Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
I do agree with you, but wonder if you think it is unethical to tape a song off the radio.
that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded
By the same logic, rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company, so we shouldn't have to pay to rent cars. And apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees, so we shouldn't have to pay for apples.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I have a pretty decent setup;
Paradigm Reference Studio 100's
Bryston 4B ST Amp
Adcom GFP-750 Pre-amp
ROTEL RCD/971 CD-player
and I can honestly say that I can not discern between a good 192kbps mp3 and the original cd when listening to non-classical music, which is 99.9% of what the RIAA peddles.
"I'm sure there are audiophiles and other music enthusiasts who disagree with me"
Don't worry about them, these are the same people who say that you need to keep your cables suspended in the air.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
Anyone that hasn't grasped the fuedal relationship between the music industry and it's customers by now, isn't going to get it at all, so further 'evidence' that there is a problem is just so much more sand on the beach.
Stop buying music from retailers, such as Virgin & Tower. When those art deco shelves start collectiing dust, the retailers will scream and the predators will be forced to acknowledge the problem. Until then, things won't change....regardless of how many more anecdotes we have about who/what/when/why piracy exists.
I understand that the purpose of RIAA is to increase the multimedia industry (the big ones) profits. Now, in my opinion they didn't start very well:
They started off with lawsuits against students - are they really counting on those students paying off any possible sentences? Com'on - they will file bankruptcy (if they lose that is) right after walking out of the courtroom.
I believe those lawyers at RIAA charge quite a bit for that stuff - does it really increase the profits?
Who is actually gonna be encouraged to buy anything from those guys (that is CD/DVD business) if everybody has a hangover after their actions?
Somehow I don't see those bilions of dollars flowing into the industry crooks' pockets...
iThink iHate iMod
Has any one else noticed that we are currently in an economy where consumers don't have much trust in the market and therefore are saving their money? I have, but still I hear about Riaa being upset about not getting every sent they think they should because people are file sharing. Last I checked, they still have artists going platinum. People like me still buy CDs regularly to support artists. Platinum means the artist sold a ton of copies of the CD.Profits = ((million * 10.00) - bottom line And we know artists only make money on their concerts b/c the recording companies take all profits from CDs. So what's RIAA's problem? Fact of the matter is people just wouldn't be listening to the music if we had to pay 15+ bucks for a CD. Not many people can afford 5 cds a month for a bill of about 70 bucks. We're in a crappy economy and the music industry still has millions of dollars worth of sales. Sounds to me like they are just greedy, but I guess I just don't understand accounting.
I know why I buy less music than, say, 10 or 5 years ago. The reason is simple, I buy more DVDs and I go much more to the movies. In addition I find myself going to a few more concerts now than back then. Al in all, I have a limited budget for entertainment and if I spend more on one thing, I have to spend less on something else (well, my budget IS a bit larger these days, but not big enough).
I recently read that DVD sales were up a LOT here in Sweden, no wonder something else goes down. BUt that can't have anything to do with it, can it?
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.
So when does it become unethical? If you share it with 3 friends? 4? 5?
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
It was mentioned prominently last time we discussed the RIAA, so I'll throw it out again.
Support independent music you can listen to before you buy at cdbaby.com.
The great thing about CD Baby is that most artists there have at least four streamable songs (in mp3) per disc. You get to listen to the first two minutes of each song, and I don't have a problem with this (as opposed to the full song). Why? Because the indie artist doesn't make me feel like I'm the enemy for listening to their music before paying for it.
A feature that I also like from CD Baby is that you can search for indie artists that are similar to a national artist you know. That helps get you moving in a direction you're comfortable with.
For those of us who are trying to wean themselves off the RIAA but haven't yet kicked the habit, I recommend half.com (owned by Ebay). As an example, I recently got into Tori Amos. (Regardless of how you feel about her music, you do have to admit she's talented and original.) I picked up her latest CD a few months ago because it had 70 minutes of music and it cost me $10 new. I found myself really liking it, and willing to look at her other work.
Now, I could go to Best Buy and drop over $100 picking up the major discs of her backcatalog (5 discs plus a 2 CD-set), or I could go to half.com and get the same discs (albeit used) shipped to me for a grand total less than $30. As long as I can get a decent rip off the used discs, I don't care about their condition.
Between CD Baby and half.com, I really don't see myself buying many new discs from RIAA artists.
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
I just heard on NPR that video games sale just surpassed CD sales, which I would say is an important consideration. I know I spend more time playing video games than listening to CD's and just a few years ago it was the other way around!
So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and has been verified by SoundScan via BusinessWeek.com), the record labels began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.
Because it was engineered.
I don't understand why nobody's commented on this yet. This has some pretty big implications, doesn't it? I'm sure they can shoot it down just as easily as anything else, but if this can be proven somehow (or even if just a couple respectable firms agree on it), this would make a nice dent in the RIAA's argument, and might even get the unwashed masses to start thinking about the people behind that shiny new Britney Spears CD.
Following your line of reasoning I should go to the gas station and decide not to pay for it because the price is too high.
No, it doesn't work that way.
If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.
evil adrian
"Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
Why does the RIAA get special treatment/attention/laws passed in their favor? They KNOW what people want. People want:
Good songs
The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.
I'm sure there are a couple more, but that's what comes to mind. The RIAA KNOWS this. How can they not?
And yet there is no 'solution' in sight other than lawsuits. Sure, there are a few sorry tries - all held back by expense (1.50 song?) and value (oohh - 30 artists from the 70's!)
As a musician, when mp3s were first rearing their head, I recall thinking, "Wow. No more Rock 'n' Roll Stars." and being tripped out and scared by that thought, as that was what I had devoted myself too.
Now, I realize that there are still ways to make $$$ being a musician, it's just different.
The RIAA enjoys its stature as *the* place to go for music. Rather than compete with value, they have taken the low road with lawsuits and poor laws.
Sure, there are some issues with copying, but then again there always were. I used to get tapes from some 'records for a penny' club, copy them and send them back.
I don't anymore, but there isn't really anything worth copying. I buy vinyl at garage sales. Most music from the RIAA is rehashed from earlier times; I own the albums that influenced most of the good artists of today. I don't buy CDs (and haven't for 5-7 years), even though my wife works at a place where I can get many for 5 dollars. I don't have a giant mp3 collection. Perhaps one or two songs from 20 artists (give or take). I don't support the RIAA, with $$$ or otherwise,and since they aren't troubling with supporting an artist's career longterm, why should I be so worried about what happens to them? How many records from the Backstreet Boys will you see at garage sales or thrift stores in the next few years? Compare that to Beatles records.
Supporting the artists means sticking with them. You cared enough to sign them, where are you when the first record doesn't do as well as you hoped? Sure, it didn't go multi-platinum, but is that the artists' fault or yours?
Someone posted a great post right before me, lambasting the 'lowest common denominator' music and movies we as the lucky public are allowed to see. Read it after you're done rambling with me.. ;)
Buy the Jayhawks new record. (it's great) And make it your last.
id love to agree with you completely here but it simply isn't the case. Most producers in the electronic scene never see commercial success, yet a slew of them have made it, how, you ask? Live performances. Isn't that ironic, in the most technologically embraced side of the music scene, where they do EVERYTHING ass backwards, they have learned to subsidize themselves by LIVE performances (I.E. DJing). My word on the situation is half these worthless fucking artists deserve to fall off the face of the planet, what good is a rock band if they can't play a banging live show etc etc? their business model is clearly broken (live on the fat of a cd.. if you make it). Granted there is a place for good production work, but I am afraid it doesn't happen to coincide with being an artist.. The entire music industry is backwards.. and its quite funny
So MP3 in bad quality format should be legal then, as long as you make it challenging to download, not as simple as just typing what you want and downloading right away?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright.
So does the Sony-Betamax case not apply to radio? This decision is what allows you to record television shows.
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.
This just got easier, by the way.
Surf to CD Baby.
Check it: Record album on your dime. Create CD's on your own dime. Pay CD Baby $35. Send them any number of your CD's. Sell them at whatever you want, CD Baby keeps $4 of each sale. CD Baby retains no rights to the music, the name, the distribution rights, or anything. All they are is hella-cheap internet distribution.
Case in point: You're a punk band, not interested in making a lot of money. You produce your CD on your own time, pay for the recording. Then you buy a truckload of cheap CD-R's and cases. You use your friend's 32X burner to burn 100 copies, and you print out the inside case label. Say it costs you $1.75 per CD. You send them in, charge $7, and you make $1.25 per CD, after costs.
That's cool. Distribution has always been the problem.
Or, there are other people, like Ian Mckay of the DC/mathrock scene and Dischord records. His solution is this: No written contracts. Just handshakes. He pays for the recording and mastering of your band's CD. He distributes the CD. All out of pocket. When it's done, he keeps all the proceeds of CD sales until the debt is paid off, and then the band and the label split it 50/50. He doesn't touch merchandise or touring profits. If a band ever gets into a disagreement with Ian and want to screw him, he hands them their master and tells them to get the fuck out, deal off, and they lose him as a contact and gain him as a bad reference.
So, I think slowly, music is changing. Attitudes are changing. The industry is changing. If I was to say one band has given me more joy over the course of my lifetime, I would have to say it was Less Than Jake. However, I'm seriously considering not purchasing LTJ's new album, because it's being put out by warner bros. records.
I honestly think, in the long run, there are too many people willing to eat what they're given by the RIAA, and pay $21.99 for a CD. But the number of people who know what major labels put bands through and aren't willing to put up with it is increasing all the time.
~Will
sig?
Dates back even further....
From the OED:
"[1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.] 1701 DE FOE True-born Eng. Explan. Pref. (1703) 6 Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates. 1709 STEELE & ADDISON Tatler No. 101 1 These Miscreants are a Set of Wretches we Authors call Pirates, who print any Book,..a soon as it appears.., in a smaller Volume, and sell it (as all other Thieves do stolen Goods) at a cheaper Rate. "
"1706 DE FOE Jure Div. Pref. 42 Gentlemen-Booksellers, that threatned to Pyrate it, as they call it, viz. Reprint it, and Sell it for half a Crown. 1754 Connoisseur No. 38 6 To prevent his design being pirated, he intends petitioning the Parliament"
"1697 tr. C'tess D'Aunoy's Trav. (1706) 77 One day, as Meluza came from Pyrating, he brought [etc.]. 1727 A. HAMILTON New Acc. E. Ind. I. xii. 140 The English went to burn that Village and their pirating Vessels. 1731 GAY Let. to Swift 1 Dec., I have had an injunction for me against pirating-booksellers. 1737 BYROM Jrnl. & Lit. Rem. (1856) II. I. 133 To put out a pirated edition."
more effort? you mean pushing the record button? Befor wierd al made his first album, he had some song played be doctor demento. I used to have them on 8 track. that was in the 70's, and somehow I don't think its more difficult today.
MP3 is not cd quality, even it its maximum bits. it doesn't come in a case or on a disk. No art work, no lyrics, no stickers.
Yes, it ould be difficult to broadcast free music through the air..I mean if you could do that it would destroy the music industry. Or be a billion dollar a year industry...
No one gets harmed with music trading. Everybody who has done actualy studies come to the same conclusion. Music swaping increases sales.
Napster sisn't cause in loss in the music industry, poor music chose, and a major global event hurt there sales.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They are selling CDs (and soon DVDs). Their aim is to move large amounts of cheap plastic into the stores. Thats all they care about. No one here buys stuff from the RIAA members, they just buy it from the record stores who are the customers of the RIAA members and what they want conflicts with what the end customers want. Now that anyone has the ability to edit music in a home studio that will sound better than most of the well done stuff made in expensive studios before the 1980s. The result is there is too much music for the record stores to deal with. Remember, they don't sell music, they sell small bits of plastic. They have to inventory them and arrange them so customers can find them and deal with moving out old stuff to make room for the new stuff and there is just too much new stuff. For example a radio station in Melbourne Australia had a contest where any local band could enter and 3000 bands sent in entries. If there are 3000 bands in listening area of 4 million people, I'm guessing that there is 3 bands per 4000 people that can make a CD per year. Now how many unique cd's are in the local record store? They can't cope with that many new CD's every week. Thats the problem that needs to be fixed. Come up with a way to do a record store were you can have more than 100,000 albums in stock and then the current RIAA cusotmers dry up and they will go away.
It's easy once you see the natural progression.
I've never been into buying music but my brother is but over the last couple of year WHAT we buy has really changed. We used to CD that we'd listen to on the radio. He'd buy them so we'd have the same CD as his friends. About 2 years ago we got cable Internet before that we had some MP3 but we'd get those from LAN parties our own CD etc. Once we could get song quickly things changed.
Before if someone told us about a new song it would "cool" but you wouldn't bother following up unless they made a really big deal now we go home download it and check them out. We now check out ANY music we like the sound of here's some examples:
For about 6 Months after we got cable my brother kept only downloading stuff that wasn't on the radio or in stores (Australia) He'd burn it to CD and show it off to all his friends how told him how cool it was and where ask where he got it from and he'd enjoy bragging about how we had cable and that you couldn't get it in Australia.
Opening song for Roswell - Dido: We bought her CD about 3 months before it went mainstream (Australia's a bit behind). We told our friends about it and then all of a sudden it was on TV radio everywhere.
Opening song for Lain - Boa: I haven't been able to find there CD ANYWHERE for sale (Australia, US, Uk - it's sold out and on indefinite backorder) but they're really cool. As soon as I can get it in Australia I will. Also found out about another BoA with the same name but Korean, which was an accident, but cool anyway.
Opening song for Malcolm in the middle: No idea. I personally never would have checked them out even though it's a cool song but one of my brother's did and they have some really weird stuff but it's cool.
Went through a phase of checking out (Armature Music Videos) and found Rammstein and a couple of other band.
There's also a lot of spoofs, parodies that we've got:
OpenBSD - http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html
Counter Strike - I will Survive - http://www.punkassfraggers.com/mp3s.shtml
Got the picture yet. The main point is that how we get music and how we find music has changed. We don't listen to the Radio anymore at home - we have over 1000 songs most of which we have CD of OR can't buy locally OR can't buy because they are one off's like the Counter Strike MP3. Sure we have some MP3 they we didn't buy the CD for and at the start we had more of those than the other but now it's the other way round. I listen to the Radio on the way to work and most of the time I realise how spoilt I am at home. It's not that the songs are bad most of them are good but they are songs that don't offend anyone. If the drive was much longer (10 minutes) I'd probably be bother setting up the Car kit for my IPOD (held out for 1 year)
The radio has no "Weird Al" no "Rammstein" (German) or "BoA" (Korea) or random quotes from "Monty Python" and while I don't listen to them all the time it's nice to have a variety.
I know lots of other people have said this already but that's what they are afraid of: People having a taste in music rather than having a taste based on the music they hear on the radio which the media companies (RIAA approved) can influence.
I have:
Magnepan MG-1.6s
Plinus SA-150 (upgraded)
REL subwoofer (don't remember the model)
Harman Kardon DVD-25
I can hear the difference on nearly any source material (percussive brass is the worst, bass sometimes get muddy).
However, I can hear a difference on headphones, computer speakers etc. I find it quite strange that you can't hear the difference between a $700 CD player and output from a lesser quality MP3 source.
Now, in most cases it doesn't really matter as MP3s to me are a portable format and any degradation doesn't really matter since outside noise pretty much overwhelms any type of high quality input.
Perhaps you should have gotten less expensive equipment as you cannot discern these types of things.
At the NAB, the buzz was IBOC-FM digital radio. It has a 96k data rate, which with proper coding will sound damn good (XM and Sirius are both 64k). I wander how the RIAA's gonna handle this? Will they demand content protrection? Will the decades old practice of taping songs off the radio disappear? Right now the FCC only allows simulcasting of the main channel audio on digital, but that'll change beofre too long. Does this mean that they'll be an analog/digital divide with regards to radio where the analog stations can be taped yet the digital ones can't be? Clear Channel has already upset the music companies by basically banning 'pay for play'(IE: Independent promoters) effective June first. It's surely gonna get interesting.....
Actually, the RIAA has done some pretty interesting research on downturns and entertainment. A few days back, I was at a seminar by a media tech professor who was also a Bertelsmann consultant, and he told us this:- industry research suggests that music-buying goes down just as the economy is getting out of a recession.
Which, technically, should be good news for people like you and me. Just that, important to remember that the RIAA isn't complaining a decrease in sales; it's complaining of a decrease in growth of sales. Similar sounding, but entirely different.
More than mere navel gazing.
I always thought of them more as ads for concerts, and then the record companies saw the concerts as ads for the cds as well as the overall image that the band portrayed.
have an image that sticks and people buy the merchandise in order to cover themselves with the image - not just visual, but images more in the sense of idolism.
hell - it has already been shown that songs are just ads - Limp Bizkit has already shown us that when they (well, their recording label) brought back a form of payola to the radio stations with a new twist.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
Please feel free to download and share the MP3s for my album:
-
Geometric Visions
The album consists of me playing my compositions for the piano.You can feel free to share these with your friends, but I would prefer that rather than sharing them with strangers over the Internet, that you link my page from your own homepage or weblog. That will help others to find out more about me when they download my music.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Actually, you no longer need the date either. The dates were originally standard practice because copyrights expired based solely on the work's own creation time. With the extensions, its now based on the author's death except in cases of "work for hire" for corporations, which are of a limited time but keep getting extended (i.e., the Sonny Bono act done to keep Mickey in the hands of Disney). (actually, i'm sure you already know this). Keeping the date in the clause now serves the purposes of personal record keeping, adherance to the tradition of dating the work (from when dates were required), and personal protection against infringement by later copycats. Its not necessary, but still useful.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Wow... your abilty to take something *completely* out of context is absolutely amazing.
Context is what this is all about, btw. Basically, the whole point of moral relativism is not that all moral systems are equal (what you seem to propose), but rather that you cannot judge the absolute morality of a situation from within a different moral system.
For instance, your example about India. I believe that is a horrible thing to do. Is their a possibility I'm wrong? Of course.
Another example: Is it entirely possible that I'm wrong, and Christianity is right? Of course.
It is *impossible* to see absolute morals from within a moral system. There will always be distortion... remember: the truth doesn't have to be logical.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
I'm amazed that in a discussion like this nobody ever brings up the Vorbis codec. Even if it's not perfect, it's pretty damn good, even at ~64kbps. Oh yeah, and what about FLAC? FLAC, being lossless, is ***PERFECT*** in terms of sound quality. A lot of people trade in a lossless codec like FLAC. What the hell happened to talking about them?
It's not about just MP3s. People just tend to use MP3 as a poster child. When we look at the big picture, at FLAC, at Vorbis, throw in MP3 and WMA for good measure, and hell, throw in Shorten too, and we examine each one analytically, based not only on quality but the size of the file and the time it takes to download on a typical residential broadband connection, THEN we'll have a really good idea of just how good online-swappable audio is and just how much of a threat it could be to the record companies.
While I'm ranting, why don't we discuss independent labels? PEOPLE, ORDER CDS FROM INDEPENDENT LABELS. The independents are losing money out the brick walls because the artists' listeners are converting to piracy to get their music fix, which is due to resellers refusing to carry independent labels. The Big Five aren't threatened. The Little Thousand are.