Slashdot Mirror
Napster Helps RIAA Again; RIAA Still Ungrateful (Updated)
(Update one hour later by J : The story was on the AP wire, e.g. here, so it's not the BBC's fault. It was unfair of me to single out the Beeb when they just happened to be the source the submittor submitted this morning.)
The RIAA's figures were released last week, but the AP story was delayed until Monday, when the story would get the most exposure.
CD sales plummeted last year in the U.S. and record industry officials say the figures prove that Napster, the Internet music-sharing service, has harmed their business.Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
"Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA president Hilary Rosen.
This article reads like it might have been ghost-written by someone from the record industry. It isn't until paragraph ten that journalistic integrity kicks in enough for the AP to quietly mention what they're actually talking about:
Some experts say [sic] the drop of CD singles as being part of an industry-wide slump, due to economic factors and a weak year musically. (Emphasis mine.)
That's right, CD singles. Unit sales for the singles were down 39%, revenue down 36% (they raised prices, of course).
And CD singles account for how much of the RIAA's profits?
Not quite one percent.
Yes, that's right: they lost 36% of 1% of their profits.
And the news media is reporting it as a 39% loss.
The facts are that their "CD sales" are up this year, even over last year's stunning performance. The RIAA increased the average price of a full-length CD from $13.65 to $14.02, and still managed to sell 3,600,000 more of them.
Total profit increase on this, the core of their business, was 3.1%, or just shy of an extra $400,000,000.
But full-length CDs only account for 92% of the RIAA's revenue. They did have weak performance in the other 8%. CD singles, as already noted, dropped revenue by 36%. But the real casualty percentage-wise was cassingles, which lost over 90% of its revenue from last year.
Gee, why could that be? Maybe because nobody wants them?
In fact, the RIAA's only real money-losing format of any significance was cassettes, which, along with music videos, were the only format actually cut in price. Cassette revenue dropped $436 million.
Wait a minute, what am I saying? "Money-losing"? They aren't losing money on cassettes -- they're just not raking it in this year as fast as last year. And gee, why might that be? Again, because nobody wants them?
And it's not like the RIAA is struggling to get by on slim profits. The big picture is that, in the last nine years, they have tripled their annual income.
But they are desperate to spin this as a loss. The actual fact is that their total revenue is down 1.8% from 1999. Last year, they made $14,584,500,000. This year, they made $14,323,000,000.
But how could they blame Napster if they told the truth? What would they say? "Napster is killing us! Our income is down almost two whole percent! We are only pulling in $14,323,000,000 this year!"
That probably wouldn't fly.
Especially because in the three categories which Napster has precisely zero effect on -- cassettes, vinyl, and music videos -- their combined year-to-year loss was $579.5 million.
That's right. In the digital formats which Napster can trade, they are making more money: $318,500,000 more revenue. In the analog and video formats where Napster is irrelevant, they are making less money: $579,500,000 less revenue.
That's the real story here.
But don't trust the press to report this one fairly. Don't trust the RIAA's press release. Go read the RIAA's numbers yourself.
(Hell, don't even trust those numbers -- they don't add up. I was silly enough to type them into a spreadsheet, and someone over there has some problems doing simple arithmetic. Their 1998 total revenue includes the DVDs twice.)
The RIAA is desperately trying to spin this so that they won't look like greedy bastards for turning down Napster's offer of a billion dollars over the next five years.
If they just took that generous offer, then -- in a year that the AP wire suggests might be an "industry-wide slump, due to economic factors and a weak year musically," and in a year for which Bertlesmann admits "we didn't put that much good stuff out" -- their revenue would only be down $111,000,000 from last year. And that would have been $750,000,000 more than they made in 1998.
But that isn't enough for them.
Why would anyone think the RIAA is greedy? They just want what's coming to them.
(Update one hour later by J : Mea culpa. Three paragraphs up, I originally calculated the numbers as if the billion dollars was all applied in one year; that isn't so. The billion would have been applied equally over the next five years. Actually it probably wouldn't have been applied to year-2000 revenue at all, so it's more of a rhetorical point than anything. Thanks to dachshund for pointing out that it wasn't a lump-sum payment.)
(Update four hours later by J : The AP wire seems to have updated its story, now stating explicitly that it's CD singles, not "CDs," which dropped 39%. I see factually correct versions now at CNN, Salon, Yahoo, and wire.ap.org (search on Napster). The BBC version is still incorrect. In my opinion, the new versions are still misleading. Focusing on a large percentage drop within a subcategory which is a tiny percentage of the whole is a classic example of how to lie with statistics. But compare this to the RIAA's press release, claiming that CD singles had "flat growth in '98 and '99," though 1998 revenue actually dropped 22% -- that's just plain lying.)
If an individual realized that he could produce energy from his own farts, don't you think the power companies would be a little pissed and try to stop him from diseminating the though process that led to use of that energy by everyone? If a simple tool was created by an blacksmith that allowed one to perform their own dentistry, don't you think that the medical/dental industry would be a little embarrased and shut him down before he passed the blueprint of an inexpensive tool on to everyone? The RIAA is just pissed that a kid harnessed a power that they were dicking around with (if they were even doing that). And they are greedy. They have the corner on the music market and are quite simply afraid of losing it.
Same with me. I was buying twice as much as I did when I was a teenager in my first few months with Napster. I could actually listen to the whole album that I had been eyeing (yet never buying) in the store for years previously. And most of those were great albums that I would still be eyeing if Napster wasn't around. However, since the lawsuits, I haven't bought a thing. Why should I give my money to these idiots who are trying to limit my freedoms and taste. And the musicians--they're supposed to be fighting for our (as humans) freedoms and tastes. I'll buy the stuff used and beat up just so they don't get my cash now.
If you could buy what you couldn't 'steal' from Napster, then you're doing it ALL wrong. And to answer your question: Yes, I would encourage to someone to take something I created--the musicians didn't 'make' the CD, they created the music on the CD--and do with it what they will. That's the point of art. I wouldn't want someone to take a copy of my book that I wrote off of my shelf. But I would want them to read it and copy it if it moved them (and they didn't want to pay the outrageous $7.99 for a paperback), and pass it on to others. If the musicians don't want someone listening to their music without paying, then they are not musicians, and essentially their music is worth nothing. Art belongs to us all, CDs belong to individuals. As far as I know, no one has ever received a CD from Napster, only the music from a CD.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. Music is art, and art belongs to us all. I'm a writer and if someone wants to distribute my work, I say go for it, baby! Greed is the issue, and perhaps that is truely why Napster was created--to get as much music as possible as quickly as possible. But it has gone beyond that, and if let loose from the legislation trying to bury it, it could move the taste of the general populace towards the good. In other words, away from prefabricated music and closer towards a beauty in this art not yet discovered.
I could easily reiterate and possibly add to your comments, but you've said everything so perfectly. Let me just say...right on!
No, I wouldn't like that, but I would be fearing for my job if I constantly put out an overpriced product that was a piece of crap. Some clients may fall for it, others decide to use a source (a.k.a. Napster) to determine whether your services are worth the money. I've been ripped off too many times by bad artists making bad albums. So, I prefer to be the latter of those two clients. I still pay for good albums, but I no longer purchase crap.
This is the best possible way to go; I found Napster less than a month ago - as a result I have bought three new audio CD's and mail ordered a reissue of a band I never thought I'd hear again...- that's more than I'd bought in the previous 12 months. I'd imagine I'm a fairly average user, and if Napster is making me buy more rather than less... I'm old enough to remember the whole vinyl to tape issue and that didn't hurt the recording industry or the artists either - it's about time that copyright laws were updated and that the giant recording companies realised that it's people who buy music - if enough of us boycott, even for a single day we'll hit them where they understand. The average CD buyer knows exactly what they want and why, and would buy a whole pile more if they could afford it - the people behind this dispute are a) unlikely to have listened to live music for years b)are high paid lawyers with no real interest in the artists or the music... just check out who's endorsed Napster... I'd love to see just what percentage of the CD cover price goes to pay royalties... and how much the industry gets...Why not let Napster operate and us end users pay the royalty for every song.. I know enough to know how small that is to be more than willing to pay it - I would really like to see less middle men in this business...
Why is it that no one is talking about the fact that Bertelsmann, the company that is backing Napster, owns BMG, a company that is being represented by the RIAA? Doesn't this show a little foresight by someone in the media business? Ifi you asked me, I'd say it's a win-win situation for Thomas Middelhorf and his German giant. Obviously the legal issues have to be worked out, but Napster is, and will continue to be the main stop for anyone who wants to check out a song. Just after today, it won't be from Metallica or Dr. Dre. So Napster has to start cleaning out its sytem files of copyrighted material this weekend? How many different ways of spelling Metlica are there? But back to my point, Bertelsmann has its hands in over 600 companies around the world, and does $15 billion in REVENUE fer year. Do you think that they can't persuade just a few of our fine lawmakers to keep the process going without actually shutting down Napster? They have formulated a business model and helped put out a new version of Napster, with their self-owned little project of CDNOW. (SOMEbody's already making money off of this deal) And someone said the Germans were stupid. Imagination should not be used to escape reality, but should be used to create reality.
hahahahahahahahaha :)
my suspicion exactly.
I emailed the beeb as soon as I went to story (using the factual error form), but as it's been revealed that this was an AP story, is there a way to email them? Do they have a factual error address to write?
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
If you would like to send the RIAA a message, hit them where it counts, their WALLET! Instead of spending $15 - 25 (here in NY) for a CD, go to a local club, grab a drink, and listen to some cheezy music, and some cool music.
.... put some bad words here ... that They thought they were losing money due to Napster, NOW THEY"RE LOSING MONEY DUE TO NAPSTER
Take the Spring and Summer off from buying CD's in support of Napster. Tell the RIAA if I can't sample more than one song I don't want your OHW (One Hit Wonder).
Start by not buying CD's from Tower, SamGoody, TheWall, put more generic stores here, and tell them that until Napster is reinstated, or the Summer is over, X number of Napster users will no longer frequent their stores and buy CD's. This then makes it the responsobility of the Music Chains to take action with the RIAA or lose a ton of revenue.
Of course some people need to have the new BritneySpears and BSB, but those people are probably not NApster community at large.
IF THE NAPSTER COMMUNITY WANTS TO MAKE A STAND, HURT THE MUSIC INDUSTRY WHERE IT HURTS, THEIR WALLET!!! BAND TOGETHER AND STOP BUYING CD'S UNTIL YOUR MUSIC SHARING SERVICE IS UP AND FREE
This taken into account, Napster users can really make a difference in the profits of the RIAA, Prove to those
my $0.02
~deri
Why should I pay $10 or more for a bunch of remixes of the same song? If I want remixes, I go to Napster or a similar service.
Well, if I wanted remixes I would pay the $10 dollars so that the person doing the remixing might have a chance to be paid for their work.
Where's the logic in your post? The recording musicians should be paid for what they do, but anyone else - a producer, dj, person from a different band, etc. - should expect to be robbed for their creative efforts?
Fanning: "What Happen!?" Napster-controlman: "Some one set us up the bomb court ruling! We get signal!" RIAA: "How are you gentlemen!!? All your server base are belong to us!" Fanning: "What!!" RIAA: "You are on the way to destruction" RIAA: "You have no chance to survive, make your time!" Fanning: "NOOOOOOO!!!!" - gotta love it
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
Overlooked among all the misleading things the RIAA has said in this context is their gross misunderstanding of what it would actually take to demonstrate something like harm from Napster.
This kind of correlational observation is not helpful, no matter how you slice it. RIAA profits could have dropped precipitously and it would not be clear Napster had anything to do with it. Their profits could have doubled, and no one could prove that Napster hadn't done them harm.
The basic truth is that no one, not the RIAA, not a single Slashdot reader, not even Kurt Loder, knows how well the RIAA would have done last year if Napster hadn't been around. The world did an uncontrolled experiment, and interpreting the results is going to be more of an art than a science. The art is in estimating how well the RIAA would have done last year in a world without Napster.
That said, of all the imaginable face-valid ways to estimate what we should have expected the numbers to look like without Napster, I would say that simply looking at the change from last year is probably the worst.
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
Do it. Maybe the "Slashdot Effect" will be felt by CNN. We can only hope.
get real, RIAA. you did not stay in touch with technology (ie, you didn't move with the times and start distributing individual songs over the net, so napster did that for you, sort of) so you lose some ground.
this is basic economics. you can't fight it, hard as you may try.
all the buggywhip companies either found a new product line to produce or just plain went out of business. is it "progress's" fault for this?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is how the movie business works. The way people make it in both industries (and to a lesser extent most others)is by kissing ass and making connections. Both businesses work on the same model, known as "Absolute Evil and Greed" in industry parlance. They are both effectivly interchangable outgrowths of the enormous Los Angeles bullshit industry; a bunch of spoilt adults who think because they have no tangable skills they are entitled to a huge pile of cash for essentially nothing. Most of the people who make most of the money do none of the work. What work they do consists of shmoozing at parties...and making phone calls. If these execs, known as "bastards" in the business, have any, actual no-fun boring work to do they force their unpaid interns to do it (known as "exploited slaves" in the business). These interns work hard to prove they are good at making copies and stacking cookies, as these are the skills that demonstrate your innate ability to run a major corporation. The actual work is done by hard working, under-paid working class stiffs, or over-paid unionized stiffs that pull 14 hour days 365 days a year.
But I'm not bitter. No. Not at all.
---
---
---
"Against stupidity the very god themselves contend in vain" -Johann Schiller
If Napster successfully charges many of its users for the service, and forks over enormous amounts of money to the RIAA, will all those copyright-infringing MP3s trading on Napster be considered legal in the RIAA's eyes? I would think of course not! So why even bother trying to appease this organization and mislead users into forking over money for stuff that could get them or their ISP in trouble with those self-proclaimed rulers of the world? What are the Napster folks thinking?
How can they get away with this? And for you lawyers out there, what are some ways that someone can put a stop to this? I would really like to know.
Although I am slightly biased toward the free internet side of things, I wouldn't mind seeing the RIAA come out on top of this perpetual battle, IF THE TRUTH IS ON THEIR SIDE. Of course, the same goes for Napster, and at the moment the truth seems to be on their side...
They won't; first, most people will never see the true numbers. Second, they don't care. I've tried explaining to a few people why they should care, but to no avail. They simply 'can't live without their music.'
/. readers is responsible for the drop in sales :-)
OTOH, maybe the boycott of
The RIAA is desperately trying to spin this so that they won't look like greedy bastards for turning down Napster's offer of a billion dollars.
I don't disagree with the position presented, but be consistent -- If they make 14 billion dollars a year, ONE billion over FIVE years is chicken feed -- a 70th of what they would be projected to 'earn' in that time.
A computer without Microsoft is like ice cream without ketchup.
The RIAA and the average Slashdotter have the same basic mistake - this has nothing to do with profits.
To elaborate - the fundamental moral issue is independent of money raked in. Music companies could be going bankrupt, or they could be worth 300% their current value, and the fundamental issue would remain unaltered.
The question is not profits, but property rights, and anything else is a totally extraneous question.
So what are you all doing about this article anyway? Do you want something to change, or do you just want to sit around complaining about it? Email this story to every journalist you know!!
However,
I feel damn near helpless to stop crap like this.
Of course, the first and second items are much easier than the last, since the only power we have as citizens now is with our wallets.
The comment was a joke... Sorry it didn't come across that way.
what do you mean the cigarette rolling paper industry? don't you mean the joint rolling paper industry?
And vlad, please keep up with the news. First, some of them shouldn't be paid - I mean really, the olsen twins album? Second the RIAA makes money hand over fist. The artists get less than one cent per CD sold. The dixie chicks made approx. $300,000 on their first gold/plat album. That's total. $100k apiece not including expenses (which they paid). The album made close to 400 million dollars.
If you don't enjoy doing it, do something else. Save us all your whining.
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Seriously...if someone got a hold of one of the minidisc recordings of my band's practice sessions and found it so intriguing that they made copys for their friends, or put it up on Napster, I'd have no problem with that at all. (Providing that it was properly credited as our work.)
Of course if you had studio and tour expenses to pay for and saw someone downloading your stuff off of Napster instead of putting that money back in your pocket you might have a different opinion. If music is what you do for a living, you should expect to be paid for it. That's the difference. Making love to your SO is not a career. Having pets is not a career. For some people their music is their career. If people stopped paying you for whatever it is you do during the day (you do work right?) wouldn't you get a little ticked?
-Rich
I sent this email to the RIAA after reading this post on /. : After reading the article from BBC and doing the numbers myself and reading this article (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/18122 13&mode=thread); how come the RIAA is lying to the consumer? Because the RIAA has the ear of the press, and Napster does not, why won't the RIAA tell the truth to consumers? You are using the media to your advantage. How can you sit there and lie. I've heard nothing but lies come from the RIAA. I know whoever is reading this is just sitting there laughing saying someone like me can't do anything about it because I don't have anyone's ear. You're right up to a point. But you need to realize that people who can see through your lies won't put up with it. The internet is our arena of speech. You may have TV, radio, and print press for your fight against Napster, but you will never win the fight on the web. I have one suggestion for the RIAA, read the end of this article http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/181221 3&mode=thread and think about taking the $1 billion from Napster. Just think about it. And by the way, I'm for sure that your web page designers and IT people use Napster at home, everyone does and you can't do a thing about it.
The RIAA is pissin me off here folks. They're using the press and influential people to their advantage. Why is that?
When RIAA claims that Napster is the cause of decreasing singles sales, they commit the same error. It is incorrect, but fun, to take their own logic error, and applying it towards themselves.
1 or 2 years ago, the president of Sony Music Canada stated in a TV interview with MuchMusic that the CD-Single market in Canada was bascially dead. Nobody was buying them any more, in lieu of buying more complete albums. This is on the record! (no pun intended)
She later went on to say that 'nobody makes money on the single anymore' (referring to the other members of the Big Five) and that they're only really used for promotion purposes.
Now, I've said before, why don't the friggin record companies simply allow us to download the singles for free? They could keep track of how many times people download it, and adjust their promotions accordingly. ie: if some small band gets a lot of d/ls, they can start promoting the full album more.
Incidentally, I am NO FAN of the record industry, but at the same time I sure don't want to see my favourite artists get fucked over. You may say this has already happened if they're on a major, but I have many friends in bands, and they gotta eat too.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Exactly. Finally some sense on Slashdot.
Nice troll d00d, extended analogy anyone?
I don't care if they take in $100,000,000 US, if the costs are sufficiently high the revenue is moot.
Let's not forget the ton of money being thrown at laywers for MP3 issues...
You know, 10 years ago (hell, 5 years ago) the RIAA's claims would have gone unchallenged. The problem with old media is that they can't come to grips with the dissemination of information that the Internet provides. They still claim they're making no money, that revenues are down, and they try to use the Internet as a scapegoat, when in reality it's their own reluctance to change. We still occasionally hear that movie companies, record labels, television station, etc., are either losing money or just breaking even. This worked years ago when nobody could check they numbers or question them. It always seemed odd that a CD cost $20, 10 millions copies sold, a tour sold out across the world with tickets costing $50 a pop, everybody was wearing the band's t-shirt, and every station was playing their latest single 20 times a day, and yet the label wasn't making money. Same goes for the movies that grossed $300 million.
Now, the numbers are easily accessed, and the companies try to put use the same rhetoric. "We're broke, sales are down, blah, blah, blah", but nobody believes them because the numbers are there, and people can add. Now, if you're pulling in $14.6 billion in revenues, what possible reason would there be to raise prices? Could it be greed? The mentality is skewed. They assume that by charging more, they can sell the same amount and therefore make more money. Do these people not realize that if I have the option of buying a Dave Matthews Band CD for $15 instead of $25, I'll choose the $15 one? And if the cheaper option is taken away, then I won't buy it at all. Disposable income isn't infinite. If they would lower the prices (like we were told would happen once CD became an accepted medium), then they would sell possibly millions more, and increase their revenues to even more ridiculous heights.
But no, the media companies still rely on lies and deceit to cover their collective asses. I had nothing but respect for BMG, saying "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" and hooking up with Napster, realizing the possibilities. And now I have even more after the "it wasn't a good music year" quote. Honesty is a refreshing change of pace in this industry.
However, the Napster arguement is unfounded from both sides. To say that it's hurting sales is ridiculous when sales are up. To say it's helping sales is just as ludicrous when there's nothing to prove causation between the numbers. Sales are more likely up due to the mega-pop-stars of the last couple years, Britney Spears, N-Sync, Backstreet Boys, etc.. These groups are some of the only people who can sell out 60,000 seat arenas and sell millions of albums in their first week. Manufactured fame is pulling in a lot more money that real talent these days.
However, the RIAA has every right to be scared. True, Napster isn't hurting them today, but if they continue to refuse to embrace emerging technologies, continue to raise prices, and continue to rip off their artists, then it will eventually hurt them. Look at many European countries (especially Russia and former soviet states), piracy there makes North America look like we're just making copies of a friend's tape. Billions are legitimately lost to bootlegs and pirated copies of music in these places. The RIAA's fear is that the U.S., their most important market, will follow suit in the coming years. What they don't realize is that they are driving this market away with their own greed and short-sightedness.
In an ideal world, people would use Napster to download rare singles, covers, live concerts, and other material not readily available. Fanning's creation would be used to get that song I just heard on the radio, check out a couple other titles from the band, and then I'd go out and buy their CD for $10. (Or better yet, DOWNLOAD IT FROM THE LABEL'S SITE for $7 + s&h for the actual disc). However, this isn't an ideal world, and while a good number of Napster users do exactly this (minus the CD only costing $10), many others use it for free music. Maybe this is due to cost, maybe it's just due to the fact that many people have the "why pay for it if I don't have to?" mentality. But it's my opinion that having a good-sized CD collection is a bit of a status symbol, and that the money spent by the people who use Napster to sample bands outweighs any revenue lost due to the people who download the whole album and burn it to a CD.
Besides, everyone knows that the real money comes from merchandise sales and concert attendance. Both of which Napster use can only increase.
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
Crap, I haven't seen a new one of these in years. You mean to say they've been making them all this time? Who the heck buys them anyways? I mean who doesn't own a cd player?
Well, no. I'm looking at the numbers in context. The RIAA is focusing solely on 1% of their market which saw reduced sales, and making out of it a much bigger deal than it is.
CD singles are 1% of the total revenue (my spreadsheet says 0.9963%).
Cassettes, cassingles, vinyl LPs, vinyl singles, and music videos together are another 6.748%.
So the total non-full-length-CD market is 7.744%, which I called 8%.
(Four significant figures is as close as I can get, because there's roundoff error; the total revenue on my spreadsheet for 2000 is $14,323.7 million but the RIAA claims only $14,323.0 million.)
Look at it this way. If CD single sales had dropped entirely to zero, it would only have decreased their total revenues by 1%. Meanwhile, full-length CD sales from 1999 increased the RIAA's income by 2.3% of total revenue from last year.
As I mentioned, the digital audio sales are up from 1999; it's the analog and video sales that are down.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
I say let the RIAA piss off their customers. I was happily using Napster, or getting sample MP3s in other ways and buying CD's for a long time. Now, the RIAA has gone too far. I WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES puchase another shrink-wrapped CD. Luckily, blank CD's are nice and cheap, now. There are probably lots of people who feel the same as I do. It may take a while, but the RIAA will figure out what they did wrong when it's too late.
unfortunately you're preaching to the choir here, the real trick would be to get this article on CNN ;)
We are possibly watching the breakup of a major cartel. My parents had VietNam. I've got the dawning of the digital age. A digital world impacting huge corporations that spend 200 million dollars a year just in legal expenses. Why does Napster get more bad publicity than the PROOF of the Big-5 collaborating and setting illegal prices in stores?? Proof that Bo Didley has no money to his name, yet created Rock & Roll??
Maybe I'm the guy who ran to Canada instead of going to VietNam, and you're the ROTC punk who thinks it's your duty to go to war. Whichever was right or wrong, it's still a controversy today, much like this issue could possibly be.
Rader
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I used to buy 20-25 cds a year, but after the RIAA and bertelsman/seagrams decided to campaign to destroy my rights, as well as the rights of musicians, I swore I would buy no more.
In the last few months, I have backslidden, and bought about 4 new cds. I honesty feel bad that by buying their products, I am harming myself, musicians, and (to an extent) all people everywhere.
BTW, I have never used a "free" music service except for free downloads from mp3.com, and have never infringed.
Buy a cd, buy a microsoft product...and I/we erode everyone's rights.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
You musicians out there, do you feel it is your right to be able to live for the rest of your life off of a few hours of work (songwriting/recording)? And don't bullshit me that it's not a few hours of work, because it is. Programming is the same thing. Sure it make take me years to improve my skills, but the chances of me ever getting paid $20,000,000 USD for one song/program are next to zero, while no-talent boy-bands (that's right N-Sync, Backdoor boys, I'm talking about your dumb asses) rake in the dough because the cartels control the distribution of nearly all music. Do you like the fact that your industry is more akin to a lottery than to art?
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
so what if their 'viewpoint' is honorable! i know of plenty of scumbag politicians whose 'viewpoint' was honorable then they'd turn around and screw the public with some unconscionable act... like giving away OUR airwaves (so-called digital airwaves) to the broadcasting corporations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996... futher, many companies/corporations talk a good line in public but are guilty of the shabbiest business practices.
First of all, I don't think anyone should be arguing about Napster anymore. And I think it is mostly agreed that what WAS going on through Napster WAS illegal.
Now, this has no bearing on whether the RIAA is a corporate organization destined for greed, or not. They, of course, are protecting their profits like any sane company would, and to a greater extent, grasping at the final ends of a rope that is their final days.
They obviously realize that, in an internet age, there is NO NEED TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC ON SOLID MEDIA. Duh, this is where they make all of their money. This is why a CD costs $16, and are no better quality than a good MP3 (for argument sake). This brings us to a new discussion point.
1. Artists are still signing contracts with large record labels that do things the old way. Don't forget this. The artists bring this upon themselves. It's not just the Recording Industry's fault that THEY own all of the music and its distribution. Think, the recording industry OWNS the right to distrubute a copyrighted work. Can you think of another way to make as much money?? What a great idea. Make money off of distruting a disc that costs 5 cents, and contains something that consumers can't trade with friends, and get arrested for copying.
2. If we, as consumers, were to change the way that the industry works, then we are perfectly capable. This is what we want, right?
3. What is needed, is a new breed of recording company that does not rely on hard-media to distribute its recordings. This new breed of company should receive no money from the distribution of music. Yes, read it again. This 'recording company' would plan on no $$ for 'distributing' music. ie - A band would record their songs, encode them, and put them on the web. No media costs, free to consumers, band gets heard on radio, blah blah blah.
4. At this point, how does this new breed of company make money? Touring, gigs, etc... This is the only way (really) for them to bring in money. Remember, all this company would provide for bands is promotion, publicity, and a server to keep their MP3's on. Obviously, this doesn't cost them much money, so who cares if they don't get profits from CD-sales?
5. With this new model, the MP3's are still intellectual property of the band, in the form of a song, but are distributed freely across the net. The thing the band does to make money, is tour, promote through radio stations, etc... Yeah. By the way, remember that bands make JACK off of CD sales. Touring is where the money is at. Just ask Dave Matthews himself.
People may look at this idea and say, wtf?!?!? Why would bands do this? because THEY would be in control of their music. They would not have to rely on a distrubutor to get their music out. (which is ALL that record companies are these days)
Why would this 'new breed of record company' want to do this? They will make $$ off of touring should the band take off. Remember, this new breed of record company wouldn't distribute ANYTHING. They are simply PR, and help connect the band with the commercialized world.
Make any sense?
- Never Undrestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Groups... -
Ask to be transfered to business or tech.
Let them know that there is a problem with their story. That their story makes it appear their is evidence for falling CD sales, whithout pointing to the fact that CD Singles make up only a percent of sales, and that the far more important catagories have seen increases...
August
Just because a vast majority of the free & democratic news outlets parrot what the RIAA says doesn't make those news outlets any less free.
That's true, on some theoretical level. The problem is that many people equate free with unbiased. Of course, bias is a part of any opinion or story, but people generally view the media as being an accurate representation of what is going on in the world. Clearly, it is not, and that is unacceptable. Don't tell me to quit bitching when these pathetic media outlets blatently lie every day. Some level of integrity is needed. And yes, I also know we all have a responsibilty to get out there and help end the problem.
ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Not to mention that it seems like the music pirates don't seem to have a very good grasp on cause-and-effect. How many times do we have to hear "music sales went up in 1999, therefore Napster is actually helping to sell CDs!" Well, when you take into account all other factors, maybe it really is, but you certainly can't determine that from the single datapoint that CD sales went up. After all, maybe they would've been a lot higher without Napster. I don't know either way, but I hate bullshit statistical correlations coming from either side, so give it a rest.
Cheers,
Exactly, you ARE helpless against things such as this, unless YOU YOURSELF have countless millions of dollars in yearly income to play with, to afford fancy-talking lawyers and lobbyists, you will never be heard. People on /. often think that screaming until their head turns blue will have some effect, well it doesn't. The RIAA doesn't piss and moan when they see something they don't like, they sit on it with the side of ther ass that holds the wallet.
Honestly, there needs to be a civil war.
That would be interesting.
....move along....nothing to see here....
"if you don't make anything off of what you do, why continue to do it? "
Now, i'm not going to go full out 'artists don't do it for the $$$'. But they don't. There's a song on the new NOFX album to this effect.
Artists should get paid. But if this is the only reason you're getting into music, perhaps you should think about some other line of work? There's no shortage of starving artists, there's no shortage of bands working for tips -- the assertion that music stops in the absence of residuals is a silly one.
Which, again, is not to say that musicians shouldn't get paid -- just that the 'why do it for free' argument shows that you've never done it.
god is just pretend.
Since when can the media excuse itself with dumbly publishing PR without themselves checking the facts? They published it, so they are effectively giving it a stamp of approval.
But then again, journalists and figures...
EXACTLY. So, what you are saying is that CDs provide more value, so people have insentive to buy them for the inherent superiority over the mp3. So maybe the RIAA should try competing instead of litigating away the competition.
---
---
"Against stupidity the very god themselves contend in vain" -Johann Schiller
Well said, and that's correct.
But this is where trending and historical data come in. Markets are predicted all the time. This is how the effectiveness of advertising is determined.
Economists (which I am not) have a whole flavor of science and math that lets them measure these things quite precisely.
Of course, all this is still sort of moot, I think. The argument (the legal one at least) is that Napster encourages theft - a pretty solid platform for the record industry.
-Cj
MP3's hit supernova just when compression was at the magic point with bandwidth. It'll only be time before trading movies is the same as mp3's.
Rader
When I went to add up the numbers on the pdf document, I only found two discrepancies:
... ...
1) The 2000 total was $700K higher than listed
2) The listed 1998 total included the DVD total, even though the chart notes that DVD product is included in the Music Video total.
Other than that, when I added up the dollar values (*not* the units shipped), everything seems to add up
Let's make sure we don't leave any weaknesses in our analysis of RIAA-spin
Point two is still a good one.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
My knowledge of print media is slight, but: AFAIK, reporters have to earn some in-house cred before they even rate a byline. And web/new-media related reporting is very much the domain of cub reporters. (Interestingly enough, the local newspaper's Web News section reads like Slashdot with a six-hour delay.)
instead of full albums of songs they haven't be clandestinely programmed into about
You weren't by any chance translating video games from Japanese to English in about 1989, were you?
--
#include "stdio.h"
How would you propose that we make the media accurate? Governmental regulations and accuracy requirements? So that we can have a press that is free to say only whatever the gov't says is accurate?
So what level should that integrity be? And how do you propose that it be enforced?--
I hate to repeat the obvious, but the reason that the media reported the losses the way they did is because of who owns them.
ABC is owned by Disney(who owns many record companies) for example.
Any major record label these days is owned by a company that owns atleast one(upto 50) tv/radio stations, not to mention newspapers.
The point is is that almost all media is biased. Period.
P.S. I've bought about 30 CDs in the last 6 months. All of them from Half.com.
Ah, yes, now I remember. Such smells are easily forgettable, even after a short time out of "this fucking hole we call L.A." (care of Tool). I spent 6 months of hell there, and finally moved away. I'm happy now.
Actually, it is more than a few hours of work. for every song that gets written, there are a hundred more that just never quite seem to work. It took you years to improve your programming skills, and it's taken me years to improve my musical skills (15 so far). Additionally, music is a much more expensive than programming, and musicians are far less likely to get paid than programmers. Also, a musician is totally exposing themselves to their audience. Hopefully not in the pornographic sense, but certainly in an emotional and spiritual sense. The audience can tell if you aren't and will quickly lose interest. That aspect is simply not present in programming and that's why this isn't a very good comparison.
Back to the getting paid thing, I would say that it is fairly likely that your programming skills will earn you over 1,000,000 USD over 15 to 20 years. My musical skills, on the other hand, have cost me roughly 15,000 USD over the last 15 years with absolutely no return at all. This is the case for the vast majority of musicians. If someone were to decide that one of my songs were worth 1,000,000 USD tommorrow, that would put me roughly on par with what you will most likely make in 15 years of programming. The problem, of course, is that while you get to keep your 1M USD, I have to pay 200k to the record company for producing the album, another 200k for equipment to tour in support of the album (not to mention the cost of having to spend a year away from my wife and daughter), and the rest is split up between the band members. My last band had 6 members, which means 100k each. 100k for 15 years of work. You call that a big payoff? You would be surprised how many big musicians have had to file bankrupcy at least once, some even at the peak of their success (TLC comes to mind, but I know there are many others). The honest truth is that the only people making money off of music are the big record companies.
I think what the RIAA is really afraid of is that musicians now have other channels through which to distrubute their music. It isn't really digital music that scares them, but their own impending irrelevence.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
It's much more likely though that their numbers are backed up by statistics that basically say that napster users, who statistically buy X cd's a month are now buying X-n CD's a month. That, and/or saying that they're now downloading Y cd's worth a month from Napster and that those downloads would correspond 1:1 to CD purchases in the absence of Napster.
Just curious, but was there a point to your post? If not, just as good...
---
--
Heck, because of napster I got into some somewhat obscure music (EBM/Dance Industrial) that's nigh impossible to pick up in my area. After going 3 years without even purchasing a CD, I've purchased 3 (@ $15 each) Attended 4 concerts ( 3 @ $15, 1 @ $25) and bought 6 t-shirts at the concerts (let's assume $25 each)
For me alone, that's $265. Quite an increase in expenditure.
Now, consider that I got 6 of my friends into this music and I took at least 3 people to each concert. They each bought at least one t-shirt. This is adding up.
I guess the real catch is that I'm not buying what the RIAA is pushing. I'm buying what I like because for the first time someone can tell me about a band...I can listen to it and then decide if I like it.
--
I only post to slashdot when I'm sleep deprived.
"My religion is to live --and die-- without regret." -- Milarepa
And instead of Lars Ulrich / Metallica giving a bitter taste in our mouth, it'll end up being Tom Cruise and his wacky Scientology bunch beating up 14 year olds for downloading movies. (See www.romp.com for flash-references)
Getting numbers to backup a claim is easy. The above article simply misses a logical point most 10 year olds would comprehend--if you can get something for free, why buy it?
SO... even if there's more records being sold, maybe they're not selling as much as they would have if people were not getting the same music for free. (You can't honestly say with a straight face that at least some people will download music now that they can instead of buying... can you?)
witold.org
Point one: from a cursory scan of the original post (and, if I'm in any way wrong, feel free to shoot me down) he at one point designates the CD singles base as "1%", then later recognizes it as "8%". Which is it?
You're assuming all sales are cds. CD singles account for 1% of total sales. All other cds (EPs and LPs) account for 92% of sales. The other 7% is probably cassettes, cassingles, and vinyl (yes people still buy vinyl).
Point two: single sales have to be viewed in light of the artist. Sure, a band like Metallica with a million-and-one compilation albums isn't affected by a drop in single CD sales. But what about (*shivvers*) Britney Spears? Little 12-year old girls are probably going out and buying that one song they really like (and is played over the radio constantly), instead of full albums of songs they haven't be clandestinely programmed into about. That is, they *were* doing this, until their older brothers came around and downloaded Napster for the family machine.
Actually, I bet those little 12 year-old girls were going out and buying every last Britney Spears item they could find, including the full album. Yeah, they might not buy the singles if their older brother shows them how to use Napster, but they're still buying merchandise...
Big Oil has, up until recently, been against alternative power sources. Only now that it's becomming abundantly clear that the oil supply isn't going to last another 50-80 years do we see their tunes change. Now we find companies like BP having an increasing interest in developing solar power technology. Why? They know their number is up and are changing to fit with the times so they can survive.
I think that oil companies are far more concerned about environmental issues, both from a customer perception and a regulatory viewpoint. The amount of true alternative-energy research being done by these companies pales in comparison with the amount of oil they are selling. They are, however, tyring to "look green", since the next generation of oil consumers are the same enviro-nuts rioting in Seattle.
There also is the risk of severe carbon regulation if fear of global warming becomes significant. In which case, the oil companies will have to figure out how to make money without emitting CO2.
But in terms of oil running out, there is no indication that this will happen within a timeframe important to the oil companies right now.
It's not really the amount of money I spend, though. It's the fact that the musicians that the RIAA is supposedly are getting shafted by them instead. Ten cents a CD? Please... Sure, it adds up, and I can see the RIAA now: "We're doing you favor. Give the artisits too much money and they stop caring and get greedy. We decided to take that responsibility. It's really quite a bad thing that we're getting so money, but it's a dirty job and someone has to do it. [fake tear] [sniffle]"
-----
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
On a total yearly profits of $14,323,000,000, the two hundred million a year (1 billion over five years) offer does seem a bit weak. If you were the RIAA, you would seriously consider an offer of only around 1/75th (well under 2%) of your profits [not total revenue] to allow a site to freely give away copies of everything you hold copyright on?
Can you see Microsoft allowing Napster to give away free copies of MS office, Win2000 etc to anyone who wants to download them in exchange for a little over 1% of their current profits?
More to the point, can you see Napster [freely] opening up their databases to the rest of the net in exchange for 1-2% of their total yearly profits?
FUD their claims may be, but if Napster is victorious, we'll see even more massive consolidation of content/distribution and hardware/software.
We'll be awash in memory sticks, minidiscs, and other check-in-but-don't-check-out formats. There are only four big record companies now, and they will all be owned by hardware manufacturers soon enough.
Matsushita/AOL/Time-Warner... that's got a nice ring to it.
If they didn't have a say in the production of music, for example, do you think CD's could cost $15-20? No way, CD's would cost $5. Same goes for soda... if it wasn't for new competition, soda prices would've continued to rise. Even though they have stopped raising soda prices, the cost of production is disgustingly low in comparison to price. I argue that this is caused by the monopolist grip the soda industry had on production until the early 1990's.
The reason that production costs are so different from selling price isn't just all profit. They have to pay for multi-million dollar superbowl ads and celebrity endorsements and all that so us consumers can know the difference between "pepsi" and "coke". As for record companies, they also have the marketing dollars plus all the artists that are produced that sell 10 cd's during their lifetime. I'm not saying that they are not making money hand over fist, but you can't just look at cost of production to calculate a selling price.
It's more than a few hours. It takes me about twenty minutes to write one minute of music, and I'm *fast* compared to every artist I know.
Supposing that a band is composed of four people, and they practice a song individually ten times before meeting together to practice it ten times, and then recording it, which consists of sound checks between *every* song (unless you want the sound quality to slowly go out the window as your recording session goes on), and recording each part individually (if you record several parts at once, you can run into a LOT of balance problems), say, five times just to make sure there's no noticeable mistakes...
So to produce 25 songs of 3 minutes each (since 1/5 to 2/5 of songs don't make the cut for the CD) takes 25 hours to write, 50 hours individual practice, 12 hours group practice, and 25 hours in the studio... Assuming that the songwriting and recording is split equally among all four people, 25/4+50+12+25/4 hours per person is 74.5 hours per person for what is probably less than 45 minutes of music. And as the band size goes up, it takes far more time to practice it as a group.
I'm not even including instrument sound checks, tuning, warm-up, etc. in the total time, either. That's almost two solid weeks of work at forty hours per week, and doesn't include the tours to back it up. Because there's no way in hell people are going to buy your cd unless the radio plays you or they hear you play on tour somewhere, and everybody knows the radio sucks.
Assuming a small tour of twelve gigs in two weeks, that each pay probably a few hundred dollars, that's another two weeks down the drain. Not only that, but you've only earned a measly six grand to split between the four members, AND all the roadies you hired, AND the manager that planned your tour, AND to pay for the vans, AND to cover the cost of the rented equipment you had to take (since you can't ensure that any gig will have a decent P.A. system already there).
Never mind recording studios, they're often $20/hour or more, and that's for the cheap ones. Since you spent the good part of a week for CD production in the recording studio, you probably managed to throw away about $500 there.
CD production isn't cheap, either. Between the costs of pressing a CD ($500/2000), having the artwork printed onto the CD ($200/2000), having the inserts printed and the CD put in a case ($300/2000), you've used up another $1000 per 2000 cd's. Yes, fifty cents per CD, but the minimum purchase is often 2000.
So you've now spent (assuming the tour only cost about $15,000), roughly $20,000 from start to finish, and managed to scrap up $6,000 income. Congratulations. One month's work and you've *lost* $14,000. Not to mention that, but in order to get radio airplay, you often have to send the radio stations the CD. True, they pay royalties, but over a year's time you'll only make a few dollars form each station. If the song was popular. For, say, 1000 stations nationally, with $3 shipping each, you may make a few hundred dollars of radio sales. But you'll probably just lose money their.
Now to ship to the music stores. Another several hundred down the drain. You've made a total of -$16,000.
So you can't afford to tour again yet, or to record more songs. So, in the meantime, you practice the songs so you can pull them off really well live, in the event that the CD sells well enough to back another tour.
Just think, there's three other band members who have been living out of their bank accounts for longer than one month now. If you're lucky, they still have some money left, because chances are your CD won't really start to sell for another few months.
A few hours? Well, maybe.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I was thinking the same thing.
Not to mention, a large reason people buy singles, cassingles, and vinyl, not to mention imports, is that they contain one or two songs, B-sides, and covers that don't come on the usual CD release. With Napster, people will be less likely to spend (way too much) to get one or two rare songs when they can just get the mp3 for free.
In response to the original poster, though, you're complaining about playing a CD on a 600W amp, well, mp3s are generally not much better. Fidelity isn't exactly their strong point.
-ben.c
You're completely wrong. In an ideal world, you would be paying the RIAA for every minute you listen to music of any kind, including on the radio. Not only is this good for the artists, it's good for the consumer too because they're giving their money to a worthy cause: the poor, helpless RIAA and the poor, helpless artists they represent. You should feel ashamed at yourself for not buying that Britney Spears CD. Because of you, she had to go without food for a day. How do you feel now, you dirty, thieving pirate scum!
</sarcasm>Soon enough, people will stop buying as many CD's, and the RIAA's sales will plummet.
Well, I have to disagree about that. I think that people will continue to buy CD's for the convience, cover art, and the little feeling that you actually own something. IMHO, harddrive space isn't a problem, bandwidth is though. And there is still a lot of work that needs to be done before portable mp3 players become convenient. Technology does have a ways to go, but I think that any plummet in sales should have shown by now.
So I think CD's will always be around in some form, whether the RIAA controls their sales or not.
Also, why doesn't the RIAA start their own Napster-like service. I'm sure there is a lot less overhead on selling mp3 recordings than selling CD's.
Just sent them a complaint, because I expect a news organization of the stature of BBC to report the news, and do research and point out inconsistencies and blatant lies.
so what's your music preferences, Backstreet boys? 3/4 of the time i use napster it's to get rare vinyl presses that you can't get here in the U.S. because our rave-scene is candy-assed compared to Europe.
do you listen to anything that only comes out on vinyl or magnetic tape? have you ever tried to play a CD loudly with a 600W amp? maybe you just don't have a wide enough variety of tastes, but there is a fair bit of musics which are really only able to be found (easily) on napster b/c ppl share their obscure shit.
there are wonderful point as to why these segments are probably smaller than most other use on napster, but to disregard those little communities....
mixin' the wax not using the CDs
-shpoffo
You cannot declare that X has affected Y to degree Z, unless you can observe Y in the absence of X.
Indeed. You can't say the Unabomber killed anyone, they might have spontaneously exploded even without his bombs being there.
However, you *can* measure correlations. If CD sales go up in the presence of Napster, that's pretty strong evidence Napster isn't destroying the music industry.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
This is why I feel absolutely zero guilt for using Napster. Napster is actually helping the RIAA by stirring up demand, and those bastards actually have the nerve to lie about their profits because the truth would cause them to lose face in their litigation.
Sitting in racks in my bedroom are about 400 CDs, most of which were purchased because I liked one or two songs on the disc. (CD singles always seemed a complete waste of space and money to me). More often than not, the remaining songs on those CDs sucked rocks.
Thanks to Napster, I haven't bought a new CD in well over a year, and I am slowly amassing the collection of good music for which I have already paid, but did not receive on those 400 CDs. Oh, and a few songs that I have been trying to find on CD for literally YEARS, but have been unable to. The RIAA can kiss my ass.
~Philly
It seems stupid to criticize them for doing it this way: this is the right way of doing it. If you're trying to find the size of the effect of A on B, then you should estimate how big B would be without A; not ask whether B is bigger than it was last year.
Of course, it is possible to make a bad estimate the size of B without A, but this does not imply that all estimates are bad. Furthermore, if napster really did not affect RIAA profits (as it seems half of slashdot would like us to believe), then there would be no incentive for the RIAA to attempt to close it down, and they would have an incentive not to given the bad publicity it gives them. It's hard to believe that the RIAA are that stupid, given the amount of income they have.
I don't think anybody's actually CLAIMING that Napster helped the RIAA. It reads to me like a rhetorical ploy, and it's an effective one. Kinda like a reductio ad absurdum...nobody is actually claiming that case R is true, but it is the logical extension of case T. Is it explicitly stated that way? No, it's not, but since nobody around here takes RIAA's statistical analyses seriously (because they're CRACKED) nobody's going to take Slashdot's seriouslye either, except as satire.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
The artists and labels deserve to be paid for their work, just like any of us do. How much they deserve to be paid is so utterly subjective that no court in its right mind we even try to touch that one. But, through Napster, the artist and labels are being paid jack squat, and we all know they deserve more than nothing at all.
We can make idle threats about boycotting certain labels or whatever, but we know damn well it's all just talk. We're pissed off about it, but we'll still buy our favorite band's new CD. You know it's true.
Napster basically wants to sell other peoples' work at a fraction of the price that the labels are getting for it right now. While I think that the RIAA and their ilk are greedy bastards, I can't really hold it against them. I'd probably do it too. That's capitalism, folks. If you don't like it, move to Korea. Vendors will charge what the market will bear. It's simple supply and demand.
Napster will lose. The RIAA simply has more money, more lawyers, more politicians, and frankly, more morality on their side. Napster doesn't care about paying artists. The RIAA does, albeit they have a huge stake in the profits themselves.
It was an exciting ride while it lasted, but we knew all along that what we were doing was wrong. Now, it's time to go back to the time-tested business model that is legal, ethical, and honest.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
In related news, studies have shown that people who own BMWs are richer than those who own Volvos. According to top economist Richard P. Fudgemocker, "This is proof that the key to financial success is spending money on an expensive car."
Earl Worthly, a certified financial planner, supports Fudgemocker's claim. "I encourage all my clients to buy expensive cars because of the strong link between owning expensive cars and high salaries. Most of the time a BMW, Lexus, or Mercedes is sufficient. But sometimes one of my clients is in dire need of financial assistance, or just wants to fast track. For them, I recommend a Porsche or Lamborghini."
Volvo dealers are outraged by this news. Many Volvo customers have attempted to return their cars. "I can't believe I bought a volvo, jeaprodizing the 20% raise I received at my job!" said Mary Edgerman, a recently promoted manager at UA-Corp. "I owe it to my familty to buy a far more expensive car. What if I got a pay cut because of my Volvo?"
Most major auto manufacturers predict a shift to higher end cars, trucks, and SUVs. An anonymous Marketting executive at GM confirmed that prices will drastically increase for their entire line of Cadillacs. "It's scientifically proven that expensive automobiles are the key to financial success. At GM, we offer even more financial stability by raising the sticker cost. We're banking on a 10% increase in sales, but 15% wouldn't suprise us either."
Film at 11...
The overhead of stamping out CD's, manufacturing the packaging and shipping the completed CD's to the retailer is a very small amount of the CD's price. Cutting that out won't bring down the cost of music. The problem right now is pricing it at the rate of $4.80 per hour is that they will sell it exactly once and then everyone will get it free of charge from their favorite ftp site, newsgroup or currently, Napster. The million dollar problem is how to prevent that from happening and when they can they will jump all over digital distribution if they can make money at it.
newsonline@bbc.co.uk
this signature is a virus, please make me your
If the RIAA didn't spend all kinds of money on lawers wasting their time. They would have even more money to sit on and do nothing with. I mean. feeding the homeless might be nice thing to do with atleast 1/100th of their profits ya know.
-- Jason...
Folks,
I think one of the reasons why there seem to be much haggling over Napster is the very fact that here in the USA, the average album-length audio CD costs anywhere between US$13 to US$17. In some countries, it's even MORE expensive: the cost of an album-length CD in Japan is around 3000 yen (about US$26 at current exchange rates).
This, in my opinion, is pretty much extortion pricing for music. I can understand the high prices of audio CD's during the early days of the format when pressing plants are few and very expensive to setup, but we've advanced technology to the point that commercial-quality CD's are actually less expensive to manufacture than the old vinyl LP's.
Anyone who's taken a first-year college course in economics know this is essentially cartel pricing. Because there is much incentive to undercut cartel pricing, that's why things like Napster and Gnutella came into being.
The RIAA needs to stop sticking its proverbial head in the sand and do what should have been done a long ago: lower the price of the average album-length audio CD to between US$8 and US$9. And the RIAA should propose a standard to sell music digitally online at a rate of around eight US cents per minute, which would translate to about US$4.80 per hour.
With digital music distribution like that, the record companies could actually make a massive windfall from online sales. Imagine having their entire music collection stored on high-bandwidth servers, and sold to customers at a rate of eight cents per minute. Remember, you don't need to factor in the cost of CD production and packaging, which means much less overhead and bigger profits.
In short, the RIAA shouldn't be fighting technology, they should be finding a way to embrace it.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
there are the marketing droids to upkeep, sound engineers too ... a bunch of people in the recording process that need money
Actually, those costs aren't payed by the record company. In most cases, marketing costs are payed by the band that records the album, deducted from their royalties.
Teamsters need to get paid to drive those trucks from manufacturing to the stores.
Nope, they get paid by the retailers (in every retail store I've been in the cost of shipment is paid by the receiver, not the shipper.)
heh. Actually, I do know the solution, and yeah you're correct. Stuff like this just depresses me.
1) I don't buy all that many cd's nowdays, and of those I do, most are from small labels anyway. I fully embrace mp3's, and wish all artists had some sort of street performers protocol setup so I could donate money that goes to them and not some marketing machine...
2) I try to do this to some extent, often people think I'm strange since they're so brainwashed by consumer culture, however. It's easier with cd's, since the price is so rediculous and has actually gone up over the past 5 years or so.
3) Well, you can only do so much, and admittedly I haven't done any voluteer work, although I want to. I wouldn't mind doing some culture jamming.
Of course, it's just used to propogate itself. Not really an expense, more like an investment. I mean can you believe it...music copyrights don't even revert to the family AFTER death of the artist? I mean, how did they pull that one over everyone last year?
Rader
They'd probably have a lot less of them if they stopped suing people. Then they wouldn't be so worried about a teaspoon full of money being scooped from their ocean.
:wq
mp3.com has been doing this for years, and I'm sure there are at least several other sites like it. I don't know whether they sell posters, stickers, t-shirts, or autographed stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do for some of their more successful bands. You can download tracks from any of thousands of artists that have put their music on mp3.com, and order reasonably priced CD-Rs that contain tracks in both CD audio and MP3 format. Exclusive songs are often featured on these CDs as extra incentive to buy. I think this is a good way for indie artists to gain exposure.
Copyright infringement is theft, of intellectual property, but I'm sure you've ignored this arguement before. Theft doesn't have to involve a tangible item.
a simple market correction
That's an amusing analogy. I hadn't heard that one before. Does that work for e-books, too? Paperbacks are close to $8 now, but I clearly remember paying $3.50 not too long ago. I'll just download whatever I want and call it a market correction. I'm sure the authors will understand that I'm doing it to protest the evil publishing industry's price hikes.
what else are you going to call voluntary distribution without compensation
Uh, last I checked it was pretty damn involuntary for quite a few musicians. Thankfully, there's a word in the English language for involuntary distribution - Theft.
You are familiar with the concept of a free market, right?
Based on your description, the free market allows me to walk into the nearest Best Buy, grab a wide screen TV, and walk out the door without paying. After all, TV's are expensive and we could really use a market correction in the home electronics industry.
I found it interesting that Dennis Miller's show with Dave Grohl (drummer for Nirvana and Foo Fighter lead) talked about building a studio in a room and recording a record by themselves. Guess what? It was recognized by the Grammys.
I would love to see the direct link of artist to fan grow as the slavery err, I mean recording industry withers.
From here: http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/26/napste r.cdsales.ap/index.html
--begin--
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Sales of CD singles plummeted last year, and recording industry officials say the figures prove that Napster, the Internet music-swapping service, has cut into their business.
Shipments of CD singles sank by 39 percent last year, according to data released by the Recording Industry Association of America.
"Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA president Hilary Rosen.
--end quote--
So where did this AP story get changed around at, because they clearly state that it's "singles" on CNN's page.
---
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I think it goes farther than that. Napster threatens the economic model of the music industry by not only showing how cheap it can be to make music and promote it, but also by allowing the "undiscovered" artist to be heard.
They want the internet to develope for them "their" way. Expensive online concerts, expensive retail websites, centralized and monopolized distribution of digital media, you name it. Even if Napster charges, it's not the RIAA's price scheme. They don't have a say in the matter and that's the problem.
If they didn't have a say in the production of music, for example, do you think CD's could cost $15-20? No way, CD's would cost $5. Same goes for soda... if it wasn't for new competition, soda prices would've continued to rise. Even though they have stopped raising soda prices, the cost of production is disgustingly low in comparison to price. I argue that this is caused by the monopolist grip the soda industry had on production until the early 1990's.
If Napster were to become any more mainstream, the music industry would be under the threat of losing profits.
To sum up, Napster is the new competition to the music industry. And all competition must be quashed right? That's every market - computers, electronics, cars, DVD, et al.
It's a sick capitalist society out there and they're coming to your house next.
Jon Bexell
Like Teddy with an elephant gun.
I am glad that you gave an intelligent response to my rant, but I think you would probably answer my question: no. You do not seem to feel that you are entitled to $20 million USD for a few hours of work.
My question is directed more towards the Lars types out there, who obviously feel that the world owes them something for nothing.
I do still feel my analogy is the same, because if you don't have any talent as a programmer, you are not getting paid $100k USD per year. Programming is also a 40-80 hour a week job in most circumstances. You find me a "musician" on MTV that works (schmoozing is not working) 200+ hours in a month and I might have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
From your post above it seems I need to re-write my question a little bit:
Do you feel entitled to what is equivalent to winning the lottery in return for the, oh, let's be generous and say, six months it took for you write and record a record album?
If you say yes, I will reply that your morals are flawed. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. You seem to believe in TANSTAAFL. Do all the rest of you musicians believe this too?
Now, I just don't understand. Cisco missed their earnings by one cent , I think, and laid off X amount of people. RIAA post a -9% change in "total retail units" and I can't recall them laying off anyone. I understand that these are two totaly different fields but it should post some merit. I'm not a lawyer either but what are the punishment for posting a false balancesheet on a public company (if they are a public company)? I do remember reading a Lifestyles magazine about one A&R rep that works for Sony that took home $300,000/year. Really that is enough money for 10 families. And by the actual music that Sony released recently her job isn't really being done.
AK
Where does the rest of that money go?
You might like to read Steve Albini's The Problem With Music.
:wq
That would never happen here.
Jon Katz is right. We really are better than normal people.
Napster's defenders are not just cleptomaniacs and low-rent communists. Napster doesn't encourage people to steal. Napster is all about freedom of speech.
If I keep saying it to myself, I begin to believe it.
I'm cured. Thanks slashdot!
When it will show is when bandwidth gets great enough that you can download and burn a copy at the same time in a total of 3 or 4 minutes. When that is a reality you can bet there will be point and click software to go with it. Download a scan of the cover art and your good to go. There would be NO reason to buy a CD. I think that mp3 downloads are theft and don't have a collection, but if it got to that I would definitely download music over buying it. It would be dumb not to. Granted, the technology is not there yet. That's why we have not seen any music sales decreases, but it will be soon enough.
Actually all those years added up properly for me. Better check your Processor for the Pentium Floating point bug... ;)
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
Of course, you also have to take inflation into account. If you don't grow by that rate then it is effectively a loss. Also, we're talking revenue, not profits. I don't care if they take in $100,000,000 US, if the costs are sufficiently high the revenue is moot.
Liquor in the front, poker in the rear.
;-)
Liquor!! Hell, you brought her
Slashdot and its readers are doing the same to make themselves feel justified about stealing music
/. thieves, since YOU are here. Guess that makes you a thief.
So basicly you are saying I am a thief? With over 400+ audio cd's and several hundred records...which by the way I don't get a discount on any of the cd's of which I own the record. So I think if I get a couple songs of of napster are more than well paid for since I've rebought quite a few of my records on cd and paid full price for them.
Also it seems to me that the manufacturing of a cassette tape costs like $2.00 more than it costs to make a cd. So if this is the case why is the cd $5+ dollars more?
I don't know about anyone else but I am tired of being screwed by major corporations. DVD copy protection...overpriced music, and all for what? So we can see the adds on tv? Or so some high level executive can buy another sports car.
I begin to wonder at some of the people here who like to accuse all of us as being cheap freeloading scum. I work for a living....and I bet allot of the people here do the same thing...work. Now what justification do corporations have for screwing all us working people? The music industry is screwing us, the musicians, and everyone else they can.
As for us not doing the numbers right, well we have an excuse...most of us wouldn't fall under the accountant catagory. We are allowed to make mistakes. The RIAA on the other hand has accountants, whats thier excuse? They are so busy trying to fudge the numbers they forget that someone half intellegent might actually look at it.
Do not call all the people on
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Well, it is. The numbers speak for themselves. My Rant On the Industry for my opinion so I can be lazy and not bother repeating it.
I send you this message in order to have your advice.
You still missed my question. Does your entire 2 weeks of work recording the album entitle you to $20,000,000 US Dollars? Do you think the work you did is worth $20 Million Dollars?
Do you think it is right to still charge $15 for your CD if you have a monopoly on the music distribution channels, but it only costs you $0.50 to create that CD?
their revenue would be up $739,000,000 over last year. And up $1,600,000,000 from 1998.
and you correct it. But to me the story says:
If they just took that generous offer, then ... their revenue would only be down $111,000,000 from last year. And that would have been $750,000,000 more than they made in 1998.
What am I missing?
-Puk
an all time low.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Okay, let's say you're in a band. First thing you have to do is practice, learn to play well together -- but of course, you only have to do that once. Then you'll spend a few months or more writing and perfecting songs. Then, depending on how much cash you have and whether or not you have label backing, you'll spend quite a while in the studio recording it. We're already way beyond 'a few hours', but it isn't necessarily as time-consuming as a full-time job.
Okay, the CD is recorded and pressed, singles sent out, and so on. It's a hit. The singles are on seemingly infinite loop on radio stations. Now the band sits back and watches the money roll in, content from their 'few hours' of work, right?
Um, no.
All of a sudden, everyone wants to see the band. They're being booked for interviews by TV shows and magazines. And then the tour: several months of flying or driving from point A to point B to point C, doing shows every few nights, sometimes even every night. And in between you're making little station ID recordings for radio stations, making more guest appearances, doing more interviews, or stewing in your hotel room. Once it's all over, you get a few months to try to regain your sanity, and then you do it all over again.
Doesn't really sound like 'a few hours of work' to me.
I'm not trying to justify the kind profits the music industry makes, especially not the labels. Just realize that most bands who try to make a living off of music are working their asses off, whether they're massively popular or not. Go watch "Meeting People is Easy"; it's a movie about Radiohead, basically following their first tour after OK Computer got so popular. I don't call that the easy life people seem to think music stars have.
While cassingles had the biggest drop percentage wise, look at the drop in full length cassettes: 47 million units down (from 123.6 to 76.0) and $435 million drop in dollar value.
Now I hate to be the devils advocate here (or worse, the RIAA's), but you would think that if people are not buying cassettes they would be shifting their purchases to CD's. And there is nowhere near that increase in CD unit sales to compenstate for this drop. Of course there are plenty of factors that could be contributing to this, for instance the rise of portable mp3 players which obsolete walkman-cassette players, or more cars coming with CD players.
Maybe a big percentage of cassette sales are now going to CD's. And maybe Napster is cutting into full length CD sales. But the two are offsetting each other pretty much, which makes for the small amount of growth in sales reported.
Another significant fact is what is not on the list. There is no subscription based revenue, or sales numbers for digital downloads. Now of course we know the industry has been slow to roll out new Internet-based offerings. The fact that it's now 2001 and there is still nothing significant (aside from Napster-Bertlesman deal) in this area while all analog based formats are suffering substantial declines means the record companies are not doing what they need to to continue to enjoy increasing revenues.
Still, it's ludicrous to focus on a drop in 1% of the industry's business as these articles do.
Holy shit! Are you really claiming that the battle over mp3 pirating could be equivalent in importance to the Vietnam War?!?
Fuck, I have now seen the absolute pinnacle of pathetic justification. Equating the slightly over-priced and admittedly greedy recording industry's practices to the death of thousands and thousands of young men is absolutely the lowest thing I've ever seen on slashdot.
Congratulations. You have scraped absolute bottom.
...someone could just make the mainstream journalists feel like the chumps they are, we'd probably see some new headlines. Keep it up /.
science is a religion
--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
and, if I'm in any way wrong, feel free to shoot me down
You are in fact wrong. The poster never changed their assertion that CD singles are 1% of the RIAA's base. He did say that full albums were 92% of sales and they went up. He said the other 8% went down. But that 8% includes CD singles PLUS vinyl PLUS cassete singles PLUS cassete albums PLUS music videos PLUS anything else they sell.
As for singles, I've never puchased one because at $4-5 for a single song w/ (maybe) some remixes, it just doesn't make sense. The average CD costs $13 (more if you're silly enough to buy at Sam Goody or another of those mall stores) and has 12 songs at a little over a $1 per song. So you only need to like 3-4 of them to be better off buying the full album.
Rader
People always say that Napster is ripping off the artists, but that is not true. If you download music rather than buy it, if anything you are ripping off the RIAA and the record label. CDs cost almost $20 now, and from what I've heard they cost about 69 cents to manufacture, and the artist usually gets about one dollar. The rest of that and the vast majority fills the pockets of greedy corporations. I don't use Napster, personally, but I'm not saying it is or is not right to use it. That's a difficult question to answer, and I'm supposed to be working right now. hehe. But I think why the RIAA is so afraid of Napster and MP3s is that it allows artists to bypass them directly. I could, if I had ANY musical talent, produce my music and distribute it and make profit on it without the RIAA or a record label at all. I advocate supporting independent artists such as this and not supporting the RIAA. Most of the popular artists are shallow, emotionless copycat crap anyway. IMHO of course. ;)
"Maybe for once in my life people will call me 'sir' without adding 'you're making a scene'." -Homer Simpson
But now this statement is easily testable. According to the RIAA, sales of singles should jump 39% now that Napster is shut down. Or something like that...
It seems to me that at some point, Napster has affected the sales. I was never into the idea of CD singles, but many people still bought them. But now, when you want a single, you get can it free on the web. If I were into singles (which I am not, because they cost too much), I'd be very happy to see Napster and would download the songs I want. True music lovers will always buy an album. But also, people will also realize sometime that a 8$ single is way too much when for double the price you can get the whole thing. So screw the single, I'm downloading it on Napster. And for that part of argument about vinyls and cassettes, even tough Napster can't really much have an impact on the sales of this market, I'd still like to point out the fact that it is possible to rip a vinyl with some cables and a good input jack on a soundcard and have it sound exactly like an MP3 extracted from a CD. Vinyl DO sound better than compact disks, so I wouldn't be surprised if you could rip a vynil with better quality than if you ripped the CD.
"The answer to the Question of Life, the Universe and Everything is... 42"
I'm very aware of how much money it takes. Do you think it should be illegal for me to open up a gas station next to a popular Texaco because Texaco spent millions researching the location? Do you think that mathematical formulas should be patented simply because the researcher spent decades coming up with it? The idea that ideas are separate entity from things (like, that music is separable from the CD) is a really bad concept. Probably one of Plato's worst (don't get me wrong, I like Plato and Socrates, just not the whole "world of ideas" thing). And, in addition, you never answered the question of whether I should be able to duplicate a hammer that I own. Doubtless the company that made the hammer spent R&D money building it, so should I be able to copy the hammer and give it away?
Engineering and the Ultimate
Hum, actually, in both the cases you mentioned (DeCSS & Napster), litigation has come AFTER litigation. Not the other way around. DeCSS was created by someone who wanted to watch DVD on Linux and Napster by someone who wanted to share MP3's with his friends. There was no threats from the MPAA or RIAA before these programs came into being.
>Would you like someone to take something you made without compensating you for it at all?
[sarcasm]
Burn the Radio Stations! Not only do they get their music libraries provided for free (without the *direct* consent of the Artist) but they play the music for MILLIONS and MILLIONS to listen to for nothing, all without the *direct* permission or *direct* compenstaion of the artists!
[/sarcasm]
Here's my question of the day:
Why are you letting me "steal" your words by reading them for free right now? I must be one bad dude, breaking all sorts of moral obligations to pay you money for the priviledge of reding your words.
To rest my soul, please tell me where can I send you some cash?
To compensate me, please send me an email and I will discuss terms (I usually charge $0.05 per word, but for you I will give a special 20% discount).
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Okay, I know this is not the best forum for this, but who the hell here has EVER, in their ENTIRE LIVES, purchased a CD single? I mean, it's called radio people. If you want top 40, tune in to any station. Jinkies, so has anybody bought one measly little 3 dollar single? I haven't.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
And no, just saying they're dumb doesn't settle the case.
While they may be right, the RIAA's whining about being ripped off by Napster is entirely hypocritical. "The Big Five" labels admitted to the FCC that they've ripped off consumers over $480,000,000 over the past decade by way of price-fixing (and I'm sure it goes well beyond that). Now, they're being sued by 28 US States or Territories for price fixing.
...oh yes, there will be a big, beautiful, and BLOODY war. Between the crap that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to push down our throats, it WILL reach a breaking point.
At some point, people will cry out "ENOUGH!", and they will stop spending their hard earned money on cds and dvds. They will put the money towards that leak on their roof, instead of buying a few re-released cds that they still have LPs, 8-tracks, and cassettes of. They will put the money that they would've spent on getting every Stanley Kubrick movie on dvd into their childrens' college funds, perhaps to get their kids on the right track, perhaps to become a lawyer to fight crimes like this. Maybe, they'll just spend the money that they WOULD'VE spent on a cd, and give it directly to the artist, who is struggling to recover his studio costs, even though his label is making millions off of it.
Oh mark my words, there will be a war. And if history is any teacher, the assholes will be the first to die.
There are a few things that can be changed. They are not in the spirit of capitalism, but capitalism isn't in the spirit of democracy anyway.
1. Media outlets cannot be owned by megacorporations. Any company shouldn't be allowed more than a small number of newspapers / tv stations / radio stations. AOL time warner owns far too many outlets which gives them huge control over pop culture.
2. Media outlets cannot be controlled by corporations that are in ANY other business. This leads to conflicts of interest.
3. A more extreme measure, media outlets cannot be for profit entities. The pressure on them to make the big corporations that advertise on their stations is far too great. Kalle Lasn, who runs adbusters magazine, is normally turned down by TV stations to run his TV ads. His ads are usually about not spending your money on crap you don't need, or reducing consumption. The reason he gets rejected? It would anger other advertisers who sells products to the public and drive them away.
"Control" of actual stories by some agency is too bit extreme to me. The things listed above would go a long way to reducing serious pressures on what goes on the air.
How big a cut do record stores and other middlemen take out of the price per CD. What, on average, is the profit on a CD? Just wondering...
You can never put too much water in a nuclear reactor.
I'll one up you on that. I prefer to buy full-length albums, but the few music stores I go to don't carry them anymore it seems(or it's on permanent amorutorium(sp?)). I am on the hunt for 2 Blondie releases(as to complete my collection) and several Devo relases, but all they seem to carry is greatest hits compilations and remixes ad nauseum.
Don't get me started on the unavailability of the Pi soundtrack.
I have never, EVER purchased a CD single before. Why should I pay $10 or more for a bunch of remixes of the same song? If I want remixes, I go to Napster or a similar service..
Megastars will not go away simple because of the HUGE amounts of money they make at concerts and personal appearances.
__________________
Just a guy with an opinion
Actually, I find one assumption pretty reasonable. From what I can tell, the only thing the RIAA can blame Napster for hurting is CD singles...I mean, why go pay $6 for a CD of five songs when you can spend 30 minutes downloading a few of the songs?
Maybe they could do a little program where they let you pay like $3 for three songs, and you can choose to download which ever three you want. Even if they don't buy the CD, with the cost of encoding a song and storing it on a server being next to nothing, they are still making a larger profit, which is what they are all about, right?
Blake
You cannot declare that X has affected Y to degree Z, unless you can observe Y in the absence of X.
In other words, unless someone can open an interdimensional portal to some alternate universe in which Napster doesn't exist, all of these claims of revenue being up or down in particular areas are meaningless. There are a countless number of other factors that could be influencing sales of CDs, cassettes, music videos, etc. Saying that Napster is solely responsible for any of it is absurd.
--
The most valuable commodity I know of is information. - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
If all formats of music did worse in 2000 than 1999, except for those traded on Napster, then I think the RIAA owes Napster some advertising dollars for propping up their CD sales and saving them from crashing also.
Sure it make take me years to improve my skills, but the chances of me ever getting paid $20,000,000 USD for one song/program are next to zero, while no-talent boy-bands (that's right N-Sync, Backdoor boys, I'm talking about your dumb asses) rake in the dough because the cartels control the distribution of nearly all music. Do you like the fact that your industry is more akin to a lottery than to art?
3 basic (rhetorical) errors
1) The reason they're so rich is that they have fans, admittedly fans that were appropriated by careful engineering of their "owners" Demographers, trend setters, trend watchers, and an odd musician or two created a magic bullet
2) Laissez Faire economics models are the ONLY way I have to gauge the value of a product, service or performance (much less a combination of all 3) and a system -relatively- close to that produced all of the profits that the boy bands, the girl bands, and everybody else you hate, accumulated.
3) The record companies CANNOT force consumers to purchase a product, they can promote something enough that anybody who is interested in a product knows about it, and has access to it, they don't just put a mark on the board that makes N'Sync rich. These groups you say are over-paid are enormously popular and readily engage with the group of people most likely to purchase actual and related materials for their icons. If fans didn't like the Backstreet Boys, they wouldn't make money. period.
and some rambling
I'm personally interested in a relatively low-profit corner of the music industry, and I'd personally LIKE to see those groups snapped up by major labels, so they can stop doing their day jobs (if they wish) and may become professional musicians, and make more music which I like.
if, at any point you rip off the industry through the IP of a musician you are robbing that musician of their ability to cut deals with a (currently) indispensable industry. Some widely known and popular musicians (Prince) have attempted to distribute their music w/o the industry, and they have overwhelmingly failed. If at some point in the future it's possible to succesfully distribute yourself more profitably without the industry than with it, then the musicians will do so. The reason artists cut deals with industry is because they believe it's in their financial interests to do so (Suge Knight's Death Row excluded, where it was in their saftey interests (that's a joke)).
in case I buried my (second, rambly) point too deeply in garbage, if the record companies can't make money from an artist (because he's widely pirated, or what-not) then they will not agree to distribute that artist, and that artist's chances of being supported purely by their artisit endeavors slim to barely existant.
good luck out there YMMV
Sonner or later the obsolete RIAA will decide to cut their losses and abandon CDs all together - probably later.
How long until music is released solely on DVD? The RIAA is going to want to nuzzle up to the DMCA and the whores who bought/sold it. Expect to see "DVD MUSIC"(TM) or somesuch begin to be marketed, it will have 'exciting new features' like included music videos, Performer information, bios, video clips from recent performances - etc etc etc. Its real purpose is to hasten the transition to encrypted media for distribution.
The Only change to most people is they'll have to rip music from DVDs... one way or the other the RIAA is doomed (and good riddance) (sp?)
I use napster, and I have downloaded tons of stuff. I also buy tons of CD's.
The reason that I buy the CDs nobody seems to point out other than they were able to get the full CD off of napster. I usually buy CDs even if I manage to get the whole thing... if the CD doesn't suck. The reason that I do this is that I want the added value of the liner notes, the lyrics, and goofy pictures of the artists in strange place, or weird art that they have chosen to put on the cover, I want the silk screened CD, and the possible collectors value of the whole thing, and last but very far from least. I want my money to go to the artist so that they will live on and make another CD that I can enjoy in the future.
None of that I get with Napster. What I do get is to discover a new artist, or to enjoy something that is out of print and totally unavailable.
If you watch the music industry, they like to buy up all the right to popular artists that have saturated the market place and are therefore selling their CDs for a very low price, and take them off the market and sit on it for a while. They when people have lost, warn out their records/tapes/cds/8-tracks/reel to reels, whatever. they are more than happy to put it back on the market at full price and people get excited to buy it because it was "hard to find" or "out of print" for a long time. Or even better. They tack a song that was prevously left on the cutting room floor because it was lowsy, onto the end of the CD and then charge full price again for it. The fans still buy it up.... anyway.. enough of that slight tangent.
I don't see any real harm that napster is doing. The people that are just leaching off of napster are the same people that were borrowing CD's off their friends and tapeing them, never to buy the CD.
I'm still wating for major label CD's to start coming with some lawyerease on them that says "by opening this CD to are granted the sole right to listen to this CD. It may only be listed to by you and nobody else. If you play this CD for anyone else besides yourself, you will be punished to the furthest extent of the law... which we will write.
Anyway, I depend on napster to find new music. I refuse to listen to the radio so that I can be forced into listening to whatever has been deemed "good" at the time, and maybe I am getting old (28) but the music the kids are listening to today has way less talent (listen to the quality of the singing with the cracking voices..etc..etc) The recording quality is crap. All this adds up to more money for the Big music industry that can sway what we all listen to. The acceptance of low quality in the music industry means more money for them because of less money paid for recording time and less practice to get anything right...etc..etc..
OK, I'm going to take my home sick in bed mind back to bed and stop typeing disjoined thoughts.
Now, that would have been an interesting question for the interview.
Looking forward to seeing those stats.
Thanks for the article! It's great when someone takes the time to debunk biased and inaccurate reporting. It's not surprising the RIAA is trying to create the image of lost revenues... the movie industry has been doing it for years (although they don't have a handy scapegoat like Napster to blame).
Great job!
A) I love the subscription music idea. I don't really listen to CDs all that long, and as such, don't buy them. I would, however, pay money to subscribe to music. If the fee were, say, $10 a month, I'd gladly pay it, and that would be $120 going to them that they wouldn't have seen anyway. I don't know why someone hasn't thought of this before! Same thing with micropayment. If you make it easy (and reasonable) for people to spend their money, they will.
/dev/raw you get static rather than Britney's melodious voice) suddenly becomes legal. I just don't see how one can do that.
B) I don't really see how one can defend copying music as freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a very specific term. It means that you have the right to say what you want without the government stopping you. We have extrapolated this concept a little to include many different forms of media (newspapers, etc) but still exclude others (public walls). Now if you want to say that repeating somebody else's speech is freedom of speech, then you're going way beyond the definition. Hey, if you want to belt out "Stronger" and sell it, more power to you. But if you simply type cp stonger.mp3 and give it to somebody else, that can't be called freedom of speech. If that's the case, then copying books suddenly becomes fine. Copying software (after all, the difference between Office 2000 and an MP3 is just that when you cat winword.exe >
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
"To be honest, it wasn't a great music year," said Andreas Schmidt, chief of the e-commerce group at Bertelsmann, which has a financial stake in Napster. "There were some isolated events, but we didn't put that much good stuff out."
I grabbed that little ditty from Salon.com.
Now I'm going to take a moment to pontificate on the economics of music and software piracy.
Music/Movie (and to a lesser extent, software) executives will tell you that for each pirated copy of "insert your IP product of choice here", the production company loses n dollars. Similar to Autodesk saying that if I (non-engineer in a non-engineering career) were to pirate AutoCAD, they effectively lose $1500 (or whatever).
The truth is, a significant percentage of pirated software/music/movies would never have been purchased in the first place, and the production company is out an insignificant zero.
Not fully true for music cartels, as college students may still be ignoring their $1000 stereo equipment because they can play free music on their $50 computer speakers, but hey, this is the 21st century, right?
The last paragraph of the story, which says "update"? :)
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Hey, that's fine if you don't beleave in the American Dream and the American way of life.
Long term intellectual property is un-American. It's also anti-freedom. Note that if I can disassemble some mechanical device, unless it's patented (evil patents) I'm perfectly free to copy it if I want to.
-Nathan
Care about freedom?
Care about freedom?
Become a card carrying member of the GOA.
Yes, I use Napster some times, so that makes me a thief as well. Here's the difference between you and I:
I admit to being a thief, and have been one in one form or another for most of my life. I like to buy music, but I also like being able to get music and not pay for it, too. I have downloaded mp3's, I have copied friend's record, tapes & CD's, and I have even shoplifted from time to time as a teenager. I did these things because I like to get music for free. People who take things without paying for them are thieves.
You are also a thief. You can't admit that to yourself though, so you wrap it in some bullshit story about "rights" and "fairness". You can call theft whatever you want, but it is still theft. Read your above post. Your entire justification for stealing music is that RIAA executives and musicians have more money than you. Yes, that is exactly what you said. You whined about price, but tried to make it seem like this somehow exalts you from being a thief. It doesn't. At best it makes you sound like a Marxist advocating the elimination of personal property.
So, unless you really are a staunch Marxist, you are a thief. Quit trying to justify it, because all the arguments about this subject ring hollow to anybody who is honest about what is and what isn't theft.
Yeish... I'm sick and tired of people blaming All The World's Ills on greed. Greed doesn't hurt people. Pursuing goals (greedy or otherwise) without morality hurts people.
Seriously. If I agree with myself to always tell the truth and never infringe on anothers' rights (even a restricted version of those rights -- eg. no "positive rights"), I can be greedy as hell without doing harm to anyone.
You don't need to be upset about the greed. The greed is a Good Thing -- without it, there would be much less motivation to produce. Be upset about the lies. Those are evil.
I wish they'd take the billion dollars. Shawn Fanning put a lot into Napster and deserves to see it legally fly. I don't want to tell my kids about this great program that we used to have and how it was made illegal si they can't use it. I'd like to see Napster version 8.5. All your CD sales are belong to us.
These fuzzy numbers will fool most of the people most of the time. In that sense the propaganda has already worked in two ways. First, most will conclude that sharing mp3 has damaged RIAA profits. Secondly, and far more important, by proving to law makers just how distructive unrestricted file sharing is, we can expect more laws directed at ISP's. In the process this diverts attention from the fact that the RIAA is losing control over the means of distribution. Fortunately for freedom minded people the Genie is already out of the bottle.
I hope all the readers and reporters will recall that 28 states are suing the RIAA members for years of price fixing on CD sales beginning in 1995! John Borland's CNet article from last August covers the ground pretty well. Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars were taken from consumers by this illegal activity.
Certified Black Helicopter Pilot *** Unwitting Dupe of One World Gov'ment
Somewhere in the back of my mind, this little voice is asking how many MP3's the plaintiffs and judges in this Napster case have on their personal hard drives? I'll bet Hilary has a PC that's connected to the Internet. Hrmmmm...
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
Would it be a good idea to start a publishing house that works on the lines of sites such as www.lsl.com, www.cheapbytes.com etc where musicians can place their music for download or for sale as CDs.. the system could perhaps make use of a micropayment architecture for music available online or users can select a list of songs and then pay to have these songs cut on CDs and sent to them.
The musicians can also provide premium services by selling CDs with bonus tracks, software, posters, stickers, t-shirts etc... perhaps autographed stuff and so on..
This number, $14,323,000,000 is simply mind-numbing.. Anyone care to figure out how much actually goes to the artists? I'm sure that would show exactly how greedy they are?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I can definitely see Napster eroding sales of cassingles -- if you can download that radio hit that's stuck in your head, why would you pay a few bucks for a poorly packaged tape version? But in my personal experience, Napster increases my consumption of CDs. Left to my own devices, I can go months without purchasing a CD. When I use Napster to sample new and unfamiliar stuff, my inclination to purchase music goes way up. Shit, my girlfriend installed Napster last week and has been running up her credit card on obscure Japanese imports ever since. Some people might use Napster to "rip off" the record companies, but I suspect the vast majority of music lovers are like me -- it only whets their appetite.
Kook9 out.
Yeah.. I can't even make mistakes the right way. I screw up everything.
And people wonder why my self-esteem is so low!
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
If anyone would like to send a comment to the BBC I have sent the following:
w sid_1190000/1190724.stm.
I have a complaint about your article "Napster blamed for CD sales slump", which is located at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/ne
The article makes statements which can be misconstrued. You state that "[s]ales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year". While it is true that the number of CD Singles shipped last year fell by 38.8% last year, CD units shipped rose by 0.4%, while the dollar value from these cds rose 3.1%. These numbers are from the Recording Industry Association of America's 2000 Yearend Statistics available at http://www.riaa.com/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf.
I find your article to be blatently misleading, and one sided, as it does not put the statistics quoted in proper context. CD Single sales accounted for only 1.06% of the
dollar value of combined sales for CDs and CD Singles. This is down from 1.7% last year. Total dolar value of CDs and CD Singles increased last year from $13,038,700,000 to $13,357,200,000 an increase of 2.4%.
I trust you will find this information useful, and that you will endeavor to reduce factual errors such as those in your article.
Thanks
Sure. Let's blame the RIAA. It's all their fault. Let's totally ignore the fact that Napster use DOES encourage people to not buy, or compensate the artist in any way what so ever. The only things I have purchased lately were the things I couldn't just steal on Napster. Face it: There is a moral, legal, and ethical question that you have to answer if you are a Napster user: Is what you are doing right? Would you like someone to take something you made without compensating you for it at all? Let's say it costs you $10 to make it. 100 people use it, and two of them pay $5 for it. Some might say this is okay, but if you don't make anything off of what you do, why continue to do it? I do tech support for a living - a nontangible product if there ever was one - and I guarentee you that if they didn't PAY ME to do this, I wouldn't. Now, if Napster gets what's coming to them, and can then use a business model that compensates all involved fairly, more power to them. The current setup isn't it.
Fawking Trolls!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
One should notice that Napster took a chunk out of the RIAA between 1996 and 1997 when CD units shipped slipped by 25 Million (778.9 - 753.1 According to thier chart http://www.riaa.org/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf).
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. You HAVE your own press. Use it, and quit bitching that you don't hear what you want to hear.
Jello says it best: Become the media. (And if he got it from somewhere else, please tell me.)
--
Will a British citizen please send a letter to the BBC and explain their mis-reporting? Also, it would be even cooler for a group of British citizens to get together and start a petition for the BBC to correct their article's mistake fully, publically, and for most exposure. I would surely join that campaign. It would probably only take about a week to get sufficient numbers. Then release a press release to the media explain the glaring mistake made in the Monday morning BBC article and explain the correct figures, then note how many people have signe dthe petition to have the mistake fully and publically corrected by the BCC, and then demand that the BBC correct its ghastly error.
Fighting an evil empire is rather fun and the EFF hats look cool.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I have not bought a CD, Tape, anything in about 6 years. Shit, they aren't losing jack from me.
I have never, EVER purchased a CD single before. Why should I pay $10 or more for a bunch of remixes of the same song? If I want remixes, I go to Napster or a similar service..
BUT, I hardly ever download any full albums from Napster -- in fact, yesterday I went out and bought two Pink Floyd CDs, PLUS both Radiohead CDs, simply because I had downloaded a few songs off Napster, said "Hey, this is great!" and felt obligated to follow up.
------------
CitizenC
The RIAA isn't exactly the U.S. Gov't.
But anyway. Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit? You'd think an organization like the RIAA that was constantly fighting censorship legislation and promoting freedom of speech wouldn't be quite so shitted-upon by us.
We, as members of the slashdot community, decide we hate the RIAA.
Then one day, on a whim, I actually visited their website!
Anybody who's ever done so would realize that their viewpoint is more honorable than a lot of the people posting messages on slashdot. In fact, their viewpoint is probably more honorable than mine. But that's a subject for private debate, not to be openly trolled.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
Spock: It would be illogical to assume that they are lying, merely because they are deliberately telling an untruth.
Captain Kirk: Are you feeling OK, Spock?
Spock: My feelings are irrelevent, Captain. Since my brain was bought by the RIAA, on e-bay, my human side has spontaneously combusted.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The industry doesnt care if their numbers are hurting, it doesnt care if napster gives them money. I doubt the real motivation IS money, napster is a threat to most commercial establishments. I see this situation analagous to the russo-japanese war. If one monarchy could be defeated (eg music industry) then what would stop some back water establishment from destroying other large monarchies (eg movie industry, books, ALL games etc.) its not as if (gasp) its not already happening
As they all say...."this too shall pass."
http://www.riaa.org/pdf/year_end_2000.pdf some very interesting revelations here. assuming the statistics are right, does anyone seem to notice a downward trend since 1997(before napster's existence) on the categories that the RIAA is bitching about losing money in, yet CD sales are still up 3%. Maybe is that no one cares to buy cassettes and CD singles. Why would they buy singles for music that is overplayed on radio stations 24/7? i find it very insulting that the RIAA would publish a report disproving their claims while claiming it supports them. Too bad people are fucking stupid.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
That, my friend, is priceless.
It appears I have been trolled and I never bothered to read the title (my fault, oh well)...
:-)
"Abstract concepts are too hard for shepd"
Personal attacks are an instant sign that you've lost any argument. I will take this victory with my usual grace. [Bow]. (Exit stage left).
HAND
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
I think thats the joke, since the people they call pirates are there customers.
"Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry." If pirates stole a negative amount of money, that would mean they paid 1,400,000,000 to the Music Industry.
-kidlinux.
Yes, but who buys vinyls or cassettes anymore? Also, the sales of these things have been slippping since 1997(look at the RIAA's spreadsheet they just put out). Sure, you can "rip" cassettes and vinyls onto mp3z, but generally the mentality of music is that CDs are the standard, and the other forms of media have sufferred because of it. To say that napster is the cause of the sales drop in these things is just a blatant lie.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
I remember someone talking about how the RIAA fights censorship. I wish that was still true, but it isn't anymore. They will fight censorships from time to time, but not wholeheartadly, and end up settling for bad compromises.
If the RIAA really cared about fighting censorship, there would be no "tipper" stickers. Remeber what happened to ICE T? People wouldn't have the misconception that Marilyn Manson was connected to columbine. We wouldn't have state laws that make it illegal for a 17-year old to buy a KoRn album.
RIAA protects the ideals of freedom of expression just as badly as the democrats do.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
How to break the cycle? MP3.com is the record cartel killer!
All "starving musicians" should make their recordings available on MP3.com. You can sell CD's for what they are worth, not inflated record cartel prices, and still get a good royalty.
My argument really is about the process being broken, just as you said. People who think they deserve to get paid $20,000,000 USD for a record album are sniffing glue. If their were open distribution channels for music, no one, not even the Beatles, could sell enough copies to make $20 Million off of one album.
Music is artificially high priced and difficult to transport.
The really tricky part about numbers is that they can be technically correct without giving the whole picture. A labor union reports their average wages as $46,000, while the corporation they work for reports the average salary paid to be $72,000. The lower number is the median, while the higher number is the mean, which is higher due to the fact that a few executives have much higher salaries.
The corporation's number is technically correct, but fails to provide the scope of its meaning.
Very few are knowledgeable enough to know the difference, let alone the significance of that difference.
I have a strong belief in the Second Amendment.
The demise of digital free trade... That's why you should care.
-----
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
We shouldn't have to pay for 1's and 0's.
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
The article says CD sales are down. It also says CD Single sales are down. You twist the report to say something other than what it really says. It really says You are a thief!
All you Nappy heads are thieves!
I choose to be a moral person so I do not steal. No I don't steal even when 'everyone else' is doing it because I know, deep down inside, that stealing is morally wrong.
I will never steal from the people I admire.But you obviously will!
People who brag about using Napster get watched very carefully at my house and they do not get left alone. I don't trust thieves any more than I want to be one!
Second:
which would be a good point... except this entire battle is over potentials, not realities, and megalomania. Right now, the RIAA is a functional monoply of music content. They, in a very real sence, control all music and musical media... except what napsters giving away for free.
This does not make sense. If anyone wants to distribute the music they create on the Internet, they are completely free to do that. Simply put your MP3s on a webpage and register it on the search engines. You don't need napster for this! Anyone can do it.
Y0ou are already not paying for music. How much more damage do you think you will do by threatening to do what you already do? Rip off music...
GOD BLESS
the jingoistic bureaucracy which gave birth to the internet and then handed it over to the capitalist oligarchy of super-profits.
NOW BEHOLD,
as the internet becomes the weapon of devastation,
- THE CAUSE OF DEATH
, cleansing the EARTH of the tyranny of those who would enslave others with lies, oppress others by force and enrich themselves by the blood of nations of people.REFUSE AND RESIST,
to live by their insidious advertising mantras:
SEEK TRUTH and WIELD JUSTICE,
for no oppressor can survive the fire of truth and avoid the sword of justice.
IN UNITY,
we shall have
When was the last time your *REALLY* sat down to read the US Constitution?
These are all publicly traded companies so their books are open, they can't hold on to money that is not in their books. So expenses HAVE to go where they are written to go. It is possible that some execs are embezzling, but that hurts the bottom line so it is in their best interest to ferret out embezzlers.
Where have we seen this before? We have a system that works just find (music industry, CDs, ect), and someone invents something superior in some fundamental way (in this case, more convenient), and we act surprised when pressure comes to try and squash it.
:)
This isn't the first time this has happened.
Big Oil has, up until recently, been against alternative power sources. Only now that it's becomming abundantly clear that the oil supply isn't going to last another 50-80 years do we see their tunes change. Now we find companies like BP having an increasing interest in developing solar power technology. Why? They know their number is up and are changing to fit with the times so they can survive.
Look at the Industrial Revolution. It challenged a working, established system that worked just fine, because it was more efficent and cheaper. People didn't take this lying down, though. Anyone who's seen Star Trek 6 remembers the analogy made by that hot vulcan chick: "They threw their wooden shoes, or sabo, into the machinery. Thus: sabotage."
Sorry for the Trek reference, but it's true, and it gets my point across here. This is just a number crunching form of sabotage. Of course the industry is going to put whatever spin and outright lies it can get away with in order to keep their jobs and keep themselves out of trouble. It's human nature.
Just ask Bill Clinton: "I did NOT have sexual relations, with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Jamie has no authority to say what study was or means. He is an idiot. And you are all idiots for believing everything you read on Slashdot.
Here's the adderss that i found from the wire service: feedback@thewire.ap.org
Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit?
The artists won't be making a profit, with the possible exception of huge stars like Madonna (who has her own record label). The labels will be receiving any and all money from this proposed settlement, which is a main reason why they wont execept it... The figure they can start their own service and recieve all the money.
I think the reason why so many people are anti-RIAA is because they are taking the position that they want to stop Napster to protect the artists, when the artists really need protection from the RIAA. I know I was anti-RIAA before Napster ever existed.
Their contracts are so complex that the artists don't even realize how much they are signing away. I heard an interview with Rob Zombie once where he remarked that the latest White Zombie album had sold more than 5 million copies... Yet they recieved far less that 5 million dollars. That's LESS than $1 a cd.
Here is an excellent essay by Steve Albini (famous indie rocker and producer... He produced at least one Nirvana album, among many other projects) entitled "Some of your friends are already this fucked" that details at what lengths the labels will go to screw you. Great reading and may go a ways to answer your question.
Josh Sisk
What are the chances that a media group other than Slashdot will report on this. If NBC, or another major network reported on this, this would have a HUGE impact on the public opinion of the RIAA. Let's get this information out, folks.
Jaeger
www.JohnQHacker.com
GodHatesCalvinists.com
which would be a good point... except this entire battle is over potentials, not realities, and megalomania. Right now, the RIAA is a functional monoply of music content. They, in a very real sence, control all music and musical media... except what napsters giving away for free.
Napster, as a technology, has the potential, to freely trade everything the RIAA makes its stupifyingly large income on. Not right now, but in the next 5 to 10 years. Thats VERY VERY BAD to them, as they want that control over all distribution, so they can continually inflate prices and manipulate contracts jacking the artist on one end, and the consumer on the other.
-T
Old truckers never die, they just get a new peterbilt
FWIW, Auntie Beeb has an email address for reporting factual errors in their stories:
newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk
Already done it.
--
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
You do pay the radio stations, you listen to the ads and every now and then you pay for a service. If you don't then enough other people do that it is paid for. The artist DOES get paid by the radio station via ASCAP and BMI fees. YOU choose to post on a public forum, thus you have no rights to demand payment. PEOPLE DESERVE TO BE PAID FOR THEIR WORK. If you don't like what they are charging, then pay for someone elses that is charging you what you are willing to pay. I don't suppose you would like it if at the end of a month your employer decicded that you only are worth %1 of your salary because that is at it costs to feed you.
So the Cash Cow is at it again, lying about everything, ripping the public off and claiming to be defending musicians' rights. Somebody please take down these lying scum.
Also, to extend Schroedinger's experiment a little, say I place a PC with a CD recorder in a sealed box and set it so at the random decay of a radioctive substance, the CD is either copied or not. According to quantum theory, before box is opened, the CD is in a superposed state of being copied and not copied. Therefore, according to the RIAA, they are in the superposed state of having "lost" the value of the CD and not having "lost" the value. If I never open the box, will the RIAA continue to operate on this superposed state or is it the case that it will not make a blind bit of difference?
The only true claim that can be made about copyright infringement is that it has no direct effect on the copyright holder. Claims can be made about indirect effect but these can never be anything more than conjecture and supposition.
Rich
It seems that actual manufacturing costs are almost meaningless, because it is _promotion_ that costs all the money.
This is a little startling, but bears up to examination- even in the 80s, independent promotion was something like 60% of the labels' expenditures. It might be more well known as payola- the more things change the more they stay the same. If I remember correctly, CBS (the biggest label in the business at the time) attempted to break the back of the independent promotion network using Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' as a weapon: Floyd was touring and were launching the tour in California, and had a killer single, "Another Brick In The Wall pt. 2". CBS tried to get radio play on top 40 stations in LA for the track without paying off the independent promoters- and were frozen out completely, no airplay at ALL for Floyd. Eventually the band was made aware of what was happening and asked why they weren't getting radio play, and on being told, kicked up a stink and told the label, "So pay them already!" CBS did, and within 6 hours Floyd was being played on the radio...
This is not to justify the state of affairs- the independent promoters were linked with organised crime and if you want a _real_ cartel, try organised crime- but it is important information on where the money _really_ goes. I believe it is quite true that not all that money goes to RIAA execs' pockets. They have to pay off a staggering number of sleazy operators- in fact, even the rack jobbers have been consolidating into a power structure so now the labels have to spend money selling their CDs into stores like Wal-Mart! They entertain the reps from rack jobbers, have bands give command performances for them, and all this also costs money. It's revenge of the middleman, taken to the most incomprehensible extreme.
I think the RIAA are probably doomed _because_ so many middlemen (promoters, radio, rack jobbers) can and will take a big chunk out of them as the brick and mortar scene gradually, slowly fades... it's easy to get all haughty about fat RIAA execs slurping drinks in Ibiza but the reality seems to be that they're struggling to hang onto _moderately_ wealthy status- they're pulled too many different directions and have to pay off way too many middlemen, who cannot be made to go away.
I could almost be sympathetic. Almost.
Clarification, since you asked.
I see Napster and DeCSS as acts of pure curiosity and/or necessity. Once that necessity is validated in the free marketplace of ideas, removing the solution will create opportunity and a fixed bottom for future solutions.
The lawsuits attacked whatever weakness they could find in an unexpected entity. In a way, these ideas can be described through a supply and demand metaphor. Napster created the demand and thereby monopolized the supply. (Yes, I know about OpenNap etc, but I'm making a point)
Removing the supply by killing Napster does nothing to remove the demand that Napster created. Imagine if someone had invented Color TV before the networks could and made it freely available. If the networks succeeded in killing the Color TV product, they could do nothing to erase the knowledge that Color TV existed.
Right or wrong, Napster was ultimately the most convenient thing that has ever happened in the history of recorded music. It's usually faster to find a song on Napster than to get it from a CD on the shelf across the room. Killing Napster will do nothing to change that.
The RIAA has essentially clarified whatever weaknesses Napster had. One of the biggest was believing that anyone could make money from this. If there was no "business model" there would have been less of a clear target. The lawsuits have done nothing to prove that trading MP3s is bad, mostly because they can't. Additionally there is still no legitimate alternative. They have however succeeded in making alienating their customers in profound and far-reaching ways.
The Spawn of Napster will arrive into a different world than their forebear. They will know the threats, and they will know they will be welcomed by some and loathed by others. If the RIAA or MPAA thinks the next target is GNUtella, they're due for another surprise.
...it does make sense that CD and cassette singles could be hurt by Napster. After all, one of the big Napster advantages is that you shouldn't be forced to buy all the crappy *N'Sync songs that nobody listens to, only the crappy *N'Sync songs that are big on the radio.
On balance, the facts presented here seem less FUDdy than the facts presented in the BBC article. But they're certainly not FUD-free. Part of the problem is that no information presented by either side takes into account the possibility that things other than Napster could be affecting RIAA profits. Who's to say that the RIAA wouldn't have seen an even bigger increase in profits without Napster? That wouldn't be good PR, but logically it would still support their case.
After all, they're just making the RIAA even richer and more powerful.
Someone set us up the Napster!!
The real issue is that the U.S Government decides who and when they go after. I am sure that they got sick and tired of Micro$hit not kicking back enough money, or there was too much public pressure not to just let it go. If you want to talk about about a monopoly, you can jump right in to the Record Industry.
---> suck it
It's just the first time that I've ever seen anyone make the there/their mistake this way around.
Rich
Yeah, yeah. We've heard it ALL. Does this really surprise anyone?
I'm pissed that Napster is going down the tubes. I've bought more CD's since I've started using Napster than I have in the last 5 years combined. Why is that? Because there's nothing like coming home, opening that damn trickey plastic wrap on the cd...smelling the case...(ahhh), pulling the tightly placed cd off the holder and placing it in my cd tray. I sit and listen to the cd, while browsing the cover art...I read the credits...dissect the whole thing. I ENJOY this. Y'know what happens to 90% of the songs I download from Napster? I delete 'em.
The only artists that Napster could possibly hurt are the "One Hit Wonders". Why should I go out and buy a whole cd for one song? Quality music doesn't suffer from file sharing....Crap does. It's just too damn bad RIAA has their panties in a bunch because they think they're losing money.
News flash: They'll NEVER stop file sharing. Finger in the damn anyone? Good luck RIAA.
PS. Fuck you guys. I'm not buying any CD's for a year. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Since, according to the recording industry, we only buy a "license" when buying a tape or CD, I just cruise thrift shops and buy used cassettes and 8-tracks for 5 or 10 cents apiece. Thanks to the first sale doctrine, the license is then mine. I then proceed to download the song. I have a license, I have the music, I'm in the clear. Right?
I'm not big-headed enough to try to claim credit, but after I sent them a note about 'fact checking', they changed their story (at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/new sid_1190000/1190724.stm to be a little more balanced and accurate to the numbers, and replied to my e-mail telling me so. They probably got a lot more letters than just my own.
PGPKfp: ADD9 DF80 D6E7 1DB5 051C 1026 3489 4B37 2109 F19B
LOL ... Maybe I'm a bit too modest ...
---
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
I would say making the claim "Napster made our CD sales drop 39%!", when in fact sales of CD's (albums AND singles) increased 2% a pretty bald lie. I mean, just listen to the bitch: "Napster hurt record sales" [Hilary Rosen]. Pure, blatant bullshit.
Changing it to "Oh my dear god, Napster made our CD Single sales drop 39%! We're ruined!!!", when that massive loss occured in only 1% of their products is yet another blatant attempt at lying. I'm really curious about the conversations at Salon, CNN, etc that led to the rapid changing of the articles.
Yes, claiming that Napster is helping sales is just as bad as claiming it hurts, which is why I don't claim it. Nor do a lot of other people here. But bear in mind that the RIAA repeatedly states that there is a direct causal relationship between Napster and CD sales. If that were provably true, then Napster would indeed be helping sales, since sales are going up, despite the press releases. Given that these guys are not capable of reading their own financial reports, however, I'm not about to put any faith in their apparently whimsical statistical analysis.
--
Dyolf Knip
good idea.
then we can all download our music off napster and prove RIAA's own point.
Point one: from a cursory scan of the original post (and, if I'm in any way wrong, feel free to shoot me down) he at one point designates the CD singles base as "1%", then later recognizes it as "8%". Which is it?
Point two: single sales have to be viewed in light of the artist. Sure, a band like Metallica with a million-and-one compilation albums isn't affected by a drop in single CD sales. But what about (*shivvers*) Britney Spears? Little 12-year old girls are probably going out and buying that one song they really like (and is played over the radio constantly), instead of full albums of songs they haven't be clandestinely programmed into about. That is, they *were* doing this, until their older brothers came around and downloaded Napster for the family machine.
I'm not saying to endorse the RIAA. Hell, I use Napster all the time. But you have to be careful in spinning numbers one way and countering it with a spin the next. A spin is still a spin, and people are apt and wary about this.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
When I worked there, A&B Sound sold cd's online to anywhere in the world. As far as I know that is still true today, although I've never used the online store. I do know that you'll find the best prices in store, rather than online, but that the online prices will still beat many other cities/countries. A lot of tourists and eastern Canadian visitors stock up on cd's while visiting here to take advantage of the price difference, and quite a few use the online store once they get back home. It's not uncommon for visitors to buy 30+ cd's to take back home with them, and smaller music stores will even buy their product from A&B Sound instead of the music companies.
:-)
:-). But seriously though, I think the music companies sell cd's at the same price to every music store countrywide, if not worldwide. The differences in prices are completely the store's markup and shipping costs. Most of the time people are grossly overpaying for cd's, as demonstrated by the A&B Sound price difference, which may explain why Napster is so popular. Free is always better than $20.
>$18 in eastern Canada
You wish! At one place considered by some to have good CD prices, Future Shop, most CDs (except the top 10 / on sale) are about $20
I estimated eastern Canada prices on the low side because I didn't want to get flamed if I quoted it too high.
Future Shop began to drop their cd prices to compete with A&B Sound here in BC, so it's likely their countrywide prices are lower as well. Both stores save their best deals for the newest cd's, because they buy those in larger volumes. A&B Sound sells their top20 and the new releases for around $14-$18. "Regular" cd prices range from $14-$22, though most average around $18.
I doubt the cd's are made out here; what products are made outside of Ontario?
-Jetgirl
Which is rather ironic if you think about it. Teenagers are the demographic to which the RIAA companies most rabidly market. Why? They are the ones that will purchase 1.1 million copies of the new N'Stink album in the first week.
You live by the teen, you die by the teen.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
I can find statistics that imply CowboyNeal has sex with folding chairs. Statistics don't mean a damn thing unless they are given in full context. There are almost always hidden variables that have contributed to the statistics.
Nobody with a lick of thinking skills will take a statistic like "Record sales dropped by x%" and conclude that Napster is the cause. A cause, maybe. The cause? No way.
I realize that I'm preaching to the choir here, so it's a valid question to wonder why I'm even bothering. But the truth is there are thousands of people who will read a headline like the one we're referring to, and won't take a split second to reason it out.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
There is even an obligatory quote from a BMG exec about not being able to pin down what the problem is.
-- Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?
Why doesn't Slashdot/Andover get together with the EFF and other interested parties and execute their own press conference/release?
We need to be on the ball on these issues and attacking back on the same playing field that the RIAA uses - namely being active in mainstream press and political circles.
On this specific occurrence, we are forced to be reactive, but in the future we can be proactive and beat the RIAA to the punch. Let's publish the truth before the spin hits the press.
Are there any PR firms we could enlist?
Following emails from several people, the BBC altered both the opening statement and the title of their story from:
CD sales plummeted last year in the U.S. and record industry officials say the figures prove that Napster, the Internet music-sharing service, has harmed their business.
To:
CD single sales plummeted last year in the US and record industry officials say the figures prove that Napster, the Internet music-sharing service, has harmed their business.
The rest of the article was balanced enough for you to decide what's going on.
1. Band releases CD (or other "solid" media)
2. *One* person buys the CD
3. Said person rips CD and posts it online
4. Everyone has CD.
5. Band doesn't release CD's anymore, but
directly to internet.
6. Woo hoo!
No really, it could happen...
--
Excellent. I notice a clear quality difference between uncompressed CD audio and many/most MP3 files. CD-quality CD audio is a good and welcome selling point. Thanks for the link.
Yeah, either that was *the best* sarcasm EVER or you really believe what you said and are really in need of some new opinions.
If the former then f'scking brilliant.
I'd laugh if it weren't so close to the truth.
I have Unix underpants.
Originally, my subject was going to read "Great! Now go lambast the reporter directly!" Then I combed the story, and the reference to the story on Yahoo, and realized that the author is indeed a truely brave man -- because he thinks that this audience will believe his story when he fails to sign his name on it!
Where's the journalistic integrity in releasing a story and not being accountable for its accuracy?!
Is the RIAA a branch of M$ ?
I would love to see things from your point of view. But I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass
Wow.. with all the billions of dollars they make. You think they could cut customers, and merchants a bit of slack and lower the price of CD's a bit. Geez ...
Really, how much does it take to make a living? I'd be quite comfortable at 100k a year.
---
The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout
lets find out what are good friend hillary pulls down a year eh?
Kid Rock Starves To Death! MP3 Piracy Blamed!
Or, for the goatse.cx weary:
http://theonion.com/onion3618/kid_rock_starves.
The RIAA is accusing Napster of A) breaking the law, and B) directly and intnetionally attacking the RIAA's business thru unethical means. The first claim is kind of sketchy, but the second claim is obviously a lie. Isn't that slander? How about libel? Can't Napster take legal action against such claims? Especially when there is so much evidence to prove them false?
I think there should be a counter-suit.
This BBC article is a joke. How can they make the statement, "Sales of music compact discs fell by 39% last year according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)", and not bother to qualify that statement (CD-singles dropped that much) whatsoever. To my eyes, this borders on unethical journalism. I've always considered the BBC to be a good news organization: how could they let something like this slip by?
As for the RIAA: screw em. I haven't bought a CD in over a year, and right now I don't have plans to buy another one ever again. Napster or no Napster, it doesn't matter to me. There'll be other programs I'll try, or I'll just have to do without the latest music for a while. No big loss.
But what are we doing here? The music industry is lying through their teeth? And what now? Will this save Napster?
How many tons of dynamite do we actually need?
Bizar technology?
Mistakes are forgivable; they run a good site in general. But If they choose to ignore factual corrections to their pages, I will complain enough to get an explanation and publish it here.
If the BBC reply to anyone let us know here.
I have also sent a polite explanation to the factual errors address.
But anyway. Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit? You'd think an organization like the RIAA that was constantly fighting censorship legislation and promoting freedom of speech wouldn't be quite so shitted-upon by us.
Really? When? They've rolled over every time censorship was proposed. They've rolled over to every major boycott done. The major labels are absolute chickenshit; they've contributed absolutely jack shit to the fight against censorship.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
They obvoiusly read that book on how to lie with charts. There are just greedy cry babies!!!
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Great rant!
Fer instance, when the gov't announces that they are cutting spending to something (let's say, *cough* the military), what they are really doing is cutting back on what the projected increase was supposed to be. So, instead of a 10 billion dollar increase, they get only 8 billion, and the press reports this as a 2 billion cutback.
RIAA uses it the same way, I'd wager. "Well, he lost 2 billion dollars..." No, you just didn't clear the goals you set for yourself, and as Lazarus noted, you can't prove Napster had anything to do with it.....
Oh, and by the way, Fuck You Very Much, RIAA.
sig not found
= NO SALE. Cheap media + great content + resonable price = SALE. Think about it RIAA.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
Well, not exactly. The Napster settlement was actually 1 billion over several years, totalling $150 million/year divided out amongst the big 5 and indie labels. It would have made a dent in those numbers, but not as big as you say.
I'm not defending the RIAA, just trying to explain why they rejected the offer. $30 million per label per year isn't a lot of money, compared to what they're afraid they'll lose to Napster. Of course they're going to lose a lot more due to bad decision making, but they are a fairly short-sighted profit-driven industry.
Kid A was one of the top albums of the year and according to the BBC website: They have also decided to release no singles from Kid A. So this is a possible reason for some of the decline.
Sure, we can measure correlations all day long, but just because we *can* doesn't mean that they're necessarily *evidence* of anything. For instance, I'm certain I can document an inverse correlation between the consumption of icecream and hypothermia. However, this certainly doesn't mean that icecream makes you safer from hypothermia. Nor does it mean that eating icecream is not contributory to hypothermia, as there can be large and PRESENTLY overwhelming influences, such as 90 degree days.
If CD sales go up in the presence of Napster, this could very well be because of the introduction of hit songs and a strong economy (both which were true), despite a strong negative influence (i.e., Napster). What's more, you should remember that Napster was just getting started throughout much of the year, so even if you *know* Napster was harmful, it doesn't mean that it would show up. Nor does it mean that Napster and the precedents that it sets are incapable of doing traumatic damage to the recording industry, especially given the fact that Napster is growing, recordable mediums are becoming cheap and common place, mp3 devices are coming into its own, broadband is coming about, and future technology. There is no reason why other companies (or Napster itself) could not use the legal precedents set while flying high (or low, depending on your point of view) on new technology that delivers better than CD quality mp3s (or like format) to their users on mere whim (with no effort or skill required) in a format that they can actually use on the road, in their car, in their homes, or while exercising.
An apt analogy to the Napster "proof" would be like Henry Ford declaring that his cars do not contribute to global warming because the earth dropped
The people who buy vinyl are mainly collectors, the type of people who read Goldmine and/or Discoveries magazines. There are classic albums on cassette that are not on CD.
I downloaded Green Day's song "Minority" off Napster and decided that I really liked it, and that I would purchase it. Of course, the album was 16 bucks and I didn't have 16 bucks at the time, so I looked at the single for it instead. I couldn't find one Green Day "Minority" single that was not an import and under 10 bucks. I did manage to find the 7" vinyl single for $5, but paying $5 of vinyl with two songs on it is ridiculous. And I didn't even know that they made tape singles anymore.. Or tapes in general, for the the matter. Everytime I goto a music store, that used to be huge five years ago is buried someplace in the back and hardly advertised. I don't think you can blame Napster for a decline in tape sales when tapes aren't the medium of choice anymore, nor are they pushed by the record stores. And I don't think you can blame Napster for a decline in the sales of CD singles if they cost 10 bucks. I'll wait until I find the fuckin thing used.
This article displays absolutely no where that Napster HELPS the RIAA sell records.
Imagine someone like Hendrix, Led Zep, or came around today, rather than a bunch of morons trying to sell us the, as the author put it "backdoor boys". This said, there are some good bands out there today, I'm not saying everyone new sucks, however, if I turn on a radio station which plays newer music here in Vancouver, BC, it's very rare that I'll really like the song. When was the last time people went nuts over a new band that wasn't full of really attractive guys/girls. Again, not that looks mean anything at all to music, but then, that was my point exactly...
Sorry for the incoherence, it's been a long day...
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
I was unsure of the RIAA link posted... are we talking about strictly revenue here, and not profit?
Give me a f***ing break!
The BBC site has feedback forms which seem ideally suited to this sort of crap.
I would argue that this article constitutes a "factual error", but you could also just send a good, old-fashioned complaint.
Or, maybe a "suggestion" about where they can stick their doctored statistics.
Give 'em hell. A few thousand complaints should show them that we won't let propaganda like this proliferate.
- BMO
I disagree. I have "shared" my share of jazz tracks not [yet] available on CD's (or are only available on out-of-print/Ebay-"Friendly" CD's).
Granted, not many of these ... but several hundred of 'em nonetheles ....
"He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
any one ever remember this post?
m l
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/05/11/1322231.sht
I thought we were sposed to be getting a break on the cost of cd's instead I think they are going up!!!!
moo.
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
The comments that the licensing groups should have accepted Napster's offer for 1.5 Billion dollars are ludicrous as well. The licensing groups know that Napster won't be around in 5 years and in any case will never have $1 billion. Napster's plan was to get that money from subscription fees.
How many of you slashdotters would be signing up for Napster if you knew your monthly fee was going to the RIAA?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
The slashdot community should know better than anyone that what matters most is information. Not inconsequentials like truth and accuracy. The RIAA is winning the war of information. My mother mentioned this report to me before it was posted here. False stories get headlines, retractions and corrections get small paragraphs at the bottom of page 3.
Most likely Napster is dead already. But this isn't completely a cause to mourn.
Most recent revolutions in digital media that have solid-media business shitting themselves have come from bored or curious teenagers and college students. CSS was cracked by a 16 year old. Hotline was created by a teenager. Napster (a conceptually modified Hotline, though no one mentions it) was set up by Sean Fanning when he was 20 or 21. Even Netscape was lead by Marc Andreesen before he graduated college. (please be gentle with slight factual errors, that was recounted from memory)
How long will it take before the uncontrollable throng of adolescent geniuses that big business hates and fears comes up with something better than Napster? About three months probably. Maybe less.
The RIAA has introduced a new market force. The capitalist mantra has always been "competition fosters innovation". This is the beginning of litigation fostering innovation. I'm sure this isn't what the RIAA and MPAA really want. Napster basically had a monopoly on peer-to-peer MP3 sharing. If that is monopoly is shut down, the marketplace will be thrown open to innovation, however a pure copy will not work. The RIAA lawsuits have established a clear technological baseline. Every spawn of Napster will have to start that much higher. And they will.
Even if the media outlet is not owned by any subsidary or company of RIAA or MPAA, they are going to be biased because they have a strong urge to make sure copyright controls stay as 'strong' as they are. If, say, the Napster or DeCSS case overthrew strong copyright protections, then a site like NYTimes could easily watch as a free outlet scoops up all the articles for the day and posts them themselves; the work done by NYTimes writers, but benefits reaped in by another. Of course, I do believe that a significant fraction of media outlets do respect fair use issues, which is why DeCSS in general gets a more favorable light by some of these compared to Napster, since the media themselves rely heavily on fair use for publishing.
But again, this all boils down to statistics and how well you can spin them. I agree with others that there is no control case here: you need to compare the change of sales in a situation with and without Napster with all other conditions being the same, which is practically impossible. So we can spin them to say they're invalid, or RIAA can spin them to say they lost 1/3rd of their profits. The only somewhat justifiable comparison is to show the change in sales over the last twenty years on a year by year basis, incorporating the number of potental buyers (weighted age-group averages) and number of CDs available (again, weighted interest averages). I would suspect that the trend is higher, and if not only that, mimics the general trend in the GNP or other consumer price levels, such that you'd see the dip from Reagen-omics and the increase from the latest improved economy.
Which all means that CD sales haven't been affected at all by Napster, much less any other factor more-so than the economic levels.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I don't know about you, but frankly I'm sick of our "free and democratic" mass media passing along whatever Big Corporation Guy says like a puppet.
And people wonder where most of our society's problems come from. Read stories like this, with lies I can hardly believe, and the answer seems a bit clearer. How did greed ever reach such levels? I feel damn near helpless to stop crap like this.
....point.
Let's boycott CD's until the recording industry comes to an agreement with Napster. Let's not even buy them in order to uploadd them.
Two quick contentions in the /. article that I'm not so sure about:
First, that if the RIAA were to have taken Napster's billion, "their revenue would be up $739,000,000 over last year". Wasn't the Napster billion to be paid over the next X number of years?
Second, I don't think it's fair to say that Napster's only logical effects can be on digital media. Why is that?
It's not because mp3s are burned off of cd's. That doesn't make sense, does it? Does anybody say that the burning of mp3s costs sales? (ok, somebody might say that, but what does that have to do with Napster?) It's the download of mp3s that 'hurts sales'. Why would my having napstered some good mp3s make me less likely to buy a cassette vis-a-vis a cd?
Dang. Where's that spreadsheet when I need it?
That's where you're wrong, kind sir. Album sales are up precisely BECAUSE of mainstream artists. You can twist and skew the numbers so much that it would make a politician proud, but when it comes down to FACTS, Napster has nothing to do with increased album sales. Talented, original artists lik N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, and Britney Spears are the reason for the dramatic increase in sales, and as long as we continue to see beautiful musical creations such as these, album sales will continue to increase.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
--
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
"Napster hurt record sales," said RIAA president Hilary Rosen. In particular, Rosen pointed to the drop in the sales of singles, once the format that fueled the music industry, as evidence of Napster's affect.
and...
Singles, a mainstay of the industry in the 1950s and 60s, have fallen out of favor as a tool to inflate sales figures and influence radio programming, said Roy Lott, president of EMI Group's Capitol label. Even so, Napster is the "prime culprit" for the drop in sales, he said. Industry analysts said the drop in sales can be attributed to a number of factors, including economic factors and a weak year for music releases. "Napster alone doesn't seem like a fair alibi," said Michael Nathanson, a Wall Street analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. "It's a combination of things. Softness in consumer spending. The hit titles were for such a narrow (audience) that it was a very thin year, and lastly, the Napster factor. You can't put your finger on it."
It's only a few paragraphs long, check it out. They really could have been a lot clearer about what a small percentage of revenue singles are, though. I stopped buying singles (and all retail items, really) because (a) Napster offered an escape from the RIAA-band-du-month and (b) what is charged for music is absurd given the costs. $3.99 for a single? I don't think so.
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
Now, I'm not defending the BBC article, being that they kinda swayed the information, but if you look down to it, what does Napster do, it serves singles. Just go on Napster and try to cosistantly put together full albums, it's not usually easy, so many times it's worth it to go pick up the album. Now if you want one song, what's your choice, go on to Napster and download it or go to the record store and buy the single. So this loss is relevant to Napster. Now I do agree that the article did mis-represent the facts in order to make it look bad, looks like a marketing lawyer wrote it, but if you look at the actual information, the recording industry sales of cd singles was hurt, and that is a market that Napster csn most decidedly claim competition to.
matguy
matguy(.com)
Speaking as a reformed record store clerk, the real reason CD single sales are down is because the labels 1) rarely release popular songs are singles anymore 2) if they do, they go out of print after 1-2 weeks.
This is the sort of story that should be turned into a mass mailing to your local and national news outlets.
Here's a few addresses:
letters@nytimes.com
letters@sjmercury.com
dmnweb.dallasnews.com/letters
AP Bureaus by State
(I get a kick out of their triple-bank rolodex logo. Someone needs to add one of those to Aqua.)
--Blair