if im popping 12-18 dollars on a cd, for that cost I think there is an implied right to copy the music for ones own use, either onto computer, mp3 player, tape deck, whatever, I think that is in the grounds for fairs use. IF they are to actually institute this BS claim, they should reflect the loss of that right in the cost of their cds, and drop it to 5-8$ an album. Not that there is anyway to enforce it
What an eloquent and thoughtful response. I've forwarded this to the RIAA to see if it will convince them to reconsider.
People that know me are amazed that I still haven't gotten an ipod yet. I don't mind spending money in buying CDs. I look at it that I am doing it to support the artists I like.
What are they going to do in the future when you can access one cd through different players, miles away through your own home roaming wireless network etc.?
f*** the RIAA. Says the guy who settled out of court with them on a file-sharing lawsuit for $5000...
Yeah I'm serious. Happened about two years ago. I made a thread about it.. asking if anyone knew of anyone who could offer free legal advice. Me and my brother ended up splitting the cost, as we were sharing the computer. 5 grand, down the tubes.
The problem with the RIAA is that they are dying. There are only 4 majors left - soon to be 3. And, even they understand they are dying. Technologically, someone is going to have to get the rains of the downloading thing or popular music will disappear. You think the vast majority of artists are going to continue making music they aren't getting paid for? Think again. This doesn't mean downloading should or will disappear. It just means that it needs to be adjusted to take the burden off of the consumer and the loss away from the artist. I've seen lots of options out there that are coming every day. Eventually, someone will come up with a scheme that works for everyone.
I've seen lots of options out there that are coming every day. One option I have seen for established acts (like Journey and Prince) is that they give away their new CD at their concerts. The concert ticket price reflects this. This way the group "sells" hundred of thousands of their CDs, without having a major label in the deal. The group recoups their recording costs and then some. And the group doesn't have to do payola to get the music to their fans.
You're the musician, so you should know. But I have a question. Don't artists make most of their money off concerts and guest appearances and things? I heard from somewhere that they get like .05 cents for every cd they sell (hyperbole) and that most of the cd sales go to distributors and stuff like that. Isn't that why the RIAA is always fighting this and not the artists themselves? I mean, there's even times where the artists speak out against the RIAA.
I've heard that too, and I imagine it is partially true. Most musicians who are on with major labels don't see much of their cd sales revenue. But it is contract dependent I'm sure. The reason I don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading music is that I support the artists I download in other ways (merch, tickets, etc). Did any musician see a dime of the 5K I forked over to the RIAA for sharing their songs? Nope. The major record companies are more like giant PR firms than they are musicial entities.. they basically form a big media hype machine to take someone to culture god status..
Since I got an iPod recently (less than 3 months ago), I've spent more money on music through iTunes than I did the last couple of years buying CDs. I'm buying a lot of old stuff I have on LPs that has been remastered, and a lot of new stuff I haven't heard before, because our radio stations are so crappy that I can't put up with hearing garbage, with the good stuff scattered amongst it. (and this is in Austin!) In my case, the record companies and the artists are making money from me that they wouldn't have otherwise recieved. edit: and I've never downloaded music free from the net. I never felt comfortable doing it.
