Untitled
I think this is a topic of importance in our political sphere of being fans of both below radar underground music and the internet.
What are your feelings on the pressure put by groups like BMI, RIAA, MPAA, etc. to control the flow of media through alternative channels (i.e. garagepunk.com)?
Here's my own personal story against the RIAA:
I was a member of a great mp3 trading group called AudioFix. We ran off a server on AudioGnome (which I think is now defunct). Unlike Soulseek or Napster, AudioGnome was completely closed server and had no central structure. Using a member's bandwidth, we traded extremely rare music (experimental, psyche, vintage, obscuro, etc.). We had some phenomenal members like WFMU DJ's, Italian radio hosts, the guy who runs ubuweb, etc. I was introduced to (and introduced some to) some amazing music that I still seek out today.
It is important to note that of the 100's of members trading, a very small percentage of the music traded was registered with the RIAA/BMI or like-minded organizations. Most artists were either part of the group or would be so happy someone was digging their ultra-rare music (if they even remember making it) to care. This isn't a scientific estimate, but I would say less than 5% of the music shared was part of the RIAA infrastructure.
Well it all came to end when the server provider found got a "cease and desist" letter from the RIAA. Their only evidence was that "mp3 and wma" trading was listed in the server description.
What gives the RIAA the right to shutdown servers of music not connected with their organization at all? Are they so draconian that they believe that all music is controlled by their group? What legal authority does the RIAA have against music not under their control?
Corporate fascism? Capitalistic defense? What do you think?
What about artists like The Tape Beatles, John Oswald, Negativland, DJ Spooky, turntablism who artistically appropriate other's work into new art?
This topic can veer into the PMRC, censorship, and the politics of music of course.
What are your feelings on the pressure put by groups like BMI, RIAA, MPAA, etc. to control the flow of media through alternative channels (i.e. garagepunk.com)?
Here's my own personal story against the RIAA:
I was a member of a great mp3 trading group called AudioFix. We ran off a server on AudioGnome (which I think is now defunct). Unlike Soulseek or Napster, AudioGnome was completely closed server and had no central structure. Using a member's bandwidth, we traded extremely rare music (experimental, psyche, vintage, obscuro, etc.). We had some phenomenal members like WFMU DJ's, Italian radio hosts, the guy who runs ubuweb, etc. I was introduced to (and introduced some to) some amazing music that I still seek out today.
It is important to note that of the 100's of members trading, a very small percentage of the music traded was registered with the RIAA/BMI or like-minded organizations. Most artists were either part of the group or would be so happy someone was digging their ultra-rare music (if they even remember making it) to care. This isn't a scientific estimate, but I would say less than 5% of the music shared was part of the RIAA infrastructure.
Well it all came to end when the server provider found got a "cease and desist" letter from the RIAA. Their only evidence was that "mp3 and wma" trading was listed in the server description.
What gives the RIAA the right to shutdown servers of music not connected with their organization at all? Are they so draconian that they believe that all music is controlled by their group? What legal authority does the RIAA have against music not under their control?
Corporate fascism? Capitalistic defense? What do you think?
What about artists like The Tape Beatles, John Oswald, Negativland, DJ Spooky, turntablism who artistically appropriate other's work into new art?
This topic can veer into the PMRC, censorship, and the politics of music of course.
