RIAA argument

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-09-10 04:07pm

There's been a pro-RIAA argument made that it's the RIAA that promotes the artists, so if the RIAA went down the artists won't get their work promoted hence won't receive any significant attention (which is needed for their work to be bought).

How correct is this?

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-09-10 04:13pm

Shinova wrote:There's been a pro-RIAA argument made that it's the RIAA that promotes the artists, so if the RIAA went down the artists won't get their work promoted hence won't receive any significant attention (which is needed for their work to be bought).

How correct is this?

They might promote the artist, but they do not do it for the artist to make money. The fact that the RIAA take a bigger cut of the CD sales then the artist is very telling. The Artist should be the single biggest cut of CD sales, not the fucking management.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-09-10 04:31pm

Shinova wrote:There's been a pro-RIAA argument made that it's the RIAA that promotes the artists, so if the RIAA went down the artists won't get their work promoted hence won't receive any significant attention (which is needed for their work to be bought).

How correct is this?

Overinflated. They do promote the artist, but at the same time they leach them. Kinda like putting the artists in the role of indentured servant...

Or pimp/prostitute relationship.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-09-10 04:46pm

This thread haves a couple of pro-RIAA (or more pro-studio) arguments mixed with the anti-RIAA arguments..
link

Here's one example

Khyron wrote: Just think about this. If studios find that people are more likely to download songs instead of buying the CD, what incentive do they have to sign more artists? Most people will download the CD and use the 'I will listen because I don't want to chance buying crap CD' excuse. Then once they have the CD, they figure why spend the $$ on something they got for free. Studios will just stick to the singers that have proven they still do sell records.So because of all the stealing of music, potential bands will never get a contract and you will never hear their music. Hows that sound

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-09-11 11:53pm

The only artists who would suffer from the RIAA is the pop stars who leech off radio and MTV and Record store chain deals. Fuck those fuckers. Fuck them in their stupid asses.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-11 11:56pm

The RIAA promotes artists that it thinks will sell lots of CDs (read: over-commercialized shit). The rest, it leaves to sink or swim.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2003-09-12 12:20am

Eh, I would say a good 90% of all music is utter shit anyway, so why bother stealing crap? Just buy the stuff you like. For me, it's about 3 albums a year, which is more than manageable.

Well, that's my M.O., anyway. I know some people steal music just to fight the power, as it were.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-09-12 12:32am

Alferd Packer wrote:Eh, I would say a good 90% of all music is utter shit anyway, so why bother stealing crap? Just buy the stuff you like. For me, it's about 3 albums a year, which is more than manageable.

Well, that's my M.O., anyway. I know some people steal music just to fight the power, as it were.

Doesn't the RIAA distribute those 3 albums you're talking about?

Just wondering.

Post by **Rob Wilson** » 2003-09-12 06:33am

The list of CD's I own :

All three Original trilogy SE CD's.
Ep1 Soundtrack.
Complete Madness.
The Stranglers : The Collection.
Macross Plus Yokko Kano collected Box set.
Ritsuko Okazaki Album
Excel Saga Cd

Of all of them the RIAA has had Fuck and All to do with them as they were purchased either from Japan or the UK.

Any other tune, well that's what radio is for. I'm never going to pay £2 for a cd single with 1 track i might like and 2-3 remixes that are 99.9 times out of a 100 absolute crap. The record industry has lost no money from me as I'd never pay the price they are asking. And putting the price of Albums at £10 - £12 is stupid as there's never more than 2 or 3 tunes that you might want.

Make all the music available individually, price it at 30p a tune and give 50% to the artist and then you might have a chance of actually selling them. It'll also give them a more accurate feedback of what people want and don't want (2000 D/loads of the normal single and 2 of the remix will get the message across). Plus then they don't have to bleat on and on about the advances they make to artists. Here's a clue, let them profit from the sales alone and then you don't have to make the advances (would have saved a fortune on Maria Cariah!)

Anyway that's my ha'penny's worth on the subject.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-09-12 06:47am

When was the RIAA created?

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2003-09-12 02:14pm

Shinova wrote:Doesn't the RIAA distribute those 3 albums you're talking about?

Just wondering.

Good question. How does one tell? Is there a RIAA logo on the CD somewhere? Or do they have a monopoly on all music produced in the U.S.?

I mean, one of the 3 albums in question was an import, so I guess that one isn't distributed by the RIAA.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-09-12 07:34pm

Alferd Packer wrote:
Shinova wrote:Doesn't the RIAA distribute those 3 albums you're talking about?

Just wondering.
Good question. How does one tell? Is there a RIAA logo on the CD somewhere? Or do they have a monopoly on all music produced in the U.S.?

I mean, one of the 3 albums in question was an import, so I guess that one isn't distributed by the RIAA.

Might have to see if the company is associated with the RIAA on one of their websites.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-09-12 08:07pm

The music industry should be like the book publishing industry -- publishers should be relying on artists, not the other way around.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-09-13 12:23am

Darth Wong wrote:The RIAA promotes artists that it thinks will sell lots of CDs (read: over-commercialized shit). The rest, it leaves to sink or swim.

And usually they sink, sometimes on purpose as the RIAA thinks they wont sell alot of CD's to fatten their wallets with...

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-09-13 10:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:The RIAA promotes artists that it thinks will sell lots of CDs (read: over-commercialized shit). The rest, it leaves to sink or swim.

Or worse. I remember reading about how the major music companies will sign a contract with new artists--say, the next 5 CDs from that artist. If the artist submits a CD and the company doesn't like it enough to produce, it doesn't count against the 5 CD total. Nor will they ever let the artist out of the contract. Hence, the artist isn't even let in the pool in order to see if he'll sink or swin.

Sorry, I don't have a source for this.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-09-13 10:53pm

http://www.cafeshops.com/boycottriaa.4885932

It's adorable.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

RIAA argument

RIAA argument

Re: RIAA argument

Re: RIAA argument