Record Store Owners Blame RIAA For Destroying Music Industry

techdirt writes "It's not like it hasn't been said many times before, but it's nice to see the NY Times running an opinion piece about the RIAA from a pair of record store owners which basically points out how at every opportunity, the RIAA has made the wrong move and made things worse: 'The major labels wanted to kill the single. Instead they killed the album. The association wanted to kill Napster. Instead it killed the compact disc. And today it's not just record stores that are in trouble, but the labels themselves, now belatedly embracing the Internet revolution without having quite figured out how to make it pay.' It's not every day that you see a NY Times piece use the word 'boneheadedness' to describe the strategy of an organization."

Comments

Re:NY Times

[PriceIke]

This is a troll HOW exactly? The NY Times ARE boneheads. It seems an amusing and interesting article--one I'm inclined to agree with, if the summary is accurate--but ANYthing that comes out of the NY Times should be suspect on its face, for no other reason but that the Times saw it "fit to print".

Even if you don't agree with this, it's a legitimate opinion, not some off-topic whacko BS someone's spewing for no reason. So regardless whether you think it's right or wrong, it's not a troll. Someone with mod points, please fix moderation on this.

No sympathy for "record stores"

[realmolo]

Who cares about small, independent music shops? Who cares about the big music stores?

They don't offer anything. If I want an easy-to-find CD, I can go to Wal-Mart or BestBuy and get it cheaper. If I want a hard-to-find CD, I can get it on the internet, for less money. AND have it delivered.

The music stores, and for that matter MOST "specialty" retail stores, had their fun. They got to be nothing but a "middle-man", and take their cut at retail for doing basically nothing but running cash registers. That's fine, but it only works in the long-term if you can get HUGE like Wal-Mart.

I always here about the death of "mom and pop" stores, and how sad it is. You know what? FUCK "mom and pop". Mom and pop pay their employees minimum wage. Mom and pop make sure all of their employees only work part-time. Mom and pop don't offer any kind of health benefits to their employees. They also have higher prices, a smaller selection, and are located in out-of-the-way places. MAYBE they have good return policies. That's IT.

In my experience, the only people that benefit from "mom and pop" stores is MOM AND POP. They make a decent living by selling stuff in locations that don't have a Wal-Mart yet. Good for them. Bad for the people that have to buy stuff there, or work there.

Re:CD prices and lousy A&R

[cdrguru]

$10 for 19 tracks when you say right above that it costs less than $1.50 when someone else makes them for you? So why are you charging $10 and not $1.50 or $2? Greed perhaps?

Or, do you think your CD is somehow worth something more than the time and materials used to make it?

Re:boneheadedness

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Things change. Accept it, move on, STFU.

Accept it, move on, and STFU only when there is no problem. Well, there is a problem. Not only that, it is a legal problem. The RIAA and the music stores are competing with an illegal movement. They obviously can't make a profit, because people, against the law and against (my) morality, are getting the music they alone are responsible for, for next to nothing. They have a right to be angry, they have a right to sue (as long as they don't abuse the legal system while they are at it), they have a right to try to solve the problem. I have no doubt that they will still whine if they were against a legal competitor, but for now, I believe (despite the bungles) that they still have the moral and legal higher ground.

Let's face it - as musicians, as listeners - the producers and consumers - we're going to be fine.

Prove it. Set up an online independent music label and legitimately compete with the RIAA. I'm still yet to see an indie label that is doing as well as any of the RIAA's big labels. I think that is because the internet is not quite ubiquitous, secure, fast (at least here in Australia), or average-joe-friendly enough to cut out physical media. So there are still some distribution costs for those who don't want to use the internet.