Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

iTunes has only been around for what? 4 or 5 years? and it's already the third largest music retailer in the world.

I think a lot of the reason people prefer to download content is that it's easier than going to the store. At least the industry is starting to recognize that.

In terms of fair use, I think, it's easy enough to give credit where credit is due. And if one wants to potentially use another's work as a source of revenue, they either need to get permission, or collaborate and split the profits. That's pretty much how it works now, and I don't see much wrong with it. If a DJ wants to remix a song and distribute it for free, I don't see much wrong with that -- but apparently this is the sticky spot where the music industry disagrees with me. Unfortunately that's the downside of the music industry. There's always someone, somewhere, worried about making a buck, and it's usually not even someone that had much to do with the original musical content to being with.

An interesting anecdote in this regard is the story of the band Negativland, who essentially took and remixed a bunch of U2 songs and released it as an album, and consequently got sued by U2's label without the band U2 even being aware of the whole situation. Ultimately, the band U2 supported the remix, but they had no power over their record label's legal battles.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

There have been numerous research projects done and articles written that state that online music piracy does not decrease music sales.

And another

And yet another.

I could find more if I wanted to, but I think 4 articles is sufficient for now.

Basically, whatever sort of decline the RIAA has stated can be easily attributed to the cyclical nature of the US economy, the increased price of CDs in general, and, the most glaringly obvious -- being that the RIAA takes their statistics from units SHIPPED to retail stores, not units SOLD. Big retail stores don't like having a huge backstock of CDs like they once used to, and stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart have put the Sam Goody's and Musiclands of the world out of business, mostly. There's some other good stuff in the articles too.

Basically, there hasn't been any substantial evidence EVER since the advent of P2P technology that proves that internet sharing has dented major label sales. If anything, evidence points to the contrary in that digital music services like iTunes and Rhapsody have helped bolster major label sales by making songs even more accessible to consumers.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Mostly my post was directed at Night Phoenix, who said something about record sales declining because people don't want to pay for music. I should have quoted him.

I don't disagree that music piracy is ultimately wrong. But to answer your question, Mikey...I also don't agree with the way that the recording industry usually screws over it's artists and pays the record executives more than it pays the people who actually make the music. You telling me that it's silly I have an issue with the RIAA is like you telling me it's silly I have an issue with clothes sold at Wal-Mart made by children in Bangladesh. It's a disagreement with a business practice. No, I wouldn't walk in to a Wal-Mart and steal a shirt. But I still wish that, if I were to buy that shirt, the child that actually made it was getting paid more than 2 cents a day.

Quote:

CrazySexyCool eventually sold over 11 million copies in the U.S., becoming one of only seven R&B albums to ever receive a diamond certification from the RIAA, and won the 1996 Grammy Award for Best R&B Album. However, many were shocked when, in the midst of their apparent success, the members of TLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 3, 1995.[6]

They declared debts totaling 3.5 million dollars, much of it because of Lopes' insurance payments citing from the Rison arson incident and Watkins' medical bills, but the primary reason being that each member of the group was taking home less than $35,000 a year after paying managers, producers, expenses, and taxes.

That is completely ridiculous.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

The labels would probably say "hell naw" because they can make anyone a star and exploit them just the same. You don't need me to list examples of fabricated music stars, do you?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

But, just like you find it hard to shed a tear for people that make 5-10% of millions, I find it hard to shed a tear for people that make 50-60% of millions when someone decides that they want to remix a song and play it in a club. It's not even a blip on the radar.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Parody is fair use, so long as it doesn't slander the original artist.

I think Weird Al asks permission just to be a nice guy, but it isn't a requirement.

Of course, if you're going to go and parody something, expect a legal suit just because; so many people can't take jokes these days and are so quick to offend.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yes Brady, record companies are unfortunately seen by most musicians as a necessary evil. But the last word in that title is still "evil."

FELIPE NO