by George Ziemann

"There's a little sign of peace in the nasty battles over music on the Internet." So says the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which makes me think that in this case, "Post" is an indication of past tense.

Their reasoning for this statement is that Penn State made a deal with Napster. So now the students' money is used to pay the RIAA directly. Yeah, I know, the RIAA doesn't own Napster, Roxio does.

Napster is alive again. It is now "legitimate" and "RIAA-Approved." So let's be real -- the RIAA owns Napster, in the same sense that it now owns Apple's iTunes music service, along with every other site they deem legitimate.

After the events of the past year, there is now way in hell I personally will ever believe a single word that the RIAA as an organization, anyone associated with the RIAA, any major label or members of ASCAP's leadership. Too many lies have been told.

Now I understand that there is a difference between lying and just being a dumbass. Sometimes it's just so hard to tell the difference. Take for instance, the Hilary Rosen statement in 1999:

"The record industry is not afraid of the Internet. We are not afraid of piracy. And I don't think the MP3 phenomenon has been a terrible thing."

Four years later, Mitch Bainwol declares that the RIAA has used the last arrow in the quiver.

Was Rosen lying? Or just, uh, misinformed?

On numerous occasions, Ms. Rosen reiterated how concerned the RIAA was for the artists. Yet when recently pressed for answers about the artists and the distribution of funds from the current litigations, an RIAA vice president of something accurately pointed out that the RIAA represents the record labels, NOT the artists, adding that compensation of the artist was determined by the terms of their contract.

Maybe Hilary just forgot about that part.

ASCAP's chief of staff told me that ASCAP did not support suing consumers. Not long after, an ad appears in the USA Today warning consumers to find a lawyer if they are going to download music. Among the organizations affiliated is ASCAP.

Lying? Or just not in the "need to know" chain?

In a 2002 article titled "The Cost of a CD", the RIAA stated that an average of 27,000 new releases were issued for the previous two years, when the actual figures were closer to 35,000 and 31,000.

In a May, 2002 DMCA hearing, an RIAA attorney proclaimed that the industry had issued 120,000 new releases over the preceding three-year period. The fact is that the RIAA has NEVER issued 120,000 new releases in a three-year period.

Lies? Or simple errors?

So now, everything is happy? Penn State's prez makes a deal with Cary Sherman and the entire world is at peace? Are all the other colleges supposed to just roll over so the record industry can find more orifices?

There is, and will never be, a good reason to once again accept anything emanating from the entrenched music cartel as truth. In fact, a good rule of thumb is to consider everything they say as false until proven true, much in the same manner that the consumer is regarded as guilty until proven innocent, based on the RIAA's word alone.

There will be no peace until our Bill of Rights is restored. The "entertainment" industry has become a thorn in the side of democracy and civil justice, just as the DMCA has marred the United States Constitution with the stain of greed, smeared across the copyright laws with broad strokes.

So almost immediately after posting this article, I find something new by Cindy Webb in the Washington Post, who informs us that Retailers Get the Download Fever.

This must be a terrible "fever" for everyone to have caught it so suddenly. Like over the weekend, it seems. Wal-Mart and Best Buy are the leading indicators of the trend, according to the story, both seeming to meet Apple's 99-cent price point.

And I almost missed this part... David Card, an analyst with Jupiter Research in New York City, predicted that '...music piracy will go down because of the trouble it takes to download free music compared to buying music."

Yeah, right.

Very well put

Man..you hit the nail on the head George.
My sentiments exactly.
Right on!
~Code

No compromise. SOME people are going on with the idea that a bridge needs to be built to the RIAA. I call that appeasement and naive thinking. Get this straight: two sides at the negotaiting table, one of them needs something, the other can afford to wait it out until the other side starves. There is no bridge, now or ever. What do you people think of the movie studios now deciding to sue customers? I post the article on Dmusic and get no replies?

It's quite understandable that many people (and artists) want nothing better than to get back to work. But the belt-tightening globalization indicates we as Americans better face a period of attrition and lesser expectations.

The President of Penn State, like many people, had only one side explained. Nobody asked him to spend the student fund to position a for-profit corporation on campus. No one has lifted the veil of secrecy on the bidding process.

The RIAA will not spend a day in court, knowing full well that the DMCA could be overturned. So they turn to intimidation practices outside the purview of law, and attempt to institute "pattern settlements" and establish a quasi-legal precedent. Why should Penn State be the one who cracks first?

The students who pass out flyers protesting the unilateral decision deserve our support. Let Penn State be the challenging ground. Educational funds are drying up, departments axed, our students are falling way behjind other countries, jobs going to Bangladore because their people are BETTER EDUCATED, we are spending public funds for bullshit useless programs, simultaneously tuition fees skyrocket.

Great post Tom!

Am with you completely...
~CodeWarrior

It seems to me that the Napster deal is good for independent artists. Anyone can get on Napster through CD Baby. For once, the independents and the majors are on equal footing through Napster. Now students can stream independent artists all day long for free, not including what is taken from their technology fee. So isn't this deal great for independent artists promotion?

Yeah, but CD Baby screws the artists over. I feel bad for Revelaria for selling their CDs there. But I guess they're making money.

mroop -- Only if you buy into the warped idea that DRM-infected, lossy compressed files are worth a dollar.

mroop - Napster premiered and left all the indies off the service. That's why Derek is returning $200,000 in prepayments, rather than face a class action. You should read more carefully.

CD Baby does not screw their arists over. If you believe that Moses Avalon BS, take some time and read link the below before you accuse CD Baby. Moses Avalon is the one who screws people over. He tried to extort a "consulting fee" from CD Baby. They refused and he wrote that garbage.

://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=355973&Forum=All_Forums&Words=moses%20warns&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=1&Limit=100&Old=1year&Main=355973&Search=true#Post355973

Leflaw - I know that, but CD Baby will be on Napster.

Sorry about the bad link. Try this one:

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=355973&Forum=All_Forums&Words=dutchrall&Match=Username&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=355973&Search=true#Post355973

"mroop -- Only if you buy into the warped idea that DRM-infected, lossy compressed files are worth a dollar."

I don't buy into that idea. I'm just saying that students can stream independent artist all they want now. That's a good thing. I personally would buy the cd rather than pay a dollar for an mp3. I'm not saying this deal doesn't have negative aspects, but it does seem to be a good thing for indies. On the other hand, most most listeners are probably sheep and will use Napster to play what they hear on the radio. This is where promotion is important.

Well, the only real problem I have with CDBaby is that I would have to double the price of my CD to cover their $4 per unit cut.

mroop...that link is just too short..lol...
I want a link that just goes on and on and on....

hope the day is going ok...
~Code

4.00$ for cd baby? sounds like they gotthat idea from MP3.com, this is about what they charge as a surcharge for buying a cd off thier web site. and they have done very little to get that 4 bucks,
here are your real pirates I tell you.

Although I certainly wouldn't use pay downloads (or any downloads) just yet, thanks to my painfully slow net connection, I can't help but agree with mroop's comment that students can stream as much music as they like for free. Universities generally have broadband or better, so fairly good-quality music, provided there are few restrictions on what is streamable, should be easily attainable.

Plus, you have to remember that anyone with a passing knowledge of computers can set up a method to record anything going through the sound card. Your very own MP3 without registered download of any kind. How's that sound?

100% Agree. There is no compromise. This is war. The only "peace" the RIAA deserve is the "Rest In Peace" plaque I might spend $5 to make for their grave. Then of course we have to dig them up later, drive a stake through their hearts and chop their heads off because everyone knows that blood-suckers are hard to kill.

Hope I didn't offend any vampires out there.

Goth...my laugh for the night!

We need some artists to wake up and smell the coffee and make a declaration.

Here is the dilemma.. If I organize, advertise, and pay for artwork, streaming, etc. on my website, and offer national distribution, wouldn't it cost in the 4 dollaar range? If i have to have a mega site to place a directory of thousands of musicians, wouldn't it be blowin some dough? Do we think that this stuff is really free.. NOT!! ask leflaw.. this internet stuff, neat as it is, costs MONEY.. We got folks trapsin' all over forums thinking that there is no cost.. So, as a business, ya gotta have costs.. and I think that CD Baby is a successful example.. not perfect, mind you, but successful.. of what can be done with the intenet and distribution. I think that 4dollas is the cost of doing business, and should be reflected in the accounting structure of what you do as a business. If your sole point is to make a gazillion dollars with cheap CDs, folks, play the lottery.. it's faster and, frankly, more realistic. The days of multimillionare musicians making loads and loads more of cash WERE NEVER REAL FOR 99.5 PERCENT of the population. The real model is to make enough offa one project to finance another. So I kinda agree with mroop, for once. Promotion is important AND cost money to do effectively.

yes what Mary said.

Also for MrOop why do I need to go through CDBaby why? Why cant I represent our band why does it have to be through an organization or label. I have had so much trouble with this everywhere. No one takes you seriously if your not on a label or big label. This is the main reason bands seek the contract because as independents no one will take us seriously. Our music is substandard or that we dont deserve the radio or promotions another band can get through a major. To me this is what separates us. Plus there is another side to it too, alot of bands dont wont to put in work, and it takes alot exspecially if one does it themselves. Sorry mroop all they feed us is scraps when what i really want is the T-bone.

I'm along the same page as Ronnie but working up to the T-bone seems the best choice in my opinion.

Just the fact that artists already established make it harder for bands that came later...

I thought they had to pay a fee of 160.00 per student per month or year.. if this is true it ain't free!!! I still say that any download of an mp3 is a waste of hard earned dollars.. if they were wav files that would be different. Otherwise just tape the music from the radio! If a person is going to pay 99 cents for a darn mp3 of any bitrate they might as well buy a CD of various artists.. cause at even 10 songs that's 9.99 and you'll actually get what you are paying for instead of something compressed and loses it's sound! I had bought various artists CD's at Dollar General for 5.00 a piece! All originals too! That's why I say if the RIAA wants to come after me for my music on my computer LET THEM.. I have proof I bought my music! I bought the CD's like that due to the fact that mp3's sucked!

"Also for MrOop why do I need to go through CDBaby why? Why cant I represent our band why does it have to be through an organization or label."

Because this a business, not a hobby. Do you think you can go to Shoprite and demand that they carry your homemade cookies because you think they are the best? That is not how business works. Itunes is not going to handle individual responses from everyone in the world who put together a cd in their bedroom and wants to sell it. It would not be cost effective for them. That is just the way of the world and it will never change. Btw, I am not saying that you made a cd in your bedroom. If you work with dmusic you can ask them to try and negotiate a deal with Itunes.

Just to add a little more info - any business that handles a multitude of products almost always use distributors to provide the products. They do not work directly with the manufacturers of the products. That is why you have to go through a distributor.

Thanks for time dude on posting. Man I understand this so that is why we are on a label our own which makes us a business. There is just alot of crap in my opinion to get a band going. All i want to do is play. Thanks for the responses always constructive and thought out.

another good one George! yet again proving that there ARE intelligent minds at work here. True points, like turning it around on the RIAA a la "guilty till proven innocent".
ttmmm

ronnie71- you don't HAVE to go through
CD Baby. Mroop said L
"Just to add a little more info - any business that handles a multitude of products almost always use distributors to provide the products. They do not work directly with the manufacturers of the products. That is why you have to go through a distributor."

No mroop...you don't HAVE to go through a distributor. It is possible to sell your own music online. People do.
Just because it is customary within an industry to do something one way, does not mean you HAVE to, unless there is a law or statute that says you HAVE to!

Your own statement indicates you believe there are exceptions..
"a multitude of products almost always use distributors to provide the products"...
see the "almost always"? That shows exceptions doesn't it. Know how Famous Amos sold his cookies to begin with?

'Nuff said.

more than the price of a song, I'm still worried about the "aggregate" data that is being collected.

The price of a copy of the origional is outrageous to me, but identities are being sold!

SHEEEP!!!!!!!!!

RIAA SAYS : "If you liked your last download you will love this: AND IT IS FREE IF YOU ACT NOW."

listen to the sound of my voice, you are getting sleepy,,,,when you wake up you will believe that ORRIN HATCH is GOD.

dreaded 3rd post:

Anyone that thinks a dollar a download is a good deal is already owned by the matrix. Hey, wake up, it is still cheaper to buy the album with cover art and lyrics attached. And hey, they are still goudging prices. And hey, are the artist getting paid?