By George Ziemann ( wizard@azoz.com )

A few months ago, I set out on an editorial quest to make a difference in the way people perceive the music industry and to clear away some of the smoke and mirrors. Considering that I am one lone person with no name recognition -- not a spokesperson for a well-funded lobbying group, not a member of the press or any media organization -- the success of my effort has led me to see a completely new problem.

In December, I posted an article called "RIAA Statistics Don't Add Up to Piracy." Thanks to people like Wired.com, SlashDot, MusicDish.com, DMusic.com (the four sites which helped me initially push the story), the story spread. It spread so well, in fact, that (as of this writing), if you do a Google search for "RIAA Statistics," you have to wade through an awful lot of me before you find anything actually published by the RIAA. As a writer, this means that I have pretty well kicked the RIAA's ass (although the fact that they have removed their entire website for the past month may be a contributing factor).

And one member of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences found it enlightening enough to include in a paper submitted to NARAS addressing their future stance concerning the RIAA.

Therein lies the greater problem. Why did I have to tell them that the RIAA's position was based on fabrications and unsupported assumptions? What has everyone else been doing before I came along?

First of all, my "research" took about an hour, maybe two. It wasn't rocket science, just simple math. It took much longer to express it than it did to figure it out.

Secondly, until November, 2002, I had basically paid absolutely no attention whatsoever to the RIAA or anything they were saying. I didn't really care about the Napster hearings, other than to give a listen to what some of the "rock stars" had to say in front of Congress. At the time, I gave testimony the same deep consideration I might give to, say, an episode of "Behind the Music" on VH-1. I didn't really do any downloading, always thought mp3s were inferior and, as a result, couldn't really care less what happened to Napster.

So why am I the first one to publicly speak out on the simple facts? Why has my writing eclipsed the entire RIAA site? I am nobody. Why didn't I read about this in Rolling Stone or Spin magazine? Where are the people who rely on the music industry to make a living? Why didn't someone at NARAS bring this to our attention? Where are the rest of those truth-hunting journalists? Why wasn't this on 60 Minutes or Dateline? Fox News? CNN?

The only conclusion that I can draw is that each and every representative of the American media is either too lazy or too stupid to question the RIAA's propaganda. The second possibility is that they did notice and didn't bother to mention it, in which case, they are no better than liars. Either way, they cannot be trusted to deliver the truth to us.

To all of those people, I ask -- What else are you lying about?

The second largest problem lies with the people I used to call "rock stars." If you guys are getting ripped off, it's your own damn fault.

About a month ago, Rod Stewart and Clive Davis were on the Today show. Among the questions from Katie Couric came a request for a viewpoint on downloading. Clive Davis pretty much followed the RIAA script. This is to be expected because the RIAA actually represents him, as the head honcho of a record label. When it came to Rod Stewart, Rod said something to the effect that he wasn't really going to comment on that while Clive Davis was sitting right next to him.

Evidently, Clive keeps Rod in his suitcase or something, because I haven't heard Mr. Stewart make a public comment on downloading since. Thanks for helping the cause, Rod. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It helped us all so much.

I would like to even more specificly question Don Henley about his public position.

Let me make sure I've got this right, Don. Downloading mp3s is wrong because it it stealing from you to listen to your music for free. At the same time, you're paying "independent promoters" to put your music on the radio -- where we can listen to it for free.

The fact that you don't like paying the independent promotors is immaterial. The fact that payola is illegal is immaterial. What is material to this question is the simple fact that while you, and almost every other member of the "music industry", is trying to convince me we should pay you to even hear your music (much less own a copy), you are simultaneously paying the radio conglomerates to force feed us exactly the same songs.

I defy anyone in the entertainment industry to justify this.

I'll even go one step further -- I already know the answer. But I'm going to wait a week or two and see if anyone else in the industry has enough balls to step forward and say it first.

I'm not talking about someone who "used to be a party to major label deals." You can save your breath. Go to another party.

I'd also like to exclude Janis Ian from this one. That is just because she is the one and only "industry" voice that I have heard (or read) discuss downloading and CD-Rs in an intelligent, factual manner. I have great respect for Janis because she is honest. But I've already bugged her enough. It's time to hear from someone else, unless Janis is the only honest person in the entertainment business, which is a distinct possibility.

So, if you are what the masses would consider a "star," and would like to help me clear this up, please explain to the public why the same music is free on the radio and not on the Internet. If you do, your version of the story is next.

Otherwise, I'll have to tell them.

I love you. I need to read more of your stuff. When are you putting out a book?

yes...book...give us book!

Actually, I believe Courtney Love wrote something about the "evils" of the industry during the time of napster.

Love ya, too, jkate.
http://www.azoz.com.

There is enough there to keep you busy for a while.

kneo24 is correct about Courtney. Her article in Salon.com was primarily focused on trying to educate the public about who's really getting the money and what for. And she didn't stand up with the RIAA to fight against Napster.

So that's two.

Much as I dislike telling anyone to look at one of the biggest concentrations of anti-p2p propaganda on the internet, www.musicunited.org does make intresting reading. Its got long lists of quotes from artists moaning about downloading. I wonder how many of those artists agree, and how many were told to say it?

The site demonstrates the industrys attempts at sabotage too: One section tells people how p2p programs steal their bandwidth and let everyone see their hard drive, then has instructions for disableing shareing.

The answer to the media blackout question on the Riaa can be summed up in one word

Payola

It's supposed to have been stamped out in the music industry but don't believe it. Great article!!

Want to see why there is a media blackout? Take a gander at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/index.html shows who owns what. The very same people who own the major labels also own the media, radio, television, books, magazines, billboards, etc.

I memorised most of that a long time ago.

Nice try, guys.

Payola. Media blackout. Anti-P2P propaganda.

These are all merely symptoms of the illness. What must be identified is the cause of the burning fever that is killing the patient. If we stop the infection causing the fever, the rest of the symptoms will disappear.

lol, that one on musicunited.com has got to be the most obsured thing I've ever read. They claim that sharing makes it so that garage bands don't get signed. When everyone knows the record companies only sign people to sing their music. The majority of artists anymore are cookie cutter types anyway. I can think of maybe only three CDs that I've bought this year where the artist actually wrote their own songs.

Oh, and according to that, me and my sister are criminals cause we exchanged music. lol, that is so ridiculous.

And saying that copyright is enshrined in the Constitution? Guess they don't realize Congress could revoke copyright anytime they so choose. It's not a part of the Constitution. The Constitution only says that Congress has the sole responsibility to create copyright law. The reason? Heads of State at the time were largely corrupt and the Founding Fathers feared a President might create their own copyright law as a favor to friends or family. Kings were known to do such favors in that time. Not sure if they did it to copyrights, but the Founders evidently covered all the bases to ensure a future President didn't overstep his bounds.

I go now to purge my mind of the drivel I saw on that site.

Not to mention that copyrights are intended to ensure that someone doesn't steal your work and claim it as their own. That's what happened to Edgar Allen Poe. He died penniless because people stole his work and put their name on it. I don't see me or anyone else stealing Metallica's music and putting our name on it. Besides, if it hadn't been for Napster, I would never have downloaded and listened to Metallica and discovered I liked their music. It wasn't until about 1997 or so that where I live got a real rock station that actually played their music and I only make my decisions on purchasing music based on hearing the song. Which I did in the case of Metallica. So, long live P2P and here's to hoping Congress gets it together and legalizes it.

Then again, the labels should be like all other businesses and just accept the minor losses.

in response to your questions.
---
you didn't have to explain the situation to naras. I'm sure the perceptive people there were quite well aware of it. they play their own games in their arena of entertainment.
---
"everyone else"? well, probably not explaining things to people who do not care and were already familair with the situation.

if one assumes your above queries to be rhetorical, I think you missed your target a bit.
---
you're not the first one to publicly expose anything. frankly, I think the rather self-congratulatory tone of your "article" is a bit irritating. however, most of your key points are correct. just please don't take credit for inventing the wheel as well.
---
you didn't read baout this in spin or rolling stone for many reasons. I'll offer my opinions below:
-they're fashion rags and anyone who searches for big "t" Truth in them is wasting their time. and perhaps a bit more than naive.
-they're heavily supportedd by the same companies that you're railing against. obvious, but you asked.
-spin's concern for "informing" people is directly related to the amount of advertising they can sell. anything else is surplusage. any other view is self-delusional.
-same for rolling stone and any other fashion or music rag.
-because, and frankly, this might be the most important point and one you do not address, most people simply don't care. most consumer's could give a rat's ass about this struggle, noble as it may be sometimes.
---
your question about where are the people who rely on the industry to make living is a bit opaque. what is it you expect industry people to do? and why do you think that these insiders, many of whom are decent people just working for a living, have any more impact on how the industry they work transacts business than an autoworker does to affect the way gm does business?
answer; they have no impact at all.
---
why would naras rat out the riaa when they are "partners', to one extent or another, in this struggle?
---
good question. where are those truth seeking journalists on a number of issues much more important than this one?
answer: they're protecting their jobs and doing what they're told (or what they perceive to be in their best interest to keep drawing a paycheck).
is that right? of course not. but how many paychecks are any of you willing to throw in the trash can for the truth? how much time do you spend lobbying your elected officials giving them the "truth"? how many of you even vote? and do you inform yourself about your vote if you do?
---
same answer as the naras question, these agencies have no interest in this issue for sveral reasons, first off, it's trivial on the national scene. the music industry isn't as big as the pet food industry nationally. second, these people are any more interested in the "truth" than the publishers of fashion rags. they're interested in selling advertising and keep your eyeballs glued to the screen. how many of you are willing to write letters to sponsors on these networks saying you're not going to support them by buying their products until you see these networks actually reporting real news.
---
"they" are lying about a good many things. more immportantly, they're just not talking about a lot of things.
---

to add some random comments on the rest of your piece.

expecting "artists" who have prospered in the system that made them to rebel against it is rather naive. and rather silly.

instead, I think you would better put to not buy anything from those artists. you want to get real attention. organize a general boycott and buy NO music for a month. nothing. and get a lot of people to agree to this. and if the labels do not respond to this action (assuming it occurs, which I think is a long shot) then do it again.

the problem is, most people just keep on consuming. sales may be down but until they dry up to a much more drastic point the labels can respond by cuting staff, raising prices and cutting other costs.

one look at the general profitability of the industry over the last decade demonstrates this clearly.

what is needed is powerful, unified consumer action NOT buying product. anywhere.

as to your thesis about music being "free" on the radion and not on the net, of course, I have to assume this is some kind of rhetorical exercise on your part. the two things are vastly different.

am I supporting the practices of the riaa members? hell no.

I'm just pointing out that one is not comparable to the other.

a better, more accurate comparison would be, why is music available for free via p2p clients and not at best buy, or tower records?

the answer is obivous.

so is the solution.

If most consumers do not give a rat's ass, then trying to promote a boycott seems rather pointless.

If I want to webcast the Eagle's latest release, I have to pay Don Henley. If I own a radio station, he'll pay me. Same song. Both free for the consumer to listen to.

They're not comparable? How exactly are they different?

Don't tell me the media has been busy "working on more important" issues. They've been talking about this issue for months.

As for the self-congratulatory part at the intro... On one hand, point taken, but it was necessary. On the other hand -- no brag, just fact.

Yes, I do vote. I serve jury duty. I do write to my senator and representatives on a regular basis. I am a member of EFF, even though I do not agree with everything they support. And I fully understand what I am and am not voting on.

I have written to my Senator in the past 24 hours (but well prior to this post) regarding this issue, as a matter of fact. The payola issue is slated for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee sometime this month.

It doesn't matter what someone unearthed before. This is now. It is before the lawmakers this month.

Boycott all you want. I'm with you, been doing it for months. But inaction won't change anything.

One more thing.

"how many paychecks are any of you willing to throw in the trash can for the truth?"

My bass player and I just parted company because he hooked up with an EMI deal. He's telling me I just walked away from at least a quarter million.

So the answer to your question would be "Lots of them."

Actually, numerous boycotts have taken place for a month time span and had some impact. The RIAA and it's cohorts would rather keep with their dieing business model instead of adapting.

Good. Let 'em die.

Simple, but very relaxing to sit back and muse on this. Why would we need them to change if they're doing the job of killing themselves already? :twisted:

that's good to hear hayden. I'm glad you stood your principled ground. it's a rotten shame more people don't.

as for your comparison of webcasting to radio I could only comment, with sincere respect, who cares? I mean webcasting? don't get me wrong, I support you and webcasting in general.

but if your fight is just one to have webcasters treated like braodcast radio, well, frankly, I'm not interested in creating yet another class of middlemen to sort through music.

understand, the comparisons between webcasting and radio are ridiculous because of the serious limitations, now, and potential of the medium. any kid with $3 can have a radio and hear music. webcasting is still, and will be for some time, something of a niche.

my concerns are geared much more towards the p2p issues and retailing. that's where I think the real fulcrum for change should be placed. webcasting has it's place. but in my humble, or not so humble, estimation, it's down the list.

as for the "boycotts" in general. they've been ineffective for exactly the reasons I point out, *most* consumers don't care. where this issue can grow is in education. the message has to go out to the music consumer that there is a better way. they just have to stand up and demand it. the myth of marketplace reacting to the consumer is just that. it's time for the consumer to force their hand or, from my point of view just as preferrable an outcome, run these bastards out of business.

either way, "we" win, if we can work together as consumers with common interests.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere.

I stuck on the webcaster issue because with streaming media the end result is the same as the kid with the $3 transistor - the consumer hears the song for free and (theoretically) has no tangible copy.

Once you go to the p2p issue, you give them the leeway to start arguing about a "thing" -- the mp3 file.

What I'm really stuck on is this, both as a consumer and a musician - The major artists pay to have us listen to their songs for free, unless we choose a different medium to listen to the same song, in which case someone must pay the artist.

And if the payola allegations are true, why would the RIAA bother to chase individual consumers in an effort to have them punished for what they would like the law to say, when they had a big fat cash cow (Clear Channel, Radio One) sitting there violating federal laws that already exist?

Why take the low road, when the high road is obviously much more profitable?

Some weeks ago, I heard a nationally syndicated radio talk show host go on about how large corporations were like socialist states. He made no mention about the RIAA situation, their tacticology and all that (I've been saying for some time that the RIAA, MPAA et al. are in a way like socialist states, for reasons cited in other threads), but his point was that there exists in virtually all large corporations a "collectivist, groupthink" mentality whereby everything looks (and sounds) alike, from the cars you drive to the music you hear. He also noted that in a collectivist society, the individual is loathed, vilified, reviled, despised et al., and that in a company if an "individual" dares to rise up, he / she gets fired, or worse.

The RIAA, MPAA, IFPI, BSA et al., certainly have this "collectivist" mindset in spades. Notice how many "useful idiots" and / or "ventriloquist's dummies" they have as part of their anti-consumer, anti-technology vendetta (i.e. Britney Spears, Nelly, Eminem, Metallica, Dr. Dre in the former category; Rod Stewart in the latter). Also, how those who have gone against the RIAA party line have been mercilessly savaged in the media and subjected to all types of retaliatory retribution. Courtney Love is a prime example; after sticking her neck out against the RIAA's Stalinist tactics and on the side of Napster, all sorts of stories about her past wild and crazy lifestyle (not to mention her lawsuit against the surviving members of her late husband Kurt Cobain's group Nirvana) were trudged up over and over again by the press. Now, it seems, you don't hear so much as a peep from her on this issue; in short, she has been effectively and essentially silenced -- the only things you hear about her now in the news are either a drunken rampage on an airline or going crazy in some nightclub. Also, you don't hear so much anymore from Chuck D of Public Enemy who'd also gone against the RIAA party line on the Napster issue. And of course, Janis Ian, for speaking the courage of HER convictions, was denounced in an online op-ed piece by an RIAA-type flack as being part of a "fifth column" against the recording industry. The message is clear: If you're an artist who's not willing to "go with the program" on the RIAA's aforementioned vendetta, then you're not a "legitimate" artist, in their narrow view.

Very good, W-B. You're on the right track, so much so that I promise to reference it later.

I'd only change "go with the program". I think you not only have to buy the program, but every add-on, update, revision and back-step that goes with it. It's all or nothing.

Excellent article I just have one thing to say to anyone saying the majority of people don't care - they don't care because THEY DON'T KNOW how badly they're getting *screwed*. Take a poll of how many of your friends know about the CD settlement. That's possibly one of the biggest losses for Big Media, yet I'll bet 2/3 or 3/4 of the people haven't heard about it... Also, the deal was structured to be a such an amount so as not be worth one's time. Find the right website, fill out the right form, and months later you *might* get some chump change?

I would venture to say (and someone with statistics please help me out) that most people know downloading or otherwise obtaining copyrighted material in a permanent form without paying for it is illegal, but they don't care ***because it doesn't affect them personally***. Yeah, they feel like they're screwed when they go to a record store and pay $20 for a CD (some places charge more than that), but they'll lament 'what can we do?'

There needs to be ONE single website reporting on all this stuff, or a co-op of sorts - much like a CNN for the anti-RIAA/music industry scene. Otherwise everyone will be fragmented without really hearing all sides of the story.

And another thing: I say "useful idiot" to describe musicians who claim that they're being "hurt" by downloads and file-sharing not just because it serves the interests of the captains of (music) industry, but also because it serves to divert the attention (and energy) of the musicians in question from realizing (or noticing about) their being and / or having been cheated by their respective record labels. Both scenarios of which are interconnected and interrelated.

Just a thought...

You might want to contact: Lachie Rutherford, the president of Warner Music Asia-Pacific or Jay Berman, chairman and chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, who have been quoted as saying:

‘‘There is no income from the royalties, so artists in China record single songs for radio play instead of albums for consumers,’’ said Lachie Rutherford, the president of Warner Music Asia-Pacific. ‘‘Stars need to look elsewhere to finance the rock-star lifestyle.’’ Industry executives say this reality also is beginning to draw attention in Europe and the United States, where music companies face falling revenue from compact disk sales as Internet piracy increases. ‘‘The financial effect is the same for record companies whether people get illegal compact disks for $1 on the street in China or download a song for free from the Internet in Europe,’’ said Jay Berman, chairman and chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, a London-based group representing 1,500 record companies worldwide.

While classic record-company contracts are built around albums, record companies in China now sign up to manage all aspects of an artist’s career. In exchange for a percentage of the earnings, the record companies arrange promotional events and negotiate product endorsements. Berman of the phonographic industry federation cited a groundbreaking deal made late last year between the British singer Robbie Williams and EMI Group PLC as an example of China-style recording contracts moving westward.

Quoted from: FROM: Pop stars learn to live with pirates
Thomas Crampton/IHT International Herald Tribune
Friday, February 21, 2003

http://www.iht.com/articles/87521.html

thanks for the (well, yet another) good piece!

I skimmed after "Don Henley", then jumped to the comments to say "Janis Ian", but then I thought to reread carefully. I'm pretty sure there was something by Prince supporting P2P (search news archives). I know that Negativland actively supports P2P ( http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster/20020121_negativland_essay.html ), was pretty sure I heard Foo Fighters supported. I think Chuck D was vocal also. Some searching can probably yield a great number of supporters. In my opinion, Rod Stewarts' silence above SPOKE VOLUMES.

I run a very tiny label. I decided long ago to (essentially) opt out of the entire music industry. All orders I get via website, I find out that they heard about us from shared mp3s.

Ziemann's "I am nobody" is probably the key (or "a" key). Look at what George Z did from nothing with no resources (compared to RIAA etc). Now duplicate that by 5 billion people. The RIAA conglomco's HAVE LOST - it hasn't happened yet, but it is inevitable.

The main problem is one of *perspective*. The RIAA seems like a giant unstoppabble juggernaut running over numerous tiny fragmented opposition. I hypothesize that, in general, people in the same boat as me distrust networking into the level of an equal-but-opposite ANTI-RIAA juggernaut, because then it would just morph into what it was trying to oppose. Plus, if we were one giant coherent unit, it would give them something easy to tackle. As it is we are 200 million (or whatever) individual little anti-RIAA machines - they may be able to stamp on some of us, but distributed, and each powerful on our own (as shown by George's example above). We can attack from over here with this tactic, while so-and-so is over there attacking with another tactic, and nobody knows what everyone else is doing.

We may be diffuse and etheric, but we can have an effect. We should see that as a strength rather than as a weakness.

Our aim is true: digitalconsumer.org's "The Consumer Technology Bill of Rights" goes halfway (as does EFF's CAFE's "Baseline"); they need to add a statement as such (paraphrasing from a 2600 editorial) "It is human nature to share what we like; technology should enhance and facilitate that human desire, not hamper it." and "The consumer/fan base is the artists lifeline; rabid fans eager to share your work line your pockets (and your egos.)"

Another artist (I use this term loosely in this case) who supports file sharing (at least back in the napster days) is the fat balding moron himself, Fred Durst.

I really don't want to interrupt yet but I'm still paying attention to you all. You guys/gals are doing great.

rexholmes' closing quotes speak volumes.

If you need a good laugh, I finally found some 2002 data. http://www.azoz.com/news/2002piracy.html

Touche! Another thing that I have noticed is that all the while the RIAA is moaning about how much money they are losing, they should notice that the music scene today is at an all time low. I can't honestly think of 1 (radio friendly)band that is really pumping my nads (so to speak)

The idea that music is out on the radio without paying the artist is false. Whenever music is played on the radio Performing Rights Organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and SESAC track these broadcasts. This tracking is done through a variety of means. This does not mean that an artist is paid for every broadcast because it is currently impossible to do something like that with 100% efficiency. Despite this they are tracked, and with the advent of BDS, it's becoming more efficient. After tracking broadcasts, the appropriate PRO then sends a royalty check to the appropriate artist. Ex: ASCAP pays Garth Books royalties for radio his air play.

As we get further into radio, more money is involved. One prime source of income for stations is commercials. Since businesses have to pay money to run advertisements, it is only logical that the cost of this goes into the product they are selling. What does this mean? It means whenever you buy a product advertised on the radio you are helping to pay for the commercial that aired. This commercial gave the station income that played the song you once thought was free. Once you get down to it, the music you're listening to on the radio is not free at all.

Now to the age old question: Why should I pay for music I can download for free? Answer: Because it is legally considered intellectual property. This means that someone owns the song you are listening to. According to the law, you have to pay money if you wish to own a copy of a piece of music that is under copyright. The only exception to this rule is when you have been given permission to do so otherwise by the owner of the property in question. Just because it's easy and free to download does not mean its right and it does not mean its not stealing.

This is exactly why I earlier made the distinction that the comparison was to streaming music, not P2P. This is a bullshit argument.

I'm talking about listening to it, not owning it. And if you think owning an mp3 file is comparable to owning a CD, your ears don't work well enough for you to even be discussing music.

Garth is going to be lucky if his ASCAP check pays even a portion of his payola bill. The broadcasters certainly don't pay royalties. They're exempt.

So Garth pays. And the advertisers pay. Now they want the consumers to pay too. Yeah, there sure IS a lot of money and, as you said, "As we get further into radio, more money is involved."

I'm sure this will all come out in the open if the Senate Judiciary Committee gives us that payola hearing Orrin Hatch promised on February 21.

The bottom line is this: It's not about the money. Never has been. That's just smoke and mirrors. All of it -- downloading, P2P, CD-R, mp3, royalties, the RIAA's "concern" for the artists, even the testimony they give under oath in front of Congress.

All lies. It's not about the money at all. Every one of us that put music here at DMusic put it there because we want you to hear it. WE know that you can't sell a CD if you don't let people listen to it.

If the labels are really worried about money, why do they give away so many physical copies for free? That's where Hilary's missing $4 billion a year went.

http://www.azoz.com/news/2002stats.html

So, I once again reiterate my original challenge. Who's going to step up and tell us what the RIAA's agenda really is?

1. Your original challenge was for a rock star to explain why music is for free on the radio, but it's not for free via MP3 download. This conflicts with your most recent writing, “So, I once again reiterate my original challenge. Who's going to step up and tell us what the RIAA's agenda really is?”

2. My ears work very well and I have plenty of credibility to talk about music. The indisputable fact is that MP3's traded on sites like KAZAA are illegal and people like downloading them. If they were not good copies it would not be an issue, MP3's would not be downloaded by millions of users and audio CD burning would not be so popular. Listening to someone’s music for free is not illegal, just as so permission was given. If I heard music in a club, it’s because the club paid for a license to do so. On the radio the appropriate PRO pays royalties. Listening to music is NOT free, someone pays for it.

3. I know the broadcasters don't pay royalties. For some reason I seem to remember saying that the PROs pay royalties. Why did you even make that statement about broadcasters being exempt?

4. It's not about money? I see...so paying the bills every month is not important? We're talking about the Music Business and businesses are around to make money. I've never heard of a record company or recording artist making an album without an ultimate goal of turning a profit.

5. Why do we give away so many copies for free? You said so yourself, if no one hears the music they will never buy it. Albums are given away as part of promotion for the album.

6. You're right about ASCAP not paying Garth's payola bill. This would seem to be logical thinking and worthless to bring up since that's not why ASCAP is around and payola is illegal.

7. What is the RIAA's agenda? The RIAA’s job is to represent the five major recording companies’ interests. Right now the RIAA’s largest interest has to do with the infringement of copyrights. If you look back in history you will see that the RIAA was opposed to music on the radio and even the movie theaters and companies were opposed the VCR. If we look at current day we can see that radio is around with the RIAA’s blessing and VCR’s have become big business and have evolved to DVD. The point in all of this rambling is that MP3 downloads are largely unregulated and unauthorized. The RIAA’s agenda is to halt this practice. When this is done MP3 trading will ultimately become part of the business just like radio did and everyone will be happy.

8. Since you brought up the artists, they are not represented by RIAA. It can be argued that some of what the RIAA does is to the artists’ benefit though. This certainly can be argued since copyright law is essentially being challenged. Most recording artists are represented by AFTRA, not the RIAA.

I think that may covered everything…..

I'm not sure, what I got from hayden is that WE don't pay to listen to the songs.

I also know for a fact that not all artists are in this for the money. You make one too many generalizations. What you see in the mainstream is only a small minority. Most artists have at least a part time job. They know that their music may not be able to cover the bills.

Yes, the RIAA's agenda is all of those things and more. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would notice that the RIAA has been doing a lot to take away our rights along with trying to stop piracy.

The RIAA agenda then is to live in a world that is regulated and authorized, and free sharing of copyright information (owned or otherwise) to anyone cannot be done unless someone gets paid (preferably the label).

Sounds good for business, but not for music.

You are interpreting something incorrectly in order to make it sound negative. People can share music just as long as they don't copy and distribute it.

Regulation of copyright is good for music. Copyright was originally used in England in order to promote creation. The idea is that people will create more if they make money for doing it. Imagine a world where someone wrote a book or song and it immediately became public domain. It's only logical that less people would create because they'd have to spend more time making money with a vocational trade. Enforcing copyright is good for both music and business.

The challenge to the rock stars and the challenge to the RIAA lead to exactly the same answer.

I'm a writer and a copyright owner, too. Please put "Criminal Mind" on Kazaa. Print a thousand copies and give them away for free. I wish I could get people to care enough about my music that they want to listen to it.

The PRO issue is as insignificant to the point as is the broadcasting royalty. You say that the PRO pays the royalties, like it is the be-all, end-all and saves the artist.

That money thing is really tough to wrap your mind around isn't it? You are absolutely right. No one makes a record without the intention of making money off it. I'm not saying otherwise.

That's not the money I'm talking about.

Think about Napster. They offered the RIAA a nickle a song. The RIAA refused. Now they have Kazaa and Kazaa has no intention whatsoever to pay you. How many billions of dollars have they lost in the last two years, with no further control of the situation?

Numbers 5 and 7 on the quiz: If the industry has to give away $4 billion a year in albums - which someone is paying to manufacture, package and distribute to wherever. Then they're going to pay the radio to play it a quarter-billion times.

The mp3 - the same song from the radio - costs them nothing, can go around the world in an hour.

So do you want us to listen to your damn music or not? As a musician, I say, "Yes, please. Would you like some more?" Frankly, I don't understand the logic of someone who would say, "No."Be a plumber.

That's what the RIAA is saying to me as a consumer. And the REASON they're saying it has nothing to do with the money, at least not the money they're trying to convince us those mp3s are worth.

They're worthless -- except as an advertising tool, like those cheap stick pens you bought with your company name and let people take from your counter.

But no, we want to license the ink in them and charge a per-word "use fee" for the damn thing.

The RIAA does not represent the 5 major labels. If you think so, you haven't seen their ads lately.

Give the artist $5 out of that $18 CD and I'll buy. But if you're only giving them a buck, forget it.

As a fan, I know that if we don't buy anyone's albums this year but each send our five favorites acts $5 each (instead of buying their album) and support them at the live shows, the acts we like would make five times as much as they did last year, the record labels would go further down the tubes, each fan would save $75 each, everyone would be better off and 80% of the current "major" acts would evaporate. Good.

Without the music, there would be no music business. If you don't take all of this "business" of fabricated piracy out of the consumer's face, there will be no music or business.

Yes, copyrights and enforcing them is good. But if the RIAA - or the recording business in general - ever does anything for the benefit of the artists, it is probably just an unavoidable consequence.

kneo24 is closest to the truth.

haydenswall:
sorry, but you bass player friend has starry eyes. he tells you you walked away from a "quarter million." keep in mind, that's probably the advance that the record company fronted him. if you haven't read that article steve albini wrote, go read it. i will bet you money that your friend will be dropped from his "major label" within 2 years, tops. and that's if he's lucky. if he doesn't get dropped, he'll be forced to pay back the "recoupable advance" for probably the next 10 years (and at a ridiculous interest rate, by the way--start your own studio/label/whatever and cut out the price-gouging middlemal that is the riaa!). i know a band that signed w/ warner bros. in the early 90's, who, are just now finally paying off the money they owe to that label.

Yeah, I've seen the contracts, too.

Actually, my bass player (who is a venture capitalist) is actually putting together what will probably be a very profitable multimedia venture. But it went down the traditional path and he has connected to 2 of the 5 major labels.

I just couldn't be part of it with the current screwed-up state of the business. It goes against my ethics.

I'm almost 50 already. I have no delusions of becoming a rock star, at least not any more. Sure it'd be nice to sell a few CDs, but it would be much more satisfying to open the doors and let the music out again -- your music, my music, everyone's music.

Haydenswall....

I can already tell that you and I will never ever agree on anything. It sounds to me that you want your music downloaded for free on the net. That is your right and in your case it is probably wise. Should everyone else have to give away their music just because you want to give yours away? I think that kind of decision is up to the individual copyright owner.

A nickle a song is unreasonable. Five cents does not even cover the current royalty rate for a song under five minutes.

I think it's wise that you are exploiting the net to get your music out. Someday I even think that we can buy MP3's online. I've already written what I think concerning everything else, so I don't think I need to restate it.

A lot of people are unwilling to pay 50 cents for each song. More are willing to pay 25 cents a song. A nickel a song, you'd see the most willing to pay. When Napster was at it's peak, 5 cents a song would have brought in a massive amount of money. There's just no way around it.

Let's do some math here. Let's say at Napsters peak there was an even 20 million people on it (it was more, they claimed to have over 20 million). Let's say that each person downloaded five songs a day. Five songs. That's not unreasonable. That's 100 million songs a day. Multiply 100 million by five cents. That's $5,000,000 a day. You're telling me that that isn't enough? Let's take this five million a day and multiple it by 30 for the average month span. That's $150,000,000. That's a lot of money to be turning down. If they would have accepted this plan, they would've made money in the long run. Notice how they lose money every time they take somoene to court, or make some sort of advertisement about how P2P = bad? Let's also factor in the interest on the money they're losing because of them not doing this. This is a huge business with a lot of money to make. With the figures I gave above a person would be spending 25 cents a day. In a 30 day span, $7.50. This seems like a VERY reasonable deal to me.

>>"Imagine a world where someone wrote a book or song and it immediately became public domain."

Yup. Imagine. Sounds like a wonderful world, where people make music for the sake of music and not profit. The argument that getting paid promotes more and good music is a farce. The current music scene proves that.

I don't care if someone else wants to get paid every time their own music is played. If that's the case now, they shouldn't record. They should always play live, and they can frisk everyone who attends to make sure they don't have any recording equipment. If it's all about money for them, then let them protect their own investment, and stop trying to limit technology for others.

Who said anything about limiting technology? Did anyone see my reference about the RIAA’s original stance opposing music on the radio? Stop jumping to conclusions. Just because RIAA wants to enforce the fives major’s copyrights does not mean they’re limiting technology. Eventually MP3's will be traded legitimately and technology will turn out just fine.

It's not about money? You're correct; you need to have a love for the music first. The simple fact is that when you put music on a record and throw a UPC symbol on it, you have made an investment with the intent to make money. I had an artist almost in tears over this very issue this past summer. I'd dare anyone to tell her that none of this is about money.

The law has changed since then, but when Napster was in existence the royalty rate worked like this:

8 cents for any song under five minutes.
For songs five minutes and over it was calculated by using a formula multiplying 1.55 cents per minute. I already know someone is going to point out to me that the current law is different and I know this. I'm talking about the law in the days of Napster though.

“Imagine a world where someone wrote a book or song and it immediately became public domain." …. “Yup. Imagine. Sounds like a wonderful world, where people make music for the sake of music and not profit”

Wow, why don't we say that we should revert to communism and give everyone equal pay. I mean, we'll get the same type of doctors even though we pay them the same as a ditch digger, right? After all, they should be treating patients just for the sake of treating patients.

While we’re at it, movies should be made just for fun too. I’m sure there will be lots of people investing millions of dollars on a movie just for the sake of doing it. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in this world that would make a movie or album for fun. Money is important and essential to providing for one’s self! Only 5% of all albums even turn a profit and you think it’s justifiable to lower that number to zero? Yeah right….

Does anyone here have any idea how much time and money it costs to produce an album? Even independent releases are expensive. I’m sure people like Bill Evans has an idea as to how much it cost, but does anyone else here know? No one makes albums for charity to provide free entertainment to the public.

When all of this is said and done, the RIAA will still be around and you’ll be paying for MP3’s. I remember two old sayings I heard from my parents: “Nothing is free” and “Money makes the world go ‘round.”

@Doug77

“Yup. Imagine. Sounds like a wonderful world, where people make music for the sake of music and not profit”

This may come as a surprise to you, but yeah, I can imagine such a world: A world where people make joyous sounds, where their natural sense of rhythm creates accompaniment. (Somehow I don’t think they’re “recording artists under contract” though.)

And I can imagine another world: A world where peoples’ torments find no release except through music. (Perhaps they are “recording artists under contract”?)

“You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in this world that would make a movie or album for fun.” sic

“ Money is important and essential to providing for one’s self! Only 5% of all albums even turn a profit and you think it’s justifiable to lower that number to zero? Yeah right….”

IF that is true – and not just some accounting gimmick to screw artists – then the most incredible bunch of incompetents in the entire history of commerce must be running the business (?) and that probably isn’t the case.

“I had an artist almost in tears over this very issue this past summer. I'd dare anyone to tell her that none of this is about money.”

Oh, sorry, I guess it is “just some accounting gimmick to screw artists”. I guess that explains who the “self” is in the “ Money is important and essential to providing for one’s self!” quote.

That's a nice accounting gimmick I had since I worked for the artist and did not handle any of her assets.

Do some research into how the industry works; stop jumping to conclusions without any facts to support them and maybe you'll understand half of what I said.

Doug77,

- I'm sorry if you think money makes you worth something, and you have not the faith in your fellow man that we will reward you justly without a contract and a copyright. I don't think that way, maybe I'm crazy. Then again, I'm a musician not an MBA - I count beats, not beans.

- I don't think we need the corporate middleman. I don't think we need the level or duration of copyrights we have in place now, and it is quite apropos that a crappy musician was responsible for their extension. All of this certainly isn't "communism", which was quite a conclusionary jump in itself.

- Tom Sholz showed us in 1976 that it doesn't take overpriced studio time, producers, and marketing to make good music. He didn't even have a computer.

- The RIAA is against any technology that supports illegal copyright infringement, whether that technology has justifiable uses or not. The RIAA is also willing to violate personal privacy rights of individuals who use this technology, which in itself will hinder that technology's usage. Of course, if the RIAA can manipulate the use of said technology to produce profits for themselves, while maintaining copy protection, I'm sure they would be all for it. duh.

- You are right that the RIAA will always be around, just as ignorance and greed will never relinquish. However, just as corps will not cede, neither will the voices against them until they respect the industry that they leech from. There are too many rebellions now, both overt and underground, for them to counter. They will have to face change fairly, or simply survive as a once been.

- Here's a hypothetical for you: If the RIAA and the labels disappeared tomorrow, what do you think would happen to music? Do you really think a single talented artist would suffer?

If the RIAA and the labels disappeared tomorrow, what do you think would happen to music? Do you really think a single talented artist would suffer?

Before I answer this is a question, it is so hypothetical that I really don't think that anyone can answer it while claiming to state that answer as 100% fact. I’ll handle this question assuming that the independent labels are still operating and only the majors disappeared. Almost all of this is only educated opinion and I’m not claiming to have a crystal ball or that all of this is tried and true.

First, our economy will take a tremendous hit. If the companies disappeared we'd have the equivalent of losing a few multi-million dollar businesses. Actually, we would be talking about businesses that total in the billions of dollars. Take into account there are other businesses that work with them that will suffer such as publishers, distributors, ClearChannel, MTV and the list goes on and on and on. There would also be a lot of jobs lost. Most of these jobs are held by ordinary everyday people. It would definitely hurt the L.A. economy on a local level as well as the rest of the country’s economy.

Would an artist suffer? Well, is that artist signed with any of the five majors? If the artist was signed with one of the majors, depending on how successful or unsuccessful that artist was, they would suffer. I'm sure an artist that owes thousands on an album that is not selling would see something like this as a blessing. Someone who was actually making money would feel it quick. I'm sure independent artists and unsigned artist would not suffer very much. I don’t see some kid in a garage band feeling much pain from any of this if it were to happen.

What would happen to music? I really could not tell you. I could write a book telling you what direction things may or may not take. It’s all hypothetical. Despite anything, music will always be around.

Does copyright still exist? If the answer is yes, then music will be just fine. If the answer is no, then music would suffer.

In the end, the remaining independents would grow to become major labels. Since we were left with independent labels, they would become the source of the industry and slowly grow to become the “new giants.” Once that happened they would also form a society like the RIAA. At that time we would see that we are right back to where we started.

I've been kind of busy today, but I'm glad I stopped back.

What a load of crap!

First of all, don't let anyone tell you how damn much it costs to record an album. My band recorded its album for about $1000. And that's only if you include beer. We did it in the garage and my living room.

If it is or is not good, is a reflection on our talent, technique and experience, not how much money we wasted. I've got better gear in my living room than George Martin had when he helped the Beatles put together Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road.

Point two -- At one time, I presented an alternate business plan for the music business. The contents of that plan are unimportant. Here's what's important.

The combined expense of marketing, distribution and promotion is the single biggest barrier to the recording industry's profit.

I defy anyone to deny that because people (not necessarily here) have been trying to shove this idea down my throat for decades.

It's why the artists only get a small percentage. "You don't have any idea of how much money it takes to be a star and get noticed."

So then the Internet shows up.

Suddenly, international promotion and marketing are virtually free. The industry's single largest business-related expense has just vaporized.

The industry claims to be bleeding red ink. EMI's stock is $2 right now.

Instead of embracing their salvation, the usually opportunistic, greedy and heartless industry takes the solution to their annual income statement and turns it into the biggest lie I have heard in my lifetime.

No, it's not about money.

It's because the Internet is free for me, too. I might use it and make some money that you don't get your cut of.

The RIAA has been lying about this from day one.

“First, our economy will take a tremendous hit. If the companies disappeared we'd have the equivalent of losing a few multi-million dollar businesses. Actually, we would be talking about businesses that total in the billions of dollars.”

Gee, it’s a good thing they don’t take advantage of the artists, isn’t it?

“Take into account there are other businesses that work with them that will suffer such as publishers, distributors, ClearChannel, MTV and the list goes on and on and on.”

Yeah, I’d really miss the diverse, wide selection they provide (ClearChannel, EmPtv).

“There would also be a lot of jobs lost. Most of these jobs are held by ordinary everyday people.”

Oh boy, and I bet they’re all high-paying jobs with lots of perks; fancy homes, fancy cars, swimming pools, totally “A” list – right?

“It would definitely hurt the L.A. economy on a local level as well as the rest of the country’s economy.”

Yeah, them high-paying jobs, they don’t grow on trees. Better a bunch of people work at low paying jobs to support the Industry in the style it’s determined to remain accustomed to than get jobs working with independents in a suddenly wide open field of opportunity created by the breakup (whoops) disappearance of the big five companies – You know, those big five American companies (whoops) those big five companies.

”Would an artist suffer? Well, is that artist signed with any of the five majors?”

You mean: are they actually talented creating a product that people actually want because they like it? Or, are they just some willing actors playing the latest flavor of the minute packaged on the basis of constant repetition (airplay) equals sales of anything that doesn’t totally stink-up the airwaves?

Good question, I think I’m inclined to agree with you, there IS a difference.

This is the last post I'm making under this article. It's kinda getting old now.

With all due respect, many of the counter-statements I've heard have been absurd. Yeah, all the jobs in the music industry are "A-list" when many start out at $25,000 a year. Any moron working in the industry will tell you that if you enter the field, your chances of making six figures are slim.

It's great you produced a $1,000 album, I'm happy for you. Does that change the fact that most cost much much more? No.....

I must admit that some feelings of frustration that come out on here are shared by me. You've gotta keep a level head though. Just because you can produce a $1,000 album, disagree with the price of CD's or hate the current talent, or lack of, and the selection does not mean it's justifiable to rip off MP3's. Someone in the business put it to me like this, "That's like saying it's ok to walk into a hardware store and steal a tool, because you think it cost too much or think that corruption exists in the company that makes it."

I'll see you guys on the sites other boards.

Again, mp3s are the free promotion and marketing tool the industry has been looking for forever.

What the RIAA learned from the independents was that you didn't have to give away a million or a billion dollars worth of free merchandise.

One sub-standard audio mp3 file does it for free. While I and just about every other indie in the country is trying their best to give them away for free, the RIAA is trying to tell the American public and Congress that it's stealing.

Because otherwise, the public might not notice that we're "inferior" unsigned artists.
Every artist was once unsigned.

The truth is that we don't need the million-dollar recording studios any more. We don't need a multi-million dollar marketing campaign.

We also don't need radio any more. If Don Henley is going to bitch about how much payola costs him, what do you think the chances are for the kids down the street to get on the radio.

As musicians, we don't need the labels any more.
That's the problem. That's what all the furor is about. That's what all the lies are about.

Because the RIAA and the labels know that without us, there will be no one left to take advantage of. Tomorrow's stars are today's unsigned acts.

We have a new business plan. It's called technology, something the recording industry seems to be very afraid of.

Because we can use it for almost nothing.

One question:

Why does the sign over the nail bin say: All nails sold remain the property of the hardware store and any reuse for any purpose no matter how necessary is in direct violation of the laws we’ve paid good money to purchase.

What's getting old is the criminal accusations by the RIAA against the very consumer that keeps them alive. Asking millions to stop downloading and burning is like asking them to stop listening to music.

Maybe the RIAA should point the criminal allegation finger at those supporting high-speed access, hardware to burn and download, software to rip, and portability pushers. You know, like AOL, Sony...

Hmmmm, weren't people listening to music before MP3's and CDR's were made available?

Re "JustASquirrel's" last point:

This McCarthy-style witch-hunt against anybody (and I mean ANYbody) with a computer and CD-burner, on another level, is what one would call "politically correct." Because, as certain individuals would point out, some of the most recent piracy-ring busts involved people who might have been in this country illegally (in the last high-profile bust, last fall in Queens, N.Y., one of those charged was an individual who, as mentioned in passing by the media, was originally from Guyana; and last spring, another piracy bust in Brooklyn netted individuals whose names sounded vaguely African and / or Middle Eastern).

But of course, targeting immigrants from Third World countries (who may or may not be here illegally) with respect to this "digital piracy" (or whatever the multinational entertainment-media complex call it) would constitute "racial profiling," I suppose?

" Hmmmm, weren't people listening to music before MP3's and CDR's were made available?"

Yes, it was called the radio. It was (and still is) free, but it is closed to the independents. If Don Henley is complaining about how much it costs, we don't have a chance.

Because we don't have the marketing and promotion budget. With the Internet and mp3s, we don't need the radio.

If the Internet is criminalized, the RIAA maintains their monopoly. Without such criminalization, the potential exists that the public will find and like more of the other 97% of music that's available than the slim pickings we get now.

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the current music available. But it is only represents 3 to 7 percent of the talent, and not necessarily because it's the best. Our agents and managers have been telling us that for years.

I can see the off-point argument already, so let me clarify. Radio is still free to listen to.

I think Doug is an RIAA supporter. And all this bemoaning Napsters demise, Napster was a shitty program, you had to restart any failed download, you couldn't stay connected more than 15 minutes, etc, Long live Kazaa!

Napster wasn't that great, but in it's time it was a gem. Before it's demise, it got better. You didn't have to restart failed downloads, and I never had any connection problems with my 56k modem.

Guess I abandoned it too quick. Thanks to that fat ass, bagel scarfing Hilary we never got to see how good it could have been. Thanks Hilary, hope you get beached.

Yeah, it was the last two beta versions that were a huge improvement, sadly, a lot of people jumped ship by then.

HERE IS MY HELP!

HOME














E-MAIL

OFFICES

WASHINGTON
(202) 224-6121
COLUMBIA
(803) 765-5731
CHARLESTON
(843) 727-4525
GREENVILLE
(864) 233-5366








Match any
or
all keywords








About This Site
Privacy Policy




Thank you!
The following information has been emailed
to Senator Hollings

PREFIX: Mr
FIRSTNAME: Brad
LASTNAME: Miller
ADDRESS1: 1801 Curtis Dr.
ADDRESS2:
CITY: North Augusta
STATE: SC
ZIP: 29841
EMAIL: bradmillercountry@yahoo.com
SUBJECT: Other
MESSAGEBODY: Mr.Hollings I know you are a busy man but I need to bring an issue up to you.It is about the major recording industry and how they through the RIAA and Through radio stations that are suppose to be publicly owned but are recieveing money from the record companies to play their artists and only their artists.They are trying to own something that is not theirs to own and that is music.The RIAA is a very crooked organization claiming to support artists rights from copyright infringements,but only making money accompanied by the major recording industry. They are trying to get rid of peer to peer file music sharing and one of their latest ideas is too hack the users computers which is an invasion of privacy.Senator remember when they were times when an artist such as Loretta Lynn,Elvis Presley could go to their local radio station and be played because of their talent and ability,well because of the RIAA and the major recording Industry which only consists of 5 companies and used to be well over a thousand have bought off the radio stations known as clear channel.This is totally illegal but they get away with it because it gets covered up.Sir all these organizations are pretty much telling the American people that the only thing they get to hear on major radio are major artists,and i think this is very unfair and very communistic.The Radio Stations belong to the public not the recording industry.Something has to be done too stop this these companies are far worse than Bill Gates and if you study them and all the companies they own,one would find that they are way beyond a trust or monopoly.I am one of these artist that i speak of who is very talented but because of this illegal situation going on I can't even go to my local radio station in a country I served for and get my songs played.I understand this might not mean much too you but it is all i have itis my passion for life and they are millons of others just like me.The reason the RIAA are trying to stop internet piracy has nothing to do with artists rights it has to do with them being a puppet through illegal payoffs from The 5 major Recording Companies.You see the record companies only pay an artist about $1.50 for every cd sold and the rest they get,also when an artists records or does a video these are all paid back to the record company from the artists cd sells that they are only making $1.50 a cd for.That is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to them and their fine print contracts.Do you know that artists have written songs and never made a dime because the recording companies have been screwing them for years.I can name several number1 hits that are still being played today and the songwriter and artist are not making a dime from.Senator this not just a business but it is also our culture,I myself being from the south know what music has done for my life.Think about those songs you listen to all of your life that make you remember the past through memories from a song you heard during a special time of your life.Well those memories come from artists like myself who deserve a fair shake. Here is my link for my song that my local radio want play but they play on radio all over the world.The USA is the only country who has this kind of problem for their artists,singers,musicians.Everyone of the other countries Radio or record companies are easier to get to and more supportive of us.Here is my link to my music http://millerdmusiccom.dmusic.com or www.cdbaby.com/bradmiller cdbaby is a site that supports indie artists but I onlymake $1.00 of the $5.00 a customer pays for my cd.I represent a Massive amount of voters and tax payers.I just hope that you understand how serious this issue is. Thanks and God Bless, Brad Miller

Send another Email to Senator Hollings




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find the information for each of Senator





HOME














E-MAIL

OFFICES

WASHINGTON
(202) 224-6121
COLUMBIA
(803) 765-5731
CHARLESTON
(843) 727-4525
GREENVILLE
(864) 233-5366








Match any
or
all keywords








About This Site
Privacy Policy




Thank you!
The following information has been emailed
to Senator Hollings

PREFIX: Mr
FIRSTNAME: Brad
LASTNAME: Miller
ADDRESS1: 1801 Curtis Dr.
ADDRESS2:
CITY: North Augusta
STATE: SC
ZIP: 29841
EMAIL: bradmillercountry@yahoo.com
SUBJECT: Other
MESSAGEBODY: Mr.Hollings I know you are a busy man but I need to bring an issue up to you.It is about the major recording industry and how they through the RIAA and Through radio stations that are suppose to be publicly owned but are recieveing money from the record companies to play their artists and only their artists.They are trying to own something that is not theirs to own and that is music.The RIAA is a very crooked organization claiming to support artists rights from copyright infringements,but only making money accompanied by the major recording industry. They are trying to get rid of peer to peer file music sharing and one of their latest ideas is too hack the users computers which is an invasion of privacy.Senator remember when they were times when an artist such as Loretta Lynn,Elvis Presley could go to their local radio station and be played because of their talent and ability,well because of the RIAA and the major recording Industry which only consists of 5 companies and used to be well over a thousand have bought off the radio stations known as clear channel.This is totally illegal but they get away with it because it gets covered up.Sir all these organizations are pretty much telling the American people that the only thing they get to hear on major radio are major artists,and i think this is very unfair and very communistic.The Radio Stations belong to the public not the recording industry.Something has to be done too stop this these companies are far worse than Bill Gates and if you study them and all the companies they own,one would find that they are way beyond a trust or monopoly.I am one of these artist that i speak of who is very talented but because of this illegal situation going on I can't even go to my local radio station in a country I served for and get my songs played.I understand this might not mean much too you but it is all i have itis my passion for life and they are millons of others just like me.The reason the RIAA are trying to stop internet piracy has nothing to do with artists rights it has to do with them being a puppet through illegal payoffs from The 5 major Recording Companies.You see the record companies only pay an artist about $1.50 for every cd sold and the rest they get,also when an artists records or does a video these are all paid back to the record company from the artists cd sells that they are only making $1.50 a cd for.That is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to them and their fine print contracts.Do you know that artists have written songs and never made a dime because the recording companies have been screwing them for years.I can name several number1 hits that are still being played today and the songwriter and artist are not making a dime from.Senator this not just a business but it is also our culture,I myself being from the south know what music has done for my life.Think about those songs you listen to all of your life that make you remember the past through memories from a song you heard during a special time of your life.Well those memories come from artists like myself who deserve a fair shake. Here is my link for my song that my local radio want play but they play on radio all over the world.The USA is the only country who has this kind of problem for their artists,singers,musicians.Everyone of the other countries Radio or record companies are easier to get to and more supportive of us.Here is my link to my music http://millerdmusiccom.dmusic.com or www.cdbaby.com/bradmiller cdbaby is a site that supports indie artists but I onlymake $1.00 of the $5.00 a customer pays for my cd.I represent a Massive amount of voters and tax payers.I just hope that you understand how serious this issue is. Thanks and God Bless, Brad Miller

Send another Email to Senator Hollings




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can find the information for each of Senator

Like pizza, it's even good months later!
That was really a wonderul article!
_bulkeraser

Im finally back online (Mommy's dial-up oi). Id like to congradulate George on not signing the contract, seems a bit like going to the crossroads and making a deal with Satan eh? (I trust Satan more then the RIAA tho') While offline I got reminded a lot of a certain time in my youth (from "dating" a grrl born at that time!) of doing shows from Detroit to Chicago, trying to figure out how to record a demo, and, most importantly to this site, NOT signing that contract when it was in front of us. Twenty years later Im not sorry. A PC based home studio, equipment that works easier onstage and in the studio, and online disturbution makes for a better world then the RIAA could provide. My children are musical, Im hoping this mess gets sorted out by the time theyre jammin', in ten years you'll find 'em posting here.
Die you greedy dinosaur, die

George,
I would say Greed is the driving force of there downfall.
Loved the article!

Doug77: "The RIAA’s job is to represent the five major recording companies’ interests. "

exactly. you're aiming at monopoly. never mind the other 200 minor record labels that undoubtedly pay for membership as well.

After 6 months, our "rock stars" are still silent.

When Jack Valenti announced that his new idea for the movie business (banning "screeners," the movie samples that are sent out for Oscar previewing), both the directors and the actors immediately spoke out about the damage it would cause the independents.

The movie industry views the independents as a valuable resource which must be protected. The music industry views the independents as illegitimate.

we need to buy advertising in the new york times, or on ebay, or on CNET some place where millions of americans will see this. who'd else donate for this? i sure would

Doug77

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/8446

Go to this news article and then ask yourself whether "Enforcing copyright is good for both music and business. "

It is if it is PROPERLY LIMITED. Anyone that thinks the current copyright laws are properly limited have their heads up their ass.

Copyrights fail to do what they were intended to do when two things happen; 1) they extend too long and 2) they fall into the hands of huge conglomerates that violate laws with copyright enforcement. How do they do this? By using the copyright enforcement angle to ELIMINATE COMPETITION. Last time I checked, this was illegal, courtesy of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

So no, enforcing copyright is NOT good for both music and business, when the rules that are being enforced are unreasonable and causing the opposite effect of what copyright law was all about to begin with!

Thats a cool graph bill

Also... this article was a call to the ARTISTS to speak up. Again, I ask... WHERE ARE THEY?

How many times are artists going to allow themselves to be screwed by their record label before they say something about this topic. I used to have some respect for Rod Stewart. No since he didn't have the BALLS to voice his opinion about downloading, I have lost a desire to have ANY of his music.

Quite frankly, as this debate and issue drags on, the more silent ARTISTS are, the more they show which side of the argument they are really on. It's obvious they care more about MONEY and less about the music. Sadly, it says to me that they care even LESS about the fans that made them famous in the first place.

can someone give me a website of the RIAA's total income from year 1995 to present day please?

ATTENTION. THE RIAA IS SUING EVERY PERSON ON THE PLANET FOR HAVING EARS! PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST FROM FROM USING "EARS" IMMEDIATELY!

maddawg15 -- Sales figures are available at the RIAA's website. There's no way you'll ever find out what their income is.

EMI has been the only record label that has been a self-standing company for some time. Even looking at their public financials and year-end reports, it's easy to see that the publishing side yields other income apart from sales. (EMI controls more than 1 million copyrights).

All of the other labels are parts of larger corporations, so it's really, really difficult to tell exactly what their total income is.

I've spent 50 years on this planet. One thing I've learned is that there is usually more than two sides to any story. It is very comfortable to try and put things into areas of good and evil, black and white, and right or wrong. But usually, things are more grey or in the middle than at the extremes of these examples. To compare downloading copyright material to walking into a store and stealing is like comparing apples to corn on the cob. This argument was solved more than once years ago. First when radio was a new technology and then when VCRs hit the market. No massive corportation out there, was taking customers to court over things they recorded with VCRs or cassette tapes for their own personal use. Period!!!!! The recording industry gave a very (GREY) ok to that activity. So it now seems foolish to 60 million Americans to make downloading a felony, call it stealing or any such other baloney. Face it, some of the same people involved in selling blank cdrs for burning (hypocritical) are now trying to call foul. Wake up!!!!!

I realize this is basically OT, but it does illustrate the typical corporate mentality...

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. In the cage, hang a banana on a string and put a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water. After awhile, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result. Pretty soon, when any monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, turn off the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Again, replace a third original monkey with a new one. The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well. Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys that have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs.

Why? Because that's the way it's always been around here. And that's how company policy begins...

The difference between the radio and downloading songs from the internet are vast. Although both are in a lossy format (Compressed MP3 etc vs. compressed - Note: Different compression as in squelched studio compressors - FM radio broadcasts). The differences are clear. Radio stations rarely let you listen to an entire album. Radio stations play what they want you to hear. You cannot play any song you like from a radio station. Radio stations anouncers tend not to play the entire tracks and chat over the tracks. Even digital broadcasts suffer from these traits.

So yes it is incorrect to compare downloading songs for free to radio play.

However I would say that MP3's are not an exact copy of a CD track but rather a digital 'representation' of the track. Sure a lot of the time our ears cannot tell the difference but it's a lossy format and not the real deal. It's one reason I would never buy such a representation at the crrent prices they are being offered (Let alone the DRM issue).

We forget how powerfull the media industry is. TV in particular has a huge hold over the public. You are rarely ever going to get negative publicity towards the media industries publicised on TV (TechTv was an exception and they are only a small outfit anyhow).

Getting this out on a major TV network would be a big hit for anyone boycotting. However it's not going to happen unless some major demonstration takes place and I do not believe enough people are aware or care about this issue.

It's true to say that at present we can hold the industry to ransome a little through the use of P2P and we can all say "I don't care. I shall conti ue to download for free" etc etc. But that is narrowminded. At some stage legislation will be put in place whereby you will not longer be able to download copyrighted material on P2P without impunity. At some stage you will either have to pay for the bandwidth or be monitored in some manner.

Most people are too damned apathetic and lazy to get up and make a stand. I applaud those who do. But I am afraid you are all in the minority. This is why our basic freedoms are being eroded away by those who hold power. People are sheep.

"So yes it is incorrect to compare downloading songs for free to radio play." Opinion yes, accurate, opinion no. Because of time, many things must be viewed in relative terms. The simple act of a person choosing to tape record any song available over the radio is no different than the simple act of a person choosing to download any song available over the internet. In each case the recorder uses the most modern technology available. Technological changes and increases will always happen as time moves on. But tools are only tools no matter how technologically advanced. The human action is still basically the same. AND, the human action is what is being judged in the arena of right or wrong.