said by TheHelpful1 :

---

said by NOVA_Guy :

---

said by ---:

---

Everyone involved with music already makes enough money

---

Actually, not everyone involved with music makes enough money. The actual artist make pennies on the dollar for the music they write/sing/perform.

An exaggerated point is that for the $1-million an artist' CD will make, the Recording industry ass. of America takes over $900K out of it and leaves the remaining $100K to be divided among the actual artist, promotional expenses, and every other "little person" who helped make that CD.

And should "piracy" start to eat away at the profits, the Industry just takes those "lost sales" out of the $100K and not their own $900K.

Like that commercial for the MPAA with Ben affleck that says "dont pirate, it hurts the little people". Well if the studios didnt pay the actors such outrageous wages for just learning a script that another harder worker spent time writing, it might not be so bad. Sean connery made only $100K for his first movie "Dr. No" in 1962, but in 2003 he was paid $17-million for League of Extrordinary Gentlemen. Now that is some serious "cost of living" increase...

---

There needs to be a new entity to replace the RIAA, that's all so unfair to the artists and crews who do all the work. Administration makes 9/10's of the profits, and that's just plain lame.
--
MediaXPeer]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8371343 Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:26:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8371233 TheHelpful1 :

said by NOVA_Guy :

---

said by ---:

---

Everyone involved with music already makes enough money

---

Actually, not everyone involved with music makes enough money. The actual artist make pennies on the dollar for the music they write/sing/perform.

An exaggerated point is that for the $1-million an artist' CD will make, the Recording industry ass. of America takes over $900K out of it and leaves the remaining $100K to be divided among the actual artist, promotional expenses, and every other "little person" who helped make that CD.

And should "piracy" start to eat away at the profits, the Industry just takes those "lost sales" out of the $100K and not their own $900K.

Like that commercial for the MPAA with Ben affleck that says "dont pirate, it hurts the little people". Well if the studios didnt pay the actors such outrageous wages for just learning a script that another harder worker spent time writing, it might not be so bad. Sean connery made only $100K for his first movie "Dr. No" in 1962, but in 2003 he was paid $17-million for League of Extrordinary Gentlemen. Now that is some serious "cost of living" increase...
--
"Not that you would, but you could"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8371233 Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:13:35 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8364775 SuperJudge :

said by TwoCpus4me :

---

RIAA will be in there and in no time put a twist on that which will cause the administration to buckle for fear of lawsuit.

---

All I can say is 'Yup.'
--
MediaXPeer]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8364775 Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:36:04 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8357374 NOVA_Guy :

said by ---:

---

With exceptions of course - playing a radio station in a business in order to create atmosphere obligates the business to pay royalties.

---

Which is nothing but bullsh*t logic. Everyone involved with music already makes enough money-- why must they charge businesses to play for consumers what would otherwise be freely available in their cars? Shame, shame, shame...

And they wonder why people don't feel the least bit sorry for them when they falsely inflate their "losses" to online "piracy". (in quotes for a big reason there...)

Yeah, I know that this has been the case for quite some time, but it still shouldn't make it any more acceptable. If someone buys a CD, they should have the right to play it under whatever circumstances they choose. If someone buys a radio, they should have the right to turn it on under any circumstances they choose. And both of these examples should include businesses and the like, no matter how many customers happen to be standing around. Greedy, greedy, greedy.
--
Cox cable: the hallmark questionable business practices and lousy cable service!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8357374 Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:03:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8346702 Transmaster : Now I know why the RIAA is silent Microsoft is backing this. They are operating under the long standing license that a University has always had. The law also is different for a analog feed over video line.

This is so cool MIT has used the law to screw over the RIAA. The license they have is a performance license, and
because of it recording studios are cut out of the loop.
performance royalties go the artist not the studio's. The studio's have publishing rights, not performance rights.
In the past publishing was where the money was at. The performance rights belong the musicians. Now the contracts leeched most of this money back to pay for promotion, publication, the recording engineer's cocaine habit, etc. But once the cost had been recouped the performance money was for the most part the bands, and what ever deal they had with their manager, if they have one. That is until they returned to the studio to make another recording, at which time they where right back into indentured servitude.

good show MIT !
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the electric blue glow of an 866 mercury vapor rectifier tube at night.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8346702 Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:44:34 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8345291 anon : I wish i was at MIT. I would like to kick RIAA out when they knock on the doors.

Lets go MIT, i like the effort and really ingenious.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8345291 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:18:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8342803 anon : No, radio wasn't always considered fair use. Radio and the depression cut record and sheet music sales percipitously in the early 1930's and the recording industry sued. The court ruled that the "free advertising" effect of radio outweighed the intellectual property loss and so radio stations had only to pay royalties to artists, listeners had to pay nothing. With exceptions of course - playing a radio station in a business in order to create atmosphere obligates the business to pay royalties.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8342803 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:57:37 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8341593 anon : Try turning on a radio. It's basically the same thing, without the playback controls & transmitted through free space rather than a wire. Radio is why there is the so-called "analog loophole" (and RIAA-originated term). Before the DMCA, there was no "analog loophole" because there was nothing to *have* a loophole. We were all just allowed fair use like we should be. Sadly, 1984 seems to be coming about 20 years later than Mr. Orwell imagined.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8341593 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 15:45:41 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340814 Omega : as long as they piss off the RIAA, I am happy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340814 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340681 anon : What makes you say that? MIT has been particularly defiant of the RIAA in the past, more so than most universities. And the whole point of the posting that it's a legal loophole is that it is in fact *legal*. If MIT feels the RIAA suit has no standing, they will fight it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340681 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:52:52 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340642 morbo :

said by TwoCpus4me :

---

RIAA will be in there and in no time put a twist on that which will cause the administration to buckle for fear of lawsuit.

---

the administration will not buckle, as what they are doing is legal.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340642 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:47:50 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340601 anon : Ok, i think that it's a big mistake to experiment with such projects. Probably these guys would try to beat a monster for a while, but i'm sure - there's no way to do this by using legal technology.
---
»divx.gromkov.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340601 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:43:15 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340319 bistro777 : Here’s an interesting link for those unaware of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. And for those heavily involved in file sharing, they have a link to check if your file-trading user name or IP address have been subpoenaed.

No man made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. - - Edmund Burke]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340319 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:00:49 EDT http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340224 TwoCpus4me : RIAA will be in there and in no time put a twist on that which will cause the administration to buckle for fear of lawsuit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,8340224 Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:47:16 EDT