When I was a kid there used to be some graffiti scrawled on a wall. It read "When injustice becomes law resistance becomes duty".
 
   The whole issue of copyright has got me a little confused. What am I exactly allowed to do? I bought Jewels 0304 CD the other day. It has heavy protection on it. I cant get it to work properly on my work PC, when it does the provided MP3 player uses all available CPU time and the CDROM makes menacing grinding noises. Worse than that the MP3s are recorded so badly that Jewel sounds like a constipated Dalek on amphetamines {no she doesnt! Dont go there!}. So, according to the cover, Im not supposed to copy it, listen to it in anything other than an audio CD player - if it works, and Im definitely not allowed to convert it to MP3s or copy them from the CD. And - the RIAA tells me - this is all so that the artists rights are protected. O.....Kay. So I am not allowed to listen to it?
 
   I had no intention of doing anything except MP3ing them for my own personal use. Why? I have a 110 disk CD player - its like owning a black hole. You put a CD in and it never comes out - you just search for it with the remote and Im not going to truck my CD player back and forth from home every day when the CD doesnt play on my PC at work. Maybe the RIAA can send me someone to help carry my CD player from home?
 
   Am I allowed to make MP3s? I PAID for the CD so why cant I listen to it? Nothing would stop me, I am a computer programmer - I can burn copies of that sucker anytime I want, copy-protection or not. Actually, my mother, who only learned to turn a computer on last month could burn a copy of it if I demonstrated how to do it.
 
   So why do they spend all that money on "protection" that doesnt work? To protect artist rights? Lets look at that!
 
The RIAA say:
   "Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said RIAAs president Cary Sherman. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action. We simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry."
 
   I agree totally with this - thats why I dont have a huge stack of Didos new "copy protected" album to give out to friends. I have bought about 1000 CDs because I like to think that the artist is getting part of my money.
 
The RIAA website{ http://www.riaa.com/issues/laborcode/default.asp } states the following:
 
Question: What happens when a record company takes a financial risk and invests in an artist who winds up being unsuccessful?
 
Answer: Even though new artists receive the benefit of these investments and are given the opportunity to succeed in the recording industry, they are left with no financial liability if they are unsuccessful. The record companies absorb the losses.
 
   WOW! Youve got to be impressed with that! Record companies are taking losses on all those really crappy bands that you wouldnt spit on their CD if it caught fire. Cool.
 
   But after reading the informative RIAA website {when it wasnt being taken down by hackers :-} } I did a google search and found some more articles.
 
   This article says { http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm } Producer Steve Albini, trashing label practices in The Baffler magazine, outlines a hypothetical but typical record deal that bestows a $250,000 advance on a young band. The album sells 250,000 copies, earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties.
 
   Um.. OK so I sourced the original { http://www.negativland.com/albini.html } article. In summary it says that the record company gives the band an advance then takes that and all the costs of manufacturing the CD from their royalty cut. Does the band pay for the copy protection?
 
   What the record companies are doing is giving the band an unsecured loan or when you are employed it is referred to as a "salary sacrifice". Some people I know salary sacrifice to buy a laptop or a car for use at work. Image that you do this - part of your salary is used to pay off a loan that the company made on your behalf to buy something. How annoyed would you be if you left your job after paying for it and your boss told you that the car/laptop was HIS. He owns it. What insane game is the record company playing? Fleece the gullible?
 
   When a band signs a contract as above it is the same as a salary sacrifice, theyve paid for the production of the CD, all the record company has to do is press it on a CD for less than 10 cents a CD and flog it to the shops. BUT the record company OWNS the copyright? Where is the justice there? In the above article {http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm} Henley dismisses conciliatory gestures as disingenuous rhetoric and industry claims of dramatic concessions as arrogant and misleading. As for label fears of financial ruin, Henley fires back, "When the record companies make $5 for every $1 the artist makes, I dont see where they get off making those remarks. Its another spin tactic."
 
   To compare this practice with a comparable industry, in terms of risk. If you write a novel then the BOOK company pays you the royalty and they pay for the books production. A 15% royalty is a 15% royalty. Book companies have the same problems as record companies with dud books. But not content with making the musician pay for everything {http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-15-artists-rights_x.htm} Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, says industry accounting practices are "intentionally fraudulent."
 
   "Intentionally fraudulent". So, to dumb it down to my level, this means that they are, let me get this exactly right, using accounting practices "... to continue destroying the livelihoods of artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music industry." er.. with the exception of the record companies. Where is the justice here?
 
   So, RIAA, I am confused. I am supposed to fork over my hard-earned cash to support the musicians and songwriters but youll steal the royalties that they deserve and if you dont steal, then youll make damn sure that the royalty is whittled away to nothing. Or am I mistaken?
 
   If you are from the RIAA and you are reading this then I would like you to publicly declare how much money each of the girls in Russian group Tatu actually got paid into their bank accounts for their top selling CDs in many countries and how much revenue was generated by the band. Excuse me, while I get a defibrillator charged and ready to resuscitate the bands bank balance.
 
   OK lets give the record companies the benefit of the doubt. Lets say that there is an honest record company {c.f. Oxymoron} and everything is above board. Since most musicians get paid a royalty for every song that they sell then the consumer and the musicians are still being ripped off.
 
   Lets assume that each band gets $5 per album sold. Ive done a break down of prices from where I live like so:
 
Metallicas St. Anger {cassette} $9.95
Metallicas St. Anger {CD} $20.95
Metallicas St. Anger {CD with DVD} $39.95
Best of Corrs {Cassette} $9.99
Best of Corrs {CD} $31.99
 
   Now there is a HUGE difference in price there but if my assumption that the band gets a cut per song is correct then the band still gets $5 whether it is CD or cassette. So the band loses almost $20 in the case of the Corrs. Or am I wrong?
 
   The way it looks to me is that CD prices are artificially inflated to generate as much profit for the record companies as possible. How else can you explain the more expensive {in terms of production} medium {cassette} being cheaper than the CDs. When you are a kid and you have $20 that it has taken you a month to earn it must be hard to have to chose the cassette because you cant afford a CD. As a kid I couldnt afford to buy records so I copied them, later, as an adult, I bought them on Vinyl and then on CD. So I repaid my debt twice. Apparently you can buy a license to redistribute music http://www.riaa.com/issues/licensing/howto.asp , I wonder how much it costs? Wait, only ONE record company gives an email address. Bummer. So the message is "but not on the net"
 
   Speaking of the Corrs I found this{ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/new_media/1646811.stm }. So, apparently it WAS ok to steal money from musicians and copyright holders on public broadcasts IF you are a record company but dont try this at home.
 
Its a rare thing:
   I would like to buy "Fade to Grey" by Visage, and/or "How to dance" by Bingo Boys on CD single please. OK how about any X-Japan album except "Blue Blood" - so far Ive been told it will cost $70 each. For that much money I want the bloody gold MASTER CD. If I copy them I am breaking the law but I CANT buy them legally in this country without having to sell off a major internal organ. I dont want second hand I want to PAY the musicians their royalty.
 
   Remember the song "Who let the dogs out?" by the Baha Men? The record company deleted it just after it got in the charts. It went to Number 1. People were going into shops to buy it and nobody had it in stock and none could get it. I bet the Baha Men were THRILLED - if they knew.
 
   The behavior of the record companies is bizarre and confusing. After the last few months Im not sure that I SHOULD be buying CDs - the artists havent been getting my money so why continue? Why do CDs get deleted so that you cant buy them? Why would the next generation of kids who have read these articles buy CDs? Because the RIAA will threaten to sue them? Do the artists get most of the money from the lawsuits? The artists paid for the production and it is their work and, since there was no actual CD stamped by the record company, the artist must get 95% of the settlement, right? Wrong the money goes to suing more costumers.
 
I apologize, I had a moment of wild unfounded optimism. Please forgive me.
 
In the End - It doesnt even matter:
   So I am at a loss as to what I am supposed to do? Maybe it is legal to download pirated CDs from the net if the record company deletes them from their catalogue in your country? Maybe it is legal for me to buy a copy of St. Anger on cassette and then burn a copy of the CD? The artist still gets their money and I minimize the amount that I am giving to the record company to spend on suing old ladies and 12 year old kids. They must be on something to think that stupid ineffective copy protection schemes and suing every teenager on the planet will convince people that they should stop copying CDs.
 
   "Something is definitely wrong here" { http://www.midnightoil.com/news.html } record companies know that they are fighting for survival. They are like injured felines in a tree and are lashing out at anyone who comes nearby. But what are they frightened of? Power. The real power here comes from an unlikely source. Musicians. The record companies know it. All it takes is a clever musician to set up a system that allows their fans to buy direct from them and bypass the record companies completely. If I could buy Visages CD direct from their website they would get 100% of the money. Once musicians wake up to the madness that they are subjected to then the record industry will change overnight. And the record companies are terrified.
 
   The injustice of the general publics breach of copyright and stealing of royalties seems to far outstep the injustice of the alleged practices of the record companies represented by the RIAA. And, it seems that the law is supporting the RIAAs stance on this issue. The graffiti on the wall is now gone but somehow it is constantly on my mind when I think of the RIAA.