What is Digg?45 Comments
- sumrandommember, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When is everyone going to learn that the only way to stop the RIAA is by NOT BUYING MUSIC CD'S. Make them file for bankruptcy for once instead of the artist.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Gimme a ***** break. It's just how the industry works with regards to licensing. It's not the RIAA, it's the artists, it's their management, and for many it's one last chance for many of them to make money on a tune they recorded 30-40 years ago.
If every artist wants a flat fee for needle-drop rights, even $3k per song per artist, extrapolate that out across 88 episodes with (let's say) 4 songs per show. That's a million dollars just for the tracks. And believe me, artists want a helluva lot more than $3k per song. There is a perception that DVDs are some sort of cash cow. - aliasunknown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's not the RIAA, it's the artists, it's their management, and for many it's one last chance for many of them to make money on a tune they recorded 30-40 years ago."
That's funny. Considering artists make pennies for every CD sold, I wouldn't expect them to be able to get $3k for a song they don't even own. Yes, that is correct, most artists don't own the copyright to their own recordings. The labels own the songs, and of course by labels, I mean the RIAA. - einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kindrobot...
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. The licensing of music is thru ASCAP and BMI. That's their function. That's what they do. And they are not controlled by or affiliated with the RIAA.
Who the artists may have sold their interests to is a wholly separate discussion. I'm no fan of the RIAA and the interests they represent, but in this case they have very little to do with the article and the issue of licensing fees. - Swift2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I work in this area. (Gotta be careful.)
The copyright area is a mess, and rather than release something with unsecured rights, they often just change music, or drop it altogether. Very often, they also drop the lyrics from the subtitles. Why? Just to avoid the RIAA themselves. Because if a DVD gets out there with something they didn't negotiate in the original movie rights, they get sued up the ying-yang.
Worse, there's no database of rights, so even the studios often don't know! - blackmariah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The RIAA has precisely NOTHING to do with the licensing of music. That falls to ASCAP and BMI, which are artist royalty associations. As far as anyone can be, they're the GOOD GUYS that see to it that their registered artists get the money they're supposed to.
- TheWorkz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This may be a stupid question, but is the RIAA in control of anything audio these days and all artists? Why can't some rich independent (gates/allen/etc.) start their own Recording "Industry" and start from scratch? Begin to buy out artists and perform under this new industry? Again, I do not know all of the legalities with the RIAA and their tie to government if any, but just curious.
- tbfl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The real story here is in the linked artile inside...http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050610-4986.html
The writers of the constitution felt 14 years was long enough to hold a monopoly on writings and discoveries and now it is almost a Century - jaspinDroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL "pox"
- entification, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah-- F the RIAA!!
Oh, wait, the RIAA doesn't negotiate the deals for using music in television and movies-- those are negotiated by the original artists, publishers, etc. OOPS.
Children: Don't be an ASSumer-- try to learn about something before throwing your tantrums. - a1lostnomad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People and their RIAA tantrums. Rest assured, the RIAA is failing miserably and will eventually die a bloody death. The only thing we can do to accelerate the process is hit the Creative Commons and pick up music by good Indie artists and spread it as far as possible.
- einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@aliasunknown...
We're talking about mechanical licensing of the recorded masters. That's not negotiated by the labels or the RIAA on behalf of the artists, it's negotiated by the artists' management. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And god forbid all those people want their fair share."
Again, when their "fair share" prevents a release then something is broken. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Think of the DVDs like a software upgrade. It's perfectly reasonable to pay for additional features."
But when the price prevents release, we have a problem.
Also, you're right. It is reasonable to pay for additional features. Which is why I just paid 18 bucks for the last DVD I purchased. - gilbes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So pathetic, the article mentions nothing about the RIAA. But when someone wants to talk about the music business, and something potentially bad to them on the surface, suddenly its the RIAA.
It takes more than just some body somewhere in the world thinking of music to make a song that goes on a DVD. There are a lot of people invloved beyond the artist. And god forbid all those people want their fair share. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Many digg users don't understand that the RIAA is a membership company with the following paying members: http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Good luck trying to do anything but change laws and convince "the man" not to be greedy. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Luckily, I have an uncle that recorded every episode.
Now, just another reason why fair use is important. Without a VCR, these
episodes could very well rot and fade away. I'll have to make a call and
see what we can do about capping this stuff so we can all say ***** off to whoever we can all agree is the culprit. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The RIAA has precisely NOTHING to do with the licensing of music. That falls to ASCAP and BMI, which are artist royalty associations. As far as anyone can be, they're the GOOD GUYS that see to it that their registered artists get the money they're supposed to."
Don't buy it, folks. Labels own most of the music out there and they ARE the RIAA. Period.
However, no matter the culprit, this is about being reasonable.
RIAA, labels, artists, publishers... whatever. This stuff is broken
and greed should never prevent something from existing. - mtnnomad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I heard that it was this reason China Beach is not on DVD and probably never will be. I would pay through the nose to have that series on DVD.
- cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0While this bugs me in general, I work in a advertising industry and understand this situtation. Many times music and art (photos are are) are bought for a specific use thus a lower licencing fee. For DVD producers to use the music or art outside of that contract is unauthorized, and uncompensated use.
Think of the DVDs like a software upgrade. It's perfectly reasonable to pay for additional features. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0blackmariah, hahahahahahaha HA HA!! I almost choked on my fraking Nicorete gum. That is idiotic, where the frak have you been?!?!
The RIAA and the record industry has every right to sit on their lazy asses while their industry goes into the toilet... but the RIAA being the good guys and seeing that the artits get their money... wtf? - valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Man you guys are ALL out of whack.
Yes, the RIAA is involved.
No, they are not the sole culprit.
First. The RIAA is not *one entity*. The RIAA is an *association* of record lables, most of the big ones. The RIAA, since it's members cover most of the big labels, covers most artists.
True, no one buys licenses FROM the RIAA.
RIAA membership companies do own a lot of the rights to songs, but hardly the majority of them. Heck, in many many cases the people who own the rights to the songs have NOTHING to do with the music industry at all, or the original artists, or the labels. It is very complicated.
I worked in the IT division of one of the major labels. One of our projects was developing a system to help track contract negotiations for one of their subsidiaries. The subsidiary made almost exclusively compillations. So to make a compillation CD they had to negotiate the rights to each and every song. Say for instance they wanted to make "Diana Ross Greatest Hits" - they would have to find the owner to each song, and negotiate a deal for each song. They would plan maybe 20 songs, knowing that they either could not get the rights to or could not afford some of the songs they planned, so they might end up with 15 that they could put on the CD. Throughout the process the application had to track negotiations with lawyers and rights holders, and store copies of all the communications. Finally it had to calculate the costs when all was said and done.
So for a 15 track Diana Ross CD you might have 10 separate contracts to 7 separate rights holders. They might inclide Diana Ross or her Estate, they might include some schmuck who won the rights to a song in a poker game. The deals might be a percentage of total sales, or a lump sum up front, or a per lot fee.... It could vary song by song.
So knowing all of that, can we still blame the RIAA? Not exactly. Not in this case. Don't get me wrong, the RIAA - or more exactly, the RIAA acting on behalf of their member companies - is pretty evil. But they are not at fault here.
In fact, the bigger fault lies with the people that negotiated the rights in the first place when making WKRP in Cincinnatti. They lacked the foresight to plan for the future or just didn't care. Which could be excusable, since back then there was no such thing as VCRs and DVDs and the like - or at least not at a consumer level. No one could have imagined that someone would want to and have the capability to BUY a whole series....
So I bet when things are made NOW, they are more careful about contract negotiations for rights. If I were making a show now, of any sort, I would not agree to any contract that did not allow us to use the full show and everything in it however we want for all eternity. If a rights holder did not agree to that, I would go to a different song. There are plenty of choices now, no one song is so important that I can't find a way to use a different one.
Having said all that - F%&K the RIAA. :) - entification, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No no no-- remember folks, we're supposed to blame the RIAA for everything! Who cares how things really work-- A pox on the RIAA!!! F the RIAA!!! Come on, get with it!
The RIAA is responsible for my hemmeroids too!!! Stop buying music so I can start sitting down again! - intelmustdie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"When is everyone going to learn that the only way to stop the RIAA is by NOT BUYING MUSIC CD'S."
You could buy CDs from artists on labels that are not RIAA members. - einsteindesign, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@swift... "...Worse, there's no database of rights, so even the studios often don't know!..."
Now THAT is the truth. I know a guy working at Warner, and there are just shelves upon shelves of contracts. Want to know the terms of something? You look it up on the hardcopy. It's insane.
@kindrobot...
Everything doesn't have to be a consipracy. ASCAP and BMI handle licensing, full stop. The RIAA has their domain, and this just isn't within their scope. - QuadraQ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This same problem ruined the Quantum Leap DVD's.
- Rajio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What has this got to do wihth the RIAA?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is very important that old sitcoms be made unavailable so that new sitcoms may live.
- GiggleStick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0WKRP the greatest? Hmm. I was only little, but it didn't seem all that great to me. It was OK, but..... That Les guy was pretty funny.
- jasonsalas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Probably the same reason VH1 will never be able to release DVDs of "I Love the 80's". :(
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gg @ einsteindesign. You all need to be aware that very few of the original artists and writers would ever see a penny from any of these licensing fees. They sold those rights, for the most part, many yeas ago, usually for peanuts.
It is sad that a show like China Beach will never again see the light of day. The rights are so much that something like China Beach (which would be only a moderate seller) is not feasable. And, of course, this also means that the rights holders don't get any money. Eventually they are going to price themselves out of the market, and out of existence. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a1lostnomad... finally some brains here. Thanks.
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Shoolz :
I'll keep it civil and suggest you are wrong and not an out and out liar. Show us the link that I duped please. - superspak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh so THATS why family guy dvd's are 40 bucks
- masterdebater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I stopped buying RIAA CD's a long along time ago... I either download everything new or torrent it in. I honestly can't remember the last time I actually was in a HMV and spent $20 bucks on a rootkit enabled CD! RIAA isn't getting any of my cash either...
Before someone twists my words to think I pirate everything in, trust me, im not interested in Britney Spears or the spew she passes around as music (trust me, I'd rather promote her on my porn site before listening to her drivel - she may not know how to sing, but she's still hawt - you know? Like a "shut up bitch and PERFORM!" - I love indie artists and I regularly paypal them dollars, its nice to know THEY are gettin paid, and not some idiot. - Ian_Dass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0talk about old news.
http://search.wired.com/wnews/default.asp?query=wkrp - el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"That's funny. Considering artists make pennies for every CD sold, I wouldn't expect them to be able to get $3k for a song they don't even own. Yes, that is correct, most artists don't own the copyright to their own recordings. The labels own the songs, and of course by labels, I mean the RIAA."
And because the copyright holder, whoever they may be, wants to make money they are doing something wrong? Don't blast someone for trying to make money, its the American Dream. Oh, and I doubt the RIAA owns any copyrights to songs. The labels and the RIAA are two seperate entities. Get it straight. - kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"@kindrobot...
Everything doesn't have to be a consipracy. ASCAP and BMI handle licensing, full stop. The RIAA has their domain, and this just isn't within their scope."
Noone said it was a conspiracy. The RIAA is mostly labels, who own the music, who control the licensing... FULLER STOP. You're wrong. Get over it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That show SUCKS anyway.
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0valkraider, frelling great post! Thanks!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Hahaha. What kind of retard woudl want to see reruns of WKRP? Might as well go all out lame and watch Sanford and Sun or Good Times or Lassie or that show where the rich guy tries to live in a hillbilly lifestyle and his sons are always running around without a shirt.
Seriously - television sucks now but it sucked way more decades ago.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is