Single mom fights back against the RIAA

[Jim Alfredson]

Great article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/conte...82042959954.htm

You go, girl!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Yes, it is very counter-productive trying to solve a real problem by wrong methods.

MG

[Christiern]

Very interesting article, Jim. I hope the RIAA eventually gets what has been coming to them for a very long time: very publicly exposed for the rip-off organization it is. Artists should unite against them and the record companies whose dirty work they abetted.

[BruceH]

Good for her!

[porcy62]

Great subject for a movie like 'Erin Brockovich' or 'The Rainmaker'. Go for it.

[Chuck Nessa]

Just to give some context (not a defense of RIAA - just an example) today I found a "blogger" offering my recording of Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy". The links were posted last August. The download site says "383 downloads" and I guarantee I have had less than 50 sales in that time period. How can companies like mine survive in this atmosphere? I lose money and Roscoe loses money. Why should any of us continue?

[Aggie87]

Just to give some context (not a defense of RIAA - just an example) today I found a "blogger" offering my recording of Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy". The links were posted last August. The download site says "383 downloads" and I guarantee I have had less than 50 sales in that time period. How can companies like mine survive in this atmosphere? I lose money and Roscoe loses money. Why should any of us continue?

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

[Neal Pomea]

Who needs copyright monopoly for the duration of his life plus 70 years in order to be motivated to be creative, or turn a profit?

Edited May 1, 2008 by It Should be You

[Neal Pomea]

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

And I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for the term of copyright in the United States.

[Aggie87]

Who needs copyright monopoly for the duration of his life plus 70 years in order to be motivated to be creative, or turn a profit?

Turning a profit may be translated for many (perhaps Chuck) as making a living.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

And I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for the term of copyright in the United States.

If you, your daddy, your granddaddy, etc buy some property (like a house), they can pass it on to you and your children and their children, etc.

If Charlie Parker (any other artist) creates something (almost out of thin air), the rights are limited. The folks who finance this creation is limited as well.

So physical property trumps ideas.

That sucks.

[Shawn]

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

And I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for the term of copyright in the United States.

I completely see Chuck's point and he's right, both he and the artist deserve to be compensated for their work.

But I also can't feel any "love" for either the RIAA or the current state of copyright law. I had to take copyright law in college (required course) and it didn't take me long to realize how utterly fucked up the whole mess is.

There's got to be a middle ground somewhere...

[Jim Alfredson]

As someone who's spending his own money to put out records, money that is getting harder and harder to come by as far as decent paying gigs are concerned, I completely understand and empathize with Chuck.

However, the bare facts are that downloading is not going away and the RIAA's tactics will not even make a dent in the problem. And if they wrongly accuse even one person and scare them into paying money that is not warranted, then that makes the whole thing even more wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

[Chuck Nessa]

As someone who's spending his own money to put out records, money that is getting harder and harder to come by as far as decent paying gigs are concerned, I completely understand and empathize with Chuck.

However, the bare facts are that downloading is not going away and the RIAA's tactics will not even make a dent in the problem. And if they wrongly accuse even one person and scare them into paying money that is not warranted, then that makes the whole thing even more wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Real easy to say if you don't have to pay the band or publishing royalties.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Chuck Nessa

[RDK]

Just to give some context (not a defense of RIAA - just an example) today I found a "blogger" offering my recording of Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy". The links were posted last August. The download site says "383 downloads" and I guarantee I have had less than 50 sales in that time period. How can companies like mine survive in this atmosphere? I lose money and Roscoe loses money. Why should any of us continue?

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

While I'm well aware the pitfalls of leaving it up to each person's moral compass to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" - technically, of course, illegal is illegal - my own "indiscretions" are generally limited to d/l'ing live radio broadcasts or rips of oop LPs. In other words, things that aren't otherwise available. I know that doesn't necessarily make it "right," but for me the crime in that case is minimal - and in a larger picture sense the practice has exposed me to artists and albums I might never have heard - and whom I now support whenever possible. It's a trade-off, I think, for all sides involved in what has become - whether one likes/accepts it or not - a sea change in the music business. I can't honestly say such downloading is the reason or not, but I can tell you that I'm now spending more on music than at any time in the past.

[Teasing the Korean]

I think we need to change the laws so that the descendants of the great classical composers can be compensated too.

[Aggie87]

Just to give some context (not a defense of RIAA - just an example) today I found a "blogger" offering my recording of Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy". The links were posted last August. The download site says "383 downloads" and I guarantee I have had less than 50 sales in that time period. How can companies like mine survive in this atmosphere? I lose money and Roscoe loses money. Why should any of us continue?

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

While I'm well aware the pitfalls of leaving it up to each person's moral compass to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" - technically, of course, illegal is illegal - my own "indiscretions" are generally limited to d/l'ing live radio broadcasts or rips of oop LPs. In other words, things that aren't otherwise available. I know that doesn't necessarily make it "right," but for me the crime in that case is minimal - and in a larger picture sense the practice has exposed me to artists and albums I might never have heard - and whom I now support whenever possible. It's a trade-off, I think, for all sides involved in what has become - whether one likes/accepts it or not - a sea change in the music business. I can't honestly say such downloading is the reason or not, but I can tell you that I'm now spending more on music than at any time in the past.

I can understand downloading live radio broadcasts, and even to a degree OOP lps.

But...BUT....what about a situation like Chuck's describing above, where illegal downloading is over 7x the number of legitimate sales he's made? If he can't break even on his reissues, this sort of behavior surely hurts, and limits the possibilities for more catalog reissues. And we all lose.

[Chalupa]

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=42454

[Jim Alfredson]

As someone who's spending his own money to put out records, money that is getting harder and harder to come by as far as decent paying gigs are concerned, I completely understand and empathize with Chuck.

However, the bare facts are that downloading is not going away and the RIAA's tactics will not even make a dent in the problem. And if they wrongly accuse even one person and scare them into paying money that is not warranted, then that makes the whole thing even more wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.

Real easy to say if you don't have to pay the band or publishing royalties.

It's not easy to say; I'm not making any money on any of the four discs that I have been a part of the last 6 years. Yet each one of those discs cost between $8000 and $12000 to make. None of them are paid off, yet.

What good does suing single moms do? Especially some, as in this case, who are innocent? Are you seeing any money from those lawsuits? Are you seeing any decline in the number of people ripping off your label's music?

No? Then what's the point?

It's a Pandora's Box that cannot be closed. I don't know what the answer is, but it's not going to change and it's not going to go away regardless of how much we complain or sue.

[RDK]

Just to give some context (not a defense of RIAA - just an example) today I found a "blogger" offering my recording of Roscoe Mitchell's "Snurdy McGurdy". The links were posted last August. The download site says "383 downloads" and I guarantee I have had less than 50 sales in that time period. How can companies like mine survive in this atmosphere? I lose money and Roscoe loses money. Why should any of us continue?

I'll be curious to hear a reasonable justification for this from some of the proponents of free illegal downloading on this board...

While I'm well aware the pitfalls of leaving it up to each person's moral compass to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" - technically, of course, illegal is illegal - my own "indiscretions" are generally limited to d/l'ing live radio broadcasts or rips of oop LPs. In other words, things that aren't otherwise available. I know that doesn't necessarily make it "right," but for me the crime in that case is minimal - and in a larger picture sense the practice has exposed me to artists and albums I might never have heard - and whom I now support whenever possible. It's a trade-off, I think, for all sides involved in what has become - whether one likes/accepts it or not - a sea change in the music business. I can't honestly say such downloading is the reason or not, but I can tell you that I'm now spending more on music than at any time in the past.

I can understand downloading live radio broadcasts, and even to a degree OOP lps.

But...BUT....what about a situation like Chuck's describing above, where illegal downloading is over 7x the number of legitimate sales he's made? If he can't break even on his reissues, this sort of behavior surely hurts, and limits the possibilities for more catalog reissues. And we all lose.

Well obviously that's something that I don't condone and don't involve myself in. I've run across such sites, of course, and always feel icky when I realize the blogger isn't "sharing" old LPs (which many seem to do out of a genuine love of the music) but instead "stealing" new CDs and offering them for free just because they can. I really feel for Chuck and other producers in such situations (especially in such a small, niche market as jazz), but like Jim said, you can't unring a bell and, like it or not, this is the future. As for the numbers (7x), I have a hard time believing that those are "realistic" sales - that is, I'd bet that few of those who opt for the "free" downloads would have actually bought the CD. Nevertheless, any lost sales are unfortunate. I don't envy any indie jazz producers these days (from a business standpoint that is).

[Jazzmoose]

lol, it is funny when fat people always have a reason for their fatness and related lathargy (migraines, arthritis, back pain, etc).

I think it's funnier when someone thinks they're being clever and they're actually just being an asshole...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The record industry (the music industry) has been based on a specific business model for a hundred and odd years. It's possible to argue, as it should be you does, that that business model was wrong in the first place, and that may be so. But that probably doesn't matter, because the business model that was devised was what it was and it gave certain assurances to those who invested time and money in its creation and production that there would be a return on their investments.

But that business model is beginning to break down. Note that it's breaking down only in some places - for the Third World, that business model is still working perfectly well, because only a relatively small number of people have computers with internet connection. One of the implications of that is that some people are going to get hurt in the fallout. So that means there are three problems that need to be addressed:

1 what should be done about past work, done under the old business model?

2 what should be done about future work, to be done under no one knows (yet) what business model?

3 what should be done in transitional situations, as different economies adjust at different speeds?

It seems to me that - stuff like MySpace aside, which might look at the future but might only look at the popular side of the future - no one's trying to address any of those questions for the industry as a whole. The RIAA are simply trying to hold back the tide and enforce the old business model. It seems self-evident that that's useless.

Chuck says that, as far as he's concerned, that's the only game in town. I can see his point of view, but I think he's wrong. I think small firms like his have probably got a lot more to contribute in terms of creativity than the majors; it was, after all, small entrepreneurs - Columbia's and Victor's original owners and a few others - who created this old business model in the first place - and it has been small firms that have, for the past seventy years, shown most of the creativity in the music business. And one of the reasons is that people like Chuck know the business at gut level, which the suits don't.

MG

[AllenLowe]

for the record, dumpymama - Sonny Williams was quite thin -

[Aggie87]

As for the numbers (7x), I have a hard time believing that those are "realistic" sales - that is, I'd bet that few of those who opt for the "free" downloads would have actually bought the CD.

Maybe not all of those particular individuals would have purchased the cd, but remember, that's only one particular website. How many others are also sharing this music, that haven't been uncovered yet?

Maybe none of them would purchase the cd, but does that give them the right to "take" the music anyway? I don't believe so.

[catesta]

i am not being clever

I think that is what he just said.