BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

The RIAA and why they are really going after people.

  
 
theory junkie
05:45 / 22.01.04
Ok I know that this totally a tired subject, and almost ridiculous to bring up here, but I want to hear other people's two cents on the subject.

The RIAA has acquired a new list as of today of approximately 400 or so ip addresses that are users of kazaa that have large mp3 collections on their computers. They are going to court to get the isp's to provide the names of the users in which those ip addresses are assigned.

Now I think it is a waste for them to do this, and an infringement of individual's rights, and harassment, and many other things, but they do have the right to protect their "intellectual property".

The thing that concerns me most though is what the real point to all this is. Under the guise of protecting the signed artist, and their creative rights, they are becomming the gestapo of the internet. And most importantly they are doing everything possible to supress people's free speech, when it is in the realm of music.

How are they supressing free speech you may ask. Well let me elaborate.

In a nutshell Record Companies sign artists to their label, in which they turn around and pay radio stations to play said artists' material. In which you go and buy said artist cd at store. Which in turn really leaves the Corporate Record Industry in control of whose music you get exposed to. The only way you could get any distribution of music before the internet was to attempt to start an independent label, I cannot count how many good independent labels I have seen fall due to lack of funds.

The independent labels cannot compete with the larger companies for the obvious reasons. No money, no radio air time, no cd sales to support label's existance, etc. etc.

Sites like emusic.com, mp3.com and some others allowed independent labels in the case of emusic and independent artists in the case of mp3.com to post their music. These sites had thousands of visitors daily browse through music categories and discover decent music without the assistance of radio and the RIAA.

This is what they are really worried about. They are not worried about Metallica getting screwed out of a few dollars. They are really concerned about an artist gaining an audience of significant following without their assistance. This is so obvious with their latest attacks on Internet Radio, and child corporations buying emusic.com and whatever went on behind the scenes with cnet buying mp3.com.

The fear that I have in all this, is that now mediums in which large groups of independent artists had any shot of individuals listening to their music is being removed from under their feet under their guise of copyright protection. Seriously how much music have you as an individual discovered due to community based websites and peer to peer sharing that you would not have before.

The thing that sucks now is before when I discovered a new band, or a new artist I would buy it, I know that there others who would not have, but I did. Reasoning is that many times I would not get a decent quality download and many people encode in 128k which is not CD quality, so I would buy the CD. But now, if I discover a new band, and they are produced by a major label, I will not buy them. Just b/c the label they are signed by is attempting to destroy the independent artist. This is the biggest assault on them ever.

This is not a war on the music pirate it is a war on artists trying to be heard without permission from Big Brother Music.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
11:06 / 22.01.04
Ever heard of independent radio?
 
 
Tom Coates
13:46 / 23.01.04
I think this is too good a post to languish in the enseam'd conversational pit and that it would be a worthy contender for a really interesting thread in both Music and/or the Laboratory. Any suggestions?
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
14:47 / 23.01.04
Let's give it to the Laboratory, Tom.
 
 
theory junkie
17:50 / 23.01.04
Of course I have heard of independant Radio. Independant Radio though only seems to work well in larger markets. There are some independant Radio stations but many of these get purchased by companies like Clear Channel, nothing clear about it, and don't seem to get much traction. So as your rebut to what I said, independant radio, does not seem to be on topic, my question was more philosophical rather than a possible cure for the problem. If you had read the entire thread you would have seen that the question was more based on the RIAA's truest intention is to stifel the independant artist, and people's free right to distribute the manner of speech, whether it be art, music, conversation whatever. That is really what the question was asking. What do people on the list think about the fact that if you create music and want to distribute it publicly that the RIAA is doing everything they can to take that medium away. And still with independant radio it is up to some program director to judge whether your music is good enough to be played, at least with mp3.com anyone could post their music in a form, regardless of who liked and who didn't it was completely unbiased to anyone's opinion but the listener.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
18:18 / 23.01.04
Am I alone in feeling that reading that opening post was sort of like grading a freshman's term paper at Fight Club University?

Theory Junkie, I get the sense that you may be unaware that there's been independent labels dealing with more or less the same problems for ages now, and that having difficulty with distribution and getting records heard or broadcast on mainstream channels is hardly a new development. Small labels went broke and got fucked over for decades before the internet came along. I think you're overstating your case.

Things like MP3.com, etc don't really mean much - I can't think of any labels or critics who ever took the artists on that site very seriously. I don't think anyone is really losing anything other than a place to host their mp3s with the demise of those sites. If an artist is even marginally savvy, they'll know how to distribute their music online via p2p and their own websites on their own. For active, curious listeners, p2p (and I don't mean kazaa, that's lame. I'm talking about things like soulseek), online communities, and blogs can carry the unsigned and obscure a long way. The RIAA can hunt down the biggest p2ps forever, and it's not going to go away. Only an idiot would use Kazaa at this point, and they get what they deserve, frankly. The RIAA is just trying to scare people into doing what they want, because the situation is so far out of their control.

Internet radio has gotten its fair share of kicks to the groin lately, but that hasn't stopped WFMU and several other stations from broadcasting. It's not going away, man. There's reason for concern, but no cause for panic. Settle down, buddy. It's not some kind of apocalyptic war; it's just an industry going through some awkward changes.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:59 / 23.01.04
In a nutshell Record Companies sign artists to their label, in which they turn around and pay radio stations to play said artists' material

Hmmm, okay. Cynicism hat, yes, of course the really big players have an 'understanding' with reatilers and radio, slightly more duntle than what you suggest, but your post seems to imply that this is the business model.

It isn't.

Can you clarify before we progress?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
19:01 / 23.01.04
Duntle? WTF is duntle? Babies at the keyboard, I'm afraid.

I mean 'subtle', of course...
 
 
Cheap. Easy. Cruel.
19:31 / 23.01.04
Should one want to boycott RIAA labels, a quick easy method is to go here. Merely type the artist, album, or label name in and off you go. The ensueing page(s) will tell you whether they are RIAA protected songs.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
19:56 / 23.01.04
Yeah, hurt the RIAA more and see how much more desperate they get. I'm afraid that will only make matters worse in a lot of ways.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
20:09 / 23.01.04
So as your rebut to what I said, independant radio, does not seem to be on topic, my question was more philosophical rather than a possible cure for the problem. If you had read the entire thread you would have seen that the question was more based on the RIAA's truest intention is to stifel the independant artist, and people's free right to distribute the manner of speech, whether it be art, music, conversation whatever. That is really what the question was asking

And if you'd actually thought about my response instead of figuring that I's not bothered reading your post, you might have realised that I wasn't suggesting independent radio as a solution to any current problem, but making the point that small, unsigned groups have *always* got exposure through, yep, independent radio, and that's not something that the RIAA are going to stop - even if they want to - by clamping down on people breaking copyright law through file sharing. But don't let that get in the way of your persecution complex.

If, as you're claiming, they want to wipe out the independent artists and labels, then what measures are they taking to prevent said artists and labels from distributing their own music through personal web space?

Are any of the prosecutions they're bringing against users who've limited themselves to downloading tracks by independent artists who've agreed to their music being distributed in this manner? Did emusic.com and the others limit the files available to those where the artists/labels had agreed to them being freely distributed through those sites? 'Cause if that's the case then you may be on to something.

By the way, how did independent artists/labels manage to get exposure before the advent of file sharing? What were the RIAA doing to stop it then? Or have they only just recently hit upon this idea of killing small labels in the itnerests of the majors?

And, finally, why is music considered free game by the 'but art shouldn't be something we pay for, maaaan; it should be free so that all humanity can benefit from it' crowd when the same argument isn't made for the pirating of films, literature, videogames, etc?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
21:08 / 23.01.04
Sorry, but I just can't leave it.

And most importantly they are doing everything possible to supress people's free speech, when it is in the realm of music.

Whose free speech? If you're refering to artists, then - again - this is only going to apply to those who've okayed free distribution of their music. If you're refering to downloaders, then I'm afraid you've not quite got the hang of exactly what free speech is.

The thing that concerns me most though is what the real point to all this is.

Financial concerns, possibly? Control of technology? Control of copyright? All sound far more plausible than suggesting that they're actually attempting to destroy the industry that supports them by strangling possible big-selling artists at borth, no?

Now I think it is a waste for them to do this, and an infringement of individual's rights,

What rights are they infringing, precisely?

and harassment, and many other things, but they do have the right to protect their "intellectual property".

And I can only presume from this that you don't believe in the principle of intellectual property. How very convenient.
 
 
Cloned Christ on a HoverDonkey
21:55 / 23.01.04
Theory Junkie does have a point, though.

The RIAA seems to be supressing new technologies rather than embracing them, due to what seems to be a total lack of finding a viable business model based around the internet.

They were just as reactive when tape-to-tape cassette decks first surfaced.

My argument is that they intrinsically want all forms of internet distribution to fail, and here's my reason:

The RIAA isn't a record label, it isn't an artist, it isn't a CD shop - what it is is a body representing the organisations that distribute CDs, cassettes, MDs, etc..

For the first time in history, there's now a channel via which anybody can release their music, without having to pay for distibution costs, and without having to sign up to the RIAA. This method is the internet, which has just created a cheap, simple, widely available method of music distribution that doesn't rely upon any central body. If all artists decided to distribute their music via the internet, then the RIAA would no longer have any reason to exist.

This is what is scaring the RIAA - it's not a free-speech matter, it's the RIAA seeing the means of their downfall and trying their damndest to prevent it.

Having said that, I'm an entusiastic downloader of music and must download 5 or 6 full albums per week. Does this mean I'm robbing the music industry of 80 to 90 pounds per week? No, purely because I can't afford that kind of expenditure, and neither can most downloaders. What this capability does is allow me, via the online communities, to preview and appraise artists that I may never have even heard of otherwise.

I currently buy approximately 4 or 5 CDs per month, which is probably 4 or 5 more than I would have done had I not heard of and dowloaded material by artists via P2P networks. This is supported by the FACT that CD sales in the UK actually rose by approx. 8% last year.

This is because of, not despite, the rise in P2P file sharing, in my opinion; everyone would rather own the original CD as opposed to an MP3 rip. Legal download systems would be more popular if there were no DRM (Digital Rights Management - prevents people buring tracxks to CD or playing tracks on portable MP3 players) and if customers weren't automatically assumed to be criminals. You wouldn't buy a CD if it could only be played on a single CD player, would you?

The RIAA need to embrace new technologies, build new business models, reduce the controls on their products and basically trust their buying public.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:49 / 23.01.04
I agree entirely that the way they're going about this is fucked up to high heaven. Anyone can see that this sort of distribution isn't something that's going to go away and that bringing prosecutions and shutting down websites isn't going to make it drop off in any significant way - if anything, it'll simply increase the determination of those using file sharing to carry on doing so. It's simply feeding into the whole David/Goliath image.

And yeah, what should be happening is that serious thought and money should be being invested into finding a way of using the technology to everyone's advantage. Again, agreed.

I'm not convinced that one year's rise in CD sales indicates anything other than the fact that CD sales rose - to suggest that it's because people were downloading the music in order to sample before buying is pure supposition. If anyone's got access to material that supports this argument - and it's one that keeps on getting repeated, so I'd imagine there must be some somewhere - then I'll happily concede that point.
 
 
w1rebaby
12:14 / 24.01.04
I don't feel that the fact that people can still have their own websites with music on indicates that the RIAA are not motivated by the desire to retain control over music publicity and distribution. Not that I necessarily agree with that theory, but it's an interesting one.

Firstly, quite clearly, the RIAA can't directly shut down independent websites, though they could encourage an atmosphere in which any transfer of music files except via an Approved Online Shop is viewed with suspicion. (File-sharers contribute to this image themselves of course.) The fact that they aren't trying doesn't mean they wouldn't like to.

Secondly, file-sharing is a vastly more convenient method of distribution than having a website. You don't need a server - well, your own computer for a bit, but after a while the downloads aren't even coming from that anyway. You can publicise the music by means of board posts, emails, free (lower-bandwidth) sites. People who've just heard your name can get your music easily and quickly regardless of technical expertise.

It's not a very effective publicity method since you generally have to know what you want - net radio is much better for those purposes, and it's not like that isn't under threat from corporate interests - but it does very effectively fill the gap between "those guys sound interesting" and "I'm buying that album" that is "what do they sound like then?" That gap has to be filled before a musician can get popular. Radio doesn't fill it. Indie radio stations don't do the job, unless you are lucky enough to live in an area that has a good station that plays music you're interested in, and corporate radio won't fill it because it is designed to be a publicity tool for major labels, and in any case has a different demographic that is often not really interested in hearing new music.
 
 
theory junkie
12:26 / 24.01.04
First off I would like to clarify that I do believe in the concept of intellectual property. I think my statement regarding the individuals right to protect copyrighted materials. Now that I have stated that my main point was stated by Steve regarding the fact that the RIAA is attempting to stifle any medium that an artist might utilize without the RIAA distribution's channel. Regarding your point about personal web space promoted by the band, there are artists attempting to do that but they do not gain the popularity or the notariety that a large communal site provides. Also again with what Steve had stated and from my original post, I have purchased many more CD's from artists that I never would have discovered if it was not for p2p and other mediums. As far as my statement on infringement of rights, that might have been overstating my point, but they are definitely trying to make it difficult for a band to be noticed by the public.
 
 
magnetbox
14:56 / 26.01.04
As I have seen it put eloquently elsewhere: DRM is not designed with the ultimate intention of keeping audio and video and text files out of the hands of pirates and bootleggers. It's designed with the sole intention of serializing content to owners and eliminating the legitimate business model of asset re-marketing.
 
 
grant
21:07 / 26.01.04
I'm not sure independent radio could ever do for an unsigned artist what mp3.com could in, say, 1999 or 2000 -- when it was at its best.

Independent radio is always small and getting smaller. But the internet isn't... and it's being totally underutilized by the major commercial outlets, so far.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:21 / 27.01.04
The major commercial outlets don't *understand* the net, IMO. They see it as a threat to copyright and that's it. Their attempts to offer online music services have been generally pathetic and insistent on not only maintaining their existing rights, but actually imposing *more* conditions.

I don't honestly think they will ever get it right.
 
 
theory junkie
06:19 / 27.01.04
I agree with fridge and grant. I do believe that the RIAA will never be able to properly use the net, b/c there are to many factors they cannot control. Therefore they will never be able to implement a marketing scheme that they will be able to maintain complete control over like they can with broadcast radio and music stores. Since they cannot maintain complete control over it they will not use it, and will try to stop any operation that might be able to. Internet Radio that pays no attention to the RIAA and other associated organizations is already seeing the wrath of music industry, and I believe they will soon go after community based music sites with artists posting their music.
 
  
Add Your Reply