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.)"
Subject: [IP] MUST READ The Music Piracy Myth
* From: Dave Farber
* To: ip
* Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:21:04 -0400
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Tim O'Reilly"
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:13:44 -0700
To: David Farber
Subject: FW: The Music Piracy Myth
Dave, I thought your readers might enjoy the following rant from George Ziemann, who's been doing analysis of the RIAA members' own statistics to argue that the decline in sales is related to their reduced title output and higher prices, not to file sharing.
For the articles to which he refers, see http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html and http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/f eb2003/tc20030213_9095_tc078.htm
--
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: George Ziemann
Reply-To: wizard@azoz.com
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:47:19 -0700
To: tim@oreilly.com
Subject: The Music Piracy Myth
Currently, if you do a google search on RIAA statistics, I'm number one and two; you are three and four, and your article refers to me, so I know you know who I am.
The article to which you referred was published in December. Since that time, a lot has happened, as I'm sure you are aware, not the least of which being the RIAA's recent lawsuits against college students.
First of all, I am a musician. The only reason I even started researching what the RIAA has to say is because of the problems I had selling my own work at eBay, which were entirely due to RIAA accusations of copyright infringement (it was my own CD).
After looking at the 2002 RIAA data, I also realized that over the last 5 years, the recording industry has shipped out more than 2 billion physical units of product, adding up to a retail value of more than $20 billion. You'd think that they would embrace a free marketing and promotion opportunity like mp3s. Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior copy. I consider mp3s to be an ad for my actual recording.
My current consternation comes in the form of a letter from my congressional representative, who states that "In 2001, record sales were down 10 percent because of unauthorized music downloads..."
Yes, sales were down. Other than that obvious fact, there is no empirical data to suggest that downloading is the cause of the problem. I've asked the RIAA. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have relentlessly taunted them in hopes of a reasonable explanation. They offer none.
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.
Here's another interesting point. I can go to www.discmakers.com and
order CDs for $1.89 each. Not "replicated" but created from a glass
master. As I understand it, the current wholesale price for a CD is
about $12.
So how can EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (2001 -- at Hoovers Online) be 71%
of their income? BMG's 2001 annual report blames industry shortcomings
"long obscured by market success" and Vivendi told its stockholders that
an "anticipated lighter release schedule" had something to do with it.
BMG is the only one that even mentions file sharing -- as a
justification in investing in Napster.
Why does "sales are down 10%" overrule any other explanation for
declining sales?
A bigger question is -- Why won't anyone in the media even discuss this?
Recently I spoke to the FCC at a public hearing in Tempe (Phoenix area).
Next month, I'm going to speak at the DMCA hearings at UCLA Law School.
Additionally, I'm
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Currently, if you do a google search on RIAA statistics, I'm number one and two; you are three and four, and your article refers to me, so I
know you know who I am.
The article to which you referred was published in December. Since that time, a lot has happened, as I'm sure you are aware, not the least of
which being the RIAA's recent lawsuits against college students.
First of all, I am a musician. The only reason I even started researching what the RIAA has to say is because of the problems I had
selling my own work at eBay, which were entirely due to RIAA accusations of copyright infringement (it was my own CD).
After looking at the 2002 RIAA data, I also realized that over the last
5 years, the recording industry has shipped out more than 2 billion physical units of product, adding up to a retail value of more than $20
billion. You'd think that they would embrace a free marketing and promotion opportunity like mp3s. Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior
copy. I consider mp3s to be an ad for my actual recording.
My current consternation comes in the form of a letter from my congressional representative, who states that "In 2001, record sales
were down 10 percent because of unauthorized music downloads..."
Yes, sales were down. Other than that obvious fact, there is no empirical data to suggest that downloading is the cause of the problem.
I've asked the RIAA. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have relentlessly taunted them in hopes of a reasonable explanation. They
offer none.
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.
Here's another interesting point. I can go to www.discmakers.com and order CDs for $1.89 each. Not "replicated" but created from a glass
master. As I understand it, the current wholesale price for a CD is about $12.
So how can EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (2001 -- at Hoovers Online) be 71% of their income? BMG's 2001 annual report blames industry shortcomings
"long obscured by market success" and Vivendi told its stockholders that an "anticipated lighter release schedule" had something to do with it.
BMG is the only one that even mentions file sharing -- as a justification in investing in Napster.
Why does "sales are down 10%" overrule any other explanation for declining sales?
A bigger question is -- Why won't anyone in the media even discuss this?
Recently I spoke to the FCC at a public hearing in Tempe (Phoenix area). Next month, I'm going to speak at the DMCA hearings at UCLA Law School.
Additionally, I'm hearing from college kids all over (Duke, Auburn, UCSD, Univ. of North Carolina, Yale Law School, Univ. of Wyoming).
They're reading my site and they're using it as background for dissertations and reports. They ask questions. They do not accept vague
answers.
Why does the government accept the "sales are down" without any consideration of other, equally plausible explanations? And why does the
press?
When the majority of the public is guilty by default, then something is terribly wrong. I'm not sure why I'm even writing to you, except that you seem to be about the fifth person in the country that has applied some logic to this issue.
I've written to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Commerce Committee and Small Business Committee. I've written to Jay Berman,
Hilary Rosen and the Recording Artists Coalition. With the lone exception of Janis Ian, absolutely everyone has totally ignored me.
What can we do?
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
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.
OK, but depriving people of income isn't immoral? Try convincing the world of that one, genius!
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.
So you're saying it's OK for someone to stuff Jews in a gas chamber if they want to? Because well shit, if one is of the opinion that Jews ought to be exterminated, they're entitled to that belief -- and if someone's entitled to a belief, who the hell are you to stop them from following it?
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
OK, but how does bad language deprive someone of the income to which they are entitled?
evil adrian
* Number of active pirate ships: 0
* Number of CD shipment boats attacked per year: 0
* Number of CDs per boat: 0
* Number of pirates per ship: 0
* Number of parrots per ship (if available): 0
Despite what the RIAA et al would have you beleive, copying music is NOT piracy. Piracy is murder and robbery on the high seas. Piracy is if a group of people armed themselves, charged into a record store, and stole CDs while shooting at employees who tried to stop them. It is unfortunate that most people equate this with now with copyright infringement. The reason people do is decades of the recording industry telling us that copying music is the same as direct robbery and murder.
The music industry (as opposed to the musicians) have no god given right to exist. They have ignored technology and now find that their product has little or no value to their customers. The savy musicians will soon start selling their music directly over the internet and may even find they make more money from that than the disgustingly small percentage they get from the industry.