• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000

RIAA = dinosaur in it's last death throes, trying desperately to do whatever it takes (bribe politicians, get laws changed) to try to stay relevant in an era of digital technology where they are completely useless and irrelevant.
 
PokerGuy said:
RIAA = dinosaur in it's last death throes, trying desperately to do whatever it takes (bribe politicians, get laws changed) to try to stay relevant in an era of digital technology where they are completely useless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Hardly in its death throes. Due to our absurd laws they get huge penalties and actual attorney fees in every pirating suit they bring, the vast majority of which they settle-even then at an enormous profit.

Until the laws change they will continue to be a very profitable lawsuit generating machine for the foreseeable future. It's doubly sickening because all of us (ncluding non-pirates) pay for the courts they use.

Given the current "conservative" climate of money=free speech I don't see this changing in my lifetime.
 
Siddhartha said:
How is the government selling out our freedoms to the RIAA? What freedoms are you referring to?
Click to expand...

How about making links a copyright infringement? How about the recent 5 strikes agreement with ISPs. How about the DMCA? How about mass anonymous subpoenas? The Obama administration packing the Justice Department with RIAA lawyers. The ludicrously high penalties for copyright infringement. Copyright extensions. The Department of Homeland Security being used to shutdown torrent sites. How about shutting down websites on the RIAA's behalf. Should I go on?
 
Last edited:
^^^
And how about you leeches on society stop feeling like you are entitled to other people's work just because the digital age has made it cheep to reproduce works?

I have no problems with anything you have written. I have zero sympathy anymore for those who feel they deserve free things. Zero sympathy for those who spend their time finding ways to obtain digital works in clever ways to exploit technicalities that cannot be made illegal in a constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
cubby1223 said:
^^^
And how about you leeches on society stop feeling like you are entitled to other people's work just because the digital age has made it cheep to reproduce works?

I have no problems with anything you have written. I have zero sympathy anymore for those who feel they deserve free things. Zero sympathy for those who spend their time finding ways to obtain digital works in clever ways to exploit technicalities that cannot be made illegal in a constitutional law.
Click to expand...

You should have a big problem with it, using the force of government as a civil vehicle for the profit of corporations? Insanity.
 
cubby1223 said:
^^^
And how about you leeches on society stop feeling like you are entitled to other people's work just because the digital age has made it cheep to reproduce works?

I have no problems with anything you have written. I have zero sympathy anymore for those who feel they deserve free things. Zero sympathy for those who spend their time finding ways to obtain digital works in clever ways to exploit technicalities that cannot be made illegal in a constitutional law.
Click to expand...

An example: You wreck a car worth $3000. The owner sues and will get a judgment for $3000 plus a couple hundred in court costs. Second example-You copy one songs and get caught. The RIAA sues you, gets ACTUAL attorney fees (and they pile them on, treating every case as the case of the century)plus a minimum civil penalty of $750 per song (remember that's the minimum). In the meantime the RIAA has cut the royalties paid to the artists.

Tell me again, it that justice or a legalized Mafia?
 
cubby1223 said:
And how about you leeches on society stop feeling like you are entitled to other people's work just because the digital age has made it cheep to reproduce works?
.
Click to expand...

You realize the music industry is one of the biggest copyright infringers around? They just had to settle a suit in Canada because they publish music and then sometime later get the rights and pay the artist. But they do the same thing almost everywhere. Sometimes they don't bother to pay the artists at all. That was one of the things Spitzer was going after music labels for, before his little sex scandal.
 
Rock Hydra said:
I think the RIAA thinks they just own Music in general.
Click to expand...

you bet they do. theyre just about the most evil industry in history, and i would love to see the RIAA go bankrupt. i think theres a reason most artists dont care if you download their music for free. they dont see any money from cd's anyway.

makes you wonder too. its probably FAR more beneficial to just donate $20 to your favorite artist then it would be to buy a couple of their albums.
 
just please don't let your piracy spread into film/video games. It take more then 2 people in a basement with 10k in gear to make a movie and or videogame.
 
wirednuts said:
you bet they do. theyre just about the most evil industry in history, and i would love to see the RIAA go bankrupt. i think theres a reason most artists dont care if you download their music for free. they dont see any money from cd's anyway.

makes you wonder too. its probably FAR more beneficial to just donate $20 to your favorite artist then it would be to buy a couple of their albums.
Click to expand...

See them live and buy some official merchandise, that'll line their pockets.
 
Whoozyerdaddy said:
You're about to sign a contract where millions of dollars are involved... and you don't get a lawyer to look it over for you?
Click to expand...

Also remember that you only know who these artists are because of the marketing that surrounded them for years. Yes at this point Courtney love can go out on her own and be something but without the massive push to put nirvana in every home in the country you wouldn't know who she was. as amazing as nirvana was I dont think that they had the ability to do that without the marketing and logistics engine that existed at the time via the majors.
 
i purchase most of my music off legal sites such as amazon and itunes but I get a bit irritated at the price of music that is greater than 10 years old. I believe I have purchased pink floyd's the wall on 3 different media, album, cassette and now digital, and paid full price each time because it was the media of the day.

What ever happened to that case where the RIAA went after the guy who had legally purchased all of his music on CD then ripped the entire collection to MP3?

I sure wouldnt mind if I could get a digital copy of a 40 year old album for at least 50% off.
 
If the industry is ripping off musicians, then that is a problem. I suggest the musicians retain legal counsel to review their contracts before signing them. If the recording industry gets an unfair advantage in infringement suits, then that needs to be scaled back. Yet none of this makes pirating OK. This sounds vaguely like a rationalization for theft. If I rob a bank it's OK because the bank is insured and I'm only stealing from the evil insurance company, right?

Piracy is not a "freedom" and certainly not a right.
 
woolfe9999 said:
If the industry is ripping off musicians, then that is a problem. I suggest the musicians retain legal counsel to review their contracts before signing them. If the recording industry gets an unfair advantage in infringement suits, then that needs to be scaled back. Yet none of this makes pirating OK. This sounds vaguely like a rationalization for theft. If I rob a bank it's OK because the bank is insured and I'm only stealing from the evil insurance company, right?

Piracy is not a "freedom" and certainly not a right.
Click to expand...

Whats going on is the majors act as a bank. They lend you x amount of money to get your music mixed and mastered and also marketing comes from that as well. So the marketing they do themselves and charge it back on you with money they lent you :sneaky:.

So how much your record sells is really how much you will recoup on your investment because they get theirs first. Most bands should not go directly to the majors anymore. No one buys music so you need incredible fan base to get into the majors AND make money. The majors will throw money at what they think will be a hit but it is becoming smaller and smaller. Look at a group like Death Cab for Cutie. They released like 5 albums on a indie label had massive fan base lots of touring and then signed onto a major. That gave them the extra muscle to push into even more customers.

Most people dont want it to be work so if they get some contract they grab it fast and think life is good from then on out but in reality they arent very good or dont have the fan base to actually pull it off anymore.

Back in the day when people actually bought music then you could be sure you would sell enough to cover your expenses and then some. Do that 5 times and you can retire. Do it once and have it be huge and you can retire. Do it and mismanage your funds and you are in the hole 500k.
 
Happy Birthday, We'll Sue


Snopes

The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted "Happy Birthday" in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills' copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of "Happy Birthday" will remain intact until at least 2030.
Click to expand...
http://www.myce.com/news/RIAA-bans-sales-of-loaded-iPods-even-with-purchased-music-11492/
RIAA bans sales of loaded iPods, even with purchased music


Remember when they tried to go after used cd's
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20020614-9999_1b14usedcds.html
The industry worries that the expanding used market is cannibalizing new-CD sales, as well as promoting piracy by allowing consumers to buy, record and sell back discs while retaining their own digitally pristine copies.

One proposed remedy being debated by record label executives is federal legislation requiring used-CD retailers to pay royalties on secondary sales of albums.

A cover story in last week's issue of the music trade publication Billboard quoted several executives who said they favor the establishment of an agency that would exert a flat royalty rate - say, 6 percent or so - on retailers' sales of CDs sold over and over again.
Click to expand...
If they can't at the federal level than go after it state by state.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/record-shops-used-cds-ihre-papieren-bitte.ars

RIAA claims ownership of all internet music

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/04/24/327063/-Is-the-RIAA-Pulling-a-Scam-on-the-Music-Industry

SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free. (http://soundexchange.com/faq.html#a7)
Click to expand...
But what is truly sad and ironic is how the same people who cry against the rich and inheritance have no problem giving these media corporations (remember corporations are people too, so says the Supreme Court🙄)
the legal right to perpetual ownership and royalty based dynasties.

"It's a wonderful life"

OOps that has been reCopyrighted tooD:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/it’s-a-wonderful-copyright-mess/
 
PokerGuy said:
RIAA = dinosaur in it's last death throes, trying desperately to do whatever it takes (bribe politicians, get laws changed) to try to stay relevant in an era of digital technology where they are completely useless and irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Completely blindsighted by new technology; file under film camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top