Debate Thread VI: The RIAA Debacle

[Theory?]

I think this is a fairly popular issue that (hopefully) won't get so heated. The two sides will either defend the RIAA's actions against people who download music illlicitly, or refute it and suggest a resolution. The other side MUST suggest a resolution.

For the RIAA Red, like the color of blood

Ace_ofspade
Silver_Derstin
thefremen
Hank the Tank
Ack
BetaSword
nightwng2000
ZimmyDSMlee


The Refuters and Resolut...ers...in Blue
cyn1c42
Anjin-San
Ohma
dagrak
wxDiva
Cecil475
godofyouall
John
pixelante_ninja

[Silver_Derstin]

Downloading music, while fun and easy, can cause a lot of economic stress on the production companies and the artists, who are those that actually pay (time and/or money) to create the said songs. If you download songs for free, you are preventing them from recuparating their investment, possibly preventing them from producing another album.Is instant gratification worth not having music at all? The answer: I THINK NOT!

**waits for a Utahraptor to try to convince him otherwise.**

[Thefremen]

If rappers don't make more money than the gross national product of all of the continent of Africa, then how the hell are they going to be able to afford solid gold humvees? If they stop buying solid gold humvees then our economy will be hurt and the little people will lose out too. So when you steal music you're really stealing money from the honest Grill and Solid Gold Humvee industry workers.

[Theory?]

If rappers don't make more money than the gross national product of all of the continent of Africa, then how the hell are they going to be able to afford solid gold humvees? If they stop buying solid gold humvees then our economy will be hurt and the little people will lose out too. So when you steal music you're really stealing money from the honest Grill and Solid Gold Humvee industry workers.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

[Hank the Tank]

While it may be true that many music-makers make a good deal of money, downloading songs without paying for them is still stealing. And stealing is, of course, wrong.

One must also remember that not all musicians are as successful as others. The downloading of music instead of buying it can break many of them.

If downloading music goes completely unchecked, it could become a big problem later on since downloading music is becoming more and more popular.

[Anjin-San]

I request a motion to put him in my place. I can phone in a "They don't need anymo money" /whine, but I'd rather point out that the same people that cheer when the ESA put away a counterfeiter, whine when people do that for something about thirtyish dollars cheaper.

Edit:Err...my bad, son.

[Theory?]

Come on people.

[Anjin-San]

In a world where jackasses get paid millions to stand in place and hit balls in a boring fashion, and in a world where C+ students can become presidents...I don't feel all that uncomfortable with usurping 15$ from Madonna's record label Maverick. The Deftones already have money, and are cool with it. I'm poor, and have contempt for those with money. There. That's every argument you could muster against them.

[nightwng2000]

Musicians struggle up the ladder, from doing crappy wedding parties to doing low pay gigs in smoky dives to being heard by some scout who may give them that rare chance to go from working at some fast food restaruant just to feed their family while they go throught the whole "your music is just a hobby" thing to recording a test tape.

Finally, they make it to cut a single, or even better, cut a full album. "Look, I've finally made it! No more hobby! I have a career!"

And the bare few who cut such albums are raking in the millions that will carry them from album to album. Or even better, concert to concert. While those not doing as well find that the little that still comes in from their short lived fame are now being eaten away by those folks who decide they deserve a free ride and want to spread the music.

Oh yes, it's easy to point the finger at the million dollar winners who are still on top. But what about those whose fame never made it to the millions but could have kept them financially decent? What about those whose fame are now moving on the down slope? Oh, it's so easy to talk about it not affecting them.because they "make so much money".

No, it's not like shoplifting. But it does deny those individuals their income. It is far closer to you having a job and though you work hard and earn a paycheck, that paycheck is diverted to someone else without reason or cause.or used to purchase luxury items for other people without your permission. Someone else ends up benefiting from your hard work, whether financially or some other way.

[Theory?]

Musicians struggle up the ladder, from doing crappy wedding parties to doing low pay gigs in smoky dives to being heard by some scout who may give them that rare chance to go from working at some fast food restaruant just to feed their family while they go throught the whole "your music is just a hobby" thing to recording a test tape.

Finally, they make it to cut a single, or even better, cut a full album. "Look, I've finally made it! No more hobby! I have a career!"

And the bare few who cut such albums are raking in the millions that will carry them from album to album. Or even better, concert to concert. While those not doing as well find that the little that still comes in from their short lived fame are now being eaten away by those folks who decide they deserve a free ride and want to spread the music.

Oh yes, it's easy to point the finger at the million dollar winners who are still on top. But what about those whose fame never made it to the millions but could have kept them financially decent? What about those whose fame are now moving on the down slope? Oh, it's so easy to talk about it not affecting them.because they "make so much money".

No, it's not like shoplifting. But it does deny those individuals their income. It is far closer to you having a job and though you work hard and earn a paycheck, that paycheck is diverted to someone else without reason or cause.or used to purchase luxury items for other people without your permission. Someone else ends up benefiting from your hard work, whether financially or some other way.


I'll tell you right off the bat, if you think the lower-run of the musician's ladder profits at all from their album sales, you're fooling yourself. I'll say that much.

[nightwng2000]

I'll tell you right off the bat, if you think the lower-run of the musician's ladder profits at all from their album sales, you're fooling yourself. I'll say that much.

Maybe so. But there's less chance of a profit, even a tiny one, if those few who are actually interested in their music obtain it through free methods.

A little profit is also a motivator, not merely financially, but morale wise. I have no doubt there are musicians who, after having been ripped off and therefore showing less profit potential, back off the music career simply because it appeared that no one was interested (since sales is an indicator of interest) in their music.

Look at it this way also:
A musical group does gigs in small bars and such.
Nobody shows up to listen.
If they don't get fired, they'll certainly be of low enough morale to possibily give up.
Doesn't matter if someone hid a mic somewhere around the bar and is giving away copies of the gigs that actually get played. The indicators they use are the audience in the bar. The same is true of musicians who make albums. Low sales mean a less chance of new music by the group. Doesn't matter if they are Top Sellers or one hit wonders. And who knows what the one hit wonders could have done if they had the motivation.

[Theory?]

Maybe so. But there's less chance of a profit, even a tiny one, if those few who are actually interested in their music obtain it through free methods.

A little profit is also a motivator, not merely financially, but morale wise. I have no doubt there are musicians who, after having been ripped off and therefore showing less profit potential, back off the music career simply because it appeared that no one was interested (since sales is an indicator of interest) in their music.

Look at it this way also:
A musical group does gigs in small bars and such.
Nobody shows up to listen.
If they don't get fired, they'll certainly be of low enough morale to possibily give up.
Doesn't matter if someone hid a mic somewhere around the bar and is giving away copies of the gigs that actually get played. The indicators they use are the audience in the bar. The same is true of musicians who make albums. Low sales mean a less chance of new music by the group. Doesn't matter if they are Top Sellers or one hit wonders. And who knows what the one hit wonders could have done if they had the motivation.


I'm doing this to forward the debate BTW, but consider the musician who makes music because he has to. Music is a very intimate thing. Those who make it for the money still have the corporate wheel spinning in their favor, however, the musician who makes music for music's sake, isn't going to resign from the business just because everyone pirated his albums. I can guarantee you that.

[nightwng2000]

I'm doing this to forward the debate BTW, but consider the musician who makes music because he has to. Music is a very intimate thing. Those who make it for the money still have the corporate wheel spinning in their favor, however, the musician who makes music for music's sake, isn't going to resign from the business just because everyone pirated his albums. I can guarantee you that.

Yes, but the person who does it for the sake of the music is more likely to do it for free to begin with. They won't be overly concerned with contracts and copyrights and such. If they are doing it for the sake of the music, they'll more than likely spread their music over P2P, Usenet, and even using the free distribution methods of iTunes and Napster.

It's the career minded who are more concerned with contracts and copyrights and such. Those are the ones who want to use their talent to make a living. And it's those individuals whose talent suffers because their career is hampered by a lack of audience/sales.

P. S. I know this is a subject close to you, Theory?. I have no objections to your participation. Battle on Brother. :)

[John]

Musicians make money off concerts and tours, not record sales.

Plus, with most musicians putting gold in their teeth, and having houses larger then small nations, do they really need more money?

[Dagrak]

It's the career minded who are more concerned with contracts and copyrights and such. Those are the ones who want to use their talent to make a living. And it's those individuals whose talent suffers because their career is hampered by a lack of audience/sales.


Your asuming here that this is down to artist effort rather then the industry deciding who we should be listening to. Take a look at the stuff that gets placed at the top of the pile in the UK, we have the same dreary boy bands, cover songs and the occasional "alternative" artist who are just as mainstream as the people they are rebelling against. When people started to realise they could access the digital download sites the smaller bands started to get their first major breaks. The illegal downloads allowed people to hear what they were like and in the case of some led to greater sales or in some cases any sales at all. the artist themself isn't overly concerned with the amount of sales its the industry exec holding their strings who wants to profit.

Think about the consumer themselves. I rarely ever buy music CD's because my local shops offer such a generic range that fails to meet my interests. However thanks to internet innovations such as unauthorised internet radio or free download sites I have been able to find new bands that I actually like. I can listen to their music, realise I like it and I then buy the actual CD. This means I can find bands which most of the UK have never heard of and get their CD's through special orders. These shadowy sites have therefore actualy increased awareness of these smaller bands and therefore allowed an increase in sales. Large mainstream bands/artists are not going to be greately effected by sneaky downloads because they are guaranteed a large sale with the millions they put behind publicity, other artists don't have that luxury.

[nightwng2000]

For some, the idea of getting recognized by the public by way of sending some of their early work to legal free download services, iTunes, P2P (even these have their uses), Usenet, Napster, etc, is slowly coming to light. There are benefits in getting one's self heard that the industry may have also ignored. There's no argument that various industries tend to pick and choose what they want the public to see as "star material".

But when the smaller musicians choose to go the way of the industry, it's not only the musical group that is affected by sales or lack thereof. Even if the professional industry (recording studios and such) don't see the sales, even for a group they WANT to push to the public, they are less likely to go further with that group. The fact is that the industry doesn't treat illegal downloads as an indicator. And the missing financies also discourages the industry from putting more money into working further with a particular group.

And, John, those big concerts and multi-millionaires didn't start out that way. Most everyone started small in some way. P2P wasn't around for many of those who are now big names when they weren't big names. And P2P is far easier than the bootlegging that went on as little as a decade ago. Downloads are far easier than sitting around recording from the radio, dubbing from a tape, or finding someone to sell you an illegal bootleg.

[Dagrak]

People are fickle about how they spend their money and are more likely to put it on an artist that they know then on an artist they don't. In these situations the legal download sites which require payment to get hold of the music continue to force the new bands to the sideline and praise the major labels whereas the free sites allow for people to think a bit differently as there is no risk involved.

The sites themselves also allow for new contenders into the legal download market. Napster for example is one of the sites that actually made MP3 downloading so popular and they started off on very dodgy grounds. Now however they are one of the major players in the download industry.

[Theory?]

For some, the idea of getting recognized by the public by way of sending some of their early work to legal free download services, iTunes, P2P (even these have their uses), Usenet, Napster, etc, is slowly coming to light. There are benefits in getting one's self heard that the industry may have also ignored. There's no argument that various industries tend to pick and choose what they want the public to see as "star material".

But when the smaller musicians choose to go the way of the industry, it's not only the musical group that is affected by sales or lack thereof. Even if the professional industry (recording studios and such) don't see the sales, even for a group they WANT to push to the public, they are less likely to go further with that group. The fact is that the industry doesn't treat illegal downloads as an indicator. And the missing financies also discourages the industry from putting more money into working further with a particular group.

And, John, those big concerts and multi-millionaires didn't start out that way. Most everyone started small in some way. P2P wasn't around for many of those who are now big names when they weren't big names. And P2P is far easier than the bootlegging that went on as little as a decade ago. Downloads are far easier than sitting around recording from the radio, dubbing from a tape, or finding someone to sell you an illegal bootleg.


Here's how it works in the world of major labels. This is major labels, the people that the RIAA defends. Once agan, be reminded the RIAA is a bunch of lawyers, nothing else. They represent MAJOR LABELS, no one else. Indie labels have NOTHING to do with the RIAA and cash in on $0 they make by suing people for illicit downloads.

Now what separates a major label from an indie label? Distribution. Major labels distribute their own material. Wall Mart deals directly with Sony/BMG and Universal, etc. If Dischord or Fat Wreck, or any other indie labels out there want their CD's in stores, they need to deal with a third party distributor. That adds another line of pay in the chain which is why the new Hillary Duff album costs $9.99 while the albums from anyone with any remote trace of talent costs $15.99.

Now, back to where I started. How do artists on major labels make money? When the band goes into the studio to record, the label gives them what's called an "advance". This advance is usually some large arbitrary number. For ease's sake, lets say they give the band an advance of $200,000 to record, master, and press an album. Now, thankfully, it costs nowhere near $200,000 to do all that stuff. A really good studio to record a 12 track album and have the first 1000 copies pressed, would probably run the band up about $50,000. No more, probably less even. Either way, so there's still $150,000 that the band has now. So what are they supposed to do with it? They get to keep it. They split it up evenly and know not to spend it all on coke in one night because thats the last bit of change they'll see until that money is paid back to the labels through album sales.

Well what happens if record sales don't pay back the $500,000? Nothing! The label loses money. They don't ask the band for it back, they just cut their losses and repeat the same process with another artist. If the album DOES pay back the advance, then the band MAY see $0.10 for ever album after that, it's usually not more than that, but the deciding factor is if the label wishes to use the profit funds to pay off the other departments involved first. Often times they just start paying off the bands right there, but sometimes they do things differently.

That's how bands get paid. Now we know.

[ZippyDSMlee]

The RIAA is a corperation/business founded on protecting the MAJOR LABELS by use of LAW and THREATS of LEGALNESS,they can override the fair use laws because no one fights for fair use thus one will care if it dissappers.

To protect the MAJOR LABELS first is the RIAA goal laws and such will fall into place around what we do because we do things on a large scale.

CHargeing 750$ per illicit song is a way we can recoup our losses when we sue and lose money with um errrr bad artist's...it is not our fault you were cought backing up your CD/DVD collection or subverting our illicit copy protections because we subverted fair use and have it clear as paper what the DMCA is about!
Its not our fault your neighbor was downloading MP3s and you were cought up in the sweep.

Better?

[Theory?]

Well first off, the RIAA only represents MAJOR labels. Indie labels get no cred from the RIAA or it's pathetic lawsuits.

[Tollwutig]

CLOSED... sorry took me a bit, and forgot to do it yesterday..... I'll open the next debate soon.

Toll