Slashdot Mirror
Recording Industry Extinction Predicted RSN
nautical9 writes "There's an interesting commentary from Wired's Charles Mann, speaking of the imminent death of the recording industry as we know it. Nothing really ground-breaking here, but it is a good summary and somewhat fair treatment of the RIAA's current state-of-affairs, and offers a little insight into what the world of music may be like without them (hint: perhaps better off)."
"from the imminent-death-predictions-getting-boring dept"
Then why post it?
That's why she chose now to resign her position as head of the RIAA. She doesn't want to preside over a sinking ship.
Umm.. They just mention Kazaa. I imagine that if Kazaa became pay only, people would just get their music elsewhere.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
This show to me that the music industry makes big money up to this point so most people are buying from them and it's only a small percentage of people who read slashdot who have problem.
Slashdot community little fish in big pond.
All the best,
--Achmed
Swaribabu Consulting Inc. -- We code so you don't have to
even since the dawn of mp3s, I think we've all had that little feeling in our stomachs that the days of CD sales are limited. It wouldn't ruin the industry.. there'd still be concerts, music videos, and merchandising.
But what would be the main delivery of the art [music] to the public?
It is certainly difficult to say.. 20 dollars for a CD with 12 songs, of which 2-3 are usually "good". (poor generalization) Is it web radio or some other streaming service? Possibly.
Maybe 'albums' need to get bigger, like DVDs that include music videos. Traditional CDs are sold more like singles - very cheaply.
--------
Free your mind.
And the electronics industry's attitude toward the labels is summed up by an Apple slogan: Rip. Mix. Burn. Which, a music executive once told me, translates into "Fuck you, record labels."
Funny, I don't agree that the "electronic industry's" attitude can be summed up by Apple's slogan. Apple is one of the few that dares to encourage people to Rip/Mix/Burn.
(Thinking Sony, etc.)
While it may not always be CALLED the RIAA, it will always BE the RIAA.
Kickstart
From the article:
labels' new legitimate online music services attracted fewer paying customers than the McDonald's in Times Square.
We can be sure to see the visits to that burger joint to drop as well. I mean, when this becomes commonplace.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Hillary Rosen announced her resignation from the group today to spend more time with her family.
Washington Post Story
for companies.
Make a boatload of money doing one thing and doing it well. (In this case, it's screwing everyone related to the music--buyers, musicians, etc)
Now, the test comes in when something causes a decrease in sales, or your business model becomes obsoleted by new technology.
Why is it so hard for companies to adapt? They are obviously in it for the money, why not change your business model to accomodate new things?
If the RIAA was a small company, nothing like this would occur, since they'd either adapt or die--in a hurry.
It's just taken a really long time for RIAA to realize they need to change, and if they don't, well, I look forward to cheaper cds.
Sent from your iPad.
But what really worries me is the possibility that the companies that build what we love, eletronic devices and gadgets, take RIAA's place.
RIAA is trying to protect its business model, where they control everything on the mainstream music chain. Technology can break a link of this chain, the distribution of an artist material.
But! The laws and the mentallity that RIAA is leaving is the most dangerous thing. Tech industries may (or will?) have control on distribution.
RIAA is showing them that this IS possible, and that consumers aren't doing much besides complain. No changes on the institutional power and the supplu of money is coming steady.
The recent agreement between the tech industry and the RIAA shows exactly this. Most of the RIAA associates are, in one way or another, connected to the tech industry. It was a PR move to soften its images with the public.
What I really think is that we are becoming less political involved with a lot of issues, but that's a subject for another post!
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
What do the recording agencies do? Record, remaster, produce, manufacture and market musicians.
Nearly as I can tell computers and the Internet have pretty much taken over those roles. As far as getting paid for their hard work, I guess musicians are left to concert money and merchandise. Most listeners aren't going to be paying for an album that they can download for free, either legally or illegally.
Maybe the recording studios will be replaced by concert halls. Maybe the future is a movie theator with a band stage. Hey that'd be cool.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Customers don't "listen" to an album. They listen to songs; individual tracks. And until the music industry understands that, they'll continue sinking.
This excludes of course, classic albums like Rumours, Dark Side of the Moon, etc. But those are few and far between.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
of the same subject
How The Internet Will Make The Record Labels Evaporate
I more or less knew about this, but it was nice to see it put so well. Of course, they are blaming everything under the sun except themselves. I can't think of one conglomerate that didn't just suck the life out of everything it touched. The music industry is supposed to be about the art of music, but it has just turned into another lifeless business.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
If you threaten jailtime to your customers then your customers will go away.
A very expensive lesson for them to learn
... killed off by FM. And then all radio died, killed off by television. And then both the movies and television were killed off by people home-taping movies on their VCR's. And then books died, killed off by eBooks and photocopiers.
Oh, wait, none of that happened, did it?
The existing recording industry power structure may be in for a rough time, and the Deccas and Polygrams and Capitols may join the likes of Studebaker and Eastern Airlines and Crossley, but people will be recording CD's and selling them to other people for quite some time.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I believe we will soon be entering the age of independent records. I've been preparing to record my solo debut record independently, and I will be distributing/promoting it myself. If in fact the record industry does collapse soon, I believe many artists are going to have to turn to independent labels and/or producing records themselves. Of course, with this route, one gets much less exposure than if a big league label was to be in charge. But I think that there can be ways around this.
If a new artist makes a CD, and begins promoting it, and selling online, eventually the word will get out. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's rather difficult to find and download independent music off of major file-sharing apps like Kazaa and Gnutella. So, in turn, this is a measure of the artists popularity. So if an independent artist can become popular enough for people to start downloading his music online, then this creates the potential to tour and perform live. And perhaps that's the ticket -- live performances could possibly make up for money lost on file sharing. As popularity grows, more money can be made off of live shows, and thus more albums can be produced, etc.
I'm sure I am leaving a lot of out of this theory, but it seems that there still may be some hope for the music business, in the form of independent labels and records.
mund freud.
You're confusing music with beer again.
Ultimately, Timothy suggested to me that night, the industry as we know it could vanish not so much because of technology but because few people over the age of 30 would care if it did.
This is very true. In some cases, I know people in their mid 20's who wouldn't care.
Being in my mid-30's, most of the industry does nothing for me, does not interest me, and when its not ignoring me, its insulting my intelligence or calling me a theif. Meanwhile it churns out lame, uninteresting, repetitive music. Good riddance I say.
All of these models would produce fewer global superstars and more locally successful musicians. We might not see another Michael Jackson circa 1982, but we also wouldn't see another Michael Jackson circa 2002. Not a bad tradeoff.
There's already a lot of good work going on on city, state, and geographic-area levels. Bands working on these levels seem to have a whole different mindset and be more in touch with their listeners.
And yeah, I'll give up any future Michael Jacksons to avoid . . . any future Michael Jacksons.
Good article
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The need for the label isn't disappearing, it's changing. We'll see the majors start contracting instead of expanding just like every other industry affected by technology. More outsourcing specific tasks (a&r for example). The label will take on a more management style role, and will become more of a "branding" issue. (Think punk scene: you know what a fat records band is going to sound like before you even press play). We'll also see labels start providing health insurance and accounting assistance to aid future MC Hammers. Ahhh, the possible return of the career artist
People love entertainment, people love music. It'll always be around, and there will always be money in it. It's just going to take some restructuring, even if it costs a whole lot of people their jobs.
Just a thought..
Sure their market will be reduced, and morph. But if they learn to adapt, they will survive.
Besides, the *industry* will do fine, its just the companies that have a stranglehold over it that are in trouble and must adapt, or die.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ask anyone where the money they pay for their CDs goes, and they'll tell you: 5% to the artists, 95% to the executives. No one feels like they are actually supporting the artists when they buy a CD! If we wanted to support the artists, we should buy Concert tickets! sell the CD for $5 (most of the CDs out there are only worth $5) and sell the concert tickets for $10 more! Much more of the profits from concert tickets goes into the pockets of the artists! The record labels are an obsolete marketing model. Radio play and file sharing works. The word spreads. When you hear something your friend burned onto his/her last CD, and you like it, you also want to know what it is! If something is of good quality, the people will buy it, period. Not everyone will pay for 100% of the music they burn, but they will pay for enough to keep the artists living the life, but only those who deserve it, and entertain us enough.
Oh, and by the way, Britney can whine all she wants, but for every $1 she's whining about, the execs are out 15! She's just the puppet in "her" anti-piracy campaign.
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end.
The problem isn't the demand for royalties per se -- it's the demand for royalties over and above what over-the-air stations pay.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Is Rosen's departure from the RIAA the first rat leaving a sinking ship?
Just something for us to consider. If the article is correct, then we should look for signs of the inevitable downturn.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I remember recent discussion regarding the role of producers and publisher and the article stating that the function of producers is 'filtering of all the crap they are getting and presenting the consumer with the best staff'. I wish it were true. In reality, producers invent the product they believe consumers would like, and since the product is rather vacuous, that is, has no contents, they put the excessive amount of efforts on packaging and advertising (junk food, anyone?) The sooner the present system goes the better. Doesn't look like anyone (except producers) will loose anything.
More importantly, two of the foundation elements of this article are misleading and/or potentially wrong. First, the 11% decline of sales this year can be attributed to
a) the 25% decline in output by the labels
b) the economy
c) the generally boring content
My vote is on a and b. c never seems to have an effect.
Also, the usage of P2P services does not necessarily bode ill for the recording industry. As has been advanced here before, P2P services often drive sales (they have for me and quite a few others). Just because the Suits don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Still, you gotta wonder about musicians: If someday all music were free, what would they do? Would they still make music, just getting money off of concerts and stuff? I know some bands would, but some of the other more popular bands, I dunno...
The music industry won't die. They may be dinosaurs, but there are lots of people who will be happy to take over and make it into something else. Rather then some grandiose claims, what will happen is the following: Hillary Rosen will resign, along with several top record execs (we already know this is happening) the price of CDs will come down to a reasonable level ($6-$8 I'd guess), and a reasonably priced online service will be launched with some sort of DRM, the service may or may not succeed, depending on customer adoption of DRM software. Considering what people are willing to put up with in order to get music (tons of spy ware from Kazaa, and by the way you'd be surprised at how many use windows media player to listen to MP3s)
I predict that eventually there will be some service where you pay $20-$50/mo for all the music you want, downloaded to your computer/pda/walkman. You'll 'own' the files even after the service expires. The money will be distributed to the parent companies based on their percentage of the downloads.
That will be it, that will be the "death". No grandiose flameouts, no seeing Kid-rock getting a job at K-mart, no Britney as a porn star (sorry), etc. The music industry will continue as long as people are willing to pay for music. There will be a change from viewing music as a product to viewing it as a service, but it will still exist, and will be controlled by mostly the same people.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"For years, the safest path to success in the music business has been to hunt the teen market. But by ignoring career artists at the expense of the latest trends, the labels have lost touch with wide swaths of society. Ultimately, Timothy suggested to me that night, the industry as we know it could vanish not so much because of technology but because few people over the age of 30 would care if it did."
Well written.
I'm 34 years old, and the only CD I've purchased in the last 18 months was for a gift. I am no longer able to stomach most new music that the labels promote. I do not like rap, I do not like teen pop, older bands are ignored and anything that is new and fresh is immediately duped and run into the ground as the latest profit mill. Meanwhile, good local bands are ignored and routinely GIVE away their music online.
I purchased an insane amount of CDs between 1986 (my first CD player) and 1996. I had a nice amount of disposable income and thought nothing of dropping $40 on CDs on a weekly shopping trip. No longer, there's nothing worthy of my hard earned dollar.
If the record companies want to make a quick buck, all they need to do is simply create a web site that offers ALL their out of print music in their entire collection and allow me to download it and burn it for $2 per song. I can fit 10 songs per CD, and the weekly revenue stream magically re-appears.
Alas, they are too stupid to see how profitable it is to satiate a demand in the market. They are too arrogant to admit that they need to make an adjustment. And they are too greedy to do anything about their problem but to buy legislation and call their customers criminals.
It's sad, really.
This is an interesting discussion, but I think much of it is being driven by personal agendas and people seeing what they want to see. I find many of them hard to agree with. First, I never think of the recording industry "labels" much at all. I don't even know who makes any of the CDs I own. I buy music from bands I like. I don't walk into a store and see "evil"; I see music.
I also don't see all music in stores as crap. Yeah, there's Mariah and so on, but there's alot a whole lot of it that I really like, both new and old. Saying that music publishers deserve to die because they're foisting unlistenable garbage on the world is a narrow view. If you hate all the music you find in the average, say, Borders, then I'm sorry, but You Just Don't Like Music.
All of the things that can be said about the Big Music Corporations can just as easily be said about smaller labels and music from local bands. They're trying to get you to pay for plastic CDs just like the big guys, and they're charging more than the fifty cents for materials. If you're arguing for the death of big music, you're arguing for the death of small music too.
I also find it hypocritcal that many people won't touch music in stores--calling it crap--but then will download it and enjoy it. Either you don't like it or you don't. These arguments come across as those from poor students trying to justify their lack of funds.
It's also not clear that CDs are really being killed by online music. I live near a CD store by a college campus, and it's always busy. The industry being down 11% is meaningless. No business grows forever and ever. So they're down 11% after growing 200% in the last decade. Does that matter? Look at how much the entire stock market has dropped in the last few years! And now they're only making _billions_ of dollars instead of billions + 11%. Hmmm. I'd take that.
The only real issue is that MP3s are more convenient sometimes, especially if you only want one song, and sure, that makes people buy fewer CDs (but it's arguable that people wouldn't buy those "for just one song" CDs anyway). But this has nothing to do with record companies being evil and so on. If you think music publishers are evil, then you should think video game and movie publishers are too. It's more that they're being branded as evil because people like the dodges that downloading music give them.
What they plan to do is, flood Kazaa with tons of bogus files and data and try to make it worthless, then people will have to use their pay services if they want music. Lots of people pirate music, but even more people are willing to pay for music.
I actually got a CD this summer when I couldn't find it on the depleted campus LAN.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"..the industry as we know it could vanish not so much because of technology but because few people over the age of 30 would care if it did. "
Being over 30, I can agree with this statement.
If only the fools in charge of the major players would realize that their simply cutting their own throats by keep CD prices so high and that this will ultimately be their own doom...
What they need to do is slash prices as well as their profit margin per disc (as opposed to cutting into artist profits). Only when a decent CD (if one can be found in the era of The Backside Boys and Christina Whore-uleria) costs about $10 will they win people back.
Sure, their profits will go down -- but at least they'll still be making money. The tech industry got hit hard, its damned hard to find a decent IT-related job and nearly impossible to find one paying what it did 2 years ago. Maybe the music industry needs to trim the fat and let some people go from their payrolls to recoup the losses involved with keeping their customers otherwise they'll simply cease to exist.
Just my $.02.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
I can't get too excited about this article... while the idea of the RIAA "dying" is a pleasing one, keep in mind that at this point it's still purely speculative.
I DO agree that the record companies are facing death threats on all sides. But they have an artillery of their own, too, not the least of which has been litigation and lobbying (which although cumbersome, seems to work all too well).
There will likely always be a place for some figurehead organization of some sort, if for no other reason than to manage the interests of players in an industry. Think about... what does RIAA stand for? "Recording Industry Association..." Virtually every industry/sector has groups like this. The Automotive industry, airlines, electronics manufacturers, educational standards/bodies/schools... textiles... pretty much everyone does (I only wish I could remember all the acronyms right now).
Without debating the moralities of their methods, The RIAA manages a lot... as long as there are Best Buys selling 1000's of CD's to get people to browse their other electronic junk for sale; as long as there are special-equipment manufacturers trying to market devices for playing music, as long as there are independent recording studios, instrument manufacturers, delivery providers (XM radio, etc) and the like out there (see the ripple effect here?) there will be some central organization with a mind toward controlling the commodity (music in this case) that is central to it all.
The central organization known now as the RIAA may not exist in 5 years (or 2 or 1) in the same form as it does today. But as long as there is some shred of money to be made, it WILL exists in some form.
~~~
"The slave thinks he is released from bondage, only to find a stronger set of chains" - NIN
Yay Capitalism! The market decides! The good drives out the bad! Ayn Rand is my copilot!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The cost of decent equipment affordable to the serious hobbyist is crazily low, thanks to various economies of scale happily interacting.
...) So it's possible --if you have some musical ability, and live in a country where these optimistic figures apply! -- to record your own Greatest Hits, even package it on CDs, make your million dollars ... except:
... held high positions at the other companies) is involved in the music industry out of interest and some level of appreciation, if not passionate devotion. It just happens that music filtered and packaged that way (bad contracts, glitzy promos, airplay freebies, reviewer massaging) is not the *only* sort of music worth listening to. There's lots of good music available through the music industry system, though. All I'm saying is that if the "industry" dried up and blew away, it would not be the end of *Music* -- just a particular, not-always-good approach to its selection and propagation.
For $2000 (price of a mid-level PC just a few years ago), you can have a decently (though minimally) equipped home studio consisting of a digital multitrack recorder, a passable mic pre-amp and a mic or two. And that's with new equipment, and probably with some change. For far *Far* less you can record yourself by other means (eBay, local classifieds, a few hours of studio time
Being able to *record* decent quality doesn't mean record companies don't matter -- it's just that "recording industry" is a misnomer. The various things which make up that "industry" could better be thought of as a big weird system of legalese + marketing + other forms of influence.
The "recording industry" postures as the *source* of music, and as standing up for the musicians whose work ends up being filtered through it. That might be true of most individuals involved, too; I can't really believe that Satan himself secretly heads all the big record companies, and does it because he hates all musicians. But it's not a secret that the reason record companies, including their high-priced studios and high-priced studio engineers, marketeers, etc, exist is to, hopefully and eventually, make some money.
I'm sure many if not most of everyone below the esoteric upper management level (where people float between companies seemingly on the basis that they've
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
--these guys release their figures and are bemoaning "lost sales". What they leave out all the time is that the entire economy (very broadly speaking, there's a few exceptions obviously) is hurting. Many other industries have "lower sales" figures for 2001 and 2002. People are maxed out credit-wise, a lot of folks have lost their jobs and either still don't have jobs or are working for much less money. In the US the actual true unemployment figures are so dismal that the bureau of labor statistics stopped reporting a lot of the details claiming it was "too expensive" to include them in their reports. Well, that's obviously a political decision there.
People aren't buying as much music more from 1-it's just too expensive for what you get, and 2-less disposable income. Music on CDs is not a necessity like the home note, vehicle note, food and utilities are.
As I sit here in Dayton, OH, I ponder why I don't have a radio in my cube and the answer comes to me rather quickly - because truly and honestly isn't a radio station around worth listening to. I could listen to any number of classic rock or 80's radio stations if I wanted to hear the same songs over and over again every day...forever. Or I could listen to the country music stations that play the same crap over and over again (never once have I heard truly talented country artists like Dwight Yoakam or Steve Earle get air time). I could flip on the local "alternative" station but, good God all the songs they ever play are what I call "white boy rage rock" - the sound never changes. It sucks and it's because the record industry essentially feeds them their playlists. There is one great station that's close but I can't get it (WOXY 97X in Cincinatti) here and it's an exception to the rule.
I am beginning to rediscover the joy of music again through digital cable music channels and swapping MP3's. My friend and I have set up FTP servers on our computers and upload interesting music (which we almost always buy) for each other to listen to. We've also swapped songs from vinyl albums or CD's bought in our youth that aren't physically playable anymore. It's not like we we're going to buy that particular CD again but it was nice that one of us had a digital copy of it so we could continue to enjoy it. Both of us like to buy CD's still but if the industry collapses I suppose we'll adapt. Really though, we're doing nothing that we weren't already doing for years - making mix tapes from albums and CD's and swapping them. It's just now we a a higher-quality medium to achieve the same thing. I don't get how Rip-Mix-Burn says "Fuck You Record Industry". Twenty years ago it was Cue-Mix-Tape and we never heard them complain.
In my case, technology is not to blame for my change in listening habits. Technology has been the savior in reviving my passion for music. It has allowed me to listen to what I like. The RIAA almost killed that part of my life because I found nothing worth listening to anymore that was easily accessible. The RIAA and its unchecked greed and totalitarian control tactics is really the culprit for the death of the music industry. At least for those of us that are too old to find Britney Spears appealing or talented.
Over the holidays I bought 30 classical
music CDs in a boxed set for $45. At $1.50
a disc it was well worth it for me to buy
the CDs rather than downloading and burning
that much music myself.
The interesting thing for me was the fact
that someone is making money selling them
at this price. Sure, the music itself is
out of copyright, and the orchestras they
used to record the music were from eastern
europe where labor is cheap, but it
demonstrates how low CD prices can get.
Add back some reasonable royalties for the
writers and performers, and single unit
packaging, and you should be
able to sell CDs for $3 apiece.
Daniel
In the mid 90's, everyone was predicting apple's doom. There were newspaper articles saying things like "the rise and fall of Apple" suggesting that apple's death was going to happen next year. I think the RIAA is the apple of the mid 90's. Everyone is saying that they are going to die, but they won't. Maybe they will become a lot smaller, but they won't go away. There is a market for high priced CDs even if it is getting smaller. There is some convenience in buying a CD, going home, playing it, and knowing it will work without the use of a computer(although the RIAA is shooting itself in the foot with DRM) What do you think?
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
At the point in time Rosen decided to kill Napster, older downloaders were largely grabbing out-of-print music, while youngsters grabbed the same hits as were on the radio. We didn't like Rosen or the RIAA, but most of us had yet to realize what a slimeball she is, and by association the RIAA. Cars with CD players were still a small minority, and CD burning software and hardware were as yet unpolished. Most importantly, though, was that downloaders were still thinking has nice it was going to be in the future when they could easily and reliably download high quality music, artwork, lyrics, etc, and also access thousand of out of print or difficult to get albums. Those whose main goal was to get free music for the sake of IP theft/piracy were the minority; most people simply thought that although what they were downloading was not top quality, it would get better once Napster went legit.
That was three years ago. Retail buyers of CDs find it even harder to find what they want, and a large portion of this is caused by the RIAA's using Golden Goose economics. E.g, fewer artists, fewer titles, and even pressing fewer copies to save money. At first glance it seems that if you press 200,000 and only sell 160,000, then you only should have pressed 160,000. However, what really happens is that if 160,000 are pressed, then sales will decline to probably around 110,000. Such is the power of having something in stock when the the buyer is there. Likewise, if there are six groups, you might like one; with just three, you probably don't like any.
Just imagine if there was a web site where a user go after discovering a new (to them) group, and click a button to purchase their entire catalogue. Print/burn/assemble/ship. By now everyone can do these steps, while the RIAA members's back catalogues have actually shrunk. In many cases they've cancelled contracts with independents (such as Rhino) and then .... done nothing.
The RIAA's members couldn't, can't and never will even agree with each other on how to do anything that would involve voluntarily giving up one penny.
So, Rosen, now we hate you. Things should have gotten better, but you made things considerably worse. We don't want to give you or your RIAA member's money so you can sue us, buy politicans and judges, and snort coke in your private jets all day (or whatever it is you need the money for).
or that he had died
Pure & simple...the lion goes too quietly and too soon. They will be back with their lawsuits and their outdated methods. Only this time they will have the Industry behind them with machines built encoded with DRM tech. Inherent to the machine at the lowest levels, there will be no way to run your own system without authorization from all of the MFR's and in turn the RIAA, MPAA, and the KMAAYLC (Kiss my ass association you lousy consumer!).
Time to pick up a guitar and make my own...You keep going until you die..."Me".
What do they contribute to the process today?
At one time, it was very difficult to record and distribute music. Letting the listeners know the music was available was a problem, too. All of this costa lotta dollah! An industry was born, they provided those services, and they charged a fee. I don't forget that industry has abused and defrauded both the artists and the listeners; I'm keeping this basic, here.
Anyhow, the services are simply not as precious as they once were. The most difficult part of getting a recorded piece of music onto media is to create the art itself. Today, anybody with a few grand can put together a decent recording studio. More and more, when the band's in the studio the most expensive collection of hardware in the room is their instruments.
Editing and mixing a decent track from the audio your engineer has just captured? Again, the limiting factor is talent, not capital.
Marketing and Distribution? I don't think we need help with that.
The RIAA is doomed because they have no product. They may hang onto some "talent" through old contracts, but I can't forsee the majority of new artists waiting to be "discovered" when they can do it themselves.
Torque, Torque--the Beast needs more Torque.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
The Wired piece correctly points to the changing music preferences of people who aren't teenagers. One thing they discover is that music is not bounded by the "popular bands' that many Slashdor readers seem to think equate with all music.
I'm over 30, and buy fewer than a dozen CD's per year. I stopped feeling a "gotta have that CD" compulsion a long timer ago. (Hence, the hundreds of CD's sitting in boxesx in my closets.)
I haven't paid to hear a musician play in anything larger than a neighborhood bar for years. And, when I think of a "band" it's more likely to be a bunch of jazz players found on a Bluenote reissue.
I've played with the p2p networks, found them rather chaotic, and, more importantly, found little music that I'd bother to listen to, on any medium.
I care about audio quality, so I don't listen to music on my PC.
I don't know if my experience mirrors that of others (I suspect it does), but the same thing is likely to happen to the big demographic currently targeted by the music industry.
My criteria for a music distribution system that succeeds the current system includes: distribution of music I like; sufficient revenue back to the musicians I like to keep them in the business; simple and convenient way to locate and acquire music I like; simple means to transfer the music files to a format acceptable to my playback method of choice.
Cost? Less is better than more expensive, but it isn't a primary factor.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
She's WON!
The way I see the "radical change" in the direction of the RIAA is as follows.
It is not so radical. The RIAA has gotten absolutely everything it wants.
Every large CPU chip maker (Intel, AMD, & Transmeta) have recently (in the last quarter) unveiled DRM enabling technologies. Inevitably touted as "security" or "trustworthy computing" features, they generally support the TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Alliance), which in turn can be used to prevent users' access to portions of their computer and to the files on their computer (i.e. DRM).
With the CPU & chipset taken care of via these companies, all that is left to get on board are the BIOS makers, since any DRM technology is dead in the water if the BIOS doesn't enforce certain rules about what can run at boottime (not to mention run HASH checks, key checks, etc). The support that BIOS makers such as American Megatrends, Inc., have recently annouced for TCPA puts all the pieces for effective hardware DRM in place. Of course, the other portion of the pie that is necessary for DRM is a DRM enforcing OS, but Microsoft is working on that with Palladium.
With all the above, the Hollings bill becomes irrelevant. No GOVERNMENT mandated DRM technologies are needed, because the chip makers are implementing the exact DRM "features" the RIAA has always wanted. Control of individual PC users data will now be wrested away from them and given to the content owners. The RIAA has been given exactly what they wanted and they didn't have to go to the government to get it; in effect, the computer industry caved.
From what I know firsthand, it is clear that a trade has been made. The computer industry will supply the DRM framework if the RIAA (and eventually the MPAA) will provide the content that keeps the PC platform as a viable alternative to set top boxes (i.e. get people using "media PCs").
The other thing that makes this an absolute coup for the RIAA is the announcement that the computer industry will no longer fight the DMCA or support users fair use rights. This may effectively kill Rep. Boucher's attempt to reform the DMCA through the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (the "DMCRA"). DRM with the DMCA still in effect is almost too horrible for me to contemplate.
There is room for disagreement perhaps, but it seems that the computer companies have sold out the American consumer for a cut of the "content" pie.
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
"record companies are detested by politicians (for corrupting youth)"
Isn't it more like:
"record companies are detested by youth (for corrupting politicians)"
FRA: STFU GTFO
This comment is VERY misleading.
The big 5 record companies DO NOT RUN ALL the Recording Services that artists use.
First point - most good musicians end up having a home studio anyway. A lot of people I listen to (Will Kimbrough, Ani DiFranco, Slaid Cleeves to name a few) are hard working live and session artists and have invested in thier own gear - they are craft workers that want to have control of the final product.
Second point - Each artist does not have to master thier own music - the same mastering services will be available as there are now that the record companies use. Mastering CD's is not a technically difficult job at all - but properly producing a good album is and needs a good team to do it. (I have done this for come college bands so they can send decent demos to promoters and such - I'm no proffesional but the tools available mean I can cut a pretty acceptable live album.) Most of those people are contractors of a kind either independant or attached to a studio like Abbey Road. These people right now are being requested by artists that care about thier music, and will still be if record companies disappear in the morning.
Point Three - you don't make squat from CD sales NOW because so many people take a cut. Yes artists give up 85% of sales, but many of them end up being charged for all the costs out of THIER 15%. If an artist can pay for the album to be produced and the CDs to be created once they have broken even everything is pure profit. Most of these guys make thier break in the live circuit and selling signed cds for 10 bucks at the end is a great way to meet fans, make money and spread the word of your music for those people who didnt make your gig. This is where I get most of my CDs now because its cheaper and the artist I respect gets a bigger cut of the money.
Point Four - Promoters hire and organise concerts, these people will also not disappear. The difference will be the artists will have to have a bit more financial backing to put the capital up, but will get more of the returns. Without a slush fund from the Record Companies in the future you will find promoters being more flexible becasue they themselves will want to evolve and adapt and stay in buisness. I can, and have, see the artists I mentioned above for 10UKP a time in the Borderline in London - that MUST be profitable otherwise it wouldn't happen and I can tell you for certain that no Record Company is involved. I've run band nights myself and we ALL made profits for far less outlay than you suggest.
Point 5 - Yamaha/Korg/Roland arent going to go out of buisness. Big News - artist have thier own instruments these days, even session musicians. Cubase and other such programs can generate very very reasonable sound on commodity PC hardware. Even college bands can afford good mid range equipment these days.
Point 6 - artists are willing to give up 85% of thier sales because if they want to break out of the niche live and touring circuit and bring thier music to a wider audience they need airplay. Try getting that in the US without playing ball with an A&R man. Thankfully in the UK we have more choice with guys like Bob Harris who actually care about the music they play and don't have a playlist and a script.
Point 7 - a lot of independant artists manage themselves or are managed RIGHT NOW by management groups without any affiliation with the Big 5.
Point 8 - the attitude of 'those poor dumb artists don't want to be bothered with buisness' is condescending and insulting. ALL of the craftspeople in the industry from writers to session musicians to producers to sound engineers generally take pride in thier work. Thats why so many of them set up thier own record labels and studios so they can keep control of thier work. A lot of 'real' unmanufactured music is pretty much only distributed by the Big 5, everything else is done by the people themselves. Its not economics, its an issue of control.
Point 9 - computers have brought cheap good quality synthesisation and sequenceing into the homes of college students and teenagers. This in turn has brought down the price of higher level kit. Good studios are now available for hire. We no longer need the massive outlay of money to set up a studio that required a Record Company to do it - indeed these days a large number of studios are set up by existing artist who hire them out to make it profitable. What computers have done is bring down the costs and made good music production available to many many more people. The internet has now offered a distribution channel that was previously only available to a large buisness. Thats the point.
Point 10 - nothing in your post is about supporting the artist. Its about supporting the status quo. I support artists by supporting efforts to limit the massive lobbying for control of thier livelhood that is going on, by going to thier gigs, by buying directly from them.
My hatred of the Recording Companies (NOT the recording industry itself) is not hatred, and nor is it blind. They are just as relevant to the task of getting music from the artist into my hifi as coal mining is to fueling railway trains - namely redundant as things have moved on.
It is quite true that videos get copied around a lot in Japan. So how does Anime sell at all in Japan? Well one of the tricks is that they load the offical releases with goodies beyond the actual video material. Their philosophy: You can't beat the rampant copying so why bother?
And that is the trick. The video or CD itself can be worth as much work as you are willing to put into copying it. However getting posters, thick supplimental reading material, figurines, extra CDs, wooden cases with the show's logo on it can't be copied. Of course they don't sell releases in giantic volumes companies in the US are used to on mainstream releases but if done right they can make money.
First, downloading from Kazaa isn't theft, piracy or copyright infringement if you're using it to find tracks to an artist that someone recommended to you. If you download an entire album or ten, YES, that's wrong, but I regularly track down (with varying success) artists I've heard about to try to find 3-4 songs to see if I like them. If I like them, I go buy the CD, if I don't I delete the tracks.
As for no alternative, check out CDBaby when you have a moment. 30,000 artists, artists get everything except $4 an album, and more variety than you can shake your booty at. No contracts, no abusive clauses, and the artists set their prices, not some record labels.
Peace.
but the recording 'industry' is not the RIAA. The Recording Industry is also CDs sold out of the back of a punk band's van. the RIAA is a collection of nothing but labels. death of labels is different from killing off a whole industry.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
You know what? If Rip/Mix/Burn is the equivalent of "Fuck you, record companies," then I'm all for it. A couple weeks ago I sat in front of my computer with the lead singer of Dandy Warhols, whom I had just met. I didn't know much about their music, but he wanted me to hear their popular song. So we went to his band's website. Then we went to the record company's website. Then we went to mp3.com. Then we tried altavista's mp3 search. Finally we found a crappy copy on gnutella but only got 3/4 of the song. If RIAA had its way we wouldn't have even found that. Now, this is a band with a hit song and a major label contract. Their stuff is played on KROQ and MTV (at no cost to listeners, I might add). There seems to be something supremely ironic - and patently absurd - about the lead singer not even being able to download his own music to play for a friend. It was pretty clear that he didn't think that I was ripping him off, or that if it were easier to find his music on the web he would be less popular. It was also clear that as the artist he had little control over (and perhaps little interest in controlling) the way his music is distributed.
The point is that corporations tend to move at a glacial pace and tend to ignore technology and change, often at their own peril. Those that make this behavior a bad habit, go extinct or end up having to donate to charity just to get their domain name back.
The recording industry has wasted the last 3+ years fighting file sharing when they should have been figuring out how to embrace it and adapt themselves to the changing environment.
My feelings were that they should have tried to one-up the technology (i.e., offer music albums on DVD which would include lots of low-cost filler material that fans love--interviews with the band, live performances, commentary, videos, etc.) That would make the store-bought medium far more desireable to the consumer and the mp3 downloading experience would pale by comparison. In having done that, they could have relegated Napter and all its offspring to the status of free advertising. Instead, the recording industry chose (like McDonalds) to ignore the inevitable.
Even if they choose to change their ways now, I doubt they could make up for the lost time. Good riddance to them. I hope they can't. I'd like to see one good, hard-to-ignore example of technology roadkill for other industries to contemplate. Hopefully the corporate world will pass by the recording industry's dead body and learn a lesson from it.
Probably not, but I'm an optimist.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
YYYESSSSSSSS!!!!
It may be a little early to crack open the champagne, but I'm ready to celebrate evolution in action. Record companies served a purpose when the technology to make copies of records was expensive. This service is no longer necessary, or even beneficial, to musicians or the public. The promotional services that record companies still legitimately provice could be replaced by a promotion industry. Hopefully one that's based on sane business agreements, rather than the take-it-or-leave-it usury model which the record industry chose to follow, and which is finally biting it in its big ugly ass.
What I really hope happens is not just the extinction of record companies, but that other businesses will take this as proof that the path to long-term survival lies in serving a purpose, not in forcing the public to support your business model.
full ACK.
/.
v e/ index.html?pn=1
I have (just, few hours ago) - via german geek news ticker heise.de - come to know British music industry has set up a site to "protect their content" and educate the consumers (to pay, what else?.
http://www.bmr.org/campaign/
And they have a nice site with links "Click to join the debate",
http://www.bmr.org/campaign/
but, as usual they got it all wrong:
i answered but it's an email and i suspect they will have to ask their bosses whether they can publish this.
So i'll publish my reply (hey, they asked!) on
#email-start#
Concerning the artists i agree almost totally with James Bostock.
Looking to the opportunities for "consumers" like me (who just has not enough time to make the music i'd like to hear myself) i am convinced there will be many ways to find published music which is interesting to the likes of me but cannot be published the way the business runs nowadays. Think of those musicians with a more eclectic taste, those who even now like old styles or just the "bygones" who are not selling enough to interest even a small label.
Thinking of the music industry i hope they will continue the path they have taken. In this case they will destroy themselves and rightly so:
http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/lo
To be polite: there may be something to be invented, thought out or else which could win back the respect the music industry and all copyright sellers like them have destroyed in the recent years and are further destroying any given day. But i don't think anyone can convince me to do such a job for them.
Doc Searls and his friends have done a great job in this direction:
http://www.cluetrain.com/
#email-end#
(Any native speakers of english or american english always welcome to direct me to be more polite)
"Writings of mad Lawyers! The Lawyers upon you" - old dwarven alarm cry.