Why Are RIAA Supporters So Scared Of What Actual Musicians Think?
from the interesting... dept
Last week, I wrote a post about the idea for something called Project EquilibRIAA. The idea was to reach out to the various musicians whose music was used in the trial against Joel Tenenbaum and here what they felt about it. Obviously, this had no legal basis, but was interesting from a cultural perspective, especially considering that just a day earlier the RIAA had declared that the trial wasn't about the RIAA but about how "Joel Tenenbaum and his egregious illegal behavior which robs artists and music creators of the right to be paid for their work." So, according to the RIAA, it's about the artists and their music, and I thought (as did the original poster of the suggestion) that it would be interesting -- no matter what they said -- to hear what musicians thought about the whole trial. No one suggested that it would have any bearing on the outcome. We just thought it would be a good experiment.But what amazed me was the vitriol in the comments from the standard (small) group of RIAA supporters concerning this idea, and their absolutely dripping contempt for the actual musicians. Some samplings:
Comment #2: "It is entirely irrelevant, as the artists have signed away many of their rights (including those things that Joel was sued under). It would sort of like putting a dairy farmer in touch with a kid who stole milk posters at school. The relationship isn't relevant.This fascinates me. Statements like "it is entirely irrelevant" and "the artists don't have any rights" pretty much makes the point right there, doesn't it? These are the same people (yes, with the same IP addresses) who yell and scream about how what we discuss around here is insulting to artists and an effort to take away their "right to get paid." If this is all about respecting artists and helping them get fairly compensated, why are they so damn afraid of actually letting them speak? And why do they treat them with such contempt?
Comment #11: "I suspect you will get "wanna be cool party line" stuff, as each artist will dump a little crap on the RIAA, and then quietly cash the checks they keep getting."
Comment #12: "The artists don't have any rights. I don't care what the former owners of my car think about whether I've been maintaining it well or not and I don't care what the creator of a song who assigned the rights to someone else is now having cold feet about taking money from a record company. Bought, paid for, gone."
Comment #17: "What the Artists think doesn't mean crap. They all signed the distribution rights over to the record labels, and they are the ones that were wronged. I could care less if the artist stood on stage and told everyone to download their music, if they signed the distribution rights away, they are equally guilty of copyright infringement by telling people to download the music too."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: joel tenenbaum, musicians
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two on the money
Honestly, I don't know how you missed that. You're proving his point even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
It's all about presentation. Who's going to get more respect, the guy who posts points and counter points relevant to a debate or the guy who posts "you're a moron"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
Just sayin....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
As for respect, I respect the opinion that is honest in it's design more so then if it's entirely based upon absolutes of knowledge. The recording industry is basing their rhetoric on a lot of "shady business" where as the opposition doesn't really have much to gain in return for their opinion, except, ultimately, their own personal liberty and political freedom of expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
In the begging our ancestors gathered around the camp fire and shared company with each other, some banged sticks together, some sang, other danced, all after a hards days work of hunting and gathering. Music isn't any different today (except for perhaps the size of some peoples sticks ;) ), and sharing the experience shouldn't change either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
If the result of this is insulting to the RIAA, is it Mike who is insulting them, or their own hypocrisy? Clearly the latter.
If, on the other hand, a good proportion of artists acknowledge that the RIAA IS acting in accordance with their wishes, then the RIAA is vindicated on the point of "representing the artists".
Does Mike have a hunch which of these two outcomes are likely? I'd guess he does - he's already talked to a bunch of artists and got a good feel. Now he wants to hear, specifically, from the artists who are being "represented" in the Tennenbaum case. It's a useful experiment - if finding out the truth is useful to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two on the money
There is no misunderstanding, just a desire to point out the falsehood of their statements so that other less informed people do not get fooled by them. Sounds pretty simple to me.
What don't YOU understand (though my guess is that you really do understand it's just that you are a shill for the industry, but that's just my opinion).
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
A diversion for sure, but transparent at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two on the money
Contracts have clauses if you break them, or ways to get out, and it's the fault of the musicians that let themselves get taken advantage of and not go "hmmm, this is an ENORMOUS legal paper. Maybe we should talk to someone who knows about these?" instead of just signing for the smiling exec who guarantees them rainbows and sunshine.
Meanwhile, I think that signing away everything is what has made the RIAA feel like they have so much power, even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two on the money
There are plenty of artists that don't sign to the big industry and sign away their rights to their music. Unfortunately, the industry and some of the ACs here, want you to believe that they do so simply because they "can't make it in the real world".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
Could that be because fame, notoriety and financial success were never in the cards? I listened to a few of the tracks on your website and they all sounded like a broken TV hissing static. Perhaps there are people who enjoy that but I'd be willing to bet it's a niche enough thing that you never stood a chance of fame or fortune in the first place. So to say those were never your motivations is a bit ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
You're the one that thinks Kind of Blue sucks, aren't you?
Man, you should educate yourself, download some music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two on the money
Thanks for taking some time to listen to some of the work I have available on my website, even if it's not your cup of tea. It's always nice to get someone's opinion (even the negative ones). :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two on the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you presume to speak on behalf of everyone not named Mike Masnick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting...
I must say, in the months that I have been reading this blog, you have convinced me on much of what you say. There are real problems with copyright and patent law. I am getting ready to launch a new internet based service that I hope will be a success. I am already cringing at the thought of getting sued by patent holders over some of the stuff I am doing. I am not using anybody's code as I have written the entire site myself.
You wrote about patents on electronic notifications last week that have me worried. I have written a notification's process that might very well infringe. No, I didn't steal the code and no I didn't use some from the net though I am using Java Mail to do the email interface. This code is entirely mine but since you seem to be able to patent ideas and not just implementations I may get sued. Only time will tell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could you quote some of those as well please, tose you have quoted only express contempt for Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a fun idea.
Why the secrecy guys? I don't except a real name (Obviously; I don't post mine!) but just any handle so I can assign the appropriate amount of credit (or lack thereof) to the poster.
I think it would be fun if Mike had his site admin change the "default name" (aka, Anonymous Coward) to "Semi-anonymous Mouthpiece" when coming from those IP addresses.
It would make me smile, anyway. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a fun idea.
Does it matter? We are here to discuss ideas, not people. Ohyeah, NO, I don't work for the RIAA, I don't work for the MPAA, and I don't have an album or movie under copyright with them.
Now, that being settled, let's get back to Mike's "point".
Mike, it is pretty simple. The artists as a whole will say "it sucks". Then ask them how they would have made their album(s) without the record company advance, and they would all say "we couldn't". There is the rub. They sold their souls to rock and roll. That's really all there is to it. The rest is a suck-butt attempt to get all touchy feely on contract law. It's a good try, but just like trying to kill copyright on 1st amendment grounds, it is a non-starter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
You're saying that no matter who the person, everything out of their mouth should be weighed as equal on every subject? Let's face it, some people here I'm more likely to skip their comments. (Angrydude, I'm looking at you.)
Furthermore, I think you missed the point of Mike's post, too. I didn't read anywhere that Joel was asking the musicians how they felt about their contract. You're right, it does suck, and in the past, it was the easiest/best may to "make it" as a musician. Of course, that's not the case anymore, and I think a little social education campaign enlightening new musicians to the fact that the record labels are at best, just a middle man and at worst a sinking ship.
The point was to see how the musicians felt about a fan being punished for sharing their art. The RIAA always says that they "have no choice but to sue" because filesharing "robs artists and music creators of the right to be paid for their work", but if the artists/music creators don't care, or even encourage it, then it's not really "about the artists", but instead "about the labels" which puts an entirely different spin on the situation from a PR standpoint. (Legally, of course, it makes no difference, and I know that.)
You're an IP lawyer, aren't you? No, your *brother* is a musician. No, don't tell me...! :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
There will be those that say this isn't the same and you still need custom-built studios with digital boards and pro-tools and hey, I guess for some things you do. But for most things you don't. And those studios will still be around, and the business models that allow the artists to get access to them without signing over all their rights will emerge - they are already emerging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a fun idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Knee-jerk, not reasoning.
Then again, I'd also have liked to know what Wells would have had to say over the whole Kindle fiasco. Sure, he may have signed away his distribution rights but as the creator of the the work, I would think that his opinion of the situation would add a very interesting point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't someone please think of the children?
So its either sign a contract you don't really want to sign, or stand your ground and maybe not do anything. That's looking out for the best interest of your artists? Bulls*it. Record companies don't give a sh*t about their artists, and don't let them fool you into thinking they do. They have been raping artists for years. And don't YOU rape them, that's our job. You really want to support an artist? Go to a show, and buy a t-shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't someone please think of the children?
So its either sign a contract you don't really want to sign, or stand your ground and maybe not do anything. That's looking out for the best interest of your artists? Bulls*it. Record companies don't give a sh*t about their artists, and don't let them fool you into thinking they do. They have been raping artists for years. And don't YOU rape them, that's our job. You really want to support an artist? Go to a show, and buy a t-shirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My view
http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
I buy independently released albums, I.E. Gray Cell Green, Radiohead's "pay what you want" etc, record labels mostly suck up money like sponges and give, pretty much 3 percent at more to their artists. Why not just send the 10 dollars to the artist not the record label?
I mean seriously, the big labels screw the artists royally, barely giving them 3% at most after all cost are recouped. Support the artists by buying merch, going to see them live etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBkuiChImb8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
topics flattened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: topics flattened?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: topics flattened?
Flattened: comments displayed in the order they were posted, newest last (easier to read the most recent)
Threaded: comments displayed in threaded discussions (easier to follow debates)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More disconcerting, however, is that this activity seems to pit "artists" against "executives", when in fact these two groups make up only a small portion of the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coward @ 1:06pm
It says that although they may only be about to ask 30 artists out of a larger pool of possible artists you are already fearful of what they are going to say, why is that?
To me and others you look like the 5 year old stood in front of his bedroom door going "honest I cleaned it mommy honest I did - you don't need to look"
Besides this excercise is just that - an excercise; the RIAA were quite happy a bit ago that those 30 artists were representative enough for a trial, why are they now not representative enough for an article on a blog? That seems an odd set of priorities
As for your other point, as someone who spent years in the music industry I appreciate there are many more people involved than just artists and executives, but most of the people I used to work with are now making more money as a result of increased concerts and increased competition of little labels, and virtually all of us have been screwed over by those self same executives at some points in our careers. So no it's not just artists vs executives - I think you'll find there's a lot more little people enjoying the spectacle of red faced tycoons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
post the ip addresses
If more folks posted an IP address in lieu of "Anonymous Cowardon" like wikipedia does, there would be some spectacular gold to be data-mined (more helpful would be a simple microformat for making up comments and associated IPs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, I suppose you could believe that 5 people were all spoofing the same IP...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one needs to pin anything on you., and we don't need absolutely certainty to make fair assumptions. Just follow Occam's Razor.
Sure, we COULD assume that multiple people with the same IP in the same physical location all make comments with similar attitudes and styles, but where's the fun in that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just guessing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So... You purposefully make sure all those guys are thought to be one person because you can't bother to put anything into the little 'Name' box?
The 'no, really, there are several people at this IP!' arguement isn't worth the bits that encode it. (Which is close to nothing anyway.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's good enough for torrent people, it's good enough for the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
That's laughable, at best, and blatantly ignorant. Care to name the other options available to artists?
Decades ago workers received bare minimum pay, worked 12 hour days (or more), and had absolutely no work place safety. But that's okay, right? They weren't forced to accept those terms at all.
Lack of choice is the same as being forced.
"For a few dollars a month, they can build a Website and sell as many mp3 files of their music as they want, with no entanglement by the evil record companies."
Ignoring the fact that contracts encompass multiple albums...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
The opinions expressed by techdirt are directed specifically to such other option, and some examples are named on almost a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Even with other options, though, you can't ignore the fact that artists get screwed over with their contracts. They sign over all their rights, and only get a fraction of their total profits.
I'm sure most people would be pissed if 90% of their income was going to marketers and sponsors before they even saw any money at all. Especially if they were contractually bound, and couldn't get a better deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
I suspect that most struggling acts, if you offered them another X years of struggling playing dives and flogging lots of t-shirt to pay for gas or getting a record label deal, a disc, a tour, and a chance for stardom would tell you exactly where they would go.
I do have to say too, the title of this thread is another nasty bait of the day. Mike, nobody is "scared" of anything - that is just baiting terms for "you won't listen to me ranting mommy!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Funny, because the way you say that, it sounds like contracts have never been contested and dismissed in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Oh that's right, that only happens for the 'mega-corps' who are 'too big to fail'... So we learn that contracts need to be honored, UNLESS you are bigger than the other party OR you just really screwed up so bad that you can't honor the contract, then you get free money from the government...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: these musicians want their cake and to eat it too
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Ignorant Asshats of American't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, they know the law too!
That is just great! Guilty! just because you said something! Heartwarming to me, being raised and spending first 30 years of my life behind an Iron Curtain, such a familiar attitude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously, they know the law too!
That is just great! Guilty! just because you said something! Heartwarming to me, being raised and spending first 30 years of my life behind an Iron Curtain, such a familiar attitude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not their job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not their job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists Have A Right To Get Laid
What?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists Have A Right To Get Laid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
However, the RIAA is fighting to maintain a business model that will no longer function. Artists can record, mix, publish, and distribute music/video by themselves using inexpensive equipment and off the shelf software. The recording industry has made itself irrelevant. In a few years the RIAA and any record label that does not adapt will be gone.
The next big and influential recording label will be the one that embraces internet downloads and add so much added value that it becomes the brand of choice. Apple is the obvious leader.
Record companies have to provide more than an album by a corporately created band, that is based on recommendations from a focus group, with only one good song, on a CD that skips on three tracks, in a "crystal" case that breaks on the first opening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
Now power to them. Do it. Enjoy it. Have a nice day. Just enjoy doing things like promotion, distribution, and whatever else by yourselves too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
Just to press and distribute enough copies so there is a half dozen in every music store in America is a big (and expensive) undertaking. Again, it's nice ideas, but unless the band is showing up with a really big check, they have no chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
You mean iTunes and Amazon?
Listen buddy, if you guys charge 30% more for virtually the entire catalog (at the $1.29 pricepoint) as we predicted back starting back in January, and all the indies continue to charge $0.99 and venture into 69¢ territory, tell me, which is more economically appealing if indies charge less? Do they need promotion?
Indies are charging less, and in a customer's mind it's like getting 30% more free. Now we just need to sift thru it and have a recommendation engine like, um, I dunno, Apple Genius?
You say "But, but, it's *only* 29¢ more".
I say "It costs 30% more, and you took the artist's rights away."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
Absoultely and there have been a few that have done so successfully. You say that as if it was some kind of unrealistic expectation of an artist. There are plenty of examples of artists who were successful of promoting and distributing their own works, whithout the need for some middle man to take 90+% of the profits generated by their endeavors. Take a look at The Offspring as an example.
The problem doesn't lie in the abilities of artists to do these things "by themselves" but rather the expectations of aspiring artists for what they want to become. Why is an musical artist performing their craft? Is it sex, drugs, and rock & roll? Not exactly a healthy combination of aspirations that make for a good business model, in any business. But that seems to be the public image of what being a "rockstar" is about, rather then making music that people will enjoy and connect with. Just look at American Idol. Note the key word, idol? Not American Singer, or Best Gosh Darn Country Band Ever. The emphasis is on the adoration of their starhood rather then the absolution of their talent.
How many morbidly obese, pasty skinned, diva stars are there in the popular music world? I haven't see any, but I doubt that it's only perfectly per-portioned African American beauties that have the rhythm & blues enough to move the world. But that's all we get, and that's because "sex sells" (well to young, and some not so young, boys and girls who have been brainwashed into believing that this is visual prettiness the only measure of success).
And all this is totally mute when promotion and distribution are becoming less and less cost prohibited by the advent of the internet. Anyone with a good head on their shoulders, a good idea (or musical talent in this case), a little know how, and the ability to beat some feet, can make some sort of mark on the world if there is even a minute amount of interest at large. We are talking about a world of over six billion people, a good proportion of whom (at least those with money to burn on your product) are connecting to the internet hoping that they find what it is they are looking for, and that might just be you.
So, what does it even mean these days when we start talking about the "recording industry"? What is their purpose when all those things that they did in the past, studio recording, promotion, distribution, etc... are no longer out of reach of the smallest mortal being at a tiny fraction of the cost of what it had once been? In reality, it means they are now irrelevant. Irrelevant to the degree that those in charge of that industry are doing everything they can to make sure they keep their control over what they were once able to keep by fiat. In today's world, that means paying big money to those who make laws, and specifically they want them to make laws to prevent those now empowered "little guys" from encroaching into their territory, recording, promotion, and distribution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
Yes, I think just about everyone who has looked at the debate in detail can agree this is the end result of Intellectual Property in general. One only has to "follow the money" to see who is really motivating the increasingly draconian and restrictive laws for the digital age.
The argument that they(RIAA) are irrelevant may be true from a technological point of view, but they are hardly irrelevant yet as they still have billions to lobby with. IP holders are using their government granted monopolies to continue to slow progression, restrict access to technology, and prevent the exchange of information for purely selfish goals.
It is already costing us as a society and if they can push through taxes on cultural expression and sharing they will continue to exist for a long time into the future.
On a social policy level IP is clearly a class tool to restrict upward mobility. It gives "first right" which is the hallmark of oppression. I am not sure I am comfortable with the concept at all let alone the way it has been twisted and applied in modern IP law.
At any rate, they are not a "dying dinosaur" rather an old and terrible T-Rex who has a lot of years of killing left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were not a "force" to be reckoned, just that their time as the only gatekeepers to "stardom" is comming to an end. Technology has surpassed our cultural understanding of the music making process.
And I agree, their main weapon against their competetors is the perpetuation of idea that "real" music can only be made through their own "man behind the curtain" magical efforts rather then through the creative efforts of the common man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The RIAA Has a Right and is Right.. but is Wrong
When there's a market available, someone will step up to make money off of it. Some aspiring entrepreneur will see that artists have more control than ever before, and will see that they want the promotion and distribution done for them without losing all of their rights.
All it takes is one company to provide all of those benefits on a "per hire" basis, and do it well. After all, distribution and marketing has gotten cheaper than ever (as long as you're not selling plastic disks and buying TV space).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: IP Addresses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: IP Addresses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: IP Addresses...
Plus he is often wrong about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: IP Addresses...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: IP Addresses...
For a guy that apaprently spents lots of time in the company of lawyers, he is awfully public about disclosing confidential user information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: IP Addresses...
People just going out of their way to find some fault to piss and moan about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: IP Addresses...
Of course, that also depends on what standard of privacy is offered by this site, and whether there is any legal requirement for it to exist, let alone be respected (other than it is sensible to 'respect' your users as much as possible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant minds/Narrow thought process
How about the multitude of brilliant minds reading this engage in a open, honest discussion on what you are doing to change the system, or at least not support the system you hate.
I don't buy CDs/MP3s except directly from the artists with actual real green US currency. I listen to the radio quite a bit and go to the local performances of the artists I like. Pretty simple, the "industry" does not get my money and I'll vote with my $$ when something better comes along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brilliant minds/Narrow thought process
The time for intellectual discussion and debate is well behind us as most of the intellectuals already know and have debated the topic 10 years ago. Now is the time for action, and that is only possible by educating the general public of what that opinion is. This will probably no longer seem open or engaging because in reality it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Brilliant minds/Narrow thought process
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Brilliant minds/Narrow thought process
Also, even if you play recordings, BMI/ASCAP will harras shop owners for mandatory license fees. It really is a no win scenario on that front. Most shops just chaulk it up as an expense they just can't afford.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh
Yeah... no doubt. I sometimes wonder how much money collected from anti-piracy lawsuits is spent on IP outreach efforts like this 73-post thread.
:-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eh
If memory serves, you should have a look for zenasprime and enrico suarve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: eh
Minor correction - I'm an ex sound engineer rather than what is usually termed an artist in arguments like this - it's kind of an art tweaking soundwaves and dealing with some of the more precious darlings, but most people don't see it that way ;0)
Just in the spirit of disclosure - sorry if I was misleading
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read the four quotes carefully, I made one of them but not the other three. Therefore, you have a bit of a credibility problem here. have you considered that the users may be on a network that uses a gateway, asymmetrical routing, caching, or internal IPs to a common connection? Have you considered that the address in question might be a public area (say like in a school), in an office, or might be on an open wireless in a coffee shop?
Like I said, I very carefully read the quotes, and I will say that I made exactly 1 of them. The other three are other anonymous cowards.
If nothing else, it is a very good attempt to make it look like there are few dissenting voices, when in fact there are at least 2 (and quite possibly 3 or 4). Judging by the quotes, 2 and 11 are likely the same person, and the other two are two different people.
Again nice try, please play again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think Mike has a credibility problem. I think you have a reading comprehension problem. He didn't say all four were from the same individual. In fact, he clearly claimed it was from a small _group_ of commenters. The point about the IP addresses appears to note that these are the same IP addresses that regularly defend RIAA actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If these are four different people, maybe there is something here. Do you think that the RIAA hired 4 people to come onto techdirt and shill? Do you think that Mike has created four strawmen to make things more interesting here? Do you think maybe four people just don't agree with the pap being spooned out here?
It may be amazing to some, but there are a fair number of people on here who don't agree with Mike, don't agree with his agressive anti-copyright stance, and have a different opinion. His attempt by labeling their posts as part of some sort of RIAA tactic is almost more amusing than can be imagined. 'Scared'? That is the type of word that is used to sucker your classmate in grade one to steal the teacher's chalk. It's an attempt to be a bit of a bully, actually, and not a very polite one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can't speak for Mike, but again I believe the post is pretty clear that he was questioning why this small group of folks who claimed to support artists were so against letting those artists speak.
> If these are four different people, maybe there is something here. Do you think that the RIAA hired 4 people to come onto techdirt and shill? Do you think that Mike has created four strawmen to make things more interesting here? Do you think maybe four people just don't agree with the pap being spooned out here?
I'm sure a lot more than 4 people disagree with Mike. I disagree with him often enough. But that wasn't the point of the post. It wasn't calling out people who disagree (if you're new here, lots of people disagree in the comments, and Mike has never deleted their comments or tried to shut them up, but often engages with them).
But the point was asking what seems like a valid question. Why are they so against letting the artists speak themselves, and why do they express such hatred towards artists.
> His attempt by labeling their posts as part of some sort of RIAA tactic is almost more amusing than can be imagined.
I'm afraid I don't see where he did that at all. Again, I believe you are reading way too much into this post. He never said that it was from the RIAA. He just noted that you seem to go to ridiculous lengths to defend the RIAA. I might suggest that misinterpreting the post (repeatedly) only seems to support that stance.
> It's an attempt to be a bit of a bully, actually, and not a very polite one.
The only thing impolite I've seen in either thread are people insulting artists. And it seems to be coming from people like yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am one of the posts. I am not against artists, I am not insulting artists in the slightest. I am only saying that artists have to understand that they have signed contracts, have legal rights and obligations, have benefited from those agreements, and need to respect them.
My opinion is as stated. ""I suspect you will get "wanna be cool party line" stuff, as each artist will dump a little crap on the RIAA, and then quietly cash the checks they keep getting." "
Thom Yorke pees all over the record industry now, the same industry that turned him from a likely 3rd rate Cambridge professor into a rock star. Without the industry he so disdains, he wouldn't have the luxury (and the millions) to thumb his nose at them.
The idea to bring the artists to talk to Joel is pretty pointless, at best an attempt at face saving for the "free music" people, who are attempting to put a brave face on two (three if you consider Ms Thomas losing twice) very significant court rulings, plus the whole mess of TPB.
That Mike feels the need to highlight these posts in another thread to me is just like having a scarlet X painted on my house. Basically, we are being bullied out the door,silenced by someone who doesn't want to face up to the idea that not everyone thinks that free music is good for artists, song writers, producers, studio musicians, and all sorts of other people who make the music that the vast majority of people listen to and enjoy every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have to admit that I'm at a total loss how that's possibly true. No one has any clue who you are. Mike did nothing to identify you at all. I'm confused as to what your complaint is here.
> Basically, we are being bullied out the door,silenced by someone who doesn't want to face up to the idea that not everyone thinks that free music is good for artists
Again, I have to admit I'm totally confused as to your point.
Mike owns this site. Most sites have moderated comments and delete posts and block those they disagree with. If Mike wanted to silence you, wouldn't he have done that? Instead he did the polar opposite. He promoted your views to the level of a post, and asked you a question about it (a question you still have failed to answer).
I don't see this as him trying to silence your or call you out or put a scarlet letter on you at all. I don't even see how you can read it that way.
I'm not trying to be mean here, honestly, but your claims about Mike and the rather obvious reality of this actual post suggests you may have a bit of a persecution complex. Again, I'm not trying to be mean, but as a concerned person, do you have a psychologist?
If Mike wanted to silence dissent on this site he could do so easily by changing how the comments work. I've disputed things with Mike in the past, and he could have easily blocked me. But he never did and I've never seen any evidence of any users, no matter how obnoxious, being blocked on this site.
Seriously, if Mike wanted to silence someone, which option makes more sense:
- Do a post highlighting that person's comments
- Delete their comments and ban them from posting
I can't see how anyone would choose option one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illigal IP?
As far as I can see, he did not post the IP addresses, which are not considered private, or at least it is not a violation of privacy when the Industry collects it. He did not post any information beyond the IP address, like owner, address, MAC, or other single identifiers. One could even question if the reference was directly related to those four posts. Even if so, he did not list all the other posts, or even a single post by the same person.
So what is your problem exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illigal IP?
Since IP address is not a public item on this site, I don't think that it should ever enter into the discussions here.
Mike recently also mentioned that one guy was answering himself. Again, that could only be determined by using IP address information. It would seem that Mike has no problem using private user information.
It's going to be time to start using proxies to visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Illigal IP?
It's useful for banning the odd troll or not so clever PITA sock puppet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Illigal IP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Illigal IP?
That's your beef? Seriously?
So if I tell you that someone I know somewhere in the world is gay I've outed him? Wow the previously unbeknownst hidden power of the intertubes
My friend is gonna be pissed
Or is your real beef that you've just realised you're going to have to go to a lot more effort to convey the impression that your opinions represent anything other than a tiny minority on this site, than just refusing to name posts?
Guess which I find more likely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Illigal IP?
So now when Mike says that there are effectively only 4 people posting as AC that don't agree with the Techdirt party line, he has made it much easier. Effectively, he has defeated the idea of the AC, and told everyone there there is at most 4 people who don't agree. I think that information is false, there are plenty of different people that disagree. But Mike is attempting to limit the opposition and make us all easier to attack personally rather than having people considering the comments as they are.
As Doctor Strange said:
"Permitting anonymous posting on a site, and then using insider information to "out" anonymous individuals is the epitome of a dick move. Legal, illegal, public, unpublic, personal opinion: it's a dick move and completely out of bounds. Even Slashdot, home to GNAA trolls, "Netcraft Confirms It," and the worst detritus of 4chan, is classy enough to keep anonymous postings truly anonymous, even (they claim) in the face of "legal correspondence.""
Effectively, Mike is making a move to silence dissent. Banning people (by IP) would be meaningless, this is a tech blog and most of us know what proxies are. It could be accomplished MAYBE by requiring all poster to register and then banning users, but that too would be useless. However, shining the spotlight on dissenters and trying to convince readers like you that there are only a very few of us is an attempt to undermine his own system.
I don't agree with Mike, but I had a higher opinion of him. This one is very, very low, IMHO. Plus, without a privacy policy on the site, well, who knows what it might actually mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Illigal IP?
If you consistently come to a site, write troll posts, slag off everyone there and even post threads where you argue with yourself, expect a little ribbing
The above may be you, it may not, I don't know since you're all anonymous cowards but that's another part of the deal - expect to be painted with the same brush
At least weird Harold had the guts to argue his point with a made up name, if he'd been vaguely coherent or consistent I might even have respected him (not that he would care either way)
I still fail to see how a post which says "the authors of these four posts write loads of similar stuff", but does not link to previous posts, name an IP or in any way identify people further is an 'outing'
If that's what it takes to out you guys, you need help, you are taking yourselves farrrrr too seriously
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Illigal IP?
He did no such thing.
He said there is a "standard (small) group of RIAA supporters" that are active in the comments. That by no means suggests that there are "at most 4". There could be hundreds more dissenters who pop by, read an article, post a disagreement, and never return. But the usual group consists of a smaller, undisclosed number.
Then, Mike says "These are the same people (yes, with the same IP addresses) who yell and scream about how what we discuss around here is insulting to artists.." So he is merely pointing out that the very same people who argue that their position is "for the artists" also DON'T want to hear the artists opinion. How do you claim to work in their interests if you hold their opinions in disdain?
Mike knows the IP addresses of posters. That's how a blogging system works for admins. There are things that may need to be managed like spambots or pure profanity. If that bothers you, you should anonymize all your browsing, because websites, email servers...almost every service you use on the web tracks the visiting IP. Mike, however, did not "out" anyone. He didn't publish the IP, the geography, the ISP...nothing. All he did was link things those individual IP addresses have written, and pointed out there is some hypocrisy.
You retain your anonymity. What you don't retain is the ability to write one thing and write something contradictory later on if it serves your purpose. Boo hoo if it's harder for you to be a stone-cold hypocrite.
Let me tell you. It's a lot harder for people like Mike or me, with consistent names or even...gasp...real names to make our arguments. We have to try to be correct, consistent, and willing to stand behind what we say. Personally, as an "outed" poster, it kills me that you are moaning about the trivial piece of light that has been cast towards you, in that Mike can barely see the curtain that you hide behind, wearing a disguise.
Don't worry. We don't know you. You can still hang out with your friends, your family, and go to the local McD's and order without those people knowing that you make duplicitous arguments in a dickish manner. It's cool, we're on the down-low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really arguing with you, but there are many free alternatives to these programs that do the job just fine.
Most of the advantages of the more expensive software packages (assuming there are any) are related to things like convenience (or in the case of ProTools, compatibility with other studios, so they can take their files and go whenever it is convenient and open them up someplace else without having to go through the tedium of importing audio files and whatnot).
In terms of sound quality, free hosts like Audacity or Kristal Audio Engine work the same way that expensive hosts like Samplitude work. Then there are the dirt cheap alternatives like Reaper or Cantabile or Energy XT. All of them do the job just fine. If the Beatles in 1967 were stuck on an island with any of these and some microphones they would have been in hog heaven.
The same goes for signal processors and virtual instruments. In some cases, the freeware alternatives are quite striking. One great example is Xhip: a software synthesizer that hands down sounds better than many very expensive alternatives.
All of these things and about 5000 others can be found with a bit of research at http://www.kvraudio.com
This is a great time to be a recording musician. Don't let the naysayers fool you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks! :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let me get this straight, you think that if Thom had never been signed, he would not be saying bad things about the industry?
"The idea to bring the artists to talk to Joel is pretty pointless, at best an attempt at face saving for the "free music" people, who are attempting to put a brave face on two (three if you consider Ms Thomas losing twice) very significant court rulings, plus the whole mess of TPB."
It's about the disconnect between the RIAA's rhetoric and the reality of the situation.
If the RIAA would just be honest about the whole matter and say "we are doing this not for musicians, but for shareholders" then there would be no point, I agree. I for one would find such honesty refreshing and amusing. But that would probably be considered a PR disaster.
"That Mike feels the need to highlight these posts in another thread to me is just like having a scarlet X painted on my house. Basically, we are being bullied out the door,silenced by someone who doesn't want to face up to the idea that not everyone thinks that free music is good for artists, song writers, producers, studio musicians, and all sorts of other people who make the music that the vast majority of people listen to and enjoy every day."
Oh, poor you. For god sake, it is Mike's bandwidth and servers that you are using. It is his site. The fact that you are here is due solely to his success in making such a popular site.
If you don't like it, go away. You could even MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN BLOG! It takes about 5 minutes to set one up using Fantastico. There you would have all the freedom and anonymity you could want.
Of course, no one would ever read it, but that sure as hell isn't Mike's fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I am saying both that it is a little hypocritical to pee all over "the indsutry" that was instrumental in making him wealthy, and it is also unlikely that we would heard his bad things had he not been signed. He would be just some bloke in Chipping Norton, not rock star quoted worldwide.
"It's about the disconnect between the RIAA's rhetoric and the reality of the situation.
If the RIAA would just be honest about the whole matter and say "we are doing this not for musicians, but for shareholders" then there would be no point, I agree."
Sorry, they are doing for the musicians and for the artists, just not as directly as you might like. The artist are financed and supported by who? The labels. If the labels aren't making income and cannot support the artists, it is the artists that lose, no? Remember too, the "artists" isn't just the performer that is named, but all the song writers, arrangers, producers, and what not that all have percentage interest in the whole affair. It isn't as simple as you are trying to paint it.
"Oh, poor you. For god sake, it is Mike's bandwidth and servers that you are using. It is his site. The fact that you are here is due solely to his success in making such a popular site."
Again, not the point. I can stand in a corner and talk to myself, or I can walk out on this stage and say my piece under the brighter lights and in front of a larger audience. My beef at this point with Mike is that he is all over various evils, real or imagined on the net, and yet he himself is using data that should be part of a privacy policy to make public posts.
Worse yet, it appears that he is trying to shut up dissenting views. The true test of an idea (or set of ideas) is it's ability to stand up to challenges, to picking, and to dissection by all sorts of people. When you see someone moving to "shut up the mob", you might want to listen more closely to the mob, because they are probably saying something that is a little more true than anyone wants you to know about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By repeating them and highlighting them? Mike did the opposite of what you claim.
"The true test of an idea (or set of ideas) is it's ability to stand up to challenges"
Which is what is happening to your ideas now - although you seem remarkably uncomfortable about it.
"When you see someone moving to 'shut up the mob', you might want to listen more closely to the mob, because they are probably saying something that is a little more true than anyone wants you to know about."
Good point. But Mike didn't do that, so meh. When I see someone move to "shut up the mob", I'll let you know.
Whoops, just saw it. Someone doesn't seem very keen on hearing what the creators of the 30 songs in the Tennenbaum case have to say... but that was you!!
Dude, Mike called you out for being a hypocrite, and what's so funny is that you can't even keep from being a hypocrite in the single comment above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is the most beautifully ironic thing that I have ever seen on this site.
But one last thing before I go back to working. The whole 'rock star' thing isn't necessarily as wonderful as you are making it out to be.
Paul Westerberg was once asked if he was bitter about the fact that he never quite became a rock star, while later indie artists like Kurt Cobain did become rock stars.
His response?
"What did it get him? Oh yeah, I wish that was me!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stars die. Everyone else does too. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...the important fact that an IP address does not identify a specific user."
"IP address-based evidence is notoriously unreliable."
"...many of their cases consist of little more than an IP address, which as we've discussed frequently isn't specific evidence of individual guilt."
"These are the same people (yes, with the same IP addresses)..."
- - -
Permitting anonymous posting on a site, and then using insider information to "out" anonymous individuals is the epitome of a dick move. Legal, illegal, public, unpublic, personal opinion: it's a dick move and completely out of bounds. Even Slashdot, home to GNAA trolls, "Netcraft Confirms It," and the worst detritus of 4chan, is classy enough to keep anonymous postings truly anonymous, even (they claim) in the face of "legal correspondence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick thoughts
Mike's original post wasn't saying that artists should be consulted about what happens with their music necessarily, he was merely pointing out the disconnect between the RIAA's "we're doing it for the artists" stance and the fact that their actions go almost completely against the artists' wishes. (This is besides the fact that many of us see the actions as completely counter-productive regardless of who approves of them).
This follow-up post is also pointing out a disconnect between the (often anonymous) commenters' posts. That is, one day they're saying "artists deserve to get paid and people who download free music are screwing them over" (not really true, by the way). The next day they're saying "who gives a f*ck about the artists, they signed away their rights and should shut up". It's a complete contradiction and deserves to be pointed out.
Also, the IP address thing isn't new. Many of the regular trollish posters here try to remain anonymous (presumably to avoid getting caught up in actual dialog with intelligent people), and Mike has called people out before when they're tried to change identity or obscure their posts in order to confuse a conversation. He's also done it to defend people - I remember a few fake "weird harold" posters get called out back when he was trolling here. Like it or not, IP addresses are public information and it's Mike's site. He has the right to call people out on bullshit, and if he has to use publicly available information to do so, then so be it. Don't like that? There's other sites you can use, or you can start your own...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't sell stuff you want to control
Having said that, if the artists what control of the content they create they shouldn't have sold it to the studios.
This really isn't that complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't sell stuff you want to control
The artists aren't asking for control of their music or even anything similar, as of this point it's not even clear if any of them have even been approached
All that is happening is that since the RIAA have consistently claimed they are acting "on behalf of the artists", someone has decided to ask the artists what their actual opinions are
Nothing more
Hey it could turn out the general expectation on this site is wrong and the artists all turn around and say "we love the RIAA and the way the music industry works, stop messing with it", unlikely in my opinion but its a possibility. Either way it’s bound to be an interesting insight
Think about it this way, how about if I bought IP for an album off you then went around without your involvement suing people saying "I'm doing this on behalf of Cenobyte" but giving you nothing, surely people would be interested to know your opinion? Turning around and saying "I hate Enrico" wouldn't stop me or have any real effect but it would be interesting to those I was suing
Actually you might even be able to sue me for misrepresentation (or whatever the legal thingumy is) if I went too far - perhaps that’s why the RIAA don't like the exercise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't sell stuff you want to control
The irony, I spend all day slating AC's then end up being one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thoughts about comment lines
As one comment said, hypocrisy.
Thoughts like that, and the idea of trying to hide something so simple as an IP address just destroy all credibility.
And if there really were more than one person posting from behind a gateway, enter a name. What do you get by my name being Killer_Tofu? Absolutely nothing except the ability to tell when it is me posting instead of somebody else. That way you can keep my thoughts tracked better and it offers you a better chance to reply.
Then again, we all know you guys would love it if everybody just bent over a took it. Too bad so sad that we won't. Really, it takes like an extra 2 seconds to type in the name. You should try it some time. You will remain just as anonymous as you are now. So stop being a bunch of crybabies about him saying that a bunch of ACs from a few IPs keep posting stuff. You are arguing in completely the wrong direction.
The discussion should not have been about how anonymous you can be, but about how you are contradicting yourself.
Try answering those questions for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]