Replies

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

I don't use these peer-to-peer services, but IMHO it's just desserts for an industry in dire need of being destroyed.

_{_{flame away}}

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

Isn't that a matter for the artists and the labels to sort out between themselves? Nobody holds a gun to the artist's heads to make them sign with record labels. Seems to me that most of the screwing going on between artists and labels is consensual in nature.

There are certainly valid arguments to be made for whichever side of this controversy you find yourself. Record labels have indeed screwed artists, and RIAA comes off as a bunch of church lady blowhards who are trying to line their pockets at the expense of the truly talented. However, I just can't help thinking that music pirates who justify their theft of other people's property by citing the misdeeds of others don't have much of a moral high ground to stand on.

(And no, I'm not insinuating in any way that you are a music pirate. Its the ones who admit they do it but don't have any moral problem with stealing other people's work who bug me).

Record companies, not too far from now, will probably mutate into mere PR agencies, as they will offer no production or distribution services to an artist beyond what he can do in his own living room. That's just the way of things, and probably good.

But once that happens, and it will, the arguments surrounding piracy will be stripped entirely of all "social justice" fig leaves. I'll wait to see if "ripping off record companies that only screw artists" becomes "ripping off stupid rock stars who shouldn't be that rich anyway."

Knowing what moral contortions folks assume to get free stuff (how many Liberals are there in the world?), I've got my suspicions.

Here is something that has always "bugged" me...
Now, this is for my own personal use, not for any profit or commercial enterprise. I purchased some recorded music. The price I paid covered included "royalties" for the artists. A few years go by and the media-de-jour changes, so I re-purchase the same recorded music, and again I pay royalties. In some cases I have done this 3 times when going from vinyl to tape to CD. How is it the artist is entitled to new royalties every time the media changes? I am just an individual, I can only play and listen to one recording at a time. Every time that technology advances and the recording media is changed, it seems like the same artists are getting re-paid for the same work, over and over and over again. This just bugs me for some reason.

(and this is from a guy who still maintains a working 8 track player; several working automatic turntables; hundreds of vinyl albums; and thousands of 45's)

I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists.

I guess auto workers who steal SUV's off the assembley line are justified, since the product is prohibitively expensive and it "screws" all the suppliers who don't get a big slice of the profits.

"I guess the RIAA objects to piracy when they're getting screwed, but not when the labels are screwing the artists."

The RIAA does not govern how labels treat their artists. Their aim is to protect the interests of both artist and label. Neither label nor artist gain their due when piracy is rampant.

No flames here - every artist should create their own website and let fans download sample copies of their music free in the hopes that these fans will purchase their music for about $2 per song.

Also artists should do what Metallica did in the early 80s - they went straight to their audience by playing live.

RIAA can go screw themselves. CDs cost less than 50 cents to produce and then they try to sell them for damn near $20 when there's only one or two good songs on them. Bastards.