More RIIA Idiocy

Remove all ads!

Not sure about far-fetched, but it is a good question. Singing a song falls under Fair Use or freedom of expression or something, so people who sing for fun aren't in any trouble. The cases in question, however, have copyrighted music playing, not the person themselves singing a song (just dancing to the music).

 

I was wondering because we have several groups who perform in front of audiences. They aren't paid for it but do charge a small entrance fee which is supposed to cover limited refreshments. Another group goes around to nursing homes and assisted living places and performs.

Could these people get in trouble?

 

They shouldn't, but I would not be surprised if the RIAA started cracking down on those groups, despite their good intentions and the fact that it is their own interpretation of the songs...

 

I have pretty much stopped caring about what RIAA/MPAA/etc does since, frankly, they have absolutely no credibility left. Besides... they are the problem of US, not ours. If others follow the style, well; all the more reason NOT to buy the actual stuff.

 

Nakia: I am not a lawyer, but if i understand the matter correctly, copyright covers things like public performance of a song. So theoretically is possible that the performers get in trouble, although I doubt that the music industry cares enough to take steps against them.

Related to this, it was my understanding that owners of karaoke bars (where people come and sing just for fun) have to pay licenses for the songs which are sung.

Felinoid: I was kind of kidding in my previous post. However, it seems to me that you are splitting hairs. On one hand, you are saying that what RIAA does is legal and within their rights; on the other hand, it is "idiotic" and unpopular and creates bad publicity. Maybe if it is so unpopular, then the laws themselves are "idiotic" and should be changed.

 

Sure. Why not? I've never said the laws were just (which would be especially hard given my chaotic nature ), only that they were the law, and that they existed for a reason. Now I'll defend that reason to the death, but the laws are just a means to an end, and if better means can be found then I'm all for it.

 

Wordplay: Teosto. Or RIAF.

 

That just proves my point: if there are local money-rippers going as low as RIAA, the more reason to oppose it by sharing what they seek to "protect" for free. And truth to tell, finnish songs could use the popularity of BT networks, since they are so small and non-commentary...

 

That is not quite true...album sales and touring feed each other. Unless we're talking about stadium acts here, touring brings in meager profit in itself. Its main purpose is to promote album sales, which in turn fund the touring. Both are required.

What good is that popularity, if they don't get paid? Popularity does not pay the bills.

As for the topic itself, these latest antics...yeah, seems pretty dumb. However, this Robin Hood rhetoric that some people like to dish out at the first available opportunity before downloading another artist's entire back catalogue is .

 

Maybe not for the artists themselves, but for culture. Have you ever thought why is it so that we listen english songs, watch english movies, and debate over english matters? Not, for example, french, belgian, or maybe swedish? Maybe Lordi wouldn't had been such a hit if his songs had not been available on the net and thus people had not known them?

 

Being available for free downloading can help small, unknown bands, yes. Especially unsigned bands, or ones that are not looking to make a career out of music.

Once a band is signed it gets trickier. Unless you're a big megastar, a thousand copies here or there make the difference whether or not a tour takes place, for instance. Or whether your deal is discontinued or not.

The main question would be whether there are enough people who, after finding a band through the internet, get inspired to go to their concerts and buy their albums and/or other merchandise, to offset the ones who just download everything and never get off their asses. I don't think there are.

A fair point. I have to wonder why you mentioned Finnish bands specifically, though. I'm sure you could go to any country and find a gazillion bands all ready and willing to contribute to culture.

In fact there are so many bands out there these days that even if restricting oneself to cd's (signed bands), it's extremely difficult to weed out the trash and find any decent music. The good old word of mouth is even more important now than in the "good old days." It means that the chances of any band to gain attention outside small, secluded groups of friends are pretty slim, and any contribution to culture in general is miniscule.

Of course, the less money a band makes, the harder it is for them to keep making music. If we're talking about young people, which new bands usually consist of, having half-decent jobs that cover the costs of equipment etc., *and* allow them to have any semblance of a "life", is the privilege of a few. Especially considering that the more time and energy you spend on grinding at a job, the less time and energy you have left for making music. Having equipment broken or stolen can be quite crippling if you have to sweat for it at Pizza Hut.

It's by no means impossible for an unsigned band to overcome such issues. But it's pretty near impossible for an unsigned band to play concerts outside their home country, for instance.

This is all a long way of saying that I think a system of copyrights and record labels needs to be in place if listeners are to get quality. I'd hate to have to plough through a thousand crap demos to find something even remotely interesting, and upon finally finfing something, to find out I'll never be able to see the band play live 'cos they only tour in Ugandonesia.

BUT: the aforementioned system needs a serious tuneup. Get rid of some of the middle men. Get some people who actually care about music in charge of these companies. Take some chances and don't always go with the easy listening fluff safe bets. Get your eyes off the dollar sign for a second - isn't it enough to stay in business, why do the profits have to grow exponentially? Use some sense when grafting copyright laws. It wasn't always as bad as it is now.

I'm not holding my breath, though.