Record Labels sue

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by findfirefox, May 17, 2006.

  1. findfirefox

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    "Turns out Sirius agreed to pay for one of those snazzy and expensive distribution licenses, similar to what iTunes and Napster have, to allow their users to continue to record songs off of the radio service. XM balked at the fee, since they're already paying a license to play the songs in a radio capacity. That's why they've just been hit with a massive lawsuit for the sale of their Inno player, seeking $150,000 in damages per song recorded by XM customers. XM says they play 160,000 different songs per month, but we're not sure how that translates to this "songs recorded" figure that the record labels want to penalize them for. What we do know is that the amount is pretty extreme, and that XM had better have a good case, or this emerging satellite radio market could lose a major player in a jiffy "- Engadget

    Ok, I'm tired of the industry, so I can record on my MP3 but not on my XM, its like a fancy tape. The industry is going crazy with all these rules and 150,000 per song per person is fucking insane, these people have issues and 150k is not the amount the comapnys lose per song.

    Why can't I just use my music the way I want to?
     
  2. Lex

    Lex
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Messages:
    9,536
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
    You can't use your music the way you want to because to do so would force the labels to pay artists more than $0 .50 on the CD sold (which retail for betwen $11-16).

    We can't have that now, can we?
     
  3. tallguypns

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,663
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    nw florida
    You can use your music the way you want to. My understanding of copyright laws (which admittedly is very limited) allows for fair uses. Which means you can copy music you OWN for your own uses. I think the record industry's argument is that you don't own the music because XM's license doesn't give you that right. That being said, anyone has always been able to record songs off the radio if they were so inclined. The record industry was in a big huff when cassette recorders came to market for that very reason, as well as others.

    Being in the recording business allows me a different perspective than the typical conusmer because I know of the massive costs of building and equipping a studio. It's not uncommon to spend $10 million to build an acoustically appropriate building. Then the studio will spend another $1+ million on a mixing console, hundreds of thousands of dollars on microphones (1 of my microphones costs $6000.) Then there is the recording medium, multitrack recorders, storage, ouboard gear, mastering equipment, etc.

    Once a band goes to these mega studios to record an album, they may spend several MONTHS recording and perfecting 12 songs. Then there's the cost of promotion and touring, which the record labels often pay. Live sound reinforcment equipment isn't as costly as studio gear, but it's still a huge investment. So it's not uncommon for each album a band produces to cost the record label millions of dollars in labor, and materials, before they sell the first CD or MP3. The record industry is trying to protect its investment. I don't necessarily agree with the industry the vast majority of the time. I see them as greedy, but it is a legitimate business concern.
     
  4. solong

    solong New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    You have a real good point, here. I understand why record labels don't want their finished products ripped. I think, however, that there is a misconception about "greed" versus "self-interest." There isn't anything wrong with self-interest. Well, that is, as long as it seeks to benefit everybody else.

    Selfishness means the self to the exclusion of everyone else. Selfishness attempts to deep-six the competition while getting everything coming your way. Now granted, every company I know of would like that, but the fact is, all the smart business models, and the ones used in good accounting schools and business schools, etc. never use those models (like Monsanto, DuPont, Ford, etc.) Instead, they use models like 3M, Microsoft, The new Chrysler, Honda, IBM, etc. That's because the smart and strong companies understand that competition can only help them.

    I think that if we want tunes, we should pay for them. We should not expect to get them for free. Now, we can go to a site that pays for them, for us! But when somebody like Sirrius thinks that because they are a radio service they can offer rips of all their music, they are just nuts. By the way, Sirrius is a very LIBERAL company, and used to ripping off musicians in all kinds of ways, while claiming, "It's OK. We're one of you!"

    So self-interest, versus selfishness is the topic in my letter, here. To the DEGREE that it is selfishness is the degree that the enterprise will eventually fail, VERSUS the percentage of their motive that amounts to true self-interest. There is no such thing as 100% of one motive.
     
  5. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    So, why do we have record companies again? :confused:
     
  6. tallguypns

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,663
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    nw florida
    Excellent question. Some could argue they're no longer needed. A person such as myself can produce a recording that the "average" consumer wouldn't be able to discern as being made on inexpensive gear. Other distribution models exist that make the old fashion models useless in many cases. All in all, though, record companies drive the musical marketplace insuring there's always a lot of fresh CRAP to listen to along with some great music. I don't believe large record companies will be able to exist in their current form for much more than 10 years, but like all business will adapt and continue to profit.
     
  7. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    Exactly. The technology involved in making music has advanced to the point where the "record company" is no longer necessary. The paradigm has shifted, in the same way that darning socks has dropped out of vogue.

    A hundred years ago, musicians were paid by the performance. Do you think that Handel got royalties? Of course not... but we've been buying records, tapes and CDs for so long that we've forgotten that there's another way.
     
  8. findfirefox

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Quick Update (From XM)-

    Statement to XM Subscribers - The XM Nation

    Everything we've done at XM since our first minute on the air is about giving you more choices. We provide more channels and music programming than any other network. We play all the music you want to hear including the artists you want to hear but can't find on traditional FM radio. And we offer the best radios with the features you want for your cars, homes, and all places in between.

    We've developed new radios -- the Inno, Helix and NeXus -- that take innovation to the next level in a totally legal way. Like TiVo, these devices give you the ability to enjoy the sports, talk and music programming whenever you want. And because they are portable, you can enjoy XM wherever you want.

    The music industry wants to stop your ability to choose when and where you can listen. Their lawyers have filed a meritless lawsuit to try and stop you from enjoying these radios.

    They don't get it. These devices are clearly legal. Consumers have enjoyed the right to tape off the air for their personal use for decades, from reel-to-reel and the cassette to the VCR and TiVo.

    Our new radios complement download services, they don't replace them. If you want a copy of a song to transfer to other players or burn onto CDs, we make it easy for you to buy them through XM + Napster.

    Satellite radio subscribers like you are law-abiding music consumers; a portion of your subscriber fee pays royalties directly to artists. Instead of going after pirates who don't pay a cent, the record labels are attacking the radios used for the enjoyment of music by consumers like you. It's misguided and wrong.

    We will vigorously defend these radios in court and before Congress, and we expect to win.

    Thank you for your support.
    -----
    Visit http://xmradio.com/lineup/statement.jsp?refsrc=hp_ex for your copy
     
  9. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Yah. Exactly. We need record companies just like we need local auto dealerships. In other words, middlemen. We need them so they can needlessly mark up costs.

    Be patient, though. If current digital trends continue, the record companies will either adapt or go the way of the dinosaur. I, for one, will shed no tears at the prospect of seeing record company tycoons out of work.
     
  10. rob_just_rob

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Nowhere near you
    I have heard the argument that people will stop making music if they stop getting recording contracts. I don't buy it.

    1. 99%+ of musicians don't have recording contracts, and are therefore almost completely unaffected if the income streams of record companies take a hit.

    2. Most of the 1% of musicians who DO have recording contracts haven't recorded anything worth preserving to in some time. By the time you're famous enough to start having your music ripped off, you've probably stopped being innovative.

    3. Musicians don't make music to get rich. Musicians make music to get chicks.

    My last 2 points are mostly serious.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted