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

[Noksagt]

I do agree with you, but wonder if you think it is unethical to tape a song off the radio.

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

[syrinx]

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?

Re:yup

[Evil Adrian]

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.

And if you're not willing to pay for it, fine, but that doesn't entitle you to steal. Go find music that is being given away for free and listen to that -- there is PLENTY of good, free music available on mp3.com and elsewhere. I mean, shit, go out to a bar sometime and get a CD some local band is giving away for free, you will find LOTS of good music that way.

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

[Evil Adrian]

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.

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

I don't know about the legality of recording off of the radio or not

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.

... but it is obviously much less harmful given my points above.

I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved reduces the harm. Either you agree with the statutory monopoly set up by copyright law, or you don't. If you do, then any copying, not matter how easily this can be accomplished, must be seen as an illegitimate inteference with the owners exclusive right to copy the material.

Re:yup

[devilspgd]

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?

Re:yup

[Noksagt]

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.

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

[geekoid]

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.

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

[Noksagt]

You've got it mostly right and can read the decision thanks to the EFF.

IMHO, nothing in that case gives people a blanket right to copy broadcasts (TV or radio) simply "for personal use."

This is true & future cases fleshed out some things that people CAN'T do. But you can tape unecrypted broadcasts and collect them. Interestingly, both the Sony and Universal indicated that people were accumulating tape libraries. This is why you can use a PVR. The networks do still argue that you can't skip commercials or share your recordings on the net (see, for example, the replaytv case), but they don't complain that you've taped something and keep it.

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.

One standard they cite is that the recordings aren't made for personal gain. It is very clear that selling the tape you made would be infringement. It -might- be infringing to trade broadcast tapes with others (as you're benefitting by expanding your collection. I don't see the extra benefit you get on top of time and space shifting.

Setting the law aside & looking at it pragmatically, I don't know how you would say that the person is taping a song so that he doesn't have to purchase it. In some ways, the author of the article is right, but possibly in the wrong medium. Copyright holders intentionally allow their songs to be broadcast to increase their audience--the songs on the radio are ads. Expanding that audience probably wouldn't raise any hackles.

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Is it ethical for people to take things that are not being given freely and not reimburse those that provide it?

According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.

Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?

There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...

The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "

The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!

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

[1u3hr]

Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright.

I don't think so. Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself. If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be vio;ating copyright. Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, which "in almost all jurisidctions" is legal.

Unless some fascist interpretation of the DMCA has changed this, of course.

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

[dmaxwell]

When I encode mp3s from my own vinyl and cd collection, I use the --r3mix settings of Lame. This produces a VBR encoded mp3 that gives the highest quality possible without being overly greedy with storage. (I'm aware there are other Lame presets meant to accomplish similar goals. --r3mix works for me.)

Almost every mp3 I have seen on the trading services is 128kbit encoded and many of those were done with inferior encoders such as the old Xing encoder. What you are seeing is not hypocrasy. A clueful ripper uses a good encoder with wisely chosen settings. Such mp3s sound very good even if some audiophiles insist they aren't quite cd quality. The vast majority of mp3s aren't these high quality ones. I also think many traders don't understand the filesize/quality tradeoff and just get the smallest file to download. This means that the lowest quality versions of any given track propagate the most.

Both statements are true. Good mp3s are indistinguishable from cds for most people. The quality of most downloaded music is inferior for the most part; quality mp3s with few exceptions are not traded.

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

[heli0]

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.

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.

RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[product byproduct]

The essentials are missing:

• Number of active pirate ships.
  
• Number of CD shipment boats attacked per year.
  
• Number of CDs per boat.
  
• Number of pirates per ship.
  
• Number of parrots per ship (if available).
  

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[gmp]

okay, all together now: "piracy=copyright infringement" dates at least to 1769. See e.g. Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303.

No case of a prosecution in the Star-Chamber, for printing without a license, or against letters patent, or pirating another man's copy, or any other disorderly printing, has been found. ...

But it is certain, that down to the year 1640, copies were protected and secured from piracy, by a much speedier and more effectial remedy, than actions at law, or bills in equity.

You might also check out Bouvier's law dictionary, 1856 edition.

PIRACY, torts. By piracy is understood the plagiarisms of a book, engraving or other work, for which a copyright has been taken out. 2. When a piracy has been made of such a work, an injunction will be granted. 5 Ves. 709; 4 Ves. 681; 12 Ves. 270. Vide copyright.

Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy

[Noksagt]

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."

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...

[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...

[fiftyfly]

..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.

An important point - an 'mp3' isn't some sort of magical music stealing container. The music I've ripped for my iPod doesn't get the same treatment my audio books do, mp3s are not all created equal. The biggest difference between and mp3 & a competeing cd has nothing to do with 'acuostic quality' and everything to do with form factor

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.

A note, distribution is often not a large expense - it's the promotion that kills the bottom line. This is stupid though, real 'money-burner' should be creation. It's not all that hard to sell a good product. When the costs to convince me to buy your crap outweigh the costs of getting someone to produce said crap for you you know you've got a problem. Think of paying an artist somewhat like paying for R&D. If prmotional costs where higher then R&D costs for, say, I don't think I'd be too interested. It works, or it doesn't. I sounds good (and has a market) or it doesn't.

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.

No, millions are spent on raio & tv time so people can hear what $radio_exec wants to sell. There's a difference. When you (pretty much) have to give up all rights to a creative work for the chance that said $radio_exec might put some of their promotional muscle behind it there is a problem. A record company is not in the business of making music, they're in the business of selling them and a very small number of said firms have a strangle hold on nearly the entire industry. It seems to me that using a promotional monopoly (ok, oligarchy) to force content creators to give up creative rights smacks of abuse.

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?

Why do I care if they lose money? life happens, you compete or you don't, yay market forces

If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.

Losing money != theft. If I stole a cd, yes then a sale is 'lost', a song is stolen. If I hear a song on the radio and don't immediately run out to buy the albulm there is no theft, there is no lost sale.

Re:I read the article...

[Superfarstucker]

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

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.

Re:I read the article...

[surprise_audit]

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?

Are you sure you read the article? In it, George Zeimann, says:

"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."

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot shooting yourself in the foot, then handing the gun to your opponent so that when the police arrive, you can point to him and say "He did it! Lock him up!"

According to George Zeimann, they're losing money because they deliberately sabotaged their own sales....

Re:I read the article...

[zerocool^]

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

Re:I read the article...

[natmsincome.com]

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.

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?

Advertising?

[cperciva]

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.

Re:Advertising?

[moncyb]

By RIAA logic, the internet is just a device for copyright infringement, so it should be banned. A CD burner is a device for copyright infringement, so it should be taxed by them. Encryption is just a device to hide copyright infringement, so it should be banned.

Unless of course they want to use those devices to run their businesses or for a DRM censorship system, then it's okay.

If you'd like to learn more about P2P software

[bigberk]

I recently wrote this paper for a university class, describing the basic architecture of Gnutella and Freenet, to offer some technical insights into how these P2P networks tick. I think it's a good read, if you have a chance :) Personally, I gained a new appreciation for these systems while doing the research. Conditions of use and abstract here.

What I wish people could see is that P2P networks don't have to be about illegal content, just as FTP and IRC are not just about warez. Reliable P2P can become a core internet technology of the future. Imagine fast downloads of just about any large media (e.g. slackware CDs, public domain broadcasts/recordings, etc.).

The real reason for the music industry's sales

[mabu]

We all know why the music and entertainment industry is in a slump. It's not P2P or piracy...

It's the public's insatiable appetite for BOY BANDS and VIN DIESEL MOVIES!

We need more! These fine artists are simply not producing enough content to satiate the public.

There are still a few television shows that have not been made into feature-length movies. There are still more country tunes that need to be written about rodeos and lost love. How about an epic triology featuring Garfield? What's with the lull in "rogue cop" screenplays? I need MORE talking animal movies featuring Eddy Murphy! It's been almost a month since Tupac released an album! Hollywood! Are you listening??

Will the industry get it? I guess time will tell.

How many times

[djupedal]

Do we have to keep going over this?

• The RIAA is just a shill for the music industry at large.
• This is an industry that is used to gouging customers and wielding strict control over releases.
• They consider themselves at the top of the food chain, and fight anyone that intrudes into their territory.
• They consider customers as sheep to be shorn.
• They consider themselves above the law, even so going so far as to believe they can make the law.

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.

How does RIAA influence CD/DVD sales?

[stj]

Has anybody done any research how the rate of CD/DVD sales increase/decrease changed after RIAA started its actions?

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...

Riaa exempt from the economic downturn?

[Ksigpaul]

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.

Re:Riaa exempt from the economic downturn?

[SystematicPsycho]

s/sent/cent

Indeed the economy would have something to do with it. This works in two ways, investor says music sales are taking a hit due to the sluggish/hawkish economy. RIAA says music sales are taking a hit because of P2P etc. The RIAA might as well use sluggish sales as a weapon to go after P2P regardless of it being true.

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.

Why I buy less music

[Pofy]

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?

On music and 'advertising'

[freeweed]

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.

Huh. In the good old days (and golly gee, today even!), people found out about new music through things like the radio, MTV, and (when you get a little older) what's playing in the clubs.

All 3 venues require payment to the copyright holder in order to play the music.

No thanks, I'd prefer not to be paying $14.99 per CD just so some marketdroid can install a 20' high cardboard sign telling me that the new Britney Spears album really IS the hottest album in the US.

How RIAA does stats

[hhknighter]

Stat Person: "How many Britney Spears CD did you buy?"
Consumer: "None, I don't like her songs"
-Marked as pirate

Stat Person: "What is your current occupation?"
Consumer: "Student"
-Marked as pirate, twice

Stat Person: "What was your last Xmas gift?"
Consumer: "a 32x CD burner"
-Marked as pirate, 32 times

Stat Person: "Why are you returning that CD?"
Consumer: "It won't work on my computer or my Discman"
-Marked as pirate

Jokes aside, Filesharing obviously does put somewhat of a dent into business. Given, there are people out there unwilling to buy regardless of source. However, not being the extreme, it is possible to capitalize on this massive market. Given at a reasonable price and great availability structure, I can vision people buying their music in ways of files rather than CDs. I am convinced that it's their persistance to resist the trend that led to their losses.

Filesharing is a catalyst, not a problem or solution. If they can harness the idea into a structure, it's a solution. If they continue to ignore where technology is going, then it's a problem (on their end). Someone else will capitalize on that market.

CD Baby / Half.com

[Landaras]

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.

New Video Game Statistics...

[dnevins]

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!

Just remember...

[interactive_civilian]

If your pirate ship uses some sort of steam powered engine instead of sails, it is actually counted as 4 ships.

Ships with nuclear reactors count as 8 ships.

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?

[The Cydonian]

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.

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.

What really got me

[lvdrproject]

Quoth the article:

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.

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

Record Labels Announce Anti-Piracy Breakthrough

[ShamusYoung]

Record labels have a new secret weapon that will make piracy impossible.

I have also noticed

[teamhasnoi]

when sales are down in the auto industry, there is not talk of outlawing walking.

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.

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.

CDBABY

[Gulthek]

C'mon people, get with the program!

CDBaby is one of the few online stories that really get it.

• They give musicians a big cut of their sales
  
• they have awesome recommendations
  
• you can listen to 2 minutes from 4 tracks of the CD
  
• you can return the CD if you aren't happy with it!
  

I left RIAA music behind a few months ago, why not try and do the same?

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.

Why CD sales are down

[Animats]

The surprising thing is that CD sales are only down 9%. Consider:

• Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them.
• Most of the radio stations in the US are now owned by Clear Channel or Infinity Broadcasting, which play the same old music over and over again.
• Everybody has already converted from analog vinyl to CD.
• We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music.
• Concert attendance is down about as much as CD sales are down.
• Rock music tanked a while back, and nothing since has a similarly broad appeal.

With all this, it's surprising that CD sales aren't down something like 50%. We may yet see that happen.

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.

RIAA's members don't sell music

[thogard]

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.

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?

Re:Clarification

[acroyear]

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.

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.

Re: Indie distribution - Mixonic has no cost

[sweetleaf]

Mixonic is worth checking out - they've simplified pressing and distribution for musicians by allowing you to upload your cd and then pressing copies on demand. No physical inventory aside from bits.

They keep $4 per cd of your profit charge no startup costs. It's an attractive business model.

A darn good read

[teamhasnoi]

Here is a link to an RIAA rant that is specifically about the lawsuits against the college students, but also sums up a lot of what has been said in this thread.

Why don't I sleep?

Digital radio's gonna be an interesting topic..

[Newer Guy]

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.....

The danger of piracy

[james_gnz]

Covert terrorist activities now uncovered in Iraq were far more serious than even the staunchest Bush advocate could have feared. US Marines in Baghdad today (Monday 4/14/03) uncovered secret bunkers containing many tens of thousands of illegal copies of works of American intellectual property.

Captain Pitalist of the US Marines commented on the seriousness of the situation: "Saddam's regime has already defrauded the American recording industry out of billions of dollars, without us even knowing it. Had this been allowed to continue much longer, the entire US economy would have been in ruins."

Said a spokesperson for the Whitehouse: "We expected to find a few WMDs, hell, maybe even a nuclear missile or two, but this... All I can say is we're lucky... we're all damn lucky this was caught right now. It doesn't bear thinking about, how many livelihoods would have been lost..."

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.

ads for concerts

[AssFace]

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.

Please download my MP3s absolutely free

[MichaelCrawford]

I am one of those indie musicians who wants everyone to download their MP3s so their music can become known.

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.

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

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!

They're not stupid...

[Thedalek]

The RIAA isn't really stupid per se. They're just faced with the following scenario:

Mr. Big Bucks: My record sales are slipping. Make them better again.

RIAA: Well, there's a few things affecting your sales. There's your own high prices and lackluster quality...

Mr. Big Bucks: Are you planning on getting paid?

RIAA: ...And... uh... There's Internet Piracy! Yes, that's it.

Mr. Big Bucks: Guess which one we can do something about.

RIAA: High prices?

Mr. Big Bucks: You are clearly delerious from the lack of money in your pockets. Here's a few million. Feel better now?

RIAA: Oh, we go after piracy?

Mr. Big Bucks: Excelsior.

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

[KiahZero]

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.

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.

Vorbis?

[roothorick]

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.

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'.