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

[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

[tuba_dude]

I beg to differ.

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

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

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

Re:yup

[zcat_NZ]

Interesting persepctive for you to consider.

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

Once a government is in power they make the laws.

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

So it really comes down to ethics.

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

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

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

Re:yup

[Capsaicin]

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

[Noksagt]

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

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

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

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

Re:yup

[ATMAvatar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:yup

[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

[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...

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...

[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...

[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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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..."

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Completely Off Topic: White Stripes/Citizen Kane

[angle_slam]

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

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

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

The Poodle's Core

[nikster]

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

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

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

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

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