Slashdot Mirror
Fallout from the Internet Debacle
gatesh8r writes "This article off of Janis Ian's site lashes out at the RIAA for "wanting to control everything that the consumer will purchase" and then proposes some mild and thoughtful solutions to the problem. Nice to see an artist write up something like this." This is her follow-up to her earlier piece.
I say the recording industry should just go with the flow and sell CDs full of MP3s already pre-ripped. Sell the convenience of not having to do it yourself.
Like many people on here there was a time I grew used to paying $15 - $20 for a CD only to end up listening to only 2 or 3 good songs on the album. In fact, I had mentally begun to consider a CD a good buy if it had 3 good songs and anything above that an excellent buy. This was helped by treating each CD purchase as the equivalent of buying 3 singles from the same artist.
Then came the advent of large scale P2P software based, copyright infringement while I was in college. I began being able to avoid what I used to consider "bad" CD purchases by only obtaining the one good song without having to deal with the dreck on the rest of the album or paying for it.
Now in many cases I would love to pay for the one or two album tracks or single remixes that I like but the music industry has steadfastly refused to provide me a mechanism to do this. However, there is really nothing technologically preventing record labels from either a.) providing customized CDs for their target audience (in the same vein as the NOW compilation albums) or b.) providing digital music at a fraction of the current price of singles and CDs.
Unfortunately they don't seem remotely interested in satisfying their customers in this demand. Legislating against technology can only last for so long.
"And of everything we are taught, one issue is always paramount - in America, it is the people who rule"
This is a good point, it's about the majority in this country (or it's "supposed" to be). The Artists and record companies are the minority, the people should have some say. The Artists themselves should definately have some say. I am in the industry, so my livelyhood depends on the record sales and stuff as well, an I am not for stealing, but I am definately sgainst he MPAA/RIAA types.
The industry is still operating under laws and concepts developed during the 1930's and 1940's, before cassettes, before boom boxes, before MP3 and file-sharing and the Internet. It's far easier to insist that all new technologies be judged under old laws, than to craft new laws that embrace all existing technologies. It's much easier to find a scapegoat, than to examine your own practices. As they say, "You can't get fired for saying no."
Janis is also very right in saying that the way that the industry is set up is old, based off a model from the 30's and 40's. We don't use any other markets in the same way that we did in the 30's and 40's, so why should we for music and entertainment.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
I could get the file instantly; it was guaranteed to be CD quality or better; and it was in an open format (mp3, or much better, ogg).
Even if the track were available for free elsewhere, it just wouldn't be worth the hassle of locating it, queueing it, and then hoping that it was the right track at a decent quality.
Maybe we don't need digital protection, we just need a scarcity mechanism. That is why people buy things in the first place...
There is a scarcity mechanism. When media moves to an infinite product (there's more music out there than one could hear in a lifetime) the scarce object becomes the consumer's time. Saving the consumer time by building an efficient and convenient product produces the value.
+&x
a. Destroy it. And if they cannot,
b. Control it. And if they cannot,
c. Control the consumer...
and control is why the music industry will never implement her "modest proposal": if it succeeds, then they lose control of the market, and with it their monoploy profits.
For further analysis along these lines, see
How The Internet Will Make The Record Labels Evaporate.
We can't kill the music industry. It's big, and the companies involved do too many other things. It's highly unlikely that the big names would ever decide to ditch music and just sell game systems and internet access. Even if they were getting no profits from their music parts, they'd probably use their other resources to try to do something about it, rather than giving up.
Therefore, if we want to stop them, what we need to do is give them a viable business model. We have to actively help them do things we like.
</desmond-tutu>
Is it worth $.25/song to have the music industry's attempt at a business model compatible with consumer rights succeed? Wouldn't you pay $.25/song if the RIAA would chill out? Think of it as buying influence, and you'll realize that you're getting a lot for your quarter that you don't get from the P2P networks.
Just think: they set up this thing. It appears on slashdot, with a favorable article. Everybody goes there and gets a couple of songs. They make more money in a few hours than they can ignore. If people are interested in paying to make Blender open source, won't people be even more interested in paying to make the RIAA reasonable? Oh, and there's also this music thing, but that's not important.
If you're downloading from them when they logged, tough cookies! You spent 20 minutes downloading at a low average throughput downloading 30% of a song you wanted. Now you go back and search again and find another user with a copy of it, so you start downloading from them. This time the transfer from them to you completes 100% - BUT... their download from someone else crapped out at 72% complete, so the song you got is STILL incomplete!
This problem is called reliability! As hyped as P2P might get in the press and in the minds of advocates - it's still unreliable! If Janis' suggestion were implemented, listeners would have a reliable source to obtain full downloads of quality music. I think most people would be like me and pay up to a quarter for that reliability. My time, as well as most others I'm sure, is worth much more than $.25 for the countless cummulative hours spent dealing with transfer interruptions and abortions.
I AM, therefore I THINK!
I think this is an excellent idea, but let me play devil's advocate for a minute here. One of the big selling points of Janis' proposal is that it is "no risk" because the music is just sitting in storage, so any income from the $.25 per song would only be a plus. However, there is a risk that people will like this service so much that they will be listening to the old OOP music instead of buying new releases for $17 each. What happens to the music industry's bread and butter when 15 year olds discover they like Bop instead of Pop? I think music industry executives will be afraid of this possibility.
Now personally, I think a download project like this would stimulate listener interest in music and growth in music buying, especially in people who will pay $.25 per song but won't pay $17 for a CD. Imagine the 15 year old discovers that they like Blues by listeing to the OOP stuff, then decides they want to hear more modern stuff, so they go buy a bunch of Buddy Guy, Robert Cray, and Stevie Ray Vaughn, which they never would have considered before. Thats a win for everyone, but getting music executives to take that risk is going to be pretty difficult.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.