# Sony and the RIAA **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 25, 2007, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497 "2007-05-25T16:30:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/61 "2007-05-27T17:44:18Z")
I have to say, though, I’m really really hoping that the next time I go to a restaurant, the waitress sidles up to me and whispers, “I used to be Joan Baez! Help me!” before being dragged out by sunglass-wearing, walkie-talkie-toting RIAA goons. That would be brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![ForumBot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@ForumBot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumBot)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/62 "2007-05-27T17:46:26Z")
Here I was, all prepared to debate you and go point-counter point with facts and statistics, and you went and did my job for me. [QUOTE=1010011010] Should’ve read better, then. Shucks. [/QUOTE] Pretty much. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/63 "2007-05-27T18:03:33Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] **Tuckerfan** , much as it’s hard to disagree with the word of some unnamed “A&R guy”, I still find it hard to believe that this supposed 80% volitionally signed contracts that left them bereft of both money and copyright, unless the curse of drug use amongst aspirational musicians is akin to a nose-fight between Keith Richards and Pete Doherty. If record deals are so manifestly unfair, why on earth does every band still seem to want one, in this day and age when the barrier to publishing is lower than it’s ever been before? [/QUOTE] Well, I imagine most people don’t think that they’ll be one of the ones to get screwed. They figure they’ll be raking it in in no time. After all, the major labels have all these connections and do these insanely expensive launch parties and they promise to promote their tunes in the TV shows and movies they produce, the indie labels don’t offer any of that. As for the unnamed “A&R guy” I mentioned, I believe it was Scott Bourne who said it, but whomever it is, he’s a regular on Leo Laporte’s [MacBreak Weekly](http://www.twit.tv/mbw) podcast. I know that Don Henley and other artists have testified before Congress that the labels have some rather “creative” accounting practices. Nor is it limited the music industry. _Harper’s_ magazine did a breakdown on the Hollywood system, and how, even though _Coming to America_ made the studio boatloads of money, Art Buchwald was unlikely to see any that was owed to him. The book publishing industry is also replete with such tales of authors getting screwed over, as is the TV industry. The creators of Superman got diddly because of the bad contract that they signed. [Here’s](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1081295) an NPR story about the band [Marillion](http://www.marillion.com/press/index.htm), who, despite having a number of hit records in the UK, found themselves shafted by their record label, and so turned to their fans via the internet to raise money to record. All of this is slowly changing with the rise of the internet and related technologies, but it will be some time before a fairer system comes about. ---
**Author:** ![interface2x](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c0e974/32.png) [@interface2x](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/interface2x)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/64 "2007-05-27T18:35:46Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] If record deals are so manifestly unfair, why on earth does every band still seem to want one, in this day and age when the barrier to publishing is lower than it’s ever been before? [/QUOTE] Frankly, because so many bands either are that desperate to get their music out there or just ignorantly see dollar signs and nothing else. As much as I hate to cite Courtney Love, she described it pretty well [here](http://cdbaby.net/courtney). Steve Albini also describes how things sometimes work [here](http://www.negativland.com/albini.html). ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/65 "2007-05-27T18:59:39Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] [Here’s](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1081295) an NPR story about the band [Marillion](http://www.marillion.com/press/index.htm), who, despite having a number of hit records in the UK, found themselves shafted by their record label, and so turned to their fans via the internet to raise money to record. [/QUOTE] According to that NPR story, they tried out the fans thing when their contract was up for renewal. They’d been unable to get their labels to shell out much money for promotion because their albums weren’t selling very well (except to hardcore fans, who don’t need to be advertised to), and this should really surprise no-one, because Marillion are shit. So what we have here is a dinosauric dadrock group unhappy because they’re not being treated like kings of the world any more. A searing indictment of the rapacious recording industry, it is not. I’m sure there are bands that have signed bad contracts; people in all walks of life end up in business arrangements that they find unsuitable. But artists can read just like the rest of us, they can try and renegotiate deals like the rest of us, and they can even make [bizarre contractual obligation albums](http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2005/09/van_morrisons_c.html), a ruse not open to us mere mortals. I completely fail to see why musicians should be considered uniquely open to exploitation, and I further cannot even begin to imagine how rampant copyright infringement is supposed to fix this non-problem. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/66 "2007-05-27T19:12:43Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] According to that NPR story, they tried out the fans thing when their contract was up for renewal. They’d been unable to get their labels to shell out much money for promotion because their albums weren’t selling very well (except to hardcore fans, who don’t need to be advertised to), and this should really surprise no-one, because Marillion are shit. So what we have here is a dinosauric dadrock group unhappy because they’re not being treated like kings of the world any more. A searing indictment of the rapacious recording industry, it is not. [/quote] Hmm. I don’t think that I claimed it was a searing indictement of the music industry. > [@](#): > > I’m sure there are bands that have signed bad contracts; people in all walks of life end up in business arrangements that they find unsuitable. But artists can read just like the rest of us, And how many of us are lawyers? How many artists are lawyers? What do you do if your agent negotiates away certain rights, and even if you manag to get the rights back, the damage is already be done? (Like the poor schmuck in TWOK who’s agent traded his screencredit for higher pay.) > [@](#): > > they can try and renegotiate deals like the rest of us, There is no ‘try.’ There is only ‘do’ or ‘do not.’ Yoda > [@](#): > > and they can even make [bizarre contractual obligation albums](http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2005/09/van_morrisons_c.html), a ruse not open to us mere mortals. And one that I would suspect is no longer open to artists as well as AFAIK, **no one** since Lou Reed, has cranked out an album of just sheer noise and said, “Release _that_! You bastards!” The closest we’ve come to that is when Prince ditched his name. > [@](#): > > I completely fail to see why musicians should be considered uniquely open to exploitation, and I further cannot even begin to imagine how rampant copyright infringement is supposed to fix this non-problem. I don’t recall making either of those claims, either. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/67 "2007-05-27T20:57:12Z")
[QUOTE=1010011010] We grant copyright to promote the progress of the sciences and useful arts. If the artists getting paid and not ripped off serves that purpose, that’s nice. [/quote] No matter how much you repeat this doesn’t make it true I’m afraid. Copyright is to make sure that people get paid for their intellectual works as opposed to material works. Preventing them from being ripped off is the sole reason they continue to make new works so it’s not a ‘nice’ bonus it’s absolutely essential to keep them producing their works. Societies’ benefit is the ‘nice’ secondary effect but not the sole reason for copyright. > [@](#): > > Laugh all you want as “social contracts”, but what happens when the artists are getting ripped off by the rights holders? What happens if the rights holders are impeding progress and productivity? The copyrights should be revoked or transferred back to the artists. The artist agreed to sell their rights for whatever reason they thought it was a good deal at the time. If they change their mind or decide they were ripped off later that’s their problem. I fail to see how people then violating the new rights holders copyright somehow transfers it back to the original holder. I find that argument either a total non-sequitur or simply self serving pap. > [@](#): > > You have the money, you’d love to give Clay a few dollars for bringing so much joy into your life. But no one is selling what you want to buy. There are people _giving it away for free_ but what’s being sold is either just as illegitimate as the free stuff or is of lower quality than the free offerings. Well there is someone selling what you want to buy or you’d be unaware of who Clay was just because you don’t want to buy what they’re offering at their price tough shit. Mail him a ‘few dollars’ if that’s your thing but you can’t get his song without paying the price. There’s nothing illegitimate about selling goods and services for the price they want to set. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/68 "2007-05-27T21:07:15Z")
[QUOTE=Darkhold] Well there is someone selling what you want to buy or you’d be unaware of who Clay was just because you don’t want to buy what they’re offering at their price tough shit. Mail him a ‘few dollars’ if that’s your thing but you can’t get his song without paying the price. There’s nothing illegitimate about selling goods and services for the price they want to set. [/QUOTE] [Trent Renzor](http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21739017-5006024,00.html) [seems disagree.](http://www.nin.com/tr/default.aspx) > [@](#): > > - The ABSURD retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia. Shame on you, UMG. Year Zero is selling for $34.99 Australian dollars ($29.10 US). No wonder people steal music. Avril Lavigne’s record in the same store was $21.99 ($18.21 US). > By the way, when I asked a label rep about this his response was: “It’s because we know you have a real core audience that will pay whatever it costs when you put something out - you know, true fans. It’s the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy.” > So… I guess as a reward for being a “true fan” you get ripped off. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/69 "2007-05-27T21:39:08Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] [Trent Renzor](http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21739017-5006024,00.html) [seems disagree.](http://www.nin.com/tr/default.aspx) [/QUOTE] Good for him. Maybe he should look into different ways to sell his music in the future when his contract is fulfilled. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2007, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/70 "2007-05-27T23:00:11Z")
[QUOTE=Darkhold] No matter how much you repeat this doesn’t make it true I’m afraid. [/QUOTE] **Section 8** “[Congress shall have the power to] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” That power is realized in the form of copyright, patent, and trademark protections. Making sure inventors and creators and artists can profit by their inventions, creations, and art is a particularly effective and “hands-off” approach to promoting the progress of science and useful arts. However, when it becomes apparent that copyright is “to make sure that people get paid” at the expense of the progress of science and useful arts, copyright becomes illegitimate and without authority… especially if the “people” are incorporated legal persons. It much the same as when people exclaim “There’s no sporting purpose for a $scary\_gun! What possible reason could anyone give for allowing civilians to own such a weapon?” My habitual reply: “The security of a free state.” It’s repeated because it bears repeating. People have forgotten the bases of the law and are arguing from perception informed by a corrupted derivative rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/71 "2007-05-28T01:10:46Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] I don’t recall making either of those claims, either. [/QUOTE] Well fine, but this was a discussion about whether the music industry is so inherently exploitative that people should feel free to download whatever music they want for free instead of paying for it. If your sole point is that some musicians are stupid enough to sign contracts that aren’t in their best interests, then sure; consider that point conceded. I don’t see what relevance this has, though; there are idiots who’ll sign stupid shit in any industry, and I don’t see that intellectual property law requires massive reform just because some morons are willing to sign their rights away to some twat in a shiny suit with flash business cards. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see what words say; and if multisyllabic ones outfox you, you can always hire an _actual_ lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/72 "2007-05-28T01:40:06Z")
[QUOTE=Dead Badger] Well fine, but this was a discussion about whether the music industry is so inherently exploitative that people should feel free to download whatever music they want for free instead of paying for it. [/quote] Uh, no. This is a thread about how a Doper has decided that he’s no longer going to buy Sony products because of how they treated his daughter. AFAIK, the OP hasn’t downloaded music illegally, and I’ve not made the claim that one should download music illegally because they don’t like how artists are paid. I **have** stated that I will not buy Sony products because I don’t like the fact that they put spyware on their products. I have made **no** mention if I download music illegally or not (which would be against board rules if I were to do so). > [@](#): > > If your sole point is that some musicians are stupid enough to sign contracts that aren’t in their best interests, then sure; consider that point conceded. I don’t see what relevance this has, though; there are idiots who’ll sign stupid shit in any industry, and I don’t see that intellectual property law requires massive reform just because some morons are willing to sign their rights away to some twat in a shiny suit with flash business cards. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see what words say; and if multisyllabic ones outfox you, you can always hire an _actual_ lawyer. Nor did I say that I think copyright law needs to be reformed because of how labels treat artists. I **do** believe that the laws should be reformed, because things like the DMCA make it illegal for me to make back up copies of things that I legally purchased. Nor do I like the fact that someone _other_ than the creator of a work who holds the rights to the work, can sit on it and refuse to allow it to be released, regardless of what the artist may wish. Finally, your admonition that people should hire a lawyer isn’t exactly a solution. While folks _should_ hire a lawyer to review a contract, the lawyer may be only able to tell you that if you sign the contract, you’re going to get screwed. He may _not_ be able to get you a better deal, and if you need cash _now_, you may have little choice but to sign it. Nor can a lawyer guarantee that the label won’t screw you on the royalty payments you’re owed. All he can do is sue the label on your behalf, and given that the label’s got more money than you do, they can afford to wear you down, until you have to drop the suit because you can no longer afford to pursue it. [Creative Commons](http://creativecommons.org/) offers a sensible, IMHO, alternative to current copyright law. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/73 "2007-05-28T01:41:02Z")
Just for shits and giggles I dusted off my (heh) Sony cassette deck and recorded some songs off the radio. I hope they don’t come after me!!! ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/74 "2007-05-28T01:46:09Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] Just for shits and giggles I dusted off my (heh) Sony cassette deck and recorded some songs off the radio. I hope they don’t come after me!!! [/QUOTE] Oooohhh, **duffer**! You’re such a _rebel_! Robin ---
**Author:** ![ForumBot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ee59a6/32.png) [@ForumBot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ForumBot)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/75 "2007-05-28T01:47:59Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] and if you need cash _now_, you may have little choice but to sign it. [/quote] Or work at Denny’s. You know. Either/or. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/76 "2007-05-28T01:53:53Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] Just for shits and giggles I dusted off my (heh) Sony cassette deck and recorded some songs off the radio. I hope they don’t come after me!!! [/QUOTE] Now, I’m picturing **duffer** fleeing his house in a panic a la Dr. Johnny Fever in the Radio Station Bomber episode of _WKRP_. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/77 "2007-05-28T02:01:49Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Now, I’m picturing **duffer** fleeing his house in a panic a la Dr. Johnny Fever in the Radio Station Bomber episode of _WKRP_. [/QUOTE] That episode hadn’t even occured to me until about 8 nonaseconds after I read it. Beer all over the place fucker. I hate cleaning up. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/78 "2007-05-28T02:25:26Z")
[QUOTE=duffer] That episode hadn’t even occured to me until about 8 nonaseconds after I read it. Beer all over the place fucker. I hate cleaning up. 😃 [/QUOTE] Heh. I know that the Thanksgiving Day episode is ranked one of the highest in TV, but the bomber ep is my favorite. Howard Hessman was _perfect_ as a burned out druggie. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/79 "2007-05-28T12:05:00Z")
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan] Uh, no. This is a thread about how a Doper has decided that he’s no longer going to buy Sony products because of how they treated his daughter… [/QUOTE] …which then got onto the usual series of specious arguments about whether filesharing is morally acceptable (the OP even likened it to obtaining medicine for a child), and one of the usual tired arguments trotted out was that artists as a group are being exploited by their labels. Which is the point at which I got involved, and then you started addressing me, so I guess I made the silly mistake of assuming that you were actually talking about the same things I was. Mea culpa. > [@](#): > > Finally, your admonition that people should hire a lawyer isn’t exactly a solution. While folks should hire a lawyer to review a contract, the lawyer may be only able to tell you that if you sign the contract, you’re going to get screwed. So don’t sign it. You don’t have a God-given right to a recording contract, you know. If you only get offered shit contracts, maybe your band is shit and you really _should_ go back to waiting tables. If you’re good enough, you should be able to negotiate a fair deal, because at the end of the day the public want good music (and some crap music), and the labels want to sell it to them. Of course getting a lawyer isn’t some magical panacea that will ensure you’re offered Bentleys and blowjobs per diem; all it will do is help you know what you’re signing. That’s all you need, and it’s all you can expect. If you don’t have the balls to say no to a bad offer, you’re going to get shafted no matter what line of work you’re in. Creative Commons is great, and should an artist choose to release their work under such a licence, I think that’s very nice. I think artists who want to retain control over their work should be able to do so, however. It is a complement, not a replacement, for copyright. ---
**Author:** ![dauerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c2a13f/32.png) [@dauerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dauerbach)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2007, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497/80 "2007-05-28T13:33:07Z")
Dead Badger. Sit down. Take a deep breath. LISTEN TO ME DAMN IT. I never likened downloading songs to stealing medicine for a sick child. I was trying to clearly demonstrate that legal = moral is hardly an absolute. If you don’t think it applies to downloading music that is fine, but I never tried to make the two analogous. They are completely, totally, different situations. And thank you Tuckerfan, for accurately recapitulating my OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sony-and-the-riaa/405497.md?page=5)