Slashdot Mirror
Six Giant Music Retailers Will Try Online Sales Together
PingXao writes "The New York Times is reporting that several music retailers are banding together to test online sales. Sad to see the article's author flat-out claim that '... a proliferation of free music-swapping services on the Internet has led to a decline in CD sales.' The retailers are starting to get a clue but still have a long way to go as evidenced by 'Recording companies make the music...' and 'We are in the customer relationship business.'"
Of course, who else would provide us with all this kewl DRM content ?
Then again, they may just want to "give it a shot" before submitting to DRM technologies... I bet the switch is not going to be cheap for them, either.
So if the question is, if those labels happen to make a good buck selling inline, will they bury DRM ?
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Sad to see the article's author flat-out claim that '... a proliferation of free music-swapping services on the Internet has led to a decline in CD sales.'
Why is that sad? It's probably true to a degree. The good news is that these companies are trying to embrace a new distribution model. What's sad is that they may not be successful when a 100% free alternative exists with as much consumer perceived add-value to the product.
Obviously, I don't agree with the motivations of the music companies. But I DO think it's cool that we have this ongonig *technical* struggle...the DRM arms race.
Again, I hate the music companies, but seeing the clevarness go back and forth is great to watch. I hope I can get in on it personally some day.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
The retailers are starting to get a clue but still have a long way to go as evidenced by 'Recording companies make the music...' and 'We are in the customer relationship business.'"
The silly demonizing of the record companies is really getting counter productive. In a strict sense, of course, the recording companies don't "make" the music (of course the artists do, but under contract), just like software companies don't "make" the software (their programmers do, under contract), and just like home-building companies don't "make" the homes (the construction workers do also under employment contract).
But it is a useful shorthand to say all of the above. Without the record companies the vast majority of songs that get traded so happily on P2P networks would never have made it to rippable CDs in the first place (as an aside, I always found the usage of the term "rip" in this context to be somewhat revealing).
And the poster's implied distinction between the record companies and the people who "made" the music suggests that the artists are uniformly against the record companies and their efforts in this area. P2P advocates are being flat-out chauvinistic if they think that all artists - or maybe even a majority - disagree with the RIAA's stands. It irks me when I see a few artists' views trotted out with the implicit assumption that their views are representative...what's the real big picture ?
To be sure, there is a vocal group, but I wonder whether they're getting disproportionate press precisely because they're arguing something more controversial - you never hear about Metallica complaining about P2P anymore, because it's just boring and it seems obvious.
Has anyone conducted polls of major artists to see where they stand and how they feel about the RIAA ? I'm not talking about disenfranchised had-their-day-in-the-sun-more-than-a-decade-ago artists (*cough*Janis Ian*cough*) and I'm not talking about little independent artists who probably secretly would *love* to get a big record deal if they could - what about a survey of artists in the Billboard 100, or artists with the best selling CDs in the last 10 years, or the top 100 artists traded on Kazaa/Gnutella...or some other reasonably objective criteria that defines a sample of artists under contract to record companies represented by theRIAA ?
What is needed here is hard, representative statistics, not agenda-laden anecdotes that fit whatever story happens to be convenient with the story-teller's philosophy.
They have two functions: up-front money for musicians to make recordings, and their distribution apparatus. The former is being undercut by the growing availability of cheaper digital technology, and the latter has been undercut by the (clearly practical) distribution of music over the internet.
They are searching desperately for some means to survive in the connected society, as their business model disintegrates. Is anyone surprised that they are taking desperate (and not well-thought-out) measures?
Floating face-down in a river of regret...and thoughts of you...
Any proof? I have not seen any closing stores yet, but I have seen an OPENING one (due in a month). If they close 107 stores and open 108, that's not quite the same as just closing 107 stores...
The average cost of a compact disc, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying group which represents recording companies, is $14.21.
What is the average cost of a DVD? An audio tape? judging by the prices, the audio tape costs much less on average, yet it's the same music...?
I'd be tempted to buy them except that once I can sample the rest of the songs on the album, I decide that they're a waste of money.
For some reason, I'm hooked on anime themesongs.
So that's the biz plan of the RIAA (MPAA may be different):
There is only a couple of problems with this plan: (a) selling... er... forcing sh!t down the throat of the average consumer, like Britney Spears, does not bring a lot of $$$ and (b) file-based protection will never work, unless (c) you also force people to use stuff like Palladium -- but that opens up another can of worms for both the RIAA and its allies.
Prognosis? Will work for 6 months top. Past these point, somebody will figure out a way to crack the system. He/She'll get his ass burned badly by the RIAA lawyers, but that will be the end of it.
Either that, or some enterprising company from Korea or Taiwan will figure out that there is a lot of $$$$ to be made selling non-Palladium compliant hardware to people who want it. Game Over.
Too little, too late. Sorry, RIAA.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The 25% decline in industry output, the economy, the specifics of the offerings, the collusively illegal prices, the wide variety of other available choices for purchase, the ubiquity of music available free on MTV, these are all bothersome and distracting. And "reporting" can tire one out.
the fact that they have jacked the prices way up on cd's either? I used a giftcard at a popular gift/music store this weekend and got 2 cd's for my $40. Now that is just WRONG. This is the first time I've bought cd's in over a year and its left a bad taste in my mouth. I own several hundred CD's and it was not too long ago when cd's could be had for HALF of what they are trying to sell them for now. I honestly can't believe these bands, that have become successful, can sleep at night. If the record companies really believe they need this much for a CD then they are doing something wrong or have way too much overhead. It all just makes me really sad.
I remember purchasing music from cdnow thinking i was getting an mp3 file i could later burn to a cd, only to find out (after the fact) the music was in this liquid audio format where the "recommended" player was liquid audio player (which i believe was the only player). It also claimed the song was only playable from 1 computer and was crippled in such a way that I had to do an analog rip of the song from one of my computers to the other. My point is that if they are going to be successful they have to be MORE convenient that file sharing programs. And not just by having easily downloadable mp3s, but an easier interface, more reliability, and faster downloads, etc...
The major American motion picture studios are doing better financially than the major American record labels partly because a movie often pays for its production at the box office alone, whereas a record has no box office at all, except for motion picture soundtracks.
Solution: Make music videos for all songs on an album. Interweave them with a cheap plot, and turn them into a movie. (I'm thinking like Moonwalker but hopefully better written.) Release the movie theatrically on the Friday before the album comes out. Then, after a few weeks in the box office, put the videos into MTV's heavy rotation.
This should be easy enough for Sony, Warner, and Universal, who own both a record label and a movie studio. It may not work for Bertelsmann and EMI, who don't have major U.S. movie holdings.
If I am talking out of my rear end, please explain to me in polite language why this wouldn't work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Indeed, plenty of good songs are on bad CDs. It would be nice if you could make compilation CDs with the individual tracks you want - preferably made in a local kiosk. That way they could cost less, and they would have just what you want. Ideally, you could also call the local music store, buy one over the phone and drop in to pick it up.
Downloading songs allows me to be sure about buying a CD before I do - I've wasted money on plenty of "One Hit" CDs that I never listen to.
Buying online, if available per song with a *slight* discount for a complete album, could prompt me to buy music more. The convenience it a big factor.
And even if it's set up in a DRM environment, if the sound is high-fidelity (better be if it's locked out - should be anyway) I can encode an MP3 on a second computer (maybe even the same one) and use it elsewhere.
Of course, they have to keep in mind that it's very easy to make the switch back to file-sharing if things go badly.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The best thing bands can do today is to put up a website with free downloads of all their songs. Beside each song have a recommended donation price ($1 to $3 per track) - with a paypal link so folks who appreciate your work can pay.
Then, get out there and tour - pay your dues every weekend to promote your music and your website. You're not here to get rich quick - you are here because you love the music.
~~~
The best thing music lovers can do is start donating to these pioneering indy bands - and stop buying CDs - unless it is absolutely worth it (and I don't consider much new music produced in the past 5 years worth it - with a few exceptions).
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
I just spoke with the Editor in chief of the Ney York Times Digital.
I politely informed him of the erroneous statement in the article and indicated to him that there was no substantiation for this claim.
I also proceeded to inform him, at his request that I personally found new music on sites like VH1.com and mtv.com and sampled them to find out if I wanted to buy them at which point I would go purchase the song, or the CD depending on availability.
He has informed me that they will be making a correction to the article.
The offending remark is in paragraph 3, sentence 3. I have requested to have this sentence eliminated, given the stature of the NYTimes and it's desire to remain a factual newspaper.
If you notice, none of the rest of the article has to do with free downloading networks.
There is substantial research to indicate the primary causes for the decline in CD sales to be the over-proliferation of recording companies all wanting a piece of the pie and a sharp economic donwturn forcing consumers to cut back in spending in an already saturated marketplace.
If you all could keep watch on this article and see if the retraction/correction takes place, I would appreciate it.
I will be calling the NYTimes back this afternoon as a followup.
Thanks.
If I hear a song on the radio that I enjoy, I can just search for it on Kazaa Lite and download it. It doesn't matter if it's an unreleased promo-only track or a promo-only mix that isn't for sale on the album, chances are it's already been leaked online and I can get it.
I'm sick of the games the music industry plays by not releasing certain mixes of tracks they play on the air, only releasing some songs as singles and bullshit release dates for tracks the radio already has. If you're going to play it on the air - sell it or I'll just get it elsewhere.
Once I noticed I'd been downloading more than a few MP3s by the same artist, I'd actually buy the albums. Not only was this to show support for the artist, but it allowed me to make a high-bitrate rip to MP3 of the entire CD for my own personal use. With the introduction of copy protection, however, I doubt I'll ever buy another CD again unless the music industry sees the error of its ways.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
If just one major label took the risk of opening up their catalog the
way that consumers want, the rest could follow. Even if they took the
chance on one artist's catalog to see how it went. As an example,
if the Beatles catalog was offered online as highest quality mp3s,
consistent clean meta data, no drm. $15 bucks per album, 1 buck per
single. The complete catalog, at a clean, consistent quality level.
(Something that's not available from p2p these days).
No catches, no proprietary player. You could also order the same
content on physical media with bonus fetish material at a price premium,
say another 10 bucks. Not everyone has broadband. If it's encoded at
a high bit rate, it's not worth the time and hassle for everyone to download
and mirror.
Would this venture be out of business in 6 months? Discuss.
Nobody talks about this, so I just thought that I'd point out the rats nest that is publishing rights. For an online service to be legal, one needs both copyrights and publishing rights. Copyright for most works is held by the members of the RIAA. The similar organization for publishing rights is called Harry Fox Agency. However, Harry Fox has thousands of members and they are all very small. If you want to make a legal online service, you have to get written authorization from these Harry Fox members. However, the lack of coordination and technology at Harry Fox makes this almost impossible. It is extremely diffucult to get this permission because they don't know who owns the publishing rights, or are unable to contact the owners for many songs.
This is why even services like pressplay and musicnet do not have a very good selection. For background, see this article where Universal lost a lawsuit when it was sued by the publishers when they attempted to put music that they owned the copyright for online.
Anyway, I'm glad to see these guys have managed to stay alive and if their new service is like the old one I'll definitely check it out.
If individual songs were priced around a nickel (5 cents US) and album prices were a dollar or less online music sales would be a success and the companies involved might actually make more and not less money.
There is a precedent for this type of scenario. Remember Compuserve in the late 80s and early 90s ? It had several hundred thousand members and charged $6 and $12 per hour for access. Remember what happened when Netcom introduced the $20 per month flat rate plan ?
I realize that given the greed of the current music "industry" leaders this won't happen soon, but besides that does anybody think it *wouldn't* work and solve most of the "piracy" problems if it was given a chance ? Compuserve always said their prices were a bargain and no one could do it for less also.
Echo, as in "we've heard it before".
It's nice that retailers are joining the mutiny against record companies, even if only the way rats jump ship. The whole record business is heading for a niche -- old music -- music recorded in the days when record companies were able to force musicians to hand over their rights, when the companies could become the owners of the music, could make it "their" music. You see that phrase in the article... get permission from record companies' to download "their" music. Record companies still think of musicians as contract labor making a product for them. It's happening slowly, but as more musicians find ways to get their music heard without locking into record deals, the ownership of music by record companies will dwindle to an oldies collection.
This sounds an awful lot like Orbitz.com. When Orbitz was announced, there was a lot of FUD about how it was going to be unfair competition and drive all other online travel services out of business.
Now it's 2 years later, none of that has happened, and Orbitz is just another online travel service.
I don't think this will be any different.
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
If the retail outlets had the popular CDs on the shelf but also had a CD burner and on-line access to the complete back catalogue they could supply any album on-demand at very little cost (to them).
0 60697/tec h_plugin.html
Remember Blockbuster Music? They had a plan to do this. They would store all the songs in wav format on a central computer, then you would use a kiosk to order your CD, which would be burned and the cd insert printed while you wait.
The RIAA wouldn't let this happen.
http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/
Sam Goody used to do something similar with tapes in the 80s. They had a huge book with thousands upon thousands of songs in it. You'd flip through the book looking up songs, and write their ID numbers on a form. 30 minutes later, you'd have a tape with all the songs you wanted on it. I still have 2 of those custom tapes.
The RIAA put a stop to this too.
on top of that, the music biz really did stop caring about music, or customers.
they forgot why we buy music, and it aint the same reason we buy food or pay rent. it is discretionary spending.
fact is, they could sell ten times as much music by volume for %10 higher revenue than today, and be raking in the cash like the glory years.
that would be called Mass Production, economics 101 here
they are making the mistake of trying to maximize unit profit instead of increase revenues with minimal profit.
in another five years, at this rate, they'll be the book publishing industry.
i give kudos bertelsmann, sending your golden goose to cashed out cows school. to sony for infighting. to time warner for AIMless wandering in search of synergy, and the rest, u suck too. die quickly so something better will arrive, without the legion of attorneys
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
The TV show 'Dawsons Creek' has recently launched an innnovative build-you-ouwn-cd site based on the soundtrack of the show. (http://www.dawsonscreekcds.com) You can customize the look, and even pick tracks based on your favorite character. I wonder if this'll take off for other shows or brands. I can just see Pepsi becoming the major distributor of Britney Spears. Discalimer: I am NOT a fan of Dawson or Britney, but the idea of music being sold as a periphreal product of a bigger brand, rather than a brand itself is pretty interesting.
"Sad to see the article's author flat-out claim that '... a proliferation of free music-swapping services on the Internet has led to a decline in CD sales.'"
What color is the sky on your planet? Do you honestly think the average Joe gives a monkey's chuff about copyright? Hell, I've paid for Abbey Road 5 times. The RIAA owes me and I'll continue to go P2P lootin. It's payback time motherfuckers.
Let me relate a personal experience. I generated a post on Slashdot on another forum. Looking back on it, I should not have posted it, but I did. It was promptly moderated down to -1 (redundant).
Did the moderators have anything against me? I think not. It was a crappy post.
What did I learn? Slashdot provided me with a forum where I could run an idea up the pole and see if anybody salutes it. In this case, they pissed on it. The system worked. I simply had a lousy approach. Often I do not see my own fallacy, but others did. Once it was pointed out to me, it was obvious. I shall not grace the pages of Slashdot with another post of the likes of that ever again.
How does that relate to this topic? The industry is trying again and again to force something down our throats. We "moderate", via the market, that the concept is not to our liking. It is up to the industry to either come back with something better or just drop the whole idea. Coming back with the same marketing plan is paramount to me making a similar post to the one everyone pissed on. History will repeat itself, and much money and time will be invested uselessly.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
They can come up with any gimmick they want. I'm never going to pay eight dollars for a _single_.
Make it two dollars a pop, let me download the whole song first at a 56kbps bitrate, and I'm in.