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.
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
The MPAA is blaming everything and anything that can record television (but not the economy). Remember, Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, was the genius in the 80's that was saying that VHS would destroy Hollywood and the movie industry.
Maybe it's just me Jack, but I beleive VHS not only helped the movie industry, but it also provided a new revenue stream (rentals).
Of course now he is at it again trying to control the digital medium while arguing that it will destroy Hollywood. Wow, what a visionary!
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
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-
Thank God for NPR.
Best Slashdot Co
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?
What, you think you have to be a 20 year old male to violate copyright laws?
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.
If I ever catch anyone downloading a whole album off me, I cut them off.
Admirable, and you never ever downloaded a whole album from someone else either.
Just wait until he has all that copy protection built into your OS (XP), TVs, and DVD players (DVD/DVD2), www.intel.com, etc. And has streaming services using up all our bandwidth on the net. You just wait 'til he breaks all our backs (building this technology) just to use it to squeeze those extra few pennies out of our teenagers. Heh, you don't know Jack. www.2600.com
I wish old, filthy-rich, ugly people like him could be forced to retire.
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.
This is especially true since there is no return policy on opened music in most stores, such as Best Buy. You're absolutely right, I can see myself bying a ton more music if it was $8 per cd or even less and I could return if I didn't like it within let's say 10 days and exchange for another cd.
Now I'm sure some people would choose to use this for piracy, but I know lower prices would be a great incentive to try new stuff, and be less likely to regret and return something not quite good if I didn't spend as much money on it.
It's hard to justify spending $15 when you really only know one song, and there is no listening station for that artist. So you go, ok, I'll go home and download this album, and see if I like it. But then if you do, you already have it downloaded so there is less incentive to go _back_ to the store and buy it. Lower prices would greatly increase impulse purchases of music.
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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).
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.
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
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.
The music industry lost big time here, because honestly, it IS NOT costing them more money to duplicate a CD onto another CD. Had they charged $0.25/song, and say $5.00 per CD made, those 'make your own CD' kiosks would mean I could create a CD of ~15 songs at a BestBuy using a bunch of CD's I didn't own, but wouldn't purchase anyways (one hit wonder artists), and net the artists, producers, and distributors an extra $8.75 that they would not have otherwise made off of me.
Oh yes, and P2P systems and Napster popularity came *AFTER* the 'mix your own CD' kiosks. [sarcasm]I wonder why...[/sarcasm]
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.
I think the big problem with your theory is that you can't copy toothbrushes. Nor are "street corner merchants" like Kaaza making cheaper toothbrushes; they're copying other people's toothbrushes.
If we created a P2P tool that had a real referral system and a way of promoting new music, that would be one thing. Instead, we have a system where you must know what you're looking for before you find it. We still learn what music we want to hear from the Radio and from MTV; we just use P2P technology to get it cheaper/for free.
P2P should be replacing the advertising channels. Instead it's trying to replace the retail channels.
And that really is illegal.
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
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
Yes it costs less to make a CD than a cassette, but that does not mean that the CD should be cheaper
It's funny that Henry Ford somehow missed out on this economic wisdom.
Every day I read about how and why those on the supply side should be permitted special circumstances or protections just because none of us can see how Capitalism can survive in an age of free exhange of ideas. Perhaps Capitalism would be better served (as always) by embracing change rather than the ridiculous contortions we seem to think it needs to succeed.
No, none of them work like this. In fact, in every single P2P program, you must know the name of the artist you are searching for before you can search for them. Great for downloading Metallica. Terrible for downloading DistroThorque, the metal band down the street desperately trying to be heard.
Imagine instead a system that didn't store the name of the song or artist. You'd know the name once you got the file, but you wouldn't be allowed to search by it. What would you be able to search by? Assosciated METADATA. Any user could add non-title related MetaData to the song, like: "Punk", "If you liked X(opaqueid) you'll like this", "heavy tempo", "new york scene", etc.
What are the advantages of this system?
To me, that's the promise of P2P.
Now I should just go write it (-;
Loneliness is a power that we possess to give or take away forever
Fully fledged bastard of a good point. The amazing thing is that there is any debate about this at all on fora like Slashdot. For the majority of people, it's simply not wrong. If it were wrong, it would be hard to do, or there would be a threat of punishment. It isn't and there isn't, so it must be OK, right? Or, like, The Authorities would stop it, or something (assuming they even get that far in their thought processes).
And yet... and yet... the metrics don't support that. We see P2P use and CD sales rise and fall in unison. We (being geeks) assume that the P2P sharing drives enthusiasm for buying CD's. The RIAA selectively misrepresents the figures to "prove" that sharing kills sales.
Is there a simpler answer?
That there is no cause-effect from sharing to sales? That it's all the other way around, just like it's been for the past fifty years or so? When there's a lot of good music around, CD sales go up, and that drives extra traffic in P2P sharing. When the music sucks, sales drop, and people don't even care enough to share.
Both the RIAA and the geek brigade have agenda to show that P2P drives sales (down and up respectively), but (anecdotes aside) there's no direct evidence to support that. Perhaps CD purchasers are buying music using the same criteria that they have for the past fifty some years: does it suck? How much does it cost? Do I want my own good quality CD, or a shitty MP3/analogue tape/reel to fucking reel copy from my friend?
Anecdotes aside, copying has always been extra to shelf sales. The figures seem to indicate that's still the case. People who are going to buy music are still buying it, even though they don't have to.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
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
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?
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.
"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 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
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.
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.
One of the earlier great minds (forget who) said this:
If you and I each have a apple (toothbrush), and we share apples, afterwards, we each only have one apple. BUT if we share ideas, afterwards, we each have two ideas.
No matter how much we try to make music, movies, performances, etc. into physical items, they are not, when it comes down to it they are ideas.
Before the technology existed to record music, it was always performed. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, the traveling bard etc. They got paid for their performance, recordings of their work did not exist. AND in general current artists make their money performing, the record contracts are just marketing contracts, not income.
The fact that due to a technological quirk artist's performances TEMPORARILY became physical commodities doesn't mean that this is the way things SHOULD be. They never used to be physical commodities, and again, they no longer are. This is the way of things, live with it.
==>Lazn
Record companies do two things at once:
So I applaud your idea - yes P2P music should focus on the type of music, rather than relying on the artist branding that's been built mostly be the marketing of the record companies. But how do you make it cool, generate that buzz that makes me want not just to listen but to be a part of it? Keep on it, hopefully something cool will come out.
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.