Anyone worried what RIAA's latest action will do to AMV's?

Alucard_FoN · Post by **Alucard_FoN** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:56 pm

Lol, yeah... the thing that really infuriates me about the whole deal is that the RIAA makes so much money each year, and yet they have the nerve to bitch about losing a small amount. That's great, guys, you make billions and billions of dollars each year by screwing your artists and blatantly ripping off your customers, and now you complain when they take some of their own back. Maybe if the stores weren't flooded with worthless crap that they like to call music, they wouldn't be having this problem. Maybe if they wouldn't charge an arm and a leg for a CD, they wouldn't be having this problem. Maybe if they weren't greedy bloodsucking leeches, they wouldn't be having this problem. But they are, and they do, and they are, and look where it has led them. Suck it up, RIAA. You don't have the power to do anything about online sharing of music, and you never will. You will NEVER be able to stop it, any more than the US government has been able to stop drug trading. It's too widespread, you won't be able to do anything about it, ever, so just stop trying and making yourselves look like the greedy fucks you are.

Rozard · Post by **Rozard** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:34 pm

The RIAA, like Communism, is a great idea. However, it practice, it sucks the big one. The main purpose of the whole Music <i>Business</i> is to mass produce and distribute music. This way, the job of getting music to an audience is releaved from the artist and taken up by an independent operator that specializes in one aspect of the process. In a sense, you could think of it as RedWolf's AMV Distribution Center: A person wants a CD full of a particular editor/studio; He sends a blank CD+S/H to RedWolf; he copies his master to the blank CD and sends it back to the person.

Unfortunately, this isn't how it works. Music is very profitable. It's not very capitalistic to produce and distribute music for no profit (Like RedWolf does). I don't know how much more I have to say. Prices are high to keep the employees of this business paid. Actually, most of the money made from CD sales goes to Overhead costs. In fact, the Music Business is a business of debt. Every artist a record label adds increases their debt. The cost to sign, record, promote, produce and distribute an artist is incredible. A record label doesn't break even on an album until, on average, one million copies are sold. What record companies are really banking on is the artist's second album. After the first, they don't have to promote the "new" artist as much, more often than not a fan base has been established, and they know they'll sell at least X amount of product. Of course, the real money is made on established artists. I don't think Eminem has to be promoted much, and it's almost guaranteed that his next album will go Platinum.

So why is the RIAA getting so bent out of shape? They can't sign new artists? Can't afford to promote the ones they have? The artists aren't getting the money they deserve? No, it's much simplier than that. They can't afford to pay for the facilities they use. The expensive, elaborate, and utterly exessive office buildings and studios. They don't need them, but they like them big and fancy. If they were to cut the expenses they pay on them, they'll find more than enough money. Oh yeah, and the higher-ups in the companies, but you already knew that.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:10 pm

Very true Rozard.

Or, to paraphrase someone - the current record industry is a dinosaur. It's big, it's bad, it's also dumb - and as a consequence of big, bad and dumb - hardly mobile, adaptable or prone to change. RIAA, really, is the embodiment of all that.

What is needed, and what the dinosaur is resisting and trying to push down, are small, mobile, intellegent units. But these are slowly coming into being, and let's hope will continue to do so.

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 4:42 pm

So what you're saying is maybe a comet will fall down on the RIAA and kill them all.

koronoru · Post by **koronoru** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:49 am

Quu wrote:it will never be ileagal to make music videos only to distro or show them...

Ripping DVDs involves breaking the encryption on the disc, and that's forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even though the copying as such (if it's for your own private use) is legal.

Quu · Post by **Quu** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:11 pm

koronoru wrote:
Quu wrote:it will never be ileagal to make music videos only to distro or show them...
Ripping DVDs involves breaking the encryption on the disc, and that's forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even though the copying as such (if it's for your own private use) is legal.

you CAN make a music video with out ripping DVDs

The Non-Professional · Post by **The Non-Professional** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 3:00 pm

Quu wrote:
koronoru wrote:
Quu wrote:it will never be ileagal to make music videos only to distro or show them...
Ripping DVDs involves breaking the encryption on the disc, and that's forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act even though the copying as such (if it's for your own private use) is legal.
you CAN make a music video with out ripping DVDs

So true, just use the two VCR method

OmniStrata · Post by **OmniStrata** » Sat Jun 28, 2003 5:59 pm

2 VCRs oh good God...

Funny quote Quu! ^_^[/quote]

TaranT · Post by **TaranT** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:30 am

John Heilemann in Business 2.0 magazine wrote:...But the problems at Sony Music, as in the rest of the music business, run deeper than costs. They also run deeper than Internet file-sharing, the industry's favorite scapegoat. In fact, with some critical interpretation, the rise of Napster and its successors can be seen less as a cause than as a symptom of maladies that are profound and structural - ranging from overpriced CDs to formulaic product to an outmoded business model based mainly on distribution and marketing muscle. The movie business may be screwy, but it's not fundamentally broken. The music business is.

Sir Howard (Stringer, head of Sony USA) agrees. "The music industry has offended the consumer," he says. "It has offended the retailer, offended the artists, offended the publishers. The radio stations are basically a duoply now; they're not helping the situation. MTV is no longer playing music videos - they're doing something weirder. You've got all this anger out there, you've got all this fragmentation, and so the music business has to be reworked, reinvented, and reorganized from the ground up."

That Stringer sees this - and that he's not simply yelling "Piracy, piracy!" - is the first encouraging sign for the future of Sony Music....

What it all comes down to is a question posed three years ago by Idei (chairman of Sony). At a breakfast with a few journalists at Davos, Sony's chairman said, in his Japanese-accented English, "I say to the heads of my music division: Music as a packaged-goods business is over. What you do now? What you do now???"...

Alucard_FoN · Post by **Alucard_FoN** » Sun Jun 29, 2003 2:41 am

John Heilamann is a smart motha. I like him already based off of that brief snippet there.