An Interview With the Misguided RIAA

It was so much better when it was just IRC and newsgroups and people didn't have a clue what either of those were or meant. DL'ing used to be just for the tech savvy. Now any idiot can get music and you know what happens to good things when idiots get their hands on it. I can't wait till their own business model leaves them bankrupt, I'm throwing a party for it.

I did like how cnet pulled no punches but there wasn't enough substance. Like how about asking the RIAA how does the money goes to the artists, that they sue grandmothers for.
 
EricSV said:
4. The money probably doesn't make it to the artist, but the artist does get more money when people actually start paying for their music because they don't want to get sued.

5. Well, if people stop getting the music illegally, there will be no one to sue. Then they will be forced to become a more efficiently ran organization
Click to expand...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Then whats the whole purpose of the RIAA??? Why should we pay 15+ dollars for 1-2 songs, when the rest is regurgitated manure from the stink hole of a 97 year old women? (You can thank me for the visual later) OH, its to get more money into the parent corporations.. where's the artist in the chain of events again?

5. Nope, then it will be movies, programs, TV series, Cable from your neighbor, Internet from the douche with an unsecured wireless router, Hot coffee spilled on your groin pulling out of McDonalds, a severed finger from Wendy's, and the list goes on. Who is "they will be forced to to become a more efficiently ran organization? The RIAA, the seem pretty organized, hell thats what they are PAID to be (there is a difference between competent and organized).
 
It was so much better when it was just IRC and newsgroups and people didn't have a clue what either of those were or meant. DL'ing used to be just for the tech savvy. Now any idiot can get music and you know what happens to good things when idiots get their hands on it. I can't wait till their own business model leaves them bankrupt, I'm throwing a party for it.

I did like how cnet pulled no punches but there wasn't enough substance. Like how about asking the RIAA how does the money goes to the artists, that they sue grandmothers for.
 
I hate how fucking smug that RIAA douchebag sounds. It makes me want to pirate some 50 cent yo.
 
The way the person answers those questions, keeps justifying and making other excuses, or repeating themselves. No shit, we already know about it. Tell us the straight truth, not what the RIAA wants you to regurgitate.
 
My view of how it went down throughout history:

1. Music was created by artists and musicians because of their love of music. People listened for free, and if they liked it, they tipped the artist money.

2. Music was created by artists and musicians because of their love for music, but now realize they can charge for people to listen. People pay because the music is good.

3. Music was created by artists and musicians because of their love for music, but now people create companies because they realize they can actually make money off the artist and selling their albums. People don't like paying as much now.

4. Music is created by even more shitty artists because Joe Schmo realizes he can make a buck for himself and the record labels will bring him onboard because it is just good enough for them to make money off it as well. The people start downloading music because it just doesn't merit paying for it, especially since there might only be one 'decent' song on an album.

5. Companies realize artists suck in general and they make legal music download services that allow you to download individual songs or entire albums. People still choose to download "illegally" because the artists suck and the companies inject DRM into the music and pay to play programs.

6. Another company or "organization" comes along and realizes they can profit off of EVERYONE. Artists, record labels, consumers, and "illegal" downloaders alike. Thus, the RIAA.
 
HyperTension said:
I'd rather jerk off with lava soap, than attempt to understand their corporate mentality. You can thank me for the visual later.. :)
Click to expand...

I about shat myself laughing at this. You win the internet for the day sir. If any of you have used the lava soap, you know what it would be like.
 
Their whole business model is based on selling the album/CD and not the single songs people like. It's an old business model and they still refuse to see it. People don't want to pay for songs they don't like.

I bet not one red cent the RIAA collects, goes to any of the artist. It only goes to the RIAA and the labels. It's another profitable business they have found.

Maybe one day there will be a label that really cares about the artist and would tell the RIAA to shove it and the label would distribute the music that would be with the times.
 
KingPariah777 said:
Music is free.

Sorry, its a fact, and I haven't bought a CD for a decade now.

CDs are ancient technology. Albums are an ancient concept.

The RIAA doesn't even include music videos or digital files with it's "albums".

Why the fuck would anyone buy this ancient shit when its so much more convenient to basically download it with absolutely NO repercussions?
Click to expand...

"Personal attacks" allowed or not on these forums, it needs to be said: in defense of real artists and quality labels, it's ignorant assholes like you who, through their own mooching fucking ways, make it more and more difficult for labels to release music, period. This has to be some of the most blatantly ignorant shit I've ever heard about this issue.

CDs are not "ancient technology", as there is no "direct-from-reel-to-some-futuristic-audio-format" that sounds as good as a CD, period.

It's also not just about the music, where music being released is concerned.

Music is "free"? Fucking really?

After paying the artists for the cover art, the band for instruments and studio time, the pressing of the CDs and then any marketing/promoting of the band, no matter how small it costs a lot of money for ads in mags etc. ...music is more certainly not fucking free.

There are tons of, especially, independent labels that are suffering hard due to all the piracy, file-sharing etc., and it's becoming increasingly difficult to release album after album. Even larger labels are having a difficult time supporting bands touring anymore.

None of this is in defense of the RIAA, who are also a bunch of mooching scumbags, because they don't do things the right way or for the right reasons.

However, your attitude --whether "mental giants" such as yourself realize it or not-- actually does reflect the problem for quality labels to release quality music, because assholes run around thinking it costs nothing to release an album.

I have 15+ years in the industry as both a well-known musician and from the other side, having worked for and actually run my own small label for about six years.

I've no problem with people dl'ing shit then, if they like it, supporting the label/band by buying it. That's just the respectful, adult, evolved and generally right fucking thing to do.

Tell you what... next time you go to work and see your boss, tell him/her that you want to work for free. Because for labels who depend on seeing any return in their releases, they lose money for future releases and even putting bread on the table.

Musicians should never expect to make a living from music, so regarding things from that perspective, it's really about principal... which shouldn't even be an issue, but as I stated in another thread recently: the adult and evolved are far out-numbered, in general on this planet, by talking fucking monkeys.
 
Cinge said:
Maybe one day there will be a label that really cares about the artist and would tell the RIAA to shove it and the label would distribute the music that would be with the times.
Click to expand...

Yeah I like this idea. I think that in the future artists will have the means to do their own copyright, recording and distribution themselves or through a service. I can even see there being a physical cd pressing/ cover art service availiable. Someone could probably make a decent living creating this service for the artists who are not savy enough.

The main thing would be: The artists would retain all rights and not sell their souls to the Devil RIAA.

Another start up idea is people who would promote music on the intenet for the artists by doing give away promotions or showing them to some free downloads (maybe temporary) for the new artists. They could even use myspace/ facebook for promotion. If people were in the mood for some new tunes they could go see their "friend" who happends to be an internet promoter.

Just my thoughts on getting the RIAA out of the picture entirely. :D
 
ObscureTerror said:
<gigantic snip>
Click to expand...
I think you missed his point. Music itself is free, as in a free concept and form of art. Artists and corporations have put a price tag on it. On top of that, there are many restrictions and manipulations of prices.
 
Think artists under the RIAA umbrella would vote to dissolve the RIAA if it meant they'd make more on sales?

Too bad they're tied into contracts with the labels.
 
EricSV said:
There's a couple.



The fact that you are on this forum leads me to believe you, like most of us here, are pretty tech savvy. Most of us here probably know how to get files untraced. The P2P programs made/make it very easy for less savvy to share their music. They don't care about how well the ID3 tags are filled out. They aren't that concernec with audio quality, to a point. All they care about is not having to pay for the music. These are the people that everyone is so upset that the RIAA is going after. These are the people that the RIAA, in my opinion, has no choice but to scare into acutally using pay services like iTunes.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. I said that I agreed with what he said. What the RIAA does is wrong. It is stupid for them to go after college students. However I never said that I downloaded music. However you candy coat it, it is stealing. I don't know about you but when I was very young I learned that stealing is wrong. Go back and learn how to read before you start assuming things.
 
w1retap said:
I think you missed his point. Music itself is free, as in a free concept and form of art. Artists and corporations have put a price tag on it. On top of that, there are many restrictions and manipulations of prices.
Click to expand...

I just need some catchy hooks to blast into my ears while I'm working out...that's all.

Some 96kbps mp3's that sound like crap are fine for me...they could even be cover bands for all I care, or nameless garbage, I just need SOMETHING.

But this product isn't even available! The only option I have is something that is too expensive and too high-quality for my uses...I don't care about studio or instrument quality...in fact an artist could sing off-key with an out of tune instrument and I would never even know it...I know NOTHING about music except it gets me through my workouts.

The only way to get affordable music is to bootleg it.

It's the same as if the only shirts that fit you were bootleg Armani imitations. Should you buy the full price Armani that doesn't fit? Or break the law by getting the fake stuff?

And yes, music is free. I haven't paid for music in over a decade...sounds free to me, like it or not.

I'm downloading music copies, same as taping the radio onto a cassette.
 
Yea, I have always wondered why there has never been a label that has the recording studio, CD pressing, distribution, advertising, etc. and just charges the artist for any service they use. The artist keeps all the rights and money left over after the bill is paid.

They could tell the labels and the RIAA to shove it.

Of course, the other labels would probably have a hitman take out anyone that starts up such a label.
 
It already exists, and is called self-publishing. CDBaby, for example, specializes in distributing self-published and small-artist-friendly-label-published music, in fact (no affiliation with them other than being a satisfied customer). The problem is the independents and small labels don't get too much press. There needs to be a ADTFA (Artist Direct to Fan Association :D ) for the artists to band together and persue their interests with the media/government/etc... and against the Big Labels(TM), while advertising their existence to the Average Joes more.
 
GJSNeptune said:
Hello what? Hi?

It was a general you. But it's very bold (and ignorant) to claim it isn't hard to get a $40k/yr job. It's very hard, especially for people who didn't go to school for something of which there's a shortage/demand. Pretty much anything in the Arts will have you living in a box.
Click to expand...

LOL right!! Us lowly folk that do work that makes these peoples life that make 40k+ a year easier would live like kings on that much money a year lol. To be honest I dont know what i would do with double my yearly income and I have a family to feed!

Well okay I know i could spend it but man..... I thought my life was good making what I do now.... can only dream of what it would be like with more :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top