Slashdot Mirror
Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians
Licensed2Hack writes "Janis Ian, who provided this slashdot interview last September, has written this editorial in the Los Angeles Times. Janis says, "After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online." And the RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales..."
I'm all in favor of free downloads (not only do I believe in it, I practice it!). But to be fair, her sales probably don't reflect the average struggling not-so-famous musician since she's in the spotlight because of the whole mp3 controversy. I bet if she hadn't come out about mp3s her sales wouldn't be doing any better.
Of course, I just realized, her sales probably went up before she even made any public statements about it. Hmm, interesting.
1) people sample music
2) they like it and buy the cd
3) profit
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. The RIAA is not, by any means, interested in "sales" or "artist's livelihood." What the RIAA is interested in is keeping a very tight rein on what is seen as cool, what is heard on the radio, and what makes their profit margins exceed their own expectations.
RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music. As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
sig not found
What she's talking about works great with small-time musicians. When I was in a band, we tried to distribute our mp3s to anyone who would want to listen. Then we got a hot designer to make our merch, and that's how we made the mainstay of our cash.
However, I don't think her example is valid on a multi-platinum level. We get enough exposure to bigger bands through mtv and radio where we already know if we're gonna buy their shirt and concert tickets.
'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
If you're interested in free music, go here.
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
one problem:
yeah, okay, 'most people' have modems.
but a lot of people in the 'young adult' (I mean recently adult, not teenager) category are in college, and most colleges have massive broadband penetration (almost everyone around here off campus has broadband, and EVERYONE in the dorms with a computer has it). That compounds the 'it's too hard to get a whole album' theory.
I can hop on windows networking and find giant massive piles of whole albums to listen to without even 'downloading' a thing in the classical sense.
They want to make sure independent artists don't start getting too big for their britches and therefor don't need the help of the RIAA or the big 5 recording labels??
Case in point....Ani Difranco has sold nearly, if not MORE than 1 million albums....ALL ON HER OWN!! And that's just ONE WOMAN from that musical hotbed of Buffalo, NY *sarcasm*!!
Imagine that, if you multiplied that more than 100x with talent from around the world! The labels would not be able to compete......
The RIAA represents the recording industry..
Not Artists.. Not music consumers..
doesn't that feel better?
There actions may drive you nuts , but what can you do. Your not paying them. They're defending the "Recording Industry" The fact they have the influence they do isn't there own fault. If you don't like it don't buy the music they produce..(I'm not advocating stealing it either by obtaining it and not paying for it..)
Slashdot shouldn't jump every time the RIAA does something..
I believe CD sales have to be maintained by offering added-value. For example, the latest System of a Down CD did not have a cover booklet, but rather had embedded the pictures, lyrics and credits on the CD itself, only to be unlocked by an application downloadable from their website.
...
....
That's added value. The CD itself has more information and value than the collection of the same songs on mp3.
An album is not just the music that it has; it's a whole piece of art, expressed in the music, in the cover art, in the packaging, in the booklet, etc
Such albums would make me want to buy the CD instead of just having the mp3s
First off, nobody's listening to you because you're posting AC. Anyway...
There has always been an element of people who never bought their music for as long as home-recordable media has been available. My dad used to borrow LP's and record them on reel-to-reel, and, later, I copied friends tapes on cassette. The important issue here is that the vast majority of people out there (you know, the non-Slashdot folks) who aren't going to copy music. Sure, some of them will, but you'd be surprised how important that pretty little book that's inside the CD is to people. They may download enough to make their own CD, but they won't have THE CD.
If the pretty CD booklet isn't enough, then do what groups like Audioslave do and make extra songs available for download to those who own the CD. Either way, the overwhelming majority of folks who buy music are still going to buy it. That is, as long as the product isn't crap and they don't feel like they're being ripped off due to overly-inflated prices.
I don't get the logic here. Artist posts MP3s on a website, and sales go up. At any time before that, anyone could have ripped her CDs, and distributed it on napster, kazaa, gnutella, etc. etc. Why didn't sales go up then?
RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales
The suit against Verizon involves someone who made music illegally available, i.e. the copyright was held by a RIAA member. It does not involve someone making available music that no RIAA member held the copyright to. (damn, what a messy sentence). RIAA didn't go after the biggest file sharer - they went after someone they could win against. Garage bands are safe.
If I work for a union and the union is offered a contract that will significantly increase my salary, but also reduce the number of union employees, it is very unlikely that the proposal will be accepted (even when the staff reduction is done via attrition).
Similarly the RIAA's interests have nothing to do with artist's best interests, so why the surprise? Artists (like misreprested union employees) need to realize when the people they pay (very well), are no longer working in their best interests and move to find new representation.
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
The only way we are going to get things to change is to tell the artists directly what we think.
We should take the time to contact our favorite artists and let them know that we are not going to buy their music until we can purchase it in a format that we want. Let the artists themselves put some serious pressure on the recording companies.
I personally have not bought a CD since 1996 despite wanting to buy a number of almbums. For me, CD's are simply not worth their current prices. The latest moves by RIAA have just hardened my resolve.
When I can buy high quality MP3's or FLAC encodings online, for a reasonable price, I can easily see myself spending a couple thousand dollars buying the music I want. Until then, I simply don't listen to music. I won't download it because I don't believe that is fair. I will, however, exercise my rights as a consumer not to purchase their music.
-sirket
www.machinaesupremacy.com allow people to download their music for free. although they have no cd's out atm I know if they did I would gladyl buy it and support them. but thats just me I find by sampleing the music I am more apt to buy it.
This was the whole point of why IUMA.COM got started so many years ago. Cut out the record companies, and let the artists go direct to the customers.
I remember discussing this over and over again at the time and how everyone was sure the companies wanted to destroy IUMA. Then Napster came along and made them forget about it.
Whoever modded this down either didn't read it or didn't understand the point he was trying to make. The Record companies DO want control over the music and how it is distributed. File Swapping takes that away from them. They don't want a bunch of small tiny artists selling directly to people who take away sales of their mega-bands. They just want Mega Bands, and a cut of the profits these mega bands make.
and I find it pathetic that I'm forced to scour the playlists of various radio stations in obscure markets around the country, then download the music to sample it and also find myself listening to Internet stations in small towns because radio in the LARGEST MEDIA MARKET in the world doesn't have a radio station I like! The record industry should be HAPPY thay have a loyal customer like me who WORKS HARD to find titles to buy. Instead, they call me a CRIMINAL! Is this their idea of giving the customer what they want? Frankly, I'd love to own a record company. It's easy to make money. Even if you can't market yourself out of a paper bag, don't worry! Congress and the courts will help you be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN, because after all, this is how the marketplace is supposed to work!
If you think the RIAA is worried about all these people downloading songs for free and pirating music
Their NOT.
Free downloads can actually help sales in the same way that radio does. And the pirates who have 1000's of mp3's probably would not have paid for any of that anyway.
So what are they worried about?
Distribution. Their greatest fear is that artists will start releasing music on their own, side stepping the recording industry and their slave like contracts. Once an artist can release music (without the record company) through the Internet. The record companies will cease to exist. End of story
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Like Britney Spears complaining in an RIAA ad that downloading music is the same as stealing a CD from a store?
Ian's story may be anecdotal but it entirely agrees with any economic analysis of the situation.
Retailers have a rule of thumb that cutting the price of an item in half increases your market by a factor of (IIRC) four - until it's free and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
If you allow people to download your music for slightly over the cost of providing the bandwidth and overhead (i.e., you still profit), people will have no incentive to get it from a competitor (unless that competitor has better marketing - which is an expense he has that the original artist does not). This is basic economics.
The difference is, you don't have a middleman - the record label - charging you for the production of your product, then wasting money on payola, then cheating you on the royalties by claiming X% "breakage", etc., not to mention that you are not supporting THEIR profits instead of yours...
It's common sense that an artist selling their own product will make money if they can do a reasonable amount of marketing to come to the attention of the people who might like their work.
What WON'T happen is that artists will make millions of dollars because some corporation paid some radio station operators in cocaine and hookers to play those few songs the corporation decided to promote.
It's laughable - first the record labels screw over Metallica, then Metallica thinks they're owed millions of dollars, then they sue their fans to get it...
This is what happens when the vast majority of domesticated primates are clueless about economics...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
As a musician and recording engineer, I can attest that, yes, it isn't cheap bringing recordings to market.
However...
What we're really talking about here is the notion that one must fork over a monetary sum and wait (maybe minutes, but sometimes days, sometimes years, depending on a recording's availablity and rarity) to hear it. P2P cuts the wait and the inconvenience of "real" shopping, and is (currently) free.
The price of a CD is justified through the reward of owning a physical media that is as close to the original master as is possible, given mass-production's capabilities. Fairly-priced CDs ($5-$15) are a good bargain in this regard. If you know that a recorded work is required for your library, then ONLY a legitimate copy of that thing, with full audio quality, is an acceptable solution to that need. MP3s won't cut it.
MP3s are merely "near-CD" facsimiles of an actual, valuable thing. They, in and of themselves, have *NO* value. Even the highest quality MP3 files suffer from degradation, and can't be replicated without further degradation. Without hard-media backups, they are prone to instant and irrecoverable loss or corruption. They provide none of the tactile rewards of real media (quality artwork and printed liner notes are, indeed, worth something) and are even incapable of replicating the CD listening experience in certain cases (where tracks flow one song into another, seperate files for each track result in gaps).
Some might say these are minor things, but I feel strongly that no one would ever settle for having MP3s of a work that they truly love.
So the real question is: why should people feel pressure to pay for the privelege of auditioning works that they may not actually desire to have in their physical media library for the long term?
I don't think they should.
Readers can audition nearly any book at their public library without a financial transaction taking place. I feel that P2P applications are roughly the audio equivalent of public libraries, and, as such, are beneficial for the public's musical education.
As a musician with works in release, I do not fear downloading, because anyone who would download my record and be content with that piss-poor representation of my work wasn't going to buy it anyway. But, perhaps, through having heard it in it's entirety, they might learn to love it and need to purcahse it. Or, if they don't like it, they might recommend it to someone who *would* like it, and they might purchase it.
And another thing: if we're going to be upset about P2P music trading, why aren't we upset about used CDs? Artists don't get a *dime* from those transactions, and those transactions lead to the purchaser actually obtaining the thing of real value - a physical copy!
"The "free advertising" argument is ridiculous, absolutely doesn't hold water, and is something I'm getting tired of hearing."
So... tell me how radio works again?
It's logical for the corporations to discount the benefits of freely availible media.
I mean, thousands of slashbot geeks who would never even consider giving an old-skool female folk artist a second look probably became instant fans of her just for visibly being on the white-hat side of the whole MP3 debate.
It's kind of like how we were all willing to forget how much we hated Wesley Crusher when Wil Wheaton turned out to be "one of us." Our objectivity has been skewed a little regarding public figures who turn out to be good eggs.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If we assume that you have only so many hours in a month that you can devote listening to music, then it follows that if you are spending your listening time listening to free out-of-print music, you'll be less motivated to investigate and buy the new music the RIAA is selling. So they lose income that they would otherwise have got from you.
(not that their hypothetical loss of income bothers me in the least, of course -- but this would explain why the RIAA doesn't want people to have easy access to out-of-print music)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Dear Janis, I must say I was shocked by your article in the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncomme ntary/la-oe-ian2feb02,0,2630989.story?coll=la-head lines-suncomment)
I too am a musician, engineer and a journalist, and have what I feel is a firm understanding of music law. The article you wrote fails to make one very important point: it is one thing for an artist to offer their music up as a free download (provided they have the rights to it) and its a very different thing for people to download something that the artist has not authorized. There are many musicians who offer free downloads on their websites, which is a great promotional opportunity. Buy peer 2 peer services offer the potential for people to get any music they want (for free) without the artist's consent. A good analogy would be a market giving away free samples, and then saying since that increased food sales, all the food in the store should be free.
I highly suggest you write a follow up to your article as it is perpetuating the notion that music should be free.
That doesn't explain similar results for Baen authors who put their books out for free in anelectronic library.
I think we're starting to assemble enough data points to be able to say with some confidence, putting out free stuff helps sales of both the rest of the IP portfolio and sales of the free stuff as well.
The RIAA companies "own" lots of artists who are not big right now. Only so many artists can be "big", and the recording insutry has made the deliberate decision ot only push the "big" ones.
Now I'm pulling numbers out of my hat below, just to make a point. But I'm sure youcan find real numbers to back up the argument.
The recording industry decided that since people collectively will only be buying 300 million CDs per year, then if they only run 30 marketing campaigns to push 30 artists, they would still sell 300 million CDs - but spend a heck of a lot less than they would pushing say 3000 artists.
The problem which they are unable to recognize is that not everyone likes the 30 artists that are being forced down our throats. So they are not seeing the 10 million CDs per artist that they expected. But since nothing is being done to promote the other 2970 artists, they might just conceivably want to see some additional sales - but that would involve online distribution of their music.
But wait, their music is "owned" by RIAA members.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
Couldn't artists who use online file sharing as a form of advertisement sue the RIAA for curtailing their activities?
... as they argue it impacts their profits. That's my whole problem with the RIAA argument. They look at their sales growth for the last couple of years or so being down and they say "See, those P2P networks are hurting us."
I don't think so because the RIAA's goal isn't to simply "kill file sharing" -- it's to kill the file sharing of works by artists signed to RIAA member labels.
I'm sure that, if the file sharing networks were only sharing files by non-RIAA artists, the RIAA wouldn't care about that at all. They're not opposed to the technology, just the application of the technology as it impacts their profits.
I should say
The problem is that their argument overlooks several things:
1. When Napster was up and running, the RIAA label sales were up. People were finding new music that they couldn't hear on the radio and the economy was up, so they were buying CDs they might not have otherwise. Which brings me to...
2. Over the last couple of years, pretty much everyone's sales are down. We're in a recession, fer cryin' out loud, and that's going to especially hurt non-essential, luxury items.
3. While more subjective, their sales are also likely down because they're putting out crap.
4. Also over the last year or two, the public has learned a lot more about the real cost of putting out that $15.99 CD at Sam Goody.
So combine a down economy with a public increasingly turned off by by the major labels and there you go. If the RIAA spent half as much turning people ON to new music as they do trying to turn people OFF to file sharing, they'd probably be better off.
That's just it... it doesn't MATTER what your definition of ANYTHING is. If you're a judge weighing a case related to this issue, then I stand corrected.
The Government gets its authority from the consent of the Governed. If the Governed do not like the way the Government is running the show, they demand (and get) change. Remember prohibition?
Downloadable music doesn't increase sales. It doesn't decrease sales either. It regresses sales to the mean.
For unsigned artists, it increases sales because they get global exposure which they can't get through some other medium.
For big name artists who are already known worldwide it decreases sales because the people who might otherwise knuckle under and pay will just download instead.
The people who argue that downloading increases sales for *everybody* are just trying to find arguments to support their desire for free downloads. Likewise, the people who argue that it decreases sales for *everybody* are just trying to protect their business.
Now obviously attacking the format, be it MP3 or whatever makes no sense at all. If the bigtime copyright holders want to persue illegal copying that's fine, but attacking P2P systems and the file formats makes no sense.
As much as many don't like it, the old bit about "when you're downloading MP3s you're downloading communism" has a kernel of truth to it. Socialist systems often regress people to the mean. Usually, the mean ends up lower too although command economies sometimes distribute resources towards one particular aspect of society and exceed the mean of that particular aspect under capitalism (see, Sputnik, Cuban Health Care). In a sense, the MP3 people have risen up and redistributed the wealth from large copyright holders to computer companies and smaller artists.
This presents me with a moral quandary. On the one hand, I dislike the Leftist revolutionary attitudes that some have. I don't believe people can justify the taking of something just because they think they should have it. On the other hand, the manipulation of the government by the corporations offends me equally. A pox on both their houses! When one side buys the law, and the other side breaks the law, the framework of society begins to unravel.
Our laws are supposed to be formed on the basis of civilized debate, not the outcome of a slugfest between thieves and scoundrels.
So for now, what very little music I buy, I buy legally; I haven't downloaded music very often, and when I did I felt like I was being a hypocrite, since I have argued in favor of IP rights. Of course, I'm mostly in the "radio is good enough" category of listener. If I were really, really pasionate about music I'm not sure what I'd do.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
And this will work in the short term. People are supporting her, because she is bucking the system. If every artist tried to do this, would people be as supportive, or just start to take it for granted that musician's products are availible for free on the internet? (as some are already doing)
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
But to be fair, her sales probably don't reflect the average struggling not-so-famous musician since she's in the spotlight because of the whole mp3 controversy.
;) and the record companies would be making less money than they would like. There would be more musicians being able to do what they wanted for a living because of the masively improved margins available.
:D
The RIAA's interest is it's members: Recording companies not artists or music(except when it's convinent for buisness).
Their current way of doing business is largely based on publicity and they have lots of control over the media they use.Competition from independant artists via the internet is not in their interests (obvious parallels here with M$), so to eliminate this competition they are using the indirect tactic of trying to lock the use of the net down by lobbying for apropriate laws.
If a larger chuck of commercial music was done by artists independantly, online, then there would be more focus on that group from the public - it would become a decent sized market (bazaar
So just like M$ they are trying to use their lobbying power (Money without ethics..) to preseve their buisness model from it's impending doom.
The standard of music should go up too
I discovered during Napster's short lifspan 2 great bands(Shamall and The Gathering Field, they both have online site/shops/samples) that the RIAA has missed, since they do not belong to the organizaion, are they also going to be infringed on by the RIAA??? Seems to me the B/S the RIAA spreading about losses of revenues on artist and spreading the load between all artists in their stable is really stinking load of manure. Since Metalica and the RIAA have taken arms up on the mp3 downloaders and servers, I have not purchased a single new CD to, in my way a silent protest of their actions, I have bought thru 2nd hand sources(i.e. pawn shops, used music, goodwill and others). I have purchased a few new CD's, but from only direct artist site(non-RIAA), but until the RIAA(Major labels included) withdraw their persecution of end users(which is the same thing they are doing legally also selling new CD's at outrageous prices), I for one will not support them in their legal fund. Purchase Direct from the Artist, not the RIAA and their Stooges. Boycott the Bastards!! -=ô;ö=-
I refuse to believe that file sharing is stealing simply because the music industry tells me it is. They got away with selling sound (sound!) for many years and now they have to deal with reality.
It's ridiculous to think that downloading mp3's is theft because there is no scarcity. Downloading an MP3 does not mean a CD suddenly disappears from your local Best Buy. The 'theft' is an entirely theoretical loss of _potential revenue_. You may choose not to buy a CD for many reasons. You may borrow it from a friend and decide it sucks, or he may give it to you outright because he already knows it does. You could even buy a used copy off eBay. All of these options cost music companies revenue. Is this stealing too? It's beyond silly. I had a song stuck in my head the other day- am I a criminal? You'd laugh if someone called you a thief after you told your friend who was about to go see "The Hot Chick" that it sucked because he ended up not seeing it. The movie companies still 'lost' the same $8.50 though. Shame on you for taking food out of Rob Schneider's mouth.
If I were a freak show performer and people paid five bucks to see me at the state fair that doesn't mean the people seeing me at the grocery store are stealing from me. Hell, I might think everyone walking behind me on the street should pay ten dollars for the privilege of viewing my sexy ass, but that sure as heck doesn't mean it's going to happen. Why the hell is this any different? No one has an inalienable right to make money anyway they want to. I don't sit around and fucking cry because money doesn't grow on trees and they shouldn't either.
Anyone who tells you that disregarding all this idiocy will hurt music is on crack. You can cut an album for a few thousand. Even if you spend way more by far the biggest expense is still making all those damned CD which we don't even need anymore. You can still charge for concerts and T-shirts and a lot of other things that actually make sense. Excellent artists make music for nothing all the time. Hell some of them you couldn't pay enough to stop. And yes, being in a cool band will get you laid regardless. We are in for a sorry future if every single piece of crap that you happen to spout out of your mouth is suddenly worthy of protection by the government. I tremble when I think how they might actually do that. Look at the war on drugs and be really fucking afraid.
Oh? Care to explain why Micheal Jackson's album tanked? Mariah Carey's? Both had so much money thrown at their marketing they should have debuted at #1. Both sank without a trace.
MJ called Sony Music execs racist instead of accepting blame for producing an album the public didn't want to hear. MC's record company paid her millions just to get her to go away so they wouldn't have to put out another one of her albums.
Tell me again about how P2P sunk those albums. Please. I really want to know.