Slashdot Mirror
The Music Business and the Internet
Lots of people sent in links to stories about the music industry holding a press conference and claiming that people are copying music rather than buying it (see their press release if you like). But there are some alternative points of view too: a study at the University of Buffalo claims that music sharing may cut down on superstars and promote new music. The New Republic has a story about a band that released their album on the Net six months before CDs were available, and is now wondering whether fans will buy more, less, or about the same number of aluminum and plastic circles. And a nice chart I saw a few days ago compares CD sales vs. price over the last several years and suggests that price-fixing by the recording industry may play a part in slowing sales.
At some point, the recording industry is going to have to realize that they have things BACKWARDS. Now, artists tour to increase and promote album sales. In the future, it's going to have to be the other way around -- artists will put out albums to promote and support their tours. Go see a band live, then buy a copy of the performance you just saw on your way out.
If the music industry can't satisfy my wishes but the file sharing networks can, what do you expect me to do?
- Internet music sharing was rampant in the UK (probably partly attributable to increased availability of broadband) and
- CD sales in the UK rose 4% (NB: vinyl sales rose by even more; go figure), contrary to a downward trend everywhere else
Hrm, let me see...Unfortunately, this information didn't make it through to their web site, as far as I could see...
it's a similar statistical argument for lowering taxes. there is a curve, and somewhere on that curve, is the 'maximum' income (for record companies in this case, for the government in the other case). if the labels charged $100 for CDs, they would sell hardly any. if the government taxed 100%, hardly anyone would file a second time (everyone would have 0 dollars). if the labels charged $0, they would obviously be out of business. if the government taxed 0% it might find itself with millions of starving, diseased citizens.
but somewhere on the curve is a bump - probably around $9.99 or so, but that is just a guess of course - where the labels would be selling so MANY damn CDs the money would be pouring in. likewise somewhere on the tax curve - probably around 19% or so, but that's just listening to economists - where income is maximized to the government.
why doesn't anyone pay any attention to economical fact, statistical fact?
-rp
ps - there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The UB study just goes to underline why the RIAA is fighting so hard to prevent P2P sharing. It is well-acknowledged that the current business models of RIAA members is superstar-driven.
It's an oft-repeated fact that record labels lose money on 90% of their roster of artists, and make it all up and then some on the 10% of artists and records that become blockbusters. Thus, if P2P sharing is primarily undercutting the superstars (as the UB study states), that's the logical attack point for the RIAA.
There's no question that a new business model is needed, not just because of P2P, but because the idea of an industry where 10% of a company's products underwrite the losses on the other 90% is inherently unsound. The music industry managed to make it work for a while, but the inefficiencies and alternatives have caught up, and the RIAA is going to have to adapt or die.
>
I said essentially the following about proprietary software in one of my very first posts to Slashdot:
The music industry is suffering the same phenomenon that got a certain part of the USA labeled "the Rust Belt". Technology changes; sometimes the window of economic exploitation opens, sometimes it closes. There was a time when you could become a zillionaire by covering your continent with railroads, but in much of the world that opportunity has passed, and in some places tracks are being removed. Technology makes things possible; technology makes things obsolete.
For half a century the music industry was needed by the artists: studios were expensive, pressing masses of vinyl was expensive, shipping stacks of vinyl all over the country/planet was expensive, racking it in stores was expensive. This needed middlemen with lots of money, and it was only right (IMO) that they made a profit off it.
But times have changed. A band that can afford a drum kit can afford a multi-track digital recorder; the internet can bypass the rest of the infrastructure. Bands don't need middlemen who have turned into fat cats. (At least not to get their music out; they may still need them if they want to be superstars and appear on the cover of magazines.)
As GauteL says, the music industry should be required to adapt to the changed environment. Instead, they want the USCongress to assure them their profits as an entitlement. Why should they be allowed that? What antiquated industry is it going to be next? Why should voting consumers put up with it?
This is nothing but trade protectionism, but in this case the USCongress is trying to 'protect' the US music industry from US citizens. Hey, Congress -- whose side are you on?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade