Slashdot Mirror
CEO of RIAA Speaks at P2P Conference
Sarcasmo writes: "Hillary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA ? , spoke at length (PDF of Speech) yesterday, during the 'O'Reilly Peer to Peer and Web Services conference'. " Update: 11/08 02:15 GMT by H : Yeah, I removed the Rosen text. Sorry.
Call me pedantic but I hate how the RIAA keeps calling the downloading of music files via p2p software piracy. It is copyright infringement. Period. It is closer to piracy what the RIAA does to "its" artists.
I know there are some artists trying to buck RIAA stranglehold but I'm waiting for the day when big artists (remember The Offspring's attempt to make _Conspiracy of One_ available for download?) get out from under the big studios and the RIAA.
There's a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though. Most rock musicians (I am one, so I can say this) just aren't very bright folks.
:)
I remember reading a story about how Lynyrd Skynyrd got screwed out of their royalties. They were all high school dropouts (they were named after the principal of their high school, who threw/pushed them out, Leonard Skinner) and when they were presented with the contract, they could not read. They signed it anyway (without going to a lawyer to interpret it for them) on the side of some interstate in Florida.
So who's worse - the band for being too dumb to know the value of education or to cover their ass, or the record companies for taking advantage of that? In their case, it's about equal, coming from their background. However, there are some artists that have never had a chance for an education, but they have this raw talent, and the record company just rapes them and tosses them out when they get old/fat/non-trendy. It's really a case-by-case thing.
For the record, Lars is an idiot, too
There they go jumping on the terrorism bandwagon again. Can any one even make sense of what she's talking about here? Bin Laden is going to order Afghanis to clog up all the world's bandwidth by downloading the new Britney Spears album on Gnutella all at the same time?
(Please save your flames until you've read the whole post)
She does have some legitimate points. Personally, as a musician, and one who plans to make music a career, I want to be able to have the same opportunity to make money as anyone else. I don't want to be rich, I just want to be able to live comfortably.
However, the foundation of her argument is flawed. Artists get a ridiculously small percentage of CD sales, and this isn't changing even as CD prices close on the twenty dollar mark.
Artists get most of their money from concerts. Albums are basically just advertising. File-sharing programs are more effective advertising (People like free things). If more people are listening to their music because the price barrier isn't there, then more people will go to their concerts, putting more money in the artists' pockets. This is a good thing.
The only artists who are speaking out against file sharing programs are artists that A) don't need any more money, and B) don't understand that this actually helps less mainstream artists.
Basically, what it comes down to for me is this: If I'm dinking around on Limewire, Napster, Morpheus, or any other music-swapping program and I come an mp3 of one of my songs, I'm not disappointed. I'm not feeling the money fly out of my wallet. I'm elated. I'm absolutely ecstatic that someone would take the time to download my music and keep it on their hard drive. They've done this because they like it, not because of money or any other impetus. That's half the reason that I want to be a musician (Incidentally, the other half is that I hate/suck at everything else): to create something that people like - that touches people. It's a wonderful thing when this can occur outside of a corporate environment, outside of the store. If my music was flying all over the 'net and I was living in the street, that would be a different matter, but that's just not how it works.
Anyway, that's just what I think...
(Does anyone else find the Gates-esque overuse of the word innovation and derivations thereof rather disturbing?)
Two wrongs dont make a right.
Neither does simply allowing the original wrong to stand. I love how the crooks of the world always hold this up as a defense when the hammer is finally about to fall.
Actually, even though it probably won't help a bit, what we should also be doing is protesting to the government to change the damn laws that were obviously paid for by the entertainment industry. Extending copyright until it lasts longer than an average human lifetime just defeats the purpose of the "limited times" clause on copyright. What good is it if Disney and the others can just buy an extension every time their copyrights are about to expire?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I know some of you are going to *really* hate me for this post. Mod me down if you feel like it but I think the point remains.
I think it is obvious that Rosen would have a bias for the RIAA's stance. Slashdotters have a strong bias against the RIAA's stance.
Is there any sort of remotely middle ground reporting anywhere?
Basically Slashdot discussing the RIAA or the RIAA discussing Slashdot is going to have a lot of blood involved, each side is going talk from such an incredibly biased viewpoint that there is an increasingly diminishing chance to pick out the truth among the propaganda. It is much like political parties talking about each other. They might all agree on a private level about something but simply disagree because they hate each other.
To me, it is obvious to me that a person commenting a Rosen speach as being about "rolling around in cash naked" has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Perhaps the "artistically-challenged teenagers" are, for some bizarre reason, a product of the overall lack of value given to art in today's society, as opposed to, say, the central value placed on making money and buying shit.
It's even possible that if modern cultures didn't place such a heavy emphasis on acquiring money, art might possibly be able to come more readily to the forefront, instead of having to squeeze in between the profit margins. NOT that I'm saying that Capitalism is a bad idea... *cough*
Geez, what an insightful, informative writeup.
Taco, I've been reading since the site was run off the server you were adminning at work, and had expectations consistent with your scale of operations. But if you're implementing paid subscriptions, you might also want to apply some of the standards normally expected of professional journalism. In this case, that would involve a writeup that doesn't rate a -1 Flamebait and filing the story under Music, which I have blocked because I simply can't stop myself by flaming every one of these hypocritical file sharing stories, rather than The Almighty Buck.
(Yes, I understand the difference between the submitter's text and the editor's additions. An editor's job involves -- get this! -- editing!)
And here is Steve Albini's version of the same thing, I've never figured out which one thought it up first, though. Given that Steve produced an album for Courtney's husband once, they may have well thought it up over beers or heroin.
I do not have a signature
In the music industry, Artists get paid sweet FA, they obviously don't have a union, and they don't go on strike to get a better deal when they are being done over.
Ao what Artists need to do is form a union, and unite against their employers, the recording industry. If they don't do this, then they don't deserve any more money.
The fact is, P2P music copying:
1) Gets music spread around more - increasing the chance of it being purchased legitimately
2) Doesn't mean that without the P2P the music would have been bought
3) or that a sale was lost as a result of the P2P download
4) Sure, some people will download music and not buy CDs as a result. These people are a significant minority who previously recorded their friends' CDs onto tape anyway
The fact is, the RIAA exist for the artists for several reasons - to provide recording facilities, and to advertise the artist. P2P does the advertising, and thus takes away one of the reasons for artists to use a major record label. The other one is less necessary as computer technology improves to the state where a personal music studio is a few thousand dollars, and can match a professional music studio from a few years ago for features.
The RIAA really need DVD Audio, with videos to differentiate their products from P2P. P2P is a competitor, and they want this competition legislated out of existence. For example, the Static X song, Black and White (kicks ass) is available on DVD with the (kick ass) video, and other videos of the band. This is worth buying as a reasonable price.
Maybe it really wouldn't make a difference -- but I don't really think that these high-profile executives are really all that hard-skinned. They revel in the attention. Confronting such a public figure with your distaste for them is an important political statement. And they don't deserve to feel good about themselves.
And there's something comforting -- as in a passion play -- when a group of people can agree and express their common opinion of who is good and who is bad.
Well, music IS now easily distributed with p2p, so the record companies don't need to spend money to distribute anymore - people distribute amongst themselves, unless they stifle p2p - but then don't cry about your investments please - you're doing it to yourselves.
You mean the one who signed away his music so companies can charge $15 a CD so no one will want to take a risk to listen to spend the money? You mean the artist who's best chance at being heard to become popular is the ability to people to share music with each other, which RIAA is making sure won't happen so people can continue to not hear and not buy it, and the artists are bound not to share their music on p2p systems? This argument is a vague and potentially unfounded as its opposite counterpart. But then "I'm sure you'd like to believe its really the struggling artists who are really losing out."
How about: "morality is sufficient ground for putting a stop to IP". It all depends on a person's viewpoint. Please RIAA, don't presume to talk to me about morality, when you want to stifle the freedoms upon which the US ideals were built.
So then why is RIAA always trying to change the laws? If you really believe the current system is working, why are you still meddling with it?
So RIAA builds a complicated system, then whines about companies not being able to navigate it, and as a result expect people to foot the bill? Well, that is both a clever and "legitimate" business model, i must admit.
Uh huh. Was at a talk the other day and the speaker said the same thing, albiet somewhat ironically: "Napster made music so abudant and prevelant on everyone's computer, I was afraid music would go extinct": the more of something you see, the more likely it is to disappear. Like computers - everyone's got one so in the future we'll probably have less.
And finally, I generally resent the rather simple argument of "legitimacy" and the interpretation of "legitimate": only those to whom RIAA gives its blessing. Its the very typical argument: "If you'd just do everything exactly as I say and like, we'd have no problem. Why are you causing so much problems? Lets `work togther': i'll stop everyone else from doing things which make me lose money, you start thinking up ways of making me more money."
Unlike Star Trek (tm) where holographic docters, even though they are computer programs, cannot be backed up or copied (making the entire plot of several episodes meaningless) in the real world data can be copied any number of times.
I have long time made a simple vow - i won't buy music cds. Its a very simple thing to grasp: Refusing to buy cds is my legal right, as is for example refusing to buy anything coloured purple. Seeing as i won't buy cds, anything i do has no effect on my cd-buying potential. And causes no money to be lost. Therefore, downloading music off the internet is acceptable seeing as i was not going to buy the cd of it, so i will either: a) download and listen to some music or b) not listen to that music ever. A similar thing happens when you listen to the radio - as the radio station has no way of knowing when _i_ am listening to them, i can for example, turn of the radio for 30 secs everytime they go to commercials. The radio station compiles its listener base from other sources and therefore gets payed for the adverts if i am watching or not.
This moves on to another point - seeing as in America and Europe, speech/expression is legally free, and music is speech/(expression), restricting what musical content i can access or express on the internet is restriction of my freedom of speech.
If i was to perform some original music and put it on the internet that would be fine, but, if i was to perform an existing 'copyrighted' piece of music to such perfection that a court could not tell the difference between my performance and the original performance, than that would be restricted speech/expression, but, seeing as no speech/expression can be restricted if it is all free, i have the right to listen to anything regardless.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Why'd they remove that part from my submission?
Peer-2-Peer pressure perhaps?
-- The Hoss Man
I am in fact in a band represented by the RIAA (Of course this is slashdot, so I'd expect you to take that claim with a huge nugget of salt), and I have a number of friends who are also in bands represented by the RIAA. Here are my answers, and I am quite sure they represent the views of my friends.
* Do you credit the RIAA with enabling or assisting in your success
Hell yes. It takes money to get albums out, get proper marketing for the albums, etc. This money isn't put forward by the RIAA, as many comments in this forum would lead you to believe. But, the RIAA does it's best to protect these investments. If you put ALL of your time and money, pretty much your entire life, into something, then you'd have a great deal of respect, and you'd be willing to pay a bit more, for a body that is put in place to protect those investments. It's not greed to think that we should get back an amount that is somewhat representative of how many people are enjoying what we do. The more people listening to our music, the more compensation we should receive, if that's what we want. The RIAA is a business. A big business at that. And there are always people who will take stabs at big businesses. The people who are protected by these businesses sure as hell won't, unless they beleive that they'll truly look better in the eyes of the general public, and they have enough of a foothold in the industry that they won't be shunned.
* Do you feel that the RIAA protects your artistic rights effectively
No. But the reason why they don't is not because of their own failings, but because they are fighting a losing battle. There are more people spreading misinformation about how the whole music business works than there are people who are telling people the truth. Just look at the reaction Rosen's speech got here on slashdot. Even if the comments aren't representative of the readers' views, and only people who feel one way bother posting, it would still give someone who is not educated on the matter a rather distorted view of the truth, if they happened to read all of the comments and attribute some truth to them (enough people are saying the same thing, it must be right). Until people realize that there is no artist vs. recording company battle, and that most artists are only trying to appeal to the ignorant public when they take stabs at the industry. In fact, the music industry encourages it, because frankly it sells records. Look at how popular Jerry Springer is, the american public wants conflict. They want to see the little guys stick it to the man. Heck, look at the WWF. Everyone knows it's pretend, yet they eat it up. So when a band sides with Napster, it gains them popularity, and seeing as the RIAA takes a cut of their record sales, that band is in fact helping the RIAA and themselves. So it would seem that the intelligent artist would side with Napster, no? Anyways, I've gone way off topic. I don't beleive that the RIAA is defending protecting my work very effectively, but I don't know how they could do any better, as they're fighting a losing battle. Well, they still are in business, so the term losing may not be the best...
* If there was a competitor to the RIAA, would you: a) remain with RIAA, b) evaluate both then decide, or c) switch immediatly
Absurd question. Of course I'd evaluate both and then decide.
There ya go...hopefully it sheds some light on what us artists really do think about this whole debate. Of course I don't represent all artists, but I do know quite a few and they'd agree with what I've written.
Jordan
Um,,. no. The record label that produced the cd that you bought gets money. The record label then takes a portion of the the money that money and may or may not pay the artist a royalty depending on the artists contract.
Then they take another percentage of money and pay the publishing company(s) that is administering the rights to the songs on the album. There are a lot of weird deals that get worked out, but unless the publishing company and the record label are owned by the same company this basically works out to the statutory rate, which is 7.5 cents per song per cd. The publishing company takes a cut of this before passing it along to the writer of the song.
In actuality it's even more complicated, because most publishing companies and record labels use an intermediary (Harry Fox Agency) as a central place to send and collect payments from.
This is why the more successful artists who write their own songs eventually have enough pull to form their own publishing companies- they can demand the full statutory rate, rather than the reduced rate that they'll end up with if they let the record label/publishing company conglomerate call the shots.
After all this, each record company and publishing company sends the RIAA a check to cover operating funds. The RIAA doesn't really have a whole lot of money, and really isn't all that evil. They just act as the mouthpiece/deflector of anger for the individual publishing companies and record labels. Think of the RIAA as a sort of pathetic disciple, and the record and publishing companies as the archdukes of hell.
Are you saying artists should not be able to generate revenue from future album sales?
Who says you've got to be old. I'm an independent musician who'd like to make a living at recorded music, but with my wife and child am not necessarily interested in spending a whole lot of time touring.
If I spend 6 - 8 months writing and recording material shouldn't I have the right to sell the product I've created in the market place?
Listen to Reality!
For one main reason: it is not possible to correctly determine the worth of a musical work until those who might pay for it have had a chance to react to it. That's why artists get a percentage of their music sales rather than just a lump sum after their work is completed. I may discover a musical work tomorrow that I think is really nice sounding. The artist should get paid because *I* like it, not because he finished writing it.
You should also include inventors in your category of people who get paid over a long period of time.
You signed up for your 'gravy train' when you signed your employment contract. If you want a percentage of the profits from your work, renegotiate your contract. I wouldn't, if I were you. Works of engineering tend to become obsolete quickly, but art does not.
So instead of whining about it, the RIAA should play by the rules of capitalism and figure out a way to capitalize on it. The P2P networks are not defeatable in a meaningful way. They will always be ahead of the RIAA, which will hire squadrons of monkeys to track everybody's IP addresses and file complaints with ISPs until stealth P2P comes around, etc.etc.etc.
This is just stupid. Napster did the RIAA a HUGE service. They showed them where the market is. So open a god-damned for-subscription service where I can share music in the same way I did with Napster. I'd be willing to pay a subscription fee, say 10 dollars a month, plus say 25 to 50 cents per song I download in order to reward artists for making music I like. That's what it's worth to me, and I think a lot of others who like downloading and controlling the music they listen to would feel the same way. It's really no different from radio, except the money is coming from me instead of from advertisers and I have control rather than the station managers.
If you don't like this business model, come up with another one that's palatable. But don't try to sue us back to the Stone Age or to put the genie back in the bottle. He won't go back in. The internet isn't going away. Deal with it. Furthermore, though two wrongs don't make a right, the reality is that the second wrong here is not screwing anybody out of any money. CD sales have generally been up, and people will still buy CDs especially of lesser known artists to support them.
I'm sorry, but while in the abstract it may not be "right" for me to download lots of MP3s, it's not "right" for me to pay 15 dollars for a CD with one song I might or might not want, and it's not "right" that 30-40 cents of every CD goes to the artists who make the music, and as I said above, this is a capitalist world and a capitalist society, and if you aren't selling something, somebody else will come up with a way to provide it, and if they can provide it for free, people will take it. And if you try to use the legal system to suppress that, the technology will improve until it's unregulatable - these aren't physical goods, and they can't be thought of as such.
I think everyone has missed the point. Hardware and software that makes it possible (and easy) to illegally distribute copyrighted data is not a problem. The problem is that people (yes, us) use these networks and applications to distribute data illegally. Napster didn't do anything wrong. The people using the service did. They don't need to breach our freedom to stop this. They need to bring charges against the people who are breaking the law. It's not a difficult thing to find someone who is sharing files on a P2P network, especially if you can get search warrants for server rooms and things of that nature. Leave my rights (digital and otherwise) alone.
I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
Case in point: 2 years ago i had hardly heard of Bjork. Now i have all but 2 CDs. If it were not for napster/carracho/hotline/gnutella, i would be without this wonderful music! and I am not the exception.
Agreed.
Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt it illegal in the US to fix prices, collude to rig the market and agree to non-competiton pacts in a given market?
Isnt the very existance of the RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) practically evidence of law-breaking?
Its like gas stations calling one another and pushing the price up...
Basically, during the "negotiating" phase of a recording contract, the artist/band is taken out to a nice dinner complete with refreshing drinks. The label rep then scratches out on a napkin or small scrap of paper a tentative agreement to sign a contract. This agreement works out to "if we give you this, that, and the-other-thing - you, the artist/band, agree to sign the recording contract. The artist/band is then asked to sign the napkin/scrap paper and the rep will have those "evil lawyer types" write up the contract. All through this the rep is playing best buddy - who would never do anything against the artist/band's best interests.
Then the artist/band sobers up and receives the contract. They go to a lawyer (if at least a bit bright) and review it first. They find all sorts of ugly conditions in it, and tell the rep "no, can't do this". The rep "works" with them, changing a word here or there, but the essence of the contract terms remain unchanged (this is what you refer to as standardized among all labels). The artist/band says "sorry, I/we'll look elsewhere". The rep then pulls out that napkin/scrap paper and says "Sorry, you said if we gave you 'this', 'that', and 'the-other-thing', you'd sign with us. You didn't say we couldn't add conditions to them, just that you required them... and you signed a legally binding agreement.
The game goes around until the artist/band does one of two things. 1) Caves in and signs the deal. 2) Breaks up and doesn't pursue a contract with another label (essentially going out of business).
Most artists/bands at this point will opt for #1 and hope for the best. Often times, after the first record is completed and even if it does well, the artist/band will still break up and disappear once they realize how bad it really is. This is what generates all of those One-Hit-Wonders. They do a single record and file bankruptcy never again to record professionally.
So, you might say there's a bit of a gun held to their head. It's called a binding agreement even though it's just scribbling on a napkin.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
What I find funny is that what was said is almost a valid point and it may even be believable except that the RIAA has shown time and time again that all they care about is money. Just watch one VH1 "Behind the Music" and you're sure to see what the RIAA is all about. Almost every single one of the artists that the shows feature had to file for bankruptcy or was in serious financial trouble and had to consult attorneys to get them out of their slave contracts. All I can say is that despite the partial validity of the statement, it's still all a bunch of big business crap.
Unfortunately for your argument, not all publishers are members of the music industry cartel:
http://www.nitrorecords.com/
http://www.gashed.com/
http://www.metropolis-records.com/
http://www.fatwreck.com/
http://www.victoryrecords.com/
http://www.dependent.de/
Just to name a few of the bigger ones with more popular bands...there's literally thousands of smaller ones.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
at least nsync and britney spears fans won't be suckered into dvd-audio and sacd.
no no no. go back, re-read what i just said, and savor its wisdom.
Who's going to buy something that they can exactly copy with no consequences for exactly copying? Shall we rely on the moral fortitude of society
What you stated above is your particular conception of reality, but society is a consensual reality.
What you produce are just atoms. Atoms are the same as energy to the universe. You can NOT own them. They are just vibrations/waves, NOT . . . By extension of your logic I developed the later is it valid as well? Can we own anything?
Let's not confuse where you want us to be with where we are at. I actually own the copyright to my music by consenual decree of our society! (Assuming you live in the US) Consciousness is shifting but in this current space and time I do own them
Listen to Reality!
She continues to propergate the myth that most artists depend on copyright to earn their money. That is crap.
Here is a thought experiment. Think of all the artists that live in your local community and who earn their living through music. Initially most people this of artists like Brittany Spears, but she isn't local. The people on you list end up like this: the piano man at the local upscale restaurant, the music teachers who teach your kids at school, the city orchestra, the performers who play at weddings, the band at the school prom, the buskers in the city mall, the national anthem singer at the local football game. Now how many of those people depend or need copyright to earn their living? Unless you live in a big city the answer will be none. If you live in a big city you may have a band or two who has hit the big time - and then the answer will be a few percent.
If it is like that in your community it is going to be like that in most communities. Ergo most musicians don't give a rats about copyright. In fact most of them would make a better living - tyey would have to fork out less royalties if there were no copyright.
Perhaps you are having trouble believing this. Try the same argument with software. Most people on slashdot will know many more programmers than they know musicans. They may develop commercial packages, they may do in house work, they may write scripts to maintain networks or web pagesCopyright only effects those that develop commercial packages, who are a small percentage of the total. But how many of those people who develop software commercial packages actually depend on copyright to protect their income? Well I work for a firm that has developed several such packages. Like most such firms we developed a software package for a particular industry. The people in the industry know nothing about software or computers, so we don't just sell the software, we install and configure it, and then supply ongoing support. For the majority of our customers the software without this service would be useless. Ergo I and my fellow programmers don't need or depend on copyright.
Now there are of course programmers who work microsoft, borland, or some such company who this does not apply to - without copyright they would be out of a job. But you know what - I personally don't know any. In fact I can't think of a single software company in the state I live in that does depend on copyright. Its a small state - just 2-3M people. Within Australia there might be a couple of hundred programmers who do depend on copyright for their jobs. A couple of hundred out of 10's of thousands.
The argument based on the "poor struggling artist" is all hand waving and bullshit. Don't be sucked in.
You have to look at what she says in context with what the RIAA does. She says she wants to improve access to smaller artists. The RIAA has worked hard to make sure this never happens. But, let me be clear: they're all for access to smaller artists as long as they continue to be able to manufacture "#1" artists at will. They want to keep the cake they have while eating it.
She also says that the people writing such things as Gnutella don't understand that they have the choice to make money or not on software, but music is just "stolen" (infringed to the rest of us). Of course this ignores the decades of warez precident and the BCA's role. This is a totally hollow argument. We write software. We sell it. We get paid. Some poeple will never be willing to pay. We know. None of that means a damn when Microsoft starts alienating their own customers with tactics like the licensing of XP. Even good, faithful customers look for an out in another product. The RIAA has the same problem.
She comments that she's excited about the possibilities of P2P. Heh, even in the client-server model of digital music, the RIAA freaked out when artists started putting their own music up for download (members did, that is).
Bottom line: read my lips, music sharing will happen. Movie sharing will happen. People will continue to share what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be theirs. What the RIAA should be doing is coming up with a better way to take advantage of that momentum. Create a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door. The corollary to that is that if you just stand around yelling at the manufacturers of poor mousetraps, you eventually get ignored.
So in other words, record companies never have any intention of letting artists profit from record sales.
-- "" - Harpo Marx