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..."
At the moment, most people only have dial up modems. A dial up user can download an individual song, but it is too difficult to download a whole album without alot of time and effort. A dial up user will download a single Mp3 from an album, and then go out and buy the album - it's kind of like free advertising. The RIAA knows this. But the RIAA is thinking ahead.
In a few years time when broadband is standard, that same user would instead download an individual song, like it, and then download the whole album in less time than it takes a dialup user to download a single mp3.
Song-swapping encourages album purchases because it's still too difficult for many people to download whole albums with their slow connection speeds. This will change with the arrival of broadband. And when downloading a whole album becomes dead easy, album sales will fall off, alot.
Couldn't artists who use online file sharing as a form of advertisement sue the RIAA for curtailing their activities?
I know the law in the US allows them to disable file sharing computers without worrying about damages, but would it protect them from damage it causes other people with secondary effects such as that?
When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
Since the article obliquely discusses the death of radio and the rise of the MP3 (or other music file format) as a distribution method, it seems another progression might emerge.
At one point it seemed everything had an AM radio built into it - lamps, planters, kitchen appliances. You can find these kitschy, unenlightened objects in thrift stores nowadays, or tucked embarrassedly in people's basements. A while before that everything had a lamp built into it (culminating in that grass-skirted hula girl lamp you just can't get rid of), and before that it was a clock (you know you've got one of those elephants too). Whatever technology is just past the cusp seems to get built into everything as a cheap add-on (as long as it's simple enough, anyway - making toast, for instance, is a dedicated task).
Now people are asking for MP3 players in cellphones and PDAs - is this the kitschy inclusion of the future? Will alarm clocks and stoves and fridges and (dare I hope) toasters of the future all include a de rigeur network interface with an IPv6 address and an MP3 codec? It seems likely they will.
Could I interest anyone in some toast?
They took radio along with Clear Channel -- let's not let them take the net.
Karma whorin' since 1999
Anyone care to put forward some suggestions on how a musician can distribute their work, receive payment, hold copyright and get people to license their work? I have a close friend who has recently put some of his work closer into the spotlight online (but still very far from it, in a very targeted place) and his bandwisth limits loom if he were to actually promote his music whatsoever. He's considered dumping lower quality versions (the present audio is 256kbs mp3) into p2p apps but is unconvinced that it is a good thing to do. He's had a number of offers in the past few weeks for deals for 1 or 2 tracks (people haven't seen or heard much of his music but he's been writing for over a dozen years). I'm think he should charge a minimal worthwhile credit card charge for his work, allowing people who buy return for up to a year to download new audio he writes, offer standard deals for record labels where they can download lossless files and run with them. Of course I want him to use free codecs, and I think he might be convinced (on the possibility of hearing from fraunhoffer et al demanding cash). Any ideas the best way to go about price, bandwidth and the artists interests? What about "simpler" things like hooking up a shop to downloads securely (and simply for the end user) without having to go to your bank to setup a merchant account and without having to loose nearly all of a reasonable sized transaction in costs?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
This should come as no surprise to those of us who actually pirate MP3s. Yes, I have 60 gigs of music on one of my hard drives. No, I did not pay for most of that music. However, if it hadn't been for Napster and its successors, I wouldn't have bought most of the 150 or so CDs I own. Most of my friends download music from the Internet, yet I know of no one who has stopped buying CDs just because they can get everything online. Instead, the Internet serves, as it does in all aspects of its use, to expose people to new things--and then, predictably for denizens of a consumer society, we buy those new things.
For that matter, it should come as no surprise to people who know the history of VHS. The movie industry was up in arms when tape recorders came out, saying people would no longer go to movies because they could just pirate a friend's copy. Today, most of the movie industry's revenue comes from sales and rentals of video tapes and DVDs. The VCR caused a boom in the movie industry, and if it weren't for a) the current economic slump and b) the RIAA's stubborn opposition of new technology, P2P would be causing a boom in the music industry.
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
I don't consider liner notes "added value." It's not information you can't get from some other source, and by requiring an application to get at information you would "normally" get with your CD purchase they've actually put a squeeze on how many people can view the information they purchased. What if you don't have a computer capable of running the liner-notes app?
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
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?)
You do, of course, realize that this is pure, unadulterated nonsense, don't you? Throughout the history of time people have frozen their tastes at a certain period of time, and from thenceforth assured anyone and everyone that music had gone to hell in a handbasket. This sort of personal time lock gets justified by claims that everything just isn't as good as it used to be. If you don't think it's happened for decades, if not centuries, then you are deluding himself. When Beethoven first started his piano concertos the elites assured themselves that this newfangled contraption was but a lowly passing fancy...it just didn't measure up to the harpsichord. Rinse, repeat.
And the recording companies don't even have to get involved in the whole Payola issue, amazing.
Then again, once they realise you can *gasp* tape things off the radio that'll all be outlawed too.
Most artists make there bucks from touring and merchandise already.
As a non-traditional student, most of my school friends are 19-21. The Beatles are incredibly popular. So are The Doors, and Pink Floyd. Amazingly enough classical music is played more than modern music. This isn't nostalgia. These kids are discovering alot of this music.
The article refers to any mp3s he releases will infringe copyright law. However if it was his own work and he released it to the public domain how could the RIAA intervene? As I understood the rulings in the past, the RIAA's authority only extends to labels and artists they represent. How would this affect smaller artists who -choose- to put their music online?
I know a lot of other people like me as well, who refuse to listen to the crap that is modern music. Some listen to indie bands, some get into the local music scene, some gravitate toward older music, and some tune out of music alltogether.
Of course, there will always be the sheeple who buy Britney Spears and stuff. But, most of their audience is children who will grow up and realize that it's all crap. Hell, I liked New Kids on the Block when I was 5, now my 6 year old sister is a big fan of Britney, I grew out of it and so will she.
A lot of people who listen to mp3s rarely buy cd's for two reasons. First of all, the people who listen mainly to popular music can find mp3s for most the tracks they want online pretty easily. Finding specific jazz, classical, or other not-so mainstream stuff can be difficult and is easier to get by buying a cd. Second, many people's ears aren't good enough to hear the compression in mp3s, or simply don't care enough. People who can hear the compression are generally annoyed by it and buy cds for higher-quality audio.
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music.
I dunno. That's pretty roundabout logic. What Janis Ian basically said was "I put up music that people can download for free off my website, but the RIAA wants to stop me by suing Verizon to force them to reveal the names of people who illegally share copyrighted files via P2P." Somehow I just don't follow. I know there's a logical fallacy in there, but what could it be?
-a
This only holds true when all the extra variables hold equal, like any experiment, but we all know not every person either likes both of these women or hates both of these women equally. What we do see with this situation of technology vs. RIAA is the strong dichotomy between fans. Check out this month's WIRED for a great blurb on methods record company's are using to disuade critics from ripping and distributing MP3's in prerelease. I loved the example of Radiohead's 'listening party' at an aquarium - not only was it a great idea, but it sold tons of albums in the area. However, it's highly doubted if the artist was a more (primarily) commercial one, their fans would do the same (I'm guilty of being biased towards Radiohead here, but you get the idea).
Britney will still sell billions of CD's (and, unfortunately, do some RIAA commercials) even if it's less than she's used to (sorry, sweetie - only 4 new houses this year). And Janis will probably keep selling more albums if the technology is still available, albeit still far less than Britney. It boils down to the fans. I guess if you're a recording artist and you find your fans refuse to spend money on your music, maybe you should reconsider either you rmusic or your career. (I don't know about you but I take pride in my purchases.)
-e
Rock!
You know what would have made me go out and buy the album in a heartbeat?
To have the MP3 tracks of the songs embedded on the CD also.
The technology to make mixed-mode CDs (Data Track 1 + Audio Tracks 2..n), that *work* in devices like walkmen, car audio, and computers, has been around for YEARS and YEARS.
An album I put together for some friends of mine who all attended this concert was a big hit. On the audio portion of the CD, I put the most well known track from each of the 18 or so bands that played. On the data portion, I put the same track in MP3 format.
I've bought a few CDs and ripped them to MP3. If when I bought a CD, it came with the MP3s already (buying a CD legally entitles you to the MP3s, you just have to go find or rip them) that would be excellant. ALso acceptable in this case would be DRM-enabled WMA files that require the physical CD they came from the first time they are played, to unlock them; after that, they're yours and yours alone. Reformat, just copy and reactivate.
Yes-s-s-s, that is the key word....
You might know all the Pink Floyd hits from Careful With That Ax Eugene to the more recent masturbatory epics but for an 18 year old, that's a whole new world.
I was listening to a Yes live video (the one with the young girls in the symphony orchestra) with an older inlaw and our 15 year old niece who is a budding musician came down to the basement and went Wow!...what is that song?
"Uh.....its called Roundabout and Ive heard that song about as often as Freebird and hotel California"
What's Freebird she asked?
When her friends came by to check out some of my 70's stuff recently, it was an amazing revelation, for them and me. Songs that I had OD'ed on were new and fresh to them.
Mind you it helps that these kids were all interested in playing music so their tastes were not limited to the prefab top 40 stuff.
Hell, if you want to play music and get to hear
the Allmans Brothers Live at the Fillmore East for the first time, it will mark you, no matter when it was made.
zack
Not to nit-pick, but Janis is a woman.
Recently, I attended the Consumer Electronics Show and Janis was on a panel with Dan Gillmor from the Mecury News, Steve Wozniac, Scott Dinsdale (a weasle from the MPAA), a mega-weasle from the RIAA (the "little pischer" from Courtney Love's rant), and someone from the HRRC. Janis daid a lot of interesting things, including talking about a blind kid who had his computer wiped out by a copy-protected Celiene Dion CD.
Anyway, Dinsdale was asked about Jon Johansen and the right to watch legally purchased DVDs on the computer system of one's choice. He replied (I wish I had this on tape) that just because someone was stupid enough to use the wrong operating system, they didn't have the right to watch anything they wanted. Yes, I'm serious...he called Linux users "stupid". This should be on the recording of the CES "Supersession on Digital Downloading" of the 2003 CES.
To repeat, a legally authorized representative of the MPAA called Linux users stupid. This is true. This is NOT a troll. There were several hundred people in the room.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
Before,
Everyone blows a gasket, just keep in mind:
- I have the right to produce a piece of music that is as crappy as I want.
- I can "publish" it in any manner that I see fit
and "retain" the copyright to it.
- I can also frivolously accuse any and all RIAA executives of copyright infringement. I don't have to prove anything. I just have to submit to the ISP of, lets say, Sony and accuse one of their executive employees of offering my music without my permission.
With enough of the above scenarios I would think the RIAA guys might get the message.
Turn the tables on them guys.
VS
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
Never mind their stated goal. Their real goal is to keep things just as they are.
Artists like Janis Ian scare them to death.
Even scarier is the prospect of artists banding together to form their own distribution and marketing system with the help of some geeks who're out of work.
As a musician I have a need to play. It's something I just have to do and will always have to do. It doesn't matter if any one hears it or not. It's in my head and I have to find a way to get it out.
As a music fan I have a need to hear the voices in the heads of other kindred spirits who I can connect with via music. I'll get a hold of that through what ever means is available. Most of the music in my collection is special order. There is, make that was, a great deal I was never able to aquire until the internet united us all whether it be purchasing cds directly from the artist's web site or just downloading a mp3.
My personal feeling is that the RIAA is fighting to save itself under the guise of protecting it's artists. Technology has made the old system ( as ineffective as it was ) obsolete. Artists can now deal directly with their fans no matter how distant they may be. The Industry tried to ignore the technology, but the musicians and the fans created the system they wanted instead. Now the Industry is on the outside looking in.
If it were not for mp3's and the internet I would have really starved last year, and certainly would not have gotten as far with my musical project as I have.
In 2002, I received about $4000 in paypal donations from complete strangers who happened to stumble across my site. Whilst this was in no means a real salary, it kept the wolves from my door and the taxman fed.
It sickens me that the RIAA and the greedy fat record executives are trying to prevent anyone who does not produce 'commercial music' a chance to live off of their talents....
-- 7 string electric violin + live loop samplers
Public library in my town has a Starbucks in it ;) And the one where I lived before had a coffee machine as well.
Mod parent up.
Borders CD: $18.99
Artist: $0.94
Label: $18.04 from which they pay their RIAA dues, among other things.
Artist CD Direct: $10
Artist: $10 from which we pay for more studio time, guitar strings, etc.
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic