General discussion


The Australian Version of the RIAA

By HAL 9000 Moderator ·
Well guys & galls over here the Recording Industry has taken the bold step of preventing parents videoing their children at performances because the video breaches copyright. Now here I?m not talking about some late teen age kids who could almost be considered as ?Professional? performers but kids as young as 4 years old.

It seems at a recent concert one man making a video of his young child was approached by the Organizers Security and requested to hand over the Video Camera. He could of course retrieve it after the concert had finished but of course minus the tape. It seems that the organizers of these concerts have been blackmailed into preventing any copies of the performances being made without some form of royalty being paid to whichever company currently owns the copyright of whatever song is being performed. So to save any problems they are just refusing to allow any taping of these performances being made.

This one is a minefield and has dramatic repercussions as there are many different record companies who can claim that their copyright has been breached by the simple act of making either an audio or video copy of a young child performing on stage which most parents want to do anyway and I for one don?t blame them a single iota.

However it is the recording industries greedy grab for cash that is preventing many proud parents from making copies of their children performing on stage and in all likely hood at home as well. While I?m the first to think that these companies need to protect their rights I think that this is taking a step too far and needs to be rethought.

Any body else have an opinion on this topic?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Common Sense

by Oldefar In reply to The Australian Version of ...

An aspect of the human condition that seems to be evolving out of our societies world wide.

Guess I should have left with the dinosaurs...

Collapse -

Me too

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Common Sense

While I accept the right of certian companies to protect their material I can not honestly believe that a child singing a song or dancing is going to have a wide market appeal and cost these companies money in any form other than an initial loss of income when the parent records the performance.

Up until now this area has never been considered as important but in their mad rush for money they seem to have lost contact with reaility or maybe it is just us dinosaurs that think that way.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to The Australian Version of ...

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

The organisers may be unaware of legal reprercussions. A child can sing a song written by anyone but this eceoms a legal fear for some when the song is peformed for monetary gain (school donations, field trips etc)and even moreso if recorded while being performed fro monetary gain.

Many people are unaware of the full legalities surrounding artistic reproduction (they differ by label) and as a result just have a fear of anything that MAY or may not lead to further problems.

It's paranoia, if this were in the USA, Bush would convince American citizens to support an attack on the RIAA by instilling this fear due to ignorance on the people (wow, it's only the 4th of Jan and I'm ragging on Bush again), guess old habits never die.

People act out of fear and it effects everyone around them. It's the same with Vancouver and New Years celebrations, they don't know how to control the Vancouver public so they say it's too expensive to police and shut down free public celebrations. All because of the Grey Cup riots in Vancouver so many years ago that has instilled FUD into the city's administration.

The RIAA and others will not succeed in thier campaigns, they haven't in the past and won't now.

Currently there is a supposed 210 Million dollars from CDROM taxes that has been imposed on blank CD's. The money was to compensate the artists for the losses of income through file sharing. Of course, after they have collected millions, the first objection raised has come into play:
"How will you distribute these funds fairly between the artists?

Now, if I bought CDR's and filled them with downloaded Muddy Waters, Howlin Wolf, Janis Joplin etc. will THEY get compensation or will Christina Aguillera get it? If paying a blank CD surtax will make P2P sharing acceptable, then the RIAA should get on the badnwagon and start roviding high bitrate music in P2P channels.

If I download a bootleg version of "Sympathy for the Devil" perfomed by Janes Addiction at a night club and then burn it to CD, who should receive the surtax for the blank CD's? Janes Addiction SHOULD but we know they won't. The record companies don't have a clue what's going on or how to control it. We've seen it during the VHS/BETA days, we've seen it when cassette decks and blank tapes were made, we see it when P2P is popular and now we see it in childrens plays.

They have no clue, neither do most of the public and as a result, FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT shut it ALL down.

The way I see it, I am not getting quality audio from P2P applications, I'll check out a new song or artist and will generally buy the CD for the liner notes, cover art and higher quality.
A compressed MP3 for example cannot be played by mobilemusic companies at dances and cannot be used to gain a profit as it is such poor quaity.

Kazaa, Fileshare etc. MP3 downloads and CD WAV files are not even comparable when it comes to sound quality, how can you restrict such a garbage medium as MP3 files are by considering it reproduction?

Collapse -

I fully agree with you

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to FUD

But the original move on this came from the recording industry who circulated a form letter to all the schools and the like to prevent the recording of childrens performances.

To me it seems that they want their cake and eat it to. Hey but what's new there and after all only a very small part of any monies collected end up in the pockets of the artists most of it ends up in the recording companies coffers anyway doesn't it?

Collapse -

Almost ALL of it

by Oz_Media In reply to I fully agree with you

Artist contracts vary depending on the representation they receive. The larger the label, the larger the star, the less money the artist makes. On average, an artist selling 150,000 copies/yr from smaller marketing efforts will net more than the average artist selling millions each quarter with a major label.

The majotr labels pay the artist on CD sales, not movie soundtracks, not residuals from radio, not sales of dolls and toys in the artists likeness, not even touring. In MOST cases, the artist gets a couple of points on retail CD sales, end of story.

Many artists (very successful artists)have gone bankrupt and bought out of contracts to seek smaller marketing avenues and venues for live performances. This is why we see once very largely marketed acts now playing smaller clubs and bars.

The successful acts, Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc. Manage to make money by touring, not selling records. The labels know this and then only pay artists for CD sales, not shows. Artists make a few hundred thousand in CD sales, they then run up a few million in touring costs (fronted by the label, but not paid for by the label)and end up bankrupt. Once an artist is bankrupt and owing millions to the record company, the record company then offer to BUY the rights to the music to help pay back the debt. Now the artist has no music (owned now by the label), no money (in debt to the label) and no credibility (dragged through the mud by the press during bankruptcy).

This is the reason I am so boggled by those who stat a band and set out to FIND a label above all else. People have the mythical understanding that the labels get you to the top, they only help themselves stay at the top not the artist.

I was ready to keep going but I think I've strayed enough for one day.
Labels are baaaaaad, 'kay?
Artists are good, 'kay?

Collapse -

More food for thought

by Oz_Media In reply to The Australian Version of ...

I actually see another side to all this however I don't feel it applies to school kids.

When setting up live shows, I usually encourage the use of tape recorders and video cameras, it's great for getting the name spread around.

IF the band is playing any cover songs in thier setlist, I will get on the security staff and have them keep an eye out for Video Cameras and tape recorders, and confiscate any tapes found in the audience.

If a band plays a cover song, it is usually to breeak a setlist or change tempo by familiarity. If this was videotaped and then found to be a popular version of the original song, it would cirulate. Once press circulates, you are responsible for having licencing to the cover song played. You can play the song but not for profit. Now lets say that the video is NEVER sold for money but hits Kazaa or Fileshare, the people viewing the video MAY be swayed into buying CD's or concert tickets based on the cover song. This then equates to the band making money from someone else's material.

It's all very innocent until someone loses an eye!

Collapse -

I understand this and that is why I worded

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to More food for thought

The opening post the way I did. I was specifically speaking about young children and in the new article that I saw the children in question ranged between 4 - 7 years old.

Personally I can't see how taping any of these kids would have any adverse affects on anyone especially the person/band who wrote the song.

I can't even see how these tapes would have an adverse affect on the record companies but they are appearing to want money to tape the kids so it just looks like the GREEDY recording companies trying to get even more money while at the samr time complaining about just how bad they are doing.

I could understand it if it involved older kids who where almost of a professional standard but I can't honestly see anyone being swayed into going to a concert or buying a CD/tape of the original artist on the strength of a 4 -7 year old kid singing a song, that is other than the parents so the kid can compare how they performed the song in comparision to an artist with the full backing of a Lable {and all the resources that come with that.} There is no child who could perform like Enya wha lays down 57 Harmony tracks to her main track as sounds like this just can not be reproduced on stage no matter how hard you try unless the performer is prepared to mime to a recording.

Actually come to think of that it is not so far fetched with all these new manfactured groups that are heavly pushed by the record companies, but honestly can you see a 4 -7 year old really competing?

Collapse -

Reminds me

by Oz_Media In reply to I understand this and tha ...

of a Simpson's episode. Bart and the Boys get hired as a boy band...?

You're right Colin, it is rificulous overkill, as I assumed due to fear of repercussions.

Just drop on by Think Geek and get yourslef a little tie pin camera or something and screw the recording industry. Artists that are owned by labels hate file sharing because they are popular by representation. They only get paid from CD sales so they dip out, or so they think so, most 11 -14 year old kids can't afford too many CD's.

Artists that are independant, self signed and want to play their music, would rather people downloaded it and bought concert tickets instead. They make a living on touring because they can play live, these are the true musicians of the wolrd who deserve all the free play they can get, the radio stations won't give it to them because the labels own the radio stations.


Collapse -

OZ what do you think would happen if

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Reminds me

I sent a copy of an old AC-DC 3/4 tape that I have here from the pre Back in Black days?

Back then they where just mucking around in a studio over here and I was driving the sound board and got feed up with their stupidity so I just told them to pick up their act or I was going home along with the tape of the session. They didn't improve so I left and took the tape with me and I've still got it here but as it hasn't been run through a player for a very long time it is probably suffering from print through.

But when they started getting big I always threatned Angus that I would make that tape public one day. Now days the only way I have to ciontact him is through their recording company and I'm sure what would happen if I sent a copy of that 16 Track tape over addressed as "Personal" to Angus. He would never hear of it and I'd be burried in legal papers for the rest of my life not a plesent thought but one day I'll copy it to CD and when I get the chance I'll give it to Angus and tell him the "remember When!"

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to OZ what do you think woul ...

I've had some demo recordings from pre B*B days even Pre, '74 Jailbreak, when they were REALLY starting out. I don't know what I could say or do to get even some sample bytes from you but if you can encode some samples, I give you my word it would be completely between you and I and would not be shared or sourced to you. Pipe dreams but you know, I have to ask.

I actually have a vinyl 45 picture disk recording of Rock'N Roll Damnation where Angus was out of breath and huffing and puffing all through the background of Bons vocals. It was obviously cutout of the album and rerecorded. Apparently, he'd had detention and RAN from school or the BUS to get to the studio, picked up his guitar and started the session. Knowing recording studios and hourly costs, I can see this happening quite easily.

Related Discussions

Related Forums