More Ethical Shit Hits the Fan

[John M. Relph <relph@presto.ig.com>]

Andy Gough <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com> sez:
>Subject: $6.60 will get you 20...years

>  I'd think it be more likely
>that an artist would be hostile to fans (i.e., fanatics)--after all, it's
>they who prevent the artist from going to the supermarket to buy a loaf of
>bread.

Do people still believe this myth?  It is not a few fans making copies
of albums, CDs, or live concerts that rip the artist off.  Artists
get ripped off by "creative accounting practices" by the large record
companies, who are not above distributing payola to radio station
managers, who selectively distribute "promo" materials by only the
artists they think deserve it, who make stupid marketing decisions
based on the opinion of some marketing scum who doesn't even listen to
that artists material, doesn't understand it, and doesn't understand
why you and I might want to listen to it.  Artists get ripped off by
the fact that radio stations won't play their music because the staion
manager believes that most people are too stupid to want to hear any
music which is unfamiliar.  [For example, Ms. Bush's work does not fall
into the category of music which is in 4/4 time with a strong beat,
has no rhythmic changes, and is easy to dance and sing along to (I
know that IED sings along with Kate in the shower, but I'm talking pop
radio hooks here).]

It's not the people who make tapes of radio shows, obscure B-sides,
and demos and trade them with their friends or members of some
(possibly indistinct) fan club.  It is a well-orchestrated
professional bootleg armada that charges an arm and a leg and creates
artificial demand for its own products using the same tactics that the
big record companies use to keep their prices high (which stimulates
the normal person to want to get a copy from his or her friend).

All these copyright laws are well intentioned: they are
(theoretically) designed to make sure the artist continues to derive
revenue from her or his hard work.  However, with regard to the record
industry, the RIAA and other associations that are supposedly policing
copyright laws for the benefit of the artists that they represent are
really only protecting the record companies' profit margins.

For example, is it really easy to find Ms. Bush's albums and CDs.
Perhaps, but they are now in the budget line, with no liner notes.
But are you convinced that record companies save THAT MUCH money from
skimping on a few pages of lyrics?  And then there's the notorious
practice of remastering CDs and albums from inferior masters, badly
designed packages, lack of extra tracks, etc.  So what does this
apparent disrespect for the consumer do?  It stimulates demand for the
foreign-made product, in this case, the Kate Bush CDs from the U.K.
The sound quality is always good (we know the results of the taste
test as regards Ms. Bush's CDs, but for example, Pink Floyd's U.K. CDs
sound much better than their U.S. counterparts), the liner notes are
complete, sometimes there are extra songs on the U.K. CDs that do not
appear on the U.S., etc.

But it's illegal to purchase these imported products, because the
copyright laws say that it's keeping revenue from the company that
owns the copyright to the domestic product.  The artist would see the
money either way.  It's the RECORD COMPANIES that stand to lose money:
"instead of making millions and millions and millions of dollars,
they're making millions and millions..."

So how am I, with my lowly tape trading non-profit exercise, going to
steal money from those artists?

I already buy ALL of their commercially available material that I can
get my hands on (unavailable legally in the U.S. since it was never
released in the U.S., but the copyright is owned by some record
company that wouldn't release it).  I buy duplicate copies of some
things because I had the LP, then I bought the CD.  All at inflated
prices.

Give me a break.

>  Not only did you pirate
>(i.e., steal) Kate's private works, you have conspired to have them mass-
>duplicated and distributed all over the United States!  You are not simply
>an individual that happened to blunder upon the pirated works and keep
>them for yourself.  No, you decided to go into the pirating business and
>distribute them to anyone who asked.  That is, not only did you profit from
>someone else's crime (the initial pirating), but you decided to join in and
>become a criminal yourself.  How will those vistas look through bars?

Like IED says (using some long obsolete standard of morality) this
exercise is designed to take business away from the actual bootleggers
who want to make a profit.

Here's another scenario: suppose Artist X made some radio
performances, interviews, etc.  Now I happen to be a big fan of Artist
X, but they didn't some to my town.  Why should it be illegal for me
to get tapes of the appearances of Artist X at the radio stations in
the other cities?  If the "Artist X Fan Club" wants to collect tapes
of these appearances and make them available to fans, non-profit of
course, why is that illegal?

Granted, KB's demos are different from radio broadcasts, but you get
to decide what the real difference is.

>>Please be sure to post the cease and desist letter when it arrives.
>>The chances of Kate permanently abrogating her copyright in this
>>fashion are practically nil.
>
>Post it?  How?  They don't let convicts use computer terminals! :-)
>I wonder how many cancelations for the tape IED will receive now?  After
>all, he has a master list of people wanting the tape--and their addresses.
>That would make it all too easy for the FBI.

I hate threats, implied or not.  I also do not like self-righteous
assholes.  Smileys or no smileys.

IED continues to say that the moral issues are not simple, but when
someone jumps on the self-righteous moral bandwagon, and proceeds to
beat someone over the head with their own moral decisions, something
is not right.

Welcome to the New Conservatism.

	-- John

P.S.  Read Frank Zappa's book, it'll give you something to think
about, too.