Janis Ian on the Internet Debacle

Datasage writes "Janis Ian, famous songwriter and artist, writes about her views of free music downloads, the music industry and the evils of the RIAA in this article." Yet another artist with substantial first-person experience speaking out, reminiscent of Courtney Love's speech.

Comments

I fear

[rhadamanthus]

That nothing will change though. There is simply TOO much money at stake here--but its the same old problem with the RIAA and friends...

Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off.

The opposing view: A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD.

What is truly patheitc is how they rant and rave about how they want to "protect the artist", all the while doing just the opposite--and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent.

Copyright is no longer a good thing. It is sad that such a good "idea" has become such a misused and abused facet of corporate ideology and overwhelming greed.

----rhad

Re:I fear

[TWR]

Um, the investor you heard was correct: the shareholders of a corporation are its owners. The people running the corporation have a primary responsibility to the owners (shareholders) to run the company such that the owners get a return on their money (through dividends, which are not all that common any more) or to increase the value of what the owners, well, own.

If a corporation is too abstract of a concept, let's do a thought experiment. Pretend you have a child who wants to start a lawn-mowing business. The child needs money to buy a lawn mower, print up fliers, pay for gas, etc. You agree to give your kid the money in exchange for, say, 25% of the profits. In effect, you have just bought 25% of your kid's company.

Who is the kid responsible to? If you have a consciencious child, you hope that he wants to pay back your faith in him by making money. After all, that was the deal. The primary responsibilty, as you can see, is to the person who made this little company possible in the first place.

If screwing customers is a good plan for a company to make money and increase its value, you can hardly fault the company beacuse the customers put up with being screwed. Long-term, companies survive because the put out a product that people want. Generating ill will doesn't work long term. Unfortunately, the Enron/Worldcom/Adelphia/whoever's next bastards don't care about the long term, don't care about their customers, and don't care about their shareholders. If they did care about the shareholders, they wouldn't have been lying to them. The system needs fixes because it's too easy for lying weasels to get away with hiding things from shareholders. After that, everything else will fall into place, including customer satisfaction.

Heck, if you don't like how record companies are currently working, start buying record company shares. Don't like how MS works? Buy MS shares. Set up a fund. Every time you want to buy a CD or DVD or piece of software, use that money to buy stock instead. Let lots of people pool their money, get a large voting bloc of stock. Then change the policies. That's how the system works.

-jon

Re:Very interesting article

[rhadamanthus]

So very true. I wrote a letter to several congress-types, in which I wrote:

"Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!"

These numbers don't lie....

The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?

---rhad

For those who don't know ...

[pyramid termite]

... Janis Ian had her first hit in 1967 with a controversial song about interracial dating, "Society's Child". She was a young teenager at the time.

She released several albums on the Verve label in the 60s and gradually sank into obscurity. After signing with Columbia, she made a comeback during the mid-70s with the hit "At Seventeen". Again, she wasn't able to follow it up with another similar hit and sales gradually dwindled until she was dropped. Due to mismanagement and bad accounting she ended up with tax problems and eventually went broke.

She's managed to keep herself going in the music biz in the last few years, although I have no idea what kind of music she's doing now.

Re:For those who don't know ...

[robkill]

Her latest album is "God and the FBI." She spent close to 10 years using the FOIA to see the FBI files collected on her father. It turns out her father was branded a communist. Every 3 or 4 years they'd have to move because her father lost a teaching position. It turns out that the FBI would come by, ask a few questions, and then folks would get scared and fire him.

She's one of the regular columnists for "Performing Songwriter" magazine. She and Christine Lavin have written several good commentaries on the music industry and how the Internet has helped independent singer-songwriters. And she's a big Science Fiction fan to boot!

Some choice quotes

[Olinator]

[T]he music industry had exactly the same response to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos ("Why buy the record when you can tape it?"), MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer's life easier and better. I know because I was there.

The only reason they didn't react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD's were uncopyable. I was told this personally by a former head of Sony marketing, when they asked me to license Between the Lines in CD format at a reduced royalty rate. ("Because it's a brand new technology.")

[...]

You can't hear new music on radio these days; I live in Nashville, "Music City USA", and we have exactly one station willing to play a non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can even tune it in. The situation's not much better in Los Angeles or New York. College stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most of us can't get them.

[...]

If the music industry had a shred of sense, they'd have addressed this problem 15 years ago, when people with websites were trying to obtain legitimate licenses for music online. Instead, the industry-wide attitude was It'll go away. That's the same attitude CBS Records had about rock 'n' roll when Mitch Miller was head of A&R. (And you wondered why they passed on The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.)

[...]

The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. (BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. What actually happens is no sales to us or the stores.) NARAS and RIAA are moaning about the little mom & pop stores being shoved out of business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart et al for stocking CDs. The Internet has zero to do with stores closing and lowered sales.

And for those of us with major label contracts who want some of our music available for free downloading? well, the record companies own our masters, our outtakes, even our demos, and they won't allow it. Furthermore, they own our voices for the duration of the contract, so we can't even post a live track for downloading!

"You go, girl!"

It's interesting to note that this is not someone who could be dismissed by an RIAA flack as a no-name musician whining because the Internet might get her recognition that she's not gotten from "The Industry" -- she's had nine Grammy nominations, and her music has been recorded by just about everybody at one time or another.

Ole

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[FatRatBastard]

Mettalica was in it for the prestige and decided to suck up to the record company who was promoting them and making them 'famous'.

No, Metallica was in it because, unlike 90%+ of the artists signed to the big five, they actually *own* their recording rights. Look at a Metallica CD. It doesn't say (C)(P) Electra (their lable).

Now, this is not to say I agree with Metallica's stance, but its understandable why theirs and Janis' view points are different.

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[niola]

I think you have the wrong impression of Metallica. While they did ruffle a lot of feathers with the way they proceeded, their argument somehow got lost in all the hoopla. Their stance was do not share their studio albums, but share bootlegs etc. to your heart's content.

Anyone who has gone to a Metallica show knows that they ENCOURAGE recording of their shows fror your own enjoyment. In fact I have even heard instances of them letting people jack recording gear into their console at the show should you happen to be close enough.

Their argument, whether you agree with it or not, was that artists should have final say on what is shared and what is not. On this point I would have to agree with them. It shouldn't be the fan's or the label's decision. The decision should be the artists that created the work. If they want to selectively allow some works to be shared and others not, it should be their perogative.

--Jon

Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors

[Lumpy]

the problem is that EVERYONE is getting way too greedy and is forgetting WHO and how they got sucessful.

The fans turned on Metallica like rabid wolves because they went directly against what they said and stood for. Bootlegs is what MADE metallica. Photos shot with crappy throw away cameras is what MADE metallica. the fans are what MADE metallica. not their genius, Lar's F**King drumming abilities (there are tons more and better drummers than lars) or anything to do with what they did.

The same is with current bands.. I saw Nickleback this past tuesday, they insulted and made mad a large number of fans as they over searched everyone TWICE looking not for drugs,liquor,or weapons but CAMERAS. enough to get a large group to complain about it.

it's time that people get tired of the crap that bands and the labels pull. Me taking a grainey/far away photo at a concert is not going to cost anyone anything.... not letting me do so costs a fan and sales.. as I will no longer buy anything that they are affiliated with and let everyone know that they are fricking greedy bastards.

hopefully more artists will have the moxy and arent corrupted too badly to follow Janis's view.