This would allow college students (at participating Universities) to legally download unlimited amounts of music by way of a "reasonable" fee. Currently downloading copyrighted music results in potentially being sued by the draconian music industry (RIAA).

If you want to read more, check out the full article at Wired:

Currently downloading copyrighted music results in potentially being sued by the draconian music industry (RIAA).

This is not true. You get sued for sharing, not downloading.

This would allow college students (at participating Universities) to legally download unlimited amounts of music by way of a "reasonable" fee.

THERE IS NO LAW AGAINST DOWNLOADING!!

This is not a "reasonable fee," it's another money grab for the big boys. After nine months, the new company that Warner started to approach this question has had one single idea -- give us $5 a month.

They keep pretending it's not their idea and that the $5 isn't set in stone, but that what they keep asking for. And in return, you'll get what? Not sued? Is that it? You simply turn off sharing and you won't get sued. Of course, no one in any of the major U.S. universities, with the possible exception of Harvard, seems to be aware of this little tidbit.

So year after year, we have to remind the new kids that downloading is not theft, no matter how many times they tell you it is.

And of this $5, how much will go to the artists? How will it be distributed? Based on what?

This idea hasn't grown one iota in the last 6 or 8 months since it was first unveiled. The entire plan consists of "Give us $5 a month."

a big :kissbutt:to them!!!

well i wanted to moon the RIAA not kiss they're ass

Thank you for the comments. This is my first article (ever). Downloading a copyrighted work is illegal though distribution is prosecuted. I am not an attorney so I cannot explain more in depth, but in my opinion, less than $5/month is far more 'reasonable' than what I had anticipated (more than $10/month).

I think the fee should be completely optional/voluntary as any other fee may actually be challenged in court as unconstitutional or otherwise illegal as not everyone is interested in this system.

I for one believe we should reward the artists and I would sure hope the majority of this 'fee' would go to the creators. The RIAA deserves nothing; in fact, if this came into existence, I as well as many others would wish for their final demise.

I'm not sure this would ever work either considering the many problems: 1) not everyone wants to pay for this, 2) you pay once the monthly fee (because it would HAVE to be optional) then download tons of music and 3) share all your newly downloaded music with everyone else.

Everything has it's problems and right now, the main two goals I hope for are 1) the RIAA's demise and 2) artists to be paid fairly for their work.

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DOWNLOAD!!!!!

and the RIAA wont get that to the artist they would keep every bit. it won't happen..

George there hasn't been one case of a down loader sued correct? they have all been based on files being shared.

" I for one believe we should reward the artists "

We ALL believe that as well.

" I would sure hope the majority of this 'fee' would go to the creators. "

That would be nice, but it goes to the
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS.
These are almost never the 'creators'
of which you speak, but I'm sure you
know that.

And still, on top of that, no one has yet
to fully explain just how this is going
to be 'fairly' distributed.

" ) share all your newly downloaded music with everyone else. "

Including those who have not paid the
'fee' ?

As far as your supposed goals,
this will in no way further the RIAA's
demise. It simply gives them money
for nothing to do with as they see fit.
which ties in neatly with 2.

In order for item 2 to occur, item one
would have to occur. This fee would in
fact further neither goal.

Also ...

DOWNLOADING IS NOT ILLEGAL.
No matter how many times this lie is
repeated it will NEVER be true.

Not ONE RIAA suit is based on Downloading.

They are all based on UNPROVABLE
distribution, which they themselves
have admitted in writing they cannot
fully prove ( it's too hard to prove so
they want judges to just take their word
for it and give them what they want.
Lawyers in suits would NEVER lie ).

And, once again.
Give them this and every single business
that can even have a remote chance of
internet revenue will demand their own
peice of this pie.
an endless stream of 'intellectual property' holders that
demand rescue from the evil internet.

This is unacceptable and won't work.

the Netizens will get around it no matter
what.

So, why DO they go after college
students ?

Are they really more egregious offenders ?

My theory ....

If someone were to trace my home
ip addy, sometimes it comes up in
Texas, somtimes in Il, sometimes in
CA ..etc .. none of 'em even close.

But ....

Universities lease blocks of ip addys
for their use.
an IP for U of I for instance will always
point right at the U of I.
This makes it easier for the highly funded
legal team of the RIAA to bully a
college network admin into narrowing
down their target .. more of a chance for
a NAME, regardless of whether or not that
name actually was responsible for ANYTHING.
But the amount of money threatened
cows the university into compliance.
Easily fueling the extortion machine.

Low .. Hanging .. Fruit.

Spend some time here ...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/


You may learn something.

Or you may not.

All up to you.

I am very grateful for your responses. I have learned a lot and since it seems there is so much misinformation and opposing sides between whether downloading copyrighted music is legal or not, I have e-mailed my legal adviser who is a copyright specialist and professor.

Dreddsnik, you are dead right on most of your points particularly the college ideology.

" I have e-mailed my legal adviser who is a copyright specialist and professor. "

Might want to CC some of the fine
folks at Harvard.
For some reason, they seem to be
immune from extortion.

Mysterious, isn't it.

Not for long though.
You'll see, if you visit Mr Beckemans
blog, that Harvard has jumped into the
fray whether the RIAA wants them or not.

The RIAA had better keep in mind,
those Harvard students are the future
policymakers in the US.
If THEY see the harm the RIAA is doing
fisrt hand, the future will be VERY bleak
indeed for the RIAA.

" it seems there is so much misinformation and opposing sides between whether downloading copyrighted music is legal or not "

The 'misinformation' is only coming
from one side.

I think you know that.

garrens, welcome to the wonderful world of Boycott-Riaa!

Be prepared for lots of learning about the music industry and the pleasure of getting to know all the gang who still hang out 'round here,

...but also be warned that headaches and heartaches abound in this "line of work".

But I have always found it well worth it!

Dig in! I and the "old folk" will aid you as time and ability allow!

Since you're apparently new here, don't mistake my tendency to get right to the point as any sort of animosity. I also use sarcasm, but I'll hold back until the very end.

First of all, it is important to point out that we were here complaining about the artists not getting paid fairly for their work before the RIAA started suing anyone.

None of the cash from the 30,000 settlements went to the artists.

Secondly, most of us ARE artists and I, for one, do not think allowing Warner, Sony and Universal to collect $5 a month from every college student in the country even approaches a rational idea.

How about Sony has to pay the Bay City Rollers the money they've been "holding" for them for the last 30 years first? But I suppose you don't know about that, either.

"Downloading a copyrighted work is illegal though distribution is prosecuted."

Completely wrong. That's the speech, all right. It's simply not true.

You might have heard of the iTunes Music Store. Or Amazon. Downloading is the delivery method they use to complete retail transactions. There is no question of the legality. If downloading were illegal, these businesses would not be allowed to operate.

Technically, the Audio Home Recording Act (I'm not gonna go look it up right now) made the act of making personal copies for non-commercial purposes "not actionable" offenses. So while the RIAA can still claim that downloading is technically copyright infringement, they technically can't do a damn thing about it.

"...though distribution is prosecuted."

Distribution is prosecuted? After 30,000 cases and five and a half years, exactly one person has had a trial.

They're not prosecuting anyone. They don't have to, because the college kids have no clue what's going on and neither do the schools. There doesn't have to be a law if you can just threaten a lawsuit and get 30,000 people who are willing to pay up rather than ask questions.

" it seems there is so much misinformation and opposing sides between whether downloading copyrighted music is legal or not "

Ah yes, the RIAA "education campaign." Try opening your eyes.

Here's a song. Go ahead. Take it.

Go to DMusic. Thousands of songs available for download. Virtually everything written since the invention of rock and roll is still under copyright in the United States. That includes those songs at DMusic. Or these.

There is really no question "whether downloading copyrighted material is legal or not." It is. Not that it matters because they can't prove distribution, either.

The fact that colleges have unquestioningly bought into the whole "downloading is theft" mantra without bothering to look around and see that it is obviously NOT illegal is something which I feel qualifies as an enormous failure of the entire educational system.

If it seems reasonable to pay the RIAA $5 a month not to sue you for something they have repeatedly shown themselves completely incapable of producing any tangible evidence to support, and if your school thinks paying this extortion is an appropriate solution to the problem, well, I hope your school doesn't have the word "technical" in its name.

How to Make the RIAA Stop Suing Your Students

Step One -- Find one person on campus who knows how to turn off the "sharing" function on p2p programs. This is usually a simple checkbox.

Step Two -- Show everyone else how to do this.

Step Three -- There is no Step Three. You've just got to keep telling the freshmen every year.

Actually, that's probably unfair to the freshman. I'd guess that two-thirds of the students on your campus have no idea about this, much less whether they are sharing or not, if they even think about it at all before they get a lawsuit. Apparently the faculty hasn't stumbled upon this advanced physics yet, either. And not just at your school -- pretty much every university in the country seems to be unable to grasp this concept.

Otherwise, paying $5 a month per student not to get sued would never be seen as a "reasonable" offer.

Don't pay $5 a month. That's silly, not reasonable. Just stop sharing RIAA music. Download all you want. Just don't share and the problem goes away.

Is it really that difficult to understand? It seems incredibly obvious to me.

There is a big problem with the logic of "tell everyone to disable sharing" on P2P networks because without those that share, no music would be available for download...

I'm never up for giving the RIAA even a cent let alone 500 cents.

Downloading is in fact merely a method of transmission.

I'm not sure my school would be interested in making any drastic standoffs legally with an entity such as the RIAA. I say this because they are very conservative and frankly, the attorney generals office is "not the sharpest tool in the shed" at my university. Harvard did stand up to the RIAA some time ago, but that is because they have a strong legal department. We have great professors (of Political Science and Business Law), but the actual practicing attorneys in our attorney generals office are not the best so I doubt a standoff would be something they would desire or could handle. I think they are too weak and feeble to take on such crooked organizations who fill brains with false realities like the RIAA.

Hey, it took me months of negotiating just to get them to enact a 'three strikes' system instead of a 'one strike, pay for unlawful search and be invaded of privacy among other things' system. I was barely able to get that and that was when I had the full support of our head of Information Technology. I would need a lot of force to make such crazy changes and I would hate to see anyone paying the RIAA. I wish artists (all artists) would go 'ala carte' from the RIAA and labels.

So much to say, but I need more information verified.

There is a big problem with the logic of "tell everyone to disable sharing" on P2P networks because without those that share, no music would be available for download...

I thought you wanted to solve the RIAA problem at your school. There was also a concern for paying the artists mentioned.

Now you're worried about the content supply for peer-to-peer? How about let those of us who create content worry about that?

Protect your students. Tell them to stop sharing RIAA music.

I'm not sure my school would be interested in making any drastic standoffs legally with an entity such as the RIAA.

Yeah, those lobbying groups can be pretty frightening. They have briefcases and everything.

I need more information verified.

You came in here pitching a monthly fee to the "draconian music industry." Not because anyone even thought it through as an idea, much less "verified" it. But because you're scared of them.

I've been "verifying" the RIAA for six years. They're making shit up as they go along, not even worrying if it reconciles with what they said last month. They're not even very smart.

And the schools are quivering in fear.

Hey, it took me months of negotiating just to get them to enact a 'three strikes' system

If you had spent that time teaching them about turning off sharing, along with the danger of sharing RIAA music (the rest of it is legal to share), you'd be done now.

" There is a big problem with the logic of "tell everyone to disable sharing" on P2P networks because without those that share, no music would be available for download... "

Really ?
Like all these independent musicians
on Dmusic , as well a some other
non-RIAA music locations.

Not only that, not every country is run by
corporations, like the US. Since the
internet IS worldwide, there will always
be sharers.

No,
Something is a little fishy about you.

What information, precisely, do you
need 'verified', that you are having
such difficulty ?

I have nothing to say about this proposal, except to quote the imortal words of Mr. Bill: "Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

" Harvard did stand up to the RIAA some time ago, but that is because they have a strong legal department. "

Harvard has never recieved a supoena.

Ever.

The RIAA has never even attempted to
approach Harvard ... ever.

They are jumping into this in defense of
the 'innocent until proven guilty' of
their own free will.

The RIAA should be pissing themselves.

"Protect your students. Tell them to stop sharing RIAA music."

garrens,

It BEGINS! (The "edumacation" of you!)

-----

See the one thing we here at Boycott-RIAA and our enemy, the RIAA actually "strangly" AGREE on???

"...to STOP sharing RIAA tunes"

-----

Think about it closely and carefully a while. (It's a VERY important factor!)

-----

JFYI to Dreddsnik, autodidact and folk,

...our new pal garrens might end up as the NEW chief admin here at Boycott-RIAA. (Since I and you and gdZiemann and CodeWarrior nor any of us "old-folk" no longer have the free-time to devote.)

Let's teach what we know to him AND at the same time LEARN from him if he does "officially get the job."

Hurts to say it, but,
WE "old folk" REALLY ARE getting to be OLD FOLK.

...getting time to pass the baton.

Wow, my words are very closely analyzed. I'm not even sure what to say anymore. I know the RIAA uses the fear factor, but personally I am not afraid of them, but many people are.

If I had the access right now, I would hack up my article to represent more truth because it did not quite register to me how popular this site is and how devoted the members are until Ziemann took my argument to the slaughterhouse.

I say things like 'verify' and 'clarify' not to sound untrusting or fishy, but because I want solid answers seeing as how all I have been fed for these years has been untrue propaganda, I'm very curious.

I am not a musician and honestly, I know very little about music but I love music and appreciate it. On that note, I really should learn Piano; seems fun...

I like many people (that I know...) however only really hear the RIAA-supported music because after all, they make-up the "big boys" (all the labels).

@Ziemann - I'm listening to the song you linked to, "Cry" and it makes me cry (pun intended) to notice how much vocal synthesis is used on the RIAA-supported music comparably...

There are quite a few details involved in music, copyright and intellectual property that I desire to get ironed out. Particularly because though "downloading" may be legal, is storage and possession also legal of this copyrighted music?

I'm pondering ways to 'get the message out' regarding downloading music at my school because if I encourage downloading copyrighted music, my school may find it as a school violation because supposedly it's against our school rules to download copyrighted music.

My legal adviser (aka professor) hopefully can handle to field my many questions because this battle must be fought and to fight it at a school that is not quite as 'name-brand' as others would be a great battle to win. After all, if and when I win this new-found battle with my school, I hope other schools follow suit, but I know from dealing with them in the past, they are not the brightest, are very stubborn and conservative so convincing them otherwise may be quite the task.

I'm very interested in learning much more and I am not 'fishy' so much as I am curious. Perhaps to you that means I am fishy but to me it means I like to get all aspects of a story before I fight for one side...

You can call me Garren, by the way instead of Garrens.

"Ziemann took my argument to the slaughterhouse"

garrens, "Ziemann" is a bit "gruff" with his words sometimes, but look beyond anything you might at first THINK is an assult/insult upon you from him.

(Or, from ANYone else who has "been here" a long time.)

lol,

I'm just trying to give you some more of the "fore-warnings" that leflaw doesn't think about sufficiently when drawing in new-blood.

(It can be ROUGH around here until you figure it/us all out.)

----

You gotta ALWAYS remember, the folk here who are most vocal about these anti-RIAA issues are often the ones who have been bitten HARD by the RIAA.

(And/Or we crum-bums who have seen so much injustice occur that it makes us SICK and very distrustful of anyone and anything new that comes along.)

----

(garrens, you gotta "win" us old-folk over.)

lol

OR, you could try to completely make us "old-folk" totally irrelevant.

...told ya this was not an "easy" job, lol.

GZ is pissed because he can't get a record deal

I think "don't share RIAA music" is quite practical, within the confines of a university, especially if you are using their network. If you want to hear RIAA music, there are many websites now where it is available free/legal for listening.

I think it is unfair for a university to have a blanket policy of "don't download copyrighted music" when many artists WANT you to download to sample their stuff. Indie artists send their tunes to mp3 blogs for distribution out on the web. They offer tunes on their own websites or sites like DMusic.

If a university is for education, then it should educate: This group of companies (RIAA) don't want you to hear their music, except through very narrow restricted channels. And they will sue you if caught distributing that music on the web. On the other hand, there are artists who want to give freely, for promotional value, or just because they want to share the joy and passion they had that motivated them to make the music in the first place. And they want you to spread it around. Copyright allows an independent artist to do that, too.

It is not right for the university to tout the RIAA's position, which applies only to their music, and ignore the opposite position of a growing number of artists not affiliated with the RIAA. That's mis-education! A university should say, don't share these, but DO share those. In no event should they pay protection money to the RIAA. College students are going to buy RIAA music. That's a fact of life. They are going to make copies for their friends. That's a fact of life. That may or may not be covered under the AHRA (American Home REcording Act). I think that the university has a right to disallow that kind of sharing/copying on their own networks. But again, they should also encourage the downloading and sharing of independent artists who want to have their work heard.

GZ is pissed because he can't get a record deal
Geez, leflaw, don't tell people that.

Ziemann took my argument to the slaughterhouse.

Warner Music's "give us $5 a month" plan deserves to be slaughtered. The fact that the educational system thinks it is a good idea is astonishing. The fact that you thought Boycott-RIAA was a good place to spread the word about the "reasonable" solution, another joint venture between 3 of the 4 cartel members, which proposes every college student give the RIAA $50 a year, well, what did you expect?

The RIAA's lame story has to be slaughtered every time it walks in the door, no matter who leads it in.

This is debate territory. My job is to make you think, to make you look at what you're saying. I don't have time to waste being namby-pamby. This is how I talk to my friends, who have learned to appreciate the intellectual challenge.

The RIAA's entire philosophy is based on nebulous and contradictory reasoning. Their lawsuits against students are a frivolous waste, if not intentional abuse, of the judicial system.

Ziemann took my argument to the slaughterhouse.

The lawsuits have been going on for five years. Aimed at college students. I thought the college students would have taken the RIAA to the slaughterhouse by now.

I guess that's why I'm so critical of the colleges' willingness to pay off the extortionists.

"Particularly because though 'downloading' may be legal, is storage and possession also legal of this copyrighted music?"

You can record the RIAA music off the radio. Perfectly legal to store and possess. Asking this question about music that is freely given away borders on silly.

No one is going to make you cough up a receipt for every song on your iPod. If you don't redistribute, there is no copyright issue.

After all, if and when I win this new-found battle with my school...

If the students are not sharing RIAA music, there is no battle to fight.

My 12-year-old daughter understands how this works. It is not rocket science. If you do not share RIAA music, you will not be sued. Period.

After this much time, if you get caught sharing RIAA music, you deserve to be sued.

different take.

If the universities got together and sued the RIAA in a class action, and the RIAA said "lets do a settlement and you get all the music you want for 5$ a month, and you can pass it on the the students as a cost",

I would have to consider it.

I want to make one thing clear. Since I am new to the whole independent music scene, whenever I reference "downloading music," chances are I mean RIAA-supported music, not indie music. I do not know the percentages but I know the vast majority of my friends, family and others listen to a large portion of RIAA-supported music whether we know, like or want to or not because it is the common music.

For example, I am listening to "Tim McGraw - Last Dollar" by watching/listening to it on YouTube. I see that McGraw's CD and record label are part of the "Corrupt CD" list on Boycott-RIAA: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/corrupt_cds

I would not buy this song nor any song when I can listen to it online free. Many people would download music off P2P networks like this and what I want to know is, is there downloading of such RIAA-'protected' music legal (ONLY DOWNLOADING)?

I asked that question to my professor and legal adviser and got this response: 'Downloading copyrighted music immediately triggers the copyright statute' (quoted as accurately as I could remember when he said it) so that means downloading the music itself is illegal even if the RIAA cannot or does not (probably too difficult) litigate it.

Trust me, I'm not here defending the RIAA by any means; I despise what they do and who they are. I think our justice system also has things a little backwards; we issue lengthy copyright laws but in my opinion relatively short patent laws even though patents are far more expensive and difficult to attain let alone likely more difficult to create a product protected by said patent.

I still love someone's quote from around here "A musician without the RIAA is like a fish without a bicycle." I've told it to numerous people and very few actually get it right away because they are confused so I have to explain it, but still a great quote.

I understand sharing RIAA music is the general cause of action to begin a legal dispute which is why I never condone people I know sharing music.

Leflaw, would you mind explaining the legality of downloading and storing RIAA music with applicable laws (like NET Act or DMCA)?

'Downloading copyrighted music immediately triggers the copyright statute'

Why wouldn't the same hold true for copying an article out of Newsweek or the local daily newspaper? Is the university engaged in an education program to stop that sort of copying? Why not? Why single out music?

In any case, I would like to hear Leflaw's explanation as well, of the legalities of downloading (not uploading or distributing) an MP3 of a song on an RIAA label.

Is it 1. arguably legal, or 2. illegal, but impossible to prosecute, or 3. illegal or legal, depending on circumstances? What statutes lead to conclusions 1, 2, or 3? I disagree with your professor's "immediately triggers" language. It immediately triggers nothing. If it is copyrighted and on an RIAA label, clearly their intent is for no distribution, clearly stated on each CD. Even then, there are legal exceptions to allow copying.

As I mentioned earlier, the American Home Recording Act, passed by the Congress in the early 1990s made it legal for you to make an analog or digital copy of music that you own. This allows home taping or CD copying. Explicitly. It also indemnifies one against being sued for recording a song from the radio. (The Supreme Court's Sony decision accomplishes much the same thing for video recordings of televised content.) Does Leflaw apply AHRA to internet downloading? or some other statute?

" As I mentioned earlier, the American Home Recording Act, passed by the Congress in the early 1990s made it legal for you to make an analog or digital copy of music that you own. This allows home taping or CD copying. Explicitly. It also indemnifies one against being sued for recording a song from the radio. (The Supreme Court's Sony decision accomplishes much the same thing for video recordings of televised content.) Does Leflaw apply AHRA to internet downloading? or some other statute? "

Since in the Cecelia Gonzalez case, the
RIAA DROPPED all counts regarding
songs that she OWNED CD 's FOR, they
FEAR that the AHRA does in fact include
a download as legal if you in fact
possess the CD, so they did not want to
press the issue in court and risk a
BINING PRECEDENT.

It may or may not, but the RIAA will
run away if it even LOOKS like a
judge could decide against them,
so it may be a long while before anyone
knows for certain.

My opinion ...

If you own the CD then there is
absolutely no difference if you copy
that CD to a tape, or download MP3's
of the cd for your own use.

As for the legal opinion, the RIAA would
rather not risk knowing.

btw, ever since that case they decided
to sue on the basis of distribution, and
NOT downloading.

Distribution they can't prove, but since
they have more money than those they
sue, this may never come to a real legal
conclusion either, since the victims
settle out of fear, or the RIAA cut and
run if it looks like they might lose.

much bullshit.

hopefully, it may be starting to finally
unravel for the RIAA

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/12/second-default-judgment-motion-rejected.html

Here's what I'm talking about. From Ray Beckerman's blog.

Students make noise in fight with RIAA

The highest-profile fight between new technology and old copyright laws has taken a new twist in New Hampshire, where law students are helping to defend a Hudson woman from claims that she illegally downloaded songs.

"Most of them (students), I think, are interested in the case from an intellectual and academic standpoint. They also have an interest because it's relevant to their friends," said professor Ashlyn Lembree, who runs the intellectual property and transaction clinic at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord and who is overseeing the students' work.

Complete story

---------

If the universities got together and sued the RIAA in a class action, and the RIAA said "lets do a settlement and you get all the music you want for 5$ a month, and you can pass it on the the students as a cost",

I would have to consider it.

Really? You'd sell us out?

Or are you saying that if you were representing the education system, selling out the students would seem like a win? You'd still be paying the RIAA.

--------

No one is even asking where the money will go. It is assumed the artists will be paid. They never have been yet, but no one is asking that question. Will it just be major label acts that are paid? Are the rest of us eligible to participate in this? How about those of us who have our own web page? Do we get paid for downloads?

The opening plug says three major label and one independent label are participating. One independent label. It should pay anyone whose music is on peer-to-peer. The Warner Music "solution" will not involve or benefit the majority of American musicians in any way.

Obviously, I have a far different perspective on this than just about everyone. I think handing the RIAA a big pile of money every month just because they were assholes for five years is ludicrous. I think not even asking about the rest of us is an insult.

After all these years, the "educators" are still clueless. They don't even want to know, they just want to make it go away.

Things like this make me feel like what we're doing is a waste of time. This is why I'm not writing about the RIAA much anymore. It doesn't make any difference; it has nothing to do with me.

Here is the more formal explanation my professor gave me (minus the legal information because he referenced his book I am reading for that which I may post soon):

"Any one who downloads a song is violating one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, i.e., to make a copy of the work without permission. This is not mere propaganda. It's REAL. Not only is the person who downloads the song directly liable, the Internet Service Provider is vicariously liable. Not to mention anyone who might be involved to a greater degree than the ISP and be liable as "contributory infringer."

These laws are absolutely draconian because Big Entertainment got them that way. And the trend continues. Unless it stops we will soon be prosecuted in federal court for committing a crime by downloading music without permission and sentenced to jail. All the scholars including me, in particular, are calling for copyright reform." -Dr. Marc Lindsey, author of Copyright Law on Campus

Ziemann, no one wants to give money to the RIAA. It would make sense the RIAA's job would actually be significantly diminished if their litigating "job" would be virtually extinct (in a perfect world, which we don't live in).

I am not in favor of this $5/month idea anymore considering how little the industry deserves. $5/year would be FAR more suitable and it should encompass all music; every artist should be reimbursed equally regardless whether an RIAA artist or an Indie musician, dependent on who gets their name out more.

Ziemann, is this your page for all your music or just some?

Also, this site does not like my "< a >" tags at all:

Copyright Law on Campus: http://www.amazon.com/Copyright-Law-Campus-Marc-Lindsey/dp/0874222648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229153726&sr=8-1
Ziemann Hurricane Project: http://hurricaneproject.dmusic.com/

garrens, this site uses a custom version of a BBC code in the comments (and within the submitted articles themselves too)

Try brackets instead of < a > :

[url= http://link .com ] example [ /url]

(remove the spaces to make that into a link.

" [b ] [ b/] " (for example) makes text bold and etc.

if the link is short, you can just put type out the link without any tag-code at all

http://electricgypsy.info (for example)

...but if the link is rather long, please use the BBC code to keep from breaking things.

I am not in favor of this $5/month idea anymore considering how little the industry deserves. $5/year would be FAR more suitable and it should encompass all music...

I'm so glad we convinced you! I'd hate to think a Boycott-RIAA admin would be in favor of the extortion. (And that MOST CERTAINLY is what it is!)

Keep your ears open to what gdZiemann and Dreddsnik and autodidact and other's here have say! Our people are SHARP and have been doing this stuff a very very long time.

I'm not saying to blindly agree with any of us on each and every issue. We "old farts" even continue to disagree among ourselves often. lol. But I am advising that you pay very close attention when any of us bother to speak out. Chances are, no matter what topic comes up, we have dealt with it and debated it many times before.

There are very few website/communities out there that have done the same thing for as long as we here at Boycott-RIAA. A vast amount of shared "knowledge" is here for the taking. Take the time to browse the archives sometime. (Warning , It would probably literally take you a year or more spending 8 hours a day to read it all!)

One thing we do agree on, 'cept Lef
apparently ...

Giving the RIAA members monthly
money for nothing, with no oversight,
and without knowing how it gets
passed around is wrong, stupid,
and ridiculous.

" "Any one who downloads a song is violating one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, i.e., to make a copy of the work without permission. This is not mere propaganda. It's REAL. "

This still does not make the lie true.
Especially in the cases where the
downloader owns the CD.
If it were no doubt, then that's what
the RIAA lawsuits would be based on.
Even THAY know that downloading
is not illegal.
I could care less that the source is a
Professor. Some of the stupidest
people I know have degrees.
Wrong is still wrong .. with honors.

" These laws are absolutely draconian because Big Entertainment got them that way. And the trend continues. Unless it stops we will soon be prosecuted in federal court for committing a crime by downloading music without permission and sentenced to jail. "

So the best idea is to just give them
monthly money to go away ?
You know what other folks took money
to 'protect' people, don't you ?

" $5/year would be FAR more suitable "

No amount is suitable.

" every artist should be reimbursed equally regardless whether an RIAA artist or an Indie musician, dependent on who gets their name out more. "

You know as well as I do, this will never
happen as long as the big 3 monopoly
is allowed to continue.

You are fighting for the wrong thing.

This is the last time I'm going to bother telling you the truth about downloading. I've already told you once in this thread, so please pay attention.

"Any one who downloads a song is violating one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, i.e., to make a copy of the work without permission. This is not mere propaganda. It's REAL.

By this theory, recording a song off the radio would be illegal. While it is, in fact, a violation of the copyright holders rights,

IT IS NOT ACTIONABLE.

The propagandists (and your professor) conveniently always forget to mention this little technicality because it messes up the whole fear thing they're trying to sell.

Ziemann, is this your page for all your music or just some?

That page is just what we let people have for free. Rough versions of originals, cover songs, songwriting samples, and lo-resolution versions of music we plan to sell. Your copy of "Cry" is still in the "rough versions" pile. Way too much effects, a by-product of turning it into an mp3.

So far this year, we've had more than 160,000 downloads/streams.

We would have much more available, but there was a long period in there where there was no good reason to record more music. There was no way to get it into people's ears. The RIAA had the retail chain locked up. They bought out the airwaves. There was p2p, but those kids aren't looking for us. Then they came along with this "downloading is theft" bullshit, which effectively casts aspersions on our primary way to expand our audience. Now, the colleges are going to pay the RIAA for what we all used to get for free on the radio.

This Choruss thing is a bailout for the record industry. Much like the bailouts of Wall Street, etc., the people who worked hard, offered music, avoided DRM, thought that suing people was a disasterous idea, and embraced the internet, well, fuck us.

So the songs on my page primarily consist of our output from the last 15 months. There would be more, but we don't live in the same city and we've only had 8 days for actual recording in that time period.

So if the question was a lead-in to "How do you expect to make money if you give everything away for free," the short simple answer is that we give away lossy prototypes, we'll sell the real thing.

So this may be our new admin ?

hmm, Maybe twarrior wasn't paranoid
after all.

He just may have been right.

So this may be our new admin ?

Wonderful.

@George ....
From shmoo's post above ..

" ...our new pal garrens might end up as the NEW chief admin here at Boycott-RIAA. (Since I and you and gdZiemann and CodeWarrior nor any of us "old-folk" no longer have the free-time to devote.) "

@shmoo

It's not time I lack, it's health, and
know-how.
I truly wish that were different, but it's
not, and I have made SOME peace with
it.

@Garrens,

By fishy, I mean you're apparent eagerness
to tow the company line, to appease them,
to take at face value the words of the
'well respected', and 'well educated'
men in suits.

This has been going on a loooong time.
All of the information from BOTH sides
has been around for a loooong time.
Yet you seem surprised to learn that
what you thought was illegal is actually
a smoke screen.

I find this odd because it is just as obvious
to me that you are NOT stupid.
After all of the information is on the table,
anyone who has a brain can see plainly
how the RIAA has manipulated media
and message to maintain their grip, their
control.
With all the cards are on the table,
the only ones continuing to follow
the company line are either company
owned, or stupid.

As I said, you are clearly NOT stupid.

This makes me worry about the direction
Boycott-RIAA is going to take in the future,
as well as Dmusic.

Is the sell-out coming ?

Only time will tell.

A lot to say...

I am NOT here to be an admin that will force my beliefs unto you. In fact, I am not writing anymore articles until I get more feedback and information because I will not concede to the beliefs of everyone here nor do I expect the same. I am not interested in solely what one-side believes, I care about the truth in how our current laws and regulations define these issues. I am very interested in this type of law (IP law specifically Copyright) so I want a broad understanding before I join the side many of you seem to be on. I do NOT support the RIAA nor am I interested in ever supporting them, but I remain optimistic that if there was no reason to litigate people, there job would vastly diminish. Unfortunately the draconian penalties are still in existence and they are a large reason for me to be so sickened by the RIAA more than anything. The fact that Charles Nesson (Harvard law professor) analogized the BS penalties like this: $750 for each MPH (Mile-per-Hour) over the speed limit for speeders in America and then $150,000 for "willfully speeding" is atrocious.

As per my professor, I did not include the portion of his e-mail which exemplified his mutual hatred for the RIAA (just wanted to show the legal portion I guess). He wants to keep in contact so we can work towards the same goal of taking the RIAA down.

He is not a conspirator or believer of the RIAA information; he was a federal and trial attorney in Texas and his specialty now is particularly copyright. He merely gave the legal lamens terms of downloading copyrighted music. It is illegal to download the copyrighted music whether it is actionable or not (apparently).

If I do become the admin of this site, I will not enforce my beliefs unto anyone. I actually encourage others like yourselves "old members" to write articles as well so we can have more information the way you want to see it.

Hopefully we never have to sell-out to the RIAA; I'd only be game for 'selling-out' to the artists who deserve the money.

garrens, don't let the mistrust we "old-folk" have discourage you from learning AND teaching.

As I said before, our "old-folk" have BEEN here a long time and they "know the ropes"! It is only natural (and right) that any potential new admin is gonna get "shook-down" for a while until proved worthy. (It's because we "old-folk" deeply CARE about the mission/message/agenda of this site!)

So, don't let anything anyone says get to you. Try to see the POINT they are making.

Being admin here is like herding a flock of cats or worse. Not everybody is "speaking from the same angle or point of view" at any given time.

My perception is that Larry/leflaw is interested in you because:

1) You Hate The RIAA

2) You have demonstrated a history of activism (the stuff you have done at your school to fight the RIAA)

3) You have ability and skill with computers/website management & creation (etc.)

4) and, You are "fresh and new" (lol, unlike all us old farts who have been here and in some ways have grown stale)

5) etc.

------

I hope you will throw yourself into this crazy mess and devote your time and effort MORE-SO than you would to any lucrative full-time job.

(And, while doing so, MAKE leflaw compensate you accordingly!)

We all know him fairly well. He is altruistic, but he ALSO has tons of his personal money tied up in DMusic and Boycott-RIAA (and his other associated ventures) and wants to start seeing a profit.

Who could honestly blame him?

But,

I, myself (and I only ever speak in my own opinion/view of things) have a FEELING that leflaw MIGHT (might, because I am not %100 sure) ...he MIGHT be asking too much of you and/or any new admin being sought. INSOFAR as "drawing in money" in the "marketing/promotion" sense.

I personally think he needs to hire a separate team for the "sales and marketing" aspects. (Hell, he could give them a huge percentage of the sales they are directly responsible for!)

Asking the TALENT to also handle the sales and marketing is just asking too much IMHO.

(But, maybe that's just me. MAYBE you ARE good enough to handle the whole shebang! I know I failed miserably.)

Just writing/posting all the relevant articles/info that comes out daily is more than a full time job in itself...

NOT TO MENTION dealing with the diverse folk who bother to VISIT this site and comment/argue/agree/whatnot.

-----

If I understand correctly, leflaw wants someone who is ALSO gonna be updating/redesigning the site for modern times.

---------

I certainly hope you are up for the tasks ahead. (And, don't forget... us "old-folk" will always be "hounding" you too!)

----------

lol,

I'm just trying to let you know some of the things you are "in for"

Honestly, I'm not hindered nor am I scared by any of the "old folk." Like all people, I respect your opinions, but I do not let my eyes lose sight of the goal.

My main personal goals would be to improve the site's overall image because the current format may prove intimidating to attracting new members, then secondly keeping content fresh and relevant, and lastly finding a way to market it. There is good reason for the marketing to come last; if it came first, we'd end up like other companies/sites and merely be putting up "mirrors and smoke screens" by enticing people to the site and maybe making money but eventually, they would see through it and the benefits would be outweighed by the losses.

I always like websites which particularly focus on the content, flow and functionality above sheer marketing.

The ability for a reliable system which operates analogously to the mind's functions equates to a well-made site. Sites that have 1) too much information, 2) poorly laid out information or 3) Information deficits suffer. Our audience differs greatly than the audience of other sites. We need to usher in a new era of site design and functionality.

The main aspect I dislike is the entire design. Haha, yes, the entire design bothers me. It just does not really 'catch attention' or interest users I doubt.

In fact, I've run across this site numerous times in my desire for further information on Anti-RIAA groups and discussions, but it never really 'caught my eye' until I saw this article: Need a Webmaster because I saw potential in the site but a lacking interface.

It got me going particularly because I have knowledge of every requirement mentioned, some more than others.

Every day particularly since I have been a college student I have contemplated regularly the means of fighting back against the RIAA. Heck, even with the tons of Facebook groups already anti-RIAA, I made my own, which some of my friends did join. Coincidentally, I use the same toilet paper RIAA picture that Leflaw used as well. It took a lot of work to finally convince my state university to change their OWN draconian policies. But what motivated me was a bunch of friends I knew who had their 'shit hit the fan' and I was sickened in how the school handled it.

They shut down the user's internet, forced the user to either 1) bring in their computer or 2) face disciplinary action. When bringing in a computer, it would be SEARCHED (ahem... legality?) for "infringing files" then the user would HAVE TO PAY $65 for said search! Then the user would attend a copyright class (taught by Dr. Marc Lindsey).

I was outraged, immediately fired off e-mails to our IT department demanding answers (no asking questions nicely when something is so wrong). Eventually one man actually began ignoring my questions because he believed what they were doing was right. So I arranged for meetings, made phone calls and finally met with one very unintellectual woman. She amazed me in how submissive one could be to such atrocious policies.

I later got sick of the "regular IT" members and arranged for a meeting with our brand new head of IT. I met with her and a gentleman I dealt with before (after speaking with her for 30 minutes, she called to get him immediately to come over to compromise). She was so new, she did not know such policy existed. Now the tables turned... He now claimed they were interested in removing that policy (funny, I recall them loving the policy). But that did not stop me or her; we forged a compromise, without his full agreement because she had power over him. I solely wrote our policy to be far more fair and understanding for students.

Essentially, we have two tiers of "infringers." One tier is just the student who gets caught doing potentially "objectionable file content downloads." They figure that out at the school by checking bandwidth, IP location, file size, etc... then they send an information request to the student to explain behavior. If they admit to wrong-doing, it's strike 1. If they explain, it's back to square 1 (no strikes). Second strike = Copyright class (I think) and 3rd strike = visit with Student Conduct.

On the other hand, when we get DMCA requests directly from yours truly (RIAA or MPAA), apparently we are required to shut down access (shut off internet). But this time, another information request is sent and computer is NEVER brought in for searching. Second time = longer internet shut off time and copyright class I think and 3rd = potentially permanent shut off and student conduct referral.

Needless to say, a much-needed compromise even if it still means we must "work with" the RIAA because eventually we will ween away from them.

In life, we cannot always expect to get everything we want. I would have loved to have my university refuse to deal with DMCAs. Unfortunately, the attorneys the state of Washington gave us are hardly the 'sharpest tools' if you catch my drift so they'd never support that nor could they win a case probably (and that's sad because the RIAA has few grounds if any to fight on...).

I like challenges, so try me... But do note, I enjoy "fighting fire with fire" so just because I have been seemingly outgoing thusfar does not mean I will not fire up more later (just a warning).

I want to share a NON-RIAA music video that I love (and the music itself!) with you:

MC Lars - Download this Song

" I care about the truth in how our current laws and regulations define these issues. "

And if, in your opinion, the 'Law' supports
the kind of extortion the RIAA uses,
( it doesn't ), what then ?

" It's the 'Law', so deal with it " ?

Slavery used to be legal,
Beer used to be Illegal,
So many cases where the 'Law' is not
just a little off, it's totally WRONG.

What if the precious 'Law' seems to
support something totally and
completely wrong ?

How do you feel about that ?

If I had known at the outset that the person who posted the "article" was the new site admin and not just some random college kid, I wouldn't have bothered trying to educate him.

That's what the archives are for. Garren, you need to read them from the beginning. I have a summary, but it is extremely biased toward actual facts instead of whatever your professor tells you, so I suggest you read the actual archives and judge for yourself.

That's where the truth lies. If you're looking anywhere else, you're wasting your time.

And ours.

George, if you are against an RIAA bailout as proposed by Griffin, you must be against the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts, and housing too for that matter.

Must be consistent. Just Checking.

A also assume you voted for Nader, Ron Paul or Bobb Barr, and not Obama, since the two party system is corrupt.

Byw, if any college wants to pay Dmusic for a covenant not to use, feel free.

Everyone, when I say I want the 'truth' for this stuff means I want to know exactly how it is NOW. Just because I want to know the current extortion practices does not mean I agree with them.

From the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to the Copyright Act of 1976, they all represent different things.

From one perspective, the DMCA offered immunity to ISPs/hosts for 'making available' copyright infringed material. For example, if YouTube was not protected under the DMCA, that site would have been hit too hard to survive because they would be liable for user-created content.

I am some 'random college kid' because it's up to leflaw if I become the site admin.

Ziemann, I am a college student, which means my time is limited to a great extent. I love reading and enjoy reading of this information, however I would be bored stiff reading so many articles on the same topic.

Dreddsnik, like I said I want a good legal background. I actually intend on possibly studying and practicing IP law in the future so I'd rather not only hear one-sided arguments, which is why I am contributing at this site and trying to learn what the RIAA does as well. I do not agree with anything the RIAA does frankly and I'm appalled with it, but in order to make any progress in the real world, "ranting" on this site doesn't do jack squat.

How about this fire? It seems to me this group is more about ranting somewhat privately while not pushing to fire back more about the RIAA and their extortionist policies. Do you write e-mails, letters, make phone calls and otherwise try to repudiate your legislators notion of supporting these draconian bills? (Rhetorical question)

I do. I believe a good defense is a better offense and the only way we will attain our goal of the RIAA's demise, we must have support. If all we do is bitch about current conditions and how it's all extortion, what good will that do? You can rip me all you want for what you think I know, am doing or want to do, but I know one thing for sure, I am trying to instill change in our system and preventing the RIAA.

We can't just be some useless and unorganized mob in our fight; we must be well-versed and mobile to actually MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD.

Shmoo's article only encompasses things on this website with speaking out. But I challenge everyone to instead take the fight to somewhere it MATTERS, your legislators and rallying support for a cause! We must change the role of this site from a ranting cult keeping their voices on the site solely to: A site that gathers and organizes it's members in support behind ANTI-RIAA. That way, we could actually fight back and be our own lobbyists.

We need to get these extortionist laws to change and I'm anti any laws the RIAA or even the MPAA supports. For example, the MPAA is lobbying President-Elect Obama to embrace "internet filtering." Sorry, I do not agree with that and we all need to voice our opinions against it on many grounds (free speech, ability to attain unbiased information, fair use, etc...).

Leflaw you make a good point. I am a hypocrite for voting for McCain. I should have written in Ron Paul. But I am against all bailouts, and I hope George is agreed.

Garren(s), I agree with your stance in principle. I am not encouraged, though. Whenever I write my congresscritters on this issue, I get dead silence from them. And right now, we are frankly in a time of crisis when the economy is going down the toilet and our country is being destroyed, robbed by the banksters and their accomplices in both political parties (see hit piece today in the NYTimes on Sen. Chuck Schumer for example). Whether the government can do anything about the depression (they will try, but IMO they will fail and we are looking at Japanese-style stagnation for a decade, or worse), they are looking at huge problems (relative to the dollar amounts the media industry represents) in real estate, banking, industry, and so on. I just don't know if this is an auspicious time to agitate.

Making a living off of music is insane. It always was a crap shoot to devote yourself to a stupid business model( "the music non-business" i used to call it in the 1980's).

Now you have to be brain dead.
_____________________________________







---------- Forwarded message ----------
Subject: The Business of Classical Music: Classical Music After the CD
X-URL: http://businessofclassicalmusic.blogspot.com/2008/12/classical-music-after-cd.html


The Business of Classical Music


Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Classical Music After the CD

The Past

In the 20th century, recording and distributing music was an
economically viable industry. It satisfied the needs of the consumer
(to have access to recordings of artists and repertoire) and it
compensated the performers, composers, labels and distributors for
their efforts.

For classical artists and ensembles, recordings served many purposes.
For the most popular performers recordings could provide significant
income. For others the income was secondary to the promotional value of
being recorded. The best artists and ensembles were recorded. The more
frequently you were recorded, the more prestigious the label and the
more well regarded the accompanists the more money, status and
promotional value the recording created. Recordings served as a proxy
for the status of the artist or performer. Whether the recording
created the status or the status created the recording was unclear but
the two came as a pair.

The Present

The Internet and attendant digital technology has fundamentally
disrupted the recording industry. Today anyone can make an infinite
numbers of copies of a recording and can share those copies with anyone
else at no cost and with little or no effort.

Technology has no ethics. It may be wrong to copy a recording and share
it but you cannot base an industry on a presumption of moral behavior.
Even if a significant number of industry participants follow the rules,
a large percentage will not. The practical, social and economic
difficulties of making the industry work are insurmountable when a
large share of the revenue vanishes and the moral minority who play by
the rules are constantly confronted by the reminder that others do not.
Attempts to legislate or to litigate proper behavior have completely
failed. There is no practical and/or scalable way to enforce the
desired behavior. The 20th century recording industry is dead.

The Future

The remaining 3 "major" labels - Universal, Sony and EMI - will be out
of the classical business within 2 years. They will create no more than
a handful of additional classical CDs. With the possible exception of a
few "crossover" artists the labels will drop all of their classical
artists. The majors will focus on trying to salvage their pop business
and will abandon classical because it is more trouble than it is worth.
The 20th century recording industry and business model is obsolete. It
will soon be gone.

The remaining viable classical label will be Naxos. Their costs are
dramatically lower and their business model allows them to operate
profitably in a smaller industry and with much lower sales numbers. A
primary contributor to Naxos' lower costs is the fact that they don't
pay any residuals to the performers. There is no income potential for
performers in the Naxos model! They will profitably produce CDs for
several years longer than the majors.

There will be a small number of "vanity" labels left but their volume
will be microscopic and they will operate on the same financial model
as Naxos. They will ultimately disappear as well.

Virtually the entire recorded history of classical music will vanish
from the world. None of the pre-2000 material had digital rights
cleared when it was recorded and the cost of clearing these rights now
dwarfs any income that could result. There is no commercially viable
model for reviving this material.

Music will still be recorded but it will have to be recorded very
inexpensively. Cost considerations will dictate that music will be
recorded live and music will be distributed "raw" - without the
extensive engineering designed to make it "perfect". This music will
capture the excitement of live performance and the audience will expect
character, excitement and imperfection rather than the homogenized
perfection of the studio recordings of the past (This is a big issue
for many performers - Get over it!). Live recordings will completely
replace studio recordings, new recordings will completely replace old
recordings, the shelf life of (most) recordings will be brief, fresh
recordings will have maximum value to the audience.

Payments to everyone involved in the recording of live music will be
reduced or eliminated reflecting the repurposing of recorded music.
When recording was a revenue generating industry it made sense to share
that revenue with all participants. Now it is a brand building and
audience development industry. The value of brand building and audience
development is shared by all participants. Recording and distributing
live performances preserves, sustains and enhances the brand equity and
commercial viability of everyone involved. Each paarticipant benefits
from the value created.

Everyone will have an internet connected home theater. Webcasting live
music into the home will still retain significant economic value. The
audience will pay either through subscription or pay-per-view models.
Live performances will be perceived as an "event" rather than a
recording. Reaching a broader audience through webcasting will be a
critical strategic component of any 21st century performing arts
organization.

So - where does this leave the classical world?

The 3 Laws of Classical Music in the 21st Century
1. Money will be made by performing, by donations, by sponsorships
and, in some cases, by endorsements.
2. Recorded music will have no commercial value other than promotion.
It is not a tool for revenue generation - it is a tool for brand
building and audience development.
3. Every download and every stream of recorded music increases the
promotional value of that music and increases the brand equity of
the performer and presenter. It does not cannibalize recording
revenue because there is no recording revenue! It does not
cannibalize ticket sales - it enhances ticket sales by enhancing
brand equity and building audience demand!

A Plan of Action

As the performers and presenters watch the recording industry melt away
under them - what should they do!
* Recognize that the CD is dead. Recognize that there is no direct
revenue to be made by recording. Act now!
* Be an artist/entrepreneur! The 21st century artist, performer or
presenter cannot focus on the art and let someone else worry about
the economics. Promote yourself tirelessly and broadly.
* Get your music recorded, put on the net and make it as widely
available as possible! Stream it! Download it! Put it everywhere
you can. The promotional value of recorded music will no longer
rest on the prestige and promotional engine of the label. Instead
the promotional value of music will lie in how broadly it is
disseminated, where and by whom. Every time your music touches the
public it will enhance your brand awareness and your economic value
as a performer.

There is a lot of denial in the classical music world. Performers still
believe that a CD represents a badge of honor. They can't let go of the
obsolete recording business model. They cling to the fantasy that there
is intrinsic value in recording and that they should be additionally
compensated for the recording of a live event.

This is toxic thinking!

It prevents us from confronting reality, from making a plan to deal
with reality, from moving on and succeeding in the 21st century. It
prevents the industry from adopting a business model that will assure
its survival. It wounds us all. Living in the past can assure that
classical music shares the fate of the US auto industry.

Don't fight the future. Embrace it. Adapt to it. Make the future your
friend!
Posted by Bill Stensrud at 2:19 PM

21 comments:

< comments removed to lighten post />

Followers (9)

Follow this blog
Stop following
Echmech
Bard Conservatory
paladino
Chris Johnson
innova recordings
zach
Golden State Girl
nobleviola
evschu
9 Followers View All Manage

Blog Archive

* v 2008 (1)
+ v December (1)
o Classical Music After the CD

About Me

My Photo

Bill Stensrud
I was a technology entrepreneur and investor but always had a
passion for music. When I was very young I was a roadie for the
Grateful Dead. I fell for a violist and that was my introduction
to the classical repertoire. I now make private investments,
work with InstantEncore.com and attend over 100 live classical
performances each year.

~~"Do you write e-mails, letters, make phone calls and otherwise try to repudiate your legislators notion of supporting these draconian bills? "~~~

I had a good laugh over this...the people here over the years, have done just about everything imaginable..some have even WRITTEN new bills..talk to CodeWarrior...

But hey, here's the new guy on the block...maybe it will be a different world now.
http://change.gov/

Don't mind my rants, I'm just a Canadian.

Remember in the sixties? When American college kids went on the march against injustices? That's what I'd been waiting for...it never happened at the height of the mad...now it'll just be a sell out at five bucks a month, which is probably the only thing to end the bloodshed...

" How about this fire? It seems to me this group is more about ranting somewhat privately while not pushing to fire back more about the RIAA and their extortionist policies. Do you write e-mails, letters, make phone calls and otherwise try to repudiate your legislators notion of supporting these draconian bills? (Rhetorical question) "
.. rolls eyes ..

All of the above, with the expected results. I don't think you've been here
NEARLY long enough to use such a
broad brush to paint us over with.

So, what else WOULD you have us do ?
Take up arms ?

No .. so far the best anyone has been able
to come up with is to pay the 'protection
fee' on a global level, through ISP's

Just a bunch of ranters .. that's pretty
damn rich.

When enough college students have to
quit school over this, when enough
schools lose enough students where
it begins to hurt THEIR bottom line,
it will start to become a real fight.

Hey , I went down to Washington with DIMA, a large industry lobbying group, to meet with senators Spector and Cantwell, and watched how the big guys do it.

I then held a conference call with all the luminaries in the so called anti-riaa movement. Some of them are on this thread. Others are dead. Nobody cared to get involve in real lobbying. Benaeth them I guess.

I saw that internet types like to stay on the internet, and not engage in real life.

End of that Lobbying campaign.

"Downloading a copyrighted work is illegal though distribution is prosecuted."

There is NO LAW ON THE BOOKS AT ALL that claims downloading is illegal with ONE EXCEPTION being Child Pornography. Find me the legislation that says downloading is illegal. You won't be able to, because it doesn't exist!

Copyright infringement is illegal, not downloading. Copyright infringement is simply the misuse of someones copyright. We have had FREE syndication of both audio and movies in the forms of AM and FM Radio -- and Broadcast Television since both of these things were invented right before the middle of the 20th Century!

There is absolutely NOTHING that claims any form of audio or video syndication is illegal -- this includes downloads!

It would be one thing if they had pressed congress to amend the law to make downloading a form of copyright infringement. But -- they never did that. This means -- all of their lawsuit attacks on people are illegal and a form of harassment. How can you prosecute someone for breaking a law that does not exist?

If they turned downloading into infringement LEGALLY and THEN sued people -- they'd have a little bit of ground to stand on. But guess what? They didn't. It is the RIAA who is breaking the law, pissing on the artists copyright and blatantly ignoring fair use laws.

If transmission of audio via electronics is illegal -- then you are also claiming that FM Radio, AM Radio and Broadcast Television are also illegal -- because it is the mass syndication (sharing) of copywriten content via electronic means. If everyone was rich and had enough money to run their own local AM anf FM stations -- it would be equivalent to people sharing and downloading music.

To say that the Internet is somehow different because your average person can use it -- is holding people in contempt for the cime of not being rich! Basically saying -- if you are rich, you can do whatever you want. If you are not in our rich elite class, then you can't do whatever you want -- cuz yer not as uber ultra FTW cool as we are!

-Dave

Making a living off of music is insane. It always was a crap shoot to devote yourself to a stupid business model( "the music non-business" i used to call it in the 1980's).

Now you have to be brain dead.

Or just love music more than you love money.

I then held a conference call with all the luminaries in the so called anti-riaa movement. Some of them are on this thread. Others are dead. Nobody cared to get involve in real lobbying. Benaeth them I guess.

Actually, yes, it is a very distasteful idea. I want to influence musicians, not politicians. The RIAA can do whatever it wants. Knowing what it wants and what its labels will do (and have done) should be enough to deter a reasonable person from entering into a business deal with them.

I saw that internet types like to stay on the internet, and not engage in real life.

In real life, you can only change one brain at a time. Very inefficient. Before the internet, I had a weekly newspaper to reach a reading audience. The internet is better and police lieutenants don't stop by half as often to give me reports or warn me that I pissed off the city manager.

Plus, I've been told all my life that being a musician isn't living in the real world. I lived in Las Vegas for a few years, too. Definitely not the real world, but the money was good.

---------

As I recall this site started BEFORE the lawsuits. It was about artists rights and the way the record labels have systematically screwed their acts for decades. It was about how the money we thought we were giving to the artists by buying their album rarely made its way into their hands. It was about reminding the world that when the RIAA says, "It's all about the artists," they're lying.

The artists didn't get the money from Napster, they didn't get the money from the Kazaa settlement, they're not getting the money from any of the thousands of lawsuit settlements. There is no reason to believe that they will see a dime from this fee.

When the lawsuits started, our response was, "If they sue you for doing that, then don't do that." But downloading is not inherently illegal. It is the choice of the copyright owner whether or not it is legal. The RIAA music is the only music which has been deemed "illegal."

I know, history is tedious. The point is simply that the lawsuits have hijacked the purpose of this site. I really don't care about the lawsuits, never have. If you listened to us, you didn't get sued.

I was worried about market barriers to the independent and the futility of DRM. They're gone now. The RIAA is no longer in the way.

I'm still boycotting them but it's about the system that's designed not to pay anyone, be unable to locate them when money is due, is under perpetual audit and ALWAYS screws the artists.

We were the only ones worried about these issues before. When the lawsuits stop, these inherent problems with the music industry will remain. The warnings to musicians will still apply, more than ever, but now they've become boring history.

All of the RIAA's legal efforts are to benefit copyright owners. Sign a label contract and you'll work for the owners of the copyright of the work you created.

Be the copyright owner. Keep your rights.

I thought that's what the purpose of this site was.

George, if you are against an RIAA bailout as proposed by Griffin, you must be against the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts, and housing too for that matter.

That is correct. The bailouts are rewarding incompetency. So is this. The RIAA is unable to win a trial, so you're willing to pay them to stop trying?

For years they've been telling us about their 90% failure rate, which was always their excuse for raising prices. You should be able to do better than 10% by random chance.

If they fail, maybe the music industry can go back to the musicians for a while. Why would you want to interfere with that?

" That is correct. The bailouts are rewarding incompetency. So is this. The RIAA is unable to win a trial, so you're willing to pay them to stop trying? "

That's whats buggin me the most right
now, I guess.
The RIAA doesn't have to care about
being boycotted if it has a perpetual
money tree to pick from, without
having to even try to change their
ways, and it appears that Lef and
possibly the new admin seem to have
no more problem with this.

The purpose of this site is nearly made
moot by this 'plan'.

" George, if you are against an RIAA bailout as proposed by Griffin, you must be against the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts, and housing too for that matter. "

As am I.
I am even more appalled that while
they found the need to baiul out the
wealthiest of the wealthy, they felt
no concern about Labor wage folks
that will find themselves out of work.

It seems that those that 'have' show
many ways of showing their disdain
for those that have not, or those
lowly 'internet types' .

As long as no one is giving a corporation
free money, a boycott CAN work ...

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17892


Scrabulous lives again.

Bad press .. Boycott = no more lawsuit.

But lets just give up and pay a tithe to
the RIAA 'Gods'.

LEFLAW---Making a living off of music is insane. It always was a crap shoot to devote yourself to a stupid business model( "the music non-business" i used to call it in the 1980's). Now you have to be brain dead.

GEORGE Z......Or just love music more than you love money.

These statements are not mutually exclusive.

You can love music more than money. You are just insane if you try to make a living at it. George's problem is that he must have expected to make a living at it. Otherwise, he shouldn't be surprised that he is broke.

Hell, I love this site more than money. That's why I am broke. But I never expected to make a living at it.

(I expected to make a fortune!)

Haha leflaw.

Ok, I've been doing a lot of research lately and rather than taking any side (obviously who the hell would ever side with the RIAA!?!), I did some deep actual U.S. Copyright Law research.

Downloading as a means of attaining copyrighted work without permissions may not itself be illegal... BUT the storage of such copyrighted work may and is in fact illegal (with our current laws) because only the copyright holder may authorize the use and copying of said files:

"(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author." 17 USC 106 (e)(1)

Feel free to read 17 USC (particularly §106-122)

Now that I feel we have this concept out of the way, we can return to the whole intent of this site and our common belief; the RIAA's draconian and unconstitutional behavior.

The laws as they stand are unfair in so many respects but particularly unfair in penalties or POTENTIAL penalties ($150K for 'willful' infringement - give me a break!).

It's a matter of what we can do to change this process and improve our system. I know a song by MC Lars I referenced earlier and if you did not listen to it or watch it (you should watch the video, it's good); here are the lyrics:

It's 2006, the consumer’s still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I’m writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It’s all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic’s up in my face like, “Don’t steal our songs Lars,”
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R’s
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it’s wrong

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don’t need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger’s in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can’t sell bottled water when it’s freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD’s, and compact disks!

Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You’ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we’re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.

Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

And for those of us that thought just for a wee smidgen that the riaa would hold off because of their new $5.00 a month extortion fee plan...not so fast kiddies.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081215/1806163128.shtml

The war continues...

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9895/Business%20As%20Usual%20As%20RIAA%20Targets%20ESU%20in%20P2P%20Lawsuit%20Campaign

George's problem is that he must have expected to make a living at it.

Pure conjecture and faulty logic at that. I've been playing music far too long to think you can make a living at it, with the exception of being a sound engineer.

The only thing I expected was that I would see a CD that I copyrighted, published and produced, for sale in a retail venue, a small ambition that I've been working on since 1975, so I could write to the guys I started out with and say, "Check it out. I finally got one out there."

The RIAA was the last thing in the way, until they decided the retailers were competition.

I think that if I was trying to make money from the music, I wouldn't have spent a fraction of the time writing about the RIAA, or would have at least tried to hijack the attention over it to plug the band in any of the magazine, newspaper or radio interviews.

I ruined the chances for Hayden's Wall to make any money by concentrating on the RIAA and worrying about the average musician on the street instead of leveraging it into publicity for the band.

That would have been the thing to do, of course. The smart business move. Give CDs to reporters to review. Send them out to the webcasters I talked to. I could have milked it for a few bucks. Not a lot, but a few.

The band considered the CD to be a "demo." They didn't care. We sold more than one copy, making it a complete success beyond our wildest dreams.

I make money so I can make music, not the other way around. If the music would just pay for the expense of making it, the "stockholders" will be amazed and throw a party.

My financial position is due to a lack of sufficient greed, an abundance of gullibility, no business acumen, an inability to manage others and the inability of others to manage me, especially right after they ask me to do something illegal.

That's the real world. I don't live there anymore, remember?

" My financial position is due to a lack of sufficient greed, an abundance of gullibility, no business acumen, an inability to manage others and the inability of others to manage me, especially right after they ask me to do something illegal. "

Wow.
We're actually more alike than I thought
G.

garrens,

Be SMART and DO NOT pick sides ...but be aware of this family feud:

LARRY: GEORGE Z......Or just love music more than you love money.

These statements are not mutually exclusive.

You can love music more than money. You are just insane if you try to make a living at it. George's problem is that he must have expected to make a living at it. Otherwise, he shouldn't be surprised that he is broke.

Hell, I love this site more than money. That's why I am broke. But I never expected to make a living at it.

-------

GEORGE Z:

I ruined the chances for Hayden's Wall to make any money by concentrating on the RIAA and worrying about the average musician on the street instead of leveraging it into publicity for the band.

I make money so I can make music, not the other way around. If the music would just pay for the expense of making it, the "stockholders" will be amazed and throw a party.

--------

garrens, JFYI

these are (even more-so than me) the most "senior" members of Boycott RIAA that still care enough to remain "frequent" here at the site. ONE of them f**kin' owns the site ...and could rightfully take his ball "and go home" any time he wants)

- the OTHER is a longtime friend pal of his (and OURS) who is EXTREMELY talented and was (IMHO) the BEST admin this site/movement ever had (With a fellow named CodeWarrior a very close second.)

But, this is all IMHO and from MY point of view and understanding.

YOU

YES, garrens, YOU

will have to meld all this stuff together and deal with it in the way YOU see fit

-------

No, I'm sorry. (lol) you can't just go off screaming "foul" to the "higher-ups" in the human resources dept.

lol

You ARE

yes,

ARE

dealing with the "big boys" at the "company"

---------

Hint!

Nobody "owns" anybody here!

leflaw owns the SITE, but he himself admits that he doesn't own the members nor their sentiments (despite his power and right to unplug his servers!)

----------

I can't "spell it out" for you...

Youv'e just gotta GROK

Besides, the lawsuits are over. The RIAA gave up.

Yup, they are just going to pressure ISP's to
cut off services without evidence or
due process.

This way they don't have to worry about
pesky old things like Law, Due process
and innocent until proven guilty.