RIAA = Music Gestapo?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Again....you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
RIAA isn't responsible for DRM. AT ALL.

Right. And they have no involvement in the passage and enforcement of the DCMA either. Sheesh, talk about living life with blinders.

You know, repeatedly telling people they're clueless or telling people not to steal music - not exactly an effective game plan. 1) you look like a jerk and 2) it won't stop those people from stealing, and no one else cares about your losses.

[billvon 3,121]

>The methods used to record music have changed, but artists have not.
>Artists are artists.

Well, sorta. Any artist that screams into a wax cylinder recorder (and can not record any other way) isn't going to make it nowadays. The musicians who used to play pianos and organs to accompany silent movies are out of work. Likewise, the introduction of recording and transmission of music put a lot of performance musicians out of work, since now (in many cases) they weren't needed.

Technology changes, and artists adapt. Some lose their income. Some find new sources of income. Some have to change how they record music, or make money, or perform. The organization that represents them either adapts to these changes, or a new one supplants it.

I don't know if there was a silent movie musician's association. But if there was, I think they would have better served their members by helping them get new jobs than by filing lawsuits against theaters that started showing movies with sound - even if that meant that perhaps in the future there wouldn't BE a silent movie musician's association (or even if it had to radically change.)

[billvon 3,121]

Lo and behold there WAS such an organization!

=================
As talking pictures emerged, with their prerecorded musical tracks, an increasing number of moviehouse orchestra musicians found themselves out of work. More than just their position as film accompanists was usurped; according to historian Preston J. Hubbard, "During the 1920s live musical performances at first-run theaters became an exceedingly important aspect of the American cinema." With the coming of the talkies, those featured performances—usually staged as preludes—were largely eliminated as well. The American Federation of Musicians took out newspaper advertisements protesting the replacement of live musicians with mechanical playing devices. One 1929 ad that appeared in the Pittsburgh Press features an image of a can labeled "Canned Music / Big Noise Brand / Guaranteed to Produce No Intellectual or Emotional Reaction Whatever" and reads in part:

Canned Music on Trial
This is the case of Art vs. Mechanical Music in theatres. The defendant stands accused in front of the American people of attempted corruption of musical appreciation and discouragement of musical education. Theatres in many cities are offering synchronised mechanical music as a substitute for Real Music. If the theatre-going public accepts this vitiation of its entertainment program a deplorable decline in the Art of Music is inevitable. Musical authorities know that the soul of the Art is lost in mechanisation. It cannot be otherwise because the quality of music is dependent on the mood of the artist, upon the human contact, without which the essence of intellectual stimulation and emotional rapture is lost.

By the following year, a reported 22,000 U.S. moviehouse musicians had lost their jobs.
======================

As I mentioned before, such an organization would do better to try to help those 22,000 musicians adapt to the change (even if it meant they made less money) than to take out ads and try to portray technology as evil or denigrating to movies.

[DSE 5]

OF COURSE they are involved with legislation involving DMCA. Duh.
Just as the USPA is involved with legislation about the FAA.

Have you ever made a commercially available, national or internationally distributed CD?
"no, but I buy a lot of records, so I understand the process."

Have you ever made a skydive?
"No, but I've seen it in books and so I understand the process."

Yeah, maybe I look like a jerk. But I'm a jerk that you know is never reaching my hand into your pocket to steal what's there, so at least I'm an honest jerk.

Quote

Well, sorta. Any artist that screams into a wax cylinder recorder (and can not record any other way) isn't going to make it nowadays. The musicians who used to play pianos and organs to accompany silent movies are out of work. Likewise, the introduction of recording and transmission of music put a lot of performance musicians out of work, since now (in many cases) they weren't needed.

Technology changes, and artists adapt. Some lose their income. Some find new sources of income. Some have to change how they record music, or make money, or perform. The organization that represents them either adapts to these changes, or a new one supplants it.

The RIAA and similar organizations have continued to exist since the very early days. Recording is recording whether it's a voice screaming into a gramophone or a microphone, in a studio or in a bedroom closet. The industry doesn't make exceptions to members based on the quality or viability of their recordings. If you're a 6 year old savvy enough to make a record in your basement and want to market it, you're eligible to become a member of the RIAA. If you're a guy with 10 musically-inclined cats or monkeys that yowl and you make a CD, you can become a member of the RIAA. It's a RECORDING INDUSTRY.
There will _always_ be recording artists. Some that yowl into a microphone, some that are more artistic. But there will always be recording artists. The association of those artists isn't remotely dependent on whether they do it with a gramophone, with a Mitsubishi SX, with a Teac 888, with a computer, or a POS microtrack that fits in their pocket. Maybe they'll record to an organic source. Doesn't matter. There will _always_ be an association there to represent those that choose to commercialize their recordings. There will always be an attempt of some sort, to protect the copyrights of those recordings at a collective level.
Artists CHOOSE to have those protections.
Just as you choose to have locks on your doors, or not. Just as you might choose to live in a gated community, or not. Or choose to be a vegan. Or not.
Either way, the RIAA is a trade group made up of labels both independent and corporate. The RIAA is growing, not shrinking. They are going no where for a long, long while, as some of the standards they've established are very long-term standards world-wide.
Their legal model may/likely will change, copyright enforcement may/likely will change, the faces of the organization absolutely will change, but they'll continue to exist as long as humans continue to make sound and desire to record and distribute those sounds for commercial gain.

[edit] to add to the pointlessness of your last post, Bill....
You are talking about the art of music. RIAA isn't involved in the "art" of music whatsoever. They were borne out of, and exist entirely for, the technology of recording and delivering music.
Debating union vs non-union, canned music vs live music, etc isn't relevant.
Even back then, Edison had a goal of removing musicians from silent films as soon as possible, and developed very unique and elaborate schemes for syncing cylinders to celluloid so that he could do away with musicians. He hated the unions.
But all that bears no relationship to the discussion we're having in this thread.

[billvon 3,121]

>Their legal model may/likely will change, copyright enforcement may/likely
>will change, the faces of the organization absolutely will change, but they'll
>continue to exist as long as humans continue to make sound and desire
>to record and distribute those sounds for commercial gain.

If they do manage to change with the times, I'd tend to agree with the above.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do you feel it's OK to buy a CD and make copies of it to give to your friends? Do you feel it's OK to walk into a 7-11 and steal a handful of candy bars to hand out to your buddies? the only difference is the likelihood of being caught.

Another important difference is that 7-11 loses capital. The label only loses money if those who receive the CDs would have been otherwise inclined to purchase the CD. On the other hand, if they would not have purchased the CD, and they like it, they are converted into a fan and potential customer.

Personally, I don't ever buy music anymore unless I have a chance to listen to it first. It keeps me from buying overhyped crap, and makes it more likely that I find little known gems.

Quote

I do agree with making examples out of anyone who has been downloading music.

Why? Do you think it will change anything? The chances of any particular filesharer being sued by the RIAA are about the same as that person being killed in a terrorist attack (ie. nearly zero) It does absolutely nothing but soil the public image of the RIAA. If this thread is any indication, it did that very well. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the more publicized lawsuits pursued by the RIAA motivated people to share music that weren't doing so before.

It's completely irrelevant that the law is on your side. By turning public sentiment against the RIAA, the association did its members a disservice. It would very likely be an advantage in the current market for artists and labels to be able to advertise that they are not affiliated with the RIAA.

Quote

As far as what they represent, I *am* the RIAA. I'm a recording artist, I'm a publisher. In some relatively insignificant way, I'm a label.

And you seem quite proud of that.

Quote

I'm not buying it that he's being sued for simply ripping. Microsoft and Apple would have been easier targets.

How did you reach this conclusion? There is nothing illegal about the technology MS or Apple provide. It has many legitimate uses for which it is regularly used. They cannot be held responsible because it can also be used for illegal activities.

Quote

No, music *won't* continue to exist just fine without the RIAA.

You're kidding yourself if you really believe this. The RIAA is but a pimple on music's ass. Music spans the globe and the millennia. The RIAA has been around for what, a few decades? Get over yourself.

Quote

I don't have the same hard-on for those that download the content, although that is just as wrong.

That depends on the jurisdiction. In some places it has been ruled that only uploading is illegal.

Quote

Apple doesn't own any labels to pressure. Steve Jobs is taking credit for some labels removing DRM, good for him. Interesting he has a double standard when it comes to DRM for video.

Never mind that Steve Jobs posted his open letter before EMI removed the DRM. You may not have been watching these past few years, but Apple has attained a rather envied position in the music business. It's not unreasonable to think they might even have a bit of clout, and when Jobs spoke up on behalf of iTunes customers, at least one label listened.

You can't compare music and video. People watch movies to find out how they end. Some people may watch them a few more times after that. People listen to their music over and over. I don't like DRM on video either, but piracy has the potential to be a much bigger problem with movies than with music, so it harder to find a workable alternative.

Quote

Should the industry wish to, it could easily go back to only live music (that would suck/EVERYONE loses), or restrictive DRM schemes could be placed on media that would prevent people from enjoying their music when/how they want it. Or subscription-based services could take over.

No it couldn't. There's too much electronic music out there, stuff that can't be performed live. People can make great music with their computers, from scratch, or with live instruments. There's no need to sign a label or drop loads of cash on studio time. Social networking allows exposure without need for labels.

Technology makes it possible for the individual artist to take control of every stage of making and distributing music. Combine that with natural market forces, and there's going to be readily available recorded music on a convenient medium readily available as long as there is demand.

Quote

It's really quite simple;
-Creative works are property.
-Owners of that property are entitled to being able to protect their property, just as you're entitled to locks on your home and car doors.
-Stolen property is recoverable.

If I download one of your songs, what have you lost? It's not like I was going to buy one. You've lost nothing. You only stand to gain. Maybe I'll like it and buy some of your music. Otherwise, in the trash it goes, and then the trash gets emptied. What is there to recover? By your logic, since it's not recoverable, it's not stolen property. So what's the problem?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!