Comment Re:haha (Score 1) 319
Pretty simple. The AFM represents the same tired, defunct business model they always have (at least, when you look at the recording industry-related elements).
I'm an AFM member, and pretty strongly disagree with the "party line" that they sometimes tow, and have pretty loudly spoken out sometimes against the mindless following that sometimes happens in our local when it comes to that.
The real problem is that far too many working musicians can be bothered with things like, oh, actually bothering to read the details of what they're "supporting" because they're too busy trying to earn enough money to pay the rent. If you were to ask a lot of them individually, yeah, they'd certainly support a more freely-structured copyright system. AFM "calls to action" are worded so strongly that you'd be a fool -not- to want to go along with it. Trouble is that with the real legislation, nobody in their right mind (at least, who doesn't get a cut of the take) would support it if people actually bothered to read it.
Don't get me wrong, the AFM does really good things in some ways - in my local's case, a central place to look for students to teach, easy job disbursement and a smartly-managed local in terms of personnel. In the national's case, making sure musicians get paid for the work they do, offering legal representation in the case of shoddy bookkeepers and crooked talent managers, and other bad people in the music business.
The downside is that the national spams me every now and then with a "call to action" which usually isn't helpful. And their national agenda is just as crooked as the people they defend the musicians themselves against.