RIAA, This Is Earth, Please Come In!

ccnull writes "You might remember George Ziemann as the musician who found his own music banned from eBay because it was recorded on CD-R. Now he's back with a new rant about the RIAA's statistics, which blame piracy for the dire condition of the music industry. What's to blame? Price hikes and fewer titles. The latest rant (including analysis of the RIAA's own data) is mainly circulating by email, here's a readable link. (As an interesting side note, Ziemann says that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)"

Comments

yup

[xao gypsie]

songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)

most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least

xao

re: yup

[hhknighter]

"most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least"

Actually, I think they do. I mean they are suing a few kids for 97 billion dollars, that's more than the actual market value+potential, perhaps. For that amount, the marketing potential in filesharing is rather psychotically huge.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

If the copyright holders decided to give away songs freely as ads for CDs, then that's fine.

But what everybody keeps forgetting is that the choice is THEIR prerogative -- NOT yours, NOT anybody else's.

There's plenty of good free music at mp3.com and other legitimate sources.

Taking copyrighted mp3's off of Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever is unethical -- yes, unethical:

If you don't like the price they charge, you have no obligation to purchase -- but you have an obligation to not deprive people of their income.

Re:yup

[DiSKiLLeR]

Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?

"Ah, but that's different!"

Yes. Yes it is different.

One involes killing people, the other doesn't. Most reasonable people are against killing humans. But then you've got Saddam, Al Qaida, etc, who obviously see things differently and WOULD say that it is fine.

You need to use reason to explain why I'm wrong.

Um.. HUH? Why do i, or anybody else, need to explain and provide reasons why you are wrong? Your NOT wrong. You just have your own opinions and moral beliefs, and we are entitled to ours.

Just because your favourite colour might be blue, and mine might be violet, does NOT mean i have to argue and provide reasons as to why blue sucks and violet is a superior colour. That is just silly.

Just as people have different favourite colours, foods, different religions, they also have different moral belifes and different ethics.

Alot of older people don't like music by Eminem because of the language and the messages in his songs. Alot of the younger generation don't give a shit, and are fine with it. Alot of people find words like bitch, motherfucker, slut, and who knows what offensive. Others do not. Others just think its plain funny :)

Again, different moral beliefs.

D.

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

There are differences between the two:

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.

By pirating an mp3, you are getting CD-quality -- what you would be paying for in the store. By recording off of the radio, you are getting a lower-fidelity signal (noise and compressed sound), definitely an inferior product to that which you would be purchasing.

You can't easily take tapes of radio broadcasts and distribute them to the entire world via some p2p system, without first digitizing it (assuming you didn't digitize it on your initial radio recording) and editing the particular song/broadcast into a single file, and cutting all the commercials out. (And I would question the legality of that.) When putting your mp3's/computer on a p2p system, you are not sharing your tape with a friend or two, you are inviting the entire world to rip off the record companies along with you.

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not, but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.

Re:yup

[tuba_dude]

I beg to differ.

While mp3s are still at the same sampling frequency and bit depth of a CD, the compression algorythm is far from perfect. Almost every mp3 I've ever downloaded was encoded at 128 kbps, far from CD quality. As a musician and an audiophile, I've found that mp3s usually need to be at 256 or 320 kbps before they're accurate enough for long-term listening. Of course, this is all subjective, and if you're just listening casually, 128 kbps is probably plenty.

You're also probably right about the damage p2p can do to the RIAA, but if there are many people like me that find the mp3s floating around to be poor substitutes, it's about the same thing as tape trading, only with less legwork. In the end, the CD will probably be bought by the audiophile or musician if he/she enjoys the music sampled as an mp3. The cheapskates won't buy the CD anyway, they might even steal it off the shelf if it's good enough (costing even more). The average consumers are most likely to buy the artist's next album if they like a song or two.

All other arguments aside, people are going to do what their personalities dictate, filesharing just speeds up the process.

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Interesting persepctive for you to consider.

The Nazi Government was in power. Hell, they were even democratically elected by the people.

Once a government is in power they make the laws.

Texas and some other states say it's OK for the state to execute criminals. Nazi Germany said it was OK for the state to execute Jews. From a strictly legal standpoint there's very little difference.

So it really comes down to ethics.

Is it ethical to kill an entire race of people? Most people say not. We make some new laws to reflect this.

Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)

If most people think not, then it's time to change the law. That's how a democracy is supposed to wor isn't it?

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

So does the Sony-Betamax case not apply to radio?

The fact situation is unlikely to occur with regard to the recording off the radio. But you are right, I should have written "In almost all jurisdictions this constitutes a facial breach." Clearly there are 'fair-use' (and other) exceptions.

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

Recording off of the radio requires comparitively greater effort than does pirating mp3's. While pirating, you can do a quick search and find what you are looking for on demand, whereas you need to "hunt and trap" what you are trying to find on the radio.
I've argued in the past that the ease of "consumer copying" should increase the burden to prove piracy (i.e. with intent to profit). But I don't know how hard it is to tape a song, especially when you can call in and make a request.

By recording off of the radio, you are getting a lower-fidelity signal (noise and compressed sound), definitely an inferior product to that which you would be purchasing.
So, let's say you tape digital radio, off of syrius or xm or the music channels on digital tv, etc.

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not, but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.
I would argue that the Sony-Betamax case should apply to radio just as it does to TV, which means that you can tape radio for personal use. Selling those tapes would obviously be illegal, but I do think there is a real gray area when you start to give them away, either physically or on the net.

I would definitely say it was a stupid, round-a-bout way to get your music, but I think that it can be done legally. If ripping and sharing is copyright infringement (it is...), then where do you draw the line between the two?

Re:yup

[ATMAvatar]

MABYE THE RIAA SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING A PRODUCT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR?? if someone wouldnt buy a cd anyway how the FUCK does it hurt the artist if they download teh cd?

Because the artist makes royalties off of the sale of the CD.

So, instead of getting 8% of $0.00, the artist gets 0% of $0.00

Your logic is faulty, as it misses the expressed point of the parent - if people have no intention of buying a CD, regardless of whether or not they download mp3s from that CD, there is no income. You cannot deprive the artist of money that doesn't exist. You can only say that downloading music deprives the artist of income if you can successfully prove that a person would buy the music in the absence of free mp3s.

The problem is that we are not dealing with tangible objects. Stealing a song in the form of an mp3 only harms an artist/label as much as the money a person would spend buying the song. If the person would never buy the song, there is no loss. If you were to steal a CD, though... there would be a loss. The artist/label would have lost the cost of the CDR used to make the CD, as well as the jewel case and printed material. Thus, stealing a CD is a bit different than stealing a CD's worth of mp3s.

But, that's beside the point. The ethics lie not in the loss that theft incurs, but in the basic idea that you *should* pay money for music you enjoy. The artists and labels choose to distribute their music through sales of various media, and it's only because someone chose to disrespect and circumvent those distribution channels that you are able to get songs for free online. The moral obligation here is to either pay for a song (buy a CD/tape/record/etc) or not listen to it. Artists ought to be compensated for their work.

On the other hand, if you honestly believe that the big problem in the music industry is lost income for artists, your primary objective probably should be the dissolution of the RIAA.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

> Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.

OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law. In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have some objection. The point the court was making in Sony v Universal, was that some of the timeshifting was actually authorized by the copyright holders. So in the case of radio broadcasts "this" does not hold true.

One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain.

Indeed, but allow me to quote the court as to what criteria then come into play:
A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.
In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting (my emphasis)

People don't usually tape songs from the Radio, not for the purposes of time-shifting, but merely to have a library of songs. Such a library of songs then takes up exactly the same ground that purchasing recorded music inhabits. "Some meaningful likelihood of future harm" would seem to be much easier to demonstrate in such circumstances. More than that, you can be pretty sure the RIAA have done their homework on gathering 'evidence' for such harm. They certainly are doing so in regard to file sharing.

Re:yup

[sebi]

Strange things happen. Whenever the technicalities of music compression are discussed you will find a lot of people claiming that mp3 is indistinguishable from the original CD. When it comes to downloading everyone will say that the compressed music is vastly inferior...

Re:yup

[AdamD1]

My take on this whole spiel

If you're an artist, and you are signed to a record label, the label advances you $ to record and promote the recording. In most cases - talking more than 75% of recorded works released by major labels - that is all the artist will see from the label. Unless they have a string of successful albums, meaning more than two albums end up in the top ten anywhere in the world, the artist usually owes the label, not the other way around.

So the reason I have zero problem with downloading as much music as I like is: it's music which is already paid for anyway. By that I mean: when you see the video for a song on MTV / MuchMusic / M2 / whatever, that's paid for by advertising. In Canada, the videos are often paid for by grants *and* advertising. The artist sees income from the actual airplay (if they actually wrote the song.)

If you hear a song on the radio, that's also generating income for the artist. You can tape it if you like since there really *is* no legislation in place to stop that from happening. But the bottom line is: it's already paid for.

If, however, I see an indie band on stage, I am much more tempted to buy their cd. The reasons are obvious. They probably only sell their music at the shows, or via very small indie stores, or online through various sites (CDBaby being the most prevalent.) I feel *zero* sympathy for record labels. They're the ones that put this whole system together. I think the last time a music video was actually relevant to *generating* interest in a band was possibly 1986 or so. By that I mean: most videos these days if they show up on MTV or any other station: it's because the single is already a guaranteed hit or has already been approved to place very high on most charts. Again I say: already paid for.

The bigger artists like a Michael Jackson, a Sheryl Crow, etc.: they probably *are* losing some money due to downloading, but not enough to warrant cutting back on bloated music video costs or independent promotion costs. The day it is announced that several artists had to be dropped because of *quantifiable* statistics that show that an album was downloaded rampantly but not sold in stores: I'll stop downloading. So far the exact opposite has been the truth. The Eminem Show was downloaded in its entirety for a month before it came out and still debuted at #1 in sales, selling just shy of 1.2 million copies it's first week. Britney Spears continues to sell despite notable mass copies being available online. The demand is still there. If the RIAA prefers to believe their own numbers, based on outdated concepts of supply and demand, using a system which is so outmoded that it really should be wake up time for all involved: fine by me. I choose to ignore them. If the RIAA didn't like it, they should have thought about all of this when they approved the CD and CD-R formats years ago. Or they shouild have investigated indie promotion in the radio industry more closely, since that's where a ton of money conveniently gets spent as "promotional" expenses. Guess who owes that money at the end of the day, whether the single gets charted or not? Not the label.

I have worked in the music industry for years in numerous capacities including dealing with radio, distribution, indie bands and grassroots marketing, and major label marketing and production. I do know whereof I speak. :)

Thanx for reading,

ad

Nitpick

[transient]

Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior copy.

I disagree pretty strongly with this statement. Although MP3s are technically inferior to their uncompressed counterparts, I think the vast majority of people consider MP3s equal to CD audio. As a casual listener, I can't tell the difference between a 192 kbps MP3 and the CD I ripped it from.

I'm sure there are audiophiles and other music enthusiasts who disagree with me, but I'm also sure that those people compose a minority among music listeners.

Re:Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you disagree with the statement? It is a fact, as you even put it, that it is an inferior copy.

The fact that you do not care doesn't matter. It is not an opinion you can 'disagree' with. It is a statement of technical fact.

Re:Nitpick

[surprise_audit]

And it's a fact that a large percentage of folks listening to MP3's are doing it with tinny little speakers or tinny little earbuds, not 100's of $$ of hifi equipment. The difference between an MP3 and a regular CD is negligible for that kind of setup.

Yes, the original CD is technically better.
Yes, the MP3 is lossy.
No, it doesn't matter when the equipment used to make either one audible costs $19.95 in WalMart...

Re:Nitpick

[surprise_audit]

Your situation is different - as the middle man, so to speak, you can't afford to go chopping out whole bands of frequencies, and I sincerely hope nobody expects you to.

On the other hand, most of the folks using MP3s don't have the same quality of equipment as a sound editing studio ought to have, and the difference in quality is near enough inaudible to the great majority of those folks. I mean, hardly anyone using MP3's is doing it in a quiet, acoustically neutral environment. They're doing it in offices and cars, with enough background noise to mask the artifacts generated by the compression.

I read the article...

[blake213]

..and I don't think he has much of a case. Even though mp3's are inferior compared to uncompressed CD-audio, many people don't have the ears or the brains to notice otherwise. And I know lots of people who download entire cd's, and haven't bought a CD in years.

Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.

Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.

Re:I read the article...

[UtucXul]

"if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it?"

That is insane. That is like saying that just because Microsoft says Windows is secure it is. Even if you think that the RIAA doesn't lie to you (a real dangerous thing to believe) doesn't make them right.

Re:I read the article...

[rco3]

But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music.

And I suppose you think that the record company pays for those costs, right?

Last time I checked, most contracts for smaller artists included studio time and promotion as recoupable costs. In other words, they are fronted by the record company and the recouped out of the artist's royalties. That's right, the $1 per disc (if that) that the artist gets FIRST goes to pay back the costs of making the recording in the first place, and (usually at least part of) the costs of promotion, etc.
You're right, those things are expensive. But the label is just loaning that money, not giving it. And if the label happens to own the recording studio, do you think they charge the artist at a discounted rate? Ha! How about if the artist buys discs, at distibutor prices, from the label to sell at shows? Guess what - they don't get royalties off of those! Nor do they get diddly-squat ($0.05?) for those Columbia House discs.

Fact is, even if your first album goes Platinum you probably wind up owing your record company a shitpot of money.

Cry for the RIAA if you want to, but you're a sucker if you do.

Re:I read the article...

[Ptahian]

Maybe this has been mentioned previously (grin). The reason the RIAA is scared is that their business model depends on their being the gatekeeper of what is 'hot' or 'good'. Once they lose that (and they already have lost it, they just don't know/accept it yet), they can't make more self-declared 'stars'.

The music will be free. It's just information after all.

-Ptah

Re:I read the article...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes they made less money in each year for the last 5 years.

but then again, they also produced less albums. so google for the stats, but their profit margin INCREASED. so they cant cry to me that they made less money when they made less products.

besides that, here is a nice idea. why does the record industry believe they are exempt from the economy. gee, the last 3 years the economy has had troubles, why should record sales be ANY different.

people are buying less of everything. cd's are and always will be, a LUXURY. people need the necessities first and foremost. i know the brain dead coked up record execs cannot wrap their mind around the concept that CD's are not a necessity of life. they are a nicety.

so i HOPE the RIAA (members of actually) goes out of business. they are greedy people. they STIFLE creative work.

Songs? more like singles...

[nfg05]

I wouldn't really say all songs are ads for CDs, singles are ads for CDs. An advertising practice of giving away your product would certainly help boost your units shipped, but as for the revenue ahhhh.... no. This is a great idea tho, imagine if you just got some free McDonald's food whenever the burger commercials came on TV. I mean after all that burger is just an advertisement for errrr.. the burger so jus give it to em right?

why CDs cost so much

[dirkmuon]

Ziemann wonders how he can manufacture new CDs at Discmakers for $1.89 each, yet the record companies charge $12 wholesale and still claim to make no money.

I don't doubt that making CDs cost the big companies a great deal. Read Mixerman's diaries to see why.

The music industry has inherited from the movie industry a fetish for "technical" (studio) perfection. "Smithers, fly in that mastering engineer from New York to work on those two tracks." The level of waste is mind-numbing. It is a culture that conceals the scarcity of creative ability in the companies represented by the RIAA.

One can spend millions of dollars to produce an album which will probably be a commercial failure. One could also have handed Lennon a guitar and turned on the cassette recorder. Then you'd have something worth buying.

Re:why CDs cost so much

[schnits0r]

The reason it costs so much is demonstrated by a simple equation.

12.00
-.25 (artist royalties)
-.50 (Blank CD)
-.25 (To make up for piracy loss)
______
$0.00

What? The math doesn't add up? But it worked for Enron.

Read the whole argument for what it is

[eighthevachild]

before refuting it. "Depriving people of income" is worlds away from slaughtering Jews. No matter what personal morals a person may have, most people follow the code of ethics dictated by society. This includes the shunning of those who would kill others, but is a little fuzzy on things such as stealing things electronically. When the imposed societal morals catch up with the times, maybe then everyone will share the same views on mp3 sharing, but right now, this falls under personal morals, not the umbrella of the ethics of society.

Ummm...the economy?

[suzerain]

Excuse my French, but why the fuck doesn't anyone ever talk about the economy?

It seems to me that the RIAA's sales drop also seems to coincide with the dot-com bubble burst, the Terror attacks, and the lack of sunsequent economic resurgence.

I know that, as a resident in New York, freelance work has shriveled up -- if I hadn't had personally satisfied past clients who wanted to work with me again, I would have had to move. Quite frankly, we just don't have money to piss away on CDs right now, even if we didn't want to boycott the assholes at the RIAA.

I just want one reporter to, like, ask them why they think the economy has not had a deleterious effect on their business?

All this bullshit about MP#s being an ad for CDs, and so forth is just that: bullshit, IMO.

Two things are going on: (1) the economy sucks; (2) CDs are becoming obsolete.

Either way, the RIAA has no argument.

Re:Ummm...the economy?

[jimbo00000ooooo]

I think the problem is one of economics and reproduction.

I think the entire RIAA could be eliminated tomorrow, leaving only the recording artists, equipment manufacturers, studios, and listeners. I think that would reduce this excessive profiteering and make the world better for everyone...

except the employees of the RIAA. All of them are getting paid to do a job that does not NEED to be done, from a global standpoint at least. Their children are fed off of their salary. I think that the job they do creates no virtue in this world, and improves the quality of life only for themselves, their families and other RIAA employees.

There are plenty of other obsolete jobs in this country, that could have been replaced long ago by automation or computation. Think about cashiers or clerical workers. This is not to say that the workers of such jobs are in any way inherently inferior to anyone else, but the jobs they are doing are USELESS. In the short term, from a government's perspective, the decision makes sense to keep them employed, as it keeps our GNP higher.

But in the long term, you have to recognize that we are killing ourselves here. We are filling landfills with useless garbage that nobody wants. THIS SHIT DOESNT FALL FROM THE SKY, WE ARE CREATING IT!! There is a giant stain of brown shit emanating from New York City. It's visible from Sandy Hook in NJ. Its half as big as the horizon and cannot be denied. It is a direct result of misapplied economic power. Here are some other examples of such power misapplied:
-- war
-- the white cardboard in twinkie packs
-- sneakers with lights on them
-- every goofy useless plastic toy(get your kid a basketball or something)

Keep this up and our landfills will become our homes, then our graves.

It is absolutely up to us to change our own fate. Do what you can, value your own work, hear and be heard.

And please try to reproduce sparingly.

Old Song or It's all about control

[DeadWizdom]

People don't realize that durring the explosion of radio the recording industry went nuts as well, citing bad sales and tried their best to destroy radio entirely. Once they embraced it, however, they got richer and richer and richer...

But the issue to them isn't really the money that they claim they lose; it's the control. You see the recording industry is trying their best to keep us all in a world dominated by the MTV, not the MP3. In the world of MTV they can rely on certain things that will sell, they can even go so far as to control fads to control what will sell. With the MP3, that's all out of their hands.

Ofcourse the first record company to figure this out gets the capitalist prize!

I never buy CD's anymore unless

[BigBir3d]

I think it has something truly worthy / interesting. Something like the Johnny Cash cover of Hurt. A great song (NIN originally) done by a great artist. The newest Britney or Justin or whatever the RIAA tells me to buy? I ignore that stuff. It's the same junk that has been spewed out since I was a kid. Think about "alternative" music... how can it be that if everyone knows / buys the album? I realized a while ago that most new musics sucks, and I have reacted accordingly.

Example from another industry

[ArtHack]

It's interesting to take a look at another industry that is dealing with similiar issues... that of book publishing. While I don't think that eBooks are quite as popular as MP3 and other digital music formats, publishers are still grappling with the question of "piracy" and deciding what affect that has on book sales. One publisher, Baen (publisher of SciFi and Fantasy) has been experimenting with making selected volumes of their library available freely (in a fairly wide selection of formats), going so far as to package free eBooks on CDs with some hardback editions of popular authors. Many are available free on their website

You can read the details at their website, but what they did was allow authors to voluntarily put books in the "free library" and they seem to be happy with the results. Oddly enough, people read the free eBooks, and wind up either buying the paper copy or other books from the author once they determine they like it! Surprise, suprise... There's also a good article comparing what Baen is doing with the record industry also.

conspiracy theory...

[kidlinux]

Maybe the RIAA has purposely slowed their own sales by hiking prices and signing fewer artists. This gurantees slower sales and RIAA starts using filesharing as a scapegoat. Once all filesharing operations are shut down, RIAA steps in with a for-profit system; since it is now the only shop in town, people just go with it and pay for music on a song by song basis. RIAA charges more inflated prices but customers don't notice since one song appears much less expensive than a whole album.

I find it difficult to believe that they havn't clued in on how filesharing would make a good business model.

o_O

Once again, I ask Slashdot

[teamhasnoi]

to make the out-of-date, taking up space, obsolete, unrewarding Radio Section that has not been touched since

Friday, June 29th 2001

into a wonderful place to review and discuss new and old music and artists that *do not* support the RIAA.

It seems that every /.er listens to music, and would welcome the chance to push their favorite band, song, or albums available on the net.

Besides, as a place that is (usually) current, shouldn't the sections reflect that? Perhaps /. could even get a kickback...(wink wink nudge nudge)

Who's with me?

Part of the problem....

[telstar]

I'll leave the "is downloading illegal" argument alone, but part of the problem is that the music industry has failed to introduce any notable download service to compete with what consumers have come to expect as a way to obtain their music.

I'd guess that music companies currently spend millions, if not billions of dollars, trying to figure out how to get their music in the hands of consumers ... yet here the consumer is telling them that they want the ability to download electronic copies of the songs. Out of fear of what the impact of such a service could mean to their bottom line, the music industry has failed to answer this demand ... and instead, has reacted with lawsuits. The result -- Consumers continue to download, since there's not a legal alternative answering their desire to get their music online.

I'd guess that if the RIAA's strong-armed legal tactics were introduced side-by-side with an affordable online music-download service, they'd see that a large population of users wouldn't mind paying for a well-marketed digital distribution service. Right now they'd rather spend their time trying to get the genie back in the lamp instead of cashing in on what the consumer is telling them they want.

Feh

[Srin Tuar]

Just because there is precedent doesnt make it any more right.

Comparing copying to piracy was as stupid back then as it is now. It was likely done for the shock value of the term pirate, which was probably an even more loaded word back then.

Youve just proven that its both old and stupid.

Dissemination of ideas can never compare to annexation of physical matter.

Amen to that!

[Steven Blanchley]

I make music currently as a hobby, and I am amazed to what lengths even independent musicians will go in order to make every sample sound exactly correct. I have known them to spend hours making changes that are hardly even noticeable to me, and I have neither subaverage hearing (at least not significantly) nor poor speakers. Sometimes the final mixing actually makes things sound worse.

True story: I once challenged an independent-music-making friend to remix a certain song within 30 minutes. When the time was up, he sent me something, but warned me that it was very rough, and he was going to work on it some more later. I listened and thought it sounded great. I told him it was awesome but he insisted on fine-tuning it.

More than two hours later, he sent me the edited version, which had a zillion new effects added and all the instrument sounds changed slightly. The new version sounded awful! It was completely bland and flavourless. That wasn't only my opinion; I sent the rough version, which I had saved, back to my friend and he even agreed that it was better!

So 30 minutes of work created an excellent product, and two hours turned it into total crap. This is what happens on an extreme scale in the music industry. No wonder they're losing money.

The solution to boost sales: lower prices!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi

Small addition to the common 'CD's are too expensive' rant.
Since I live in Hong Kong I buy CD's again. Mainly VCD's (movies), and I buy lots of them.

VCD's: including American movies, cost me just over USD2 per film (usually double CD). Or three for US$4.88. Truly legal copies, as far as I can judge. I am pretty sure they are legal as HK does enforce copyrights, and it is bought in the shops. They are technically same as normal CD's, same case and everything. Top-films are more expensive, US$6-8 per VCD. Buy them on DVD, and you have to double this price (US$15-20).
Mind that the cost here might be a bit lower, it is still including of recording, promotion, distribution and everything!

CD's: US import costs here USD15-20. I don't buy those, only second hand. Chinese pop music on hte other hand costs USD2-6 per CD. And that is including recording, distribution, promotion (they promote heavily!) and everything. US and EU of course are more expensive, though USD3-8 per CD is realistic I think. It would easily triple CD sales, thus cutting the cost of promotion and recording on a per-CD basis.

Then we go across the border to mainland China. The infamous pirated CD's and DVD's. Yes, I sometimes buy a DVD there to see if it is worth watching the film in cinema (nothing beats the really big screen). Usually that American crap is not worth it. Even the latest James Bond did not pass the test.
Cost of a CD: USD1.5-2. That is production plus distribution plus retail margin (they are sold in the normal shops). The cost between the pirated and official copy is obviously the cost for "recording and promotion".
Cost of a DVD: USD3-4. They are obviously more expensive to produce. Mind that the competition is strong (there are at least five versions of every film in the shop), so these prices are really the rock bottom. Production of DVD is obviously higher than of a CD.

Maybe the US cartel police should have a look in China, and see what the true cost of production and distribution of a CD and DVD are. And then look back at the record companies. And wonder what makes up for the high prices...

Wouter.

Re:You don't deserve a reply, but here it is...

[Anonymous Coward]

> All matters of morals and ethics is subjective to the times you live in...

That is one of the most frightening and evil ideas I have ever heard.

In some parts of India, women are thrown alive onto their husbands funeral fire. But since it's part of their tradition, you are saying that it's all right.

In some parts of China, girl babies are drowned because boys are preferred. But it's part of their tradition, so you are saying that it's all right.

Lynching a black man in the old south? Killing white farmers in today's Zimbabwe? Imprisoning children, and torturing men and women to death in Saddam's Iraq? All okay by your standards.

It may or may not surprise you to learn that your "all morality is relative" idea is what German philosophers were teaching prior to the rise of Naziism. Thus, when bad things happened, the people were intellectually disarmed -- all they could say was, "I wouldn't do it, but who am I to argue with society?"

But the West was originally founded on a different philosophy. Our rules of right and wrong -- as exemplified in British Common Law, The American Bill of Rights, and so on -- were based on the idea that morality is rational.

If you start with the idea (perhaps an axiom) that the life of an individual human is important, then it leads logically to ideas like freedom, justice, a prohibition of violence (except in self defense), trial by jury, free speech, and so on, including property rights.

So your philosophy scares me, because it would mean an end to our civilised rule-by-law society, to be replaced by a brute force "anything goes so long as a large number of people feel the same way" society. You would replace the jury with the lynch mob.

But what scares me even more is that I know the schools are teaching the same moral relativism that you espouse.

Clarification

[MacWiz]

Hate to interrupt here, but I'm George Ziemann. I'd like to correct a small error in the original post. What I said was that mp3s were ads for the actual recording. They ARE inferior because they only contain 10 percent of the original data. Maybe YOU (that's a very non-specific "you") can't hear the difference between a 128 bps mp3 and a 44.1kbps 16-bit recording, but I can. And it doesn't matter if you think it's immoral or not. It's my music and I should have the option of being a total moron and giving away crappy copies of my music for free if I want to. I can reach a global audience at a cost of $20 a month. Once I've made a CD, the mp3 costs ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to produce. As a result, I no longer need a record company. Record labels were invented to help the artist connect with their customers. Now they merely stand in the way. We don't need them any more, unless they successfully criminalize the sharing of mp3 files, in which case they gain complete control over my ability to make a living as a recording artist. Again.

Re:Clarification

[MacWiz]

My ads said that I was the copyright owner. Every time. The way that the copyright law is written, I don't need to prove it unless I am accusing someone else of infringing upon my copyright.

Remember that I do not even have to register a copyright to gain protection under the law. All I have to do is put a date and the copyright symbol on it. Registration merely provides me the extra legal option of punitive damages.

Shouldn't someone else have to prove that I DON'T own the copyright? Why should the burden of proof fall on the accused rather than the accuser?

I'll say this everytime...

[silverhalide]

The music distribution business as we currently know it is now obsolete. The music industry needs to accept this and move onto the new format, or be left holding the scraps of what people won't buy anymore. MP3 is the new de facto standard, and it's here to stay. Adapt or die. No matter what format you use, there will always be piracy. There was with VHS, tapes, CDs, and now MP3s. Yeah, it gets easier. That just means you have to make better music that's worth buying. There are indie labels out there still making money despite all this "piracy". Here's a thought, If I were in a band, I rather lose money from people stealing my records than fizzle out and die because noone heard me!! Nothing is worse than death through obscurity, and the internet is helping to revolutionize that endo of the business. I can't imagine how many talented musicians have failed simply because people couldn't hear their music. These are the people that play for ridiculously cheap rates just to get exposure, and they can't wait for people to trade their music. Just to get heard! [/rant] I will admit my music purchases have significantly declined since MP3s came about, but I look back at the CDs I bought before that and most of them are CRAP. I still occasionally buy a CD that's REALLY good and full of good songs, but those are very few and far between.

Recycling is RIAAs advantage

[Krumme]

Noone I know is buying cds, listening to them and THEN deciding to sell or keep it.

Think about it, if you bought a new DVD player, but decided that it sucked, would you just throw it away?
I know I wouldn't, I'd try to sell it again - but when I buy a cd that sucks, I'll probably keep it anyway.

My point is, that this is to RIAAs advantage - if everybody just kept the cds that they liked and sold the rest, new cd sales would probably be down more than the 15% attributed to piracy..

My guess is that piracy and extra sales generated from used cds NOT entering the market again probably evens each other out..
Just a thought - but there are some fine balances involved in this game, and if it suddenly became everyones business selling used cds, the RIAA would have something real to complain about.

I don't see it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I could get the whole CD on MP3, I wouldn't buy the CD. Plain and simple.

1. the ``inferior quality`` doesn't bother me, I can't tell the difference. (maybe because I have some pretty cheap speakers)
2. discs are boring because you only get to listen to the one set of songs. i much prefer a randomized mp3 list
3. even if i bought the cd, i would just rip it into mp3s to listen to (see #1 and #2)

Anyway, the argument that a song is an advertisement could be true if modified slightly:

If I play a song from the CD for you, but don't allow you to replay it, then it is an advertisement for the CD. If you can replay the song, it's already yours and there's no reason to buy a cd.

Free speech

[gengee]

"I feel that the guideline which prohibits me from mentioning more than one musical influence is ludicrous, inducing to false advertising, an unnecessary obstacle to my ability to describe my product or compare it to others within the advertisement I am paying for, and a violation of my constitutional rights."

I am so sick and tired of people who claim their "Constitutional rights" have been violated when some group won't let them speak their mind.

Excuse me? Did I miss the ammendment which gives me the right to say whatever I want on eBay?

Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want everywhere you want to say it, George. It gives you the right to say it without government interference. And that's it.

Re:So this guy is better than a major label why?

[richie2000]

Why is one more evil than the other?

Because one of them adds bogus costs like charging extra for "experimental media" until there's almost nothing left and then takes your copyrights, claiming you did "work for hire" for them. That's why.

Don't think these things can't be changed

[djupedal]

Before barcodes came along, distributors told the grocery store chains which products they would buy...when they would receive them and where they would place them in their stores. This was the 'system', and no one considered it would change.

Along came barcodes, and with them, the data that was suddenly accrued meant the stores were in a position to tell the distributors what was selling, and thus what they would buy...and when they wanted it and where it would be placed inside the store, etc. The distributors moved down on the food chain, and the buyers moved up.

When enough consumers bypass the mall, and buy/barter their music directly from the artist, the landscape will most certainly change.

Well, for one thing...

[metamatic]

If a major label decides you're not making them enough money, they just refuse to release anything else you create. But you're still under contract, so you can't release it through anyone else, or record for anyone else without their permission, until the contract expires. The usual expiry period is 8 years. During that time, anything you create is owned by the corporation, and goes into their big pit of never-to-be-released recordings.

(Yes, I know someone whose career was ruined this way.)

Boycott

[BECoole]

Doesn't the RIAA understand that they are being boycotted? I refuse to buy anymore products associated with them and their sleazy tactics. And I find most music & motion picture artists to be disagreeable too. It's going to be a long time before they get any money out of my pocket!

Re:Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[kknm_fixxxer]

Downloading you music now, thanks for making it available.

Just a side note: how about using Ogg Vorbis instead of mp3? It has superior sound quality and it's royalty/patent free. I think every decent software player supports it these days, so compatibility shouldn't be an issue.

// fixxxer

If songs are just ads ...

[Ra5pu7in]

why would anyone buy a compilation of ads? In other words, what content on the CD are the songs advertising? Not the actual CD-Rom sans content, obviously.

Hmmmmmm, I wonder if that argument will work when i test-drive that gorgeous new car. "Sir, this test-drive vehicle is just an ad for the other cars on your lot, so it should be free."

Completely Off Topic: White Stripes/Citizen Kane

[angle_slam]

This is off-topic, but is related to copyrights and music, so I thought I'd post this here. The White Stripes are a fairly popular group, whose previous album featured a song, The Union Forever that contained lyrics from the movie Citizen Kane. (You can view the lyrics here.)Now they face a potential lawsuit from the unauthorized use of the lyrics.

From a legal standpoint, it is fairly clear, The White Stripes copied the lyrics and gave no credit and no royalties to the actual author. What is interesting is the moral or even economic dilemma: The White Stripes almost certainly did nothing to harm the movie Citizen Kane. In fact, they probably inspired some people to watch the movie who otherwise would not have watched it. Economically, the products are non-competing, as one who wants to watch a movie will not susbstitute a song for the movie, and vice versa.

Just curious as to /.ers opinions on the matter.

The Poodle's Core

[nikster]

The music industry, due to their own incompetence and lack of creativity, is unable to provide people with what they want - easy, reasonably priced access to music.

Instead of seeing this as it is and doing something about it, the music industry has entered a self-destructive pattern of denial and blame. The RIAA's arguments are akin to the emperor's new clothes: Nothing at all, backed by enormous power.

But, in the long run, all the power in the world cannot keep alive the network of lies, distortions, and lawsuits. We are in a transitory period.

Sooner or later, a service or company will emerge that will give us what we want. For me, a $5-download-album@256k music service would be sufficient (sorry, no 95% profit margins). Easy. Convenient. Good quality. Give $2,50 to the artists, divide the rest among the distributors. Doesn't sound hard, does it?

George Ziemann asks what we can do: The answer is: Nothing. All we have to do is sit back and wait for them to collapse. And share files with friends in the meantime.

Stats in Oz

[krenskeoz]

Here in Australia we had newspaper reports of a 5% drop in sales of CD's. In the article they had an interesting list of stats including the fact that the CD sales had dropped by X amount. Later in the article and in an attached table they also mentioned the great rise in music DVD sales. The M-DVD sales increase was actually greater than the drop in CD's. Maybe in that article they missed the fact that if you already own a (expensive)music DVD you may not buy the equivalent CD.

They also lumped the Singles in with the albums sales, which I believe is a mistake as they also mentioned that there was less singles released in Australia last year. I think that this fact alone means the total number of CD's sold would drop, as not all single sales would convert to album sales.

Now the article could of been simply wrong but the stats mentioned logically give a spin to the raw statement that 'CD sales are down'.