Major Labels Caught Stealing $100m a Year
Record Clubs Get a Smack Upside the Head by Federal Judge

By: Moses Avalon (www.musicdish.com)
2003-05-01

Artists and songwriters trying to track "lost sales" might want to look carefully in flea markets. This past month saw several busts at neighborhood swap meets. Vendors, using fake names and addresses, join record clubs, (the buy one CD and get 10 CDs for a buck companies) and take the 10 "premium" CDs and resell them at flea markets. Think this is small potatoes? This month a New Jersey scam was busted and confessed to redistributing almost 50,000 units in this manner. Most were from BMG and Columbia House Music Club (owned by Sony Music), the very same companies that lost a second important defeat in a class action suit by songwriters. (Ory v. Columbia House Music Club, Case No. CV 02-02342 SJO. Los Angeles)

On April 22, 2003, the U.S. District Court based in Los Angeles, dealt a serious blow to BMG and Sony, deciding that the two major-label-owned "record clubs" had no leg to stand on to get the case thrown out of court, and would have to attempt to prove to a jury that they just "forgot" or were really going to pay songwriters "when they got around to it."

The court found that the record clubs failed to pay for mechanical licenses on the premium records given away. (Roughly 6-8 cents per song, per copy sold.) Songwriters' lawyers estimate that the record clubs ripped off their clients to the tune of about $100 million dollars a year.

All this makes you wonder why the RIAA (who is funded by companies who own both major publishing houses and record clubs) scream bloody hell over Kazaa and Napster, and yet ignore this? Could it be to distract us from the fact that their constituents were actively involved in collusion that was costing artists and songwriters far more than the file-sharing services? Or were they just jealous that file sharing services were ripping off their artists better than the majors were.

Glass houses, people. Glass houses.

A trial has been set for January 13, 2004. Stay tuned. This is one to follow.

Answer number 2.

See who is the real thieves here?? Us file sharing people or these idiots that ripped off billions?

Ok, actually I thought albums produced for record clubs were a totally seperate thing then the albums distrobuted for music store sales.

The music store ones dont have that reprint that its made for Columbia House or BMG, or whatever music club it is.

Understand what im getting at here?

No, these are those missing "units" that I've been looking for. I'm still doing the math. You figure the average CD has 12 songs. 8 cents a song. About a buck a record.

The songwriter only gets half that. The songwriters figured out that they were getting cheated out of $100 million a year. That means at least 200 million records a year.

At $15 each... $3 billion annually in "missing merchandise."

More than half of the missing units, which only averaged $4 billion a year. For 2002, we only were trying to account for 215 million units. This means the labels aren't really giving away 15% in free goods. Not even close.

Which means the major label artists are being defrauded. Big time.

Why did it take this long for artists to wake up? This been happening for years, years, and more years then I can even remember, ever since my mom bought cassettes from Columbia House in the early 80's, probably long before that too.

All the "industry" has been doing is covering all this up with "piracy" claims.

They are the real thieves here. When the artists are on their payroll saying that internet "piracy" is bad, they dont seem to know or care that they are being ripped off far beyond what "piracy" or even real piracy can achieve.

Why dont the US govt wake up and stop destroying digital freedom for a bunch of paying lobbying criminals known as the recording industry.

Sucks even worse when they are starting to get this unlawful seizure bullshit happening more and more. And stealing hard earned money from collage students. Its sick, poor and discusting how they can call us thieves and have the law aganst us.

So what if everyone now gets their tunes from record clubs for WAYY WAYY cheaper then cd stores?? They going to blame the drop in money making sales on piracy aint they? Go figure. I know many people that dont buy cd's at the stores here, they get them from Columbia House since they give pretty damn good deals. Hows buy 1 record at normal price and get 2 free sound? Or 1 at normal prices and 3 at 75% off? Lets not forget the 11 free ones they hand out just for joining. In the end its you that gets the better deal, since buying 7 normal priced cd's in 3 years to suffice a contract is nothing.

I know 2 people here that work at the post office, and the majority of their small parcels come from BMG and Columbia House. People dont want to pay $24.98 plus 15% tax for cd's when they can get them for dirt cheap in a record club.

So everyone joining record clubs further strengthens their piracy claims.

This sucks.

Lets not forget the silly people that join columbia house with fake names and stuff to get 11 free cd's.

Oh, and lets not forget the fact that you can use the same address for 2 or 3 different shipments on fake names, they wont notice.

BMG has an even better deal, with them you can get 8 CD's for the price of 1 legally. And you can do that every year or so fully legally with the same name. Who gets ripped off when nobody breaks the law with this?

Thats gotta be the best way to get music.

Oh yeah, no more commitments! Get the CD's from BMG, cancel. And you never broke the law or ripped off anyone.

Except the artists.

phuck it. I'm goin to a flea market.Hrmm.. pirates.. fleas.. sounds like a pretty good combination.

ttmmm

Here's why I constantly refer to so-called "artists" who continually whine about "piracy" (think Madonna) as "useful idiots": Because if their energies were so focused, then they wouldn't be as inclined to go after the companies that were ACTUALLY ripping them off. And that, of course, serves the industry's purposes all the more. After all, G-d forbid there should be a future Don Henley or Courtney Love lurking around the corner.

Besides, I'd rather buy used VINYL (LP or 45) anyway. And occasionally a used 78.

Whoah, this is huge. It really throws the numbers I am using in a loop. So, taking this into consideration, their decrease in sales is actually quite alot better than world+dog experienced.

At one point, CDs sold via the music clubs were different. I recall purchasing a Ministry disc through Columbia only to discover there were blank spaces where vocals were supposed to be in some songs. I don't recall which songs, but I do recall being plenty pissed.

However, a few years ago (97-99, I don't recall.. I was in college. Need I say more?), a friend purchased a Korn disc (Life is Peachy) through Columbia. The song K@#%! was on the disc and fully uncensored, a suprise indeed if you have heard the song.

tinfoil -- Here's an even bigger surprise. There's a class action suit against the record clubs. Did you hear about it? Hell, no.

Ever bought a CD through BMG or Columbia House since 1996? Then you're part of the class.

http://www.columbiahouse.com/cl1/ch/template/customer_service/class_action/pricing/summary.jsp?&dt=1052409189299&pin=51&bak=NONE

And yesterday, I received a letter from Columbia House. I joined their club a few years ago. But then I stopped buying CDs. Yesterday, I received a letter from them.

If I don't buy a CD immediately, my membership will be cancelled.

Which would remove me from the class...

Many artists are so desperate or naive, they end up signing bad contracts just so they could reach the public. The mainstream music industry is indeed very corrupt, and artists get screwed all day every day. So you want to add insult to injury by stealing EVEN MORE from these poor bastards. Please reconsider.

If you like the music selection in Columbia House or BMG then you are a fan of popular mainstream music. Unfortunately it is very difficult and extremely costly to break into the mainstream. To clarify, I'm referring to mainstream as any music that is mostly promoted and supported by commercial radio play. Reggae, Jazz, and Blues artists, for example, have developed a strong and loyal underground and enjoy successful careers without being on commercial radio or MTV. That is decidedly not mainstream, and is mostly unavailable from Columbia House, BMG, and your local favorite radio station.

Scientific studies have found that a person will begin to like a song after hearing it enough times (think 20 or more). Mainstream commercial radio takes advantage of this fact by playing the same 30 or 40 songs all day every day. They add a few songs a month and drop a few. They have exclusive deals with so called "independent promoters" who provide them with all of their new adds (additions to their play list). The independent promoter turns around and invoices the record label for every song added to the play list. If the label doesn't pay, the song gets pulled from the playlist. This is technically not illegal because they bill them for "promotional costs" and there is no paper trail to show that money was paid for playing a song on the radio, but that is exactly what happens. Almost everything you hear on commercial radio was bought and paid for. Without radio play, no band or artist will be successful in the mainstream, so the labels keep paying.

A few years back, the budget for one Shania Twain song's radio promotion was over 2 million dollars! That is just to get one song played on the radio so it can climb up the charts and look successful. "Today's hottest hits" are more like "today's best financially backed artists".

Since the buying public (now the free downloading public) only shows interest and/or buys songs after they have been heavily promoted at very high costs, that is the route that a record label will try to take when promoting a mainstream act. It is a proven formula. It is very costly to put out an album. Radio promotion and studio recording costs alone can go through the roof.

If you enjoy being pissed off at the labels, you should be even more pissed off at commercial radio. It is the biggest scam in all of the entertainment industry. The commercial radio industry is at the very heart of the problems in music today. If they weren't scamming the record labels, the record labels wouldn't try to recover their costs by scamming their bands and artists and fans.

I am not defending the oppressive behavior of major labels, or the repulsive actions of the commercial radio industry. I despise both! But I won't sink to their level and say that since they are screwing artists I am going to also. Downloading a file or two here and there to preview before buying is one thing. But so many people have gigabytes of mp3's that they have never purchased a license for. Most people don't use file sharing as a way to preview, they use it as a way to get something for free. And not everybody who is entitled to royalties is a big famous superstar or a large corporate record label. These poor folks have neither fame nor fortune, and you rip them off everytime you download their song(s). And you best excuse is that the record labels are ripping them off even worse.

The downloading public has to realize the way things really work before they criticize things they know very little about. Yes CD's are a bit overpriced at $20 each. Perhaps if you supported bands without them having to spend so much to get your attention CD's would be priced less. If you enjoy the music so much, you could at least pay for it.

Artists who agreed to oppresive terms by signing bad contracts are getting what they agreed to. If artists would stop signing bad contracts the industry could change. If the buying public actively sought out new music instead of being "programmed" by commercial radio and music television things could change. There are many peices of the puzzle that require change, and the non-paying consumer is a big part of the problem.

And anyone with a brain knows that blaming "them" or grouping all of the major labels together (they are competitors) is a bit on the conspiracy theory mentality.

A big part of the legal problems brought about by the RIAA are in direct relation to the filesharing public. So many people were claiming "fair use" for what was clearly pirating, that they chose to approach it differently and seek new legislation that explicitly prohibits what was already obviously illegal. Now the rest of us must suffer loss in freedom because some stupid people wanted to hide behind what they thought was a gray area. Thanks a lot. If you just admitted you were stealing we probably wouldn't have the DMCA or other strong handed legislation.

CD's produced for record clubs are different. The record contract has special conditions for those albums, and the artist agreed to it by signing the contract.

If you really want to enlighten the public on why the music industry is in such a slump, you absolutely have to look very closely at commercial radio. Clear Channel in particular has helped to make things go steadily downhill ever since radio was deregulated in 1996. Read this very informative article which is part of a whole series on the corruption of radio. http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html

I will step down from my soapbox now, but I hope at least one person has learned something.

that was great

I didn't.

I knew about the radio. I know about all of this stuff.

If the artists have been contracturally and financially raped in order to buy their place in culture, how has anyone stolen anything if the public is willing to do this for free.

If the overwhelming majority of copyright owners are NOT represented by the RIAA, and the overwhelming majority of copyright owners are FREELY offering their music for public consumption -- primarily because we cannot afford to purchase our cultural annotation, then any laws in place to protect this undeserving minority (the copyright OWNERS -- the LABELS -- NOT the artists) which has wrested control of copyrights by immoral and unjust actions, not only do not deserve the protection of the law but are also willfully and grossly in violation of the laws of the land, as well as any moral judgement which may be considered by greater powers.

Radio IS bad. The recording industry is worse. Deceit, trickery, pimps and whores, drug dealing, you name it. Some accusations of murder are now surfacing.

That was before the DMCA.

It's worse now.

And let's talk about broadcast television. Seen "American Idol"? Ever wonder why it's a karaoke festival? If these guys would sing an original song, maybe I'd have some respect for them.

But do you know what happens if they do? The network immediately owns the song.
And who owns the network? First correct answer wins a CD single of the upcoming hit song, "Lawyers on the Loose."

I'll mail it out today.

Look! a live trivia contest. Just like the radio.

We don't need it anymore, either.

It's a real CD. Shrink-wrapped and barcoded.

Fox?

I have mixed feelings about your article musicfann. You're basing your whole theory of downloaders on the ones that share music. A great percentage of people on p2p don't share anything at all. You have no clue what they're doing, you can only speculate. As for those people with gigs of music files, it's also speculation. Ever notice how those things were titled? Sure, they could have downloaded albums at a time, but it seems more like they ripped them from CD.

Legally, they don't have any right to share a lot of those songs, that's not what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is the fact that you labeled the 'downloading public' as thieves just as the labels and the xxaa does. You're basing this on sheer speculation, nothing more.

Oh, and musicfann, go two articles beneath this one. When you put 'downloading public', you make it seem as if the majority is stealing.

Yes, kneo24 is the winner with the correct answer. Damn, I thought it was ABC and that would have led to Disney.

kneo, I think I have your address, but email it to me again. I have more than 900 e-mails in my inbox right now.

Put a new one on top and the CD goes out today.

Thanks for playing. Be sure to tune in again for the next episode. Commercial-free and uninterrupted, brought to you by Boycott-RIAA and DMusic, the home of the world's best in independent music.

And now, back to our show...

I'm still trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or not, George (the whole contest part).

Hehe, I remember scamming BMG and Columbia House for loads of free CDs back in my younger days. Almost a rite of passage as almost everyone I know did the same thing.

No. It's real. I stopped being sarcastic last week.

The song is "Lawyers on the Loose" by Southern Express, featuring Dave Dodd and Dan Napolitano of the Washington, D.C. area.

I've got six or seven copies, courtesy of Dave Dodd, who seven months ago suggested we do something silly to get noticed.

I decided that destroying the RIAA might fill that bill. It's just not as silly as it sounded back then.

So yes, kneo. It's real.
The mailman still hasn't come by yet today. And your earlier e-mail didn't have a name and address.

cool, free merchandise. I'm all up for it.

I was going to not reply to musicfann's post here since I already did in another posting, but there are a few statements that quite frankly annoyed me.

" Yes CD's are a bit overpriced at $20 each. Perhaps if you supported bands without them having to spend so much to get your attention CD's would be priced less. If you enjoy the music so much, you could at least pay for it. "

A "bit" overpriced? Four years ago I was paying $12 per disc for great music, now I should pay $20 for junk?

" If the buying public actively sought out new music instead of being "programmed" by commercial radio and music television things could change. "

Ummm...guys, help me out here. Is this or is this not the entire basis and intent of P2P? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's pretty much what I have used it for.

" Since the buying public (now the free downloading public) only shows interest and/or buys songs after they have been heavily promoted at very high costs, that is the route that a record label will try to take when promoting a mainstream act. It is a proven formula. "

Ok, the last time I remember someone citing the "proven formula" was he influx of the "boy bands". If that's not enough reason to find other music, I don't know what is.

Also, it's the "buying public" that is lulled into the mindless phase there. The "downloading public" as you call them are the ones searching for the alternative to all this crap.

" And anyone with a brain knows that blaming "them" or grouping all of the major labels together (they are competitors) is a bit on the conspiracy theory mentality. "

And there are never any conspiracies whatsoever, right? The major labels are competitors represented by the same group--the RIAA. Completely logical.

" A big part of the legal problems brought about by the RIAA are in direct relation to the filesharing public. So many people were claiming "fair use" for what was clearly pirating, that they chose to approach it differently and seek new legislation that explicitly prohibits what was already obviously illegal. Now the rest of us must suffer loss in freedom because some stupid people wanted to hide behind what they thought was a gray area. Thanks a lot. If you just admitted you were stealing we probably wouldn't have the DMCA or other strong handed legislation. "

Ok, how much of that statement was wrong? Let's see..."Fair Use" is a good place. "Fair Use" when it comes to the RIAA and the labels means "our terms only, no arguements". "Approach it differently" and "seek new legislation"? Yeah, let's slip in this wording into a National Security measure so that we (RIAA) can violate any American's rights we want to, maybe provide evidence of illegal activity and even if none is present do whatever we want to and not be held accountable for it. Yeah, that's different all right. By the way, where is this so-called "loss in freedom" for "the rest of us"?

"Just admitted stealing...there would be no DMCA"? I agree 100%. You're right. There wouldn't. Even MORE of our rights would have been removed.

Musicfann...thanks for this posting...you basically proved exactly why this site and group are needed.

muscifann, is a troll, and like all trolls, their favorite motto is "keep on trollin" (you gotta play it in tune of limp bizkits rollin).

George, you should have more games on here.

How many times must the RIAA and the major labels settle antitrust charges out of court before the Department of Justice and morons understand that not only IS this a conspiracy, it is EXACTLY the type of conspiracy that the antitrust laws were designed to break up and prevent from controlling the market.

Less than 10% of the acts own 95% of the market for recorded music.

I always thought these clubs were RIAA owned anyway? as for things like flea markets lol. Thats usually just used CDs anyway. and I highly doubt a flea market person is gonna give the RIAA any profit off their old CD's or records.

musicfann is also a copy and paste artists. I doubt very much he's coming up with this tiring old propoganda himself he's probably stealing this stuff he's typing on here. and, I wouldn't doubt it.

OK, I responded to a troll...so shoot me. Brain fart.

SinisterX - "I highly doubt a flea market person is gonna give the RIAA any profit off their old CD's or records"

Unless they never had to pay for them in the first place. One of those still unanswered questions is: Exactly how many CDs were manufactured last year.

Big secret. No one knows.

Free Speach advocates, are you? Except when someone like me has a different viewpoint. So much for open minds here. btw, I typed everything in my article except for the website addresses, and I didn't copy and paste anything. I guess my views are propoganda (for whom?) but yours are just free speach. My own words buddy, sorry it's hard for you to believe that some of us can type words and think for ourselves. I guess if you are against stealing and acutally speak up, that makes you a troll.

Not all discs are $20, I just rounded up to a nice even number. Don't take it so literal. Lots of discs are between 10 and 15 bucks. That isn't too much to ask for a CD. You probably pay more for a dinner at a restaurant and you don't expect that to last forever or to be able to access it from any computer in the world.

The downloading public sharing Metallica files or any other major label act aren't seeking out new music. Give me a break please.

Your logic is flawed, and if anything your posts have shown that you are wrong. You clearly don't want to see the truth because you've made up your mind and want to blame the "big guys". I feel sorry for you.

Fair use is what so many people were hiding behind when mp3's started to scare up fear of lost sales. If people just admitted they were stealing nobody would have had to come up with laws that have explicit wording regarding softcopies of work. So many people claimed that I only made a copy, but the original is left there so how could I have stolen anything. So many lame excuses like that and you wonder why someone did something about it.

Yes, I lost freedoms as much as everyone else. DMCA is oppresive in many ways and I don't deny it, I never have. I have a brain enough to see why the RIAA and others would try to prevent people from stealing when they were hiding behind fair use. That doesn't mean I support them or agree with them. I do, however, respect the concept of intellectual property and copyright ownership. Many people posting here do not.

Try listening to public radio if you want to find new bands. Internet radio also has boatloads of acts to listen to that aren't on commercial mainstream radio. There are many other ways to find new music beside infringing on someone else's rights. If you can't recognize and respect the rights of others, why should anyone respect your rights?

Even if this does rip off the artists, the selling of normal 20 dollar cd's do to, they get less then what? 50 cents per disk? They not only getting ripped off by music clubs.

I don't see how selling CD's with someone else's music for $20 dollars is ETHICAL, but distributing mp3s for free ISN'T.

Who the fuck do the labels think they are, defining morals for me?
I decide what is moral and ethical. And I say we need to drive the labels into bankruptcy. If there is some collateral damage to some of the mainstream artists:
who cares. They reproduce like the cockroaches anyways.

Filesharing is not stealing. You cannot steal something which is neither a product nor a service.

Neither can you steal money that hasn't been EARNED yet. Lost sales my ass, if you can't compete, go out of business.

...and no, I do not recognize copyright as a natural Human Right. And I never have seen it as a right.
What I DO recognize is MY RIGHT to freely copy and distribute ANY sequence of bits that I can receive and store on MY harddrive.

justsomeguy -- Ever recorded an album? Tried to sell it?

Do that and come back and tell me about morals. Sell just one copy. Go ahead. Try it.

Try to do it without a major label cashing in.

You can't. Unless you give away free samples.

You're trying to declare my business immoral. Well I've got something to tell you, justsomeguy, I'm justsomemusician and I will make it my life's work to fight against this censorship.

The government has been trying to call the record business immoral since the day it started doing business.

And now it's pointing the finger at everyone else in the country. To maintain their monopolistic, anti-competitive control.

Why don't you go get some morals. And some common sense. Or is it too late?
Have you already sold your soul?

lol fuck em all

music will eventually be free

Hmm justsomeguy are you musicfann as well??? sounds like it and I doubt for one minute you typed all that up in here...you are a copy and paste artist. and a troll.

If I setup a table at a flea market and put up some of my old cd's and sell em for pennies and pocket the pennies without giving the RIAA their share how are they gonna know?? I've seen lots of music for sale at flea market tables, used or new. hell you can even get real records, you know? remember them? Maybe if the RIAA stuck to real records instead of digital they would be harder to copy to MP3. but nope, they went digital and are paying the price for it and I hope they go down the tubes. They are a monoply which I always thought was illigal in this country?

As long as they are giving the govt their bribe and lobbying money, they will be a legal monopoly. Just how do you think Microsuck got off with their monopoly so many times? It doesnt take a genious to figure it out.

We need an ignore feature for people like 'musicfann' and his other user names. Free speech is one thing, trolling is another.

Trolly, when you come back with some empirical data, we can talk, until then shut up.

kneo24 I agree. I would comment more but already did in another post, plus you and SinisterX seem to be slamming the little troll for all he's worth. Oh by the way that's nothing in case anyone was wondering.

George can you and if so are you planning to add all this new stuff to your case or to your testimony at the hearing. It would be cool if you can work it in somehow.

gdZiemann: I HAVE sold almost 15,000 albums, and I've given away probably around 500 or 600. No major labels cashing in on me. I never declared your business immoral, I don't even know what business you are in. And for the record, you don't even know who the majority of the worlds copyright holders are, and the truth is that the majority of the worlds copyright holders DO NOT give their art away for free. Some do, more do not.

Too bad you folks can't handle a different opinion. That type of mentality should do your cause good. You sound like the borg.

No, you don't have a right to distribute any bytes you can send and receive on your computer, and that kind of thinking is what oppressed all of us with the fricken DMCA. Thanks.

Sorry kids, I can type. It's a fact of life. No cutting and pasting. Get over it.

I don't like the RIAA and it's behavior, but I don't blame them for everything. I don't like the major labels and how they've manipulated the market and corrupted art. There are many pieces of the puzzle, and the biggest obstacle for independent artists is COMMERCIAL RADIO. If you want to help indy artists, stop listening to commercial radio, stop listening to bands on RIAA labels, stop buying, downloading, and sharing their music, start seeking out indy bands and supporting them. Get off your ass, move away from your computer, go to your local bar or club, and pay money (I know it's weird to you) to support music.

Try to have a little bit of an open mind. I've learned some things from the other posts here, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. Many of you have already made up your mind about things that you probably don't know much about. That isn't going to help your cause. And if you can't have a friendly debate with someone like me, then you really aren't going to be able to have a sustainable movement within society.

All your complaining about cencorship, but you want to censor me and people like me? Does anybody even read through these posts? There is so much contradiction, you are just working against each other and don't even know it.

Yes, I am justsomeguy. That name was taken on this site already so I chose a new name.

SinisterX: I don't really care what you doubt or believe. Believe what you want, you already have made up your mind about everything anyway. I guess everybody is entitled to your opinion.

The first three replies to my post show that those people don't respect the rights of others, but at the same time they are probably complaining about the RIAA or the "Government" infringing on their rights. Once again, wishy washy. You aren't helping your cause. You're only showing that you are just going to keep stealing and you don't care what anybody else thinks.

You accuse me of name calling. But you call me "troll", "dougie", and whatever else you want. I'm not trolling, only speaking my mind to people who supposedly feel strong about free speach and censorship issues. SUPPOSEDLY is the keyword. Anyone who reads through these posts can clearly see that most of you don't support free speach at all. Again, that doesn't help your cause. But if you can't see that then that is your problem.

I typed ALL of this. It only took me less than ten minutes. I could care less if you believe that, but it's the truth. Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.

I am going to withdraw my membership from this organization because it clearly is NOT what it claims to be about. I wonder if I can get my donations back too?

I'm a mildly successful independent recording artist, working with several other acts besides my main band. I also have a recording studio and work in production and development of up and coming acts. I contribute my own hard earned money to organizations that work outside of the commercial media machine that currently poisons the entertainment industry. I also have a day job to pay the bills too. I give back to the community and I fight to oppose poor legislation, unfair practices, and the obvious corruption in the music industry. I support indy bands and I DON'T listen to commercial radio. I buy CD's and I don't fileshare (my choice). I spread the word about how commercial radio has become even worse since deregulation in 1996. I've campaigned to the FCC to report violations against public interest, because the airwaves do belong to the public. I work with unsigned bands to help them avoid bad contracts and I encourage them to go the independent route instead of trying to get a major label record deal.

What do you do to help indy bands? What do you do to try and bring about change?

Quit talking trash about me when you have no idea what I do or whose side I'm on. Just because I'm smart enough to know that the RIAA isn't the only cause of the problems in music, and not even the main problem, doesn't mean I'm against you. I certainly don't support close minded thinking and childish retorts that have nothing to do with the real problem. Excuses are excuses.

Yes artists get ripped off by the labels, but they signed bad contracts. By stealing songs you take away that very small piece of the pie that they get. If you don't see that as bad I can't help you. You are adding insult to injury.

I joined a music club back in the late '70s/ early "80s, seemed like a good idea out here in redneckville. I thought the idea behind the music clubs was to lower album price by mailing me the product from their warehouse instead of shipping copies to all the Kmarts. Clubs further reduced the price by manufactoring the albums themselves (right next to the warehouse I always assumed). Now we find out that when I bought Led Zeppelin and AC/DC that Jimmy Page and Angus Young may NOT have been paid! I have no problem with any format of music delivery as long as the artist gets his due. Now had I known that the artists weren't getting paid I wouldve never joined. Another example of the RIAA ripping off the artist.
As far as a song written for a TV show, I believe those are treated about the same as the jingles written for commercials. Hired studio musicians know theyre being paid once for their work and know they have no copyright. I could write 60 second metal songs for BudLite and MtDew all day long, if an advertising agency wants to hire me year 'round Im cool with not owning it, just pay me my weekly salery.

Musicfann,
You say:
"you don't even know who the majority of the worlds copyright holders are, and the truth is that the majority of the worlds copyright holders DO NOT give their art away for free. Some do, more do not."
George has stated that he does know them, as he has data to back it up.
Check dmusic.com and other independent websites. There files are well over 100,000 files if not more of FREE music.
Please show data that George is wrong, i have seen none from your side, just your word.

Musicfann,
You say:
If you want to help indy artists, stop listening to commercial radio, stop listening to bands on RIAA labels, stop
buying, downloading, and sharing their music, start seeking out indy bands and supporting them. Get off your ass, move away from your computer, go to your local bar or club, and pay money (I know it's weird to you) to support music.

I say:
That is exactly why this site was built and is run. Were all saying what you are saying and we are doing it, stop telling us to get off our butt when WE are! Your arguing with yourself over this issue.
More to come

Musicfann,
You say:
That isn't going to help your cause. And if you can't have a friendly debate with someone like me....
I say:
Your not having a very friendly debate with us, you might try to back up your statements with data first before saying them.
George has spent a lot of time on this, and he can back up what he says.
I am still waiting for data to back up your assertions.

Musicfann,
You say:
Too bad you folks can't handle a different opinion.
I say:
its not your opinion that bothers me, its your lack of data that bothers me.
thanks

Musicfann,
You say:
Does anybody even read through these posts?

I say:
Yes

Musicfann,
You say:
The first three replies to my post show that those people don't respect the rights of others, but at the same time they are probably complaining about the RIAA or the "Government" infringing on their rights

I say:
Your basing this on THREE posts, look at all the posts! I'm tired of you because of your lack of data!

Musicfann,
You say:
Put that shit in your pipe and smoke it.

I say:
From the start you have said things LIKE this, why are you suprised at being called names and now going to run away.

Musicfann,
You say:
I'm a mildly successful independent recording artist, working with several other acts besides my main band. I also have a recording studio and work in production and development of up and coming acts. I contribute my own hard earned money to organizations that work outside of the commercial media machine that currently poisons the entertainment industry. I also have a day job to pay the bills too. I give back to the community and I fight to oppose poor legislation, unfair practices, and the obvious corruption in the music industry. I support indy bands and I DON'T listen to commercial radio. I buy CD's and I don't fileshare (my choice). I spread the word about how commercial radio has become even worse since deregulation in 1996. I've campaigned to the FCC to report violations against public interest, because the airwaves do belong to the public. I work with unsigned bands to help them avoid bad contracts and I encourage them to go the independent route instead of trying to get a major label record deal.

I say:
From what you say, i would reccomend Calling George or getting to know him better, you do have a lot in common with him.

Musicfann,
You say:
What do you do to help indy bands? What do you do to try and bring about change?

I say:
I currently share over 700 indie MP3's on kazaa and am downloading more all the time. You act like we aren't doing anything, George is doing A lot, but you don't see it!

I don't know why I am even responding to this but here it goes,

OK musicfann,justsomeguy what ever you what to be called. If in fact you have done all these things at least tell us what bands you work with, so may be we can help them out if there any good. I mean if your really "helping" these bands shouldn't you atlease mention them here, give us a name or a web site, doing that is "free promotion". George does it all the time.

Now one of the most important questions. I purchase your cd. I don't like it, but I think my friends might like it. So I rip a track or two that I think the would like and send it to a friend or two and they like it, no they love it. So they go buy the cd and since they really like it. They purchase your new cd and even look for some of your old stuff too.

NOW IT WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES:
You and the RIAA say this is bad and illegal. You say it must be stopped even though it brought you sales, that you would have never recieved. How did my copying of your songs add insult to injury. Oh it put more money in your pocket, how insulting...

I am done for now

Musicfann,
Where can i go and get Authorized Indie MP3's to share on Kazaa, you did say that you had bands that you work with. I would be happy to share your files on the net.

VampireMoon: "Another example of the RIAA ripping off the artist." First of all, get the facts straight. The RIAA didn't rip these artists off, each artists' respective record label ripped them off. The RIAA didn't ask them to do it.

directive: "George has stated that he does know them, as he has data to back it up." If you need me to show you data to prove that George DOESN'T know the majority of the world's copyright holders then you obviously just wish to believe George. Why don't you look at every country's copyright registry and then ask George yourself how many of the millions (possibly more) of copyright holder he actually knows and can speak for? 100,000 is a very very small drop in the bucket compared to all of the copyrighted works in the whole world. If you think somehow that George has already proven this, I can't imagine what you consider proof but I would suggest that perhaps you are a bit gullible. If you disbelieve what I say, try looking for the answers yourself instead of trusting George.

I disagree that everyone here is saying what I'm saying, and I suspect that some folks here might even agree with me on that one.

If you want some data here is some. I am going to paste two URLs here: http://www.salon.com/ent/clear_channel/index.html

http://www.salon.com/tech/books/2003/04/21/napster_excerpt/index_np.html

I just asked a coworker to read through these posts and he agrees that there is lots of contradiction among the folks who have flamed me. My question wasn't literally "does anyone read these posts". My question does anybody read the posts and process what they say and mean? Then after doing that does anybody but me see conflicts and contradictions.

directive: I'm not basing anything on only three posts. There are hundreds of posts on this website of people basically saying "fuck the riaa. I'm going to download what I want because I can". I have stated over and over that these people's statements are what I object to and disagree with. I can't make it any clearer than that. I have looked at many (but not all) of the posts here.

Maybe you should get some rest if you are so tired. Where is YOUR data and proof? And what exactly is your data and proof actually proving?


I maintain that I am indeed attempting to have a friendly debate, but look at all the flames I get. My posting have not been directed at everybody in the world, or everybody who fileshare, or even everybody who reads these posts. People who give away something that doesn't belong to them don't understand or respect the value of intellectual property. People who say that they are going to do it anyway frustrate me. When those kinds of people join your cause, they aren't making things better.

At least I try to make things better. I try to enlighten people about the greater problem of radio monopoly, which affects indy artists way more than other piece of the problem. Without radio play for promotion it is almost impossible to achieve large scale success. Without the possibility of large scale success, there isn't much chance of financial assitance or backing. Without all of that, the rest of us (including me) are left with trying to go completely underground and independent. True music fans actually WANT to support artists and try to do it. They don't say things like "the artists was only going to get a dollar or 50 cents anyway".

I could go through these posts and find hundreds of examples of people who on one posting claim "screw everybody else, I'm taking it for free and you can't stop me" then on another post they cry about THEIR rights. It doesn't make sense. You (maybe not YOU per se, in this case "you" is just a pronoun so please stop saying I'm talking about you) can't expect everyone else to respect your rights while at the same time disrespecting the rights of artists, publishers, producers, record labels (indy and major), songwriters, and anyone else who might be entitled to a piece of the pie, no matter how small their piece is.

Good luck with the quasi-anarchy backed by pseudo-facts.

George, when you get a chance, why don't you go ahead and PROVE to me that you know the majority of the world's copyright holders. I'll settle for a signed affadavit or at least a notarized statement from them. Then a complete list of ALL of the world's copyright holders so that I can compare your proof against the whole group. That way we can determine whether you actually can grasp the concept of how large of a group "the majority of the world's copyright holders" really is. That is proof, and you haven't got anything remotely like that because you don't know the majority of the world's copyright holders. The number is HUGE, and some of these people (directive for one) actually believe that you do know them. How can I compete with a blind following like that? You could probably start a cult and have some loyal dedicated followers right here. I can't believe someone wanted me to prove that George DOESN'T know the majority of the world's copyright holders. What a joke! I didn't make the statement, George did. The burden of proof is on him, not me. Obviously George doesn't know the majority, but I'm sure he may know of thousands or maybe even hundreds of thousands. Some people give aways only some stuff for free, but they sell other stuff. These people still believe in copyright protection and the respect of intellectual property.

Sorry kids, I typed ALL of this yet again. Don't compare what you are capable of typing to what you think I might be capable of. The only thing I pasted was the URLs. Get over it, pasting isn't the issue anyway, Geez.

Let's see.
Relatively new members of gnutella.com,
neutral stance,
empty shoutboxes,
and nobody has ever heard of you before.
And still fiercly arguing for the RIAA Holy Right to make Holy Profit from Holy Copyright Law.

Did someone say "RIAA collaborator"?

Musicfann,
Thanks for your reply.
You say:
directive: "George has stated that he does know them, as he has data to back it up." If you need me to show you data to prove that George DOESN'T know the majority of the world's copyright holders then you obviously just wish to believe George. Why don't you look at every country's copyright registry and then ask George yourself how many of the millions (possibly more) of copyright holder he actually knows and can speak for? 100,000 is a very very small drop in the bucket compared to all of the copyrighted works in the whole world. If you think somehow that George has already proven this, I can't imagine what you consider proof but I would suggest that perhaps you are a bit gullible. If you disbelieve what I say, try looking for the answers yourself instead of trusting George.

I say:
I never said George claims could not be challanged, what i am looking for is data to back up your side. You have provided data, and i thank you.

Obviously I would be doing a disservice to mention anybody I'm working with, since nobody here likes anything I say and would probably take it out on me, my band, acts I work with, my recording studio, or my contacts. I would love to help my peeps, but this isn't the forum for it.

directive: so you ONLY share 700 indy bands, or you also share a bunch of other stuff withouth permission too?

I'm only saying that the owner of the copyright should decide how their work is distributed. If you were a creator you might understand. If you aren't, then you probably won't. If you bought my CD and didn't like it, I say just give it to your friend instead of having him go and buy a copy. I'm only saying that you, your brother, the 12 year old kid down the street, and the pope, and everyone else, DON'T get to decide what is fair for someone else's property. It is a pretty simple concept.

Many of the bands I work with don't want to give away their product. They have poured their heart and soul into it. They have spent a lot of money buying equipment, paying for recording studio time (not just in my studio), they have given up weekends and free time to work on music. They spent money having CD's duplicated. They spent money getting a bar code of their own (sometimes). They have spent time working and reworking their songs. Some of the acts chose (they chose, not you) to give away some mp3s to promote themselves, but only some of the acts. And the ones that do only give away a small part of their library of songs. Some of them share on P2P networks, but most do it directly from their own websites and other industry and indy sites.

Again, I'd love to share some names and addresses with you, but I'm afraid you would use my words here against them. I don't feel that would be in their best interest so I'll remain anonymous. I even know some of you on this post and are friends, but you don't know that musicfann and justsomeguy is me. My views are unpopular among people who want to get music for free. I don't believe that everything should be free. If everything was free, you wouldn't have a car, or a phone, or a computer for that matter. You wouldn't have a CD player or a couch or an MP3 player. Nobody would bother putting time into developing ANYTHING if they didn't get some reward for their hard work. Yes, some things in the business world really suck. It's true, artists get ripped off by labels. It's true that CD's are expensive and that labels waste a lot of money on their band's behalf and the loss is put to the consumer and the talent. If you read through these posts, you will find more than half of them are saying things that aren't going to help change anything for the better. Give it a try, go read some of the posts on the other articles. There is a lot of "fuck this and fuck that" and "who cares about them" and "just try and stop" statements. That isn't trying to help indy artists, that isn't trying to make the music scene better. That isn't trying to bring about change, except for a half hearted attempt at a sort of anarchy. Those are the people I'm talking about and talking to. If you aren't one of them, quit taking offense to what I say because I'm not talking about you in the first place. If you are one of them, shame on you.

I'm not arguing for the RIAA. Try reading the words in my posts. Those are the little things with alpha characters strung together and puncuation at the end. I abhor many of the RIAA tactics. You are a fool if you continue to think I am affiliated with them or support them.

As I said earlier somewhere else, on a completely different topic, and allow me to quote:

"There are 64,000 acts offering music at www.garageband.com. There are 4,000 acts at dMusic.com. The major labels have less than 8,000 acts, I believe.

We ARE the majority and we ARE offering our music for free. Just look around. The proof is everywhere. I don't have to taslk to Eric Clapton or Bon Jovi, either. They've got songs for download at mp3.com.

To some extent, they agree with me. We all agree that, yes, there is a control issue over WHAT gets shared, but until people stop calling our promotional campaign immoral, we can't even begin to discuss that issue."

I never professed to "knowing" anyone.
I merely offer their public actions as proof of my claim that the majority of the copyright owners are sharing their music freely.

Because don't forget the facts. The major label artists do not own their copyrights.

The five labels do.

The ratio is about 68,000 to 5.

Musicfann,
You said:
directive: so you ONLY share 700 indy bands, or you also share a bunch of other stuff withouth permission too?

I say:
As a matter of fact, Yes.
Quite honestly, the way you worded the question is quite rude.

To make it clear, my Yes, meant that i only share 700 files that are authorized.
I am doing all i can to get more on my computer.
I do not share one ILLEGAL file.
Thanks

Musicfann,
You say:
Where is YOUR data and proof? And what exactly is your data and proof actually proving?

I say:
The only data that i have personally collected has to do with RIAA enforcement of illegal files being sent. I am doing more research.

Musicfann,
You write:
The number is HUGE, and some of these people (directive for one) actually believe that you do know them. How can I compete with a blind following like that?

I say:
How u twist my words, like my last few posts said, i want to see your data, and you have showed some of it and challenged george, and for that i thank you, but do not forget that George will defend what he says.
From some of your posts, and what you are now saying, i would accuse you of BLINDLY accusing me and others of out to STEAL files. Please be more considerate.
Thanks

musicfann,
I am not accusing you of being affiliated with the RIAA, please be considerate.
Thanks

directive, I think the RIAA comment was ment for me. I feel many of his points were geared tward the RIAA, which at no point did I mention being affiliated which such.

Thanks djjajo1

ok, relax, time for stupid humor after reading the posts above.

Give directive shorts and a little white truck with strips and he can be the "Post Master" ARR ARR ARR.

Don't flame me for being silly, it's Friday ya know.

Thanks for the post, i am not personally mad at anybody, nor affended personally.
No worries

Boy, that was the lamest thing I think I ever wrote, but it still has more intellegence than anything written on the RIAA site.

musicfann,
Call George if you can at 480-946-2951

Thanks

Musicfan: Around here, when we refer to the RIAA we are usually refering to the membership of the RIAA. Hilary and Crew receive their marching orders from the board: Lets take a look:

The Board of the RIAA:
Roger Ames, Warner Music Group
Michele Anthony, Sony Music Entertainment
Val Azzoli, The Atlantic Group
Jose Behar, Univision Music Group
Bob Cavallo, Buena Vista Music Group
Ronnie Dashev, Maverick Recording Company
Clive Davis, RCA Music Group
Tracey Edmonds, Edmonds Record Group
David Glew, Epic Records Group
Dick Griffey, Solar Records/J.Hines Co.
Zach Horowitz, Universal Music Group
Don Ienner, Columbia Records Group
David Johnson, Warner Music Group
Lawrence Kenswil, Universal Music Group
Mel Lewinter, Universal Music Group
Alain Levy, EMI, Recorded Music N.A.
Roy Lott, EMI, Recorded Music N.A.
Antonio Reid, Arista Records Inc.
Sylvia Rhone, Elektra Entertainment Group
Hilary Rosen, RIAA
Rolf Schmidt-Holtz, BMG Entertainment
Tom Silverman, Tommy Boy Music
Andy Slater, Capitol Records
Thomas Stein, BMG Entertainment
Tom Tyrrell, Sony Music Entertainment

Very kewl.

I thought I was going to have to look all of that up this weekend.

Thanks, thumbtack.

musicfann, personally, I really dont care about your opinion of the RIAA. They are a monoply. I have mad up my mind years ago to boycott them when I found out that the music I was happily paying for when I was a kid wasn't even going to my favorite artists but to the label. Some of those artists are now broke. I've been a real music fan ever since I listed to my first Black Sabbath album back in their day. I've bought thousands of dollars worth of 8tracks, records, singles tapes, you name it. I've spent a small fortune on music and entertainment. I even went to live concerts. I'm probably one of the few oldtimers on this site. I will never again support the labels. Not after being ripped off after decades of buying music in whatever media the RIAA/MPAA switches too. The only enjoyment I get out of the Internet is filesharing. I share out of print hard to get music via my Gnutella server and I am a server on Gnutella and I could careless if the labels lose a few pennies off my sharing. The RIAA are whiny children like the democrats of this country, pissing and moaning about everything and Im stick of it. I will never buy another CD again as long as I live unless its from an Indie. The RIAA and their money grubbing ways can go stick it.

and, just for the record, I am on a very old computer that dates back to the early 90's. with no fancy software for spell check, so live with my typos.

also, I share music that I make from scratch and the artists that I share music from are mostly dead artists from the 50's & 60's so, how does the RIAA lose money from my sharing? The artists who orginally created the material no longer own the copyright if they are dead unless they have family take over their copyright and how many artists from the 50's have family members still alive? not too many. lots of them are flat broke and dont even collect a single penny from the songs I share. The labels own the copyright and I dont give a rats ass about them.

later

Let me please make at least one thing clear. Those of you who are trading or looking for out of date or unavailable music are justified. I make no comments against thee! Those of you who are trading indy bands music with their permission, I have no qualms with you either. Good for you for supporting indy music. We need more people like you.

Spica called me an RIAA Collaborator, which obviously I am not.

In my own defense, I'm not the only one here making generalized statements, and I do recognize that blanket statements are often misleading or just not true. That is my bad and I apologize to everyone here. Please accept. Also, I didn't mean to come across so strongly in my original post on some of these articles, but I get very frustrated when I hear people complain about their rights while simultaneously giving the virtual finger to the rights of others.

Yes, on gnutella I'm justsomeguy, but I couldn't get that name here for some reason. I don't believe that anybody's username on this post is their REAL name so please don't get so upset at me for not being able to chose some cool creative original name instead of my generic musicfann. For obvious reasons I wish to remain anonymous thank you.

George, I still disagree that you represent the majority, but I will just let it go because I'm not going to change your mind and you aren't going to change mine. Deep down I feel that you are probably working, just like me, to try and make things better, and for that I both congratulate and applaud you.

directive: good for you that you don't share illegal files. I wish more people were like you, even though I don't know you (at least I think I don't). You seem like an open minded and nice person. I apologize for not being considerate, I was wrong and unfair (damnit!). I didn't mean to group everyone together, and I honestly tried to make that clear. Somehow I've been misunderstood and have made some enemies here. That wasn't my intention. My problem to deal with now.

I still stand very strongly by my assertion that commercial radio, which is the best and most effective prommotional tool currently available, is extremely corrupted and is the root of the majority of the problems in the music industry. Labels pay huge amounts of money to get on the radio, because they have found that the buying public only responds in large numbers (of sales) when there is HEAVY radio promotion. Unfortunately that costs a whole lot of money. If the public were more active in supporting bands without them having to be in heavy rotation on big radio stations, then payola might not be such a problem. I don't blame that on the public solely, but if more people knew how the game was played I believe their frustrations and anger would point more at the radio side of the industry. Labels are part of the problem for relying on this system, thus making it stronger and increasing the "GREED" factor exponentially. The major labels routinely rip off artists, that is a fact. I despise them for that. The fact remains that music styles that don't rely on mainstream commercial radio are not suffering the slump that mainstream music is facing and has been facing for quite some time. The quality of talent in major label acts has decreased, because many artists are getting smarter and won't sign oppressive so called "standard" contracts. If there were less starry eyed fools signing bad contracts, the system might change too.

I have mixed feelings regarding these artists that so quickly sign bad contracts. On the one hand, I feel very bad that they are being ripped off and treated so badly. On the other hand, I'm kind of pissed off that they just go and sign a bad contract because they want fame and fortune, and they don't even consult a competent attorney to find out what it is exactly that they are signing. As long as there are enough foolish people willing to sign bad deals, the rest of us are screwed as far as having any chance with a major record label.

Here is a suggestion for anybody who is trying to release independent music. There are several books available with titles like "everything you wanted to know about the music industry" and "the music industry bible" and many others. I suggest picking up a couple of these books and reading them. Get at least more than one so you can hear several points of view. You might become even more disgusted with the industry, but you will learn more about the truth by reading these books than you ever will from reading postings on the internet. Industry insiders contribute to these books including producers, artists and band members, former record label executives, concert promoters, and a whole slew of heavy hitters.

Some of you have shown that you are not just out to steal the world blind and I reiterate that I have no qualms with you. Others out there probably never even heard about the RIAA before Napster, and don't research information themselves. They quote other people's opinions and have selective listening when it comes to so called facts. These folks make even more blanket statements than I ever could, and routinely refer to the RIAA even though they aren't really sure what it is or what they do. They don't consider that while they may disagree with one or more actions of the RIAA, they may have some things is common with some of the goals and efforts of the RIAA. AGAIN, I don't support or advocate RIAA oppression, but I don't blame them for everything that is wrong with the music industry and I don't solely blame them for oppresive legislation such as the DMCA. They were a major force behind the DMCA, but there were lots and lots of reasons for their lobbying for protection, one of which is ramapant disregard for intellectual property.

I work as an IT consultant (several months out of the year I must make some bucks so I can tour and devote more time to music) and I have seen multi-gigabyte libraries being shared on client's networks more times than I care to remember. These filesharing people were not trying to support indy music, nor were they trying to help change the music scene for the better. They weren't "trying before buying" and they admit it in person but often they tell me that they probaly wouldn't if they participated in a survey. When I ask them about it, they almost never feel any regret for violating the rights of the copyright owner, and often times they just assume that the only people losing out are people or companies that make millions of dollars anyway, which isn't always true. This bothers me and the fact remains that it is illegal and makes things worse. Not that I am worried about Sony making every last penny from every song they release.

I'm worried that the disrespect for copyright and more specifically intellectual property is spreading through society and eventually the arts will suffer so bad that there won't be much, if any, quality music being created. I also get bothered when these same people complain about THEIR rights, but still continue to disrespect the rights of countless others. You don't have to share my view, and you probably don't, but that is how I feel. I don't understand how anyone can claim to be fighting for their right to share what doesn't belong to them while claiming that prohibiting such activity violates their own rights.

Artists should be paid for their work. If you want to screw the label, that is up to you. If you want to screw the label and claim that you care about the artist then I propose you do this. For every song you download that you aren't going to pay for because you despise the RIAA or major labels, do some research. Find out who owns the copyright and who is entitled to royalties. Harry Fox agency can help and so can ASCAP and BMI. Find out who wrote the song and at least send them a buck or something. Find out who the performers are (maybe the same) and send them a buck or so. Find some way to compensate hard working artists at least. It isn't as easy as setting up a share in a P2P program and just sitting there while you download who knows what, but if you really care about the artists please act like it. If you already do, then obviously I'm not talking to you anyway so please hold the flames.

Once again, I typed this whole post. Believe it or not.

"I'm worried that the disrespect for copyright and more specifically intellectual property is spreading through society and eventually the arts will suffer so bad that there won't be much, if any, quality music being created"

Yeah, there was such CRAP before copyrights. You know, all that CLASSICAL stuff. Those guys sucked. Now, Brittany Spears, J-Lo, 50c, Ice-Tray... that's talent!

"Find out who owns the copyright and who is entitled to royalties..."

Some enterprising young person might even set-up a website to list this, and link payments directly. Don't wait for the labels to get on it.

why, musicfann, I have never said "musicfann is an RIAA collaborator".
Why do you suddenly feel like my statement applies to you????

"I don't understand how anyone can claim to be fighting for their right to share what doesn't belong to them while claiming that prohibiting such activity violates their own rights."

Whether you like it or not, personal privacy NEEDS to be protected. No corporation should EVER have the right to circumvent due process for their own needs. Please, please, PLEASE understand what this means!!!!

Don't assume that everyone agrees and abides with copyright law and/or duration anymore than they would agree/abide with the speed limit or curfews during a protest rally. Breaking the law gets you more attention than obeying it. It has been the most effective tool in changing the business so far.

Scenario: My daughter is playing one of her CD's, I kinda like one of the songs on it. I ask her who it is, blah blah, I ask, how many other CD;s do you have that are ok? About 12(which I paid for anyway). I take those 12 to my computer, put them on the hard drive, burn them to CD, I give her 12 back, now I have 15 good songs on one CD.Is that something Hilary would want her jackbooted SS troops to kick down my door and seize? If I bought the damn things, seems like I can use it any way I feel like? No?

No, but I think under the DMCA you could get in trouble for listening to the music. I believe only the license owner of said product can only listen to it and no one else.

Of course people like musicfann would rather have us sit idly by and do nothing. "You're all breaking ridiculous laws. I'm going to treat you like you have no morals now!". This is how he treat a lot of the users on here. Funny how he never uses empirical data for horrendous postings.

And who is he to say that George isn't trying to represent the majority since the majority is independent? It doesn't make any sense.

kneo24: I never said that anybody should sit idly by and do nothing. And quit saying that you have even the slightest idea of what I want because you DON'T. You don't speak for me and you have no idea what I believe in.

I treat people fine if they act like responsible human beings. If you feel that I'm mistreating you or someone else, perhaps you might consider that somebody else might thing you are mistreating them by sharing their music withouth their permission. But does that matter to you? Sorry I don't have the empirical data you require. Maybe you could make up some numbers for me and tell everyone how I feel.

George may be TRYING to represent the majority, but he can't possibly do it. George doesn't represent me or any of the acts I work with, that I know about. I'm sure lots of independent bands that don't know about George, so he isn't representing them either (no offense George, I know you work hard). It actually does make sense. Nobody represents the majority. The majority just isn't unified, so it's impossible. How can that NOT make sense. You think it makes sense that George (or anybody for that matter) represents the majority? Where is your empirical data to back that up? 100,00 share files somewhere? Yeah, that must prove it beyond any doubt.

btw, the DMCA doesn't stipulate anywhere that you can get in trouble for listening to music. Anyone can listen if something is playing. Making or distributing copies is entirely different. Perhaps you should have consulted your empirical data before making that statement.

I am a small fish I do not have a 40gig hard drive that I have millions of files up for grabs. I share but I share in moderation. I feel for artists NOT THE LEBALS. and, personally, what I do on my own machine and on my own connection that I pay for is no one elses business but my own and, certainly not the RIAA/MPAA's business. I have rare hard to get songs that people download off me like crazy, artists that have been out of print for many years. I am honoring them by making these songs available to P2P users. It hurts no one as far as I'm concerned so all you RIAA supports can get off your soapbox and go apply for a job with them, they could use a few good supporters.

40 MILLION users on Kazaa sounds like the majority to me. You got more?

Downloading and sharing is not illegal. No one is guilty of copyright infringement until proven so. P2P is the next generation of technology whether the RIAA approves or not. What gets shared is not the responsibility of P2P.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,938140,00.asp

No, you never said it but you sure as hell act like it. You sit here pissing and moaning about how we break these ridiculous laws and how it's all our fault that you're being opressed by 'the man'. Like I said, come up with some hard cold evidence that these laws wouldn't have been passed if it wasn't for us 'fiends'. Wait, you already said you can't. Like I've been saying, you base everything that you think you know on pure speculation.

Funny how you say you treat people fine, yet the first instance when you appeared, you treated a lot of people like shit. You judged just about everyone here before giving them the slighest chance. How do you know I'm sharing someone elses music without their permission? Did you illegally gain access to my hard drive to know this? Sure, I might have said that I was, but then how do you know that I'm telling the truth?

Alright, I'll concede on that point and change my wording. Compared to the RIAA's 'majority', George is representing a bigger majority.

I also suggest you go re-read the dmca.

Musicfann,
Thanks for your post, i also apologize for my many posts.
Lets all team up and put our minds together. That is how we will get this boycott to work!

musicfan, I'd like to quote you for a second:
"btw, the DMCA doesn't stipulate anywhere that you can get in trouble for listening to music. Anyone can listen if something is playing. Making or distributing copies is entirely different. "

I'm not going to argue the distribution point with you, but I'm still trying to figure out the making copies thing. Fair use provisions allow the owner of a recording (CD, DVD, etc) to make copies for their own personal use. For example, I have a good number of the old Kiss albums on CD, I burned them 2 full albums to a 80 min CD-R for my own personal use because it's more convenient for me to carry four albums in a slim double disc jewel case when I take my walkman to work than it is to carry 4 separate CDs, and it also keeps the original discs I bought protected. THIS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL because I legitimately purchased and own the original CDs. To say that making copies is illegal is incorrect. To say that distributing the copies you made is illegal, I would tend to agree with. One of the biggest problems with the DMCA is that it has effectively given the RIAA license to "revoke" our fair use rights, even though the fair use laws have never been changed! It says that it's illegal to circumvent any electronic security features (copy-protection). Now we've got the majors trying the anti-copy routine (and the MPAA already doing it on DVDs) and if you get a copy protected disc in your hands the DMCA makes it illegal to exercise your legal right to copy that disc for your own personal use! How twisted is that? The key thing here though is that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent the copy protection, not make the copy. So, again, I would have to argue that making copies is NOT illegal.

Children, Children stop arguing amongst yourselves. All your problems stem from that great American GOD......MONEY. When everything in your society is corrupt from your Presidents to the urchin on the street corner flogging copy cds.
I have been a musician/singer for more than 40 yrs, never made a recording, never made any money. My payment has been the enjoyment I get from being able to perform and create everytime I appear and most of all to give pleasure to the people who listen to me. So I have come to the conclusion that all this bickering and these slanging matches is not about music but MONEY< MONEY< MONEY (with apologies to ABBA). You all deserve to get ripped off for your obsessive love of the big buck. I don't want to be famous. I just love music.BTW I am trying to download the tracks off Frank Sinatra cd Softly As I Leave You, because I cant buy it anywhere!!! Can someone explain to me how I can be denying artistes royalties when if i can't buy it they cannot receive any. Whos losing????
One of our politicians resigned because he was paid for asking a question in the House of Commons, but don't worry we are catching you up in the corruption stakes with your poodle Blair (this is only an opinion)

Who wants money? I want hot groupies!
Btw Thank You for less namecalling musicfan, I dont pay much attention to ANYones post with childish namecalling ('cept the ones calling the RIAA copyright nazis and corporate radio their prison bitch And yes a lot of us seem to be refering to the RIAA as if they ARE the labels, not just the rep for 90% of them. Kinda like refering to all gun owners as the NRA (Im a member)
$60,000 for a home studio! dude listen to some of the music here, most of it sounds as good as any RIAA backed CD and I dont think they all have $60,000 studios.... I do rather well with @$1000 studio. Anyone have links about PC based home recording? Shall we start a thread to save musicfann some cash? I might play like shit but my recordings sound great ('cept the damn drum machine, but my drummer needs a babysitter also lol)
Read thur some of your postings MusicFann, they really do sound as if youre just stirring up trouble and enjoying calling some file sharers theives. I see file shareing kinda like the Boston Tea Party. I really dont see the pictures you paint of "most file sharers" and "most indie bands" If the bands youre working with are playing from Chicago to Detroit let me know, if I can get out I may go see 'em. (and as I reread my postings I think I sound like I smoke too much weed...)
Anyways Im still new to the site and trying to figure out posting my music an shit. I stopped having fun as a pro musician awhile ago ( started a family, kidz, house, ect ect) but this site makes me wanna record again Bring on the groupies!

I never claimed to "represent" anyone but myself. I am merely inferring that I speak for those who have demonstrated through their actions that, to some degree, they view downloading as promotion. Otherwise, they would not willingly offer their music.

I only "represent" the number of artists that have written to me personally asking to be added as co-plaintiffs should I actually succeed in filing an antitrust suit.

We are all individual copyright owners. Haven't counted yet but there are a lot more than 25 (the number of members of the RIAA Board of Directors).

I do represent them. We're already the majority.

By remaining independent and not allowing me to represent you in this matter, you have lost your voice in this issue completely, at least in the eyes of the court. I obviously do not represent your opinion.

Does the RIAA?

That's your only other choice.

According to their website, the RIAA does nothing for independent musicians and does not represent them in any way.

The Recording Artists Coalition has said before Congress that the RIAA does not represent the artists. And Don Henley was talking about the major artists, not the Indies.

Pick a side. Or step aside.

Music clubs are the biggest rippoff ever invented. They pocekt that money and dont pay the artists what they should. They sucker you in by letting you get some freebies then you gotta pay full price for so many years. Meh. not worth it.

If I were a real music pirate I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams selling CD's of copyrighted material but funny how I'm broke and dont make a dime off of the songs or content I share. Maybe people need education, the word priate is someone who makes money selling copyrighted material. SHARING IS NOT STEALING. I really wish people would get a grip on this issue. The riaa CALLS its most loyal fans theives. Its these same people that make them rich and go buy the albums. Someone NEDS TO BUY THE DAMN CD AND RIP IT in order to make the songs available. Downloaders are not stealing and selling burned CD's and making millions of dollars doing so.

*sigh*

“About those "Unaccounted For" Units
Major Labels Caught Stealing $100m a Year
Record Clubs Get a Smack Upside the Head by Federal Judge”

@ musicfann Date: May 9, 2003 @ 5:20 PM

“I still stand very strongly by my assertion that commercial radio, which is the best and most effective prommotional tool currently available, is extremely corrupted and is the root of the majority of the problems in the music industry.”


RIAA (organization fronting 5 major music companies that collectively control the music ‘industry’.)
Clear Channel Communications (C.C.C. with over 1,200 stations dominates Commercial Radio)


RIAA -‘screws’ suppliers (artists/ musicians) in what is epitomized as ‘maximizing profits’.
RIAA - supports/ pays for legislation to extend scope of ‘maximizing profits’.

C.C.C. - ‘screws’ suppliers (RIAA) in what is epitomized as ‘maximizing profits’.
C.C.C. - supports/ pays for legislation to extend scope of ‘maximizing profits’.

RIAA - screams “foul”, asks: “What did we ever do to deserve this?
-Where did they get the idea?
-Who did we ever hurt?
-Why are they being allowed to do this to us?”
AND tries to enlist/ co-opt aid of anti-RIAA forces.

One anti-RIAA observer notes: “Ha! Looks good on ya!”


(***Satire***Joke***Humor***Parody***)


In the NEWS today: RIAA Announces New CD Prices.
-It was announced today, the new price of $50.00 per CD is to go into effect immediately.

In a related story: CD Retailers Immediately Embark On A ‘Price War’.
-The dust had hardly settled on the new CD list prices before a ‘price war’ broke out.
-Eager to grab market share consumers saw frantic price cutting today as retailers hard pressed by their cost structure began slashing prices to as low as $49.97 before finally settling on an industry wide $49.98.

In other developments: Legislation To Collect The ‘Missing Two Cents’.
-The new 2-cent legislation was passed unopposed by eager lawmakers and is ready to be signed into law.
-Provisions of this law will allow the RIAA to freeze and attach all individual bank accounts nationwide.
-Said a spokesperson for the RIAA, Scumbucket McGreedy: “We produce over 12 billion CD’s yearly and at 2 cents per CD, that’s over $120,000,000.00 that we won’t let those thieves get away with.”
-This will be used to supplement the recently passed 50% Vehicle Tax Surcharge as well as the 50% Home Ownership Law.
-Both of which it may be noted, were passed by eager legislators under the motto “There’s probably somebody in there somewhere in those homes or vehicles who’s listening to music – and we want our cut.”

Also in the news: Word Of Proposed Legislation To Reduce The Unfair Burden On The RIAA.
-Legislation to reduce the burden of having to pay $5.00 each time the RIAA has to tell some clerk they want to rip open some individuals computer to see what’s on it may be about to be changed.
-Said spokesperson Scumbucket McGreedy: “Other organizations give discounts for volume and we’re getting hundreds of thousands of these penny-anti $5 charges. It’s just not fair!”
-The government is thought to be favorably reviewing the process.

Well that’s it for today. Stay tuned to this media news channel and don’t forget our upcoming Special Report: 12 Different Ways You Can Pay More Money To The RIAA.


(***Satire***Joke***Humor***Parody***)

ROFL

lol

Anyone want free music??? Legal and everything? My Band gives ours away for free off our website. Got sick of our label not distibuting our album or giving us money from the ones they were selling, so we said F@*$ it! Give it for free. Would rather have people listen and enjoy it than never hear it at all. Cause isn't that what making music is all about, making music not money. So enjoy and share with whomever you want. BUrn cd's and pass them out. We would gladly appreciate it if you did.
www.armyofrobots.com

Ihave indi stuff that I make on my site as well. Ive turned it into my fanclub lol.


www.sinisterx.com

casperboy,
Put all your MP3's in my kazaa share folder.
Thanks

The RIAA is biased and they don't do much for the small guys. The RIAA also fights against censorship, which benefits anyone who makes music, not just major labels. The RIAA does at least something that everyone here benefits from or agrees with. Of course they also do lots of stuff that many of us don't like too. Get yourselves organized, and lobby your congressmen for the changes you feel you deserve and are entitled too.

Being a pirate doesn't mean that you make money from your actions. Only a fool would claim that. According to Merriam Webster dictionary it means: "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright". With that definition, piracy does include making digital copies of music that doesn't belong to you, unless you have purchased a license and are making a backup copy under "fair use". When you buy a CD, you are buying a license for the music, not the actual music. The music actually belongs to the creator, unless the creator signed a contract agreeing to transfer these rights to someone else.

Musicfann is…
(No,)…
(No,)…
(No,)…
(Wait for it)…
(No,)…
(No, that’s disgusting!)…
(No, not that either)…
, …is right!!!!!!

Adolph Hitler said: One and one is two (in German).
Joseph Stalin said: One and one is two (in Russian).
Sod-Em Hussein said: Aw fccuk-it I like mass graves.

That means they were right and we should all thank **musicfann** for bringing it to our attention – otherwise how would we know: One and one is two?

Now that that’s settled: DIE RIAA SCUM!!! EAT HOT LEAD!!!

(This of course means: I am a badguy, I deserve to be ignored. Do not pay any attention to me, do not keep an open mind, do not consider other points of view, you only want to hear from others you agree with, and when I have you thinking – hey he’s not tooooo bad – I’ll then insult you all again, and oh @#^$@%$&^’s I typed this all myself, so $&%$%#@ you!!!)

So: Fccuk you and your ‘Ignore The Nice RIAA’!!!

DIE RIAA SCUM!!! EAT HOT LEAD!!!

musicfann said:

"Being a pirate doesn't mean that you make money from your actions. Only a fool would claim that. According to Merriam Webster dictionary it means: "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright". With that definition, piracy does include making digital copies of music that doesn't belong to you, unless you have purchased a license and are making a backup copy under "fair use". When you buy a CD, you are buying a license for the music, not the actual music. The music actually belongs to the creator, unless the creator signed a contract agreeing to transfer these rights to someone else."

What he meant to say was:

"Being a troll doesn't mean that you make money from your actions. Only a fool would claim that. According to Merriam Webster dictionary it means: "An individual who chronically posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." With that definition, trolling does include making imbecilic replies that no one cares about, unless you repeat these diatribes ad nauseam where they make the least amount of sense, which a troll would then consider "fairly useless". When you ignore a troll, you are not stopping his onslaught. The flames will continue, unless the troll is revealed as the immature wannabe that they are.

Directive I don't know your kazaa folder otherwise I would be more than happy to put all of the songs that I can find from us in there. Could you possibly let me know???