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.

Comments

Question...

[CaptainAlbert]

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.

Re:Question...

[GooberToo]

Their only expenses are production and promotion.

Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.

Imagine this. You sign a 5-disc license with someone. You're first disc sales great. You make another disc. They don't like it. You still owe 3 more discs AND now you're out all the money it took to record/produce it. Now, you're stuck. You can't sale or even attempt to make you're money back as they own the rights to the disc. They won't sale you're latest and all the money you made on the first disc is now spent and down the drain in living and making the second disc. What do you do? Make a third disc? You don't have any money. Okay, so now they front you the money with horrible terms (ownership rights to the previously made disc and you still owe them four more) because they have all the leverage.

You're screwed!

Yes, the RIAA is past its time just like the buggy whip! They are corrupt and no longer serve any purpose.

Re:Question...

[Lendrick]

Their only expenses are production and promotion.

Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.

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.

But then again, perhaps they're promoting the wrong way. Rather than paying big bucks to Clear Channel to get their music on the radio, they *could*, say, release music for free over the internet, thus skipping the radio payola entirely and keeping more CD sale money to themselves.

My qestion is this: Is the radio payola so much that it would make up for the loss of having less people buy their music? People who download entire albums are probably less likely to purchase the CD than someone who hears a couple songs over the radio.

Jimmy Cliff releases free CD

[I Want GNU!]

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. (-:

Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA...

[Rader]

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...

Industry lies.

[Rip!ey]

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.

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 /. 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.

Near universal exposure?

[matman]

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?)

Is Janis the only one?

[GuyMannDude]

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

Why do people make this subject sound complicated?

[ccalvert]

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

Music companies = venture capital

[no_opinion]

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.

Peanut Butter Wolf anybody?

[sielwolf]

I'd like to see some more opinions on the subject instead of the /. darling that Janis Ian has become.

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:

As an artist myself, I have the artists help decide how much money to spend on promoting their records. We all split the profits after expenses, so it makes sense that we collectively decide how much to spend on promotion. This includes video budget, advertising, radio promotion, video promotion, street teams, snippet tapes, stickers, flats, posters, 8x10 glossies, etc.

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:

As executive producer, I don't put out what I think the people will like, I put out what I like. This has worked for me so far, and if it stops working for me, it will be the end of Stones Throw as a label. I've passed on some artists that I knew would sell a lot of units because I didn't like the songs. That sounds like a bad business move and from a purely financial standpoint it is one, but profit isn't the only thing that drives my label. If money were my sole motivation, I'd be rich by now because so far I've attained everything I've put my mind to.

I mean, doesn't this sound like somebody with some perspective? Especially since he doesn't have 9 Grammys and a Top 40 hit?

Songwriters break the law

[yerricde]

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?