Slashdot Mirror
Sharing Increases Music Purchases?
darnellmc writes "See this News.com article which cites a study that shows file swapping increases music purchases. I guess it all depends on who is paid to do the study and how they carry it out, but this report would counter the study performed by an RIAA backed group, which noted that file swapping lowered music purchases. You would have to be one cheap individual to want to download all the music in your life for free and this study proves that. Because most people are obviously using file sharing to find new music to purchase. A concept the RIAA can not comprehend. If future major music releases are copy protected, it will be interesting how the RIAA will respond if they sell less." Well, if they sell less, it will be due to pirates, of course. A few weeks ago we mentioned Wilco, who released their album on their website for free. The strategy appears to have paid off.
First post, biznatches.
I've bought a lot of music that I discovered via "free" internet sources...
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
years ago when I wanted Free music I had to sit next to the radio all day until they played the song I wanted and recoreded it using the Tape Deck, crossing my fingers hoping the DJ wouldn't come on early before the song ended.
$cat
Higher music prices increases sharing
--Metrollica
They (record companies) seem determined to kill the goos that laid the golden egg. They'd rather have control than cash.
I don't quite get the relation between music sales and my swapfile.
if you found an article that showed "sharing" hurt purchases, you guys would never post it, or at least accuese them of being RIAA lackeys.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
I'm glad that I'm not the only who's doing this. Just last month, I was looking around for industrial music and decided to download the entire "Downward Spiral" album off of LimeWire. I ended up liking it so much that I went off to Best Buy the next week and put the CD in my pocket while no one was looking before quietly walking out the back door and sprinting for my car. Man, what a rush.
Anyway, more power to the music sharing people. I think it's about time someone ran an honest, non-biased study about this, and I'm glad to see these results. They just prove to me what I've known all along.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
Listening to the new wilco disc as I write this. It's fantastic, anybody who's into bands like Olivia Tremor Control or Neutral Milk Hotel will definatly dig it.
And, coincidentally, I downloaded the whole album off the net a few days before it came out, and still bought it the day it was available.
My own music purchasing has declined substantially since napster went away and getting music got "harder" - limewire and the rest are ok, but nowhere near as convenient as napster was. I've purchased maybe 10 discs in the last 12 months or so since napster really died, verses probably 50 or 60 in the 12 months before that.
Oh well, they want to shoot themselves in the foot, call us all criminals, whatever, I guess they can keep on doing it.
Now I must go, as I have some commercials to fast forward through, as part of my evil scheme to steal television! muahaha!
Makes me feel good to know that by stealing music online i am actually helping the music industry. This good to know because i was almost beginning to question if it is ethical to steal music...
An awful lot of commercial applications achieved the market share they got/have because they were released in some sort of try before you buy format, shareware, etc
It's a proven business model.
Why would anyone *presume* that it won't work for music?
I guess it all depends on who is paid to do the study and how they carry it out, but this report would counter the study performed by an RIAA backed group, which noted that file swapping lowered music purchases.
And guess wich study will get the most attention in the mainstream media?
No prices for knowing the correct answer to that one I'm afraid...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Internet music sharing is most common wide spread commercial that's possible. There are only two kinds of people, the ones who nuy, and the ones who don't. So if some performers songs don't reach buying public (mostly because of a poor commercial), they don't sell, this way makes it possible to push samples all over the world for free.
RIAA is just bullshiting just like BSA. No common good, just turning a
people away of buying products.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
I've downloaded some song that I've purchased on previously on vinyl and ended up not being able to get a full album so I went out and found it on CD. I also have some CD's that are scratched and I had to purchase the cd again, now that I can back my music up and listen to everything off the computer I wont scratch the cd. I think sales will definately go down if there is copy protection on CD's because people don't want to give up on only being able to listen to music on a micro$oft approved cd player.
if common sense was common, wouldn't everyone have it?
Every single CD I own I bought because they'd been suggested by a friend who sent me an MP3 (or told me to download one). Before Napster, I'd never bought music other than movie soundtracks...
For example, my favorite group, Apocalyptica (rock'n'roll cellos) - I own all 4 of their released CDs. Were it not for Napster, I'd never have heard of them, let alone purchased their music.
Music corps lose nothing if they can explicitly control music use. They could then choose to allow sharing as widely or as narrowly as they like.
Watch for it - the DRM PC will become a reality.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
True,
When I was a student I shared and swapped a LOT of MP3s... Since I started full-time work last year, I buy all my music mainly because:
a) I get the original CD
b) I can play the music on the way to work in my car
I still rip CDs into MP3 so I can just use iTunes rather than cart around umpteen hundred CDs... But it's kinda satisfying knowing that most of your MP3s are from your own collection...
I think what the record companies need to do is no discourage music sharing by rather value add the CDs that they sell. I recently bought "Faithless - Special Edition" and the added value was a bonus CD.
If they value add their CDs along the same lines as the difference between buying video or a DVD - think they they won't have a problem.
Personally, I don't think they have a problem now.
-- Dan =)
I can't count the number of times I've listened to something like Groove Salad or Digitally Imported and bought a cd from what i've heard (Amon Tobin!!!). I've also used it to see if the music is any good up front, like the new No Doubt album. Who the heck let them release that crap? They should be shot! But it goes both ways, I bet a lot of people are listening to some of the drivel these mega companies like Sony are putting out these days and running like hell AWAY from the record store after listening to it. THAT'S what they are really scared of. 3 cuts deep into an album and it sucks so bad, nobody would buy it, the web gives you that chance to see what the deep cuts are really like. Quality acts like Wilco, all their material is above average, not just a one or two song cd filled with covers and dreck.
quod me nutrit me destruit
....in Bed.
They said TV would lower attendance at sporting events. Instead, it heightened their popularity.
Jack Valenti's "Jack the Ripper" comments about the VCR have given way to a rental market that now generates 1/3rd of Hollywood's money every year.
And now comes Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, an album released on the Internet in MP3 format (and still available on unnamed P2P services) that has sold fairly briskly in its first week out.
The upshot, I think, is that the medium-sized bands can benefit greatly from file-swapping, and this only fills the coffers of the record companies all the more. I may or may not have been swapping files for two years, I cannot comment on this, but I can tell you that I have bought many more CDs lately, and this may be because I listened to tracks online before buying, or maybe I didn't. Anyway, the record companies will learn to adapt, because intense copy protection will only doom them in the end, esp. if said copy protection "requires" CDs to go to $20 retail.
OT: Yankee Hotel Foxtrot is one of the best albums I've heard in years. Buy it, or find one of those file-sharing things and check out their music there -- then buy it.
I remember reading about a similar report a long time ago (like a while before Napster was shut down)....
WHEN WILL PEOPLE LEARN TO SHARE?!?!?!?! THEY TEACH YOU THAT IN KINDERGARTEN STILL, RIGHT!?!?!?
don't get me wrong, i'm all for prereleasing albums on the internet, but, looking from a completely neutral standpoint, can the success of the album be attributed to it being released on the internet? How many of the 55,573 copies were purchased by people who had heard about the album on slashdot and wanted to try to 'help the cause.' If another band were to release an album on the internet first, but didn't get mainstream (as mainstream as slashdot can be, at least) attention, would it have as much success?
...
just an opposing viewpoint to think about
ìì!
The thing is that when I download music, it's either because I want to try it before I buy it, or because I have no intention of ever buying it anyway.
Since I'm not using an RIAA company's bandwidth to download the music, they are incurring no costs as a result of my hearing their music, even if I don't intend to buy it.
Music's generally too expensive for me to buy, but if I think something is really worth its price tag, of course I'll pay.
visit the hwky website for a lyrical genius infusion.
You piece of shit! You stole my schtick!
...in bed.
Maybe I'm just getting older (I think I would buy less music no matter what - it's not such a priority anymore), but I can't help but look at the wall my music collection takes up, and think about all the money it represents. Add to that all the money I've spent on concert tickets, t-shirts, beer sales at concerts, etc. It works out to be just shy of mother-fucking-lot-of money. And 95% of that has gone to the middleman,labels, and the RIAA. The artists I like tend to be poor. My devotion and buying habits don't help them: instead I just line the pockets of some record company exec's pocket.
I think any study should account for the fact that many people will likely buy less music as they get older. The trends with the kids (as in many things music related) is what really matters.
At this point, the RIAA owes me free access to every thing they put out until I die. I've been a good consumer. I probably paid for some asshole's Porche.
XML causes global warming.
I'm that one cheap individual.
Don't forget about emusic. Even though limewire/kazaa/etc aren't really that great, there are alternatives. This is the best $10/month (for the 1 year subscription, unlimited downloads in mp3 format) I've ever spent.
And the artists get paid.
Granted the bitrate is shitty (128), but if you really like it, buy the CD. It's a great way to check out new stuff. I grab quite a few of their "picks", which are selections by genre of stuff that they think really stands out. It's bad for getting new stuff you hear on Mtv/radio, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
When's the last time you got a few albums from a genre you never really listen to and really enjoyed them? With very little risk?
Try some classical or bluegrass or lounge or whatever it is you don't listen to much. You just might like it.
Plus they have an unholy selection of Creedence.
What would be really interesting is a study of *which* CD's are bought. I use gnutella, etc. to try music, and if I end up getting more than a couple songs from a CD, I'll buy it. When it's a one hit wonder, and the rest of the CD sucks, I won't.
IMHO People would be all over a pay-per-song high-quality download system, but the Music Co's don't like that because then they don't sell the gazillions of albums at $13+ a pop where there are only one or two songs worth a damn on it.
Is it just me or has the mp3 collecting gotten tiresome?
Most new music sucks ass, and the 10 gigs of stuff I already have suits me fine.
It's very rare now that I'll think of a song to download.
Better not tell Celion Deion about this. Sony might stop crashing win boxes with her new CD.
"Music sellers should devote their limited resources to online marketing and distribution"
Hahaha. Limited. I sure hope they we're being facetious.
CUSTOM is also giving away MP3's. Check out the awsome song "Hey Mister".
http://www.teamcustom.com/nonflash/
Give me a cd player and a dual male audio connector and we'll see how well this 'Copy Protection' works.
"The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
I know plenty of people in both categories. There are many people who download music in order to hear things they aren't familiar with, and then buy the CD if they really like it (or at least buy some of the CDs they really like). But I also know many other people who no longer ever buy CDs and instead burn their downloade mp3s to audio CDs. If asked why they don't buy CDs, the usual response is something along the lines of "I already made the CD myself, why would I pay to get the same thing?"
There's an increasing number of these "freeloaders," as it were, compared to say 3 or 4 years ago. By now the only people I know who still buy CDs are one of:
1) obsessive fans of a particular band, who buy everything that band puts out (but still pirate everything else)
2) music collectors (often self-described "audiophiles") who enjoy physically owning the CD because it increases the size of their music collection
There also used to be people who liked the liner notes and cover art and such, but with cheap scanners you can find most of those online these days anyway (many mp3-release groups release the scans along with the mp3s), so the only people who still care about that are the people who already fall into category (2) above, and want an authentic physical copy rather than a printout of a scan.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
These articles are pointless. All I know and see: Every college dorm has hundreds and hundreds of burners, burning music... copied illegally. Downloaded MP3. Downloaded IPO. Direct CD copyies. I don't know one student that pays anymore. It's true that music fans, obviously, would be inspired by downloading... and might even buy their favorite. But, give me a break... far more people get free music... the idiot "only one song is good on the CD" flavour-of-the-month crowd, which is most of the public, doesn't give a damn about music.
Go to clubs w/live music (bands you like), pay the cover, drink lots of beer, score a couple of phone #s, then go home and download all the MP3s you want. Never feel guilty. You will have a MUCH greater impact on the state of the music scene by going out and drinking beer than buying CDs. In addition, you'll support the up-and-coming artists who just want to play music. Just remember, the more beer you drink, the more "in demand" that band will be, and the better the music scene in your city. It's guiness time.
read the article? It also says a large percentage buyed LESS music to a point where it evened out the sales. So they are basicly the same as before.
At a music store the other day, I saw Mahavishnu's cds, and there were songs that I have never seen on AudioGalaxy, Kazaa, Gnutella, Edonkey, no single file sharing program. I could go back to my home and search for more Mahavishnu on AudioGalaxy (and I did a few days later, and there are much more), but there, standing with the cd at my hands, I thought: "I gotta listen to these songs".
And this is when I paid 15 dollars for it. I bought a cd from a relative obscure band that, I confess, have downloaded songs from the Internet. But these moments at the store are what we call consumerism. I have to get this cd, the thought wouldn't stop crossing my mind. I have, because the band is cool, I have the necessary money, never heard these songs, and above all, they deserve.
Of course, that's an single example, since this situation happened many more times.
Moral of the history? If I couldn't download Mahavishnu's songs, the music industry wouldn't earn even these 15 dollars.
Second moral of the history? File sharing can be profitable, all we need is a reason to spend the money.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
i wish i had mod points, this is an obvious troll.. where are the moderators on friday evening? is this the Spider-man effect?
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
However their is also the competitive marketing threat.
How are they going to make billions ripping off artists with huge marketing fees if the internet makes it much easier for bands without record companies to market and this means they don't need the record companies.
>My own music purchasing has declined substantially since napster went away and getting music got "harder"
It's really not about sales, it's about making it easy for you to find what they want you to find and hard to find what they don't want you to find. The last thing the recording industry wants is you being able to find and then buy ANY kind of music.
Does the word "control" rings a bell ?
lone, dfx.
A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. About 14 percent of heavy file traders say they now spend less on music.
The problem with this study is that it is contingent on the credibility of people who openly admit that they're breaking the law (though that's arguable). It'll be tough to make that point stand up against the numbers that huge law-abiding (right) corporate entities are backing.
Oh, and I have pretty much dropped back to pre-napster music purchasing habits since it's become more difficult to find what I'm looking for without fear of penalty. I was spending easily 1000% what I am now.
Why there have been about 20 pieces of news that say something like "Sharing Increases Music Purchases?" Why put the question mark there to make it look like it's something that nobody considered? there've been a few studies that said this
... right now is that the RIAA has labeled me a thief. It wasn't all that long ago that I was downloading music and then making trips to the music store. Somebody'd say "Chemical Brothers is pretty good.." and I'd go find some CB songs and listen to them. Boom, found an interesting album, went and bought a CD.
Now, though, I'm a thief because I download songs. That's it. No other definition. They don't care that the MP3's I had were complimented with store bought CD's. Hell, they even tried to take my rights away with the SSSCA. Did they even try to support me as a customer? Nope. They still sell albums but not singles (not enough singles I should say...). They still insist that I can only listen to the CD and not the MP3 version. They don't cater to my new demands that I'm willing to pay for. They assume that because I own an MP3 Player and a CD Burner that I'm automatically going to stop paying for music. They even use numbers based on that (fictional numbers I might add...) in order to grease up a politician into getting the Government to pass laws to keep their ancient business model going. I'm sorry, but I'm not giving any more money to the RIAA so they can buy legislation that takes my rights away.
Right now, my only realistic approach to buy used CD's. Unfortunately, I feel bad because I really would like to support the artists out there. If there are any artists reading this article now, please... provide me with a way to pay you directly. I'll pay double what your royalty from a CD would be. At this point, I don't care about having MP3's legitimately anymore, but I do care about making sure the artists have incentive to keep doing their work.
Here that RIAA? You're scaring off your customers! How long do you think that business model will last?
"Derp de derp."
This is not a troll. It's a serious question.
I agree with your general point, that CDs should have value-added features. But "added" audio tracks will just end up online like the "regular" ones.
Enhanced CDs with videos are a nice thing (videos can be file-shared, too, of course). Good cover art, packaging, booklets, etc. may be even better. You can download scanned cover art and print it on your color inkjet, but it will always look cheesy compared to the real thing.
EVERYONE I know that downloads MP3's or games, does it so they don't have to BUY them. 3 of the guys I work with have not purchased a CD, or game in, well as long as I have known them, which is 3 years. And they see nothing wrong with downloading an image of the latest PS2 game, or the MP3's for the new CD of the new coolest band. I say that they are crooks, and anyone who downloads an MP3 and listens to it more than once is also a crook. If you are really only downloading it to "try it out", you can get a damn good idea of how much you like it by listening to it once. Many music stores have head phones that you can listen to songs on a CD to see if you like it before you buy it. So go to the freakin' store and listen. Now I don't agree that a CD should cost $15+. That is why I rarely buy any CD's. I also do not download any MP3's, unless it is distributed as free music by the artist.
I guess the Truth is Still Out There.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
You are forgetting "the force". Half of the battle is just not being affected by the other person's abilities (like remote strangelation and the like). I am sure there are more things that you really wouldnt see in the movies that make people that are strong in the force stronger than those without.
It's really a shame what they are doing because I know that study has a lot of truth to back it up. During the period I used napster I bought more cd's than I had in all the years without it. My friends with similar tastes would often suggest artists and cd's and I could go try out their suggestions instantly, but I am no longer as easily exposed to new music. What was potentially a whole group of new purchases disappeared because my friends can't go try my suggestions. I could find and sample any artist which interested me, and being a materialistic American I had to go out to the store and buy the cd if I liked it. If I didn't like it I deleted the mp3, I don't waste disk space on crap. I cannot list all the ways that file sharing has influenced my cd buying, but I know now that it is much harder to find mp3's when I want them, I barely buy cd's anymore.
The notion that commercial radio play will be the major generator of sales is outdated. With much of the world using the internet for all legitimate uses has learned how much they enjoy having control over what content they receive. I never listen to the radio because it doesn't suit my tastes with so much terrible new music being forced on me. RIAA: Evolve or lose out.
10 - I buy more
9 - I buy less
8 - MP3's are great
7 - MP3's suck
6 - Taco sucks
5 - Isn't Jack Valenti some sort of Tennesee whiskey?
4 - Open Source rules dude!
3 - *nix rools dood!
2 - Break up Microsoft (offtopic, but important)
and (drumroll) the number one thing that /.'ers will say here:
1 - I took the penicillin - Hilary Rosen can bite me!
Just because music sales increased when people shared music files, it does not automatically mean that the ??IA's loss was reduced or eliminated.
:)
It is entirely possible that both income AND loss went up due to file sharing, and indeed, this is very likely how the ??IA looks at it: for every single "copied" music track, that is a loss regardless of whether the person went out and bought the copy later. In other words, they may have sold more CDs, but the number of "pirated" tracks also rose. (Of course, if they ever bought it, their first copy should automatically fall under Fair Use anyway.)
When you're dealing with digital content, the line is blurred a little.
P.S.: We all know the ??IA is full of it. This is just another POV on this thing.
The RIAA is not worried about Piracy. They really aren't. Not at all. Not one iota of worry. Not even a nano worry.
They are the Recording Industry, they are worried about not being needed anymore.
Look, any one with talent can buy an imac and record their own music. They can host a webpage and start a mailing list or a bulletin board and do their own marketing. They can post their songs on napster to whatever the P2P of the month is and get their songs out to the people.
They have the recording, marketing and distribution of the music industry right at their fingertips and they don't need Hillary Rosen or any of the companies she represents to do it.
The RIAA is no longer needed. That is what they are afraid of. It isn't Piracy. THE RIAA IS OBSOLETE. They know it too.
Unless they can make laws to force every new artist to go through them, force the public to give them control of the recording, the marketing and the distributing of music. This is exactly what they are doing, and they are using the threat of Piracy to accomplish it.
Don't be fooled. RIAA is worried that this is true because today we are buying their music because we found it on Napster, and they are pocketing the money. Tomorrow we'll be buying it direct from the artist and he'll be pocketing the money.
RIAA knows this and fears it.
You would have to be one cheap individual to want to download all the music in your life for free...
People *are* cheap. How many people do you know who send off their income taxes with a smile, saying "I'm so glad to contribute to the causes which we citizens have jointly agreed to support"?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
A few weeks ago we mentioned Wilco, who released their album on their website for free. The strategy appears to have paid off.
The hypocrisy and inconsistency of arguments on these matters stuns me.. When record industry execs point to apparently flagging CD sales and the rise of P2P file sharing/piracy, people snidely attribute the drop in sales to poor record-company product, and NOT to P2P, rightly pointing out that correlation does not point to causation.
Yet when one band makes their album available for free, and coincidentally sell a lot of records/gets a lot of favorable press, people here (and the author of the referenced article) automatically attribute the PRESUMED increase (the numbers aren't in yet) in sales to the free availability of the CD. Yet they so willingly fall for the same statistical fallacy, namely in assuming that there is some causal relationship between the free availability of the CD and increased sales/buzz the CD is receiving. MIGHT ALL THE HYPE ABOUT WILCO BE ABOUT THE MUSIC, AND NOT THE DISTRIBUTION ?
But what really perplexes me is that the author of the referenced article HIMSELF points out (while damning viewpoint contrary to his own) that "correlation is not causation", even though his whole thesis is BASED on that very fallacy.
There have been lots of bands that have made their music freely available, yet I can't think of ONE that is successful BECAUSE they have done so. Certainly, if Wilco sells a lot of records, people will be cheering filesharing and deriding the RIAA, even though they may well have sold as many or more records without the free distribution.
If you go to movies (Even that Spiderman or Star Wars Movie) you only help out the RIAA and the MPAA in their fight to elminate US Constitution and other laws that protect freedom of speech.
My own music purchasing has declined substantially since napster went away and getting music got "harder" - limewire and the rest are ok, but nowhere near as convenient as napster was.
Have you tried Kazaa? It's got a bad rep because of the security stuff, but I find that there's a WAY bigger selection than there ever was on Napster, and with multi-user downloads and automatic resume, it's way more reliable too. As I speak, 373 million files from 1 million users are indexed and live.
mogorific carpentry experiments
This is nuts. I get moderated as a troll, but the parent says:
"I went off to Best Buy the next week and put the CD in my pocket while no one was looking"
and
"I think it's about time someone ran an honest, non-biased study about this"
If thats not a troll, I don't know what is.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
It's not like the internet created music sharing.. the way I started getting interested in music many years ago, was by getting friends to tape music for me so I could listen to it and I later started buying CDs of what I liked. Many people did the same thing then. Sometimes I will purchase music based on one song I have heard, but too often that is unreliable. You can't base a decision based on listening to the radio or watching video clips - you really need to listen to the whole album.
Who's the idiot now, you fucktard?
You and him both for using Kazaa...
Btw, Chumbawumba seems to understand the power of the internet. Though they don't 100% fit my vision of what a web-based band should do, they are much much closer. Here's their site:
:)
http://www.chumba.com
Not only do they seem to understand that the internet is a powerful tool for selling their music, but they also provide some songs to download for free. I highly recommend reading their FAQ because they talk about their views on file trading and how the corps try to soak up more money than they deserve.
Be cautioned, though, they are basically an anti-corporate band. Although I'd highly recommend you read about what they're about instead of taking my overly-processed view of who they are.
"Derp de derp."
Personally I could go on all day about how the recording co's would make more money if they sold CD's cheaper, promoted better artists, allowed sharing, etc etc. But every article which comes to this conclusion seems to be suggesting that there's some reason why the record co's want to crack down on sharing whether or not it actually gains them money in the long run. But why is that? If the studies that the RIAA funds are biased towards a crackdown on piracy, what are they thinking? They should want to know more than anyone what costs and gains them money, and they should be in favor of anything that does. It's not necessarily the responsibility of those who put out studies to say why the RIAA is so anti-file sharing if file sharing increases their revenue, but some hint of a reason would make their report that much more convincing in my opinion.
Critics of this type of study, including some in the record industry, have speculated that people don't always tell the truth to researchers on controversial issues such as this.
Those critics have just discredited their own surveys and studies. And think about it - who are you more likely and comfortable to tell the truth to? A researcher backed by big, bad RIAA, or another group who's interests aren't biased.
I wouldn't be totally honest with the RIAA guys, just because I'd be nerveous about being busted, as unlikely as it is. I also don't like the RIAA, so I'd lie just to skew their results.
On the other hand, I'd tell the truth and help the unbiased party as much as I could. Just because it's an honest study where I'm sure my results wouldn't be rejected or skewed to fit some kind of unconstitutional agenda.
-kidlinux.
It's not about the money!
As much as they pretend about the money, the REAL reason what "file sharing is wrong" is becuase it allows for a subtle shift in the societal mindshare concerning how music gets distributed. The "content industry" is a misnomer, it's actually a "distributiuon industry", producing either very little or NO new content at all. Allowing the public (PARTICULARLY the artists) to begin to think about alternative means of distribution as actual possibilities (not just pipe dreams) is the first step on the road to utter decimation of the status quo.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
gotta agree. I used to buy tons of CDs due to listening to MP3's - and then they brought in this copy protection and all.
Just burned me out.
So, now I mostly buy CDs at shows by artists themselves - at least I know where the money goes.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Status quo is what it's all about, in many things.
The RIAA is afraid of things they don't think they can control. They don't want to lose the control, or even think about losing just a little of it.
A lot of the Big Bands, the RIAA's best little moneymakers, are afraid of someone better than them but less known stepping up and getting popular.
When authors objected to the idea of giving away books, who had the most objections? The guys with lots of books already sold and lots of money did.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
1) I never downloaded this album on MP3. I don't know why, but I never really got around to it. I've got two of Wilco's older albums, love both of 'em, but I just didn't feel the need to download.
2) When I heard this was being released, I read the review at theonion.com and promptly ran out and purchased it. It was 15.00, and although I think all CDs should be about 8.99 before tax or 10.00 with tax, it was easily worth it.
3) No single? "Kamera" and "Heavy Metal Drummer" both have first single written all over them, not to mention that some of the more mellow songs would make a fortune on the radio if the band had the right publicity. This isn't a radio band, anyway - they've generally been ignored by the main stream.
4) I can't believe a record label would be short sighted to the point of letting a great band like this walk. The album sounds like TRL fodder in comparison to some of the jumbled sounds that Radiohead put out recently, and to think that releasing a band like Wilco on the grounds of being experimental... It's no wonder the state of the music industry is so awful.
5) Here's a brilliant realization, only made her about a million times before: YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO KEEP COPIES OF ANY ALBUM, SINGLE, MOVIE OR ANY OTHER PIECE OF ENTERTAINMENT FROM APPEARING. If it can be played on a television, it is a video signal. It can be captured and recorded. If it can be played on a stereo, it is an audio signal. It can be captured and recorded. This will never end.
The true free-loaders won't care if it's CD quality or not, and yes, there are people out there who will never pay for a CD ever again. Get used to it, and find other ways to get 'em - merchandise, touring, whatever.
And for those of you who haven't heard it yet, check out Wilco's new album. It's BRILLIANT.
> Anyway, more power to the music sharing people. I think it's about time someone ran an honest, non-biased study about
> this, and I'm glad to see these results. They just prove to me what I've known all along.
Yes, but when asked to comment on this report, the suits in the record industry claimed that ``people lie" & we shouldn't believe it.
Sigh. Those people are deep into denial, & if it were a river, Fritz Hollings & his ilk would be buying first class riverboat tickets. They won't be happy until they have control of the contents of every last hard drive -- even that ancient 20MB drive you've used as a door stop for the last 5 years.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
They have a contract with nonesuch records which has a web site at http://www.warnerclassics.com/nonesuch/ and is a member of the warner music group which is owned by Time Warner.
That being said, I like wilco and have bought thier albums in the past when they published on reprise records. I dont know if I will buy this one, though I might go to a their concert if they stop though town. I supprised tw let them do this.
We have the best government that money can buy.
It still surprises me that even on a tech-savvy site like Slashdot, where most readers probably took some university-level math, most people tend to have a fairly weak understanding of logical reasoning, statistical analysis, and game theory.
1. Anecdotal evidence is worthless in statistical analysis.
Even if Wilco succeeds in this one particular case, that doesn't provide substantial evidence that releasing your album for free works in general. We don't even know for sure that it benefited Wilco. It probably did... any publicity is good publicity. But go to MP3.com and you will find a ton of bands who made $6 last month in royalties for the priviledge of allowing people to download their music for free.
2. An effect observed in a small sample size (relative to the total population) may not generalize to a large sample size.
Wilco's album appears to be selling quite well, and let's assume for the moment that that is due largely to their decision to release it for free on the Internet. Now imagine if everyone did that. Now Wilco would no longer stand out in the crowd, and they would lose the competitive advantage they gained from free promotion. Hype is a non-linear effect.
3. You must not ignore the effects of statistical lag.
Imagine a medical study where the patients who receive a new drug feel better immediately, but then die five years later. It is meaningless to compare album sales today to file "sharing" statistics today. It takes time for the effects of technology to affect the market. Take a look at the second derivative, and you may see that file "sharing" is in fact hurting album sales.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
Help, I'm a Slashbot and I'm confused. Does this mean that to hurt the Recording Industry I have to buy more music?
~Chazzf (today masquerading as SlashBot#1138)
No statement is true, not even this one.
// Begin beating dead horse
I find zero incentive to purchase CDs for a few reasons (most obvious first):
1.) Why spend money on something you can get for free? "Because I want to support my favorite artist/band" Well you sure as hell aren't doing it by purchasing their CD. We all know by now that the artist makes around a dollar or less from each CD purchase.
2.) Wahh, I want the album art -- almost always available in high quality on various CD cover & insert scan sites, and nice quality printers are cheap these days too.
3.) CD audio is a dying technology. Not to get all the audiophiles on my case here (most of which would probably argue that CD quality sucks to start with), but a lot of people don't even care for CDs anymore. A lot of people just turn their CDs into MP3s as soon as they get them. A lot of people prefer to simply download the album in a format that they can put on their portable players easily, in their own mix preference, without leaving their seat instead of making a special trip to a store to buy a special round disc that takes up space, or order one and wait for it to arrive, then get frustrated trying to get the plastic off of it. To hell with CDs.
4.) You're telling me that I'm supposed to go pay money for this album on a CD that comes out finally today in the real world, when I downloaded it 2-3 months ago and am tired/bored of it by now!? Yeah right.
Wasn't this whole thing supposed to be to overthrow the greedy record industry!? The digital music revolution, remember? Not "Yes RIAA, we'll buy more tangible shiny discs if you just let us keep sharing our copies of them. Now leave us alone and continue abusing your artists." I don't think it's about being cheap, I think it's about convenience, and about NOT giving more money to fat guys that sit at atop skyscrapers in suits smoking cigars that don't know the first thing about music.
I still say you're better off downloading the album and if you really like it, give the artist/band $5 at fairtunes.com
... to buy their cd/tape too, especially if they produced it indie-style!
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
Could it be, a new troll?! Welcome! :-)
There are a lot of reasons for people not to get all their music via download right now. Most people still only have dial-up access, and if you want to pirate more than a few tracks per day, you'll basically have to leave it on all the time. None of the lossy encoding out there has reached real CD quality (well I've heard that if you run the ogg encoder at the very highest quality setting, it turns all of the compression entirely off, but that doesn't count), and this is compounded by the fact that most of the files on P2P services are very poorly encoded, and this is the channel by which most people obtain their pirated music (some of them even have upper bitrate limits, so even if you have high-quality rips they won't be shared).
That being said, being on a college campus where very fast broadband access is universally available, I know of many people who listen to lots of music, and don't own a single legal, commercial CD. This of course is the future...broadband will become more prevalent, compression algorithms will improve, and little by little people WILL pirate what they can. Personally I do buy some CDs, but my reason is the exact opposite than what all these piracy advocates put forward...I buy not what I can find on the Internet, but what I CANNOT. This has to do mainly with my distinctly minority musical taste, most people really can find most of what they want to listen to through various channels.
I think that if piracy of copyrighted music continues it most certainly WILL lead to the downfall of the commercial music recording industry as we know it. This is quantitatively different than VCRs...nobody uses Gnutella or whatever to copy what they already have (if you own the CD or DVD, and you want a copy on your computer, you'll rip it yourself with your own preferred quality settings, after all). I personally support this, and would love it if commercial pop music were to disappear from the face of the earth, but judging by what most people prefer to pirate on the Internet, I would say many of you probably feel differently.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
The strategy appears to have paid off.
/. couldn't have anything to do with that now, could it?
Umm, sure. A headline mention on
Obviously the RIAA is out of touch with the reality on the ground. But there's no need to mollify them by essentially saying "Look guys, if you get with the program, you can rake in the bucks just like you always have!" That's a lie. The economics have changed, and continue to change; and not in the RIAA's favor. Don't worry yourself about Hillary Rosen and Jack Valenti. She may have his panties in a bunch, but these lovebirds are doing just fine. Much better than you.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
I don't want to buy a CD and then find out that only the 1 or 2 tracks I heard on the radio were any good. It's gotten to the point where even if a CD is released by a band I really like, I wait until I can use file-sharing to sample the rest of the CD that I haven't heard yet. And if I like what I hear, I go buy it. If not, I keep the 1 or 2 songs I do like as mp3s. It's that simple.
I would never buy music anyway, so if someone shares their music with me via limewire or another software sharing thing it doesn't have any impact at all. I guess I never really listened to music before I got limewire though, so I suppose one day I'll have to blame a CD purchase on being exposed to the music off of the internet.
well, i can say that i download music and dont plan on buying the cd simply because cds are too damn expensive. maybe if they sold a cd of mp3s for $5 i'd buy that, but they dont, so fuck'em.
"you sonofabitch i didn't know!"
Its all about control.
The shareholder is always right.
Right. They're too darned busy paying off the radio stations to play the latest ``hit'' from some boy band or Britney wannabee. Gotta sell those records to recoup all that expensive hype.
Since the radio stations aren't actually playing any music from the other 99 percent of the artists that they distribute, just how the hell do the record companies expect those artists to be heard? Or do they expect those un-hyped bands to gain their sales as a result of impulse purchases?
If I hadn't found a sample of a band's music (or the occasional full track) in MP3 format, there are bands whose music I wouldn't have purchased. Take note, Hilary, lest you wind up killing off the Golden Goose.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
The record industry needs to be informed that we will not take such abuse lying down, that we will fight them every step of the way.
It's good to see that someone is embracing the free distribution of their music as a means for increasing sales, and succeeding. I have no faith that it will tell the RIAA anything, because their minds are closed; But hopefully it will help other artists.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Among those who own recordable CD drives and subscribe to high-speed Internet access--but don't swap files- -the report found that about the same number of people reported increasing and decreasing spending on music.
Suprising that non-swappers are also buying more! However, we then get to the critical part:
The Jupiter study did note that the average drop in an individual's music spending was larger than the average increase in spending. That effect could explain the overall drop in record sales, the authors noted.
So there you have it, the survey shows that the wallets of people cutting down their spending outweigh those buying more.
And of course, as others have pointed out, there's no information on how the data was collected, and no attempt to verify if people's responses were truthful or not, so any arguments either way should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Here in L.A. the radio SUCKS! There are about five hip/hop/R&B/top 40 stations, a couple of classic rock stations and the rest pretty much is spanish. I listen to the music I love by going to a couple of stations' websites (wxrv.com and wbos.com)., looking at their playlists and downloading the music. If I find an artist that I like, generally I buy that CD. So far this year, I've bought perhaps 15-20 CD's due to my ability to listen to the songs this way. There's no other way to hear this type of music here in L.A. as it's not played on the radio. For me, downloading music is an alternative to listening to it on the radio. Let me state this again, as it's an important point: Downloading has replaced the radio as my preferred (ne' my ONLY way) way of discovering new music.
Now, I can't understand why the RIAA is so clueless as to think that all of us want to listen to Mary J. Blige and N'Sync. My 17 year old daughter doesn't even listen to that stuff (though my 14 year old does).
The reason that that music sales are down is simple: the recording industry isn't serving the consumer! If I get a bad meal at a restaurant I don't go there any more. If there's a TV show that I don't like, I don't watch it. If a store rips me off, I don't shop there. None of these receive govt. assistance. THE MARKETPLACE serves them, and they live or die based upon it. Why should the music industry receive special treatment from the Government then? If the record industry is producing a poor product that I have no desire to buy, why should Congress stifle their competition to try and force me to buy their product?
Can anyone explain this to me...like I was a six year old?
Your friend has the latest CD by a popular group and he offers to email it to you. Should you:
- a) accept his gift
- b) ask your parents
- c) tell him you're not interested
- d) report your friend to your local FBI field office
If you pass, you will periodically get "pulled over." This entails an official popup from the FBI complete with flashing lights, an image of a badge and a chat window. An FBI agent, who has apparently been monitoring your license ID and your activities asks where you're headed and if you've had anything to drink tonight. You tell him you're just looking at porn sites to learn some new positions that may help your wife get pregnant. He points out that your file says you're single, and you explain that you were referring to your fiancee. After several minutes of suspicious questioning, he lets you go. Or does he?It sounds draconian, but I'm sure it's essential to promote public safety on the Internet. We can't have unlicensed rogues running amok ruining the online environment, can we?
Of course people are cheap, but most people don't like wasting time any more than wasting money. Back when Napster was big, I installed it and went poking around for some of my favorite songs from back in the '80s. After a few hours of not really finding anything, I gave up and never went back. Online file-sharing may be free as in money, but certainly not free as in time.
Now, as far as comparing a purchasing decision with paying income taxes, the comparison is ridiculous. If I don't feel like buying CDs, nobody will probably notice; but if I don't pay my income tax, there's a good chance somebody might arrest me. Income tax isn't even remotely voluntary. And no, don't give me that crap about "jointly agreed to support." I have never once voted for an incumbent, because I consider supporting any Federal budget passed since the beginning of the Cold War as essentially crime against humanity, with its huge military black budget. Seriously.
(One last note: with Napster, I may not have found what I was looking for, but I *did* find some other bands that I liked. I probably own about a dozen CDs now that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. And, no, I haven't bought a single major-label CD since Napster was shut down.)
Possible reasons for falling RIAA sales:
$6.2B/488.7M = $12.69/Unit (2000)
$5.9B/442.7M = $13.33/Unit (2001)
(a 5.04% increase, with 2000 US inflation at 3.4%)
i definitely wouldn't put it past some biz-school smartass to say in a boardroom meeting, "hey, let's bump up the price a little, decrease our sales, and create the data that will convince courts to shut down file traders."
And the sheer mass of it. My girlfriend's CD collection lives in one of those tall IKEA CD-holders. It nearly killed me last year when the jewel-boxes fell out as I moved it to take a furniture delivery.
I remember sitting in front of my father's stereo (nice McIntosh integrated amplifier, JBL centurys, Technics direct drive record player (which I've got in my apartment now ) and an Onyx tuner) with a pair of headphones for hours on end when I was five. I'd record every song, and if I didn't like them, I'd rewind to the beginning during the commercials and record over. Queueing the songs I want on a p2p app and coming back half an hour later just isn't the same. I miss the warm glow of the backlights and the heavy metal knobs. *Looks at cheap plastic keyboard and mouse in disgust*
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
My entire music collection is mostly indie artists that I've gone to see in concert anyways, so I've paid my dues.
Even though more than 75% of my collection is std. commercial (tho not top 40). The main reason I really started buying CDs was the local scene. I live in Brisbane, and it was always awesome seeing the guys from my town doing great now. I've always made a point of buying the Guys' CDs at the concerts becaue I figure I'm showing support. Last time I did this I bought 3 CDs and T Shirts from bands that are just a bunch of young blokes giving it a go...
Good to hear that you support your locals - on my website I publish local bands discographies etc. Tho I haven't in ages (lousy stupid scanner)...
-- Dan =)
or MTV..
Okay, after some google searching, I finally found Wilco's site. But WTF? Where the hell can I download the album? I don't even see a place to preview the songs, except for a live show. It says they released it on April 23. What, was it only free for a week? Where are all the informative-link-putting-up karma whores when you need them?
Heh, linux users will love the blurb at the middle left: it says "got quicktime?"
c-hack.com |
Good thing no one ripped that bonus CD and posted it on the Internet.
I've no doubt it's prolly already been ripped. Like you said, anythng that's a value add can be ripped. but I think there's a bit more psychology there too:
Person A: has a burned CD of Band X
Person B: Has the limited edition Super CD of Band X.
I guess it depends on the person but I think you'll find many people will want to be in Person B territory, especially if they think in term of collectability etc.
I'll ask another question: Who do you think will get more value out of a game: Person A who has a rip & plays single player or LAN, or Person B who paid AUD$80 for a game where they have access to the online communities etc...
Sure you can circumvent it, but why would you? I guess my attitude changed the day I got to talk shop with some game developers (Pandemic DR2), also the fact that local developer AURAN is just down the road (and I might add, going through tough times atm laying off ppl from what I hear...)
I guess it all depends on perspective. I don't have too much love for the large top 40 manufactured artists etc. But I'd look like a hyporcrite if I bought locals/bands that I like and ripped the rest (not that I'd listen to their music anyway...), but it's a principle thing...
-- Dan "Who really should stop posting on this topic and work on his paper" Thomas =)
I've a feeling that, well, you don't know what a troll is... why worry so much about such stupid things? The post was simply funny.
look! I'm in a rage of giggles!
If you target your study at college students, who are notoriously broke and have access to high-bandwidth connections, you will find they are buying less and downloading more. If you study working professionals like me, you'll find that the more they download, the more they buy. I'm pretty sure the RIAA targeted college students to get their desired results. Problem is, college students can't afford to buy a lot of music anyway, can they? Downloads by people that couldn't otherwise afford the content doesn't really represent lost sales, does it?
While I can't help but snicker at the recording industry when I read this article, I wonder how many albums these guys would have sold if they had never been picked up by a major label in the first place?
Or, at least read it.
Let's send the new Wilco album to #1, just to show the RIAA how WRONG they are. I'm heading down to the "record" store right now!
Isn't this another failed open sores project?
Didn't the Greatful Dead manage to become the highest grossing band in the U.S., all while allowing fans to freely tape their concerts, and encouraging the trading of said tapes? Sorry, you must not be thinking hard enough...
My Purchases have dropped. I used to find some good stuff, if more than one track was good i bought the CD. Right now I kinda sit around waiting for a decent CD, and since my radio listening is down to 2 hours a day it reduces the new music I could possibly find. Add to the face OandA take up the afternoon drive, that reduces music listening to one hour. And make that 1/2 hour with commercials and dj chatter. So you can see, no way to find new music, hence no new purchases
and aliens who are bread in salt mines in utah and control the trilateral commission who want to take away MY GUNS!
Man. It strikes me odd at how naive the slashdot crowd can really be. I understand that you download music, then purchase it if you like it. But you do not represent the majority, unfortunately. I guarantee(*) that in the majority of homes (and college dorms) using file sharing software to download music, only a small percentage would own the music that was downloaded. It's just common sense. Downloading mp3s and burning them to CD-R's is much, much cheaper (and more convienent) than driving to the store and departing with $20 for a CD. The bad thing for the record industry is that it's really too late for them to get into the game. They would offer basically the same thing I'm already getting for free, only I'd have to pay for it. Given their track record, how many of you would seriously pay them for that service? Sure, I'd like to support the artist; but human nature dictates that I make myself as best off as possible. Not departing with money falls under that. Also, the RIAA simply does not have the resources to go after and process every single individual user who downloads mp3s. It's simply impossible. So there is no deterrent not to download mp3s. Some of us just try to make ourselves feel comfortable about it by "supporting the artist." I don't feel uncomfortable, though. I just feel human. But I am sure you will point out my bastardness and stupidity with some convincing arguements. You may do so now. God I'm a jackass.
-1:Flame,Troll
(*) Guarantee void in Tennessee.
It's the threat..and it's a pretty big one..that the next Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2 or Nirvana are going to come...and they're going to miss the boat. It only takes one to do it. A group that basically sticks to the indie roots, and grows through file-sharing and eventually gets enough clout to play with the big boys. It can happen, and it only takes one to be a killing blow to the RIAA. When one do it..more are going to do it. And eventually the RIAA are out of business (at least in their current form).
>WARNING: underage drinking can be bad for your health.
How can underage drinking damage my health?
I was drinking when I was underage, didn't hurt anybody though.
>WARNING: alcohol kills liver
And bad grammar is killing english.
Don't like RIAA or MPAA, then QUIT PAYING/LISTENING/WATCHING THEIR CHIT, or at least pay EPIC, EFF, and GeekPAC some bucks to offset the profit you are stuffing into Jack and Hillery's pockets. I haven't paid to go to a movie, buy a CD, or paid AOL/TIME/WARNER/CNN/DISCOVERY this year, nor will I for the rest of the year.
I'm in protest mode, and RIAA/MPAA/Sony/Warner/MGM et al can kiss my rosy red behind as long as they keep acting like spoiled children. Frankly, I don't miss the drivel so far. I listen to CD's I purchased in the past, swap CD's, books (and electronic books) & movies with friends & family, and all other legal things I can do to not PAY them. 'Course, Turner Broadcasting CEO Jamie Kellner is a mite shy on common freaking sense, but that's no more than to be expected from IP control freaks.
Look, put up or shut up. Do something that hits IP profiteers in the pocket book, vote, and give money to those that are fighting for your rights, or shut up and drop it; you'll get what all cowards get sooner or later.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I guess you watched it on TNT also (or whatever it was). I only saw like half the movie cause I kept forgetting to switch back. I was watching hockey.
I have dabbled a little with gnutella, and find it handy. mostly i look for two things:
In most cases, if I like the tunes, I buy the disc. If I only like the radio track, I won't buy it.. and in most cases I won't even keep the MP3. Figure the stuff will be crap enough before long.
So, for me, sharing helps me make a more informed decision. And (probably to the record company's chargrin) I won't buy their crappy disc of crap for only one track I would like. So, I guess it does suck for them..
-'fester
"Because most people are obviously using file sharing to find new music to purchase. A concept the RIAA can not comprehend."
I don't comprehend it either, because I downloaded a lot of MP3's via Napster and Morpheus - but I wouldn't go out and buy them afterwards. A 192 RIP was good enough for me.
In this way, the RIAA is right. You download the MP3 - you are far less likely to buy it.
There is, however, a very different consequence which comes with MP3 sharing. And it's one which the RIAA, on reflection, has decided it does not like much either:
Overall music purchases dip a little. People who download Mp3's, however, ultimately consume more music. They eat more music, pay less for it, and spend their dollars in a less market efficient fashion.
It's a "hobby effect". You begin to "get into music" more, and you will buy music - just usually not the specific music you downloaded.
The effect is then to redisribute the proceeds of sales from the "leading group of the day" to those who aren't in the spotlight, but come to your attention and you buy it.
So what's in this for the RIAA? The more they market a band, the more airplay the band gets, the more the music is likely to be pirated and the more net sales from that band are adversely effected by music sharing.
Small consolation to the recording label when they find out that - yeah - the kids really like Sum41, and they end up so inspired that they go search out Sum41 "influences", go to the music store to buy some old Green Day EPs.
THe RIAA may be engaged in a vain struggle, they may disinform and lie and distort the facts, but they aren't *stupid*.
.Robert
.Robert
Why would anyone *presume* that [the shareware model] won't work for music?
Because it's impossible to lock the extra features for registered users only.
Will I retire or break 10K?
downloading media protected by personal property rights that you do not act within (own a copy, etc) is not legal, under any fair use act.
whether or not it boosts cd sales is irrelevant, as i for one do not picture the RIAA offering downloadable mp3s as a standard anytime soon.
Simply put, the thought of giving the RIAA and MPAA more of my money makes me want to throw up. I've stopped spending money on CDs because of copy protection and their attitude towards file sharing (what could become the biggest boon to music ever...) I'm afraid to buy new CDs now less they be tainted with some kind of protection that makes them useless in most of my gizmos.
Oh yea, I would also like to buy a lot of stuff that's considered "import" (does that really mean anything anymore?) But when the prices cost more than the DVDs (think anime soundtracks), it's seems simply ludicrous.
Maybe I can just send the money straight to the artist and have them send me a CD or two?
Thanks,
Well, they didn't survey me and thanks to sharing, I haven't had to buy a CD is over a year!
Information wants to be free!
The music industry hasn't gotten a single fricking penny out of me since about 1994. Before that I bought album after album, only to discover that some record company/lazy artist bastard RIPPED ME OFF! Yes, that's right. I would buy a CD, listen to it, and then discover that out of the 10 songs on the CD, nine of them were complete stinkers.
So, I protect myself now. I just got a DSL line and installed Kazaa lite. I'm discovering that I've missed a lot in music since 1994, and that there's some pretty good stuff out there.
BUT I warn the record companies: I will check out every song on the record before I buy it. If there is more than one crappy song on the disk, I will keep my damn money. If the CD is filled with good songs, then MAYBE I will actually buy it.
That's the deal, Mr. Record Company, take it or leave it. I'm content to go back to just not buying any music at all. I did it for 8 years! You've sold me so much garbage in the past, that if I insist on previewing everything that I might buy from you, I think you ought to just sit down, shut up, and ask me nicely to please please buy your record.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
They generate revenue by signing new groups to terribly one-sided contracts. If other opportunities for new talent to become widely recognized apepared, people whould no longer depend on the music industry to get their music heard by a wide audience. They would only be needed for distribution. The Lables fear the drought of new talent turning to the Internet will dry up their revenue stream.
if music didnt suck so bad right now. with everyone sounding like everyone with a few exeptions that dont like anyways i would buy more. For years ive been buy stuff i have had only heard a song or 2 and been supprised by content of cd and disapointed a few times too. but im sure as hell not gonna by any creed, britney, etc. cause it sucks. Better music means more sales, music sucks right now when napster was still in FULL swing a year or so back there was some decent stuff.
...because I will clearly state what exactly a song is worth to me, because I want to be able to do whatever I want to do with the content I purchase, and because I am not afraid to tell others the value I place on content.
.50$US a song, I would like permanent, fast access to a low-bitrate lossy copy of the song for my portable device (128 CBR mp3 would be reasonable), plus a high-bitrate lossy copy for my personal music collection on my hard drive (--alt-preset standard would be acceptable) from fast, reliable servers. These copies must be in an "unlocked" format.
.50$US a song, plus a losless copy of the song (in whatever format the RIAA decides is cheapest to distribute in, as long as the format is as unlocked as .wav) from fast, reliable servers.
.50$US: I'd gladly drop a dollar a song to have fast access to lossless copies of songs that I want to make a mix CD of, and I'd gladly drop another dollar on top of that to have fast access to some videos with maybe the band talking about the song, the music video, and maybe a video of them playing the song live. Let's say I decide to show said videos to my friends: three bucks on top of what I've already paid, and I get a VCD mailed to my house with SEVENTY MINUTES of video footage about my favorite song: the video, live performances, artist interviews, the works. If my band wants to try to learn to play the song, just pony up five more dollars and there you go. I know I'd pay five dollars for the bass tabs for Tool - Intolerance + an mp3 of just the bassline.
.50$US/song, and the artist sees 20% of what I spend, that artist has pocketed 1.20$US of what I've paid, which is about as much as the artist makes if I were to buy the CD retail. If I buy Tool - Intolerance at the 10$US level, the artist pockets 2$US -- more than Tool probably makes for selling the entire Undertow CD at retail. If I turn around and buy the rest of that album at .50$US/song, then I'll have paid 14.50$US (less than what I would pay retail) and the artist will have pocketed 2.90$US, which is probably much, much more than they make per disc now.
For
For 1$US a song, I would like everything I get for
For 2$US a song, I would like everything I get for 1$US a song, plus access to a few streaming videos of the band performing the song, and access to a streamed music video for the song (if it exists) from fast, reliable servers.
For 5$US a song, I would like everything I get for 2$US a song, plus access to downloadable copies of said video in unlocked formats from fast, reliable servers.
For 10$US a song, I would like everything I get for 5$US a song, plus what I like to call "all access" to the song:
-If I want a copy of the song in a specific format in a specific quality, there is a service that will automatically generate that copy for me and deliver it to me like automagic.
-I get access to any demo recordings of the song.
-I get access to all the materials I would need to reproduce the song on instruments (guitar tabulature, etc.)
-I get access to a multi-track recording of the song, where the individual tracks each represent one musical element of the final song when mixed together; i.e. one is the bassline, one is the lead guitar, one is the drummer, etc.
With a scheme such as this, I can "buy in" to a song to a level equal with my enjoyment of that song. I also have incentive to buy in to levels above
Hell, I even have some CDs where I'd gladly drop 10$US a song for the entire CD if the distributors (the RIAA, natch) would GIVE ME WHAT I WANT.
I DON'T WANT CRAP-QUALITY LOCKED COPIES OF CRAP SONGS, I WANT "COMPLETE" COPIES OF THE SONGS I LIKE, AND I AM WILLING TO PAY FOR FAST, RELIABLE ACCESS TO THE THINGS I WANT.
And put this in your pipe and smoke it: since the middleman is cut out (record stores), the artists can get a larger cut. If I buy a 12-track entire CD at
Since when did the customer stop being always right?
-inq
Members of the RIAA aren't *complete* twits. If file sharing did indeed lead to increased sales, they would be encouraging it, not attempting to kill it. They have their own statisticians and such doing studies very similar to these, and if the studies suggested that free-for-all file sharing would increase net sales, then they would allow it wholeheartedly.
You may take the "IP protection" argument, which is a valid one. However, protecting IP would come a very distant second to priority one, making $$$. And if some compromise on the former led to an increase in the latter, the RIAA would not hesitate. They may be unethical, money-grubbing and overly lawsuit-happy, but they're not idiots.
- SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
Are Wilco fans (I'm guessing a little older, people who can appreciate a cohesive album as opposed to a throwaway single) different than your average file swapper?
I always knew I was going to buy the album, even though I downloaded live versions of many of the tracks before they had official titles. I want the actual CD, the cover art, the liner notes, the fetish of going to a record store and buying a new album. Is your normal 15 year old kid who downloads a bunch of crappy Nickelback songs really into the whole fetish aspect of being a hard-core record hound?
The music I've downloaded has been bands that I've read about but haven't heard anywhere - stuff I'm never going to hear on MTV or a Clear Channel owned radio station. Lots of these downloads have led to purchases of whole CDs because I want to actually have a physical object. Is this dying out?
On a side note, I was very happy last week looking for the Wilco disc - it was sold out in a lot of the stores I looked in. Never had that happen before.
Yep. For all my cable modem-having, morpheus/kazaa-using, cd-rom burning,
I bought the album without hearing a peep of it before hand.
Why? Obvious reasons! But it's pretty dope!
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
The right balance between the rights of listeners and the rights of creators may be making nonprofit use legal. You can copy music for your own use now (Audio Home Recording Act). You should be able to pass music around for free, but not charge for it, add advertising, or do anything that generates revenue.
This means hobbyist sharing only - no Napster, no MP3.com, no Kazaa. Gnutella and Freenet, yes. Now that's worth lobbying for.
I can honestly say that my use of P2P and music sharing has increased my purchasing of some of the music I buy, but I think it's cut to zero the my purchasing of others.
The difference seems to be in whether or not musicians are "radio friendly" or not, though I don't think I consider that too consciously while I'm in the record store. I'm definitely sure though that getting music online made me buy music from some lesser known bands that I hadn't heard of before. In the case of a woman named Neko Case in particular, a friend of mine new I liked Kelly Hogan and burned me a couple of her mp3s. I loved her music and now I own two of her records. That's pretty typical.
Stuff that I hear on the radio, I'll pull it off mIRC if I want to hear it while I'm in the office, but the radio doesn't convince me to buy music anyway. Why buy it if you can hear it on the radio?
A Transmission From PlanetJIM.[end trans]
I guess that makes you only half as gay as the original poster. Fucktard.
Tom Waits' new label Anti is streaming both his upcoming releases for the days before they're released next Tuesday. I listened to the first one and after two songs I was on CDNow placing my preorder.
Now that's what I call increasing music purchasing. I haven't bought a CD since February and it took 8 minutes for me to go buy two that aren't even out yet.
They're great records too, if you're into Tom Waits.
A Transmission From PlanetJIM.[end trans]
MP3.com was taken over by Vivendi/Universal. They promptly changed the terms of service, slashed the payback for playback program, treated the artists like crap when they objected, and fired the founding board members.
Don't be surprised if, in the future, Vivendi uses MP3.com as an example of why free music downloads hurt "the industry".
Nobody's buying from MP3.com anymore because all the good independent artists got sick of getting screwed by Vivendi, pulled down their music and left. It happened to my favorite band (Galbatron, in case you're wondering...) so they switched to AmpCast. I know they were not alone.
I agree with a posting I saw on an earlier thread about this - it's high time for a not-for-profit record label.
--
Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!
This is free for the RIAA et al. to adopt:
They allow high quality streaming of ALL the songs from the albums. Then sell HIGH (196kbs) Quality mp3 downloads of the songs for a fraction of the cost of the cd.
Do not worry about people who will never buy, Don't worry about people who only buy CDs. There are many others like me who would rather buy just the songs for a cheaper price. Of course now they will be providing songs that can transmitted to friends and etc. Don't worry about that; those people who would like to download them from friends probably will download them from filesharing utilities.
But what about those who download and then buy the album? If you sell them online cheaper you lose some money right? Yes, yes you do. However, you make a lot more from people who want to pay for the music but can't justify 18 dollars for a cd.
Trying to clamp down and stop honest people from using the music fairly BENEFITS NO ONE. Trying to stop filesharing is like trying to push unused toothpaste back in the tube.
At the risk of sounding cliche don't alienate your base and don't sweat the small stuff!
Were things better for you all along time ago? Maybe. Have things changed? Yes yes they have. Was it overnight? Nope. Will it change back? Not only no but hell no.
--Joey
War does not determine who is right Only who's left
while I'm not john mayer, I feel obligated yet again to mention his motto-
"you can burn a CD, but you can't burn a t-shirt"
decent people like him who are in touch with the technology will thrive in the next 10 years...
I'd be happy if every major label went bankrupt and all the indie's took over.
rock on wilco- I didn't see that post earlier, but I'll check them out tomorrow.
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Last week I interviewed the head of Sony Music NZ who also happens to be spokesman for the local Industry's "Burn and Get Burnt" campaign -- an attempt to reduce the levels of CD piracy.
The Sony exec told me that they see the main problem being "organised" groups of pirates who regularly burn CDs and sell them at flea-markets, schools and the like.
Later, a former "top cop" from the UK, who now happens to be under the employ of the UK recording industry, was interviewed on TV.
He claimed that CD piracy was being run by the same organized crime groups that were traffiking in drugs, arms and similar illegal products.
His pitch was pretty much that if you buy a burnt CD you're contributing to the illegal proliferation of drugs and guns -- now that's a new one eh?
The Sony exec said that copy-protected CDs will be introduced in to New Zealand shortly and added that overseas trials have been very promising, with only a very low level of complaints.
At least he acknowledged that this lack of outrage might be because they were trialing the technology on music that was unlikely to appeal to the demographic most active in Net-based trading or casual CD ripping/burning.
He told me that although they still considered burning/ripping a CD for your own use to be illegal (there's no "fair use" here in NZ), their main targets in the anti-piracy drive were the "professional" pirates.
When I pointed out that "professional" pirates would not find the copy-protection to be nothing more than a minor irritation he got a bit agitated and wouldn't comment.
I suggested that perhaps this copy-protection was going to have the most impact on those people who are not in the business of copying music for friends or resale -- but simply want to be able to buy a CD that is certain to play on whatever player they choose (including a PC) to play it on.
I also suggested that copying an expensive CD onto a CDR for use in the car is a sensible thing to do. CDs in cars are prone to get scratched or damaged so using a copy is simply insurance against that.
He told me that this was illegal (here in NZ) and that if you scratched a CD so that it wouldn't play then you should simply buy another copy.
What's more, when I told him that in the days of vinyl I used to tape my expensive LPs and use the tapes for day-to-day listening so that the originals didn't get scratched he told me that this was also illegal (here in NZ). When I suggested that lots of people did this -- he told me that was rubbish.
It's easy to see why the recording industry has a problem -- they live in a world where the sky is a completely different color.
In an interview with Australia's Channel Nine this week, Elton John attributed the decline in CD sales not to piracy or the Internet -- but to the "crap" that the industry is trying to pass off as music.
It was refreshing to hear this sentiment echoed by an artist of such standing in the music industry.
Nice to know that there are still some recording artists that haven't sold out.
One study says file swapping is lowering sales another claims that it stimulates sales.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The copyright holder has the right to distribute the music they control any way they choose. It is not for the consumer to decide for them.
If you are trading copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission then you are breaking the law and it doesn't matter squat if you disagree with the law.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
CDs don't work for me. I am a poor judge of a CD's staying power. Back when I bought CDs, I would frequently buy crappy CDs. Now I download full albums from MP3 distro groups. I've got about a hundred albums right now. If an album gets old, I delete it. My collection is excellent. I don't buy anything.
CDs scratch and oxidize. MP3s are forever. If I ever buy a CD, it is only because it's so uncommon that it can't be downloaded. And then I rip it and play it on my computer or my iPod.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"Because most people are obviously using file sharing to find new music to purchase© A concept the RIAA can not comprehend©"
This is not really surprising© When you're decitful, greedy, and untrusting you think everyone is decitful, greedy, and untrusting©
In truth the RIAA is basically admitting that they would do the same thing in our position, since they don't seem to want to give us the benefit of the doubt that if we like the music we download, we will actually go out and buy it©
Beny
"I'm a humble person really,
I'm actually much greater than I think I am"
56k modem - user downloads a song, likes it, buys the album
broadband connection - user downloads a song, likes it, downloads the album.
This is why the big music companies want to stop sharing. They know it may be increasing sales at the moment, but this will change once broadband connections become the international standard.
The actions of the RIAA have driven me away from mainstream. Last year I purchased 53 CDs, and NOT one was from a RIAA member label. When I started boycott-riaa.com in July 2000, I quit buying mainstream music, and it hurt. I really enjoy music, of all genres and was somewhat lost, as to what to do. Soon I discovered that there is a huge amount of music available from independents. Soon I was visiting CDBaby every payday, visiting indie artists websites, buying from the artist rather than the cartel.
.4 of a percent. I wish I could say the same for my 401K.
Over the years I've usually purchased 1 or 2 CDs per month. Last year I purchased about one per week. The reason? I heard the music beforehand, not after I got the CD home. Every CD from every artist let me hear not just 30 second samples but most often full tracks, or the full CD. Many let me download MP3s of those tracks. Damn right the RIAA sales are down, they got not one cent of my money, in a year I bought more CDs than every year before.
In the ongoing "Chicken Little" scenario presented by Hilary Rosen and her band of thugs, they neglect to tell you that Sony Music was UP last year, that Warner Music was UP last year, and that EMI as down a scant
The article mentions that critics of this type of study point out that people often don't give honest answers to such controversial questions.
I once remember reading a study that said that abortions in the 70's led to the crime drop of the 90's. The study started out without trying to prove anything specific, except what caused the crime drop. The idea that it was the legalization of abortion hadn't even occured to them, and only after studying the data and applying very advanced statistical, demographic and trend mathematics did they realize and conclude what caused it.
I bet they could use the same kind of approach to show a direct relationship between changes in file sharing usage and changes in CD sales.
check out further, http://www.furthurnet.com
legal p2p
pretty crazy, no?
Well *any* method that comes up has to *fit* peoples behavior and inclinations. What DO people want when it comes to music? Well first they want music that agreeable to them as much as possible.
They want a reasonable cost for this music. Before any kind of (risky?) commitment (money changing hands) they want to "try before they buy". After the transaction they want to be unfettered with what they can do with their purchase. How can any future model accomidate this? We assuming present social/econo/tech trends continue. Wireless broadband will be more widely available. Computers will be both portable and store a much greater amount. The best model would be servers both independent and commercial, hosting music that people wanted. The portable wireless enable PC would have general search functions with the ability to play any music format in the same manner. You would search for what ever music you like. Hit the preview button for anything interesting. If you found anything good. simply "buy it" The song is downloaded to the PC and the cost is electronically debited from your account. No protection on the music beyond the "Thou shall not steal". It's *simple*unobtrusive*and fair to both parties*
The only downside is to all those "buggy whip" um, I mean middlemen would be displaced.
I'd like it if the musicians were paid directly. It's pretty simple nowadays. Why should musicians go to a recording studio anymore? Recording equipment (PCs, basically) are cheap nowadays and mp3s (perhaps Ogg Vorbis someday) are the norm. Regardless, anyone can easily record their music into a file format on a computer and distribute it. It'd be nice if the recording industry was taken out of the picture entirely as if we really didn't need them. It used to be a viable business (ripping off the artists), but, is it anymore?
If you're religishitty, KILL YOURSELF!
The problem as I see it is that these same points apply to the arguments organizations like the RIAA are making. Whats worse, they are using these questionable arguments to push for equally questionable laws that will require considerable time and effort as well as an expesive court process or an act of congress to repeal. If that ever happens.
Sure, these arguments are flawed. But the industry is acting now and forces those who wish to counteract their actions to also act. There is no time for truely accurate analysis (as screwy as that may be).
One final comment - the music industry is happy with the current status quo. They have spent the past handfull of decades developing the system that is their current business model. They also realize that they are being presented with a possible disruptive technology. And while it is possible that technology may present new opportunity some time in the future, it is the safer bet to limit the effectiveness of that technology now even at the risk of outright killing it. The worse that can happen is they'll be forced to deal with the current status quo.
THE CORPORATION & AMERICA
.[The] corporation brought about a new form of dependency. Instead of industry, frugality, and initiatives producing fruits, underlings in the corporate hierarchy had to be aware of style, manners, office politics, and choice of patrons -- very reminiscent of the Old Whig corruption in England at the time of the revolution -- what is today called "corporate culture."
Rewriting history to justify greed
by Sam Smith
THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN 'SHADOWS OF HOPE,'
PUBLISHED BY INDIANA UNIVERITY PRESS, 1994
Encomiums to the wonders of market forces fill speeches and media reports. One National Public Radio reporter even went so far as to describe a form of government called market democracy, apparently a blend of the Bill of Rights and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
In fact, most free workers in this country were self-employed well into the 19th century. They were thus economic as well as political citizens.
Further, until the last decades of the 19th century, Americans believed in a degree of fair distribution of wealth that would shock many today. James L. Huston writes in the American Historical Review:
Americans believed that if property were concentrated in the hands of a few in a republic, those few would use their wealth to control other citizens, seize political power, and warp the republic into an oligarchy. Thus to avoid descent into despotism or oligarchy, republics had to possess an equitable distribution of wealth.
Such a distribution, in theory at least, came from enjoying the "fruits of one's labor" but no more. Businesses that sprung up didn't flourish on competition because there generally wasn't any and, besides, cooperation worked better. You didn't need two banks or two drug stores in the average town. Prices and business ethics were not regulated by the marketplace but by a complicated cultural code and the fact that the banker went to church with his depositors. Although the practice was centuries old, the term capitalism -- and thus the religion -- didn't even exist until the middle of the 19th century.
Americans were intensely commercial, but this spirit was propelled not by Reaganesque fantasies about competition but by the freedom that engaging in business provided from the hierarchical social and economic system of the monarchy. Business, including the exchange as well as the making of goods, was seen as a natural state allowing a community and individuals to get ahead and to prosper without the blessing of nobility.
In the beginning, if you wanted to form a corporation you needed a state charter and had to prove it was in the public interest, convenience and necessity. During the entire colonial period only about a half-dozen business corporations were chartered; between the end of the Revolution and 1795 this rose to about a 150. Jefferson to the end opposed liberal grants of corporate charters and argued that states should be allowed to intervene in corporate matters or take back a charter if necessary.
With the pressure for more commerce and indications that corporate grants were becoming a form of patronage, states began passing free incorporation laws and before long Massachusetts had thirty times as many corporations as there were in all of Europe.
Still it wasn't until after the Civil War that economic conditions turned sharply in favor of the large corporation. These corporations, says Huston:
. . . killed the republican theory of the distribution of wealth and probably ended whatever was left of the political theory of republicanism as well. . .
Concludes Huston:
The rise of Big Business generated the most important transformation of American life that North America has ever experienced.
By the end of the last century the Supreme Court had declared corporations to be persons under the 14th Amendment, entitled to the same protections as human beings. As Morton Mintz pointed out in the National Law Journal, this 1888 case ignored the fact that "the only 'person' Congress had in mind when it adopted the 14th Amendment in 1866 was the newly freed slave." Justice Black observed in the 1930s that in the first fifty years following the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "less than one-half of 1 percent [of Supreme Court cases] invoked it in protection of the Negro race, and more than 50 percent asked that its benefits be extended to corporations." During this period the courts moved to limit democratic power in other ways as well. For example, the Supreme Court restricted the common law right of juries to nullify a wrongful law; other courts erected barriers against third parties such as banning fusion slates.
It was during this same time that the myth of competitive virtue sprouted, helping to justify one of the great rapacious periods of American business. It was a time when J.P. Morgan would come to own half the railroad mileage in the country -- the same J. P. Morgan who got his start during the Civil War by buying defective rifles for $3.50 each from an army arsenal and then selling them to a general in the field for $22 apiece. The founding principles of what we now proudly call the "American free market system" flowered in an era of enormous bribes, massive legislative corruption, and the creation of great anti-competitive cartels. It was a time when the government, in a precursor to industrial policy, gave two railroad companies 21 million acres of free land.
And it was also the time that American workers, who had once used commerce to free themselves from the economic and social straitjacket of the monarchy, found themselves servants of a new rigid hierarchy, that of the modern corporation.
How do you think they got well known enough to be able to afford to do this?
That initial album promoted by the record company obviously put them into the limelight enough for people to search them out for another album.
I'm not a record company fan, but this is the one thing that they do that really helps musicians and that can make the difference between being Maddonna or completely unknown.
Think of the money you pay for a CD as a way of promoting the artists you like to other people you don't know.
BTW, the article makes out that 19000 in sales looks small and insignificant. Well I play in a small band and we shift maybe 1000 CDs in a 3-4 year period. I dare say if you tried to do the same you'd be selling the same amount or less, regardless of putting your album on your web site, simply because nobody's ever heard of you.
For musicians selling this sort of quantity the money from 1000 CDs is lifeblood and helps to pay for the next album. MP3s only hurt these sales, no matter how you look at it.
I would post the web address of a site where I'm sure you wouldn't have heard of 99% of the artists being sold there, but the thing is run on such a shoe string budget that it simply couldn't survive a slashdot attack. So how are we supposed to promote then? Any suggestion (that don't include throwing more money at the site) are welcome.
p.
WARNING: the last time this guy drank a beer, he woke up naked in a bus shelter... not a pretty sight.
I agree. I buy more music now, however it is not the same music that I use to buy. Thanks to internet radio and mp3 downloading I buy a LOT less garbage. My taste in music has become much better over the past view years....no thanks to mainstream RIAA means of publication (aka FM radio and MTV).
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
(I know, I keep saying this stuff...Now it's a rant).
s t-5.html
s t-6.html
This essay is a work in progress. It's a compilation of various rants of mine. If you have ideas for improvement (or critiques) they'd be welcome.
My saga into the online music controversy began at CFP99 (the Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference). A panel with both an RIAA representative and a rap-artist and a few other folks were talking (actually they were mostly shouting!) at/to eachother.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is a very politically-well-connected music distribution cartel, consisting of five major record companies. The rap artist (whose name escapes me) had his own label, but he favored MP3s, too, because his music's popularity had grown in part due to online music trading. To summarize the arguments...
RIAA side:
You're a criminal, an ordinary thief! Taking this information is AGAINST THE LAW, even if you own the album/CD! The person who downloads music is stealing from musicians as much as a person who "pirates" software steals 'warez'!
Unknown Rap-dude's side:
No, you're a corporate shill, feeding enormous layers of middle men (who don't help our fans at all!) piled onto the backs of artists - who have 0 negotiating power against a giant cartel that's as powerful as the RIAA!
Needless to say, the session ended with the panel still arguing, mostly right past eachother. Everyone wanted to talk about the artists and the fans, but if you listened it was all about money even though words like "money" and "payments" were rarely if ever mentioned! A 1950s-era payment system was assumed to be the only alternative to "100% free."
I walked up, handing out business cards and quietly saying, "you know, I might have a solution to all this, it's called e-gold" to both sides, and both sides have been very slowly getting it (no marketing budget to speak of!) ever since! (Well, it's not been quite that bad, but it's close!) Now, I spend a lot of time asking artists to try e-gold, and some new tools have made it easier than ever to use.
One fan has set up http://www.radsfans.net for The Radiators, a very cool bar-band that should be more popular than they are, IMO.
I can understand why the RIAA dislikes the idea of e-gold. They hold onto their middleman position only because of the difficulty artists and fans have traditionally had in directly reaching or paying eachother. Some bands, like the Grateful Dead, thumbed their noses at anti-recording policies for years, though. I don't think Jerry's heirs are suffering now, despite the massive music-trading of recorded Dead shows which has gone on for decades. Despite the well known fears of bands like Metallica, there are a lot of subtle ways to make it in the music business, and my intent is to spread e-gold tipjars as another one.
I want to jump in on the RIAA's game (and as a middleman, I may charge a lot LESS than the RIAA does, but I'd charge something!) so they're understandably apprehensive about losing the things Courtney Love mentions in http://www.hole.com/speech/ such as "trips to Scores" (a popular NY City topless entertainment club). I think e-gold can be a much more efficient and transparent 'middleman' -- but of course I'm biased as hell.
I want small bands I've never heard of to be able to quit their day- jobs and play music full-time because of what I'm selling, and I'm not going to quit. Other people have said this better than I can, so I'm going to rely on them now.
I would urge everyone reading this to read Courtney's whole rant, even though it goes on for pages...In it, she reveals things like a band declaring bankruptcy after they received less than 2 percent of the $175 million(!) earned by their CD sales. Toni Braxton sold $188 million worth of CDs, and went broke because of a contract that paid her less than 35 cents per album. We all know what CDs cost, and I'm pretty sure most of us imagine the artists getting a better cut than THAT! Anyway, please go read the whole thing so that you can see from Courtney's math that the examples above are typical. Don't despair, the good part about tipjars is near the end.
Ok, now that you're back, let's get to the fun part and read some online comics about micropayments! First:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-5/ic
and then:
http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/icst/icst-6/ic
Whew. Ok, now look at what Courtney & Scott were both asking for, between the lines! First:
http://www.fastsci.com -- which allows ANYONE, even someone who is VERY non-technical, to set up the e-gold shopping cart. Then:
http://101574.clicktwocents.com/ -- which attempts to get two centigrams (about 19 cents worth, but two cents US is possible, too) donated to me for my long rant. Think to yourself, "I should ask Courtney & Scott to accept e-gold!" They were both asking for this, and Jim just demonstrated it!
Well, I've already asked them, but more voices will have MUCH more of an effect than just mine, so feel free to help me, and thanks for reading.
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
When Napster was out, I was buying at least 1 CD per month. I'd download a few cuts off the album, and if I liked what I heard, I'd buy it. Most of the time though, the majority of the album sucked. Since Napster has been shut down, I have only purchased one CD, from one of my longtime favorite artists.
The RIAA is full of crap. Before Napster, CD sales had been growing at about 5% / year. When Napster came out, they suddenly had a 15% growth year. Napster gets shut down and sales drop 10%. "The music pirates are destroying us! Help us Senator Hollings, you're our only hope!" Whatever.
People are tired of having to buy 15 songs based on listening to just 1. The RIAA has the tech and money to let people listen to albums at radio quality to decide if they want to buy them. But the RIAA hates change. They would rather legislate the Status Quo than implement the innovations of those who they have crushed under their might.
Stuart Kahler
slashdot@skcards.com
I don't see any way to download the new Wilco album from their website and most of the tracks are blocked on Audiogalaxy. If it stops being available for download as soon as it goes on sale, that's not really supporting the 'try before you buy' philosophy.
Alphaville 20,80 (US$ 17.90), and man did that show rule!
Blind Guardian 22,50 (US$ 19.69).
I believe you missed the entire point of the entire debate. Labels decide who will be successful, and when their success will end during the normal course of things. So your - and most other small groups - hopes are pretty slim regardless because the odds that a "label" might notice you are next to zero. Not to mention that as a musician you get a pittance out of a $15 sale, if you are lucky.
So as an alternate tactic, perhaps musicians need to do several things with out having their hands held and their souls in hock to "labels." First, form a musician's collective or guild that admits only independent musicians, has a membership fee, and then setup a general guild web site that carries samples of member's music for free. This will save costs for all those individual, obscure little sites and allow a more robust site because of shared costs. Do not use lyrics and tunes published by labels.
Second, offer your tunes on CDs you cut with or without the help of your guild. There is vastly more than sufficient talent out there to clean the clocks of all the labels and the RIAA.
Third, do not quit your day job until your public market tells you, you're good enough.
Last, next time put the URL up any way. Sites survive being slash-dotted and once the furor dies down, if your work is good enough, you might sell a thousand cds in a week. Of course, you may really not want to find out either.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
.. complete twits that is.
They have their own ideas about what file sharing does to the music industry, and have expressed them at every opportunity.
Just remember Sturgeon's Law: 80% of everything is crap. (paraphrased) - this includes the RIAA execs.
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
Uhm, did anyone check out their site for case studies first? Well, not much
there. No companies mentioned. A lot of hot air but nothing beyond business
rhetoric and obscured ideals.
http://www.jmm.com/xp/jmm/services/casestudies
Have fun!
ac
It IS about the money (for RIAA). All other factors are only a means to that end.
Jeez, your rhetoric (and possibly thinking) could stand some work - piracy is not the ONLY reason the music industry could sell fewer records; perhaps people decide not to buy because we aren't allowed to make fare use of the things we purchase - is that "because of pirates of course"?
The record industry + distrubtion chains + media conglomerates serve as one giant middleman that is effectively rendered obsolete by file swapping. Fans do not want to pay $12-17 for a CD--and rightly so. Recording artists don't want the industry to absorb a huge percentage of the profits on an work of art that was their creation alone. In addition to Napster, you have Don Henley and Courtney "Lawsuit Crazy" Love threatening to sue to get out of their contracts and forming the Artists' Coalition in an effort to give artists more leverage vs. the record industry.
When you buy a $15 Cd, why should $14.80 go towards the middleman? Wilco fans went out and bought Yankee Hotel Foxtrot as a show of support for the artist, not to pay the salaries of the shithead executives at Warner Music Group.
What's going to happen in the next ten years is all these frustrations with the middleman will result in a huge paradigm shift in the industry (that has already begun.) The record industry, completely out of touch with the technology and the demands of your average music buyer, will continue to drag its feet regarding online distribution. You will then see mass defections of artists from their labels.
Artists will then beef up their web sites to include pay-for-download schemes for fans. You will either pay one time fees for album downloads or pay yearly membership subscriptions to the artist's web site. A yearly subscription fee of $35 for example, could include all material an artist has to release that year (album + b-sides and alternate takes) plus access to concert ticket presales, news, message boards, studiocams, chances to win autographed stuff, etc. Pirating and file swapping would still occur -- there is no getting around that -- but most fans with any degree of conscience and common sense would continue to support their artist and pay for content. In addition, sites would allow fans to buy t-shirts and other merchandise from the artist directly.
This would result in much greater profit margins for artists. The only "middleman" would be the company that hosts the website and the high speed access providers. Even still, the costs to run the site will be a tiny fraction of the costs to manufacture, distribute and market millions of compact discs.
The mechanism for promoting artists that currently exists will exist no more. Instead, word of mouth, independent news and media sites (like All Music Guide, Ain't it Cool News style sites) will help inform fans about new artists. Media conglomerates like AOL Time Warner will, of course, react to this phenomenon by refusing to carry news or information about defecting artists. The grass roots, non-corporate news sites will continue to thrive and eventually surpass corporate rags like Rolling Stone.
The key is that if and when this happens (and we can only hope it does), music of QUALITY will sell - and quality, not marketing, will be the determining factor in whether an artists thrives or does not. The Backstreet Boys and Britneys, without large marketing campaigns to prop them up, will not survive. The Wilcos, Radioheads and other high quality artists will.
Why don't some of the old rich dinosaurs of music
like Jagger,McCartney come to the realization that
having being in the game for the number of years
that they have, that by using their beucoup bucks to form a nexus of alternate distribution of
music, they can make a far more significant contribution to Music than by actully making Music.
Of course they should do that too, it would be part
of the draw.
I just mean that their best days are behind them
and if they want another big acheivement it will
more likely come from dethroning the Music Powers
that be, rather than tunesmithing.
Do the old boys still have it in them?
I was going to flame you for not having done the math on the bandwith costs, and then I did the math.
Turns out that although there's a shitload of data being transferred (several terabytes per day), the bandwith costs even at the highest price I could find don't chew up more than a few million per month, and with another million per month you could handsomely pay a team of a hundred people to oversee the servers.
So it would be insanely profitable, but would it be more profitable than the deal they have now? And would it cut into those profits or merely add to them? That's what the RIAA is looking at, and they must not like what they see.
Musicians like Wilco, Weezer, and Dave Mathews are proving that as musicians, you still can have a lot of control over your output and still be very successful. I went out and bought the new Wilco CD the day it came out and it was worth every penny, and even though I've downloaded every song from the forthcomming Weezer CD, I can't wait to pick that one up this month.
Sound waves should be free!
BG...don't hear too many people who know who they are. I am going to see them in their first ever US show this year. 100 bucks...9 other bands are playing too (including Gamma Ray, Edguy, and Angra), so I guess that averages $10 (US) per band.
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
After reading about this group and their new album I went to the store and bought a copy. I wish to support them for being progressive on making their album available for download. Well unfortunately the "enhanced cd" won't play on my computer. It does have a couple of quicktime movies I can see but the music can't be seen or heard. Plus it has links to the internet for a song with a video. Lucky me it plays on my dvd player (not in my computer). It doesn't tell me title info but I can move from song to song. So in the end the new album is being published but you can't play it on your computer... no do they care to mention that anywhere on the label. Whats a guy to do. Take it back ??? Perhaps I'm just not computer literate enough to play it right on my computer ??? I doubt it. Looks crippled to me. cd must mean crippled disk.
Sure you can [provide a benefit to only those who pay]. It's called: CD Quality vs. MP3 Quality
A properly encoded MP3 is CD quality. lame --r3mix will compress stereo sound to an average data rate of 176 kbps with no audible loss. See r3mix's "quality" section for details.
Even then, most consumers are happy with the 128 kbps files that permeate the WinMX, Kazaa, and Gnutella networks. You can't hear the difference above the ambient noise of the street, etc.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Let me introduce you to producers...
Record companies make music into an industry, a money-making business. If they don't like the way you're making your music, they reserve the right to change it, so they can sell more records. Signing a record deal is like selling your soul to some artists.They lose their freedom to create and to make their own product, and just become another tool of the record industry.
If we didn't have record industries and went all out on the whole filesharing thing, bands would have more freedom to create and be themselves, not just to formulate their music to create more album sales.
I don't see the record industry as a force to help the needy artis, but instead one that uses the artist's talents to make money for itself.
$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop
I've liked every single Razed In Black cover I've ever heard... if only Romell could write music as well as he performs it!
As for Cleopatra... they used to be great, but lately they seem to have fallen into the tribute rut and seem to be making enough money off that that they don't spend much time/effort on finding new talent. Which is too bad...
[TMB]
(Note to other readers: I replied to a low-score comment, so you might have to click on "parent" to see what I replied to)
Sending people to rotten.com is very bad, and I thought you know that by now! You're a very naughty boy, CKW. Does your mom know you behave like that? If you continue behaving like that, I'll be forced to tell her about you, and you'll be grounded to the junkyard!
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
I work for a Corprate Record store here in Los Angeles. I am exposed to all the shit the music industry loves to deal out. Trust me after you have heard the new pink, britney spears, linkin park, or any of the other corprate crap that is out there day after day, it gets pretty old. The average price for a cd is $18.99. I don't know about the rest of you but $20 bucks is alot of money to spend on an album, that could potentialy suck balls. So when it comes to p2p trading, i am o.k. with it. On the other hand i don't just go and burn every new album that i like. I first search for the music, then download it, and if it something i like, then i will go throw down the cash. I have no problem spending my hard earned money on something that is worth it. On another note when i have customers come in and they are looking for a song that i don't know, or are questioning spending $20 bucks on a cd. I tell them to search the net and find out if they like it first. Believe it or not i actually have customers come back in on a weekly basis and buy albums that they have sampled on the net. But for those of you who just sit down and jack all the music you can off the net, you are just plain lame. Especially if it is a band you like. You are just as bad as the corprate fucks who are producing the music.
How does anything get well known? You don't necessarily need a record label for this to happen. You do if you want really tightly-run distribution of regular physical copies of a recording.
If we remove the necessity for that by allowing files to be downloaded as a teaser, then sell cd's online: there goes the distribution problem. Then all you have to worry about is: Marketing.
The only reason anyone has heard or not heard of any artist is how well or how poorly they were marketed. Unfortunately, record labels are now so consumed by this fact that all they ever worry about is the marketing, when they should actually be worried about how good the music is in the first place. One has now superceded the other.
Forget all this "guild" stuff, just get enough artists to pool enough $ to hire a decent marketing firm. Then you're off to the races.
H'ray for Wilco! That's a wicked article.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
It's here...
Almost all of her songs are available free on MP3.com. But if you're like me, you'll need the somewhat higher quality CD's. Too bad no LP's, far as I can tell.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...