RIAA goes after DJ mix CDs

Post by **Bone** » Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:38 pm

Who's side are these people on?

Story here

The Fallen · Post by **The Fallen** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:30 am

Their own, it's standard corporate lawyer stuff...
If you can't sue a), sue b) c) and d)

Post by **Arkady** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:33 am

Their shooting themselves in the foot. :mad:

I just wish they would aim for their face instead.

The Stormstress · Post by **The Stormstress** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:37 am

Gotta feed the beast they'v created... picking off the smaller & less powerful ov the pack... & so th' hunt goez...

The Fallen · Post by **The Fallen** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:33 am

Ah the wonderful world of Capitalism

vertigo25 · Post by **vertigo25** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:39 am

This latest attack by the RIAA is therefore hypocritical – they claim that their pursuit of copyright infringement is primarily in the interest of the artist, yet most dance producers actually approve of and rely upon this illegal distribution.

This is what gets me every time. This was true of the MP3 and internet radio broadcasts as well. There were several artists who were quite literally told to shut up by their labels.

The record industry knows they have maybe 5 to ten years of survivability left if they don't change their business model. They know that we live in a time when independents can actually be profitable.

I think that all of these actions will eventually help their demise, not hinder it. Like Jason said... they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Hopefully people will eventually learn that being on a major label... or having any kind of record contract, does not legitimize their artistic work. It is set up so that other people get rich off of your artistic work, and you have no control over it. The work legitimizes it's self.

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 12:38 pm

I don't find it hypocritical -- this is like busting someone who's selling illegally copied CDs, given as they're selling illegally copied CDs -- but I wonder if these unnamed dance producers are even members of the RIAA.

Seriously, when was the last time you heard an indie label such as Metropolis say, "Yeah, go ahead and burn a mix CD of our stuff and give it away at a club night, ooh, or sell it for your own profit!"?

vertigo25 · Post by **vertigo25** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:46 pm

I have never heard *any* label say that or take actions which would imply it was okay by them to do it. I have, however, heard many *artists* say it, but since the label usually owns the work, and not the artist, they unfortunately don't have the right to do it.

And you do realize that there are certain laws that apply to the public performance of recorded material. Most club nights do not fall entirely within the law, and it would not surprise me in the least if they came after you guys next.

This is all I know. People who boot leg, participate in trades, and file sharing, are not getting rich off of it. In the case of the latter two, they aren't making any money at all.

Record companies (aka 'the Recording Industry) make plenty of money off the work of others. Their justification thus far has been that they help promote the artist and protect them legally; the artist gets rich, and so do they... t's an even stevens deal.

That's all fine and dandy (and mostly BS), but now artists can (if they are savvy) promote, distribute, and manage their own work... soon they'll be able to do so even better than the industry. That's seriously pissing of certain labels. And these actions are a direct response to that. They do not give a damn about the artists rights. In legal terms, the artists usually don't have any.

And you know... it is still every bit as illegal to make a mix CD for a girl you're trying woo as it is to make one you plan to sell.

Here's the thing: the RIAA don't mind any of this as long as they get a cut. They have never said that they want to make any of this activity to stop... they just want a cut... and they don't deserve one.

junkie christ · Post by **junkie christ** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:03 pm

define stupidity: the riaa

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 5:49 pm

vertigo25 wrote:I have never heard *any* label say that or take actions which would imply it was okay by them to do it. I have, however, heard many *artists* say it, but since the label usually owns the work, and not the artist, they unfortunately don't have the right to do it.

Who?

And you do realize that there are certain laws that apply to the public performance of recorded material. Most club nights do not fall entirely within the law, and it would not surprise me in the least if they came after you guys next.

What? Are you accusing the clubs of not paying the fees to ASCAP and BMI, which is what they're to legally do in order to not be hunted down like rabid dogs? Personally, I think they likely are paying the fees; notice how rarely you hear about actual nights and DJs spinning live being hounded.

And you know... it is still every bit as illegal to make a mix CD for a girl you're trying woo as it is to make one you plan to sell.

You're more easily defended in this case by claiming fair use because you're not selling the CD, nor is it for public performance. So, actually, thanks to the haziness of the law, no, it is not as illegal.

junkie christ wrote:define stupidity: the riaa

Thanks for the enlightening discourse.

Post by **Bone** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:02 pm

Caustic wrote:What? Are you accusing the clubs of not paying the fees to ASCAP and BMI, which is what they're to legally do in order to not be hunted down like rabid dogs? Personally, I think they likely are paying the fees; notice how rarely you hear about actual nights and DJs spinning live being hounded.

And you know... it is still every bit as illegal to make a mix CD for a girl you're trying woo as it is to make one you plan to sell.

You're more easily defended in this case by claiming fair use because you're not selling the CD, nor is it for public performance. So, actually, thanks to the haziness of the law, no, it is not as illegal.

RIAA, ASCAP, & BMI are all separate organizations.
The RIAA is out to look out for the recording industries rights.

ASCAP & BMI are kind of like an artists mafia union. You pay them rights to use music or video media to make money. They look at the kind of business you are running and then IMHO "illegally" on it. There is no formula on who you play or how much you play them. They look at what they believe your attendances to be and you pay accordingly or they attempt to cause you costly legal problems. Most pay the $ because it is cheaper than going through the court system where it would most likely be thrown out.

Example:
You own a club. Inside said club you play all original live improvizationaimprovisationalays you have 70-100 people in your club and in protecting the artists rights (read: local live musicians who are not even a part of ASCAP and receive nothing from them) you have to pay ASCAP X amount of dollars. Where does ASCAP get off asking for this money?

You can play only artists who are entirely covered under BMI (i might add a group that is rarely paid in the US and mostly deals in European labels and artists) but still have to pay ASCAP to do business even though nothing played in your club is covered by ASCAP.

They care not what you play or what you do as long as they have a finger in your wallet. OOOps I guess ASCAP & the RIAA do have something in comman.

Unless the laws have changed in the last 15 years, copywrite laws do not allow you to reproduce more than a single copy of any music you posses and only for personal use and backup purposes... IE give a copy to ANYONE and you have broken the law without a public performance or selling it.
By all intent and purpose you do not "own" any book or CD in your collection but rather have been given useage lease.

By thusage" the RIAA is right in what they are doing. I however believe that copywrite laws NEED to change along with how the music industry does business. This story just shows how the industry rather than using the tools available to better the industry for both artists and consumer, they are more worried about how they aren't getting paid

We are seeing the begining of the death of the Music Industry in it's current form. I for one am happy to see it too. It needs the change

Caustic · Post by **Caustic** » Sun Feb 01, 2004 10:38 pm

Bone wrote:Unless the laws have changed in the last 15 years, copywrite laws do not allow you to reproduce more than a single copy of any music you posses and only for personal use and backup purposes... IE give a copy to ANYONE and you have broken the law without a public performance or selling it.
By all intent and purpose you do not "own" any book or CD in your collection but rather have been given useage lease.

A. Copyright.

B. Yes, actually, you do own the book or CD by right of first sale. That's also the same provision which legally allows you to sell the book or CD to another source, such as a friend, via eBay, or to McKay's down the street. What you do not own are the inherent ideas of the book or CD in that form or a form reasonably close, which is also why you're allowed to be inspired by a work.