  LilYoda Feline with squirel personality disorder Premium join:2004-09-02 Mountains | press coverage
Sounds like a cheap way for that label to get good PR, and lots of press coverage. If the defenders get a good defense, why not... |
|
 amungus Premium join:2004-11-26 America clubs: | and isn't it ironic
don't ya think?
incredible
the irony... |
|
 gatzdon
join:2002-10-25 Lake Zurich, IL | Get it straight
They are being sued for UPLOADING not downloading. There is a big difference. It is the RIAA's intention to get the public to confuse the two. |
|
  shane349 Premium join:2005-03-21 Delta, OH | w00t
finally, one for the good side. |
|
 tquade
join:2000-10-14 Regina, SK | Nettwerk
Take a look at their web site »www.nettwerk.com/
They do not strike me as small players.
Ted |
|
  not quite right I'm not cool enough to be a Mac person
join:2001-06-23 Puyallup, WA
| Two thoughts.
#1- Canada...you guys ROCK! #2- "The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests." "The current actions of the RIAA are not in ANY artists' best interests." -- Hey...look another dead horse...let's beat it to death. |
|
  SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX
| reply to LilYoda Re: press coverage
I think it's more than just getting good press. This is the first time I've heard of a record label actually going to the mat over an artist's wishes regarding their fans getting sued for file trading. And a notable artist at that. The RIAA has always put out a smokescreen saying they do what they do to protect their artists. Hogwash. They do what they do to protect the interests of their members. Namely the major record labels.
Sure Nettwerk Music Group is going to get some good press by this and sure they will make some customers happy (and probably get new ones in the process), but more importantly they are one of the few labels actually going against the RIAA grain. They are taking a risk doing that due to angering the RIAA members, which can end up with all sorts of nastiness here in the states (distribution problems, lack of airplay, touring conflicts, etc). If only more labels would stand up to this nonsense like they are. |
|
 drakus
join:2002-07-12 Valparaiso, IN
| RIAA in inerest of its companies NOT!!!
RIAA is more interested in making all their money instead of the companies they represent!!! Think about it. The Artist/Group only gets approximatly 5-7% of all monies earned from the sales and concerts. The artist/group is doing all the work and getting nothing in return. They should also be getting more like 75% of net profits, not 5-7%. These companies do not care about them, they just want their money!!! |
|
 audiog
join:2004-08-09 Detroit, MI | reply to LilYoda Re: press coverage
This label is a small fish compared to the Big American labels that know that file sharing helps the small labels to get their artist heard by the public. Small labels don't have the money to pay radio to play their music like SonyBMG or Universal. |
|
  Combat Chuck Too Many Cannibals Premium join:2001-11-29 Erie, PA | reply to tquade Re: Nettwerk
Having a lot of bands and a couple names you've heard of doesn't make them a big player. Just go look at Sony. |
|
  SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX | reply to audiog Re: press coverage
Actually Nettwerk Music is the biggest label in Canada. The artist in question is Avril Lavigne. Check out the article. This is bigger than just an indie label going toe to toe with the RIAA. |
|
  SRFireside
join:2001-01-19 Houston, TX | reply to Combat Chuck Re: Nettwerk
Big enough. Nettwerk is the biggest record label in Canada. |
|
 Cyron
join:2002-09-24 Charlotte, NC | reply to drakus Re: RIAA in inerest of its companies NOT!!!
They also get 0% of the money from these lawsuits. |
|
  guitarzan Premium join:2004-05-04 Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to drakus One other notable item needs to be corrected on behalf of all artist's. The artist's need to stop touring in support of cd sales,to put it another way the cd release needs to support the touring artist.
If the artist/group only realize 5-7% income from sales of musical content,Thatsa lot of work for practically nothing.The artist/groups should start selling their live concert shows directly to the public.Then take 5-7% of that new revenue income, donate it to charity or a good cause and expose the true nature of the beast (RIAA) for what it is.
Besides, downloading songs from your favorite group has no effect on artist's, as they receive a cash advance from its label,However the label is the one responsible for raking the artist's over hot coals for every last dime they extort from the artist's cash advance.It's not the fans screwing over artist's but the artist's own label, that's screwing em at both ends.The labels have contracts allowing them to do so..legally. -- Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
 ossito16
join:2004-07-31 Whiting, IN | reply to gatzdon Re: Get it straight
I agree with that so much. It should be printed anytime there is a story about RIAA/MPAA. Downloading is legal, uploading/sharing is not. Class write this 100 times. |
|
  TScheisskopf World News Trust
join:2005-02-13 Belvidere, NJ
·Sprint Broadband D..
| Have you looked at the latest reports...
From the record companies? Their profits are down, way down. Frankly, they have gone beyond protecting their product and now have identified "The War on P2P" as a revenue stream.
Why?
Because the people in power at the record companies are incompetant, terminally taken with themselves and their personal sense of their god-like wonderfulness and, quite frankly, their marketing model, of which MTV is the lynchpin, just ain't cutting the ice no mo'(MTV clearly states that they are not about music. They sell "lifestyle", whatever that is). Top that with an increasing sense that the music industry is kinda like the Capone Family these days, and you got problems.
Add it all up and you got "Loosers". Which makes sense because the numbers clearly show their business model and the music they are releasing is losing. Big Time. So they are resorting to legal harassment and borderline barratry. |
|
  Jason Levine Premium join:2001-07-13 USA
| reply to ossito16 Re: Get it straight
Actually, downloading is illegal. Check out the Napster decision.
The district court further determined that plaintiffs exclusive rights under § 106 were violated: here the evidence establishes that a majority of Napster users use the service to download and upload copyrighted music. . . . And by doing that, it constitutesthe uses constitute direct infringement of plaintiffs' musical compositions, recordings. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., Nos. 99-5183, 00-0074, 2000 WL 1009483, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2000) (transcript of proceedings). The district court also noted that it is pretty much acknowledged . . . by Napster that this is infringement. Id. We agree that plaintiffs have shown that Napster users infringe at least two of the copyright holders exclusive rights: the rights of reproduction, § 106(1); and distribution, § 106(3). Napster users who upload file names to the search index for others to copy violate plaintiffs distribution rights. Napster users who download files containing copyrighted music violate plaintiffs reproduction rights. Napster asserts an affirmative defense to the charge that its users directly infringe plaintiffs copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings.
It's just much harder to prosecute. You would have to prove each individual download and launch a lawsuit against each one. It's more effective (both cost wise, time wise and "get the files off P2P" wise) for the RIAA to sue one large file sharer than to sue a hundred downloaders. For the RIAA the question is: Do you swat at flies or get rid of whatever is attracting the flies?
Of course, that doesn't say anything about the bad PR that the RIAA gets from their lawsuits, the ridiculous push they make to settle the suits (complete with threats), or the financial inability of their targets to defend themselves.
If my opinion were to become law, there would be two classes of copyright infringement. "Commercial Infringement" would be for the CD Press operations that burn illegal copies and sell them on the street. "Casual Infringement" would be for the home user who just uploaded a copy of a copyrighted music file to a P2P group (or downloaded such a file) without the copyright owner's permission. Commercial Infringement would carry the fines that it carries today. Casual Infringement's fines would be much lower. I would also enact a law that would make the RIAA's Sue-Then-Pressure-To-Settle tactics illegal. (Settlements are ok, but the strong arm tactics they use clearly are meant to keep the cases out of court lest the RIAA lose some cases.) -- -Jason Levine My Gallery | Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | URateit.com |
|
  viperpa33s Why Me? Premium join:2002-12-20 Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| The Question and many unanswered
This is a problem when you have a record label making deals with other record companies for distribution. Who really holds the copyright here, the record label or the record company that distributes the music? Cause it seems the RIAA thinks they hold the copyright even if it is just for distribution.
If the record label holds the copyright, then why do they need to defend this family against the RIAA? The record label can just tell the RIAA to drop the suit against this family, we (the record label) will have no part of it. |
|
 bostonkarl1
join:2003-07-09 Arlington, VA | reply to amungus Re: and isn't it ironic
like a black fly in your chardony |
|
 audiog
join:2004-08-09 Detroit, MI
| reply to SRFireside Re: press coverage
Yes big in Canada but compare it to SonyBMG, Universal, WarnerMusic and it is little in the RIAA. Nettwerk Music Group is still a little guy that started on-line radio stations to get their artist there instead of signing a bad deal with the Big guys. |
|