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...
and their movie friends, but I'm undecided on the larger issue--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?
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!
I have about half their catalog, particularly all the Jon Langford, Sally Timms, and Waco Brothers. Great people to buy from!
The meme police, They live inside of my head
Thanks to CD burners costing dirt these days, you can find individual bands all over the net who are publishing on their own. CDBaby.com offers a storefront and listening booth for hundreds of these bands. Dig around a little and listen with an open mind. You will find something you like.
If they still offer it, try and get your hands on one of the sampler discs (100 MP3 tunes from different bands, broken down by genre) and see if you don't find a dozen albums you want.
There's a HUGE amount of good stuff here, and the bulk of the cash goes to the band. You pay less than you pay for most mainstream commercial music, and sometimes the band even writes directly to ask what you thought of the disc afterward. Virtually all of the bands are accessible and love it when you write them to chat as well.
After the band, the rest of the cash goes to the guys you see on the CDBaby website. NO RIAA GOUGING HERE. No subsidizing bastard lawyer cabals. They even run OpenBSD and Apache. It's ALL good! :-)
No, I don't work for them, I'm just a very happy customer. I've bought over a hundred discs, and I don't miss pouring through the old over-hyped and mass-produced sludge to find the rare gem one bit!
Can you tell I like CDBaby?
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.
I wonder why Ani DiFranco was only given a passing mention in the article? [actually I could probably wager a guess...] She's released 20 of her own albums over the past 13 years, and at least 5 other albums. She dislikes corperate record companies, and has at least a few songs specifically about the subject. Take a look at any local CD store and she'll be there, and been doing it for years.
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.)
Indies Blossoming Despite RIAA
Seriously, if the RIAA weren't into heavy handed tactics, sueing students, making virtually-unusable copy-protected CD's, and charging unreasonable amounts for music... how would Indie music be doing?
Hell, I think that the RIAA is helping Indie music. People don't want to pay for overpriced music anymore, they're looking at alternatives... copying is free but becoming less attractive due to lawsuit... so the next cheapest route is indie and others (not to mention some often damn good tunes).
Who the fuck modded this up? This guy actually believes in intellectual property!
"Another secret of their success is that the (indie) labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free"... The simple fact is this: in this dumpy economy, adults have the most disposable income, while kids have LESS money to spend. Yet, the 'big five' still cluelessly market primarily to kids! It's no wonder why their sales are down! One other thing not mentioned in this article though: If you go to most of the artists' web sites mentioned in the story, you'll find that you can listen to and/or download their music there. These artists don't have airplay, so they rely on the web as their 'radio'. They USE the web to get their songs heard. The web and downloading is BENEFICAL to them! This runs entirely opposite to the 'big five' who see the web as evil, something to be sued out of existance! Gee, I wonder who's wrong here? Even stranger, I wonder why Congress seems to always listen to the 'big 5 losers' instead of the winners when they pass their laws concerning the Internet!
Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free.
Nice stereotyping there, Christian Science Monitor. There are plenty of college students and teenagers who will pay for music -- especially if it's good music.
This happens every 5~10 years. Witness the big label explosion in the 80s pop/glam rock era which made way for labels like subpop and others to pop out with the grunge fad.
This followed with california punk labels epitaph with the like of offspring and bad religion. Around 1997, indie labels were out, big labels gave us sister third mary blind 7 verve or whatever they were called. Exactly, no one remembers because they were force fed to us down clear channel radio.
This is giving way to more indie computer based music labels. I'm not speaking of "techno" but labels that exist in people's homes. Whether that is dance music, indie rock, jazz, or jam bands. We will see this new wave of independent labels make way in a few years to another big label offering. I could go back before the 70s, but those were pretty much the major trends from my lifetime. Nothing new.
Normally I do not watch MTV, but it was on and one new musician's story caught my attention. A guy by the name of Cody Chesnutt, who has a bit of oldschool R&B sound and flair, was being featured. He created his first album all by himself in his bedroom studio, and released his two-CD set called "The Headphone Masterpiece" in a limited amount on his own. The CD sold out everywhere, and major record lables were courting him to release his CD on a much bigger scale... Cody turned them all down.
:)
His CD is only available via his website (codychesnutt.com) and he is going it alone to make a stand against the music industry. I can appreciate this man's efforts, and it parallels a lot of what we in the OSS community are up against. If you're wondering, I have no ties to this guy at all... I just heard about him a couple hours ago, but I wish him nothing but the best... and his song "Look Good In Leather" is pretty damn catchy as well
www.GamezCore.com For Hardcore PS2 Gamerz : By Hardcore PS2 Gamerz
By Lynne Margolis
Eight years ago, Nan Warshaw, Rob Miller, and their Chicago friends were lamenting the dearth of "new and exciting music - music that ignited their passion the way punk and alternative rock had before big record labels and Gap commercials co-opted their sounds.
Then they began noticing that several area bands were putting Hank Williams twists on their Nirvana and Elvis Costello influences. So they decided, for kicks, to put out a compilation album of "insurgent country." Warshaw and Miller anted up a few grand apiece.
"We had no expectation that this was going to become a business," Ms. Warshaw says. "The first few years, we'd put out a record and when it broke even, we would say, 'Oh, what record should we do next?' "
But 3-1/2 years after it first started, Bloodshot Records finally hired its first paid employee. Today, it's a popular and healthy independent label, one of many operating outside the grip of the five mega-majors: Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Universal Music Group, BMG Entertainment, EMI Group, and Warner Music Group.
While executives at those labels wail about the industry's imminent collapse, indie labels and artists are singing a much happier tune. Profits are up - in some cases by 50 to 100 percent. That's in contrast to overall album sales, which dropped about 11 percent in 2002.
"We don't do too much crying over here," Cameron Strang, founder of New West Records, admits proudly. The home of artists like Delbert McClinton, the Flatlanders, and John Hiatt has doubled its business for the past three years and is projecting a $10 million income in 2003.
Paul Foley, general manager of the biggest independent label, Rounder Records of Cambridge, Mass., happily brags, "2002 was actually Rounder's best year in history. We were up 50 percent over 2001."
You won't hear many of these labels' artists on pop radio - and ironically, that's one of the secrets to their success. By avoiding the major expenses associated with getting a tune on the air - which can cost upwards of $400,000 or $500,000 per song - independent labels are able to turn a profit far more quickly, and share more of those profits with their artists. Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free.
Other artists, such as Aimee Mann and Michelle Shocked, are going even further - forming their own labels so they don't have to answer to anybody (see "Artists Sing Their Own Notes," at right).
At a major label, most artists are unlikely to earn anything unless they sell at least 1 million albums, and even then, they could wind up in debt. Everything from studio time to limo rides are charged against their royalties, which might be only $1 per disc sold. That compares with an indie artist, who can sell a disc for $15 at a concert. If they make $5 profit a disc on 5,000 discs, they pocket $25,000.
"That's the difference between us and them," Mr. Strang says. "Artists on our label who sell 200,000 copies make a very good living."
Independents also pay profits only after recouping expenses, but they keep those down by curbing marketing and overhead costs. They also have more equitable arrangements with artists, often sharing profits 50-50.
But perhaps the biggest difference is that they let artists keep the rights to their work. Michael Hausman, who manages Mann, says once the large labels get those rights, they may choose not to release a note of music but won't let the artist work for anyone else - essentially bringing career momentum to a halt.
Loved, then discarded
When rock critic and author Dave Marsh spoke on a panel at last month's South By Southwest music conference in Austin, Texas, he pronounced bigger-label contracts a bad deal for artists from Day 1, "because of unequal leverage." John Doe, who gained fame with then-wife Exene Cervenka in the '80s punk band X, says maj
This statement presumes that there is only one kind of business research--the old kind. Although it flies in the face of outmoded business models, the "piracy" model has many strenghts, from which the RIAA is too bloated to learn.
Bye-bye, Bronto!
A new distribution model will achieve prominence within the next five years, and with it a cascade of changes in the the structure of copyright law.
It's funny that they didn't mention the most successful indie label out there, Epitaph.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
http://www.riaa.org/About-Members-1.cfm
Looks like 50:1 on Indies vs. Big 5 in there...
Though I'm not sure how many of the members are subsidiaries of the major labels.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill RIAA
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
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?
It's real easy to not be greedy when you don't have any cash. People always talk about how "indie" labels don't screw over their artists, and about how the music is so much better. While this may be true in some respects, look at the other side.
The local band I can't sing but my tits are great, are more than willing to accept the major label money when it is offered to steal them away from the local record label, based out of Bobs garage. ("It doesn't pay well, but we love making music") The label then dishes out tons of cash to promote this shit band, who would never get any publicity outside of the leaflets they plaster all over their local, BoonFuck, Iowa clubs. The label also gives tons of free swag to the big DJ's in the major markets to get them to play the first single off their record. They take off, become multi-millionaires, and all of a sudden complain of mistreatment from their label.
Again, this is just my opinion, but when Sheryl Crowe cries, I just keep thinking "Go back to stripping, Honey."
If this article confuses you, don't worry. It was posted yesterday in a much clearer fashion.
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.
Smaller 'Indie' labels don't need to move 4 million units to show a profit. True social Darwinism.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I am glad the CSM published this, but disappointed they did not mention pioneering Dischord Records. Dischord is truly "in the business of making music, not money." They charge fans exactly what they charge record stores and forego distributors entirely. Send Dischord $10 and they send you a CD, post paid. In some cases you can even get vinyl. Dischord are just good people.
Plus, Amy Pickering is a fox.
It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man
-James Baldwin
...and it's been dreadfully hard to get people to buy cds. We are actually looking to release more music on vinyl now because it seems to be the current trend in our market. Personally, I buy all my music from indie labels directly which has been cheaper and a much more enjoyable process then going to the local music store chain, but I don't think most people are doing that. We have been around for almost five years and we sell just enough to keep the releases flowing. Which is OK by me but I am sure that the artists and those of us doing the work (that would be me and my partners) would like to benefit finacially from our labors. :)
zenas(prime)
http://www.zenapolae.com
n/t
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Uh, so doesn't this mean that these indie labels are succeding becuase they purposely target their music to those who will pay for music? Sorry I don't see this as an argument against the RIAA, more likely it's an argument that downloading music does effect sales.
That Bloodshot Records appeared on NPR I cannot really address. I did not listen to it and did not know that they had received other publicity recently.
As for the point that we are a recycled culture living in perpetual rewind, well, that just may be. It seems that with the advent of the web everyone has access to so much information that they spend more time absorbing what is already there than creating something new. That plus our culture values citiations as supporting evidence;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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.
I'm really surprised big music artists haven't banded together to form an entity similar to a co-op. It seems to me, anyway, that given today's technology distribution isn't nearly as difficult as it used to be and that big companies finance/promote more than distribute. Could you imagine how much more $$$ sell outs like metallica could make if they didn't have to deal with a selfish company that feeds only to stockholders?
But, then, I guess I'm not an expert in this...
-Sean
"And did you know that payola is legal? It's been like that for decades. As long as the payee mentions they've been paid, they can play anything in this manner."
No, I did not know that payola is legal.
Maybe I'm ignorant because, in 40-years, I've never heard a single word 'mentioned' about this on a single radio station.
Got a disconnect, here.
Follow up, please.
If I steal your computer, you can't use it so you are deprived of something and that is theft.
If I copy a disc, you still have what you started with.
There is no deprevation, ergo there is no theft.
Does anyone know what the legal definition of theft is?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
You are right on the mark with the ascertion that Indies are a big threat to the media moguls. The media giants know it and find every way possible to thwart independent film and music development.
Independent film makers are a threat in two big ways: There is direct competition in that the indies take attention away from Hollywood. They also are a prime example of how new technologies are making way for new voices...going square in the face of the RIAA's claim that piracy is leading to cultural doom.
The RIAA wants to create a Star Wars theme of evil pirates stealing from artists. The surge of independent film making is showing the opposite...that the technology is opening ground for new voices. As we see independent artists making in roads with new technology, we see that the true pirates of the silver screen are the big media moguls and Hollywood super class that has dominated film for the last century
And yes they certainly do go bonkers. The music-listener job has a pretty high rate of dropout due to insanity.
:-)
Very interesting idea - however, I can't find sample MP3 CDs on the website. Are you talking about this, or something else? If it's an actual CD, can you please post the name? I'd be willing to pay for a CD like this, to figure out which artists have some potential...
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
and to a lesser extent Metropolis Records
and Middle pillar
and labels like
Projekt Records - Who said napster was a good thing
Flaming Fish
UR-realist (Russian)
I can get a lot of good music and avoid the crap that the majors sell. I hope more artists begin to realize that majors are not the way to go to sell their music, your better off going independent and actually make money.
damn i spelled that wrong. Just thry to offer a useless suggestion. THis is slashdot after all. ;)
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
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.
Well, I will take the free one, but I will tip the bartender quite well.
If I am at a keg party, and I drink the free beer, I may offer the buyer of the keg money depending on the circumstances, and will very often contribute money to the buying of another keg. But the best thing I can do is to throw a keg party myself and buy the keg.
For the record, I drink free beer every saturday night just about, and my bartenders do well as does the club that provides the free beer.
--Drunk as in Beer
A very large number of 'indie' labels are RIAA members. Check the list, your favorite indie label is probably on it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
That's all for now.
Rounder Records has several artists I like quite a lot, so it dismays me that they are also a member of the RIAA. It doesn't absolutely prevent me from buying their CD's, but I certainly think twice about it. There are probably some I haven't bought just for that reason.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
I think that cheap electronics and the internet are to blame (for everything!) for the growing popularity of indie music.
Back in the 80s and early 90s, I really *wanted* to be indie, especially when I would see that bumber sticker that says "Corporate rock still sucks." But I just couldn't get into the bad sounding, low-talent self-made cassette crap I would here down at the local "alt" record store. Jesus, I didn't want to buy another Madonna CD, but the alternatives were noise or silence. I'm sure there was good quality alt music out there, but I couldn't find it. It was just not possible for a kid in a southern US town to know about an ass-kickin DJ from Toronto, or that weird (but talented) rapper from Rio. There were no mp3s for download in 1991, but there was a Sound Whorehouse with a giant display of Garth Brooks CDs.
Things are different now. I haven't bought a "big 5" cd in several years. And I don't steal/pirate/liberate music. But my hard drive and CDRs brim full with fucking excellent tunes produced and distributed by indie labels and self-produced artists who are glad to hook you up with some free mp3s just to get their songs heard. And you know what, I usually end up buying their CDs. Maybe to get those other songs that aren't available for download, or sometimes even when I have all of the songs already, just to support the cool artist who provided me dozens of hours of sound with no expectation of compensation (And once to get the bumber sticker included with the disk).
Not only can I easily sift through the crap to find the gold now, but the ultra-low barrier-to-entry for digital music production has created even more indie music than I ever dreamed existed in 1991. Sure there is more talentless noise, but damn, I never thought there would be this much good music hiding on lonely web sites waiting for someone to download, burn, and pass around.
So fuck you RIAA! I don't buy big5 CDs, and I've never used kazaa. But I've got lots of music, and somebody is earning my music dollars without giving you a cut! Eventually lots of people are going to realize it. You'll have to shut off the entire internet to stop it now!
but, I wouldn't have found out about bands like The White Stripes, which I have enjoyed listening to since Elephant hit usenet about 2 months ago (my legit cd just came via amazon today, really)
or other bands I like, such as:
Splashdown (r.i.p)
Ivy
Hooverphonic
Beth Orton
Marine Research (Heavenly, Talula Gosh, et al)
if it weren't for music swapping services, usenet, napster, ag, or others.
I've spent more money on CDs in the last three years than I have in the last 10. The RIAA can come up with as much fud as they want, but I'm not buying it.
Thank GOD the indies are making progress.
I usually preview new music by downloading mp3s before i buy the album. But you know what? The only time I actually pirate music is when a friend of mine has a copy of the CD. I'm not what most people would consider an audiophile, but mp3s don't cut it for me for several reasons-- 1) I listen to weird music, usually not available on file-sharing systems. Try to find any decent Brazilian music on Gnutella. Or even slightly obscure artists, like the Delgados. My time is worth more than the hours it would take to search for and download some of this music. 2) 128 kbps sampling sucks ass! 192 is acceptable for my computer, for the car, and for a portable device (like an iPod) but NOT for the stereo. I've always been seriously disappointed with CDs I've burned from mp3s. I'll stick with 44.1 kHz, thank you very much. 3) Lyrics, album art, and extras. Yeah, it's not that big of a deal, but especially if I think the artist DESERVES my support, these can be deciding factors in whether I'll buy the expensive retail album. In summary, the RIAA can fuck itself. Just as with software piracy, no one is losing any money with music sharing. I wouldn't buy the album anyway if I couldn't get it free, in almost all cases. And props to labels like Dischord (of Fugazi fame) for NOT ripping off consumers. They routinely sell (sold?) albums for $7, post-paid. Without all the bloat and middlemen, artists can make a decent profit w/o bending over the people who buy their albums.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
They also do data CDs, and they're planning on doing POD publications (books) in the future. Cool. They're the ones that used to make Megatokyo T-shirts before Thinkgeek took over.
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
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!
Frankly, I haven't seen anyone who is a good dancer. Most old fashioned dancing looks boring, most modern dancing looks like a seizure. Stereotypes only seem accurate because most people are too lazy to define themselves.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
but I'm undecided on the larger issue--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?
To answer the larger issue, lets look at the historic role of the recording industry and how they helped artists rise to prominance. Rather than argue the merits or evils of copyright law, lets look at the money flow.
Musicians have *always* made the majority of their money on performances. The "Napster Age" doesn't change that, nor did the "Recording Age." Instead records functioned as a certain form of advertising which encouraged people to come and spend money at concerts. I hesitate to say that they were originally the paracites that they are today because the costs of recording were much much higher.
Producing a recording requires equipment (much of which can now be substituted by a PC) and expertise. The recording companies would provide these, at a fee, to bands, and then pro-rate that fee against the royalties that they would then owe the band. They would then sell the result and advertise for the band. If the band was good, they would do well because althought they might make something off the records, they would make *far more* at concerts, while the label makes money selling records. This is the label-musician relationship at its best.
There are two problems facing record labels, but it comes down to one, really-- bands don't need them as much anymore. Much of the expensive equipment can now be substituted by a PC, and although expertise is still important, many amateurs are willing to try. This means that the *cost* of producing a recording has diminished greatly.
The second aspect is that bootlegging records actually helps musicians because although it deprives them of a small quantity of revenue, it increases their exposure much more. This means that they can count on larger crowds at their concerts, and hence make more money. The advertising role of the labels labels is falling behind. However they continue to raise prices and try to gouge artist and consumer alike. This has created an environment where the Indie lables can flourish (low cost, with competition charging high prices). But I think the industry is changing.
Like it or not, I think that the future is with something equivalent to open source in the music world. This would provide musicians FAR greater exposure than the RIAA cronies and would allow indie CD publishing houses to compete well. The role would be different (simply selling a commodity based on a demand-oriented market) but it would still be profitable, I think.
But what is required now is to develop a Free Music License, build such a business around it, and help get artists some gigs!
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I seem to recall reading an article a while back that Epitaph is actually an RIAA member. I'm not sure why they're not on the list on riaa.org. FWIW, both Epitaph and Fat Wreck Chords are on the RIAA membership list at boycott-riaa.com. Anybody have more details? Maybe they're owned by a parent company on the riaa.org list?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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
We can define everyone. What does an Iraqi look like? Go go go...I bet you came up with someone you just saw on TV, or one of the statue protestors right?
Hmm...not all Iraqis are that person. We use generalizations to wade through data. Every snowflake is different, every Zebra, and every thumbprint. We can analyze why each is different, we just have a preconceived notion and we move on.
Stereotypes are true. Are they 100% true? No of course not.
Your are posting on slashdot, are you unathletic?
--Joey
From the article:"Another secret of their success is that the labels target consumers - namely, adults - who are still willing to pay for their music, rather than download it for free."
So the article does not refute "p2p sharing causes lost sales", as the poster suggests. BTW, Most indie labels are part of the RIAA.
Vote for Pedro
They don't have enough money and never will. Someone noticed that everyone but the RIAA can do better without the RIAA. So what happens when the RIAA buys out hundreds of independent record lables and shuts them down or otherwise makes them suck? Hundreds of new ones sprout up. If you are a manager who was feeling furfilled making money for yourself and your musicians by promoting good music, you set up a new shop. The artists, who didn't have to give up their rights to their work the last time, walk right on over too.
Game over, you lose.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
So what you're saying is that monopolies should be immune to free market pressures? i.e. if the demand does not support the cost, then legislate the cost. Like so many others have already said time and time again, if people aren't willing to pay $15 for a CD, then quite frankly, your CD costs too much, or people don't feel that you're giving them $15 worth of service. Point blank, that's capitalism. Technically, I can steal anything, but I'll only buy that which I feel is worth the price. If the market determines that your music is only worth the cost of a blank CD and the fraction of the personal ISP costs it takes to download it, then that's all your product is worth, end of story. If the margins aren't high enough to support the costs of your manufacturing and distribution infrastructure, you go out of business, or you change your business model in order to become profitable. That's how it's supposed to work in a free market system. Markets are supposed to evolve, not be stagnated by illicit legislation in order to keep things conducive to your business model, so that you can maximize your profit. The problem is not with music piracy. That is just a symptom of market that has not been able to evolve because of an illegal monopoly/cartel. If RIAA companies can't make money selling physical CDs because the market dictates higher demand for online music services, then they shouldn't sell physical CDs anymore. They should create a killer online site, and let you rip and burn your way to nirvanha. You say it costs money to create such a site, then you subsidize the site with advertisements. If you can't get enough advertizing dollars, then your site isn't pulling in as many customers, so you need to make your site more appealing to the customers, so that they choose your site over another (better selection, higher bandwidth, discounts on other products... i.e. work a deal with amazon so that people who purchase a book after coming from your site gets a 5% discount... free shipping, what have you). Don't want to deal with the interactive web site, then put a commercial at the beginning of the song, or after the third song, or however your marketing dept decides is the way to maximize the value of the ad to the people that you sold it to. What if Bob's fly by night doesn't do that, then a.) he probably doesn't have the selection you do because the bandwidth and storage facilities cost him money, and if he's giving it away for free, then he doesn't have the captial to compete with your selection. b.) you could offer other incentives to lure customers (like a better compression algorithm... yeah they have to sit through 60 secs of commericial, but it takes 1/2 the time to download a CD). Don't want to do the online deal, fine, then develop a more compact media that holds more music. If I can buy a device for a hundred bucks that will play a media that hold oodles more music, then the market will decide whether the added convience is worth the cost. Like I've said before, this is supposed to be a market economy geared toward maximizing progress and efficiency, not a system solely to ensure profits for large corporations using outdated business models. If you innovate and create demand, you thrive. If you stagnate, you go out of business. If the market will only support one Brittany Spears (for some reason BS always seems to be present in this discusion:-)), and not one Brittany Spears and 30 wannabes, then that model thrives and makes profit. It may seem cruel, but no one ever said capitalism wasn't. I can't say this enough times, our market system wasn't designed to ensure profit, it was designed to ensure progress and the evolution of business, using profit as the motivation for further innovation. RIAA companies aren't evolving, so consequently they should (and eventually will) go extinct.
If there weren't so many damn idiots in this world, I'd just be average.
Take a look at NoMeansNo. They've been around for about 20 years. They write/record some kickass punkrock music. They've put on a HELL of a show every time I've seen them, but they're way under the radar of the major labels.
Last I heard, John Wright (the drummer) lived in a condo with his wife (a substitute? teacher) and their kid; Rob Wright (the bassist/vocalist) was living at about the same level but I don't remember the specifics.
It seems to suit them. They make a decent living doing what they love, don't have to bust their asses (unless they want to!) and don't have the headaches and bullshit of being "big rock stars".
great interview.
And with Apple purchasing Universal , we might see this new distribution model appearing sooner than the next five years.
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
+1 funny
That's the hardest I've laughed reading slashdot in a long time.
"Weapons should be hardy rather than decorative" - Miyamoto Musashi
I think that goes for OS's too
When you're just getting started, you get maybe 2 cents per CD sold if you're signed to a major label. But if you self-produce you make $6 per CD in pure profit for retail, and $10 per CD in pure profit if sold at a show.
If you join an indie label that's a collective, you can usually pull down $2 per CD in profit.
So, the only people being rewarded for going to the major labels are established superstar bands - like the Rolling Stones - who get a larger cut.
Anyone else would be better off going either indie or self-published.
> --- All Of The Above --- >
i find it ironic that the christian science monitor has had anything to do with this. if life, the universe, and everything is just an illusion; why does it really pertain what the RIAA or any other label do? i could go on... does anyone else find this interesting? i guess im just destined to be alone in everything, but it's worth thinking about, eh?
> Of course, one these "indie" labels get big enough, they won't be "indie" anymore.
I hear that often enough and I doubt that its true. Most indie labels can't scale because they focus on one or two specific types of music, usually a sub-genre or two. If they do start releasing everything from rap to classical then the core consumers would move on to a better label with that, "we actually care and listen to the music we sell" touch which helps seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Not to mention that if one indie label moves toward Sony-ism then there's a brand new niche for some up and comers to take, thus starting the cycle over again. The problem with the RIAA is its so consolidated and people simply buy the PR that they are relevant and releasing the best music out there when in reality they are marketing a product and are more often than not engineering a product from well-know successful elements. Think Britney, think Spice Girls, think boy bands. These things don't happen in a real music scene, they happen in offices.
Like porn, music has become cheap to produce and distribute. There are lessons to be learned.
I suddenly wondered what the goatse.cx guy would sound like, and I went deaf...
I guess some lessons shouldn't be learned.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I'm not one to get excited over email, but when I got a message from the EFF asking if I was "the Aaron Sherman named in an RIAA suit", I nearly dropped out of my chair.
It seemed beyond possibility that there was another Aaron Sherman who would be a target of the RIAA.
Nope, that on's a college student it turns out... heh, who knew?!
I had assumed that my trivial amount of playing around with being a caching gnutella node back in the day combined with my rants against the RIAA on Slashdot and elsewhere had lead to my being one of a list of hundreds on an RIAA reverse-class-action, but this guy seems to have been a major source of file sharing.
Personally, I don't think the case can be made that you owe the RIAA a CD for every member-copyrighted song you've ever shared times the number of people who might have had access to it (which is basically the logic of the suit as I understand it).
However, the idea that you owe the RIAA the cost of one CD for every member-copyrighted song you shared would be very defensible, even if you assert that sharing your CDs with your 100 million closest friends is legit. If you have the CD in evidence, then I'd buy that as a get-out-of-jail free (the RIAA will *not* of course, but then there's a reason that their members are dying and indies are growing), but if you borrowed from me, and then shared with someone else, that's a clear, and indefensible copyright violation.
Way back in the day there was a funky country and western record shop that sold some punk records in the back. Most of the time they were bands I never heard of, but they were on SST or Beggars Banquet and the like, so it was a pretty good chance the record was something I liked (ain't no way Epic records or Sony could make the same claim). Also, the records sold for close to $5 apiece. If it completely sucked, I wasn't out a whole lot of cash.
And friends from across the country would send me tapes of bands that were local or the grand tradition of the punk comp. Range of music tastes broadens, buy more records...
The argument then was home tapeing was killing the record industry. This was when indie labels were flourishing. All without radio airplay, promotion, or any of the other things that were making the major labels' records cost near $12. I had close to 100 records. Maybe 15 were major label.
Fast forward. I now have (err, carry the five, add the two) close to 1000 CDs. Most of them are indie releases.
And the recording industry is claiming downloads are killing the music industry.
I still buy CDs. A good portion of them are used. I have yet to see my favorite used CD shop close because all this rampant piracy. If anything, I buy more music because of the used CD store. I can listen to the CD before I but it. I can try out other music forms. And the guys are usually pretty cool about returns. Plus the CDs usually run around $8.
But this also means I have to wait a couple of months for a CD to show up used. Long painful wait. If the CD is $11 new, I might pop for it. Or if it is a very good recording (Mobile Fidelity, when they use to be around), or if is hard to find; $30.
A reasonable computer costs near $700. Add $50 a month for DSL service. An ink cartridge every couple of months if you want inserts, $240. The inserts themselves about 50 cents apiece. Plus blank media, 50 cents for something decent. Plus reasonable burning software, $50.
$841 to burn a CD. Even with the best economies of scale, close to $15 a CD.
I'm just not seeing this free download.
Not to mention it's a hassle to find something you actually like and burn it, no liner notes, and MP3s don't sound very good.
I have yet to see piracy flourish unless prices where artificially high ("Psst... come here. I have a copy to sell you for $5. Oh, you could buy a used copy for $8, or a new copy for $12..."). Give me a break.
I do, however, have lots of burned software $).
That has jack to do with the RIAA (you mean MPAA). And George Lucas has always been an indie filmmaker even though his films have been distributed by the "big boys" (Star Wars: 20th Century Fox).
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
I am well aware of the existance and use of generalizations. They are an intricate part of how we think. But generalizations are not necessarily stereotypes. And the comment about dancing was part sarcasm and part personal opinion.
Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
--Thomas J. Kopp
No but stereotypes are necessarily generalizations.
--Joey
On a much great encompassing scale. I don't mind the increased taxation on CD's... I can just bulk-buy from the US through various "channels."
However, the idea of taxing hard-drive enabled devices on a per-MB scale... insane!
these are some very good points, but let me add this one addition. What about Radio? It used to be thats how people got their music out, most stations (not all) get advertising dollars to defray operating costs and the artists get very cheap exposure to the public. Guess what If I wanted i can record from a streaming media format just like I can for the Radio, it isnt that hard really. Notice that the RIAA isnt going after people that record from radio broadcasts. The RIAA like MCI-WorldCom and other of these companies needs to take a look at its business model and make changes otherwise they will be gone.