Slashdot Mirror
The Effect of Pirated CDs
Moderation abuser writes "The real reasons music isn't selling as much as it used to, and not a lot to do with file sharing." I'm not sure that I agree that piracy is the reason for all of the music industry woes - I think creativity also has something to do with it, but those are still some huge numbers for pirated CDs.
They used to say "home taping" was killing music, now it's meant to be internet downloaders. But the real pirates these days are crime bosses - and the rewards are plentiful.
It's amazing I read this and immediately thought, "Crime Bosses, is this going to be about Record Industry Corporate Executives?"
But in all seriousness this quote is the most telling of all:
According to the RIAA's own figures, over the last two years the US music industry has produced 25% fewer CDs.
The peak of production was in 1999 when 38,900 individual titles were released. But by 2001 this was down to 27,000. Releases grew again in 2002 but were still below the previous high.
Musician George Ziemann says if only 3,000 copies of each of the "missing" CDs were sold, the fall in sales would be wiped out.
For Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Jupiter Research, the music is weathering a hangover after the 80s and 90s boom, when everyone was buying CD versions of their old vinyl records.
"Now the CD replacement cycle has drawn to a close," he says.
Also the global decline in CD sales is taking place against the background of a general economic recession that is depressing sales of almost everything.
When is the RIAA going to address these concerns? How can keep saying it's all file sharing when it's obvious these factors come into play.
Mike
The article contains an interesting point about the end of the replacement cycle, during which people bought CD's to replace their existing vinyl & cassette tapes. Where the music industry says that CD sales fell by 10%, it would be useful to see a split between newly-released material vs. titles released at least 10 years ago, and how these two groups fared.
On top of that issue, there are of course several other factors that are at work - the soft economy during 2001/2002, competitors for the teenage spending dollar, and of course the rise of online file trading. I know personally that I haven't bought a CD in a couple years, mostly due to the fact I haven't heard anything that compelling, but also that if I want a particular song (rather then blow $$$ on the whole CD), I can get it in a couple minutes online. If these knuckleheads could implement a useful, cheap service to pay for songs, I just might do it. But I want to be able to burn CD's to play in my car, and have access to a wide selection of music - not just one company's stable of trick ponies.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
... you can't have "spaced dirt" without "Pirated CDs".
It is very obvious that the main source of piracy are these people overseas who even sell the music for money. Why doesn't the RIAA take some kind of action against them instead of suing random people in the US who only share (for free) a few songs!?! Also, they should admit that people downloading are not the main source of piracy.
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
I realize the article cites organized crime as the real culprit ... but couldn't one of the other causes be the low quality of music?
... neither of whom could hold a candle to some of the rich-n-thick textures and beats of groups past such as George Plimpton's Parliment, the Tower of Power, or even going back further to the Beatles, who made some serious musical and technical innovation with renderings such as Yellow Submarine?
... it all sounds so contrived.
Meaning, as more and more merchandising of the performer comes into play, we get more and more "teenie-bopper" mediocrity such as Britney Spears and O-Town
I mean, now
Bah, perhaps its because I'm an old poop now.
--- have you healed your church website?
I really just don't get the people who buy these pirate CDs. There's no getting away from the fact that they know they are buying illegal copies - the photocopied covers and blue backs are just too blatent on every dodgy market stall I've seen.
What I find shocking, though, is that people would rather fork over 5 to a pirate for a burnt CD than on the one hand download the album for free or on the other order a perfectly legit copy from Amazon (or Play, or CDWow etc) for 9.
Apparently, people trust random pirates at car boot sales and markets not to rip them off more than they do Amazon, simply because "you can't trust strangers on the Internet".
So yes, I think that they are right to go after these guys - they hurt the industry far more than the odd fileshare does.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Change the price of a CD containing 18 tracks to $9.99 and sales will recover nicely. It's really that simple.
1. Because no loss of physical property = no theft.
2. Because copyright infringement isn't a big deal.
3. Because artists are getting screwed by the RIAA.
4. Because overall quality of music is down.
5. Because I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
6. Because information wants to be free!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Lets face it, the RIAA doesn't have an effective policy for sale and promotion on the Internet.
Firstly they screw over small webcasters, eliminating the hobbyist and enthusiast DJs (these are people doing it for love not profit and so should be encouraged).
Then they proceed to annoy everyone else online that has downloaded music (illegally yes, but it's infringement not theft under current laws).
Keep it up RIAA, keep us in the dark ages, the Internet had the possibility of being a new method for distributing and selling music but you blew it. You've sealed your demise.
you can have your observations, but they are moot.
SUPPORT THOSE BANDS THAT ALLOW THE FREE TRADING OF THEIR MUSIC!
I just went to a Dead show in Joliet, IL (I am still smacking myself for not going to the show in Somerset, WI as well as it is on my way home from IL). I saw quite a crowd there to see moe. (they didn't play due to a wrecked/rebuilt stage the night before), Robert Hunter, Bob Dylan, and The Dead.
Amazingly enough, these bands allow and promote the free trading of their music. Somehow, they are still able to turn QUITE a profit, make some INCREDIBLE music, and even have a steady following (Bob Dylan and The Dead have been playing for what 40+ years?)
Here's a list of bands that you SHOULD be supporting.
DMB, a band which is more in the mainstream, makes a pretty penny on CD sales AND touring sales. Imagine that, someone who allows his own stuff to be taped yet makes a profit.
Most of today's music is crap. Perhaps; appreciation of any particular genre or artist is subjective, of course, but I'm willing to concede that by objective comparison to the hits of the 1960s and 70s today's charttoppers are lyrically insipid and inferior not only in the design but also in the audio processing. Irregardless, this is no excuse for hosting 40GB of this tripe.
CD prices are too high, and are being illegally maintained at this level by the music cartel. Have a little class. We look up to the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party because not only were they assuming some risk but they also threw the shit into the harbor.
The artist sees next to nothing on CD sales; the tour's where the money is made. A comforting blanket statement that not only legitimises the theft but also makes it an act of solidarity on behalf of the downtrodden artists. Look, I read the articles by Albini and Love too, but this is a completely ludicrous argument. We're not privy to the majority of industry contracts. There's no guarantee a tour is going to make an artist a fair amount of money, especially if it's being balanced against a lousy CD royalties agreement or what have you. At the end of the day, any money that ends up in the artist's pocket is going to be appreciated by most of them.
They'll never catch me. Not only is this a 'whistling past the graveyard' sort of argument, but they shouldn't have to even be out there trying to catch you in the first place -- if you really care about the plight of the artists or how much you're spending on CDs, there are so many activities you can do that will actually have a positive effect.
Indies are doing everything the pirates supposedly want the RIAA to do, but they're still struggling. Call it theft, call it copyright infringement, but at the end of the day it's just people wanting to get something for nothing.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
First problem is creativity. I haven't purchased a CD in 6 years. I haven't pirated I've just listened to the radio and borrowed CD's from friends. I'm an artist and object to pirating on principal.
The second problem is piracy. I say piracy second because the really good work that's done isn't pirated like the pop trendy teenie bopper music is. Peopl may download a really great song but will typically then go out and buy the album.
It's been a long long while since a new artist came out that was actually talented. I played better than most of these tards when I was in 8th grade. Where did all the Bob Dylans go, the Janis Joplins, the Stevie Ray Vaughns and B.B. Kings? Clapton is a memory and the Bettles are history. Good bands like Jimmy Eats World and Weezer barely get played, drowned out by Brittany Spears and J.Lo.
Turn on MTV and watch for about an hour. Keep track with a pencil and paper, count how many of these pop artists actually play an instrument. Then count how many of those actually write their own music. It's disgraceful to call these people "professional". They in no way act professional. They neither write music, play music nor perform it. They have dance instructors for the performances and lipsync the albums.
With all of this how can I as a consumer respect the music? If I don't respect it why in the world would I buy it?
I think creativity also has something to do with it
Oh, come on, you sound like an old man. There are so many good CDs out there that you could buy one a week for the rest of your life and still not hear them all, and that's assuming no more CDs were ever released between now and then. If you don't like pop crap like Mariah Carey and Kid Rock, you don't have to listen to it. But there's so much more out there than that.
Moreover, the real damage Napster did to the music industry wasn't lost sales. Instead, it created an "ala carte" mindset in that same once-loyal cd-buying demographic. Put another way, my kid won't buy an entire cd when he likes maybe only a couple of songs. CDs are a package deal, and the package deal is dead. Ultimately, the recording industry could do themselves a real favor by reviving singles.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Playing Devil's Advocate though, 3 years ago, broadband isn't as popular as it is now.. it used to take 20 minutes for me to download a song (err.. if I were to download a song..), and many longer for an album (obviously), but nowadays, with speed blazing, it takes maybe 20-30 minutes to download the entire album!
So that has definite contributions..
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
Clearchannel. Most people have historically been introduced to new acts through radio. For the 80's MTV also fell under this. Now we have Clearchannel having the same rotation of bought timeslots coast to coast 24*7, it becomes so predictable that I actually knew how many minutes after the hour it was one night because of the back to back songs that came on, they were the same ones that had been played at those same minutes 6 hours previously when I had entered the clients site! Also MTV is the same way (not that they ever had a super broad list of artist) anymore, the manager of MTV even talked recently about super heavy rotation where some of the few videos would be played even MORE times a day, it's not like MTV even plays that many videos anymore.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I think the distinction needs to be made between a lost sale (and therefore lost revenue) and someone getting a copy for free.
Too often the music industry (and the software industry, and many other industries) simply state that they have lost X amount because those people didn't purchase their copy.
You need to instead consider whether they would have actually aquired it if they had to pay for it. For instance a student with 200 gigs of music would not possibly have bought that music if it wasn't downloadable, so the loss is actually nothing.
The same may apply here, I really don't know. They cite markets like China where these pirates operate, but China does not strike me as the main audiance for American music. Further, they have a long history of piracy, I am not sure if you can honestly say they have stopped purchasing recently.
This isn't to say that I think piracy should be legal - there is no reason that people should enjoy the benefit for free merely because they would not have purchased it - however you cannot merely count the number of pirated copies as lost sales, most likely a legitimate copy would never have been bought.
There were creativity slumps before there was piracy, and consumers just started buying the more creative artists eventually, forcing the record labels to adapt.
See Rock N Roll, New Wave, Grunge, etc.
Why doesn't the RIAA take some kind of action against them instead of suing random people in the US who only share (for free) a few songs!?!
Maybe because they are the Recording Industry of America not the RIWA (World). Their ability to get the Chinese govt to do anything is slim and none.
I download music that I don't own. If that makes me a music pirate, so be it. I've been doing it for a long time. That's not the point of this post.
I've found that my exposure to a diverse range of music has increased significantly due to the availablity of cheap (read: free) music. My friends have told me about bands that I'm sure that they wouldn't have heard about if not for file trading. I have been to concerts that I wouldn't have seen if not for file trading. I have bought band merchandice that I wouldn't have thought about buying before. I have heard music that has changed my life. I would not have had these experiences without file trading.
I give money back to bands or music acts that I really like. I still buy CDs, although very few of them and usually only to get high quality recordings instead of MP3s/oggs.
File trading has changed music in the way it is made and listened to, whether the RIAA likes it or not.
MMORPG fan-boy? Prove your worth
I'd think that stores like Best Buy had a much bigger contribution in shutting down places like the Music Warehouse. Hmmm, should I buy a cd for $12 at Best Buy or $20 at Sam Goody? The only reason that anyone I know goes to Sam Goody is when they can't find a cd they want at Best Buy (which isn't often), and when they do they whine about having to pay so much more. Piracy probably had some effect on those stores, but I have a feeling they closed because Best Buy is better at selling cds.
p.s. are funny mods bad for karma?
(For any other audiophiles out there who subscribe to Goldmine, you've probably already read their article on the state of the industry. For those who haven't, allow me to summarize.)
For as long as music has been for sale an interesting economic trend has emerged. As a new format is produced (sheet music, player pianos, records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc.) it's sales are small at first. As the format catches on, sales boom. People are buying music in the new format left and right (both new music and old music which they may or may not already own). As time goes on (typically takes 20 years) sales decline. The format is not "new and cool." People have purchased the majority of the back catalouge that they are interested in. Sales are limited mainly to newer releases (although back-catalouge sales still exist, just not in massive quantities).
Just about the time this happens, a new format for music distribution is released. This new format has classically featured improved quality and/or convience. After sheet music, the big thing was pre-recorded music. "That's right kids, you don't have to play it anymore! Just listen!" Later, records were replaced by cassettes "No more scratch and it's portable!!" Yay Walkman and Boombox!
Then CD's "No more switching sides and much better quality!" Horray for the Disc man, CD players, and computers.
But the CD format has been around for over 20 years now. People own the back catalouges that they want and will buy any new music that they want.
The music industry lacks a new format that can easily replace CDs. Although DVD-Audio offers much better quality and capacity, consumers have just finished replacing all of their records with CDs. They have installed CD players in their car. They have purchased home stereos, disc men, boom-boxs, and CD-Roms. The economy is down. Consumers won't shell out money to convert to another format now, espcially since the only thing that DVD audio has to offer is better quality and capacity. Many CDs right now don't fill to their capacity (how many of us have CDs that are only 30 or 40 mintues long?!) and many cd players have crappy speakers. In order to really get the quality of a DVD audio disc you need a *good* player, something which costs lots of $$$ and therefore won't sell like hot cakes.
Consumers are happy with CDs.
Although I believe that MP3s and priated CDs are stealing some sales from the record industry (lets face it, they have lost money from the college aged group), they are very few adults which are actually downloading music at a rate that would cause such a drastic deline in sales.
In fact, the Goldmine article pointed out that percentage wise, the decline in CD sales is no worse than the drop in sales that ALL formats before CD suffered on their decline.
The only way for the record industry to get the sales it wants is to get consumers to convert to a new format.
Or to release a bunch of *great* music. I'm talking a contemporary Beatles, the Who, Rolling Stones, Doors, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, Eretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, and hell, even another N'Sync or Brittney. (although these last two aren't music greats, they are niche markets which will produce a large number of sales)
It's an economics thing, not a piracy thing.
Album format is dead get over it!
Customers have spoken! They want single songs.. provide and your sales go up..don't and you die by customer hands..very simple Business 101..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
People are selling the same music that the RIAA sells, often for as low as $4 per CD, and are making a killing.
Doesn't this align quite well with what we've said all along? If the RIAA was willing to drop the price of legitimate media to $4 or $5 a copy, record stores might suddenly find themselves with a market again.
If I could go to a record store with $60 and take home ten titles, I'd find it worth my while. As it is, I'd be lucky to take home four albums for that price, and it's just not worth the effort.
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I can see where downloading new titles could account for some not buying cd's. But how much of that goes on? I must admit I download very little music. If I did, it'd likely be older titles. Frankly, older songs should be made available at a discount in my opinion, but the music stores and RIAA doesn't do this. While I don't condone piracy or stealing or the like, it is interesting to sit back and watch the music industry get screwed the way they've hurt so many bands. I think the reality is that downloading is going to occur. What the RIAA is doing is trying to plug each hole as it occurs not realizing that there are just too many and that it's time for a new ship. People are tired of the current pricing structure. Now, what is RIAA going to do about it? If they keep this strategy of going after the millions of downloaders, they're just going to hurt their business in the long run. >
Is that an assertion that stores get a refund from their suppliers on all shoplifted merchandise?
Theft from a store is stealing from the store - the label has been paid for that CD.
Unlawful duplication+distribution is taking unfair advantage of the record label.
You're the one getting a bit confused:
/., lots of us are scientists. A major difference between scientists and priests (whether of recognised religions or of the church of intellectual property) is that scientists reject circular logic.
The notion that you're depriving the "owner" of the song revenue is an example of the fallacies of circular logic and assuming the result. Calling the guy the owner is assuming the result, and the circular logic lies in assuming the value of a work because it is copyrighted, then using that assumed value to justify copyright. Here on
There is also a major difference between locking someone in a basement until they starve to death, and copying something - in the basement scenario, you're denying the person physical freedom. In the copying scenario, you're not denying the "owner" (your term) of the song the right to go do some real work instead of sitting enjoying himself making songs and assuming he deserves compensation. In fact, the "owner", in collusion with the state, is denying you the physical freedom to copy information you have.
As far as I'm concerned, the guy asserting "ownership" over all copies of some information, not just his, is the criminal.
well, the record company still sees the revenue on the cd you buy at the 2nd hand store. their issue is that they only see the revenue once and not three times and more.
this article is nothing to do with the reasons for decreased sales in America: it's about piracy on an industrial scale, which is primarily a problem in developing nations.
I do know that when I was in college (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away), I could buy three vinyl LP's for under $20 when they were on sale, and I'd do that on a pretty regular basis, probably every two weeks or so. These days, 20 CD's in a year is probably an overestimate.
CD's cost too much. They probably cost a bit more than the old vinyl, but should be cheaper to produce than cassettes. And why does the latest pop pap cost $19, or maybe $13 on sale, yet the record labels will push a disc out to BestBuy for $7 or $9 for a hot new artist? They must be able to make money on that, so why not all the time?
I buy a fair amount from BMG music club. Their shipping prices suck, but it's a good way to catch up on back catalog, when they've got "Buy one, get three free" or "Buy one, everything else for $1.99" sales.
I don't download music. I hate headphones, and my current car CD player won't play CDRs, nor will my DVD player attached to the home theater. Yeah, I could replace those, but I'm not in a hurry.
So where's the problem here? I'd buy more if I knew I was getting a decent disc. WXRT in Chicago used to be a bastion of new music, digging deep into the tracks on a disc. Now, they're barely above the level of a top-40 station, but to a different demographic. And they answer to Viacom. And they're advertising more.
At this rate, I'll be like my parents: listening to the same dozen artists for the rest of my life, because I can't stand to turn on the radio to find out if anything's better.
But there's cool new stuff out there, and I've been lucky to find it:
How do you find it? Stay away from the mega-stadiums, and visit a club, coffeehouse, small theater. Actually listen to the opening
act! They're often at higher energy than the headliners, because they've got more to gain.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Let's talk fact. What we're talking about is not piracy, is not theft, it's copyright infringement which has it's own set of laws and regulations. The RIAA/MPAA hope that by associating more negative words with the act of copyright infringement they'll disuade the general public from infringement - just like all those FBI warnings at the beginning of VHS tapes is supposed to disuade home users from copying the tapes.
The fact is that IP laws are difficult to enforce especially during a time when so many other things seem more important. Additionally the bigger problem for MPAA/RIAA is not home user swapping but the rampant copyright infringement of counterfitting happening in Asia and the third world nations. Those areas are the only areas these companies have to grow into and they can't because the black market is so much cheaper and more convenient for the consumer.
These corporations know exactly what the cause of their current financial problems are. Should they admit that the problem is just a cycle or due to their own inability to react consumers requests for services and the consumers changing taste in music? Yes. Will they? No.
They need to keep shareholders investing money. The way to do that is to show that sales are artificially slowed due to "piracy". If "piracy" were stopped their sales would be up - so just wait to sell that stock because they're on top of it.
The fact is that many consumers who are internet enabled are finding that there's a wider range of music available online than there is at Sam Goody. They're finding that Sam Goody has stopped selling the music they like to listen to and has turned into little more than a top 40 store. They've also found that some of the artists that they liked that Sam Goody et al still sell, have jumped to the pop ship and no longer have any edge.
Since being online my music tastes have shifted because I've been able to find music from Germany, France, Japan, Russia, etc. Plus I've been able to find more independent bands that fit my tastes instead of "Joe Radio Listener" (which is who Sam Goody typically stocks for).
The fact is that Sam Goody and all the little mall music stores chains are getting hit hard and it has less to do with copyright infringement than it does to do with changing times. Wal-mart can sell a CD for $13 and Sam Goody sells the same CD for $18.99. While Sam Goody et al are going out of business a lot of local independent record shops that don't cater to the top/pop 40 crowd are thriving. They're thriving because they have or can get what people really want and that generates loyalty and cash flow.
I know plenty of file swappers. I know those that buy no music, but then they didn't before file swapping. I know those, like my friend Laurie, who downloads gigs of music a week, but also spends about $60 a month on new CD's (not CDR's). I don't think it's accurate to say that EVERY file swapper is infringing, nor is it accurate to say (and studies have proven this) that file swappers purchasing decreases.
Mostly people are buying at Wal-mart or wherever happens to be convenient to shop and not making special trips to the mall for what they can get at any store close to home. It used to be that you could get something different at a music specialty store like Sam Goody - that's no longer true.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Don't forget that in some cases it's the very act of making it that kills a singers voice. I saw Jewel before her album came out and she had a simply amazing voice, then I saw her again after it came out and she had been touring for a while, her voice was still better than most, but not nearly as dynamic or amazing as before. Then I heard her on a live recording slightly before she took her long hiatus, her voice was all ripped up. The simple act of touring and singing so much to promote herself was killing her wonderfull voice. It takes a LOT to be able to sing well every other night, most voices don't hold out, especially more delicate female ones.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Well maybe if the CD didn't cost $18+ I might be willing to actually buy it, but when music that was release 15 years ago is selling for 17.99 on a disc I could have bought back then for $14.99. Most music to me isn't worth $18+ I have no problem at $12 to pick up a disc. Even if it's for 2 songs, but that additional $6 makes a huge difference in my decision making.
If it's a lack of availability of different types of music, why they fuck are all the top forty artists the ones being downloaded on P2P apps?
People say this all the time, "I hate the music the RIAA is making now, artists these days suck, the songs suck, I hate buying CD's with 1 or 2 good songs and 12 tracks of filler crap", while happily downloading every Top40 hit from a P2P App. Which is it? Does the music suck, or do they just want it for free? Because if it REALLY sucked, I imagine they wouldn't be downloading the same artists they keep saying suck.
I think that the RIAA got used to the (illegally) obscene margins on CDs and tought that people would buy the same old crap at the same rate FOREVER.
Now they're hurting because:
1)They've been dragged into anti-trust courts and lost, (the prices for CDs aren't going to rise for a while,)
2)Everybody's tossed out their old turntable and albums a long time ago and have replaced what LPs they though were worth replacing and that source of funds has dried up FOREVER (CDs last a lot longer than LPs.)
3)Recycling may be good for the environment and for lounge/live acts but its lethal for record sales. Most people don't want to shell out more money for yet another cover of the same old song (most people can't tell one version from another after a couple of beers,) and they don't.
4)The RIAA is not capable of creating content, they can only try to make money from it. The more they meddle in the processs, the more it sound like music created by and for accountants. Its really hard to make a move on somebody accompanied by the sound of ringing cash registers.
5)They got used to the marging and never planned for when they would end and the river would run slowly and sluggishly.
Now they're attacking their only reason for living, their only source of funds, the people who 'd buy CDs if they didn't feel so ripped off and insulted at some of the shlock that's pushed at them.
I predict accelerating death for the xxAAs.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Perhaps the decline in music purchases has something to do with other competition for discretionary spending. Although there have always been other entertainment options, many of the music purchasers may now be spending their leisure dollars on video games, software, movies, downloadable tunes for their cell phones or even hardware to play them on. The record industry has to realize that consumers have a fixed amount to spend on entertainment and needs to compete for those dollars. In the past, music buyers didn't have as many other options for their entertainment spending. I suspect if you looked at the total spending on entertainment it has gone up, but music is just taking a smaller share of the that spending.
There's no guarantee a tour is going to make an artist a fair amount of money, especially if it's being balanced against a lousy CD royalties agreement or what have you.
A tour is going to make you a fair amount of money if you play decent music live. Problem with the crybaby artists is that they tend to suck ass when it comes to live performances.
Check out this poster's comment. We have the amazing ability these days to make shitty people sound great on the CD but they still suck terribly live.
I posted this comment about recent chart toppers (Hootie and Norah Jones) begin bought in drove on the CD rack but completely sucking ass live.
I have no respect for those people that can't really sing and are being marketed as these wonderful artists.
Show me that you are worth the money and then I might support you when you come out w/a CD. I refuse to do it the other way around.
After reading a bunch of these comments, am I the only Slashdotter that still buys CDs? I download an MP3 of a song I like, and a few more from that artist. If I like the songs, I buy the CD.
:)
I would never pay for MP3s because the quality isn't as good as a CD, plus I feel like I should get something tangible if I pay for it.
Also the "I don't buy CDs because nothing original has been released in the past 5 years" response is a cop-out. Newsflash: Britney Spears isn't the ONLY person who has released a CD in the past 5 years... look around there are a few gems out there, you just have to look places other than MTV.
And if you REALLY don't want to support the RIAA, just buy all your CDs from CD Baby. They may not have the artist you're looking for, but they probably have an artist who sounds a lot like em.
According to the RIAA, CD sales dropped by 10% in 2001 and a further 6.8% last year, largely because of file sharing.
The IFPI's Commercial Music Piracy 2003 report, produced in early July, reveals pirate CD sales rose 14% in 2002 and exceeded one billion units for the first time.
so that means (using RIAA's simplistic logic) that file sharing has, in fact, increased legitimate CD sales by 3.2%.
Why should we not value the ability to make a great sounding album? I rarely go to live shows; almost all the music I hear is recorded. If they sound great on the CD, then for my purposes, they are not shitty.
Are you really arguing that if someone doesn't put on a good live show, they don't deserve to make money for producing a great CD? Seems like they don't deserve to make money performing live.
I've seen live bands that totaly rocked, and been awfully disapointed by their albums. I've owned albums that were great but not expected the live band to live up, assuming I ever had the chance to go see them (unlikely).
It seems to me that live performance and CD production are two different (but related) art forms. I don't see why one should be declared the "real" one, or why an artists failure in one should justify ripping off their work in the other. If a band produced a lame album, would it justify sneaking in to their concert?
Anyone else tired of talking about this subject?
I really, really tire of complaining about the music industry, and the music industry complaining right back. Personally, for all of the lies, insane justifications, and pure virtriolic hate coming from both sides, I could personally care less anymore if I turn on a radio, or listen to a CD and all I get is static. Never before has so many billions and so many lawsuits come out of such a useless part of our society. People, it is just organized sounds.
Headphones with user end licenses. Internet computers not being allowed to communicate with each other. Capitol hill attorneys. Rock stars that are now internet experts. Music snobs. Federal laws. Soundtracks that cost more than the DVD. Nine thousand lawsuits a day.
The music is crap. The said justifications for overpricing said music is crap. The stealing of music is crap. Consequently, justifying stealing music is crap. It's all crap that is not worth our time.
I think I'm going to go outside to hear the birds chirping with a little highway noise arpeggio in the background. Unless I am not allowed to anymore. I am not listening to any more CDs than what I have. I am not downloading a thing ever again. I am not listening to the radio anymore.
I choose to not participate anymore in any of this. If it bankrupts a company or two, if some kids go to jail over some tunes, so be it. But no one is getting my money, support, or time on this crap ever again.
The govenment is only able to mandate what is punishable by itself, and what is not. It does not, and should never try, to dictate morals. While I realize that a lot of people base their sense of wrong and right on what is illegal and legal, there is no reason to expect that anyone else will. Remeber, morals are like religion, everyone has, and is entitled to their own views. The place of law is to step in when those views create an unresolvable conflict. Basically, you're more than welcome to view things, as right and wrong, from the perspective of the current law, but please don't try and force such beliefs on the rest of us.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
i buy vinyl about every week. mostly used, but also a lot of new.
also there is a TON of good music out there. it's not forced down your throat, you have to look for it, but if you support your LOCAL record store instead of best buy and tower, there's too much good music. i could spend $1000 tomorrow and still not have all the titles i want; and, really, i'd be ok paying it because i typically like every song on the album and keep it for a long time. the same is true with all media, the crap will always filter to the top. you have to dig trhough it to get something worthwhile.
!(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
The fact that fewer commercial CDs were produced and marketed is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that piracy was the cause, or at least one of the causes, of decreased CD sales. It may be the case that for a marginal band the record company projection that "X" number of CD sales will be lost to piracy is enough to tip the decision from "Yes, we'll produce and promote the CD" to "No, we won't produce and promote the CD because we don't think we'll recoup our money." But for the projected amount of piracy and lost sales, the CD would have been produced and marketed.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
As someone who has been behind the board for more shows than he cares to remember...Bull!
A real performer who performs vocal exercices regularly, who rehearses continously her instrument (voice) learns how to take care of her vocal chords.
You cant just sit on your ass, go to awards and give in-depth interviews to ET and then jump up and decide to tour.
The problem is that with most pop musicians they do not know how to perform or how to keep their voice healthy since they tour like you say to 'promote' an album. Touring is notthing more than a way to sell their album.
I remember someone asking BB King why he still performed regularly even though he was financially set (one of the rare bluesmen who wont die broke, screwed by the industry).
You know his answer? Im a musician: I perform in front of people for a living..that's what I do.
Pop stars are NOT performers.
Go to any good club in your town and you will see scores of professional musicians and singers who sing in dinky little clubs day in, day out under less than ideal conditions and they know what they have to do to make sure that their voice holds.
Im always stunned when I hear 'artists' with 3-4 albums like Janet Jackson a few years back, claim that they are nervous about their first tour or first concert. How the hell can you be halfway through your career and not have sung live before?
Hell, I think that live performing should be an obligation before making a cd (cuz we know that technology can even make Eddie Murphy sound good...funny as hell but technically good).
I understand what youre saying but its a cop out.
We've been so programmed to buy into the whole 'star' discovery or creation system that we forget that these youngsters have no real performance experience apart from their cute T&A.
I saw at the Montreal Jazz Fest Diana Krall recently and her touring schedule is exhausting yet she still manages to sound as good live as on her cds. Read a bit on her rehearsal regimen and how she takes care of her voice.
Ill bet you the only exercice Jewel gets for her voice when she's on a 11 month a year break is ordering the Krispy Kremes.
Then she needs to see a voice coach and learn to take better care of her voice. There are plenty of other performers in the stage and operatic arenas that sing just as often, if not more, and sing more demanding material, and manage to keep their voices in top form without much difficulty. Don't take this as a slam on Jewel - I've done musical theatre for more than 20 years and I've known plenty of folks that simply run their voices too hard when they don't have to because they simply didn't know better - when you have a delicate coloratura like Jewel's, it requires a little more diligence.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This is yet another example of the BBC news site telling stories like they are.. they don't demonise computer users and file sharers as 'filthy robbing pirates putting the hardworking people of the music industry out of work' but actually write informative and well researched stories.
Admittedly a few shaky ones slip through (like their blatant nVidia advert a few weeks ago) but overall I find them to be the Google equivilant of news.. fast, free, and very interesting.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
In fact, it's time to repeal the royalty payment on DAT tapes. Nobody puts music on them, but they're still widely used as backup media. It's worth pushing a bit on that just to make it clear to the RIAA that the "music tax" era is over.
When talking about this, always use the phrase "music tax". Especially when talking to Republican officeholders.
A simple, real world example is me. I don't download MP3s to fill my music collection, but I did used to download a few to check our new bands recomended by friends. Those usually led to me buying new CDs. I used to buy quite a few more CDs than I do now. To be honest, over the last 3 years: broadcast radio has gone into the toilet (no new music & lousy selection), CD prices have gone up (they were already expensive), money is much tighter than it used to be, and my life has changed; I'm now more likely to spend money on my house/cars/kids/etc. than the overpriced CDs I would have bought a few years ago. Another big FYI; my parents are also buying fewer vinyl albums and tapes than they did 20 years ago! My kids are buying fewer CDs than I did tapes at their age; but they're not downloading either. My oldest daughter actually listens to much of the stuff I do - stuff released 10 years ago. Her thoughts are the same; there is very little good new music hitting the stores.
In most any bar in NYC during happy hour (and probably later - but I mostly get happy then go home) a recent Asian immigrant will come in with a bag or briefcase full of pirate CDs - mostly classic rock and current best sellers. Typically they'll easily sell about a half-dozen per bar at $10 each. Since bars in NYC tend to be in concentrations where a someone on foot can easily visit a dozen bars per hour, if the salesperson is making $5 per CD, that's real money.
From the ethnicity I assume the stuff is coming out of China. It's easy enough to stash some CDs in the containers coming into Chinatown, and hardly the thing Customs is most anxious about in Newark and NYC these days. Then again, if Customs is paying attention, it would be easy enough to set up a CD replication plant in the same digs as the garment sweatshops the Chinese are also running around the city.
Attributing this to "gangsters" seems a bit much though. I doubt the tongs are especially involved. This is more just the way Chinese culture does business - ducking the government as much as possible is considered common sense, not criminal. If we had their experience with government, we would too. (Or, if we were enterprising friends of Geo. Bush like Ken Lay, we would anyhow.)
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"What about song writters that get their publishing cut ONLY from the album sales."
Then he needs to change his contract terms. What's that? The world doesn't work like that?
Face it, the world's changed. I don't like much how it's changed, but it has. Deal.
"Not everyone can sell a tshirt. Not everyone has the desire to be on stage."
Well, if we're going off desire, I don't want to have to work Monday-Friday, 50+ weeks/year plus any overtime. But I'll do it, 'cause I need the money.
You've got the world bass-ackwards here.
"the guy was paying his house payments about a year ago on the royalties of just 3 songs that are less than 15 years old"
So?
I'm not still getting paid for the work I did last year. Neither's he. Boo-hoo, my heart bleeds.
It's very simple. If his song-writing isn't making him enough to live on, it's time to find a new job. He may not like it, but we're not talking about what he wants. We're talking about what is.
Deal.
"Now the CD replacement cycle has drawn to a close,"
Yep. That pretty well describes my CD buying pattern. I replaced the LPs that were broken, lost, flood damaged or scratched. I also wanted them on CD for convenience. Except that some were never released on CD. I got those via file-swapping. Later, I aquired the means to rip them myself. So, the RIAA thinks I'm a pirate. They are the ones with the eyepatch and the parrot on their shoulder. So, now I've replaced these albums. There ain't much new stuff I want. I know there are people who can play today but you'll probably never hear 'em. They don't fit the mold. That's why I think the music business died a little over 20 years ago. It's been kept alive largely by the replacement market but now that's played out.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Look at the experiments.
In the test case, they broke their own rules for success:
(A)the quality of their SmartDoc software is suspect (it "only took a couple of days to put together"),
(B)and it's not something people really want/need except a slight niche that very possibly will use it once or twice, and never again, for what it's used for.
Further, there are any number of things that skew the results:
#1 -- shareware that is crippled inevitably gets really bad reviews on shareware sites, while PoNC gets nice reviews, especially when the software is something people tend to want. As far as utilities go, the community has decided that they don't like crippleware. While this attracts more freeloaders, there are many one-shot users, and the reviews will steer those who intend to buy towards non-crippled software unless the crippleware is just completely brilliant.
#2 -- Prevalence of one-shot or "once in a blue moon" users abound. Crippling the features isn't a great way to get them to buy; offering EXTRA above and beyond the functionality, such as shareware games in episodes, was the best way to go about it. Offer a free download, and a pay-for-full download, and see what happens.
This is not a black and white issue. Shades of grey run rampant.
It is a real problem, since there is the precedent of libraries
having made copyrighted material available to anyone who wanted to read, listen, view, copy, etc, for scores and scores of years.
Is it illegal to lend a cd to someone? And if not, in what manner can something be lent to someone? Can you read a book, then discuss and provide the detailed information in that book. As a fiddler, I often learn tunes from books, then I share that tune with another? Using the RIAA's
viewpoint, you would be in violation of copyright, since it is transmission of musical information outside of their money earning.
If a law makes *everyone* a criminal, that law is bogus.
If one were to take the RIAA's stance on everything, I would be in violation of the copyright, merely PLAYING a fiddle tune I learned from a copyrighted book, unless royalties were paid.
So you cannot say that you can only provide that information to another if you provide the original form (CD, tape, record, DVD, photograph), since we have, for decades, circumvented that procedure in our schools, living rooms, political discussions, etc. Once you have information in your head, does it cease to become copyrighted?
Likewise, when you put a melody on a network, allowing another to listen to it, are you violating copyright?
When you broadcast a tune on the radio, and someone tapes it, are you violating copyright by broadcasting it? Are you violating copyright by taping it?
With that answer, then consider that if someone wears a Jerry Garcia tie, and then you take their picture, are you violating copyright? What is the difference between recording a broadcast and photographing your buddy with their tie?
If you are listening to a cd and someone calls you on the phone, overhearing it, are you violating copyright, since you are engaging in a digital transfer of information that is copyrighted? Note that phone conversations are digitally encoded and transferred.
All these sorts of things involve "fair use", which the RIAA is trying to totally eliminate, such as their attempts at making it impossible to do some fair use activities, by intentionally making damaged cds that won't play on certain equipment (violating their implicit contract with Phillips, the CD patent holder, IIRC).
The scale by which this "fair use" can be done has grown immensely, however, through the digital sharing possible on the internet, so this has to be worked out. The RIAA wants as much money as it can get (notice that this doesn't mean that the artists get any money from the material, it is the recording industry that receives the money, sometimes sharing some of it with the artist).
Studies were also done which showed that the file sharing of music actually increased music sales, rather than depressed them. Studies have also been done that showed the reverse. So what is the "truth?"
And then think about the money that you contribute to the RIAA everytime you buy a cd or tape (I imagine minidiscs are included in this boondoggle as well) that goes to their "royalty" income because they assume you are violating copyrights with that media. So that sounds like I have permission to record copyrighted material, since I am paying for the privilege to do so, when I buy the blank media.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of musicians making money off their music. But this current setup is amiss.
I suspect, that in the long run, all music will be digitally
transferred and the RIAA will go away. People will store the
information as they wish, and the artists will benefit, because the huge "middleman" is gone. But also, the chance for a great lessening in quality is there.
Also note that if individual songs were purchasable, then the sales of "filler" music (the 11 other songs that suck on the album) go away, and the result is that they make about 10% of what they did. Maybe that would mean be
I hope you mean that music consumption is not the most important thing in life. Because music in itself is very important. It is one of the few things that define humanity (i.e. sets us apart from all other animals)