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.)
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"
Except that copyrights are not property. They are a limited-time monopoly right conferred by the government.
Property is tangible; rights are not. Property can be stolen; rights can only be infringed.
The RIAA/MPAA/SIAA are relying on the misconceptions they've sown over the past few decades to confuse the debate, to get people arguing over the wrong things while they loot your wallet and strip your rights. Be smarter than that.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
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...
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
It's simple. They're control freaks.
More to the point, they recognize Napster as a long-term threat. They know that as long as they control the mainstream distribution channels, they can continue to make obscene profits. But Napster
- Provides people access to independant artists and groups, who as they become more well known, become poised to seriously compete with the groups that RIAA memebers control. And as the armchair economists are all so happy to point out, more competition leads to slimmer profits.
- Makes people seriously think twice before popping down $15 for a CD. Now, as long as bandwidth, mp3 quality, and hard drive space are issues, they're still going to buy the CD, which is why the RIAA's profits haven't been hurt yet. But those things are techincal issues which are becoming less and less of a problem every day. Soon enough, people will stop buying as many CD's, and the RIAA's sales will plummet.
So, in short, the RIAA's claims about lost revenue are FUD, but they know that if Napster survives long enough, they won't be.--
The most valuable commodity I know of is information. - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko, Wall Street
The RIAA and the record cartels want to completely control the distribution methods of their products. Before, they could threaten manufacturers not to make DAT tapes, and not support Mini Discs, but now, they can't do shite about MP3's.
They can no longer control the price of their "product", and that threatens their ridiculously high margins.
Why should an industry that is worth $40 billion USD only be provided with product by, oh, let's say, less than 50,000 musicians. And let us also say that less than 1,000 of those musicians make more than $1,000,000 USD per year.
Where does the rest of that money go?
Another question I'd like to ask:
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?
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.
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
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.