RIAA settles with 12-year old girl [$2,000 payment to music cartel]

ZDNet ^ | September 9, 2003 | John Borland

[Revolting cat!]

Read this article from today's SF Comical 'Artists blast record companies over lawsuits against downloaders'. The artists are not the ones who are losing income due to downloading. A bloated, horse and buggy industry believes it is (losing income.) I don't believe these losses are significant, in any event. We've been living through a serious recession, there is less money in people's pockets, the market for CD's is oversaturated, the music sucks, radio plays very little of what is available, etc, etc.

I started downloading quite recently and mostly from sites where musicians themselves offer MP3's for downloading. Then I go out and buy their CD's, usually in the cut out bins, which means neither the musicians nor the record companies get much if anything of the $1.95-$4.95 I end up paying.

[supercat]

You want me to shed tears for an artist who signed a binding contract with a record company?!? Sorry, no sale. Artists aren't forced to sign onerous contracts.

Artists have historically been willing to sign such contracts because it was the only way to get significant radio airplay, and because historically radio airplay was the only really effective means for bands to promote themselves.

The RIAA needs record promotion and distribution to be difficult and expensive (at least for non-RIAA affiliates) because they really have nothing else to offer artists that they couldn't find elsewhere on much better terms.

[Bush2000]

Artists have historically been willing to sign such contracts because it was the only way to get significant radio airplay, and because historically radio airplay was the only really effective means for bands to promote themselves.

Boo hoo, you're breaking my heart.

I know this may be a shock to some people ... but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Wanna ride? Pay the fare. These arists know what they're doing. And having done so, they don't have a right to complain...

[Bush2000]

A bloated, horse and buggy industry believes it is (losing income.)

Listen to college boy. Still using Daddy's computer?

[Revolting cat!]

Still using Daddy's computer?

Yeah, and it's running the greatest operating system of all (Source: Bush2000)

Microsoft Xenix!

[supercat]

I know this may be a shock to some people ... but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Wanna ride? Pay the fare. These arists know what they're doing. And having done so, they don't have a right to complain...

The question isn't whether artists should be bound by contracts; the question is whether the RIAA should be able to protect their radio promotion oligopoly from competition. I see no moral reason why they should.

[Bush2000]

The question isn't whether artists should be bound by contracts; the question is whether the RIAA should be able to protect their radio promotion oligopoly from competition. I see no moral reason why they should.

There's nothing stopping you from competing with them.

And before you whine about going up against a tough, well-financed competitor, nobody every suggested that competition should be easy. Clearly, if you organized artists into some kind of consortium, you could compete. But that's difficult -- it actually takes a lot of effort and coordination. Which is precisely the reason that people will whine and complain and sit on their fat asses about record companies...