Slashdot Mirror
Ebert, Gillmor on the Music Industry
TTop writes "Roger Ebert has weighed in with a scathing critique of the Universal Music Group and its new copy-protection scheme which renders CDs unplayable in non-Windows operating systems, DVD players, and CD-compatible game consoles. It's nice to see the mainstream press start to come out against the idiotic copy-protection war the RIAA is declaring on their best customers, music lovers. Having to agree to a legal contract to hear a CD you've purchased on your own PC? Puh-leeze. Ebert compares these copy-protection schemes to Circuit City's failed DIVX DVD format." Columnist Dan Gillmor wrote a piece a few days ago about drawing a line in the sand.
While it's nice that more people in the public eye are speaking out against copy protection, it's not bound to help much. Money makes the world go round, as long as the RIAA and MPAA see money "lost" that could be theirs, they're not gonna stop. Well, at least not til the money spent on copy protection > the amount of money lost from sales.
:P.
But seriously, pirates hurt software companies just as bad, if not worse than the music industry. Why doesnt the RIAA, MPAA..etc recongonize this? Its not as if Adobe is giving away Photoshop. They only difference is that software companies have adapted to this changed their business model to surive.
I like how he finishes the piece:
...it would be the easiest thing in the world to buy a disc, rip it to your computer through your stereo, post it on the Web, and then return the CD for a refund. Did I just say that?
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Me too.
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If you really want to spite the RIAA, involve yourself in open piracy for no profit. Send the artists money directly or go see them in concert (which they get a larger take from, anyhow). That's what I do, personally. Look at free alternatives like Emusic.com - but don't give them another penny.
Canadian law says that the RIAA give up the right to procecute you for piracy done for personal use by your own hand. Make full use of that. The current levy hike they propose is insane, but since the government has decided to transistion music into a public good, you're stupid not to take advantage of it. I know I'll be trumpeting this little factoid at the top of my lungs to anyone who will listen if the price of an iPod goes up by over $100 or $150 because of this!
However, maybe this will give emusic.com and others the ability to break the RIAA stranglehold on music. That's what they're really afraid of.
And for those of you interested in a cool slashdot article, how about someone with a little money and time go out and get one of these copy protected CDs. Then do an analog sample with a nice quality headphone adapter cable into a reasonably standard sound card and then do some comparisons online (although, I'm not even sure if you could put samples up as fair use anymore!). Show them the futility of this first hand.
What, are ADC chips going to get banned next?
..don't panic
Just wondering since Philips did complain that this sort of copy protection that fails to work on some systems violates Red Book. Thus, can these discs carry the Compact Disc logo?
Fortran programmer...oh yeah. Array math for life!
I used to think Ebert was some pompous windbag, who wouldn't know a good movie it it slapped him in the face. But the older he gets, and the more I read stuff he's written, the more I come to realize he's a guy who really "gets it".
It hurts when I pee.
For that to happen, the 12 year old girls will have to be convinced of the importance of the boycott, so that they will stop buying CDs by BoyBandOfTheWeek and J'Britney.
Maybe we could find a way to make buying CDs uncool.
Best Slashdot Co
Physical Commodities - Exchange or Access
What is the fundamental basis on which we deal with the customer?
One's a single-shot deal (mostly): say hello, exchange goods/money, say goodbye.
The other's a deal that lasts for a certain period. In the case of this conference, three days.
In both cases the physicality of the commodity wholly represents the product and the work that went into producing it. The property is clear, the deal is clear.
Non-Physical Commodities? (Digital Content)
An oxymoron surely?
Let's see. Here's some digital content I'd like to make available for you to download (in only twelve bytes of ASCII) - Write the following down on a piece of paper: "A, D, A, M, space, H, A, D, space, apostrophe, E, M". Thus: "Adam Had 'em."
Incidentally, I'm not the copyright holder of this work, Ogden Nash is. So all of you who've made digital copies by writing it down have just become criminals by copying the work in its entirety.
It's called 'Fleas', also known as the shortest poem in the world, and thus highly valuable. I understand that printed copies of this poem currently retail for up to £5,000 and that consequently the punitive damages for illicit copying may be quite substantial.
If literary works of art were this easy to copy a few hundred years ago, no-one would have invented copyright, let alone convinced themselves that digital content was a commodity.
Copying Physical Commodities is not inherently profitable, so it doesn't need to be controlled
There's nothing wrong with copying physical commodities, because in general the copies are just as much work to produce as the originals.
This is except for novel, patentable devices which enjoy a dispensation to retain a legal monopoly on production for a certain period (to enable the development costs to be recouped). This is to foster economic and technological progress, not to create a human right.
If a non-physical commodity doesn't represent the labour that went into it, then either we assign a right to copy it, or we stop treating it like a commodity. If the latter, then the original work represents the work.
Art is slightly different to a commodity, it's an idea given form
Art, whether written, pictorial, or sculpted is a little different though.
Once upon a time (and today if you've got the money) you could commission art, or you could buy art from artists who'd produced it for sale.
Then, forging art didn't so much hurt the artist as hurt the purchaser. Overt copying was fine, it enabled the art to be enjoyed by more people, e.g. the Bible.
In the case of popular but painstakingly original art the economics were difficult, i.e. it's difficult for an artist or author say, to communicate en masse to their potential readership and encourage them to club together in funding a new work (unlike royalty, aristocrats, etc.). So with the advent of the performance of plays and the printing of books designed for a larger audience, we see in retrospect a new revenue mechanism arise: price each performance or copy as though it were a share in funding the original work. This also requires some ability to prevent anyone else producing copies.
Copyright is Artificial, not 'self-evident'
So we see that copyright is also not a human right, it's just another expedient mechanism to enable the copy to act as the share certificate. You bought a book? You're a paid up shareholder.
The thing is though, copyright's a magic purse. It need never stop bringing in revenue (well beyond the original development costs). And in some fortunate cases, for particularly popular art, a few artists and much of the publishing industry can enjoy great wealth.
It's a brave government that would recall all these magic purses from the rich, powerful and popular. However, there is one organization more powerful than both combined.
Widespread Copying is Endemic
What happens, when there are half a billion people online (out of a planet of 6 billion), each of whom can make a copy of any art they fancy in a moment's thought?
We're talking on a scale of mankind. If people, globally, en masse, copy art, it's possible that it's not really wrong. Rather it's that the law, created to enable a revenue mechanism that requires exclusive copy privileges, is now ineffective, irrelevant and redundant. You cannot prosecute the world. It's the revenue mechanisms that must adapt or die.
Loss of Physical Media
We've lost the physical media upon which art was distributed. This served to reinforce general acceptance of the underlying revenue mechanism in people's minds. However, online, the Emperor is now wearing the finest of sheer silks (fully naked if you ask me). There's no scrap of clothing, no wodge of paper, magnetic tape, plastic box, not even an acrylic disc. It's now just a memory. The only thing that reminds us we've paid our share for the pure information that now comprises art, is the click of the I Agree button on the license page.
So what's the answer?
Don't sell the horse after you've let it out of the stable. Or in other words, don't release the digital content and then try to sell it (relying on copyright). You can't sue 5 billion people. Nor can you place a compensating levy on computers (madness!).
And of course the classic: don't try to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Here, I'm obviously talking of encryption and digital rights management. If the art can get into people's eyes or ears, it can be copied by a computer. Encryption is fine for keeping things exclusive when the parties concerned wish to. If you're communicating with someone who doesn't care for exclusivity, encryption won't really work, it just hinders.
Deal En Masse
So what should we do?
Sell the horse before you let it out of the stable. Go back a few hundred years and pick up the old revenue mechanisms that weren't quite so good, because it was difficult to do deals en masse.
And this is because something has changed. For the same reason that copyright is becoming ineffectual, so the public commissioning revenue mechanisms are now becoming feasible.
The biggest mental block facing business today, both online and even with interactive TV companies, is to be unable to think of dealing with the market except as a collection of individuals.
The only deal we're particularly familiar with en masse is voting, e.g. democracy, etc. We dabble with this in TV shows, even with online polls, but that's about it.
Who has dared to let people vote with their money? In the same transaction?
The new value chain
Bypass the agents, the publishers, the marketers, the advertisers, the distributors, the retailers, the packagers, etc. The new value chain is the artist and the audience. We're right back at the craftsman and the customer. Except this time, there's nothing stopping the artist doing a deal with a million people at once. Though no one's thought to create the necessary de facto e-commerce web site for such a deal. Still too busy selling to punters one by one...
The Emperor is Naked
Of course, it's very difficult to believe an emperor could possibly be naked.
If you're selling digital art, digital content, digital whatever, reserve a tiny piece of your long term strategy for the inconceivably possibility that King Canute's bottomless purse of copyright will be overrun by a tide of countless tiny infractions.
Even so, the end of copyright is not the end of commercial viability for digital content, it's the end of a particular revenue mechanism.
Consider Revenue Mechanisms that don't need Copyright
Your audience is your market - deal with it!
Check out this site for more info:
The Digital Art Auction
A couple of weeks ago, Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal did the same thing in his article, "Digital Consumer Takes Up the Fight Against Copyright Plans in Congress".
In the article, he proposes a whole new digital copyright law that gives the user back their priveleges to make copies of the content they have legally obtained.
He proposed the following rights:
- The right to "time-shift" audio or video content; that is, to record it for later playback.
- The right to "space-shift" music or videos; that is, to copy material to blank CDs, multiple PCs, or portable players in different locations.
- The right to make backup copies.
- The right to use the content on any platform they choose: a Windows PC, a Macintosh, a DVD player, whatever.
- The right to translate content into different formats.
I think this, along with Roger Ebert's comments should hopefully catch the eye of Congress and the RIAA and actually get something done. Kudos to the two of them for realizing that our rights are being infringed upon.
I'm tired of the *AA trying to take away our rights in a misguided attempt to protect their profits!
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to put up with it anymore!
So I filled my ears with caulk, and gouged my eyes out with a spoon.
I suggest you all do the same.
That'll show them!
This was an intentionally ludicrious inflammitory post.
No, these copy protected CDs come with Windows software which will allow them to be played on PCs. If there is not Mac version of the software Mac users are out of luck.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Used to let their listeners bring recorders into their concerts and "bootleg" them. While JG was alive, the dead had a following you would not belive.
Their reason for allowing this was the band felt that they had "made thier money" Each member had enough to keep their families set for life.
So despite this lesson, why does the RIAA continue to hurt both the artists and listeners that underwrite their business? Lars isn't selling a BILLION copies of your record enough?
A true artist likes money, but that is never their motivation. Most artists starve until they are discovered (if that happens) and are more than happy to let people MP3 their songs just to "get the word out"
Someone somewhere will write some cool little app to circumvent this little bit of copy protection i'm sure. If people are really fed up with the RIAA don't buy any more big label records then. Check out your local hip-hop, grunge, punk scene and buy music from those guys, they ARE starving and are more than happy to let you copy their stuff.
Quantity does not equal quality RIAA, i'm not buying this noise shit crap you try and schleff off as music anymore. Fuck off!
They can't. The bands have no say in how their music is sold, they gave up the rights to it. Without some sort of publishing infrastructure for their music they can't possibly make a living making music which means they lead the life of the bar band. There are bands who've come forward and said they didn't like how the RIAA was treating fans/consumers or the bands themselves. These bands of course have made their money and are popular enough to pick up a contract with any publisher if their current publisher decided to drop them because of their statements. Most bands' goal in life is to get signed and be able to make music professionally, telling the companies that allow them to do this to fuck off is not condusive to that career aspiration. You've also got a factual falacy stating bands are being ripped off by people not buying a 16$ CD. You'd do much more to support a band if you went and saw them in concert rather than bought their CD. They make a larger percentage off performances than they do off of albums they sell.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I know this is off topic, but with several instances over the past couple days, I'm forced to cry out - would the editors PLEASE fix incorrect uses of "its"/"it's" on the main page?! It's not that hard:
"it's" means "it is"
"its" is the possessive form of "it"
If you can't replace "it's" with "it is," then you're using the wrong word. It just makes the main page look like someone's guestbook. Fix it for my English teacher's sake, please!
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
But the RIAA will always use some kind of spaghetti logic to claim that sales are down due to piracy. This is an projecting answer -- it enables them to project business failure onto others, as well as justify copy protection, pay-per-play and other schemes that are unpopular with end users.
The other answers -- the music sucks, the business model is flawed, etc will never be considered or publicly advanced. These are reflective answers -- they reflect on the RIAA member entities poor management and don't allow them to blame forces outside their control.
So by your own logic I could copy any number of, say, other people's writing and use it for my homework or take a picture of some famous painting and post it all over. In both cases the original is left intact. Stealing is not just depriving someone of their original work. It is using it without their permission that is the issue.
Think it's idiotic the way the labels go about their copy-protected CD strategy?
Now I don't mean the specific technology used, or the fact that it's stupid in general. I'm referring to their choices of *which* CDs to use the copy-protection on.
So far, they've all been big releases that they're going to sell a million or more copies of (N'Sync, Natalie Imbruglia). They don't do it at all to the smaller releases, which basically ensures a lack of success.
All the copy protection does is make it harder for someone to make an illegal copy. It doesn't make it anywhere near impossible. If you want a copy in mp3 bad enough, you just find a CD player that can play the disk (if you can, of course), run a line into the back of your PC, record it to wave files, then encode to mp3. I ripped a record this way, it'll certainly work for CDs. At that point the guy doing it is probably pissed off at the labels enough to make his freshly made mp3's available on a P2P network of his choice, at which time they get copied over and over again, and the whole "copy-protected" CD is all over the net. Thus all you can really accomplish by putting that crap on a blockbluster CD release is a lot of bad press and a few weeks in delay before everyone has a copy on their hard drive.
With smaller releases, however, it could work. There aren't as many people who want a copy of the music, which means less who have the knowledge and desire to rip the stuff correctly. If the labels put protection on the under-500k-sales category, they might make a serious dent in the amount of pirated music out there because it would be a pain in the ass for all the hackers to get it into the mp3 format, so fewer would bother with smaller releases and the copies would never get made that crucial first time.
It astounds me that the record companies are to stupid to even use the technology they undoubtedly paid a mint for in the correct way. I suppose I should just expect any implementation of technology by them to be exactly backwards by now.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
The important rights that are being taken away are:
the right to speak, even if the speech is describing a computer program
the right to run the computer programs of our choice on our own equipment [there is no right to use/hack someone elses equipment]
Someone needs to acknowledge these are essential rights, bound intimately with our first amendment and privacy rights.
they include unauthorized recordings made from radio and television and unauthorized compilation cd's containing tracks from more than one artist's cd.
I sure hope they mean the act of "selling" these types of recordings.
I can't imagine who they think they're preaching to if they mean the act of "making" these types of recordings. If they do, I'd like to see them try to haul 98% of the US population into court for violating their rights!
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
I like Ebert's plan to take that protected CD and play it from your stereo to your computer in jack. However, I own not a single stereo system.
In the car, I listen to NPR. At home, I sometimes listen to music, from CDs that I have bought and subsequently stored in a safe place after turning them into MP3s. If I wish to listen to a radio station, again it is NPR and streamed off of the internet.
I normally never buy music. When Napster was out, I checked it out. Downloaded a few songs, used the chat feature and was turned on to a few more bands and groups. I downloaded their songs and later found myself buying them at the local music store.
Now that Napster is gone. I am back to listening to the music that my friends listen to. Sometimes, I pick up something that they listen. My listening circle has greatly shrunk these days.
All I can say is way to go RIAA! They get less of my money these days. Which works for me as it is always nice to save a few bucks.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I guess someone towing the usually whiney l33t /. line had to get modded up. Who are you to tell someone how much money they should be allowed to make? If you don't like how they make their money, don't give them any of yours, and don't take what they have to offer either. But if other people are happy to buy into the system, that's their decision.
I also like when you mention how great it is that starving artists are happy to let you copy their music. I thought the whole point is to actually help those people make a living. I'm sure encouraging people to pass around free digital copies accomplishes that in wonderful fashion.
Finally, did someone appoint you the arbiter of who is a "true artist"? Give me a break.
Actually by making the creation of an MP3 slightly painful, I think they will actually decrease sales. Before, if you wanted an MP3, you could buy the CD and then rip it, or you could search on the net for it and download it. Guess what option they have eliminated? They have eliminated the option where they make money! Idiots.
Back when I worked for House of Blues a couple years ago they started doing Yahoo chats with artists. To test the system and ensure that there were at least a few questions ready to be asked, we always submitted a few questions ourselves. I couldn't tell you if this is still the case, and I couldn't find any of the chat transcripts, but I remember my one standard question was what the artists thought of mp3s and people downloading their music off the internet. All the artists who I asked this to were on a major label, and none of them had any problems with people downloading mp3s. I specifically remember the Indigo Girls had the best answer. They were totally cool with it, but wanted those same people to go to their shows. If only these artists would all stand up together like the Offspring tried to do and try and bring about some change from the inside.
Like a coked-out rock star being led around by the nose by his manager, the RIAA members are being led around the nose by greedy asswipe lawyers.
Think of it, the lawyers are probably pressing the hardest for these measures, because without a hard-edge stance, there isn't much for them to do. They are trying to justify their own existence.
Does that mean that RIAA members are innocents? Hell no!
What would be cool is if there was a "competing" record company(s) that weren't members of the RIAA that sold CD's at a decent price ($8-$10), didn't do jackass stunts like copy-protection, and actually did something to promote smaller bands instead of the megastars.
I am so surprised that the U.S. government hasn't disbanded the RIAA on the grounds that it's a monopolistic cartel. Get with it, dammit!
Apparently macs can read and burn everything but the first track. Not exactly effective copy protection.
Okay, say I'm a mac user. It's clear that I can't go out and buy the music. Damnit.
But I have an iPod and a Mac, and I REALLY (for some bizarre reason) want to listen to the music from The Fast and the Furious.
Well, if I can't buy it LEGALLY, better turn to the help of my friend the internet, so I CAN get the music. And in the end I won't go out and buy the CD because I sampled it and I liked it. I'll leave it in the store because it's COMPLETELY USELESS to me. Why waste $20?
Go to TidBits (a wonderful Mac resource) and read the following series of articles:
/. the archives)
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06604 (Content is a Pure Public Good) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06609 (Why Encryption Doesn't Help) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06629 (How to Finance Content Creation) and
http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=06669 (Are We Just Rationalizing Theft)
All by Dan Kohn, a General Partner with Skymoon Ventures.
These essays put an end to the argument that the current system(s) proposed by content providers will lose - no matter what.
Also, anything Lessig has authored (already in
This is a very compelling series of reads on this issue.
Furthermore, if people like Ebert, Lessig, Dan Kohn and others continue to get the word out, we, and recording artists will be a lot better off in the near long term.
It's beyond me why any well-known act would sign with a major label today, given the raw potential for this medium (the net) to do almost pure 'pull' marketing.
Here's something that struck me. Here's a quote from the legal site on the Universal Music Group's site (see the link in the submitted story)
"IF YOU DO NOT OR CANNOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO USE THE PLAYER OR CONTENT."
They are saying that this is a legal contract. They are saying that if you cannot agree then you are not allowed to use the content (listen to the music). Minors cannot agree to legal contracts. Tell me if my logic fails me, but does that mean that minors can't listen to copyprotected CD's? Shouldn't they be, therefore, prohibited from buying them?
It sounds ultra stupid, but it's the RIAA.
No, if you're presenting somebody else's work as your own, then you are causing harm. If posting the picture all over the place shows that the value of the original is impacted, then you're disagreeing with the article.
One wonders if nsync cds would sell worse without the cd's in the jewels cases.
Not that I am a profesional sociologist with reams of rock hard data, or anything other than just shooting from the hip.
But I would bet that having the music on the cd is less important than having the cd itself. I'm not just saying this because nsynch sucks, but that it might be more important for their "fans" to be part of the pop-culture phenomina than to be enjoying whatever entertainment value the music has intrinsicly. As such, 12 year old girls would be one of the last groups to turn away from the music industry, their not buying the music at all.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
Roger Ebert has weighed in with a scathing critique of the Universal Music Group and it's new copy-protection scheme which renders CDs unplayable in non-Windows operating systems, DVD players, and CD-compatible game consoles.
Non-Windows operating systems? How did this decision get made I wonder? Has Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in the operating systems market against the music industry to keep out competition from other platforms (Apple) in the music and video markets as well? As one who has used the music and video tools in Windows XP and Apple's OSX, Apple obviously has a better, more refined product and Microsoft knows this. Like just about anything else in their line-up, Microsoft produces third rate products and then leverages their monopoly to prevent better products from getting a fair shake.
I would be most interested if anybody has information that might clarify why non-Windows operating systems are locked out.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Napster and all the other music sharing schemes allowed one to sample music from all over the place: independent stuff as well as from the companies that make up the RIAA and friends. Could it be the real reason that Napster was such a threat was it did just that? People all over the world were exploring their musical interests freely and widely and it wasn't just confined to what got pumped out of (most) radio and MTV.
What the RIAA is afraid of is NOT music piracy, per se, but the threat of the general public's musical tastes growing bigger than the set of bands they happen to be promoting.
So, now we're talking about copy protection. If the RIAA and friends get their way, we will only be able to buy CD players, etc, that will play CDs with their proprietary copy-protection/encryption scheme.
Think about it, if you wanted to listen to music on digital media, you'd have to buy THEIR music. I only hope this is a paraniod fantasy, but I can see where this is going.
If you don't believe me, ask that guy over there.
Political action can have results - even with the money.
Here's a little story. It might seem off-topic at first, but keep reading. After September 11th, despite the fact that general aviation had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, GA (specifically, the smallest and least harmful aircraft involved in aviation) were grounded for a LONG time (on the order of two months).
The airlines and many politicians have always wanted to get rid of light planes. They are considered a "nuisance" - and this was a way to take our freedoms away (despite the fact the FAA wanted to have GA flying again two days after Sept. 11 since the FAA knows that an aircraft weighing less than a compact car isn't a big threat).
What's this got to do with encryption, the RIAA, MPAA, SSSCA (or whatever they renamed it to this week?)
Political action worked for GA. There are only about 300,000 active GA pilots in the entire country - i.e. about the same as the total number of Slashdot readers. AOPA organized a day where all pilots would call up their local congresscritters - all on the same day.
Every representitive's office in the country got HUNDREDS of calls on the issue of VFR pilots still remaining grounded. They were still getting calls the next day. And the next day.
Very quickly, the issue was a hot topic. Not long after that, the restrictions were pretty much totally dropped.
Slashdot has at least as many regular readers as aopa.org - and this issue has MANY more than 300,000 people interested in the SSSCA (or whatever it's now called) being passed as law.
So it's time for political action. Slashdot should do the same as AOPA did - organize a single day where everyone calls their local representitive and spells out this issue. A few hundred thousand phone calls from voters and they WILL listen. It worked for AOPA and GA pilots - it should also work for us!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Is the RIAA on drugs, or do they realize that one of their biggest targets, those under the age of 18, are legally not able to be bound to a contract, license or other legal instrument?
Keep this up and they may as well force their resellers to prohibit the sale of music CDs to minors. Boy, wil that help their bottom line! (NOT)
...that the situation with the MP3 CDs will be the same as the drugs, unfortunately.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Exactly! Give that man a cigar, or a spliff, or whatever floats his boat!
I will not buy new CDs unless the company that puts it out is NOT a member of the RIAA. I will not buy DVDs put out by signatories to the MPAA. This way, I do not have to deprive myself of the music and movies I like. It's great.
Here are some places to check out:
http://www.secondspin.com/
http://www.half.com/
And even more importantly: support indie music! Support indie movies! Create your own music/movies, then SHARE AND ENJOY!!! This is the real reason Big Media is quaking in its boots.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Years ago (back in the 80's) I read an article in Reader's Digest written by a man that complained about how stores were treating their customers like criminals: making them check their bags at the entrance and later on with anti-shoplifting measures. He was saying something to the effect of never again going into such a store. Today, he would have a very difficult time finding one he could still go to.
Just as nowadays we are completely used to those detectors they put at the door and the tabs that stain clothes when removed, we might grow used to copy protection in our cds if we don't take action now. The next generation will take these measures for granted.
BTW, anti-shoplifting measures are a good thing (imo) as long as they are not intrusive to the customer.
No sig
People aren't buying anywhere near as much stuff as they used to. If you have everyone selling at the same price, but have a lower floor, all it'd take is someone to shave into their markup some to undercut the competition and sell a LOT more product (remember, selling product is their goal- so they're going to price things according to how much they think they can gouge out of you...).
What makes more money? One $18 CD with a $12 margin or 3 $10 CD's with a $5 margin... You're more likely to see more purchases with the lower cost; if you can balance things right you can make more money by selling for less.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The music industry is dinky. The entire industry does about $13 billion a year in revenue. Compaq alone is twice as big as the entire music industry. IBM is six times as big. Yet the RIAA is trying to dictate product design to the computer industry. The tail is wagging the dog here.
Congress can control what is copyrightable, and for how long. It's time for the computing industry to tell the RIAA where to get off.
Musicians can still make money. They can still tour. Appear in films and TV shows. Endorse products. The big names will still make big money. Just treat recordings as a promotional item, like radio. People will still buy CDs, although the prices will drop to slightly above manufacturing cost. Yes, recording industry margins will decline. Is that a real problem?
Didn't know there was a tv adaptation of "Next". Do you happen to recall when you saw it & on what channel? I'd like to see it.
I'm going to say that I swaw it a couple of months ago, and it was either on public TV, or on the discovery channel.
I think it more likely that the bands can typically only come up with one or two good songs in the time frame they have to record an album. I'm not a musician though, so the whole creative process there tends to amaze me anyway
That may very well be. But I've heard guys like Dwight Yoakum talking about how his record contract says he can only put 12 songs on a disc, and that he had to pay his record company to put out a 14 song disc. It looks like the record companies are not much into supplying value for the money we spand.
The label's business is selling "units". music on a physical medium. They don't make money unless you buy the media from them, and they aren't smart enough to figure out how to make money using a software licensing model.
They were in a position to be the only ones with enough resources and access to get records made, and they exploited that fact for a long time. They are losing their grip on their market place, and those in power never give up without a fight, and they'll fight dirty as necessary.
My Heart Is A Flower