Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
RIAA and Artists Against Piracy Split

By aidoneus in MLP
Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 02:30:39 PM EST
Tags: Music (all tags)
Music

It looks like the aftermath of the fight against Napster isn't over yet. Artists Against Piracy has stated that they believe the RIAA does not have their best interests in mind. Specifically, Noah Stone of AAP says, "The law right now favors the labels over the artists in terms of digital performance rights." More details can be found at the Grammy Website.


Is this really a surprise? Throughout the entire Napster debate, there were members of the pro-Napster community as well as artists such as Courtney Love who continued to try and point out that while the RIAA was fighting copyright infringement, they were not doing so in the best interests of the artists. Still artists stood by their side. Now in the end, they discover that the RIAA really wasn't on their side. Surprised?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Napster
o Artists Against Piracy
o RIAA
o at the Grammy Website
o Courtney Love
o Also by aidoneus


Display: Sort:
RIAA and Artists Against Piracy Split | 9 comments (8 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Does AAP actually have a clue? (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by Mr. Piccolo on Tue Apr 03, 2001 at 11:08:44 PM EST

Perhaps they've finally realized that they can't do a damn thing about their songs when they don't own the copyright.

Somehow I doubt it, though...

Can't get through to grammy.com ent further :-(

The BBC would like to apologise for the following comment.


Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
by Zeram on Tue Apr 03, 2001 at 11:35:17 PM EST

Artists have finally woken up to the truth that has been staring many of us in the face for so long. The real question is will they be able to do anything about it. Somehow I think that answer is a resounding no.
<----^---->
Like Anime? In the Philly metro area? Welcome to the machine...
Check your local C-Span (3.00 / 1) (#4)
by Wah on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 01:40:30 AM EST

if you live in the U.S. They had hearings today about copyright and online entertainment, with all the regulars. Same story as usual, everyone is trying to get the record companies to do something other than stall or sue, they say "yea, capitalism" and then Orrin bangs his gavel and they come back in six months. Hilary Rosen talked shite about "pirates" no less than six times. I still think the gnubrary is the answer.
--
Fail to Obey?
Not exactly (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by WinPimp2K on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 10:20:58 AM EST

All involved recognized that things have changed since their last little get together.
Something big will happen Real Soon Now (in Congresscritter time)

I was channel surfing and stopped when I saw Jack Valenti testifying. He made damn sure he got "eternal" and "copyright" in the same sentence.

I found it interesting that they had artists testifying that the RIAA was not speaking for the artists even though Rosen was there to explain that they did too. Of course everyone was speaking for the consumers, but one guy (from TVT?) did say it was the Senators who represented the consumer's interests.

Fair use was mentioned only as a very specifically defined doctrine that should not be allowed to apply.

The AOL Time Warner rep was trying to explain how giving them monopoly control over all licensing would not really be a monopoly.

"Secure" digital content was the big thing. Naturally no one provided any examples of how this would work in regards to the consumer who wants to have his "digital content" in multiple formats or wants to listen to recorded music in more than one room, or in the car, or at work, or at a friend's house.

I like copyright, but I sure don't like the way this seems to be going...

[ Parent ]
Hmm not what I saw (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by Wah on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 01:57:36 PM EST

(a decent wrap-up is over at zeropaid)

I don't really see much happening soon. Congress seems pretty reluctant to force any type of compulsory licenses, I'd like to see this become a choice for the artist, regardless of contract but I doubt that would happen.

It is becoming totally obvious now to everyone that the RIAA represents no one but themselves. They are the parasite that has taken over. One thing I wanted to scream at Orrin during his final statement (although I think he's pretty close to this opinion himself) is that the distribution part of the triad (artists, consumers, dist.) is really not needed anymore. Yet becuase of their historical need, they have become the dominant legal entity.

The "secure" part was pretty funny too. I don't really think many hope this to be the answer...except for the guy at Intertrust who said his product can cure all ills. When a solution includes to absolution of any rights to a product, it's not a solution.

The TW/AOL guy was funny. I wish I could remember some quotes, but you got it right. Paraphrased "well, give it all to us and everything will be fine."

I'd have to say that I'm for some type of compulsory licensing and a new entity set up to track royalty collection and payments. The fact that the arists had to be there to represent themselves, despite the fact that their organization was also there, speaks volumes. Henley's quote from the copyright office director about American artists being the least protected in the world was also telling.

The mire of trying to identify who "owns" a song is also ridiculous. To have to contact upwards of 10 distinct, hostile entities to try and obtain rights for one song is silly. There are so many things the RIAA does that is anti-competitive, it baffles me that they haven't faced anti-trust proceedings yet.
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

distributors still useful... (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by _Quinn on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 02:57:26 PM EST

   ... just not in distribution. See the K5 article about quality online content for a more in-depth discussion, but there is/will be still room for the musical equivalent of the editor at the book company who decides what's `good enough' to publish; I'm not sure that user-ranking sites can take up the slack about getting word out about a new band. (Or the capital, if said band wants to try and be famous. This would probably be best implemented as allowing the label to buy a minority interest in the band.)

-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
[ Parent ]
I think... (none / 0) (#6)
by Smirks on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 11:24:03 AM EST

... you should head on over to InTune, and post this story there. :)

[ Music Rules ]
The artist list stinks (4.00 / 2) (#7)
by jester69 on Wed Apr 04, 2001 at 01:04:59 PM EST

I must say,

That the artists listed that support artists against piracy, doesnt contain a single artist i like anyway... (if one of those artists is your favorite, my apologies, i am just relating my own personal preferences here.)

Most artists with any sense and/or talent have embraced napster and the like as a viable alternative to the screwed up radio system. Anyone else, i dont really give a damn about.

Bully for Artists Against Piracy for telling the RIAA to get stuffed, since the RIAA is the real set of pirates in this whole situation. However, these artists need to get a clue. Just because all of your income is derived from selling CD's that contain crap music, doesnt mean you have a right to control wether people can listen to the whole thing before they buy it or not. Hell, even without napster a majority of record stores will let you preview a disc.

I have bought one too many albums in my lifetime that stunk other than one song. I dont plan on doing it ever again. If you, as an artist, can't release an album that is compelling as a whole, and are a slave to the radio system hyping up your only catchy tune, get a day job. The world has changed.

The Jester, 69
P.S. i still buy albums, but they have to be *good* for me to part with cash that the RIAA mainly gets. If i am going to ignore my principles, i want to sell my soul for something that's worth it.
Its a lemming thing, Jeep owners would understand.
RIAA and Artists Against Piracy Split | 9 comments (8 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!