Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
publishing rights VS gifting rights? Please. This makes it sound like you are grabbing for straws. I still stand by my original statement. If the agreement with the label is that they get to sell the old CDs in the retail market and the artist does something to potentially hurt the labels ability to sell those CDs the label should have some recourse to protect itself. If the artist wants to sell the songs on itunes or license them to streaming services like Rhapsody or Napster fine. At least there they have a price attached to them and the label can adjust their pricing of the CDs to compete, but when the artist just wants to go give it away they can no longer compete. Price Vs Free is not a competition.
|
QQ QQ
the record contracts didn't expect a technology to exist that would allow the large scale gifting so they didn't put such restrictions in their contract
Tough luck for them.
Quote:
This is my understanding of a monopoly: A monopoly is an enterprise that is the only seller of a good or service. In the absence of government intervention, a monopoly is free to set any price it chooses and will usually set the price that yields the largest possible profit.
By that definition large record labels and the RIAA are not a monopoly. There are other options. A person can use the internet or create their own record label and use that to distribute their music. You have gone to great lengths in this thread to show any number of acts who are using non-record label techniques to get their music out there and make money off of it. You yourself are creating an alternative to the big label system. A person could record an album and go from radio station to radio station talking to the program managers and trying to get it on the air. A person could use pay for play options with a radio station. There are other options a person can do on their own without the help of any record label to get themselves noticed. Musicians have been doing it forever and will always do it.
Of course most of these people are using these techniques as a way of getting the attention of the major labels, but that isn't the point, the point is they can and do distribute their music.
The RIAA is a recording industry trade group. So if they are a monopoly is then every union a monopoly? Is the United Auto Workers? If you're a car manufacturer and don't negotiate with UAW they strike and could cost your company millions in lost work. If you try to go outside them they will do whatever they can to obstruct it.
The RIAA and MPAA are trying to fight pirating. Maybe they are not going about it the best way they could and maybe they need to rethink their strategy, but I don't think they are purposely trying to oppress their members. If Radiohead wants to testify that they don't care if this kid downloads their music, great. If the kid wins, that is fine by me. But if Radiohead's old record label then decides to go after them for potential lost sales or breech of contract (again depending on what their old contract said) they should not be surprised.
|
the screener ban by the MPAA was to stop piracy. I suggest you google it because your understanding of a monopoly is not correct. look up the definition of an oligopoly.
If you understood monopoly issue you would not make ubsurd statements like a regional union which has competion from other countries is the same as an international organization which encompasses all musicians, record companies WORLD WIDE.
Quote:
|
In the end most people use torrents to get free copies of movies and CDs. you can kid yourself all day long that it is fair use or that it is okay. You can argue the technicalities of bit torrent sharing, but the reality is that people are not getting back up copies of CDs or movies that they have bought. They are not downloading to replace a damaged or lost copy. They want something for free and the torrent sites offer it to them. Go to any torrent site that lists the top 10 movie downloads for that week and in any given week at least half of those movies are going to be movies that are still only available in theaters. That is getting something for free, not timeshifting your already owned content. The MPAA and the RIAA are trying to fight this and that should be their right. Maybe there is better ways of doing it, but that is something they need to figure out for themselves.
|
1. tv shows represent 49% of all torrent traffic (timeshifting-- current fair use)
2. MPAA on study shows that only 1 out of 10 movie downloades represents a lost sale (two biggest reasons- regional exclusion and physical handicap) (access shifting - future fair use)
Quote:
|
Maybe there are artists who don't want their stuff downloaded for free but they fear if they speak out they will get bashed by the fans so they let the RIAA do the dirty work. I'm pretty sure there are more than just a few of those types out there.
|
an all they have to do is stay silent but that completely irrelevent to this thread because we are talking about an artist who wants to come forward and you are attacking them for doing it.
Quote:
|
I understand that often acts get screwed by the major labels. But if you want to see acts get fucked over just allow torrents to run rampant with no stopping them. We are already seeing bands that are signing over part of their merchandise, publishing and touring incomes to the labels because the label knows when they release the album there is going to be a ton of people who just download it for free. Maybe they could monetize these bit torrent streams. That, again, it is up to them to do that. Just as it is up to the act to decide if they want to sign with a major label it is up to that label to decide how they want to market it. If the act wants a say in the marketing, they need to state that when they sign and make sure it is in the contract. Maybe you should offer your services to the labels. Maybe once you show them the way they will have a change of heart. In the past artists got screwed on royalties but made good money through publishing and touring. In the future these artists are going to get screwed on royalties, publishing, touring and many other things as the labels try to deal with the rampant downloading of the music.
|
right labels are going to give up their stangle hold on the artist by monetizing the bit torrent traffic and establishing a competition to themselves.
the only way monetization of bit torrent is going to happen is if it is competition to record companies.
Quote:
|
Maybe one day the internet will overtake the major label system and all of this arguing will be moot. Bands will just all give their music away for free in hopes of cashing in on other revenue streams or they will determine a way cash in on the downloading of their music.
|
well as one of the companies trying to create one of those solutions i certainly hope so
Quote:
|
Lastly I ask this: Is it too much to ask for people to behave responsibly? If the label has a contract with an artist to sell its old CDs at the retail level even after the artists has left the label is it too much to ask for the artist to not sabotage that and respect the agreement? Maybe they don't like the deal, but they made it and they agreed to it so they should honor it.
|
you question is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.
the fact is the contracts don't explictly prevent the large scale gifting of their music by the artist. The technology to do that did not exist at the time so of course the record companies didn't realize the problem that it would cause.
this means the agreement allows the artist to authorize the non commercial distribution of their music. So basically your asking the artist (to act responsibly) by giving up a right they currently have, that has promotional value to them, so the record company who has already taken 90% and can still make good money thru commercial liciencing can make even more money.
Cry me a fucking river.