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)."

29 of 478 comments (clear)

  1. Umm.. by Gentoo+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

    "from the imminent-death-predictions-getting-boring dept"

    Then why post it?

    1. Re:Umm.. by slothdog · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then why post it?

      So they'll have stories to choose from for tomorrow's news, silly.

    2. Re:Umm.. by sakeneko · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "from the imminent-death-predictions-getting-boring dept"
      Then why post it?

      To gloat? <wry grin>

      The RIAA has made enemies here, and not many friends anywhere. To quote the inimitable Molly Ivins, "My mother may have raised a mean child, but she didn't raise no hypocrites." I'm not an expert, but from where I sit, it looks like the recording industry has jacked up prices unconscionably, reduced the range and variety of music available to the rest of us, and driven independent distributors out of business. I think the recording industry as a whole has become a bunch of parasites, and (worse) parasites that are killing the host.

      The wierdest part of this is that I've never downloaded a single illegal song, never did Napster, never installed any version of Kazaa, don't even copy my own CDs. I don't think it's right to steal -- even from thieves. I certainly don't think it's right to steal from artists who create the work I love to listen to.

      So I listen mostly to my old CDs these days. I don't think I've bought a dozen CDs in the last three years, and most of those have been from small, independent artists who produce their own stuff.

      It is frustrating to have no alternative, though, to being ripped off myself, doing without, or starving out the artists and other good guys along with the parasites. I just picked the least objectionable of those alternatives. :/

      So I admit it's nice to hear that the parasites are in trouble. :>

    3. Re:Umm.. by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      the music industry is loosely associated with the war industry

      Let's analyze a "snip" from your web-site:

      *snip*

      AOL Time-Warner is one of the remaining major label record companies and owns Atlantic, Elektra/Sire, Asylum, Reprise, Warner, American, Maverick, and others. It also owns AOL, which is involved in a co-venture with Hughes Electronics Corp called DirecTV. Hughes is owned 100% by General Motors. Hughes merged with Raytheon to form Hughes subsidiary Raytheon Industries. Raytheon Industries makes bombs.

      *snip*

      And Raytheon starred in "Footloose" with Kevin Bacon! YOU WIN!!!

  2. Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by 3waygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to the article, it's already sinking. And the mega-companies that own the Big 5 aren't helping any either.

      It's eerie how spot on that article is. I mean, when I was growing up, I would buy a copy of every single album I could find of certain artists, like ZZ Top or Queen. But nowadays, there just aren't any artists who can seem to pull that kind of longevity off, because the labels don't seem to be inclined to let them.

      We've got boy-bands that almost certainly won't be around in 3 years, much less 5. We've got "teen stars" who will almost certainly lose any fan base they have in a few years as well... I mean, it just seems outright unlikely that any artists that start today (or for that matter, started in the last couple of years), will have anything near the amazing amounts of success of the bands of 'yesteryear'.

      Sure, there are some bands who seem to buck those trends, but when you're looking at the real longevity of bands like Aerosmith, versus the possible (and tenuous) longevity of artists like Britney Spears... well, you know what? I think in ten or fifteen years, there will still be people listen to old Aerosmith tunes, but Britney Spears will be all but forgotten.

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Hilary Rosen is obviously psychic... by rot26 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's eerie how spot on that article is. I mean, when I was growing up, I would buy a copy of every single album I could find of certain artists, like ZZ Top or Queen. But nowadays, there just aren't any artists who can seem to pull that kind of longevity off, because the labels don't seem to be inclined to let them.

      First-record deals are notoriously BAD for the artist. If the first turns out to be successful, they then try to renegotiate the contract for more money. The record companies are neatly sidestepping this process by simply abandoning the band after one (or maybe two) successes and finding a soundalike clone and publishing THEIR music under another bad-first-record deal.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
  3. Paying customers? by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "The industry rightly believes that if it can make file-swapping more difficult, and legitimate online services easier and less expensive, it can turn the kids on Kazaa into paying customers."

    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! (\(-__-)/)
    1. Re:Paying customers? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They don't want to make Kazaa pay only, they want to make Kazaa disappear, and all services like it, so they can replace it with their own 'music download' service.

      Except their idea of an 'online service' is really just an online version of a retail store, without the added cost of producing the CDs and liner notes.

      And they want to make sure that it's illegal for anyone else to license the songs and offer a competing service, much like they dont want stores selling used CDs, which offer a competing service to the handful of 'retail outlets' they have in their pockets.

      The recording industry wont die, but it will evolve into something different. The "we must control everything from the artist's mouth to the consumer's walkman" business model simply cannot work in todays world.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Paying customers? by Computer! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not that hard to shoplift gum, either, but why bother when it's only $.25 per?

      The secret is to provide accurate ID3 tags, 192kb/s quality, and accurate/standardized filenames. I'd pay up to $.50/song for all that, which is a lot more than they're getting now (hint: nothing).

      --
      If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
  4. Quote... by dietlein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

    1. Re:Quote... by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't see what's wrong with Rip/Mix/Burn. The record companies have weasled the gubmint into levies on CDR/DVD-R media, MP3 Players etc.; so I pay for the right to R/M/B even if I don't often excersize that right.

      I say to the Record Gorillas: If you want to collect the levies on media, shut the hell up if I decide that I'm going to use what I've already paid for.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:Quote... by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see what's wrong with Rip/Mix/Burn. The record companies have weasled the gubmint into levies on CDR/DVD-R media, MP3 Players etc.; so I pay for the right to R/M/B even if I don't often excursive that right.

      Do you live in Canada? If you are in the united states, only "Music" CD-Rs are taxed. "Data" CD-Rs are not, even though you can record music to a data CD-R and play it back on anything. The only difference between the two is that the Music CD-R costs more and it can be burned by special, expensive stereo components, which in turn cost more then whole computers with burners.

      In other words, for all practical purposes there are not levies on data storage systems in the US (CDs, memory sticks, DVDs, etc) only on audio systems (audio tape, DAT, crippled CDs for component recording).

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    3. Re:Quote... by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NOTHING is wrong with the phrase: Rip, Mix Burn.

      If the RIAA thinks that this phrase is the equivalent of Apple Corp giving them "the bird", then it is the RIAA that has the problem. They're simply out of touch with reality and their genuine contempt for their customer is shining through.

      Consider this: The "Rip" part of the Apple slogan requires to have the ACTUAL ORIGINAL. All Apple is doing is to encourage inventive use of what you already PAID for.

      There is nothing particularly subversive about such an idea.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. I doubt it by Kickstart70 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Unless we advance some form of public ownership, and tear down the structure of corporate business, we will always have corporations. As long as we have corporate record companies, they will seek an organization where they can band together for self-protection.

    While it may not always be CALLED the RIAA, it will always BE the RIAA.

    Kickstart

    1. Re:I doubt it by Rary · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...we will always have corporations. As long as we have corporate record companies...

      Your logic doesn't quite flow. Just because we will always have corporations, does not necessarily mean we will always have corporate record companies. The need for record companies is rapidly disappearing. When the service provided by a service company becomes obsolete, that company becomes obsolete. It doesn't remain just because corporations still remain and it's a corporation.

      I don't know if record companies, and subsequently the RIAA, will cease to exist. I do know that if they don't start to actually adapt to the changes that have occurred in the market right before their bewildered -- and apparently non-functional -- eyes, it's highly unlikely they will remain profitable.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

  6. Conglomerates suck out the life by gosand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In the past two decades, every big label has been swept up into one of five major groups: Universal, Warner, Sony, BMG, and EMI, which together control about 75 percent of global recorded-music sales.

    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.

  7. if you treat customers like criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you threaten jailtime to your customers then your customers will go away.

    A very expensive lesson for them to learn

  8. Sure, just like AM radio died... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

  9. Re:I think we've known this for a while.. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interesting idea. How about a DVD and a (Red Book) CD sold together? The DVD has all the audio tracks, plus the bouncing titties videos, plus the "making of" the bouncing titties videos. The CD just has the music so that you can play it in your car, or if (gasp) you haven't got a DVD player (yet).

    Seems to me that you've got a good point there. Much of the cost of selling an audio CD is in making the singles videos to promote it. It's strange that the music business hasn't thought about trying to sell them as content.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  10. Two Quotes Stand Out: by Badgerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Paying too much in the wrong direction by Vinnster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  12. probably better off ... by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:What do they do? by Slightly+Askew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Let's see:

    24-track digital multi-track recorder($3,500) ; 40-channel mixer/sound board($6,000) ; studio musicians ($???/hour) ; booth construction (ca. $10,000) ; sundries such as cables, media, beer, etc. ($1,000)

    This is just to record. Now each artist has to remaster their own music (a very technically difficult job for which people study years). Then they have to shop around for a place to stamp CDs for them. These artists now have over $30,000 wrapped up in their album, which they have to recoup from concerts, because everyone knows you don't make squat for profit on CD sales. So you book a music hall, hire ticket printers, take out an insurance policy, and suddenly add another $50,000 to your bill. I sure hope your /. buddies bring their friends.

    Taking care of these "business" tasks are the major perks of studios -- and the reason why artists are willing to give up 85% of their sales to them. Exactly where did a computer take over these roles? Destroy the recording agencies, and I can guarantee you will destroy quality music. How good do you think that Pink Floyd album of yours would have sounded if it had been recorded in a garage using bicycle spokes and wooden spoons for the synthesized sound? Do you think U2 could charge $75 a ticket if their only exposure had been to the geek music community?

    In your blind hatred of the recording industry, you are failing to see what positive qualities they do have. Don't destroy them, change them. Help change the copyright laws. Buy from independent recording labels who don't have a history of persecuting file sharers. Support the artists. Quit whining.

    "...I'd rather have my appendix removed by baboons weilding unsterilized tuna can lids..." -- Dave Barry

    --
    Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
  14. This Sums It Up by zentec · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  15. The invisible FISTING of Adam Smith! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  16. Long Time Coming by wazzzup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:Hmm... by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The RIAA is just the lobbying body of the big five labels. They are the ones going down, and when they do, the RIAA will just be disbanded or go back to being a standards organization like it used to be.

    As for the big labels, they are a bunch of old (and very greedy) dinosaurs that are still trying to use a business model from the 1940's. Technology has moved on, and what used to be exclusive to them: studio equipment, distribution channels, and promotion contacts, are no longer exclusive. Studio equipment is cheap enough now for a well-off college student or a small business to afford. Distribution can be handled by ecommerce, and possibly a fulfillment center if one is selling a lot of CDs, something a musician just getting started wouldn't need to worry about. Promotion can be handled via P2P (already proven to work for indie artists), internet radio, the web, and word of mouth.

    All that is dying is a bunch of greedy companies and a way of doing business that deserves to die. Music will live on in a new industry that is already waiting in the wings. Only instead of mega labels that "manufacture" a select few pop stars (that can't half sing), this will be an industry of indie artists, basement studios, and small indie labels, where the artists are in charge, prices are low, and variety is endless because there are no barriers to entry. Anybody who can carry a tune and get an mp3 made of the event will be able to be an artist. Run that mp3 up on your favorite P2P network and see if anyone salutes. If they do, make more and you are on your way to a fun hobby or even a career if you can find enough people interested in buying your mp3s and CD albums. If your first mp3 isn't noticed, either try again, perhaps with a different sound or style, or else don't and do something else with your life.

    Want to hurry the death of the big labels along? Go here:

    http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm

    This is a list of the members of the RIAA, including all the subsidiary labels of the big five. Boycott them. Also boycott anybody foolish enough to copy protect disks. Take your hard earned money and enthusiastically support indie artists. Find some you like and tell all your friends about them. This way, you may give the RIAA some ammo to complain about piracy in the short term (don't worry, they would make up something to complain about even if you were their best customer), but in the long term you will have built up a better future for both the artists and your fellow music lovers.

    "Mothra's attack is working."
    Shouta, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

  18. Recording Industry != Recording Services by CharlieO · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.