Interesting new twist RE:RIAA

[...AndTimeBegan]

You are correct about Canada, for the moment...

Reuters: Canada moves to reform copyright protection.:

It's hard to believe that TiVo and VCRs are illegal in Canada, but unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material isn't. Probably explained by their French ancestry.

Even though only a section of Canada is French. Sweeping generalizations are awesome! And I was correct about France too as well as Nordic countries considering a move towards the same policies. Lastly, we're not talking about TiVo or VCRs, we're talking about file sharing. (and typical that your reply contains the phrase "but unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material" as if you didn't even read Canada's initial argument towards legal file sharing in the first place...) I think it's stupid that recreational drugs are legal in some countries (personal opinion and a completely different discussion, I'm just making a point), but that doesn't mean I don't highly approve of Holland's health care system, for example. Nobody is perfect.

 

[The Fiddler]

EDIT: I'd also like to add that some countries, INCLUDING THE US (if you read the Denmark article) have considered allowing free file sharing which would be offset by an added fee tacked on to the ISP bill. It's an interesting notion as well. Not sure if I agree with it though. I don't want to download a bunch of metal albums and have my ISP bill payments go to Brittney Spears... lol

If you're to pay your ISP an added fee for access to the downloads, how can you turnaround and call it "free file sharing"?

I'm not against the idea as the artists would at least get some compensation for their music from you the consumer, as you pointed out with your Britney Spears example.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

If you're to pay your ISP an added fee for access to the downloads, how can you turnaround and call it "free file sharing"?

I'm not against the idea as the artists would at least get some compensation for their music from you the consumer, as you pointed out with your Britney Spears example.

But indie artists wouldn't get the compensation. The RIAA, who only represents major labels and not labels like Nightmare Records, would get the compensation. If I downloaded a Suspyre album, they would not get the compensation.

And yes I apologize for my word choice. Either way, that concept of offsetting download costs through the IP bill is not something I necessarily stand for.

 

[The Fiddler]

Only reason why I haven't posted articles about this subject was because I thought it was easy enough to just look up.. lol


http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2317/196/

http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/p2plegalitiesandethics/a/p2p_france.htm



There are plenty of other articles surrounding different countries. Not every country has officially legalized it (as of 2006 only France and Canada actually have- I believe there are others that have since then but I cannot recall), some have, but LOTS are considering it. I'm not up to date on the current status of these countries that are considering it, but the fact that they're considering it in the first place is enough. And for the record, Von Finckenstein's (Canada) argument is spot on and I fully agree with it.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that some countries, INCLUDING THE US (if you read the Denmark article) have considered allowing free file sharing which would be offset by an added fee tacked on to the ISP bill. It's an interesting notion as well. Not sure if I agree with it though. I don't want to download a bunch of metal albums and have my ISP bill payments go to Brittney Spears... lol

Peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted works IS an offense in France:

French Copyright Law:

On 7 March 2006, however, the National Assembly passed the DADVSI Act which implemented - with some modifications - the 2001 European Union Copyright directive. The DADVSI act makes peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted works an offense.

DAVSI: Most of the bill focuses on the repression of the exchange of copyrighted works over peer-to-peer networks and the criminalizing of the circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) protection measures.

Furthermore:

France leads crackdown to end illegal file sharing: Under the plan drawn up by a government-commissioned panel, Internet service providers have agreed to cooperate with copyright owners in the fight against illegal file sharing, something that they have long resisted.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted works IS an offense in France:

French Copyright Law:

On 7 March 2006, however, the National Assembly passed the DADVSI Act which implemented - with some modifications - the 2001 European Union Copyright directive. The DADVSI act makes peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted works an offense.

DAVSI: Most of the bill focuses on the repression of the exchange of copyrighted works over peer-to-peer networks and the criminalizing of the circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) protection measures.

Furthermore:

France leads crackdown to end illegal file sharing: Under the plan drawn up by a government-commissioned panel, Internet service providers have agreed to cooperate with copyright owners in the fight against illegal file sharing, something that they have long resisted.

That's a shame. However, it's not necessarily a suprise either since this concept of peer to peer file sharing over the internet isn't even 10 years old. Revolutionary ideas such as legal file sharing are too radical it seems for some people- although this will probably change over time. Regardless, I still stand by my argument. The fact that countries WANT to legalize filesharing, or even have succeeded in doing so if only for a brief period of time shows that there is enough interest throughout the world to prove wrong the "It's illegal therefore it's wrong" argument.

Once again, read the Canadian judge's argument and tell me why it's incorrect. I'm finished with going on and on about this subject.

 

[The Fiddler]

But indie artists wouldn't get the compensation. The RIAA, who only represents major labels and not labels like Nightmare Records, would get the compensation. If I downloaded a Suspyre album, they would not get the compensation.

And yes I apologize for my word choice. Either way, that concept of offsetting download costs through the IP bill is not something I necessarily stand for.

Where does it say in any proposed ISP-fee agreement that only RIAA-represented artists would be compensated?

Where does it say that the ISPs would be making indie music available for download (to those who paid the ISP extra for the service), but would refuse to pay the indie label any compensation? How would that be any different than an illegal download for the indie label? Why would Nightmare records consent to allowing their music to be downloaded from an ISP if they have no agreement to be compensated?

 

[Magius]

Where does it say in any proposed ISP-fee agreement that only RIAA-represented artists would be compensated?

Where does it say that the ISPs would be making indie music available for download (to those who paid the ISP extra for the service), but would refuse to pay the indie label any compensation? How would that be any different than an illegal download for the indie label? Why would Nightmare records consent to allowing their music to be downloaded from an ISP if they have no agreement to be compensated?

It's not that you're paying a fee to get access to files from the ISP. It's more of a downloading tax or penalty that will get added to your ISP bill, regardless of whether you download or not. Yes that's penalizing those who don't download, and yes that's going to go to the industry to compensate them for their losses. That being the case you can expect the lion's share of that to go to the RIAA.

 

[The Fiddler]

That's a shame. However, it's not necessarily a suprise either since this concept of peer to peer file sharing over the internet isn't even 10 years old. Revolutionary ideas such as legal file sharing are too radical it seems for some people- although this will probably change over time. Regardless, I still stand by my argument. The fact that countries WANT to legalize filesharing, or even have succeeded in doing so if only for a brief period of time shows that there is enough interest throughout the world to prove wrong the "It's illegal therefore it's wrong" argument.

Once again, read the Canadian judge's argument and tell me why it's incorrect. I'm finished with going on and on about this subject.

The government attempts at the legalization of file sharing you refer to involve some form of compensation by the downloader to an ISP (then the artist) for their intellectual property. Nothing illegal and nothing wrong about that. It goes to show that these governments think there is something wrong when artists aren't compensated when their copyrighted, intellectual property is taken without authorization.

Stand by your opinions all you want - but don't be as quick to stand by facts and claims which can be misleading or proven false.

 

[The Fiddler]

It's not that you're paying a fee to get access to files from the ISP. It's more of a downloading tax or penalty that will get added to your ISP bill, regardless of whether you download or not. Yes that's penalizing those who don't download, and yes that's going to go to the industry to compensate them for their losses. That being the case you can expect the lion's share of that to go to the RIAA.

And the RIAA passes a portion of that ISP fee to their member artists (*see below, you might be surprised). And the ISP passes the non-RIAA remainder onto the non-RIAA artists (publishing companies) that joined the agreement. RIAA and non-RIAA artists get reimbursed for the download of their intellectual property when they agree to have their music hosted by select ISPs. A good thing, right? I doubt that all ISPs would be required by law to enter such an agreement (similar to cable not being required by law to carry NFL Network) which would allow consumers who don't download to switch ISPs. That way you could cut out RIAA if you want...

But keep in mind that RIAA does not represent just major record labels. RIAA members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. 90% of the industry is A LOT and the majority of members are indie labels.

*Did you know that RIAA represents SPV Records, Locomotive Music,, and, Roadrunner Records? These are all independent record labels - go to the label's MySpace pages and find out for yourself.

So, if you look at the artist rosters for those indie labels above which have chosen to become paying members of RIAA, you will find that RIAA represents these metal bands (and many more):

Astral Doors
Anubis Gate
Adagio
Benedictum
Grave Digger
Manticora
Wuthering Heights
Iced Earth
Demons and Wizards
Dio
Deicide
Brainstorm
Doro
Gamma Ray
Helloween
Kamelot
Kreator
Manowar
Rhapsody
Rage
Pink Cream 69
Nuclear Assault
Nile
Seven Witches
Death
Dragonforce
Nightwish
Opeth
Trivium
Within Temptation
Cradle of Filth
Megadeth
Machine Head
Hatebreed
Killswitch Engage
Annihilator
Cynic
King Diamond
Biohazard
Obituary
Sepultura
Type O Negative

I'm not saying RIAA is perfect when it comes to PR, but keep in mind that when a band (like those above) agrees to sign for a label that is a paying RIAA member, they are willingly making the choice to add their voice to the collective whole who are more powerful as a team than individuals when it comes to protecting their legal rights. In that regard, the RIAA is somewhat similar to a worker's union that fights for worker's rights and fair compensation.

 

[dcowboys311]

And the RIAA passes a portion of that ISP fee to their member artists (*see below, you might be surprised). And the ISP passes the non-RIAA remainder onto the non-RIAA artists (publishing companies) that joined the agreement. RIAA and non-RIAA artists get reimbursed for the download of their intellectual property when they agree to have their music hosted by select ISPs. A good thing, right? I doubt that all ISPs would be required by law to enter such an agreement (similar to cable not being required by law to carry NFL Network) which would allow consumers who don't download to switch ISPs. That way you could cut out RIAA if you want...

But keep in mind that RIAA does not represent just major record labels. RIAA members consist of a large number of private corporate entities such as record labels and distributors, who create and distribute about 90% of recorded music sold in the US. 90% of the industry is A LOT and the majority of members are indie labels.

*Did you know that RIAA represents SPV Records, Locomotive Music,, and, Roadrunner Records? These are all independent record labels - go to the label's MySpace pages and find out for yourself.

So, if you look at the artist rosters for those indie labels above which have chosen to become paying members of RIAA, you will find that RIAA represents these metal bands (and many more):

Astral Doors
Anubis Gate
Adagio
Benedictum
Grave Digger
Manticora
Wuthering Heights
Iced Earth
Demons and Wizards
Dio
Deicide
Brainstorm
Doro
Gamma Ray
Helloween
Kamelot
Kreator
Manowar
Rhapsody
Rage
Pink Cream 69
Nuclear Assault
Nile
Seven Witches
Death
Dragonforce
Nightwish
Opeth
Trivium
Within Temptation
Cradle of Filth
Megadeth
Machine Head
Hatebreed
Killswitch Engage
Annihilator
Cynic
King Diamond
Biohazard
Obituary
Sepultura
Type O Negative

I'm not saying RIAA is perfect when it comes to PR, but keep in mind that when a band (like those above) agrees to sign for a label that is a paying RIAA member, they are willingly making the choice to add their voice to the collective whole who are more powerful as a team than individuals when it comes to protecting their legal rights. In that regard, the RIAA is somewhat similar to a worker's union that fights for worker's rights and fair compensation.

Yeah, but the majority of bands aren't represented by the RIAA. Hell, 2 of the biggest labels, Nuclear Blast and Century Media, aren't represented by the RIAA. Hardly any of the underground labels are.

 

[Diamond45]

Roadrunner records is NOT an indie. It is a label of Warner Music Group which is one of the "Big 4" labels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadrunner_records

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Yes and prior to that it was owned by Def Jam/Island.

SPV records is also one of the most "major" of all the metal labels.

And as someone else said, CM and NB aren't represented by the RIAA and they collectively sell more records than SPV and Locomotive. (at least in the US)

 

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

ROADRUNNER is NOT a MAJOR
i just got off the phone with my rep there (Amy Sciarretto) and she said 'NO, we are not a MAJOR'
Nor is Century Media, Nuclear Blast, SPV, Locomotive et al.
dont rely on your Wiki-prowess for wrong info

 

[Jim LotFP]

ROADRUNNER is NOT a MAJOR
i just got off the phone with my rep there (Amy Sciarretto) and she said 'NO, we are not a MAJOR'

Oh fuckin' hell.

http://www.wmg.com/

I think we can all agree that Warner Music Group is a major label?

Check out who's under the "Atlantic Records Group" link there.

Keep in mind that most, if not all, of the large independent labels are distributed by the majors anyway, so it all depends on where you draw the line...

edit: http://heavymetal.about.com/od/interviews/a/sciarrettointer.htm

Your contact is a publicist and a writer. You trust someone like that to tell you the truth?

 

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

FUCK YEAH, more than the goobs on here looking up stuff with their trusty Wiki!

granted it falls under the umbrella of 'Group' but it is not a freeking major label.

Your contact is a publicist and[/a] a writer. You trust someone like that to tell you the truth?[/quote]

 

[The Fiddler]

Obviously, how people on this forum personally choose to define major and indie is at odds with the criteria the labels use to define themselves as major or indie.

The official SPV USA MySpace page classifies their "Type of Label" as, "Indie".

The official SPV Germany MySpace page classifies their "Type of Label" as, "Indie".

The official Loccomotive Website identifies themselves as an independent label. "Locomotive Records, official site of the independent label. International version in English. Info about ours bands, shop..." Check the meta tag for this info, or simply enter, "Locomotive Records" in a Google search box and find the same statement in your search result.

The official Roadrunner MySpace page classifies their "Type of Label" as, "Indie".

The official Roadrunner’s broadcasting channel at YouTube classifies their "Type of Label" as, "Indie".

These labels have chosen to pay RIAA to defend the unauthorized copying of copyrighted published music works created by the bands they have signed. From where is the label's RIAA membership fee collected? The labels take it from their revenue stream - i.e. a portion of the money from your pocket which you used to pay for the latest Astral Doors, Gamma Ray, Death, Trivium, etc., Fortunately for the RIAA haters, there are plenty of metal bands on labels that don't belong to RIAA, so you need not indirectly support RIAA if you don't wish. Just know which labels (and the bands they represent) belong to RIAA, and boycott them if that's your priority.

 

[Magius]

Not being a "major" doesn't mean they're independent. A lable might not consider itself to be a "major" because of it's size. However, if it's a subsidiary of the majors it's anything but independent. Subsidiaries are still part of the bigger corporation regarless of what kind of image they want to project. They still hop when corporate calls and tells them to. They also have RIAA representation by proxy of their parent company.

 

[Jim LotFP]

Obviously, how people on this forum personally choose to define major and indie is at odds with the criteria the labels use to define themselves as major or indie.

It's an intentional deception (aka outright lie) designed to disassociate bands from "the underground" from the corporate stigma.

A nice essay on how "fake indies" work (from 1993 or so?): http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/howthegameworks.html

My dismantling of Sounds of the Underground from a couple years back: http://www.lotfp.com/content.php?editorialid=47

 

[eaeolian]

^ One of Jim's better reads. When I say "Indie" I mean "not owned, in whole or in part, but any of the major labels or their subsidiaries." Not, "hey, we say we're an indie label..."

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

ROADRUNNER is NOT a MAJOR
i just got off the phone with my rep there (Amy Sciarretto) and she said 'NO, we are not a MAJOR'

Okay you're right. You can be owned by major labels, sell millions of albums, buy out entire movie soundtracks for fairly high budget films, own a roster with Grammy nominated and Grammy award winning artists as well as staff legendary A&Rs and be an indie all because a publicist, whose job it is to project a certain image of the company in the first place, said so. My apologies.......

Also, do a search and find someone using Wikipedia as a source on this thread. Perhaps I am blind, but so far nobody has used it.

FYI Fiddler, Death only released one album with Roadrunner and then signed to Nuclear Blast before Chuck passed. Don't use them as an example.

And I didn't say SPV was a major label. They're indie. BUT out of all the labels that are known for specializing in metal, SPV, The End, Century Media, and Nuclear Blast are much much much much higher on the food chain than say... Unique Leader. On this "metal" scale, they are "major" labels by comparison. In the grand scheme of the music biz though, no they are not major.