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."
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.
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Where did I read this.....was it /....or maybe cnet?
Anyways...DVD's are at a turning point and there is a split in the ranks of the movie studies about how to handle DVD's inthe future. 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. So that extra 3 hours of behind th scense footage is now going to start costing studios real money to produce becuase the talent knows thats a revenue stream for the studies and they want a fair cut.
Also the licensing deal with BlockBuster is coming up for renewal....and it looks like BlockBuster isnt going to renew. The deal let blockbuster get advanced distribution of movies for rental before they were available for commercial sale...and the studies got a percentage of the rental take. Now it seems both sides of that deal are backing off. The studies think getting titles out quicker for sale is a good idea...and blockbuster is looking at the lower cost of stocking DVD making up for any lost revenue garnished by having a rental only window before full release. Both the studies and BlockBuster think they can make more money by selling cheaper...
More interesting still Warner Bros. is looking very hard at dropping the price of their DVD catalog through the floor...the idea being to get people to buy a DVD like they buy magazines in places like Walmart. Part of the reason is a lessoned learned trying to watching the record studies fight to keep control. If the price is low and reasonable...do people have less incentive still and more incentive to pony up the money....it seem like someone in the movie buz has woken up to the reality of file swapping...its always going to be there, the question is can you encourage people to buy instead of steal. If the DMCA is the stick....are $3 DVD's sitting in the checkout racks of your local Walmart the carrot?
-jef
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
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.
Things are very different. My school had to implement and upload/download limit on internet1 traffic whlie they go over the options on how to control this problem. (Most likely they'll be using a packateer...) The problem has been caused due to music/movie etc transfers on morpheous and kazaa. Becasue of our schools privacy policy and unrestrictive content, the school doesn't want to censor or block any incoming material or outgoing. They don't monitor content. Into the first couple weeks of the semester, before the bandwitdh restrictions, the network was soo saturated to the point that i1 traffic was
Hell, if Sorority Sarah can burn the new N'SYNC album on her Compaq, she's not going to buy it.
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
I'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.
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