Message:

I find it really annoying that a site dedicated to supporting recording artists would have a prominent link to a used CD store on their website. Buying used indie CDs is just as band as illegally downloading their music in that it deprives the artist of revenue. As an indie artist myself I think you should reassess this link or at least put a disclaimer on it to inform people who insist on buying used CDs to at least only buy major label ones.

Do you want to be heard?

Major labels suck wad and are going down.

I find it really annoying that you would post to a site that is anti_RIAA and try to tell us to "only buy major label ones".

BTW, there is no such thing as "illegally downloading music". Do your homework.

BTW, The only 'revenue' you have been deprived of exists solely in your and your lawyers' imagination.

Artists create art to be heard/seen/read.
Lawyers create paper to be paid.
Learn the difference.

(Major labels suck wad and are going down.)

One again BoycottRiaa's great mind articulating its point of view oh so well.

Way to go scholar!

Oh, this is brilliant. So that means, by the same logic, it would be unethical to buy a used shirt, or a used car -- unless it was produced by a big corporation -- THEN, it would be ethical?

If you are a great artist, people will buy your CDs, and they won't get rid of them. Hence, new converts to your music will be compelled to buy a new copy.

If you're not that great, maybe you picked the wrong profession. Did you ever think that the bad artist deprives the public of revenue, by putting out poor albums that people quickly tire of and want to resell? It's immoral, I say!

I have sympathy for the indie artist. But only the good ones. That's why I buy their CDs, and I don't sell them again. But man, I download a ton of samples of indie music from MP3 blogs, and most of it is just dreck. They ought to pay me to listen to that sludge. If most of those albums wind up in the used CD shop, and the artists never never see another dime, well that's certainly what most of them deserve, IMO. There ought to be SOME karmic penalty for all of my time these wankers have wasted with their self-indulgent out-of-tune croaking and their underproduction.

The fact is, we are in a dark age of popular music. RIAA or indie doesn't have nothin' to do with it.

Whats annoying is you are looking at this just like the RIAA (ME ME ME). This is how the free enterprize system works for most of us, when you buy something you can resale it, but no artist are special. Give me a brake!

"The fact is, we are in a dark age of popular music. RIAA or indie doesn't have nothin' to do with it."

dark age in popular music
so true

i'm ready for a renaissance

If I sell you a CD, it is yours. Rip it and resell it to a friend. If the same copy gets resold a million times, all the better.

As gfmlcka said, "Do you want to get heard?"

Yes, by as many ears as possible.

Why shouldn't somebody be able to resell and/or trade a cd/recording/album (indie ...or not?)

I, myself, have spent the better part of the last decade doing no less than promoting INDEPENDENT music in favor of the RIAA "famous" crap...

BUT, to advocate a position/ideal that when someone sells a disk on the second-hand market is tantamount to "stealing" from the artist...

Geez, where have we heard THAT line of reasoning before.

............

What's good for the goose is as good for the gander.

-----------

YES. We support Independent Music here at Boycott Riaa.

But at the same time. We are going to be ethical and play by the same rules we'd like to set for the RIAA greed-monsters.

I say, if you buy a CD/LP/CASSETTE (or, whatever)

You have EVERY right to RE-sell it.

(But, yeah, If you really/truely SUPPORT indie music, you'd want to KEEP your indie recordings and sell those cheap mass-produced crappy RIAA discs FIRST!)

"people who insist on buying used CDs to at least only buy major label ones.
"
But Major label one are crap! why do he want us to buy crap? Britney Slut? MadonaCrap? and lipsync? Not for me!

Beside I don't see what is wrong with bying indy's CD even used! Thos that can afford it will continue to suport their favorite artists and the good business anyway so why worry? Just keep the good job!

"One again BoycottRiaa's great mind articulating its point of view oh so well."

Backatcha.

Zman, I want to be hard for as many years as possible

suck wad

First of all, I wrote the above statement as a message to the site admin and did not intend it for public consumption. I would have worded it differently had I expected it would be thrown to the wolves so to speak. That said, I'm glad he posted it and opened it up for discussion / abuse.

So let me clarify my original intent so you can at least tear me a new one for the right reasons.

I voiced my concerns because in my experience most people are not conscious consumers who think about the consequences of their purchases. I used to buy all of my CDs used until one day I was looking at my stack of Robyn Hitchcock CDs (all of which I had bought used) and realized that he hadn't gotten a cent from me and I wasn't supporting him at all. From then on I've only bought non indie albums used. Are used CDs a great way to introduce yourself to new music? Absolutely, but if I'm buying used albums from an indie artist I already like instead of buying them new, then I'm taking money away from the artist. I make the distinction between buying used majors and used indies because indie labels pay their artists way more than majors do. If I buy a used major label CD, the artist is probably only losing fifty cents.

As an artist, is it more important that I get my music heard than make a couple bucks? Of course, but every time someone's friend says "Hey, I like this. Could you burn me a copy?" I lose about $7. That adds up really fast and makes it more difficult for me to support myself with my music.

Selling CDs is another thing entirely. If I have to choose between throwing unwanted CDs away or selling them and giving someone else the chance to "discover" them, I'm going to sell them.

good points

although when when you say ...
"Selling CDs is another thing entirely. If I have to choose between throwing unwanted CDs away or selling them and giving someone else the chance to 'discover' them, I'm going to sell them."
this may NOT necessarily be "another thing entirely", to use your words

selling your cds could perpetuate the very undesirable process you are against (concerns about used cds denying indies their royalties)
what if someone, because of your selling off used cds
buys them up as you bought up those Robyn Hitchcocks

thus, you can give one to different persons,
not sell them en masse to a used cd store
(in order to stay true to your philosophy,
which i think is commendable)

"Of course, but every time someone's friend says 'Hey, I like this. Could you burn me a copy?' I lose about $7."

To follow this line of thinking would suggest that radio airplay causes bankruptcy.

hmmm. I just had a garage sale. I've got lots of checks to make out.

"I used to buy all of my CDs used until one day I was looking at my stack of Robyn Hitchcock CDs (all of which I had bought used) and realized that he hadn't gotten a cent from me and I wasn't supporting him at all. "

And you think that the RIAA record label artists make money on your CD purchases? Then why do so many end up bankrupt, even after selling MILLIONS? I'll tell you why, because the RIAA recording contract is a one-sided slave contract that makes sure an artist won't ever leave the label, or make a dime.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

And, like gdZiemann pointed out, your music won't sell if people don't know it. So who really cares if your music gets resold and you don't make a dime on it. That person make like what they hear, tell their friends, go to your shows, buy more music, maybe even buy T-shirts, etc, etc, etc.

You still get the exposure you need to be a successful musician. Without it, you might as well work at 7-11. Of course, most musicians stuck in a bad/first time RIAA major label contract would do better working at 7-11 too.

the last three posts show a LOT of insight

(the last three previous --INeedALover, compmore, & gdZiemann -- you guys got the right ideas)

1858 is an RIAA pederaste

Pederaste? WTF?

clootie,

were you really the one who sent this item in?

I appologize if you didn't want your words made "public" as a front page item at aby of our Boycott Riaa sites. I honestly thought it was a good topic for debate and assumed you wanted the issue discussed. Please get in touch with me the same way you did before if you want your text removed. (But, I'd need to know for sure it is really YOU instead of one of our "trolls".)

I promise you and everyone that I try very hard NOT to post things without consent.

Did I make a mistake this time in assuming I had the consent. (?)

I can (and WILL) do my best to remove this entire thread if I did violate your wishes.

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, if anyone wants to talk to me directly & ONLY (using Boycott Riaa "avenues of approach") ...please, please, make it clearly known when you contact me!)

I honestly thought the author of this item wanted it posted and discussed.

"First of all, I wrote the above statement as a message to the site admin and did not intend it for public consumption. I would have worded it differently had I expected it would be thrown to the wolves so to speak."

Again, sorry about that. I didn't mean to throw you to the wolves.

(Besides all the lurkers/readers) we have many "nay-sayers/trolls" here

...AND

we have many very vocal "true believers" also.

==========

It's a WAR-ZONE. (Things get ugly!)

My advice is to develop a thick skin and NOT choose "any side" too quickly. (Sometimes, even the trolling hounds are more correct in an arguement that the "faith-filled zealots" lol, not often, but sometimes...)

THINK for yourself!

personally, i'm glad we've got posters who speak frankly

when i mentioned George, INeedALover, and compmore
i somehow omitted giving credit to messages from autodidact and gfmlcka whose ideas were also very good

it's interesting to have different viewpoints,
and those folks i mentioned -- plus Dreddsnik, Deadman, TrueAudio, and others -- help make this forum work

with shmoo managing and helping keep balance
things seem to go quite well around here

but i expect some troll to rebuff me now for writing stuff like this
oh, well, i don't care

i know leflaw believes in good debate
i'm with him on that preference

insofar as clootie is concerned, i sort of sympathize with him if he didn't count on having his opinion subjected to analysis and criticism
but, like shmoo, i consider the topic of this current thread to be a really worthwhile one to examine

No, I'm fine with criticism and fine with this thread. I think my point has been made, though some people seem to want to argue over the details.

A few thoughts:

- No one is forced to sign a major label contract. If they're stupid enough to sign one before their lawyer explains the details to them then they get what they deserve.

- This comment is confusing, could you clarify what you meant?

{{gdZiemann
Date: November 18, 2006 @ 3:17 PM
"Of course, but every time someone's friend says 'Hey, I like this. Could you burn me a copy?' I lose about $7."

To follow this line of thinking would suggest that radio airplay causes bankruptcy}}

" - No one is forced to sign a major label contract. If they're stupid enough to sign one before their lawyer explains the details to them then they get what they deserve. "

Though this IS true, without the contract, no artists will get Radio airplay,
TV exposure, or any other mainstream
exposure. Even Major concert Venues
are controllsed by the labels.
Pretty soon, the internet options available to
the unsigned will be cartel controlled as well. The Net will be the new Radio.

""Of course, but every time someone's friend says 'Hey, I like this. Could you burn me a copy?' I lose about $7."

The RIAA conclude that EVERY download = a lost sale.
This is baloney. It presupposes that the
downloader would have bought it if not
for the download. .... Not True.
Your propose a similar theory.
You presuppose that person would have bought it. This is not necessarily true.
What APPEARS to be true however, is that the free DL acts as a catalyst to sales.
People DL , enjoy, and out of loyalty ..
they BUY.
Just look at the Box Office receipts for
Casino Royale ... Then see just how
much it has been Downloaded. Gee
Their sales suffered, didn't they ??

"Just look at the Box Office receipts for
Casino Royale ... Then see just how
much it has been Downloaded. Gee
Their sales suffered, didn't they ??"

good point. the huge box office draw was due to the popularity of James Bond. I went to see casino royale and though it was an excellent action movie, HOWEVER it wasn't james bond. it had literally NOTHING of the style that made James Bond popular. if you like Claude Van Damn, Rambo, Arnold Swartzenager and movies like that then by all means go see it. If you like the glib pithy oneliners, the suave look, the clever gadgets, Bonds interplay with moneypenny and M and all the things that make James Bond unique, then DON'T go see it. you'll be disipointed.

had I known that I wouldn't have wasted my money.

I'm actually glad that there exists the doctorine of "first sale" in copyright.

By law, albums, CD's, Tapes, (& even books, magazines, etc.) may be resold by the original customer without having to give a portion of the proceeds to the copyright holder.

It's a good thing too. Otherwise, we'd have automobile manufacturers claiming you had to pay them for each time you sold your car. By the same reasoning, they would be able to claim a "lost sale" each time you traded in your old vehicle for something new.