Re: The RIAA are a bunch of commies

["Stephen P. Goodman" <spgoodman@earthlight.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre LaFosse" <altruist@earthlink.net>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 03:04 AM
Subject: Re: The RIAA are a bunch of commies


> SG and DT were saying:
>
> > > >If CARP ends up
> > > >pushing all non-commerical broadcasting off the
> > > >web, I think we end up losing in the wrong run.
> > > maybe.
> >
> > Maybe?  Not to be too difficult Senor Torn, but as you're already 
>fairly
> > embedded in the music industry and enjoying its relative benefits of
> > exposure and other work being done on your behalf -
>
> I have to interject here, and say that the comment about work being done
> "on [his] behalf" is a fairly substantial disservice to David, who is
> one of the most jaw-droppingly proactive and hard-working people I've
> ever known.  I think there's a bit of an implication in the comment
> above that David's all set, and just sort of sits around whilst the
> mechanics of "the music industry" spin automatically on his behalf to
> promote and parlay opportunities for him... which couldn't be further
> from the truth.

I never attempted to say that he's some encapsulated Rock Star Type.  
That's
a rude and stupid thing, and, indeed, couldn't be further from the truth.
My intent wasn't to imply that 'everything' is done for him.  He's had an
"in", and has benefitted from a degree of association with the Biz.  It
might be a bit nasty-sounding so I apologize in that case.

My saying this wasn't by definition a criticism.

> > as opposed to a most artists -
>
> Here again, this potentially implies that David has taken a different
> route than most other *working professionals*, which from what I know of
> his career is absolutely not the case.  We're talking about someone
> who's been getting in the proverbial (and often literal) van for about
> thirty years, playing out, hitting the road, diversifying his skills and
> sources of income, and building a name for himself through DECADES of
> very hard work - which continues to this very day.

"most artists" usually equals "those without contracts, operating on their
own, no lawyers, no agent, and not much money."

> I've never met a single successful working pro who doesn't work their
> ass off on a regular basis.  By the same token, I have never met a
> single successful working pro who subsists strictly off of free mp3
> downloads, royalties from online streams, or web site traffic.
>
> This is very important stuff to think about when it comes to discussing
> the web as a source of income for artists, and where that figures into
> the much larger overall equation of a serious professional's livelihood.
>
> With that in mind, here's David's comment (which he wrote after his
> "maybe" remark) which was snipped out of Stephen's reply, and which I
> think does much to illuminate where he's coming from:
>
> > all's i know is:
> > i attempt to get paid for what i do,
> > when it's appropriate (like when the
> > 'non-commercial' website is profitable
> > to *somebody*)..... so that i can
> > continue doing it.
>
> So, without wanting to speak for David, MY OWN interpretation of his
> comments here (as well as his reply to Valerie, vis a vis the
> difficulties of securing mechanical royalties for sales of tangible
> product) would go something like this:
>
> Increasing one's visibility is good.  Making the listening public aware
> of what you're doing is important.  It's alsp important that outlets for
> disseminating people's work are able to function in such a way that
> they're able to stay afloat financially while continuing to make music
> available to listeners.  I'm not in favor of the CARP's prohibitively
> high rate.
>
> But... as I look at the slightly bigger picture...
>
> ...as online music comes of age, and as people start to explore the
> long-term ramifications of free information, free music, intellectual
> copyright, etc. etc., it's important to try and clarify - in one's own
> mind, at least - where the line gets drawn between free promotion and
> tangible compensation for services rendered.
>
> In other words, I don't support oppressively high broadcast royalty
> rates for online radio.  But I do support the idea that the artists who
> are responsible for creating that content in the first place should be
> able to benefit from the dissemination of their work (which is creating
> the reason for the online radio station's existence in the first place)
> - not just as a promotional tool, but in terms of payment via publishing
> royalties for material that's broadcast in the first place.
>
> The tricky part is that, as Kim pointed out the other day, almost ANY
> rate is going to be too high for a lot of online stations.
>
> Exposure and visibility is an important thing... but if it comes at the
> expense of sacrificing your sources of potential income, then what sort
> of victory is it, ultimately?
>
> No definitive answers here, at least not from me.  But some things worth
> thinking about, I do believe...
>
> --Andre LaFosse
> The Echoplex Analysis Pages:
> http://www.altruistmusic.com/EDP
>
>
>
>