As just one of the millions across the globe who's being treated poorly by the music industry, why should I embrace this news and try so desperately to put a smile on my face?

I dunno... maybe because small, independent bands such as my own who have no affiliation what-so-ever with any RIAA label are able to pick up a few hundred dollars each month from fans being able to legitimately purchase our music through iTunes (and other online music selling businesses). That's a pretty good thing to celebrate right there.

The more money that gets diverted into the hands of truly independent artists the less money goes into the RIAAs coffers. The less money in the RIAAs coffers the less political power they wield.

Hate the RIAA? Great, almost every artist I know personally probably hates them even more than you do. Want to weaken them, hit them where it hurts. Don't buy anything from artists signed to an RIAA label. Spend a little time and effort before you spend your cash and find music by real independent artists that you like. Support those musicians.

iTunes isn't the bad guy here.

Came in here to state that I don't use Itunes (Apple does not get to rewrite the rules of capitalization), therefore I am blameless.

Arrived to see the G-man has things well in hand. Never mind, then.

The choice is ours. Will we make the right decision?

5 billion sold licensed.
it is already over

that being said, ghastly nails it ...
it is the bands who sign with riaa labels which are the root of the problem

not like there are any other choices out there for buying mudic by the track

The RIAA can just go die now please.

I haven't bought music in years because of their crap.

Saborlas: Came in here to state that I don't use Itunes (Apple does not get to rewrite the rules of capitalization), therefore I am blameless.

Arrived to see the G-man has things well in hand. Never mind, then.

I personally love iTunes for its elegant simplicity. Yet I buy my music elsewhere...

Oh. Shut. Up.

The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

They own a product. Sorry you don't happen to own it- they do. People steal it. They go after them.

Yes, I believe if I were in the position of the RIAA, I'd embrace new technologies and ways of thinking and try to make money out of the rampant theft- because its clearly very, very popular. But they have a right to go after thieves.

clancifer: I personally love iTunes for its elegant simplicity. Yet I buy my music elsewhere...

I find it bloated. Amazon is much more elegant and easy to use. Less draconian, too. The iTunes software is nice, though (minus the store- just the synching). Of course, Amazon integrates with it perfectly well.

downstairs: The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

Right. It's not abuse to sue innocents into oblivion, or extort multi-thousand $ settlements from them with the threat to do so.

downstairs: Oh. Shut. Up.

The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

They own a product. Sorry you don't happen to own it- they do. People steal it. They go after them.


Copyright violation is not theft. Learn your legal definitions.

Protecting their copyrights if fine. The tactics they use are abusive. They work not by rule of law, but by fear and intimidation.

I stopped buying music for a while cause of Rootkits.
I don't buy on I tunes cause I don't want the player to play them.
Too many people are pussies and let the RIAA Mafia win illegal lawsuits, named to Jane or John Doe.
I don't do P2P.
If I want a tune, I just borrow someones CD and copy it. The tracks I want and not a CD full of Fluff.
And I do not need to support the massive Tax that the RIAA(including the Canadians pretarded version)Charges on all there CD's ,making them overpriced. And the money does not go to the artist.

You shouldn't buy a song on iTunes unless it's one of the no-DRM songs.

If so, you're set.

Music piracy became so widespread (at least in part) because of $20 cd's. Music companies were convicted of collusion and price fixing on cd's, and they weren't even forced to change prices. All they had to do was give a bunch of music to some libraries.

I feel sorry for the artists losing money, but the price-fixing scandals were a major factor in why piracy spread so fast. Kids just couldn't afford music.

downstairs: Oh. Shut. Up.

The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

They own a product. Sorry you don't happen to own it- they do. People steal it. They go after them.

Yes, I believe if I were in the position of the RIAA, I'd embrace new technologies and ways of thinking and try to make money out of the rampant theft- because its clearly very, very popular. But they have a right to go after thieves.

You are functionally unappraised of the situation. Grats. I wasn't aware that any thinking adult who was aware of how to actually use the internet and read the news was this ignorant of the RIAA's current tactics.

When you file a case against somebody with no proof against them, do not tell them that you have filed the case, win the case, and then just send them a bill for legal fees and damages without giving them a chance that is abuse. Abuse of the victim. Abuse of our legal system. Abuse of our constitution. The RIAA does this regularly.

Ghastly: I dunno... maybe because small, independent bands such as my own who have no affiliation what-so-ever with any RIAA label are able to pick up a few hundred dollars each month from fans being able to legitimately purchase our music through iTunes (and other online music selling businesses). That's a pretty good thing to celebrate right there.


Damn, man, between the scooter posts and this one, you're a walking plug. Now, if only there were some thread about bands that ride their scooters to gigs...

/couldn't work the bi in there, though
//sorry

Thats funny, I just celebrated my 100,000 free download from Soulseek earlier this month.

/runs
//hides

downstairs: hey own a product.

That's the the thing the RIAA owns jack shiat. It's a trade organization. It is supposed to represent the recrod labels. However copyright issues aren't very straightforward with records because there are several copyrights involved. And the RIAA doesn't own a single copyright.

GHASTLY:

I don't really pay attention to what label a person is on, bc if the music is good, its good.

but I am a huge indie music fan (borderline-snob) and find that a large portion of the music I like comes from K Recs and Barsuk and Kill Rock Stars

my fav musician (phil elverum of The Microphones/Mount Eerie) used to be on K but now has his own label...PW Elverum and Sun....and he of course writes and records his own music, but he also makes his own LPs and does all the artwork, pressing, mailing, etc

its him and a few people who help out but every single step in the production process is all him

his wife is a musician too and on her debut album, she did this really cool thing: the cover art is a woman with a wolf head who is bould by string....in the case...in each case, was a large piece of string...the same color as on the cover

similar the the polaroids included on Coconut Records Jason Schwartzman band

come to think of it Marriage Recs is another label I'm fond of mainly for Yacht and Thanksgiving/Adrian Orange

the string thing is just to make her mark and make each one unique

eddyatwork: I haven't bought music in years because of their crap.

Same here.

/then again, most of the music I listen to isn't produced/owned by RIAA labels anyway

When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you're not really buying it. Instead, you're acquiring the license to listen to a song that can be taken away from you at any moment

Funny, seems like there's plenty of tangible data sitting there on my hard drive. The same type of data as if had brought the music in off of a store-purchased CD. Come to think of it, that same data is spread across a few hard drives - a laptop, a tower, and an iPod. Oh knowledgeable author, are They going to come to my house and erase my files?

can't be sent anywhere you'd like for it to be

See above

and is subject to draconian copyright laws

Depends on your definition of "draconian", but with as little effort as is required by burning the purchased tracks to an audio CD, said "draconian copyright laws" vaporize.

that see you paying too much for too little.

As opposed to paying $12-$15 for a CD that contains, on average, exactly three worthwhile tracks?

Author is a whiney, biatchy little sand-vag full of FAIL. I'm no fan of the RIAA, but if you're going to go on an anti-corporatist rant, at least try to have some legitimacy to your words.

As The Who says....more music....more music...more music


Link (new window)


http://www.tinydad.com/free-music-22-websites-driving-daggers-into-the-heart-of- the-riaa/ (new window)

Link (new window)

http://www.webupon.com/Audio/Music-Rules-2-Top-60-Music-Websites-That-Deliver-th e-Greatest-Free-Music.132133?v=1 (new window)

Oakenshield: Funny, seems like there's plenty of tangible data sitting there on my hard drive. The same type of data as if had brought the music in off of a store-purchased CD. Come to think of it, that same data is spread across a few hard drives - a laptop, a tower, and an iPod. Oh knowledgeable author, are They going to come to my house and erase my files?

In addition, anything that's "iTunes Plus" is DRM free, meaning you've got even more choices as to what to do with it. Admittedly, it's only a portion of the catalog's tracks that are sold that way, but it's something.

The article's author is an idiot.

Um, it's called iTunes Plus...same price for songs, no DRM, twice the bitrate. How is buying that helping promote DRM?

whizbangthedirtfarmer:
Damn, man, between the scooter posts and this one, you're a walking plug. Now, if only there were some thread about bands that ride their scooters to gigs...


I do not now, nor have I ever sold scooters. I do, however, love my wee yellow scooter to bits and unashamedly have ridden it to gigs. I bungee strap my accordion to the back seat. If that is wrong then I relinquish any and all desire to be correct.

I will say good day to you sir.

Oakenshield: As opposed to paying $12-$15 for a CD that contains, on average, exactly three worthwhile tracks?

Your music taste is FAIL if the artists you're into can only muster three good tracks an album.

What I wonder about are the e-book products. With Sony e-reader and Kindle and so forth, I've read that buying a book electronically is more akin to buying a song or an album off iTunes than a book in a bookstore.
So basically you don't own the book as you would a hardback one. Is that true? If so, isn't that kind of farked up?

Wow, the author of this article got it wrong on just about every point.

Let's face it -- if iTunes wasn't nearly as successful as it is, the music industry would be forced to find new ways to sell music.

100% wrong. If iTunes had flopped, the RIAA would've pointed that as proof that Internet users will never ever agree to purchasing music legitimately online and would've sent their lawsuit efforts into overdrive against file sharers. And that time the courts might actually agree with them. And the RIAA would've continued to keep music on CDs inside of Wal-Mart for $18 or more. They may had even dared to raise the price to cover their court costs and justified the rise due to "piracy".

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it's quite easy to see that we're all a victim of the success of iTunes.

No, it's not quite easy. Pretty pathetic that the author throws this out there after only offering the above example which I have already shown to be untrue.

When you "buy" a song on iTunes, you're not really buying it. Instead, you're acquiring the license to listen to a song that can be taken away from you at any moment, can't be sent anywhere you'd like for it to be, and is subject to draconian copyright laws that see you paying too much for too little.

There's nothing in the iTunes Service EULA that states this. It outlines the restrictions for DRM songs and which do not apply to non DRM material. A journalist might have taken the 5 minutes needed to click this link and read.

'Draconian' is an interesting word to use considering that the time the iTunes store opened, and even now, the DRM rules are among the least restrictive. Apple was able to negotiate with the RIAA to allow a per-track purchasing system and not a rental system. They were able to convince the RIAA to allow iTunes users to burn CDs of these tracks. These were all stunning achievements in 2003 and still are. Yes, Amazon now has a good online store that sells non-DRM MP3s but how many of the major labels participate in this? The last time I checked it was EMI, the same major that sells DRM free on iTunes Plus.

Or has it? Have I been wrong all along? Is the record industry really as wonderful as it wants us to believe? At this point, I don't know what to believe. I certainly think it deserves the hell I give it, but if Apple can sell 5 billion songs on iTunes and we sit here and watch the record industry benefit, maybe I'm in the minority.

You're confused and with a little bit of research you could've answered your own questions. What confuses me is how this passes for journalism.

I'm a firm believer that we should own each and every thing we buy. Why shouldn't I have the right to buy a song on iTunes and do what I want with it whenever I want? I don't think that's asking for too much and in reality, I think it's my right to do just that.

Well then tell us what "do whatever I want with it" means to you. I can listen to my iTunes music as many times as I want wherever I want. Is there anything else? People who say "I want to do whatever I want with my music" usually mean they want to give it away to as many people on the Internet as they can. And believe it or not there are restrictive laws against what you can and cannot do with plain CDs, cassette tapes, laser discs, DVDs, 8-tracks, records, etc and have been for a long time. The difference has been it's a bit harder to hassle customers in the physical world as it is on the Internet.

And why should the labels submit to our will? If the vast majority of people are more than willing to spend $0.99 on a track from iTunes with all of its DRM and ludicrous policies, why should the record industry change a blasted thing? They have us where they want us and there's nothing we can do about it.

You haven't shown that anywhere in your article. Your describing the iTunes policies as 'ludicrous' continues to demonstrate your ignorance of the facts and the history of the past 5 years of music sales on the Internet. Again, this is what passes for 'journalism'.

The way I see it, purchasing songs on iTunes is only perpetuating our fight with the record industry and we're being forced into a situation where the more we buy, the worse it gets. So unless we stop supporting DRM and the abuse that comes along with it, we'll be forced to endure it.

It's time we all wake up and realize that the music industry is getting us without us even realizing it. Instead of paying the RIAA's meal ticket, we need to cut it off as soon as possible. If we don't, the music industry will continue to laugh all the way to the bank.

All you had to say was 'I hate DRM' and cut all the other superfluous crap out of your article. Here's how you could've written your article:

"I believe DRM restrictions on online music sales does nothing at all to prevent music piracy and only serves to frustrate customers and adds costs to the distribution and enjoyment music. I call upon the RIAA to cease requiring vendors and customers to use it and seek different methods of increasing and improving the creating and enjoyment of music as this would surely increase their profits and better the industry."

There that's all you had to say. Keep the blame where it belongs. And next time for christsakes do some research.

danduran: Oakenshield: As opposed to paying $12-$15 for a CD that contains, on average, exactly three worthwhile tracks?

Your music taste is FAIL if the artists you're into can only muster three good tracks an album.

They don't play music on talk radio, so you're probably right. Regardless, your ad hominem doesn't prove the author is any less of a dbag. The issue is not Oakenshield's musical taste, it's the authors grasp of reality.

IMDWalrus: In addition, anything that's "iTunes Plus" is DRM free, meaning you've got even more choices as to what to do with it. Admittedly, it's only a portion of the catalog's tracks that are sold that way, but it's something.

Youbetcha. Good point - I'd forgotten about iTunes+. I'd imagine that small portion will only grow over time.

Indeed, I was going to point out iTunes Plus. Almost everything I've bought from iTunes has been iTunes Plus. The stuff that was DRMed (two albums) got stripped of it pronto. I belonged to Emusic for a long time -- great site for indie stuff -- and everything there is DRM free, so I liked it there.

The RIAA are abusing the everliving hell out of people, I'll grant that, but perhaps the worse travesty is that the courts are letting them. Their methods are sketchy as hell and they should have been shot down at the first attempt and every attempt thereafter. Fortunately some people have fought back and won. Not that a few bloody noses has changed the way the RIAA operate or anything.

I'd like to see a breakdown of what percentage of music that has been downloaded in the last year was iTunes Plus versus the DRM'ed up stuff.

1. Buy external hard drive.
2. Take it to your "illegal downloading buddy"'s house.
3. Download 80-100 gigs of music.
4. Engage in "behavior modification" while waiting.
5. Always bring a flash drive with you when going to someones house, raid their HD for new stuff.
6. Anytime someone comes by with a new CD, rip that bastich to your HD.
7. Lots of free music to listen to in moms basement/shed, or wherever.

Also invaluable: 20-40 gig mp3 player, portable radio with 1/8" input (I hate ear buds), beer.

This has been a public service announcement. Side effects may include tinnitus, blotchy neckwaddle, and erectile dysfunction.

downstairs: Oh. Shut. Up.

The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

They own a product. Sorry you don't happen to own it- they do. People steal it. They go after them.

Yes, I believe if I were in the position of the RIAA, I'd embrace new technologies and ways of thinking and try to make money out of the rampant theft- because its clearly very, very popular. But they have a right to go after thieves.

Um... what product does the RIAA own? Do you even know what the RIAA is? Seemingly 3/4 of Fark don't actually know and just use their name in the place of some phantom enemy. They are miserable bastards, but they don't own anything.

danduran: Oakenshield: As opposed to paying $12-$15 for a CD that contains, on average, exactly three worthwhile tracks?

Your music taste is FAIL if the artists you're into can only muster three good tracks an album.

Most "music" today on the shelves comes from "stable musicians" that the labels have record songs from "stable writers" that crank out a "product" like any other widget factory. There are very few real "artists" that actually make music these days.

morgankingrocks: Um... what product does the RIAA own? Do you even know what the RIAA is? Seemingly 3/4 of Fark don't actually know and just use their name in the place of some phantom enemy. They are miserable bastards, but they don't own anything.

Kind of like GWB, or Satan?

downstairs: clancifer: I personally love iTunes for its elegant simplicity. Yet I buy my music elsewhere...

I find it bloated. Amazon is much more elegant and easy to use. Less draconian, too. The iTunes software is nice, though (minus the store- just the synching). Of course, Amazon integrates with it perfectly well.

What exactly is "bloated" about iTunes? FYI to all you iTunes haters and Amazon Lovers - hate to break it to you, but over 50% of the songs on Amazon are transcoded from a 128 - 192 source - so you're getting farked.

That said, it's getting to a point where people are just refusing to buy music anymore. Yes, iTunes may have created 5 Billion dollars in revenue, but I'd like to see the coinciding loss over the last 5 years on the part of the labels. I'd also like to see it broken down to genre, out of curiosity.

In the end, people need to pay for their music, and quit stealing shiat!

/"b...b...but it's nawt StEalinG!11!!one It'Z koPywRight infindegmunt!111!!"
//"b...b...but teH BanDz maKe teh Money From teh Live shouZzz!!!11"

(yeah I know 128K...but it's free)

If you think a 128k mp3 (or any mp3, really) is acceptable then you have ruined your ears. I can't imagine how hard it would be to retrain them. My condolences.

Benjimin_Dover:
Most "music" today on the shelves comes from "stable musicians" that the labels have record songs from "stable writers" that crank out a "product" like any other widget factory. There are very few real "artists" that actually make music these days.

Most "people who like music" don't "listen to that crap" because there's thousands of great "artists" out there these days that somehow the technology/generation gap has failed to bridge. Nobody that's not in middle school, an idiot, or a part-time real estate agent, full-time mom listens to this "stable musician" crap.

We're so knee-deep in great albums, across all genres, that the very old-man-get-off-my-lawn notion that there's not fantastic music being made at any moment is simply preposterous. Quite simply, if you can't find it, you don't know how to look. The pop sales charts, radio, and music TV are irrelevant and outdated by decades as anything resembling a useful tool. If that's your metric for gauging modern music, you've only yourself to blame.

downstairs: The RIAA isn't abusing anyone. Bad business model? Yeah, it'll come to roost. But abuse? No.

They own a product. Sorry you don't happen to own it- they do. People steal it. They go after them.


The RIAA doesn't own shiat.

radioman_: (yeah I know 128K...but it's free)

If you think a 128k mp3 (or any mp3, really) is acceptable then you have ruined your ears. I can't imagine how hard it would be to retrain them. My condolences.

Hahahahahaha!

You're just like those 'If you can't see the difference between HD and normal video you're blind!'

Unless you have a couple grand invested in a sound system, added to a couple ground invested in a sound-cancelling system for your residence, it's a waste to complain about high bit rates.

As far as related to the thread, I have not purchased a CD in 5-10 years. I feel no loss. I listen to the radio (FM and/or internet and/or Pandora) for a number of hours a day between travel, etc.

I simply assume that for the 4 hours of adds I hear every day (for 5 hours of listening time), I have 'paid' for any theft.

If I could swap between 10 stations and never hear adds on every station at a given time, I might feel differently. But since the music industry (radio stations) has basically decided they are the only game in town so can go whatever they wish....I don't care.

The problem with iTunes and Amazon - besides bitrate - is that it's the same bullshiat middleman industry that torpedoed the business in the first place - the same percentage of the money is soaked up by suits who don't even know what it is they are selling while the artists act happy to get the pittance they do.

/Thank you massa for giving me twenty cents on the dollar for my music.

Benjimin_Dover: danduran: Oakenshield: As opposed to paying $12-$15 for a CD that contains, on average, exactly three worthwhile tracks?

Your music taste is FAIL if the artists you're into can only muster three good tracks an album.

Most "music" today on the shelves comes from "stable musicians" that the labels have record songs from "stable writers" that crank out a "product" like any other widget factory. There are very few real "artists" that actually make music these days.

Bollocks. There are loads, just look a little harder.

Shvetz: Music companies were convicted of collusion and price fixing on cd's, and they weren't even forced to change prices. All they had to do was give a bunch of music to some libraries.


Oh come now. The music companies dumped thousands of copies of their unsellable crap (writing them off at full retail cost) from their warehouses on libraries as part of that settlement.

I'm just not sure what you people want from them? They gave and gave generously to make amends. It hurt to give as much as they did, but they did anyway.

I don't know about you, but I personally think receiving 137 copies of Yanni's Greatest Hits completely pays their due for two decades of organized crime.


Among them are the librarians at the Tacoma (Wash.) Public Library, who last week received a shipment of 1,325 CDs that included 57 copies of "Three Mo' Tenors," a 2001 recording featuring classically trained African American tenors Roderick Dixon, Thomas Young and Victor Trent Cook; 48 copies of country artist Mark Wills' 2001 album "Loving Every Minute," 47 copies of "Corridos de Primera Plana," a greatest hits compilation by Los Tuscanes de Tijuana (2000); 39 copies of "Yolanda Adams Christmas" (2000); 37 copies of Michael Crawford's "A Christmas Album" (1999) and 34 copies of the Bee Gees' "This Is Where I Came In" (2001). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5226945/

radioman_: If you think a 128k mp3 (or any mp3, really) is acceptable then you have ruined your ears. I can't imagine how hard it would be to retrain them. My condolences.


But the MP3's sound warmer.

/suck it, audio snobs

morgankingrocks: Quite simply, if you can't find it, you don't know how to look.

I'll admit to being in that category. Maybe if I started looking, it wouldn't take as long all that long, but I really wouldn't even know where to start. I can think a lot of bands I really liked who I would never have heard of if they hadn't happened to have their one hit on the radio everyone has heard, but which isn't their best.

Walt_Jizzney: That said, it's getting to a point where people are just refusing to buy music anymore. Yes, iTunes may have created 5 Billion dollars in revenue, but I'd like to see the coinciding loss over the last 5 years on the part of the labels. I'd also like to see it broken down to genre, out of curiosity.

In the end, people need to pay for their music, and quit stealing shiat!

/"b...b...but it's nawt StEalinG!11!!one It'Z koPywRight infindegmunt!111!!"
//"b...b...but teH BanDz maKe teh Money From teh Live shouZzz!!!11"

Let's see. You have a car. I press a button that makes an exact copy of your car, and drive off my copy.
How did I steal your car?

I'm going to say something that alot of people are afraid to say
Musicians are over paid, there I said it. I honestly think that. I've been in bands for a number of years and personally for me it has been a very rewarding experience so I understand how important music is to people.
But lets make one thing clear, the music industry is not music. Music will still be around as long as there are people to listen to it. Don't fall under the impression that if the industry has a total collapse that music will vanish like a dinosaur. If anything it will get better (no payola, corporate interest). Let's say that music isn't as available as it is now. GREAT! more reason to create your own, which nowadays if you have software like garageband etc., you don't even have to be able to play an instrument anymore to make your own music.
I think it is our responsibility to literally destroy the industry, Bring it down until we have no choice but to start fresh. Music isn't supposed to be a job, it's supposed to a a way to communicate other people and to have fun.
Oh and BTW, if your a musician I'd stay in school and jam on the weekend with your your buddies. It's just as rewarding as touring and it has a better retirement plan

/Just my opinon, hope working musicians understand my pov

we_hates: morgankingrocks: Quite simply, if you can't find it, you don't know how to look.

I'll admit to being in that category. Maybe if I started looking, it wouldn't take as long all that long, but I really wouldn't even know where to start. I can think a lot of bands I really liked who I would never have heard of if they hadn't happened to have their one hit on the radio everyone has heard, but which isn't their best.

The internet is filled with tools to help - last.fm, Pandora, etc - but I've yet to find anything as efficient as www.rateyourmusic.com - you make an account, rate records you like out of 5 and it recommends stuff based on what other people have rated. It's not perfect, but the vast expanse of knowledge there is unbeatable. Plus, it's exceptional use of lists is a fantastic way to keep track of new releases that might be of interest:
My Top 46 of 2008 So Far... List