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.
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...
Napster and its successors are obviously not the problem...its just like the article says...its those damn cassette tapes! Ban them!
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???)
Looks like Ford is getting into the act.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
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 |
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!
Yeah, really. And Duh! According to the current poll it's the screaming dancing guy from MS. Sheesh.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
...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
What are you, twelve years old?
Slate has been around for years. Almost as long as Salon (if not longer.)
Michael Kinsley used to edit it. (The same Kinsley who used to sit off to the side of Buckley's _Firing Line_ and goad good ol' Bill with nuggets o' thought.)
Wait, if you don't know Slate, you probably have no idea who W F Buckley is either, right? Or his National Review?
Last time I saw WFB was on Charlie Rose. WFB hosting for Rose. My god. What a painful experience that was.
Anyway, do yourself a favor. Even if you think NR is fulla shit and WFB is fulla shit then hop on over to (a) Slate (occasionally), (b) National Review (occasionally), and (c) the New Republic (occasionally).
You don't need to agree with the views -- but dear god, my boy, get yourself at least a respectable smidgeon of political knowledge -- and awareness of the "standard" political rags -- so you can refrain from posting bizarre stuff like "What is this Slate thing?"
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
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.
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?
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.
- 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.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 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.
The mainstream press is finally reporting what sites like dontbuycds have been saying all this time. Maybe Congress will read the article, and stop listening when Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti show up asking for corporate welfare. Manybe they will get it that piracy is a paper tiger.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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.
- 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
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.
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."
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.
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.
I don't think the RIAA goes far enough. I blame cassette tapes for
the 1979 oil crisis
the hostage crisis in Iran
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
and El Nino
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
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
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!
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
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.
Something to ask your lawyer friend; why don't they bring back the single?
When I was younger (back in the days before CDs up until the point where albums still outnumbered CDs in the record stores), you could buy '45s of your favorate song.
Later, while in high school, the 45s dissapeared, but you could still buy cassette singles in record stores.
Today, I don't see anyone using this. Occasionally I'll find an extended singles 'remix' CD with 4-5 different mixes of the same song, but typically at a price point I'm not willing to spend at.
So why don't the record companies, in earnest, try to revive the singles? (I do vaguely recall a few attempts at CD singles, but nothing that ever took off).
There are very few big name modern music songs I'd like to buy, but even when I do hear a catchy tune on the radio that I'd like to listen to more, I'm not going to run out and buy the record. I've been burned too many times with those seven tracks of 'filler'.
I duspute the theory your friend has too, but I can't help to think that the record companies could squeeze a few bucks more out of their artists if they sold the popular singles for $1.99 a CD.
The Internet is generally stupid
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.
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.