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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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 - $10. My local and other stores like it are always busy, and not a penny goes to the RIAA! It's a damned outrage!
I download loads of music but only songs that I already have on vinyl records.
(or also GPL'ed music)
I spent a lot of money on these records years ago so I don't accept being called a pirate.
Am I wrong ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Back when I was in college in my 20's I bought a lot of CD's. Now I'm in my 30's and I don't buy near as many CD'sas I did when I was in my 20's. There was, however, a brief increase in my CD buying when Napster was around. I hate all of our local radio stations so I'd look at the playlists of websites that played music I did like. I couldn't hear the music though. With Napster, I had the ability to preview the songs which usually then meant going on to Amazon.com and buying the CD's. Now, for one reason or another, Napster is gone and I just don't buy CD's anymore. I know I could use Limewire or some other sharing program but I don't. I can say for a fact that Napster caused me to buy more CD's. My friends have similar testimonies.
why does the same cd cost 13$ in the us of a, 18$ in belgium, and (not kidding) 30$ in the uk? ...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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 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.
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
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...
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
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.
Good luck getting me to buy a CD. I would rather pay for a streaming service that has that variety anyday.
Random Musings
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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
Cool. I saw Chuck Berry at his Blueberry Hill restaurant/club in St. Louis.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
>drug war anyone?
No thank you, I'm rolling a joint.
//rdj, the flying dutchman
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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
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
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!
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.
Except one flaw in your logic. The ARTIST is getting screwed. They are NOT getting more money. The people really makeing the bucks are the labels and RIAA.
Best Buy, Walmart, and Target got into trouble selling discounted CD's. The record companies got pissed, as they want prices to stay high. In retaliation, they withheld co-marketing dollars which is a big deal to stores. That's the money that helps pay for advertising, instore signage, display cases, etc. BB sued. I don't recall the outcome, but BB won one part, but may have been overturned in a later appeal. Anyone know? I believe this was what caused prices to drop from the $19 to $14, but it doesn't surprise me that they are raising prices again.
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.
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 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
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!
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.
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'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.
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!
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
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."
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.
You hit the nail on the head. It is really sad when the RIAA/Clear Channel oligopoly is so bad that I can find more new music through Slashdot than on the radio. I have checked out several artists that have been mentioned in post over the last several months -- some I like, others are not my cup of tea, but at least the time spend checking 'em out was worth it. Bearshare is doing the same thing for me. I have been getting into Techno thanks to the bear. RIAA -- If you want my $$, then show me something worth spending them on!
Beware of Sleestak
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?
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.
Anything by Suzanne Vega. I have all but her first album, and the music and lyrics are quite good. 99.9F was my personal favorite.
Method of processing duck feet
The late Kirsty MacColl put out some fantastic music, too. Her style defies definition, and her lyrics are sharp. She sings in at least 3 languages, and expresses a wry wit in many of her stories. Her singing voice isn't the best, but that's a minor thing.
Check her out -- you won't regret it.
My favorite album is a tie between Electric Landlady and Tropical Brainstorm.
Method of processing duck feet
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....
...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??
Artists get very, very little from the sales of their CDs. Perhaps you've heard about the many artists complaining about abuse by RIAA companies? The Courtney Love suit immediately comes to mind.
It's been a long time.
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
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.
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.
If I buy an Mp3 do I have the right to sell it if I don't want it any more?
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
1: respectively, the artist and the promoters. Recording time is recoupable- it comes straight out of artist royalties. Stuff like a tour bus also comes out of royalties and is recoupable. It's _arranged_ by promotion- and the promotion also comes out of royalties. It's all recoupable. Read a contract.
2: Not any more. The CD single is seriously deprecated. They _could_ be made, but they're not going to be. They hurt sales of the full album at the full price. This is something of a change, at one point CD singles and cassingles were big business...
3: More than half of it- maybe as much as 75%. It varies. Won't be less than half, certainly.
4: Breakage of the shellac the record is made of. "Free Goods", meaning promotional distribution. The fact that CDs never did have to drop in price as people kept buying the things anyway.
5: Dunno, I don't know football as well as I know the music industry. It reminds me of my local supermarket (a one-supermarket town) and the price of Coke 2-liters. It's a one-supermarket town. They can do what they like. So, the price of Coke varies between 89 cents a 2-liter (on sale), $1.19 (normal) and $1.39 (what they'd like).
I do have to expect this kind of foolishness. I also have to choose not to buy it at $1.39, because only then does it temporarily come down again- and with their 'cards' and quick feedback on how well the stuff is selling, it comes down within a couple weeks, and I stock up, and wait for the next experiment, maybe with Coke at $1.79. Whatever.
Nobody ever said setting high prices has to _result_ in a profit. It can also result in a complete drying up of sales. That's business.
What??
That is generally not the case. It is considerably more likely if the artist/band has a pit-bull business team, including a very tough lawyer. Even so, such an artist has to be able to produce serious promotion and sell records WITHOUT a label to even get into a position where they can do so for a label and benefit anything from it. Metallica's a good example of this- they were able to set their terms for signing, because they were doing so well anyhow they could take it or leave it. Most artists are nowhere near as industrious and hardworking as this.
I guess even your first glance is a bit crooked, if you figure that most artists live off their record sales. That has pretty much never been the case since recorded music began...
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.
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?
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.
Really, I retract my claim. I'm sorry. I wasn't careful about my research, and I goofed.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
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?