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.
If I download a song, the RIAA hasn't lost anything. I've just gained it. Copyright laws should only be applied against publishers, not members of the public.
I remember reading about the music industry from "insiders" before Napster et al. The story about six years ago went thus:
"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."
I'd be interested to know what happened to this story and the people who used to tell it. Sounds to me like it's every bit as relevant today. But the RIAA don't want anyone to hear it, because now it has a scapegoat for its members' lousy market performances.
Ho hum.
These sigs are more interesting tha
Reggae pioneer and Grammy award winner Jimmy Cliff, famous for his starring role in cult movie classic The Harder They Come and several hit songs, has recently released his entire newest album online for free download at his website. You can listen to the music by downloading People Music Media from the site, a P2P application that streams the music to you. It's great that famous artists are finally developing new music distribution schemes and revenue making models for the Information Age! Perhaps the RIAA could take a few notes from him...
And I just downloaded the album last night, it is amazing. (-:
The RIAA is not interested in anything that empowers the artist or the consumer unless they are the sole source for it. While free downloading is infinitely better publicity and promotion for bands it provides little benefits in return to the recording industry. They can not charge the artist or bands for the free distribution of their material on the net as they do with off net promotion. They can not report their ever increasing profits to their share holders. It is going to take a redefinition of the consumers and artists rights by Congress before the recording industries strangle hold on the music business is relaxed even a tiny bit. I am generally against legislated solutions however in this case it may be our only hope.
"GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
The RIAA was never anything more than a "head" on the entertainment industry cartel anyway. The only purpose it's ever had was to ensure the monopoly of its members. The tactics of the music industry can very easily be described as those of a pirate. They established themselves by cutting out the competition, and have maintained their pirate monopoly by picking fights that they can win, mainly against penniless artists that they can bully, and more lately, anyone they want via the DMCA. They've been trolling for a nice test case that they can easily win and use to establish a precedent. It's a Very Good Thing that the ISP stonewalled them when they did, otherwise they'd have been able to get a lawsuit in under the DMCA before it has a chance to be altered.
I don't particularly care what concessions the music industry will eventually be forced to make because I've been burned before with their pirate tactics, I've been ridiculed in the media as a thief and scourge to creativity itself simply because I'm a computer user, and I'm not going to be burned again.
The business model of screwing everybody and blaming your customers for your shortcomings has failed. Prepare to be marginalized Hollywood.
Just because Janis Ian isn't prancing around in a pepsi commercial, doesn't make her a failure.
Janis has never complained about her records selling. Her complaints usually relate to not being ALLOWED to sell them. I won't really go into it, since it'll look like an article, and we know you don't read those...
I think more artist should rely less on the corporations and just release their music themselves.
I know Kevin Martin, former lead singer of Candlebox, has gone this route. I don't know how successful he has been yet but at least he is doing it on his own. He can be heard at www.kmband.com and my opinion is that it's good. I hope he is successful and that other artists will be able to follow his lead. Then "The Man" can cry "wee wee wee" all the way to the poor house.
RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense. 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.
The above is nonsense.
The record companies don't care about "free downloading" per se. They care about free downloading of content owned by their members. BIG difference. Any war the record companies are waging upon filesharing is the result of the obvious fact that most of the music available on these networks belongs to RIAA members and the equally obvious fact that a significant amount of downloads are being done by people who don't have "fair-use" license of this content.
As for whether or not record companies serve a function, bands have been putting out their music for sale and download on the Net for years now, and there have been but a handful of modest success stories. I defy anyone to name more than 5 such bands, recognizable to an average guy on the street, who still maintain independence from traditional music distribution channels.
I am certain that if you were to survey the MP3 collections ("legal" and "shared" alike) of all Slashdot users (not just a perverse few), we would discover that the vast majority of MP3s are of artists signed to RIAA member companies. And I would bet you that these infinitely self-motivated musicians and bands will continue to be signed to said companies, because they serve thema function, just like these musicians and bands will continue to pay for artists.
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital. But I do object to the industry spin that it is doing all this to protect artists. It is not protecting us; it is protecting itself.
/. poster said it best (can't remember who). It's not about destroying on-line distribution. It's about destroying the early competition so that the industry can move in afterwards and take it all for themselves.
I see a very common theme appearing these days.
Neither the artists nor the consumers want the RIAA and record companies to have the absurd power that they currently have (which they seek to strengthen and extend).
A
I agree. She doesn't express any new ideas on the subject.. but it is nice to see someone who's "been there, done that" to step up against te RIAA. She makes some good points, too.
"That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs. After 37 years as a recording artist, when people write to tell me that they came to my concert because they downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled."
That's how I am. Sure, I might not buy CDs that I download, but I sure as hell do support the artist by buying merch, going to shows and telling my friends about how good a certain band is.
There's no "I" in Linux.. err..
from the article:
I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital.
Janis Ian recognizes that the artist has the right to choose what happens with her output. This often gets overlooked in all the RIAA-bashing around here.
If the artist doesn't want to allow sharing, then that's her choice.
--
Long-term effects of Bush deficits
That's a bit of bull shit. It could be said that they already have near universal exposure since they all have telephone numbers. Having your music on the Internet does not make people notice you; marketing is still a very important utility that the record companies still provide.
Personally, I'm exposed to music primarily through my friends, but also listen to radio shows and sometimes music TV stations. I find that when I find a single that I like, I download it, and don't pay for it. However, when I find an artist who is really neat, I'll buy their CD, even if it costs 30 dollars or so. I find the
Here's what I think applies to most consumers of music:
o If they like an artist's work, they'll shell out cash
o If they are checking out artists (sampling their music), they will pay a few cents per song, but the cost of managing the transaction would be prohibitive (not necessarily financially, but in a pain in the ass sense)
o If they want a single, they'll pay about a dollar, but the cost of such a transaction is still probably prohibitive.
So, realistically, fans will shell out cash, but people who are casual listeners will only shell out cash if there is no pain in the ass factor. If record companies can make music available at a low cost (money) and reduce the pain in the ass factor to below the GNUTella/Kazaa level (good download speeds, good quality, etc), people will pay.
We already have laws to deal with copyright violation. We don't need more laws (we didn't need the DMCA). If they sued a few thousand joe downloaders (and of course settled out of court for a few hundred bucks each), people would hear about it and be afraid of using kazaa. Lots of kids (warez kiddies) would still use it, but their parents would be afraid and give them shit. At least, that's what mine would have done (and did, when I was 15, and trading warez, perhaps?)
RIAA has an incredible marketing power; they are not that affraid of the Internet, but every little extra dollar is a win, so why not trying to keep it under control as well?
So far I find CD sales to perform quite well given the economic situation, so people still buy CDs, begin to learn the shortcomings of mp3 and free downloads (quality, broken, etc). Make no mistake, eventually CD will disappear, but certainly not before a few years at best.
And for the whiners against RIAA: try to convince consumers to vote with their cash, instead of blaming a service you can choose not to buy from.
have you been defaced today?
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?
First, let me state that I, too, agree with Ian and her position. But every time I see something about her speaking out against the RIAA and state of music industry today I'm wondering if anyone else in the industry is speaking out as well or is it just her? I'm guessing the reason she's in the news so much about this issue is that she's the most vocal but does anyone know if anyone else is making any noise about this too? Honestly, I'm not sure how much of an influence Janis Ian has among everyday people today. If some big name person (read: talentless but popular contemporary act) were to start making some of these same points, perhaps someone other than the faithful would start listening.
Again, I'm not slamming Janis Ian or slashdot for posting this. I'm just wondering if anyone is adding their voice to hers. Because, if not, I'm afraid it's not going to do much good.
GMD
watch this
I am the web person for the band Beautiful Feet. I discussed with the band about releasing their CD's in an online format for free. They will be in MP3 format but you won't be able to download the songs as the website is being redone in Flash. Of course you can always do a line-out recording or something similar. You can probably even hack into flash and do some wham fangled crazy thing to get the MP3 files. But for the other 95% of the people that go to the website that are the casual computer user, they will be able to experience the music in full before making a purchasing decision.
:)
Anyhow... does anybody know a free/$50 way to secure music? I'm not worried about securing it from the die hard "hackers" that want to get at the music. Would the solution above be enough for the common surfer?
Obviously once one person gets ahold of it they can distribute it in format X anywhere they want. But if somebody does that, in my opinion they probably wouldn't have bought the $10 CD anyhow but are attempting to add more songs to their collection of music that they will never listen to anyhow.
I personally buy CD's from artists (even if I don't like their music) if they have a whole CD on their website. For instance, The The released one of their CD's online a while back which after downloading a few tracks I just bought to show support for the boldness.
Anyhow... sorry about my lack of flow. That's why I'm a programmer and have statements to control my "thought flow".
To me, it's very simple. Any artist who is any good should be able to go in the studio, start the tapes rolling, and record the CD in 60 minutes, a few hours max, then walk out and go home. Someone then turns the music into MP3 or even some proprietary format that can't easily be copied, and sells the output on the net for $3 or $4 max per album.
The total cost of that kind of distribution should be at most a few thousand dollars. If the artist is really good, they will sell tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of copies, and make a fortune.
You say that's not realistic? But many of the great albums were in fact recorded exactly that way. Most of the classic Miles Davis, Charles Mingus or T. Monk albums were recorded in one or two takes. The early Beatle's albums, which still sell like crazy, were little more than recordings of the group playing live in the studio. Classic Bob Dylan albums like Blonde on Blonde, Positively Fourth Street or Planet Waves were also basically live recordings with just one or two takes per song.
When the Beatles recorded Sgt Peppers they started this trend toward albums that took a long time and cost huge sums to make. But everyone forgets that they were a huge success before they decided to make that album, and their success was based on what amounted to live recordings in the studio.
So the solution is simple. What are the arguments against it?
You could argue that not everyone has a computer and a good connection to the internet. But if major artists started releasing their albums on the Internet for $3 a pop, then believe me, there would all of a sudden be a lot of people signing up for ADSL, cable, etc. And the profits would go up, and connections would work.
And lots of people would make lots of money. Sure the record companies would lose out. But computer people, and artists, both old and new, would make a lot more than they are making now.
The answer is simple: record albums cheaply, and distribute them on the net for virtually no cost. The only losers would be the record companies and no talent acts that need hours of time in the studio in order to sound decent. Everybody else would gain.
This solution is so obvious that it makes one wonder why it's not happening. The reasoning it's not happening? Because the politicians who control the market are in the direct pay of established corporations. It's not capitalism, it's cronyism. Or more simply, corruption.
A good musician, like Michael Brecker, Joshua Redmon, or Joni Mitchell sounds great when recorded live. They don't need expensive studio time. A major talent like Neil Young, Leonard Cohen or Ani DiFranco sounds just as good live as they do in the studio. Just go in the studio, do your thing, and sell it on the net cheaply. Then all the controversy would end, and a lot of corrupt people would have to get new jobs.
- Charlie
What I don't understand is where the law is that says you are entitled to make huge sums of money because you can write and record a good song.
This phenomenon occurred for the first time in the 20th century (for both music and acting), because of technology and the ability to mass produce a performance cheaply and sell the reproduction for a high profit. Greed drove this market to release products in digital format.
Those days are gone. It doesn't really matter that much about laws and copyrights, the days of making billions from a performance are numbered. Trying to prevent people from distributing material is like trying to pass a law to outlaw the automobile in 1910 to save the horse traders and the blacksmiths.
The same concept probably applies to software. The billions from selling cheaply mass produced software will eventually dry up. There will be a living to be made from actually doing work, but there is going to be a point where most of the tasks that people use on a day to day basis will have free solutions, and there won't be a market for closed software except in custom situations and the enterprise.
Anyone who thinks the music companies have outlived their usefulness does not understand one of their primary roles. Granted, their distribution services may become obsolete, but that is not the only thing they do.
One of the critical functions of the majors is to provide "venture capital" for musicians. To make it big, most artists still need a good amount of money to hire big name producers, have videos made, get physical media (CDs) made and widely distributed, get main stream marketing, etc., etc. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is the rule.
The majors invest money in artists and they make money off the back-end from CD sales just like VCs invest in start-ups and make money from stock sales. Both groups use the "portfolio approach" since one big success can pay for a number of less popular investments. Both groups expect big return on investment and, not surprisingly, both groups are disliked.
Regardless of how popular the majors are (or are not), artists will always want up-front investment so they can afford the services of top tier music professionals and get mass market advertising. The current majors may not survive, but I don't see this fundamental need for initial investment going away so there will always be music companies to fill this role.
May I suggest Peanut Butter Wolf, DJ and founder of the seminal underground hip-hop label Stones Throw Records?
PBW on the Stones Throw website:
Now to me he sounds like the perfect person to talk to about managing an artist's career from the ground up with no support of major labels. Again from Stones Throw:
I mean, doesn't this sound like somebody with some perspective? Especially since he doesn't have 9 Grammys and a Top 40 hit?
What is music when you despise all sound?
What I don't understand is where the law is that says you are entitled to make huge sums of money because you can write and record a good song.
It actually says you're not. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works from a copyrighted work, and the courts have interpreted "derivative work" quite broadly, especially in the commercial arena, where "fair use" seldom applies. Only 50,000 melodies exist in the Western musical scale, and by now, somebody probably owns them all. It's possible to infringe copyright without even knowing it. Without the ability to build on previous works, how will it be possible to create new works?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Any time PartyA and PartyB are in a joint venture, and PartyA's expenses are covered by PartyB's share of the profit, *and* there is no reasonable recourse for PartyB to protest...
PartyA has no incentive whatsoever to keep its expenses down. In fact, the best situation for PartyA comes when expenses are really high.
It works for government contractors, and for the RIAA.
At this point, I'm going to put forth the supposition that it really does cost close to $10.00 per CD to fill that music store. I'm going to posit that they're really not making obscene profits selling a $0.25 worth of plastic for $16.00. (The gross margin markup from $10.00 to $16.00 is reasonable, IIUC.)
Instead, I'm going to suggest that the cost situation is all out of line, and they're bleeding expenses at every single turn. If computers were produced and promoted as efficiently as CDs, they'd cost somewhere between a car and a condo.
IMHO, we need a visible campaign. Since you mentioned "buggy whip" I'll suggest an idea my brother and I talked about this past weekend:
We need to sell buggy-whips for cars, or at the very least buggy-whip bumper stickers. The tech sector is suffering enough without the RIAA dumping on us. (...like a drowning person climbing on his rescuer.)
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Well, the real problem we have in this matter is that the latter half of the 20th century gave people the idea that musicians and other artists are supposed to be swimming in solid platinum swimming pools filled with diamond crusted dubloons. People saw all these bands getting insanely rich, and they forgot that the rock star phenomenon is an aberration, and an unsustainable one at that. Artists are, have been, and will continue to be generally under-rewarded for their efforts. Most of them will never be famous, and many of the ones that get famous will become so only after their careers have long since ended, or even after their death. Musicians and other artists have an idea that they are entitled to wealth and success. They're not, even if they're great at what they do. Wealth and success are always and will always be for an extremely small group, and most of them will get it by doing things that would make any decent person's stomach turn. Art is a wonderful, enriching thing that the human race needs. But it is not something people are willing to devote large portions of the economy to. There will always be a few huge superstars every now and then, and there will always be a moron who inherited a small continent and wants every artiste he meets at a party to build a cathedral for him, but the industry as a whole will always be a vast majority of nobodies with a scattering of one-hit wonders. P2P file sharing has not degraded the market for music. The simple truth is there wasn't as much of a market as people want to make out. Let's take an example. The figment to my left is Bobby. Bobby is a college student. He has 500 gigs of mp3s, comprising the complete works of every band he's ever heard of, and several he simply downloaded by accident and doesn't even know he has. He also owns about 20 cds he actually bought, about half of them used. Music is a big part of his daily life. Now, through the magic of the internet, we'll take a look at Bobby mk 2, a version of Bobby in a world in which the internet never existed. In this world, Bobby owns about 20 cds he actually bought, about half of them used. He just doesn't have nearly as much music. Music isn't really all that important to him. Is IP theft via mp3 trade wrong? Sure. Just as wrong as jaywalking, rushing the tail end of the yellow light, or driving 5 over the limit on the highway. It is a minor issue that the public is willing to accept because they know the damage it does is of much less value than the rewards to be gained. If you wanted to make money in music, well, tough. Sorry, that's how economics works. If everyone decides tomorrow that it's okay to eat a few grapes at the grocery store, you just aren't going to make as much in the grape trade. Either stick to your guns and try to keep making money regardless, or take your efforts elsewhere.