doubt hasten your demise.

I live in Phoenix, and the weirdest thing happened recently. The city's CFO (chief financial officer), a healthy, happy, well-to-do intellectual type, was driving down the street and suddenly decided to put his car on cruise, climb out the sun roof and surf on the top of the car.

Turns out he went to Mexico and had gotten a parasite in his ear, which started eating the part of his brain which tells you not to do really, really stupid things.

Been to Mexico lately, Ben?

Damn, I missed one:

"So now, artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality recording studios."

That's just the kind of endorsement that anyone can be proud of. It's also the greatest lesson in this guy's entire letter.

Artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality [high price] recording studios.

Learn it. Remember it, spout it at the uninformed.

Artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality [high price] recording studios.

Why should you?

"THE BOTTOM LINE: PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO"

I want to be a full time slacker, and allegedly I deserve to get paid for that..... So fork it up while I keep listening to my downloaded songs.

"So now, artists aren't recording high quality music at high quality recording studios."

Dead on gdZ. Now artists are making higher quality music at high quality home studios.

Let's even shorten it a little, as brevity is the soul of sarcasm.

Artists aren't recording at high-priced studios anymore. Another link in the food chain disappears.

"The high-end studios also are responsible for the general underlying lack of dynamic range in today's recordings. Run everything through an aural trash compactor and call that mastering, that's the usual motto. Nuance doesn't survive the transition to mp3 or FM radio compression very well so we just don't need it any longer, right?"

Don't blame the wrong guy for this problem George. I think it is the A&R and the labels fault, NOT the true sound engineer/studio. After all, they gotta squish and squash all the dynamics outta the tune to suit the customer (the label) wants. I think most audio engineers worth a dime and with an ear in their head hate this trend to "make it stand out" style mastering for radio and eMTv. (and the CD/product itself, sadly enough.)

...but yes, we ARE making higher quality music at home nowadays

THANK GOD!

gdZiemann: I think this comment was a little cold: "Since you may be asking yourself why, well here's the answer, because of assholes like you, who for whatever reason think that musicians need assistance from talentless toads to achieve the sound they desire."

First, while many industry veterans bemoan the lack of expertise in many of today's recording studio staff, this guy may be one of those veterans who actually knows what he's doing.
From my appraisal of the letter, he, just like you, respects nuance and richness in music. To me it comes across that he's just blaming the wrong source.

Because of this i think calling him an ass is a little strong.

the mass media and RIAA portray us in the media as anarchists with no respect for those who create the music.. It's important to give constructive feedback and change minds, not throw insults at the guy.

However: this really hurts:

"When you go to work everyday at McDonald's,"

I'm a financial economics and computer science dual major at a top 20 school sir. I'm currently looking for an entry position or internship with merrill lynch to gain some experience.

Anyone else care to disclose their position for this guy?

Kind sir (or ma'am),
If I may direct your attention to our mission statement, please take a moment to read the part where it says we're choosing to support independent labels / musicians, and we're not interested in supporting major labels. I won't debate your arguments, mainly because I think every possible point has been made. In the end, we're on the same side - we're in the music business, we help each other become successful, because when one of us (musician or studio) because successful, it makes the other look good.

I definitely agree that people deserve to get paid for when they work. However, that work must be of value to somebody. My grandmother was an expert at shorthand, and 30 years ago, she got paid for it very well. The world has changed to the extent that her skills are no longer in demand, so she was forced to move on and find another job.

I am sure that your recording skills and studio are polished and experienced, but the age of the computer and cheaper equipment makes it possible for the average musician to do his own recording. I compare your situation to a professional portrait photogapher - your work is excellent, but for most people, it's seen as expensive when compared to taking a snapshot themselves (or making music themselves).

If you'd like to talk further, I'd love to clear up other misconceptions of this group and it's goals. Please e-mail me at funlovinginlex@yahoo.com. Thanks for your time Chris

"I think it is the A&R and the labels fault, NOT the true sound engineer/studio."

Maybe 20 years ago. But it's like "a song should be between 3 to 3 and 1/2 minutes long. It has been drilled into studio engineers for so long that it is the standard, even though there's really no good reason for it. You go to a major studio and your stuff will come out sounding like everyone else's stuff. It's the standard. It's what the labels want -- compacted trash. The studios are willing to perpetuate this as long as they own the trash compactor.

Unlike the price of recorded music, the price of trash compactors has come down significantly.

First, while many industry veterans bemoan the lack of expertise in many of today's recording studio staff, this guy may be one of those veterans who actually knows what he's doing.

...that may be so, but he was awful RUDE to us FIRST.

awehr -- I was paraphrasing this quote:

"Why you may be asking yourself why, well here's the answer, because of assholes like you all, who for whatever reason don't believe people should be paid the work that they do."

He may be talented, but now I'm going to be wary of anyone named Ben that claims to be an engineer, so I'll never know.

Like a musician, a sound engineer's test does not come in the studio. It's the live performance, when you can't go back and do another take or go back and bring the lead guitar up BEFORE the lead is halfway through.

This is not about his ability as an engineer, anymore than people use Quicken or TurboTax because they think H&R Block is incompetent.

It is because a previously expensive and complicated process requiring extensive specialized knowledge can now be achieved by anyone with working ears and a computer.

It is also because everyone who steps up to cry that downloading is stealing from them is a brainless idiot, which outweighs any usefulness they may have had to offer.

QWORD -----^

As of my position, I'm a student currently, but I see a thing in the future... an über mecha ikusa no jinzouningen totally wrecking the RIAA HQ. Well maybe not, but it's an amusing fantasy.

(Horrible misuse of japanese unintential but unavoidable with my skills)

"It is also because everyone who steps up to cry that downloading is stealing from them is a brainless idiot, which outweighs any usefulness they may have had to offer."

...I guess you sometimes gotta say it straight-out, harsh as it may be.

I skipped down just to reply to this idiots claim that quality is going down. First off, the band Crossfade recorded their entire album in their basement and it sounds pretty good. Second, bands don't want to pay thousands when they can do the same for hundreds. Artists are just as frugal as the regular people out there. If it can be done cheaper, then it will be done cheaper. Why else are all our jobs being outsourced?

well, skip back up and read it all NiceGuy2003, there's some GREAT points being made.

Like what? My BS-meter is in the red....

http://img78.exs.cx/img78/2240/bsmeter.gif

Just got an e-mail back from the author of the e-letter...

Ben might be here in a few.

If he shows, PLAY FAIR!

I am offended by the naked female on the horse (on the Long View web site). I'd rather see a naked man.

Also, the gravy train is over for a lot of people these days.

I am offended that the naked female on the horse is going the wrong way.
(Sorry Carla, couldn't pass it up.)

lol lol lol

(again, I agree with George.)

No, the horse is going the wrong way

I own a computer store. if I bult 20% less computers to sell and as a result my profits decline 20%, do I blame all those backyard computer gurus who put together systems for their friends and families and not charge anything? no, I build more, advertise and compete.

"THE BOTTOM LINE: PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO, MUSICIANS ARE NO DIFFERENT."

then why doesn't he ask his record lable bosses why they STEAL the artists copyright ownership and why the labels charge loanshark rates for studio recording space, and why an artists has to go platinum (correct me if I'm wrong on this one) Before they see a penny of thier megar royalties (3 cents from every 16 dollar CD sold). talk about stealing!!!!!!!

I went to walmart one day and looked at an overpriced porch swing. I copied the design on a scrap piece of paper and went home and built one out of scrap lumber I had. Walmart still had the origional swing, all I did was make a copy. should I get sued or arrested for stealing. Before you (the article writer) say it's not the same thing, it is. as long as those in the industry totes the RIAA mantra that downloading is the same as walking into a store and shoplifting, then all material comparisons do apply.

Also as long as the labels only promote garbage like Britney, Jessica and others of the same mold and reduce the amount of what they're putting out sure profits will continue to fall.

just curious, If every single downloader were to pay the recording industry the minimum (cough cough so called) lost sales for every download wouldn't that eliminate our national debt?? They could buy their own country. oh wait, they already have.

Most debate points - both well-reasoned and not-reasoned - seem to be covered earlier in the thread. My reply is far simpler:

Your super-recording-studio is no longer cost effective? So what? Im sure that for your loss, there is a corresponding gain in sales of lower-end equipment as so many amature artists try - and usually, but not always, fail - to produce and sell a few tracks. You are not objecting to the fall of an industry - you are objecting to the fall of your own particular niche of it.

"If every single downloader were to pay the recording industry the minimum (cough cough so called) lost sales for every download wouldn't that eliminate our national debt?? They could buy their own country. oh wait, they already have."

an axiom for the internet age.

I am going to bed.

(I just looked at the clock and noticed I have been up 32 + hrs.)

Hmmm seems like to me this guy is crying for a buisness that is pretty much dead. How many indie artist now have thier own studio in thier homes. You can pay a minimum of 2000 for a decent recording at a studio, or spend the same money and buy your own. And with your own you can take your time and do things right. How many of us that have payed to record in a studio rush through things. You always have the time ticking in the back of your head so how can you
get a decent recording (tick tock, tick tock) The advent of the computer and recording software and hardware was bound to start putting studios out of business for a lot of reasons, you can buy cakewalk pro 24 for 40 dollars, a good sound card for 200 dollars and a new computer for 400 dollars. a used mixer for 200 dollars and some decent mics for, for 1500 dollars you have all the tools you need to record, and belive me you can also do it a lot cheaper. When are these ppl going to realize that they are dinosaurs, and are going extent like the dinosaur. If you are not willing to compete in the market we have, then it is time for you to get out!

Hit Factory closed in new york but has a studio in FLA.

Hello all
I would first like to thank 'Shmoo' for being professional and also for keeping my contact information private.
I created a quick e-mail account at hotmail.com so the immature members will have a place to spam me and also I made my username close to what you people probably think of me (without being dirty of course).
Before we get this debate started I would like to say a few things. First of all, I said this website and movement were 'crap' to get your attention. For that it worked. Know that I don't think anyone's ideas or feelings are crap. In fact, most of my friends share music and movies, and most of my friends have debated hours with me on the subject. I do agree with you people on a lot of the issues and my business is adapting to changhe with times, and many of you independent musicians might end up at my studio in the coming years (this I would be willing to talk about as well, only not in this thread).
Now for the debate:
wet1 said: "The first thing I have to ask is pretty simple. Who says the music industry, as it is now should continue to exist? That your income and thereby the welfare of your family is at issue? Ever hear of job changes?"
I don't think the music industry should stay the way it is and the music industry isn't staying the way it is. Why? Because it can't. Why is that? Because of File Sharing or piracy as I would choose to label it.
--------
independentmusician said: "This fella's business might be suffering, but it is NOT the fault of consumers and music fans, nor of the independentmusicians (99.9 percent of whom could not afford the service anyway.) This fella seems to simply have bought into the RIAA's big LIE."
Do you consider yourself to be a consumer? I don't. So you, all of the people who posted in favor of file sharing and all of my friends who download music are not consumers. You are theifs whether you want to accept it or not. Now a lot of you are musicians and therefore I am going to assume that you understand how much time, energy, effort these people put into their music (I don't mean Brittany and 50). You don't think they should be paid for the work that they do? Now you can spew all this venom about how the record companies pimp artists, and the artists don't need the money or whatever your argument may be but it doesn't change the fact that they own their music and therefore they have the right to put whatever price tag they want on it - you get to choose whether or not you buy it. You want to debate cd prices, that's different - as a person who buys 100% of his music, cd prices need to come down. We can all agree on that (i think). If they did would you stop stealing music and start buying it? Or like the case with the new napster, now that they offer a flat monthly rate ($15) that ANYONE can afford, will you stop stealing?
-------
idependentmusician said: "Just because you invested the money into a very nice studio (that we'd all give our left testicle to have) does NOT entitle you to the sole and exclusive right to make money in the business of recording. You don't get to "own" a monopoly on things in this country, you only get a right to compete with your business. It is up to you and the economy/market as to whether or not you fail."
First off, I don't own the studio I manage. I manage it. Secondly we nor any studio has ever had anything close to a monopoly on the recording industry. In fact, nobody in the music business has a problem with garage bands recording their own music and then giving it away free on their website. What we do have a problem with is when you go and download an entire cd or even a song that was recorded at a professional recording studio by a professional engineer and a professional musician because it isn't yours. We put a lot of hard work into making music that brings joy, life, excitement, happiness, whatever and then you people go download it basically saying to us that all the work we did means nothing to you. It would be really nice if people didn't need money to survive, we had a universal health care system, free and no cost of living, however that is not the world we find ourselves in (you want the real cause - there you go - survival has become to difficult). The world we live in says when you provide people with a product, they are obligated to reimburse you for that product because that product took time, energy and work.
-------
awehr said: "Pro tools is NOT the problem however it is part of the solution. Don't try to spin pro tools as some crappy little program. It is a full featured editing suite.

finally, if you think downloading came before obnoxious boy bands youre dead wrong. The quality of music dropped through the floor long before downloading became big. I can tell you! why? because i was at your target age when downloading first took off, and I can tell you I already had to sift through tons of garbage to find good music back then."

Never said Pro Tools was the problem, don't put words in my mouth. Secojndly, I love Pro Tools, have my own rig that I bought with my hard earned cash. I like Reason also, another great computer software for musicians, however I didn't go to www.astalavista.com and try to crack my version, I bought it. How is that any different that music?
Secondly have you ever wondered why all you see and hear on MTV, BET, VH1, radio stations, etc is all crap? I have the answer, because the people who still buy music are buying that shit. That's why record companies aren't willing to try something new, because they lose money every single time because you people, who used to buy music, stopped and are now stealing it. Then you have situations like with Fionna Apple's record being dropped because it's too edgy and will only be purchased by a select a group and downloaded for free by the masses.
------
GDZiemann said: ") I don't know what this guy is reading but it's not the articles and comments posted on this site.

b) Not a musician or a record label, but owns a studio. Another slug expecting the world's musicians to line up at his door and give him money.

c) All the studios I've been to in the last five years use ProTools. So I bought ProTools. Now I don't need the studio."

Like the great and wise Puff Daddy (i think it was Puff) said, don't assume because it makes an Ass out of U and Me. A)I read enough and have heard enough arguments from pro File Sharers to have a pretty good grasp of your stance. Secondly, you are not as noble as you might think. Get off your high horse. B) I am an independent musician, not a slug and I don't own the studio I work at (the assume thing). Secondly, the studio I work at has been in business for 30 years, we have helped create over 100 platinum albums, so again don't assume you know everything. C) We have Pro Tools too and seeing as how Quantegy, the last tape manufacturer in the nation closed it's doors, everyone will have Pro Tools. Again, learn what you are arguing about before you argue.
------
GDZiemann said: "Like a musician, a sound engineer's test does not come in the studio. It's the live performance, when you can't go back and do another take or go back and bring the lead guitar up BEFORE the lead is halfway through."

Again if you knew anything about the recording process you would that most professional musicians (I exclude the Brittanies and the 50s because in this case it is all Pro Tools) will get the recording they want in the first 3 takes. Secondly, when you say recording engineers test does not come in the studio, I'd like to see you run a professional sound board and see how well you do since it's so easy.
------
Niceguy2003 said: "First off, the band Crossfade recorded their entire album in their basement and it sounds pretty good. Second, bands don't want to pay thousands when they can do the same for hundreds. Artists are just as frugal as the regular people out there. If it can be done cheaper, then it will be done cheaper. Why else are all our jobs being outsourced?"
My first question is this: do you have a degree in music or anything related would give you the ability to definitively state what sounds good and what does not? Secondly, artists (professional) don't pay for studio time, their label does. Independent musicians, in the past, only recorded at home because they had to, with their goal being, to become a professional musician with a 'big budget' recording contract - because it's all about the music right?
-------
compmore said: "hen why doesn't he ask his record lable bosses why they STEAL the artists copyright ownership and why the labels charge loanshark rates for studio recording space, and why an artists has to go platinum (correct me if I'm wrong on this one) Before they see a penny of thier megar royalties (3 cents from every 16 dollar CD sold). talk about stealing!!!!!!!"

I don't work for a label, I work for a studio, READ! Secondly, guess what? That's life, and you know a lot of the musicians who were 'taken' at first, now own their own record label. Why? Because they understand the game of life, you have to play by other people's rules, until the rules change. You people are attempting to change the rules and I applaud you for this because a change needs to happen, however that doesn't take away from the fact that every time you download a song for free, you are stealing and you are hurting more people than you care accept or give a shit about.
-------
compmore said: "just curious, If every single downloader were to pay the recording industry the minimum (cough cough so called) lost sales for every download wouldn't that eliminate our national debt?? They could buy their own country. oh wait, they already have."
There is no physical amount of money on this planet that could pay back our national debt. You want to talk politics, let's do it, but you might find me a friend, not a foe in that instance. Secondly, what country did who buy? Don't state ridiculous things, it only takes credibility away from you.
--------
goldenpi said: "Your super-recording-studio is no longer cost effective? So what? Im sure that for your loss, there is a corresponding gain in sales of lower-end equipment as so many amature artists try - and usually, but not always, fail - to produce and sell a few tracks. You are not objecting to the fall of an industry - you are objecting to the fall of your own particular niche of it."
Not at all. I am objecting to the downloading of music as a whole. It's not yours. It is theirs and they have a right to charge money for ownership of their property. Secondly, my particular niche is not failing, we are changing with the times, we are adapting, and we do welcome the digital age. As I said before, many of you independent musicians, might end up respecting me and my studio when the dust settles.
-----

I would like to conlude this day of debating by saying this. I am sorry for insulting you all and your movement, I merely did it to get your attention. In fact, I respect all of you who responded and all of you who fight this fight. Many of the issues you people stated are legitimate and I happen to agree with a lot of them. However I will never agree that downloading music for free is ok. It is wrong and it is stealing.
I am more than happy to keep this debate going, I love to hear other people's opinions and points of view, however I will please ask you not to spam my company or myself. I have had the courage to come here and take the heat and the insults you people have a thrown at me, so I ask you all to take what I have to say and just think about it. Have a great night (if it's night for you) and I look forward to continuing this verbal sparring session.

Sorry I had to reply to this one as it came in after I already started my other reply.
-------
woodhead said: "Hmmm seems like to me this guy is crying for a buisness that is pretty much dead. How many indie artist now have thier own studio in thier homes. You can pay a minimum of 2000 for a decent recording at a studio."
First off my business is not dead - That's why you don't see a headline about my business closing, unlike the hit factory (they USED to be one of our biggest competators - I think I should be thanking you all). Secondly, I don't know where you went to record, but it wasn't here. First off your prices are high (probably why you feel taken) and secondly, the time issues you ran into, would have been spelled out for you had you had a professional producer working with you. Besides all that, a talented group, with no cruveballs to face, can do 3 tracks a day, enough for a demo - I think maybe your problem is you didn't have your shit together. That's not the studio's fault.

TheJerk (i really wish i could refer to you by a less offensive handle)

i've read your responses, and i see a lot of misconception, my next post should alleviate those.

"Secondly, when you say recording engineers test does not come in the studio, I'd like to see you run a professional sound board and see how well you do since it's so easy."

No problem. Been doing it for longer than your studio has been in existence. I'll be glad to give you references that go from Frank Sinatra to Blue Öyster Cult to Tammy Wynette. In that time I have had exactly one show go bad, which was Pete Best in 2003, the result of a new sound system, an uncooperative venue and insufficient set-up time, not to mention Pete's ongoing dismal karma.

"My first question is this: do you have a degree in music or anything related would give you the ability to definitively state what sounds good and what does not?"

A degree in music - or a boatload them - is no cure for a tin ear.

"Secondly, artists (professional) don't pay for studio time, their label does."

The artists have to pay it back.

"Independent musicians, in the past, only recorded at home because they had to, with their goal being, to become a professional musician with a 'big budget' recording contract - because it's all about the music right?"

That's not correct at all. I used to pay studios all the time so we could go and record demos. We discovered that most studios are populated with people that insist they are the only ones qualified to judge how I want my music to sound.

"I am an independent musician"
"I am not a musician or a record label."

Make up your mind.

"However I will never agree that downloading music for free is ok. It is wrong and it is stealing."

We've got 20,000 acts that say you're wrong, which is at least four times as much as the rosters of all the major labels combined.

We are not fooled into thinking that an audibly inferior compressed copy has any value and certainly not more value than the 16-bit full-spectrum CD version. If you are the golden-eared blessing from heaven you profess to be, you wouldn't pay for downloads, either, because they sound like crap.

"Secondly, you are not as noble as you might think."

I'm fighting for the rights of musicians to be heard, those of us who see downloading as the cheap-ass promotional tool that it is.

You're fighting for the rights of record labels to try and ensure that musicians are NOT to be heard unless someone forks up cash first for a crappy copy.

You also may have missed the name of the site. It is Boycott-RIAA. We do not promote the downloading of major label music. We do not promote the LISTENING TO of any major label music. We are encouraging everyone to turn off their radio, MTV, and ERASE EVERY MAJOR LABEL SONG from every hard drive they encounter.

If this site has had any effect on your business at all, it is not because of downloading, it's because we're convincing people to simply not buy any of the RIAA's dreck, in any form, shape or manner, no matter what the cost or lack thereof.

Take it all off of the Internet, I say. Shut down every p2p site until they screen out the RIAA.

We don't want to listen to them any longer. We have 60,000 songs we can listen to for free, here at our sister site, dmusic. And if we get through all of them, we can cruise over to garageband, where they claim to now have a catalog of more than a million and a half songs -- three times as much as iTunes.

All free. It's not stealing, it's advertising. There is no law prohibiting us from offering it or endangering you for downloading it.

Every time you download a song for free from us, you are spreading our music and rescuing us from obscurity.

"I have had the courage to come here and take the heat and the insults you people have a thrown at me"

If you would have had the intelligence not to start out by throwing insults, the retaliation might not have been necessary.

"Again, learn what you are arguing about before you argue."

We are well aware that the entire peer-to-peer controversy is a carbon copy of the industry's battle against radio. Bottom line is that they have been crying pirate for 80 years and it never holds up in court.

Maybe if they gave the music away for free and sold ads they would make more money. Works for Kazaa and Clear Channel.

For the first part: i'll ignore the derogatory accusations of theft. I'm not here to bicker over trivialities, i do however wish to dispell myths. So i begin. Please read through my full post before responding.

first: the most painful one for me.

"Do you consider yourself to be a consumer? I don't. So you, all of the people who posted in favor of file sharing and all of my friends who download music are not consumers. "

Sir I am an audiophile, a serious one. I have the ears of a dog, and am uncompromising in my pursuit of quality. An mp3 is by far inferior to a cd; it lacks dynamic range, it murders bass and destroys nuance.
I bought over $5,000 in cds from the start of high school to my graduation, and then another $2500 to replace a stolen collection "actually stolen from my car". I use p2p to find obscure music from anime and older movies, and to get instant gratification when i'm too busy to get out to the store (finals, midterms). I continued to buy what i downloaded. (This was no simple task as some titles were foreign and obscure, and i had to search months at times.) That is, until the lawsuits started flying. You see, under the audio home recording act of 1992 the record companies agreed to grant the right to noncommercially copy (and, de facto share) music using cassette tapes in return for a media tarriff.
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on...noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."-AHRA section 1008

Home recording and person to person trading of music on tape has been legal, either by intent or fact, since 1992, and i (among many others) see p2p as an extension of home recording. Quality loss in mp3's is tremendous, and therefore record companies could have embraced the free advertising and exploited it.. instead they chose to stomp on the people's freedom. By filing lawsuits against estensibly defenseless individuals, the recording industry showed me that the ultimate end of that musical expression was not to bare one's soul, but merely to grub money. I ceased listening to american music that day, and download foreign music because it's the only way i can obtain it. (I cant stand mp3) My boycott was further intrenched when they began their indiscriminate raping and destruction of the technology field, sueing innovators of fair use tools out of existance and locking out software developers by using the DMCA and DRM. Computer science is one of my chosen fields, and I always dream of the do it all gizmo i can pull from my pocket.. but that will never happen thanks to DRM protection laws, which essentially mandate that you have to ask your competitors or enemies if youre "allowed" to make YOUR intellectual property and market it to the public. I REALLY resent that they should somehow be treated specially because their IP is entertainment.. i often times wish p2p COULD be eliminated, because as it is the computer science major in america is an endangered species.. there are only about 18 in my school of over 7000! there have been articles on it.


"You don't think they should be paid for the work that they do?"

Yes i do actually, they should be compensated reasonably, but not excessively. I'm not under the illusion that every artist is a rich pig, but people whose albums are popularly traded also enjoy rich sales figures, fame, and fortune during those very same periods of high filesharing volume... (you dont have to trust me.. if your postulations were true, then why do new albums still go platinum?, you think my 55 year old mother buys rap and boy bands?)

"Never said Pro Tools was the problem, don't put words in my mouth..... however I didn't go to www.astalavista.com and try to crack my version, I bought it."

The way you presented it was "they leave me and go to pro tools", you presented pro tools as the problem. Nobody said they cracked their pro tools, i never said i even HAD pro tools, I don't appreciate the insinuation.

"That's why record companies aren't willing to try something new, because they lose money every single time because you people, who used to buy music, stopped and are now stealing it. "

The record companies arent willing because they have an oligopoly, and they use payola radio, payola music, and payola retail to keep it that way. They then use their money and market power to market their scholock into existence, and it works because their audience had little other choice.. that is until the internet came along. I can't tell you how many musical pieces i spent years looking for on cd from anime, movies, and video games i found instantly on napster.

"Secondly have you ever wondered why all you see and hear on MTV, BET, VH1, radio stations, etc is all crap? I have the answer, because the people who still buy music are buying that shit."

look at the response above.. it applies here.

"but it doesn't change the fact that they own their music and therefore they have the right to put whatever price tag they want on it"

copyright does not equal ownership. I've done a lot of research on it in my spare time because i have strict moral codes. There are numerous exceptions to that right, and one of those is first sale.. if they sell something to you youre allowed to do anything you danmed well please with it for personal use. Noncommercial use has until recently been kept to a minimum by costs associated with copying, but the internet has dissipated those costs.. while i sympathise i really think it unjust to destroy people's fair use right and govern their stuff after they buy it as if theyre serfs.
Personal property is the foundation of capitalism. If people dont own what they buy then why buy it.. the economy is based on personal ownership.

One more thing: I don't appreciate the undermining and destruction of general purpose computing and liberating new personal digital devices which dramatically expand fair uses by incorporating rigid and restrictive DRM schemes.

It's bad for the economy, consumers, and even the precious music industry.

I suggest a noncommercial use levvy in exchange for lawsuit amnesty. $100 per year would make a conservatively estimated 3 billion for the music industry WITHOUT interfering with the development of technology with open standards and true flexibility.

in that respect you must face facts.. the restrictions the entertainment industry are placing on technology are utterly debilitating; it's no coincidence the tech sector tanked after the DMCA was passed. They have no right in a capitalist system to destroy vibrant sectors of the economy to prop up their dying business model.

Let me pick up on the one Alex skipped...

"Secondly have you ever wondered why all you see and hear on MTV, BET, VH1, radio stations, etc is all crap? I have the answer, because the people who still buy music are buying that shit."

You're answer is wrong. Sales are down, remember? If people were still buying this crap, your business wouldn't be suffering.

The answer is that we're NOT buying this crap but it's all the labels have to offer and [refer back to awehr's payola references] they're paying handsomely to try and force-feed it to us anyway.

I spent $80,000 on music last year, most of it in the form of equipment and pay for live acts.

Not a dime went to the RIAA. None of the acts thought this was a bad thing.

I take it back, that was two years ago.

"Never said Pro Tools was the problem, don't put words in my mouth..... however I didn't go to www.astalavista.com and try to crack my version, I bought it."

You can download hardware from the internet? When I bought ProTools, it came with a PCI card and a DIGI001 interface. If you don't have the hardware, you're limited to 8 tracks. It's called ProToolsFree then.

Imagine how they ever survived -- letting people download a crappy version for free...

I am like awehr, in the idea that TheJerk, is a name you have choosen for yourself and not one I would readily use.

While we can not blame all the woes of the music industry on your particular job, you also can not blame p2p for all of the drop in business that evidently has caused changes in your work enviorment.

Lack of business is a reflection of a problem. While you do not directly influance the market, the market does directly influance your job. The face of music is changing. How it is done is becoming different also. When changes occur in the market, those that adapt survive. It sounds as if you are know that the studio you work for is acutely aware of this change and is attempting to do something about it.

The main problem is that the media industries have already painted themselves a reputation. That of being against most new technological advances. This has been reflected over and over again as each new advance had to be tested in court. This happened for the tape several times. Only after the new technology was approved by the courts did they adapt and come in; now there is a thriving second market of rentals for movies. I realize you don't work for the movies but that industry too has been most active in trying to shut down those same advances. Later to capitalize on the newer things only after it wasn't going to go away. P2p is much the same as radio, something that once again was attempted to be put on the endangered list.

It is easy to beat the p2p and make a buyers market. The problem in this approach is that it must be of more value to them than the p2. P2p is not known for quality. Take any cd and it will far surpass the quality found on p2p services. P2p is much like the radio in that sense also. Quality isn't very good. If anything the majors should be paying for the free advertisement. Mostly any selfrespecting d/ler I have ever talked to went out and bought the album if he liked it. What he wasn't willing to do was to plop the money down first to find out it was only that one song that was any good. Lots of trash has been released lately. Simply many albums aren't worth paying for. By the same token if they aren't worth paying for, neither are they worth keeping.

I am sure you would not go out and buy a car without a test drive, the principal is the same for the music. Only you can't see it and hear it is how you judge it.

But there is a problem with this idea of sueing your customers. One is that it doesn't endear them or encourage them to repeat business ever again. Not only them but those in the close circle of those affected. For every case the majors lose more than one customer. How many you think they can afford to alienate? If the conservitive estimate is 5 affected for every one sued, then 8000 lawsuits transfer to be 40,000 that aren't buying again. Thats not enough to tip the market today, what about next year, or the year after? This is an accumulated count with a conservitive estimate, it could well be far higher.

As long as the RIAA is a lawsuit factory they will not get a dime from me. I have a choice where I spend my money. No company will tell me where to spend it. Like many places, if the idea and business practices are not what I support I will do business elsewhere. Used to be the majors were sort of the only game in town. Not anymore.

P2p provides an excellent way to also check out the indies. For more of them are of interest than the "Corporate Pop" that passes for radio today. Fm radio is to the point that Am radio was years before. So loaded with commercials and the same songs playing over and over. Even the songs have simular sounds, not enough varience in the batch of them to make an original.

Well I've got to say that George and Alex sure made great points on what I was going to respond to so I won't. I'm not as well versed as those two but I will respond to a couple of debate points...

first, yes I did read your article and do know you work for a studio and are not an employee of a record label. Your business is swayed the the market and since only one main entity (the recording industry) controls 90 percent of that market you are, in effect, controled by their actions. therefore when I spoke of them as your bosses I was speaking figurativly and not literally.

Second I am apalled at your response to the suggestion that the record labels steal from the artists. what you're saying is that a lable can and does, make tens of million dollars off of an artist, steals the copyright to their work, before they see even one penny? and all you can say is that's life?? yet you are advocating that an elderly grandma or a 12 year old girl are theives because they like to share music?? sounds to me like you are not really interested in seeing musicians getting paid, only in your own business and you're trying to find a scapegoat for your industries lack of forsight and mafia type tactics.

Thirdly, downloading a song for free is not stealing. the supreme court even ruled on that. also every court case that recording industry lawyers used that phrase in had admonished the lawyers for it. Copyright infringment is the claim and the jury is still out on weather that's illegal or not since it hasn't gone to court yet. Remember when the industry said taping onto Cassettes were stealing and illegal??

Forthly (is that really a word? ) I was not making a political statement about the national debt. that's called Sarcasm. Sarcasm is used when something is so absured that it doesn't qualify for an intellegent response. IE, the Recording industries assertion that 150 thousand dollars per each infringment is adiquate compensation for a single downloads lost sales. that's laughable.

finally, if you are going to defend the industry then do so, If you are going to defend the musicians, then do that. but you can't do both because outside of a few big stars who buy their own studios and/or make it big, there are hundreds dumped on, not given a chance, and screwed by the industry you're defending. The rules you speak of were created by a mafia type monopoly and now there are new rules which makes them scream bloody murder. I do not believe they want to change as you assess unless they can still control every aspect of the industy. thereby squeezing out the independents.

By the way, Indie bands are a hell of a lot better and more professional then many pop groups raking in the dough.

"I spent $80,000 on music last year, most of it in the form of equipment and pay for live acts."

GdZ: wow.. i wish i had the independent wealth to do that.

awehr you are awsome, must have been capt of the debate team, and the jerk change your name please cause all I can think of when i see that name is " he's shooting at the cans, he hates cans !!Can we just call you anusPmcgainus or sumthin ???? flbgbt

awehr -- I didn't have the wealth, just the opportunity. I'll be paying for it for the next 15 years.

The up side is that Marty Balin owes me a prepaid show. Whether I can ever call up the marker is another thing...

I resent being called a thief or a pirate, especially by someone as rude as you. For 40 years, I was a customer, buying records, then replacing them with tapes, then replacing the tapes with CDs, when I could find them. I'm not a customer anymore, and won't be until the RIAA stops these ridiculous lawsuits and stops buying members of congress to pass its anti-consumer anti-competitive laws. I would love to have the best of both worlds, independent and enslaved artists alike; but until Sheryl and co. emancipate themselves, they can keep their music--as has already been pointed out, there's a lifetime of Indie music out there for free. Get the point?

You see, Ben, very few of us are here because they think people should download the RIAA's music for free. We also don't think it's worth paying for any longer, either, considering the moral dilemma attached.

You remember those commercials they aired a couple of years ago? The anti-pot commercials? You know, the ones that show you how buying a bag of pot from your neighbor somehow sponsors the murder of innocent children in Farkistan?

That's how we feel about the RIAA, except the victim is a young musician who just signed away seven years of their life.

In both cases, we would simply prefer to grow our own and cut all of the thugs (to use Todd Rundgren's characterization of the RIAA) out of the action completely.

We don't believe in supporting terrorists.

Actually, terrorism isn't nearly as egregious and damaging to america as the activities and bought laws of the RIAA/MPAA.

The DMCA brought the tech boom of the 90's to a stop, and continues to be a launching point for assault after assault on what was supposed to be the future of american employment.

Now the only way youre guaranteed safety is to sell yourself into slavery with an established software company.. otherwise youre out on the firing line waiting to be picked off by these greedy bastards just because you want to market your own invention.

Modern bands are mostly commercially orientated, neatly packaged and sold to the masses with a hysterical media approach bordering on the insane at times. I hate most modern music - its either recycled, played to death on a corporate owned station or simply doesn't make me nod my head or tap my feet. Now the above description may suit today's musicians in the record industry but it isnt to everyone's taste, or 99% of this site's artists.

Call me a thief. That's ok, as long as you don't mind being called an ignorant, selfish, corporate ass-kissing loser. Change with the times or die like your dinosaur masters, you fool.

As for working at McDonalds, it would sure beat working for you.
As for assholes... check the brownnose looking back at you in the mirror.

You see, there isn't very much difference between economics under the dmca and economics under soviet communism.

Now in america of all places a corrupt central authority whose intrests conflict with the general public is dictating the precise specifications for a tremendous percentage of consumer electronics and software packages. The brave men and women who died in our many wars to prevent communism from swallowing the world must be rolling over in their graves.

"Actually, terrorism isn't nearly as egregious and damaging to america as the activities and bought laws of the RIAA/MPAA."

You're right. A suicide bomber is only a problem once.
The RIAA is more like a serial terrorist.

Hey guys it's been a while since i posted a comment, so here it goes:
I wanna ask THE JERK does he really think that suing customers who share music really gonna make them wanna come back and buy a CD anytime soon? Why can't your industry cooperate with the creators of P2P and sell your music instead of wasting your money suing YOUR CUSTOMERS. I got news for you: I ADMIT I HAVE DOWNLOADED MUSIC BUT I ALSO BUY 2 CDS A WEEK FOR A PERFORMER I LIKE. I RESENT THE FACT THAT YOU DARE CALL ME A THIEF. FUCK YOU. What I don't understand is why the music industry is the most HATED industry in the world? why is that? I read your initial entry and then your response and I'm afraid a lot of your arguments are very contradictory AND you are defending the RECORD LABELS NOT the ARTISTS. You can't have it both ways buddy.
I love the cocky response you gave to compmore said: "hen why doesn't he ask his record lable bosses why they STEAL the artists copyright ownership and why the labels charge loanshark rates for studio recording space, and why an artists has to go platinum (correct me if I'm wrong on this one) Before they see a penny of thier megar royalties (3 cents from every 16 dollar CD sold). talk about stealing!!!!!!!"
Your response:
guess what? That's life, and you know a lot of the musicians who were 'taken' at first, now own their own record label. Why? Because they understand the game of life, you have to play by other people's rules, until the rules change.
Most musicians who are taken by your industry get screwed and had. They do not get a label or second record deal. You are living in a box and are kidding yourself. I can also tell by your attitude in your answers that you're a kid. You only care about yourself and screwing everyone else over. Typical attitude of your industry. It's no wonder im completely turned off by your industry and by the people you work for. INDY music rocks. Let's keep up the vote in dismanteling the RIAA.

Also the music industry is a multi-million dollar business. And the only ones who get "FAT" are the executives. EG: Clive Davis, LA Reid and American Idol crap producer, Simon Fuller.
A select few "superstar" artists make money. The rest just survive just like you and me.

and no, i didnt read all the thread before posting but now i have read the replies you made... my view doesnt change a single bit.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS LAST. you cant simply throw the switch in your favour on this subject, you picked a very tough target and incited immaturity in your initial outburst. no matter what you reverse, you left a bad taste in many indie musician's mouths. Get with the program dude, change or die.

"Maybe if they gave the music away for free and sold ads they would make more money. Works for Kazaa and Clear Channel."

The RIAA has no feedback button.. but years ago i thought of writing them and advising them of the millions they could make running their own p2p network if they did it properly

The reason that MTV and radio plays crap is becuase of the industry itself. They sign many artists but only market a few artists to make thier millions and then "throw them away". They grease the hands of the program directors of radio staions to ensure they get played and the teenagers out there eat it up and buy the crap. You are aiming your anger at the wrong people. We wnat the industry to survive, but we want it to more eclectic and have the chance to discover new talent. I would support an artist and buy thier CD. But the industry tries to shove the crap down our throat, which we wont accept. So before you start judging everyone here, take a real good look at the industry your in. They have been doing this for years and it is finally catching up to them and backfiring. That is why most people who are interested in real music rather than manufactured "throw away artists", they have turned to the alternative, the internet to discover new talent.

They don't seem to have a brightness knob either.

Speak for yourself about the industry's survival, All I really care about is the economic health of the nation as a whole, and their current behavior as an industry is a cancer on our economy. Weather they regain their grip on reality and stop railing against the consumer or die a slow painful death is not my problem.. but the damage theyre doing is immense, and that is what needs to be controlled.

Wow,
All I can possibly do is sit down shut up and smile.
The population here is the "baddest of the bad" AND the "best of the best".

The Boycott continues.

Taking this all in, Ben? We've got about 19,980 more acts left to report in.

Secondly have you ever wondered why all you see and hear on MTV, BET, VH1, radio stations, etc is all crap? I have the answer, because the people who still buy music are buying that shit. That's why record companies aren't willing to try something new, because they lose money every single time because you people, who used to buy music, stopped and are now stealing it.

First off this is a generalization, and a pretty shallow one at that. I resent the fact you are generalizing me that if I don't buy the crap they're playing on MTV, VH1 or the radio, I must be downloading illegally.

Plus get it through your thick skull that all downloading is NOT illegal, I know several bands that allow downloading, especially live stuff. So don't you dare call me a "thief".

This is true, it's uploading which is (was) considered possibly illegal.

This is the reason why the RIAA was careful to orchestrate a smear campaign by manipulating figures and using the affects of a recession to blame the evil internet for all their woes, saturating all media for years before going before a judge...

In that sneaky way they had 2 and a half years of uninterrupted time to "argue" their case unopposed, ingraining the fallacies of intellectual property as actual property, the internet as "instantaneous transfer", and the american teen as a criminal.

Of course news organizations depend heavily on the entertainment dollar..and books like "the buzzsaw" show how points of view which contradict the sponsors are cut.

First let me tell you this. You listen too much to the RIAA propaganda. Downloading is not what is
hurting your business. What is hurting your business is the boycott and the changes in technology. This
absolute crap could turn into your absolute death unless you do something smarter than calling 70
millions of your customer thief!


They started to put your business down the day they managed to shut down napster. Many of us warned
that they would be a boycott if Napster die. Napster did die and the boycott started. Personally I want all
the RIAA members out of business! Targets: the Sony/BMG, EMI, Vivendi/Universal, Time Warner
executives and the currents and former RIAA parasites! We are at war guy! We did not start this they
did! It is our right and our duty as US citizens to defend our constitution. The Majors will die make no
mistake about it and we are working to hasten the process. Why? Because of the law suit, because we
realize what kind of gangster they really are, because they don't care about their customers and are not
serving our society, because they committed the mortal sin by suing the same customer that were
supporting their business. No longer! They will not get one more cent from me and I will dance on the
ruins of their companies. It's happened before with the radio it is happening again with internet. The
customer is the king. The customer is always right. Forget one of this rule and you are history.

Recording equipment this day? A computer (not even a fast one!) a recording software, a good
multichanel sound card and a couple a great microphone the all thing for few thousand dollars and this is
your recording studio! This is more than good enough for the crap that has been generated so fare by the
majors. 97% of all the music published by these parasites is crap! From "Britney slut", to "theySink" we
don't need high quality recording for this!

You want to survive? Leave these RIAA parasites alone. There is a market for high quality recording in
Indies Classical. In classical even a CD might not be good enough look for the high resolution recording
market. Work with Indies record labels and Symphonic Orchestra. They don't sue their customers and
they are not under boycott! Also they are half price compare to the majors and 50% of the profit go the
artists!

I regularly go to Border and I buy a bunch of stuff from Indies. See the list below. I am using the RIAA
radar very often and if I get accidentally a recording from an RIAA member I return it for refund!

This is the new music industry!

Vanguard Classicsk
Vaik
Uraniak
Ultimak
Testamentk
Tactus k
Supraphon k
Reference Recordings: ok
Preiser Records: ok
Point Classics (eclipse) ok
Penguin Classics Ok?
Orfeo: ok
Opera D'oro: ok
Ondine: ok
Olympia: ok
New World Recordsk
Naxos: ok This one is great!
Myto Records: ok
Music & Arts: ok?
Melodram: ok
Md&g (Dabringhaus & Grimm): ok
Marco Polo: ok
Lso Live: ok
Klavier Records: ok
Kairos: ok?
Hänssler Classic: ok?
Hyperion: ok
Hungaroton: ok
Harmonia Mundi Franc: ok
Gall (Formerly Gallo)k
Gala: ok
Fonit-cetra Records: ok
Ess.a.y Recordings ok?
Dynamic: ok
Dorian: ok
Dacapo this is Naxos: ok
Cpo Records: ok
Composers Recordings: ok
Collegium: ok
Classica D'oro: ok
Channel Classics: ok
Centaur Records ok?
Cbc Records: ok
Brilliant Classics: ok
Bridge: ok
Bongiovanni: ok
Bis: ok
Avie: not found ok?
Aura Classics : ok
Arts Music : ok?
Archipel: ok
Arabesque: ok
Apex: ok
Andante: ok?
Alia Vox : ok?
Albany Records: ok
Maestro History: ok
LaserLight: ok Some excelent recording.
pilzk This one is great too!
Musique d'Or: ok
Madacy: ok
BBC: ok Have some great recording!
Cedille Records: ok

Well, doesn't look like anyone is hurling insults, I am not going to be the one to start. In fact almost everyone here has a point.

I think we all realise that your affect on the market is small compared to the world wide affect. My mention earlier of the law suit tactics and the end result will spread also. As I am sure you are aware of, the sue em all campaign took on world wide stature with actions in Spain, Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Britian. Many artists are caught in the middle. Support the majors line or be out in the cold and out of the catalogue. Or face the wrath of the fan that isn't happy with downloan as it is structured today. The whole purpose of buying something is to own it. With DRM there is no owning, you are merely renting it. However there is no price difference between buying and owning. As configured now, I have no use for todays music, neither liking the terms of use nor the fare that is offered. In fact much of the music I seek I can not go into a record store and order. Simply it isn't for sale at any price. During the change over from vinyl to tape to cd a huge amount of acts never made the crossover with each change. Nor did they again surface with other formats. How does getting it from the one place I can still obtain them cut from your pocket?

Do I wait forever in hopes that maybe some day they will again show on the market? Hasn't been very a effective thing, tried that. It seems that a lot of the music I desire is no longer in print and has slim chance of ever seeing print again. Likely if it is to be saved for prosperity those that use p2p will have to do it.

Besides all that, a talented group, with no cruveballs to face, can do 3 tracks a day, enough for a demo - I think maybe your problem is you didn't have your shit together. That's not the studio's fault.

Lets see the last time I checked on studio time, the best deal I found was 35 dollars an hour and the average was 60 dollars an hour. so at ten songs @ 35 doolars an hour you are still looking at 1120 dollars, and this was not a demo this was a cd. so around 2000 was right,
so mister pro studio guy how much do you charge for an hour of work, I bet it is a lot higher than 60 dollars an hour.

Sadly, it appears as if no one has become one of Ben's customers and he has given 20,000 acts several very good reasons to avoid his studio.

I must say that Ben is the first studio person to come in and smear his own profession but he follows in the footsteps of several other equally deluded representatives of endangered professions.

We've had radio station execs write in to prove in detail how little they know about the royalties they pay and who it goes to, supporting payola payback for those royalties. We ask them why it costs so much to get a record played and they disappeared.

NARM (National Association of Retail Merchants) didn't even have to come here to insult us. They simply named Hilary Rosen as "Humanitarian of the Year," prompting us to cut them out of the loop, too. We'll sell our t-shirts directly now, through our websites.

The record stores that wouldn't carry our product came to blame their demise on our rejection of the major labels and refusal to buy RIAA product.

ASCAP's Chief of Staff responded to me to inform me that both ASCAP and NARAS had rejected the RIAA's campaign to sue consumers. A week later, they helped the RIAA to place an ad in USAToday to tell people who listen to music that if they expect to continue this "crime," they'd better get a lawyer.

And there are many more examples of industry lack of intelligence but my wife's car just broke down and I have to go rescue her.

Back to make my final point on this.

Every time someone comes here to call us thieves and pirates, several things happen:

• First off, we skewer the offender and roast them over an open flame. They didn't bother to check the facts before spouting off, so they don't have a clue in the first place and their demise is no great loss in the cosmic scheme of things.

• If said visitor somehow survives the first round of blistering critcism, they usually just return to tell us we're stupid and have it all wrong and can't change their mind so don't bother.

• In the end, they all walk away with the realization that we are much more dangerous to the industry than the mindless followers of fashion who are downloading RIAA music.

Because we're in complete agreement with the RIAA on one thing -- no one should share their music, let others listen to it or even allow an RIAA song on their hard drive. Since every version of Windows ever made has file sharing on by default, the door is wide open for the RIAA to sue you for simply having it.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but they're suing people for being ignorant of the actions their system software is taking without their knowledge. That is not the same thing at all because one would have to violate the DMCA to be aware of this unless Microsoft tells you.

If not understanding how your computer works is a crime, the first person they need to lock up is Mary Beth Peters, the current Register of Copyright for the United States, who may well be the most computer illiterate person I have ever met in my life.

From the immortal words "This website and movement is absolute crap" to the ending "I look forward to continuing this verbal sparring session," there is not one word which our visitor offered to make me consider listening to an RIAA product, much less buy it.

We don't want to steal the RIAA's music. We want the entire damned industry shuttered and burned to the ground.

gdZiemann said: "We don't want to listen to them any longer. We have 60,000 songs we can listen to for free, here at our sister site, dmusic. And if we get through all of them, we can cruise over to garageband, where they claim to now have a catalog of more than a million and a half songs -- three times as much as iTunes.

All free. It's not stealing, it's advertising. There is no law prohibiting us from offering it or endangering you for downloading it."

Do you have any downloaded music that has been copywritten by a professional, not an independent musician? Independent musicians benefit greatly from the internet and p2p FS. I don't think there is any problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people who download music that is not theirs and was never intended to be free for free. If you are boycotting all music protected by the RIAA (aka copywritten material) then go for it.

"That's not correct at all. I used to pay studios all the time so we could go and record demos. We discovered that most studios are populated with people that insist they are the only ones qualified to judge how I want my music to sound."

I don't know what studios you have been to. Not this one. We are about artistic freedom and integrity. Don't assume you know me. Secondly, we are arguing, I thought, about whether or not downloading someone else's music, who wanted to recieve money for it, for free. If you want to argue with me and try and tangle my words thats fine too. I do not work a record label, I am a studio manager, I make my own music for myself and noone else, I was unable to think of anything better to call that, so I said 'Independent Musician'.

"You also may have missed the name of the site. It is Boycott-RIAA. We do not promote the downloading of major label music. We do not promote the LISTENING TO of any major label music. We are encouraging everyone to turn off their radio, MTV, and ERASE EVERY MAJOR LABEL SONG from every hard drive they encounter."

If that's the case, then I did misunderstand the mission statement of your website. If you can honestly say that you have never and will never download for free any music that is that was intended to be purchased, then I will say all the power to you. Maybe you are this honest and true to your cause, but your telling me everyone here shares your intensity and will power?
-----
More later.

gdziemann said: "We've had radio station execs write in to prove in detail how little they know about the royalties they pay and who it goes to, supporting payola payback for those royalties. We ask them why it costs so much to get a record played and they disappeared."

If you are friends with the people at the radio stations, they play what you send them for free (aside from a box of chocolates). BUt to be friends with them, means you have to play by their rules, which I am willing to do, because while you all burn the system to the ground, we will be waiting with the money (because money rules all right? shitty but i think true), connections, independent musicians (because we have enough to be successful) to be one of the group's rebuilding out of the ashes.
-----
Had to do this one. More Later.
Also, don't expect me to run away with my tails between my legs. I have too much pride for that. If you can convert me to your cause, I say try, because I have an open mind and am willing to listen.

About my handle, 'TheJerk', I couldn't tink of anything else, didn't want to use my full name only to become hacked and spammed by people. If an admin has the ability to and wants to change my name to something else, go for it. Secondly, forthly is a word, it's just spelt fourthly.
---
Later for more, awehr and wet1 I'd like to write back about some of the stuff you said above, but it will take me a while as I have work to get done.

"Do you have any downloaded music that has been copywritten by a professional, not an independent musician?"

You just insulted 90% of all musicians in this country. the tens of thousands that are serious about their art ARE professional. Just because they don't play footsie with the music mafia recording industry. At least all of the indies know how to play insterments and don't need recording equipment to make their voices good like some of the so called professionals the industry deals with. besides I don't believe you are for the fair payment of musicians. you don't seem to care about musicians. only about the suits in the industry.

Id rather call you "The Insider". It's more respectful i think plus you work for a studio that deals with major labels all the time. And, I would like a tour of your studio to see it for myself. There's 2 sides to every story.

TheJerk: you have yet to answer any of my posts addressing your responses. You seem to be following the same tired line of

"copyrights are property" and "downloading is stealing".. i suggest you look back at my posts, for these premises are not a firm base to debate from.

Since you refuse to answer me when i quote the law and show you a logical basis for everything i've said, I'll simply copy this part of that post regarding copyrights again:

"but it doesn't change the fact that they own their music and therefore they have the right to put whatever price tag they want on it"

copyright does not equal ownership. I've done a lot of research on it in my spare time because i have strict moral codes. There are numerous exceptions to that right, and one of those is first sale.. if they sell something to you youre allowed to do anything you danmed well please with it for personal use. Noncommercial use has until recently been kept to a minimum by costs associated with copying, but the internet has dissipated those costs.. while i sympathise i really think it unjust to destroy people's fair use right and govern their stuff after they buy it as if theyre serfs.
Personal property is the foundation of capitalism. If people dont own what they buy then why buy it.. the economy is based on personal ownership.

"If you can honestly say that you have never and will never download for free any music that is that was intended to be purchased, then I will say all the power to you."

Since the radio is off and I personally only use p2p to post my own songs, I haven't heard anything that I've wanted to buy since 1999. And I pretty much haven't heard a complete RIAA song since about 2001.

Well, I watched three Paul McCartney songs in the middle of the Super Bowl. But that's okay, I own a paid copy of those songs.

"Maybe you are this honest and true to your cause, but your telling me everyone here shares your intensity and will power?"

Absolutely not. Sharing is bad, remember?

"We are about artistic freedom and integrity."

Unless the artist thinks allowing people to download is okay.

"Secondly, we are arguing, I thought, about whether or not downloading someone else's music, who wanted to recieve money for it, for free."

We can't be arguing about that, because it isn't even a complete thought.

No, we're arguing about you saying that our purpose was to steal the RIAA's precious gifts to the universe. We don't want them. Get a clue or get a ride home.

Radio -- The "rules" currently demand a half-million dollar check to be in the box of chocolates. That's payola and it IS against the law.

"we will be waiting with the money (because money rules all right? shitty but i think true), connections, independent musicians (because we have enough to be successful) to be one of the group's rebuilding out of the ashes."

Not if this question is on the application...

"Do you have any downloaded music that has been copywritten by a professional, not an independent musician?"

No, I'm stuck listening to Warren Zevon, Natalie Merchant, Marty Balin, Simply Red, Lester Chambers, Blues Traveller, Phish, the Dead, Pearl Jam and a bunch of other amateurs.

Do you have any samples that have been mixed by a professional, not an independent musician?

Correction to second paragraph of last post for clarification:

I pretty much haven't heard a complete RIAA song released since about 2001.

And I left out Todd Rundgren, another amateur by your standards, but here's what he has to say in case you missed it the first time around:

Music is a sacrament. This has been true for thousands of years of human history, save the last 100 or so. I'm sure it was not Edison's purpose to debase such an important aspect of our collective liturgy, but what would one expect when something that was once ephemeral and could only be experienced at the behest of other humans is reduced to a commodity on a shelf.

The mechanisms of music, how and why it affects us the way it does, are still mystical even to a cynical older record producer like myself. Anyone who denies the depth and power of this medium has simply forgotten, in the face of the relentless Philistine argument, that all things can be commoditized regardless of their sacred origins -- that all music is worth exactly what the RIAA says it is.

Most musicians who have enjoyed any success under this model are in an ethical bind: On one hand, you may believe that your survival depends on effective marketing of a commodity; on the other, you realize that your truest expressions are being trivialized to fit properly into a prealloted space. How many times have I heard the argument, "Love the record, but we don't hear a third single -- back to the studio"?

I must remind my fellow players that for the vast majority of history we have only been appreciated for the quality of human expression we could produce at the moment. Great performances were only memories in the minds of those who witnessed, each unique except perhaps for the calliope at the local merry-go-round which was, of course, a machine.

The plain reality is that, except for a few notable aberrations, musicians will always be more appreciated, certainly in a financial sense, by live audiences than by labels and the listeners they purport to represent. The seemingly quaint idea that recordings were promotion for great performers is no less true today. Ask Phish.

Ask also whether, as a musician, you ever believed the RIAA was actively protecting your interests until they got into a fight with their own customers and started using your name, your so-called well-being, as justification. And when the customers became skeptical they became the enemy. And to follow the RIAA's logic, customers are therefore the enemies of musicians. Let us ignore the fact that if you ever got compensated for your contribution, it would have been because your manager and lawyer (and many before) forced the labels to recognize your labor in financial terms.

The reason why the RIAA comes off as a gang of ignorant thugs is because, well, how do I put this -- they are. I came into this business in an age of entrepreneurial integrity. The legends of the golden age of recorded music were still at the helm of most labels -- the Ertegun's, the Ostins, the Alperts and Mosses by the dozens. Now we have four monolithic (in every sense of the word) entities and a front organization that crows about the fact that they have solved their problems by leaning on a 12-year-old. Thank God that mystical fascination with the world of music has been stubbed out -- hopefully everyone will get the message and get over the idea that the musician actually meant for you to hear this.

The RIAA protects musicians like the musicians union protects musicians: They reward hacks and penalize those outside the system. The labels are not making this stink out of principle. They are not interested in the rights of musicians who don't sell any records for them. That myth was exploded when Warners dropped Van Morrison for "lackluster sales."

This stink is about a bunch of dumb-asses blaming the public for doing what the labels could have -- and should have -- done 10 years ago. I know because I told them so, each and every one individually and relentlessly: Put the music on a server so you can deliver on-demand services to people's homes. Seems so stupidly simple now.

After nearly 40 years in this business I know who my friends are. I know it isn't the labels who lost interest in my "fringe audience" decades ago. It is that fringe audience who still await any recording or performance I may come up with despite the RIAA trying to drive some symbolic wedge between me and my listeners just because their ass is in a sling. Don't do me any favors.

Audiences and musicians are on the same side. Musicians come from the audience (unlike record execs who come from the ranks of failed musicians). We experience together the mystical sacrament that a musical performance can represent. Additionally, we will be comfortably if not handsomely compensated by that audience if we can deliver a suitably affecting performance with some regularity.

It's time to let the monolith of commoditized music collapse like the Berlin Wall. Musicians can make records if they feel like it, or not. Wide open pipes are ready to transport us, mainstream and fringe alike, into the ears of an eager audience who appreciates us and is more than willing to financially support us. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand because ... you know the rest by heart.

Published in Hollywood Reporter -- Oct. 22, 2003

awehr I haven't had time to respond to your yet because you make a lot of good points, however I have some things to say which you can take or leave, but they provide the view point from across the line.
As for compmore this needs to be set straight right now: "Date: February 10, 2005 @ 2:03 PM
"Do you have any downloaded music that has been copywritten by a professional, not an independent musician?"

You just insulted 90% of all musicians in this country. the tens of thousands that are serious about their art ARE professional. Just because they don't play footsie with the music mafia recording industry. At least all of the indies know how to play insterments and don't need recording equipment to make their voices good like some of the so called professionals the industry deals with. besides I don't believe you are for the fair payment of musicians. you don't seem to care about musicians. only about the suits in the industry"
You need to stop getting offended so easily. If a statement like that offends you, you must get offended a alot. To clarify for all of the nit-pickers out there, I didn't determine what the difference is between a professional and an amatuer. Here is the difference (according to dictionary.com) a professional: Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer. An amateur is: A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession. Therefore independent musicians are by definition amateurs, especially you who doesn't plan on or believe in anyone making a living as a result of their music. Secondly, don't presume to know who I am or who I care about. You are taking a 'snippit' (spelling? - word?) of something I said, interpreting (incorrectly I must add), and then going off on a rant about how I insuted 90% of the musicians in the world. No, I only insulted you and the other people who didn't take the time to try and understand what I said. Stop assuming you know, what I stand for or what I am about or this debate won't go anywhere because I will be forced to constantly clarify what I am saying when it is all there you just need to listen (read).
-------
I will be back later, to continue this, but calling me names, and assuming you know me won't get you anywhere and it is why, like was explained by I think gdziemann, why industry people (notice i didn't say professional so as not to offend anyone) don't take you or your movement seriously. If you can convince me that what you are doing is the way it should, I will gladly promote this movement and your site and will help fight for your cause, but if you continue to insult me and my intelligence we will have nothing to talk about.
------
gdZiemann said: "I pretty much haven't heard a complete RIAA song released since about 2001."
You are a true revolutionary then and I applaud you for your passion, your will and your fight.

gdZiemann said: "And I left out Todd Rundgren, another amateur by your standards, but here's what he has to say in case you missed it the first time around:"
Stop holding me accountable for the fools who invented the words professional and amateur. I didn't write the definitions, I can only use them. Stop assuming I hold independent artists as less than compared to professional artists. All I'm arguing is that professional musicians, musicians who intend to make a living off of their music, should not have their music downloaded for free! If you want to give away all your music for free, go for it. Also go to ProSoundNews.com and see about a company who is developing technologies to help fight what awehr was upset about. There are things happening and your revolution has and will continue to make changes. File Sharing hurt the industry until the industry realized it wasn't going away and now everyone is adapting or failing. So seeing as how I still have a job, you might assume (if you (anyone) like to assume things) that my business is adapting.
-----
Back later for more, if I'm still welcome?

One more thing, check out this website, read some of the posts, articles, arguments.
http://www.musicunited.org

It's not just the record label execs who aren't happy with the content that they invested time, money, whatever in being traded for free.

Hey TheJerk, change your name to The Insider. You are welcome here anytime.

"Stop assuming I hold independent artists as less than compared to professional artists."

Obviously there is an internal hypocrisy there which you cannot resolve. Todd Rundgren is an independent artist.

"Therefore independent musicians are by definition amateurs"

This is just butt-stupid and wrong. Independent musicians are by definition, simply not members of the RIAA labels roster of indentured servants.

Amateurs are the people who play in the closet and are afraid to step up on the stage when the big dogs show up.

What I'm arguing is that professional musicians, musicians who intend to make a living off of their music, know that an mp3 is a sad substitute for a real recording and is an ad for a CD, which is an ad for the next tour, at which point the CD becomes instant memorabilia if you can catch the customers at the end of the show and they haven't drank their entire party allowance.

Real professionals know that an artist's greatest enemy is obscurity, not overexposure.

No one is going to buy your record if they haven't heard a song they liked. If they can't hear the song without paying for it first, they're not going to buy the record.

I hadn't seen the link to musicunited.

No, you're not welcome back if you're promoting or linking to RIAA artists.

Shmoo, please remove that post.

I wasn't offended, just pointing out that many indies are professional under your definition and therefore would take offense. By lumping them together outside of the professional definition (IE the only musician who can support themselves are the ones who sign with a record label.

"All I'm arguing is that professional musicians, musicians who intend to make a living off of their music, should not have their music downloaded for free!"

George I didn't know you never intended to make money off of your music?? or any of the other Dmusic Professionals.

but I do agree with your statement. if the artist who actually OWNS their own work (I exclude lawers and corporate hacks who steal copyrights) doesn't want their music downloaded or shared, their wishes should be respected.

"File Sharing hurt the industry until the industry realized it wasn't going away and now everyone is adapting or failing."

this is where there is disagreement. it is not true. if that were the case they'd still be loosing money this year and they've actually reported sales as up while downloading is increasing. during napster the industry had their best sales ever. once they killed napster the combination of the boycott and the sour economy is what hurt the industry, not downloading.

If they are adapting it is only to maintain the monopolisitic stranglehold. again I say you are not interested in artists at all from the statements you've made.

Every artist at musicunited and the Recording Artists Coalition (all comprised of RIAA shills), is at the top of our list of people not to listen to.

Once again, seek out and delete every song ever recorded by every person listed at either site and the problem ends. Take the CDs back to the record store or melt them down.

There are only about 120 of them. It shouldn't take too long. Answer their prayers and put them out of their misery.

There are a quarter million other acts waiting patiently to be heard. If you don't want us to listen to you, fine. Sell it down the road, pal.

If the artist actually owns their own work, they must be independent. RIAA artists do not own their own work.

File sharing has hurt the industry like radio did in the 70s when they would say "Get your tape decks ready, because it's Friday album hour and we've got Abbey Road, in its entirely, uninterrupted and commercial-free."

People who do not create music and bitch about downloading are interfering with my right to make a living by demonizing my promotional avenue.

I'm getting really sick of it.

I stand corrected george, thanks

gdZiemann said: "No, you're not welcome back if you're promoting or linking to RIAA artists."

So I can't use anything in defense of my artguements. This seems a lot more like communism and than anything else that was mentioned above...

gd - record label exects, studios, "professional" artists, store clerks, etc don't care about bands who aren't signed sharing their music for free. What they care about is when then their music is pirated, which is what napster, mp3.com and Kazaa were all founded for. If you don't purchase, listen to or acknowledge the music that is produced by the "professional" music community, the record execs, studios, 'professional' artists, store clerks, me, etc don't give a shit about you because you don't buy music anyway. We aren't upset with you, we don't think what you're doing is wrong, YOU DON'T EXIST. We don't think about you, because you are a 'moot' point. You are a radical like George W. Bush (not radical for the same reason obviously - just so someone doesn't assume i'm trying to say something else) who's mind will never be changed, therefore we don't care about changing your mind or wether or not you buy the music we create. We do however care about the people with 18,000 RIAA certified songs on their computers that they got for free.

awehr, I am still pulling together information (with sources) that contradict some of what you say. That is not my 'field of expertice' however it is that of some of the people who work with/for me everyday, so therefore, I will be voicing what I have learned from them as I am not a tech guru. However as I said before ProSoundNews.com carried an article today which I think addressed some of this issues that upset you above. If I am wrong about that, please explain, because as I said before, I am not a tech guru - I know what I have to know tech wise (not completely illiterate).
------
Tomorrow is another day, see you all then for more arguing, name calling (surprisingly this has been low for such a heated topic) and anti-music business talk!

let me ask you this then, what do you say to people like me, who have purchased music and then ripped the cds on his/her computer to listen to and burn whenever they want. I wanna hear what you have tosay. I'm not sharing it on Kazaa nor any file-sharing app.

"We do however care about the people with 18,000 RIAA certified songs on their computers that they got for free."

why? they don't own ships or wear eye patches. again the courts have consistantly struck down terms like pirates or stealing saying they are inacurate.

Just curious I have many songs on my computer ripped from legally purchased Cd's. other people I know have downloaded hundreds of songs from groups for nostalgia purposes that are not avaliable anywhere through so called "legitimate" channels. how is this hurting you or the artists?

by the way it is not illegal to download. the question is weather sharing for personal use is a form of fair use or copyright infringment. Since you're sensitive about correct terminology you may be well served to listen to the courts instead of the RIAA PR machine that is trying to brainwash the public about pirates, and downloading is illegal.

gdZiemann said: "No, you're not welcome back if you're promoting or linking to RIAA artists."

The Jerk said: "So I can't use anything in defense of my artguements."

That's not true. It's just the rules. Post a Kazaa link on an RIAA artist message board and see how long it lasts. I told you it's not welcome, but it's still there.

"record label exects, studios, "professional" artists, store clerks, etc don't care about bands who aren't signed sharing their music for free."

And we don't care about them, either, which I why I don't even get what your point is, other than to spread the misconception that downloading is somehow immoral or illegal, neither of which is true.

"We do however care about the people with 18,000 RIAA certified songs on their computers that they got for free."

We do, too. We're trying to figure out how to get them to erase the RIAA tunes and replace them with ours.

"Wide open pipes are ready to transport us, mainstream and fringe alike, into the ears of an eager audience who appreciates us and is more than willing to financially support us. Get out of the way if you can't lend a hand because ... you know the rest by heart."

"We aren't upset with you, we don't think what you're doing is wrong, YOU DON'T EXIST."

This is a far cry from "Because of what you people do, your stealing of music..."

And begs the question, why are you here then?

If this is how you feel about independent musicians, we'll spread the word and make sure everyone knows how you feel, Mr. Studio Manager. And so we add Long View Farms Recording Studios to the list of companies to watch for on record labels and not buy product produced there, much less consider using it for our sound recording needs.

You no longer exist.

"THE BOTTOM LINE: PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO, MUSICIANS ARE NO DIFFERENT."

They aren't different to us, but to the labels - yes. I think you misclicked. That should have been sent to riaa.org

"wouldn't you be upset if the people just walked around the counter grabbed whatever they wanted and walked out."

What does that mean? Is that some kind of sick and twisted comparison between copying and stealing?

And remember - McDonalds PAYS their employees. The artists make their own money at concerts. Your analogy is officially blown out of the water until McDonald's employees start putting on their own private food-serving shows where people pay 30 bucks a pop to go see them.

When McDonalds can sue people for making their own hamburgers, then it's the RIAA.

Actually 'TheJerk' is right, dmusic and the artists on it are thieves. The law says that the 4 to 8 most sigifigant notes of a song are all that matters to determine substantial similarity and that to prove infringement all that is necessary is to prove access (radio play) and substantial similarity. The odds of even a randomly generated song (using radioactive decay for randomness) not being substantially similar to a song owned by the RIAA labels is very small. Therefore, almost all the music on dmusic is illegal and downloading it is stealing. THE LAW SAYS THAT THE RIAA LABELS OWN ALL MUSIC AND ANY INDEPENDANT ARTIST THAT CAN'T PROVE THEY NEVER LISTENED TO THE RADIO IS GUILTY OF STEALING IF THEY TRY TO WRITE THEIR OWN SONGS.

"wouldn't you be upset if the people just walked around the counter grabbed whatever they wanted and walked out."

Yes, but that is not what is going on.

When you make a copy, you are duplicating an intangible item, which does not deprive the origional owner of the "property," which is required for theft to be charged under the law. The loss of potential (get the key word) sales is also present, but not nessecary for theft. The correct term is copyright infringement because you are makking an illegal copy against the wish of the artists/copyright holders.

That is why copying is copying, not theft.

Yes, I have checked out musicunited.com. It is full of myths, and contridictions. (The RIAA says they support legal use of P2P programs, but they have a page dedicated to (on that site) not on adding legal sharing material by p2p networks, but how to remove the program/disable sharing. Ironic, right?)

"awehr, I am still pulling together information (with sources) that contradict some of what you say. "

I hope those sources are credible.. because a vast majority of so called "sources" are little more than RIAA influenced puppets.

Keep in mind the most comprehensive studies which show no relation between filesharing and lost sales were from HARVARD.

He lives in Massachussetts. If you don't say "havahd," he won't understand.

"The loss of potential (get the key word) sales is also present, but not nessecary for theft"

The loss of potential (get the key word) sales is actually a proper definition of "Fair Competition" as defined in a free market economy.

When you open a lowes across the street from Home Depot you're "stealing" their potential revenue with every shopper you attract. Why dont we arrest all those evil people shall we?

Great analogy, awehr.

George--don't give McDonalds any ideas. Remember, whenever you make your own hamburger you are, in effect, depriving them of a sale. Or was that the RIAA? I forget.

And the difference between amateur and professional is simple. One gets paid, one does not. Just like sports, supposedly.

One other point--why do you think we should buy something we cannot return (except for another copy of the same thing) without first hearing it? You don't buy a car without driving it, you don't buy a house without seeing it, so why do you think we should buy something basically on faith? If the RIAA had any faith in their music, they'd stop trying to lock it up so tight.

"The law says that the 4 to 8 most sigifigant notes of a song are all that matters to determine substantial similarity and that to prove infringement all that is necessary is to prove access (radio play) and substantial similarity. The odds of even a randomly generated song (using radioactive decay for randomness) not being substantially similar to a song owned by the RIAA labels is very small."

Actually, the probability for this has recently appeared on a different website, but it's not as you mentioned.
Using a base of nine million songs for a reference point, and those eight notes, along with varying intervals, the odds of creating a new tune that is litigiously similar to an existing song is one out of seven. Once you've created four tunes, the odds are better than fifty-fifty that one of those tunes will be found (inadvertently?) similar enough to warrant copyright violation in a court of law.
I say inadvertently because the plaintiffs will use, as you say, the argument that the creation stemmed from an existing song heard on the radio, even if long ago.
George Harrison was successfully sued for having "My Sweet Lord" be too similar to the hit "He's So Fine" (by the Chiffons in the early sixties), and had to pay substantial damages.

"Once you've created four tunes, the odds are better than fifty-fifty that one of those tunes will be found (inadvertently?) similar enough to warrant copyright violation in a court of law."

I can state for a fact that this is true. I can't even count the number of "original" tunes that various bands I have been in wrote, until one of us goes "Wait a minute. Play that again."

...and then sings the REAL original song, at which point the rest of us go, "Oh, no wonder we liked it so much."

And sometimes it doesn't matter.

Blue Öyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" is the exact same pattern as the guitar lead in "Stairway to Heaven" (Am G F G) and actually at about the same tempo. It just doesn't seem the same because it is played differently.

We also know from the courts that John Fogerty (sp?) cannot help it if he sounds like John Fogerty when he worked for a different label.

Funny that TheInsider (original name still appears to be "TheJerk") doesn't get it. People will pay for music. But people didn't want to pay $15 for a CD with ONE GOOD SONG on it. Try and find that song as a single, and either it wasn't there, or it was an IMPORT single for $10. I know I tried to buy many songs that way. Never found them. Only "Top 40" was good enought to release as a single. Great consumer choices, wouldn't you say? So the consumer sought other ways to meet their demands. Thus P2P was born.

Therefore the RIAA labels did this to themselves. And now they fight back by suing their own customers. As an MBA in Finance, I don't think such a strategy will work. Of course, you don't need to have an MBA to realize that.

Finally, why are the labels really suing? It's to prevent what you are terming "amateurs" and what I will properly call "Independent Musicians" the exposure they need and can't otherwise get via P2P file sharing. That's right!! The RIAA wants to close P2P completely to eliminate the competition! Why not, doing so would guarantee future fortunes beyond belief, since they would truly have a monopoly on music then. Last time I checked, eliminating competition could be considered a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act.

Since the Home Audio Recording Act allows making PERSONAL COPIES of music for PERSONAL USE (and I should point out that it did not specify those "copies" should be owned, thereby allowing taping off FM radio), and since anyone that downloads MP3 files from P2P networks would be crazy to use them for anything OTHER than personal use since they are clearly inferior to CD songs, why does the RIAA care so much? CONTROL. MONOPOLY. ELIMINATE COMPETITION... that's why.

A little off side comment here. An observation if you will.

Folks, Boycott-RIAA is getting a bit of attention here. We have a member here who is part of the music industry. "Insider" as I think most would prefer to say but whatever. The fact that he is here speaks of the web-site. Doesn't matter if this is by random coincedence or by the industry itself. I am not one big on conspiracy issues everywhere you turn, don't wear a tin foil hat either.

The point is that this site is making a splash out there. People are hearing of it, reading it, referring to it, and more and more are seeing what is said. More are hearing of this issue of attempts to change and alter the law in behalf of the "content providers". Most of the attempt being through back door politics. What Joe Public doesn't know he is starting to find out about. From college activitives to grass roots, the news is going out.

Mr. Jerk,

I know you have many things being thrown at you, and you can't respond to every little thing, but I do think it is instructive that several studies of downloading have concluded that the impact is small or nil. One of the most carefully controlled studies, which I mentioned in my earlier post, done by folks at Harvard, concluded that there was no statistically significant decline in sales due to downloading -- this study directly tracked downloads and sales correlations in real time.

So even if we granted your point (only for the purpose of argument) that downloading major label songs is stealing, the question remains whether that really matters to the business. Is it really hurting business? Apparently not so much as captains of industry would have the public believe. Not even a fraction as much. Common sense dictates that some sales are lost because people who would have bought the music simply download it and never purchase. But common sense also dictates that people are exposed to music through p2p they wouldn't have heard otherwise, and some of those people buy the albums.

But the heart of your argument is that if you have a copy of a song you didn't buy, you are stealing.

This is just nonsense, sir. Ever since cassette tape recorders became commonplace, people have been recording songs from the radio. I did so in the early seventies. I never purchased many of those songs. Was I a thief? Perhaps by your personal standards. The recording industry always maintained that what I did was illegal. But Congress settled that question in the early 1990s with the AHRA legislation, which specifically states that no infringement action can be brought against people who make noncommercial analog or digital copies of music. When the law was written, source materials would have been CDs, LPs, tapes, and radio.

We can establish that this noncommercial copying is legal. It is written into the copyright law, for goodness sake! DId you ever bother to check that???

Then along came internet p2p. The volume of noncommercial copying of music has increased. But conceptually, how is this copying any different from making a cassette tape of a record I borrowed from a friend?

Legally, the copying-is-stealing argument has no weight.

Legally, unauthorized p2p may fall under the category of distribution, and therefore there might be a legal objection on those grounds. I am no legal expert. But I can read copyright law, and there is at least some support for the notion that p2p is simply another form of noncommercial digital copying technology, which is covered under the American Home Recording Act.

autodidact forgot to include something:

The only reason the argument is getting anywhere is becuase these industries have been conducting insidious forms of psychological warfare against the individual american citizen for years now. This is the reason why they didn't wage suits from the start.. they KNEW their claims were based on a loophole in the AHRA which a judge could easily close. They had to firmly drive propaganda into the news lest the news laugh in their face and proclaim their lack of reason.

"Jonatha Brooke, Folk-Singer/Songwriter: "It pisses me off and I resent it. I spent $15,000 on my Web site."

That was off of the website TheJerk listed.....wowzers.....15k on a website? damn no wonder she is pissed and can't make any money. Could of made 4 more albums with that and had a website...but what do i know?

If I spent $15,000 to create a web site, I certainly wouldn't tell people. I feel wasteful because I'm going with the $50 a month plan instead of $19.95.

Maybe she had to pay a license for the use of her own name.

And just a guess, but I bet there isn't any music on it.

the jerk could not go to your web site that you put in. protowall would not let me. must be RIAA.

With proper research you can find a website with enough bandwidth to host a tracker for 25 torrents at $150 a year. 15k is obscene.

After reading thru this guy's website, I know why he's so pissed.

Musicians are building studios in their homes, thus cutting off this guy's gravy train.

If I were musically inclined, it would be more beneficial to the creative process to be able to hit the studio at 2am & lay down tracks or vocals, instead of having to make arrangements for studio time, at which point the creative spark is gone.

Besides, sound quality of CDs is fine, it's the songs themselves that suck ass. It's just good sounding suck ass songs (RIAA tunes that is).

If this guy wants to see the real reason he's not making money with his studio, take a look at the crap being vomited from the RIAA maw, realize no one wants to buy that shit, thus no reason to spend big bucks recording the next album because it'll be just as crappy as the next one.

While I'm rambling (no coffee, no focus...), a local AM station was going on about Fantasia's (sp?) single "Baby Mama". They started flipping thru the rest of the tracks on the CD & while they didn't say it, they went BACK to "Baby Mama" since that was apparantly the only thing worth listening to.

That my friends is the reason CD sales are lower. Entire CDs which are nothing but glorified CD singles with 14 B-side tracks. Yet, filesharing gets blamed because its much easier for the RIAA to point the finger at someone else rather than at themselves.

You know, if the recording industry gets their way, they will do away with the compact disc, and force everyone to buy digital rights protected WMA or AAC files online. I think that is their dream world, if they had a secure DRM. Because their inventory and distribution costs would sink to near zero.

But the sound would still suck. So then you'd have the situation where it would be pointless for most musicians to try for good "studio sound." John Mayer said as much in a recent Esquire column -- essentially he said that if people are listening to his music from poor quality downloaded on computer speakers or boom boxes or cheap portable players with junk headphones, why in the name of common sense should he spend hours in the studio trying to get the microphone positioned just so in relation to his guitar amp?

So if you axe me, the recording industry's greedy dream of crappy compressed digitally rights managed music files that we all downLOAN, not own on CD, is a bigger threat to recording studios than people trading compressed music files on p2p.

Mike/TheJerk: As a consumer my verdict is done for the RIAA: Guilty! The sentence is total boycott! While my personal feeling does not matter you must understand that this is reflecting the feeling of hundred of millions of music customer worldwide.

So stay with the major and die or joint the indies (the non-profesional as you call them!) and get a fighting chance!
Welcome to the new music industry!

Wow, I sure missed a lot yesterday. (Slept my butt off and then only got online for a minute or two after I got up because I had a lot of personal biz to take care of.)

I am very glad this thread "took off" the way it did and I want to thank all participants, including (or especially) our instigator "TheJerk/Insider" (Ben.) I am very pleased that the rudeness and name calling has been kept to a minimum. Let's always try to remember to act with such civility here at Boycott-Riaa. Our goals are enhanced and advanced when we get beyond petty name calling and get down to real debate.

I would love to see other folks who might see themselves as being "on the other side" like Ben to show up. (Ben, do you know any major label folk with your kind of courage that you could convince to roll around in the mud with us? They KNOW we are here, but they fear us and ignore us because I think they know we are right.)

RIAA honchos:
You are invited to come here and spar anytime!

Thumbtack (Bill) - check your Dmusic notes!

Indeed Carlton, they stick their fingers in their ears and hum lullabies to themselves.

"TheJerk", is apt name for this "character" at least in "Rated PG" terms. I'm almost tempted to quote a saying by Mr. CD A. Aah has for whiners.


In a way similar to awehr, I'm an audiophile, only with an infinitesimal budget.

I simply can not tolerate 99% of what music is on the Internet simply for quality concerns. (Having exquisite hearing is a curse [Especially when your neighbors have dog whistles]) But having Wav files takes way to much space. And there aren't enough media players that have FLAC support to make it worthwhile. 192kbps VBR mp3s is a decent balance. But the best I've seen from both p2p and RIaa's payola sites is 160kbps CBR. (Which is noticeable and begins to grate on my ears [I'm not mentioning 128kbps])

Although I buy Cd's, I do not buy new If I can help it, (RIAA or not) simply because I can't afford it.
There are several Riaa bands I can (and do) enjoy Evanescence, Cold, Disturbed, Motograter which I buy albums of (USED of course)
and if I knew of a way to donate money to said bands (that I knew would actually reach them- not their labels), I would.

I listen to foreign bands for the most part, such as Charon, Iced Earth, E Nomine... simply because there is little if any redeeming qualities about American music these days.

I’ve heard this guys argument before. First, people who are the main targets for downloads via P2P are still going to top rated studios. This is not his target clientele.

The customers this clown is losing are being lost to home stupid setups that over time, cost a fraction of what rented studio time would cost. Digital is digital and the software is available to the public now. What needed to be done at a studio 10 years ago is now down effortlessly on a MAC.

He just wants a reason to justify his losses and his antiquated business practice. A good example would be speaking to someone who was just fired from their job. How often does the newly unemployed person state that it was entirely their own fault they are out of work?

I hate spell check... Home STUDIO not stupid

Important editor's Note about the contents of this thread, in an effort to educate absolutely anyone at all.

"wether" is not even a word.
"weather" is the state of the environment around you -- temperature, preceipitation, barometric pressure, etc.
"whether" is a conjunction intended to be used in almost every instance on this site that says "wether" or "weather".

weather I like it or not, I must whether the shame of not being able to say wether I will ever be able to use the correct spelling right off the bat, or whether I should just pick a different word.

Hey George, I linked the NPR thingy with the offending bits silenced on the NPR thread for ya.

Cool, thanks shmoo!

It's always been about control and competion which = money as the bi-product.

The entertainment industry wants to control the distribution mechanism, marketing, promotion, financing, scheduling and the acts themselves. By monopolising all of these as well as other things they retain market leadership and keep any form of competition at bay.

The internet and P2P in general takes all this away from them. Witness release schedules as an example. Instead of being able to get an album by say U2 promoted at THEIR discretion via radio and TV on 'select' tracks from an album (Thus preventing the general public from hearing there are only a few 'good' tracks on the album and not worth the purchase).

Now a leaked album gets on the net. Everyone gets to hear THE ENTIRE album and can decide for themselves whether it's worth the purchase. Same goes for movies etc.

The Independent Musician and market is a 'threat' to the big name labels.

At last consumers have the opportunity to hear a wide diversity of music outside the big labels control (Clear Channel, MTV, VH1 etc).

At last people can now support acts by attending concerts and buying their music and getting better value through 'try before you buy' on the internet. As said 'better to give away some of your music and get recognition than lock it all up and remain forever in obscurity'.

The media industry (TV, Radio and Publishing) is the culprit whilst the big labels are the instigator.

"Now a leaked album gets on the net. Everyone gets to hear THE ENTIRE album and can decide for themselves whether it's worth the purchase."

The RIAA/MPAA (or someone in the artist's camp) often leaks these things themselves. They know damn well that p2p is a great promotion tool. If they could keep indie stuff off it, they probably wouldn't even bitch and moan about filesharing at all.

Whew! Long thread but good. I'm pretty much with y'all on the boycott of (current) RIAA product, except what about the music of ages past? Why should that stay buried in the vaults forever? There's some great stuff that needs to be heard again - RIAA product or not. So what if people are downloading older, out-of-print stuff?

I'm sorry Mr. Jerk, but I don't even see how that portion of P2P is hurting your business.

"What about the music of ages past? Why should that stay buried in the vaults forever?"

You wrongly assume they still exist.

http://www.billholland.net/words/vault2.html

'All that's old stuff getting thrown out to make room in the vault.'

wow, interesting. they wanted to throw the stuff away untill someone found a way to share and enjoy it with others. now they act like it's a gold mine

independentmusician,

I think you hit the nail on the head why the RIAA is so hellbent to destroy filesharing.

Indeed those leaked CDs hit the net, & indeed music consumers get a chance to test drive the whole product (not just the parts the RIAA wants to let them use) & then make the determination whether (weather?) or not to spend hard-earned disposable income on the CD.

Leaked CDs in the past have saved me countless dollars & undetermined amount of anger at the music industry for producing crap & having the balls to charge top dollar for it. I for one got sick of getting screwed evertime I bought a CD & it turned out there was only 1 song worth listening to.

U2s new album sucked ass, Erasure's new one sucked ass, Eminem sucks ass (though I do like the videos), Fiddy Cent sucks ass,...

I'm sure I could rant on about all the performers that suck ass (take a look at the top 100 - all suck asses, every last one of them) but I need to leave room on the boycott-riaa.com server for other postings.

compmore -- Holland's story provides a crystal-clear pictures of the attitudes of the major labels and STUDIOS (the topic) toward musicians, music, our culture and the importance of preserving it, which can be summed up in one brief paragraph that encompasses every facet of the RIAA.

The artists and their music is disposable the moment it fails to produce a profit. If they can't make a buck on it, they'll destroy it so that no one else can.

HAAHAHAAA!!...this is long after the point..but I had to say something. This person who spent 15 000 on a website?...Good lord!

When I see that kind of stuff....it tells me that those people have no reason to bitch or have much reasoning ability to argue this kind of stuff. It just goes to show how lnaive they muct be..and how easy they are ripped off.

No wonder these fools sign big label contracts..lol!

Well i know its been a very long time since i posted but here i am again. I junior at PSU majoring in Software Engineering.

I support file sharing, I support downloading anything for personal use is FAIR USE! (yes laws disagree with me currently) Im a programmer and i feel this way.

People that respect my work will pay for it whether or not they can get it for free. And honestly anything I have ever programmed all i care about is knowing its being used. Just like me being a drummer all i care about is being heard. And I know all other musicians here can feel the same way music is about being heard not locking it away from those who don't pay.

I am a republican and i feel very much that copyright law is so against the fundamentalist republican belief to keep the government out of our lives and our businesses. Telling us what we can and can't do with our computer is so totalitarian its not even funny.

The time of the control of the media in all essences is at an end. The internet is true freedom, we must never let anyone transgress that. In a war over the digital age of freedom I would gladly risk my life to the one final place where freedom exists entirely uncircumvented alive.

"People that respect my work will pay for it whether or not they can get it for free. And honestly anything I have ever programmed all i care about is knowing its being used."

I think that's a great perspective. Personally, I would disagree with you, but maybe you have a future with open source - which is something that everyone should support.

If I were a programmer, I would definitely be upset if people downloaded a program I worked on instead of buying it. The reason for that is that my pay would depend directly on the profits of the company. The music biz is clearly completely different. Artists recieve negligable compensation for record sales and the RIAA gets money they do not deserve through some tactics that should be illegal and others that clearly are illegal.

Just my opinion on the copyright/software side of things. In no way should this make anyone think that I support DRM, because that's a whole different issue. Digital lockdown.

"The internet is true freedom, we must never let anyone transgress that. In a war over the digital age of freedom I would gladly risk my life..."

As would I. And the fact that you are saying that says something about the condition of our country right now and the current balance of power. The internet is the last frontier, until one of us establishes a colony on our own planet.

The internet is full of good and full of bad. It's a culmination of everything that is human. From works of art, to blogging, promoting peace or hate, to porn to child porn.

But those things existed before the Internet existed, and those who aren't fighting to destroy the net for their own selfish reasons, are fighting to destroy it because they believe the internet is the cause of some of those terrible things.

Nobody ever stopped to think for a moment. Nobody ever said that it is thanks to the internet that the issue of child pornography has been brought to the public and the government's attention. That's better than having it occur while people pretend that it doesn't exist. People find it easier to say the internet causes the problem. Cameras existed before and so did the urges of mentally sick people. That's just a different perspective. The internet isn't evil - people are. The same applies to good.

But fallatious reasoning is being fed to the public and to Congresss. And Congress could not care less anyway as long as they get some personal cash out of it. Again using child porn as an example, those children are being exploited by the RIAA as well as anyone else using it as a reason to lock down the net just as much as the sick sick bastards who are exploiting them to begin with. They are merely pawns in a war against P2P. If P2P was shut down, the RIAA would never speak of child porn again, and everybody knows that. What's further is that shutting down P2P would not solve that problem anyway. And unfortunately relatively few people seem to know that. It's misplaced blame. And the ones feeding the public the bad information know that. Clearly, nothing is sacred anymore, but when someone has something to gain - people like to pretend that some things still are.

As with all things, the solution will be found in some middle ground. As for now there primarily exists two extremes. Freenet is an example of the side that vows to protect the internet and digital freedom at all costs, claiming that the cost to govern it is too great. And on freenet, both great and terrible things can be found, but it's free. The other side sees the internet as a cesspool or even a cancer. Where people can steal your credit card information, look at illegal porn, or "steal" music from artists depriving them of their "royalties." The view that the internet is an "evil" thing I would think is more common among the brainwashed public than the people actually spreading the propaganda to begin with.

That was long. But I, like you, would die for my freedom. We must value it above all other things, because it is fundamental to happiness and living the way we ought to be able to live simply by virtue of being born and being human - see: inalienable rights.

The RIAA just represents one angle of a 360 degree attack against the internet. They are the pioneers. They started it. And they were allowed to start it by the citizens in this country who no longer value liberty. Maybe this country is so great that this will eventually become a blip on the radar screen as far as people trthe cying to steal freedom from the people. Or maybe the ignorance and stupidity of ommon person in this country will finally begin to outweigh all of those "checks and balances." the end.

i can't say how the word "trying" somehow became "trthe cying." and that's stupidity of the common person. son of a .. EDIT BUTTON. Pleeeeease.

my post of corrections almost didn't make sense either. i quit!

If the purpose is communication, Sherm, you achieved it. We don't give brownie points for spelling and grammar. We do, occasionally give demerits, though...

welp..this is it. I really shouldn't post this here...but i just had to only because of the topic. This is my contribution song and response to the RIAA.

Its a little coarse..but no worse than what the labels put out.

Description - Jeff Foxworthy...rockabilly..comedy. I wrote and recorded it over the last weekend. It has explicit lyrics..and if that kind of thing offends you...then this song will offend you. Don't listen with kids around.

Disclaimer...
Contains explicit lyrical content and may offend some listeners. For listening by adults only (which means 18+). The opinons expressed and performed in this song do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site...or anyone associated, owning, or administering Boycott-RIAA. The piece is a copyrighted work by me..however freely distributable..and can be used..with permission and credit.

Now with that said....click on the link below to download....but just remember...because of the nature of the song...by clicking the link and
downloading you are agreeing that you are 18+

http://jodynicks.dmusic.com/music/download/195586/.82f4da72

You sure know how to spark a persons curiosity Zxilton. now I'm gonna have to download it when I get home from work.

No matter, Sherm. Good speech!

Let me disagree with you nicely.

darkened03 said --

"And honestly anything I have ever programmed all i care about is knowing its being used. Just like me being a drummer all i care about is being heard."

I created one piece of commercial software, a basketball stats program for the Mac, designed for and marketed to high school coaches. I placed a demo version on the web, which was fully functional, but you could only keep stats for four games.

Sold it for a year or two and made some money off it, but every day I'd get a call saying, "this is great, but if it just..."

Mac released System 7 and my compiler ceased to function, even though my program compiled in it runs fine in Mac OS9. But I couldn't work with it any longer. It is what it is.

I found out that AMUG (Arizona Mac Users Group) had put my demo version on their BBS in a Box CD, which was becoming the source of all my calls. So I just gave them the complete program, called it shareware and let the world have it.

Once in a while, I hear from someone who wants to know if I still do databases.

Sometimes people e-mail me to say they liked a particular song.

That's more valuable to me than making a sale. The sale is nice when it happens, but my intent in recording music is to record my music, to capture the emotions and intensity that I envision.

I want my ideas to outlive me. The best way to do that is to get a copy to every person in the world and hope 1/100 of one percent of them like it.

That's a really small niche for the music biz, but for me it would be something like 600,000 fans.

Odds of reaching them if I call them thieves and refuse to let them hear me without paying for it first? Infinitessimal.

Some things money can't buy.

I admit I downloaded songs, I used my p2p as a radio to find new artists. I never burned a cd tho I could have. I found Sheryl Crowe on P2P and bought one of her albums. Would have bought more til they called me a pirate and thief and threatened to sue me. Now I no longer buy any artist or listen to any artist affilated with the RIAA. I spend my time listening to the free music on DMUSIC, Garageband and others. And supporting those artists when I can. So I can see how P2P is costing them lost sales, they lost me forever. I NO Longer EXIST to them, and they no longer exist to me. AND today alone I showed DMUSIC to 3 new converts, who left here to go try out some real music from real musicians, that I let them listen too. So Jerk, count me in all that lost money you are no longer getting cause I no longer exist to you. And ever friend I can convert is 1 more that no longer exists. I hope you saved lots of money for when all your customers no longer exist, because thats where it is headed.

As a footnote, I had a girl come in here with a notebook full of cd's and I ask her where she got them. She said she borrowed CD's from friends and burned them. Even she knew a mp3 is NOT EQUAL to a CD. Yes I am sure some on P2P burn cd's from what they get, but I doubt very much it is a lost sale, because if they hadn't got them of of P2P, they would have done they same as this girl had.

I NO LONGER EXIST TO THE RIAA

YEA YEA YEA YEA YEA

R

That's cool, George. Good for you.

When I said what I said, I wasn't necessarily saying that I would never invest time in something that I would not profit off of. But if I had a product that I was selling in stores and me/my company got the profits and my salary depended on me/my company's profits, then I would be upset if it was downloaded.

But that's kind of beside the point. We need more share/freeware and less greedy people. I downloaded the newest version of OpenOffice today (1.1.4). If I had the abilities, I would love to contribute to something like that. Or anything for that matter. Good for you, for sharing your talents free of charge =)

Hi, comp! (that's all, just haven't said hi in awhile)

i ended a sentence in a preposition! edit button!! just kidding.. well, not about the preposition part

"I want my ideas to outlive me. The best way to do that is to get a copy to every person in the world and hope 1/100 of one percent of them like it.

That's a really small niche for the music biz, but for me it would be something like 600,000 fans.

Odds of reaching them if I call them thieves and refuse to let them hear me without paying for it first? Infinitessimal.

Some things money can't buy."
------

*sniff* that brings a tear to my eye and a lump in my throat.

Bravo!

You see Ben....You'll find that there there are as many views on the subject as there are musicians. I, personally have never used a p2p. But then, I don't like rap either. I also do no begrudge those who do. My motivator to join this cause is the current state of copyright. It should be your too.

Which copyright extentions going into centuries, there is nothing moving into public domain. As a matter of fact, right now, everything created in my lifetime, my parent's lifetime and most of my grandparent's lifetime, my children's lifetime and my grandchildren's lifetime will be released. This totally unatural approach of making ideas real property benifits corporations that claim them as their own, but stiffles evryone else.

The two worst affects of this are in the fact that nothing is created from scratch. There isn't an artist on the planet that can't readily tell you who influenced them in creating their own style. THe cartel would have these people paying royalties for this at time in their career that, most likely, they cannot afford to do so.

The other affect is laziness. Why should these people come up with anything new? They have a perpectual lock on everything already, they'll just keep releasing it. Your chossen field is a prime example. A lot of the slowdown you feel is simply a byproduct of no new recordings.

Despite the claims of these people, there is no silver bullet. You can wipe out the Internet tomorrow, and it will not change my mind or the others who frequent this forum. I will not buy today's offerings nor will I re-buy yesterday's.

I resent the fact they they feel like they need to control my movements. I believe in copy oenwer rights as described in the law. Remember Ben, the law specifically denies these people full complete ownership of creative works. Some of the rights they illegally claim never belonged to them in the first place. By their own hype, this would make them thieves since they are claiming an ownership they know they never had.

They also deceive the puplic on a constant basis. THey run adds like "own it today" and "pick up your own copy" and then, after the money changes hands try to change the terms of the transaction. How would you feel if you bought a car and then, a week after you paid for it, the dealer showed up with log chains and bolted it to the curb because the deal did not include the right to drive it. But (like napster) for a little extra money he would let you drive it back and forth to work. Now if you you varied from the manadated route, the engine would burn up. Oh, and of course, you can only put the prescribed gas in the tank and use only RIAA oil.

Remember Ben, these guys are all convicted felons. Every one. THey have all ben convisted for anti trust of deception of some sort. I make it a habit not to do business with thieves and liars. As fro theses guys, they have made a lifelstyle of commiting such deception that demostrates they have no intentin of rehabilitating. But until they do, I will not do business with them.

Oh and Ben, I'm sorry your business is hurting, but as you correctly pointed out, that's life. In order to make a statement with a boycott you have to do financial damage. The limbs are the first things that using dry up. I, too do not believe in downloading music, but I totally disagree with the blanket statement that it is illegal. Downloading anything is not illegal or the Internet would not exist since it is totally based on downloading. We have already made it clear that we don't want the junk that is being regurgitated ny7 the labels, so getting it off the Internet would be a good thing. As a matter of fact, if they really want to keep it all to themselves then why don't they just simply not release it? It would make me happy! They all get together, say once a month, and listen to each other's crap and then lock it back in the safe when they're done....Oh, I forgot, they need us in order to make money. The cold reality is that all the mythical millions they claim this stuff is worth is not real with an audience. It's not the music itself that has value. It's the value placed upon it by the listener. In their case, there doesn't seem to be much value.

I have been following this thread for a few days now, and feel I must say...

Great job guys!

You have all raised some great points in here. I can't wait to see 'the Jerks' reply to Awehr, if he ever gets around to it. Awehr seems to have gotten him pretty good, as it is taking several days for him to get his s**t together on the issues Awehr has broguht up.

Way to go Awehr! ( Stands. starts to clap )


To 'the Jerk'

You did not need to come in here, and slander us to get our attention. The career position you hold gives you a somewhat "insider" status. That status alone would have been enough to get our attention, as we all would like to hear the thoughts of a so called "insider". There was no need for the childish name calling, and false accusations.

"A song heard, be it through illegitimate means, or unauthorized downloading, is better than a song not being heard at all"

Why is that your beloved puppet masters in the RIAA can't see this logic?

I believe you told everyone to try and convince you into joing the cause of this site, am I right? There is nothing we need do, as everything is laid out right in front of you. Look beyond your niche of the industry. Look at the corruption and lies, and tell me that deep down inside, you approve of the way the major labels do business. I know you porbably don't care as long as you, and the studio you work for, are making money, but if you can put selfishness aside for a moment, and take a look at how screwed up the recording industry is, you might understand more about where this site, and others like it come from.(talk about a run on sentence! wow!) If you have any concern for the futare of music, as well as our consumer freedoms, you would join the cause.

Now as for all downloaders being thieves. That is just pure B.S. What makes you, or the RIAA for that matter, so arrogant to think that everything shared on the web is copyrighted? Why do people like you not believe in fair use? That's what I would really like to know.

Downloaders are not thieves, and it is wrong to call them such a name. They are highly aware consumers that know what they want, and only wish to spend their money wisely. They are fans of music looking for that nostalgic song that the radio will never play anymore. They are people who are tired of corporate mush, searching for a new sound to please their ears. They are fans of music, who are replicating their vinyl collection with digital copies, so they can listen to their albums anywhere they choose. They are, for the most part, honest hard working people just like you, who mean to do no harm to anyone. They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, the whole nine yards. They are music fans spreading the gospel so to speak. Most importantly, thay are the consumer. Don't mess with the consumer. That should be any corporations #1 rule of thumb.

Free downloading of intellectual property is not doing any real harm to the industry. The real harm has been pointed out. Competition. Competition is finally catching up to the music industry, and it seems the major labels don't know how to play the game anymore. They got comfy, and forgot how to play by the rules, so they are trying to change the rules to better suit themselves. In my opinion, it is not right, or fair to the competition.

The music industry also got comfy with having total controle over the past few decades. The net came and took a lot of that controle away. I really think that is what this all this boils down to. It's not about people getting to sample intellectual property for free, it's about CONTROLE. They like to have controle over the consumer, becuse it helps them controle their bottom line.

I have a few more questions.

Is downloading from the web really any different than the tape trading of the past, or burning a friends copy to CD? The only difference is the number of people we now have to share with. In my opinion, it is fair use. Nothing will change my thinking on that either.

Most major label bands say they do not care if you download their music for free. Should a fan of one of those bands be called a thief for downloading a song for free, when they have the artists apporval? Oh that's right, the label/publishers own the music, so I guess it's wrong for an artist to encourage their fans to download their own music. What a crock of s**t.

Why are you so against free downloading, when it has been proven that free downloading is not the cause of any real harm to the industry? Why are you blamming downloaders for your business's slow down, when it is not even their fault? Why do you buy into such nonsense? It's that kind of blind leading the blind attitude that will bring the entire industry down.

You say your business is ready for the futare no matter what it may be, right? Didn't you say you will be there in the end? How can this be possible, when your eyes aren't open wide enough to see that the RIAA's justification behind all this mess is pure B.S.? How the hell can any of you have the foresight to be there in the end, when you can't even see what the real threat to your own business is? Blamming downloaders for your studios own shortcomings is just as bad as the RIAA doing it. It's a sad way to point fingers in every direction, but in the direction the problem truely lies.

Until the high courts of the land rule that downloaders of intellectual property are thieves, you are wrong on this issue. Downloaders are not thieves until that day comes(if it ever does), and no matter what you want to call them, they are not the cause of your business's lack of patronage. Maybe you guys should lower your operating cost, so you can come down to a competitive rate with other studios. Maybe everyone that works there are not giving %110. Ever think of that? Maybe you have all become to complacent, just as the labels of the RIAA had become, and it is showing in your work. Personaly, I don't know, I'm just shooting this across your screen to see what you think.

It damn sure isn't the downloaders/comusmers fault.

It's really sad in my opinion, that the RIAA is feeding the moraly gullibal this pirate line. It's even more sad that there are so many moraly gullible sheep in this country, buying into anything that is put in front of their face. Even if it placed there by the crooks themselves.

The moraly gullibel sheep are the people this site needs to reach out to, becuse they are not going to go out of thier way to find this place.

Music piracy has existed since the begining of copyright laws. It will always exist. The industry has always survived despite it's existence, so there is no reason to think the industry will crumble due to people exercising their rights to fair use.

Raiders757

he won't reply. the dumbass thinks we're defending downloading RIAA music despite the big "boycott" in the title of this website. some people are stupid, he's one of them.

Sherm, good comments, thanks.

About commercial, for-profit software...

The last piece of software I bought blind was Microsoft's FoxPro for the Mac, which was
a) utterly the worst database program I ever used, and
b) not really for the Mac.

The scrollbars (like the one that just appeared as I was typing into this comment box) clued me in to all of it.

Called M$ to ask how to make scrolling windows in FoxPro. You couldn't, unless you create a series of graphics to illustrate the various states the scrollbar may be in, calculating how far the cursor is into the text, blah, blah, blah.

I hung up and threw the software into the trash.

Scrollbars are part of the Mac's core operating system, one of those software black boxes that doesn't require you to reinvent the wheel. You just program a request for the wheel. It is built into the system and has been since 1984.

I would no more buy a piece of software without extensively test-driving it than I would buy a guitar without playing it first.

Since this whole "downloading is theft" hysteria has started, I haven't bought much more software than I have RIAA music.

In fact, I just check my applications folder and so far this century, I've bought exactly four pieces of software. Everything else has a copyright of 2000 or earlier.

I stopped downloading software. As a result, I haven't seen one single new feature offered by anyone that is worth the money to replace the things I already have that are working perfectly.

I can't disagree with you there.

"he won't reply. the dumbass thinks we're defending downloading RIAA music despite the big "boycott" in the title of this website. some people are stupid, he's one of them."

Actually, he HAS replied, many times.

We have been in contact via e-mail and I think he has learned a lot from us about our TRUE attitudes and opinions! (I won't claim that we have totally converted him or anything that drastic. But we have planted seeds.) Remember folks, there ARE real folk who work in the industry (like Ben) who are used to things "as they were" and who have a huge adjustment to make in order to "get with the program."

Not all of the RIAA's minions and slaves are evil. But many of them are blindly comfortable with the old paradigm. When we find and identify those lost souls we should try to take them by the hand and direct them twords the light before we shoot them out of hand.

This goes for the poor RIAA artists too (except for a few like hmm, say... Lars Ulrich, whom are un-repenting.)

The day people can download merch is the day that the music industry will truly have a reason to conplain like it is now. It's not like the big bands like metallica arent gettin rich enough through royalties of all kinds. The world nowadays has music in all of its elements. Local (small) bands who aren't big enough to get their CDs out to be ripped and downloaded aren't sufering at all, and that's the way they like it.

"Local (small) bands who aren't big enough to get their CDs out to be ripped and downloaded aren't sufering at all, and that's the way they like it."

What a completely stupid thing to say. Yeah, we love obscurity. We don't want anyone to know our name or hear our music.

Suffering? Oh, hell no. We like playing 5 hours for a $25 beer tab while the drunk asshole in the back who has been sitting there for 30 years is still yelling out "Free Bird" after every song.

That's the way, uh-huh, I like it.

"Which copyright extentions going into centuries, there is nothing moving into public domain. "

Isn't that what the REAL problem is? Originally, copyrights were ALLOWED to be for 14 years, renewable for another 14 years. If that were so today, all of the music released before 1975 would be in the public domain, where it should be. Instead, all of this music that should be in the public domain won't get there in my lifetime. Is that consistent with our constitutional requirement of LIMITED Copyright?? I think not.

The intent of our constitutional forefathers ALLOWING copyrights to exist was to generate creativity. Now, with copyrights extending until 70 years beyond death, not only is creativity crippled, but so is our economy. That's right, our economy would benefit significantly from music being in the public domain. Funny how you don't want to blame our downtrodden economy for your problems, MrInsider (TheJerk).

Suck copyright extensions also contribute to the Rich getting Richer, a concept most of our Congressional politicians follow as much as possible, which is why they passed these extensions in the first place.

The McDonalds comment was funny. I wonder how many of us actually work in fast food?

Anyways, I'm network/a+ certified and hold the same job that I've had for the last 10 years; Profesionally working on PC's and compatables. So much for flipping burgers... Although, I do like those fries.

In some sick and twisted way, I'm glad to hear of this persons misfortunes. Perhaps as I eat another pile of those cholesterol enriched fries I love so much, I'll rip and release another CD.

"Obviously there is an internal hypocrisy there which you cannot resolve. Todd Rundgren is an independent artist."

Todd's latest release is on CMC, which is listed as a member on the RIAA site. I believe CMC is now Sanctuary, also an RIAA member.

Sanctuary signs up artists who were once signed to major lables and sold a lot of records, but are no longer considered viable by the majors. These artists have a built in fan base and Sanctuary does well with them by having low recording costs and marketing budgets.

"Now, because of all you people who download music, musicians record most of their music at home on their pro tools rig. What this means is this: Music sound quality will go down the drain (and it already has)."

Oh come on now, douchebag. You know that the major labels with their a&r hacks and their clueless execs are directly responsible for the ruination of sound quality on major label releases. Now fess up. Go on. You can do it.

Well I thought I'd never say it, but thanks for the clarification, mroop.

Unfortunately it's not entirely accurate.

Todd let Sanctuary distribute a live album, 13 years after it was recorded. Low recording costs indeed.

Album info:
Artist: Todd Rundgren
Album: Love Is the Answer
Year: 2004
Label: Akarma
RIAA Radar result:

Safe

This album was found not to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

======

Album info:
Artist:Todd Rundgren
Albumne Long Year
Year:2000
Label:Artemis Records
RIAA Radar result:

Safe

This album was found not to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

=========

Album info:
Artist:Todd Rundgren Albumomething/Anything?
Year:1994
Label:Mobile Fidelity
RIAA Radar result:

Safe

This album was found not to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

========

Album info:
Artist:Todd Rundgren
Album:Nearly Human Tour Japan 90
Year:2003
Labelanctuary Records
RIAA Radar result:

Warning!

This album was found to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

=======

Album info:
Artist:Todd Rundgren
Album:Re-Mixes
Year:2003
Label:Brilliant
RIAA Radar result:

Safe

This album was found not to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Album info:
Artist: TR-i
Album: The Individualist
Year: 1995
Label: Digital Ent.
RIAA Radar result:

Safe

This album was found not to have been released by a member of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

"Unfortunately it's not entirely accurate."

It's accurate. I checked Todd's latest release "Liars" and it is on CMC, which is part of Sanctuary - which means Todd is currently on an RIAA affiliated label.

As far as RIAA Radar listing one album, CMC has actually released a ton of live Todd albums from the past - none of which were previously released.

More screwups from RIAA Radar:

"Artist:Todd Rundgren
Albumne Long Year
Year:2000
Label:Artemis Records
RIAA Radar result:

Safe"

Artemis is listed as an RIAA member and I think they have some sort of relationship with Universal.

"Album info:
Artist:Todd Rundgren Albumomething/Anything?
Year:1994
Label:Mobile Fidelity
RIAA Radar result:

Safe"

This is of course a reissue that was originally released on Bearsville, which is now part of WMG I think. So the RIAA label licensed to Mofi and gets licensing fees and royalties. How is this RIAA safe? It's not!

Well I just did a little googling. Bearsville was distributed by WB when they were in business, but I can't find anything to indicate that they were gobbled up by a major after they went under. My Rhino cd's say they were licensed to Bearsville, so Bearsville may not have sold their rights.

Very cool, Mr.OOP. We need your input.

"My company, Artemis, is not a member of the RIAA. We haven't sued any of the people."
Danny Goldberg -- CEO, Artemis Records.

Goldberg was replaced yesterday, so things may change.

Just because someone is on the RIAA's "member" list does not necessarily mean they're really a member. It means they won a gold record.

Here again reflects the very real problem of identifing what is and what is not "copy recording holders" property. Even for people that want to know for the purpose of not using the material. How can anyone identify a song, album, or work as being or not being "owned property". (Giving up for the minute if it is their property to the extent they claim.) What I am saying here is that the majors have intentionally kept information to what is or is not owned. It has been done so to delibrately imply that all heard music is their music. As a result, those that use p2p have no clue what to d/l and what not to download. Filters aren't going to work to identify said material. Even those that attempt to do so get it wrong.

The point of this is that if you have property you don't want trampled on you put up signs saying No Trespassing. There are no signs on the horizon I see for readily identifing 1's and 0's as being owned property. Looking them up doesn't work because those with the information to do so aren't forthcoming with that data and purposely so.

The demonstration of that is above. Two people that both have the skills to go look and find entirely different answers. No one can truely id what is and is not major music works with accuracy. So you think 12 year old kids should be able to tell? In a nutshell, this is part of the problem.

The Jerk said - "don't expect me to run away with my tails between my legs. I have too much pride for that."

Well where the hell have you been the past few days?

"...Those that use p2p have no clue what to d/l and what not to download. Filters aren't going to work..."

A reliable piece of software I wish someone would come up with that could be used in connection with a file-sharing service: identifying a given song as having DRM or not

"don't expect me to run away with my tails between my legs. I have too much pride for that."

I didn't know monkeys had tails.

Congratulations on all your pride though. If I were you, I'd kill myself if I didn't have it.

http://www.ooze.com/ooze13/images/finger/grandma.jpg

Our guest is from Longview Farms, a well known Massachusettes Studio.

He is welcome here. We can stand the heat, if he can.

That's official.

The point is simple.

Evolution of business will happen.

Youn can't hold onto a dying practice if there are better alternatives out there. In the United States you must learn to compete. Do you think milkmen blamed all the people buying refigerators because they were putting them out of business. No, they found a way to compete, refigeratable milk cartons.

The music industy, if it want's to survive, must learn to compete. I will grant that it is difficult to compete with free, but there are ways you can sell a competitive product. Fore example, using non-DRM music but adding benefits like non-virus Mp3's, online music storage, behind the music features, and guarenteed downloading. You may have to sell your recordings for a few cents each, but when you have millions of people who want a legal, easy, and enjoyable way to listen to your music the money will come in. You simply can't continue to sell CD's for $18 and reach a generation that has grown up with the concept downloading, it just won't happen.

Hail Mp3!!!

The point is simple.

Evolution of business will happen.

You can't hold onto a dying practice if there are better alternatives out there. In the United States you must learn to compete. Do you think milkmen blamed all the people buying refigerators because they were putting them out of business. No, they found a way to compete, refigeratable milk cartons.

The music industy, if it want's to survive, must learn to compete. I will grant that it is difficult to compete with free, but there are ways you can sell a competitive product. Fore example, using non-DRM music but adding benefits like non-virus Mp3's, online music storage, behind the music features, and guarenteed downloading. You may have to sell your recordings for a few cents each, but when you have millions of people who want a legal, easy, and enjoyable way to listen to your music the money will come in. You simply can't continue to sell CD's for $18 and reach a generation that has grown up with the concept downloading, it just won't happen.

Hail Mp3!!!

I welcome differing viewpoints, but not when he hopes someone steals from me or says anything in all capital letters. Sorry Larry.

Sorry about double post. Browser screwed up. I guess IE needs to learn how to evolve as well.

Hail Mp3!!!

No, it hasn't. http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Wow... no news from TheJerk aka TheInsider since Thursday.

You think he gave up on us or could it be that the RIAA found out he was posting here and threatened to "Boycott" the studio that he manages?

I"m not happy with all the name calling when the man's not around. One thing essential to level debate is respect. While he definitely showed signs of lacking it, it makes the exchange much less productive to do the same.

That's the point of a message board. We don't have to wait until everyone's together.

Actually, I do use Firefox. I am just slowly transitioning from IE. I am sick and tired of it's vulnerabilities.

Fixefox will destroy IE.

Hail Mp3!!!

awehr is right. turn the other cheek, kill them with kindness etc..... If we want this debate there has to be respect.

keep in mind he came here totally expecting to get lambasted and started off defensivly as a result.

There can be no debate without two parties--and one party doesn't seem to want to dance anymore.

"keep in mind he came here totally expecting to get lambasted and started off defensivly as a result. "

And then continued by being, I believe, deliberately insulting to the independent musicians he knows are here.
He didn't really come to debate, he came to give us a piece of his mind, and was surprised to find out we all have plenty of "mind" of our own.
No weak targets here, no more fun for
TheInsider.

'My company personally is being hurt because the record labels aren't making enough money to send their artists to high quality recording studios, like mine'
Then do what any proper capitalist does- if your target customers can't afford your product/service, reduce the price. It's how the real world works, try living in it rather than your 'everyone owes the music industry a living' fantasy land.

Started off defensively?

"This website and movement is absolute crap."
There's the first sentence. Doesn't seem very damn defensive to me.

"Now, because of all you people who download music, musicians record most of their music at home on their pro tools rig."

Again, much more offensive than defensive.
The last time he was here he dismissed all of us as nonexistent.

If this reflects the attitude of "well-known" studios, they should not be surprised that we'd rather do it ourselves.

I've been waiting for 30 years to to be able to bypass the studios. It has nothing to do with downloading. It has to do with studio engineers.

hey, i let you guys get in a solid 100 posts before i responded.

We are not debating him. We are debating the content/issues brought up by his words. Please ignore any percieved rudeness that he started off with. Sure, it's a lot more fun to debate a live and in the flesh person than to always just be responding to articles and news items. If we want to draw more flies, we need a little honey.

Show those with opposing views that have the courage to show up at least that much respect. After all, they gonna get their butt stomped anyway because we are right and they are wrong. Most of the industry insiders know this and I think it is part of the reason they stay away in droves.

They know DAMN well we are here!

"One thing essential to level debate is respect."

The first thing for any sort of dialogue is to talk. Rare to get them to talk unless they feel someone is going to listen. Can't do that while calling names, gets in the way.

I know our visitor started off that way, expecting to be lambasted from every side. Well he was lambasted but not exactly in the manner expected. This is the way you deal with folks in a debate. Kill them with reasonableness. If you are going to make your points then they have to be heard. Hollering names right off the bat, closes ears. Thats not exactly what we are after when someone from the other side of the fence comes knocking.

This guy came with the idea that it was p2p that was causing the slowdown of his job. No more no less. He bought the industry line hook and all. He came here to blame for his misfortunes. But there is little here in the line of acceptance for that blame. Here the industry has made its true mark. I suspect that the "Insider" or "The Jerk" might have found some food for thought. That maybe, just maybe, all isn't as it appears.

ok I bit my tongue as long as I could

I'm hung up on this statement

"Ever wonder why most new bands sound like shit live? It's because they are used to computers fixing everything for them. "

does this mean that they suck/have no talent/ are manufactured by the industry?

if so should we be surprised that they are struggling?

how many more live appearances of assly simpstone do we have to endure before people get the message she has no talent

Maybe the studio should consider cutting the prices for indies--cut out the labels completely. Or would that be too expensive?

All this time I thought most new bands sound terrible live because they're talentless hacks that are successful because the industry makes them into whatever they want to force feed the public, and they can do so much with computers that it doesn't matter what you sound like (i.e. ashlee simpson)

And now to find out that they just sound bad because "they are used to the computers fixing everything for them."

I guess Ashlee Simpson would be living up to her true potential if she wasn't used to being fixed in the studio. But since she's used to it, I guess her talent disappeared completely. Yeah - that's what happened.

"Sherm", you're right!
(Clever post, too.)

NOTE for current (or would-be future) RIAA artists:

You might have a wonderful first album or two, but when you let the RIAA own you, your music's "fire" "innovation" and "quality" will eventually go to hell because it is the Devil you sign the contract with. Once you sign, it is no longer your music that you make. (That first album or two was really what you did before you signed.)

Part of the "One Hit Wonder" syndrome?
Methinks.

Somebody google "Fighting Words" and check the placement.

"Maybe the studio should consider cutting the prices for indies--cut out the labels completely. Or would that be too expensive?"

But ShadowMom, everyone knows that true talent only comes from a trust fund. If you have no money, you must not be very good. Poor people in a studio? Puh-leeze.

They don't have time for the riff-raff. That's why they charge big bucks to play in their barn in the first place.

"One thing essential to level debate is respect."
The first thing he said was that we were all crap and the last thing he said was that we don't exist.

Only a fool respects someone who treats them with contempt. Respect must be earned.

I hear Britney Spears sister is getting into the act. wonder how long she'll last.

Britney who?

Re: "...war in progress"

Challenger-protagonist evacuates battlefield; premature end of war.

Why, thank you for your comments Mr. Jerk. They are quite engaging. Now let me put on my monocle and pour us some tea so that we can discuss the issue at hand and reach a mutual understanding as soon as possible. Please, allow me to shake your hand. You're wonderful. Why don't you bend over - I'd be honored if I could lick your butt before we begin.