Record Labels Unveil Greed 2.0

theodp writes "Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones and as much as 70 cents of each 99 cent iTunes download, Newsweek reports that record labels want a bigger cut of digital music profits. One example: If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the Google Video site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars." Even more ridiculous demands than those put forth in previous stories.

Comments

no suprise

[ramdac]

these pigs are always wanting more money.
That's why all new music acts are nothing more than a 'formula'. everything's over-produced and is total crap.

Re:no suprise

[killdozer3k]

The answer is simple: Delist Madonna and all the acts in question. Also de-wiki them untill they are paid to list them. Instead point all the references to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The only thing worse than not participating in the profits is to de-googled, de-yahooed, etc. Also close all their blogs. Google could ask for a list of all the names they would like to have stricken from the database. in fact this kind of counter poison should shock the hell out of the music buiz when the major search engines strike them from the internet record. The funniest thing about this is that PR people do everything they can to get people to talk about their star/product/act and then when they do they want to tax it. the reason there is a google is because of advertising.

Re:no suprise

[RLiegh]

Indeed; and I can just imagine google -a publicly traded company with shareholders to answer to- is chomping at the bit to deny itself of the revenue that it would be throwing away by playing petty power games with the RIAA. Of course, Yahoo's record when it comes to standing up for what's right (particularly in china) is also exemplary.

Wake me up when someone comes up with a good idea which is also practical and likely to occur.

Re:no suprise

[TheWanderingHermit]

Yes, you are right. And this is just one thing that is contributing to the mediocrity of popular music. But I'm actually glad to see this. The record companies keep claiming they are protecting royalties for artists, but I don't think there's anyone out there who believes that. Anybody who watches the music business knows artists are making money, but that the big guys are making more. Napster triggered a fear reaction, and now the RIAA is getting carried away with trying to overreact to everything and not just protect their revenue and old business models, but they've gotten so carried away they are overreaching.

That's good. While it might cause higher prices for a while, the more they do this, the more their greed shows, and the closer they get to going too far and finally, through their own actions, forcing the entire industry to collapse -- leaving room for the real artists (not the sex symbols like Spears and such) to actually make a living on the work they create.

Re:no suprise

[Meagermanx]

Even the 'real' artists depend on the record companies for advertising and marketing.
The collapse of the music industry you anticipate would either
a. cause people to look online for free, indie music, which I doubt would happen, because most people are quite content being told what they like, or
b. cause a smaller record company to rise in ranks, which would then take the place of the larger companies.
 
It's like government. If you knock one bully down, another pops up just as fast.
Inevitably, he'll want his piece of the pie.

Re:no suprise

[squiggleslash]

That's why all new music acts are nothing more than a 'formula'. everything's over-produced and is total crap.

It can't be total crap, otherwise people wouldn't pirate it, right?

Re:no suprise

[TheWanderingHermit]

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.

If quality were the yardstick for whether or not most people watched something, Star Trek would not have been moved to the 10:00 timeslot (but, after season 3 it would have been dropped), and shows like "The Paper Chase" would never have been axed because everyone was watching shows that had degenerated into inane crap like "Happy Days" and "Laverne and Shirley". If crap were always unpopular and people preferred something of quality instead, Shakespeare would still be outselling most bestsellers and Harlequin romances wouldn't exist.

Re:no suprise

[cbreaker]

Not everything is crap, but a lot of stuff is, I agree. Just because a band is signed to a big label doesn't mean they're automatically crap. If they were crap to begin with, they'd always be crap, but if they were good this wouldn't change that.

The problem is that once a new type of musician becomes popular, the big labels all try to get a peice of the action which leaves us with a lot of very mediochre music.

Re:no suprise

[Mnemia]

So what? Then if the "replacements" get too greedy they will get knocked down themselves.

Such "churn" is still a good thing, because it keeps the companies on their toes and forces them to adapt or die. It also weakens them for a time, meaning that things get better temporarily.

Same thing with government. You could argue it doesn't matter if we have elections or revolutions, because whoever we elect will just be as abusive as the previous government. That's true, but it's still a good thing to force some turnover every now and then just to knock them back a few steps and force an end to some of the worst absuses.

Re:no suprise

[Qzukk]

What google should do then is beat the RIAA at their own game.

Start by charging people an extra "RIAA Advertisement Fee" to run an ad on "Madonna" or the like. This money goes into a big pool. Then, from that pool, make up a list of services and subtract out 90% of the money for things like "fiscal management" "trademark research" "artist contact costs" or anything else that sounds good but is total contractually-agreed-to bullshit.

Re:no suprise

[misleb]

Was there ever a time when pop music was more than a formula? Look as far back as the 40's. Mostly trite, fomulaic crap. I think the reality is that the majority of people don't really *enjoy* music or have any real preferences. They mostly just listen to whatever is on the radio and whatever is in fashon. Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits.

-matthew

Re:no suprise

[dallaskincaid]

Actually, the artists typically only make money from touring and merch. The people that make the real money are the publishers and the labels. Most newly signed bands actually are given loans to pay for their albums and need to repay the loans based on sales.

Re:no suprise

[Asprin]

Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling.

Re:no suprise

[ehrichweiss]

You've nailed it. That's the perfect(and smart) response to their retarded ideas. I realized when this began that I would never again buy from a major record label that sued its fanbase, no matter how much I like the music. I also realized that the way to keep them from using me as a statistic was to NOT download their music, no matter how much I liked it.

Spread your meme..maybe the search engines will hear it and we'll watch a paradigm shift happen in the industry.

Re:no suprise

[Master of Transhuman]

"Even the 'real' artists depend on the record companies for advertising and marketing."

Two comments about that.

First, it's obvious that people have NEVER paid for music - except when the only way to get it was via phonograph records and tape recorders hadn't been invented - and therefore every music buyer is basically paying for CONVENIENCE in obtaining music when they buy a CD. Also, it should be obvious that people are not paying for the MUSIC, but in fact are paying for the advertising and marketing. Certainly that's the way the labels see it, which is why we get crap music - they assume that the music doesn't matter, it's all about advertising and promotion. Which, to a large degree, as any indie artist will tell you, is true.

Second, it should be obvious - but apparently isn't - to artists that, aside from the sports and entertainment industries - where agents are the norm - most industries don't hire themselves out to somebody else for advertising and marketing, and accept a fifteen percent cut of what's left after it's done. Instead, they produce their own content and then hire experts internally or externally to do the advertising and marketing. Just because artists don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done by other people for a specified rate on contract.

Artists need to stop selling their asses out as peons and take responsibility for their own success. They may make less money - but they will be more able to live with themselves by not realizing that they're basically whores working for pimps.

Re:no suprise

[Master of Transhuman]

My point exactly - recorded music should be a LOSS LEADER for live performance.

Music has throughout human history been live performance. When technology enabled the phonograph record, record labels appeared, appropriated the music of live performers and began monetizing it. When they realized they needed more product than currently existed, they set about hiring the artists in peon contracts to produce more. Seduced by the celebrity notion, artists signed up, and benefited to some degree by taking a cut of the recorded music - when they weren't screwed out of the royalties entirely by the record labels - as many of the early artists were. But their cut was miniscule compared to the record labels.

Over the ensuing decades, people bought phonograph records because that was the only way to get the music, aside from the radio which didn't allow control over when you could listen to the music.

But once tape recorders (reel-tp-reel and then cassette) came in, people started taping and exchanging music from the phonograph records and using the technology to control their access to the music.

Then came the CD and the personal computer, which made it easier to record and control and exchange the music.

In other words, the technology now allows the consumer to do to the record labels what they once did to the artist - appropriate the music without compensation.

And the record labels don't like it.

From the artist standpoint, they need to realize that the technology now allows them to produce and distribute music at low or no cost as a LOSS LEADER to entice people to attend their performances - which, depending on their skill at using the Internet to magnify their reach to their potential audience, can be much greater than just touring around to clubs.

And subscription-based access to live concert performances are the way to monetize the live performance beyond anything possible in the past.

Bands who don't follow this approach will either continue to be whores working for pimps or be left behind by bands that do follow this approach.

But most artists - especially those already signed with labels and especially those who are significant successes already under the current system, like my favorite band, The Corrs - don't seem to comprehend the economics and technology or even the history and dynamics of their profession.

In other words, they're afraid - afraid of losing their place in the pantheon, afraid of losing their toys, afraid of losing their pimps, basically.

Typical human reaction.

Re:no suprise

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually we get a lot of crap because the labels DO NOT CARE about the MUSIC. What they care about is advertising, promotion, marketing and distribution.

To them, music is a COMMODITY to be hawked. The quality of that commodity is irrelevant to them. The people who run the labels are not musicians or even music lovers - they're businessmen and financiers. They love money, not music. Half of them probably don't even own a CD player or a stereo system. The peons under them have to have some clue, but not the guys running the companies who set the policies and make the decisions.

I'm surprised we get as much good music as we do under the current system.

Under this system, it doesn't matter whether a band is crap or not. The only issue is whether the label thinks they can be SOLD.

Companies exist in all industries that sell crap products - the music industry is no different. Some people who get to run big companies think quality just doesn't matter compared to marketing and price. And there are enough consumers out there who either are forced to agree by not being able to afford quality, or who don't care about it either.

Label bands are basically whores working for pimps. And everybody knows you get lousy sex from whores.

Re:no suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

A- bullshit. only a moron dweeb (like Lars from MEtallica) thinks they need a record company and the RIAA to make it in music. you can publicize your self and market yourself on line as in TV,radio and print damn easy and for prett darn cheap. (cable TV ad's on tier 3 networks (gee mtv is on tier 3) is about $1.25 an ad. Espically when ran outside of prime time. for $500.00 you can get insane exposure on Cable TV in a DMA you will have a concert in.

Only complete and utter morons think they need a record contract to make it in music... and I am proven right by simply looking at the retards that are currently in the RIAA artist list.

B- true and already happening. Jimmy Buffett started a record company with some other arrtists that give honest terms to the artists signed with them and share profits with them as well. they are gaining new artists faster than the RIAA would like as it is exposing artists to the possibility that they do not have to be gang raped without lube to "make it".. These record companies are gaining momentum fasterthan Arista, Apple, and other big record companies can even imagine. hell they are pulling acts from them fast as well.

so in reality, A, you can self market yourself easily and cheaply. B, there are new record companies growing that are not basing their business model on rampant financial sodomy of your artists.

Hope you feel enlightened. Posting anon to avoid losing my job at a record company. yes i just gave away 2 really dirty secrets.

Re:no suprise

[mdielmann]

Actually, thanks to Slashdot, I'm considering subscribing to Pandora for a year. It costs $36/year (US currency, I presume), some of which no doubt goes to the RIAA groups. Here's a site that's maintained by music professionals, categorizing music based on far more criteria than I'm qualified to describe, yet selects music that I've heard and like as well as a lot of stuff that's brand new which I like. Now I can look at those new artists, identify which labels they're from (and if they're affiliated with RIAA), and acquire more music from those artists (either second-hand if they're hooked into RIAA or directly if they aren't).

I think of the subscription as severance pay. Sure, RIAA gets one last piece of me, but I get a valuabe resource to learn other places where I can get what I want without having to support them again.

P.S. /., get these damned CSS layouts or whatnot fixed. It would be nice to be able to preview.

Re:no suprise

[TheWanderingHermit]

You have a good point. I've always compared Shakespear to Hitchcock. Both knew how to create entertainment that rose to a high level, but appealed to people of all levels. Yes, Shakespeare did a lot with cruder themes (like the hilarious exchange about Hamlet lying with his head in Ophelia's lap), but he also created some fabulous poetry and absolutely amazing imagery. Hitchcock knew that as a director, he could do some advanced things, but he had to be sure the audience was entertained, as well. Both had a lot in common that way -- as opposed to, say, Orson Wells, who created a masterpiece in "Citizen Kane", but also made a film that draws on forever. As one film professor once said, he loves to teach CK, because there's so much in it, but that he doesn't like watching it because it is self indulgent in areas and just not entertaining.

So, yes, I picked an example that wasn't the best, but I think the point still stands.

Re:no suprise

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

Considering Shakespear was writing Political Satire of his day, written so the masses could laugh at the bumbling of the leaders of the day.

If alive today it's more likely that he'd be writing for shows like South Park or The Simpsons than pro-wrestling.

Re:no suprise

[zymurgy_cat]

Ironic. Shakespear wasn't exactly known for being "highbrow" in his day. Some have speculated that if he were alive today, he'd be writing for professional wrestling.

Alas poor Hogan, I knew him well....

Re:no suprise

[Cederic]

Or maybe some bands can't be bothered with the stress, boredom, physicality of touring. Maybe they don't like having to perform live. Maybe they play music that doesn't translate well to a live environment. Maybe they don't want to take the risk of booking a large venue.

Maybe they should be able to earn a living from the work they put into recording, mixing and producing their albums.

Heck, Muse are the brightest new rock band around at the moment. They've released a live album. It's just not as good as their three studio albums. There's no way they can use studio recordings as a loss leader for the live performance, as they'll just end up making a loss.

That doesn't mean I wont go and see them live. There's a different dynamic when you _attend_ a live performance. But on the CD recording, that isn't there. And without it, the carefully produced and tuned sound of the studio albums wins out.

The RIAA is irrelevant.

[bburton]

Artists don't even need labels anymore. It's now feasible for composers to do business directly with online music providers... it doesn't cost much to upload a few megabytes of info. After it's been on iTunes, Napster, or whatever; and has made some money, then produce the CD, using profit money from distributing online.

The only reason the RIAA is useful to new artists is for advertising purposes, which is IMO isn't that great anyways. They are increasingly advertising the the artists they think can make the most money, not necessarily the artists that make the best music.

The only thing they're really doing now is desperately holding on for their survival. If they persuade congress to pass enough laws in their favor maybe they'll stick around for a while...

The RIAA today, is like the horse and buggy businesses when the automobile hit mainstream. They're obsolete.

Go away RIAA, nobody likes you.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[romka1]

I don't think you can get far buy just signing a contract with Itunes to distribute your music... you won't have name recognition, there will be some who will download your music but it won't be a lot of ppl... You need to get your name known and without good budget or good connections you stuck with labels... and especially if all you have is nice body and little vocal talent...

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[BoneFlower]

In comes MySpace. One of its few actual uses- it is quite good for self promotion.

They need to clean up the interface a bit, and get it stable, but the potential for MySpace to become a big player in promotion of music is huge.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Propagandhi]

Studio time is expensive, man. The whole recording process (hiring a producer, studio musicians, whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensive, so until that's no longer an issue there will still be labels around willing to front the cash in return for the potential profits a successful record can generate.

Some day the major labels will be irrelevent, but today is not that day (maybe that's why they're so desperate to maximize their profits in the short term... they know the long term doesn't exist).

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[ericdano]

No true at all. There are a ton of small studios around that can and do produce some great sounding music. You can also invest $5K or so in your own equipment and get the sound that you want. People don't have to record to 96Khz+ using Nuemann mics. You can get great results using just Shure stuff. Hell, my favorite stuff from Evanescence was done using average stuff. Their engineered stuff sounds.....engineered, and not as good to me.

So, studio time myth is busted. Marketing though is where the RIAA and Labels could help you....

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Propagandhi]

If someone steals your IP you deal with it in the courts, not through some trade organization. The RIAA doesn't even have the infrastructure to deal with those situations, they're only concern is making sure the recording companies get money for every possible use of a song (or 'to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality' (from their website)).

And honestly, how much more can they charge per song? I found a lossless online store (finally) a few days ago, and they charge a minimum of $1.29 a track PLUS a $50 annual fee. That works out to way more than just buying the CD (in all it's lossless, archived, liner-noted, cover-arted glory). Honestly, CDs are enough of a rip off as it is, there simply isn't enough room to increase the price of a 30 minute album any more than the already inflated cost...

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[IANAAC]

For example, if you write a hit song, and someone else TAKES it......what happens to you?

You're confusing the RIAA with organizations such as ASCAP or BMI, among others that do the actual protecting.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Anml4ixoye]

Hate to tell you, but it is highly doubtful any record label would have heard of you if you didn't already have name recognition. The way to get a contract is to play out a lot, get a name and following for yourself.

However, what you may lost is the ability to play at your local AmphiClearChannelBudweiserSonyTheatre. /shrugs/

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[StringBlade]

Do you understand why the RIAA is protecting those bits of "intellectual property" (a horrible buzzword by the way)? It's because it belongs to them and it's in their best interest to protect thier investments. When the artists sign up with a major label, they lose the rights to their own songs nearly all the time. That's the cost of getting a chance to become famous - give up your right to make money off your own works.

The RIAA, once they have your creative fruits in their grasp, will then dole out money to the band as advances (not as gifts) and start advertising campaigns and tours and what have you to make sure people find this band, hear their music, and buy lots and lots of merchandise. Of course, the cost of promotion is all put on the band's tab so that they are more or less eternally indebted to the RIAA label while the RIAA sucks up the vast majority of any income.

It used to be tour money was out of the RIAA's reach, but last I heard they were trying to get a (large) cut of that as well. As a fan, you cannot even send them a check because it will be confiscated by the label and put towards their ever-mounting debt (or maybe just into the label's pocket).

Using the RIAA for IP protection is like asking the Mob for help with your business. Sure they'll help you, but you'll be indebted to them for the rest of your life and will be at their mercy. It's much better to hire your own lawyer to protect your rights than to get involved with the RIAA.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[segfaultcoredump]

There are two parts of the equation: technology and talent. Unfortunately for us technology minded folks, the tech is about 1% of the equation.

Paint and brushes are also cheap. Anybody can go out to the local art supply store and purchase some rather high quality brushes and paints and not break the bank. Despite the low cost, it is rare to see any works of art coming out of the local high school that I would want to hang on my wall.

On the flip side, one of my favorite groups actually recorded one of their first albums with a single mic and a two track system. What they lacked in tech they were more than able to make up for in talent.

So while the cost of the technology is going down, the talent to do something with the tech it is still hard to find, and those folks charge a lot. After all, if this was easy to do, folks would not pay big bucks to go and see folks do it.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[The_Rook]

i would speculate that just like film production, record companies use their music groups as a captive market for their own recording studios, screen printers, media production, printing, etc. the acts then get charged inflated prices for these services which they pay out of their royalties.

requiring musicians to use record company owned resources let's the recod companies control costs without having to pass on the savings to the musicians. i believe the record industry actively fights legislation that would require it to exercise fiduciary responsibility. that would end the party for the muisic companies.

it's no wonder that once an act becomes even a little successful, it then goes on to equip its own recording studio. my guess is that musicians would love to gain control over how they are promoted and distributed, if only to keep the music companies from freely spending the musicians' money.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Blondie-Wan]

Why besides opera / classical? Aren't they enough?

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Mad Marlin]

No, they should be for the recording industry, because they are the Recording Industry Association of America; and they seem to be doing everything in their power to protect their member's interests. If it disagrees with the interests of the musicians, then so be it, as far as they are concerned. Presumably there is some "Musician's Association of America", but they have apparently been doing a horrible job for decades.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[arpk4n3]

As an indepedent recording artist, this is an exceptionally valid point. Mastering and mixing does more to make a mix rich than throwing in a $2000 microphone. A less than stellar musician recorded using the world's greatest mic will still sound less than stellar, just as a prodigy will sound like a prodigy recorded with a Shure SM-57. With modern digital technologies studio environments can be replicated in one's own home, or in my case, dorm room. I recorded my album using a $200 drum mic set from CAD and mastered it myself in Logic Express (and note, 96khz input through my Presonus Firepod--total cost of setup: $1200) and it came out sounding better than many studios available.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack in tech? The Trinity Sessions became an audiophile classic for its natural and beautiful sound, a perfect complement to the band's music at that time. Classical recordings of the fifties and sixties are still being released in multiple formats as much for the quality of sound - done on two or three microphones at most directly to tape/film without 'enhancement' - as for the talent of that era's performers. Same with the work of real rock and pop producers of the sixties and seventies. What today is called 'production' is too often today a cliche circle jerk, friends hiring friends scrambing over each other to crank out the latest flavour of McSound: compressed, de-essed, clipped and crushed to 'punch through' on FM.

If that's the talent RIAA members provide, the talent to destroy generations of music, I say Guantanamo them now. Make them listen to the entire Butch Vig back catalogue on their beloved tissue-papered Yamaha NS-10's as eternal punishment.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[Matt Perry]

Studio time is expensive, man.

Only at big studios. The audio world is undergoing the same type of change the video world is undergoing. Fast computers and cheap software have removed most of the financial barriers for creative people. There's a lot of boutique studios that are cheap and have top notch audio engineers, most of them run by engineers who used to work for bigger studios.

hiring a producer

You be the producer. Don't you know your own music well enough to know what you want? If you are renting studio time, take advantage of the audio engineer's experience. That is, after all, a large part of what you are paying for when you rent studio time.

studio musicians

There are a lot of excellent musicians online that will record tracks for you in their home studio and send it to you via email. They cost a lot less than paying a session musician to travel to a studio (+ studio time). One person I correspond with on a mailing list used this technique with his last album. He recorded all of the songs using a drum machine. He sent the tracks to a drummer who listended to the songs, recorded new drum tracks, and then mailed the new drum tracks back on a CD. The guy imported the drum tracks and mixed them in. It didn't cost him an arm and a leg either.

whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensive

I can be but it need not be. There's a lot of really great software available for mixing and audio processing. For example, I've been trying out Guitar Rig after seeing it on a friends computer. He plays gigs with a laptop, a preamp, and a firewire audio interface. He uses a foot controller hooked to the MIDI input on his firewire interface to control Guitar Rig. No need for a ton of pedals. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Great software for everything from mixing, recording, virtual instruments, audio mastering, and more are out there and can be had for very little money.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[po8]

The RIAA, once they have your creative fruits in their grasp...

Awesome! You get the Outstanding Veiled Metaphor of the Week Award. My lit teachers would be shocked, but proud.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[varkatope]

I completely agree that you can make great records with any gear. Hell, there are some records that I really like that were recorded on a 4-track portastudio. The thing is, great gear does not a great record make. I'll be damned if it doesn't help but people do get all wrapped up in it. The most important parts of the equation are the musicians and the engineers. Any jackass can throw up a Neumann U-87 and have it sound decent. A great engineer can throw up any (much cheaper) Audio Technica condenser mic and knock you on your ass. It all depends on what you're going after of course but the main reason to go to a pro studio is the engineer followed by the quality of the rooms, THEN the gear. Recording in your dorm room is just peachy but if you don't know much about engineering, your record's going to sound like it was recorded in a dorm room. Here's the point: Know your gear. If you don't, you need to pay someone that does and can make a great record with a pair of shit radio shack mics.

To the guy that replied to parent message saying something about it all coming down to EQs, there isn't a surer way to completely suck the life out of a recording than with over-equalization (besides over-compression that is). I think he was referring to Logic too. Digital EQ. ick.

Re:The RIAA is irrelevant.

[FinestLittleSpace]

SHUT UP! Shut up! The Corrs are a pile of arse, shut it.

Thats good news

[romka1]

The more of this claims the better... They will cross the line very soon and will be hit back with lots of lawsuites. Leaving them no money to sue regular people

Re:Thats good news

[lightyear4]

Unsatisfied with $2.49 ringtones

We should encourage them to keep marketing these $2.49 Sponge Bob ringtones. That way, they'll run out of money a lot faster.

Stop listening?

[toddbu]

I have a serious question. If people are tired of the record companies, why don't they just stop listening for a while and find other forms of entertainment? Wouldn't the most effective way of sending the message that these guys are being jerks be to stop buying music? This isn't like gas, where a "boycott" means that you just delay your purchase a few days. Put enough economic pressure on the studios and artists and maybe things will change.

Re:Stop listening?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Because this is "below the radar" of most consumers who wouldn't seriously care anyway, because life is very complicated, and they have other things that they percieve as more important to care about. Seriously, the "average" person just shrugs and expects it as the normal course of things.

Re:Stop listening?

[fredistheking]

The problem with this strategy is that it relies on a relevent amount of listeners to quit listening. I doubt most people are informed or just don't care.

Re:Stop listening?

[eMartin]

I won't be surprised when they start suing boycotters for causing a drop in CD sales.

Re:Stop listening?

[Ucklak]

Because we're the nerds that know that this crap is going on. Regular Susan and Average Joe don't know about this nor do they care.
If anyone is going to stand up to them and make a difference, it's the artist. Without the artist, they have no content.

I think I may be serious that one day, you won't be able to hum or sing a tune without paying a fee.
I mean look at 'Happy Birthday to You'. Royalties have to be paid if it is broadcasted or distributed in any fashion.

Re:Stop listening?

[killjoe]

Because the people are stupid and weak. I know that sounds harsh but it's true. The corporations know how to make you want things, they know how to manipulate you down to the last detail. They don't spend billions of dollars in advertising and research for nothing.

Just go ahead and try to get people to boycott anything, I dare you. All a corporation has to do is to pay some TV or radio personality to call you a communist, cancer, zealot, hippie or a radical and boom they have taken care of the situation.

Look at slashdot, look at how often the shills call people who use linux or program in open source zealots and hippies? It happens every day. Your average joe does not want to go through life being called a zealot or a communist, he has been tought to reflexivey hate zealots and communists even though he probably could not define communist if his life depended on it.

Re:Stop listening?

[RLiegh]

Because with one or two exceptions, boycotts never fucking work; that's why.

Particularly in this case; the people who need to join the boycott (jane and joe six pack, the artists) either don't give half a rats' ass or have damned good reasons not to.

Re:Stop listening?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Already have. If, say, 20%[1] of all customers stopped buying for a month, RIAA declares a 20% rise in piracy and a need for more legal power to protect their profits.

[1]Number I pulled out of my ass.

Re:Stop listening?

[TokyoJimu]

It's possible to find plenty of good music without the help of the major labels, but it takes some work. Take a look at my current iTunes listening and you'll see very little major label involvement.

However, it does take work. I typically go to concerts several times a week, and buy most of my CDs at the shows. Most people aren't willing to devote that kind of time, so they take what the industry feeds them.

Re:Stop listening?

[syukton]

Put enough economic pressure on the studios and artists and maybe things will change.

Yeah, maybe things will change, but not in the way you intended.

When album sales decline, what does the RIAA say? You know the drill: "Illegal filesharing has severely impacted our Nth quarter sales. We must take action against these pirates!"

If you stop buying albums, the RIAA will use that as another reason to sue some more file sharers. "Voting with our dollars" as it were, will only make the problem worse.

I'm sorry, but the only way to stand up to the RIAA now is the same way they're trying to walk all over us: the courts.

2.0?

[BravoFourEcho]

They're only at 2.0? That's news.

Re:2.0?

[moonbender]

According to Wikipedia: The first widely-distributed version of GNU Emacs was 15.34, which appeared in 1985. (Versions 2 through 12 never existed. Earlier versions of GNU Emacs had been numbered "1.x.x", but sometime after version 1.12 the decision was made to drop the "1", as it was thought the major number would never change. Version 13, the first public release, was made on March 20, 1985.)

Wow...

[doormat]

I cant believe this. Its absurd. Are they going to be demanding money when I whistle a tune in my local supermarket while I'm shopping for groceries?

Whats even worse is that some dumbass company is going to capitulate and then they'll all be forced to cave.

Re:Wow...

[toriver]

Why not? After all, they demand royalties from people who sing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant.

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

Re:Wow...

[FidelCatsro]

Happy birthday to you
If you sing it they will sue
From us all to Time-warner
A large loud F*ck you

Copyrights already last far far too long , the fact that extensions are given is an insult . Especially in the cases of songs which have become part of the public consciousness

Why not?

[ericdano]

Why not? Why shouldn't they? Wait, then maybe every little click ad revenue here on Slashdot should go to whatever company is advertising, regardless if someone spends the money on the actual product. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT.

I think the record labels need to get a grip. Their product is music. If someone BUYS music, they should get some profit. If a commerical company uses the music in something (Ad, radio), they should get some profit. If someone uses the music in a remix, they should get some profits. If someone puts it on a Blog or Webpage, and makes money off it, they should get some of the profits.

But to say that if someone types in Madonna, or Backdoor Boys, and they get some of the ad revenue is insane. I suppose FORD motor company would want the same thing. Or Nike, or Coke, or....everyone.

stunned

[kayen_telva]

i now I shouldnt be, but I am stunned
just..wow.
I was about to go out and buy most of Sade's discography.
I wish to hell we could just pay the artist directly.

Desperation

[overshoot]

Hardly surprising -- the record labels are, basically, distributors. They're staring at the fact that their distribution role is going away and so they're grabbing at every conceivable revenue source.

Soft of like the definition of a fanatic: they're redoubling their efforts as they lose sight of their purpose.

Re:Desperation

[damiam]

Apple Computer is legally barred from entering the music business by their settlements with Apple Records. Although there has been some speculation that Apple Computer might buy Apple Records and reinvent it as an "indie" label.

Wrong

[Mr2cents]

I wasn't looking for the pop singer, I was looking for Ze Fallen Madonna With Ze Big Boobies. There are group names with different meanings outside the music empire, how are they going to differentiate?

I'm disgusted once more.

People rely too much on TV for information

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why the RIAA/MPAA are able to get away with this (and with draconian copyright laws) is because people rely too much on TV for information. Al Gore this week did a speech explaining that Americans watch television, on average, 4 hours and 28 minutes every day--90 minutes more than the world average. Americans base their opinions on what they see on TV--not what they hear on the internet, not what they read in the newspaper (since they generally don't read the newspaper).

The people in charge of TV are not about to describe accurately what the new copyright laws are doing to the American people, or the extent of greed that the media conglomerates have. When people are spoon fed information on TV, they get information from a biased source.

My suggestion: Get rid of your TV. Get your friends to get rid of their TVs. Go outside or go on the internet to get information.

It's Simple, They Want Everything They Can Get

[ausoleil]

Records companies are often called greedy, and that's probably true. However, they do have a responsibility to the sharehoders to get everything that they can get in order to return maximum profits. Basically, that boils down to what they will charge whatever the market will bear.

If you sold your car, you'd probably choose to sell it to whoever would pay you the most money. Same with your house.

But at the end of the day, consumers have a choice. Music is a product that you really do not need, and it is a luxury. The way to get the music companies to charge less is to buy less, and let the marketplace force them to charge a price that consumers find more reasonable. That's also part of the equation of 'what the marketplace will bear.'

Re:It's Simple, They Want Everything They Can Get

[sl3xd]

The way to get the music companies to charge less is to buy less, and let the marketplace force them to charge a price that consumers find more reasonable.

People have found music prices unbearable. They bought less music. Much less music. So much less music that the recording industry has spent millions to reinforce their own delusions. (Perhaps you've heard of a few?)

The music industry chose to believe that the quality and price of current music isn't the problem, rather choosing the belief that the fault lie not with the prices and product the industry produced.

The music industry chose to believe that the problem lie with the consumers, and with 'piracy'.

Apple computer comes along, and begins selling music online -- in an easy to use, relatively fair system. The music industry sings Apple's praises, temporarily dropping their obsession with 'subscription' based online music. Then they start their own music services; Napster, for example, is owned by the recording industry; Sony/BMG IIRC, but that was a while ago.

And the recording industry starts to try to hike up the prices and force a 'subscription' service on its customers. People leave Napster and join the Apple camp, and the Apple store dominates the industry. In spite of the massive amount of profits that iTunes generates for the recording industry (which is pure profit -- it costs them nothing to let Apple do all the work for them), they attack their 'savior', deciding that Apple's current prices are 'too low.'

All the while ignoring these simple facts:
iTunes sells music:
      * For a substantially lower cost than the recording industry.
      * Music is $5-8 less per album.
      * Customers aren't forced to buy an entire album for one song.

Essentially what the music industry wants to do is raise the price of buying music on iTunes to the price point that a CD has: $15-18 per album.

iTunes success isn't about the iPod. Most of the iTunes users I know of don't even have an iPod. They bought their music from iTunes because they got the music at a fair price, and could even burn the music to a CD (and re-rip it to another format) should they choose to. (Interestingly enough, the iPod did just fine before the iTunes Music Store; I'm convinced it would still dominate the industry even if the iTunes store never existed).

iTunes success stems from the fact that Apple offered the product for a price and condition consumers deemed was acceptable; something that is not true of buying CD's from a music store, or from the non-industry owned music services. (ie. Napster)

The music industry just wants to raise prices, and then blame everybody but themselves when consumers (literally) don't buy it. They persist in blaming everybody but themselves, their prices, their policies.

For its faults, the Motion Picture industry has at least admitted ticket sales have been sluggish recently because their product wasn't worth what they were charging for it. (Not that they think they were charging too much -- rather than their product sucked).

So no, the music industry does want more than they can get; when they don't get what they want, they come up with scapegoats and call their lawyers. They try to shut down everybody who disagrees with them. Which is silly, considering the entire American music industry is smaller than some of the companies they are offending (ie. Microsoft, Apple)

absurd

[belmolis]

By Warner's logic, publishers should be paid everytime one of their books comes up in a search on Google, or Amazon.com, or even in a library catalog. That's ridiculous. The publishers aren't providing the service here. In fact, they're the ones who benefit - they're getting free advertising. This is more than trying to get the most profit from what you own - now they're demanding handouts from their benefactors and customers.

and royalties

[Anonymous Coward]

...from the minuses next to this slashdot story.

The other way around?

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Shouldnt the labels be paying google for the advertising, not google paying them to advertise? Google doesnt make any money, intrinsicly, by advertising. They get money from those that they advertise FOR.

SO, if the labels wanted money from the adds, then Google could just drop the adverts that were music related.

Some wierd logic there.

They'll want a cut of the profits from this post

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

Madonna! Madonna madonna madonna madonnamadonna madonna madonna. Madonnamadonnamadonna! Madonna, madonna madonna. Madonna madonna madonna... Madonna madonna; madonna madonna madonna madonna. "Madonna? Madonnamadonna Madonna madonna madonna." (Madonna madonna madonna: madonna madonna.)


Lameness filter encountered. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted.

This is great news!

[cgenman]

And the record companies surely are giving that additional profits from sales and ad revenue generated by the videos back to the artists who pay for their production from their cut of album sales... right? Otherwise such a thing would be horribly immoral, the equivalent of selling something you don't own... right?

This will go great with all of the checks the RIAA must be sending to artists from the illegal download lawsuit revenues.

Truly, this is a wonderful time to be a musician.

No problem...

[RavenChild]

"If you type in 'Madonna' - a Warner act - at the Google Video site, and the results are accompanied by ads, Warner wants a share of those ad dollars."

What's the big fuss over something like this? The income from searches for 'Madonna' would be trace.

The value of a brand

[jfengel]

This story seems to have less to do with digital music as with the industry trying to claim that the artist is a brand, whose very name is valuable. As such it continues a line from the guys who have sued Google in the past trying to keep them from selling Ad Words to competitors. And if this works for the music industry it may spread to other people-brands: movie stars, NASCAR drivers, etc.

The RIAA's business is making people famous. Anybody can make,produce, and distribute music, but it takes a major corporation to sell a gold record's worth of music. Even after carefully selecting the artists that they think will be worth the investment they fail much more often than they succeed, so they feel compelled to milk those artists who do succeed. Not for their music per se, but for the fame of their brand, which is the one thing that they've added to the mix.

It sounds like the RIAA is trying to buy themselves a Supreme Court fight on the subject of fair use. Not about the usual question of whether you can make backups or play it in on your Linux box, but at what point a tiny fragment of a brand (like a name in a search engine) becomes usable by the public without charge. That decision will end up affecting a lot more than the music industry. There are other people-as-brands, as well as more classic product brands. I'm sure other industries will be watching this closely.

Incidentally, that's why they're so zealous in trying to eliminate music sharing. They feel that the reason you want that music is precisely because they created you wanting it. That is, there's lots and lots and lots of music available, but you want the RIAA's music because they spent a buttload of money coaxing you into wanting it: getting it onto radio stations, putting posters in music stores, TV ads, etc.

There are plenty of people who don't like the blandness of the lowest-common denominator music that the RIAA promotes, and in theory the RIAA has no argument with those people sharing the non-label music, except they get caught up in the general sweep of things. I suspect (but don't have any numbers) that most of the P2P-shared music is RIAA-produced music precisely because the RIAA labels have put so much effort into promoting it. Tiny local bands would be thrilled to think that you knew enough about their music to go to the effort of downloading it.

Welcome to US Capitalism 101

[Cerdic]

It's no secret that corporations are greedy and will do anything they can to increase their wealth. Them charging more for music is minor compared to the grand scheme of things.

The wealth has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the poor below. They talk of trickle economics for the the poor getting money from the wealthy, but it's quite the reverse. Wealth, often in the form of labor, flows from the bottom up. If not, they wouldn't be so rich.

To back this stance, it is worth nothing that the wealthiest wealthy grew wealthier between 2003 and 2004, partially thanks to tax cuts. The poor, however, became poorer. During that time period the number of Americans living in poverty grew by 1.4 million. Source: this CNN article.

I'm not an advocate of pure communism, but what we have today isn't really capitalism, it's a crappy corporate welfare system that intentionally pisses on the poor.

Re:Welcome to US Capitalism 101

[Cerdic]

It's likely that you're not referring to subsidies, but rather to the fact that people are "allowed" to keep a good deal of their money and property without being tortured and murdered.

I'm talking about subsidies, the lobbyists who get special favors in the form of laws that the rest of us don't get, relaxed environmental regulations, etc.

Also, how often does it happen that a multi-billion dollar corporation makes it a year without paying any taxes at all? More often than it should. And people with lots of money to invest can easily walk away with zero or little in taxes. Look at John Kerry and his extremely wealthy wife. He paid a higher tax rate than she did! Using various tax shelters, she only had to pay 11.5%.

Re:Welcome to US Capitalism 101

[Anonymous Coward]

...but what we have today isn't really capitalism...

Sorry, but what you have really is capitalism. What you don't have is the government doing its job. One of the most important jobs of the government is protecting the interests of the ones that are unable to look out for themselves, because they don't have the power or simply lack the knowledge to stand up to the capitalists on their own.

You see, capitalists are somewhat useful to society because they may generate wealth, but on no account should they be trusted. So, if they propose new laws, the task of the government of a country is to look at the proposal long and hard and with prejudice. Because capitalists don't have the same interests as the people, or the 'publick', depending on the where and when.

That's basically "wealth of nations" stuff (the unread chapters, that is)

Re:Welcome to US Capitalism 101

[jafac]

Cash payouts as subsidies are a tiny, tiny fraction of all the corporate welfare.

Taxpayers fund roads, that corporations use to truck their goods.
We pay to educate their workers.
We pay to defend their assets in foreign countries (in the form of wars, and defense spending).
We pay to clean up the environment they pollute.
We pay for courts and prosecutors to jail the white collar criminals.

There is so much public wealth flowing to corporations in this country, and much of it is difficult to measure, but you can tell it's there.

Boon for some, bust for others

[aztektum]

The problem for todays new pop stars is that they really aren't musicians in the first place. They rely on the up front $$ that the record companies throw into marketing them, paying for talent coaches and producing the hell out of their music so their cd's sound good.

That said, I agree that online distribution is a boon for independent musicians that are in fact actual artists.

I have one word...

[Biomechanical]

Which I'd love to tell the music company executives, and all those that might admire them. It's a simple word, at first inoffensive if you don't know the meaning, and can be shouted in anger without losing the basic sound of the word.

The word is "Garn".

It means "Go and get fucked.", from "go and" being said shortly to "go'an", then altered via the australian accent into the word "garn".

The long of it is "garn get fucked", and the shorthand "garn" can used when you just need to say something snappy without being misheard, or offending little old ladies.

So, to the RIAA, and all those affiliated,

"I'm never paying you fuckers a single cent from now on. Those two Ministry albums - Animositisomina, and Houses of the Mole' - I just bought were IT, the end of the line. I am going to download any music I want to listen to, and I'm going to send the purchase price, or import price, directly to the artist via a money order."

"Garn. Garn! GARN! Sideways! With walnuts!"

Re:Newsflash: company seeks to make money

[ericdano]

It is a big deal. They already are making money for each video that Yahoo shows. What they want now is a cut of AD REVENUE. This would be like Ford Motors bullying Yahoo for every piece of ad revenue for every search of "Ford Mustang", regardless if they actually BUY anything. Totally not right. They, the RIAA, are selling a product. Music videos, music, CDs, digital music. This does not entitle them to make money off someone elses ads. It's insane.

And if you don't agree, then you need to take down the daily dose of Kool-Aid.

Madonna a Warner act?

[bokmann]

And what if I'm searching for paintings of the Madonna? How are they going to differentiate?

This greed is fucking rediculous... If I am searching for their Madonna, well, they will probably make a cut of whatever I find that I might buy from that search. Hell - if I'm searching for that Madonna, I am probably already interested enough in her to own a CD or two, so they already have some of my money in their pockets. Am I going to have to pay them if I mention Madonna in my blog? Isn't that fair use? Why should I pay for any mismatches that might come up? Whats next? Should I pay for the privilege of looking at billboards when I drive along the interstate?

Fantastic

[korea]

I suppose it is a great time to agree to sign with Warner; wait until you start searching for my band, 'The'.

Too late. That dumbass company's name is Yahoo.

[mbius]

Whats even worse is that some dumbass company is going to capitulate and then they'll all be forced to cave.

TFA: "Labels scored a victory in music videos, however, after a battle that was sparked by the grandson of Doug Morris, Universal Music's CEO. Early this year Morris noticed his grandson repeatedly watching a video of 50 Cent, a Universal artist, for free. Morris investigated and discovered his labels were supplying the videos free of charge to promote record sales. Yet Yahoo, AOL and other sites were awash in ad revenue because of the huge audiences the videos helped draw (recently Yahoo CEO Terry Semel revealed that Yahoo expects to stream 5 billion videos this year.) Morris demanded payments--a fee for each time a Universal Music video was played and a cut of the ad money. Yahoo balked, and Morris pulled Universal's videos. After weeks of declining traffic, Yahoo capitulated. One Universal Music exec estimates revenue from the new agreement to be worth $10 million or more to the company. Warner Music is now trying to extend the concept to the emerging video-search business."

Ver 3.0

[mmdurrant]

Coming next from the RIAA...

They'll want royalties from people singing (I typed sinking first - Freudian slip?) their songs at karaoke bars. And since the music contributes to people having a good time and buying more drinks, they should get a cut of the bartenders' tips as well.

A musician's perspective

[calhawk]

As a musician this topic always interests me. I for one have heard almost nothing good about the "industry," and I personally have no interest in taking part in its creativity-killing machinations. In today's corporate environment creating unique and excellent music is nearly impossible. Artists from all genres are all saying the same thing: the industry is a perennially negative influence on the creation of great music. Even Bono recently stated that he didn't think U2 would exist if they had started up in the last few years, as opposed to 20 years ago. The fundamental concept that salesmen and business executives don't understand is that, in the long run, it's in everyone's financial interests to move music in new, creative directions. However, being the good bottom-line minded people they are, the tend to look towards short term gains. Of course they have a very successful formula for the short term, based mainly on leveraging the market using their significant financial resources. A poster earlier mentioned that the RIAA is irrelevant. This is entirely true. No musician, short of perhaps a symphony orchestra, needs a $500/hour studio, needs an army of producers and engineers, needs a multi-national advertising firm. Thanks mostly to computers and increasingly cheap technology, each and every musician can achieve the same recording results, the same packaging and the same press materials as a record label can. It's not rocket science. Of course one has to have the desire to do this stuff, but once you've got that it's smooth sailing and the results that can be achieved are truly remarkable. I would encourage everyone here to explore non-corporate-sanctioned means of getting music directly from the artists. In the coming years we will see a flood of musicians from all genres offering the same products as the major labels, but without the middleman. Forget iTunes and go the artist's site and use their download service - I have one on my site. Order a CD straight from the source. This is best for the artists and you know that your purchase will go directly to supporting the music and musicians that you love and admire.

Ringtones are expensive because of carriers

[ThinkFr33ly]

It is not the record labels that make ringtones expensive. Typically around 50% of the cost of the ringtone goes directly to the phone carrier. Some charge as high as 60%.

Most ringtones fees are billed directly to a user's cellphone bill. This dramatically increases sales because people buy more impulsively. To have this privilege, companies that sell ringtones must give a MAJORITY of the revenue from the sale directly to the cellphone company itself.

Of the remaining dollar, about 20 cents goes to aggregators that provide SMS/PSMS (premium sms... billing messages) integration (the guys who let you send text messages to cellphone networks.)

Of the 80 cents that remains after that, 20 cents will usually go to the content providers... or, for the lucky ones who have the resources to create and managing the licensing of their own ringtones, they get to keep that 20 cents.

Around 30 cents of the remaining 60 to 80 cents go to the record labels.

In the end, the people who actually run the ringtone site get between 30 and 50 cents per ringtone sold. Minus advertising. (Which is almost always a LOT more than 30 to 50 cents per sale.)

That is why almost all ringtone sites sell subscriptions, not single ringtones. They're hoping you don't use all your ringtones that come with your monthly subscription, and that you continue your subscription for more than one month. Otherwise, it's just not profitable.

But the point is that record labels only get between 10% and 15% of the cost of a ringtone. Of that 10% - 15%, the artists get some portion. (Usually 2% to 5%.) It's the carriers that take the VAST majority of the money.

If you want ringtones to be cheaper, bitch to the cellphone companies not the record labels.

Did anyone else notice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Five days after we hear about Music Labels Charging Too Much For Microsoft there's a story on MSNBC about how greedy the music labels are.

Hmm.

A google ad is "adjacent space"

[popo]

The notion that record labels should share in advertising revenue from keyword searches is to confuse the ownership of intellectual property with the concept of "adjacent space".

Adjacent space is frequently sold at a premium in multiple mediums, from supermarket shelf-space, to tradeshow booth-placement, to partial-page magazine advertising. Wherever a premium brand is located, the neighboring advertising- or product-space increases in value. If a record store puts Sarah Q. Smith's album on a shelf next to Madonna's new album, the record store is effectively using Madonna to promote the sale of Sara Q. Smith. But this is very different from capitalizing on Madonna's intellectual property. This is capitalizing on *Madonna's market*, which is something Madonna does not own, control or have rights to.

Likewise Google's use of adjacent space, ie: space neighboring Madonna's relevant links, is Google's own affair. It is Google's effort to target Madonna's market -- which is as old a phenomenon as the outdoor marketplace.

The entertainment industry needs to get a reality check on the scope and limits of IP.

Because what they do is expensive

[jfengel]

What the RIAA does (or rather, the RIAA member companies) is extremely expensive. Their job is to make artists well-known enough to sell a lot of music. If you want to make a living making music, you have to sell a LOT of music. At $10 a CD, you need to sell 1,500 CDs just to get yourself to the poverty line, and that's before you've paid for producing, printing, pressing, much less the advertising that makes people want your CD in the first place. You can tour like crazy but getting thousands of people to cough up $10 for your CD is going to be a challenge, especially when there are literally thousands of bands like yours out there. So real number is more like tens of thousands of CDs. If you want to get rich you'd better sell a million of them, and unless you're REALLY friendly you haven't got a million friends to sell CDs to.

So the RIAA spends money: they lobby radio stations (and paying them, even though that's illegal) to play your music, they advertise your tour on TV, they give away free t-shirts, etc. All on a national level, because if you want to sell tens of thousands of CDs you need to adverise to many, many people.

What they have in the end is a brand. They've spent a lot of money on you, and 20 artists like you who didn't catch fire. Once they have your name on everybody's lips, they want a cut of everything that makes money from that brand. They didn't create the music, they created the fame, and it's the fame (not the music) that's bringing people to Google to search on your name.

I'm oversimplifying like crazy (of course the music is relevant to make the brand appealing) but you get the idea. More importantly, it's not like they're not already wildly profitable (even accounting for all of their failed attempts), and they're not taking nearly as big a risk as I'm suggesting. For example, a lot of the start-up costs are taken out of your royalties. You the artist don't see squat until you've paid back the immense costs of producing that album. (In addition to marketing costs, RIAA companies own very expensive equipment, managed by very expensive engineers, operated by very expensive producers and mixers. A musician will tell you that those things are critical to making an album you're going to want to buy, and those who aren't with the labels spend a lot of their own money to buy the equivlent themselves.)

But perhaps your real question is, "Why do they risk alienating their customers so much?" That, I can't say for sure, except to say that I assume that somebody in a room somewhere has done a cost-benefit analysis and taken a guess that maximizing the profit on their brand is worth the customers who are alienated. They may be right; Slashdot readers (and posters) are exquisitely sensitive to the sort of manipulation that the RIAA does but many less technologically aware people aren't.

Ultimately it is all about greed; their job is to make the maximum money. They walk a careful line; some industries do very well by appearing to be generous. Instead, they've chosen to try to milk every possible dollar. But that's "greed" in the "trying to maximize your value" sense, not "greed" in the stealing-from-other-people sense. They want the benefit of what they've created, even though it seems awfully miserly of them (and even counter-productive) to go about it the way they are.

I imagine that they get that cynical as a result of manipulating people into buying the music in the first place, music that a lot of people think isn't very good but which a lot of people spend money on and which many go out of their way to download. (The vast majority of bands would love to have you download their music, because it means you've at least hard of them.) Since they think that they can create the desire to buy music (and their CD sales figures show that they can), the seem to think that they've got the formula licked and can risk alienating their customers because they'd rather buy the CDs from the RIAA than risk jail or take a chance on a band they've never heard of.

Highly Misleading Summary, Ignorant Comments!

[stevemm81]

This seems to be a far too common occurence here: the article summary is misleading and the commenters don't even read the 300 word article. The article says nothing about companies wanting money for things people type into a search engine.

Apparently the record companies used to allow portals like Yahoo to show their videos for free, since they considered it free advertising for their music. Then, they realized that Yahoo was making lots of money off
the deal through advertising, so they asked for a cut. Yahoo refused, but saw their hits go down, so they negotiated a deal. Basically, an exec at Universal realized what they considered advertising was more like giving away free product. This makes sense: people weren't discovering new music on Yahoo. Most of the time, they came there to see videos and songs they already knew.

I suppose you could say the record companies are being greedy, but they're not doing anything suspect. They realized other companies were making money off their products, and decided to charge for the privilege. Similarly, they're trying to renegotiate with Apple, and we'll see who wins there. They may harm their own market more than they expect by raising the prices, or the market may be happy to pay $1.30 for new hits. We'll just see. They're also renegotiating with satellite radio, now that that industry is pulling in lots of money, again with the RIAA's products.

There's no talk in the article of charging anyone for search engine keywords.

there isn't one shareholder of google

[zogger]

And any shareholder can have an opinion on what is the best way to run a company. Some hold a very long term view, that by consistently "doing no evil", the company will last a long time and be even more profitable than doing everything they can to maximize profits in the "this quarter" mentality that so many other corporations have. In fact, perhaps more than a few people invested in google for that reason.

There are many institutional and private investors that now consider ethics and politics in their investment decisions and it's completely legal and normal and they contend it's a long range logical view to take. If you as a potential investor read that google had such a "do no evil" policy and it lead to your decision to invest cash when they went public, then you could make a case where they violated that if they started "doing evil", and perhaps file a complaint.

Funny story, friend of mine inherited a really nice portfolio. He divested all (to buy rental properties instead) except for enough shares in this or that company to go to the shareholder meetings and rail on issues about how the companies were run.

it's true, i know!

[tehwebguy]

the more i work with bands and record labels (labels that are meant to be indie) the more dirt i find out about this industry.

so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.

then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd.

it's ingenious, and disgusting.

Ob. Star Wars quote

[NoMaster]

"And who's gonna fly it, kid - you?"
"You bet! Why, I -"
"Recording music ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you'd bury yourself in the mix, or sound too close to a pop tartlet, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"

Re:Since you brought it up...

[Bobzibub]

Hey! I have a degree in economics!
Oh. What was the question again??? = )
Well, happy to pointificate!

Hmmm.. Boycot Exxon? OK, well, they would just advertize like BP. Sunflowers, responsibility, alternative energy. Bla bla. People would believe it too. All the while they pump that oil...

Prices of gas are increasing faster than crude because they are different markets. Now there are limited amounts of refineries in the US and few companies can invest that much capital to build one... I understand they take a few years to build and get onstream..

Not that Bush's idea (subsidize the building of oil refineries) is a great one. The oil companies are making big bucks: they should do it right? I heard that one made more profit last quarter than any other company in history. Could have been Exxon, I don't remember.

To me, the question is: why are there so few refineries now? Did the oil excecs get to gether some golf game and say: Let's not build any more for a couple years? Was it *really* environmental regulation that quashed them? Collusion in that market would have the benefit of huge profits for them. I remember Cheney had secret meetings with the oil 'boyz' a few years ago, and they collectively decided US energy policy, without ever releasing the minutes of those meetings.. I think that was pre-Iraq so they might make some fun reading in 40 years.. It could have been similar to:

Cheney: Thanks for the donation, boyz. Like the cigars? They're Cuban! Batista! Well, to business then. We agree that you don't make any refineries in the next few years (and collect excess profits), support us in Iraq, and we'll get you those Iraqi drilling contracts, leash the anti-trust hounds. Of course we'll expect future consideration...

Oil barons: No refineries? None of us? We're "Gung Ho" for Oil Contracts! (puff.. puff...) OK, deal.

Well it *could* have been like that! = )

In general, you are better to vote in politicians that support consumers, not oil companies, than attempt to get a boycot organized. Companies (Oil or RIAA members) do not have to adapt to change if they are protected by fiat. And one can buy policy so cheaply these days:

$200M building an oil refinery could get you say a %50 return if you bet correctly on oil prices.
$50,000.00 donation/investment to Cheney's PAC could help get you $8,000,000,000 in return.

Where would you invest? The law requires you to act in the best interest of your share holders, not your country.

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2005/0429/biz/s tories/04biz.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/cheney/ch eney1988.htm

Katrina and Rita wipes out a few refineries and it all goes to hell for the consumer...

Of course nobody will know what the truth is until these folks are long gone.

Cheers,
-b

A devil's advocate says...

[Slashdiddly]

Consider an analogy. Alice and Bob each has a fruit stand selling apples. Both are selling identical apples for $1 a piece. They've been doing it for a while, until Alice decided to hire Carol, a marketing exec, to increase sales. Carol immediately gets to work: she installs a loud boombox, girls in skimpy outfits and a blimp hovering overhead - all advertizing Alice's apples. Crowd gathers around Alice's stand and sales go through the roof. Even after paying Carol marketing fees, there is still handsome profit left - more than she ever had before.

Where did the profits come from? Was there any new value created? Well, the apples didn't change, but the demand did. The demand was created exclusively by Carol.

Bob in the meantime kept his costs low and did not hire any marketers. He did notice something interesting, however - because of all the increased interest in the apples next door, demand for his apples started to pick up as well. Marketing effort paid for by Alice has began to increase Bob's revenues.

Question: does Bob owe anything to Alice?

In the physical world, generally, yes. It's called "location, location, location". Bob can setup a fruit stand out in the middle of nowhere and pay nobody for the privilege. Or he can open a stand in a downtown mall, which will cost him.

Back to RIAA.

Without heavy and expensive promotion by RIAA, the value of, say, 50 Cent would be hovering just above zero (some would argue below). RIAA effectively created the artificial demand for his product, which, supported by copyright laws, fuels a vast ecosystem of businesses. Why shouldn't those benefitting from selling, reselling or otherwise commercially benefitting from 50 Cent's music own portion of profits to RIAA who created majority of the value in the first place?

Disclaimer: I think that RIAA should die and music should be free, but that would be preaching to the choir and, therefore, boring.

Re:A devil's advocate says...

[Piquan]

Ah, but it's a false analogy. In your case, Alice and Bob (presumably; I'm inferring here) had independant orchards. In ours, Bob has to buy his apples from Alice; there's no other source for the apples that Alice and Bob are selling. So Bob's increased sales also lead to more revenue for Alice. (Bob might be sell a few bananas too-- they were grown independantly-- but Alice was only advertising the apples.)

But here's another thing: the RIAA doesn't sell anything to consumers. Alice isn't even selling apples to the public. She knowingly and intentionally paid Carol to increase market awareness. Her only reason was to boost Bob's sales (since Bob pays Alice a cut of every apple, no pun intended).

Now let's get to the real issue here. Alice is advertising apples, but doesn't say where to buy them. So Bob also puts out his own flyers with directions to his apple stand. Alice says, well because I paid Carol all this money, I also want you get paid me for each flyer that Bob puts out. To top it off-- and this is actually irrelevant because the rest is so ludicrous-- she's not telling this to Bob; she's telling it to the flyer printer.

So the analogy is quite different. In your example, Alice and Bob (presumably) had independant orchards. Alice sold apples to the public, and that's why she paid Carol. And Alice wanted to benefit from Bob's increased revenues. But in our case, Alice has the only orchard. She doesn't sell apples; she only paid Carol to boost Bob's sales. And Alice wants to get a cut of Bob's flyer printing.

The way I figure, Bob is paying Alice a lot. Alice isn't giving the apple farmers much at all. The reason she justifies this is by saying that she has to pay Carol so much. So why, when Bob pays for marketing out of his own pocket, should Alice demand money? If anything, it would seem that Alice should give money to Bob-- she's the one with the huge advertising budget.

how is this even remotely sane?

[Khashishi]

It makes no sense. How can the RIAA possibly expect search engines to pay them for something that they have no valid claim on. I can say that Google owes me a gazillion dollars, but that doesn't make it so.

How about this

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

I have a suggestion... what about artists each set up their own website (yes yes I know many have, bear with me), and offer simple MP3 downloads for a buck apiece, similar to itunes except they keep all save the bandwidth. Not going to work? If you think about it though, is a person who is going to pay for the music in the first place going to share the music on edonkey or klite? Probably not. But then you run into problems with people who swap their MP3 collections with their friends, friends who have no compunction about putting their entire collection on the file sharing networks, or kids who used their parents' credit cards to buy the song or songs, and share them for the kudos.

So basically you have one or two months before your song downloads start dropping, and of course then you will still have the fans that are willing to pay the dollar. And don't forget, many people patronise itunes, even though they could almost certainly get the songs on p2p networks.

Therefore to maintain this kind of business, bands would need to release a new song every month or so. The rest is just marketing (very cheap online, if you pick your keywords right), maybe a bit of touring... nothing to it really. This would mean the really good artists would gain the fame they deserve, not the bought and paid for fame of the record companies. And those with dreams of vast riches would be well advised to steer clear of the RIAA et al anyway.

Re:How about this

[rcbarnes]

Any artist who signs with the RIAA companies basically signs over all rights to _their own music_ including sales outside the label. Only the artists with huge clout can afford to make contracts that do not rape them.

The RIAA screws artists a lot too, and consumers who are constantly terrorized with their (IMAO criminal) behaviour forget that the lables are generally hated by everyone, including the artists. (Ever hear a performer thank their label when winning an award? No, only people. The corperate part is a leech, and they all know it.)

Back to the main point, artists cannot sell anything they record with a label themselves, so unfortunately, the site idea (which I would love) can't work.

Re:How about this

[Master of Transhuman]

"Ever hear a performer thank their label when winning an award?"

Actually, my favorite band, The Corrs, were dumb enough to do that when they won their first international award in Spain back in the mid-90's.

In fact, they've been slavishly worshipful of Time-Warner and Atlantic Records, praising them in numerous documentary videos.

Today, guess what? Jason Flom, the head of Atlantic and the guy who discovered them, is out, the Corrs have been relegated to Atlantic.UK and gets no release for their new album, "Home", in the US - and their manager, John Hughes, admits publicly that they're looking for a new record deal.

In other words, having been screwed by Atlantic, they are now looking to sign themselves up for another screwing because they don't have the imagination to see that distributing their own music and live concert broadcasts by subscription - in other words, a return to live performance, the basis of music historically - is the way to go. Even though they're probably one of the best live concert acts in the world and their ticket demand at the end of last year's tour, according to Hughes, is the highest it's ever been.

You just can't save some people from themselves.

Re:How about this

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

artists cannot sell anything they record with a label themselves, so unfortunately, the site idea (which I would love) can't work.

Actually the site idea comes from the mess that various artists have landed themselves in with the record companies. What you'd have to do is get those new bands and artists that aren't yet signed up with a record company on board, and those artists that are well established that have managed to wrestle free of them, and get the ball rolling with them. Its not an overnight fix, but it would restore the balance of power somewhat, and eventually would spell the practical end for the mass music conglomerates. A lost cause that isn't?

That's good?

[ShimmyShimmy]

"...but they've gotten so carried away they are overreaching... That's good."

Are you sure about that? I'd like to start by mentioning the industry collapsing won't be good for any artists, established or not. High prices and piracy or not, if there's no one to quickly turn performances into CDs in stores and songs on the radio, I don't think anyone's going to be happy.
On another note, I don't think having their 'greed show' is going to stop them. It's been really clear for a long time that they've been greedy as shit ($13.86 mean anything to you?), but since then, there hasn't been a single crippling lawsuit against the RIAA. They're still getting rediculous royalties (70 cents per iTunes song), they're still cranking out lawsuits left and right, and no one's doing anything about it.
The recording industry is making no secret of being greedy (special thanks Steve Jobs), but it hasn't gotten, or appeared, more or less greedy in the last 5 years or so. If they haven't been stopped already, I don't think that's going to do it.
Unfortunately, it's going to take more than being perceived as a greedy bad guy to take them down (cough, Microsoft). I'm sort of hoping for a 'new generation' of lawmakers. As of now, I'm going to say that most people in positions to pass these laws are in the age range of 35-60, but people that grew up with Napster and successors probably aren't more than 20-25 years old. Maybe when this all cycles through and people that grew up downloading music start to pass these laws, they might be a bit more sympathetic toward the money-starved, music-hungry end user downloader.
I just don't see any real end to all of this. As long as the RIAA (and MPAA) continues to have endless dollars to throw lawyers around, they're probably not going to lose big time. And I have a feeling they'll have plenty of those dollars for a LONG time.
P2P seems to be the light in all of this. Despite flurries of lawsuits and garbage propaganda, efforts thus far to curb piracy have not been extremely effective. Napster lead way to Kazzaa and iMesh, and even the shutting down of the giant Suprnova only lead to sites like IsoHunt that are bigger than SN ever was. As long as music, movies, and music videos are readily available online for free, I don't think the record companies will ever have too much of an edge up. As long as I can put my mp3s (that I didn't pay a dime for) onto my iPod, and watch DivX movies on my modded Xbox, I think I'll be happy.

More like this:

[jspoon]

"And who's gonna fly it, kid - you?"
"You bet! Why, I -"
"Recording music ain't like dusting crops, boy. Without precise calculations you'd bury yourself in the mix, or sound too close to a pop tartlet, and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?"

"And who's gonna advertise it, kid - you?"
"You bet I could! I'm not such a bad... Wait, what was the question?"

Re:insightful?

[AuMatar]

Because corporations

1)Have a hell of a lot more money.
2)Have a power setup where its more likely those in charge are amoral asshats.

The stakes on this are VERY HIGH for Google

[Proudrooster]

If Google capitulates to this request it could destroy them as a company. Assume Google pays the record companies a percentage of ad revenue based on product keyword searches. What is to stop everyone with search content in google from making the same demand? This would make Google much less profitable and we would soon be back to the days of "hit or click inflation" to try and generate more revenue. I could even imagine the RIAA contracting with nefarious programmers to create worms with the sole purpose of generating hits on Google.

Google must reject this request and let the RIAA take them to court and subsequently lose. The stakes on this are quite high for all search engine companies. I agree with previous posters who said that Google should delete all RIAA content and have them pay for to get into Google's search database. The result of this would hurt the RIAA worse than it would hurt Google.

What's wrong with that?

[geekee]

"so many bands nowadays are picked up or formed by majors (RIAA labels) secretly, then they are put on an "indie" label for their first cd. then once the indie/punk/insert_somewhat_underground_genre_here crowd loves them, they release the next album on the major.

then when they are on mtv/radio, the people who just buy into whatever they hear love them, and so does the underground (or at least those who'd like to theink they are) crowd. "

If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway. So if the the music industry has to trick these people to like music, what's the harm?

Re:What's wrong with that?

[maxpublic]

If a group of people only like a band because it's on an indie label, it says they're a bunch of posers anyway.

Which happens to comprise a huge number of Slashdot posters. Every time an article on the RIAA comes up, these immature little assholes pop out of the woodwork to eagerly proclaim how much superior they are to the 'sheep' because they only listen to "indie" stuff. Pathetic, really, but they somehow think that making nasty comments about popular music while extolling the virtues of some shitty no-name garage band actually proves, in some bizarre teenage-pseudo-rebellious sort of way, that they're actually more intelligent than, say, the guy who collects their trash, or works construction, or flips their burgers.

I guess they never got over being the left-out loser in high school, and this is their own childish form of payback.

Max

Re:insightful?

[commodoresloat]

and why is it that you single out corporations in your little rant?

Perhaps because the "record labels" referred to in this article are, ummm, "corporations"? Just a guess.

Straight to iTunes?

[nothingx]

Okay, I admit, I've never recorded an album and I don't know how everything works, but couldn't an artist take their album straight to iTunes, and thereby bypass the whole RIAA thing? I think if that were possible, it really would make the RIAA obsolete.

Re:Straight to iTunes?

[zpok]

There are several ways of bypassing the label thing, but not all of them are successful. Labels do know how to get you good distribution... so starting your own label and getting your songs in iTunes is very hard if you aren't someone "formerly known as".
But I've heard very good things about CDBABY. They are distributors and store keepers. You, the independent artist can sell in their store (cdbaby.com). If you do, you can also opt for their digital distribution deal, which almost guarantees placement with iTunes, Napster and a whole bunch of other shops. Their cut is 9% of what you get per sale, and since you don't have a label, that means 91% of 65 cents.

So instead of only getting about 5 cents you get about 59 cents. Which is nice.

Greed 2.0???

[8127972]

With all of the stunts they've pulled lately, I thought they were up to version 8 or 9 by now?

RIAA Demands Royalties from Slashdot

[skingers6894]

The RIAA today announced that they will be demanding royalties from every RIAA related story appearing on slashdot.

An RIAA spokesman today announced "These slashdot stories are related to us and we should have a cut and anyway you could be buying CDs instead of reading this story so you owe me $13.99 and if you don't pay that then I'll take you to court and sue for 20 Million dollars and if you don't pay that then I'll sue your kids and your dog too."

Kinda like Microbrews

[FiskeBoller]

Reminds me of Microbrews. All the major labels put out fuller bodied suds to take advantage of the beer trend. That's how capitalism works. Caveat Emptor.

Permission to "cover" not needed ... pay royalties

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"But you can't just use a song that someone else wrote on your album without getting their permission."

You sure as hell CAN! The USA Copyright Act provides for what is called a "Compulsory License", which means that if you follow the steps set forth by statute, you can distribute your recording of that song on a CD or over the internet. The owner of the copyright to the song cannot prevent you from doing so.

Note that "permission" is not required. You just have to notify them and pay the statutory required royalties ... The hard part if finding out who owns the rights.

See http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_ law.html and also
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf

We don't run a studio anymore

[xixax]

The big music labels do not need to exist anymore, all the middleware functions they used to provide are being automated (i.e. production and distribution of media) or commoditized (i.e. digital studios) out of existence. The big labels *know* that this happeneing, and while there's still a lot of industry based on the old model, they are working towards legislating themselves an ongoing source of income before it is realised that they are irrelevant. It is important to call them up on this sort of shennanigans lest the DRM gravy train be blindly accepted as a "natural" progression for the industry.

I am involved with a community radio station that used to offer (analogue) studio services for local bands. We got out of that because there's a bunch of small studios in town who can churn out damn fine recordings for very little cash, one of the *best* mastering people I have ever encountered has a little cave of a studio, some good mikes and a Macintosh. The whole million dollar studio thing is BS for people who love the sort of mussic industry we see in This is Spinal Tap.

Xix.

Fecal management

[Shazow]

[...] from that pool, make up a list of services and subtract out 90% of the money for things like "fiscal management" "trademark research" "artist contact costs" or anything else [...]

I swear I read that as "subtract out 90% of the money for things like "fecal management", ..." which, actually, I thought was a good idea. The RIAA does produce a lot of feces for other companies to manage. :D

- shazow

keep it up, fuckers.

[otterpop378]

just keep it up. gimmie gimmie gimmie. I don't know about you guys, but I will just stop buying from a label who acts like this. But just keep it up and make sure -everyone- hates you.