Slashdot Mirror
Indies Blossoming Despite RIAA
Shadow Wrought writes "We have all read the numerous RIAA articles on Slashdot, not to mention scores of other articles that discuss the industry's purported demise. An article at the Christian Science Monitor calls this assumption into question by pointing to the success that Indie Labels are beginning to enjoy. An interesting read and one that provides pretty good support against the RIAA's argument that a quartet of college students is responsible for their troubles."
Of course, one these "indie" labels get big enough, they won't be "indie" anymore. Just wait for the day when the new management (RIAA friendly) takes over, and suddenly, the era of the successful indie labels is over. But wait, you're saying this could be a cycle? One of those things that happens over and over? wow...
sorry, i'm just a jaded lil kid.
all it takes is one major success to make a label "big" from there, its just a question of whether or not they have the guts to stick to their creed or sell out.
and we all know how tempting it is to sell out...
We have all read the numerous RIAA articles on Slashdot
/. speak specifically of PS2, Gamecube, XBox (or even RPGs, FPS (not Quake), strategy).
Makes you wonder. Why we don't have an RIAA topic, but we have new 'console' based game topics. Honestly, look at how many times articles on
New topics are nice, especially when you have enough stories to make one.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Like porn, music has become cheap to produce and distribute. There are lessons to be learned.
If you are in Canada, and you are already paying for the cost of piracy on every pack of recordable CD's, I'd say piracy has already been assumed, and already been paid for.
If the RIAA wants to stop assuming our guilt, I'll be a bit more pissy on piracy. As it stands, I avoid it but still pay tax on CD's - so why should I also have to worry about lawsuits?
Of course, that being said, I've heard of a lot of RIAA against organization/user action in the US and other countries (Australia, etc)... anyone know of anything happening in Canada, or are our CD levies actually covering us (if so... time to heat up my burner and kazaa!).
These days, just spinning yourself as an 'independent' label gives PR dividends.
How many 'independent' labels are members of the RIAA? If you look at their membership list (someone give me a link, please), you'll see more than just the 'mega-biggies'.
I'd be willing to bet that many indies buy onto the RIAA's DRM position. Many artists do, for that matter. So why do we assume that a label is non-RIAA compatible if it's indie?
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
The record companies claimed that cassette tapes allowed easy "pirating" of music and evil thieves weren't buying records anymore.
However, sales climbed back up in the 80s, despite the fact that cassette tapes weren't outlawed. Jenkins theorizes that it was actually "personality-free" disco that convinced people to stop buying records. He then draws parallels between disco and today's "teen-pop".
Both are intellectually underachieving, cookie-cutter styles that have made stars of performers not known primarily for their skills as singers, songwriters, or musicians.
It's an insightful article. Definitely worth a read.
Personally, I was never a big music listener, but the RIAA has pretty much turned me off every buying a CD again.
I'm looking for a HEPA media filter for my TV. I'm alergic to reality shows.
And this despite the various "taxes" independents have to pay the RIAA for the right to compete with them (built-in fees on DAT tape, CD-R media; attacks on webstreaming, etc.)
You'd think the RIAA would try to do things like that, or at least try to appeal to the older generation of music listeners, maybe even try to get them to stop their kids from using P2P networks before they get into college, etc. But no... The RIAA probably eliminated their HR and Marketing board a while ago to pay for their Anti P2P hackers...
*/conspiracy rant*
What I don't get is why they are still doing the same old thing (poisoning P2P networks instead of enhancing their own.) They have a bad reputation as it is. I would try to see if Hilary Rosen or some RIAA/ex-RIAA could do an Ask /. article, but... no. That could be bad, although it would be interesting to see how they answered the questions... Would they lie or just squirm?
F'r'instance, I bet that every time a fan A makes his/her friend B a copy of an Alison Krauss album, B buys, on average, 2 more Alison Krauss albums. (Yes, she's that good; she's nothing like the "country" music you hear on a generic Clear Channel country radio station.) Alison Krauss has been making records for 17 years, since she was 15 years old. If you are Alison Krauss or her record label (Rounder), you are interested in building a fan base for the next thirty-odd years of her career, not trying to squeeze every dollar out of 15 minutes of fame. The odd fan burning a CD for a pal is just giving her and Rounder free advertising. Anything other than a warehouse cranking out hundreds of copies really isn't going to be a problem.
On the other hand, if you have a record company built on promoting one-hit wonders, and someone burns a CD of your current artist's album -- well, it's likely that there won't be 2 more albums to buy by that artist. (Not to be mean: Britney Spears is charming in her way and nice to look at, but I really can't imagine that she is going to record 10 albums in her career.)
The upshot is that major labels pushing top-40 singles benefit a lot from cracking down on copyright infringement; indy labels and serious musicians, not so much.
No, your music just sucks as of late. Indie bands are so much better.
This all sounds familiar.
Yup, I guess you could say that the RIAA is feeling the pinch. Let me think. I bought on average 50 CD's a year at roughly $15.00 a pop. That comes out to $750 a year. But since the RIAA has decided take up an attitude that we are all crooks, I have decided to support the INDIE groups instead. If it's an RIAA music company, I don't buy the CD. Well, looky here, that's a 100% drop in business from one person. One does not make a pattern, but I know for fact I'm not alone!
Just read my comments from other posts.
The truth is usually just an excuse for lack of imagination.
"when you spend lots of money producing an intellectual property, then some retard comes along and copies it to a million of his friends for free, should he be held responsible for committing some (perhaps new variety of) theft?
"
Well there's really not enough information to answer this question, but I'll take a stab at it. No. Simply put, I trust that most people are honest. I'm going to treat them that way. If somebody makes my content available, and somebody else picks it up, then I instantly have exposure that I didn't have previously. $20 is a lot to spend if you don't like something that you can't return.
I don't think most of the people who would acquire my content for free would pay for it in the first place. At least then I'd have my foot in the door. If they don't like it, they're not going to download anymore. No harm done. I didn't get my $20, but at the same time they didn't get satisfactory service. If they do like it enough that they'd download it (bored perhaps?) but not enough to pay for it, then it means my prices are too high or my content just isn't good enough for them. Sorry, but I can't make everybody like anything I make. So no harm done either, especially when their acquisition of my content didn't cost me anything personally. All that's left are the people who download it simply because they don't want to pay for it. Should they be thrown in jail? I don't feel strongly they should. I can't imagine I would have gotten money from them if I had some perfect protection mechanism. At least that way there's the benefit of them sharing it with other people and getting their interest in it. Again, no losses or damage done to me here.
If it reached a point where more people were acquiring my content than paying for it, then I think that's more of a reflection of my price tag or quality than I do of people needing the law to hammer them down. It means that I need to provide more or provide cheaper. That's easy, create an incentive for people to buy it. "Buy this DVD, and you get a statue of the main character for free." Etc. Or, make more content that'd be hard to send with it. "This DVD also contains a High Definition 1080p version of the content" (like in the earlier article about MS and Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition.) Maybe they don't want the media, maybe they want an electronic version they can store on the hard drive? Well in that case I should provide it instead of causing them to seek other methods to doing it.
For the record, I'm an artist. That's what I do for a living. Copyright's very important to me, but jail time for somebody downloading or distributing a copy of my work is ridiculous. I'd rather just figure out a way to work with them on it. If they're willing to redistribute my work, then maybe there's a deal that can be made there. "At least advertise my deal for purchasing stuff."
The only time I'd be really worried about somebody redistributing my stuff is if they're making money off it illegally. That's really what copyright law is for. It's not about suing America's future.
"Derp de derp."
"already paying for the cost of piracy on every pack of recordable CD's, I'd say piracy has already been assumed, and already been paid for"
That's the way I look at it. If they're going to charge me extra for my media because of "piracy", then I guess I'd better get my money's worth... Hence my relatively large collection (250+ CDs) of movies, anime, games...
And they want to increase the levy VERY SIGNIFICANTLY... if that happens, my rate of piracy will go up proportionately... the new levy is more than double the current rate, IIRC.
In my mind, mp3.com *should* have remained the premier indie band site but they screwed themselves with their my.mp3.com section where they provided mp3's of big studio albums for d/l. Since they got bought out, they've dried up as a source for indie artists.
Anyone know of an alternative distribution site that deals only in indie artists and:
* provides a percentage of the songs for free d/l
* provides the entire album for d/l once purchased
* allows the artists to retain copyright
* has a good variety of styles / artists
* has a long laundry list of albums $10
cdbaby.com looks promising, but pricey.
One problem here though - the way many small indie labels works is that they sign a band in the hopes that they will become large enough that a big label will want to buy out their contract, and they can make some cash.
It's somewhat analogous to some shareware authors that make a really badass app in the hopes that a large corp. will want to buy their code. The whole thing is that you risk losing some effort that might end up making a small profit, in hopes of making the big discovery that wins you the lottery, which should hold you over until the next time you find gold.
Especially in the "indie" music genre, that's how things work - you start out on an indie label, but if you are successful, you get signed to someone big and you get more cash, your previous label makes some cash, and the only one that might lose in the equation is the customer (due to RIAA). For many, however, this is the only way to make your dreams comes true of playing your own music full time.
I just thought I'd shed some light on the symbiotic nature of the two worlds of music publication.
Copyright laws were meant to allow someone to recover the cost of producing and circulating original works. It was never contemplated that copyright should be used to support inefficient economies (why don't we still employ scribes and sue printing press owners?) If the internet is cheaper, it should be used, but costs are lower and so prices should be lower. If the RIAA did this (lowered prices in proportion to costs) this would be a total non-issue and no P2P networks would have ever sprung up. Instead it wants to extort obscene amounts of money that has nothing to do with covering its [reasonable] underlying costs to produce and distribute. Now it simply resorting to terrorism. How many times do I have to by the White Album? I've got five store-bought formats and they'd still use the courts to bankrupt me if I downloaded an MP3 of "Rocky Racoon". 'Presumption of Guilt' is not exactly what the American Constitional framers had in mind. Patents, on the other hand, must teach the reader something novel and unobvious so that the new knowledge can be leveraged in new ways. In exchange for the public disclosure, the Goverment protects the indivual's sole right to use that knowledge in the application disclosed in the teaching. What is being done now s that "intellectual property" is being used to prevent others from benefiting and expanding on knowledge and from fair use of information that has been published. This is quite opposite common sense and justifiable protection by law, IMHO
If you want to read about a band that really got fucked, google Badfinger. Great band, saddest Behind the Music episode ever.
"Give me a break! If I offer you a free beer or a 50 cent beer (same brand, same born on date) which one are you going to take? Even if the the the beer was discounted 49 cents, most people would take the free one."
I'd get the $.50 beer.
1.) $.50 is quite reasonable for beer.
2.) I don't know that the $.01 beer hasn't been tampered with. (ever download a song that has a glitch in it? Yuck.)
3.) I could get the $.50 beer really fast, vs. the $.01 beer would take an hour to pour.
4.) If I'm a fan of that particular brand of beer, I'm going to keep buying it from it's source instead of waiting for somebody to show up with it at $.01.
The only way I'd take the $.01 beer is if I had never had that brand before.
"Derp de derp."
You can argue that the performer shouldn't have such a broad right to decide how and on what terms copies are made (and there are limits on that right, e.g., fair use and the right to make copies for one's own personal use). But there's no debate about whether, under current law, artists have that broad right.
(There is no single "legal definition" of theft under American law. Many states don't use the word in their penal code; they call it "larceny" or something else depending on the circumstances.)
I don't know about Canada but in the U.S. only audio CDRs have the tax put on them.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Well in a way he is right it probably is a marketing problem. The truth is that we just don't have the financial muscle to do that marketing blitz thing that might just get us the recognition that other more established labels have. We do a lot of "grass roots" marketing and try and get our name out there as much as possible but there is only so much you can do with small time funding and limited time. If I didn't have a day job and could completely support myself with the label, I am sure that there would be a hell of a lot more going on as far as "marketing". To put it in a nutshell, Time and Money are needed to move things forward, which means that fans have to invest in those artists that they appreciate. If there is no revenue generated by CD (or other mediums) then the money is just not there to make more releases. Not that everything is that bad. We still put out music on CD even though we know the return isn't great but that is because we actually believe and enjoy what we are doing. I have been racking my brain for years trying to figure out how we can change the business to reflect the emerging digital music era, but maybe I'm just not the one to figure it out. I am open to ideas. :)
zenas
http://www.zenapolae.com
I agree with your stance, but would like to add one more.
With the availability of easy distribution, indie artists/labels threaten to legitimately undermine the current business model of the whole industry. Instead of cultural doom, they're in reality afraid of a loss of cultural control. No control of the culture mans they will simply have no way of creating the next big thing. That's what they're afraid of in the end - they'll have no reason to exist.
That being said, the record execs are doing thier jobs - they do have a responsibility to thier shareholders and should try to retain any value in thier corporations, so I don't think they're "evil" per se, just terribly, terribly mis-guided. I'd say those who hold shares in the big media companies are the people who should be targeted - show them that there's very little value in the current model, and it's dying quickly.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
One thing I've noticed about my own music buying habits over the past 25 years. The amount of music I'm buying has stayed relatively constant. But the type of music I'm buying lately has shifted radically, away from the more popular bands and towards the less-appreciated ones.
Popular music is relatively easy to find on the p2p networks. Type in "Eminem" or "Korn" and you'll come up with hundreds of hits. Downloading and burning a CD is easy. Why go through the hassle of ordering online or driving to the mall when downloading is simpler and cheaper?
The less popular stuff is a lot harder to obtain. Usually I can find a song or two, enough to make me know I want to hear more, but finding the more obscure stuff is an exercise in frustration. It could take me hours or days of searching and downloading and listening to locate all the tracks I want. In that case, it's a lot easier to just break out the plastic and order the CD.
From a Karma standpoint, I'd much rather spend my money supporting a struggling artist then helping Christine or Britney put another platinum album on their wall. I understand the legally, pirating is pirating, and it doesn't matter whose music I steal. But Paul McCartney isn't going to have to take a second job because I ripped "Help!" instead of buying it.
I think this is what the RIAA members are really worried about. Not that music sales will drop, but that they'll be spread out a lot more evenly. Once an artist gets popular enough, it becomes easy to pirate their music. Sales for those artists will tend to "cap out" when it becomes easier for people to pirate the album instead. Meanwhile, less popular groups will tend to sell more albums, because more people will be exposed to their music. That means more work for the record companies, because they'll have to start promoting ALL of their artists, not just the popular few that they know will sell the most.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
It would be more insightful if that person were advocating not using codecs that are not freely available. Perhaps the president of CDBaby could spend some time helping to popularize Ogg Vorbis and give portable digital music players more reason to pursue a market not based on patent encumberance (that many people claim sounds better than MP3 anyhow).
Digital Citizen