said by pianotech :

---

So nice of the EFF to help people break the law.

--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-26 09:50:39]

---

said by lazarus_ :

---

said by pianotech :

---

So nice of the EFF to help people break the law.

--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-26 09:50:39]

---

Maybe you should have read the whole article before typing this.. They arent telling people how to not get sued while still breaking the law...
"Either:
Make sure there are no potentially infringing files in your shared folder. This would ordinarily mean that your shared folder contains only files 1) that are in the public domain, 2) for which you have permission to share, or 3) that are made available under pro-sharing licenses, such as the Creative Commons license or other open media licenses, and
Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder.

Or:

Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now. For instructions on how to do this for particular applications, EFF suggests (but cannot guarantee) the following links: "

---

said by pianotech :

---

If it said "Make sure there are no infringing files on your computer," you would have a point. It said, however, "Make sure there are no infringing files on your shared folder. I see that as a distinct difference.

---

said by pianotech :

---

I didn't see the words, "don't infringe" anywhere. Did you?

---

said by pianotech :

---

I didn't see the words, "don't infringe" anywhere. Did you?

---

said by ifarrell :

---

Perhaps you should be a Lawyer for the RIAA, they are obviously need narrow minded people like you.

---

said by The Truth7 :

---

If most of your music is crap, noone's gonna buy your damn cd, point blank.

---

said by The Truth7 :

---

they're going to piss off a large amount of today's youth and they aren't going to buy the crap anymore.

---

said by petecellar :

---

For what it's worth, there is a LOT of Jazz and Classical on P2P.

---

said by The Truth7 :

---

sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.

Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.

---

said by pianotech :

---

said by The Truth7 :

---

sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.

Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.

---

I agree with you 200%. A buck is actually the highest they should be. .75-99 cents would be about right.

That said, the artist deserves that 79-99 cents if the song is downloaded and kept.

I think the CD model has been dead for several years now except for classical works where you have entire symphonies.

---

said by wtansill :

---

said by pianotech :

---

said by The Truth7 :

---

sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.

Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.

---

I agree with you 200%. A buck is actually the highest they should be. .75-99 cents would be about right.

That said, the artist deserves that 79-99 cents if the song is downloaded and kept.

I think the CD model has been dead for several years now except for classical works where you have entire symphonies.

---

So in your estimation that $0.75-$0.99 should go to the artist in addition to the royalties already charged on blank CD media that are there specifically to compensate the artists for supposed losses attributed to downloading? I'm sorry, my argument would be that I've already paid for that privilege via the up-front royalty fee. Additionally, there are many, many folks who never D/L music, and who only use the CDs to back up data, create family photo albums etc. These folks never receive a dime's of value from their royalty contribution. Why is it that you only see "theft" as a one-way venture?

---

said by pianotech :

---

I don't see theft as a one-way venture, I see it as a two-way venture. Labels rip off consumers, and they rip off the artists. Furthermore, the "royalty" on blank cd's is wrong also, because as you said, people who use cdr's for things that have nothing to do with music are paying it. Plus, that is only distributed to major acts who have contracts with major labels (read, the RIAA), not independents like me.

So in consideration of everything I just said, why should I not receive 79-99 cents for a song? I'm independent, have no label, and could care less about the RIAA.
--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 12:28:32]

---

said by SRFireside :

---

BTW wtansill not all blank CD's have that royalty surcharge. Only blank CD's marked as audio, and I seriously doubt people buy those to back up computer data.

---

said by SRFireside :

---

My bet is people get the data CD's since they are cheaper. Only the ones who don't know the difference would buy the audio blanks.

Yes I am a musician, but don't have an album produced at this time (long story). I do have a mess of work-in-progress songs I have no issues sharing. I suppose you can say it's mostly electronica with some ambient music thrown in. Though I do play around with various other styles of music.

---

said by SRFireside :

---

I am betting that royalty charge on blank audio CD's doesn't go to any artist at all. I bet all of that money goes to the record label's coffers. It would be easy for them to legally keep the money as the artist cannot prove their music was going to be copied on these disks. However the label can say the money is helping the musician through funding the marketing and promotional costs. Of course this is all bunk, but on paper it looks all nice and legal.

So as far as the artist is concerned those blank audio disks do NOTHING to support them.

---

said by pianotech :

---

Speaking of the RIAA screwing artists, you all know how Buddy Holly was killed in a plane crash...but did you know why he was in the plane in the first place? Because he was broke and had to do the Winter Dance Party to support himself and his new bride. The kicker...he already had a string of top-10 hits, his label had made millions...and he was still broke! So the rest is history...charter a cheap private plane, organize a tour, and blam.

Same with Jim Croce. Though he had two platinum albums and a string of top-10 hits in the 70's, he also was broke. ABC Records had already made millions, but not a cent of it had been distributed to him yet. Same circumstances as with Holly, he put together a tour as cheaply as he could since he couldn't afford better, chartered a cheap, rickety private plane, ...end of Croce.

Just two examples of the recording industry ripping off established, prestigious, profitable acts. There are many more, I'm sure.

---

said by pianotech :

---

I understand what you're saying, but practically speaking, the labels had (still have, in many ways) complete control over distribution. Without them you didn't have a chance. Yes, the artists signed the labels and had to know what they were getting into, but I'm sure there was a decent share of the proverbial carrot-dangling in front of them too.

---

said by pianotech :

---

So nice of the EFF to help people break the law.

---