Slashdot Mirror
Music and the Internet Reprise
Paul M. writes "Janis Ian, nominated for nine Grammys since 1967, writes, "RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense." She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us', something I've advocated all along. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired." Janis' interview makes for good reading as well.
The core problem here is that the RIAA (and MPAA if you want to go there also) leadership is not comprised of reasonable people. They're busy breathing heavily into paper bags over Internet File Sharing and are unwilling to consider any options other than locking up music as tightly as they can, prosecuting everyone they can get their hands on, and lobbying congress for more laws.
This is a textbook example of incompetent leadership in business - management is religeously inflexibile and lives in a complete state of denial while steadily circling the drain.
If the music industry wants to survive they need some fresh blood at the top because all of the laws and lawsuits in the world won't solve their problems, in fact, they will only make them worse...
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.
I don't agree.
An anecdote some people here may share: back when I started surfing the web in 1995, websites were a lot easier to find. Back then, I'd happen upon more cool sites than I do now. These days, there is just so much of the web available that you need to use a portal/weblog/etc just to get there.
Internet-distributed music falls victim to the same problem. Sure, anyone can get it anytime anywhere, but what good is that if no one will find it? Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
That said, I am very glad that someone in Finland can download my band's mp3s anytime.
But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.
So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
Again, this article is newsworthy NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT (with which you and I are both already ridiculously familiar), but BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CONTENT APPEARS.
Maybe the wind blows up where you live, but my mother-in-law reads the USA Today, not
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
If the RIAA has sex with your wife, you haven't lost anything...
Its about time theres a song writer to whom's high priced lawyers havn't brainwashed into thinking they are getting ripped off.
:) Anyways, back to my point that the little guys really benifit from this. If i'm listening to an mp3 stream and hear a really jazzin song that i've never heard of the artist before, I might buy it.
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.
And what about cd's that you've either gotten lost or stolen, or broken even? I think you should be entitled to download the song if its availiable. After all, why not? I'm sure I wasn't the only one really ticked off when I bought that one blind melon album and found all the songs except for the one that they played on the radio all the time (you remember, allllll I can say is that my life is pretty plain *breum brah brerum* I like watching the pluddles gather rain*).
And don't forget the main issue here. EXPOSURE. Time to take away the strangle hold a couple of stuffed shirts think about what is "good music." I stopped buying music all in all not long ago, but when I did stop, the last couple albums I bought were from those labels that were created by the songwriter. Ok, so *maybe* I didn't pay for that kid rock cd, but how long could you really listen to that one for?
Otherwise, they would have just ended up in the fatcat's rejection bin.
Small artists which do not get screen-time on MTV or air-time on popular radio stations have no other way to let people "try before you buy" than the Internet. Some recording companies provide samples of music from the albums they publish, but an artist should have the right to do this him/herself if the record company doesn't. I know of only one record company where the artists own the copyright to their own work. DGM only functions as a recording and publishing company, they don't buy intellectual property. Arthur Brown made a record which sold 5 million copies in three months and never got anything for it. Somehow I don't buy it when the big recording companies say they work for the artists. They are in fact only working for artists that sell millions and then only to rip them off completely.
> "Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."
You have that backwards. This is about the artists, not the record companies.
Artists are the ones who lose money on CDs, and make it up on tour selling T-shirts.
The "record companies" make a killing selling a 0.02$ plastic disc for 20 bucks, after all the content was provided by the artist. Their only expenses are production and promotion.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
What more qualifications does she need?
but what good is that if no one will find it?
Sure, if you had to sift through ALL the music out there on your own, you would be lucky to find a fraction of the good stuff that makes it to your ears today. However, you don't need the RIAA or their recording companies to do that.
A perfect analogy is news. Frankly there is too much of it. Because you posted on slashdot, I'll assume, that like myself, you let this site do some of your filtering for you. In the web world there is always competition for eyeballs, and those with the best merit will survive. (e.g., Slashdot.)
In a world where music is available from millions of direct download sources on terms dictated by the artists, I don't find it too far fetched to think that a website or two will spring up to fill the void left by the recording company talent agents that refused to logon.
Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
These were once valuable services but they are decreasingly so... Distribution is (obviously) no longer a problem -- this is traditionally where the music companies have had a stranglehold. Promotion is really the only value add they have but the value here is highly debatable. Sure someone has to sift through a bunch of crap but how good a job do they do? If you never hear any of the ones they reject, what makes you think they aren't good (ok, probably a bunch of them are crap...). Wouldn't a moderation system where music listeners (who don't have a vested interest in an artist) rate music work just as well, if not better?
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
I always found it quite interesting that the most vocal anti-napster groups were the soon to be totally washed-up has-beens from the early 90's. Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same. When will the RIAA and their pet artists realize part of why alternative music sources succeed largely because THE LISTENER decides what songs to get and the RIAA can't force their decisions on us anymore?
A very vocal group speaking out in favor of swapping services (whether you're talking "weeds", napster, kazaa or just a recording/swapping party) is CSN. True, they've had periods where they've been much more successful and other periods when they've pretty much fallen totally off the radar, but they most certainly can't be called a one hit wonder or producer of "crap" that no one wants.
Janis did make a very smart comment "I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing: If a record executive says he will make me more money, I'd immediately protect my wallet." The RIAA doesn't want to protect anything other than its own wallet. It doesn't take much searching to find a smaller artist (not a major commercial success) or older (no longer "successful") artist who can easily show the record companies owe them what amounts to a LOT of money or that the record companies (or their reps) have successfully stolen all rights to their songs. The RIAA no intention of protecting the artists, they're just smart enough to know that they can fool a lot of schmucks by pretending to care about more than their own money and the more schmucks they fool the better their chances to win this war by BS.
Why does she need to have a label to be taken seriously? It doesn't take an idiot to get screwed in the biz. The odds are so stacked in the industry's favor that you might as well be a farmer. She has managed to stay alive in a business that eats artists for lunch, and craps 'content' or product or whatever the flavor of the week is.
BTW... The Stones, Bowie, and McCartney are all examples of musicians who are excellent businessmen. I think they may have won a talent show award or something, too.
There has to be a way for them to make money off of all this. Sure, there will always be someone trying to rip off your work, but companies like M$ have seemed to adapt very well. Who would have though 10 years ago that local and national newspapers could give away free electronic copies of their content and still make money. There has to be a way to make this work for the entertainment industry.
This is just like saying that your market is ready to buy your products, but you are unwilling to sell.
There has to be some system to select the best artists. Today we have one system, but it requires the artists sign over the vast majority of their earnings to a cartel.
That cartel arose because of the characteristics of mid 20th century media technology (i.e., the cheapest and most effecitve way to distribute music was plastic disks and plastic tape).
Now that technology has advanced, it might be possible to create a better system. Maybe something along the lines of EBay. It's still a cartel or "natural monopoly", but at least anybody could participate without signing away all their rights, and the system might only skim 15% or so. The best music could be determined by customers' moderation points.
I know there have been many attempts at this kind of thing, but none have yet hit the critical mass needed to stamp out the old cartel. One big reason for this is that almost all of the current popular artists are locked into long term exclusive contracts. The old cartel thus perpetuates itself even though it could be replaced by an alternative that would be more efficient for both artists and consumers.
I said that (several times). It's not about online anything, it's about controlling access and entry points, so NO ONE can horn in on the RIAA's *control* over the profit pipeline. After all, if you distribute your music over the net, or sell your locally-pressed CDs via Amazon or CDBaby, the RIAA doesn't make a cent off your work. This Will Never Do!!
If the net were the *original* way of distributing music, and CDs were the newfangled method used by unsigned artists, we'd instead see the RIAA trying to shut down the manufacture of CD-related items.
Oh, wait...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same.
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album. Prior to that, each of their albums sounded quite different from the previous one. I've often wondered if there is any connection between the fact that Metallica started making a lot of anti-Napster noise about the same time as they started watering down their music to appeal to a wider audience. Here's my pet theory: Metallica started to get older, looked back on their work and decided that they had done great stuff. Now, they decided, we can sit back and churn out some genri-rock that will really earn us the bucks. We've already earned our place in metal history. It's kind of like when university profs finally get tenure and then take a breather from working so hard. However, much to Metallica's horror, Napster and p2p services start trading their music. "Good lord", Lars says to himself, "We've sold out for nothing! Those little bastards! I traded in my musical intrigity for more money and now it's not going to work out that way! Well, I'm not going down without a fight!"
Again, this is only my little pet theory. But does anyone think that the band that made Kill 'Em All would be rubbing shoulders with politicians to try to squelch the digitial music rebellion?
GMD
watch this
I've been loving Janis Ian's campaign against the recording industry-- in my opinion, her micro-distribution technique is one of a very few viable new options for artists to pursue, and it's a great thing besides. I just thing she's a little bit early in declaring the end of labels' useful lives.
Let's look for a minute at why labels exist. Not every artist needs a label, either now or fifteen years ago. Performers ONLY "need" a record deal when what they need to do takes more time, money, and expertise than they and their friends/agents/managers/assistants can give them. If you have a record that's doing well locally, you can sell out the Iota, the Mercury Lounge, the Corn Exchange, or Viper Room, and you are happy at that level, you probably don't need a record deal. Doing it Janis' way is perfect, and in fact waaay preferable to having a deal with a large label.
Where labels are handy--still-- is when you start to grow beyond your borders. Do you want national distribution? International distribution? Has your record done well on local radio, and you feel like it could have a nice run nationally? Are you spending more time putting together mail-order packages than you are writing songs? You could probably use a label to help you with these tasks. Labels are better at marketing on a large scale, better at getting traditional radio play (and NOT NECESSARILY POP RADIO), better at getting press, and better at setting up and managing distribution on a large scale-- not to mention labels can help you get your music licensed into films/tv-- many artists make most their money that way rather than through traditional album-sales channels. This is what they're FOR-- they have the bankroll and the contacts-- the shady business practices of certain elements notwithstanding.
It's a rough time for the music industry, and things are going to change rapidly. I just want to make sure that I speak my piece to my fellow slashdotters. Labels are not, and have never been, for everybody, and they probably shouldn't go away altogether (not least because I like what I do, and I work with great, GREAT music). I sincerely hope that more musicians are successful with Janis Ian-styled strategies, because it will have the very beneficial side effect of killing off those parts of the music industry who are least able to adapt.
Janis Ian has made a point in her piece "That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs" and the usual line heard from pro-napster people is that the internet/downloading provides exposure, when in fact it does not; it provides a means of access, and that doesn't mean any more people will be exposed to your music than if you were not on the internet. The job of record companies is exposure and distribution (and they do tend to shaft artists for these services), but exposure and distribution are/were not impossible without record companies, even back before the Internet. Does anyone remember independant labels? A lot of those were set up by musicians looking to do the grunt work themselves. Ask the Barenaked Ladies about that.
I wonder if Janis Ian is aware of the differences between her version of "downloadable music" and that of the general internet community; yes, Janis has files for download on her site, but certainly not her entire catalogue, and I question the quality of the files she has available. Again, offering a few songs for download is a great idea and has worked for her, but would she be willing to give away high-quality mp3s of every recording she has ever made? That is what Napster/P2P music sharing is about, and it is about doing so with or without the consent of the writer, the performer, or the producer.
Yes, I agree that the music industry as a whole has to change its business model, and there are a lot of jerks involved in the industry, but saying that there is nothing wrong with free access to every and any recording is just stupid.
I write this as a person whose line of work is in a creative industry, and I have been a serious musician in the past, so I have an inside opinion of the issues. I'm a little surprised that the free download idea is so popular around /. when (I would guess) there are so many programmers reading this who (I would guess again) get paid for ideas/concepts that come out of their head. Music, painting, movies or code - it's all creative and people need to be paid for it.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Only if the artist makes it big. Generally, the cost of promoting an artist isn't equalled by the revenue that the artist brings in... Hence, the recording company usually takes the loss.
:(
This would be like me, being a developer, being asked to pay for ALL my development efforts on a product which they tell me they need. Then, after I deliver it, they tell me that I'm going to have to eat it because they spent too much money advertising it and that they are not even going to bother selling it. The flip side of this is, they are taking very little risk and ride freely on the tails of any returns. Furthermore, their fees and any front money get reimbursed before they turn over any money to the bands. This means bands can still take a loss on a record while the RIAA still made money. Again, their downside is always protected. Again, they have ALL the control, little to no risk, and nothing but money.
Wish I knew of any other business that worked like that so I can get a free ride too. In fact, if artists had any business smarts, the first time the RIAA offered someone a deal like that they be laughed out of the room...just as any other industry would do. It's insane! I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.
The real problem is the tie-in between the major labels and the recording industry. If you aren't a major label act you don't get played on 90% of the radio stations in the USA. Monopolists such as Clear Channel have too much wrapped up in their monopoly to waste airtime on music, they need product. The money in radio is selling advertising, and that money goes to pay licensing fees. The money in music is made in product distribution and sales, and that money goes to record executives. The record companies churn out product, the radio stations play it, it sells ads for the station, and the music on the radio functions primarily as advertising for the record companies. It is insidious. ONLY the consumer can make a dent in this cycle. Pepsi can't sell 200 kinds of soft drink, consumers wouldn't know what to do. They want 4 types of soft drink. Similarly, major labels can't make their required profit with hundreds of artists (brands) on the shelf. They need three or four, and spin off subsidiary labels to deal with their Diet, Caffeinated, Clear, All Natural, or other product lines. It isn't called show BUSINESS by accident. Consumers who have an FM radio in 99% of their homes and cars get as much Major Label product advertising as they can stand. They go into a record store, freeze like opossums in the headlights, and go for Aerosmith! Hey, they were OK 25 years ago, why not go right back to old dependable CocaCola? The Stones have made 1.5 BILLION in the past 8 years by adapting a "branding" approach. Teens are being conditioned to accept the teat of the RIAA via Modern Rock Radio. It ain't modern, and it ain't rock, it's ads, ads, ads. The majority of consumers have been brainwashed into thinking that FM Hits are the creme de la creme, and can't take the time to ferret out good music. Streaming net radio, free downloads, alternate distribution... it all hits the RIAA right in the bread basket. The consumer's response (IMO) shoould be "Hard Cheese, bud, get off my back".