28 ms·

> "In theory, the government should be representing the people, but the cozy nature of the relationship suggests it was exactly the opposite. The government was

> "In theory, the government should be representing the people, but the cozy nature of the relationship suggests it was exactly the opposite. The government was representing industry against the public interest." Aren't artists and content creators "the people", too? Just because the RIAA represents the "industry" to so many people doesn't mean that they're not, if even as a bi-product, fighting for the rights of artists.

lawnchair_larry 15y ago
In fact, they're not.
ubernostrum 15y ago
The RIAA is fighting to maintain an outmoded business structure in which major record labels' presence as a middleman was convenient for artists seeking broader visibility and distribution. It is no longer the case that an artist must sign away all of their rights and virtually all the resulting revenue from their work merely to get their music distributed, so what purpose does the RIAA serve?
- earbitscom 15y ago
  > merely to get their music distributed That is correct. Distribution is such a small part of what a good record label does for you. Even if you want to believe that an artist can do all of the things a label can do for them, that's not to say that they want to, or that they can do those things while successfully continuing to do what they do best - which is make music. Just because a handful of artists have achieved success without a label does not negate that the most successful artists today are still using them. Take it from someone who works with hundreds of labels - the best ones still add tremendous value. The RIAA fights for the rights of labels, and by default, some of those rights are shared by artists.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I'll also point out that the people who have achieved the greatest results without a label, NIN, Radiohead, etc., were already famous, due in no small part to their prior labels.
- ethank 15y ago
  What is your opinion on other trade associations?
reissbaker 15y ago
Can't that argument be extended to patent trolls, though? "Fighting for the rights of inventors!" But the RIAA, like patent trolls, are not themselves content creators. They just managed to get a hold of IP. It's not as simple as that, obviously -- the RIAA and musicians' interests tend to align more frequently than do inventors and patent trolls -- but the RIAA isn't in any fight for the "rights" of artists. They're in it for lawsuit money, and they could care less about anything else. And I doubt the artists' contracts stipulate anything about royalties on payouts from the industry's legal adventures.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  It doesn't matter. They fight for a strikes rule on copyright, it affects and benefits those artists who would like their copyrights protected and enforced. As an artist, if you want people to pay for your music and not take it illegally, the RIAA is one of the only organizations working in your corner.
- ethank 15y ago
  I submit to you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industry_trade_groups_i... "They're in it for lawsuit money, and they could care less about anything else. And I doubt the artists' contracts stipulate anything about royalties on payouts from the industry's legal adventures." Huh? Where is the shred of research that the RIAA (or any trade group) is in it for lawsuits? Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE. I'm no fan of the RIAA (I think that they've done a horrible job at their mandate and don't like the tactics), but lawsuits were a demand from their members. And regarding artist contracts, I suggest you read this front to back to see a typical one: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12630971/bbcd_fin.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12630971/bbcd_fin.pdf
hxa7241 15y ago
Yes, 'creators' are part of the public. But the 'IP owning' side are clearly getting an unjustly disproportionate power over government. The extra money IP supposedly allows creators to make does not come from nowhere: it is paid for by everyone else, the consumers. And consumers have just as much interest in having money as creators. So IP is a tradeoff, and for that to work properly, both parts must be properly represented. Which is the point at issue. (And this 'artists rights' stuff is nothing but PR spin. They have no intrinsic right to have a special market-restriction set up for them. Do tea-makers have special rights to a monopoly on tea-selling: so tea can only be sold in tea-shops, and no-one is allowed to make tea at home? With a justification that otherwise tea-makers cannot make so much money? How would the public greet a law to do that -- here is the proposition: everyone must pay more for tea, but in return tea-makers earn more money! No-one is going to be interested in that; do you want to pay more just so someone else gets more money? No, of course not. So, mutatis mutandis, the 'public' is only interested in granting monopoly privileges to creators of 'IP' because they get something in return (supposedly, more product) -- and they expect to get a good deal, not one rigged in favour of industry representatives.)

lawnchair_larry 15y ago

In fact, they're not.

ubernostrum 15y ago

The RIAA is fighting to maintain an outmoded business structure in which major record labels' presence as a middleman was convenient for artists seeking broader visibility and distribution. It is no longer the case that an artist must sign away all of their rights and virtually all the resulting revenue from their work merely to get their music distributed, so what purpose does the RIAA serve?

earbitscom 15y ago
> merely to get their music distributed That is correct. Distribution is such a small part of what a good record label does for you. Even if you want to believe that an artist can do all of the things a label can do for them, that's not to say that they want to, or that they can do those things while successfully continuing to do what they do best - which is make music. Just because a handful of artists have achieved success without a label does not negate that the most successful artists today are still using them. Take it from someone who works with hundreds of labels - the best ones still add tremendous value. The RIAA fights for the rights of labels, and by default, some of those rights are shared by artists.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  I'll also point out that the people who have achieved the greatest results without a label, NIN, Radiohead, etc., were already famous, due in no small part to their prior labels.
ethank 15y ago
What is your opinion on other trade associations?

reissbaker 15y ago

Can't that argument be extended to patent trolls, though? "Fighting for the rights of inventors!" But the RIAA, like patent trolls, are not themselves content creators. They just managed to get a hold of IP. It's not as simple as that, obviously -- the RIAA and musicians' interests tend to align more frequently than do inventors and patent trolls -- but the RIAA isn't in any fight for the "rights" of artists. They're in it for lawsuit money, and they could care less about anything else. And I doubt the artists' contracts stipulate anything about royalties on payouts from the industry's legal adventures.

earbitscom 15y ago
It doesn't matter. They fight for a strikes rule on copyright, it affects and benefits those artists who would like their copyrights protected and enforced. As an artist, if you want people to pay for your music and not take it illegally, the RIAA is one of the only organizations working in your corner.
ethank 15y ago
I submit to you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_industry_trade_groups_i... "They're in it for lawsuit money, and they could care less about anything else. And I doubt the artists' contracts stipulate anything about royalties on payouts from the industry's legal adventures." Huh? Where is the shred of research that the RIAA (or any trade group) is in it for lawsuits? Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE. I'm no fan of the RIAA (I think that they've done a horrible job at their mandate and don't like the tactics), but lawsuits were a demand from their members. And regarding artist contracts, I suggest you read this front to back to see a typical one: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12630971/bbcd_fin.pdf http://dl.dropbox.com/u/12630971/bbcd_fin.pdf

hxa7241 15y ago

Yes, 'creators' are part of the public. But the 'IP owning' side are clearly getting an unjustly disproportionate power over government. The extra money IP supposedly allows creators to make does not come from nowhere: it is paid for by everyone else, the consumers. And consumers have just as much interest in having money as creators. So IP is a tradeoff, and for that to work properly, both parts must be properly represented. Which is the point at issue. (And this 'artists rights' stuff is nothing but PR spin. They have no intrinsic right to have a special market-restriction set up for them. Do tea-makers have special rights to a monopoly on tea-selling: so tea can only be sold in tea-shops, and no-one is allowed to make tea at home? With a justification that otherwise tea-makers cannot make so much money? How would the public greet a law to do that -- here is the proposition: everyone must pay more for tea, but in return tea-makers earn more money! No-one is going to be interested in that; do you want to pay more just so someone else gets more money? No, of course not. So, mutatis mutandis, the 'public' is only interested in granting monopoly privileges to creators of 'IP' because they get something in return (supposedly, more product) -- and they expect to get a good deal, not one rigged in favour of industry representatives.)