Slashdot Mirror
Napster Not To Blame
enjo13 writes "Slate is running an article on the music industries recent troubles. It articulates exactly what Slashdot has preached all along.. that the Music industry is suffering at its own hands and has no one to blame but itself. All I have to say is... finally." There's actually been a number of pieces like this, but I think this one says it best.
gee.. so Napster was a good business model, eh?
OK - who stole my duct tape?
...many many times? The recording industry just wants to blame something other than themselves for the loss in profits.
Dumb question -- does anyone know what slate.msn.com is? Because we were all just suckered into going to a site with all these MSN ads everywhere.
Is it a news page? I've never heard of it. Has Slashdot been inadvertantly used as advertising for this website?
No one has ever fired for blaming Microsoft.
The RIAA found that young consumers are less likely to forge strong bonds to the music that they buy and are unlikely to either buy previous albums from an artist or subsequent albums.
So. Music today basically blows. The major component of the music market are less likely to buy a ton of CDs from one artist and are instead more likely to just hop the bandwagon for a short time...
It'd be nice not to have to go and find another job....
Napster and its successors are obviously not the problem...its just like the article says...its those damn cassette tapes! Ban them!
Napster is not to blame for declining sales, the production of crap is. When the music industry puts out a good album/record/cd/whatever, people BUY IT. When they put out shit, people don't buy it. Lately they've been putting out gigantic fuckloads of SHIT. Simple as that.
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
Britney Spears' latest album has moved 4 million copies--a big number, but less than half what its predecessor did.
That's one statement that sums it all up: music industry's slumping sales are not because of the pirates, it's because of the crappier cookie-cutting kind of music that's being rewarmed over and over and over.
I won't believe that Britney's albums are not selling as well as they used to because everyone wants to get them for free.
(aside from the obvious, why would anyone listen to it, not mentioning OWNING a cd with her music???)
the music that is coming out today sucks. there is no good albums. the only great albums that came out so far this year have been from independent labels in my opinion. there is no music for the teeny boppers who grew up and don't listen to nsync or birttaney. they are sick and tired of brittanty and want something better. but there is nothing better, cause the music industry just wants to make a buck. its there fault that more and more people are getting free mp3's. if they put out better music at cheaper prices that they should be. the industry would do much much better. 15, 20 dollars for a cd, BLAH. i remember hearing a rumor that they would lower pricesa long time ago. blah, hasn't happened. music industry is only faltering because the music that gets put out is crapola.
Looks like Ford is getting into the act.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
What's the percentage from the general population that downloads music files from the web? If it's more than 15% I'd be amazed.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."
--Benjamin Disraeli
It is much easier to download something than to go to the store and pay for it.
I think the "easier" part is the crux of the issue. If record companies make it easy to download and pay (a reasonable price mind you) for your music then a majority of folks would. The key is to make it easy and cheap and this will destroy any blackmarket or free file sharing communities. Make so easy and cheap that it is not even worth saving it your disk in most cases.
The video rental market is a great analogy. There was a lot of concern that when video rentals people would just copy video's and share them with their friend and sales would plummet. The opposite is true because it is just not worth the hassle and space.
Even if that CD costs $4242 in the store, it's a product. If you want it, buy it.
Personally, I can definitely say that the labels are getting less money from me than they used to.
The main reasons are:
1) Very often I want to listen to just something very particular, and I believe it is silly to pay (and ask) $15 for just one song.
2) Convenience. Using file-sharing programs, I can get anything I want in a minute or two, in a convenient format that I can copy to my laptop and listen in my car or whatever. Buying a CD will never give me that. And yes, I know that there are ways to buy single songs online etc but the choice tends to be crappy, (the late) Napster and its clones have always had a better and more interesting choice.
I believe that there are many people who share these reasons and there's going to be more and more every day. Now, the point is that the music industry could definitely do a better job here by making it cheaper and more convenient to get what I want but it is also wrong to say that online music sharing has no effect on their revenue.
When men used to be men
Even proven acts that I've been a long-time fan of have been getting worse and worse. Two prime examples: Bad Religion and Public Enemy. (I like my music with a social/political bent.) Bad Religion hasn't put out a *solid* album since 1991's Stranger Than Fiction, but I buy them anyway, in hopes that they've gotten back to their ass-kicking roots. The newest Public Enemy album (Revolverlution), which I purchased yesterday, is worse than Bad Religion's recent efforts -- there are a few original, new songs on the disc, but there's also live performances of old songs, remixes of old songs, an interview track, and two PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS by Chuck D and Flava Flav.
Don't get me started on the dogshit that passes for Aerosmith music as of late.
The point is, it's not just new artists targetted at the 18-25 market...all of music is sucking ass lately. Sometimes, I think that there was more to the move to ban Napster and other P2P systems than just the "loss of sales" argument. I found some real gems on Napster -- stuff I'd never listen to before, Napster started me on a blues kick that continues to this day, for example. God forbid that the record companies should have to start dropping their NuMetal Poserbands and Bling-Bling Flash-in-the-Pan Rap Acts in favor of signing some bands with real musical talent, because real musical acts are harder to sell than a prepackaged pseudo-lifestyle.
I guess part of why music sucks is that the idiots in the RIAA know they have a losing formula, but stick to it because it's all they know.
blog |
But we'll ignore them because this one says what we want it to say. Don't fall into the same trap as they do. Just because you may buy more CDs because of downloading music doesn't mean everyone does. Just because you enjoy the ability to download music doesn't mean it's not detrimental to the music industry. I do believe that p2p services harm the music and entertainment industries. However, I believe that the benefit to consumers is greater than the detriment to the industry. The ability to be able to find any music, whether new, old, rare, or common, is wonderful. The music and entertainment industries (although with Congress) need to step up and start giving consumers what they want, because eventually it will end up biting them on the ass.
Now don't tell me that you can look back and say "well, it isn't napsters fault".
You CAN'T. You need a study that shows what happened when Napster came around. We have plenty of those. Now you need a study that shows what happened, in the exact same time period as napster, without napster. Anyone got a time machine?
Napster (and other file sharing programs/piracy) MAY OF done the music industry bad. Napster (and other file sharing programs/piracy) MAY OF done the music industry good.
But there is no possible way you can say it is one way for sure. File sharing still exists and is still widely used (KaZaA and Morpheus come to mind), so there is no possible way we can look at stats and compare.
So take this article with a grain of salt, not with absolute conviction.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
beginning to happen..... The Dark Ages again....
Was watching a Voyager rerun last nite - it was broadcast in digital and had more digital corruption in it and the analog air wave static..
First time I saw that epsoide, it wasn't being broadcast in digital format and look fine...
Like music I guess TV is going down hill too.
All in the name of anti-piracy.....
It works too......if nobody wants it.....who's gonna pirate it?
The ultimate in piracy protection!!!! yeah buddy.....happy now?
Sorry dude, there's a diff.
Anyone sharing Britney doesn't claim that it's their own work (who would *want* to, but that's another item).
SigmaDesigns copied code and claimed it as their own work.
See the diff?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
So they are staying away from this trash in droves, and the RIAA is blaming piracy? The truth is more likely that there has been a sudden unexplainable outbreak of good taste by music-listeners.
...making new pop and rock music. If we arbitrarily assign 1957 as the first year of Rock and Roll, then we've got 45 years' worth of music we can all go back through and mine for gems (as long as it all stays in print, of course.) I mean, until everyone owns "Marquee Moon" by Television, and at least one album by Nick Lowe, The Clash, Argent, 10cc, Pilot, The Soft Boys, The Undertones, The Velvet Underground, The Sex Pistols, Eddie Cochran, Elvis Costello, XTC, Radiohead, Badfinger, The Who, The Flaming Lips, and Love, why do we need anything new?
The Big News Page
I used to buy a lot of CDs (40-50 a year), happily laying down $15-20 each, sometimes for a CD I would listen to once - which is my point: Napster may not be hurting the sales of the U2s, Pink Floyds, and Rolling Stones of the industry, as these are quality bands who put out quality albums (mostly). But imagine the effect on the sales of some of the recent spate of flash-in-the-pan acts... I liked Linkin Park's last few singles, but the truth is that I was sick of them long before I bought the CD. The same is true for a lot of acts.
Napster popularized P2P, and really brought about the try-before-you-buy mindset that alot of people have developped since in buying CDs; the effect has been lowered sales of mediocre products. David Bowie will continue to sell millions of CDs despite P2P, good luck to the middle-of-the-road acts though.
Also, P2P brings about lowered "thought-out" purchasing decisions much more than impulse buys. I would think that music that appeals to teenagers who have less disposable income (and thus are more prone to thinking out how to spend $20) will be much harder hit than music which appeals to the more affluent "older" crowds. It's a terrible thought, but I bet Britney Spears would have sold many more albums ten years ago - wheareas I doubt that an artist like Eric Clapton is much affected either way.
What I find annoying is this...who among us actually used Napster for any period of time? Sure I used it for a few weeks right before the huge craze. But after that I decided IRC was still better than Napster. Napster didn't do anything besides create a media craze for this thing called "mp3s" which then spawned innovations like "mp3 players." The only reason Napster made it so big was the response of the millions of automaton drones spread across American that only know how to follow the latest trend.
Animals have rights!
I think a lot of the decline is sales is the price of albums nowadays. It's ludicrous to pay $20 for something that costs less than $1 to produce. THAT'S probably what's killing consumer interest, but digital piracy makes a handy scapegoat. If piracy ended tomorrow, the sales would barely move I think.
Don't know about anyone else, but I've boycotted the recording industry for over 2 years now. Haven't bought an album since late 1999. There's albums I want, I'm a music junkie, and it's been like qutting heroin, but I flat out will NOT part with one single cent to the bastards anymore until they get a clue and stop publishing LIES.
For the record, no, I haven't pirated albums I would otherwise have bought. I've simply gone without, which given how much into music I've always been has bee REALLY hard at times, but I just can't, in good conscience, finance this insanity.
another good common sense article - to bad it still wont make that much of a difference.
Ave Molech Setting
Nowhere did the article bother to talk about the woes of the economy.
:wq
Maybe I'm just a freak, but I know if I'm trying to curtail my spending, as many are in the uncertain economy, music purchases would be one of the first things I'd stop.
I know, their sales have been diminishing since before the US economy started heading south, but it's a possibility.
Maybe if the price of a cd was less than 700% profict for RIAA (dont know the number, but I know it's HUGE), and they cost what they were worth they would sell more.
I know this is theory, but I was taught in my econ class back in college that the sale price was where the supply and demand curve met. That point was the price that the consumer considered 'fair'.
Maybe RIAA needs to think about THAT. Maybe more and more consumers are thinking that cd's are just not worth the money and are settling for what's on the radio and not buying cd's. I'm sure some are turning to P2P software too, but I imagine that really is the minority.
I dont download music (used to - delted them all) and I will buy cd's. I've not bought one in almost 6 months because there hasnt been one that I think is worth the money.
Maybe I didnt think there were any worth the money because they are cookie cutter as the article stated. Maybe it's because it's just too damned expensive.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
SOrry dude ... anybody riping and collecting works they don't pay for are simply stealing - which IS a form of calling it theirs when they didn't pay for it.
of course not... we've known all along - its Canada!
This is a totally BS argument - people don't rip and P2P share a million copies of shit. It's pure theft, with an everybody is doing it excuse.
She likes the teen-pop stuff, but it doesn't stick. She figures out that the new album from band A sounds just like their last album, so she moves on. Pretty much the same stuff with a slightly different twist, but she sure wants a lot fewer CD's now than she did a year ago.
It costs a lot of money to manufacture a CD, but it would cost the music industry very little to sell downloads of there music. If they sold there songs at say $.50 to $.30 USD for one downloaded song, they would probably sell a lot of music.
I still dont get it; everybody and their dog downloads music and burns it on CD instead of buying it in the store. Yet, every story here on \. claims that the drop in CD sales is not caused by illegally copying and how bad the RIAA is (sure, the RIAA is bad). Could somebody please explain this to me -- I've never followed economy class, but to me all the music industry bashing just sounds like some crappy arguments to cover the fact that file sharing is just convenient (in many ways, not just economically).
Like science? Comics? Wicked...
Funny By Nature
Here is the big difference in today's music world compared to the past: past markets were more stable because you promoted talent and not product. Additionally, your target audience had an average age > 13 years old.
"player 4 hit player 1 with 0 stroms"
I don't like the music industry. I know that is an amazingly profound statement, but the majority of bands I like and music I like get suppressed by the US record lables. Most of the indie bands I like now publish mp3 (or ogg) not audio cds and just request donations for studio time. I loved napster 'cause it gave these bands national or international exposure.
Sometimes I wonder if they, RIAA, feared that more. They are on such a power trip, that the lost or degradation of that power was a bigger threat to their way of life than lost profits. If bands could get direct access to the fans, without needing the corporate ties to get an album out and get it airtime, why bother?
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
Hmmmmmmmm. I could buy the Shrek soundtrack for $19 or I could buy the Shrek DVD for the same $19. Whats wrong here? Seems we get a lot more content on the DVD. I can download movies from the net, why isn't that hurting the studios? Perhaps, and this is just a hunch.......there are far fewer stupid people willing to buy the crap that the record companies are trying to shove down out throats? Could it have anything to do with content? Now I now that there are some DVD's that I just "must have" the first week they are out. I can't remember the last time I anticipated such a CD (OK, I bought the last Chili Peppers CD on the first day it was out, BUT, that is partially because Best Buy sould it for $13 for the first day of release only)
i realize that there are a few posts like this, but anyway...
.com still in start up mode struggling to stay afloat. i used to buy cds all the time. recently i think i've only bought three cds in the last six months and not many more in the last year or so. also, most of the music coming out isn't as good as the stuff i can _listen_ to on the 'net. i'm sure there is some impact of the p2p networks that has hit the music industry - maybe now they'll take notice of us - the music listeners.
with the economy on the down side and unemployment on the rise and in the middle of a "recession", doesn't it make sense that there is less disposable income out there so sales will be down? look at all the layoffs, etc. does the music industry think it's immune to the world around them? i work for a
Radiohead. Most intelligent, gloriously groovy music in existence. Sorry for the off-topic, had to retort to Britney Spears... ack.
It's not just new music, but it is caused by the music industry. Haven't you ever noticed how frequently good bands break up and reform into other, newer good bands? Personal conflicts with the other band members are usually cited as the reason for the breakup, but the truth is good bands break up because they get bored doing the same old shit, and they need fresh blood and fresh directions to keep making good music. Band breakups sometimes result in less good music, but I think the new (and different) bands that result are better for music quality on the whole. Think of it as sexual reproduction for music; more genes being passed around means more advantageous adaptations.
Yet at the same time, the music industry wants bands like Aerosmith to stay together for album after ass-like album, and usually, they have legal language in the contracts to enforce it for the first few albums. (After those few, if a band is still popular, they may have the clout to be able to write their own contracts. But they're usually dead by then.)
With very few exceptions, bands that have been around forever suck because they've been around forever, and their sound is tired and dead. But people keep buying their albums, as you just said yourself. The music industry, including the artists, realizes this: big name = more sales. New artists have little choice in the matter but to stay together. Big artists who get greedy try to stay together; big artists who care about the quality of their music go on to try different things. Those different things may not sell as well, but they sound better.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
OK so we got a story on Slate. Slashdot says this all the time. Big Woop.
Let me know when it shows up in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, or some of Jack Valenti's ti^Hrade mags.
The issue really isn't about "someone else just joined our bandwagon." It's about who just joined your bandwagon, and if the who doesn't include the folks making, marketing, and distributing the music, then it really doesn't make a whole hill of beans worth of difference, does it?
What is your Slash Rating?
She even does things like put *full* sample tracks on her website. *gasp*
And her sales and profits climb...
And her music continues to be her own...
And her music continues to kick ass.
Are you reading, RIAA?
The only difference is, I don't spend my money on garbage one hit wonder CD's...Which I wouldn't have wasted my time on anyway. Either way, the recording industry will get no money from me unless they make good music!
Everyone is correct to say that there was a problem and that something had to be done. That does not make Napster et al right. It was widespread looting. There is a system folks. Follow it or lose it.
They didn't however, go the the next stage of the argument -- that P2P networks have provided an avenue for (currently) non-mainstream artists to get exposure and market share.
They also seem to miss the question of whether the rise and fall of Napster coincided with the rise and fall of CD purchases. These seemed like obvious next steps for the article, but then it just seemed to .... stop.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
you obviously aren't involved in downloading music and never really were.
sure the kids download stuff instead of buying it, but they wouldn't buy as many anyway. sure when people were introduced to napster, they downloaded tons of music. i'll bet most of it is a listened once or twice and never touched again. i wouldn't buy a cd i would only listen to once or twice.
but i have downloaded music. if i like a song or a band, i buy the cd. if i don't like it, i erase it. it's more of a try before you buy thing than not paying at all.
i hope all of the corporate propaganda tasted good when you swallowed it all.
on an aside, it would be interesting to see how the sales of blank cassette tapes have changed since the sales of blank cd media has increased. i'd like to see them compared on a minutes of storage basis, as well as dollars.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
..But I haven't bought a *new* CD in ages.. either by way of half.com or the local megachain, I stick to used.
If enough people are doing that, maybe it is taking a bite out of sales.
Of course the RIAA is no doubt trying to weasel in on that, too...
Plus, as noted above, music as of late is proving Sturgeon's Law - 90% of everything is [crud|crap].
maybe it's the fact that we and the video industry already know they put out tons of crap, hence why we rent them. I hate paying for shitty movies (Get Carter for example). Maybe if the music industry would finally admit that ideas like PopStars and Backstreet Boys are moronic, and the majority of us do not care about them, maybe we could finally get some decent frig'n music!
OK - who stole my duct tape?
When I was a kid back in the late '60s (yeah, I AM that old) everybody wanted a guitar, or drums, or a PA. We all wanted to be rock stars.
Now, instead of instruments, all the kids I hang out with are buying mixing decks. They all want to be club DJs.
They play four hour sets of techno. House, trance, bass&drums, whatever. It's got no lyrics. It's got no melody. It's got a GREAT groove. And without a melody, or lyrics, it's REALLY HARD to copyright. I like a lot of it.
They've done it again. Rock, punk, whatever it takes to take the music back from the corporations. The kids are alright.
Fuck the RIAA. Just wait, they WILL try to copyright 120 beats per minute.
Tim, you are wrong, and that explains why you have been moderated into oblivion. I find it so much easier to drive across town and spend NZ$30 on a CD than to download it for free using one of the many P2P apps available. I am sure that the vast majority of slashdotters would hold the same opinion.
n/t
--- What?
By ferociously going after Napster and consumers of other P2P technologies, the music and movie industry has "succeeded" only in polarizing the buying public and fragmenting their market even further. They can try to outlaw pirating and enforce the laws against illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted material, but they're ultimately doomed to fail. They're just going to piss off legitimate buyers with technologies that sacrifice quality and their ability to legitimately archive their media, and will drive illegal traders further underground where they can't be found. In the end, they're just pissing everyone off, making them as much an ogre in the marketplace as Microsoft.
I can't imagine a more ridiculous statement.
If I own a gas station, and someone moves in across the street with another gas station (at the same prices, let's say), and my revenue is cut in half, and his are about the same as mine, then I have a pretty solid claim that the total gas revenues on that corner are about the same, and he took half.
Without having to show results from the same time without him being there.
On to the real question at hand, however. Napster (and all the P2P's) moved in, with a zero price product. In the above analysis, the pricing model was picked to show that revenue movement is not due to price or other factors, just likely convenience. Therefore the analysis above must be slightly changed to reflect that. There are now three classes of consumer, rather than one. 1) The consumer who gets music from the P2P's INSTEAD of from shrink-wrap CDs - some percentage of this group would have bought some of their music by CD if P2P was not an option, 2) The consumer who only gets music from shrink-wrap CDs, and 3) The consumer who gets some music from P2P, and some from shrink-wrap.
There's no way to deny two statements:
a) Any downloaded music that would have been purchased IS lost revenue,
b) Not all of the revenue claimed lost by the labels is valid because at least some of that music would never have been purchased anyway.
NOTE THAT EVEN IN THAT LAST CASE, while it's not strictly lost revenue, it IS a copyright infringement because the legit CD owner that held a fair use license exceeded his rights by sharing it.
Since there's no coherent way to claim that absolutely NONE of the downloads represent lost revenue, your statement can be safely dismissed...
- John
Agreed... but, besides the reasonable price, they also need to make sure to have major hubs all around the country, if not the world. I have tried some of the other pay-for-download type music companies... the main problem that I had with them was not the price, which was normally pennies on the dollar compared to buying a cd, but the speed of download... I don't want to have to wait 30 minutes because the place I'm downloading from is swamped or just plain doesnt have the bandwidth to handle me. I can get on p2p and download the same file in a matter of seconds.
So the moral of this rambling is that besides a reasonable price they also need to make sure they can handle people downloading from them.
- Snub the over forty crowd that makes up 44% of your business.
- Make sure you stagnate so that you don't come out with anything fresh.
- During a recession raise your prices.
- Forget any lesson you might have learned from the late 70's when the industry underwent a similar crisis.
The only thing left to do to put that final nail into your coffin is to implement some "creative accounting" practices.Matthew,
It would appear that you live in New Zealand. From what I have heard, CDs are very competitively priced there, when compared against places like the EU, or the USA. That is why it is beneficial for you to pollute the environment while getting new music to listen to. For the pirates in other parts of this world, this is not the case.
You hit the nail on the head!! Their wet dream is to charge us each time we hear a song. They're not alone: software companies want to move to a application server environment where you'd pay per for each use. Cable/movie industry would probably put all content up if they could charge per-show, per-movie watched. (with commercials of cours)
Reminds me of Futurama with the commercials shoved into your dreams... Would the Music Industry throw you in jail if you hummed a song to work? Or dreamed about music?
As far as "loss of sales" last year.. give me a break. It was a recession. Some companies actually lost REAL sales. Not some made up, "wish we made 9 billion" dollar sales.
And believe it or not, some companies go out of business when their services are too expensive or simply suck ass. The music industry as a business shouldn't be immune to this.
For some reason, downloading music never appealed to me. I like to browse music stores, pick up and handle CDs. But I always balked at paying over $12.00 for a cd if it wasn't a greatest hit's CD or I hadn't heard most of the songs before. I had downloaded a couple of pieces, but found it to be too much of a bother and the quality was too unpredictable. Music on the Internet?? It just wasn't worth it.
.. this was cool. Now, my music collection is growing a couple of CDs a month, even though I still hate paying over $12. Internet music (which I paid for) was STIMULATING me to buy CDs. It really dawned on me then how stupid RIAA is for not encouraging access to music over the Internet. I was proof that the Internet actually increase music sales.
Recent events have changed all that. I had put my CD collection on my hard drive so I could listen to them while I worked. But, through a series of events, I had to rebuild my entire system. Unfortunatly, I couldn't reinstall my purchased copy of RealPlayer/RealOne/Real and didn't want the new one because of their stupid subscription based service.
I dumped Real and bought MusicMatch at a real store, intending to dump my CDs to my new 40GB hard drive. In the box was an offer for MusicMatch radio. I had done Winamp before, but again, the quality just wasn't there. To my surprise, I discovered that for $4 a month, I can get crisp, clear music delivered over my broadband, and was able to create my own 'stations' based on the music I liked. I could skip tracks too if I wanted. The best part was I could click on the playlist and create lists of CDs to buy later, or buy them right on the spot. Wow
Then, a few days ago, RIAA announced their legal action regarding list4ever.com. Curiosity got the best of me, so I fired up Google and started looking around. Know what I discovered?? Hundreds of sites where I can download music and videos, sites I never knew about before. I still haven't downloaded anything, but now I know where to go if I want to, all thanks to RIAA.
I never did dump my CDs to the new hard drive.....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
I know I'd buy more music if I had a job. Unemployment has cut out most unessentials, I can barely keep gas in my car to look for a job, esp. in my area, where industrial work is a heavy part of the local economy.
Maybe I put too many things I know on my resume.
Any how. It doesn't help, as the article states, that a lot of newish pop music is throw-away stuff. I don't care about Ms. Spears and how many records she sells. Gimme good music, and I'll support them. (New Godspeed You! Black Emperor in Nov.! Yay!)
Dan
I could buy a DVD for that much! Full digital 5.1 audio that is over 2 hrs long! Whats a $15 Audio CD provide? 60 mins of stereo music... Joy.. Their business model has DIED, they need to start selling Audio CDs for $5 to sell them.
I've always thought that I'd very enthusiastically pay for music if it were sold at $0.25 a track. The music companies don't want to do this, because presumably it devalues the music that they've tried so hard do inflate to over five times that value.
What I'd like to know is, if they did start selling tracks at a quarter apiece, how much more music would people have to buy to make up for the drop in price? (Not taking production or bandwidth costs into account, it people would need to download about 60 songs for every CD they purchase now). Is it plausiable that you'd buy five times as much music if it were a fifth the price? I probably would myself, but I very rarely buy CDs.
I dislike the politics of the content industry so much that I avoid full price movies and I mostly content myself with the music I already have. This is an effective form of protest which I would like to see more people employ.
Except. Except that the content industry is pointing to their loss of sales as evidence that everyone not giving them money is a crook and that they are therefore justified in destroying the PC as an open platform.
Who needs clever accounting with logic like that?
Ever notice that idiots and egomanics are the last to accept responsibility for their actions? Although it seems obvious to us, what manufacturer would admit to producing a known inferior product.
ymmv
...is now blocked because of the RIAA.
No, it's blocked because Napster set up a service specifically designed to allow people to "share" their MP3's. You can't honestly tell me they were trying to capitalize on legal trading. There isn't (yet) much of a market for that. Same thing with AG. If Napster, AG, et al were really into legal trading, they'd make a Napster-like frontend to MP3.com.
The Free desktop that Just Works
this whole recording industry situation has prompted eveyone to play the blame game, but it seems evident to me that it's not possible to single out one single thing as the bad sales turn.
are there people out there downloading music who would have otherwise bought it? yes.
but aren't there people out there downloading music that will spur future purchases? yes.
are cdr's used to copy cds? yes.
but aren't they used for other purposes as well, and doesn't a percentage of cdr sales go to the riaa? yes.
is the nation going through an econonic downturn on the whole? yes.
but aren't other countries' music industries being affected as well? yes.
i'm certainly against the **aa and all for fair use, but i think this situation is much more complicated than most people realize. and i think the best way to figure out what's wrong (if anything), is to conduct more independent (and independently-funded) surveys, especially outside of the united states. we get nowhere by propagating lies/rumors/FUD on either side, so it may be best to get as accurate and truthful a view of the problem as we can, whether we like it or not.
Is to become complacent and stagnant. As long as there is some freedom to compete, competitors will arise, and flourish. That is why the RIAA is trying to use the State to reduce that freedom. And watch Microsoft--it's inevitable that they, too, will try to bend the State to do their bidding in impeding competition. Note the Orwellian turn, though, as the State went after MS and they defended themselves in the name of "innovating."
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Janis Ian wrote a very good article on this subject.
Interesting to see an artist's perspective on the matter.
Russ
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
I think you misunderstand. Forget piracy. Our friend was saying music is bad and people don't buy it. If music was better, people would buy it.
To clarify further, let's say an album comes out that I don't want to hear. Say, the soundtrack to Attack of the Clones. Since I don't want to hear it, I won't buy it. Also, since I don't want to hear it, I won't download it or have a friend make a copy. I won't listen to it at all.
I know that's complicated, so give it a few minutes to soak in.
I assert ownership of all trademarks and copyrights on this page.
If it can happen, it will. One can copy and move intellectual property at virtually no cost. It was inevitable. "The computer is to intellectual property what a matter replication device is to matter" - me
I will be the first to admit it. I do not buy cd's because I can download all the music I like for free and burn them.
/. has already posted a fair number of stories over the years showing that even listening to RIAA music helps further its popularity and eventually the RIAA's revenues.
And I'll be the first to admit (well ok not likely the first) that I just don't even LISTEN TO RIAA crap.
Well, I do occasionally accidently overhear a bit of RIAA produced drudge, but it is not willingly. ^_^
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
The customers' message to the RIAA will get louder and louder until they finally hear it or until they go under. Which one happens is ultimately the RIAA's choice.
The RIAA probably believes that because it's a monopoly (or oligopoly ... same thing from an economic perspective) like Microsoft, that it can get away with the same market tactics that Microsoft does. But what they haven't figured out is that unlike Microsoft's products, which are essentially required to keep a business running (Openoffice and friends aside), the RIAA's products are not required, they are optional. Having a monopoly doesn't help you if your customers can get away with not buying your product -- and that's exactly what's happening now.
So my message to the RIAA is simple: you'd better figure this shit out, and fast, because your number is coming up.
What sucks the most is that the RIAA is going to do a hell of a lot of damage before they either finally learn or go under.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
At the end of the article, right above where it says "Mark Jenkins reviews music and film for...", there is an advertisement for a wireless device (in fact, it even says Advertisement). The ad is randomized so that a new device is featured with each page reload. When I was reading the article, I saw:
Jornada 568 Personal Digital Ass
You may have to hit reload a few times before it comes up (it took me about 10 tries before I got it to come up again). Count on Microsoft (MSN) to have a truncation error.
/<en
- Expand your taste to include a wider range of musical forms through exploration.
- Seek out new local acts by attending live performances at small clubs, bars, and concert halls.
- Purchase CDs directly from those performers and bands whom you have enjoyed seeing live.
Not only does buying CDs directly from the artist provide them better compensation, but since you've already heard his/her music you know you'll enjoy much of what's on the CD. And to top it off the music cartels don't get a dime of your money. SCORE!This is primarily how I buy music now. I haven't purchased a big label pop disc in well over a year -- because the music sucks. I don't "steal" music across the net; I don't tape or burn CDs to trade with friends; I don't tape off the radio. I go to shows and if I like the act I buy some music. Fuck the RIAA and all their noise about "piracy".
--Maynard
First, they are using a sales model from the beginning of the last century.
Second, they are using a technology that is at least 25 years old, and with the fast development of technologies it is becoming easy even for the dumb masses to get something more convenient in their own homes.
And finally, they always try to sell you what it is cool just what they think it is cool, destroying better sources of music or great band/singers just because they dont see the market.
It is really a shame how they want to blame us (consumers) for their lack of vision of bussiness and try to block the leaks with the use of manipulative laws, first against musicians, and now against consumers.
The Reg had an article last week about this entitled MP3s are good for music biz - Forrester. Worth a read.
Russ
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Except that what you describe existed a long time ago. It was a service hosted at, unsuprisingly, my.mp3.com. You could download anything from a huge library, the only catch was that before the server would give you a digital copy of your CD you had to provide it with a checksum of the data off your CD. Sure you could hack around this, but for 90% of people it meant that you had to prove you already owned it before you could download it. Legal sharing.
3 guesses what service was the first target of the RIAA, long before Napster even existed, and the first two don't count.
And they honestly wonder about why nobody is making money? This is the biggest money maker for the industry, and its total crap. I dont think the american public has enough intelligence to finally understand that the stuff that they are spending their money on is crap, so why are they not buying CD's anymore? My guess is that if they actually liked this "music" they dont really care about music in the first place and they just gave up entirely. I dont think it has anything to do with the "new" trend of swapping music, be it over the internet, recording on tapes, or even just listening to the radio. I think the main problem is that people have been spoon fed the same crap (if nothing has changed in the pop world since disco...) for 30 years and they've just gotten bored.
The next question that gets brought up is why then are better bands, who actually do offer something intellectually selling records? Maybe because there arent all that many that exist; I'll still fork out my 13 bucks for a new Fugazi record, or my new favorite band Queens of the Stoneage, but most people dont like to think, and therefore, wouldnt like or even give a good new band a chance.
If the death of pop (please dear god kill it now!!!) is gonna bring the music business down with it, so what, I'll still be strumming away on my guitar, and I know that anyone who had any real interest in music in the first place will too.
But if anybody has any conflicting viewpoint on this, I'd actually like to hear it, unless you liked N'sync or britney spears...
I will not be trained.
Occam's razor is the principle of simplification and minimalism taught by a Fransciscan monk named William of Ockham in the 14th century. It basically stated, "The profoundly simple is simply profound." In short, the simpler explanation, the better. Are you arguing for some sort of parsimony in attributing blame to the garbage in the music industry?
I totally agree with you about the "good taste" argument, but I'm curious about the connection to Occam.
I think the larger whole of the music industry is reflecting the trends in society. As a people we are becoming more and more specialized and focused in those things which we want. Music is no different. The days of the single artist making the whole country swoon are gone. Since the labels are still attempting to do business using that model, their sales are dying off. Easy.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I was shopping the other day for these CDs (don't flame me for my taste in music please)
Shakira Unplugged
any Cirque Du Soleil soundtrack.
Shakira CD: 14.99
Shakira DVD: 14.99
Circue Du Soleil (Quidam) CD: 17.99
Circue Du Soleil (Quidam) DVD: 19.99
You can guess which ones I bought.
I also picked up a Rage Against The Machine DVD for like 18.99. Their live CD was about the same price.
Until CDs drop in price to about 6 bux or so, I don't see sales going up.
Consumer spending on almost everything else has fallen (lo recession) far less than CD spending, but for some reason the RIAA can't recognize the fact that they are selling a product at a price higher than the market will bear.
I wonder if any of those guys every played Lemonade or Dope Wars...
* what a laughable term for what Napster was about. Yeah, it wasn't "stealing" in the traditional dictionary definition, but what would you have said if someone were "sharing" binary-only modified copies of GPL'd software? Would that still be sharing? Or would it now be stealing?
Its not stealing in neither case (See definition's emphasis on stealing being the removal of something from its rightful owner), in the first case it would surely be copyright infringment, and in the second case, a license violation, perhaps too a copyright infringment.
As long as copyrights are used against their explicitly mentioned goal ("To Promote Science and Useful Arts") and as such have unlimited times [in practice] and do not require publishing the information (keeping programs closed, etc), they will not be honored and protected.
That is, I will not respect copyright in its current form - to make profit for the large companies that funded its legislation.
In the list of reasons why people download, let's not discount availability of some material. Yeah, I have downloaded a few current songs, but by far most of what I seek is stuff from my "golden age." OK, by that I mean the 70s. I can just imagine the reaction I would get from the Big 5 if I asked them to sell me a copy of "Heartbreaker" by Nantucket. But it must have taken me all of 10 minutes to acquire it on Napster.
Not all new music sucks, you just have to look around a bit harder to find it, as it's not all over MTV or the radio.
If you want a political bend to go along with your new music, a good place to start is with Radiohead. Another one is Mos Def and Blackstar (which is Mos and Talib Kwali) who are this generation's Public Enemy, and they are incredible.
As far as I know, the punk scene has degenerated politically, but Joe Strummer (of the Clash) is putting out incredible new stuff with his new band The Mescaleros. There's a band I happened to catch live at a music festival called The International Noise Conspiracy, who are a really fun act to see (communist/socialst propaganda from Sweden, how can you not love a song named "Capitalism Stole My Virginity"?)
Also, if you've looked at the American radioscape lately, a lot of the Nu-Metal junk has faded away. The focus these days is on more standard rock, with bands like Jimmy Eat World, the Strokes, the White Stripes, and the Hives all doing a great job kicking the crap out of Fred Durst and his various imitators. Some of the stuff (particularly The White Stripes) is really outstanding work. There's still a lot of pop out there, but that's never going to change (hence the name). There's a lot of good non-political music out there too, that I didn't mention, that is just off to the side of mainstream, but is actually very good. As for the political/social stuff, I don't think there's a whole lot right now, but who knows? The new Rage Against the Machine album should be out soon.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Why can't the RIAA and kazaa (for example) work together to bring in the cash? Imagine the following.
Kazaa implements credit card billing features so that whenever you download a song owned by the RIAA, a fee is charged to your account (and for this to succede it'd better be reasonable - around a dollar). Kazaa gets a cut of that dollar, and the rest goes to the RIAA.
This would not only be unbelievably easy for the consumer (any idiot can download a song), but would use an already well established network that, if done correctly, would use the people on the network for distribution. Of course the RIAA would be wise to put up it's own servers sharing the files, too.
The only downside i can see is if you get lamers sharing missnamed or incomplete songs that you end up paying for. Any ideas (checksums, etc?) for fixing that?
"Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
What? Okay, forst you have to find out which P2P system is still in use, because the one you used last week got shut down or everyione moved on. Then you've got to get rid of all the damned spyware and other cruft the stupid thing has planted in your system. Then you've got to find the song you want, and God help you if it's hosted on some twit on the other end of a 28.8 dailup with 200 concurrent downloaders. Then you've got to hope that what you downloaded is what you wanted and not two and a ha;f minutes of a porno movie soundtrack!
That's easier than going to the store and slapping down some cash for a CD that has what it says it has?
Um, okay, Beavis.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Well you never know. Maybe we'll all end up reverting to the 1900's style of entertainment and play the piano with friends. Well untill the thought police bust down the door and imprison everyone for playing an unauthorized song that they probably heard without permission.
I'm sick of reading some study that points to some supposed failings of the music industry and concludes that file-sharing isn't hurting the industry. I'm just as sick of reading stories about how file-sharing has gone up and profits have gone down, stories which conclude that file-sharing IS hurting the industry. I'm sick of the blind chauvinism that surrounds both sides of the issue.
The assorted and supposed failures of the music industry and the presumed decline in quality of today's music - even if true - can NOT be taken as evidence that file-sharing isn't hurting the industry, just like declining record sales can't necessarily be attributed to the accompanying rise in file-sharing.
BOTH types of 'evidence' marshalled by both sides are correlational and don't really say anything about what the proponents are arguing about, namely the root of the problem. Maybe file-sharing is going up because today's music sucks, or because people want this method of distribution. Or maybe file-sharing is on the rise because people just like grabbing things they don't have to pay for.
You've heard it a million times: Correlation is NOT causation. Once we get past the stupid "X is happening, and Y is/isn't happening, therefore X does/doesn't cause Y", we'll be able to really and fairly consider the issue instead of looking through these blinders that seem to get narrower and narrower as time goes on, and hearing the tautologies flogged like yesterday's dead horse - by BOTH sides.
Being a lover of history, I am always looking for parrallels from the past with problems of today. This paragraph then, cuaght my attention:
In 1978, record sales began to fall, and the major labels blamed a larcenous new technology: cassette tapes. The international industry even had an outraged official slogan: "Home taping is killing music." The idea was that music fans--ingrates that they are--would rather pirate songs than pay for them, and that sharing favorite songs was a crime against hard-working musicians (rather than great word-of-mouth advertising).
This helps me remember that as fast paced as our world may be, we're really just handling the same problems that have been dealt with in the past. The article goes on to say how the emergence of MTV and Rock Videos saved the music industry now, and that if the Music Mavens don't stop blocking every new technology that comes along, they miss their own savior. Bravo for a great article and let's hope the RIAA will study some history as well.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
When was the last time you actually bought a cd? Hell, when was the last time you acted as a normal, God fearing citizen of these United States of America?
The US music scene sucks, plain and simple. The majority of albums released within the last 5 years have been formulaic, cookie-cutter crap. Remember in the 80's how bands were designed around musicians? Randy Rhoads, Eddie Van Halen, Neil Peart etc ad nauseum....you used to be able to name the members of bands. They actually had talent, wrote their own songs, some were even (God forbid) classically trained.
With the one hit wonders we have now, you can't even name the vocalist for the bands.
Skip across to the pond and see what the 'peans are up to. Let's see, progressive metal bands like Stratovarius, Blind Guardian, Avantasia, Edguy, Theatre of Tragedy, etc are HUGE stars. They play arena concerts, like GNR, VH, Selloutica and others did in the 80's and 90's. Members are usually classically trained musicians and have technical abilities that most US musicians only dream of. Many of the band members collaborate with other bands for entire albums (ex. Demons & Wizards).
Granted, this music may not be to everyone's tastes, but looks at the techno scene overseas. People like DJ Tiesto, Oakenfold, Van Dyk, etc are huge....yet unless you go to a trance club in the US, you are unlikely to ever hear them.
The US labels are failing for the same reason the US carmakers failed late last century:
Lack of innovation.
What more of a paper tiger than a spineless group of consumers who incessantly whine and moan about the RIAA, steal its music (justified, they say, by the RIAA's practices), and then (if you believe the surveys) go out and buy it anyway? (And what about those steal the content and DON'T buy the CDs? - according to the article, they could account for at least 19% of those surveyed).
To get the RIAA out of its 'panic' mode its in now. The only way it can go now is to blame everyone except themselves. They are not going to devalue CDs. The profit hit would kill them and probalby one or two would go bankrupt.
wuh? that was called "beam-it", and it wasn't about sharing. It was about availablity of your music digitally at any location. Where exactly did "sharing" come into play with this service?
The Free desktop that Just Works
To find out if filesharing has had an effect on music sharing one only needs to look at the success of a different product that shares many characteristics with cds: for example MTV and concert tickets. If cd sales have dropped because consumers have lost interest in the music then we should see a similar decline in concert ticket sales and MTV ratings.
I have neither these numbers available to me nor the interest to properly evaluate them (properly meaning statisticly... not just scanning them with the naked eye.) But the numbers are there and any interested party could resolve this.
If concert ticket sales have declined it would be very difficult for the industry to say that this is the fault of filesharing. But at the same time if it is found that Britney Spears concerts are still selling out then it is also very hard for consumers to say there is less interest in listening to her.
Perhaps by stating their claims so heavily, both sides have too much to lose if they are found to be wrong.
I have discovered tons of new music styles which I would have never listened to, thanks to Audiogalaxy. Man I really miss it. It seems that soulseek http://www.slsk.org is taking the torch, but it's not there yet !
Why do I need to buy Linkin' Park (for example) if I can just turn on the radio and hear it EVERY hour -- on the hour. You think I'm kidding? I actually counted one day and you know what? The SAME Linkin Park song played 16 times between 9am and 5pm. And that's with an hour lunch break.
Did anyone else notice that the article was concluded by an ironic advertisement by Sony?
The music industry really was, for a while, doing quite well in improving music reproduction technology.
First there were '78's made of shellac. Then they came up with vinyl, much easier to handle and able to hold more data, at 33RPM's. Still too pricey for kids, they did 45's.
Now, America was moving towards an automobile culture, and you just can't run an LP in a car (ignoring the Lexus ad).
So, they came up with 8-tracks. Great, an LP in your hand, and shock-proof to boot. But they were awfully clumsy, and apparently not all that cheap to manufacture (which ought to translate to consumer prices, but that's another rant).
So, they came up with cassette tapes. They were small, portable, and dirt cheap. I remember buying albums for $6-7 in the early eighties. But the quality of the cassettes was fairly miserable.
Tape also has a tendency to stretch and wear out, so it's tough to commit to a music collection on 8-track or cassette.
So they came up with CD's. Finally, very high quality, random access, and portable (after a few shakey years). With the advent of the CD it finally made sense again to collect music for the long haul, so the music industry saw a boom in replacement purchases, from all the people who had purchased 8-tracks and cassettes.
But the CD is close to perfect. It doesn't wear out, it has random access, it has really good quality, it's portable, and it's cheap to manufacture. People had their music now, and they didn't need to replace it. This was a new situation for the music industry. They would have to keep producing good new music to keep up the sales or come up with a better format.
What could be better than a CD? Well, what are the CD's weaknesses? You couldn't record on them (before the past few years). You also had to carry quite a stack of CD's around for just a few good songs. Sony recognized this and made a few stabs at the market with MiniDisc. They got portable, small, random-access, and cheap, eventually, but the quality of the first round of MD's was pretty poor. It used a 3-subband lossy coder, and it just didn't compare to CD's. It was also fairly proprietary.
It seems that at this point, the industry just gave up. I don't know what really happened behind the scenes, but the entire industry seemed to undergo a cranial/anal inversion. When DAT tried to get near the market, they got scared and had the Digital Home Recording Act [Tax] enacted. This was the start of viewing the customer as the criminal adversary.
Meanwhile, the personal computer industry was booming. Computers started to get hard disks capable of storing lots of music and good perceptual coders came to market. I remember ripping all my CD's onto my 601-based Mac in '96 (in MP2, at 0.2x, after a separate rip stage, typing all the track names in) and it was just amazing. Soon everybody noticed that you could listen to your music in a form that you wanted. With the advent of CD writers and the iPod, the missing portability element came back. By 2001, the technology provided by the music industry had been totally overtaken by the technology the computer industry provides, and that's when they started sueing everybody in sight.
So, as I see it the music industry has 3 options:
1) Come up with a better technology. If I knew what it was, I'd be doing it, but it obviously involves the internet, probably 3G cell. The only thing I can't do with an iPod is get my music I don't have with me. Note: I don't want SACD's or DVD-A's. They don't solve any problems I have.
2) Put out good music. I doesn't even have to be new, I just bought a box set of remastered Miles Davis on Monday and In a Silent Way is my new favorite CD.
3) Criminalize everything the customers want to do and sue the begezus out of everybody who tries to help them.
What's behind Door #1 and Door #2 are sustainable options. Lurking behind Door #3 is a business model that has outlived its usefullness and is trying to get by on the creation of artificial scarcity. Stockholders ought to be very leery of a management that doesn't want any part of a sustainable market.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Being quite honest, I like Britney Spear and her music. For saying this, I expect to get a whole slew of responses talking about how terrible my taste is, and even moderated down.
And it has nothing to do with the latest trend or whatever. Eminem's also one of the latest trends, and I hate what he has to offer.
So, why do I like her? Well, simply put, because her music is fun to listen to. And its fun to watch her videos. I'm not saying its intellectually rich music, but I really don't care. If I want intellectually enriched music, I'll go someplace else (like Ernesto Cortazar, Beethoven, John Williams).
That said, I can understand why this style of music means a slump for the music industry. Its not something I want to listen to all the time. In fact, there's very few artists I'd like to listen to all the time. The only musician who's music I've been able to listen to repeatedly over and over again is Beethoven.
So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is the zillion Britney-alikes that pop up (you know what I'm talking about, Pink, etc). And its not even so much them. I like some of Pink's music. I like alot of the stuff by Pink, No Doubt, Shakira, Aquilera, Spears, etc. Its not that the music's that bad. It's that it gets OVER -PLAYED.
This, my friends, is the fault of the music industry and the radio stations. Hearing the same song 500 times in one day is going to make me sick of it (i.e., anyone remember "I Saw The Sign" -- they played that song to death).
That's part of the reason I love the 80's stations, because they have a large selection to choose from, and I probably won't hear the same song twice in one day. That's also part of the appeal of P2P -- you get to mix it up.
So, ultimately, the current slump in the music business is completely the fault of the RIAA and music companies, along with the radio stations. Start mixing it up more, and people will be more interested. But really, who wants to buy that latest Britney Spears album when the songs in it have been played on the radio 500 times a day? If I listened to the radio more, I probably wouldn't buy CD's, but since I don't, I don't get so sick of songs that I want to puke when I hear them, like most people do.
So, the take home message to the RIAA? Well, lets say it like this. I like ice cream. I really like ice cream. I really really like ice cream. But if I've been eating nothing but ice cream for a week straight, I'm going to puke the next time I see it and I never want to see it again.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
anybody riping and collecting works they don't pay for are simply stealing
No, they are NOT. Stealing means depriving the original owner of the use of that material. The RIAA has a long way to go before they can make a direct link between music copying and loss of revenue. All P2P clients are doing is copying music. No more, no less. It's only in the last 100 years that artists and publishers can expect to make money while no one is physically playing their instruments.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
What Napster did was "filesharing", in the traditional and well-known networking sense: A given file was placed on a network and made accessible to others on the network. Or are you morally opposed to MS Windows "share folder" mechanism, too?
Now, it's legitimate to feel that supporters of Naptser liked to use the word "fileshare" because "sharing" has such a nice connotation -- everyone's all nice and friendly and Sesame Street-like. But then, the RIAA chose "piracy" to utilize the negative connotation of the word, even though infringing a copyright is nothing at all like raping and pillaging on the high seas. But at least in Napster's case, the word has a legitimate technical meaning that is actually related to how it's being used.
If someone took GPL code but violated the license, well, that would breach-of-contract and also copyright infringement -- both well-defined crimes but neither "stealing".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
My questions were rhetorical, and not aimed at someone with a clue, which you appear to have.
;) Do you believe the GPL, or any other Free/OSS licenses are valid? They rely on the very same assumptions about IP...
However, if you won't respect copyright "in its current form", how do you make the distinction between what is and isn't acceptable? (note: that *wasn't* rhetorical
The Free desktop that Just Works
The record industry is looking for a government bail out. They look to Congress and the courts to fix ailments that they brought upon themselves. I find it funny that in this day of: "let the marketplace decide", the music industry seems to be seeking (and getting) special treatment. This industry should be left to live (or die) by its own bad decisions. I'm in my fourties, and I find that the 'big five' record companies have completely alienated me. Apparently they don't want me for a customer. All they seem to care about is serving my daughters, who can't afford their exhorbitant prices any more. My attitude is why bail therse clowns out? Let them die and be replaced by better run companies who care about serving their customers. Of course, we all iknow the answer to why this won't happen: $$....the flow of $$ to Congress' pockets that is!
I personaly think Fast Company said it best nearly a month ago
. ht ml
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I think we need to blame greedy(fame) "artist" and greedy(money) record execs on this issue though. If "artists" weren't so concerned with getting on the radio and selling albums, there would be a lot better music out there. It's the boot lickin' ass kissers that are fuckin it all up by taking hand outs from record companies.
Look at pop acts, they suck, but KIDS buy their shit becuase authority figures (record marketing grown-ups) tell them to. It's not like they keep listening to that shite when they grow up and have their own opinions. People like Britney do that job becuase they want to be "Idolized", not becuase they want to share their talent(or lack of).
It's ego with no talent/vision that is killing music. (i.e. Bowie: ego + talent*vision = good music)
Ani is cool, but she should be more provocative. Guys like that. She seems to be about her music and little else, except pretentious, but most good musicians are.
Napster is soooo last year. Do we really need another article on it?
Instead of working out a system of fair use that gives the consumer what he's always had, the industry tries to bury technology, and take away your ability to make copies of your own music. THIS PISSES PEOPLE OFF and of course pissed off people are just so darned unpredictable! They may even (gasp) download an mp3 they didn't pay for.
"Hmmmm...$20 for 1 or 2 good songs, or those 1 or 2 songs for free? What was the first choice again?"
By adjusting their business model to make things convenient for the consumer, and charging a REASONABLE price for their product, everyone wins. Of course, there will always be people swapping songs, just like way back when tapes were relavent, but DEAL WITH IT. Yeah, you'll probably loose sales at first but the potential revenue gained from digital downloads -and being able to use those downloads anywhere- would more than make up for those losses.
Lastly, I'm not saying it's ok to download copyrighted music because the music biz sucks, but until sanity is restored, my rights as a consumer are protected, and the artists get their fair shake, I say fuck 'em.
Big Business not getting their fair profits? Boo-fucking-hoo...
"and the alternative distribution systemss don't work very well for anything but Britny and dubs of live Grateful Dead"
Touch&Go, Dischord, Sub Pop, Metal Blade etc are all record labels that each market to their own audience. I would guess that only a very small portion of the music released by these labels ever gets radio play, and can be impossible to find in all but the most open of record stores. Fans of the music find the the ability to order what they are looking for, though. Alternative means of distribution has always been how this muisc gets found.
Dischord has been artist run since the beginning and has always encouraged the consumer to order directly from them at a nice realistic price. This is a label that does it way more right than most, by being very active as an alternate distribution system.
"Some older music fans may hate hip-hop, nu-metal, or techno,"
Older? I am 23.
There is almost no good music I can buy today in stores. There are Dio and Ozzy albums, but these performers ale little old. There are few good newer bands like Evergrey, but in general - new music sucks. 10 years ago there was some nice tunes on MTV (for example by Dire Straits, GNR, Aerosmith, ZZ-top or even... Roxette), today it's impossible to find there something which isn't crap.
Probably people who buy todays popular music aren't real fans, they don't love this music, just listen to it. When there will be something new in TV - they will buy something new.
People who produce music are responsible for this situation. For new group it's very hard to put track on radio or TV. Of course there is possibility to put mp3 on net (hey, that was napster official mission), but it's hard to gain big set of fans this way.
We just need to wait until music producers realize what is wrong, so maybe they will stop promoting shit in radio/TV and good music will back on scene.
Downloading isn't the answer to everything. If a track cost 0.1 (of some random currency which may be either a $ or a £) and 120 of these could be fitted onto a CD, wouldn't it be cheaper for them to burn a custom CD and put it in the post?
Bandwidth is always too small for what you want to do, that is a rule. You need a network for P2P because it's got to be kept kinda anonymous, otherwise you may as well knock on some guy's door and ask to plug a USB cable in the back of his machine.
> For that matter, if the music the RIAA put out was SOOOO bad, why are all you jerkoffs so desperate to get your hands on it via Napster, Gnutella, et al? You're as shitty as the **AA fuckers you're supposedly against.
Boy, did you ever miss the point.
I have never downloaded any IP-restricted music off the internet, but I've still cut way back on my CD purchases.
Some of us aren't trying to justify theft; we just want to point out that the RIAA's finger-pointing game is utter bullshit.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
dubs of live Grateful Dead concerts.
While a lot of people (deadheads) may argue this, I think part of the bands immense popularity was due to their decision to allow this type of taping.
The tape always had background noise, without the clean room effect of a studio. The thing was, you could hear conversations, people talking, laughing, tripping, cheering having a good time so the bootleg would MAKE you want to be there.
I tip my glass to Jerry Garcia in heaven. I will always love your tunes you magical bard you!
No. No. No. and a final time, No. They are "infringing" -- a well-defined crime, distinct from stealing. How do I know? Leaving aside the single-user issue, let's also consider: No court anywhere has ever set up guidelines for "reasonable theft" of physical property. But for intellectual "property", the courts have -- as much as the RIAA wishes to God they hadn't -- carved out an expanse called "Fair Use", wherein use of copyrighted material without compensation is considered legal. (I am not arguing that Napster was or was not Fair Use. I am just pointing out that Fair Use exists in well-codifed law.) Likewise, real property rights don't expire. If you own a car and never ever sell it to anyone, then guess what? It's yours, forever and ever, world without end, amen. But if you publish a copyrightable item, and never ever sell a copy to anyone else, do you know what happens? Eventually your "property" rights evaporate, again without compensation... it's not a government "taking", it's the (legal) nature of the beast.
So unless you're willing to draw the analogy both ways -- that is, to allow "Fair Use" of your physical property and to recognize that your ownership is time-limited -- then stop BSing and drop the "infringement is stealing" crap.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
You might want to go to www.webster.com and check the definition which is not nearly as limited as you have mistakenly asserted:
"No, they are NOT. Stealing means depriving the original owner of the use of that material."
From Websters:
"1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice"
"1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
"1 d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"
which by US law includes unauthorized duplication and distribution of non-tangable intelectual property of obvious value, especially where copyrighted.
So, in the United States, speaking in english, the description of illegal (already ruled so by the courts) P2P sharing of unauthorized copyrighted works as "stealing" is absolutely correct.
I find this little personal observation interesting. In the SF bay area, there are 3 major music, stores which have more than one location (Yes, I am intentionally excluding the SF Virgin Megastore).
They are Tower, Amoeba, and Rasputin. Most of the time if there is something odd, eclectic, esoteric music I'm looking for, I will occasionaly search in Tower, but most of the time I will find what I'm looking for at either Amoeba, or Rasputin. Amoeba and Rasputin have a HUGE Indie and Used stock and usually a much more helpful staff. Also, if one look at the number of customers in these stores, compared to Tower, they are almost always full. Sure, Tower get's busy on the weekends, but Amoeba and Rasputin seem to be busy all the time. These places are where those who are actually looking for "new" or "Different" music shop. Sure, they also carry the modern, popular stuff, but their real treasure is in the things you wont find at Tower.
Also, the CD prices are usually less than Tower's.
Wake up RIAA and MPAA. Embrace change, and don't rely on cookie cutter formulas for music anymore!
"Chemestry is Physics without thought. Mathematics is Physics without purpose."
Most of my CD purchases are done online these days. I have afast enough connection that I'd rather download the MP3s than wait the days+ until I can get delivery.
As far as I can see, the music industry as we know and hate it is doomed. We don't need them. Anyone can make music, burn CDs, put up a website and sell them. Distributors will come to the party soon enough.
All we lose is the saturation media bombing to promote the latest 15-minute megastar. Well, darn.
The movie industry is in a stronger position - at least for the time being. You can't get some friends together and make The Lord of the Rings, no matter how much creative talent you have. And I still enjoy going to the movies with my friends and munching popcorn and seeing it all on the big screen.
The MPAA still needs to be clubbed senseless, though. Maybe we can get some out-of-work seal trappers on the case.
The RIAA has asked Rep. Berman (D-CA and entertainment industry monkey) to amend their recently proposed bill to include web media outlets including Salon.com . Asked if this decision was brought about by Salon's recent article dismissing the impact Napster had on the recording industry, RIAA spoksperson, M. Stalin, replied "It has everything to do with it. This kind of libel provokes terrorism in the form of music piracy. We intend to defend our country in the only manner we can: shutting down irresponsible media."
In the perfect RIAA world there will be one radio station RIAARADIO and one video station RIAATV which continually play the same single song/video by the RIAATones (the only band in the world) 24/7 and charge $2.99 per minute to watch or listen. Anyone who wants to hear music will listen to The RIAATones. A licence will be required to play music in your own home or sing in the shower (licenses will sell for 14 cents per note per listener direct from authorized RIAA agents of which there will be only one) Concerts will cease to exist.
The point is that P2P created a very organic decentralized method for being exposed to new music. It leveled the playing field and created a distribution network that effectively cut record companies out of the loop. Suddenly listenership was determined more by the quality of music than the quantity of exposure. This is old news but we're finally starting to see the real impact of an industry that's struggling to promote a single genre of music to a single audience for the sake of maximum control. The result: music that truly sucks.
The article hits the nail on the head when it points out that the music industry is choking itself by keeping out the "barbarian hoardes" trying to create fresh music and media. In recent years, the industry's trump card (access to powerful means of production, distribution, and promotion) have all fallen into the hands of the artists themselves. It's no longer necessary to get a recording contract in order to make a studio quality recording, have it pressed to some expensive medium, and then distributed around the world on trucks. If your fans are savvy enough [geeky enough] and your music is good enough, then you can record it in your bedroom and drop it on your filesharing program of choice, or a website, or burn it to cd and pass it amongst your friends or whatever, and be heard by thousands of people in a matter of weeks. Like the people who delivered coal to homes until gas-lines were put in, the recording industry is now obsolete thanks to overwhelming adoption of new technology. There is certainly a role for record companies if they're willing to move quickly to find ways to embrace the new technology for their own benefit.....but I think it'll be a cold day in hell when that happens.
In the mean time, the moral of the story is this: make your own music. Support those who do make their own music. Buy directly from artists (as others have suggested) Share the music that doesn't suck with other fans. Revolutionize the entertainment industry and leave the entertainment industry out of it.
There are plenty of great musicians around and plenty of phenominal music in the world but there's no way for it to flow through the current constapated system engendered by the RIAA to actually get to anyone's ears. This is the true reason for the sucess of P2P music distribution. Variety, personalization, customization. And this is the true reason that internet radio was killed. It terrified the RIAA to think that people could simply tune into a radio station and hear exactly what they wanted to listen to without buying CDs. Imagine that. Platters of plastic no longer necessary.... but that's another rant.
Thanks for reading. Go find some music that doesn't suck and tell me about it.
What Napster did was "filesharing", in the traditional and well-known networking sense: A given file was placed on a network and made accessible to others on the network. Or are you morally opposed to MS Windows "share folder" mechanism, too?
;)
No, because it wasn't explicitly designed to capitalize on others ripping off artists (though also, by happy coincidence, ripping off crap corporate entities like the **AAs)
As I said in another post, you're right, it's NOT stealing or piracy, just as much as it's not really *sharing* either. It's copyright violation, which is something related to theft, but not the same, as it doesn't deprive the original author of the property itself. What's needed is a concise term for that sort of thing, as "copyright violation" is a mouthful, and covers too broad a range - some copyrights are bullshit, like Disney's proposals to extend copyright to infinity, ie: no Public Domain-ing of works, ever. Unfortunately, I don't think such a term is forthcoming... people are generally too polarized on the issue to agree on a non-polarized term for the kind of copyright violations that occur on p2p networks.
If someone took GPL code but violated the license, well, that would breach-of-contract and also copyright infringement -- both well-defined crimes but neither "stealing".
I know that, but some people think of it that way, and I was trying to provoke thought rhetorically, and at the same time, amuse myself with a little flamebait.
The Free desktop that Just Works
I think you missed my point, too. That comment wasn't aimed at you, obviously. My point was that the people that bitch endlessly about the RIAA, but then go and DOWNLOAD RIAA music anyhow, are hypocrites and are ruining the potential of p2p for legit uses by invoking the unholy wrath of the RIAA/MPAA on *everyone*.
The Free desktop that Just Works
I have not seen any studies that tried to measure the elasticity of demand for music, but since there are not many new companies offering music at this price, I doubt it is 1. It is probably between, 1.5 and 2 over that large a price range. Things that are not neccessities are unlikely to have elasticities below 1 (meaning you spend more of your income on them as prices increase, food staples are a good example of this) and as you move toward the extreems of demand curves constant elasticites do not hold. (Demand curves become more elastic as you lower prices, because you usually don't need an infinite number of anything.)
Also, music still isn't free to produce, if you release 5 times as much music, its going to cost you five times as much to produce. While production costs are still low, that much of an increase is going to eat into your profits. Keep in mind the only part of the overhead you removed with online distribution was the wholesale and retail parts, while they are costly, they are not 75% of the cost of your music. You would probably have to buy more than 100 songs before profits would be similar.
I think online distribution is only really an improvment for less known groups that already have low enough overhead that $0.25 per song is enough to provide a reasonable profit.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Big Business not getting their fair profits? Boo-fucking-hoo...
Agreed completely, but...
I'm not saying it's ok to download copyrighted music because the music biz sucks, but until sanity is restored, my rights as a consumer are protected, and the artists get their fair shake, I say fuck 'em.
And by "fuck 'em", I assume you mean, "I'll download their shit anyhow and not give the sods a red cent!" I wish I could go along with this, but I can't. Even though they rip the artists off, it's still breaking the law, and instead of getting a meager proportion of that sale, when people just *take* it without paying for it, that GUARANTEES the artist gets NOTHING instead. This just turns bad into worse! I'm not for putting up with it, either, but my point is: two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong ethically, and it's wrong practically too. When you pit a (somewhat justified) law breaking public againt moneyed scumbags that ARE in the scope of the law, guess who wins? It's not us...
The Free desktop that Just Works
"Fair Use" is not stealing, for all the reasons
you state. However, the definition of "stealing" as defined in the english language as used in the US is much broader that you might try to ignore. Please checkout www.webster.com and what you will find is:
"1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice"
"1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
"1 d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"
so, the courts have already ruled that P2P systems violate copyright by unauthorized distribution and the those downloading are willfully in violation since they have absolutely no "fair use" claim.
In the definition of stealing, the community involved in illegal distribution of copyrighted works, is in clear conformance with all three of the definitions above, so "stealing" is absolutely the correct term for this act.
Metal Blade distributes the mighty lamb of god and GWAR,so they can't be all bad...
> > It is much easier to download something than to go to the store and pay for it.
> I think the "easier" part is the crux of the issue.
Actually, a big part of the US economy is built on a "go shopping" culture. A lot of the sales of music, clothes, etc. is driven by a culturally driven desire to go out, spend some money, bring something home in a bag, and show it off to your friends. It's not clear that downloading will have much appeal to the "habitual shopper" crowd.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You think they care? Take a comment by a supposed Congressional Staffer a couple months ago. If that doesn't show you the contempt in which they hold their voters I don't know what will. He who can buy the most congressmen/women wins, and if they destroy the rights of the voters, who cares.
I hope it changes, because I personaly hope that my forefathers gave their lives for more than this, the rampant pursute of money and power.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
"To Do Is To Be" - Socrates, "To Be Is To Do" - Sartre, "Do Be Do Be Do" - Sinatra
Sue anyone and anything vaguely threatening to your line of business
i got hooked on Waits a long time ago, the only thing i downloaded was his club perfomances, bootlegs can t be found in the store
;; mms://stream04.pandora.be/stubrubreed. be
:-)
want really good music? surf over to
www.jazzfm.com
there s a lot of stations out there...
Belgian radio
www.stubru
peace out
The Awful Truth
"That said, dare to challenge your views! And feel free to mod me down, bitches! I have no fear of /. hypocricy!"
I'd mod you down as Flamebait if I could. You over-simplified a well-known situation and twisted it into an attack.
If there was any legitimate point to what you were saying, your solution wouldn't be so simple. Frankly, I think the GPL comment you made was icing to earn karma.
"Derp de derp."
"You can't honestly tell me they were trying to capitalize on legal trading."
Yes they were. They created an audience ready to acquire music. If the RIAA had any intelligence, they would have taken advantage of this, charged modest prices, and let the money roll in. Napster would have become a promotional tool that the RIAA would pay $$$ to keep running.
Let me be clear about something: Before you tell me I'm wrong, tell me how Napster could have possibly made money off of people illegally trading files.
"Derp de derp."
Artists can still earn money, by releasing the perfect copies (as opposed to low quality demos) only after sale. File-sharing does not make it impossible to sell music - even without copyright.
www.digitalartauction.com
.
Not that the RIAA will ever read this (are you reading this Hilary Rosen?) but here is an interesting thing that crossed my mind: I bought the System of a Down CD at Tower Hollywood last week for $17.99. It is an hour long CD that took the guys from the band a reported 13 days in the studio to make.
Contrast
I also bought 'The Fellowship of the Ring' DVD at the same store for $19.99. For a measly two dollars more I got a three hour DVD epic and possibly one of the greatest movies ever made not to mention the over two and a half hours of extras that came on the second DVD.
Thought
Did it ever cross anybody's mind that it cost over $100 million dollars to produce market and distribute 'The Fellowship of the Ring' yet it probably cost the recording studio that produced, marketed, and distributed the System CD under $20 million dollars to do the same thing, yet, the CD costs $2 less than the movie i purchased. That is totally ridiculous. THAT is why I never buy CD's. THAT is why I have a DVD collection of over 400 DVDs yet I only own maybe 30 CD's. Truth be told...if I want entertainment at home...I'd rather watch a movie anyways. If I'm in the car...I put on KROQ (its free ya know).
Record companies are greedy conniving bastards who screw over the bands and entertainers they sign by not sharing as much of the profits as they should and then turn around and screw over the people they are trying to entertain by raising the prices so high that nobody will buy the music and when they do...they see absolutely no reason why not to share it with their friends. Just a thought, but maybe when 256 million fans are screaming that music is overpriced and not worth the investment you would realized that your business practices are old, antiquidated, and generally repellant to the public you are pushing them on.
But thats just my opinion!
Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
It wont happen. Theyre too firmly entrenched with too much money and too much to lose.
Candle Makers didnt complain when Thomas Edison made the light bulb.
Railroad industries didnt complain when the airplane was made.
Neither of my two examples resorted to thuggery to protect them selves. Change or Die. Simple darwinism
I heard a new twist on the "because they put out crappy CDs" theory, a theory that, interestingly enough, came from a friend who is lawyer for one of the big five record labels. She said the reason CD sales are being hurt by file-sharing (a premise I dispute, but, anyway) is that the labels are putting out CDs with one or two "hit" tunes and eight fillers. Naturally, most listeners would rather just have the hits, and they don't want to pay for the schlock. So, they go to Kazaa/Napster/Gnutella etc., get the one or two songs and don't have any interest in hearing the other tunes. Just passing along the theory of someone in the biz.
I really don't listen to music that much. However, I talked to my music junkie friends with their 200 plus cd's. And even now after I installed both a cdrw drive and broadband for them- they still say that they buy more cd's than they download music on the internet, and even if they get the entire album online they still buy it. I asked why and they couldn't tell me.... I wonder if it is like this for the majority of people?
you're forgetting the 4th type of consumer: The consumer who bought a CD they never would have, but for the fact that they heard it on napster....
There's an author who gives away his books online... his sales have increased since he started, ergo (always wanted to use that word) piracy INCREASES sales....
but, as you so succinctly point out, piracy can also decrease sales. Now, the question is, CD sales started climbing a FULL YEAR after I had even heard of napster, is this because of napster, or in spite of it? and now napster has been around for a while, but people have noticed a lot of draconian policies come to light. Was it these policies or napster that has caused the decline in sales?... or was it just the economy and really neither of the previous two... either way, your statement is at LEAST as full of shit as it's parent comment.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
King Crimson did the same with their label, Discipline Global Mobile. (They're not just King Crimson any more, either. I believe that John Paul Jones of Led Zeppelin has signed up with them, too.)
A look at their business aims is quite instructive as it sums up what they think is wrong with the rest of the industry.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Well of course it's flamebait. Duh. It was trolling satire of the sadly frequent attitude of "Fuck the man! I want Free Beer! The world owes me, dammit!", seen here on /. that oversimplifies just as badly as my *intentional* oversimplification. It was meant partly as thought provocation and partly as my own entertainment. >;-)
The Free desktop that Just Works
There are two big factors causing a decline in album sales:
The article states that over-40s are practically ignored by the media behemoths responsible for putting out most new music, but that that same age group is responsible for over forty percent of total cd sales. Why? Because the young people, the people who know how to get what few songs they hear on the radio for free, have virtually no reason to go buy the albums that are being put out.
Just one lowly geek's opinion.
i now buy more music than i used to. i've been exposed to many more artists through mp3's. while i dont really use p2p networks (im a net news fan myself). there are entire genre's that i had never had a chance to listen to and never would have listened to if it hadnt been for p2p networks. i've also introduced many friends to music with my mp3's (i've converted/am converting my entire collection). they too have purchased cd's they never would have. simple (admittedly anecdotal) evidence.
-- john
Quoting the introduction:
"Labels are in trouble, and it's not from file sharing. To tap into $2 billion in new revenues, they must let people find, copy, and pay for music on their own terms."
Free as in speech, but not as in beer. Not that beer is ever really free...
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Ah!
I find your honesty refreshing! Heh.
You musta laughed your ass off when you got a +1 heh.
"Derp de derp."
I could make a software analogy: if the software industry was to do no more profit, I'm sure you could still find programs hacked by people who really have a passion for what they do.
If RIAA dies, does it really matter? I have a (small I know) collection of maybe 100 CDs, last time I checked none of the music labels were part of the RIAA (maybe for 2 CDs, where the band got bigger...) Most of those bands can't live only with their music. Not because of so-called piracy. But they still get together often enough to play a lot of shows every month, because they love what they do. They don't have the million of dollars of RIAA puppets, but they do what they love, and it shows through their music. :P
Thank you very much
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
'Appropriate' does, however, in fact mean to take possession of something in an exclusive fashion (exclusive property being the privileged form of property in current thought), so if you take 'steal' to be in either of the two senses above in which it is defined in terms of appropriation, then you could certainly argue that the poster to whom you responded was justified in holding that (unauthorized) duplication of a copyrighted work does not constitute stealing in that it does not involve appropriation (taking of exlusive ownership) but rather the opposite of appropriation.
& db =%2A]
[http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=appropriate
I had an interesting experience the other day when I was reorganizing CDs on my shelves. I accidentaly dropped the recent Daft Punk album. Nothing broke, but a credit-card looking thing previously affixed to the CD case popped out. It had a serial number on it and the URL www.daftclub.com. I thought...cool, didn't see this when I bought it...and I browsed over to DaftClub where using the card + serial number I got access to special remixes, live recordings, and other media. I can't say all the media available was great, but it was a neat little experience to have access to mp3s and get to know the musicians a little better.
Now nothing technically prevents me from copying those tracks over on a P2P network. There's also very little to stop me from sharing my DaftClub # with anyone else.
But the point is that the music industry needs to be a bit more creative like this and give customers more than a plastic disc. A band is a lot more than the album/CD they put out, and some go through great lengths to express themselves through CD liners, posters, stickers, membership clubs (like DaftClub) and other things.
Sasha's new album also has the same thing. You can't get into the special members only area of his website without having purchased his album which comes with a serial code.
I wish more artists would follow suit.
Are from CDs that I wouldnt buy otherwise. So the RIAA is getting free exposure in my room for artists that normally wouldnt be featured here. I still buy about a cd a month. I would buy more if current music didnt suck so much.
We are currently experimenting with an OpenMedia policy in our record label to try to break more musicians and also to let the music be free. No idea how it will go but would really appreciate support and comment from Slashdotters...
locarecords.com
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
They're saying that they aren't buying as many or more discs. That doesn't mean they're buying NONE. Important distinction.
.0627 * X
If 6.27% of the market is buying less discs due to downloading, the total sales will drop
where X is the proportion of CDs they're not buying that they would have otherwise. If X is 0.1 or 0.5 even, it's insufficient to blame the big nasty Internet boogeyman for this.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
BAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAA!!! When Napster was alive, I was downloading like nuts and buying CDs like nuts. Now that it's dead, I don't get anywhere near the wide sampling of music that's out there so I simply don't buy CDs anywhere near the volume that I used to. Argue it all you want, Napster made me buy more. The RIAA killed it's own golden goose.
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
Why, thank you!
;-)
Actually I figured I'd get modded up at least once - it was flamebait, but I figured it was satirical enough to get +1, Funny... but not +1, Insightful. THAT'S comedy.
The Free desktop that Just Works
One of the more interesting things going on right now is how free access to information makes the entertainment monopolies a bit obsolete.
What might be going on here is the death of the celebrity star system. The RIAA is having trouble making people believe they need the latest and greatest from Britney Spears, et al. Is this just a sign of her ending 15 minutes of fame or perhaps something more? Non-mainstream music is very accessible today, especially compared to when I was in High School living in the suburbs ten years ago. Is it any surprise that music fans are dropping mainstream interests for something better and cheaper? Hello 10 dollar albums and 8 dollar concerts.
I'm seeing small signs pointing in this direction everywhere in the media. Failed advertising campaigns which probably would have worked 15 years ago. Shrewd consumers telling Madison Avenue to fuck off, just check out the reaction to Maxim's hair dye for men. Socially conscious people voting with their dollars.
As publishing and information becomes cheaper and freerer the old figureheard/celebrity system will become obsolete. Its going to be hard to care about a Gwenyth Paltrow interview on TV when people begin to see her as just an actor and not a cultural figure.
So, can we give them what they want with a sunset provision and let them, and their lobbying money, die off like the dinosaurs they are? Poof, Voila, the bad law disappears and everyone is happy. Suddenly the digital age is back in full swing.
Or are you not confident that their business model is toast? Or will it take rampant copyright infringement to euthanize the dinosaurs? If you have to infringe on their materials for their business model to fail, doesn't that imply that it would succeed without the infringement?
But something just occurred to me that is probably blindingly obvious to everyone else.
Technologies such as the printing press, radio, television, and the Internet have substantially increased the "connectivity" of people and organizations over the last buncha centuries.
Over that entire period, there has never really been a society that has been able to completely "stamp out" casual, unauthorized sharing of information between friends and neighbors. (Sure, some have tried: totalitarian regimes, communist regimes, and so on.)
That's because it's a hard problem -- asymptotically hard to stop sharing of information as you approach the "solidarity" of components of the communications matrix, i.e. neighbors physically close to each other (they can hear each other play music), friends and family who enjoy and trust each other enough to visit each other, and so on.
Put these two things together and, so far, all you have is what everyone else has been saying for awhile: "it's the new communications technologies that have enabled more and easier sharing of information of various shades -- white [legal], black [illegal & dangerous], and gray [illegal as a matter of law in that it infringes someone else's intellectual privilege]".
What just hit me is that the copyright cartels -- in fact, everyone who has any interest in holding copyright, patent, or trademark privilege (a term I use in lieu of "rights", which connotes something with which I'm uncomfortable) -- also enjoy the same kinds of improvements in ease, frequency, and amount of intercommunication as a result of these technological improvements.
For example, sure, FTP, email, chat, P2P, and so on make it much easier for 15-year-olds to have a vastly wider collection of "friends" with whom to share illegally copied music, but the same underlying technologies correspondingly enable the RIAA, MPAA, and all its members (artists, studios, movie houses, whatever) to communicate rapidly and effectively among its members, to increase its audience of members, and so on.
Given that fact, I'm now even less sympathetic to the argument that government should be in the business of assisting copyright holders in creating artificial scarcity in technology and its uses, by mandating digital-rights-management systems, by shutting down technologies like Napster, and so on, since there seems to be no corresponding limitations placed on copyright holders to not use these same technologies as effectively.
In essence, I'm coming more around to the view I've seen others propose, a sort of survival-of-the-fittest-user-of-new-technology view, that the government should leave the various players free to employ and exploit the technologies, and let market forces and the rule of law (a simpler, more practical law by far than we have, and especially than the RIAA/MPAA/software-producers are urging, in the area of intellectual privilege) iron things out.
Over time, those seeking to protect copies of information will find ways to employ technological improvements to hunt down and bring prominent, profiteering infringers to justice, a resolution for which copyright law has long provided.
Meanwhile, "ordinary folk" who now "illegally" share their favorite music with hundreds or thousands of friends, thanks to technology, instead of 10 or 20 as they would have a century ago, will continue to be able to engage in this sort of under-the-radar, relatively unimportant (compared to what other things governments must deal with these days), sharing. As long as individuals aren't taking the kinds of steps needed to make such sharing profitable, they'd be extremely unlikely to be targeted for prosecution -- and their use of technology to make friends and share with them all sorts of things, including illegally copied stuff, wouldn't be artificially crippled by government serving as a massively-funded militia for the RIAA/MPAA.
While there will be short-term instances of one side "winning" over the other, just as is the case in any reasonably free market, the government would never be able to move rapidly enough to legislate the solution before the "balance of power" is restored due to what would be an ongoing, nonviolent arms race anyway, so why even go further down this path, and why not roll back what "we" have done already (get rid of the DAT tax, any legal mandates for stuff like SCMS)?
In my opinion, it is much more important for our civilization (worldwide) that we let people freely use technology to make and keep new friends, using the wide variety of common interests that have worked for millenia, rather than seek to shut down certain types of interactions that by no stretch of the imagination pose a direct threat to civilization.
So if the RIAA, MPAA, and other copyright holders seeking to short-circuit technological progress and availability to the public, to protect their own "turf", want to have their way, we should insist that our government restrain them correspondingly by crippling their use of technology -- as a simple example, say "fine, if you don't let ordinary people buy computers that can freely copy information because it might contain music, then you can no longer use computers in your business at all".
(In general, I think if government legislators were empowered to impose greater restrictions on those seeking its power to restrict others without blindingly obvious cause, and expected to use that power, we'd see much less abuse of government, especially in ways that translate directly into abuse, or removal, of our own freedoms.)
But that's not going to happen -- it's just a "mind experiment" I find useful to play with myself when considering how I might want to limit someone else's freedoms to serve my own interests. (Which is why I've pretty much ended up in the libertarian camp; there's not much, in the form of behaviors in which people engage, that I'm willing to sacrifice my own property or life to prevent people engaging in. But that's just because I, personally, would rather live in a world with, say, more marijuana users than risk dying trying to win a war on drugs; others would certainly make different choices using the same "razor" to consider them. Imposing one's will on others is so much easier, and therefore so thoughtlessly engaged in, when one doesn't expect to ever face the hard task of the imposition itself, given one's access to government and other forms of policing.)
In summary, the rising tide of technology lifts all boats, so government interference in the form of trying to deny billions of "little boats", representing ordinary people sharing music and software with friends, their opportunity to rise with the tide, ultimately amounts to trying to selectively block a rising tide -- a futile attempt to block its benefits for the many while allowing it for just a few of the big boats (the RIAA, MPAA, SPA, and their members). The damage such a misguided effort, in an actual ocean, with nearly unlimited funds would likely do to the little boats and the harbor itself (imagine what sorts of approaches today's $Trillion governments and the means to acquire more funding by force would likely be encouraged to try), parallels what the government is likely to do to billions of innocent people and the civilization that cradles those governments if it follows the path it's been on for 10+ years now and heeds the recommendations of the copyright cartels.
(I realize this idea boils down to "let the free market rather than government intervention decide", which is a very old idea. Sorry about that; sometimes very old ideas are the best ones we have. And, in practice, it's going to happen anyway; I'm arguing mainly for limiting the scope, timeframe, and amount of the damage done by fruitlessly trying to legislate and prosecute the kind of sharing of information that is not directly harmful to copyright holders and the public.)
I think it's reasonable to conclude that if government had the integrity to "Just Say No" to restricting the public's use of technology when organizations like the RIAA and MPAA came to them, hat (and $$) in hand, those organizations would long ago have figured out how to employ advancing technology to better serve their interests.
(For one thing, instead of being run by lawyers, maybe they'd be run by people who actually understand and cherish technology as well as the forms of art they try to protect.)
In that scenario, maybe, just maybe, their members would be having more fun producing great art and appreciating the profits they do earn, and spending less time resenting the general public for using technology to do the exact sorts of things their predecessors have done for generations, just with lots more speed, frequency, and bandwidth.
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
whatever happened too....
Metallica?!?
uh..?
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
No, not hardly. Mos Def and Talib Kweli did put out a (very) good album together, but it's conscious rap (think Common or Blackalicious here), nothing mind-bogglingly evolutionary and aware like Public Enemy was and is.
Maybe you meant to say El-P is this generation's Public Enemy? Again, not quite apt lyrics-wise (no one these days can touch Chuck D at his prime in terms of politically intelligent rap) but production-wise, he's the obvious heir to the Bomb Squad's legacy of boundary-pushing.
And why listen to the White Stripes when you can listen to Bill Kirchen instead? He puts out ridiculously good blues-informed honky-tonk/rock 'n roll. Trust me.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Actually, thats sort of the cheap price. If you check, you'll notice that freeware CDs do sell for about $2 (i.e. recordings of famous symphonies where the artists made the album to gain exposure and nothing else).
But CD makers do have other costs. The price of marketing, the music videos, the failed artists (that would be the number one cost), and the high price of artists. While I'm sure they make money, I'm not quite sure that they would at the $2 price. Perhaps its time for music to become less marketed, and music stars to be paid less.
To me, it seems justified. In a society where modern recording equipment can be purchased (which works nearly as well as a studio) for about $500, and CDs can be made and distributed for cheap, and a large portion of society (at least 1%) is capable of some form of musical ability of their own, demand for paid musicians shouldn't be that high (based upon law of supply and demand).
Somehow...I am not even sure that it is. I've met a lot more talented musicians than I've seen or heard from the "outlets" (and as a lifelong sound tech and singer, I'm somewhat qualified to identify talent; at least vocal talent), barring a handful of exceptions. But I don't think any of those were nearly as attractive as todays singers. Perhaps the music industry could cut prices by distributing good music for cheap, and showing Pr0n stars in the videos rather than the singers.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
If you think the fact that someone trades data is proof that the data has some aspect of quality, then you simply do not understand the draw of illicit data. It doesn't mater if the data is warez, credit card listings, music, or bomb recipes. The draw is that the data in question is illicit... forbidden knowledge... prohibited... or otherwise illegal to own.
Think Eminem is an untalented idiot and his music is audio tripe? That's not the point. The point is that YOU got a copy of his recent album before it was even RELEASED. There's a brand new game that you'll constantly rant bout sucking... but you've got a copy of it in your collection. And whether you know how to use AutoCAD, much less have a desire to ever install it, isn't as important that you HAVE a copy of it.... cracked and dongle-less.
When I was a kid, I used to collect bomb instructions. I was convinced a large portion of it was created by people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous - to the unfortunate who followed the instructions. I never had any interest in actually creating any of the devices and substances described. But it was forbidden data - and I had a lot of it. And that idea alone appealed to me.
Sure. Some people who collect bomb instructions want to make bombs. Some people who download music see value in that music. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of file trading is simply a combination of packrat behavior and the thrill of handling illicit data.
Certainly not to blame -- but still blatantly illegal.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Good, new music is out there. You like a social/political bent? Go grab Sleater-Kinney's new One Beat, it's phenomenal. Or Wilco's Yankee Foxtrot Hotel, which should be on every geek's playlist simply due to its strange release history (streamed for free for months before it was released, then debuted at #2!).
// I will show you fear in a handful of jellybeans.
When I can get any cd I want for 10 bucks + shipping/tax I'll start buying again. The whole mp3 thing turned me into a CD buying freak! And then the industry started jacking up the prices I stopped buying dead in my tracks. I hope the entire record industry takes a huge dump and they have to start over from scratch.
Norman Spinrad predicted this in his incredible novel Little Heros in which the music industry was able to generate artificial personalities to become music performers. They found that they could (based on market research) create a program that would sell to a large number of consumers every time, but... they found that while they had many large sellers they were never any super-mega popular bands... everything became generic.
There are benefits to owning a properly-mastered CD. No matter what people say, CD-R's aren't as durable. Plus, I really enjoy buying the case for the artwork and music info. A 48 CD case full of black-Sharpie-on-white-Verbatim CD's gets on my nerves after a while.
Finally, I too have bought CD's from artists I would not have before. But I have also NOT purchased albums from artists because they sucked much harder than I thought they would. And I have 20 or 30 friends in the same boat.
I support the bands I like by going to shows and buying clothes and stuff from them.
I don't buy cds much at all. More often than not when I do actually end up deciding to trek out to a store to buy a piece of plastic they either don't (and won't) have what I want or are sold out. I don't burn cds either. Only place I listen to music is at my computer so mp3s are natural, first thing I do with a new cd is rip it.
What we really need is a sort of system I was discussing with a friend where there are a few central databases with all songs in very high quality format. Ogg Vorbis, very high bitrate mp3, whatever. All cd stores have a satellite connection (fast dl crappy uploadwhich you don't use anyway) to the closest database mirror and burn the music themselves. No more "we don't have that sorry" and no more "we're all out we're getting more next week". You could just walk in and ask for the lastest cd by whoever or come in with a list of every song you want. Billing should be easy because all the info would come from the database with the song.
Anyway that was just my rant on a utopian music system. Will probably ever happen. =(
"We must all be alike. Not everyone born free and equal, as the Constitution says, but everyone made equal."
I don't really have a problem with you liking BS, or the other pop music groups/people. Your tastes are your own, enjoy them.
However, I have to disagree with your comment about the 80s music stations. Or, rather, "classic rock" stations. More specifically, the Clear Channel classic rock stations.
They are very nearly as limited in their playlists as the Top 40s and pop music stations are. I used to like Pink Floyd. I spent too much time listening to the local classic rock station. I can't stand hearing Dark Side of the Moon any more. They didn't play it every day (I think)... but I heard it 20 times a month, at a minimum. I can only take that so long.
I've stopped listening to music on the radio, mostly. I've switched over to NPR, and a local college station that plays mostly classical stuff.
How do I hear new music now? I mostly don't, unless a friend sends me an mp3. My CD buying has gone down a lot. If I'm going to listen to the same stuff recycled over and over again... I'll listen to my own CDs, and not have to put up with radio ads.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Hmm, I didn't "take" or "appropriate" anything. I simply arranged bits on my hard drive to match what someone else had. I did not disturb, nor remove their bits.
Not stealing.
Try again.
Try that with a real business connection. Say a T3.
A T3 is 45mbit/sec, and costs about $20,000 per month.
Assuming you actually have it running at 50% utilization 24 hours a day... (Couldn't tell you what a reasonable utilization is, but for this I'd hope it would be closer to 80%...)
22.5mbit/sec * 60 seconds/minute * 60minutes/hour * 24hours/day * 30days/month
That's 58,320,000 megabits in a month. Divide by 8 to get megabytes... 7,290,000 megabytes/month.
I'd like some decent quality songs... 256kbps MP3s. If I'm going to pay for them, I want them good.
Side Note: Personally, I'd rather get them at 3 quality levels, for the same price. 128kbps for my mp3 player in the gym, where the background noise makes that bitrate acceptable. 256kpbs for my crappy PC speakers in an otherwise quiet environment, and 320kbps for burning to an audio cd for listening to in the car.
But I'll leave it at 256kpbs MP3s. That's about 8MB per song. 7,290,000 megabytes/month divided by 8MB/song
That's 911,250 songs per month, for $20,000 in bandwidth costs.
Or about 2.2 cents per song in bandwidth costs.
If you do my 3 versions for the same price... that increases to about 6 cents per song in bandwidth costs.
Is that reasonable, when selling a song for 25 cents? I dunno, you tell me.
I assume someone will tell me if I made a silly math error.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
When did this become the day of "let the marketplace decide"???
The software industry wants UCITA.
The power companies want to be allowed to ignore the Clean Air Act.
The Big 3 Detroit auto makers are trying to ignore fuel economy requirements in cars.
Major airlines have how many billions in government-guaranteed loans? (Of course, this industry has been losing money since it started 70 years ago.)
When was the last time you saw a major highway building contract awarded without bribes and kickbacks?
At least the media companies aren't alone in *not* wanting to let the marketplace decide. *Everyone* gets special treatment. That's the whole point in buying congressmen. Well, okay, renting them for a little while.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
The problem is that most of these bands put out one good or great album, for which they receive enormous exposure, but follow-up albums are substantially less impressive (Alanis Morissette). This is particularly common with bands that have a particular sound or style that works, but then don't vary that sound or style at all. Then there are bands that could have been great, but broke up because they couldn't agree on what their sound should be (GNR). If a band can constistently put out good music, it doesn't matter how much exposure they get; people will still want to buy their records (U2).
I'm 23 years old - exactly the demographic the RIAA is trying to sell to, and I have a confession to make. I actually ENJOY top-40 music. Yes, hear Nelly and Kelly sing Dilemma and I crank up the bass and enjoy it.
I'm not looking for a zen-like experience or heartfelt emotional lyrics, I just want a good beat and a good sound. It's entertainment just entertainment, people - different strokes for different folks. I don't buy into the whole story that the "Clear Channel monopoly" is the cause of "new" acts or sounds being overlooked. Have you ever heard of Daniel Beddingfield before "Gotta get through this" hit the charts? What about the "A little less conversation" Eminem vs Elvis remix done by a DJ at a Clear Channel station? These are just examples, but I've been exposed to plenty of new acts and music by both the radio as well as the Internet.
I'm not saying pop radio is the end-all-be-all of music, I'm just saying that some people actually enjoy it as much as you enjoy your indie music (or maybe you're a pop fan as well!).
So I enjoy the music, why am I not buying albums? I'll be quite honest, I'm mostly just interested in singles. I know it's been said like a broken record on here (pun intended) but if I could pay $.50 or so per download for a high-quality professionally made MP3, I'd be more than happy to. Throw copy protected formats into the mix and that sweet deal becomes sour... Leave the music in an open format.
Have I purchased any albums lately? Yes, I bought Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory album a few months ago. When I discover I like more than just the promotional airplay singles, *then* I consider purchasing the entire album. In this effect, without p2p file sharing, I'd have no way of knowing if an album was all filler and would actually purchase *less* albums as a result.
If you compare Billboard's top-40 to Kazaa search results, it's easy to see why music trading is so popular. Many people (including myself) do not believe that downloading an MP3 of a current promotional single that is played constantly on the radio constitutes ANY kind of theft. How many people are there with enough disposable income to purchase an entire $18.99 album just to listen to maybe 2 popular tracks and take a gamble on the rest? If the RIAA's current sales figures are honest about anything, it's that the rest of the population who AREN'T using P2P filesharing AREN'T willing to take that gamble.
---
Siggy, siggy, siggy, can't you see? Sometimes your puns just irritate me.
I could buy a DVD for that much! Full digital 5.1 audio that is over 2 hrs long! Whats a $15 Audio CD provide? 60 mins of stereo music... Joy.. Their business model has DIED, they need to start selling Audio CDs for $5 to sell them.
I find the value of a CD is a lot greater than the value of a DVD. I spend more hours / day listening to music then I do watching DVDs. Infact, I probably listen to music *every* day, but I don't watch a DVD everyday, not even close.
So, you pay $15 and you listen to your CD hundreds of times. You pay $15 and you watch your DVD 5 times? 10 times? 20 times? It's an order of magnitude difference.
On the other hand, DVDs are a significant improvement in value over VHS. So in the case of the motion picture industry, they can still turn out crappy movies all they want, because they're making hella cash off the people converting to their new splendid format.
They probably buy it because they think, sub-consciously, it'll help the artist. Most people are pretty decent that way...
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
You're right for the most part. I think a lot of people would do the right thing, but you have to make it super easy and super benefical to them in doing so. "Free" is a tough bargain to beat, however, especially when the consumer already thinks they're being reipped off.. How do you combat it? You have to provide something the pirates (speaking as one) can't.
Unregulated P2P Benefits
1) Free music
2) No restrictions on media use
3) Massive archive (user supported)
Nothing "the Man" is willing to field right now can stand against any of that, because their systems are the total anti-thesis of what people want. The music costs, there are normally assnine restrictions place on it's use and the archive is limited to whatever the specific label supports. It's like they're not even trying to compete. If they want to win this, they need to play off the weaknesses of the current unregulated P2P models...
1) Pop-ups, spyware and banners.
2) Marginal connections to service and downloads (slow, need more sources, etc)
3) Questionable quality (partial songs, poor quality, skipping, etc)
Like you, I still think people would do the right thing... If you showed them you were willing to work with them and not lighten their pocketbooks at every opportunity. I'd pay for a stable, reliable high speed connection whose songs were guaranteed to be what they say they are and were of a consistent quality. Nobody tracking my surfing, using my PC cycles, blasting me with banners, clogging my connection with other P2P connections. Pay my subscription, turn it on, download what I want and (most importantly) do whatever I want with it. No proprietary music formats here. If I quit my subscription, I still want to be able to read the magazines I bought. Of course, the labels would have to cooperate to get the most coverage of songs, even if they were on different systems... Maybe a slight increase for "importing" another labels songs.
I know, naive, wild-eyed visions of grandure...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
You are completely correct in your assessments.
The big problem is simple: The RIAA is acting as a cartel and engaging in what amounts to price fixing of audio Compact Discs.
Anyone who's taken a beginning course in microeconomics in college knows that the cartel model is exactly how the RIAA is running nowadays. Problem is, they priced CD's so high (like US$18 per album-length disc!) that there is just too much economic incentive to subvert the cartel, namely through music piracy. It's small wonder why audio CD sales are down: the RIAA has priced CD's out of the reach of the majority of consumers out there.
If the RIAA had just priced CD's at a more reasonable US$11 per album-length disc the incentive to pirate music would drop drastically.
This article may be the single best thing to come from Microsoft. It hasn't crashed yet, but I'm sure it's vulnerable to attack (by the RIAA).
It's great that you pay for what you have, but this will do nothing to solve the problem. The RIAA isn't going to change unless it has to, and the only way this will happen is to present the message in a format it can easily understand: no change, no money. Every time someone forks over their hard-earned money, they are providing the means that enable the RIAA to continue its assault on consumers of digital entertainment.
What is relevant is whether or not file copying is legal. If it isn't, no amount of moral pontificating makes it OK. It's illegal, end of story. This seems to have been missed.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
The media, especially in America, has been complaining of late about the decrease in music sales, and has been attributing this to the increase in use of file-sharing systems over the Internet. It cannot be denied that people are using these networks to obtain copyrighted files.
However, I maintain that this has little to do with the downturn in sales. Some defendants of the peer-to-peer filesharing networks claim that the general downturn in the market is sufficient explanation. I, however, maintain that this, too, is incorrect.
There was once a time when, if you heard a song on the radio, it meant that you could buy it in the shops. No longer is this the case. Tracks are released to radio stations months before they are released to the general public. It is admittedly possible to obtain promotional copies of tracks in some record shops before general release, but I do not call this making the track accessible to the public.
This is the problem: when a track is first heard on the radio, people think "I want that track". So they download it off the internet, because this is the only way they can obtain it that day. In the fierce competition between record labels to get their artists to obtain the most consecutive number ones, they do not realise that they have created a totally artificial structure; it worked for a while, it doesn't any more. People have, consciously or otherwise, realised that the media is over-hyping, over-playing and selling out every new and old artist on the block, and they're just not buying it any more.
To the record companies, I say this: Cry me a river, I still won't listen. You created this mess for yourselves, now find your own way out.
Some artists are true artists; they support anything which gives their music a wider audience. Some artists, like Janis Ian (www.janisian.com) have spoken out on this front. It is nice to see some genuine thought go into what the artists are saying: too many of them are saying "They're stealing our money". Given that "the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music" (www.riaa.org) but "the most important component of a CD is the artist's effort in developing that music" (www.riaa.org), I would dispute that. The artists are being heavily exploited by the recording industry.
It's time to stop that. It's time to move away from big-time capitalism controlled by a few big bosses. It's time to move towards a system where artists have more freedom - where an artist gains listenership through true brilliance, not through promotion; it's time to move to a system dominated by 'listening post' sites like mp3.com, where you can download mp3 tracks for free, then buy the rest of the album if you like what you hear. The artists will gain, because they will get more as a proportion of the total cost to the consumer of the CD. Smaller artists will get a greater chance to be heard, because radio stations will be able to take their pick of what they can play, and be unrestricted by royalty payments.
I live in the real world, so I know this will never happen. It's what the world needs, in order to greater appreciate music, and the wealth of talent that exists out there but is obscured by boy and girl bands.
Another issue that has been brought up lately is that of DVDs being copied. I'm not going to pretend that I know about how to copy a DVD. I do know that devices are being made available which make it easier to copy DVDs, albeit to inferior formats. The MPAA claims that this is reducing sales of DVDs. Yet, somehow, DVD sales are higher than ever before.
Once again, the finger can be squarely and solely pointed at the industry. DVDs are region-coded, which limits the playback of DVDs to players bought in the corresponding region. Some region-free players are available, however I believe these have been outlawed in America. Availability varies from country to country, and availability of import DVDs varies too. This is a feeble attempt by the MPAA to control the release of films, releasing films in the USA first, then across Europe. I know of several people who download films over the internet, because they are not yet available in the UK.
So, if the films were available in the UK at the same time as in the USA, this would cut down on the number of pirate downloads that would be going on. Everyone wants to be the first to see a film, and there is a lot of satisfaction to be gained by watching a film before it is released at the cinema. But this is the problem: if the only way to do this were in the cinema, you would have more people going to the cinemas. Not that too few people going to the cinemas is causing difficulties: record numbers of people went to the cinema in the UK in the last year.
What does this tell you? That the media are complaining about nothing, really. Rather than complaining, they need to reinvent the industry if they are having problems. I don't see, even if the number of downloads were to steadily increase year on year, that the record and film companies would be going out of business any time soon. It's the small companies, like FilmFour, not the big ones, like Warner Bros, Bertelsmann etc, who are having problems.
... Or maybe people are just buying less music because they're poor now? =) You know, the whole tech industry crash thing...
Alari
I use Windows... like a two dollar wh.. why don't I just go ahead and not finish that sentence.
Well in English that's equivalent to saying
'tell everyone that MSN is shit'
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Perhaps the record industry could improve their sales by making the CD's themselves worth having. At the moment, CD packaging is usually so lame and uninteresting that nobody cares if they don't have it. If artists would elevate their albums to complete packages with interesting materials and designs, people might feel the need to own the real deal. See the Rolling Stones' "Sticky Fingers" or Led Zeppelin III...
i guess i should provide more information :)
i agree completely with you. what file shareing has enabled me to do is find bands i would not hear on the more popular mediums: radio/tv. as a result most of the music i listen to comes from independent artists. while there are a few artists i like who are signed under an riaa label, most are not.
i've recently stopped purchasing music from artists signed under labels who are members of the riaa. at least i wont purchase them new. i have however purchased some used-do you have an opinion on this? i would also like to write some artists explaining my position to them. does anyone know where i can get addresses of different artists?
-- john
Obviously the "you listen to what we want you to listen" phase of America isn't completely out -- look at the runaway success of American Idol. *shudders* Did nobody see Josie and the Pussycats? (Read: yes, I'm joking.) The reason people aren't buying new CD's from old artists is a complete lack of metamorphosis. Look at Michael Jackson's Invincible. It's okay, but it's basically redone themes from Dangerous and Bad. People were expecting something revolutionary from him, and yet he's still singing with lyrics from the 80's. Here's a hint Michael, from a long time fan: people don't want to hear that you can't get girls any more, or that you're crying for children somewhere. NOBODY CARES. Your drum beats in tracks one and two are amazing, however. I think that the RIAA should stop shooting itself in the foot. What services like the late Napster and my current favorite LimeWire provide is FREE MARKET RESEARCH. Has the RIAA thought about paying these services for logs of music swapped by artist, year, genre, etc? It would be a gold mine. Instead of six bands that sound like 3 Doors Down/Nickelback (still can't tell the differnece between those two), we might get some heavy Goth Industrial, or an american release of a foreign album. Also, you could go further and see who swaps music in what region, send less copies of CD's to places where they wouldn't get bought, and adjust advertising accordingly. So with that kind of power coming from 10 different filesharing sources, I wonder why the RIAA is sueing instead of subsidizing. Nobody's going to use an RIAA-developed sharing service, but the RIAA can certainly use publically-available ones. That's just good capitalism.
- Cloud
Perhaps it's now time to file an anti-trust lawsuit against the recording industry. They're trying to cram pap that no one wants down our throats, and they are stifling innovation in the music industry by not letting us hear new and fresh sounds.
This is why internet streaming MP3 stations are so popular, because we can go out and look for what we want to hear, and try out new sounds that we haven't heard about.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
You realize, though, that if the $30 billion music industry folded, then cocaine dealers would be lobbying Congress for a bailout, citing their $30 billion in lost revenue.
Agreed. I regularly attend the BSO and performances at Jordan Hall. Excellent music and a good value. --M
I am 47, my son is 18. Both of has have a favorite band: Led Zeppelin. Where is the LZ of this generation ? That is why...
It's important to remember that an "artist's" CD is not the only product that we are paying for. Add to that cost the price of concert tickets, t-shirts, refrigerator magnets, whatever... We are gouged at every turn, given Cheez-Whiz in return, and we can't get enough. All of this is what makes it possible for low rent trash like P.Diddy or Celine Dion to spend insane amounts of money on platinum jewelry, ridiculous homes, and cars that cost twice what my 4 bedroom house is worth. Let's face it, these greedy cocksuckers are also to blame. How many CDs (at $20) do you have to sell to make back the $20 million you spent on studio time to make some asswipes like Creed sound like musicians? When calculating that, remember that after you cover that cost, you might like to make some money on the whole mess yourself... When all is said and done, these bloated, overpaid sacks of pus have run the costs up so high that there is little choice but to bend us over at the register. Read the performer contract riders over at http://www.thesmokinggun.com , it is truly sickening where the money goes when you pony up your dough to see a performance. On the whole, "pop" music is a sick, sad mess. I am all for people making a good living, but is it right that some boy band dipshit can afford a trip into space? Aren't monkeys cheaper/smarter/more fun? I'm getting off the track here... The RIAA is trying to protect their profits so they can pay off their greedy little stars, greedy little managers, lawyers, personal trainers, plastic surgeons... When Brittany Spears wants a talking pony, guess who has to pay for it... Guess where they get the money... Here's how to stop the madness: Don't buy Top 40 crap. Shop in independent/non-megachain stores. Support original bands playing small venues. Tell local radio stations that their payolalist sucks. Don't buy clothing that J Lo wears. Make these pricks less marketable by not following every stupid thing they do. Throw dogshit at them when they arrive at awards shows. Maybe I'm going too far. While we're at it, the same should apply to the other overpaid parasites that we can't go five minutes without hearing about... professional athletes. $700 million to play a game? All of these greedy parasites needs to go. The question for everyone should be "how much is enough?". I will stop now, before I start telling people to go all "Fight Club".
Someday a real rain is gonna come...
You know, in britain, after cars were invented, they passed a law that said that any vehicle going over 10 miles an hour (or some speed I don't remember exactly), need to be preceded by a man waving a flag in order to warn people. This legislation was created just to help the companies who made carriages stay in business. Simple darwinism. Even the law can't stop it.
Why not something like this:
Anything a year old or less, they don't offer digitally. (or they offer digitally, but you have to buy the whole album) Anything older than one year, you can get on MP3 per song. If it is 1-5 years old, it will cost you $0.50 per song. If it is 5 years old or older, it only costs $0.25 per song.
Set up a friggin website where you can buy the MP3s and download them. Go into the large music chains, like Virgin et al, and set up a "burning studio" where you can pick out however many songs you want, and they will burn them to CD for you, with a small overhead charge for the media and the burn. While you are waiting for your burn, you can browse the CDs of the new stuff that are for sale.
Bottom line, if people could easily get the music they want, they will pay a reasonable price for it. What good is all of the old Ratt, Trixster, and Cinderella stuff that is sitting there collecting dust? I'd like to hear that stuff again, but I am not going to pay $18 for their CDs.
I know there are technical issues with this plan, but technical issues can be overcome. Make the entire catalog searchable. Have preset categories, like "all the top10 songs for each month during 1985". The interest in music would skyrocket. Make getting music "legally" worthwhile, and people will pay for it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
MS wants to move to subscription services.
EverQuest is a subscription service that rakes in $5 million/month with very little effort beyond initial development.
I know a few business-type people that wish they could get into subscription services because that's where the $$$$$ is at.
Screw CDs. Screw copy protection.
Simply start up a service - $5-10/month for all the music you can listen to.
The average consumer probably buys only a few CDs/year. Spread out over 12 months, it comes out to $5-10/month.
A handful of consumers buy a lot more.
But I have a feeling that there are far more consumers who buy CDs rarely (like myself - Once every year or two I find something worth the $$$$) who would willingly pay $10-15 for unlimited listening.
I would only pay $5 or so if I couldn't save it though - If it doesn't play in my car, it's not worth much to me.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
If you have to infringe on their materials for their business model to fail, doesn't that imply that it would succeed without the infringement?
Did you bring this question up in general, or in response to me? I never said anything about copyright infringement. In fact, this article suggests other reasons why the Big-5 have lost money.
I believe they are grasping at straws when they blame pirates instead of the recession for their "loss" of revenue last year.
The big-5 didn't even LOSE money last year. They just didn't MAKE MORE money than the year before.
Other entertainment is fighting for our dollars. DVD's are very similar in cost to CD's, and you get much more out of it. (There was a great aticle earlier interviewing kids buying DVD's instead of CD's)
Computer game sales have also continued to rise a LOT. This extra money has to come from somewhere! (I'll tell you where my money went -- towards inflation, because I wasn't given the yearly bonus OR a raise last year)
Although I don't think you can actually measure file sharing damages to the industry, I would bet that the industry would have felt this pressure (or a very high percentage) in an alternate Slider's universe where there was no file sharing. It would be interesting to see.
And as far as their "business model" working. Most monopolies succeed quite well by just being the monopoly. They've had this luxury for decades. And they fought technology the whole time: tapes, vcr (different industry-sorry), cd's, and now digital.
And what is their business model anyway? Exploit the artists. Control all of the medium. All of the distribution. Control the airwaves (oops, that's medium too). Price fix. Buy legislation.
I had long been uninterested in supporting the mega majors despite the fact they were what I grew up with, musically speaking. This whole Napster / file sharing issue has only furthered my distaste for major labels and the major music industry. If there is an artist I like who happens to be on a major label, I absolutely will not buy their CD. I will instead buy a ticket to see them live (and have. Often. All the time.) Occasionally - if it's not over $40 - I'll buy a t-shirt at the show. That's becoming too expensive for a measly t-shirt though.
I think the day is fast approaching where more and more people will follow this pattern of semi-support and it's entirely the labels' fault, if you ask me. Yes "theft" is wrong. But this is precisely what the labels have been doing since the inception of the CD format. It was released at 2.5 times the price of LP's and cassettes and has never dropped significantly enough. This is only made clearer when comparing DVD prices to current CD prices.
I purchased the new John Mayer CD for a friend two days ago at HMV. (Canada's major music retailer.) The "sale" price was $18.99. Regular white-tag price: $26.99. No joke. I had the option of buying two fairly new DVD titles for $40.00. Which do you think is the better deal? For me to be "thankful" that the price was *only* $18.99 is a scam. Major labels are ripping me and other consumers off and I hope they all suffer a hefty demise. It might be just the kick in the pants the entire industry needs. Think of the positive reorganization which would ensue? Producers and managers would scramble to figure out legitimate means of prividing music to consumers and would more than likely come up with something close to what Napster was in its earliest inception. They might also create some new formats while they're at it. Radio wouldn't go away, so the demand would still be there, for those who like to listen to radio. I do not. Well: with the exception of BBC1 now and then. Radio is horrible. I'll take ShoutCast any day. Producers and artists, given the choice, would probably like any option but the existing major labels. This is unfortunately the game they're forced to play.
Babbling. I know. To people who already feel this way. But man: bring it on.
BTW: a funny allegory is here.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
I notice James Taylor and Elvis Presley are on their way to the top and they are both deceased.
:) I don't like James Taylor, but he is not dead.
Uhhh.... dude?
James Taylor is alive and well. His new cd really is a new cd.
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
So, you pay $15 and you listen to your CD hundreds of times. You pay $15 and you watch your DVD 5 times? 10 times? 20 times?
:)
Sure. Some DVD's I actually re-watch for things like the director's commentary (can even put that on in the background while I work) or the numerous other extras which exist. This is in fact something which makes me *WANT* to re-watch a dvd. The cheap price just makes it that much more attractive to me. And here's another example: Nine Inch Nails released an amazing live DVD which I bought for $26.99. This is a two hour plus live show with a much higher quality of audio output than any CD, mixed in 5.1 surround specifically for the DVD release. Oh yeah: and it has video.
It blows away any cd recording possible because both the bit rate and the sampling frequency were much higher than was possible with CD's. The CD price? Same day I bought it? $28.99.
You tell me: does that make sense?
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
To be honest I found the article rather bland and boreing. Same shit different day, still no proof of anything.
But at the bottom of the page I noticed HP is selling a Jornada Personal Digital Ass!!
I wonder if you can choose between several Digital Asses?
--Should work--
i.e. thank God I was able to listen to Moby's newest albulm (18) before I went to buy it. I bought "Play" & "Ambient" because I was able to listen to them before I purchased them, and we're not talking about over the radio either. I really like the 2 earlier albulms, but the latest one just plain sucks.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Their business model has DIED, they need to start selling Audio CDs for $5 to sell them.
I agree. However, one thing I just realized is that I would be willing to pay more if they listed that an explicit percentage of the CD's price went straight to the artist/group/orchestra.
If the CD were $15, and they listed clearly that 1/3 of that ($5) went to an obscure orchestra that needs CD sales to stay afloat, I wouldn't mind this "best of both worlds" sort of pricing (I get a CD, label gets some money, retailer gets some money, and artists don't get swindled).
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
There's some value in owning the original tangible object that expresses the artist's intent (sort of) even if an inferior replica is available for free
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
the article was great, but it is just a summary of everything everyone has been saying. i suppose its important to have a summary, but you missed one important idea.
what the music industry is ACTUALLY afraid of is the file-swappers immunity to advertising and marketing. the music industry lost its power over what people listen to. now, file swappers listen to what THEY want to and the whole music industry marketing scheme gets ignored. the music industry can't push artists onto people who choose for themselves what they listen to.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
I have a few Britney Spears tracks on my HD.
Why did I download them? They were on a dormmate's shared drive back at college and I had plenty of HD space.
Do I listen to them? Hmm... Maybe once a year. As opposed to other stuff I have that gets played around once a week or more. And since it's not a CD I can conveniently have it in my playlist for a little variety without having a sickening 45 minute Spears-A-Thon.
Honestly, her music isn't TOO bad to listen to once in a while, it's catchy. But it is grossly overplayed, and doesn't deserve more than the occasional sneak into a playlist for variety. And definately multiple Spears tracks should NOT be played in sequence for the sake of your mental health.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Yes, almost surely she'd be selling more records with a big music company pushing her.
Here's the issue of quality vs. quantity. For her, CDs sold by her own outfit have a higher "quality" (measured in profit she sees) per item as opposed to CDs sold by [Insert Big Music Company Here].
Overall, she could probably sell 5-6x more records via the biggies and still be making *LESS MONEY* than she currently is, just because she is almost surely making *FAR* more money with her own label, etc. than if she went through Major Label X.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Where is the origin of this "joke"
/., I have no idea what it's a reference to...
I've seen it numerous times on
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Thanks for the clarification. : )
Yes, these bands will be harder to find than those European bands. Well, not for a US resident, but the original poster was (I believe) *European*, i.e. the bands he talks about are major mainstream bands for him.
Note that he mentions "arena" performances. i.e. megaconcerts that only the largest bands enjoy.
Theatre of Tragedy rocks! I've heard some of their music on reccomendation by some friends in Europe. Great stuff.
It's not just European culture - It's European business practices. Radio stations operate differently there, etc. Europeans have some sort of digital subcarrier encoding standard that actually tells you *what other stations are in the area or in other cities* - For a US broadcaster, the possibility of you driving to another area is EXTREMELY undesirable to them.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
People who have 200 plus cds need to collect tangible things, and a download is too intangible. I used to collect LPs I have hundreds. You got so much more with a $7.99 LP than you do with a $20.00 CD. The artwork was suitable for framing in many cases, especially if you had a foldout or a double album. Miniaturization killed cover art. Also, when CDs were new, they cost two times as much as LP or cassette. They claimed that they cost more to manufacture, and price would come down soon. It never did, and it is well known by now that it costs them next to nothing to press a disc. CDs would sell like hotcakes if they were eight dollars instead of 20, even without extras like the cool cover art LPs used to have. If the RIAA and affiliated labels can shut down file trading, we will all just buy the bootlegs and pirates at flea markets and on street corners. The RIAA doesn't even see them as competition.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
What I always think to myself about file sharing and burning cds to listen to in my car (assuming I want the WHOLE cd in this case) is that lets say it takes me an hour to find all the songs.. download them.. burn them with my 4x burner (20 mins).. hell it typically already took an hour to do all that.. and an hours worth of work can BUY the cd.
Theres something special about owning the CD with the artwork.. like the "new" TOOL album. Need more original album covers and inserts!! thank you
Personally, I may pay 20 (or whatever) of CD and end listen to one or two songs zillions of times over years. No wonder I was in heaven after finding vgmix.com, remix.overclocked.org and remix.kwed.org =) =)
But DVDs are a different matter. Back in "VHS times", I may have got a movie for about the same price as CD and watched it a couple of times, bleah. But DVDs are different: Previously, I didn't have any joy in owning a crappy-quality video copy of a movie, but DVDs are genuinely joy to buy and add to collections - in case of VHS, I didn't want to pay a full price for letterboxed, low-quality picture with really bad sound! DVDs are nicer to watch, good picture and sound. Over and over. And over. And then again with some weird subtitles. =)
(I've heard some people have seen The Matrix for 20, 40, 60 times... sick! That's sick! I'm perfectly healthy mentally, I've only seen it 15 times. Or something. Haven't counted. Speaking of which, I haven't seen it for a while...)
The free software licenses also depend on copyrights, but they use them in their originally intended way (To Promote Science and Useful Arts), which is very acceptable.
I don't care about the current copyright laws, but I do care about Promoting Science and Useful Arts, and if evil laws can be used to promote them, so be it. Fight fire with fire.
It is interesting how this has become to happen.
Here in Santiago de Chile, a short time ago, the conapi (in English, something like anti-piracy-national-confederacy) collected huge quantities of video cassettes, tapes, and CD-R; made a pile of it and burned it.
I started to figure out how the inquisition felt.
The INTERESTING thing, was, that among the tapes, where home made tapes, recorded TV shows (I am sure that if you went to a jeopardy like show you have a tape of it) and non commercial songs. (In fact, a news paper had an anti-conapi article for these facts)
This people aren't discriminating, your baby-first-steps video, as it seems, is already an illegal copy of something, just because it is in a video tape and not in a DVD.
I thought only the USA had problems because this RIAA clowns, but incredibly, here things are worst...
Actually, your case is fully included in my third option above. It's clear that piracy can generate legit sales (especially when the purchased product is of higher quality than the pirated app). It's also clear that in many cases, such as lower volume niche products, giving away samples of product can also increase sales. As I'm sure you're aware, books CDs for many reasons, making your example irrelevant, even if your intended point is less so.
The question I was answering (not sure if you actually understood...) was that it was ridiculous to state that (paraphrasing) "it's impossible to state that piracy could have an effect on revenue without having parallel sales data available."
I answered that question.
You've added nothing of value to the discussion, by stating the obvious but not refuting anything I actually said, and can also be safely dismissed.
- John
edit above comment "... books are NOT EQUAL to CDs for many reasons ..."
- John