Filesharing (theft) Some facts about music and copyright:

[Chewbacca]

Two articles, the first is about the boom of independant music labels whilst the majors fall,

The second is about artists that are critical of the legal tactics used against filesharers and the business model of the major labels in general.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0411/p13s02-almp.html


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...11/MN12066.DTL

These are two news articles I pulled from this website:

The Stop RIAA Lawsuits coalition

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: No amount of prosecution, lawsuits, and rule quoting will help a flawed and wasteful business model that is also out of line with consumer demand and behind in technology. I think it would serve artist's more if they would tackle the main cause of the problem and demand that their representatives and producers change the way they do things, rather than make futile and disenchanting attacks on the symptoms. Of course not every artist attacks and discredits filesharing so dont be fooled into thinking so people.

Every single peer of mine feels more or less the same way. I do have a wide circle of music friends and aquaintances (at least three hundred odd are musicians) and work every day with professional musicians of the same opinion.

"Don't be fooled" into thinking artists support you stealing their work. does an old woman appreciate you mugging her after she's been robbed?

As for the "outdated business model" what is outdated is internet law - which you can bet the movie world will be pushing to change if DVD rippers make movie theft as common as mp3 theft. Mark my words, that will be changed.

As for "representatives and producers" I'm not sure what you mean. In the music industry a producer is part of the creative process in making the music. I have produced records. Producers are usually musicians/writers themselves. An artist may produce themself. The record producer is simply the person responsible for how the record sounds. Like the director on a film.

What is flawed about that process pray tell?

[Chewbacca]

I know what a Producer is in the terms of the creative process, but that is not how I used the term.

I am bowing out this discussion now.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Two articles, the first is about the boom of independant music labels whilst the majors fall, The second is about artists that are critical of the legal tactics used against filesharers and the business model of the major labels in general.

Chewbacca you are so out of touch. Companies are merging. there is no boom. People are not being signed. It's over. When the music indeustry was thriving, new labels popped up all the time, and were bought and absorbed by the majors. Now, Sony and BMG have merged, or are merging, so there will only be four majors. Obviously the majors are not aquiring independents in the same manner they used to, hence it could appear to a layman that there is a growing number of "independents".

Secondly, these independents are not of the same mould as the real independents like Motown and Island used to be. Real companies with a roster of acts. More and more frequenlty artists - unable to get signed, form their own "independent label" and put out their music. I know a number of "labels" that fit this category. A couple want to release my work for example.

Additionally recording costs are unbelievably cheaper, so an independent doesn't need to pay anywhere near the recording costs they used to.

I've made records by myself with a laptop in a loungeroom that sound better than ones I've made in expensive studios with a session band.

It all makes the ILLUSION of a boom, but in reality there is less money, less industry players, and less ability to release and promote music.

It extends all the way down to the street, where in New York, professional musicians had an abundance of studio and live work, and now they don't. Again, appearances are deceptive, for what happens is the big cats start taking little gigs that newcomers and less talented players got. It's the newer and younger guys that feel the pinch.

It extends to the independent companies in Nashville closing, merging and dieing out. I personally know people from companies that don;t exist anymore because of this. Independent companies too. Two albums I co-produced will never be released because of confusion over who owns the rights now. The whole bottom has fallen out of the industry, and mp3 theft is solely to blame.

I'm living this Chewbacca. THIS IS MY LIFE. Don't attempt to post a few links to sites as some sort of pathetic argument. Come down here to New York City and live my life for six months. I live this. I've had to first hand feel the brunt of mp3 thieves actions.

[ 02-05-2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I know what a Producer is in the terms of the creative process, but that is not how I used the term. I am bowing out this discussion now.

What I do know is many of us are angry that the record companies took so long to do this. 14 years ago when I first entered the industry, I knew musicans who were angry that companies actually encouraged theft by making blank cassettes.

For 90% of users, what else is a blank cassette for, other than stealing music?

Each major record company also made tape players, and CD players. Sony developed the minidisk and Phillips/Polygram (now by Vivendi/Universal) developed the digital cassette. Both of which conceivably would have encouraged piracy.

Some artists I knew were trying to get companies in a conflict of interest situation to get out of their contracts.

[Timber Loftis]

I want to supplement statements Yorick has made to clarify some things. If you own a copy of copyrighted works (such as CDs) you MAY make compilation CDs. For your own use, of course. Your ownership of ONE copy includes your right to make OTHER copies for your own enjoyment, including compilation discs that you enjoy. You should not share/give/sell these copies, but I just wanted you to know you ARE NOT breaking copyright laws by making compiltion CDs and other copies for your own enjoyment. Quite simply, once you own a copy of the song, you can make as many copies as you please. Just don't share/sell/give those copies to others.

Oh, and making those nice romantic "mix tapes/CDs" is a fine gesture, but if you give the other person copies of music they don't own, you technically have infringed on the artists' copyright. Of course, my personal music collection does contain 4 or 5 "mix tapes" in amongst the 350 or so CD's, so I guess I'm guilty too (but I never shared them myself!).

[ 02-05-2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

I also note my objection to multiple threads discussing the same topic. For the record. [img]graemlins/deal.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

The other reality is that artists need record companies. Or at least the types of people in record companies. Accountants, promoters and publicists. People who focus on "details" like bills and schedules, leaving the creative focussed (and absent minded) artist to do what they do best.

However, traditionally, financially clueless artists have been signed for life for no royalties (as in Australian guitarist Tommy Emmanuels case) or don't posess the mental resources to keep tabs on managers stealing their money.

When I was 19 my third manager took $10,000. I've lost points (which mean money) from various projects. Had I been clued up and so inclined, I could well have gotten performance royalties for the singing I did on the first Savage Garden record for example. I've had another manager funnel over $30,000, while I was barely scraping by. I lost work - photos and songs because I left material in the hands of yet another manager.

Rip off rip off rip off. Artists are prime targets because they... we... are usually mentally geared towards creative endeavour. Lateral thought. Exceptions like Madonna exist (she is a great businesswoman - but then she's never been regarded as a great vocalist by any means).

I'll never forget this one guy that came into my studio years ago. He had 5 songs to record. Out of the countless people I've recorded this guy was far and away the most organised. Had everything worked out. Money, lists, time schedules, lyrics and charts impeccably organised. He was so "together". I couldn;t believe it.

Then I recorded him.

It was quite possibly the worst music I had at that point worked on.

The point being, that you may bemoan record companies. Artists certainly do. Without those personality types involved in the whole process, much of the music you've loved would not exist. The artist would be off on their next project. Forgetting the brilliance that lies finished, but gathering dust.

For a creative, their best work is usually what they are working on RIGHT NOW. Such is the way it works.

I have never had a problem with the concept of giving a percentage of my CD to people that want to:
1.Pay for it
2.Promote it
3.Sell it for me

I simply cannot do either. I like many other artists NEED the people in record companies you guys like to mouth off about. Remember that record companies are simply a collection of people.

[Chewbacca]

I'll take the bait:

From the one of the links I provided earlier:

"They're protecting an archaic industry," said the Grateful Dead's Bob Weir. "They should turn their attention to new models."

"This is not rocket science," said David Draiman of Disturbed, a hard-rock band with a platinum debut album on the charts. "Instead of spending all this money litigating against kids who are the people they're trying to sell things to in the first place, they have to learn how to effectively use the Internet."


"File sharing is a reality, and it would seem that the labels would do well to learn how to incorporate it into their business models somehow," said genre- busting DJ Moby in a post on his Web site. "Record companies suing 12-year-old girls for file sharing is kind of like horse-and-buggy operators suing Henry Ford."

Recording artists have watched their record royalties erode over the past few years ("My Van Halen royalties are history," said vocalist Sammy Hagar), but, in fact, few musicians earn the bulk of their income from record sales.

"Bruce Springsteen probably earned more in 10 nights at Meadowlands last month than in his entire recording career," said rocker Huey Lewis.

"They have all these abnormal practices that keep driving the price up," said Gregg Rollie, founding member of Santana and Journey. "People think musicians make all that money, but it's not true. We make the smallest amount."


"The focus of the industry needs to shift from Soundscan numbers to downloads," said Draiman. "It's the way of the future. You can smell it coming. Stop fighting it, because you can't."

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I want to supplement statements Yorick has made to clarify some things. If you own a copy of copyrighted works (such as CDs) you MAY make compilation CDs. For your own use, of course. Your ownership of ONE copy includes your right to make OTHER copies for your own enjoyment, including compilation discs that you enjoy.

Not so Timber, at least not in Australia.

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf


What are the rights of the copyright owner?

The owner of copyright has a number of exclusive rights. These exclusive rights allow the copyright owner to control certain uses of their material. The copyright owner is the only person allowed to use, or give permission to others to use, their work in these ways. The exclusive rights of the copyright owner, depending on the type of material may include the right to:

reproduce the work in material form (including taping, digitising, videoing, and CD burning);

perform the work in public (including screening, reciting or performing the work outside a private and domestic setting);

communicate the work to the public (including broadcasting, emailing and putting the work on the Internet);

and adapt the work (including translating a work into a different language).

Using a CD burner to make a copy of material will “reproduce the work” for the purposes of copyright, as will making a tape from a CD, or copying a tape or copying vinyl records onto tape or CD.

===================================

Private use

There is no exception in the Copyright Act that allows copyright material to be reproduced for private purposes without permission from the copyright owner.

There was at one stage an attempt to bring in a “blank tape levy” scheme in Australia, under which private taping of recorded music would have been made legal, with copyright owners receiving compensation through a small additional charge on blank tapes. The way the government at the time attempted to implement the scheme was, however, found to be unconstitutional by the High Court, and Australian governments have not made any further attempts to introduce a scheme which avoids the problems of the earlier attempt. Blank tape levy schemes operate
successfully in a number of other countries, particularly in Europe.