Slashdot Mirror
NARAS vs. the RIAA
sdbrian writes "An all around excellent paper concerning the National Association of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) and their position with regard to the RIAA has been published on Salon.com. The author (John Snyder) quotes from many articles that have been discussed on here on Slashdot. One of Snyder's conclusions, "NARAS should take the lead in this matter. Those who are taking it now are leading us over a cliff. The RIAA has staked out an untenable position that is as unrealistic as it is anti-consumer and anti-artist.""
I think there is some validity to this position, because there is no possible way to get rid of filesharing, since people will always find ways around blocks...That is the nature of the internet. I've seen many posts on slashdot, and I know that many people would prefer to buy very high quality (i.e. lossless, or 320kbits ogg or mp3) for a small fee. The transition period, as has been noted, is very difficult. Change is always difficult, and the shortsightedness of the RIAA has not helped them. They are obviously either opportunists or vagrants out to steal people's money. If they truly were real business managers, they would find a way to make the current reality work. You can't change reality to fit what you want. This has been shown throughout history (which is also why wars have been fought, ahem, French Revolution). I think it is very good that we don't have to resort to violence to solve this conflict anymore; it shows how far our society has evolved. Anyways, I hope they can figure something out, because I'm tired of 128kbits mp3s off p2p networks =P
If they keep pushing anticopy systems, they're locking, or better "setting a time bomb". Like Alexandria library, but centuries latter and with delayed fire. I hope in 200 years people will not point to us as the persons that left them unreadable culture. If it keeps going on, I know what new career will appear, Digital Art Restoration, with lots of classes about math, cryptography, and electronics, with the purpose of removing the "white paint that was put over the wall to hide the picture".
NARAS is a more technical organization than RIAA, right? (More audio engineers, etc., than executives.) And regarding executives...
Record companies are not logical, righteous entities. They are ramshackle, profit-driven enterprises. They act in their perceived best interests, and they act ruthlessly and, in many cases, irrationally. The people who run them still have their e-mail printed out by their secretaries.
Did anyone else visualize Dilbert's PHB sitting at the desk of President of the RIAA? Scary and yet strangely compelling.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
It's even worse - this isn't about intellectual property as we know it. This is about IP bought by large companies from small artists. So it's not intellectual property since it didn't come from their intellect but from their wallet. It's all just about money and stupid artists that really believe those large companies are going to do them any good while they only do a lot of good to a few and about nothing for the rest. Their marketing-machine (which is paid by the CD-buyers - the price of a CD is mainly for funding the marketing machine) is waaaaaay louder than that of smaller artists trying to do it by themselves and therefore these companies have by now replaced music with top40 and artists with stars. So I'll say it once again: don't buy CDs, don't watch MTV and if you're an artist: don't go to the big boys. They're crippling their own market.
Real artists don't mind if their work gets "stolen". They're proud it is so good people want to "steal" it.
0x or or snor perron?!
I'm tired of people (on both sides of the music sharing issue) trotting out the same rhetorical arguments all the time. There's nothing new here. Snyder's arguments about growth in other media don't prove his point; rather they show that the decline in record sales can't be blamed on the slowing economy. I believe I bought fewer CDs from major labels this year, not because I was downloading them from the internet, but because I wasn't interested in them. My money instead goes to new, independant artists (via CD Baby a fantastic way to buy music that doesn't make you feel like a criminal.)
I for one don't believe that we're going to (or that we should) do away with copyright. I just believe that the current music industry is going to be end-runned. I hope that we don't end up legislating it's continued existence. By that I don't mean that we should permit illegal file sharing, but that we shouldn't mandate a technological solution which only allows big media to create content.
-c
"If you are an idealist it doesn't matter what you do or what goes on around you, because it isn't real anyway."-R.P.W.
I read through the article, and it seems pretty clear that NARAS has decided to embrace P2P, file-sharing, and subscription models without DRM as the primary form of music distribution. One of the arguments he made was that it turned out to actually profit many artists, and among those he cited was Janis Ian.
/.ers are going to think "Yay, NARAS! Boo, RIAA!" after reading this. Are we looking at a power struggle?
So I found it very interesting that the link off the article to Janis Ian's Internet Debacle quotes NARAS as follows:
The NARAS people were a bit more pushy. They told me downloads were "destroying sales", "ruining the music industry", and "costing you money".
Looks like NARAS has done a 180. But if they previously didn't believe in what this article is arguing for, why do they believe it now? Is it really just because they think they have to adapt to the new model? Or are there other motives which we don't know about? After all, I bet a huge load of