What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
82 Comments
- VladDrac, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7digitaltrav, you must be the most ignorant ***** the world has EVER seen. Exactly HOW is a musician supposed to get exposure when the RIAA controls every means of access?
The vast majority of music is sold via radio. People hear music on the radio and they buy it. Since the RIAA controls what's on the radio, that option is out.
The next option is music TV, (e.g., VH1 or MTV2). Once again, only RIAA artists gets played. So you're out of luck otherwise.
The remaining option (other than driving around with your music blaring out of your car) is to put it on the net. But who's going to passively hear it? That's the magic of radio and TV, people are being exposed to the music without even realizing it. Online the only people being exposed to your music are people who have already been exposed to you, e.g., saw your concert.
Saying that the RIAA is doing a good job because it controls the entire music system is like saying the Nazis did a good job in their control of the concentration camp system. The systems may be run efficiently, but that doesn't make them right. - LarsG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"All the material on the following pages is from MAXIMUMROCKNROLL #133 (June 1994)"
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/
Not defending the RIAA or anything, the business practices of major labels are pretty much the same today. - Flynn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Steve Albini -- cool guy.
Anyway, another way the labels rip off their artist is by simple NOT paying them. You'd be amazed how many royalty checks don't get cut just because the labels don't feel like coughing up the dough.
A good friend took a job with a major label researching contracts, finding artist (or their next of kin) and determining how much they were owed. He found tens of millions of dollars worth of owed back royalties in the first week. The label quickly put the brakes on the project, reassigning him to something less...costly. - digitaltrav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't work for the RIAA, and I don't consume the piles of crap they shove down my throat. I do listen to artists which have major label deals, but the marketing plays very little, IF ANY, role in what I choose to listen to. I am actually savvy enough to seek out and support that which I enjoy.
Hell, I am in favor of those leveraging RIAA to loosen control, because I actually ENJOY listening to massive amounts of music which would have otherwise been expensive/hard to find for only $6.99 a month @ Yahoo! Music Unlimited. Without major compromises from the RIAA, this wouldn't be possible, but also, they would eventually have lost me as a customer.
Sadly though, the vast majority of people don't have the desire or ability to seek out that which isn't handed to them via the "magic living room box". That isn't the RIAA's fault, or my fault, or the artists fault, or anyone's fault but those who let TV control them like media zombies.
jumjum brings up the VERY VERY VERY important point of "new media". It has made a baby Tarzan swing with things like iTunes, Y!MU, Napster, and Rhapsody. The key point though, is that "new media" is just that, new. And the vast majority of content is basically what I consider a "lost cause". That is to say, content which is already under the iron fist of the RIAA. I personally see a glimmer in the future. - air_gap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3wow. this is the true scoop. I was a soundman for twenty-five years, and I know plenty of people/bands that this has happened to. i'd double digg this one if i could.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"If the RIAA is such a bad guy, then where are the guys who made it big without using their services/machine?" - Doesn't that kinda imply that they have a monopoly on their service..?
Look how many computers run windows, but everyone seems to hate it.. But it's still there..
- Ben - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You do realize that RIAA isn't even mentioned in this article, right?
- doctechnical, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't want to say this has been around a bit, but Googling on the quoted phrase "Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away," yielded almost 400 hits :)
If I were going to sign a label to do an album (which will happen shortly after a pack of highly-trained Shakesperian actor monkeys fly out of my butt) I'd want to have a contract that essentially says "You give me $xxx,xxx.xx and you get a one year exclusive rights license to make yyy,yyy copies of my album. What you then do with those copies is up to you."
That would be the extent of it. Short, simple, sweet.
So of course it would never work... - nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*****! all this stupid evangelising on either side of this argument makes me dizzy!!
the way i see it is much simpler. The RIAA rapes artists raw, and pushes crap on consumers.
Personally, i don't give a flying ***** what anyone else says or does, because like the Jews and Palestinians, this war is going to go on forever and a day.
I download music from the net because I DO REALIZE that i'm getting ripped off @ the local record shop. I use open-source and GPLed software because it tends to perform much more efficiently than corporate-made bloatware, But....
I still use Windows when I absolutely need to.
I still buy CDs if I really want the whole package (Cover Art, Liner Notes, etc.)
but in the case of music, I try not to buy CDs from companies that belong to the RIAA, and being someone who listens mainly to Punk Rock and Electronic Music, that's not too hard.
Long Live Linux.
Long Live p2p and BitTorrent.
Long Live Punk Rock.
and of course...
PLUR! - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And another thing...As far as a Deal Memo being a binding contract of sorts, yes this can be true. But as far as any binding contract not having an end date? Not possible. A stipulation in Federal, State and Local laws dictate that a document have just a few basic elements in it that make it a contract. One of those basic elements must be a start date and an end date. If either are missing, there is no court in Canada, Mexicao, or the US that will allow such a dicument to be called a contract - let alone be binding on either party.
As the articel is questionable on that term alone may make it suspect IMHO as not diggable, but I read further truth in it howerever, digg on, dude! - allthewhile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It seems as if many of you haven't ever engaged in any kind of friendly intellectual debate. Someone gives their opinion, which you don't like, and you resort to ad hominim attacks.
"I believe that the best way to ultimately curtail poverty is to promote private charities and spend less government money on what are ultimately ineffective welfare programs."
"YOU'RE AN *****!! YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE YOU RACIST PIG!!"
Which one of those two is the diggster? - sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wasn't aware that Billboard was a record label.
- PacoDG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Static-x, a band some people may or may not like, whatever, last I had heard from band friends, they still had not made a penny off their first album Wisconsin Death Trip, they make their cash through touring/merch, which makes sense, as they are constantly on the road.
- linuxbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digitaltrav, that is a pointless question. Just because something is effective doesn't make it good. The RIAA is bad because it uses false statements and scare tactics.
- squirlstogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Don't pirate music to fight them, buy indie artists and don't buy the inferior dualdisc copy-protected discs."
Amen brother
I work for an Indie label and downloading music is not the way to shut down the RIAA than just justifies there cause. Go to shows, Support local music. Find new music on MySpace and Purevolume. That's how we shut down the RIAA - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Palease!
The RIAA does not and never did represent Artists. Not ever! The RiAA Represents record companies and studios. That's it.
ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC hold the publishing rights to songs that song writers write. That's it!
Artists are represented by A: Themselves and/or B: Managers and/or C: Agencies.
That's I T ! - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1long live the p2p networks and the Creative Commons license/philosphpy!
- Kashey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Go and see your favorite band performing live. All money from the show goes directly to musicians.
- abeerge30, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The RIAA and corporate radio is cutting their own throats. Just using pop music as an example, look at what they are offering up. Jessica Simpson had to be booed at three major stadium events before it was drilled into their skulls that we didn't want her. Even without the SNL debacle, this act was doomed to failure, but she was on a huge promotion train and record company was going to spend millions on her.
- unmarked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1RIAA (the recording industry executives) is evil, plain and simple. They have no regard for their artists, they have no regard for their customers. They'll do anything to maximize their dollars. They are on the verge of indentured servitude (sign a deal and end up with -$14000) and if they could, they'd want more.
My hope is that the internet, cheap recording tools, will allow more and more artists to survive and thrive without them. They need to be providing a service to the artist, not the other way around. RIAA's ego has gotten in the way. They don't see a contract as a partnership, they're doing the artist a favor (from their point of view).
How good of a corporate citizens have the record companies been? They've been busted for payola, price fixing, not paying owed royalties because they couldn't find well known artists and believe that everyone is stealing from them if they aren't paying $20 per CD while they limit how you can listen to that CD.
RIAA can rot in hell, where it belongs. - ajamison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think digitaltrav is one of the few people with a brain here.
Records labels give crappy deals to new artists, and if they don't take off, it's not uncommon that the band owes the label money. And they don't really have an option if they want a record deal with one of the four major labels - the labels have the leverage, not the band.
A lot of you are saying that "the band sucks, therefore they can't sell albums and make money".......But then if you do like the band, you download the music without compensating the large group of people it took to make that album.
It reminds me of a Red VS Blue episode, "Real Life VS The Internet".....
REAL LIFE: "$12.99 for that Creed CD please."
"Here you go."
"Have a good day."
THE INTERNET: "Does anyone have the new Creed CD?"
"I have it."
"Give it to me. Right now."
"Give it to you? Why would I do that?"
"You're not giving it to me! Give it to me faster!"
"Wait. That's illegal."
"No it isn't. I don't want it to be illegal. Therefore it isn't. That's the way it works."
Hilarious, yet so true. [Creed sucks by the way.] - digitaltrav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thecapitalizt: Apple tried, and found out making devices around the RIAA's product had a better bottom line. :)
- thecapitalizt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From what i've read here, here's the conclusion that I can come to:
The question is: how do you find music without the RIAA? How do I, as a consumer, find new music? There are existing solutions (e.g. myspace, but I honestly have never used it) but many people won't use these things, they just listen to the radio.
If you want a business opportunity, here it is: find out a good, alternate method of music promotion, something like a tv/radio/internet show i guess. Yes there are podcasts, but the difference is that you have to promote yours better than everyone else. Get it on radio stations, etc. - lollerskates, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Adam Smith is turning over in his grave. As we speak.
- EvilCowSan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Want to know if your fav artist is in the damning clutch of the RIAA? http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp This will tell you which of the artists albumns is RIAA owned.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry about this, but, just in case anyone here doen't think I know who Stev Albini is, I do. It is not Steve nor his article that I am concerned with. It is the headline and explanation/logic leap given this digg which is innapropriate and comes from a place of little knowledge of the music industry in general. The digger's opening paragraph is on the whole incorrect and possibly misleading.
This said, I also realise that quite possibly the article with a title similar to this digg's title was mis-placed or the blogs in question may have been renumbered (very possible). - anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"Go and see your favorite band performing live. All money from the show goes directly to musicians."
I know it, that's one of the reasons I'm going to an Apocalyptica concert (plus the music is more direct). - storm16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I remember after all the RIAA uproar got the original incarnation (the "good" incarnation) of Napster shut down and got the $0.99 per song thing implemented, someone did an analysis of how the artist benefits from napster. It basically boiled down to the fact that 1/10,000 of a cent per song goes to the artist. So, in order to make a penny, the artist would have to sell 10,000 songs, and in the meantime, the RIAA makes $10,000. Still think they are protecting the artist?
- Jaesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0" Jesus H Christ! "
I love Steve Albini *thinks of big black* ... this is very, very old. I read this IN-PRINT when i was like 14 Dewd. *chuckles* - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So how many people downloading a song from p2p will generate 1 penny for the artist?
- Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What has changed since this article was first published?
Labels try to get the bands to sign away perpetual rights to the band's name.
Labels try to get the bands to sign away perpetual rights to the band's name in terms of all possible website names.
Labels want their take of the merchandise rights.
The classic way the labels have screwed artists at signing has been to grab the rights to their master tapes. Some of the few artists who did not fall prey to this were Ray Charles, David Bowie, and Metallica. Bowie made headlines when he issued the *Bowie Bonds* for something like $700 million based upon projections of future royalties because he owns his master tapes. Metallica jumped into the whole "sue Napster" issue back in the day because unlike most bands, they were directly effected by mp3 downloads because they owned their master tapes while most artists remain ambivilant because their labels already screwed them.
Music publishing is shady. They are also the ones that get the lion's share of royalties each time a song is played on the radio. Its like a vestigal structure that has no place today because evolution rendered it useless. They too jumped into the suing people for downloadings because it impacted their money train. ASCAP (or is it BMI?) are the scum that shake down coffee shops for alleged theft of their material when local bands do covers of existing songs. Instead of allowing the shops to issue waivers indicating that bands should pay any such royalties, ASCAP shakes down the parties that have the money, the coffee shops. They have to pay even if the local bands actually play their own unsigned material. The publishing outfits are worse than even the RIAA if you ask me.
As for iTunes, I have no problem with the label getting their cut out of the $0.99 charge. However, I strongly object that the RIAA gets an even larger cut out of that charge than even the label. Why? So they can sue more people? Because the Grammys cost so damn much to host per year? Or because most of that money gets funneled to members of Congress? Think about it. When you buy RIAA music, members of Congress profit. Its like if you are in a union, there's a good chunk of your dues that will be going directly to campaign contributions of Democrats in Congress and at the State legislatures, whether you like it or not.
Thus, I seriously think the RIAA's cut should be reduced drastically and actually is paid out of the label's cut. That in itself would reduce the per song download charge at iTunes by at least $0.20 per song. I'd speculate that Wal*Mart was able to get the RIAA to shave off $0.10 off their cut per download by threatening to quit selling a large amount of music CDs in their stores, but I don't think that's been confirmed. Wal*Mart certainly isn't surrendering their own cut. - frankwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Long live Steve Albini! Shelac is a great band, as is Big Black... but this article is years old...
- Gringo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the artist should get some software i.e. garage band, premiere or even audacity and record their own music. Have someone build them a website that accepts paypal and sell their music as a download or cd by mail.
Eliminate the middle man(RIAA) - CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Translation. RIAA = Evil so stealing music = Good. Love the moral relativism. Keep justifying it to yourself.
- kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What about the artist? Doesn't the average "waiting to get signed" artist have some greed to account for? They see the big figures, sign on bad advice even after this info has been out there for.. what.. 10 years or so now? Then they sign anyway. What else but greed could motivate that? I think a lot of "artists" are creating music in order to be RICH. And their behaviour when confronted with a recording contract confirms this as a priority. So, I think the artist is at least somewhat responsible for this ***** going on. Are the labels and the RIAA taking advantage? Yes. Are they *****? Yes. Are they alone? Hell no.
Now don't get me wrong. There's not a damn thing wrong with wanting to be rich. But it also means you have to start thinking like a businessman, not an artist. These people are getting in the greed game with the mind of a court jester. When the song goes bad, the king will have your head for a laugh. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0BTW, please please please un-read anything Lynxpro said.
I beg of you. Please.
#1 Music publishers do not make 1 cent any time a song (they have the PUBLISHING rights to) plays on the radio or on the internet. The song writers (not the Artists on the Recording, BTW UNLESS the whole band contributed and is credited for writing the somgs) make the money.
How do they make this money? By becoming a member of ASCAP, BMI, OR SESAC. These Music Publishing Clearing houses that have Publishing members and songs writing members where the song writers (and publishers, too) have a choice of which to join. They join only one at a time and can switch at any time to one of the others. BMI is (and this is voted on once every five (5) years at an annual convention) the collector for themselves and the other two(Internet play, CARP is the collector), of the fees that Radio Stations pay based on the number of spins of a given song and calculated with the number of listeners that fall from the Arbitron Sky. Resturaunts that play either the local station or "business satellite music stations" on MORE THAN 4 PSEAKERS in any one room where either employees or the public gather for any reason must pay also. Schools must pay a special rate, this rate to be paid annually decided on a once every 5 years meeting of School Business Managers and BMI (or whomever was voted as being the collector). The rate is based on the Full Time Equivelant amount of Undergrad and Grduate students - generally found and reported to state authorites on the 10th day of classes.
Airlines also pay a special rate based on the amount of planes fit for flight by a specified day (not pre-announced) and number of flights LAST year.
Yes, even farmers must pay a royalty if they play music for their chickens in the coop!
And that is just point #1 that is faulty by this Lynx cat. - Permanent4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"If the RIAA is such a bad guy, then where are the guys who made it big without using their services/machine?"
Here's a question nobody asks -- why should it be every musician's goal to "make it big?" What if we create a system where lots of musicians can make a decent living off their music without selling out to the big corporate machine in the process?
We live in a country that constantly hits us with this notion that celebrity and stardom are important things. They're not. If celebrity had been so important to Kevin Rose, he'd still be on "Attack of the Show" right now, and there would be no Digg and no Systm. If we really want a new music industry that treats artists fairly, we could start building it right now.
Notice how nobody here is discussing the role podcasting can play in creating a better music industry. Podcasting hasn't even come close to reaching critical mass, and it's already helping indie artists make some money. I've got a music podcast (http://www.daveslounge.com/) with about 2,000 listeners, and I have an online store (http://www.davesloungeshop.com/) where people can purchase the music they hear on my show. I haven't sold much yet, but as long as podcasting keeps growing -- and it's not slowing down, because radio still sucks -- so will the possibilities.
We don't all need to be superstars. Many people just want to make a living doing something they enjoy. Why buy into a myth when the reality could be so much more satisfying? - mathewdev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"two wrongs don't make a right" I think that's a valid point, but I think downloading music off the net doesn't effect sales, and that's been proven infact since napster etc. and all the peer to peer networks launched the record industry's profits have risen!
Case in point, I would never buy a white stripes album, but I heard them a few times on the radio, still I wouldn't invest my money into them. After few weeks my friend had me listen to other songs on the album through his ipod, before you know it I'm in a department store and happen to pass by their cd and decide to pick it up.
Downloading is another type of advertising, I mean anyone can just record songs on tape. - mc4_a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How the RIAA really treats it is artists."
Nice - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, I have to retract an idiotic thing I said on my first digg-back to this digg. I said that ASCP, BMI, and SESAC own the publishing rights. They do not. Sorry, I was in such a flurrie earlier. See better explanation down further.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0evilcowsan said "Want to know if your fav artist is in the damning clutch of the RIAA? http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/search.asp This will tell you which of the artists albumns is RIAA owned."
to whcih I respond in te voice of N. Dynamite, "IDIOT".
cowsan, that site does no such thing as you suggest. ALL record labels that want to have their songs put on the air must belong to and pay dues to the RIAA. The Record LABEL must, as well as the Studio.
NOT the Artist. Artists do not become signatory members of the RIAA.
Just a basic knowledge of the acronym should tell you something:
Record Industry Association of America: The umbrella organization that represents the interests of record labels and producers in the USA (but they have often acted to protect their interests beynd the US borders). (in)famous for their legal action against music piracy, and as such given a somewhat unfair reputation.
http://bandfoundry.draftlight.net/resources/dictionary.php
ASLO see:
Recording Industry Association of America. This group develops standards for recordings in this country. The RIAA "curve" is a record/playback compensation curve applied to LP records that allows them to have flat response with minimum distortion.
www.hometheatertalk.com/Glossary/Glossary2/glossary3/glossary3.html
AND ALSO CHECK:
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is a trade group representing the U.S. recording industry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA
Oh no, the wiki. I'll trust those guys any day - hey , wiat a minute, those guys are really just us guys and gals that do things like digg for the TRUTH.
"Damn you all to hell, you've blown it all up!", C. HESTON.
"IDIOT!",
Nappy Dynomite
OK, so I can't spell Napolean. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL!
Two wrongs so make a right. LOL!!!
Stealing from thieves makes you a good person. :-)
Or if that doesn't work for you:
It's okay to steal since they're rich. LOL!!!!
Rich people aren't people, and don't deserve their money like I do. :-) - pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The RIAA is a group of the largest record companies which is why they are being discussed. They are middlemen, and a waste of time and money in today's society. We strive to eliminate the middleman in every aspect of every business, except the entertainment industry.
The RIAA does one thing well, publicity. You know who Jessica and Ashley Simpson are, even if you have never actually listened to the entire length of any of their songs. The Internet is the biggest threat to the RIAA. From viral marketing to review sites and actual free downloads, an artist can make a name for themselves. In order to get your discs at every FYE affiliated store in every shopping mall in the nation you had to sign with the major labels. Who needs that when Amazon and Itunes and CDBaby are bringing the artists right to you. You used to need them to get your music on the radio and MTV. MTV reinvented music in the 80's, the Internet is the new MTV, but there is no gatekeeper.
The RIAA is trying to be a blacksmith in a world of model T Fords. They could become the new blacksmith (a mechanic), but they fight to hold onto a business model that is horribly outdated. Any other business would have changed or folded but the entertainment industry has money and power and will fight with all they have to stay where they were.
Don't pirate music to fight them, buy indie artists and don't buy the inferior dualdisc copy-protected discs. - omnithrope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This article has been around forever, and The Steve should be applauded for it.
Thanks again, Steve. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Up further.
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I do believe WackT is real Winner here, yo digg the WackyT !!!
- Thrashtastic27, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did anybody else find it interesting that the term "RIAA" wasn't used once in the digg, and that's all anyone's talking about?
- battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And now the good news. Once and for all, PROOF, straight from the RIAA site, that ARTISTS (or INDIVIDUALS) are not allowed membership in the RIAA.
PERIOD.
SPANK THAT PUPPY.
STEP AWAY FROM THE VINYL.
DROP THE BOOGIE.
"Become a Member
Eligibility for corporate membership in the Recording Industry Association of America, as described in the association's bylaws, is open to legitimate record companies with main offices in the United States that are engaged in the production and sale, under their own brand label, of recordings of performances for home use. Eligibility is not extended to companies that are currently engaged in, have within five years of application been engaged in, or are controlled by any person, firm or corporation which has within 5 years of application been engaged in the unauthorized creation, duplication, sale, importation, or other use of sound recordings in violation of state or federal law. The RIAA does not offer individual or associate memberships."
http://www.riaa.com/about/members/become.asp
Then again, perhaps I have been a supreme semantist about this whole business. - el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm doing my part. I download pirated music all the time."
Not sure how breaking the law helps the cause... Sure you can justify it all you want, but if someone stole my copyrighted material i would go after them...and im willing to bet most people who "steal" music would do the same. - battybattybatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Kashey you are full of your ***** and mine! The venue gets their cut FIRST, then the manager, then the Tour support (LX, SOUND, RIGGING, sometimes they are all the same big prod co) THEN the musicians LEADER, then hopefully, the rest of the band. Of course, the merch table already nmade their money, and in some instances, well maybe most these days, the Band gets about 75% of the merch sales. NOW HOW MUCH DO YOU THINKM A BAND CAN MAKE.
Probably more money from the merch than from their NET take of the GATE! -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is