http://www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/newsPage.cgi?news05613

CROW PECKS AWAY AT GROKSTER
An Op/Ed Piece From RAC's Sheryl Crow

April 1, 2005

Sheryl Crow, who moonlights as a musician when she’s not pursuing her duties as VP of the Recording Artists’ Coalition, issued a commentary on Thursday elucidating RAC’s stance on MGM v. Grokster. Here’s the complete text of Crow’s commentary.

I love music and I'm certainly not alone. Music plays a major role in the lives of billions of people and they want to be able to access it and have it whenever and wherever they desire. There are services that everybody can use to acquire the music and pay a reasonable fee for it.

There is also a service out there called Grokster that allows people to access almost anything they want, without paying for it.

But, if nobody pays for it, how do the musicians, singers, arrangers, engineers, producers and songwriters get paid? How about the people who create the CD and DVD artwork and photography? What about the people who work in the plants that manufacture the CDs and DVDs or the people who work in music stores. Their livelihoods depend on people paying for the music that is created. If these people are not paid, how do they pay their rent and the utility bills? How can they afford transportation or groceries? The highly visible "stars" who we hear on the radio and see on TV represent less than 5% of the music world. The rest of that world consists of ordinary people who work hard to support themselves and their families and who often struggle just to make ends meet. The musicians, the singers and songwriters among them, are all dreaming of that big break, but few of them will get it.

The music business works like this: a record company hires talent scouts to find talent, producers to produce recordings, promotion and marketing people to make the public aware of the recordings, manufacturing, sales and web people to make and distribute the records. The money from the sale of recordings pays everyone's salaries: the company's employees and the artists, producers, songwriters, musicians, singers and engineers who make the recordings.

It is illegal and a copyright infringement to duplicate, distribute, upload or download a copyrighted recording without permission of the owner of the recording (other than to make a single copy for personal, non-commercial use); thus, what the public is doing by using Grokster for this purpose is illegal.

Grokster was sued by numerous copyright owners. In defending their decisions in favor of Grokster, the lower and appellate courts have said that the Sony Betamax case (1984), which held that the use by individuals of the VCR to record a television show for the purpose of viewing it at a later time [time shifting], was a fair and legal use, supports their decision that the Grokster use is a fair use.

Nothing could be further from reality. This case is now on appeal (to the Supreme Court). By using the VCR machine, no one could possibly distribute millions of perfectly reproduced copies to all those who wished to have a copy. With the VCR machine, even a second copy turned out to be of measurably inferior quality. The Grokster software is used principally for the illegal duplication and downloading of copyrighted material. Grokster is making millions of dollars in advertising revenue for its system, yet the artists, engineers, composers, etc. are paid nothing.

The original purpose of copyright protection can be found in the U.S. Constitution, which states: "To promote the progress of...useful arts by securing...to authors the exclusive right to their respective writings..." (emphasis added).

If we take away that protection, we take away all incentive to create and ultimately the public-at-large will be substantially injured, as there will be fewer artists, fewer artists signed, fewer records produced and less musical choices for the public to access. This is the very essence of the appeal of the Grokster decision to the Supreme Court.

This is not a question of overturning the Betamax case. The VCR machine will still be legal. This is a question of balancing the rights of creators with current technology. P2P systems are clearly inducing infringement by the users—those systems need to be held accountable. They can and should incorporate filters to prevent the illegal downloading of copyrighted material and until such time as they do, Grokster and similar, competitive systems should be held liable for the infringement and damage they are doing to the creative community and the public-at-large.

As I said the first time we discussed this...

Sue some more people. Call us thieves and pirates. Keep telling us that we're destroying the music industry.

Because some of us really, really, really like the sound of that.

I was hoping rather than a repeat, this was an attempt to answer some of those questions and responces that were posed for the first time the article had appeared. I should have known better. She has taken a stance that in the long haul she can't totally defend without becoming mired in the bog of a mess that our copyright laws have become thanks to the influances of the majors and their pet the RIAA.

About the best they have come up with seriously is lacking in either common sense or in reality. Demanding filters without providing the necessary information to determine what is and is not owned is one such lack. Attempting to get approval rights to new technology is another such lack. Sueing your customer base is a third.

Is it any wonder they are in danger of losing all control of their product? Who wants such product that leads to nothing but flustration on the part of the legal owner of such purchased product?

If there is anything worse than providing an inferior product for the price, it is a lack of concern that the product doesn't meet the consumers expectations.

http://www.thenewsvault.com/cgi/news.pl?t=171

But, if nobody pays for it, how do the musicians, singers, arrangers, engineers, producers and songwriters get paid? How about the people who create the CD and DVD artwork and photography?


So how does downloading from pay sites help these people?

Good Point!!! 777

"there will be fewer artists, fewer artists signed, fewer records produced and less musical choices for the public to access"--only if the RIAA gets its way.

"The original purpose of copyright protection can be found in the U.S. Constitution, which states: "To promote the progress of...useful arts by securing...to authors the exclusive right to their respective writings..." This is really getting so stale, there doesn't seem to be any reason to go into it anymore. The "authors" don't have any rights--the corporations do. And no matter how many times I hear it, I refuse to accept that a corporation should be treated the same way as an individual. Stepford Sheryl needs a new refrain, 'cause her song is getting way too trite.

However, it is nice to note that, according to her article, if she doesn't get paid, she will no longer inflict her "music" on the world. "If we take away that protection, we take away all incentive to create"--if we had only known it was so easy.....

It doesn't. By the time it is made available for download, legal or otherwise, it's a done deal.

If you were part of the process and didn't already get paid, you're not EVER going to get paid, even if it sells 2 or 3 million copies.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with file sharing.

Above was in response to Accipter.

Sheryl Crow. Singlehandedly responsible for the death of rock.

" Sheryl Crow. Singlehandedly responsible for the death of rock "

Well, at the very least, Erectile Dysfunction.

"If we take away that protection, we take away all incentive to create"

Because people aren't creative on thier own, they have to be paid for it. In fact, creativity is directly linked to how much money is in your pocket at any given time.
That "starving artist" stereotype is patently false. You can't be starving and an artist, because if you aren't paid you aren't creative, and without creativity you can't be considered an artist. Right Britney? Right Sheryl?

Sorry, did I drip some sarcasm on ya?

Thinking out loud...

Gee if the constitution gives exclusive rights to AUTHORS for limited time, wouldn't it be unconstitutional for those rights to be passed on to corporations??

Please lend your support to my ongoing argument at the Sheryl Crow website forums.

http://www.sherylcrow.com/forums_index.html

mroop,
Thanks for the fun link, but please warn us when the links may not be work or home-with-the-kiddies-close safe.

haha, thanks mroop (barf)

Nice work DeadMan2003 at Shery's forum. You speak well.

ditto.

Just got back from reading the thread there Deadman. Real nice work.

Ditto the kudos to Deadman for taking the debate over there. The further we spread the word, the more effective we become!

Speaking as someone who had to hear "First Cut is the Deepest" one quadrillion times, I'd like to say to Sheryl:
"How bout a nice steaming mug of shut the hell up."

Oh, and should she really be speaking for musicians, it's not like she has any real experience in that area. In a choice between her kind of music and my cats' mating yowls, the cats win hands down.

(To borrow a phrase,) "Tell the swamp donkey to sock it!, before I give her a trunkey in the trademans entrance and 'ave 'er lick me Yahhhd balls!

It's odd how they have been able to link piracy to copyright infringement. How can they get away with that?

I used to respect Sheryl Crow. I still think she's talented but somewhere along the way she became a stoolie for the record labels.

Sheryl is a shrewd busness woman, and I am not gonna knock her talent, but she's a dictionary definition of a true "sell-out," plain and simple.

She is one of the very few artists who actually have benefited from being cozy with the RIAA. She is a "House Slave" who sleeps with the plantation owner, gets special treatment, and is comfortable with her station in life, therefore, she does not want the system of slavery abolished.

She puts her own selfish interests first, aiding and abetting the corruption because she is too stupid/afraid to figure out how to do better for herself on her own.

It's clear as a bell.

(Deadman, you can QUOTE me on that over on her site if you want to. It is my "official" proclaimation on the matter... make sure they know the Boycott-Admin said it himself.)

Man, she's gettin paid despite the boycotts. Next batter. People know you have to support the artists if you expect to hear from them in the future. We know how to keep the music industry going.

"She puts her own selfish interests first, aiding and abetting the corruption because she is too stupid/afraid to figure out how to do better for herself on her own."

you don't have to do much more than read how she screwed the musicians who worked with her on the tuesday night music club bit to see that.

I don't think david baerwald has much good to say about her and who was that guy who killed himself???? yeah...

Sheryl Crow...
I rise from my seat in the Lone Star State to recognize you for the outstanding job you have done in embarrassing my state.

As a former Austinite, from my heart, please don't come back, and please, please, please, never associate yourself with Texas again...we have Perry for governor, isn't that saddling us with enough misery?

And keep Lance Armstrong the hell out while you're at it...
Sheryl Crow the CRONE

I hate to "out" the girl, but she has been a Phyllis Shafley industry apologist right wing nutcase for a while.

Code, you let a lot more loose from Texas than this. But then, I'm from Florida, even though I'm down in blue, blue, blue Dade. I'm going to try to get some of my family in Texas to start a recall petition for ... well, I'm sure you know who. Think it'll fly?