[FalconP]

If the rappers write, perform, record, produce their own music, all at their own expense, and give their consents that their music can be used on mixtapes, then I agree: the RIAA have no rights to stick their greasy paws in.

But, sorry to say, much of rap music cannot come into being without the resources of "evil" music corporates -- at the very least the industry is backing the studio and production cost. If someone is using the product for profit, it is only fair that the corporates get their share.

 

[FalconP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sahwnfras /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well if bringing in 30 SWAT members with guns drawn is ok, then ya no problem. http://www.allhiphop.com/editorial/?ID=337 An article written by DJ Dramas brother about this incident.

From the article:
Quote:

... one of the agents said "Usually, we find other crimes during these types of busts." Clearly the agents expected ( possibly wanted) to find drugs and/or illegal arms. K-9 dogs whose noses are trained to sniff and find drugs, were ultimately board with nothing to do.

Seems to me that they're taking seriously the stereotype of the hip-hop subculture (a stereotype that, incidentally, many rappers maintain and exploit happily).

 

[Sordel]

The argument used to be "if you don't buy the music, we won't have any money to fund new record production and both artists and fans will suffer". It was buying something, anything, was a charitable donation to future artistry.

These days, the infrastructure required to record an album is so cheap that even I, who can barely play an instrument and am not even a hobbyist, have recording capabilities that far exceed those that assembled many of the great albums of the past. The distribution infrastructure is also so developed that anyone can get their music out there if they can access the internet.

Personally, I buy virtually everything that I like and average about $1800 per year expenditure. I can't believe that it's in the music industry's interests to crack down on free advertising but if they want to create an adversarial situation between artists/fans and themselves, they'll certainly hasten the transition to a different economic paradigm.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by megawzrd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Seems you can't distinguish rap from hip-hop. They are two different things. Hip-Hop is really a culture that grew out of four elements: DJ, MC, B-Boy, Graffiti. Most hip-hop enthusiast would disregard modern day rap as trash. What I consider Hip-hop is mostly found in the "underground hip-hop" section whereas most stuff in the rap section is junk. In agreeing with the article you referenced, rap does lack musical structure. But then again...rap is precisely what it is by definition: spoken word / lyrical rythym; just one of the elements of hip-hop (MC)...don't make it out to be some thing it was never meant to be in the first place. Listen to: The Roots, Outkast, Pharcyde, People Under the Stairs, Common, J-Live (to name a few)...and then try to deny Hip-hop as musical expression. ... just my Hip-hop rant...take it or leave it. As to the article...the RIAA is horrible. Poor starving musicians...oh wait, yeah, poor starving musicians that will probably never be heard while scheisty corporate acts continue to wipe their arses with their fans through the RIAA's actions.

I know that we really should start another thread called "Rap versus Hip-Hop" or something like that but I guess I was just a little off base, so sorry to have offended anyone.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, you are leaving out the whole distribute freely or distribue for money part. That's when the RIAA starts caring . They don't care when you take a CD and rip it to your iPod =b

Well, when mp3 players first came out, the RIAA sued over the Rio Diamond--the RIAA wanted royalties for the transfer of files to the mp3 player (the RIAA lost). Corporate copyright holders have always complained that a new technology is going to ruin them (movie companies were against VCRs and video rentals, music companies against blank tapes, and on and on).

One pet peeve, file sharing is not "stealing" or "piracy", it's, at most, copyright infringement (and there are good arguments that it is not). The problem with orginaizations like the RIAA is that they want to use copyright law to impede creativity and new technology for the sake of their profits (I'm not saying they shouldn't be after profits, but that that record companies have no intrisic "right" to those profits if technology makes a company's business model obsolete).

As for DJ Drama--what he was doing is against the law, but the point is that the RIAA is so stuck in it's old business model that it doesn't realize that this mix tape thing helps keep hip hop alive, which sells records, ring tones, etc., and the RIAA should be trying to come up with a workable way to allow people like DJ Drama to do what they do.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

One thing I've been thinking about as I read through this rather interesting discussion is why is the music industry getting the US government to fight it's battles for them? Doesn't the government have better things to do with it's limited resources than to go around arresting people for breaking DRM code or copying CDs?

I do not want the government to have anything to do with my ability to copy a CD, period. That's just none of their business in a free society. The music business needs to find a way to police itself and not go crying to the government every time it's business model fails.

Case in point: Promotional CDs - the music business gives away hundreds of promotional CDs then crys foul when these CDs show up in used CD stores. Want to solve the problem, try giving away promotional LPs, cassettes, MP3s files or DRMed WMA or ACC files. But no, it's easier to use the existing lobbyist network and blame the consumer instead of their own ignorance.

Here's another example coming from someone who has lived through the LP, cassette and CD eras, since many of the responses seem to be coming from a younger perspective, not that I have a problem with that but I just like to add a different view point. In many cases I already own the LP of a given CD release and not only that I may even own the original rather crappy sounding CD release of the recording but now there is yet another newly "remastered" CD release available, this time finally done correctly and with bonus material to boot!! Where does it end? Am I supposed to be made out of money? Can't I get just a little credit for having already brought two versions of the recording? Can you say rip off?

The RIAA has created an enormous amount of ill will towards itself on the behalf of the consumer and continues to do so. Instead of lobbying Congress they should hire a good PR firm and try to rebuild their image.

 

[trains are bad]

Quote:

The music has to be fed to an amp with an analog signal. So long as this is the interface, a tape deck can record it.

bears repeating...the good old analog loophole. Even my RH-1 minidisc gives up practically no sound quality when recording from analog sources.

BTW, I don't blame file sharers. As long as the record companies keep butchering CDs, I'll never blame people from pirating them. What incentive do they have?

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphp@optonline /img/forum/go_quote.gif Doesn't the government have better things to do with it's limited resources than to go around arresting people for breaking DRM code or copying CDs?

No, that's one of it's primary functions: protecting property rights. They go after music thieves for the same reason why they would go after someone manufacturing devices that make it easier to break in to your home by bypassing your alarm system.

I think the lobbyists have too much influence, and I hate the copyright extensions congress continues to give out, by the way. Copyrights should have an expiration date, but while they are still in effect I support strong measures to prevent people from infringing upon those rights.

--Chris

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, that's one of it's primary functions: protecting property rights. They go after music thieves for the same reason why they would go after someone manufacturing devices that make it easier to break in to your home by bypassing your alarm system. I think the lobbyists have too much influence, and I hate the copyright extensions congress continues to give out, by the way. Copyrights should have an expiration date, but while they are still in effect I support strong measures to prevent people from infringing upon those rights. --Chris

Chris,

I really don't know your political leaning but from the tone of your posts I would venture a guess that you fall somewhat to the right of center and if not well I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

Anyway my problem with the what the movie and music industries are doing with these property rights is that they are using this government granted protection is a rather haphazard way and in many cases against the wrong parties. In addition, as others on this thread have noted the music and movie industry have no right whatsoever to restrict the flow and advancement of technology just because they perceive it as a possible threat to their business or profits.

A CD/DVD burner can be used to make data discs, private recordings, home videos and countless other uses that have entirely nothing to do with the music or movie industry and I really don't see why anyone should have to pay them a fee or in any way have their private use of these devices restricted because these industries are losing money.

The same thing holds true for the development of file sharing software. There are plenty of legitimate uses for file sharing networks and software.

Here's another good one for you since you seem to like to defend the industry side of this issue.

Media servers.

At the present time there is no software legally for sale in the USA that will copy a store bought DVD, i.e one which is copy protected, as they all are, onto one's hard drive and yet all the major computer manufacturers advertise these multimedia computers or servers where one can playback and stream movies, photos and music from a single device (this computer). Aren't these manufacturers, in a way, encouraging the consumer to break the law? Why hasn't the music and movie industry gone after them?

I'm afraid that you paint with only black and white while the issue comes in many shades of gray and lots of other colors as well.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif No, that's one of it's primary functions: protecting property rights. They go after music thieves for the same reason why they would go after someone manufacturing devices that make it easier to break in to your home by bypassing your alarm system. --Chris

The problem I have is that they are attempting to extend their rights at the expense of my rights to use copyrighted works (a lot of this revolves around the fuzzy notion of "fair use").

 

[augustwest]

Isn't it interesting that the large multi-national companies that cry the loudest about downloading, piracy, cd burning and loss of revenue etc, were many of the same companies that sold us the technology and equipment to do this very thing. It seems they really want it both ways?

They think just because they can afford to the best shill politicians money can buy to enforce their will that everyone should just roll over and pay them. Luckily in a democracy, there is not only the profit motive, but the free spirit of ingenuity, to defeat their lame attempts force their will on us. . . . . . It's high time the record companies realize the gravy train is over!

(THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT IS ANTI CONSUMER!)

- augustwest

 

[titaniumx3]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeresist /img/forum/go_quote.gif And artists not being able to make a living from making records - yeah, great.

"Oh noes! No more ferraris, no more hummers, no more mansions, no more jewellery that costs more than my house! Oh the humanity!"

 

[Digitalbath3737]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, you are leaving out the whole distribute freely or distribue for money part. That's when the RIAA starts caring . They don't care when you take a CD and rip it to your iPod =b I'm fairly certain you can sit in your home and modify the music any way you want for kicks, and even let others listen without any legal ramifications. However, start performing on stage with the author's work or start distributing it either on the internet or in person for either free or money, and you're definatly fair game for the RIAA.

Then what are Copy protected CDs for? To prevent paying customers from ripping music to computers. If I can't rip to my computer then I can't play it on my iPod. There are way to many instances of the RIAA trying to make it illegal to make copies of music for personal use.

I was tring to find the article were a rep from the RIAA said that since music is so inexpensive the consumer should have to buy a copy for their car, home and mp3 player, because this is what the RIAA felt was fair to them. I'm going to search for the article a little more... but i keep finding other articles with other such stupid statements. Someone should really make a website that has all the stupid quotes the RIAA reps make

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif Last I checked they have every right to make an obscene amount of money. That does not make theft OK. Because you don't find a CD affordable does not give you the right to steal music, and thus part of the obscene profits of the recording industry. This is not the Sherwood Forest. --Chris

stealing /= copyright infringement

while you are on your soapbox please get your terms correct.

 

[Sweet Spot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hempcamp /img/forum/go_quote.gif For all the honest people posting here, I think there are many more dishonest people. In fact, I'm the only young (20s-30s) person I know who actually still buys music. And I know a lot of people. The corporations may be wrong, but so are the music "sharers." --Chris

While what you've said MIGHT be true, also think about this please: The ratio of honest to dishonest people has probably not wavered all that much in the past decade or two. What this means is that the same people who were willing to always support artist's, and buy albums, are most likely still around, doing their thing.

The same then shall be said for people on the opposite side of the fence. Overall, this simply means that record sales should technically not be affected in a strictly negative way due to the nature of people's file sharing habits.

Count me in as one of those whom likes to test the waters before spending my hard earned money on any product. When this isn't possible to do, you have to gamble and hope for the best. A few people really nailed the issue on the head on the first page though: If the record execs didn't have their heads up their asses, they could be reaping a far greater profit by listening to the consumer, rather than dictating to them what is to be done with what they've bought.

IMO, on the popular music scene today, there isn't enough of what should pass as decent music to really warrant the outrageous fees which these subscription services are getting for "rented" compressed music.

If they (the execs) weren't so scared of their own products' abilities (or lack thereof), they'd see (free) file sharing as a gift from above, in that they could allow the potential customer to sample the product, and then legally purchase a lossless copy of the artists song or album. Hell, with the money these companies have, they should have uncapped bandwidth servers for their customers, no ? After all, there's no paper involved, no jewel cases, no print press that has to waste ink either, so why not, especially at the prices they're asking ?

And if not, how about offering lossless files for even less than half the price of what compressed crap is going for these days ? I'd also like to see most of my $ going to the artist directly, in this case, but that's another story all together.