Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians

To be fair by martyn+s · 2003-02-02 15:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:To be fair by nomadic · 2003-02-02 16:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sure, if you're not that well-known distributing your music as MP3s can increase sales. But large RIAA acts don't have the problem; they rely on radio and music videos to let people listen to their music. If you'd downloading Britney Spears latest mp3, it's probably not because you're curious as to what it sounds like. You're most likely doing it because you don't want to pay for the album.
Re:To be fair by stubblehead · 2003-02-02 16:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

I forget what the term is, but in economics there's a graph for this (like everything else). There's a line, considered average (saturated) and space above (super-saturated) and below (under-saturated) the line. When everyone is given the same tools (you have to assume the consumers/fans are also equal, so for arguments sake we'll say everyone who likes Janis likes Britney), eventually the sales will both flow towards the line. For Britney, since she's way above the line (sold kazillions of albums), she'd be brought down towards average (I won't try to pick a band to represent the line); herego, lost sales. But for Janis, who's been written about as an artist who just doesn't sell many albums (put aside these publicity boosts), her sales are brought up towards the line. ("300% increase" isn't much if you haven't sold many to begin with - a lot, relatively; few, absolutely).
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!
Re:To be fair by SN74S181 · 2003-02-02 18:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why aren't they selling DVDs filled with music videos, interviews, lyrics, kareokee(sp?) and what not rather than simple music CDs for so much?

Because the 'install base' the music industry sells to is slow moving. People still have those funny CD audio players. You know, the plain old ones that just have speaker or headphone output. They're selling them all over the place. They're so cheap these days that they pile them in front of the checkouts at the supermarket.

It took about a decade for retail shops to phase out LP albums. Audio CDs aren't going to disappear overnight.
Re:To be fair by grahammm · 2003-02-02 18:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

True, but it would be nice if they also released the albums on DVD with these extras. This is especially true when the CD is 'copy protected' and will not play on computers, DVD players etc. There is precedent for this, as it was common for albums to be simultaneously released on at least 2 media - vinyl/Cassette or Cassette/CD.
Re:To be fair by Golias · 2003-02-02 20:55 · Score: 2, Funny

"regression" is probably a good word for a Janis Ian fan who starts listening to Britney Spears. :)

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

no shit by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 15:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

1) people sample music
2) they like it and buy the cd
3) profit

Re:no shit by quintessent · 2003-02-02 15:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem the RIAA has with this:

Being able to hear the music means you'll buy music that you really like, rather than what has the sexiest photographer putting the CD together or the most advertising behind it.

It means people will begin to use their own judgement and initiative to choose what they really like.

And that means you might buy something from a non-RIAA distributor.

--
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Re:no shit by silentbozo · 2003-02-02 19:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

And that means you might buy something from a non-RIAA distributor.

Which can be damn difficult sometimes. For example, I'm trying to buy some albums put out by an Australian jazz singer (Nina Ferro), but there aren't any US distributors for her music. In essence, she doesn't exist, despite the fact that she's one of the hottest Australian jazz acts.

Now, you're probably asking, if she's persona non-grata here in the states, how did I get to hear her music? Easy, I listen to the Jim Cullum jazz band every weekend via PRI (Public Radio, International), on Riverwalk, Live from the Landing, where Nina has sung before. Variety shows like Prairie Home Companion are also another great source for music. Unfortunately, I got into these shows about 10 years ago, when public radio was a lot more diverse. These days, many of the older shows have been dropped, as all radio homogenizes, both public and commercial.

Internet radio really needs to be built on as a viable, wide-audience alternative to current radio, in order for these types of shows to survive, and in order to expose the buying public to music that they might want to try.

No exposure = no sales. And no, exposing someone to Shakira on screen, stage, and radio isn't going to make that person buy 10 of the same album. Exposing someone to 10 different artists might get them to buy 10 different albums. Face it, the music industry is approaching diminishing returns for the amount of payola and promotion that they're spending. Time to cut back on the amount of money for new acts, and broaden the palate. And a cheap way of promoting more acts is to stream mp3 samples!!!

Seriously, why isn't there a Capitol records streaming MP3 station? Why isn't there a Sony records streaming MP3 station? You think people are going to discover their back catalogs themselves? Nonsense!

Why aren't the executives jumping at the chance to kill off 3/4ths of the middlemen in the business and rake in the pure profit themselves? Any rational businessperson from outside the recording industry would do it. The only explaination is that there's a lot of vested interest in preserving the current system (aka, kickbacks/payola.) Thus, instead of serving the shareholders, the music execs are ONLY SERVING THEMSELVES.
Re:no shit by Golias · 2003-02-02 21:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry to flame, but you people are all sheep.
The RIAA doesn't give a shit about any of this. The RIAA is an organization of lawyers and administrators which was originally formed to standardize shit like the little equalizer that goes into all turntables (the reason why you can't plug most record players into your standard RCA inputs), and to make sure people are not stomping all over copyrights.
Recently, the RIAA's number one purpose has been to serve as a lightning rod, drawing criticism away from the big record labels. As long as all of you were shouting "fuck Hillary Rosen," she was doing her job, which was to keep the actual assholes behind shutting down napster completely faceless. It's worked like a charm. I'm sure everybody will assume Rosen's replacement is a pariah as well, and give the dicks running the big media companies a pass.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

I keep saying this, but nobody listens by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 15:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by Diamondback · 2003-02-02 15:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by pyite · 2003-02-02 15:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

You make a very convincing argument. However, evidence proves you wrong. I mention in another post how many bands develop a huge fanbase while releasing few, if any, albums, and never being broadcasted on the radio. Why? They allow free recording and distribution of their live shows.
While pop today is liked by people because it's shoved down their throats, music like I mentioned only sticks around if people like it on its own merits, only then does it get "passed on." You can't put a price on viral marketing like that.
If you want free music, go here.

--
"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by fobbman · 2003-02-02 15:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by PetWolverine · 2003-02-02 17:06 · Score: 3, Informative

There's some HARD EVIDENCE where "free advertising" in exchange for "free distribution" failed that counteracts your anecdotal evidence.

That's not hard evidence, it's a quote from a Web site. It's far less valid as a reason for believing something than even anecdotal evidence. Actually, the general success of shareware is support for my argument.

The argument doesn't hold water, not because the exposure is ineffective for the artists, but because it's still not an excuse for theft.

Well, to me, the definition of stealing involves depriving somebody of something. If I walk into your home and steal your TV, it's stealing because now you no longer have a TV. You paid for that TV, so now you're out a certain amount of money because of what I did.

Let's analyze the different uses of music piracy, and the extent to which I've stolen from the musician in each case:

a) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.

I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything, whether I continue to listen to the music or not. If I enjoy the music and listen to it, I've gained, making my actions at least a little questionable, but nobody else lost by my gain, so labelling my actions "theft" is unreasonable.

b) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.

I've actually benefited the artist by my actions in this case. There is no way this can be considered theft.

c) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.

Obviously I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything in this case. My motives may be a little questionable, but if I ultimately bought the album I can't be considered to have stolen it.

d) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.

This is the only case where I'm depriving the artist and label of something. If I proceed to listen to and enjoy the music regularly, and keep the recordings, obviously I have thoroughly cheated someone out of some money they deserve. If I proceed to delete the music because it turns out I didn't like it as much as I expected, the ethics of the situation are less obvious but it's still pretty clear I've done something wrong.

This is something of a simplification, since what is done with the music afterwards makes a difference as well, as far as morality is concerned, but for the most part 3/4 of the possible ways to "pirate" music involve no detriment to...anyone. In the face of a complete lack of any research into this, there is no reason to believe that one or another of these possibilities is more likely than the others in practice, so until such research is done the only logical assumptions are:

a) The probabilities are equal, so that 3/4 of all music piracy causes no harm, while the amount that causes harm is exactly balanced by the amount that causes benefit to the same people; or

b) Anecdotal evidence gives an accurate view of the situation, and people buy more CDs if they download music than if they don't, so the RIAA's position is indefensible.

These are the only defensible positions; the RIAA's statement that music piracy is eating into their profits is sheer speculation until some market research shows one way or another. I suspect that if research into this is ever conducted, the RIAA's position will go from being speculation to being wrong...unless the research is funded by the RIAA, in which case they have the option of only publishing results that favor them.

Frankly, I'm surprised no real research has been done into the effects of music piracy on CD sales, considering the amount of press the subject has received.

--
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by Anonvmous+Coward · 2003-02-02 17:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

"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?
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by ninjadroid · 2003-02-02 19:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens by some+damn+guy · 2003-02-02 22:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

On the mark... by mat+catastrophe · 2003-02-02 15:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Re:On the mark... by Hawthorne01 · 2003-02-02 15:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?)
The demands that the labels place on their artists to re-create the success of a smash debut have a lot to do with this. Rather than build a legacy of quality, the labels rush the artist to reproduce whatever the artist did in their first album and then slam it out on the streets to while the artist is "hot". How many acts that danced to this tune have had a followup album worth the plastic it's pressed on?
Not everyone has drunk the Koolaid. Bands like Pearl Jam, Phish and P.E., and performers like Prince, have the balls and knowledge to flip off the suits and build long, profitable careers. It seems these days that such things happen despite of, and not because of, the management of the major record labels.

--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Re:On the mark... by ergo98 · 2003-02-02 16:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:On the mark... by mat+catastrophe · 2003-02-02 16:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd admit it were pure, adulterated nonsense if it were 45-year old mullets buying all that fucking Skynard. But it isn't. It's 18 year-old kids stuck in a "retro" trip.

Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass. They'd rather feed off the ghosts of the past than starve with the shades of present.

While there are a certain number of people who reach a point where "nostalgia" becomes important to them and "new and shiny" is just not acceptable, I don't think that it invalidates my argument at all. After all, there is plenty of corporate music out there that is "new" that appeals to the "old" tastes, eh? And where are the sales of those groups? Down in the gutters with all the other new artists.

--
sig not found
Re:On the mark... by civilizedINTENSITY · 2003-02-02 16:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:On the mark... by ZuG · 2003-02-02 16:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

I don't think it's nonsense at all. I'm 19, and the stuff I hear on the radio today is crap. Pure and utter crap, it's so bad that I've given up on modern radio entirely and listen exclusively to bands like Led Zepplin, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and the like.
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.
Re:On the mark... by God!+Awful+2 · 2003-02-02 16:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

--
/. users can't
Re:On the mark... by Skiboo · 2003-02-02 17:50 · Score: 4, Funny

Bands like Pearl Jam, Phish and P.E., and performers like Prince, have the balls and knowledge to flip off the suits and build long, profitable careers. It seems these days that such things happen despite of, and not because of, the management of the major record labels.

Nice alliteration, but I have a better one:

Performances purveyors Pearl Jam, Phish, P.E., and players like Prince, possess perspicacity, preventing pandering to profiteers, preferring portraying poetry prolifically. Presently, performers procure popularity from performances; pessimistic pilferers perish.
Re:On the mark... by KingJoshi · 2003-02-02 18:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm so damn tired of people that not only criticize the music but insult the people that listen to the music. As though tastes are so objective and the listeners are just sheep being led astray or their music tastes are inferior. Oh please.

I don't listen to opera and barely any classical music but I'm not going to call those people that do elitists. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. I'm not going to label those that like alternative, grunge, metal, or whatever, sheep that follow the anti-establishment crowd. Sure there's that element for some, but don't belittle the people because you don't like the music.

I listen to music that I like. Be it country, rap, pop or whatever. I don't know what genres there are since there are so many crossovers. Some music I like just for the lyrics. There are many reasons to like a particular song or type of music. And I might like different ones when I'm in different moods. How the hell does that make me or anyone else sheep?

There's nothing wrong with liking some of Britney's song today or ten years from now. I'm sure there were those back then that said similar things about Elvis and Zepplin. They were wrong. You are too. Hopefully you'll continue to grow and realize that.

The quality of stations that only play and repeat the Top 40 is a separate issue. They should play more types of music and get over the whole damn genre thing. Contrary to many on slashdot, I like a lot of stuff out there. Different strokes for different folks.

--
In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
Re:On the mark... by Anonymous+Hack · 2003-02-02 18:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can Britney Spears pick up an instrument and actually *play* something? Can she sight-read? Can she improvise? Does she know the difference between a minor and diminshed chord? Can she even harmonize a melody? Can any of the current "pop stars" do any of these things? Can they do them WELL ENOUGH TO SELL ALBUMS?

Could Elvis do much more than just plink a few simple chords on his guitar? Do countless millions of fans care? No. Pop music is about the whole package, not about musical skill. And if someone prefers pop music to "virtuoso music" that doesn't make them any less of a person. I personally love listening to Britney, not because of the lyrics or the vocals, but the production is some of the sweetest you'll ever hear. Listen to "Oops I Did It Again" on a good sound system, hear how the bass synths cut through the mix so sharply, but at the same time don't take away from the melodies on top. Listen to those curling effects on her voice as she goes "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah". Listen to the way the songwriter put the song together so even if you hate the song you'll still remember the hooks, the tunes, even a year later. Look at the video clip and the way they've choreographed her dancing, look at her make-up and clothes. Look at the way she is pushed in the media. These are the things that make a pop musician popular, and they are just as valid talents as being a skilled "traditional" musician. Just because you don't appreciate those talents doesn't mean it's not still something to be blown away by. Think about ALL the work that goes into making a Britney album, not just the time spent writing the melodies.

--
I got a sig so you would remember me.
Re:On the mark... by ergo98 · 2003-02-03 01:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass.

I'd wager that a much greater impetus is the desire the insecure get to differentiate themselves from their peers, and a false sense of musical superiority is often a primary way. I say this from a first-hand perspective: I grew up listening to "alternative" music such as Depeche Mode, Skinny Puppy, Ministry, etc, in a small group where we assauged each others misgivings by assuring each other that what we were listening is of such superiority to all those brainless mobs. Then I grew up. First I saw a friend actually cease listening to a band because they became popular: This struck me as the greatest hippocracy of many counter-culture movements-They are just as driven by popularity, only in an inverse fashion (i.e. my like= -(popularity)). There is nothing redeemable in that, and it makes one just as much of a sheep as anyone else. How about all of the "goths" who "act different" by acting exactly like every other goth. It's a false sense of individuality while completely following the leader.

As per music nowadays, there are a tremendous number of extremely talented groups...groups being produced and distributed by the evil big industry. Sarah McLachlan, Tori Amos, Our Lady Peace, Matchbox 20, etc. All are tremendous musical talents in a sea of talent. Britney Spears does not represent the status quo of musical talent, just as Elvis didn't back in teh 50s.

I agree completely. by DarkHand · 2003-02-02 15:26 · Score: 5, Informative

I agree! If it weren't for sites like MP3.com, my band Flailing Kitten would have never gotten off the ground; the 'industry' would never accept it. :) The RIAA is afraid of losing control of music in general and the profits that follow; that's what's got them so scared.

Re:I agree completely. by yuckf00 · 2003-02-02 15:36 · Score: 5, Funny

Nice plug.

Idea to help indie artists... by anthonyrcalgary · 2003-02-02 15:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Idea to help indie artists... by jdonnici · 2003-02-02 19:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Couldn't artists who use online file sharing as a form of advertisement sue the RIAA for curtailing their activities?

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 ... 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."

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.

so wait... You're telling me that all I have to do by einer · 2003-02-02 15:27 · Score: 4, Funny

Is accuse someone of pirating music, and the "machinery is set in motion."?

Well, I have a short list of people who I believe have been pirating music:

Hillary Rosen
George W. Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
Gandhi
Carrot Top
Ann Coulter
Jesse Jackson
The Dell Dude
mathew lesko (The question mark guy selling the book on how to get free government money)
Rick Fox (from the Lakers...)

works great for small artists.. by dogas · 2003-02-02 15:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Re:works great for small artists.. by Klowner · 2003-02-02 16:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Exactly, but have you considered the possibility of a world that has free sharing of music, causing people to be exposed to more artists and genres, resulting in very few artists who get multi-platinum status because people wouldn't be fed music which is deemed "good" by "The Man". People that get multi-platinum would actually have to be THAT GOOD to earn it, not have the best marketing people.

Built-in players by Autonymous+Toaster · 2003-02-02 15:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

This is a logical cause and effect by pyite · 2003-02-02 15:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bands like The Grateful Dead and Phish have realized the ridiculous marketing power giving away free music has. Both bands were/are extremely successful (in terms of the amount of concert tickets sold) and this can be directly linked to the free exchange of audience recordings made by fans. I still find out about new bands largely based on this technique. A band allows taping at their shows and people do it. They then offer the shows for free download. People like me listen and then go to the shows, paying the artists. Everyone, except the RIAA, wins. I'd be scared and panicking too if I was the RIAA.

If you're interested in free music, go here.

--

"Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

Re:This is a logical cause and effect by aredubya74 · 2003-02-02 16:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

The RIAA could give a rat's ass about the Dead and Phish's concert success. Historically, have their albums sold well? Do they get considerable radio airplay? No, and no. Don't get me wrong - I really like both bands. However, the "R" in RIAA stands for Recording. This is what they care about; control of the output of recorded musical performance. If they can control the flow of musical recordings, they can continue to foist talentless crap on the listening public. If anything, Phish and the Dead are anomolies in their system. The RIAA would squash these performers' direct marketing of music if they felt they could. But they can't, so they take on the ISPs and downloaders, ignoring the ill will this spawns.

--
RW

Sabrina by MrWa · 2003-02-02 15:30 · Score: 2, Funny

Janis's stance on MP3's is admirable, but it was probably the reference on "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" that had the largest impact on sales...

The RIAA I'm sure sees this increase in sales by gatesh8r · 2003-02-02 15:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

However, like most companies that love controlling things, they don't want a middle man to deal with. The current model of their sales deals in a middleman which in turn does mark up CD sales. Having both the retail end (along with the wholesale end) and you cut out the middle man. For the "middle man" on the net so far has been the various P2P programs (Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa, etc). The RIAA would love to seize this chance of a new medium I'm sure -- just they want to be the only distributers out there. Having someone like a P2P (even if it's a legal download!) would not only cut off their chances of monopolizing the net model of sales, but also make it so that artists don't have to scramble to the whim of the RIAA looking for the star of the month.

They took radio along with Clear Channel -- let's not let them take the net.

--
Karma whorin' since 1999

Legacy of Greed by rudy_wayne · 2003-02-02 15:31 · Score: 4, Informative

"After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%"

The entertainment industries are controlled by people so blinded by greed that they are completely incapable of comprehending any business model that does not revolve around iron-fisted totalitarian control of their product. The list is lengthy and has been repeated many times:

Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs, saying they would destroy the movie industry. Instead, they have produced billions in profits.

The MPAA claims that they are currently suffering enormous harm from the trading of movies on the Interent. In reality, box office receipts in 2002 were up 11% from the previous year and the number of movie tickets sold was the highest in 50 years.

In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they are today about lost profits due to "piracy". Back in those days, CDs, Personal Computers and the Internet didn't exist. The villian, according to the RIAA, was cassette tape recorders. People were allegedly taping their friends records instead of buying them. But studies showed that people who owned sophisticated home recording requipment spend 75% MORE money buying records than people who didn't.

The list goes on.......

The greed and stupidity of the enterntainment industry goes on....

The irony here is that time and time again the entertainment industry has had to be saved from itself.

Re:Legacy of Greed by CrazyDuke · 2003-02-02 16:34 · Score: 4, Funny

The problem is, do you really want them shooting themselves in the foot while they are busy stomping on you?

--
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Re:Legacy of Greed by anubi · 2003-02-02 16:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe they should outlaw amplifiers too.
Without use of amplifiers, if they want to make the noise of 10,000 musicians, they would have to hire 10,000 musicians. Amplifiers put musicians out of work!

--
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

RIAA wants to increase sales.....OR....... by Phantom_24 · 2003-02-02 15:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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......

Digital Music Distribution HOW-TO by bfree · 2003-02-02 15:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

repeat after me - The RIAA doesn't represent Me. by acomj · 2003-02-02 15:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

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..

Well, obviously... by PetWolverine · 2003-02-02 15:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Well, obviously... by wadetemp · 2003-02-02 16:00 · Score: 2, Funny

I have 60 GB or so of MP3s [dhs.org] that you need.

Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.

System of a Down by imhotep · 2003-02-02 15:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 ....

Re:System of a Down by wadetemp · 2003-02-02 15:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
Re:System of a Down by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 16:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

"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."

You call that added value? They do NOT provide something, they force you to download some app and "unlock" what you get with other CDs normally?
Re:System of a Down by man_ls · 2003-02-02 17:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to by jdkincad · 2003-02-02 15:38 · Score: 2, Funny

What did Gandhi ever do to you?

--
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.

Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s? by GGardner · 2003-02-02 15:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

The "stated goal" by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · 2003-02-02 15:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Focus of interests by phurley · 2003-02-02 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

Assuming that the RIAA has anything other than the RIAA's best interests at heart is exactly like assuming a union has anything other than the union's best interest at heart. There is significant overlap, but they are not perfectly aligned.

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

Heads in the sand... by KlomDark · 2003-02-02 15:45 · Score: 2

If they'd just make everything (Everything, not just a small selection of stuff) available with some huge amounts of bandwidth for a small fee per song, I'd find it much more convenient than trolling through a bunch of lame slow connection via Limewire. But no, they are just pulling the ostrich routine...

Tell it to the artists themselves by sirket · 2003-02-02 15:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Profit lost... by BytePusher · 2003-02-02 15:47 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm not quite sure it's so difficult for the folks on /. to see why the RIAA is against MP3s, file sharing, etc... The whole reason record companies exist is to burn CDs and advertise. It's actually quite easy and inexpensive(Meaning not M$, but K$) to setup a nice recording studio and then burn A CD. File sharing takes care of distribution and the relitively cheap cost of advertising on a website takes care of well.. advertisement.
The problem is that the recording companies can see a "free market" in the future, which means their relitive profit will probably come close to zero.
In Ellen Fiess-ese here's the senario:
"So the RIAA guy was like, 'Ah, like, I was doing my homework, and like,,, if these, like people start using mp3s, they will, like, stop buying CDs from us
So I was like Nooo Waaay!, so I made the switch from opressing music artists to suing and getting court orders to ransack small buisinesses trying to establish file-sharing on the internet.
I'm so totally pleased in my desision to broaden my circle oppression, cause, like, I feel so much more totally secure.'"

-- All your sig. are belong to us

The RIAA acts in the interests if its constituants by hillct · 2003-02-02 15:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

In his editorial, Janis Ian says of the ruling the RIAA sought on behalf of it's membership:

f this ruling stands, many smaller musicians will be hurt financially, and many will be pushed out of the music business altogether.

This shouldn't suprise anyone. The RIAA doesn't care about small artists. It generates revenue for it's board of directors (elected by the artists that generate revenue for the RIAA) based on licenses paid for broadcast of the musig of the music of it's most popular member artists, who are the only ones who ever see any of the money collected by the cartel. This process is detailed in a fascinating if somewhat dated article by Harvey Reid. Definately worth a read.

--CTH

--

--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line

Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to by fobbman · 2003-02-02 15:49 · Score: 4, Funny

There's a running list of probable music pirates being created here. Each person listed has admitted to music piracy, and is offering themself to be taken to Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to by einer · 2003-02-02 15:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh dear. :) Gandhi wasn't actually sposed to be in that list. I stole that list from my a thread on my website (it's a list of the top five people you'd like to punch in the face if you saw them on the street. Gandhi doesn't actually belong in THAT list either...)

Am I the only one ... by DogIsMyCoprocessor · 2003-02-02 15:55 · Score: 3, Funny

who thinks the Janis Ian quote sounds like the body of a spam?

To: spamvictim@aol.com
Subject: MAKE EASY MONEY AT HOME

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 this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by Klowner · 2003-02-02 15:59 · Score: 2

Sales were up, then napster got shut down and they started dropping, so of course they blamed the drop on all the other P2P networks.

I agree by neo8750 · 2003-02-02 16:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

by cutting people off from downloading songs artists and the RIAA are cutting out new listeners. I personal like to get a few of the songs off a cd before I buy because I hate buy a cd and finding out i only like 1 of the songs on the cd.

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.

Mod UP by That_Dan_Guy · 2003-02-02 16:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

In regards to the damages by xNullx · 2003-02-02 16:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2003-02-02 16:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua by John+Hasler · 2003-02-02 16:38 · Score: 3, Informative

You are thoroughly confused. The RIAA is an association of music publishers: Sony, Vivendi, etc. No actual musicians are involved. The article you cite is about ASCAP and BMI.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

People don't always buy cd's by fmita · 2003-02-02 16:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

I live in LA... by Newer+Guy · 2003-02-02 16:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

It's not about theft. by DeadBugs · 2003-02-02 16:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

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/

Re:What's good for Janis Ian by Master+of+Transhuman · 2003-02-02 16:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Far of P2P: A Musician's Perspective by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 16:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!

Discovering by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 17:03 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua by K8Fan · 2003-02-02 17:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

In his editorial, Janis Ian says...

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

Turnabout is fair play by Vile+Slime · 2003-02-02 17:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Agreed by arcadum · 2003-02-02 17:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's logical for the corporations to discount the benefits of freely availible media.

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by Golias · 2003-02-02 17:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the parent post has a bit of a point here.

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.

Re:The Cost of Stupidity by Jeremi · 2003-02-02 17:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

For the stuff out of print, I can't buy it, so no loss to the industry.

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.

My Letter To the Author by Dokushoka · 2003-02-02 17:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by dbrutus · 2003-02-02 18:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Read the article by WinPimp2K · 2003-02-02 18:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

It's a need that must be filled somehow... by deadfly · 2003-02-02 18:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

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..... by solostring · 2003-02-02 19:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

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

Regression To The Mean by istartedi · 2003-02-02 19:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

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"?

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by reezle · 2003-02-02 20:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

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?

Motives by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-02 20:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

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$), so to eliminate this competition they are using the indirect tactic of trying to lock the use of the net down by lobbying for apropriate laws.
If a larger chuck of commercial music was done by artists independantly, online, then there would be more focus on that group from the public - it would become a decent sized market (bazaar ;) and the record companies would be making less money than they would like. There would be more musicians being able to do what they wanted for a living because of the masively improved margins available.
So just like M$ 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 :D

MP3's and the RIAA by DerKatze · 2003-02-02 22:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

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=-

Re:MP3's and the RIAA by VB · 2003-02-03 03:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by u38cg · 2003-02-03 00:48 · Score: 2

Would that be so bad?

Live concerts are rather enjoyable things to go to. Having recordings is great, particularly when you can't get to these concerts so often, but music lives when it's played, not when it's converted into a bitstream.

The Grateful Dead encouraged lived taping of their shows and the swapping scene that this created. I doubt it did their ticket sales or their album sales any harm.

Finally, it's worth noticing that most artists make far more from their live shows than from their recordings. FWIW.

--
[FUCK BETA]

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-03 00:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Rubbish

I'm reading a book right now
while driving my car and writ

They don't know what they are missing. by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-02-03 01:30 · Score: 2

In my mind, snagging MP3's over the internet is no different than listening to a song over the radio. Any legal scholars in the audience please correct me, but it has been my understanding that it is perfectly legal to record a song played over the airwaves. You cannot sell that recording in any way, but then again copyright was always about publishing NOT consuming.

Just like back in the days of those analog magnetic tape recorders, friends and I would swap collections. After a while I got sick of the static, siblings tapeing rude comments over my favorite tracs, and broken tapes. So I would go out and buy the CD. Why? As far as my ears (and several electrical engineering principles) it is a perfect recording. Unfiltered, unaltered, un-everything from when it left the mixing booth.

Why haven't I bought a CD in a while? For starters, I can't really think of any new music that has been worth buying. Hell, two top selling albums of last year featured artists WHO HAVE BEEN DEAD SINCE I WAS AN INFANT. I don't really get exposed to new music on the radio:

Because most of the new stuff that is on the radio is twink bands and whining teenaged girls
What music I do like on the radio is generally older than I am
Even if I find a classic rock album I am looking for, it is out of print and the remixed version doesn't have the tracks I'm looking for.

Damn, I remember the days when you would see a new video on MTV and go "I have to own that album." I can't name the last time I've actually SEEN a rock video on MTV. These days it's all quiz shows and psuedo journalism.

The industry as a whole stopped taking risks long ago, and in the process they have lost the novelty factor that WAS their business.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s by arkanes · 2003-02-03 02:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Public library in my town has a Starbucks in it ;) And the one where I lived before had a coffee machine as well.

Why attack the medium by dfcox530 · 2003-02-03 05:41 · Score: 2

Why is everyone concentrating on P2P as the problem. As I see it, Kazaa provides nothing more than a tool, no more wicked than http or ftp or for that matter the internet itself. No one's running around saying that we have to shutdown the internet because someone might use it to transfer copyrighted materials. What these users choose to share is their business. If they happen to be sharing copyrighted materials then go after them. On a side note, have you ever watched the commercials for broadband. It goes something like "Download movies and music faster than ever before". Seems like the ISPs benefit from P2P

Re:The Psychology of Record Companies & Biz of by sgtrock · 2003-02-03 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians

97 of 478 comments (clear)