Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Almost Down To Pre-Napster Revenues
...they don't have Napster to kick around anymore.
For yesterday's press release, the RIAA commissioned a survey by a research firm to prove that music-downloading is to blame, but all they tell us about it is that "23 percent of surveyed music consumers say they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free." No more details provided, no link to the survey's raw numbers. So what does this mean? I guess 77 percent are buying more music because they're downloading it for free?
To put the new sales figures in perspective, a look at the big picture will be helpful. Free music-trading software had been in serious trouble since mid-2000. Despite indications that music-trading was helping sell CDs, the labels forced Napster to implement a name-blocking scheme. We ran a story in March 2001 pointing out that its traffic had fallen by 60%.
Then SF Gate ran a nice story last August, pointing out that declining RIAA sales seemed to mirror Napster downloads:
"At this point last year, with Napster in full swing, record sales were up 8 percent from the previous year. This year, sales of new albums -- not including established catalog titles -- are down 8 percent. That's quite a pendulum swing."
Sure, other file-trading software has taken Napster's place, but at this point it's fun just to watch the industry limp around after shooting itself in the foot.
Not that it's really hurting money-wise. All this week's numbers mean is that the RIAA's total revenue has declined almost to 1998 levels. In 1998 they made $13.71 billion; after peaking in the mid-$14-billions, last year they made $13.74 billion.
This probably is due party to the crummy economy, partly to their failure to find any new sound to co-opt and mainstream recently, and partly to lack of big artists releasing megahits like they did in 1999. You know music officially sucks when the labels have to pay someone $28million not to sing.
Oh, and partly due to the RIAA raising CD prices by $1.16, which is $0.25 over and above inflation (which has been higher than wage growth lately anyway). CDs are 94% of their revenue. Most industries, faced with declining sales, try lowering their prices. Not this one.
I've got two pieces of advice for the RIAA.
The first is to stop pissing off your own artists so much that they blow off the Grammys and throw their own party just to stick it to you. The musicians and singers are the ones making you rich. I know you think they're all interchangeable, but if you alienate them enough, when a new technology gives them an edge, they'll drop you like yesterday's sound.
The second is to reread Robert Heinlein's very first story Life-Line:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
This is stupid...maybe the reduction in sales is due to paying $18 for a CD...because back when sales were up, it was $14.
It costs less to make a CD than a casette tape. So why do CDs and DVDs cost more than tapes? Because it's what 'they' think the market will bear... wankers.
I have to admit that for the first time I began to believe the music industry had a point about piracy when I saw a grey haired woman pushing 60 in the coffee shop talking to her friend about all the music she'd downloaded on the weekend using Kaaza.
Is the RIAA the only organization not blaming their trouble on the "slow economy?" Everyone needs their scapegoat.
SPAM
Plain and simple. People cut out the little extras when things go bad and CD's fall into that category. Plus most new music just friggin blows anyways. Really.
All the best,
--Bob
It's a hard truth for the recording industry to accept, but as a friend of mine said, "when you're into Napster, you're into music." I have to say I bought a few dozen CDs during the Napster era. I've purchased one since the downfall (and that was a gift). Here's hoping the artists get more joy out of the RIAA than ordinary users like us.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Go watch MTV or MTV2 for a while.
Tell me you instantly want to go out and buy the albums groups are hawking. The music is either pablum for the teen masses, a la Britney Spears, pseudo-intellectual neo-sensitive grunge like Creed, or mindless, repetitive breakbeats with woman singing, 'ooh, ooh baby' underneath it.
Not inspiring, is it? There's good music being made, but it's not being marketed. Maybe the RIAA hasn't got it through their inscrutable little heads that people don't want the same shit they've been given for decades! People want intelligent, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging music. Meanwhile, this crap is pushed on it, and frankly, I think the CD consumer is starting to wise up and decide it's just not worth the $15 to buy the CD.
Good job, RIAA. Keep it comin'. Meanwhile, I'll find my niche music in the corners of the Internet where you'll never find it hiding.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
If MPAA member companies are making less money it is probably because the CEOs are making more than ever - not verified, but they always seem to be making more money than the little guy that they fire when things get tough.
One thing that is interesting to notes is that food recipes are available all the time, but people still go to restaurants. Or, are we going to get restaurants blaming Napster next time people don't eat at them?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I was unemployed for 3 months. What was the biggest luxary I had spent money on? Seeing lord of the rings. Yes. That was my biggest luxary spending. Well, that and food.
With ~5.6% people unemployed, and cut backs of course... WHERE DO YOU THINK WE WILL GET THE MONEY TO BUY $18 CD'S!!
Thank God I'm into older stuff now. At least those are a little cheaper...
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
In the UK, CD sales are up Again. Are they going to tell us people don't use P2P systems in the UK now?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
I would like to re-itterate what was stated in the article: show me the numbers. I mean 23 percent just tossed out there is as it stands, an arbitrary number. So for instance I could claim that 98% of the record industry has their heads stuck in the sand. Or that 60% of the population afters listening to windows startup sound a hundred million times because they have to re-boot so often slowly begins to think (subliminal messages in the .wav file maybe?) that Microsoft is a good thing. Without numbers to back these up they are merely random stuff being pulled out of my butt.
And Again, welcome to corporate America, if I can find a way to make a bigger, faster, better buck then the people already making it, someday I will own the people already making it. Tough cookies about who was there first.
I used to download a lot of music, but I'd say in the last year, or even two I have hardly downloaded any music, or for that matter bought any CD's. I've lost all interest in most of the current artists. I haven't heard anything that really caught my interest in a couple of years. And in talking to my friends, and coworkers I'd say that I'm not alone in my feelings. Unless the RIAA finds a new sound, or a few people release some big albums their profits are just going to slip further.
So far this year: Rick Boucher asks the RIAA and IFPI to explain how their copy protection schemes work and raises the question if the copy protection is illegal under Audio Home Recording Act of 1996.
On January 9th, the RIAA lays off 16 employees, including Karen Allen, their "Internet Evangelist"
The Recording Artists Coalition announced fund raising concerts to take place the night before the Grammy's to raise money to fight the recording industry for fair contracts and accounting oversight. The concerts sell out.
The Department of Justice investigation into antitrust issues continues.
The EFF steps up to defend Morpheus as having substantial non-infringing uses.
The Supreme Court decides to hear the case of Eldred vs. Ashcroft (started out as Eldred vs. Reno) to determine if the retroactive Copyright Term Extension Act is constitutional.
The Second District Court of Appeals reinstates the Chambers vs. Warner Brothers Case saying the judge considered evidence he shouldn't have. (this is the watershed case for older artists)
Webcasting rates are set, most likely sending almost every webcaster offline, including non profit and college stations. Rates are retroactive to 1998. The webcasters have 30 days to pay after the rates are adopted.
Suncomm (Media Cloque) and Charley Pride's record label settle the consumer case brought by consumers over "protected CDs", agreeing to clearly label the CD as incompatible with DVD player, Computer CD Players and portable CD players.
Napster Judge Marilyn Hall Patel hands the RIAA a stunning defeat in a surprising turn around, by allowing Napster to do discovery on the copyrights the RIAA says they own, appoints a "Special Master" and gives the RIAA three weeks to prove they own the copyrights and that they are in fact "work for hire". (which the Recording Artists Coalition says they aren't) She also allows discovery on possible misuse of those copyrights to stifle competition to MusicNet and PressPlay.
Filesharing is at an all time high.
The RIAA releases figures showing that CD shipments are down 10.3%, but sales are only down 2.3 % in dollars.
Five songwriters file suit in LA District Court over record club sales and lack of accounting oversight.
California Senator Kevin Murray plans to introduce a bill this year to penalize record labels that purposely underpay royalties, this is in addition to the bill on the 7 year contract limitation. THE EFF and 4 law school clinics launch chillingeffects.org to educate internet users to their rights online.
RIAA forms the California Music Coalition to fight against artists rights. Organizing support from people who are subject to the 7 year contract limitation in CA., the same rights the artists want.
The RIAA continues to harp on declining profits and the disasterous effects of Napster and other P2P sites because their agenda, I think, from day one has been to get some sort of legislation that gives them the power of a Federal agency, while maintaining their for-profit status.
It may sound strange or conspiracy minded, but look at the way most of their press releases are written. Their releases make liberal use of the words, such as "piracy" and "illegal."
The RIAA is not just looking for the courts to shut down any site that they deem a danger to their continued profitability. They are looking for the government to give them to the power to do something about it themselves.
Go *around* the RIAA quintopoly. Scott McCloud's cartoons "I Can't Stop Thinking" five and six have some ideas (which for some reason REALLY anger some folks). I have worked for tips before, it's not always the best living, but it pays the rent and tips of a reasonable size are a lot more palatable than overpriced CDs to consumers, and a lot better than nothing for musicians.
Anyway, lots of technology exists that could easily stop the bottleneck that limits feedback between consumers & the music business. I know, because I sell (some of) it for a living...
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
maybe download coresponds positivly to album sales?
maybe more people are using gnutella/morpheous (the hard core thieves are anyway probably not the most average consumer. everyone i knew who downloaded music during the napster days is still downloading via other methods. hell, lots of people d/l'd tons of music pre-napster on usenet.
maybe having a $13.74B revenue stream gives the RIAA a little money to pay teams of lawyers to do some creative shit to get them publicity and keep the business alive
or maybe, mariah carey isn't really worth $28M. an over 30 wacked out singer like her should be at most a club singer.
Thank God for NPR.
Best Slashdot Co
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I know that I'm not buying much music these days because I'm so busy duplicating DVDs left and right. Well, that and exporting strong encryption :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
You can open Napster back up! Let us all rejoice!
The programs for filesharing that are being used right now are alright, but none are like Napster
Bzzt. Guess what? You're wrong. That does not follow.
Compare to this example: "23 percent of surveyed high school students say they are not smoking more crack because they are getting crack for free." From that statement, you can NOT say that 77 percent of high school students are smoking more crack. The other 77 percent may not be smoking any crack at all, or they simply refused answering the question.
85% of statistics are made up. :)
Let's see you keep raising prices even though costs of production are declining (particularly the switch from LPs to CDs years ago) even when everyone knows what the real cost of raw materails is. You cheat all of the artists on royalty payments. You try to stop or price out of existence every streaming radio station. YOu insist upon a tax on all blank recordable media in Europe, and try the same in the US. Shutdown Napster and half-heartedly have some of your members set up bad "replacements". Effectively kill the singles market, insisting that everyone buy full albums from one-hit wonders.
And, then you are shocked and apalled that everyone is sharing Digital copies?
--- Ron
all this blather about pirates, ?hackers? etc... i think columbus was called evile names too. with broadband/p2p/anonymous web tech., there's not much that megasloth can do to stop file sharing. I'd agree that the artists hold the cards, & should get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. CDs should be around 3 bucks, if mr sloth whaanted to compete. after some time, most artists will have their OWN method of distributing thier OWN music. so IT goes. fud is almost dead/in prison for theft.
Total reduction in sales: 10.3%
Percentage of consumers not buying CDs: 23%
Are:
a) these figures screwy
b) the majority of consumers buying more CDs
c) my brain cells finally giving up and making me type nonsense?
Congress passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which, among other things, deregulated the airwaves. That put control of a majority of the big-market radio stations in the hands of a small number of companies. DJs are no longer DJs, they're "radio personalities". Playlists come from corporate and they're narrower than ever. As a result, the music that gets played is homogenous in the extreme. Oh, by the way, one company in that mix controls the majority of concert promotions too (Clear Channel Communications).
So why are CD sales off? Maybe because music that's on the radio is so weak and generic. Because the bands that get promoted are done so from on high in a corporate boardroom. The record companies have always managed things from above, but before the great airwave merger-fest started in 1996, they still had to work with local DJs and concert promoters and that invariably meant more variety. Now they all work in a harmonious corporate union and the result is music that more or less sucks.
They want a scapegoat? They need to look at this slick machine they've created.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
second hand CDs. I get most of my music from a local branch of CD Warehouse (A cutting edge site - their Y2K testing report is on the front page!) for between $8 - $10. My local and other stores like it are always busy, and not a penny goes to the RIAA! It's a damned outrage!
I download loads of music but only songs that I already have on vinyl records.
(or also GPL'ed music)
I spent a lot of money on these records years ago so I don't accept being called a pirate.
Am I wrong ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
...are the artists. The record companies deserve to lose out after the way prices have been hiked in the interests of profit, but the artists really are the victims here. Perhaps someone should set up a system where the artist is payed directly when their song is downloaded.
Hey, i'm looking for a job, and oh man, i just can't wait to have that new MMM bopper boy band CD. that's just my focus on life right now! oh wait, maybe i should try to feed the kids and keep the mortgage and pay insurance and...
Back when I was in college in my 20's I bought a lot of CD's. Now I'm in my 30's and I don't buy near as many CD'sas I did when I was in my 20's. There was, however, a brief increase in my CD buying when Napster was around. I hate all of our local radio stations so I'd look at the playlists of websites that played music I did like. I couldn't hear the music though. With Napster, I had the ability to preview the songs which usually then meant going on to Amazon.com and buying the CD's. Now, for one reason or another, Napster is gone and I just don't buy CD's anymore. I know I could use Limewire or some other sharing program but I don't. I can say for a fact that Napster caused me to buy more CD's. My friends have similar testimonies.
The short and the simple of it is this. I am loath to buying something that I haven't tried out before. I wouldn't buy a TV without having a demo in the shop, or even buy a pair of jeans without trying them on.
The same goes with music. I am a huge music fan and have over 200 legitimate CD's. I also have a substantial MP3 collection ( around 1200 tunes ). The fact of the matter is that most of the mp3's I have - I also have a CD by the same artist. I want to listen to a few songs by the artist before purchasing a CD. Now while some of the larger stores have listening posts, these can only accommodate a few of the newest and most popular releases. The same goes with radio and TV. Only the most popular artists get featured regularly, which inevitably means a non-descript flow of commercial faff.
With Napster or other d/l apps I could listen to artists I would never even have thought about listening to before, and if I like what I hear, I can then fork out for the CD. Besides, you still can't top CD for high quality sound when played through a decent HiFi.
As a true music fan I welcome the breadth and scope that has been given to us by Napster et al.
If the trees are in the west
why does the same cd cost 13$ in the us of a, 18$ in belgium, and (not kidding) 30$ in the uk? ...
Well, maybe the RIAA just needs to take a look at the movie studios for a clue (not that the MPAA doesn't have their own digiphobia, but that's another rant.) I see no slow down of people eating up $20 DVD's, so obviously the $20 price point is not an issue with most folks even with a recession. But, here's my brief comparison between your average current CD and say Star Wars: Episode I on DVD:
CD: 1 disc, 2-channel stereo, maybe 2 good tracks out of 12 for $18
DVD: 2 discs, 6.1 channel, maybe 45 good minutes of movie out of 100, with tons of extras for $20
Advantage: DVD
CD: Simple jewel case with insert
DVD: Simple keepcase with insert
Advantage: Tie
CD: Well, that's about all there is!
DVD: Dolby Digital 6.1 EX, commentary tracks, English/Spanish languages, subtitles, deleted scenes documentary, 1-hour "making of" documentary, storyboard segments, 5 featurettes, web documentary series, "Duel of the Fates" music video, photo gallery, theatrical posters and print media, theatrical teasers and trailers, 7 television trailer ads, etc.
Advantage: What, are you blind!?!?
Sure there are stinkers on DVD too, but the ratio is a heck of alot better than CD. For now (at least) the movie studios are actually delivering value for $20, which is why the industry is seeing a movie buying binge unlike any in past history. This formula seems to always be successful: good product at a good price = good value = strong sales.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This might seem offtopic but this reminds me very much of Polaroid. They fought battle royal against Kodak to protect their "Intellectual Property" They kept protecting it until they pretty much went down the drain, as technology rendered them obsolete.
I know for a fact that I have purchased fewer CD's as a DIRECT RESULT of the death of Napster and the crippling of Audio Galaxy. The RIAA has ignored (or not bothered to find out) how an online "Listening station" affects buying habits. Say I search for an Anders Osborn tune and, in the process, find that others who searched for A.O. also liked, _________ (list of scruffy New Orleans blues artists). I check out some of those names and the next time I am in a CD shop I've got a whole catalog of artists and potential purchases in my head THAT WERE NOT THERE BEFORE.
Not everyone takes the time to burn entire CD's. In fact, when giving gifts, sometimes it's a little more appropriate to wrap up a commercially produced CD rather than "Something I burned for $.35." You see the difference?
And how many of you are going to go search for Anders Osborn right now, just because of this casual mention of his name? Yeah, I though so. You won't be disappointed.
The RIAA knows none of this.
-GrampaJoe
============
sigs are not for old farts like me.
For everyone complaining about the current crappy state of music (and I happen to agree with you completely), you have got to check out:
Bloodshot Records
I have not seen another record label with anywhere near as many great artists all recording under one roof. Alejandro Escovedo, Whiskeytown, Ryan Adams, the Old 97's (actually, they've moved on now), Split Lip Rayfield, the list goes on and on.... If you haven't heard of these bands, you are missing out! And I think their CD's are fairly cheap if you order direct. Go there and learn where the innovation is at.
over the past 10 years (roughly the length of time i have had the resources to purchase ANYTHING, but in this case, specifically, music CDs), i have purchased approximately 250 music CDs. the vast majority of these were through a music club while i was between the ages of 14 and 17. at 24, i now refuse to purchase any music CD from any major label, period. as a matter of fact, i download as many Metallica songs as i can off the internet, even though i do not particularly care for their music. the only music CDs i purchase anymore are from independent labels, which are, sadly, declining (with a few exceptions).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lars, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Musicians should celebrate this, not fight it. They should see this as a opportunity to market directly to fans, and cut out the blood-sucking leaches in the middle once and for all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They already tried whined about that in the early '90s. The courts ruled that it would violate the first sale doctrine.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
It's one thing to see it as a commodity, but they've gone far beyond that into despising music and musicians. People will fork over great sums for a real work of art that connects with the audience. No amount of corporate manufacturing like pop stars or O town is going to start a massive global music movement. Lame bubble gum CD's are just that. Sure the singers are cute, but underneath is a rotten can of maggots. Get over it RIAA, it's getting harder and harder to make a buck at pre-packaged pop. At some point, there will be a huge revolt and people will find other ways to experience art. There's still plenty of time to turn things around for the music industry, I just hope they realize it's in everyone's best interest to allow art to flow freely. That doesn't necessarily mean free as in beer, but free as in one's ability to access it be it bootleg, tape, cd or mp3.
Could it be that Napster & co made people discover new music to buy?
I buy twice as many CD's today as I did before I discovered Internet-based music sharing.
Make less crap.
I'm not going to buy an $18 dollar CD dammit. I'll buy two $12 dollar ones though. Make less crap, drop the cost of the CD, and I'll buy more. As a finger to the man, I'll just use etree for now (though the RIAA get kickbacks for CD-R sales so I lose either way). I've bought all the CD's of the artists I want to buy for now. Nothing appealing has come out lately.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
The RIAA isn't concerned with revenue outlook in the short term. The reason they fear and bully services such as Napster is because they don't want to lose control of distribution. Distribution is the key.
If every artist was able to distribute thier own works, there wouldn't be any need for bloated, crooked companies such as those that the RIAA is composed of. Obviously, the RIAA would gladly sacrifice short term revenue to maintain this control.
-B
The mass market of consumers owns a CD player and likely has one in their car. The mass market consumers do not own MP3 players that they use over their home stereo or in their car or even as a portable device for that matter. So despite the large number of "casual" Internet users that became proficient at downloading a few MP3s via a file sharing service (re: Napster), most people still bought CDs.
I think what the RIAA is missing here is that the people who really download lots and lots of MP3s are never going to spend the money to buy this music in the first place. Case and point: I really wanted Tenacious D's album so I bought the CD. A good friend of mine kinda likes Tenacious D, but not enough to buy the album, so he downloaded the MP3s he likes. Since he never would have bought the CD in the first place, you can't really count him as lost revenue. He would have never bought the CD.
It would be interesting to me to find out how many people who used Napster (and still use Morpheus, et al) that never intended to buy the CDs in the first place. Removing them from the equation would provide a more accurate look at what the RIAA lost/gained.
My sigs always suck.
In the UK, it is not uncommon to find some newer CDs retailing in record shops for up to 17GBP (24USD).
Since the average wage in the UK is approximately 18000GBP (25500USD) per annum, the average worker has to work two hours to be able to afford an album.
At this rate, not many people can afford to buy a CD unless they know they're going to like it. P2P services allow people to listen to music before they buy it, to ensure that what they're buying is to their taste.
Perhaps if CDs didn't cost so much, people would make more impulse purchases of popular music, rather than relying on Napster and it's relatives.
The number of CD's I purchased without a doubt went up when I was downloading tracks from Napster. The number of CD's I've purchased since has definetly dropped!
These people really have no idea how to run a company do they?
Cute!
Clever, but not very intelligent.
Paul
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate
The decline in album sales has nothing to do with online file trading. The reason sales are down is because the record companies are releasing nothing but rehashed shit lately. I don't even bother turning on the radio anymore since all they play is recycled, teen-scream garbage.
You'd think.
Yeah it's a slow economy, CD prices are too high, but who else is tired of listening to cookie cutter "bands" of every shape and size. We've got boy groups, girl groups, angry rap groups, angry teenagers, angry old guys, "serious artists", and the plague of all plagues, Yoko Ono, but mostly we've got spoiled celebrities with more money than talent producing CD's that maybe, just maybe might have 1 decent song on it. All this so they can get together at least once a month at an "awards show" and tell eash other how wonderful they are and remind the rest of us poor saps how stupid, pitiful, and wrong we are because I don't want to give up more of my paycheck to the government to support some "program" they think is the scourge of the planet. This concludes our rant for today.
Yes it costs less to make a CD than a cassette, but that does not mean that the CD should be cheaper to the end user. Given a choice between a cassette and CD, if you have both a cassette player and a CD player, almost everyone will choose the CD. And since this is the case, there is more inherent value in a CD, so in a free market, the CD will cost more.
But, why would you choose a CD over a cassette? A cassette tape will stretch each time it is played - and rewound. Although you might not initially notice it, after 20, 30 or perhaps 40 times you listen to it, the tape will slightly stretch, and its ability to accurately reproduce the fidelity of the original recording goes down. As for a CD, play it all you want - its quality does not change. Because of the properties of the two different media, the CD has more value. And as in all things in a free market, if it has more value, you will pay more for it.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Many could argue about the songs quality, but there's always a few CDs you should like to buy.
As a consumer I refuse to being cheated. CDs and DVDs are clearly overpriced, considering their demand and production custs.
As an example, 3 years ago, when I went to London I bougth 6 or 7 music CDs. They weren't already cheap, and I only bougth the ones in sales.
Last year, I also went to London. I didn't buy a thing. What's enough is enough.
The DVD situation is also a shame. They look more a thief ring, than a distribution chain.
Funnily enough, european FNAC chain is "smugling" zone 1 CDs and selling them from 3 to 6 times their real value...
This probably is due party to the crummy economy, partly to their failure to find any new sound to co-opt and mainstream recently, and partly to lack of big artists releasing megahits like they did in 1999. You know music officially sucks when the labels have to pay someone $28 million not to sing.
Oh, and partly due to the RIAA raising CD prices by $1.16, which is $0.25 over and above inflation (which has been higher than wage growth lately anyway). CDs are 94% of their revenue. Most industries, faced with declining sales, try lowering their prices. Not this one.
Perhaps it's due to the reason the RIAA is citing - because we download the music instead of buying it!! You can criticize the RIAA for their capitalistic tendencies, but let's at least be honest about the problem.
--or maybe your modem/cable/DSL/NIC. Damn DMCA...
The RIAA has to do something even if it is the wrong thing because if the courts ever accept the claim that people freely violated the copyright on a recording and that RIAA or the artist knew about it and did nothing, the recording goes into the public domain with no copyrights.
If that happens even once, the RIAA will get dropped like a fresh turd by everyone in the industry. (It's really an old crusty turd)
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
When it comes to selling "data", unlike say selling cars, there is X cost to make the prototype and about 0.002 cents for duplication (which can be zero if you put it on napster -- supposing ideal case where customers download it from napster and then send monay).
Now why a CD with data costs so much?
The CD price is about 100 times greater than the duplication price. In the case of data, they can only estimate: we sell about "x" CDs at price "p", and we want x*p to cover the prototype costs AND maybe have something left to spend on "investments".
I dunno. This economic shit is too complicated for me.
If I liked it, I would usually go and buy it just to have a nice hard copy of it, even better if it has lyrics and band pics etc. Everyone I know with the money to spare would do the same.
Now that I can never find music anymore, I simply don't buy CDs anymore. I haven't bought a CD in months, and the last one I bought was a Christmas present for my fiancee.
Someone please tell me, just how the fuck am I supposed to find music when I have no interest int he type of music that gets radio play? Even if I was interested in that type of music, most stations play the same 20 songs 10 times every day, for months and months at a time.
Abso-fucking-lutely ri-fucking-diculous!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It SEEMS to me all the groups/singers that I see being pushed by the recording companies are the Britney Sprears/ NSync types or the far out ones like Marylin Manson. Most of your average people get tired of Spears/NSync and greatly dislike the Manson types. No wonder people are buying CDs as much. They should start pushing what people want, not force us into their tastes.
An editorial by someone other than Katz....i.e. it's readable and enjoyable.
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Good luck getting me to buy a CD. I would rather pay for a streaming service that has that variety anyday.
Random Musings
...why does a DVD cost the same price as the Audio CD if the
DVD obviously cost more to make? The difference is the RIAA
royalty premium.
As much as people may want to believe this, there's a pretty obvious flaw with the argument that file swapping = CD sales - namely, that even though Napster is shut down, new file swapping services are bigger than Napster ever was.
intelligent, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging music??
Seriously, who cares if the RIAA is making more or less money as a result of Napster? I would actually prefer that they make less money...
Either way, they are going to be raising CD prices and chasing down the file sharing services. They are scared, and they want to remain in control.
For context, I have over 300 CDs... most are from independent labels. (I've recorded a *ton* of music myself; over 15 albums and a thousand songs...)
I like to think that I am listening to music made by people who do it because they love music, not because they want to make money. In fact, I typically think that artists shouldn't be selling CDs at all. It seems to me that if they want people to hear their music, they should make it as widely available as possible! To me, that means putting it on the internet, or at least giving a license for others to do so for you. (An exception is these low-run CDs that people sell at their shows, which typically cost only about $5 to $10; this is often more convenient for the purchaser than trying to find obscure songs on the internet.)
Some people will say stuff like, "artists deserve to be paid!". I say, artists deserve to be paid for live performance, or for commissions, but nobody deserves to be paid for duplication (essentially free) of a recording that already exists. Furthermore, if music is primarily a *job* for an artist, then his work is more craft than art, and I say that's a good reason not to care about it as much. (Do you think of yourself as a consumer or a fan? Do you purchase products or appreciate their beauty?)
So my solution is to buy music when it's most convenient (rarely), to download lots of free music by amateurs at mp3.com and other places, and to make my own free music. If every music lover did this, boy, would the world be a better place!
Living in a RIAA-free world is good; it feels moral (even if it is not always legal), and it pisses the right people off.
"Webcasting rates are set, most likely sending almost every webcaster offline, including non profit and college stations. Rates are retroactive to 1998. The webcasters have 30 days to pay after the rates are adopted."
When the hell was this done, and by whom? Last I checked, you could get the Quicktime streaming server for free, and then it was just a question of bandwidth...
BlackGriffen
i get a kick out of people blaming 9/11 for the economy. as if what happened to those 4 planes has turned people away from buying stuff (other than airline tickets, of course).
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
See BBC Article here.
I wouldn't blame piracy myself, but as prices go up, quality generally seems to go down with music. That's why I buy used CDs now.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
...MBAs are blamed for just sticking with their management theories and trying to apply them to the market.
/. (old enough that is) was witness to the decline of 5.25 inch disk drive sales when 3.5 came along. At first 3.5 drives were slower and had less capacity but eventually destroyed the market for 5.25 drives. The new technology disrupted the market for the old one. We are witnessing the same thing here as well. In the long run, with broadband connection available in your car, who will need CDs? Just create a playlist and stream the stuff legitimately from the publishers, the artists or (not so legitimately) some P2P network.
The RIAA (and the MPAA) are doing anything but applying these theories and blame a technology (hello?!) and their customers (anybody home?!) for decreasing sales.
There are a number of management theories which prove that these people are so badly wrong, it's just amazing. For example:
1. Clayton Christensen's theory about Disruptive Technologies. Everybody here on
Failure to acknowledge this will lead to the organisation's death sooner (hope, hope) or later.
2. Marketing theory states (not in these words, but it's valid anyway), that you shouldn't piss off your customers. Give them a product that they want for a reasonable price that plays on the equipment they purchased to listen to the products they legitimately obtained. Hell, this is not even marketing theory, this is common sense.
3. Do not raise prices in an economic downturn (This is lame I know, but economics class was boring).
The way I see it, artists have to make the next step and leave those Mafia type organisations as soon as possible and embrace the freedom and chances new technologies provide them with. Live performances can pay pretty well if the artists focus on the music, scrapping ridiculous show effects (on stage explosions, overkill light effects, etc.) and charge a reasonable entrance fee. They might not become millionaires with there first recording, but a decent living should be possible. It is for many jazz musicians who are hackers in the original sense of the word. There record sales often barely pay for the recording studio, while most of their revenue is generated at the door of a club.
And I guess there will still be room and a market for Barbie and Ken type bands nevertheless.
It is furthermore about time to do something against the incredible power over legislation that the recording companies are exercising. As it stands now, we can't really rely on our governments to do that for us. So kick them where it hurts, in the wallet (I should probably work on my metaphors).
Just my 2 Eurocents
I feel so sig.
I think the fact that your comment got modded as funny indicates what most people think of vinyl today. I have heard many purists advocate it's "warm analog sound", but if I can't play it in my car or take it to a friend's house, then what's the point?
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
I have been downloading mp3's back when it was all ftp's and in the back allys of the net. And so have a lot of my friends and we all agree that when we are downloading mp3's we seam to buy more cd's. And make things worse I like imports, meaning double the price so we are talking 30 - 50$ canadian for the stough I buy. But for about 3 or 4 months I have not realy been downloading, and neather have my friens. Manily because we where all in co op jobs so little to no time. Byt when we got back in school and they gave us back the laptops (sheridanc makes us lease laptops) we all start downloading mp3's again. And hay wate we find our selves visiting the local cd store looking for more cd's with a artist of a specific sone we enjoy.
So this is 4 people all experencing the same thing when it comes to CD's. When we download mp3's we buy more cd's.
To me its very simple, getting mp3's makes you hear more music, and if you realy like a artist, you will want more of that artists music. And you want to hear it in the car and other places. You can make cd's but the sterio system sI use are clear enough that I can tell the diffrence between a real CD and one I made. So I will buy it. Its just that simple
my motivation for not buying CDs is the tyrannical RIAA and it's bullying tatics. i shall be damned if i'm ever going to buy another CD from any artist or record company that has even the slightest affiliation with RIAA. they get nothing from me but spite.
...CD's didn't scratch? At least a $20 bill still works when you drop it as you get out of your car!
I am appalled by the "free music" scene. However, I am on an independent label (with a decent contract mind you) and managed to make 197K this past year alone on internet sales.
My point?
No one knows yet what exactly works in the online sales model in terms of samples, distribution, word of mouth promotion, etc. RIAA is sticking it to consumers and artists, trying to protect their own bottom line and the bottom lines of the parties they represent. They are propping up through hook and crook the old business model of music distribution, even in the face of the fact that online distribution accounts for nearly 25% of all music sales and over half of the revenue in promotion.
Worse still, to cover their own costs in battling Napster and it's follow ons, as well as lobbying here in the US and abroad, they have RAISED prices even though current economic theory would tell them to lower prices in light of recent world wide economic shortfalls and setbacks.
I am indeed appalled by the free loaders who never purchase music when they have a broadband connection and a CD Burner at home so they can basically bootleg their own CDs. I understand the temptations of it all, especially for those with little disposable income; I could say that RIAA is responsible for its current popularity thanks to the spotlight they put on the technology and services like napster... they shot themselves in the foot in a way, and now consumers pay for it through higher CD prices.
I will say that I doubt that everyone on Napster, for instance, was a free loader. I strongly believe that many (if not most) people using Napster or similar services are getting exposed to new artists or using the service to, in part, help make up their purchasing minds about what to buy and not buy. While CDR/W drives are widely available, many still do not have them or use them; Napster gave them some music on their PC's and sort of made up their minds about where and who to spend their music dollars on.
I personally have benefited greatly from trading services, since my primary sales channel is online through my companies web site and associated distributors. Well over 70% of my sales are done via electronic means, and of that over 45% involve no tangible exchange of material goods (a physical CD shipped to the customer... they download it and do with it as they please).
I think it all boils down to a intrastient music industry, with front man RIAA, being stuck in their old profitable ways and fighting technology. We have seen this before with Hollywood attacking VCRs (and now HDTV and DVD players too). Eventually they adopted a working economic model that profited them wildly, and hopefully so will the Music Industry soon. RIAA is an evil contrivance of profit and greed and fear, fronted and paid for by the major music companies and ultimately you, the CD buying public.
On a side note:
CD replication and production is not the only cost element to mainstream music. You have artist costs, musician and musical equipment costs, studio and staff costs, production and re-mix costs, mastering costs, marketing and market survey, promotion. However, a successful (selling over 50K copies) CD by an artist costs the average music company a bit less than $8.00US to create; everything else is profit. Of that profit many artist get less than a dollar per copy, and most less than 50 cents per copy (and that is before paying their personal staff and manager). Pretty sick, isn't it (especially since most material is profitable to the record company over decades or longer due to current law).
so your greatest bestest .NET doesn't understand ASCI?
Good. Fuck 'em. Better yet, kick 'em when they're down.
Has anyone noted that the major labels' online music distro schemes do NOT pay the artists a DAMN THING? (I KNOW you slashdotterz have, this is a RHETORICAL question).
So once again I say, FUCK 'em.
Thanks.
Intelligent, thought-provoking, emotionally engaging...
Discipline Global Mobile
I guarantee you that anything that comes from there is all three of those things.
People are precisely right on CD costs. Whenever you look at a breakdown of the costs on a CD, companies throw in all these extra costs, like marketing/promotion, record company cut, and artists cut....
Here's how the marketing budget is being wasted: 1) On an average of at least once a week, the music shop where I work receives an OVERNIGHTED package of promo materials for us to put up in our store... usually consisting of 1 poster, and usually of someone mostly obscure, or of someone who would not move in sufficient quantity for us to warrant putting up a poster 2) We received probably 3-7 promotional packages a day containing posters, promo flats, giveaway CD samplers, value-adds and other things that cost the store $0, but instead come out of the marketing budget 3) Additionally, we also receive promos of a lot of things that usually go into a nice box to never be heard, or sold to another store for their used stock. All of these materials contribute to your higher CD costs, but you don't even like these bands.
Another question that's been on my mind for a while is: Well, once the CD has gone out of its initial print run, why don't prices drop because they don't need to promote it anymore, it's part of the back-catalog then? Well, not really... manufacturers are more keen on cutting-out and dropping from the catalog older releases by an artist rather than moving them to mid-price.
And one more thing: There are great artists out there on nice independent labels that know how to manage their money and don't squander it on useless promotion nor to line the executive's pockets. Case in point: The White Stripes, on Detroit's Sympathy for the Record Industry label... Releases ~$13, excellent rock reminiscent of early Zeppelin... Hell, there are a whole litany of these artists featured in Coalition of Independent Music Stores stores... find your local store at www.cimsmusic.com
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
Alright, a simple solution artists should be doing right now (popular ones atleast) Why not (unless you're in a contract) release your CD online 1st. You can do 1 of 2 things. Say you're really popular like metallica or something, then you can open metallica.com, and charge millions of dollars for the ads (like the superbowl) and release your entire album online. No money goes to the RIAA. Either that, or put your CD online, and charge the users to download it. Anyway you go, your files will end up in P2P programs like audiogalaxy, etc. but aren't they already? Maybe after a month of allowing users to download the entire CD from your website for free, release a CD. You could also put a commercial in the beginning of your mpg/ogg file (do average users know how to edit these out?) and charge companies like CDnow.com a huge fee to put their ad in the beginning of the track. People wouldn't feel bad about d/ling the files then, because it would be legal, and the artists get paid.
Everyone needs to decide this on their own, I think. How can I know what you'll like?
I think that above all other traits, though, these days I want my music to be honest. (Made by people not trying to do what they think their boss wants, but what *they* want.) I found that mp3.com is good for finding music like that.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If napster lives, "the people" will choose the stars, not the recording industry. The RIAA knows and is not comfortable about this.
Now artists will be able to command MORE money.
Today, I watch RAP on TV and hear it on the radio and realize they are forcing complete garbage on me. 95% of RAP is total trash. Yet they still sell this trash because they force it down your throat.
This is what the RIAA wants.
1. they go find a no name artist.
2. Sign him/her to an abusive contract that he/she will agree to out of desperation or necessity.
3. He/she drops a hit record and the RIAA takes all the profits (see 2).
4. By the time he gets name recognition and can sign a quality contract, the RIAA wants him to be washed up so they can push their NEW no name artists.
So its not about CD sales at all. Its about power. Its just like any other industry. If you can flood the market with artists, their salaries will drop. But napster will allow us to filter to the songs and artists we like, and IGNORE the trash we dont, sending salaries for those artists who remain right back up.
Leaving the price-hikes and the crap music arguments aside... People are also buying less cassettes (which also happen to be cheaper than CDs) as they fade into obscurity, hence the unit number drop. LP numbers stay the same though. Therefore it must mean that people are illegally recording entire music collections onto tape, rather than buying it! Scoundrels...
Music videos have been available free on the net for years, and naturally, this piracy fiasco surrounding DVDs means that numbers have plumme- What?? People are actually buying a new format? Quick put all the prices up before they start to pirate them, too! We'll criminalize our paying consumers before they know what's hit them!
Has anyone else noticed that its IMPOSSIBLE to find new music at reasonable prices these days? I have a real problem with the fact that I can get any DVD I want for around 10 bucks shipped but can't seem to locate a copy of a newly released CD for less than 12-13 shipped. The music industry is a joke. I was buying tons of music back when I was active in the MP3 community but with all this RIAA, price fixing and copy protection bullshit it has all just left a bad taste in my mouth.
This doctrine applies to trademarks, not copyrights.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The cost of a product to YOU is determined by what people are willing to pay, NOT how much it costs the manufacturer to make.
People are willing to pay more for a CD than a casette. They should be. It provides more value to them. It sounds better & lasts longer.
Wish I didn't have to post this anonymously 'cause I can back this up, but people might get in trouble...
I actually know pretty well an investigator for the RIAA. His focus happens to be commercial piracy. You know the oversees manufacturers that most of us can understand wanting to go after. However, as an employee of the RIAA he's been an extremely interesting source of information for me through this whole debacle.
Most recently this friend filled me in on the current budgetary crisis taking hold within RIAA. According to him projects are getting shutdown left and right and they've literaly been running on zero budget for the past quarter. All fiscal year funds were spend at the end of Q3 (which as I understood ended in Dec. '01). The reason is apparently that they blew their wad on the Napster fight and the actual (the people who make the product) recording industry is losing interest. The labels aren't willing to cough up more dough for the lawyers.
The situation is so bad that when I mentioned Morpheus et al. to this guy he predicted that RIAA would reach a closed agreement of some kind that would make it look as if action was taken but in reality simply premitted them to back away without a court battle which they can't afford to fight. He doesn't think they can afford to pursue matter. In addition to the project cuts they've had layoffs for the first time in the 5+ years he's been there.
The RIAA is hurt. Now's the time for someone to go on the offensive against them. I'm really hoping a case presents itself that the "good guys" can get behind and take right to RIAA. IF my source is at all correct, they will have to back down.
Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.
I know, it's not what Napster types want to hear, too bad.
and you wonder why we feel like ripping them off
Star spangled idiots can keep their hands out of my kid's piggy bank.
To quote Colonel Kurtz
I watched a snail crawl along the edge of a straight razor. That's my dream. That's my nightmare. Crawling, swiftly, along the edge of a straight... razor... and surviving.
"It's impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face, and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not, then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies."
"I've seen the horrors, horrors that you've seen. But you have no right to call me a murderer. You have a right to kill me, you have a right to do that, but you have no right to judge me."
"Then I realized they were stronger than we. They have the strength, the strength to do that. If I had 10 divisions of those men, then our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling, without passion, without judgment."
"We must kill them. We must incinerate them. Pig after pig. Cow after cow. Village after village. Army after army."
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I can't speak for anyone else, but I e-mailed the RIAA and most of the major labels saying that if they continued their course with Napster, that I'd stop buying CDs. Haven't bought a single one since. I used to download songs off Napster and if I liked the song, I'd buy the CD for my car. Now I just download the songs I like and cut my own CDs. The RIAA shot themselves in the foot as far as I'm concerned.
I'm more than happy to buy from indie labels, but I won't buy a CD from a major label anytime in the forseeable future.
There was a time when I didn't like any music, (I was overexposed to most of it and consequently couldn't stand any of it!), but along came Napster, and I started hearing some of the stuff I'd been missing out on (Smash Mouth, "Walking on the Sun"). This caused me to buy my first CD in many many years. The music industry closed Napster down for this, and so I have again stopped buying CDs.
Your recent press release regarding the drop in CD sales was quite interesting but I believe you have missed the mark.
The music distribution industry used to be viewed as a neutral party in music. BMI was BMI. Listeners, like myself, would show some label loyalty but the true loyalty was to the musician.
When the music distribution industry decided to use an iron fist policy towards Napster and other file sharing systems, they became an evil force to many people.
The musicians complained about how little revenue they get from the distributors for their work. Every user of Napster was punished equally even if they used the P2P sharing for the good of music industry. The music distribution industry turned what was an excellent marketing opportunity into a PR nightmare.
Now, most consumers, view music distributors as evil power mongers who profit from others labors. The consumers view the attack on Napster as power grab not an anti-piracy fight.
If only you could roll back the clock and take a more pro-active, productive and positive roll in music sharing; the consumer might be willing to contribute to your bottom line.
As a final comment, I have downloaded music to check out new groups. I have owned pirated music... for while. If I liked what I heard, I bought the CD. If I didn't like it, I deleted the MP3. I discovered several new groups that I would not have know about if Napster hadn't existed. And, most importantly, I bought their CDs.
Now there are fewer ways for me to find music that I enjoy and I feel no compulsion to "support the music distribution industry". I look for bands who sell their music directly from their own web sites. I will buy from the band and help the band. The middle man - especially when they have shown their ugly greed - is no longer necessary and should be eliminated for almost all music exchanges.
Sincerely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Things are very different. My school had to implement and upload/download limit on internet1 traffic whlie they go over the options on how to control this problem. (Most likely they'll be using a packateer...) The problem has been caused due to music/movie etc transfers on morpheous and kazaa. Becasue of our schools privacy policy and unrestrictive content, the school doesn't want to censor or block any incoming material or outgoing. They don't monitor content. Into the first couple weeks of the semester, before the bandwitdh restrictions, the network was soo saturated to the point that i1 traffic was
Hell, if Sorority Sarah can burn the new N'SYNC album on her Compaq, she's not going to buy it.
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
I wonder if the RIAA even takes independant lables into consideration? The last few albums I've bought aren't major label bands. This is basically because most of the major label bands are just uninteresting. I mean there is nothing new there at all it's just the same Pop, Rap, Hip-Hop, "Alternative" stuff that they've been recycling for years
Now there are some good older albums (That I have on vinyl or cassette) that they could prompt me to buy on CD if I could actually find it on CD (And if it's on some strange encrypted CD type thing forget it!).
The problem I think is that the RIAA and lables it represents are so wrapped up in what *they* want, that they have totally lost sight of what the consumer wants.
--- Nothing To See Here ---
The truth is, the crap that we have on TV, radio and print...the crappy politicians we have in Washington DC...all of it...it's all there because it's what most people WANT.
If the majority of people truly didn't like it..changed the channel, voted for someone else, bought another product...then pretty soon we wouldn't have crap like that. You can take that straight to the bank.
There's always the argument that peple are "told" what to like by the peddlers of said "crap." There is some truth to this, I won't deny. Demand can be "made" to a certain extent. But I think the hard-to-face and very underrated truth is that if you are unhapppy because idiots hold political power or that television shows are stupid or that radio is lame...don't call up washington/TV station/radio station...ring up your neighbors.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I havent thought about buying cd's (RIAA cd's) since discovering the talent that can be found on mp3.com and spinner.com. There is no need for the RIAA industry nor its artists.
Lifeline was published 63 years ago. It kicked off a glorious career. Heinlein is now dead. Therefore, in the spirit of his own quote...can anyone tell me where to get the story online?
I just went out last weekend to look at buying a cd. My local independent store was selling titles for $19.98 (us). I didn't buy a disk. After work on Monday, I found the same title used for $8.50 (us) in a new/used store. I still think I payed to much since it was used, but the disk was in great shape and iTunes had no problems ripping it to mp3s.
I guess the RIAA will go after used stores next.
Microsoft brought us Windows XP. I bought a Mac.
Your grammer (sic) isn't too hot either. Beginning
a sentence with "and" or an adjective isn't exactly
kosher.
:P
A good friend of mine kinda likes Tenacious D, but not enough to buy the album, so he downloaded the MP3s he likes. Since he never would have bought the CD in the first place, you can't really count him as lost revenue. He would have never bought the CD.
If the concept and capability to share music as is done today did not exist, would he have bought the CD? Not a year later after hearing you play it? How do you know, really?
Bitchslapped. Neat.
A problem as I see it is in the quality of material written for these artists. You know how a 'hit' gets written? 'Professional' writers. They crank out song after song after song. They know all the tricks, the hooks, the way to make the chorus stand out (repeat, repeat repeat repeat). They all know these 'methods'. That's why all of this mass marketed fast food music sounds the same. People as a whole, are lazy and have no taste of their own. Hours of watching tv (buy this, this IS cool!), listening to the radio "the newest HIT by 'XXX'", (after it's been on max rotation for 3 weeks), reading People Magazine only contributes to this. Most people want to be 'in the club' and are scared to have opinons. Happily there is a giant Industry here to tell us what to feel, think, buy, etc.
Whew. Anyhow I don't listen to music on the radio or TV, I have purchased 4-5 CDs in the last 5-6 years, and will absoulutely refuse, to the point of leaving the room, listen to songs that were not written by the artist..
grrrr. Bring back music!
If you really want to stick it to the man, buy all of your CD's used. Most of the time you can get a CD for less than $8, and I find they are generally in great condition. Not only does your money go directly back into your community, but it does not find it's way into the deep pockets of the RIAA
---> suck it
OK, I risk showing my advanced age here, but work with me on this one. Go to down to your favourite newsstand. Pick up a copy of Rolling Stone, flip to the back, historically that's where the Billboard bits are.
Look for the 'Top 40' listings, if they're still calling it that. I listen to format radio often enough (when I'm driving around in my car) that I can predict what's on there without actually seeing it (I digress here, sorry)... the reason why the recording industry is in a slump?
The records/tapes/albums/CDs are boring.
spam, spam, spam, spam, e-mail, news and spam.
Recipe for sucess:
Take one part blonde bimbo (talent optional), one part impressive sound mixing technology, and nine parts slick marketing, and what do you get?... Brittny Spears!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
I know a lot of people who do the same, myself included. I did install napster, and the first thing I did was get out my 200+ vinyl records and start going through them for songs that I'd like to have in digital format.
I've even made CDs. Now, the RIAA get's money from those blank CDs, so what're they bitching about?
Now I've got a turntable connected directly to the computer (it's got a built in pre-amp), and I get out record cleaner and make the best recordings I can, then I make CDs. It's just more laborious than downloading.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
grammar is spelled without an 'e'.
Nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
Until you've sat in the front row of the Kennedy Center and heard the Bach organ concertos on that monster organ, you haven't lived.
Best Slashdot Co
I still buy a CD occasionally, mostly classical music. But I won't buy any that I can't play on my computer CD, although I never do use the CDRW for that.
....)
I decided not get get a VCR because of the zoning thing.
Also, I've decided not to get a DVD player because of all of the constraits on the use of DVDs. Why can't I play them on my computer if I want?
I've *never* used any software or CD when I wasn't legally permitted to use it. (E.g., bought, GPL,
But the mainstream entertainment world has more or less lost me as a client.
My local book store hasn't, however.
Best wishes,
Bob
I am willing to bet Napster and its ilke create demand for CD sales. It would interesting if someone actually did research into establishing a direct correlation between people who download digital music and then go out and buy the CD.
That being said, as soon as mp3 supported hardware (car stereos, home systems) approaches some point of saturation my prior statement might become voided.
Besides, we all know nothing good has come out of the RIAA in the last 15 years ;-)
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
I'm a little befuddled by the tack that free music advocates are taking against the RIAA -- denying that song swapping will cause a decline in CD sales.
Of course it will cause a decline. It may not have yet, but the CD's days are numbered. Why? They're an obsolete technology. They're clunky. They require packing and shipping. They hold a limited amount of music. They're prone to loss and scratches. If you think song swapping won't accelerate the decline in sales, you're fooling yourselves.
The record companies see the writing on the wall, and are trying to milk as much money out of CD sales before their collapse. Of course they're going to whine about everything that can even be perceived as a drop in sales; it's just part and parcel of doing everything they can do to receive court decisions sympathetic to their financial interests.
I object to that article, and to the next reply.
What is up with them anyway??? Slipknot sold over 500,000 copies of their debut CD with out crappy MTV and radio play. The radio stations around here are really strange. For instance, Static-X has a song called "Bled for Days." This one station always plays their guitar riff in the background while talking to each other. So I call them up one day and ask them to play that very song and the DJ turns into a wuss and starts whining about how his Program Director will yell at him for playing it. I dont listen to radio as much as I used to, I basically have about 30 CDs in my car that I listen to because the radio stations overplay Nirvana, Janes Addiction, Green Day, and Pearl Jam.
I wonder what XM(Satellite Radio with no commercials) is like...300 bucks for the car unit and 10 bucks a month for a subscription.
Playlists come from corporate and they're narrower than ever. As a result, the music that gets played is homogenous in the extreme.
If you think this began in '96, you are out of your mind. This began on a small scale in the late '50s (ever hear of Motown records?) & began on a large scale in the late '70s (ever hear of the Police or U2?). The difference is that Berry Gordy's formula was to hire genius songwriters & find great singers. Nobody listens to the Police or U2 or even the Beatles or just about anyone who came after them out of their own free will (see next paragraph).
BTW, were you born near the year 1980? Your post sounds like the "12 year old theory" in action. The theory states whatever was in the pop culture when you were 12 years old was the "best ever".
Both the RIAA and MPAA are basically after the same things. Fairly easy to confuse the two. They are both shameless wh??rs of the media industry.
--- Nothing To See Here ---
The music industry isn't worried so much about the on-line trading hurting sales but what it represents in the future. It's a new way of putting out music. Artists are now given a choice of not going with one of the big Recording Industries. You can bring your music on-line for people to hear. Press your own CDs and sell them on-line if you want. I give the bands out there that don't have the backing of the Recording Industry a chance. And it gives us an option of listening to the music we like not the precand s**t produced by the industry.
They simply want total control of all entertainment. If you don't sign with them you don't get heard. The whole scheme of putting protection on all new hard drives and computers is about preventing the distribution of content not produced by these big companies. It all about complete control and them deciding for us what's good for and what we should listen to.
Emusic.com. I download most of my new tunes from this wonderful little gem these days. For a small monthly fee, I can download unlimited MP3s. I used to buy CD's, but the economy hit me hard, and I frankly can't afford $16+ for a CD. When I see one on sale for $11 or less, and it is something I actually want, I will still buy it. But $16, $17, or even $18? Get Real! The music isn't that great. But back to emusic, they pay the artists based off of what I download, which is a great concept. And all their artists do have record deals, but they aren't the "megahit" deals that get played with the crap on the radio.
Even if one accepts the premise that vinyl "has a warmer sound," that premise goes out the window if you intend to listen to the record a second time.
Extra bonus material is starting to cost way too much becuase actors and directors are starting to have pay for that bonus material getting written into contracts.
Columbia/Sony lately has been solving this problem by leaving out bonus DVD features, allowing mastering to greatly increase the bitrate for the primary video signal, making the DVD look as good as a 480-line picture can provide. See Columbia's Flash site for details.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If your assumption is correct that Napster users are "into music" and presumably buying more, then why aren't sales UP? After all, the new P2P services are supposedly more popular than Napster at its height.
No the cause for a slight downturn in sales (in the UK sales are up 5%) are:
1. a weakened US economy wherein a large amount of people are unemployed or underemployed
2. a year in which big name artists didn't release material
3. the fractured music market. This is the REAL legacy of Napster. With Napster and other P2P services people were exposed to more variety in music. People want more variety in their music purchases. Unfortunately, distribution doesn't favor the small guys, you need to search for it. P2P makes it easy and conveinent for lazy Americans to get smaller artists' works more easily than before.
Look, I made $11K last year (thanks dot com economy). I didn't download an illegal song file (thanks epitonic) and yet I bought 7 CDs last year. I'm just more choosy what I buy and can preview artists and genres more easily thanks to music streams. But recent royalty moves there may dry that option as players simply cannot afford the royalties demanded.
Good for you for buying fewer CD's, but don't give me that crap about vinyl sounding better: audiophiles can go on and on about how great records are, but if I really wanted that "warm" vinyl sound, I would just turn up the bass and find some way to add pops and static artificially.
[ home ]
The problem with this Heinlein quote is that the RIAA's beef, however much we may vilify them (and they are unquestionably vile), IS supported by statute and common law. There are few people less supportive of the Content Kings than me but if I have to say it a million times I will: as long as all we're doing is trying to justify the violation of copyright law, which is what downloading copyrighted music or burning a copyrighted CD that you do not own UNQUESTIONABLY is, we will NEVER make progress in changing things to a better system.
Legitimate consumer and legal beefs with the RIAA are plentiful:
* Do the Content Kings REALLY own the copyright to specifc recordings, or should many have reverted to the authors?
* Does the way the "legitimate" online music businees operates qualify as monopolistic practices?
* Is the DMCA constitutional, or is it in fact an example of "prior restraint," illegalizing the POTENTIAL uses of legitimate tools?
* Copy-protection schemes that produce "CDs" that do not follow CD specs, do not play in the range of equipment the consumer has reasonably come to expect, and reduces the versatility of the product.
* Treatment of artists, overpricing, the endless extension of copyrights... All these and more are totally valid points of attack. You wanna burn CDs, download free music? Be my guest. Hell, I speed. But stop this nonsense that somehow the courts and corporations should recognize our "right" to violate copyright law. Every argument like this just strengthens their case and makes the further legislation of information tools that much more likely.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
First off, thanks for taking the time to write a real Editorial. It's nice to see some actual value-added besides linking a tidbit of news.
Second, I personally believe that both the record industry and yourself are guilty of confusing correlation with causality. You wrote:
"At this point last year, with Napster in full swing, record sales were up 8 percent from the previous year. This year, sales of new albums -- not including established catalog titles -- are down 8 percent. That's quite a pendulum swing."
So, we have a correlation. Let me give you another one. Men who shave with electric razors are 17% more likely to develop facial cancer. There happens to be no causal relationship between the two. Men who shave with electric razors usually have more money and live in cities, where all cancer rates are higher. But when you hear that statistic, you can get all kinds of bad ideas. If you mistake correlation with causality.
I think the record industry's attempts at hand waving and implying causality are shameful. Let's not be party to the same offense. CD sales could be entirely fluctuating based on the amount of disposable income consumers have. Which, given the recent trend for unemployment and financial collapse, is going down. The truth is, no one has researched the causality behind the trend, so we don't really know.
The one thing we can say for certain is that Napster did not in any discernible "cause & effect" way effect total revenue for the recording industry before it was destroyed.
And that's a message worth getting out.
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
Why do we get defensive every time the RIAA trots out the "falling sales, evil pirates, end of civilisation as we know it" line?
Why don't we respond with: "Yeah, sales are down, and it's your fault, you soulless reptiles. What the fuck are you going to do about it? I hate your over engineered muzak, and the dead eyed meat puppets that mime to it, and your old fashioned distribution system, and the fact that most of the cost of an album goes to weaels in marketing and legal, up the noses of desparately unhappy borderline morons in G-strings, or in <strike>bribes </strike> campaign contributions. Fix it, and fix it now, or get the hell out of the way and let someone else have a go at supplying the demand rather than trying to control it through an abusive monopoly."
Oh wait, I just said it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Perhaps, but what's supposed to happen is that new companies are supposed to enter the field when they see others making a profit, driving the supply up and moving the total profit/loss towards equilibrium.
In the United States, the FCC's monopoly on broadcasting prevents this. It's hard for a new independent radio station to get a broadcasting license in the consumer FM band (88.1 to 107.9 MHz), and without a sizable number of independent radio stations, radio listeners hear what Clear Channel wants them to hear, and the RIAA member labels pay a puppet promoter to pay Clear Channel to play RIAA music and only RIAA music. These bribes come most often not in the form of cold hard cash but in free non-conforming promotional discs and free tickets to live performances.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Great. If 77% are buying one more cd, while the 23% are buying 8 less cds, then you have a net loss. This figure cited proves nothing.
Of course not. Music demand is highly inelastic, they can maximize revenue by raising prices, not lowering. Crack dealers (also in an inelastic industry) do not lower prices to increase revenue.
Or it could be that Mariah has enough personal problems that it would be cheaper for them to pay the 28million than to keep her under her much more expensive contract. Unfortunately Mariah has fallen down from her huge-popularties of the late 80s early 90s, and her sony contract was priced assuming her massive popularity. Sony was merely cutting their losses on her, and is in no way indicitive of the rest of the music released.
Also, every "napster helps sales" argument i have seen is purely anecdotal, or if not, it lacks the numbers needed to prove anything. Furthermore all these surveys have a high bias (people feel more compelled to say they buy more music, than buying less). If you were from say Gallup and flagged me down on the street asking me if i bought more/same/less of music after using napster, of course i would say more, as i wouldnt want (napster|kazaa|morpheus) to go away.
Listen to the February 26 broadcast of Marketplace (www.markeplace.org). It's in Real Audio. The last story is a peice written by a teen girl about the Grammys, but it really, really applies to this article and your reply.
if you criminalise demand, all you are doing is spending a lot of time, effort and money into turning a lot of people into criminals. Far better to bring it in out of the cold, ask We, the People what we actually want, and come to a fair compromise.
drug war anyone?
-
I recorded, released my own CD, got international distribution, and radio promotion without a big, or any, record label. I've been banned, signed autographs, threatened with lawsuits, and had requests for my CD from Europe (I'm big in Mol, Belgium!). It's appears among musicians this is getting to be a growing trend. Do it yourself. The problem though is promotion. The big record labels spend most of their money (that I can see) promoting their most profitable artists. The same types of songs get heard on commercial radio, because artists are punished for being creative. The record company wants a proven profit maker. The only alternative is to do it yourself. Without exposure though it's impossible to make a living, and like Norman Augustine said "If you can afford to advertise you don't need to." I still have my day job (Elec. Engineer, Eunich's Sys. Admin., MCSE, etc.) and don't have any plans to quit. Music is something that I have to do though. If my CD breaks even I will be thrilled, but if it doesn't I won't worry. I didn't do it for the money. Unfortunately I'm a rare breed. Most musicians I know are working in retail, or music stores, if at all. Anybody that wants to complain about how tough their job is should try playing some music and truly know starvation. Medical insurance is a GOOD thing. I'm not going to be so quick to damn the record comapnies, because I've been there. Both artist and producer. I've heard stats that say 92 to 95 percent of the records released don't return their investment costs. I believe it. I understand that music business is a business, but it is a business based upon exploitation of people, and a lot of artists get hurt. But, the music buying public get shortchanged as well. They hear the same things from Radio, MTV, etc. because the record label is promoting the exposre of their money makers. Just my two cents worth.
I've been saying for years that the software industry as well as the movie and music industry need to adopt this sales strategy. In all cases, you're talking about something that costs you *very* little to replicate, once you spend the money up-front for the initial production.
The movie industry has already been doing this anyway, in the theaters. They spend millions to make the movie, and then they re-coup the costs and (typically) start earning a profit by selling movie tickets, one at a time, for under $10 each.
They need to come to grips with the fact that all of these "intellectual property" products are not necessary for anyone's survival... They're merely impulse buys and entertainment value. If it costs too much, people will pass on it.
Even items that *are* necessary for survival (groceries) are sold at razor-thin margins, and the profit is made in sheer volume of sales. It's a proven viable business model - and they need to start using it!
When I was activly downloading mp3s I was sampling a more varied musical diet than I normally had access to (via the radio), if I liked the music enough I would go out and buy the CD. In 2000 (my most active mp3 downloading year) I bought roughly 80 CDs, in 2001 (my least active mp3 downloaing year, so far) I bought 7.
crazy dynamite monkey
Why complain about RIAA, when there's no need to buy *their* CDs, yet you can still buy CDs. Not every record company is a member. Here is a complete list of members. If the CD you're buying is from a company/label not listed, then it's not from RIAA. Simple.
Big part of my CD collection is released by labels that are not members. Of course, it's not your average pop and radio hits, but a bit more marginal stuff, like progressive rock and metal. Labels like InsideOut, Nuclear Blast and Magna Carta release some *good* music instead of financially calculated products. These bands still have some talent and creativity, they don't even have to be MTV-ready. Small labels also often give way more freedom and flexibility to the bands.
And yes, I buy something like 100-200 CDs a year, paying perhaps $16 for most new CDs and $6-$10 for budget releases and used discs. Oh what a poor student I am. Get a job if you can't afford it, or live without CDs. Music is not required for survival.
Since 23% of the surveyed people no longer buy music, shouldn't that technically mean that the RIAA's profits should be down 23%? Let's not forget to take into account that many of these people never purchased CDs to begin with.
The RIAA's argument is worthless and meaningless. They can blame Napster (and other peer to peer services) all that they want. Things aren't going to change. Anyone who purchased music before isn't going to stop because they have access to music.
There is something deeper here. People now have a vehicle for listening to other things that are beyond the reach of the RIAA. Why keep it simple for people to use when they can fight it to the death? They don't want you to have access to other music besides theirs, and if you want their music, it is going to come with a premium. The RIAA lost the opportunity to gain control of the Internet as a distribution medium, and it scares the shit out of them. They were too late; there is nothing left for them to do except try to tear it all down.
I own over 300 legit CDs, many of which are from RIAA labels, but I won't buy any more of theirs because I hate the fucking RIAA. They aren't getting any more of my money. They did this to themselves; they made the enemy out of the consumers and the consumers are now going to make an enemy out of the RIAA.
Right or Wrong, we all understand the piracy issue. People will pay for a product that it worthwhile, and obviously many of the recent CDs are not. I am not going to sit back and let some parasite-corporation suck me dry of my hard earned money while they try to feed me with total shit music, and THEN have the nerve to blame people like me for their fucking problems while they use Gestapo tactics to get their point across.
What's even worse is that the officials believe their shit.
How is listening to the radio (indepedent radio...ups to WEQX) any different from Napster's evils?
Back before radio became the bastion of independent producers and huge coglomerates, it was THE place to steal music. Long before napster, long before CDs, there was a device known as the tape recorder. Quality wasn't great, and like Margaret Cho all my old music has my mom yelling at me in the background from when I held the Sharp handheld tape recorder up to the old crystal radio my dad built in high school. But it's how we got it. My friends would trade copies of Wierd Al on 90 minute tapes, selling them on the schoolyard. One friend spent all week making "ultimate mixes" for field trips.
And we had access to every great song ever. Our network was sneakernet, but through it you could get anything. Springstein? Matt Bonaparte's sister's best friend's dad has the whole collection. Dylan? That wierd kid whose family never mows the lawn has a complete set on vinyl and will trade it for a pudding cup.
Before tapes, people would trade records at parties. Before records, people taught each other songs. Jesus, music is *ABOUT* trading, it's about making friends. My wife and I used to make out to stoner rock, we met at a coffehouse folk show. Our first date was to a midnight Beatles Anthology party. Most of my friends were met at concerts and shows.
Somebody mentioned something about the best acts nowadays not being marketed, or certainly overshadowed by handsome total crap bands willing to trade their integrity for a pay day. Music trading is the only way most bands will get any exposure. Have you heard of the Atomic Numbers? MC Paul Barman? Queens of the Stone Age and Dream Theatre have great new albums out, did you know about them? I found all of these acts through music trading, through my 13 exobyte, 100,000 user WinMX network set. I've met good friends there.
And last month, I spent $300 on CDs.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
It seems like a lot of people on /. are trying to find a way around the fact that they're stealing.
It makes no difference how much money anyone makes off of selling CDs. Doesn't anyone believe in private property anymore? If I steal 1 dollar from you today, and pay you 2 dollars tomorrow, I still robbed you.
Let me put it in another way most people around here can understand. Let's say I made some changes to Linux, and sell X copies of my new version without giving out the source code. If I install X+1 copies of another version WITH the source code, can I claim that I helped the Linux community?
speaking for myself.. p2p has only widened my horizons when it comes to music.. i've discovered a lot of great artists on independent/dyi labels.. i wonder how much % of those kinds of sales are up.. i'm buying a good 5+ records (yes records.. as in vinyl) a month.. and none of them come from the big 5. i believe people are still buying, just not the same old tired crap.. wake up riaa.. your marketing campaigns and distribution monopolies with commercial stations are quickly going to end..
I dunno about you, but I gave up on MTV, it just sucks too much. I also don't listen to the radio too much, it's just more of the same crap that's on MTV. If you want to find a new artist who's any good, about the worst place to do it is MTV or the radio.
Mostly I find new music from referral from friends. "Hey, check this out." That used to be done by going out to a bar and listening to a band, something I don't really have the time for these days. These days someone sends me an MP3 clip. And you know what? If I like it, I first try to see if I can buy it straight from the artist (many many small bands sell them off their own websites). If I can't do that, I try Amazon. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that the cool stuff isn't at Best Buy.
Outside of those kinds of referrals, I've subscribed to an actual (gasp) pay-for-stream service, RealOne. Their commercial-free genre-based streaming system is worth $10/month; terrific for background noise.
But having used RealOne for a few months now, I can see places where their model is seriously incomplete. For one, if I like a clip it's a pain to go listen to it again or to go listen to the whole album. There's no way I can forward a reference to the clip to someone so they can hear it too. There's a link to Amazon to buy the album, but no way to buy it and get it on MP3 immediately and the album delivered later.
These companies really need to use a mixed model to build a strong business. You need streaming content for "browsing". You need referral services for audience building. You need purchasing features for retail. And, this being the internet, you need immediate gratification so that when you buy the album, you have it /now/. And if they're going to charge CD prices for MP3 content, they're going to have to send the CD too.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com
Maybe some of them know how to run a company, but they're sucking at it because they're too busy trying to run the entire industry.
Afterall, that's what the RIAA is meant to do, isn't it? The problem (as I see it, I may be wrong, I'm no expert here) is that the RIAA is serving as an impediment to the progress of the companies it represents. Instead of letting things like the state of technology and consumer demand determine their practices and policies, they are trying to dictate the state of the technology (by limiting the use of technology in court battles) and trying to control consumer demand (through marketing... it's easier for them if they get to tell us what we want).
So far it looks like their tactics just aren't working. People don't like the music they're promoting and they don't like the manner in which it's being delivered.
So what good is the RIAA? Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but it seems to me that the industry (not to mention consumers) would benefit greatly if they just stopped trying to work together to control the digital revolution, and instead started actually competing with each other in finding a way to profit from the wonderful advancements in technology.
Ah well, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. I don't like a lot of music so I'm not as passionate on this subject as I might be... I just want don't want to see the technology go to waste (or see it forced underground).
Here's a discrepancy - if sales volume is down 10.3%, shouldn't dollar sales be down 4.3% also? But since it isn't, doesn't that mean they have been raising prices?
The same is true of movies. The actual volume of moviegoing is LESS than it was in the '30s, but of course, adjusted to inflation the dollar amount is several times more because of the jacked-up prices.
Gee...let me see - could jacking up the average selling price of CD's in a RECESSION be reducing overall sales? Don't RIAA know anything about macroeconomics?
Most new music blows. Let's list a few albums you might want to check out, cuz they don't blow.
Joe Henry - Scar
Grant Lee Phillips - Mobilize
Aphex Twin - DrukQs
Tomahawk - Tomahawk (new Mike Patton project. rawk. really.)
St Germain - (forgot album title)
Stop the brainwash
Why is it not in a recession?
Because it was the only major player in Europe that didn't try to link their standard currency of exchange with Italy, and a whole bunch of other weak markets. Italy? Italy is a place that has currency almost as strong as Germany in the early 30s.
All I can do is listen, attentively, to what most people say that I encounter in daily life. From that (rather unscientific, but I think still pretty valid) information, I find very *few* people who like pop-rock like Brittney Spears.
I think they're generatng most of their sales on the "under age 15" crowd with that type of music. When you think about it, this only makes sense. Younger kids haven't lived long enough to be exposed to enough music to realize how cliche and "canned" that stuff is. Instead, they're drawn-in by all of the hype and glamour, and then they buy the CDs.
If that's all you focus on, as a record company, though - you eventually get looked upon just like a toy company; great for the kiddies, but not relevant to the rest of us.
Real, quality, music is meant to be so much more. Did any of the great classical composers concern themselves with what the teenagers thought of their image? Did any of the jazz greats cater to pre-teens? I think not. Instead, they composed music from their heart and soul - as much for their own satisfaction as for anyone else's. Either you appreciated the work that went into it, or you didn't - but there was no effort to "market" it to a particular crowd.
The recording industry would serve themselves much better in the long run if they'd stick to the business of recording/archiving/documenting all musicians that come to them with respectably well-done material.
You need to go read the Scott McCloud links if you haven't- it's my opinion that he hits things squarely on the head of the nail for everything that RIAA and MPAA's member orgs crank out as well as e-books, etc.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Starting a sentence with 'and' is perfectly kosher when used in an informal context.
If artists don't get paid for their work, then they will not make money. Regardless of how much they enjoy making music, they will probably have to "get a day job" to pay their bills.
This means less time and energy devoted to making music.
I agree, todays music is so processed and milked out of the same ol' it just SUCKS.
I don't think the RIAA realized it was still cheaper to spend 11.99 on a cd at best buy for most people then to acquire a decent cd burner, a decent cd burner software package and a stack of cd's very affordably.
Heck, it was hard enough, and still is hard enough to find good quality, complete songs. Now that my choices are limited more i don't discover new artists or new releases since i can't even bother.
They made purchasing and hearing new music just that much harder, and most people who buy cd's and spend TONS of money on music aren't the typical Nstink or britney spears fan.
Personally the only thing i'm awaiting from Britney spears is her playboy appearence.
I hope the RIAA continues to loose money, they had the largest FREE advertising
I would expect that the price of CD's should go up. When you purchase a CD, the cost of production for the media is immaterial.
Starting with the artist, due to inflation, they want more money, so they demand more from the recording companies. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies have to advertise - and media outlets charge more because their shareholders want more profits. The recording company must add a little extra onto the cost of the CD to recoup this cost.
The recording companies want more profits because their shareholders demand this, so they charge more for the CD.
The retailers, who want increased profits for their shareholders, add more to the price of the CD than they did previously - and the fact that it cost them more to buy a CD than it did previously, drives the price up for the end consumer.
----------------
Next year, the recording artists will want more money than they did this year, so they will demand more from the record companies - driving next years prices up.
And next year, the media outlets will want more money than they did this year, so they raise their prices - driving up the prices again.
.... you see where this is going. So, I think that at time goes on, the cost of CD's is going to rise - perhaps in line with inflation, but it will continue to go up.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They've broken up now, but the techno-pop band "Aqua" (famous here for "Barbie Girl") was one of my faves. They had some of the most incredibly vapid lyrics imaginable, but it was almost like a self-conscious parody of pop music, kinda like how Beavis and Butt-head, a show about two idiots, had quite intelligent subtexts running through it.
:)
Aqua also takes potshots at other aspects of our culture: their track "Halloween" condenses the entire plot of "Scream"-style teen horror flicks into a three minute song; "Freaky Friday" is ostensibly a send-up of the sad lyrics of country music, and has more disasters than Alanis's "Ironic", etc.
80's New Wave kitsch (e.g., Devo) sort of falls into the same category for me.
On the more serious side, I tend to like Meat Loaf (and any music by Jim Steinman), Queen, Styx, Darude, Chicane, Paul Oakenfold, even Mozart.
In general, I tend to like music with texture to it. Today's pop music really is like soda pop: too sugary, goes flat and stale quickly.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Revenue is down 10%. Let's just say we agree that 23% of folks stopped buying in favor of downloading. That means that file sharing is responsible for a 2.3% loss in revenue. What do you attribute the other 7.7% loss to? Crappy bands? High CD prices? I think they need to look elsewhere to diagnose their revenue problems. I download music because nowadays on any given album, the artist records two or three "singles" and 9 more "B-Sides" sometimes referred to as filler songs. Producers seem to have accepted this practice as the norm. It's a shame.
While we're on the grocery analogy, what about the concept of loss-leaders?
Maybe record stores/companies could offer some music below cost to draw in customers? Of course this would only work if the price per CD was dramatically reduced, but I know that if CDs were priced closer to cost, I'd buy a lot more!
things in the music industry. The main reason is that they ARE the
music industry, they create the music. The problem is that they are
too use to using the record companies to sell their music. I think
that we was music fans and consumers need to explain to the artists
that they need to find a new way of selling their music. They are not
going to do this if the current method is generating $13B a year.
They are, however, going to rethink things if sales drop let's say
%90. Then they will have no choice but to come up with an
alternative. Not to mention the RIAA won't have any more money to pay
high-waged lawyers to harass companies ushering in the new era.
The important thing to remember is that artists will always make art
and art fans will always adore it. Anything else is just packaging,
it is replaceable, and will be replaced.
You are right. The truth of the matter is that technology, up to this point, has produced economic benefit off of every industry it has ever touched, ususally for the purchaser (I know I can successfully argue this point in generalities, and not specific this software blah blah). These guys just want all the money possible. They want you to mortgage your house so you can have the priveledge of playing a cover song on your own guitar in the privacy of your own home.
With porn, alcohol, cigarettes, movies, and music... (anything with a ridiculously high profit margin) is going to have an army of "extra cash floating around you" lawyers that will pit bull you to death. These people (in the industries above) are the most amazing liars I have ever seen. The best part about it, they don't need to lie personally, they get good lawyers to do it for the money.
Great Example: These are the kind of people that said that the movie Forrest Gump lost money. Riiiight. Cocksuckers. Brilliant accounting cocksuckers. But cocksuckers nonetheless.
I had to pay my taxes... they didn't after making huge profits off of that?!? It was a well-loved, Best Picture of the Friggin' Year! If I was a IRS agent, I would have personally audited the entire fucking studio for a stunt like that. I would have audited the Gate Security Guard's wallet for that kind of bullshit.
Just because you appear like you make bad business decisions doesn't mean you pay zero taxes.
That is why I say download all you want.
Too bad their little state controlled monopoly plans are going extinct, and will never work. Tear down KaZaA... somegthing else will pop up even faster than last time. Its free music Whack-A-Mole.
And actually, after discovering that *many* CD versions of pre-CD era LPs are missing bits here and there (IIRC, Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk", Rush's "Exit stage left" are two examples of this), realizing that many LPs have yet to be re-issued in CD format and seeing that LPs in very good condition can be bought for a steal (yard sales, etc.) I've decided to cut down on the CDs and upgrade my turntable.
A 1$ mint-condition LP beats an $17.95 CD, no question in my mind.
It's not that I don't buy any CDs anymore. But I've simply realized that I can get better-sounding music for way cheaper.
Hey - I think paying Mariah Carey $28 million not to sing is a good deal. 'Cause, damn, I didn't think we'd ever get her to shut up. Maybe Britney Spears will make us an offer too?
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Could part of the problem be that the birth of boy bands and female teen divas has alianated a lot of the music buying public. Yes the teenagers are consuming the crap that is put out for them to buy, if Carson Daily says it's cool. Maybe I've just gotten older, but I know that I haven't been buying as many CDs recently since the quality of artists that the industry is spitting out has declined. Even the "alternative" bands are falling pray to a producer's attempt at building the next big thing. Too many bands are now attempting to be the next Pearl Jam by copying the sound.
<br>
Has the RIAA even thought for a second that today's music don't got the same soul. I like that old time rock 'n roll.
WWJDFAKB - What would Jesus do for a Klondike Bar?
Hmmm... as much as I do think Napster boosted record sales, I would tend to think that the economy hitting a low lately has also affected record sales (as well as sales of, well, everything else), so many factors play into this, not just Napster. just a thought...
Mark
I typically buy the music I'm interested in, when it is avalible. Looking for Anime soundtracks I ussually have three choices:
1. Wait 6 months after the release then pay 40$ for the legal CD.
2. Pay 16$ for a grey market copy of the japanesse CD (after shipping).
3. Download it and burn it myself.
To be honest I ussually go for the second option to ensure a continued supply, but I'm pretty sure RIAA doesn't get any money from that either.
Point is why would I wait 6 months after I wanted the music and pay an exorbirant price when there are two other options avalible to me. RIAA has ended up ed themselves by preventing small and niche market music from reaching the shelves of even the largest re-sellers.
Yeah, go ahead and mod it as funny. Meanwhile, I can go out on any given weekend, buy a used turntable for $20 at a garage sale, and get almost any record that came out before the mid-80s for $.50. And vinyl is still being made. Generally speaking, it is the smaller labels that still put out records. Of course, it is the smaller labels that actually put out GOOD music these days.
If 23% are buying less because they are downloading more for free, that just means that the other 77% of "music consumers" could be a) buying more because they download more, b) buying more for reasons having nothing to do with downloading music off of the net, or c) buying less for reasons that have nothing to do with downloading music off of the net.
Shall we explore option "C"?
Here in the U.S. we're currently in a recession. Be it enough to say that when people fear for their financial stability, they tend to buy luxuries, like music, less frequently.
Perhaps sales have dropped simply because people aren't willing to spend money on music and, instead, are just holding onto their cash?
Ask HIM.
That's how I found his music, and I've bought one CD, and am going to see him on the 5th at calvin college in GR.
Now, I ask the RIAA, is he losing money because of napster? seems funny that he would write a song entitled, "this is my napster song". You can also check out his stuff here.
just another napster success....
*watches RIAA shake in it's boots*
Lets face it the music industry is going through the suckiest period in years. Boy band soda pop crap, teen girls dressed like transvestite hookers selling pepsi is not music. It really isn't! there is no melody anymore just vocal gymnastics over samples. The 11 year olds are even catching on that it sucks.
The baby boomers built the music industry and if they actually started marketing to the baby boomers again they would see a renewed financial gain. But NO! They have a formula that works and no one is going to wrest control of music from these sleaze ball cheese ball pedaphile producers. Listening to World Cafe on NPR shows what quality of music is out there.
One of the hottest selling albums of the year: The soundtrack from "O Brother Where Art Thou" sold millions with no radio airplay or promotion. It slaps the face of the music industry because it was made by outsiders. This is exactly wht the industry DOSE'NT want. Music that is cheap to make using songs that are public domain and traditional. That would encourage more people to possibly pick up instruments and start entertaining themselves. And that would be really bad for Pepsi, Coke, Britteny and that fat slob guy in Florida who created n.sync. So if the RIAA moans about lack of sales and tries to blame it on piracy they are just clueless. They won't admit they screwed up in selling SODA to pre-teens rather than making music.
I tell my 11 year old daughter that some acts really suck in that they:
1. Don't play an instrument
2. Lip synch live perfromances
3. Use sex appeal more than talent
4. Can't write there own material.
5. Auditioned for the part
6. Will never be see them in a small club
So if the RIAA whines about declining sales maybe they should get out the "music whore suckometer" and take a reading. They'll see its way in the red.
have they investigated the idea that the quality of the music that has come out this year has been absolutely crap? the best album category at this years grammy's is full of soo soo albums. u2 or bob dylan might win for that. the highest selling album last year was linkin park, who would have thought that would ever in a million years happen. the music that they are pushing to the people are just sucking, and the people are going and buying or downloading more independent music. or doing less buying cause the people don't feel that there is any use of buying crap. don't blame the internet, blame the music. its there fault that they arn't selling any records.
"Is this CD copy protected?"
"I don't know. They don't label all that are."
"The only CD player I have is in my computer. If this is copy protected, I will not be able to play it. I will have bought what is for all intents and purpouses a shiny piece of metal. Can I at least try this to see if I can play this?"
"Sorry, but if the case has been opened, there are no refunds."
Yes, that will encourage more record sales.
"The good die first." "Most of us are morally ambiguous, which explains our random dying patterns." --- MST3K
I won't buy another CD as long as my money supports an industry that got me thrown off one of my online RPGs.
Yes, that's right, kids. Mentioning Audiogalaxy is against their AUP. "Please log off now." Uh huh. And this is how they treat their STAFF (yes, I'm an unpaid volunteer)? Gee, thanks. I guess this means the two-week paid vacation is out of the question, too?
By the way, for the foreseeable future, that RPG is off my login list, too. I won't support anything, free or not, that bows down and worships the big toe of the RIAA, MPAA, or anyone else who has no sense of right and wrong. I have no qualms about it. Want me back? Get off your marble altar to St. Rosen and St. Valenti.
And for god's sakes, go and read the First Amendment.
i am a soviet space shuttle
I can't think of any CD, except compilations of old blues sides, that is just a collection of songs. People don't buy songs, they buy albums, which are organized to generate a 15-75 min. musical experience. There's something satisfying about popping a CD into a player and just hitting play, knowing you're getting the artist's vision exactly as it was intended. With Napster, if I downloaded an album, lots of times the tracks were wierd versions of the ones on the album. I bought Kid A AFTER having downloaded it from Napster and burned it to CD! Why? 3 reasons: a) to make sure I got the "official" music of the CD b) to support the band, and c) to enjoy the packaging.
This "clunky packaging" you talk about has the potential to enhance the musical experience by a lot. The Kid A booklet is this fat thing with some very interesting pictures. The Moby booket includes five or six annoying essays by him and a bunch of narcisisstic pictures of himself, but I enjoyed it anyway. I can remember back in high school listening to the Cure's Disinitegration over and over again, reading along with the lyrics in the booklet. Somehow, when I download a CD, I feel like I'm not getting everything.
Here's to hoping that P2P will encourage labels and artists to spend more time and money developing unique and interesting packaging that complements and enhances the music.
c-hack.com |
I am frustrated by people who use the "fact" that Napster and other file-sharing apps strengthen CD sales as moral justification for using file sharing apps against the will of the artists. The fact that you're more willing to buy their music doesn't mean that you (should) have the ability to completely ignore their wishes with regard to distribution of said music.
Let me try to give an example to clarify my frustration with this argument. Let's say that I decide to break into your house one day while you're away. I discreetly pick the lock and walk right in. I don't take anything, but I've still violated your privacy and the sanctity of your home. When I'm arrested for breaking and entering later on that day, I can't complain to the police, "But dude, I vaccumed! Look, I even washed your dishes!! C'mon man, I did something good for you! You ungrateful lout!"
I see that as the same as people violating the copyrights of musicians and then telling those same musicians, "Shut up about your damn rights. We're buying your albums so that gives *us* the right to decide how to distribute your music!"
In essence, the artists are being told to not worry about their rights because they're making more money. I hope that we can all see the foolishness of that.
Please note that I'm not accusing the RIAA of actually representing the artists or their wishes. I find them as morally repugnant and repulsive as most Napster users.
Kevin
Yup thats right russian is probally worse off now. Of course capitalism is the way to go, but just flipping a switch was a bad idea. Chinas plan is much better.
I'm going to disagree here, not necessarily with your conclusion (that RIAA companies are dinosaurs) but with your rationale that it's because CDs are a thing of the past.
Note that, in the story here, RIAA companies sold almost $14 BILLION in CDs. People are buying these things, and by the truckloads. Not only that, the net has not yet even begun to be able to handle mass-scale trading & purchase of uncompressed (or very low-compressed) audiophile-quality music. I use Morpheus & yet still buy many CDs because MP3, though a nice format, isn't perfect, either for audio quality or portability (yet). The CD, I would project, still has at least 20 years life ahead of itself as a popular format, and probably 50-100 years as an archival format - hell, look at records, considered by many audiophiles to be the way to go for recordings because of their analog nature.
Where I agree with your conclusion that the music industry as a corporate entity is eventually doomed is in the fact that the net provides a group of musicians and a small management team to work independantly on creation & promotion of its music, allowing the market (us) to decide what we like. Huzzah for technology! We lose the middlemen, and their need to take their fat cut right out of the musician's livelihood. It'll happen when the musicians get smart enough about the technology and the marketing to do it themselves. If RIAA companies think they have problems now, they haven't seen anything until musicians realize they don't need them, their bloated costs, or their slave-like contracts.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
The first boy band, at least as we think of the term, was the Beatles. Of course, among their many differences from today's counterparts are the ideas that they wrote their own songs, could actually sing well, play their own instruments (when was the last time you saw N'Sync pick up a guitar?), and write thought-provoking, insightful, clever tunes. Of course, there was a sizeable subset of Beatles fans that didn't care about all that. They just screamed and pulled their hair when they saw their heroes on stage, and then years later discovered new dimensions to the music that most 12 or 13-year-olds don't pick up or notice.
:)
It isn't until the past 25 years or so that music has begun migrating toward outright commercialism, where the image is more important than the substance.
Funny, I'd think that especially in the early days - (62-64) the Beatles' image WAS more important than the substance. "Can't buy me love" having 2 million preorders before the song was written rather points up that the songs weren't necessarily as important in the very early days, although they most obviously *were* of a very high quality. Probably wasn't until Rubber Soul that things started getting *really* cool with the music itself.
The main difference the Beatles had over anyone since, imo, is that they attracted the 12 year old girls, yes, but they essentially *grew up* musically while their initial fan base grew up as well. That maturation process allowed their initial fans to come along for the ride, while gaining respect and new fans from a widening base as the years progressed. Who else is doing that? Probably more to the point, who CAN do that today within the confines of the popular music industry? I dare say not too many groups have the talent to mature/change/develop as rapidly as the Beatles did, but would anyone even be given a chance these days?
creation science book
In just a few paragraphs, jaime has identified all the flaws in the RIAA's report, called them on their fouls, and even laughed at their expense... without introducing any sort of strained metaphors or forced parables (unlike some columnists we know). We even got a precisely pertinent quote from one of the 20th century's most venerable and prescient SF authors. This brief little editorial is a gem. If forced to criticize it, I would only suggest a final paragraph after the quote, to drive home the point that the survey is manipulative BS and to end in your own voice. But even as is, it deserves exposure in a forum larger than Slashdot. The message needs to go out: Corporate entitlements to maximize profits at society's expense must end, and will end. And the RIAA's arrogance will help bring that about.
I will enjoy reading more of your editorials in the future. And thanks, jaime, for reminding me of that passage from Life-Line -- I am often reminded of that short story by current events, but have never recalled that specific quote. I won't ever forget it, now.
I can see the fnords!
Of course they didnt. The infrastructure to market like today didnt exist when Beethoven was alive nor did it exist during the Big Band era (or the Bebop era for that matter). Do you seriously think that if the infrastructure did exist then that it wouldnt be the same? Classical composers at the time of Mozart generally had works commissioned by rich people...thats how they made their money. This whole idea that it was just about the music is ridiculous.
My blog: http://jkratz.dyndns.org/~jason/blog/
I think you hit exactly at the gist of the problem the RIAA faces: they are trying to run the record industry as an economic cartel and finding out the very hard way that cartels are subject to the laws of microeconomics, namely their attempts to keep prices high will result in 1) customers less inclined to buy album-length audio CD's and 2) customers are more willing to bypass the RIAA cartel with file sharing sites like Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa, etc.
Once the RIAA gets a clue and figures out that lower prices (like US$11 or under per album-length disc) will actually result in more revenue to the RIAA member companies, it will have two beneficial effects: 1) disc sales will quickly climb and 2) the incentive to pirate music drops to a negligent level.
(oops! I did it again :^P )
What's wrong with starting a sentence with an adjective? Did you mean something else?(C'mon mods! Send this post to -1!)
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Its free music Whack-A-Mole.
That has to be one of the funniest descriptions of this whole fiasco that I've heard yet. Hilarious.
An AC FP sitting here for hours and no trollish reply? Has an IP ban swept the trolling clan?
The programs may not have an overt method of recommending music... but Napster at least had a pretty good subtle one.
Whenever I would log into Napster, the first thing I'd do was do a search for "Nitzer Ebb" (a good old EBM-industrial band I like). Despite the fact that I own every album and a good fraction of the singles they ever put out, and already had whatever few mp3s were floating around that I didn't already own. And then I'd browse the mp3s of each user who was sharing a Nitzer Ebb track, and download random things from them. Why? Because a track that another Nitzer Ebb fan likes is more likely to be a track I like than any random thing I hear on the radio. Learned about a lot of really cool bands that way.
I switched to gnutella, but the new version of limewire removed the option to browse a user's shared files! So as far as I'm concerned, it's almost useless. Can anyone recommend a linux-based P2P client that allows you to do this? I miss finding out about new music.
[TMB]
I have heard the opinion that Napster actually increases CD sales espoused over and over on Slashdot and I think this attitude is really disingenuous. This argument is over-simplistic and it simply flies in the face of common sense.
Let me illustrate this with a related example. I have often heard people claim that the death penalty does not discourage murder, and statistics prove it. I recently had a chance to see some of those statistics in graphical form at the San Francisco museum of modern art.
What I saw was that there appeared to be an inverse correlation between murder and the death penalty. The murder rate was higher when the death penalty was in effect! Then I realized there are multiple ways to interpret the statistics.
Probably what happened is that the death penalty was introduced while the murder rate was going up. It takes awhile to have an effect (plus there are appeals and delays in carrying out the sentence). Later, when the crime rate goes down, people soften on the death penalty. So a statistic that appears to be showing an inverse correlation is actually shoing a direct correlation with a lag.
I think people who are "wondering" why the studios don't embrace Napster are being a bit short-sighted. The CD sales figures are not determined by one single factor. Certainly the economy has a lot to do with it. I think they realize that file "sharing" systems are going to have a larger and larger impact on sales unless legislative action is taken.
As the article points out, sales of CD burners are increasing. There are new, portable MP3 player devices. And to the guy who's sig complains that the movie studios were initially against VCRs, even though 46% of their revenue now comes from rentals, do you think they would have been against a device that plays tapes but doesn't record them?
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Lets see - CD's are going for ~$18. The Artist sees like 1/100th of that - the retailer sees a buck or two and then the label gobbles up the rest. I love music but the RIAA is using file sharing as an excuse to gouge for more money, even when they know in the big picture file sharing programs haven't even scratched the revenues that come back from these CD's. Lets see more music released for $9.99. Then, they will sell MORE cds and people won't bother downloading them. I have approx. 600 full albums (192kbps) - some ripped - most downloaded. Had I bought all these CDs it would have been around $10,800 (at $18 a pop) thats insane. I can't believe that the RIAA is getting away with this excuse.
The world has changed in the last 5.. 10 years. We still have these 1000year old farts running our country that only know what the lobbyists tell them. This is fucking insane. Screw TERM LIMITS - I WANT AGE LIMITS IN GOVERNMENT! Most of these Senators dont know the difference between a CD and a piece of bacon.
-
aphex
I Steal Music!
When nabster was around, I was buying CDs. I heard the music, enjoyed the songs, bought the CD. (Freaking concept there .. try before you buy! .. prob would not work with a toothbrush though)
.. I stopped buying all togethor.
.. No Nabaster + Higher Priced CD's + music that is just plain crap today.
.. that works out to be lower sales.
.. (Eagles, Crow, etc) are like .. WOW .. "real artists" and not strip mall built, Burger King promoting, lip-sync singing groups.
RIAA went on there money pillaging rampage targeting Nabster
So lets add this up
Yep
Interesting as it is, the bands/singers against the RIAA
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
...is that they have the wrong business model. Rather than selling music, they should be selling services and support.
If your CD gets scratches on it, they will should charge you to fix it. Rather than being opposed to song swapping, they should start selling better song swapping software.
Plus, this whole idea of making the average guy pay for music is obsolete. What they need to do is get kings^H^H^H^H^H rich people to commission new works or remixes of old songs that are tailored expressly for them.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Read John Kenneth Galbraith "The New Industrial State" (1967 ?). The central thesis is that a lot of the economy is based on demand that is generated by companies, rather than met by them.
This, I think, is where the RIAA blew it. Napster generated demand for their product. The internet generated demand for the higher-quality CD-Audio and the physical artifact. In addition, the internet is allowing other artists to generate demand for their products (performances, CD's).
There are, of course, limits to generation of demand, but as long as you can make people feel they need a higher-quality product (and let's face, MP3's sound like you've thrown a wet blanket on your speakers) or some other un-reproducable good (e.g. the concert experience) then the question remains, simply, how to use the existing tools.
The internet, fortunately, puts the same tools in the hands of the artists as the RIAA... so yes, I too think the RIAA is doomed...
I've seen this "analysis" before (that Napster boosted CD sales and that its shutdown caused the recent decline in profits), and I'm not sure I buy it. It smacks of the usual after this, therefore because of this thinking. It's like the hemline theory. Someone noticed that stock prices and the length of womens' hemlines seemed to track together. Look! The stock market is determined by how long skirts are!
It's possible that Napster had a hand in both driving up revenues and then later driving them back down. But without more evidence other than "See! See! They happened at the same time!" I'm going to remain skeptical.
In appropriate contexts, "RIAA" is accepted Slashdot shorthand for "RIAA member labels."
Or are you thinking of the recent uncertainty about the "work for hire" status of sound recordings published by RIAA labels?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I bet the music industry wishes it could time-bomb CD's like the software industry does with upgrades.
Then just start throttling ports whose protocol isn't defined by an IETF RFC. This allows legit traffic on FTP, HTTP(S), Usenet, e-mail, ssh, etc., to continue unimpeded while maintaining a neutral stance on both content and services, and it gives your school a reputation of supporting open protocols. For instance, Rose-Hulman restricts the ports that OpenNap, Gnutella, FastTrack, and WinMX use to 2.4 Mbps (about 40% of total bandwidth), and it works well. The IT department also grants exceptions to users that can prove a legitimate educational need such as a comparison and contrast of p2p filesharing networks for a computer networking course.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Don't you find it odd that 20% of these people filled out a survey saying "I downloaded free music from the net."? Most of these people know it's illegal. I have a hard time imagining they'd fill out that survey.
In any case, I bet the survey's question was more like "Have you ever downloaded music?", "Did you pay for that download?". And then, I think the RIAA said "every time somebody downloads a song, they don't buy a CD."
This sounds like baloney to me. The reason I'm not buying CD's today is that I'm boycotting the RIAA. I suppose they could blame that on Napster, i.e. suing Napster and not providing a solution to fill consumer's desires.
"Derp de derp."
OK, unemployment is up, consumer confidence unexpectedly dove yesterday....what do these companies expect???? Infintely increasing market share and sales. RIAA let me give you a clue....the world economy is in a RECESSION! These dopes haven't even considered the macro-economic state of the world.
I guess it's easier to blame napster and the terrorists and whoever else they can think of.
-ted
Just a sampling of music from indie labels that I have bought and liked:
* Appleseed Cast, "Low Level Owl Vol I,II", Deep Elm Records
This has to be one of the best recordings of last year. This band reminds me of Radiohead, yet with an earthy tone drawn from their subdued vocals and natural samples.
* Morton Feldman/Ives Ensemble, "String Quartet II", Hat Art Records (limited pressing of 3000)
The first complete recording of the 4-6 hour string quarted by the legendary composer. Takes a bit of will to listen to, but well worth every second.
* Boxhead Ensemble, "Two Brothers", Truckstop Media
A string ensemble. Not pop, but a great spin.
* The Notwist, "Neon Golden", import (forget the label)
A german band, singing in english, which fuses electronic and acoustic music very well. The inflections of the lead singer can be a bit confusing at times, but soon grows on you.
* Unisex, "Stratosfear", Double Agent.
Good pop/electronica music. Catchy with only one poorly executed track on the album.
* Mirah, "You Think It's Like This But Really It Is Like This," K Records
Low fi, post punk, female vocals that tug at your heart.
I've been searching out obscure and hard to find music for the last several months now, and I feel good about supporting the indie music scene and I've enjoyed the music to boot.
The middle mind speaks!
Considering that cost on a CD is probably about 20 cents, I would love to have it at cost too.
2. The pro-P2P crowd is myopic, cheap, and willing go to any lengths to try to justify getting free copies of new music.
Sorry, but I can't feel sympathy for either side in this pissing match.
As for what I do--I buy CD's, but not many--about one or two per month on average. Downloading the kind of music I like, even with a cable modem, is just too much hassle for my taste, and the difference in cost between what CD's cost and what everyone here thinks they "should" cost, doesn't amount to enough per month for me to care. Yes, there are definitely big, important issues worth fighting for in this world, but this isn't one of them.
This drives me nuts. Everytime there's a flux in the economy, the RIAA uses it as a scapegoat to blame falling sales etc. etc. blah blah blah. Gimme a break.
"the study found that ownership of CD burners has nearly tripled since 1999"
Again with the analogy that more CD burners mean more piracy of songs. Again they fail to notice that the number of computers in the world is growing, operating systems and applications get larger, more people are backing up data to CD than before, etc. True, I think the number does contribute something but put it in perspective people.
"Global piracy on the physical side costs the recording industry over $4 billion* a year"
I still fail to see how anything except under-estimating production expenses or over-estimating demand will "cost" the recording industry money. So they're saying that $4 billion dollars worth of music *might* have been purchased instead of downloaded? Where do they get these numbers?
"DVD Video Continues Steady Increase"
Yeah, no shit. And DVD player sales continue to increase. Is piracy to blame because people can't rip DVDs very easily? So once DVD burners are the "in" thing, is the RIAA going to blame piracy on lower sales? No. DVDs will continue to flourish because more production companies are now seeing the need to create good quality and content DVDs. VHS sales are way down not due to piracy but to the fact that I'd rather spend my money on a DVD with commentary and extras than half that on just the movie. As more players get out there and more quality DVDs are released, the sales will increase. I don't need to be JoJo to figure that out. And yes, even when DVD burners outnumber CD burners, I predict that DVD sales will STILL increase each year (providing that studios don't stop making good content DVDs).
"Cassette Popularity Sharply Declines"
Oops. Guess we should blame piracy again here. Sales are down. Oh no! Sorry, just peeved at how they blame everything on piracy as usual, like how parents blame game companies on how they corrupt youth or something. When will the real players accept their own responsibilities. Silly, silly, silly.
liB
at least in my case. When I used Napster I tended to buy more music. Now that I am less exposed to music I probably would have never heard I buy less.
No, that's not what it means. Any highschool student could have told you that.
I agree with some of these statements based on my own habits.
I was late on the Napster band wagon, but my music buying increased as I would hear a tune on the radio (or get nostalgic), snag it, then snag another tune, and if I liked a few tunes from an album I'd get it from Amazon. When Napster died, I tried a gnutella client (BearShare). It was more difficult to find stuff, so I just stopped using it.
The correlation is, I have stopped buying music. With Napster, music consumption was almost addictive. I've gone from $200/mo in purchases to... NOTHING. And it has nothing to do with the economy. It has everything to do with CAVEAT EMPTOR. With all the crap getting pushed out by the music industry, and the price-point valuation of CDs, I don't feel like gambling $10-20 for something I can't try before I buy.
I found my music interests were getting pretty broad too. I hear Chicane, Moby, Vertical Horizons, Rammstein... and bought them all (even different albums by same artist) because I heard a few tunes. I even bought new albums by old favorites like Alphaville, not because I download the song, but because I noticed there was a new album.
Well, that's my measuring stick. I thank the various Machts for saving me money...
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
If the RIAA had embraced sharing and made titles availabel online for the around the price of a cd instead of trying to use services like liquid audio to charge $3 a song they would have never had this problem. Instead they are trying to control the supply of music through such utter crap as copy protected CDs.
I'd like to see some usage statistics on Morpheus. I'd be willing to bet that most people look for specific songs, not whole albums. If I'm right, then the RIAA's case weakens.
They claim that 'Napster like downloading of music' is hurting their sales. I think what's really happening, in most cases, that people are downloading songs that they're interested in, particularly the older ones. I got to peak in a couple of people's MP3 lockers from way back when, and most of their songs were made at least 2 years ago, and date all the way back to the Beatles. I realize this isn't a very accurate slice of the world, but think about it, how many people do you think are saying "Hmm... I wonder what Pink Floyd is like?" and going and finding out? What are they supposed to do? Go to the store and try to find these albums? That's fine and dandy, but you don't know what you're buying there. Why pay $10-$15 for a CD when you only want one song?
In any case, if somebody downloads a song, buying a CD still has value. Why? Because there are usually 10 or so more songs on it to listen to. What the person has actually downloaded is a teaser to go get the CD. In which case, it's even more valuable to the RIAA because if the user likes the song, they have more reason to go buy the album. If they don't buy the album, then it's likely that the content wasn't enticing enough. That's not the RIAA's fault.
Part of me can't help but wonder if the RIAA is trying to protect themselves against sales lost due to customers really know what's on the CD. *Shrug*
"But they can go download the rest of the album, if they like it!" -- this is what a RIAA rep would say in a Milhouse kind of voice. I think you can search for albums on the net. Who knows, maybe in the future Morpheus will get so good that all music is available. Until then, in the time it'd take me to get the album (i.e. searching for it, trying to find sources that are reliable, etc), I could have gone to the store and gotten it.
If the day comes where entire albums are up for instant download on Morpheus, then the RIAA has lost their own battle. Today they could provide a means for people to legitimately buy individual songs in MP3 (or equiv) format. If they did that, then I could download any song I wanted from a fast server without having all the headaches of a p2p network. Every day they don't do that, more and more people wouldn't try it if it did materialize.
In short, the RIAA's losses are their own fault. People want individual songs but can't get them legally without overpaying for them. File sharing is a result of a new market trend. A competent organization'd say "How can we make money here?" instead of fighting it like a bunch of spoiled babies.
"Derp de derp."
makes as much money as the US gov will spend on
weapons every two weeks. And those guys are able
to make things like the DMCA happen?
Actually CDs are made of compound material which detorierates over time. I've already had a CD in my hand which developed holes in the reflection layer. I was glad to have a CD burner and a computer to save the content onto a new CD.
I don't know about you but I always buy cds, ecause the RIAA always knows what's best for me. They even know what cds i'm going to like and put those out on the front racks so i don't even have to walk far once i'm in the store
ahh, the egg in the basket..
well duh, does anyone recall hearing something about a recession?
when discretionary income goes down, discretionary spending goes down.
no, that wouldn't have anything to do with it...
I know that I went out and purchased at least 10 cd's over 6months when I did napster (and they were used on sale at 3-10 per) I have since purchased mabie 3 and that was 2 years ago.
No, but broadband *is* getting a big push there, with the price dropping to under £30/month or so I read. (like the US in 98-99)
The manufactored hits of today don't cut it.
Providing free music isn't free. There's a time cost associated with ripping as managing the files. There's also a time cost with trying to find the files you want, though much lower than the provision cost. If providers of free music could make money by being agents of the music inudstry the source of free music would dry up. If seekers of new music could get the music they want easier by paying a fee to someone than they could by searching for it, then they would pay. As the source of free music dries up it becomes harder to find the music you want free.
Thus the music industry might should look at agentizing free music providers.
In this way, the music situation more closely fits the toothbrush situation than it would other wise seem.
Plus we've got the Folger Consort that plays
mostly at the shakespear library -- almost
nothing written after 1750 or so.
Go early Music!
-- ac
a few weeks back by a research company [forgot the name] asking about my music purchases. IIRC, some of the questions included how often I purchased CDs in stores, if I had ever downloaded music from the net [they listed Napster, Limewire, Morpheus & Kazaa as some of the choices], as well as if I'd bought music online [Amazon / mp3.com].
I've worked for research co's so I felt compelled to help, since getting completed interviews from random people is tough. However, as the questions continued, the lightbulb went on and I thought "hmmm, I wonder why RIAA needs this info?" The only site I copped to downloading from was Napster, for that reason. Feed their egos and all.
Here's the interesting part: They asked for my email for me to "complete the survey online", and they'd pay me $10. I gave them one of my junk mail addresses and never responded. They sent me 2 follow-ups, offering me up to $40 to participate. I wonder why they needed me to finish the survey online? Research co's generally want to do their interviews via one method, to get the data quickly and consistently.
[insert conspiracy theory here]
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
why do cds cost as much as DVDs? why do DVDs cost the same but take many times more effort, money, and manpower into production?
its easy. movie industry revenues are many, many times more than CDs. a typical CD is very lucky if 500,000 people listen to it, because that makes it a gold album. a gold album would earn the music industry mabye $500,000 x $12 . Thats 6 million. A super platinum album (with 3,000,000) in sales, might make 30 million for the record industry.
a typical movie has already profited before it is released on DVD, and the revenues can be up to 2-10 times the amount of a good record album. (http://www.the-numbers.com/)
Most importantly, the music industry spends a much larger percentage of profit on promotion and marketing... probably damn near 100% of profit... that means that they CANNOT lower prices, because if they do, they got to lay off all those marketing people, and if they do that, the other 4 big music companies will stomp all over them with marketing campaigns.
its a catch-22 for the music industry as a whole.
.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
"If that philosphy is true, then why doesn't the RIAA attack FM radio broadcasts?"
.
They do charge radio stations for playing songs. But I agree, if they could charge each person for listening, they would. But the technology isn't there. . Yet. .
They will use your money as a pipeline for them to make money. Fight now.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
Say it with me...
"a SMALL Seasoned Curlys"
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
Demand for music's not inelastic. Inelastic means stuff you can't do without: food, water, cigarettes. I, and most people would agree, could easily do without the latest Britney Spears CD (or even the latest Outkast CD; in fact I have) if I lost my job.
All the attacks on MP3 and CD ripping by RIAA are starting to have a negative effect.
Killing Napster will mean the death of the Large Record Label Monopolies.
Why? Because the rest of the world is busy ripping the CDs for us, and the Net goes around obstacles. Information just wants to be free, and RIAA can't stop it, no matter how hard they try.
The sad part is all these polluted CDs coming out mean I've been just buying CDs direct from my friends who are in bands, to avoid the Label Monopoly gigo and their flawed discs.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
"You know music officially sucks when the labels have to pay someone $28 million not to sing."
Hell, I'd pay twice that if I never had to hear another boy-band or pop diva for the rest of my life.
RA7
-
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
buy used.
I wish it sounded like it did 10 years ago. They used to have a reggae hour, lots of local bands, obscure European stuff. Sigh. Now they sound like DC101.
Best Slashdot Co
Ridiculous you say? Then explain why there were so many Blues singers who made next to nothing throughout their career? Why in the world would you choose to perform music for a living, knowing it takes years before you become popular at best, and most likely will never achieve popular status?
I used to play guitar in a local band, and I did it because I truly loved doing it. Eventually though, I had to quit because the money we made playing out didn't pay the bills. Often-times, we lost money doing a show when all was said and done, because of equipment rental fees we paid out, people skimming off the top of ticket sales, etc. I knew that my skills in I.T. were much more valuable - so that's what I've done ever since.
Granted, yes, the classical performers were often paid by the rich to compose a musical score. So what? Does this mean they were just in it for the money? Why didn't Beethoven quit when he started going deaf? Wouldn't that make logical sense if it was "just a job" for him? He already got paid for lots of his earlier work....
Of course they have. The media industries just need an excuse to get some new strict laws; so they whine up a storm about how evil all this copying is. Congress will get the sense that their campaign contributors are unhappy and will do everything in their power to fix the situation. Remember media companies write the copyright laws, and Congress rubber-stamps them - literally.
The media companies know that it's just a matter of time before digital distribution takes over, but they want to be in charge when it happens. That's really what Lars was saying: he has no problem with digital distribution of Metallica songs, but the distribution has to be on his terms.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
No, the real problem is that the recording companies just don't know how to adapt to a changing business environment. These companies are floundering. I imagine there are very heated debates among their top executives.
To me this just illustrates that the music industry was enjoying higher sales numbers due to increased product visibility through napster and gnutella etc.
It just took an economic recession, severe terroristic attacks, and a war to make people put their wallets a little farther into their pockets.
Say what you want about vinyl, but i bought a 7 year bitch record the other day for 3 dollars, and it was still shrinkwraped. I can go to a store with $20 and come out with 5 or 6 records a lot of times. And this is great for the kind of music i like because a lot of bands relsease only vinyl and dont even make a cd (usualy in the form of seven inches).
Mess Stuff Up
That's rather unfair. Everyone's currency wasn't particularly strong in the early 30s. There was a depression, you know. If you wanted to make a really big exaggeration, you should've said it's as strong as Germany in the early 20s. Hyperinflation, yo.
...it seems to me that the record industry is actually very lucky considering that, in spite of the gigantic p2p boom, their sales have only gone down that little.
So who says this unproportionally small loss of profits is in any way even related to p2p?
Maybe even, record sales increased in the past two years just because of Napster? I mean, where are the statistics that give us proof that p2p is actually really endangering the record business??
If Jack Valente and Hilary Rosen had a child, would it be the antichrist?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
their profits peaked during the peak of the bubble, just like everyone elses. now their profits are down from the all-time high, just like everyone else's.
kids who aren't earning outrageous salaries at dot coms aren't dropping hundreds of dollars at a time on cd's anymore. deal with it.
www.pixelectric.com
I am a musician. I am screwed by the RIAA everyday. They sell my music but do NOT pay me any royalties! You use to be able to download it for free when EMUSIC was free. Now they charge something like $1 for every download. What do I get? $0. They sell my cd's in Tower Records and else where all across our nation for $18. What do I get? $0. FUCK THE RIAA! If you like punk rock, download the same songs from Oscillations. It's a crappy site cause I don't know much about web development but I'm trying to learn. I'm an old dog though.
I download music off P2P applications quite regularly. Because I only have dialup Internet access, if I like songs from a CD, I`ll buy it, whether I downloaded those songs or heard them from a friend's CD, or on the radio, etc. However, there are some CDs that may have 1 or 2 GOOD tracks, 2 or 3 mediocre ones and the rest will be pure crap. (I'm sure we've all seen these before.) So I'll download those tracks, but I still want to support the bands who's music I like. My solution: buy band merchandise!
In the past year, I've bought 5 live concert or documentary DVDs, some tshirts and a box set. This way I figure the artist still gets some form of financial remuneration, the RIAA (for the mostpart) gets bypassed and I can feel good about not totally ripping off the bands I like to listen to just because I don't like the RIAA's practices.
You can check out the most recent weblog at jwz's DNA Lounge for a short, informative rant on this. It starts a little below where the link jumps to, beginning with "In 'impending doom' news...".
because of the last "A"; they are an american organization. How exactly do they plan to enforce US copyright law in nations that do not recognize US copyright law?
The internet is a world wide medium, the RIAA can not put all the world governments (or ISPs for that matter) in their back pockets.
The toothpaste is already out of the tube. The RIAA just hasn't "gotten it" yet.
-ted
As is the case of past years the lionshare of the overall units sold decrease can be explained in part by the huge decline year-over-year of cassette sales. Which last year decreased by 40% over year 2000 sales.
Interestingly enough LP sales actually increased last year! I guess RIAA doesn't want to expand on an area that is growing and isn't Napster related.
It's almost as if RIAA learned the fine art of obfuscation from ENRON.
Better still, their target market gets their money from parents, who, at feeling guilty for working long hours, give their kids more money in hopes that that will make up for not spending time with them.
Then, in the parents of the materialistic culture's hearts, money is equated with love, so the harder they work, the more they love their family, the more money they can give to their kids to buy Brittney Spears CDs. Oh, I'll be giving money to my kids for CDs alright. Just not music CDs.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You don't have a RIGHT to choose to "steal" the music first then decide you don't want it.
Do you go to a car dealer, steal the car and then say I wouldn't have bought it anyway so I didn't hurt anybody...the cost doesn't matter..its not the point.
The point is it is theft, and you can't justify it for you petty reasons.
From my own buying habits I know I buy far more movies since the prices started dropping. Walmart has had VHS movies for $5-6 for some time and I've bought most of the ones they've made available. They now also have DVD's for $7-$10 which I've taken to buying instead of the VHS because I like DVD's better. I buy lots of movies because they are cheap and I buy almost no music because it's priced insanely. I actually buy the music videos on DVD for less than I could buy just the music on CD. How does that make sense?
I'll still copy and even share the movies I buy but I buy far more. I have a bootleg copy of Harry Potter but I still plan on buying it on DVD when it's released. Because of the download size of LotR I decided to wait for the DVD rather than downloading it but I wouldn't have had I still had broadband. Not only does price matter but also release schedule. The studios need to understand that the DVD should be available as soon as the movie is in theatures. In many cases we'll still go to the theature.. for the experience.. despite the fact we own the movie already. Afterall many of us go watch good movies more than once at the theature anyway.
One more thing music could learn from movies is that they need to release more than one version of a CD. A cheap version that is nothing but the CD for those who are satisfied with that and something more along the lines of a collectors edition later that might have extras such as a cool box (Rocky Horror Picture Show has an awesome DVD box), lyrics, information about the band, maybe a DVD of the music videos, etc. People will buy a product twice if the first time is a good deal and the second time offers stuff a 'true fan' will crave. Movie studios seem to understand this better than the music industry. The Phantom Menace Collectors Edition was also a nice release.. the inclusion of the film clip etc was very cool IMO and it probably cost them less than a nickle.
If movies, music, and games would drop to $3/each I might buy 10+ a week (I buy 1-2 now) and would be much less likely to bother downloading them. They have to let me play them on whatever device I want though. If I can't play it in Linux and mess around with editing them etc then I'll go back to ripping and burning.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
This all boils down to one thing.
The top singers, movie stars, and directors better start reducing their personal burn rates. There's no legitimate reason for someone to consistently spend more than a couple hundred thousand dollars a month, which is easily covered even with a 50-70% pay cut. Two 15-mil movies plus all the other money they get, post-tax, post-paycut, is still way more than 5 million. Cage would still be able to import a real castle into LA like he wants to.
If I buy an Mp3 do I have the right to sell it if I don't want it any more?
Sales are down for many reasons, including the use of illegal file sharing, but the RIAA are missing the number one reason music sales are down:
The past year has been a horrible year for newly released music!! The current state of mainstream music SUCKS. We all know it. Talk to any of your friends. Ask them when the last time a good band became mainstream was. Record sales are suffering because the record companies are marketing the wrong stuff, NOT because people are stealing music.
For example http://www.ziesjoem.com/
has an mp3 to download, listings of CDs etc.
and I *think* Marlstone records is not a major
(I could be wrong!)
admittedly even dutch people can't understand their limburger songs, but hey, you can't have everything!
Many online and paper audiophile magazines also give recommendations on good classical recordings. Though they tend to slant their reviews towards how well the CD is crafted sonically, typically they also base this on the quality of the performance as well. There are a lot of CDs out there that are recorded poorly, and checking out the recommends in these resources can help you dodge the worst.
V
Translating the DMCA from legallese and into plain English constitutes a form of reverse engineering, which is banned by the DMCA..
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Here's my basic plan:
1. Download the songs you want. Don't buy them. Try LimeWire, FastTrack (i.e., Morpheus, Grokster, KaZaa), WinMX, whatever. And don't whine about the "spyware" in LimeWire, you have the option not to install it; and if ur really concerned, go to the LimeWire directory and delete the **** u don't want. Btw, since LimeWire is open-sourced, u can modify it to your needs.
2. If you can't find the songs you want, go out and buy the CD. Make sure to check on the return policy. Preferrably, you want one of the new copy-protected CD's which they have to accept returns on. So, open up the CD try to play it on your computer. If it works on your computer, rip the music. If it doesn't work on your computer, play it on a CD-player, connect the output jack to your computers input, and rip it. In either case, after ripping it, return the CD to the store and say it didn't work. That way, you get it for free.
3. But what about the artists, oh the artists the artists? Well, when you buy a 15 dollar CD by Britney Spears, how much of that do you think goes to her? Maybe 5 dollars? Probably less. But lets be optimistic and say 5 dollars. So get the music for free via step 1 or step 2. If you get all 10 songs on her latest CD, that's 5 dollars that would have gone to her. So send her the money; hell, maybe even send her 10 dollars. You still spend less on the music than you would've, and she gets more. It eliminates the middle man. Then the RIAA can't whine about "how the musicians are getting screwed." No, now it would be only the companies that were getting screwed.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Maybe the reason there are no CD sales is because look what came out this year. Backstreet NSync Britney Mandy, look who came out in the last two years in Pop, same people. The listeners want new names!
When Napster still existed in it old form, I discovered new bands and music very easely and most times I did buy their CD's (although it was very difficult to find them in the CD shops, because those Shops usualy just got the forced mainstream stuff).
Now, I'm rarely buying new CD's, instead I go to live concerts. Most of the CD's in switzerland costs around 32.- swiss francs and that's the same or even more than you have to pay for a live concert.
An aspect of human nature that is on the same level as the desire for wealth is the desire for power. Record companies have, for a long time, had nearly complete control over the release of music. They've been able to tell bands what they can and can't release. They've controlled pricing, production, distribution, and marketingand lots of other things that I can't think of at the moment.
They absolutely hate the idea that music, an artistic expresion that they've kept their fingers on for so long, is beginning to break free. The internet has eroded their control over distribution, and thus shaking the foundations of their complete vertically integrated monopoly. Perhaps the RIAA fears the loss of one segment of their monopoly alone, or perhaps they fear that their stranglehold on the market will disappear entirely.
I'd like to see the net kill off record companies as we know it entirely. Who actually benifits from their existence? Let's see...
The public? Not one bit. The record companies control what we see on TV and hear on the radio and what we see first when we walk into a music store. They control how much we pay for an album. On the whole they try their hardest to control the opinions of the public.
The recording artists? At first glance, they benifit somewhat, as record sales are the main source of their income, and they don't have to worry about . But the record companies, of course, skim an enormous margin off the price of each record. And then, many bands are told what they can and can't put on their own records, diluting the most sacred quality of music, its value as an artistic expression.
To me, it's clear that only one entity benifits from the RIAA's existence- the RIAA itself. That's why it's evil, and that's why I want to see it die.
I guarantee that almost every serious musician in the industry would still be in the music business even if they didn't get their monthly paychecks from record companies. I'm certainly not saying that musicians don't deserve to live a comfortable life, because they do... but there are other ways for musicians to earn a living and gain public respect- plenty of bands handle their own production and distribution entirely on their own. Even non-affiliated (read non-evil) record companies can still achieve a good deal of exposure. The value of music would be much better preserved if bands reached the top solely by public consensus - by the merits of their music, rather than what industry execs decide will be the most profitable.
Even though their press releases may quote monitary facts, that's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is the control (read: monopoly) that the recording industry currently holds. Everyone in the world except record companies themselves would benifit from the demise of the RIAA.
I think I've said enough by now. Comment away.
Hey dude, i used to be into that music scene before.
I don't have my record collection anymore, some of it got stolen, broken, lost, sold in unemplpyed times, etc.
I have searched the net all over for one band.
BiG MiSTAKE.
Do you know this band? where can i get mp3s of their albums? I highly doubt the records are getting produced any more, and whenever i search the net for big mistake some horrible pop music with the song title big mistake comes up.
Do you know any of the song titles so i can search for that?
It was one of my favorite bands of all time, i think they even had a limited release of a cd, but i never found it. I would gladly buy their music again if i could. Even then, the people in the band certainly didn't seem like the type to give a rats ass if people copied it, only if people enjoyed it. Actually i think they lost money out of their own pocket to get some of the albums produced. This was pre internet boom days.
Anyway if you know about it,please respond.
in the past few years, i've burned about 20 CDs -- compilations of favorites i already own. i came into the napster thing kinda late, but i got into it right before it was "outlawed" ... i downloaded about 20 songs and made a mix.
... and i think that if i am willing, tons of other people are as well.
these 20 songs were (i'm not afraid to admit this) featured in various late-nite TV commercial offers.
now, i'd LOVE to pay for these songs, but right now i'd have to pay time-life music about $2,000 to get 20 songs that i really, really want.
i think i'm more like the typical music listener than the rest of slashdot readers
it's sad that the RIAA doesn't get it.
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
The drop in sales also seems to coincide with the slump in the economy.
How about them apples.
Im pretty sure that napster and other file sharingb programs had some affect on album sales in the past 2 years..
but lets give credit where credit is due..
if napster is to blame for all the music industries problems, then all my friends in the technology sector who were laid off this year and last should also be able to blame napster..
come on.. get soem sense people.
-LW
If electricity comes from electrons... does that mean that morality comes from morons?
They'll make it an international law, just like the current set of international copyright laws.
The internet is a world wide medium, the RIAA can not put all the world governments (or ISPs for that matter) in their back pockets.
Maybe not, but they can put the people who make the most popular OS's in their pockets (vest, front or back). See related story about content managed OS's. As much as the people here hate it, computer = Windows for most people. And, this pro-IP-freedom talk doesn't happen in the real world; people are pretty much happy with the way things are. And that's why we get laws like the DCMA and presidents like GWB.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
You seem to misunderstand the economics of bringing new artists to market. If the recording companies could pick the winners up front they would be fabulously successful businesses. Over 95% of the new acts sell virtually zero records and the record companies lose hundreds of thousands of dollars on each of them.
Although the consensus around here seems to be that these record companies sign acts to long contracts but pay them nothing, the fact is that record companies pay an up front fee, living expenses, recording, advertising costs, travel expenses etc. for many acts before they sell a single record.
The idea that the record companies want acts to be washed up after a few years is misinformed. It's like suggesting that lottery winners want their annual payments to stop after a few years so they can play the lottery again. There was a good story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about an woman who sold less than $5,000 (retail) in cd's after a major studio spent millions trying to develop her.
Out of the 6,455 albums produces last year by major studios, only 52 made money. That is over 99% lost money and the 1% of successful albums subsidized the rest of the industry.
I saw this coming...the RIAA killing the goose that laid them the golden egg...morons
El Diablo, the Twisted One
I just have a few questions i would like answered.. (note: i don not take any sides to this subject..)
1. who pays for the recording time and stuff that the artists spend on while in the recording studios? who arranges tours, creates stickers, fan stuff etc. ??
2. are there not cds with only 2-3 tracks on them that people can buy if they just want a couple of songs? are not these much cheaper than regular full albums? (for those who say they just want a couple of tracks off the cds..)
3. how much wasted money is spent on promoting the bands/singers/rappers and becomes part of the price of cds?
4. what else is factored in that causes the total price of the cd?
5. is not the music industry just like every other form of entertainment industry? c'mon, you've got to expect high prices. ex: football. tickets are crazy. movies: dvd prices are crazy. because that's how they make a profit.
(mod as offtopic as needed.)
I support publik eduscatation!
It costs less to make a CD than a casette tape. So why do CDs and DVDs cost more than tapes? Because it's what 'they' think the market will bear... wankers.
CDs are superior to casettes in every way imaginable, therefore casettes must be cheaper to even sell. There's a lot more involved than production costs. That's capitalism, learn to love it.
LOL that was awesome.
Let me start off by saying that most of my life I have been a music junkie. My dealer was the owner of a small record store in my hometown. I would walk into the store and he (knowing my musical tastes) would peddle me some free samplers from the record industry with a few sample songs from the album --- or sometimes a pre release FULL album thrown in for a bone. I would be ever so greatful that I was getting this "special" service. In retrospect he could set his clock by the fact that I would be marching in his store in a few days to purchase a full length album or two from the group of sample tapes he had given me before. I would leave the store with my new purchased albums and a new batch of sample tapes. Repeat and wash for 10 years and a tape collection over 500.
5 years later...The "big" record stores laugh at me when I ask for any samples. Radio does not play "my type of music"....I have know way of knowing what music to purchase....Let alone where to hear a sample before making the purchase....Needless to say, I go the next few years with only buying a handful of CD's (mostly from artists who had released music I liked "back in the day" or to replace my favorite crappy tapes with CD's.)
Fast forward to Napster....Much like the sample tapes I used to get when I was a kid...I can download a few obscure album songs from a band I read about and actually have a fair and partial decision making process....AND guess what -- I started to frequent the music stores like crazy, and started filling up my CD collection with FRESH music from new bands, and old bands I had somehow missed the first time around.
Post Napster: I have not been back to the record store because even if I had a gift certificate for a wheel barrow load of free CD's, I would not even know where to start....I tried gnutella for awhile, but it was not the same....Napster represented the WHOLE (by the numbers of people using it), everything else is just scattered pieces -- and if I was looking for top 40 or greatest hits records then maybe that would suffice -- but I am looking for obscure music from bands that may have never sold any more albums than I have fingers, never made the airwaves of radio, no MTV, yet still managed to get a record contract.
Bottom line: the industry has failed. And until I can walk into a record store that has all of the trappings of my former "dealer" OR can easily SNARF music samples from an endless pit of obscure recordings such as Napster -- then the recording industry will never see another red cent from me thank you.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I want to apologize ahead of time for how disjointed my post is going to be.
I previously worked in a music store for 4 years, and I am now 25. I have always had a love for music. I often say to my friends, there isn't a day I cannot go without listening to some music. Its part of my everyday therapy in life.
I guess it means that much to me.
When I worked in the store, I got many a promotional CD, but I tell you also that I bought a lot.
In our store, we allowed people to listen any CD they wanted. I am pretty proud to have contributed to many an artist. People would come in looking to purchase many one CD. I sold more. I was a good saleswoman. I didn't sell the customer the standards of popularity, I was a spokesperson for the undermarketed and overlooked musician.
The RIAA, in frankness, is a bloodsucking leech. So many artists could do without them.
Yes, I understand their desire to protect their interests, but while they sit and ponder how to destroy piracy... they overlook the artists who pay their salaries. They overlook their rights and needs.
Now how does this relate to Music Downloading? Well, I have downloaded many songs. Many of the songs I have are hard to find, out of print, or available on import albums which are expensive.
Music Downloading has given me actually more empowerment as a consumer. I can find new artists that are like artists I already listen to. I am not stuck with having to purchase a trendy radio hyped album.
In fact I don't listen to the radio. I occasionally watch MTV2 to see what is going on, but I find out a lot of info about artists on the net and by downloading a few songs.
Music Downloads have actually increased my desire to purchase CDs.
In the last 3 weeks, I have purchased over 4 CDs (3 of which were imports - highest costing me 44 dollars - Akino Arai CD).
My collection spans over 1,000 CDs. The majority bought and paid for by me with the money I have earned.
I don't want to steal from artists. However, I don't want to be cheated by the RIAA and told what I should listen to either. I also refuse to follow the majority when I have my own heart and mind.
For whatever it is worth, I am trying to support the artist rather than Piracy or the RIAA.
Does anyone know if deregulation of the airwaves, and radio station mergers have happened in Canada as well? I think I heard something about a lot of radio stations being bought up by big (Canadian-based, I assume) corporations similar to what has happened in the US. All I know is that what was my favourite radio station as a teenager a few years ago (Edge102 in Toronto) sounds really, really bland to me these days. Maybe I'm getting old, maybe it's just the way the music scene is these days(Creed, Nickelback) but it seems like Edge102 isn't playing the variety they used to. Can any Canadian slashdotters confirm this?
hoser: Slashdot reader since 1987.
I don't refuse to buy CDs because I lack the money.
I refuse to buy CDs because they are
a) copy protected. In Europe, we pay special taxes on CD-R media and drives to compensate artists for the copies we make. I pay for the right to make copies. If they make CDs I can't copy, but refuse to give me my money back, then that is fraud. I don't like fraud.
b) giving the money to RIAA, not to the artists.
I would gladly pay $10 to the artists I like and download the music from whereever I want. Face it, people are downloading the music anyway. Give them a way to pay the artist (and not the music industry mafia) and they will do it. It's in their own interest, they want more music from the artist.
Adjunctive?
Just as much as any other.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
We need a labelling organization like the PMRC, but one that slaps labels on saying "Can't Be Played On Home Computers, CD Players, And In Cars".
We need people to rip Ogg files. We need people to host things at MP3.com and Try And Buy places.
Above all, we need to break the back of the RIAA label Crony Capitalists who skim the money with their artificial monopoly. Either they give us rippable CDs or we don't buy them. Always buy with a credit card, and if it doesn't work, promptly return and insist on a full refund - not store credit. If they refuse, deny the charges.
This is war. We can win. It just takes blood, toil and tears.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Does anybody remember filling out a survey?
I sure don't. I don't remember filling out anything asking about my music tastes, and how I get it.
Neither does anybody I know personally.
I really have cut down on buying music myself, but that is because of saving for a large international move at the end of the year, not due to the Economy. If CD's cost less, I'd have bought one in the last few months.
I don't download music off the net. Never have, and don't plan on starting to. I do have a personal access to all my music (Which I have bought, over 200 CDs, several Tapes I converted, and a few Vinyls that are converted), so I can listen to all the music from home at work.
So, In conclusion, I'd like to find out where they got these stats, and how I fit in there. According to their stats, Most of us download music, and don't buy CD's, or just download music without buying them.
What am I paying for?
Now that mp3 swapping has removed the media from the equation, the RIAA claim that it's mostly the intellectual property that I'm paying for.
Great, I'm all for that.
But what the hell was I paying for before?
Do you know how many copies of "Dark Side Of The Moon" I've bought?
Let's see- 1 on vinyl, 2 on cassette, and I believe 3 on CD.
Shit, I payed for the SAME intelectual property 6 seperate times!
I always thought you were charging me for the media, so I went along with it.
But now you've made it clear, it was the IP that I was paying for all along!
Well, I want my fucking money back.
You can keep your ~$4 for the actual production costs of the media, but please promptly return to me the ~$70 that I needlessly spent on additional copies of the same intellectual property.
Thank you RIAA for graciously pointing out my error in this matter.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
But what happens after we've all got government subsidized broad-band up the wazzoo? What happens after the next generation of rio/burner/whatever technology makes MP3s easier to deal with than CDs? And the encoding tech gets better so they really do have "CD-quality" sound? What do you say to the labels that suddenly aren't selling any CDs any more, and the artists that aren't getting any royalties? "Better get out there and sell some T-shirts guys! Oops, everyone's downloading pirated iron-ons off of the web now... Well, there's always busking."
It's entirely understandable why some folks regarded Napster as a problem... I would not claim that these guys have really got a good solution, but you know, when you don't have a good one you try a bad one.
[1] The author of this post does not speak for Emusic, which is still a pretty cool company even if they have been bought by some idiots at Universal-Vivendi. Unlimited download access to a large collection of independant music, where the artist gets paid royalties. Real MP3s, no idiotic copy protection.
I couldn't find the /. article that was posted in the last 3 months b/c it seems every time I try to search I just get stories about Linux. GEEKS.
Anyway just remember that you're not paying for a plastic disc with a metallic insert. You're paying for the producers, musicians, technicians and also the suits who give them all money up front to make the record.
And why'll they do make more in return than the musicians or anyone else, that's how the industry works. If you have a better plan change it or stop bitching and buy cd's from local bands and don't touch the commercial stuff.
No sig for you!!
It is obvious that the music industry is going through the biggest transition since the advent of recorded sound. Sharing certain files may be deemed "illegal" but I don't think that it would have been deemed illegal if a) the commodity was inexpensive to distribute, b) expensive to enforce controlled distribution, and c) if it was customary to distribute in this way. The modern circumstance has shades of this. While the initial means of distribution can be controlled, after that, it's all about the police knocking on people's doors (or a cease & desist which implies that the police will come knocking). Ancient authors and singers (like Homer) had no control over their work after it passed their lips. It just wasn't cost effective to control it that way. An ancient would get paid for his initial singing of the material, but if someone happened to memorize his song, there was nothing he could do to stop that person from repeating it and passing it on. However, we are inheriting laws from a time when this type of scheme was easily enforceable and the people who profited from the old system and who have the most to lose are fighting to prevent the system from changing. But the system has changed. Distribution is incredibly, mind-numbingly easy. Also, it will become increasingly difficult to enforce. People like the CD format because of the quality that it gives. Until (and unless) a significantly superior format comes out, a company that doesn't put their material on CD will not profit. However, this format also allows for easy distribution, and this will give this format a longevity unrivaled by any previous format. The consequence however, is that music is easier to trade now than ever before in history. And it will become increasingly more expensive to enforce under the laws of the old system. In some ways, it seems that we may be heading backwards when copyright was really only the responsibility to give credit to somebody for their work.
I drank what?
I love listening to my brother play guitar and the rest of my siblings sing along, even if we stink and it's Christmas and Mom keeps requesting "that song that you did when we were at Bernice's... YOU REMEMBER!". Music is not just some cold, static commodity that you can keep repackaging and selling successfully, unless you articulate how people SHARE it. Why do you think that the language has gotten fouler, the talent has ebbed to invisibility, and voyeurism has replaced observed performance? The music industry (envision a sausage grinder if you care to) is going through the cycle that motion pictures are trapped in. In order to repeat ever-increasing ideas of sales points and rising budgets for everyone, they have to make appeal broader and more titillating. So, broader is kids (infinitely deep pockets, absolutely no taste, outnumbering the rest of the world by 4x), and titillating is sex and rebellious violence (insert pop diva and rap-core star here). Sad side-effect: In an effort to hide the neuroses that drove them to buy toupee's, tummy-tucks and PT Cruisers, some adults will even buy the watered down, well, water that passes for musical talent. The driving force in all musics is society. To clear the fog a bit, I suggest we follow the making of Britney's latest album from the four minutes of writing songs to the six weeks in costuming, six weeks in coreography, eight weeks in post-production fixing her voice-breaks, and the fact that you can't find her guitarist because the rascal changed his name to work on the project. Then we could try this experiment: Have a headlining rap star do an entire album without getting anywhere NEAR the outright theft of talent by sampling and looping, and watch that album shoot through the iron roof of sales like a moist piece of cheese toast. If I want to ENJOY music, I just have to wait until Christmas again. If I want to buy music, I'm fairly whipped. I know it's a business, but I'm tired of being on it's business end.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
it's choreography, isn't it? Sorry.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
Considering the crap they tried to mske us tolerate, I think they should pay US as well. The listening public is the real victim here!!!
now musicians can go back to getting $0.000001 per cd instead of $0.0001 when sales were good.
Remember what the guy at the Grammys said if you burn a cd you are evil..yes even ripping a cd should be illegal according to his rant
Books are already at this point, I read in a report somewhere that 85% of all commercially published books never reach the breaking-even point for the publishing houses. CDs are completely different from books in that the raw materials cost 1/3 as much and the price is 3 times as much. I know that CDs are marketted an insane amount compared to books, but frankly, so what? The question is, and I think the Heinlein quote says this very elegantly, does the industry deserve it? Do corporations deserve the right to buy legislation(through the courts or through elected leaders) to protect their business practices? Furthermore, how much will the judge thrust into the spotlight of having to decide between their morals, the lawyers of the record companies, and the Big 5's influence in the higher tiers of government decide the case? History shows that the vast majority of the time, your superior intelligence and tools(Napster) is no match for our puny weapons(Lawyers). Eventually though, something snaps, and in this case, a decentralized, "underground" network with (mostly) private communications presents the most innovative, cooperative group with the highest probability of success. I think that no matter what happens, the current leaders of the industry are too set in their ways, too outmoded, and have become obsolete in an industry that no longer needs them. Until one or more of them break ranks and stop trying to increase their profits by 10% in order to offset a trend to stop buying their products, they are doomed. I predict that within 5 years, when times really get hard for them, one or more will break ranks and begin selling music online from dedicated, nolag servers, in a perfect copy form, for only 50% cut for the record companies, the rest going to the artists. Things will get worse before they get better though, they always do.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
I own about 200+ CD's... bought them all when I was in the latter years of HS and in College... Always thought they were overpriced, but I liked the tunes and couldn't get them any other way...
Then CD'Rs became available and my friends and I started splitting the cost of CD's - who gives a shit about the box anyway? Once color printers hit the scene, that became even less of an issue...
When MP3's hit, I grabbed them from IRC and the newsgroups... When Napster hit, I started downloading everything I could get my hands on... All day. Every day.
Stuff I had on CD already (too lazy to encode it myself), stuff that was in different mixes, stuff that seemed cool... stuff I never heard before because the RIAA and the Radio Stations had been blocking it to promote their own brand of special bullshit...
Ya know what? I don't listen to the radio anymore... Don't plan on listening to it ever again. The only reason it's even in my car is because I have an MP3 player that broadcasts on a channel and I use the radio to pick it up... Some day, I'll rip it out and stuff in a hard drive, but this works for now. So no more radio. Occasionally I have a friend that turns it on, but it's always worthless shit and I demo the MP3 stuff... They think it's cool - so I give them copies and they turn their radio off too...
I use MP3 at home... on the 'puters all over my LAN... I grab the MP3's over my broadband connection and stream them at work... I stream them over my LAN to my stereo...
Anything I hear and like, I get a copy of from someone... if I can't find it, I search the net. If I still can't find it, I add it to my list and eventually find it.
I'm sick and tired of being ripped off, and controlled. I'm returning the favor by not buying music again until it becomes more cost effective for me to get it from some 'legal' source than it does for me to download it. That price point is about $0.25/song... maybe $0.50 a song if it's a good one... Other than that - fuck the RIAA... Screw the radio station conglomerates too...
And ya know what? As broadband speeds go up, MPAA is next on my shit list unless they make the DVD's cheap - keep them about $3-5 each and I'll buy 'em... otherwise, I could care less about the sound/video quality - I'm only going to watch it once anyway (photographic memory...).
Moral: Treat consumers right - we'll buy. Treat us poorly - we'll return the favor.
Why do people keep buying into the myth that artists need CD sales to survive?
Here's an example, the band Gorillaz, first of all I love them because of the concept and the attitude of the characters.
Well, I didn't but the Gorillaz CD, I got a copy from a friend of a friend. I've listened to that CD 100's of times in the last 5 months. It's become my favorite CD of 2001.
So I'm now a huge fan of a band because I was able to listen to their whole record. So guess what? I went out and purchased they're new release G-sides yesterday, and I bought concert tickets to see them in Chicago this sunday night. I'll probably buy a t-shirt there, that'll probably put more money into the band's pocket then the CD's ever would.
I would have never done that without first coming to love their music.
My point is sometimes you have to put the product where it's easily accessable and the people will come and support you if it's good.
If not, hell you can always jump in MTV's pocket and have them put you on TRL and make a shitty motion picture that grosses 14 million *cough* brittney *cough*.
Real artists should wake up to the reality that perhaups the support they so desperately need from other channels than CD's.
If an artist is truely an artist, then other ideas to support yourself will come.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
Today, I watch RAP on TV and hear it on the radio and realize they are forcing complete garbage on me. 95% of RAP is total trash.
It's spelled KRAP (the initial K is silent, you know) and my estimation is that the garbage fraction is more like 99.9%. Being a white male, I find it offensively racist, and I change the channel without listening to it. My (half-black) girlfriend calls it "big-mouth blacks".
And of course the RIAA has to have total control of the distribution channel in order to sell it. They learned how to do that with the bunk rawk of the early 70's, and perfected the techniques during "the disco era" (disco carried a similarly high garbage fraction, also requiring me to change channels _a_lot_. It required intervention on the part of the musicians' union to eliminate disco).
And of course they'll oppose to the death anything that threatens this control.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
In reality, Mariah Carey is a member, along with Red Green and that little annoying Pepsi girl, of a terrifying triumvirate! The Three, as they are referred to in certain circles, are at the heart of all that is unhealthy and evil in the world....
And how did Herr Gates get left out of that?
More likely Mariah Carey, Red Green, & the Pepsi grrl are just the frontmen for a far more hideous triangle consisting of DerGates, Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen. Yeah, that's it...
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Don't know if anyone noticed last weeks Nielsen ratings, but the Grammys had one of their worst ratings ever. http://www.salon.com/ent/wire/2002/03/06/grammys/i ndex.html
I think that speaks volumes about the real reason why sales of music were down this past year: loss of interest in pop music. People have lost interest in the majority of the pop acts out these days and slumping sales by pop luminaries suggest as much.
Hopefully rather than concentrating on ruining online music trading, record industries might concentrate more on putting out quality music that's worth buying.
Almost everything sells for what the market will bear. Of course it's more complicated than that, but that's a basic principle. Often very similar products vary greatly in costs. Go to the drug store and compare prices on Bayer Aspirin and the house brand. Do you think Bayer really spends more to make its product? Go to the shoe store and compare prices there. Does that stupid Swoosh really add $50 to the manufacturing cost of a shoe?