PlayFair Shutdown

[sub_version]

A note - if you download and send the artist money, the engineer has almost always already been paid. Engineers get paid before dime one is seen from the CD, for the most part; percentage deals exist, but are generally only for high-priced engineers working for the highest earning bands. Joe Mackietweaker from the $10 an hour studio down the street gets his 10 bucks an hour up front. And most of those guys do work just as good as most of the high priced engineers (there *are* exceptions... listen to a record Steve Albini recorded as compared to a random engineer, you'll hear the difference, but for the most part, engineers are pretty comparable).

Copyright infringement is not theft, by definition. It'd be nice if people would stop calling it theft, but they won't, so we might as well get over it.

On the other hand; those of you suggesting that PlayFair had ANYTHING to do with P2P are wrong. The songs will get onto P2P anyway, from non-protected media. There's really no reason at all for DRM as long as unprotected copies exist, and DRM is worthless anyway because any DRM scheme invented will be cracked sooner or later. So let's adjust to the fact that economics are changing and work out some way to work within these new economics; some way to fairly recompense people for their work while maximizing the use of these new technologies.

Because the truth is, its not like the past. The cost to give someone access to ALL the music recorded is roughly the same as the cost to give someone access to one song. The economic model the RIAA (and by extension, iTMS) runs on is broken now. Let's move on.

 

[ethernet76]

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

If everyone would buy directly, and artists realized how easy it is to do so now, then things would be so much nicer. The RIAA is parasitic, not benign, and it needs to be excised.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

Here's the problem. You send 5 dollars to the artists, but the recording company gets nothing? That seems fair.

After all, aren't all fledging artist subsidized by some label at some point? Stopping all funds to all recording is an asinine way of dealing with a problem that is limited in scope. Not all record labels rape their artists, and if you are aware of this problem, then you aren't probably listening to those artists that are raped by their label.

Labels such as Saddle Creek and others use their portion of the money to allow up coming artists to have a chance at exposure. By denying companies like this the funds they deserve you're killing up and coming musicians.

Lastly, people who are getting raped in their label signings are doing so at their own greed. Most young artists that get raped by their label do so by the five majors (EMI, Virgin, etc.). Signing with such a label at an early stage of your career can mean only one thing. You no longer are doing it for the passion, mearly the money. Artists are with the big 5 for only a couple of purposes. They are: wide distribution(Radiohead, EMI) and exposure via pay for play.

So if artist want to stop getting screwed, they need to a)Not sign their first contract with a big 5 b)take their head out of their arse

 

[nspeds]

ONCE AGAIN, don't you guys think that the artists KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEMSELVES??? When they signed with these record labels, THEY CONSENTED to whatever money they earn from song sales. Who the hell are you to tell them what's best for them?

 

[tgilbey]

they may not have the choice.....

If you read what some of the contributors above are actually saying...

I'm sure the artists do know whats best for them. but

a) the good artists may feel that they don't have any option but to go with the corporate marketing rip-off machine
b) and I personally don't want to buy music from artists who think that the major labels business practices are a good idea

 

[tgilbey]

Saddle creek

I'm not familiar with this label but I can't find any mention of major label ownership on their website.
To clarify, I AM NOT advocating the copyright infringement of work from bands such as those on saddle creek, although I do suggest that P2P may actually help these bands publicity-wise, as the sort of "serious" music fans who listen to this stuff have more of a sense of responsibility about buying legal cds when they have heard work that they like.

 

[encro]

i KNOW i'm stealing, but when was the last time you heard Ms. Dynamite or Portishead or the Adam Freeland's Smells Like Teen Spirit bootleg on a Clear Channel radio station?

Speaking of Adam Freeland:
There is a really funny parody of "We Want Your Soul" called "We want your Dole".

I'm not sure who made it but the track was played/mixed by Brewster before Überzone played live at 33-1/3 in Melbourne (09/04/2004). All the vocals were redone and had a noticable Australian accent to it. Very cool!

 

[nspeds]

If you read what some of the contributors above are actually saying...

I'm sure the artists do know whats best for them. but

a) the good artists may feel that they don't have any option but to go with the corporate marketing rip-off machine
b) and I personally don't want to buy music from artists who think that the major labels business practices are a good idea

Here's a thought, maybe the artists who don't like their contracts can go to OTHER LABELS when their contract is complete. Artists have their own mechanism for survival in the music industry. Moreover, don't you think that at some point artists don't mind the rip off that they pull on you?

The point is not dependent on CD sales but on the iTMS, the iTMS US is not a rip off, artists consent to it (the one's who participate in it), so it's FINE.

 

[tgilbey]

errrr...

Here's a thought, maybe the artists who don't like their contracts can go to OTHER LABELS when their contract is complete. Artists have their own mechanism for survival in the music industry. Moreover, don't you think that at some point artists don't mind the rip off that they pull on you?

The point is not dependent on CD sales but on the iTMS, the iTMS US is not a rip off, artists consent to it (the one's who participate in it), so it's FINE.

Like talking to a brick wall.....
IN MY OPINION
the big 5 have got the industry sewn up in such a comprehensive manner that artists who want to get exposure can only jump to another one of these 5.....their practices make it very difficult for independents to survive and effectively market their stuff.
If the artist doesn't mind ripping me off, I won't buy his records. If I want to listen to it, I may just download it. This is a free market...the public at large stop buying and start downloading until the artist *DOES* mind the rip off because now he doesn't make any money.
Itunes is the best of a bad bunch, nothing more.

 

[aafuss1]

Siple-it would violate some Sourceforge.net rules:
a) it's illegal in the USA-Sourceforge based there
b)it's circumnventes the DCMA-for a paid for service.
c)he/she could be liable for a jail term, fined,metc.

 

[nspeds]

Like talking to a brick wall.....
IN MY OPINION
the big 5 have got the industry sewn up in such a comprehensive manner that artists who want to get exposure can only jump to another one of these 5.....their practices make it very difficult for independents to survive and effectively market their stuff.
If the artist doesn't mind ripping me off, I won't buy his records. If I want to listen to it, I may just download it. This is a free market...the public at large stop buying and start downloading until the artist *DOES* mind the rip off because now he doesn't make any money.
Itunes is the best of a bad bunch, nothing more.

Wow, the "brick wall" comment... very professional of you, of course.

My statemenet about the iTMS being fine was in fact relative to sales outside of it. Comparatively, of course, I feel that it is better to buy songs off of iTMS then it is to buy a CD. Also, you tell me that artists are somewhat compelled to go with these 5 labels, however, I know many artists who have decent exposure without consulting any of these labels.

Also, your subscription to the belief that artists only have the labels as a means of promoting their work, and that the iTMS is the lesser of the evils is flawed at best. If I recall, Apple had a conference with independent artists and the rhetoric in that conference entailed the implementation of a system that would better facilitate the usage of its system without the need for any of the "5 major labels", thus making artists who hate their contract with say... EMI quit and promote their music independently in iTunes.

There is a book I read, it's called "Etiquette for Dummies", perhaps you should read it before replying to this post as you responded rudely before.
Also, you commit the logical fallacy of the false dilemma: you inform the readers of this board that artists only have a choice between the "big 5" in order to survive, yet there are many other mechanism available to gain mass exposure.

By the way, I buy music for what suites my taste, not my wallet. If (the wallet-conscious person you are) you think you are getting ripped off then either a) buy from the bargain bin at FYE or b) continue to download music illegally, claiming you know what's best about the pricing of CDs and overall consumer justice.

That's "E T I Q U E T T E F O R D U M M I E S", should be at your local Barnes and Nobles.

My work here is done.

ND
Hated By Many
Confronted By None

 

[atomwork]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is f-ing things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.

Well, then the artist should do also their own marketing, design, websites, media buying, research, makeup, stage design and construction, travel booking and so on. Otherwise they should should up and play music. If you want to bring the cost down then don't hate the labels. They have 90% of the work. And in many cases today the Artist don't even write their own songs. They are just branded products.

Apples ITMS is already a first step towards cheaper music.

 

[nspeds]

Well, then the artist should do also their own marketing, design, websites, media buying, research, makeup, stage design and construction, travel booking and so on. Otherwise they should should up and play music. If you want to bring the cost down then don't hate the labels. They have 90% of the work. And in many cases today the Artist don't even write their own songs. They are just branded products.

Apples ITMS is already a first step towards cheaper music.

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

 

[atomwork]

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

You cannot just state this for all artist. I mean, what the hell deserves a young group 90% of the earnings if the lables do all the marketing and the group is not even know for making money.

However, I agree with you that established artist should deserve more. The earned it. But I don't know if they already do... But in todays world they can easier distribute their own songs anyway.

 

[tgilbey]

nspeds, I apologise for being rude, but you weren't exactly gentle yourself, lots of capitals and a "who the hell are you"

My statemenet about the iTMS being fine was in fact relative to sales outside of it. Comparatively, of course, I feel that it is better to buy songs off of iTMS then it is to buy a CD. Also, you tell me that artists are somewhat compelled to go with these 5 labels, however, I know many artists who have decent exposure without consulting any of these labels.
OK, that's good, this is what I like to see, I just don't think it happens enough

Also, your subscription to the belief that artists only have the labels as a means of promoting their work, and that the iTMS is the lesser of the evils is flawed at best. If I recall, Apple had a conference with independent artists and the rhetoric in that conference entailed the implementation of a system that would better facilitate the usage of its system without the need for any of the "5 major labels", thus making artists who hate their contract with say... EMI quit and promote their music independently in iTunes.
OK, great, again, that, if it is Apple's agenda, is excellent. My beef is not so much with Apple but with the labels who drive such a hard bargain, keeping the price IMO above what it should be. Indeed, all the suggestions are that Apple makes very little money from iTMS. As for promoting your work on iTMS, for reasons I discussed above, and the fact that it is currently not available in all territories and takeup is good but not good enough, I do not think that this is viable. And this is the way that the big 5 like it. For the artists who are signed to majors, the labels now have no manufacturing costs and no distribution costs. Apple takes care of that for no profit. The only thing the big five might just be worried about is having to go through apple at all....
There is a book I read, it's called "Etiquette for Dummies", perhaps you should read it before replying to this post as you responded rudely before.
Being from the UK, my etiquette is naturally superb😉 I just don't always choose to apply it.
Also, you commit the logical fallacy of the false dilemma: you inform the readers of this board that artists only have a choice between the "big 5" in order to survive, yet there are many other mechanism available to gain mass exposure.
No, I SUGGEST that by prefacing my comment with IMO. Further, I didn't say that alternatives do not exist, simply that the appalling business practices limit their effectiveness

By the way, I buy music for what suites my taste, not my wallet. If (the wallet-conscious person you are) you think you are getting ripped off then either a) buy from the bargain bin at FYE or b) continue to download music illegally, claiming you know what's best about the pricing of CDs and overall consumer justice.
I know what is best for me. I don't claim to know for everyone else, but as this is a discussion board for voicing opinions, that is what I did.

By the way, I am a student not a professional. Hence explaining my wallet consciousness (that and the fact that I do buy a lot of music and have to be), and my propensity to insult😉

 

[tgilbey]

You cannot just state this for all artist. I mean, what the hell deserves a young group 90% of the earnings if the lables do all the marketing and the group is not even know for making money.

I am saying that by colluding and continually driving up expectations for marketing campaigns, and by buying expensive playtime on radio that independents cannot afford, they shut out other non-major artists. They fund this by overcharging for and price-fixing their cds (this latter allegation has been upheld in a court of law and the labels fined.....but not enough IMO)

However, I agree with you that established artist should deserve more. The earned it. But I don't know if they already do... But in todays world they can easier distribute their own songs anyway.

The established artists may deserve more, but do they need it?? Bands like the Rolling Stones make obscene amounts through tours.....which could be used to support younger bands who need to achieve this critical mass. But I'll admit that this runs into the realms of communism😉

 

[tgilbey]

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

If you read back through my posts, I don't actually necessarily agree with this direct-mailing philosophy. BUT I think there is a reasonable level of marketing spend that I am happy to support, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE the "payola" system of buying slots for your music on commercial radio and television, the playlists of which are ostensibly selected in response to public demand. This system makes it impossible for other artists to get airtime.

 

[atomwork]

The established artists may deserve more, but do they need it?? Bands like the Rolling Stones make obscene amounts through tours.....which could be used to support younger bands who need to achieve this critical mass. But I'll admit that this runs into the realms of communism😉

LOL, this thought just crossed my mind. hehe. But hey, I guess its like any big business.

 

[nspeds]

If you read back through my posts, I don't actually necessarily agree with this direct-mailing philosophy. BUT I think there is a reasonable level of marketing spend that I am happy to support, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE the "payola" system of buying slots for your music on commercial radio and television, the playlists of which are ostensibly selected in response to public demand. This system makes it impossible for other artists to get airtime.

tgilbey, don't worry, the whole gunpoint post was just a tactless move on my part😀.

 

[centauratlas]

Looks like Playfair is gone again...

Sarovar.org Admin - 2004-04-16 17:18 - Site Admin
This is to announce that the project "PlayFair" has been taken down from
Sarovar.org upon receiving a legal notice this morning from Apple's
attorneys. We are awaiting to hear from our attorneys. Here is the notice we received in its full form...

http://sarovar.org/

 

[centauratlas]

Sarovar.org Admin - 2004-04-16 17:18 - Site Admin
This is to announce that the project "PlayFair" has been taken down from
Sarovar.org upon receiving a legal notice this morning from Apple's
attorneys. We are awaiting to hear from our attorneys. Here is the notice we received in its full form...

http://sarovar.org/

Something that is interesting is that the cease and desist letter says: "When our clients addressed a cease and desist letter to SourceForge, the
website removed the program immediately from its server, in recognition of
the fact that PlayFair compromised the intellectual property rights of our
clients."

I don't think they acknowledged that, anyone know?

(I did submit the story here, but who knows if it will make it up to the news section).

 

[Doctor Q]

I find it interesting that Apple Legal sends this type of communication by e-mail. It's the easiest way to contact somebody, but provides no proof that the site hosts received or read the message. It was addressed to an individual, but they sent the message to info@linuxense.com.

I also notice that in the e-mail the word revolutionising is spelled the British way, not the American way. I wonder if an overseas Apple office carried this out?

 

[Doctor Q]

As of yesterday, Playfair is back up, at playfair.org and at hymn-project.org. This time, the people running the site say that they are ready to defend themselves legally. When the software removes removes DRM from a protected AAC file, the Apple ID of the user who bought the song is retained, which they claim proves that the purpose of the software is fair use and not piracy.