![Music Music](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/music_64.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer 308
dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""
P2P actually does help artists (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:5, Informative)
Musicians want people to share *some* of their... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.
It's misleading to say that musicians favor P2P without considering what portion of their catalog they'd like to be shared.
Re:Musicians want people to share *some* of their. (Score:2, Insightful)
And the ones people want to share are...wait for it...the ones you buy the CD for.
It's almost like they want you to *pay* for the music.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2, Interesting)
I will never buy a copy-protected CD especially if I can get the CD on P2P. However, if the CD is unprotected I will buy it.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:3, Informative)
That's true no matter what: if it has copy protection, it won't have the Compact Disc logo on it, because it isn't a true CD [wired.com], merely a shiny disc that pretends.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
I bougth 12 CDs so far this year. 10 of them i listened first as P2P/BT downloads, and it's music i wouldn't have given a chance otherwise.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to buy from iTunes, and I am a Rhapsody user now. The best albums, I can find 5 good songs out of maybe 20 tracks. Amazingly none of these great albums were really mainstream. If it wasn't for these services, I wouldn't even know they exist.
You can't possibly tell me 50cent is the best hiphop ar
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:5, Informative)
But that's not what made that (IMHO, disappointing) album sell, it was the P2P leak. Correlation != causation, foo'.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:5, Informative)
The point is that the band did NO advertising for the album besides it being leaked on P2P. There were no singles, no music videos, no posters, no TV ads, nothing besides maybe a few displays in record stores. Precisely dick.
I also point you to this quote from Wikipedia:
The record industry assumed the album was now doomed to failure since fans already had the music for free. Instead the opposite happened and the band, which had never hit the US top 20 before, captured the number one spot in Kid A's debut week. With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success, [a journalist] declared this was proof of the promotional powers of file trading and of word-of-mouth generated by the Net.
There you have it.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
How about the fact that it's just really good, original music?
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
Radiohead got much better with "The bends" and "OK computer"... after all, it seemed to me that they just wanted to prove they could do any other style of music they wanted. They succeded - now get back to the old stuff, please?
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
But Radiohead... it just feels overdone to me. Of their post-computer albums, the only one i (marginally) liked was "Hail to the thief" - they just tried too hard on the others to sound "different" and "artistic". Too self indulgent.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Hold your flames.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:3, Informative)
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
Not to mention they already have a bunch of $$$, so they can look hip by saying P2P is ok and still add the new wing onto the mansion.
Let's see a band start from *nothing* and release the first album on P2P and make money.
Also, quoting Wikipedia on P2P is like quoting Slashdot on DRM...
Please, stop making me laugh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone and his brother raved about Radiohead's two albums prior to Kid A, The Bends and OK Computer respectively. And not only did they receive critical rave reviews, the music-buying public loved them too.
For example, Q Magazine's readers' poll of the top 100 albums of all time had both prominently in the top dozen or so, with OK Computer at number 1 in that chart. Of course, such a chart is pretty skewe
At least admit you are semi full of shit (Score:2, Insightful)
Would I have bought the CD's otherwise. Yes, a lot of them. No to some of them.
I am sure that the most downloaded artists need all the help they can get. I mean without p2p I woudl have never heard of Eminem or Britney Spears.
At least recogonize that in some cases p2p is detrimental to artists and I will have a fuck of a lot more res
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
If we're lucky, P2P and internet radio will make the major labels completely irrevelent. There's lots of great independent music out there.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:3, Informative)
It helped the record industry make money from you, and many others that do the same as you, but honest people such as yourself are in short supply. That's the problem. If everyone used P2P just to get free samples with the intention of going out and buying the full product later, the record industry would have no reason for being upset.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:5, Insightful)
Also it takes the control of popular culture out of their hands. I recently downloaded an album from a cool south american folk/electronica band. Is that *EVER* going to be on MTV, VH1 or Clear Channel? I think Not
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
It messes up their control of the distribution channel of THEIR titles. No one else's.
The record companies could give a shit less about each other. They're concerned with their own copyrighted works, and how their copyright is being violated.
And hey, bands can sell directly to you now but they're still signing on with Sony, et. al. so I think we've got a way to go before they're truly irrelevant. But once that day comes there'll be nothing they can do.
Until then, don't
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:4, Insightful)
You are completely wrong. They want P2P shut down so SONY/BMG et all are the ONLY way to buy music.
Music labels are obsolete, heres whats going to happen, itune like stores are going to start selling music from indie bands, and they will bypass the music industry all together. THAT is what they are afraid of.
You've been drinking the RIAA koolaid.
Music Costs (Score:2, Informative)
Who's going to front the money to produce your music? Who's going to pay for the studio time? Not everyone has a DAW [suse.com] in their house, let alone the acoustical environment necessary for quality production.
I am a huge proponent of leveling the media playing field with appropriate use [legaltorrents.com] of P2P technologies, business models like Magnatune [magnatune.com] and tools such as the Creative Commons Licensing [creativecommons.org]. Still, recording ain't cheap [slashdot.org].
Re:Music Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
$500 - 1.4 GHZ P4 computer w/24bit soundcard - parts built by myself - I was able to find some good deals - for example I spent $10 for the case.
$75 - 24bit compatible multitrack recording software (N-Track)
$99 - good quality condenser mic
$79 - good quality cardoid mic
$25 - two mic stands
$30 - enough DIN cable to choke a horse (for connecting the mics to the mixing board)
$50 - decent 6 channel mixing board
$30 - misc other gear (RCA cables etc...)
$60 - BOSE computer speakers (excellent sound quality and onboard amp and 2 inputs - for mixing down your stereo master).
----
$948 - Total (not including instruments - I assume if you are a musician you already have your instrument).
So, for about a grand you can have your own home recording studio that can produce as good sound quality as any professional studio out there. Of course, you have to spend the time to learn how to properly record sound - but there are books out there you can buy that take you through it in detail - from how to properly set up an acoustic environment to microphone placement to setting recording levels and how parametric equalization works etc...
Recording ain't cheap for those who can't or don't know how to do it themselves. Those who can do. They are doing it today and going indie, or even posting their tunes for free if they are not interested in the business side of music. http://music.myspace.com has a good selection - and there are other sites as well that allow users to post their MP3 recordings for download and/or streaming.
With the sorry state of pop music today, more and more people are finding a viable alternative online via free downloads and sales of independently produced music. With the closure of traditional outlets for advertising certain genres (Rolling Stone is reporting that Clear Channel is closing down a large number of Rock stations in favor of urban/hip hop formats - at the same time as we are seeing a renewal in interest in Rock! Where will Rock artists go to get exposure? I think it will be the web - and in a big way due to the lack of air-time in the traditional form).
Anyway, I believe the traditional big record labels are going to be around in the future, but they are not going to be as 'big' as they once were - and quality music that is not spoon-fed vanilla pop will be more and more a web phenomenon.
Re:Music Costs (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, a 1.4GHz P4 is useless if you want to mix a whole band in realtime. Hell, if you want to mix more than a handfull of tracks in realtime. It's what we've got. Playing back all the tracks is no problem, but p
You're an EXCEPTION (Score:2)
Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards? Have you been to a college campus lately or talked to other young people with high-speed connections?
It's admirable that you use P2P in that way, but don't pretend your personal experience suddenly signifies that P2P pi
Re:You're an EXCEPTION (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You're an EXCEPTION (Score:4, Informative)
Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards?
There's a difference:
250GBP [x-rates.com]
250GB [zipzoomfly.com]
$500/250GBP = about 40 CD's; a reasonably sized collection.
250GB = about 62,500 songs. Wow.
Re:P2P actually does help artists (Score:2)
Re:I don't get your logic (Score:2)
Well, yeah, of course there were probably some who just downloaded the album but didn't buy the CD, but my point is that Kid A was released with no marketing whatsoever. Radiohead had ne
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to indie artists in general.
Re:Great... (Score:2)
Re:Great... (Score:2)
Of course, media spins on the RIAA cases + the broad success of iTunes (which doesn't need RIAA) will start to turn RIAA from the protector to the oppressor.
We
Only then will the masses become enlightened.
Okay, following your logic (Score:2)
Or do you really mean, "If only we all listened to the indie artists without contracts who are giving permission for P2P distribution because they need the publicity...and ignored the rest."
Why do people think they're entitled to anything that can be pirated? It's like people argue from a position of inherent "right" to pirate music. Can I pirate Doom 3 just because I can? If John Car
Re:Great... (Score:2, Interesting)
Or to indie artists in general.
We listen to indie artists: Bitmunk [bitmunk.com]
Especially indie artists that want to spread their stuff via P2P under their terms (artists get to set prices, distribution formats, countries, descriptions, and licenses). We even have Creative Commons licensing options that the artists may use.
I just want to make this clear - I'm not astro-turfing - I'm the CEO of Digital Bazaar, the company that created the Bitmunk P2P m
Easy communications empowers the individual (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (Score:3, Interesting)
that is their function (a pretty crappy one in my opinion)
they are a hype machine
Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (Score:2)
Re:Easy communications empowers the individual (Score:2, Insightful)
iTunes (Score:3, Insightful)
Even indie artists like those mentioned in the article could easily offer their music for free on iTunes. In fact, iTunes offers free downloads weekly, which is the same "free advertising" Slashdotters love to reference in these discussions.
At
Re:iTunes (Score:2)
The fact that a small minority of available songs are for sale in a proprietary, sonically-abridged, crippled format does not remove the need for people to share music. What if it's not on iTunes? What if it's not in a format I enjoy or can use on my listening device? What if I already purchased it in another format?
In a perfect world, the fact that people want to share a particular piece of information would be justification en
Re:iTunes (Score:2)
You and your trolling...
Re:iTunes (Score:3, Interesting)
The harshness comes from your attempt to narrow the scope of the argument. Expand your mind and imagine people downloading music to try it out
I can't defend the guys with massive MP3 collections. But I don't have to. I'm not on the defensive here -- YOU are, given your
Re:iTunes (Score:3, Interesting)
There has to be a reason why nobody feels bad about pirating music. If I took a coat from a homeless man I'd feel guilty, if I kicked a dog on the street it'd feel guilty. The other day I downloaded a song I didn't feel guilty.
I can't really tell you why I don't feel guilty, I just don't. Maybe because I only wanted to hear the song right then and there and haven't listened to it since, maybe becuase they play it on t
The Beatles (Score:5, Funny)
How else would a staring artist afford music? (Score:3, Funny)
=)
Re:How else would a staring artist afford music? (Score:2)
What they hell is so interesting that they need to stare at it all day?
essentials (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists don't need middlemen taking their money and screwing with their work. Fortunately, these days audiences don't need them either!
Re:essentials (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:essentials (Score:2)
Re:essentials (Score:2)
Re:essentials (Score:2)
However, I get the idea that many of them only want to use file sharing when it suits them, and enforce the copyright later when it suits them. When people want to start buying CDs they will want a piece of the a
When you have clout like the Beatles... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that the Beatles are a good example here. By the time they started doing really revolutionary stuff on Revolver, they'd already had 10 #1 singles. I'd suspect that any artist who reached that point would have a lot more freedom in what they did.
Re:When you have clout like the Beatles... (Score:5, Interesting)
They were as managed and as packaged as anything that comes from American or World Idol. The difference, of course, between them and Kelly Clarkson, is that they were brilliant musicians and songwriters.
Re:When you have clout like the Beatles... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anna, Julia, Lucy, Rita, Martha, Maggy (Mae), Penny, Pam, Honey, Sadie...
Beyond this, there's the required love song on every album, the required 3:22 long song for optimal AM play, and so on. Looking at when songs were actually recorded in studio, John and Paul uusually had to wait to record their favorites until someone in management was satisfied they had the required songs in the can.
Re:When you have clout like the Beatles... (Score:2)
The Beatles were on the cutting edge of popular music, even at the very beginning. As soon as they found Ringo, and would stay late after shows and play Blues records and listen to Fats Domino and later, Bob Dylan they were right on the edge. Remember, where they come from, no one was playing the stuff they were listening to. They chomped bennies all night and dra
Good idea, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
This means that the chance someone will download some indie music off kazaa is close to 0. There needs to be a way for artists to advertise their own, legal music on these networks. There are already websites that allow this, like http://www.garageband.coc. I think free download websites like this are a much better way for indie artists to spread their name.
An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Its these threats that's keeping indies like me down.
Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:3, Informative)
Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm afraid of the automated emails that get sent out saying that it found me distributing movies via a p2p app.
I can barely afford making the movies, let along defending myself (successfully) in court.
THAT's what's keeping me down.
Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:4, Informative)
Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
This has even made me a little scared when it comes to just sharing family home movies online! You can get sued for just about anything these days.
This time, it's not just indie artists (Score:5, Informative)
There are a few label artists that have filed amicus briefs with the court as well, the rock band Heart being one of them. They've been using p2p (the "weed" application) to distribute new material. Heart may not have any chart topping hits right now, but they've been around since the 1970's and have been a consistant solid touring act. Howard Leese (guitarist) still owns the "Bad Animals" recording studio up in Seattle.
Another 70's artist, Janis Ian, has also thrown her support behind p2p. After seeing older tracks winding up on p2p networks, they noticed that her older albums had in increase in sales.
p2p is great for indie artists, true, but it's also nice to see some longtime "major label" artists throwing their names behind it as well.
The most mediocre, conservative music... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.
A certain young artist from Sony just shot a $150,000 video, which will hit mtv2/vh1 next week. The original budget for the video was about $20,000, but after the song took off on the networks, the label delayed the album launch and put more money into the video.
Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (Score:2)
Indeed. This topic has been covered on slashdot [slashdot.org] before, too! One such company who provides these statistics is BigChampagne [bigchampagne.com].
Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (Score:3, Informative)
In short, the artist you just mentioned is going to have to make back 150,000 instead of 20,000 before they start to make money,
Re:The most mediocre, conservative music... (Score:2)
Any publicity is good publicity (Score:3, Insightful)
- Cary
--
Anyone from Fairfax County [fairfaxunderground.com] or Northern Virginia [novaunderground.com]?
Agenda of the Power Elite (Score:2)
Yes, the problem is that the current economic-political structure doesn't want anything but 'mediocre, conservative music.' So, insightful independent artists such as Maitreya will continue to be ignored while the power elite continue to go after p2p.
Re:Agenda of the Power Elite (Score:2)
Funny, I just thought today's mainstream artists were lazy. And record labels are afraid to take chances on riskier artists, because they're afraid of piracy eating into their return investment.
Every generation thinks the youth's new music is "mediocre, conservative music." A lot of people don't realize how much they sound like old fogies complaining about their grandkids' music.
It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.
ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio
ProTools + P2P distribution + web advertising = no more RIAA requirement PERIOD.
Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (Score:2)
P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything
You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.
Besides, you don't need P2P piracy for distributing free music. iTunes offers free downloads all the time. Encouraging the use of networks tha
Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (Score:2)
Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
That assumes that they didn't have any money at that point in their careers. At that point in their careers, they could live of the gobs of money they had already made. They could also sell an album just because they were the Beatles (people would buy them based on the fact that they knew it was good just because the Bea
Do they really support it? (Score:3, Interesting)
P2P is a great system for some (Score:2)
Nobody, in either scenario, is compelled by force to do anything they do not wish to do. We already live in a perfect world with regards to P2P and DRM.
Whatever... (Score:4, Informative)
This is our new album [atomicraygunattack.com]
And this is our "main" website. [atomicraygunattack.com]
In fact, within a couple of weeks we will have a music video on the site as well, with not only the ability to stream the video but actually download it in high quality to your hard drive. I don't get bands that don't offer these types of features. It's insane!
Re:Whatever... (Score:2)
Sign Your Name (Score:2)
(and here's some guitar tab [dailybuzz.net] that I did if you want to try playing this fun song
But do they support copyright infringement? (Score:2)
Rock Is Dead - Long Live Rock (Score:2)
Income break-down (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't be surprised (Score:2, Insightful)
Here, posted in full (Score:5, Interesting)
by steve albini
excerpted from Baffler No. 5
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.
Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim it again, please. Backstroke."
And he does, of course.
I. A&R Scouts
Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A&R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire," because historically, the A&R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly.
These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave. Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well.
There are several reasons A&R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip" to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences.
The A&R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it.
When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great, gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast.
By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A&R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.
These A&R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on.
aRDy Music (Score:2)
Jeff Tweety of Wilco and his advocacy (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news, Jeff Tweedy and Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig will discuss their opinions regarding file sharing, free culture, and the arts. Lessig wrote the 2004 book Free Culture: How Big Media Uses
This week Wired reported on a band... (Score:5, Interesting)
And for 180 degree change.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Small bands make virtually nothing from club appearances. The money, at least at the beginning, is in merchandise- t-shirts, stickers, and CDs.
Every last one of them provides free downloads on sites such as Pure Volume [purevolume.com] or on My Space [myspace.com] They still realize CD sales at performances and via web purchase as they chase the holy grail- the record contract.
File trading has, does, and will still work as part of a comprehensive business model. The Grateful Dead certainly did rather well considering that nearly everything they ever did can be downloaded from Archive.org. [archive.org]
P2P becomes dicey when a group's success is predicated on album sales, and not performance money. I don't think a lot of Steely Dan albums would have ever surfaced if P2P was a dominant medium in their period.
Most importantly though, it is still a decision that the artists must make- do they want to sacrifice the financial protection offered by copyright law or open the doors in hopes of atracting an audience. In the first, they've got a business entity whose hands are in the pot- in the latter, they are self-promoting and hoping to realize the success that brings.
If you want to see an example of how indie bands at their best work, check out Monty's Fan Club [montysfanclub.com] and see what a small band from Rhode Island can do with P2P and a willingness to get the music out there.
In the meantime, I'm going downstairs to get my kids to turn the damn guitars down.
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.
Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.
Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.
I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:2)
"Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil)...
Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!
"...and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them."
I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let's clarify this. It's not the RIAA's music. The RIAA is just a representative lobbying body for a group of record labels. The record labels are who, to some degree based on the contracts the artists sign, own the copyrights to this int
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:2, Interesting)
In the latter case, the company committing the violation is making a profit off the work of others, and in a way, cheating their customers.
In the former case, nothing is being stolen, and no one is being cheated, as many people would not have bought the CD or CD single to listen to the song(s) if they didn't download it.
It's about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That's just how I see it.
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:2)
If the point is to encourage the sharing of information, to better society, then why prevent someone from profitting (via GPL violations) to bring forth more innovations? How is that any less evil than say, Microsoft forcing you to license their product before you can develop code from it?
It all boils down to the mentality of, "I don't want anybody to succeed or profit". Basic human selfishness. "If I don't get rich, I don't want someone els
Re:Doesn't change anything... actually, it does. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:3, Insightful)
I could go to
Re:Doesn't change anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Most artists have not given that permission.
Most artists that anyone has ever heard of, do not own the rights to their own music and cannot give permission.
It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.
Many artists get very little or none of the money collected for their record sales. They usually do better with t-shirt or concert ticket sales.
But the copyright holders who don't give permissi