Harvard Law Professor Sues RIAA > Plain and simple

Plain and simple

Illegal? I don't think so however I FULLY AGREE WITH THE NEED TO KILL THE PARASITES, to cut out the middlemen - no need for fat studios with bunch of heavily animated Congrssional worms like this one used to be:



Disgusting, unscrupulous PoS, all of them.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

reply to Rogue
I don't mind if the music, artwork, or movies are sold at a price. My only problems are that the motive for making music has shifted from love of music/entertainment/etc. to primarily one of money over the years/decades. my other problem with the current model is that many cds/dvds stay stay at the same high price for years and even decades and the copyright term lasts for too long. the price should steadily come down based on a combination of sales and how long it has been around.

reply to Rogue
Your labor should be free as well.

Completely different. The artists should still be paid for their contributions such as live shows or merchandise. But putting a price on their music shouldn't be allowed.

That's fine, only so long as you don't get money for your labor either.

WTF are you talking about? ARTIST do the labor, they SHOULD get paid.

The middlemen, these parasites SHOULD BE ERASED.

reply to Rogue
In other words, "art" is only worth what the person(s) acquiring it is willing to pay? Well, that's the way it used to be a long, long time ago (before copyright laws became "vogue"). Of course, there's good and bad in that, too.

In any case, anything that dings the RIAA is a good thing.

reply to kamm
These artists didn't make it on their own. The people who put them where they are deserve their fair compensation for the work they've done. Do you think these bands had millions of dollars of audio equipment in their garage? Did they promote themselves?

The labor of the artists themselves is only one part of the picture. But since its the only part that you see and enjoy you completely ignore the other people who played a role and tell them to piss off, and that they don't need compensated for their labor.

The function of the system is fine. The corruption from greed is what needs fixed.

reply to kamm
These artists are free to sell their "art" any way they wish. But if they want to use the marketing, distribution and other resources of the record companies, they have to pay for that.

if they think the record companies aren't a good deal, there is nothing forcing them to use them.

reply to RainWind7

reply to Dogfather

Then we agree; artists are free to not use RIAA members to promote their music and distribute it. But those that still choose to, have to pay up.

It's the artist's choice to sign with an RIAA member or not.

reply to kamm
So you are saying PR people for a band if they have one don't do anything? Marketing for a band doesn't do anything? the Sound Engineers in studio don't do anything? Sure some of these things are done by the band members themselves, but majority of the time they have other people do these things for them. Sure this doesn't mean they should get a set % of the money made, but you can't deny that they do work and should be paid for it.