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
I have a lot of family, a lot of friends, and a lot of coworkers (all in all, about 50 people that I converse with weekly, and at least 15 of whom I converse with daily). All but a few of them participate in music piracy. All of them used to buy cassettes and CDs. I can't remember the last time that I saw any of them even set foot in a music store. I don't know anyone that has purchased a CD in the past year. I have one friend that is a manager at a Warehouse music, the other worked at Sam Goody's. The Sam Goody's closed down, after 6 years of doing awesome business, three years ago sales slowed to a crawl. You want to know what their biggest selling products were? Blank CD/RWs and MP3 players. The Warehouse Music is a pitiful shell of it's former self - they now sell more movies and blank CD/RWs than music. And despite this lack of sales in record stores, millions of songs created by today's modern artists are downloaded daily - even though they supposedly suck and lack creativity bla bla bla.
I can't be alone in my observations.
People can blame a lack of creativity, a reduction in available albums, etc. But I find it amazing that people are so quick to dismiss the effects that rampant, undeniable piracy is having on the music industry. I stopped buying music years ago because I realized that the prices were too high. However, my morals prevent me from stealing, hence I do not pirate music.
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.
"The real reasons music isn't selling as much as it used to, and not a lot to do with file sharing."
Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we could all visualize complete sentences?
Sigh
Download my free songs!
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?
If you look on the Eff website, it has some interesting ways in compensating the artists if you don't want to buy their CDs.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
..Here are some other huge numbers:
1 million
237 Billion
A Hundred Kajillion!
Wow! those sure are some big numbers I just made up. And I bet I know where those losses come from - Radio. Think about it, where else can you get *TONS* of music for free? And after hearing how damn crappy most of it is, who's going to buy the cd?
air and light and time and space
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.
Consumer Backlash is a poorly understood concept, but I believe the "Music Industry" is now experiencing it. I've been bitter ever since the price of tapes rose dramatically. This was followed by CD's where I not only re-purchased most of my music library, but was forced to purchase so many "Albums" to get individual songs. After thousands of dollars spent, hundreds of CD's which slowly became scratched and degraded, and complete inability to listen to a constant stream of songs I liked (again forced into the Album mentality), I've had it.
Now "The Industry" is suing their own customers!
I haven't purchased a single CD for five years, and I don't plan to ever purchase another. I am content to listen to the radio.
Torsten
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?
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
So, all they pay is for duplicating the cd and leaching off of someone else's work, and you're using that as an example of why prices should be lower?
Please subscribe to see the more insightful version of th
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.
Pirate CDs sell more than original in Argentina. On every train station, on every main door of a college, there are informal booth offering prirated CDs. Sometimes is a table, and sometimes is just a fabric on the street with the CDs on. They have color photocopied cover. Official CDs costs around 10 USD, and illegal ones, between 1 and 2 USD. When most people earn 200 USD for month, there is no choice.
People who can't affort Internet access, buys this cheaper CDs. Almost nobody buys original CDs.
Another popular way of getting CDs, is asking them to your favorite software dealer. They send it on MP3 or wav, as you wish.
At least here, downloading music is not something RIAA should take care for. There are other issues more important for them (like the booth at every train station full of illegal CDs).
DNA in your Linux: DNALinux
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
(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.
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've bought maybe 2 CD in the last few years. Even that wasn't new music - I think the Stones and Floyd. Also, I don't use any sort of downloading service. Quite frankly, there isn't anything I want.
I think I'm the poster child for the "lack of content" angle. I have money. I'm sick of my old CDs. I'd like good, new CD's. But they keep throwing a bunch of shit at us, and what decent music they give us is mastered so shitty (see slashdot last friday) that it's unlistenable.
BTW, if anyone knows of any decent, modern bands in the spirit of great 60's and 70's rock, I'd be damn grateful. Major label or indie, I don't care.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Was wondering how many /.'ers listen to vinyl, and how has this affected their music purchases.
I have been the pround owner of a VPI Aires Scout for almost a year now.
Although I listen to alot of classical, I found that my wallet took a beating when I went shopping for classical CD's. Little did I know that the same music is available on vinyl, and it's availalble for as little as a dollar.
I recently picked up 3 mint classical records at the New York City Opera thrift shop for a buck a peice. One of these titles on CD still command close to fifteen dollars (on sale, 16.99 regular price)at the local Tower Records.
I also find my vinyl listening session are less iritating on my ears and last longer.
I won't deny that p2p networks have an effect on record sales... But i sometimes wonder how much of an effect.
There's been a few times where i've gotten hold of a couple of mp3s from an obscure band that that i totally dug. And i went out to buy the CD.
Another case in point- I've got a pile of CDs that are many years old, plus tapes and vinyl that are even older. Most of this older stuff i would buy on CD, but they've been out of print for years and years.
Call me guitly, but i just spent the weekend ripping songs and copying CDs for my dad. 6 albums in total. If i could go to a store and buy him the retail version i would, but they're simply not available.
Another case in point-
Some years ago i licensed a few of *my* tunes to be used as commercial spots. I've never seen a dime. I've never heard these tunes on t.v. or radio either, but that's not the point- you pay to use them whether you do or not. I can't afford a lawyer right now to chase them. So i'm out $10K.
You'd think that the RIAA would be all over this, as it is thier job to protect the rights and property of musicians.
Nope. Sorry. "Your claim is insignificant compared to most. Go away."
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
In the article it mentions that 1) some of the piracy is coming from major labels copying their rivals CDs (with 2 major RIAA companies having been fined twice), 2) the RIAA is producing 25% fewer CDs than it did even 10 years ago ,and 3) most of the money lost by the music industry is being drained by organized crime syndicates, not P-2-P swappers.
Of course the RIAA is afraid and targeting domestic file-swapping. Congressional lobbying/bribing allows them to use their muscle most effectively on their home turf (US Soil). Domestic file-swapping is also a source of revenue drain, just not the primary one. Yet they are afraid because their revenues are down despite having produced fewer units to sell. Their prices are inflated to the point that file-swappers often feel that they are pseudo-Robin Hoods that steal from the rich RIAA and give to themselves and others. The few bad apples who flagrantly do this in violation of copyrights on a large scale "justify" the RIAA "anti-piracy" efforts in the mass media, which the RIAA subunits often hold stock in as well. They have the money and moxie to make the rest of us pay their over-inflated prices while morally justifying it to those people who do not know better.
Meanwhile the international criminals are difficult to track and catch. Thailand may be bulldozing the copies it finds, but I find that the more extreme the public demonstration of enforcing law, the less often it is actually enforced. Thailand, China, and other areas of Southeast and East Asia are the HQ of large-scale piracy. Anyone with friends who visit Hong Kong, Beijing, or Taiwan regularly is likely to have been offered pirate DVDs or CDs of recent movies or music. Even the soundtrack for recent movies are available...often before they leave the theater. Enforcement of copyright in those countries is more difficult, especially since the WTO is reluctant to enforce rules so stringently against the truly huge economies.
Copyright may be an outdated notion according to some, but the RIAA has the money and Congressmen that it deserves watching if only on a civil liberties basis. The DMCA is only one example of how creatvity is stifled for the benefit of copyright holders. Any future moves by the RIAA could be as stringent or worse. I'm not suggesting we appease the dragon that is the RIAA, but instead we keep vigilant watch on where they are actually losing money as this article does. Thus when the RIAA proposes legislation like the DMCA hard evidence can be used to discourage legislators from enacting such laws.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
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.
Did they really call some proposed format "DVDA"?
/.?), "DVDA" is an acronym for, well, let's say a woman who just can't get enough.
For those non-pr0n fans out there (any on
# Don't pay for the recording or mastering that was done for the music
Neither do record companies - the artist does
# Don't pay the artist whose music they're stealing
True but it is typically less than ten per cent of the retail price
# Don't pay for the artwork on the cd
Couple of hundred bucks mostly
# Don't pay for promotion or advertising, since that's all done by the label
Not all promotion is paid for by the label. It does on the other hand promote the artist -- see Microsoft's attitude to piracy in China (would you rather they used linux?)
# Don't pay the lawyers to research the songs to ensure you're not stealing some stupid snippet of lyrics or a partial tune, as just happened with Flaming Lips and Cat Stevens
True but music is not supposed to be welfare for lawyers.
It is unclear why CDs should be have been more expensive than vinyl or why their prices should rise in real terms. Normal economics would suggest that faling production and distribution costs should make the optimal price lower, possibly substantially, but that hasn't happened.
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.
I found this interesting experiment concerning shareware registration/payment and I think it has some bearing on discussions about music copying, file trading and sharing.
The same experiment is also related here.
What it shows is that people were 5 times more likely to pay for the shareware when they were made to pay versus relying on the honor system. So when the shareware was "free", only 1/5th of the time was the author paid for his work.
The extension of this result into the discussion of music sharing I think is obvious.
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)
Pirating + economic downturn + vinyl replacement finished = far less CD sales. Also mentioned were that teenagers are more interested in cell phones than music these days.
The RIAA and CD Industry has been fined twice for price fixing, and pirating is heavily undercutting the pricing schemes established by the CD industry. So overchaging to the point that pirated copies become massively popular is the implication.
No singles available on CD translates to file sharing with the current high pricing scheme as well.
What would be a good solution?
I remember when Dave Matthews stirred up people, by sending in anti-bootleg teams to bust record stores across the country. They were selling bootleg copies of his concerts, that were unavailable on commerical releases. Apparently demand for his product was higher than delivery. His response was to put people out of business for trying to meet the demand. His record sales dropped as the hard core fanatics got pissed and quit buying his stuff.
Bob Dylan's response. He went out and bought all the bootlegs. Then picked the best tracks and released a 3-cd set of "Bob Dylan: Best of the Bootlegs", thus meeting the demand for more music. He undercut the bootleggers, because his collection was of known quality and cheaper than buying a bunch of $30 bootlegs to find the good tracks.
The RIAA needs to get real and realize that it's current business model is failing. One, it needs to offer more reasonable pricing and cut out the excessive "advertising/promotion" budgets that are used to rip off the artists. Secondly it needs to offer downloads of mp3's at even more reasonable prices since no manufactoring is requited. This would handle the singles market. Then it can attack the bootleg market head on, because it offers a competitive affordable product in line with demand.
Attacking filesharers, is not the best approach. Here's the reasons I see: 1) It would take 2000 years to supoena every file sharer at current rate. 2) Filesharers tend to be youth who are fans of music. Attacking them is attacking your future market. Creating animosity with the primary consumer is not good business strategy. 3) A lot of filesharers probably wouldn't buy a copy if left with no other choice than buying it. In my youth, I was a pirate of computer games, I had no money to buy them--therefore I couldn't and I stole them. Had my only option been purchase at $35/title, I wouldn't have. If I could have bought them for $5/$10 a piece I probably would have. I'm not justifying my behavior, just explaining the business case that the RIAA seems to have missed.
A bunch of entrenched lazy bureacrats who can't keep up with change is half of the problem. The other half, is people without enough self control (encouraged by continuous marketing and consumer culture), who feel compelled to create large markets based on theft.
Supply/Demand economics slapping the RIAA upside the head is what's going really going on.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
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