I have a roots country band that's put out two self-released CDs and just signed to a small label in Santa Monica, CA. We've gotten great reviews, are touring nationally, and have high hopes.

In other words, we're about as indy as you can get, and I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists, as well as the big guys.

The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king. Well music isn't free. We're still $11,000 in debt from our two self-released CDs. It costs real money to record and manufacture a CD, and CD sales have been fatally hit by the widespread belief that music should be free.

If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice. Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads, or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music.

That's just how it works--no dough, no music. It's going to catch up sooner or later. And ironically, the big guys will survive--the big labels will sell music to TV commercials, or have enough visibility to sell downloads and CDs, but the overall plunge in music revenue will hit the indies first--in the long run.

The notion that everything's free--where did it come from? TV, I suppose. It's true, television is free. But when you watch TV, you're bombarded with commercials. If you want an uninterrupted movie, you pay for it, buying or renting a DVD. No one squawks about that, do they? Why should movie makers continue to get their money to create, and musicians and recording studios expect to not have a revenue source?

For society to work, we have to agree to certain rules of honor--when we pay 50 cents for a newspaper in a bin, we only take one newspaper. We don't shoplift, or most of us don't. We don't walk out of restaurants without paying. Because there wouldn't be newspapers, stores, or restaurants if we did.

To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal. If I give you a download, that's cool. If you take it from me, that's not cool.

I'd appreciate a response.

(Name and e-mail with-held until author wishes to disclose it.)
Los Angeles, CA
------------

I will see if this person wants to come play. --Shmoo

"For society to work, we have to agree to certain rules of honor--when we pay 50 cents for a newspaper in a bin, we only take one newspaper. We don't shoplift, or most of us don't. We don't walk out of restaurants without paying. Because there wouldn't be newspapers, stores, or restaurants if we did. "

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/ffi/ffi1.htm

This guy should read this first

"If I give you a download, that's cool. If you take it from me, that's not cool."

Hmm, are you comparing intangibles to tangibles? What a fucking idiot! If you "give" a download or not, you don't take shit from him, no matter what kind of moralistic euphimisms he tries to create.

Nobody is saying music should be free. It's up to each 'artist' to set what they want to do with their works. We do not condone distributing RIAA works or any other bodies works if the copyright owner does not wish it so.

Downloading for personal use is another matter though and is NOT illegal. Only the sharing/distributing of copyrighted works is. Yet none of this has been proven in a court of law yet due to the music industries 'racketeering'.

Get your facts straight before coming here to moan.

MP3user, please be carefull with what you "call" this guy. Sure, many of us here are gonna punch a ton of holes in his arguement, but let's not be disrespectfull. (I want the guy to come defend his points of view.) Besides, he is a real musician and a person to boot.
Let's all work together to show him the error of his reasoning and NOT make an enemy when we really have this opportunity to make a friend.

EVERYONE, PLAY NICE!
(That's an ORDER. Backed by the thread of having posts deleted if need be.)

Shmoo, aka Independent Musician
of Electric Gypsy
your humble Admin/Mod
Support Local and Independent Music!

"Only the sharing/distributing of copyrighted works is"

The files I downloaded are copyrighted yet the artist allowed me to download it.

thread = threat, and the ".'s" should be replaced by "!'s"

George, Tom, CodeWarrior, Larry...

I can't be online constantly these next couple of days, if you see anyone being too nasty, zap those offensive posts for me if I don't get to them first.

I will be back later with my own responses to this letter. Again, PLEASE argue the points, but do it RESPECTFULLY!

Dear Name Withheld,

I buy indie CDs. If the band offers a decent deal, I'll buy direct from their website.

However, I do not understand how you expect me to be able to evaluate your music, to see if I want to buy it, without being able to hear it for evaluation. This means either you have to stream it for me or let me download it. I and many others have been burned too many times. I am not going to hear one song, and "take it on faith" that the rest of the album is good.

Granted, some people will take a bad copy of your music (all MP3 files are bad copies, with about 75-90% of the data stripped out), and never pay you. But this will be offset by finding new audience.

Case in point: About five years ago I was watching the TV show Roswell, and I heard an arresting song over the final scene. I didn't know the name of the song, but they kept repeating the word "Undertow." I went to Napster and easily found this song, by the band Ivy. I downloaded everything else they had put on CD, and found it to be uniformly excellent. And then, I bought all of their CDs.

My personal experience confirms the data analysis done by some smart people from Harvard Business School, who did a study comparing actual downloads on p2p networks with actual sales. They found no correlation between more downloads and decreased sales. If there was any effect, it was too small for anyone to care about.

Another case or two in point: Many artists have begun giving away mp3s on their websites, and are very pleased with the results. Jill Sobule offers a rotating selection of album cuts and unreleased and live tracks on her website, and has done so for years. It is these tracks which make me want to buy her new album. Thankfully, she is no longer on an RIAA affiliated label, and I will buy her record, as I've bought several of her earlier CDs.

I am not a fan of Janis Ian, but she has also been an outspoken advocate of free samples as a means to stimulate interest and sales.

What makes you right, and me/Jill Sobule/Janis Ian wrong? Granted, they are not making as much as U2, but they appear to be making a living in music, which seems to be what you want to do. Why don't you follow their example, instead of walking around with a chip on your shoulder?

Here is the point of boycott-RIAA, as I see it. (I'm only a reader and comment writer, I have no connection with the site.) The RIAA labels are thieving liars. They are thieving because their contracts make it virtually impossible for any but the very top artists to make any real money. They keep artists on the hook with crazy contracts -- always keeping them in debt to "the man" -- and they cheat artists out of royalty money. They are liars because they blame downloading for loss of sales, when the recession, inability to develop talent that really excites consumers to buy, and a dozen other reasons is the true cause of lost sales. In persecuting downloaders, otherwise known as customers (I have been a downloader AND a customer), the RIAA is making a mountain out of a molehill, and there is real data to back this up.

The point is not that people shouldn't pay for music. The point is that the music should be worth paying for, and the artist should actually get paid. With RIAA labels, it is questionable whether either of these conditions are satisfied.

I am happy to buy CDs, at reasonable prices, when I believe the music to be well-crafted, and when I am not supporting an immoral business cartel like the RIAA. However, I do not believe that I owe every new artist a fee for giving their music a chance by downloading a low-quality copy and getting familiar with it. It is almost certain I won't hear your band on the radio, so if you want to be heard, you will probably have to embrace the new distribution model, and accept some freeloaders for the tradeoff of greater exposure. Whether that is right or wrong, it is the only realistic view to take in the new millennium.

OK I am going to disect this one a little more.
---
"I have a roots country band that's put out two self-released CDs and just signed to a small label in Santa Monica, CA. We've gotten great reviews, are touring nationally, and have high hopes."

OK that's nice....

"In other words, we're about as indy as you can get, and I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists, as well as the big guys."

Proof please.

"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king. Well music isn't free. We're still $11,000 in debt from our two self-released CDs. It costs real money to record and manufacture a CD, and CD sales have been fatally hit by the widespread belief that music should be free."

As mentioned above. Nopbody is saying music should be free unless you, the artist, want it to be. I see music shared on the internet as a promotioonal tool. Nothing has been proven that sharing music on the internet affects sales other than positively.

The fact you got yourself into $11,000 worth of debt seems to me you are doing it all wrong. If you are that good a band then you should be getting paid for gigs and paid by any label you signed to. If not. You are in the wrong business. Expecting to get paid for 'your talent' is always a risky venture anyhow. If you want a regular guaranteed wage go work at MacDonalds.

"If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice. Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads, or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music."

So only paid for music is good music? Pff!

"That's just how it works--no dough, no music. It's going to catch up sooner or later. And ironically, the big guys will survive--the big labels will sell music to TV commercials, or have enough visibility to sell downloads and CDs, but the overall plunge in music revenue will hit the indies first--in the long run."

I read the indies have had their best years sales yet. Your words hold no water.

"The notion that everything's free--where did it come from? TV, I suppose. It's true, television is free. But when you watch TV, you're bombarded with commercials. If you want an uninterrupted movie, you pay for it, buying or renting a DVD. No one squawks about that, do they? Why should movie makers continue to get their money to create, and musicians and recording studios expect to not have a revenue source?"

Indeed. Why should they expect to continually expect to get paid forever and eternity on a fading business model? It swings both ways.

"For society to work, we have to agree to certain rules of honor--when we pay 50 cents for a newspaper in a bin, we only take one newspaper. We don't shoplift, or most of us don't. We don't walk out of restaurants without paying. Because there wouldn't be newspapers, stores, or restaurants if we did."

You talk of material things. Digital bits are not material things. The copy is just that. A copy. There was no 'theft'. The idea of a 'potential sale' is a myth. Who's to say that person would have purchased the song in the first place? If anything it spreads the word about a worthwhile artist just like radio does. If anything I'd rather a better quality 'physical' CD to rip from then a compressed copy. In fact I regulary buy independent music on CD because I prefer the quality and want to have something tangible that I can do as I wish with and rip to any format I like to play on my portable digital music player.

"To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal. If I give you a download, that's cool. If you take it from me, that's not cool.

I'd appreciate a response."

As stated. It's not stealing. The definition of stealing is to deprive the original owner of something. When you make a digital copy you are not depriving the the original owner of anything.

Another point I'd like to make is that p2p is the new radio. And it is a heck of a lot more democratic than the old radio. So you should be thankful you actually have a chance to be heard. Not a big chance, but a bigger chance than with traditional radio.

Here is your challenge: make music that knocks me out, like Gordon Lightfoot, Jill Sobule, Ivy, Feist, Fountains of Wayne, Diana Krall, Artur Rubinstein (to name a few) and I will pay a reasonable price ($10-12) for your CD. (But I won't pay 99 cents for sonically compromised song samples.)

oh sorry man, I didn't mean to "steal" it from you. Tell you what, I'll listen to your music when they play it on the radio. of course if you think that $11,000 is high, wait till you have to pay clear channel.

"MP3user, please be carefull with what you "call" this guy. Sure, many of us here are gonna punch a ton of holes in his arguement, but let's not be disrespectfull."

I apologize, but I am under great pressure after a friend died yesteray in school.

*yesterday. Dang typos.

It would be great if this guy came, but after the "debate" (constant broken reccord argument shoving) with GetReal on WTD, I have to say to be careful that he doesn't debate in the same way.

(this guy debating like GetReal, I mean)

"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king."

Ever since 1921, there's been this thing called the radio, where people were allowed to listen to music for free.

The consumer IS king. If the consumer doesn't like your music, you're toast.

"If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice."

If you offer a few free samples (aka audibly inferior mp3 files), aand even taking the honor system into account, how would one tell the difference between the songs you are willing to allow as advertising for your CD and the ones that are so special they must be paid for (even if they ARE still inferior audio)?

"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king."

I don't remember anyone running this site or all the Indies that post hear ever say that. The oppisite is said. BTW the Consumer is King. Who do you think pays your wages??

The naivety of this person is amazing.

The odds of his band breaking thru the gauntlet thrown up by the Big 4 to potential customers via radio is slim at best. Just so you know, if you hadn't noticed it yet, independent artists are the true enemy of the RIAA. Mainly because you are direct competition to their music slaves.

It is the RIAA who are trying to kill p2p because they know it's a vehicle for an end around the music cartel radio payola monopoly.

You should sign up with DMusic.com because it allows you to control your own destiny...not some music executive scum who just as soon would leave your next album on the shelf than release it. Wake up and smell the coffee. I guarntee that you will make many more contacts and potential customers here at DMusic.com than just going it alone trying to sell Cd's after your shows alone. It certainly can't hurt, right? How many of those two CD's have you sold? I'm sure some internet publicity can only be a good thing.

I'll tell you one thing, calling potential customers theives only gets you contempt not record sales. The RIAA barely gets away with it because there are still a dwindling pile of morons who will fork over the last dollar in their wallet for crap put out by the RIAA, just because the Big 4 paid clear channel payola to play it over and over again.

Don't be like the RIAA...embrace your customers and stop acting like the world owes you a living.

I'm thinking this person and their band is probably trying to break into the "big" scene, where the "big" money is..in other words, an riaa union.

But if you think you're in hawk now with a little $11,000.00 debt, just wait till you start working with the big boys (if given the chance) $11 grand will seem like chump change!

I have a roots country band that's put out two self-released CDs and just signed to a small label in Santa Monica, CA. We've gotten great reviews, are touring nationally, and have high hopes.

>>>Way to go

In other words, we're about as indy as you can get, and I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists, as well as the big guys.

>>>Um Ok??? Please elaborate...

The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free,...

>>>Who is fostering this belief? Name names

that the consumer is king.

>>>The consumer is king!!!

Well music isn't free. We're still $11,000 in debt from our two self-released CDs. It costs real money to record and manufacture a CD, and CD sales have been fatally hit by the widespread belief that music should be free.

>>>How???

--Sidenote to Mike... If we are going to post people like this, maybe we should require that they read the mission statement... And then only post objections to the mission statement (I will continue...)

If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice.

>>>Correct

Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads, or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music.

>>>Hmmm, sounds like that's going on right now... We call that Big Business, the very thing we are trying to eliminate.

That's just how it works--no dough, no music. It's going to catch up sooner or later. And ironically, the big guys will survive--the big labels will sell music to TV commercials, or have enough visibility to sell downloads and CDs, but the overall plunge in music revenue will hit the indies first--in the long run.

>>>Actually, the indies are doing better than ever...

The notion that everything's free--where did it come from?

>>>Yes, where did you come up with that idea?

TV, I suppose. It's true, television is free. But when you watch TV, you're bombarded with commercials.

>>>Yep, the price you pay for free

If you want an uninterrupted movie, you pay for it, buying or renting a DVD. No one squawks about that, do they? Why should movie makers continue to get their money to create, and musicians and recording studios expect to not have a revenue source?

>>>Hey, maybe you're on to something... How about we open up a place like blockbuster for music. Charge people a buck or two to rent your cd's, and then if they like it, they could buy it, or just return it and not be out 10-20 dollars... Oh that's right, the RIAA wont have that because they can't see past their large money bags (Insert Dr. Evil Laugh here)

For society to work, we have to agree to certain rules of honor--when we pay 50 cents for a newspaper in a bin, we only take one newspaper.

>>>Damn, we do... oops... My bad

We don't shoplift, or most of us don't. We don't walk out of restaurants without paying. Because there wouldn't be newspapers, stores, or restaurants if we did.

>>>Or RIAA music... Please make this a reality...

To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal. If I give you a download, that's cool. If you take it from me, that's not cool.

>>>Um who are you??? As my man GD would say, The only thing worse than people "stealing" your music, is people not even knowing that you have music to steal.

I'd appreciate a response.

Well allow me to retort...

Please before writing this group again, take a moment, put down your tasty beverage, and read the mission statement... I think that if you had, you would not of wasted the precious time of this group and actually found us to be allies in your struggle... This group loves the indy... We give you a place to list your website on the open thread, and allow you to expand your groups sir... So please RTFMS... And save yourself some time...

Respectfully Submitted,
Robbin da Hood

"the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living"

This is, of course, a mere portion of my wife's rant on the definition of "musician."

What's the difference between a musician and a large pepperoni pizza? The pizza can feed a family of four.

"...play part time..."
You must admit that playing in a band is not exactly the same as working 9 to 5 at the Kibbles N Bits factory. Even when you're lucky enough to be working full time, it's still a part-time job. At night. In a bar or theatre or concert hall.

"...and don't make very good music."

Ashley Simpson did her debut performance on Saturday Night Live. The first time she ever stepped on stage, apparently. She lip-synced. On national television. Badly.

That's what we get from the record labels. These are the supposed full-timers you hold in such high regard.

If you think talent is a factor in commercial success, you must still be a young pup. It's never been a factor.

Dear Name Withheld:

You should realize that we know what's best for your career. I know it's your life, but we have determined that we have the right to tell you how to live it. So we are going to do what we want with your intellectual property even though you might not like it. Don't worry - we have a your best interests at heart. You are obviously misguided and you need our help. We are going to give you our help and you are going to like it. Are we clear now?

Take care,

Mroop

Geez. Last time I was mean, so I read it intending to be mature about it and you guys are ripping him a new one, lol.

Anyway, much of your argument seems to be based on this statement:

"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free..."

Shmoo runs this site, and he sells his music.

We're fostering a culture with choice (as in, the labels have a monopoly over mainstream music)

"We've gotten great reviews, are touring nationally, and have high hopes."

Great reviews don't put money in your pocket. In this day and age of overhype that has been practiced by the majors and movies studios, hype rarely affects customers as much. Your band is but one of literally hundreds of thousands of bands over several generations that had those same hopes. It is what the majors feed on.

"...I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists..."

I believe your responce is misguided also. How long have you looked at what has been attempted with both courts and legislature as turf protection? Do you understand the implications or are you just spouting out "good sounding phrases" in hopes the majors might pay attention?

Should the majors have their way, the internet will become the new tv, record store, software purchase place, and general market place. What could be wrong with that? Through past actions the RIAA and like have shown that player pianos, radio, tape, cd, dvd and any other recording devices would have been outlawed. So how would you prepose to get your songs on your webpage for sales without breaking the law in doing so?

If you believe in the sancity of copyright being good for long after you are dead, how will anything become public domain? It is after all the reason for copyright. To give the owner a "limited time" of protection before all can use it. It is not meant as a protection forever to any corporation or owner to retain from now until the end of doomsday. The original "limited time" protection as seen by our forefathers was 7 + 7. It was meant to encourage those that copyright to continue to do so. As it is now, the perversion of it will never allow you to have a public domain use of anything you hear or see in your lifetime. Do you think the results of that perversion haven't been stretched a whole lot out of shape? Do you believe it will never be attempted to be continued to be expanded yet again, when the likes of Disney is threatened once again with losing its precious control of the Mickey image? If you don't agree that it has been stretched all out of proportion then think about this. At some point, if you ever make a signed contract with the devil, you will never, ever see your work returned to you to make a profit on it. Not in your lifetime and very possibly not within your childrens lifetime. You think that fair?

"If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice."

If you are worried that your stuff will be stolen, tell you what. Don't put it out, it will remain yours always then. Personally, I am not going purchase anything I can't try first. That sort of leaves you out doesn't it? If you are worried that p2p is stealing your stuff, you should consider this. P2p is your best hope that you will be heard. That you might just be able to develop fans outside your normal playing range. It is also the only hope you will ever have that your music might survive you and your bands demise. How many bands have the durability of say The Rolling Stones? Dang few. So if you don't get that contract what will you do? You are shut out just as effectively as any other indie musicans from being heard. Without being heard, there is no market for your music, no big fan base, and no major income. Period. So who will keep your music heard once you quit playing? You? For how long will you be able to keep friends close to you interested in your stuff, much less buy it? If it becomes the property of big music through the buyout/merger mania that is going on today, do you think they will keep you within their rosters when they have slashed nearly 50% of signed artists that were in their stable already? Good luck. They will keep your music but not your band.

I haven't even begun to answer your post and already I am tired of writing and could continue this for sometime yet to come. You sir, are seriously misguided in your opinions and a good bit naive.

mroop, did you copy that from some kind of a christian activist group and just change the words? Thanks for the insult.

"To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid"

P2P increases record sales. To bash the use of p2p is to bash paying the artists.

"and CD sales have been fatally hit by the widespread belief that music should be free. "

This is one of those posts that I could spend weeks tearing apart every aspect of it because it's so remarkably incoherent.

*CD sales have not been fatally hit

*Even if they had been, you have no empirical evidence to prove that it was because of p2p or the belief that music should be free

*I believe p2p increases record sales and I also have no empirical data to back it up. So take that and shove it - until you have the figures to disprove it, I'm fine fighting fire with fire. Besides, I'm right.

*How do you know that CD sales have not been fatally hit due to the quality of music on the radio?

*Who cares about CD's anyway? I want to download my music. You seem to love our way of life in this country so much, you should be supporting a cause that gives the consumer choice and advocates consumer power in the marketplace.

*iTunes has done just fine in the face of this "music should be free" epidemic. Maybe your music just sucks, buddy. Or maybe you're too closed minded to do what would help you the most - put your music on p2p.

Contrary to what mroop said, I don't care what you do. The quality of your life doesn't mean anything to me, except that right now your extreme debt is making you complain to me. An artists' music should be distributed how the artist authorizes it to be. But you also shouldn't complain because of your own decisions. I buy indie music. Who told you that I wasn't paying?

Sherm:

No, I wrote that myself. I'm not sure what you mean by "thanks for the insult".

As I perused these responses, the overall themes I see are posters telling this guy he doesn't know what he is doing and he doesn't know what's good for him. So I simply parodied these responses.

Maybe he doesn't know what he is doing, maybe he is an idiot and he should be giving away his music to increase exposure/sales. But it seems to me that he has the right to make his own mistakes and decisions and if failure is the outcome then so be it.

Renting music CDs? They do that in Japan. I hear it's a big thing over there.

I don't think that the article is mis-guided. The RIAA is pursuing what they're doing because they have already signed multi-million $$ contracts with companies like Apple, Microsoft, Real Networks, and various others. I do understand that exessive music pirating is really bad, but putting restrictions on music that you bought is really unfair. Its like if tomorrow I purchase a CD and then let someone borrow it after ripping to my computer, then under RIAA I am a pirate. If no one bought music tomorrow, the RIAA would seek to make that illegal.

Gee, I thought mroop was quoting a memo from a record label.

It looks a lot like the way EMI's distribution contract is worded.

" As I perused these responses, the overall themes I see are posters telling this guy he doesn't know what he is doing and he doesn't know what's good for him."

Not true, as usual.

"I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists, as well as the big guys."
"I'd appreciate a response."

He asked. We answered. You insult. Again.

I agree mroop. But he shouldn't complain to us about his mistakes/ignorance.

Mroop is right about one thing. Everyone is free to make their own choice.

It seems to really piss him/her off when we don't want to do it "the way we've always done it" because (in the key of E minor, kind of seas chanty-ish.) "The Pirates are Stealing Our Stuff!"

"...direct threat to small labels and new artists, as well as the big guys"

So let me see if I got this right... small labels and new artists giving away crappy copies of our songs threatens small labels and new artists that don't?
As well as the "big guys"?

That is the best news I've heard in a year. I guess they were right.

You can't compete with free.

"Hello, my name is Roger McGuinn. My experience in the music business began in 1960 with my recording of “Tonight In Person” on RCA Records. I played guitar and banjo for the folk group the “Limeliters.” I subsequently recorded two albums with the folk group the “Chad Mitchell Trio.” I toured and recorded with Bobby Darin and was the musical director of Judy Collins’ third album. In each of those situations I was not a royalty artist, but a musician for hire.

My first position as a royalty artist came in 1964 when I signed a recording contract with Columbia Records as the leader of the folk-rock band the “Byrds.” During my tenure with the Byrds I recorded over fifteen albums. In most cases a modest advance against royalties was all the money I received for my participation in these recording projects.

In 1973 my work with the Byrds ended. I embarked on a solo recording career on Columbia Records, and recorded five albums. The only money I’ve received for these albums was the modest advance paid prior to each recording.

In 1977 I recorded three albums for Capitol Records in the group “McGuinn Clark and Hillman.” Even though the song “Don’t You Write Her Off” was a top 40 hit, the only money I received from Capitol Records was in the form of a modest advance.

In 1989 I recorded a solo CD, “Back from Rio”, for Arista Records. This CD sold approximately 500,000 copies worldwide, and aside from a modest advance, I have received no royalties from that project.

The same is true of my 1996 recording of “Live From Mars” for Hollywood Records. In all cases the publicity generated by having recordings available and promoted on radio created an audience for my live performances. My performing work is how I make my living. Even though I’ve recorded over twenty-five records, I cannot support my family on record royalties alone.

In 1994 I began making recordings of traditional folk songs that I’d learned as a young folk singer. I was concerned that these wonderful songs would be lost. The commercial music business hasn’t promoted traditional music for many years. These recording were all available for free download on my website on the Internet.

In 1998 an employee of MP3.com heard the folk recordings that I’d made available at mcguinn.com and invited me to place them on MP3.com. They offered an unheard of, non-exclusive recording contract with a royalty rate of 50% of the gross sales. I was delighted by this youthful and uncommonly fair approach to the recording industry. MP3.com not only allowed me to place these songs on their server, but also offered to make CDs of these songs for sale. They absorbed all the packaging and distribution costs. Not only is MP3.com an on-line record distributor, it is also becoming the new radio of the 21st century!

So far I have made thousands of dollars from the sale of these folk recordings on MP3.com, and I feel privileged to be able to use MP3s and the Internet as a vehicle for my artistic expression. MP3.com has offered me more artistic freedom than any of my previous relationships with mainstream recording companies. I think this avenue of digital music delivery is of great value to young artists, because it’s so difficult for bands to acquire a recording contract. When young bands ask me how to get their music heard, I always recommend MP3.com."

Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee July 11, 2000
“The Future of Digital Music: Is There an Upside to Downloading?”
Statement of Roger McGuinn
Songwriter and Musician (Formerly with The Byrds)
http://www.ibiblio.org/jimmy/mcguinn/Senate.html

Of course mp3.com is gone, which is why we hang out here at DMusic/Boycott-RIAA.

But hey, what do we know?

Note to all our participants. You guys ROCK! (You rock so much you left me nothing further to say at this point on the matter. I sure hope our misguided friend shows up. I did e-mail him and let him know this post would be a "hot-topic." I was right in my prediction.)

I want to thank everyone for being so mature and respectful to the currently still annonymous author of this message to our site. You "punched the holes" without resorting to childish crudeness and vile name calling. Let's vow ALWAYS to treat such visitors with that kind of respect, even when we disagree with them (and save our really NASTY stuff for the truely evil beings in the RIAA.)

Mroop, love having you around, but you are truely a sarcastic smart-ass sometimes. But I do agree that you are right about it being the artists choice how to conduct their own affairs. However, this forum is a place to express opinions. Your'e correct pointing out to us that we got no business telling the author of this message how he MUST do things... but it is NOT required that ANYONE do as we suggest. We are just offering our opinions and views and stating what we would do in response.

Call it "negotiation" if you will.

Again, a shout out to all who have bothered to respond to this thread so far... YOU ARE THE BEST!!!

Very interesting reading! Thanks for posting Roger McGuinn's testimony, George. Great history lesson.

I DO find it interesting that the author chose not to reveal the Band name OR the supposed "Indy" label they signed to.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that label isn't quite as "Indy" as the author would have us believe.

this guy knew what he was doing. see, he failed to identify his band

The year before Napster was closed was the largest year the RIAA record labels ever had. Their sales decline started AFTER Napster was closed. So did the recession. So did the video game craze with each platform trying to outduel the other. The DVD market was just getting started. The RIAA record labels now have consolidated themselves to 4 majors. And you think P2P file sharing was the cause of the music industry sales declining?

The RIAA also STOPPED selling singles. Even though the demand for singles had never decreased. Why? Because they were greedy, and wanted to make more money by making you purchase the WHOLE CD, not just one song. Since the RIAA was not meeting the demand of the consumer, the consumer sought other ways to satisfy its demand. Thus Napster and P2P were born.

Finally, every P2P network has wanted to license the work of every RIAA label. The record labels have refused. It is estimated that, their refusal to license work to P2P networks costs them $132 Million a month. Why would ANYONE turn down that kind of money?? And why would you care???

CONTROL. That's right the RIAA want to completely control the music market. They don't want competition from the likes of your band. Competition is BAD for them. That's why they will literally throw away BILLIONS and sue their own customers. To keep YOU from making a living doing what you love, making music. THAT is why we are here.

Dreddsnik4, I myself chose not to reveal the author's name or contact info he provided to the admin of this site out of respect for his privacy. (But alas, he did NOT tell me the name of his band. And I must admit am now really curious to hear a tune or 2 from them.)

I too suspect that they are not as "indie" as claimed, but unless he or someone from the group comes and tells us a little more, we will never know.

Let's first get this straight you are not an idiot. You are a victim of the record companies outdated business model. You will come around.
As to he basic premise of your argument.

"Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads, or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music."

Mozart, Robert Johnson and all of the worlds musicians before the advent of the record never earned a royalty check and music not only survived but evolved greatly.

There are many other examples such as the Grateful Dead who gave their music away for free and made hundreds of millions o dollars.

It works like this, if you are good you will be able to make a living. Musicians simply have to play with their guitar case open. If people stop and listen they will give you money. There is social pressure to make sure that this happens. However, if the musician rely's on the coercive power of the US government to send a platoon of marines to kick the shit out of anyone who decides not to drop a dollar into the guitar case the situation changes and that’s what we have hear.

More importantly there is no reliable evidence to establish that downloads have any effect on cd sales at all. Most of the kids wh download have no money to buy your cd in the first place.

Please do not be frightened or offended at some of the extreme reactions of this sites contributors. Many of them are soon to be shipped off to the official US prison colony in Guantanamo or at the very least castrated for their views by the federal government.

What is the name of your band. I live in Santa Monica. I’ll come see your act and buy 5 cds, if I think your band doesn’t totally suck. I do that for all independent artists that I see live.

Whose your entertainment lawyer. Did he explain to you, in detail, every nook and cranny of your record deal, or did he just go over the advance and say the other stuff is boilerplate. Did he take a cut out of the advance. Wow! That’s pretty shitty, how are you supposed to pay for the recording? Did you even get an advance? Make sure that your deal is that you split the first net dollars with this independent record company.

If you’re worried about making a living, are you entertaining? Can you perform live? Do you have “it?” These are important questions.

"And I must admit am now really curious to hear a tune or 2 from them."

Are you really? "no dough, no music"

I would be more inclined to give him what he asked for -- obscurity.

"Dear Name Withheld:

You should realize that we know what's best for your career. I know it's your life, but we have determined that we have the right to tell you how to live it. So we are going to do what we want with your intellectual property even though you might not like it. Don't worry - we have a your best interests at heart. You are obviously misguided and you need our help. We are going to give you our help and you are going to like it. Are we clear now?

Take care,

Mroop"

WOW!!! not only is that a parody of us, it is a parody of the 4 major labels and the Bush Administration.

I want to live in a culture where art can compete with the commercial crap that just gets shoved down out throat from billboards, radio, televison, news papers, movies etc........

I guess I'm out of luck.

By the way, every time I buy a newspaper out of the newspaper machine, I slide the next paper just out far enough so that the next person can get the paper for free, then if they do the same so can the next person.
Maybe he should have read the news recently before he used that analogy; there is a huge paper war in New York over the circulation of the Post. The Post keeps giving papers away for free and throwing them into land fills to increase the circulation numbers. The papers would give us the papers for free if they use those numbers in their circulation counts; alas, but the system is rigged again.

George, you are right that we should give obscurity to those who ask for it.

I am curious to hear their stuff because we are talking about it. Good stuff or bad, it won't change MY conviction to give/or not 'endorsement' based on whether or not the artist wants to be "Boycott-Riaa Certified" or not.

(I happen to LOVE a suprisingly large number of RIAA artists whom I will NEVER buy nor endorse because they are foolish enough to buy into the 'myth' of RIAA stardom.)

White Stripes, Jet, ...you guys listening? You want me to buy your records and endorse your music???

DROP YOUR RIAA AFFILIATIONS AND I AM THERE!

(otherwise, live in obscurity... I already crossed my own line of conviction by mentioning you.)

And, I want to add that I am ASHAMED of myself for having even ever heard of those 2 RIAA examples... but I still watch Connan and Letterman and Leno. Thus, I get "tainted" because the industry is still so pervasive.

"Maybe he should have read the news recently before he used that analogy; there is a huge paper war in New York over the circulation of the Post. The Post keeps giving papers away for free and throwing them into land fills to increase the circulation numbers. The papers would give us the papers for free if they use those numbers in their circulation counts; alas, but the system is rigged again."


...don't forget, the RIAA labels are guilty of the same sort of practice!

Look at the misguided notions in this guys letter....let me list them..

1) I believe your campaign against the RIAA is misguided and a direct threat to small labels and new artists.

2)The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king. Well music isn't free.

Isn't consumer the king? It's our damn money? Music is free...it was before someone came up with the idea to make tons of it off artists.

3) Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads, or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music.

So this guy is in the belief that because he made a CD..someone automatically owes him something? People are hearing my music..I haven't made a cent from it. What a dickwad....believe that only music that is bought is worth listening to? Pffft..I haven't heard any lately..which is why I don't buy CD's. I'd say the stuff we are supposed to be paying for is crap. If he wants to make a living..get a damn job then.

4) That's just how it works--no dough, no music

Honest to god...WHAT A MORON!...That opinion comes from only the greedy mind. I guess then they are gonna die in the new ways of distribution.

5) Why should movie makers continue to get their money to create, and musicians and recording studios expect to not have a revenue source?

Again..just because you have a band..a CD..or a studio...who in the hell owes you? I'm getting the impression that guys are setting up studios and have the notion that we are all supopose to start sending them envelopes of cash...that's how rediculous it's starting to sound. Your CD is your marketing..your advertisement money...it should be considered a loss right from the start. Your concerts are where its at.

There dude....how'd ya like our responses?

Last year, newspapers made $1.5 billion online, up from $1.2 billion in 2003. Without any expenses for printing.

Shmoo,
Isn't it amazing how no matter how hard you try not to, you are forced into listening to RIAA music sometimes? For free?

I heard Elton John at the grocery store the other day. Poor guy. Must be starving.

It's called a PERVASIVE MONOPOLY George. We try our DAMN BEST here at Boycott-Riaa to deliberately not hear the RIAA tunes, but sometimes are in a situation where we can't help it.

I don't listen to corporate music radio, I don't watch eMTv...

but you STILL have a hard time NOT hearing it sometimes

(Pisses me off to no end!)

We should NOT have to totally retreat from society and become monks. (Besides, if us "crazy extreemist shephards" did so, who would tend to the sheep?)

I forgive us both (and all) for our sinful transgressions of accidental exposure.

Go, and SIN NO MORE!

I wouldn't mind knowing where I could find some of this bands music. I'd like to give it a listen. If I like it, I'll pay for both of those cds he mentioned...

Still waiting to see if the guy shows up. (Might take a day or 2, I just posted this last night before I went to bed... he may not have even checked his e-mail yet.)

...but then again, you guys might be TOO good at your "jobs" of telling it like it is... the author might have already read your reasoned comments and become so embarassed about falling for the 'myth' that he may now never have the guts to comment.

(It is VERY troubling to the psyche to have to admit you were WRONG on nearly every single point of something like this.)

...we will wait and see.

Dear courageous "Name and e-mail with-held"

The equation is simple: If you are a member of the RIAA or MPAA or if you support them in their assault against the people, you will be boycotted and attacked.

We are looking for hero to support. Not for greedy Pigs!

Remember this: WE are holding the money. Forget that the customer is king and go out of business.

Just to let you know: I still buy CDs but not from the RIAA!

Ditto that MajorTreat!

Why do I feel like I am the conductor of a symphony of "1st chair" musicians and not getting to play an instrument too?

(You guys and gals are TOO good! If we simply "keep it up" ...how could we ever loose?)

(Musicians have a BETTER and more FUN job than conductors!)

For those who sent this email. I have deliberately not read the comments above to keep my analysis of the following paragraphs as independent as possible.

I see a statement rife with fallacies, and i will addresse them neutrally and inoffensively with annotations as i see them:
"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king.[This is a false accusation: while we are fostering a culture where consumer is king (e.g.capitalism), we are not encouraging people to download in leu of purchase, but in order to better choose what they wish to purchase.. and to encourage those who read NOT to purchase from cartels like the RIAA who see fit to manipulate the law and abuse both artists and the public.] Well music isn't free.[indeed, but freedom of the internet should not be curtailed because copyright holders don't believe in capitalism] We're still $11,000 in debt from our two self-released CDs. It costs real money to record and manufacture a CD, and CD sales have been fatally hit by the widespread belief that music should be free. [Actually, CD sales have been fatally hit by increased competition from the movie and video game industries. Video games and software have been widely traded long before music, and DVD quality movies can be had by anyone able to use google, yet the movie and software industries enjoy record sales. Microsoft was raging mad over a leak of Halo2 a full month before it's official release, yet it sold more in pre-order than any of the matrix trilogy films, and then proceeded to break all time records across all entertainment products despite wide availability on p2p networks.]

If we choose to offer a few free samples of our music online, and we certainly will, that's our choice.[An apploaudable one in my opinion] Otherwise, we need to get paid for CDs or downloads[downloads are in crappy compressed formats, none of which carry the nuance of cd's. I 'settle' for them only when i can't buy(for any price) the music i seek.. it is at best debatable weather or not music downloads act as a substitute 'product'], or we won't make a living, and you'll not hear our music, and the world will be filled with music by people who don't earn a living, play part time, and don't make very good music.[My friend makes GREAT industrial.. is friends with a couple popular players in the industrial scene, and only does so part time.. I take offense at the idea that only people willing to play full time are some how 'good enough']"


P.S. I have full authorization to share his tunes, and would post if i were not so busy coordinating two moves and trying to liquidate a vehicle. Send a "dmusic note" to me under the same screen name at www.dmusic.com if you would like to hear some of his stuff.

awhere, do we have him listed in "picks" or as a "certified artist" yet?

My analysis Part II:

"but the overall plunge in music revenue will hit the indies first--in the long run.

[Empirical studies (with which i'm familar as a student wrapping up a financial economics major) from two independent sources in two different nations have shown that there is no meaningful connection between a download and a loss in sales. Additionally, in the absolute worst possible scenario analyzed by the Harvard/UNC study on p2p shows that it would take over 5,000 downloads to affect the sale of a single cd.. this means you would go platinum before you saw significant revenue loss. I'm familiar with the mathematical analysis involved in this study, and note that it was done using real world analysis of individual titles on p2p nets and their corresponding album sales.]

The notion that everything's free--where did it come from?[huh? where did we say everything is free? we.. or at least I, say that cost should be a function of marginal cost of production.. the internet brings that cost to zero unless it's a superior quality physical product] TV, I suppose. It's true, television is free. But when you watch TV, you're bombarded with commercials[WRONG: have you gotten a tivo, mythtv, or any other pvr lately?]. If you want an uninterrupted movie, you pay for it, buying or renting a DVD. No one squawks about that, do they?[Actually the honorable Rep. Rick Boucher squawks about that, along with me and millions of others who watch forced ads for other movies, THX sound, etc which are embedded in dvd's and enforced with MPAA controlled DRM] Why should movie makers continue to get their money to create, and musicians and recording studios expect to not have a revenue source?[DVD quality movies make it to p2pnets very quickly(many times before the movie reaches theaters) and often in better quality than even the source.. i know this stuff because i used to know people to made the files(the ripping group is long dead now)]

For society to work, we have to agree to certain rules of honor[And i ask where are these rules of honor when it comes to fair use? Thanks to the RIAA and MPAA we have none.. they bribed congress and "shoplifted" it from us.]--when we pay 50 cents for a newspaper in a bin, we only take one newspaper[newspapers don't have a zero marginal cost of production.. they cost something to make, transport, and stock in stores... files on the internet don't cost the newspaper company anything if we happen to scan the paper and share it]. We don't shoplift, or most of us don't[Once again, if i shoplift, that copy is taken from the store.. that store no longer has the copy.. the copy they paid for, when i take a picture of the newspaper i have a crappy copy of it.. they still have their paper, and it's not considered theft]. We don't walk out of restaurants without paying[The restaurant pays for every piece of food they serve.. one carrot = X$.. britney spears only records the song once.. and does not pay proportionally like this restaurant unless she finanaces the pressing of a cd... a crappy copy of the cd does not cost her any money, it costs me money for electricity, hard drive space, and broadband]. Because there wouldn't be newspapers, stores, or restaurants if we did.[but if you could simply walk up to a replicator (a-la star trek) and say "gimme this.. with these specifications" and get it out of nowhere.. there would be no need for stores, restaurants, etc.. and blogs to a better job than newspapers]

To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal."[downloading == stealing is patently false.. look back at the economics of physical vs digital i gave you in the preceeding paragraph... and once again.. we aren't interested in convincing people not to pay for music.. we just don't want them paying for the RIAA's music, which finances their all out war on consumers and technology.

Before you start berating me for *put reason here*, allow me to fill in some background.

I am a finishing student of computer science and economics at a well known university who plans to make a living from useful programs for mac eventually. Unlike the RIAA.. i plan to make a fair living despite downloading because I know the arguments of the RIAA are fallacies:

1. downloading does not mean that only a single copy will be bought.. and the rest will be pirated. The truth is that piracy is already rampant.. and those who don't want to pay me will find ways other than the internet to avoid doing so.

2. Bandwidth is limited, and even the best lines today (which will take a decade to reach individual households) still take a few minutes to get a single file from a single person to another single person.. so there is no "one click transfer to millions of people"

3. Digitally compressed crap does not equal the original.

music in mp3 is poor quality and lacks cover art and collector value
software with booted serial numbers won't get critical updates
booted video games will be banned from online servers
downloaded movies vary in quality, but all lack deep rich surround sound and other features desirable... and in addition will not be easily compressed (due to intensely high resolution) once HD saturates the market.

shmoo: i dunno.. my correspondence with him is sparse.. he pops up every once in a while to invite me places or send me a new composition..

I love his stuff though.. it varies all over the place from smooth and tranqil to rough and chaotic.

"Giving away an album online isn't the way most artists end up with gold records. But it worked out that way for Wilco."

Wired Magazine - Nov. 15 2004

I suggest you read the article.

Finally.. allow me to rephrase one of your statements in this email to clarify my point of view:

original statement:
"To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal."

My revision:

To decide that speech, fair use, and technology can be stifled simply because it involves bits and routers is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental human rights and american freedoms outlined in the constitution and centuries of common law, including the audio home recording act of 1992 and the 1984 betamax decision.

""To decide that music can be taken without the people who made it getting paid is taking advantage of the newness of digital technology, and avoiding the fundamental: don't steal.""

The only problem is, stealing (theft in legal terms) is NOT what is happening here. There is no deprival of property, the owner of the "property" in this case can still use it and do whatever he wants to do this.

"The big picture: you're fostering a culture that believes music is free, that the consumer is king."

I personaly don't think a musician shouldn't get compensated for their work, but one thing I will say is this.

The consumer is king, and this person better damn well learn that. I hate to tell the guy this, but if the consumer says music should be free, it will be free. The consumer is always right, and it is not wise to cross them.

I personaly don't think music should be free, unless it is being used in a promotional situation. Times are changing, and I can only tell him that he better be more creative in finding a way to make money off of his music. Albums are promotional tools. If it cost $11,000 to make them, it sounds like his band should hit the road get promoting them. Sitting around bitching about downloading on the web damn sure isn't going to get the money back now is it?

"I've just wrote and recorded a song! Ok everyone...send me money...somebody's gotta pay me for doing it."

This is what their argument is starting to sound like.

I think with home recording getting better ...you're gonna start seeing some more interesting stuf hit the indie scene in a couple more years as people get better at it.

It is for those that don't get it that will have to pay fees such as was mentioned at the beginning of this article. You can either do the sweat equity yourself with no huge fees in preparing for shipping of your music or your can let someone else do it for you and pay for it. (Which is what it sounds like from the article). If you are willing to sign on the dotted line, there is always someone willing to take your money. Sometimes if they charge high fees, for a while you think you got what you paid for. Just because some label suckered the guy into forking over 11,000 bucks doesn't mean the customer sees it as he has to buy it to finance the band. In fact, I would rather pay someone who did the work themselves because then it is a labor of love and not a labor for profit that leads to shortcuts and short changes to the customer.

The customer is king, no matter what you believe in your product if the customer doesn't spend the money, you can't force him to do so. In the end, that is why the customer is king. Just because this band foolishly "invested" their money does not automatically entitle them to profits anymore than it does the RIAA. (and that is exactly the attitude they have) If you so believe in this idea of automatically earning money because you got a product salesmen will love seeing you walk in the store. They got tons of product just waiting for you.

However, say what you will, I for one will not support with my money what I don't believe in. Not only what I don't believe in but also if I don't agree with the business methods of that company I won't spend my money there either. This is exactly what a boycott is. No more, no less.

No names, no replies? Heard anything yet, Shmoo? I like to know who we are arguing with here....

The silence is deafening.

These people seem to like to hit and run. A discussion usually involves two sides. I only see one. Perhaps the other side has simply left the building.

I suppose if you get away with hit and run tactics, then from their point of view it would be worthwhile. But when their arguments have been so thoroughly trounced, with not the slightest attempt to defend their original charges, it seems to me that they have harmed their own cause, not helped it. From my point of view, that is OK, but it doesn't make any sense from their side.

Dudes..i am thinking about writing a song....can you send me some downpayments? I gotta get paid for this.

Aww man..while I was typing that another song popped into my head. This is getting too complex..I'm gonna have to setup a paypal account with with a little alert system so everyone will know when to forward me some cash.

I think the author of the message was sincere at the time he wrote it. (He wasn't trying to do any kind of back-handed promotion of his band because he didn't even tell me their name or give a website, just a personal e-mail.)

1) either we turned his whole belief system upside down...

or

2) it was just a "hit and run" by someone who wanted to tell us off but is not interested in our rebuttles. (I did e-mail him to let him know we would be discussing it.)

Oh well.