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.
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
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!
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?
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 =)
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.
If you don't agree with the Copyright terms, then don't listen to the music. It's a consumers market. The reason that the RIAA affiliates force commercialized pop crap down everybodies throat is because we buy it.
I download songs from the internet. I sometimes purchase albums from artists whos songs I've downloaded or found out about on the internet. I don't use the latter argument to justify the former.
Stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you are stealing a *copy* or stealing the CD from a store. It is not ethical because the legal agreement between the artist, recording company, and you is being broken.
If you don't like this contract, then wait things out. Capitalism is a great engine to spur innovations. Eventually, somebody, somewhere, will have a distribution model that works better than what the creative geniuses </sarcasm> in the recording industry can come up with and the *consumers* (that's you and me) will buy into it. Eventually this model will be one that the RIAA can't squash.
In the mean time, our only job is to remind the government that people, not corporations, have rights.
Hello, Capt. Obvious.
Slashdot HAS, in fact, posted articles that mention just such a study (heck - THIS article mentions it even if it leaves out a link). And yes, they noted that the study was from the RIAA.
To be fair, this article admits that studies tend to favor the views of those who are paying for them.
You're a smart reader. Follow the links. Read the studies. Note who is paying for the study. Make up your own mind.
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.
My entire music library now consists of legally free music.
I got sick and tired of listening to the RIAA spout its garbage, so I turned to mp3.com. I have never heard better, more creative music in my life, and all with an open source mentalty. I will never again bother with "music-for-money" - people who create music for the love of it make music that sounds thousands of times better than people who do it for the money.
They (record companies) seem determined to kill the goos that laid the golden egg. They'd rather have control than cash.
I think that they would rather have the cash.
Its more that they don't understand either the technology (which is probably unstoppable), or their own customers.
In particular, the major music labels don't seem to understand that:
1) Some people will pay money anyway for CD's if they like them enough.
2) Alot more people would buy the music if they sold them directly over the internet.
I personally believe that their sales would rocket up even at the same profit margins if they just dropped the cost of producing and distributing the CD's from the price of an internet download. This might only be a few dollars cheaper than what you pay to a major music store for the CD.
So what I think is happening here is the equivalent of what happened to encyclopedia salesmen with encarta. They were so locked in to a large existing sales network with high production costs that they could not bring themselves to cannibalise their own networks to maintain sales. This nearly destroyed the companies (such as britannica) before they finally did a U turn. People were happy to buy an inferior (M$ Encarta - not that it was bad, just less information) product because it was so much cheaper, and almost as good.
The analogy here of technology hitting an established high premium sales network is pretty tight. And I believe that the outcome will be the same. Eventually the networks will recognise this, and sell music tracks online for alot less than they currently do. They will prosper under this arrangement, although much of their distribution network will have to die in the process.
For the record, I can see the same thing ultimately happening with video, and a similar process of technological change is occuring with cameras and film. Our home computers will take on all of these tasks. We will still shop, but for production tools (printers, cameras) and 'raw' materials (blank CD's, DVD's high quality paper). Companies that get on this bandwagon will do well (ask Kodak), and those that pretend it isn't happening will go towards the wall (ask britannica!).
My 2c worth
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
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.
... 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."
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.
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!"
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.
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.
For me it is simpler; when I was using Napster, or on those odd times I'm using Gnutella these days and its working well, I find simply want to go out and buy more CDs.
I've never analyzed why I behave this way, but I think it's related to the same impulse that makes me google the artist and the song title to find out who else recorded it. Music is just getting a bigger share of my attention span.
When I get interested in an artist or a genre of music, the cost of a reasonably priced CD is simply no barrier to my wanting to acquire the complete original recording in its full quality. "Reasonably" is a fuzzy line,for me ten bucks is on one side and twenty being on the other. I wouldn't pause enough to blink when shelling out a ten dollars for a CD but if it's over twenty I will think longer and harder about it than the decision deserves.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the record companies couldn't sell CDs with free filesharing, but the way they sell them would very likely change. There's lots of people who spend over five hundred bucks a year at Starbucks, because the individual cups of coffee are priced below the level where they think about it. Right now, CDs are priced at the "have to think about it" level. This isn't to say they are too pricey, just that the average person isn't going to spend five hundred dollars a year on music. It's not practical to drop the price of CDs to the "don't think about it" level, because the CDs are priced for optimal revenue now. However, if they value of the music on the CDs could be increased, the price drops wouldn't have to be very much to reach the sweet spot where individual CD purchases fly under the consumer's cost consciousness.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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
I haven't bought a CD in 2 years. I download all my music from someone that has chosen to share it. I hear it or remember it, hop online, and within 5 or 10 minutes I have it. Don't have to get in the car, don't have to deal with traffic, don't have to wait in line, don't have to pay $20 for one song. I just keep on programming while I download it in the background and it is instantly added to my partition dedicated exclusively to holding my sound library. Cheap and convenient.
I'm done being gouged by the RIAA. They had their chance to charge a reasonable price but chose to gouge instead. Now I wouldn't care if they charged $5 for a CD--I'll just grab it online for the reasons mentioned above and on general principle.
They'll have to conform with the 500 CDs I bought in the 90's earning them about $7500 because I won't be adding to that collection any longer--in fact, I only USE that collection to rip the songs I occasionally feel like hearing so that I never have to get up and look for the CD again.
Screw 'em.
Musicians, on the other hand, can earn money from me by touring. I will gladly pay $20 to see them live if they come through town.
Its all about control.
they also teach you to use your inside voice when you post on /.
shhhh
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
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 =)
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.
sorry, I typed that post on my laptop on my lawn via wireless ethernet so I forgot that some people would be reading my posts INSIDE.
...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
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.
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
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
(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-
Yes, writing music *IS* fun (or can be), but to think that people make music just for the "joy" of it is ridiculous.
Yeah. Just as ridiculous as the idea that people would write code just for the "joy" of it...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!