backtop

Print 30 comment(s) - last by Parhel.. on Sep 24 at 3:34 PM
Twenty-twenty-twenty four hours to go; I wanna be compensated

Wal-Mart, Apple and Real Networks are being sued for copyright infringement by a former drummer of The Ramones.  Richard Reinhardt, also known as Richie Ramone, is suing for almost $1 million in royalties on six different songs that are available for sale over the Internet.  Two production companies and the main estate of the band's lead guitarist were also listed in the suit filed yesterday in a U.S. federal court in Manhattan.

According to Reinhardt, he is the sole creator of six songs that he did not agree to offer over the Internet, and the copyrights on his works were violated once the music retailers started offering digital downloads of his songs.

“The plaintiff has never authorized the duplication, distribution, performance or other exploitation of the compositions in any non-physical digital format,” the suit alleges.

Reinhardt also requested an injunction to stop the following songs from being sold on the Internet:  Can't Say Something Nice, Human Kind, I Know Better Now, I'm Not Jesus, Smash You and Somebody Put Something in My Drink.

"Richie has never gotten the recognition creatively, and certainly economically, for being a mainstay for the Ramones during what was probably not their most visible period," said Jeff Sanders, Reinhardt's attorney.

After forming in New York in 1974, The Ramones are considered by many as one of the leaders of the original punk rock movement.  Three of the original members of the band, Dee Dee, Joey and Johnny, died in the past few years.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
weird
By omnicronx on 9/22/2007 3:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
whats with all the itunes action lately, they keep going from problem to problem.




RE: weird
By MonkeyPaw on 9/22/2007 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
I'll go out on a limb and pin it on greed.

I wonder if Richie has burned through his retirement?


RE: weird
By sxr7171 on 9/22/2007 4:43:09 PM , Rating: 5
Whatever. Finally someone exposes the real thieves: Each and every member of the RIAA. They under pay their real artists and spend millions on promoting no talent idiots to sell records while they laugh all the way to the bank. The music business really needs a revolution. With technology today there is no reason why there should be fat cat greedy bastards between us and the artists we like.


RE: weird
By Gul Westfale on 9/22/2007 7:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
well said. +6 for you.

music industry is really just the middle man between artists and fans, and once the artists figure this out then maybe they will band together and start their own DL service? i hope so.


RE: weird
By psyph3r on 9/22/2007 11:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
i believe the revolution is bittorrent...no need for them anymore and then they go away...that is pretty revolutionary to me. With distribution cheap, artists don't need them anymore.


RE: weird
By masher2 (blog) on 9/23/2007 6:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "With distribution cheap, artists don't need them anymore."

Distribution is a very minor part of what a record label provides. Promotion and financing of album production costs are the two largest factors.


RE: weird
By Spuke on 9/23/2007 9:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Promotion and financing of album production costs are the two largest factors.
And with today's technology, an entire song from the artists head to mastering can be completed with a relatively small budget in your spare bedroom or garage with some creativity and a few books to read. You'd be surprised at the quality that comes from doing an album in someone's bedroom. No need for the "million dollar" recording studios. There's no reason for the music industry to exist today.


RE: weird
By phideo on 9/24/2007 12:12:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You'd be surprised at the quality that comes from doing an album in someone's bedroom. No need for the "million dollar" recording studios.

Not true at all. Many of the upper crest of the high-rate studios have been dissolving as the 'digital revolution' has gained considerable steam, but there are still many examples of the 'million dollar' studios you referred to, and both labels and producers are still very much inclined to track and mix in them.

There's a very good reason such studios still exist. Those bedroom recordings can't ever hope to reach the same plateau as a true studio recording, and the industry is still very much aware of this. Saying there's no need for them is akin to saying that there's no need for Marantz, Carver and other high-end sound equipment, as the $150 Sony amps you can snag from Best Buy can "do the job". There's a clear difference between "getting the job done" and doing the job well.


RE: weird
By MonkeyPaw on 9/23/2007 12:30:14 AM , Rating: 1
It's funny how people think I meant that Richie was the one being greedy. I'm not saying that he isn't, but he's certainly not alone--that's the industry, and it's pretty much always been that way. You know what, the listeners are greedy, too. Even we want more for less--some people even justify downloading music without paying for it. But let me ask what is worse, when the record label gives the artist an "unfair" percentage of each sale, or when pirates give the artist nothing by downloading the songs illegally? While it's true that the only way you can fight the RIAA is by not buying their music, stealing it doesn't exactly get the point across. My point is, there's more than one guilty party here, and more than one group doing all the fighting.

Click the actual link and you'll see what evil corporations he's suing.

quote:

The suit, which also names the estate of the band's one- time guitarist, Johnny Ramone, Ramones Productions Inc and their music publisher as defendants, alleges the music publisher improperly authorized third parties, such as Apple's iTunes service, Wal-Mart.com's music download service and RealNetwork's Real Store and Rhapsody services to use the songs.


He's basically suing the band (or what's left of it) along with the band's publisher, Walmart, Apple, and Real, etc. So if Richie is so great to "expose the real thieves," his own band is apparently one of them. Go figure, members of a band screwing each other over!


RE: weird
By fic2 on 9/24/2007 1:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with part of what you said. But I don't think I am being greedy when I download music for free that I bought 10 or 20 years ago. The record industry wants me to keep paying for a song with each format change. I bought records, then I bought cassettes for my car, then I bought CDs. A lot of this was the same stuff that I had already bought (especially records and CDs). I am not going to buy it again as a digital file.


RE: weird
By DarkElfa on 9/23/2007 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, if you ask me, they're all money grubbers, from the fat guys behind the desks to the artists themselves. Why do we keep paying these guys millions of dollars to be famous and treated like royalty? Meanwhile some of us work real jobs, many of them dangerous and get paid next to squat and receive very little recognition.

It's a sad world indeed when a fireman, who risks his or her life everyday to save others get's paid dick while someone who sings or plays an instrument makes millions. Personally, I hope th that song dl's drive them all out of business, the labels and artists alike, the whole system is corrupt and greedy and needs more reforms than the freaking congressional elections.


RE: weird
By psypher on 9/24/2007 7:22:34 AM , Rating: 1
I'll tell you exactly why we pay these guys millions of dollars. In every field of work, there are some people that are exeptional. The value they produce is far greater than the average individual. This is why they get paid exeptional salaries. It is why we have multi milion dollar CEO's, sports stars, actors, musicians, investment bankers, real estate brokers, etc... I don't want to sound like I am bashing firemen, because I think what they do is valuable and necessary, but when it comes down to it, if most fireman had the capability to become a millionare rock star, rap artist or even investment banker, they would. But the sad truth is that people get paid on the value of the work they produce, and a lot of these guys doing blue collar jobs don't have the talent or education that it takes to create millions of dollars of value. If you look at the percentage of people in america that are actually millionares, it is pretty small, probably around 1-2%. If we paid people on moral value, we would have thousands of cops and firemen and no corporate/industrial backbone to support the country.

If a fireman is unsatisfied with his/her level of income, they can go back to school and try to start a new career, just like anybody else that feels like their income is too low. We live in a country that rewards those who take the initiative to better themselves through hard work and education. That is why we have a service driven economy in these times. The days when the vast amount of American workers were actually laborers manufacturing things in factories is over. We have outsourced most of those jobs and factories to developing nations where labor is cheaper. I personally am glad that I don't have to "work hard", but at the same time, I come in to my office every day at 6:30 AM and I usually don't leave before 5:30. In return for my hard work and dedication, I definitely don't get paid next to squat, and I recieve plenty of recognition from the people that matter most to me (my girlfriend, bosses and family). I also have several friends that are touring musicians. And they don't exactly lead cushy lifestyles. In their struggle to get nationwide recognition the tend to do what most unknowns do. They pay for their own nationwide tour (which includes some of the shittiest bars you have ever seen) where they have the luxury of sleeping on a cramped rv/van/old schoolbus every night while making a combined $150 a day to live off of ($150 doesn't go very far when it has to cover gas and meals for 5 guys. And they can't even go the ramen noodle route because they would have nowhere to cook it) while hoping that somebody important enough to help their careers sees them play.

The real sad thing isn't that musicians get paid millions, it is that not enough of the right musicians get paid millions. (the Ramones, by the way, deserved every cent they made. And no, I am not a fan of punk rock, but I respect what they did immensely.)


RE: weird
By RogueLegend on 9/24/2007 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
I've yet to see one exceptional CEO. They don't actually produce anything, nor is there any intrinsic value in what they produce.

The reason why we have
quote:
multi milion dollar CEO's, sports stars, actors, musicians, investment bankers, real estate brokers
is because they are simply known by a lot of people important/influential in their industry. That's not value of production, it's called notoriety. I know of plenty of musicians that have not hit the multi-million dollar mark that are better than the musicians we typically hear, and it's only for one reason- notoriety.


RE: weird
By wordsworm on 9/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: weird
By kkwst2 on 9/24/2007 11:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
I hear what you're saying, and agree to an extent. But can't some blame be placed on the artists who continue to sign with these "fat cat greedy bastards" in the hope of hitting it big? Or the fans who continue to buy the overpriced albums of no-talent acts in skimpy clothes? There's always going to be greedy fat cats to take advantage of struggling artists who are only too quick to sign on the dotted line for a few bucks.

Most talented artists make a good living. I'd hazard a guess that most could retire with a lot more money that 99% of the people buying their records. The problem is that most of them blow through their money or are swindled out of it by someone else.

I think the biggest victims in all this are the fans, and to an extent, we can blame ourselves for putting up with the exorbitant prices for albums, concert tickets, etc.


Re-valued
By Felofasofa on 9/23/2007 12:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
Music is being re-valued and loads of Artists especially the older ones are having problems with this. Paying $30 Australian for a CD which may have one or two good tracks is just too expensive and consumers are voting with their feet. CD sales keep on falling. Distribution technology has played a major part in this. So has electronica. No longer do you need to buy whole Albums, you can purchase individual songs. The value of music is far more merit based, good music will still have some value, just not what they used to get. Artists and record companies just have to deal with this, and clearly some are struggling and wish for the good old days when their product was far more packaged, expensive, and consumers had little choice. I must say I am really crying for the record Companies. Sure there's piracy, they just have to deal with it like all Digital content creators. Welcome to the real world - The Internet the "New Democracy"




RE: Re-valued
By GlassHouse69 on 9/23/2007 1:09:04 AM , Rating: 1
you werent around or you were comatose during the biggest age of music. You never had to buy the whole album.

Cassette Singles: (which normally had another song on the B side, so it annoyed me that they were called singles) They sold SUPER well.

12" Singles. STILL BEING SOLD. 1 Damn song for a whole vinyl record. Workable/mixable remixes on them, sometimes 14 tracks or so. They still are the best way to collect an artists music as they give all sorts of versions and cuts of the song.

Now, shitheads with no sense of real music download crap compressed files that sound much much worse than a cassette single ever did. Win for people with child-like tastes. Still the same idea though. The culture sucks more than the industry or the riaa combined.


RE: Re-valued
By Felofasofa on 9/23/2007 1:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cassette Singles: (which normally had another song on the B side, so it annoyed me that they were called singles) They sold SUPER well.


Can't say they ever made a big impact downunder. You can get 45's and CD singles but often they are a limited release, which is quite deliberate from the Record companies.

quote:
download crap compressed files


Which generally is piracy - they get what they deserve.

Like I said good music will still have value, and if you like a song and want the uncompressed version then you'll probably be prepared to pay for it. It will just be cheaper, because it has to live with all the other crap versions and free electronica etc. The power has come back to consumers and I think that's a good thing.


RE: Re-valued
By Spivonious on 9/24/2007 9:33:14 AM , Rating: 2
Whoa! Every song on iTunes (except for the lossless of course) are crap compressed files. And that's not piracy. It's just that most people either can't hear the difference or don't care.


RE: Re-valued
By DarkElfa on 9/23/2007 2:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
HA! Artists, don't make me laugh. Mozart was an artist. Picaso was an artist. Leonardo was an artist. The jokers we nowadays claiming to be artists are nothing of the sort, they're contrived, semi-talented hacks who don't deserve either the fame or money for the regurgitated garbage they keep spitting over the air waves and onto disks. At least DL's don't require the usage of a more plastic disks that'll sit in landfills forever.

...and the drummer for the Ramones needs to just shut up and be happy he has the money and fame he has right now and that he's not still drumming in some British bar getting beer bottles tossed at him while he performs the latest Beatles cover to drunken Hooligans.

If there's a culture that sucks sir, it's the one we've allowed and hell, nurtured, to grow into the ugly monster that is the American music industry.


RE: Re-valued
By cmdrdredd on 9/23/2007 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're telling me that you personally have the trained ear to tell the difference between a CD and a 192Kbps+ digital file on a PC when running through the same speaker system? I doubt that.
The Quality is fine for most people. Very very few can tell the difference. Your argument is poor at best. If it was so horrible a difference there would be no iTunes downloads.
To be honest, I'd rather pay $.99 for a song than $15 to get the one song I like. Music today sucks.


RE: Re-valued
By kyp275 on 9/24/2007 3:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
heh, I can tell the difference :P

though I agree with you that it's more than enough for most people, more often than not the speakers/headphones are the limiting factors.


RE: Re-valued
By wordsworm on 9/24/2007 3:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're telling me that you personally have the trained ear to tell the difference between a CD and a 192Kbps+ digital file on a PC when running through the same speaker system?

You don't need a trained ear to catch the clipping that often goes along with an MP3 - my favorite contemporaries, Zero 7 and Emiliana Torrini, two name just two, are just a few of the artists I've found whose MP3s clip like mad, especially for certain instruments like the bell. For artists like Janis Joplin, I must say that even CDs don't quite capture her like vinyl. Somehow it poorly represents the power of her voice. CDs are better than MP3s, and vinyl is better than CDs. Why is it that as technology advances, the quality of music seems to be degrading?

In the end, it's the lawyers who are really winning in this battle.

quote:
Music today sucks.
There's great music out there these days. It's just that none of it makes it to the radio - which of course is another medium which broadcasts at severely handicapped range.

For people who like beat box music, MP3s are just fine. For people who like something with a bit more fidelity, MP3s suck. People who are real audiophiles have a problem with CDs. I wonder why music companies are still releasing CDs. The movie industry protects its investment by using media that's too expensive to manufacture for the average Joe. It would be nice to see the music industry do the same.


RE: Re-valued
By theapparition on 9/24/2007 2:37:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The movie industry protects its investment by using media that's too expensive to manufacture for the average Joe. It would be nice to see the music industry do the same.

And what do they play it on?
They did release a new music media format, and no one bought it (except me), SACD.


RE: Re-valued
By Spivonious on 9/24/2007 9:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
I can hear the difference easily. You obviously have bad hearing. Maybe you should take the iPod ear buds out of your ears for a little bit.


RE: Re-valued
By Parhel on 9/24/2007 3:34:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're telling me that you personally have the trained ear to tell the difference between a CD and a 192Kbps+ digital file on a PC when running through the same speaker system? I doubt that.


Absolutely. If you don't believe it, take a CD that you own and compress it to a 192Kbps digital file and then compare the two. I don't think I have "golden ears" or anything, but to me it's very obvious even at much higher bit rates.

In my experience, a 192Kbps mp3 is typically around 20% of the size of a losslessly compressed copy of the same music. That means that 80% of the audio information is gone. From the numbers, it's not surprising at all that people can tell the difference.

I suppose that some people really can't tell the difference, just like some people can't tell the difference between regular and diet soda. But, I don't think you could easily validate a claim that "very very few can tell the diffence."

I think most people who say they can't hear the difference are fooling themselves because they have invested money in an mp3 collection and don't want to admit it's not as good as the CD.


RE: Re-valued
By phideo on 9/24/2007 12:21:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Now, shitheads with no sense of real music download crap compressed files that sound much much worse than a cassette single ever did. Win for people with child-like tastes.

You're suggesting that an 1/8" magnetic tape retains more of the original master (typically 1/2") than a VBR AAC file at 128kbps? 256kbps?

If preferring AAC over the long-obsolete compact cassette makes my tastes "child-like", consider me an infant.


RE: Re-valued
By RogueLegend on 9/24/2007 11:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
1) Singles these days sold on hard media usually cost 50-75% of the original album eventhough they may only contain a song or two rarely ever 14. No value in that. You can pay $1 for the track you want, or $16 for the whole of the 16 song album.

2) Hard media such as cassette and vinyl has two problems digital media does NOT have. Their quality degrades over time. Tapes hiss, CD's skip, and vinyl clicks over time. Guess what, digital media doesn't have the same problem! Over time the quality of hard media degrades no matter how well you take care of it. So please tell me: which is more crap? A few inconsistencies in digital media or the fact that hard media will eventually degrade to the point of becoming completely unlistenable?

I think your sense of "real music" will dissappear once your media becomes unlistenable, while my sense of "real music" will still exist because my MP3's will remain playable at the same fidelity forever, just as long as I have a working hard drive to keep it on.


huh..must be short on cash.
By SiliconAddict on 9/23/2007 3:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
n/t




working music
By tspinning on 9/24/2007 12:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, while not being one to fully endorse illegal downloading, I think that at least 80% of music made today is crap... If you want to make it, you need to be worth it. Today we have beautiful people (no issue here, go be a model) elected (by American Idol or whatever medium the corp. uses) to front end a band made up of back end engineers making tracks, writers snapshotting pop-culture for poems, and a pro dancer teaching the lead his/her moves.... This is no more art then Lord of the Rings, yes, it might be catchy, or even look good, but when you spend a billion or so dollars in the first place, it's hard to end up with crap. How much was spent writing the books that actually inspired those movies? Those were/are art.

This industry of cool creates no idea based music, no true sound, lots of "samples" and little substance.

Basically what I'm saying here is, people need to work hard to earn those millions, (as psypher correctly stated)

A true touring musician, with great music will be rewarded by crowds of people who follow them, not to only ONE show per tour... but many, while buying their CD, t-shirt and stickers. Seriously, how many people make a pilgrimage for whatever the hip new band is at the stadium..

How often do these artists vary their act? Can they even "play" a song from the last album/tour if asked to on the street? Doubt it.

Great music takes a mind, a body, a soul, and a WILL.

Look at true music revolutionaries to see this, Dylan, Zep, Ramones (even!), the Grateful Dead, PHISH!!

Jesus, these bands worked their asses off, partied hard too, and inspired people to up and leave their jobs to watch them, follow them, and be part of something larger, greater. They were visionaries in their times.

Today we get Britney Spears... *(people might follow her for a few shows however just to watch what happens next.. it's like that car wreck you couldn't turn away from on the highway...)

Why do we turn a blind eye to true musicians who openly support downloading of their live performances? They realize this free play/press is what attracts people to buy the studio version, to see them live, to buy a T, to tell a friend.

Look at http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree...

for a huge sampling of great artists who know the truth is out there... PS they all support this "stealing" of their music... and it's live shows, do you really want to hear the latest J-Lo concert? ha doubt it :)

The internet is the new world, come to play or go home.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki