The RIAA should copulate with themselves

The BBQ Pit
1

Why is RIAA bitching? CD sales have gone up, and studies show that they have Napster and MP3 to thank. People are not going to shell out $18 for a CD anymore, record producer-parasites; that why sales are going down in the rip-off college record stores.

I submit that Napster is the reason for this upsurge. Napster allows us to sample music before we buy. In fact, Napster and MP3 are doing great service to the music industry, without asking for a cent in return. And this is how the RIAA treats them? The two should sue the record companies for uncompensated advertisement. And worse yet, the RIAA put artists in the middle by talking them into suing the two, risking a huge backlash from the artists’ fans.

Remember this is the same group who lists platinum albums bassed on how many were shipped, rather than actually sold. To the RIAA, Eminem and Kid Rock says it best, “Fuck off!!”

2

RIAA… the Really Irritating Argumentative Assholes? Doesn’t that describe the Pit folk?

I’m sorry, I honestly don’t know what that stands for; however, I don’t care. If I like an album or CD or tape or whatever, I’ll buy it. At 18$? No, I wouldn’t pay that much for sex let alone an album or CD or tape that only lasts for 30 minutes.

Frankly, I’m really not sure what you are so damn angry about. Sure, there are probably a hundred lurkers who know exactly what you are talking about but they are to chickenshit to post and I have no problem saying, “Fuck me nine ways to holy Sunday but I don’t get it.”

Explain further. Thanks!

3

Cap, the labels want to be able to squeeze you until you turn purple. Napster circumvents that by making tracks available free, which bands claim is copyright infringement. Legally, the bands are right, but it’s kind of stupid for them to prosecute, seeing as how those who are willing to adapt can reap rewards. Look at the Grateful Dead: They encourage bootleg tapes, boosting concert attendance. The fans love them, the band gets the inflated concert ticket prices, and each walks home feeling like they’ve really put one over on the other. That’s how a deal should end. As for your increased CD sales, I haven’t seen those figures yet, but I’m willing to believe you simply because Napster is great advertising. It comes down to one fact: If you adapt, you will survive. If you try to stop the tidal wave, you will be crushed.

4

For a sample size of one, Napster has been responsible for the following CD sales for me:

5 CD’s I was considering, but didn’t recognize any other songs on the disc (“Garbage Version 2”, etc.).

3 CD’s by artists I never heard of before (the “Chemical Brothers”, et al).

Napster has also prevented me from buying 3 CD’s, after finding out that the each had but one good song, and the rest of the album was crap (“Hole - Celebrety Skin”). All downloaded songs from these were deleted after listening.

The way I look at it, net gain to the industry = 5 CD sales (or maybe 6, since one was a double album).

5

The record industry could, if they really wanted to, find some way to work with napster. After all, for all their trying, they’ve never been able to prevent a technological advance, from the 45 record to cassette tapes to CD’s to mini discs. It’s pointless and makes them look like the greedy assholes they are. Several of the majors reached an agreement with MP3. They could do the same with Napster.

6

You guys are full of shit. What you must realize is that in trying to say that Napster actually helps the recording industry, all you’re really doing is making a rather lame attempt to rationalize your own theivery. Yes, record sales were up in the last year, but the increase was consistent with previous years, and record sales were down in areas around colleges (where Napster was most widely used).

Listen, I believe in supporting the artists. No, of course I’m not going to go to Sam Goody and pay $18 for a CD. I’ll go elsewhere and buy it for $12. That’s fine by me. As far as I’m concerned, taking music for free is the ultimate form of disrespect to the artists. What you’re saying is basically, “Your music entertains me, but I don’t think the work that you’ve done merits me paying out of my own precious pocket.”

And as for the bands “adapting” to this new environment, I can tell you that that would be the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to music. If studio work is no longer profitable at all, nobody’s going to go into the studio and work for free (actually, they’d be losing money). The end of studio work would be horrendous for music. In a world without studio albums, I do not wish to live.

You have got to be kidding me. If you’re serious about this statement, then you’re one of the top 10 dumbest people I’ve ever encountered on this board. An analogy: if I set up a cart in the parking lot of a McDonalds and started giving away authentic McDonalds gourmet for free, could I claim that I was doing a “great service” to McD’s by allowing people to “sample” the food before they buy it? McDonalds would have me promptly removed, like the recording industry is trying to do with Napster.

For the recording industry, this is a business problem. But for some of the artists (like Metallica), it’s more of a moral thing. Having something stolen from you, and not being able to do anything about it, just makes you feel like complete shit. Many of Lars’ qualms with Napster have nothing to do with money. However, the greedy pigs that use Napster just assume that he’s trying to get at their precious money, and so they don’t even listen to what the man’s saying. Shut your stupid greedy rationalizing mouth sometime, and you might learn something.

Are you shitting me? You buy that? Two of the biggest schills in all of music? Eminem and Kid Rock (those rebels) are both multi-platinum artists whose success was built on the back of the slick marketing provided by the RIAA. You think those two hit it big because of their virtuoso talent or artistic creativity? And telling the recording industry to “fuck off” is just another marketing tool for them. Don’t you realize that?

This Napster thing is driving me out of my mind, because I know that there’s this mob mentality now, and there’s just no getting through to the people that use it. It’s amazing to me that so many of my peers could be so pre-conventional in their moral structure.

7

Rousseau, have you ever skimmed through a few books at a bookstore to see if you might find them interesting, and then bought a book that struck your fancy? It sounds like the OP just wants to be able to do something similar with CDs, and with the artificially jacked-up prices of CDs these days, I don’t blame him.

8

I really don’t think Napster is going to take too much money away from musicians. I have very little sympathy for people who have more money for singing a simple song than I will probably have in my entire life.
I also have a major problem with the musicians who are so concerned about money they forget their fans. Maybe they don’t remember when before they made it big and music was the most important thing to them. Maybe they don’t remember what it’s like to not be able to afford an album or a CD. Maybe they don’t remember what it is to make music for pleasure, not for money.
Maybe they should remember these things.

9

Every single song I got from Napster came from a CD I had or eventually bought later. So where is the thievery I did? Only from the RIAA, who regards artists and songwriters as slave labor for life (look it up: they actually pushed their bill that essentially says that through Congress), and us customers as suckers. Well, we I am a sucker no longer.

10

I mean, we customers are suckers no longer.

11

Look at the stats, Rosseau. Record sales reached their highest levels ever, and it is still increasing. Some of it may be because of the increased quality of new releases. But I heard that many people, including myself, buy new CDs after hearing it from Napster. The fact that many record companies are ding business with MP3.com indicates that even they dimly know that at least MP3.com did great service on behalf of the record industry, even if MP3.com did not have their original blessing. They should also settle with Napster as well.

I didn’t need Napster to appreciate the demented genius of Eminem; his music video sold me. Kid Rock is a good on-stage performer who, along with Santana, were the sole highlights of the Grammys just passed. He is a pretty good as a singer and as a DJ; he is mediocre as a rapper. Yes, Rosseau, rebellion does sell, even today.

12

That’s almost right. It should read Napster allows us to own music before we decide to buy.
PG said:

Pepperland girl, most of the money in the industry is made by the *writers *of those simple songs, which is how it should be.

Do you have very little sympathy for those writers of books that have sold millions? How about those screenwriters? Painters? It’s called creative intellectual property and it is one of the world’s most precious commodities and it should be rewarded.
Napster and software like it is a threat to those properties. Granted Napster is the future and it’s my opinion that suing the future will do no good whatsoever. RIAA BMI and ASCAP are just is going to have to find a way to deal with it.

13

No, aha, the RIAA is trying to find a way to fight the future. You don’t deal with someone you just sued.

14

If I wrote a book, which one day I plan on doing, and I make millions of dollars off of it, and THEN somebody began posting on the web, I probably wouldn’t have aproblem with it. Hell, if I just made a couple of bucks, and somebody began posting it on the web for free, I still wound’t have a problem.
Why? Because I would write it for the love of writing, reading, and entertainment. Money would be an added bonus to my happiness for completing something beautiful, and something that brings joy to others.
To me any type of creative art, no matter what kind, is aboiut the joy of CREATING. Not turning a profit. And I really have little patience with people who lose sight of creating because of green piece of paper that really don’t measure you as an artist, or a person.
Maybe the reward should be personal gratification. Not a check. Maybe the work of art should be beyond rewards, and more than money.

15

Pepper, I like you a lot, but I have to disagree on one point, dear: the artists want to and need to have some control over how their copyrighted work is used.

For instance, let’s say you wrote “pepperlandgirl’s great American novel” (which I would be the first to buy!). Then let’s say someone scans it in and starts posting your thoughts and poetry on a site which has extreme porn, racist literature, Nazi themes (“www.NaziLesbianEnemaNursesinBondage.com presents - pepperlandgirl’s great American novel”), or whatever. In that case, you might feel like you should be able to decide how someone distributes your work, whether or not money is in the picture.

I think you are correct, most of the talk has been about artists losing money. But part of the issue is artists losing control of their intellectual property rights. I know in most cases we are talking about the artists have signed some or all of their rights away to a company, but this isn’t always the case.

Hugs,
Anthracite

16

That is why the artists on their contracts want to have their own record company, as a subsidiary to a major one that they signed to: in order to have some control over his property and the distribution thereof. If they don’t, all rights records they make, and of all of the songs they write, belong to the record company forever.

17

I understand the concept, I even agree with it. When I was writing my post, I completely forgot about that aspect of it, to tell you the truth.
Ok, control is important. If it was just about control, I could see the problem. But when it comes to MONEY, that’s when I get frustrated.
And I don’t want to hear about how they depend on that money. If push comes to shove, there are plenty of other jobs out there, I’m sure they could scrape by.

18

Sure, they could be doing other jobs…and NOT doing their art. For crying out loud! If I like a creative person’s output, I want that person to be producing more. I don’t want Barbara Hambly flipping hamburgers, I want her to be hard at work writing! Saying that artists should only be interested in creating art, and not earning money with it, is insulting. Our society rewards those it respects with money. That’s how we keep track. It’s called capitalism. Now, I might have some disagreements with the system, (I have disagreements with the custom of tipping, too) but I will acknowledge the fact that my favorite artists/writers have bills to pay, and that they like to eat regularly.

19

I hope you change your mind before you write that book or song PG because there are crooked bastards in the creative industry that depend on just such a rosecolored outlook on life. It’s that kind of attitude that make aritists ripe for the plucking and other people rich.

20

The sound quality of MP3 is inferior to a CD. It’s a flaw inherent in the compression tequniques. The difference is hard to hear in some types of music (sappy love songs), but can be very pronounced when you throw a few guitars up in the mix. Trading mp3’s is a bit like trading audio tapes. I never heard Lars get up in arms about all those damn kids with tape recorders.

Should we go after those evil libraries then? They’re letting people just take intellectual property for a couple weeks, use it up, then return it without paying a dime.
You can read a book for free at the library, but you have to pay money if you want to own a hard copy of it. You can see a painter’s work in a museum or a book before you decide to buy a print. You can see a movie for free on broadcast TV, but you have to buy or rent a copy if you want to see the tits. Used to be you could sample music on the radio, but corporate bastard radio is virtually unlistenable. It’s homogenized, paid-for, godawful, repetetive tripe. Consumers have reacted in turn. They found a new medium to sample music. Some 80% of internet users admit to downloading illegal mp3’s.

If Lars is so damned concerned about artists getting ripped off, why doesn’t he say a word about the record companies? They’ve been screwing artists and reaping billions of dollars off the talents of others for decades. I refuse to fork over $15 of my hard-earned money for a mediocre product and I’m the crook? The artists are getting as little as 35 cents out of that $15, you know? Lars is bitching at me for taking 35 cents from him but doesn’t mind when the record company takes $14. Just seems odd, that’s all…