the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide.

[Michael]

I got this blog off Digg.Its a long read but very good one.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

Whats everyone take on it?Mine is simple they could die and i would not care the lest.I think with the Internet(Which i think Saved Prog) Prog is stronger than it ever.These are the same people that tried to destroy Progressive rock and for that i have no sympathy for them at all.

[VAXman]

I got this blog off Digg.Its a long read but very good one.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

Whats everyone take on it?Mine is simple they could die and i would not care the lest.I think with the Internet(Which i think Saved Prog) Prog is stronger than it ever.These are the same people that tried to destroy Progressive rock and for that i have no sympathy for them at all.

An interesting read...even if the colors strain the eyes.

[Rick and Roll]

There's a lot in that article that I found as rehash. At least it was a decent read, although it sounded like an infomercial for this "oink" site.

[Michael]

Yea oink is gone shut down.I have never heard of it but Like he was saying shut it down and 4 more will pop up.I just like that its bleeding the big guys dry.:boxing:And oh yea there PR department are class acts.Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you...

[mailotron]

just bla bla bla

[dinosaur]

I don't care how you spin it, if you are making unauthorized copies of someone's copyrighted material, you're a thief. If an artist, or other copyright owner, were to give you consent to copy and disseminate, then okay. Otherwise, it's simply wrong to share/pirate/bootleg or whatever you call it. Digitally speaking, you either have permission, or you don't.

[Michael]

I don't care how you spin it, if you are making unauthorized copies of someone's copyrighted material, you're a thief. If an artist, or other copyright owner, were to give you consent to copy and disseminate, then okay. Otherwise, it's simply wrong to share/pirate/bootleg or whatever you call it. Digitally speaking, you either have permission, or you don't.
So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.

[VAXman]

So what your saying is if I have 700(which i do) albums and take them and put them to A Hard Drive Digitally thats wrong even if im not giving them to anyone?I also Own about 800 to 900(some are doubles of the Albums) Cd's which i riped to itunes for my use as well is that wrong?In my eyes i find that completely legal.I buy CD's all the time and rip them to Itunes.
I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

[dinosaur]

No, I'm not saying copies for personal use are unauthorized. Indeed, I also copy files from purchased CDs or vinyls for use in digital format (and before that it was cassette tapes, and, yikes! before that it was 8-track tapes for cruising with the tunes--turntables in the car just never worked very well).
VAX's info about 'fair use' is right on point.
In addition to copies of purchased music, I have downloaded copies of files not purchased, but certainly authorized by the artists, e.g., from the NEARfest website. I see these authorized downloads as their attempt to market their music. Sometimes I buy based on these samples, sometimes I don't. But I do not give any of these files to others or attempt to build any sort of commercial venture based on free sharing of others' work.

[Yesspaz]

I just read it and had an idea. I'm sure I'm not the first, and there's probably better out there, but here goes. The main point here, IMO, is that the labels really own only the means of distribution and the music itself. Once intellectual property is rightly realized to be the artists, all the label legitimately has left is distrobution.

The real trick is to figure out how to let the artist still get paid while controlling their own distro in an mp3 world. Using bit torrent technology and Oink's quality control restrictions, especially their encouragment of FLAC, why not have a torrent site that charges, say, $15, $30, or $50 packages (price = GB dowload allowance, or somesuch). The money is pooled by the online distributor. Once a song is on the site, it's free to trade for life. The artists get paid handsomely for that initial upload! The artist can produce and master themselves, or pay someone to do it, whatever, but the point is that when the artists literally control the music distro, there's no chance of it getting online before release. They release it online themselves to an Oink-like site and get paid for it.


Check out http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/romeria/music.htm

BTW, everyone should get involved with http://www.dimeadozen.org/
It's a free, legal, live bootleg sharing torrent site.

[Rick and Roll]

Am I the only person that doesn't own an ipod or share music downloads?

Sure I'll let a friend listen to a disc by reproducing it. Most of the time the person buys it. In any event it exposes the artist to more listeners. There's no commercial gain for me other than the satisfaction of someone else's pleasure. And again, the artist benefits.

I'm not sending a disc I bought to someone to hear through the mail.

To me this is the same as copying a song onto your ipod.

I don't have any moral stand for or against file sharing - I just don't have any time or interest in it. Isn't there enough music out there?

I'll tell you what pisses me off. Seeing Salem Hill's "Mimi's Magic Moment" on a pirate website BEFORE the release, at three dollars a song.

[Michael]

Really in a Nut shell after watching what has happened in the late 80's and to today.I watched as record Company's all but black balled Progressive rock"It don't make us money we want them to do what we say ect ect ect......"Now the tables are turned Bands really don't need them IMHO and that makes me feel Wonderful really.I make it a point to support My Dudes Flower Kings,Marillion,Spock's beard the list is long and my money has went to them fairly with fare royalty's.I prefer to pay the Band directly they did the work they should get the money not some scum bag POS record company that will fuck them in a second to get another Nickel.Like i said before the internet IMO saved Prog as we Know it and to me thats wonderful.

[Rick and Roll]

Really in a Nut shell after watching what has happened in the late 80's and to today.I watched as record Company's all but black balled Progressive rock"It don't make us money we want them to do what we say ect ect ect......"Now the tables are turned Bands really don't need them IMHO and that makes me feel Wonderful really.I make it a point to support My Dudes Flower Kings,Marillion,Spock's beard the list is long and my money has went to them fairly with fare royalty's.I prefer to pay the Band directly they did the work they should get the money not some scum bag POS record company that will fuck them in a second to get another Nickel.Like i said before the internet IMO saved Prog as we Know it and to me thats wonderful.

Please understand it applies to all music. Prog is still the same percentage of the total, it's just the total has changed.

Record companies don't blackball Prog specifically, they just want to make money. Whoever brings in the cash, doesn't matter.

I don't agree that the internet saved Prog.

[VAXman]

Am I the only person that doesn't own an ipod or share music downloads?
Well, some people want to spend more time listening to music than you do. Don't faulting them.



I'll tell you what pisses me off. Seeing Salem Hill's "Mimi's Magic Moment" on a pirate website BEFORE the release, at three dollars a song.
Why should that piss you off?

[Rick and Roll]

Well, some people want to spend more time listening to music than you do. Don't faulting them.



Why should that piss you off?

No I don't fault them. Not at all...just curious if I'm the only one...wasn't any intention of finding fault.

One of many reasons that it makes me mad (about the piracy) is that you have an band create output over a year or so's time, package it, get it ready, only to have someone steal it and profit from it. Why wouldn't that make me mad?

[VAXman]

Please understand it applies to all music. Prog is still the same percentage of the total, it's just the total has changed.
Got stats?



Record companies don't blackball Prog specifically, they just want to make money. Whoever brings in the cash, doesn't matter.
Record companies to not promote what sells. Record company sell what they promote. They force musical paradigm shifts like the clothing industry with fashion changes. Me, I'm perfectly content to wear my demin jeans and T-shirts like I did close to 40 years ago. The only change has been in the sizes.

I don't agree that the internet saved Prog.Saved? Probably not. It has become the greatest avenue to the exposure of myriad musical genres. The number of internet radio listeners dwarf the old AM/FM listener counts. XM and Sirius also show that the public is looking for alternatives. Sadly, both XM/Sirius have become what the general public was looking to get away from in the first place.

[Rick and Roll]

Got stats?



Record companies to not promote what sells. Record company sell what they promote. They force musical paradigm shifts like the clothing industry with fashion changes. Me, I'm perfectly content to wear my demin jeans and T-shirts like I did close to 40 years ago. The only change has been in the sizes.

Saved? Probably not. It has become the greatest avenue to the exposure of myriad musical genres. The number of internet radio listeners dwarf the old AM/FM listener counts. XM and Sirius also show that the public is looking for alternatives. Sadly, both XM/Sirius have become what the general public was looking to get away from in the first place.

Looks like we're saying the exact same thing. Isn't that interesting about XM/Sirius... it always happens.

Got stats? Got milk? All I'm saying here is that more exposure for all means the same increase. Just a simple weighted average that's all.

[VAXman]

Looks like we're saying the exact same thing. Isn't that interesting about XM/Sirius... it always happens.
XM started off on a good footing but it soon eroded under commercial pressures. The commercial rot was inevitable but I really thought that being a subscription service might have staved it off for longer than it did. Now both XM and Sirius want to merge. Once the competition is annihilated, there's even less incentive to be unique or provide unique programming.

[MrMagoo]

I believe this was answered (in the US) by SCOTUS in the Univeral Studios, et al. vs. Sony Corp. (now famous as the Betamax) case. It has been determined "fair use" (see 17USC § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) to make copies of copyrighted material for personal use.

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...

Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.

[VAXman]

It may have been covered, but the studios are continually trying to undo it. To whit, all the DRM (digital 'rights' management, right!) crap they're foisting on us. Limited number of copies, limited zones, limited types of media, limited time, software that rootkits your PC, software that disables your CD drive or crashes your system, software so stupid that holding down Shift during boot disables it, DRM that locks your music unless you use M$ or unless you have an iPod, etc ad nauseum. Not to mention suing 6 or 80 year olds that don't even own computers, suing researchers & security analysts who *might* infringe, winning awards of $9K/song, and ignoring sales increases due to file sharing...
First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

I'm not defending the RIAA in the 6 and 80 year olds being sued cases; however, these cases go beyond the 'fair use' doctrine of copying for self use consumption.



Fortunately the ground swell is moving against them, and their whole antiquated 'business model' may come tumbling down, despite their massive politician buy-offs.
Let's hope so. The RIAA, like the US governments, exists for its own benefit and not for those it purports to benefit.

[MrMagoo]

First, don't confuse the legal right to do so with the technological know-how to thwart it. I am also not a fan of all of the provisions of the DMCA!

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.

[VAXman]

Agreed, law & technology are separate, to some extent. However, given that I have been legally granted the right to copy music I've purchased for my own use, how come I can not buy from Apple without iTunes, copy to a non-iPod player, or copy to a CD without 'authorizing' my computer, unless I use some DRM circumvention? Or copy a DVD onto my computer without cracking it? etc...

These are all technological constraints upon my legal rights foisted on me by the RIAA/MPAA.
I can sum it up in 2 words: Slick Willie. First he approved PL 105-147 [H.R.2265] known as the No Electronic Theft Act in 1997 and then signed PL 105-304 [H.R.2281] known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in early 1998. These neo-socialists furtively undermine the US Constitution all the time! I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I? :eyes:

[MrMagoo]

I seem to recall that Slick Willie had a large number of music and hollywood types backing his campaign too! Hmm... I don't see any conflict of interests there now, do I? :eyes:

As opposed to oil companies & 'security' contractors? But that's a discussion for another website. :shootmeno

:deadhorse

[VAXman]

As opposed to oil companies & 'security' contractors? But that's a discussion for another website. :shootmeno

:deadhorse
They're fueling the RIAA too?

Seriously, if you're going to side with a political party, you fully deserve what you get.

Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.
-- Simon and Garfunkle (1967): Mrs. Robinson

[MrMagoo]

They're fueling the RIAA too?

Seriously, if you're going to side with a political party, you fully deserve what you get.

I side with whatever is closest to green first, then libertarian. :drdot:
And just to bring it back around, if they still used much vinyl, oil & music could be a cabal. :neener:

[VAXman]

I side with whatever is closest to green first, then libertarian. :drdot:{/quote]
They're both green.... with envy for power and the almighty dollar -- my dollar and yours.


[QUOTE=MrMagoo;28723]And just to bring it back around, if they still used much vinyl, oil & music could be a cabal. :neener:Ethylene and acetic acid with palladium catalyst yields vinyl acetate, the building block of poly-vinyl chloride. Ethylene can be derived from many substances. It's a fractional distillate by-product from cat-cracking of crude to make gasoline. However, it can be easily derived from natural gas or plant material. Still, the biggest oil consumer is the automobile driver. This level is nowhere near the LP listener's consumption levels. ;)

[dinosaur]

I have trouble understanding the Big Record Company Establishment vs. Artist argument. Do the artists not sign a contract transferring copyrights and distribution (read advertising) rights? Do they not wish to benefit from this? Become a big rock star?
My only point is this: If I were to write a book, or obtain a patent on a novel device of some kind, I would expect the laws of society to protect my intellectual property and my right to market (read profit) by it as I choose. If someone claims the right to copy my book and sell, or even give it away to a million people, it is infringing on my ability to make a living from my talents--whether I choose to get into bed with the RIAA or not.
From a simple logical standpoint, people don't have the right to choose to distribute my work and declare they're doing me a favor by giving me 'free advertising'. If I wished to advertise that way, I would make express statements to that effect.
In the case of books, people can purchase them, read them and pass them on to friends (or in my case to libraries). They don't have the right to make multiple copies and distribute them.

[Rick and Roll]

Dino,

I agree 100% with your first paragraph. Most artists want to sell and be known then decry the "establishment".

As for the second, what I'm trying to say is that if someone wants to hear something, I'll let them hear it. It's not for the distribution except for the person that hears it.

My kids and millions of people share files and trade music. I don't do that personally. But even musicians share their music amongst friends. If there was an enforceable law that says you can never reproduce a disc, then I'll gladly not. I have plenty of music. But let's get rid of these unauthorized net people who sell music illegally.

[dinosaur]

Rick,
I think you and I agree totally. The book example, i.e., passing a book on to friends and relatives, is the same as sharing music with a small group. My family is always sharing books they've read. Last year I gave more than fifty books to my school's library with the idea that many others will have a chance to read them.
It's true that single copy of a book could be read by dozens of individuals--with only the one initial sale, and only the single royalty check going to the author. But it is clearly a different ball game when thousands or millions have immediate access to digital and near perfect copies.

[Michael]

EMI seems to like file sharing :dunno:

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/30/fripp-lays-music-industry-rip

[VAXman]

I have trouble understanding the Big Record Company Establishment vs. Artist argument. Do the artists not sign a contract transferring copyrights and distribution (read advertising) rights? Do they not wish to benefit from this? Become a big rock star?

Those with the money tend to write very lopsided contracts. In this case, the record companies tend to reap far greater rewards from the efforts of the artists they sign and these artists are not fairly compensated. Legal as the contact may be, they are seldom drawn up to the benefit of the artist. Look at any typical employment agreement penned by the employer. Where is your fair say in the deal?


My only point is this: If I were to write a book, or obtain a patent on a novel device of some kind, I would expect the laws of society to protect my intellectual property and my right to market (read profit) by it as I choose.

First, there is a HUGE difference between copyright and patent! And there are substantive laws governing each. Copyright USC title 18; Patent: USC Title 35. However, you can sign your rights to either away even though you may have created the copyrighted work or patented the idea.

If someone claims the right to copy my book and sell, or even give it away to a million people, it is infringing on my ability to make a living from my talents--whether I choose to get into bed with the RIAA or not.
You are absolutely correct; however, I doubt that you have your own remunerated 'goon squad' of enforcers to see to it that your rights and money are not unfettered by some infringer.


From a simple logical standpoint, people don't have the right to choose to distribute my work and declare they're doing me a favor by giving me 'free advertising'. If I wished to advertise that way, I would make express statements to that effect.
In the case of books, people can purchase them, read them and pass them on to friends (or in my case to libraries). They don't have the right to make multiple copies and distribute them.
Not only logical; it's the law.

When you buy a book or a recording, you do not own the 'art' or the 'idea' in the work. You are purchasing a 'license' to use it. Fair use... I can go to the town library and check out a book. As a resident, I don't pay for a library card. I can take out a book free of charge for a period of time and read it. That is perfectly legal fair use. I cannot copy it (it would probably be cheaper to buy the book anyway) nor can I sell that copy. Doing so would deprive the copyright holder of money -- the money I gained by selling the copy. That money is rightfully a profit for the copyright holder.