Slashdot Mirror
Why the RIAA Really Hates Downloads
wtansill recommends the saga of Jeff Price, who traveled from successful small record label owner to successful Internet-era music distributor. His piece describes clearly what the major record labels used to be good for and why they are now good for nothing but getting in the way. "Allowing all music creators 'in' is both exciting and frightening. Some argue that we need subjective gatekeepers as filters. No matter which way you feel about it, there are a few indisputable facts -- control has been taken away from the 'four major labels' and the traditional media outlets. We, the 'masses,' now have access to create, distribute, discover, promote, share and listen to any music. Hopefully access to all of this new music will inspire us, make us think and open doors and minds to new experiences we choose, not what a corporation or media outlet decides we should want."
a few spaniards got on some boats, and with some fancy new technology, subdued entire noble ancient civilizations in central and south america
technological progress was not fair to the aztec and incan nobility. you wonder what they thought when they looked upon the gun, the horse, the metal armor, the smallpox. well, if you work for the riaa or a major label, you know more of what it is like to be on the losing side of technological progress like perhaps no other class of people in the western hemisphere right now
so here's to you, music label suit
heres to your vanishing jobs, to the jobs of blacksmiths, to the jobs of chimney sweeps, to the jobs of telegraph operators, to the jobs of steam ship engineer
to the dustbin of history with all of it
please no banging on your coffin while we nail it shut. thanks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> If this were NOT what it has all been about, then I would be interested to hear any other intelligent suggestions.
Uh.. perhaps it's about them losing money from people downloading music for free instead of paying for it? The record companies only deal in music which'll make them money. There are many more unsigned bands/acts which sell their own music at shows or play for free. If the mindset in the article were to be believed, the large companies would be blindly signing literally everybody who made music so it could control them. This isn't true - it's hard work to get signed, and then a fair amount of pressure is put upon you to produce airplay friendly tunes etc.
Sweet. I can't wait until my car radio has 10,000 stations and I have to wade through them all to try to find something that doesn't suck.
You know, I think that the increase of accessibility of both creators and consumers of music is a Good Thing. That the internet is providing the medium for this free exchange is also a Good Thing. I also think that the efforts of the "dinosaurs" to prevent everyone from figuring out the baseline reality of the music industry in it's current state (i.e., completely free exchange) is Pretty Stupid.
But... Dammit. Let's not get too overzealous in our condemnation of the value the Music Industry provides. They historically provided, out of economic necessity, whatever music was (subjectively) "the best."
In order to do that, they had to try to figure out what artists would appeal to the largest number of people in order to maximize their profits. It wasn't an Evil Conspiracy to prevent your buddy's shitty band from "making it big."
Imagine a world without Evil Corporations providing that service - listening to the radio in your car suddenly becomes like a Google search for not-crap, every time you try to use it. You can say all the mean things about people who actually *enjoy* top-40 radio you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact that more people would rather listen to Britney Spears than ObscureCollegeBand.
Now, while I may or may not prefer Britney Spears to ToePhunkGrooveMaster 3000, I definitely do *not* have the time or inclination to wade through the previous 2,999 iterations of their crap to find something I like. I want someone else to do that for me.
I mean, I compose music, myself. I know what I like. I have an extremely eclectic taste in music, and I appreciate the ability to pursue that taste. But sometimes I just like being able to turn on the radio without having to hope that Zach Braff will swoop down from the heavens and "change my life" by making me listen to The Shins. Sometimes, Britney will do. And so I think there's a place for those Subjective Gatekeepers in the world. (just as soon as they can give up the financial reins, and figure out what value it is they *actually* provide).
There's no controlling of tastes, merely a promotion of fashion.
Now that there exists a means of subverting the business model of said scheissters, they are upset, and will tickle the tummies of their tame congresscritters with green until the law prevents the distribution of independent music.
It's the Jaffia, stupid!
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
You're right in that a service was provided by these gatekeepers, but now that archaic corporate model needs to change. There will still be gatekeepers, but the new gatekeepers will be bloggers and other online communities that promote music they've heard and appreciate. People who then in turn like the music being promoted from one source, or "gatekeeper" will come back to them for further recommendations.
Some of my favorite bands have never been on the radio. I've heard about them through friends or through reading online. This new promotion style will more closely mirror this "organic" model of promotion.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
The way I see it, there is an answer to music distribution. Say that somebody created a private torrent tracker site where the members paid a monthly access fee. Artists could seed their music on this torrent site and be paid a percentage of the gross according to how much their stuff is downloaded. No middlemen. No record companies. Just the artists and the torrent site. Potentially, artists could make a lot more money than they are now. However, there are problems. Perhaps the stickiest is that little issue of critical mass. If a handful of independents got together and did this, they'd fail miserably. Such a site would need a *massive* catalog to get off the ground. It would have to include a very large number of artists from day 1. Still, it is a beautiful dream.
First of all, let me tell you that I agree with you in almost all points regarding the recording industries and found your explanations about the indigenous people of America really interesting - however, there's a slight problem in your last paragraph, I highlighted it.
It's not that easy. I'm an artist myself - I'd love to create content just like that, seed it on The Pirate Bay, announce it on last.fm and thus get people to listen to my music (since I'm major in a CS-related subject, I don't even care that much about the money - I'll have job some day... hopefully). But boy is it hard.
When you have a deal with record company it's not just the money you - as an artist - get out of them. Friends of mine have a really successful band - one of their singles peeked the German charts at 4 - and I'm really jealous... not about the publicity they're getting, but about their possibilities. See, to make a record it's not like the only thing you need is a guitar. You need a place to rehearse with your band. You need a good studio to record what you have rehearsed over the past weeks/months/years. The studio's not empty: you need a professional sound engineer, you need someone to master you records, mix everything... You also need a producer - or at least, it's better if you have one. Let's make a comparison: when you write a novel, the publishing house - before publishing - hire an editor to proof read what you've written. Because you missed out on some stuff, for sure. It's just goddamn impossible to be perfect (sic!). You need someone objective, and who's closer to the audience. That's what the producer is good for. He'll have totally new ideas, he'll have suggestions and most of all: he's likely to have a lot more experience than you have. You'll need that.
My friends have all that, because they have a record deal. I don't have that, so I have to stick with my NI external sound card, my laptop, my (bass) guitar, microphones, and the hydrogen drum computer. I've not recorded anything in months, because it takes at least a day to prepare all this, nevermind making a good recording. And then mixing it! Don't tell me you can do that by yourself in Audacity or Ardour. You can't. Mixing a record is a hard job and it really takes quite some experience to do it properly.
Now, I see record labels as some sort of governments: you (the artist/the people) pay them (your share of your copyrights/taxes) and you're getting the infrastructure in return (studios, sound engineers, whatnot/streets, police, judicial system). You're also getting PR out of the record labels. So they are useful to the artists, even in their current form. Not every band can have a genius among them, or several ones, to assume the different roles of the guys the label will provide you with. And who the fuck wants all musicians to be singer-songwriters, because that's the only music that's easy to just do all by yourself?? We'd have a whole cult of Jack Johnsons! What a nightmare...
Now, I'm not telling you "respect the record companies, they help the artists". Not at all. They're bitches, most of them. They are capitalists, most of them. And thus we artists hate them, for being capitalists and c
I'm an infovore...
No, I believe the new Gatekeepers will be the ISP's who will throttle and promote various websites in an internet version of Payola. Net Neutrality will be neutral in name only.
Ibid.
It does seem that most people downloading music are true fans of the artists. The RIAA seems to have a closed mind when it comes to P2P file sharing. It does not see the need/desire for quick access to music and even faster promotion through online means.
The RIAA doesn't have to pay one cent for these virtual "employees," i.e., average Americans acting as independent online marketing teams on behalf of various artists, yet it reaps a number of benefits that they might not want to realize. Although, it has come around a bit with the popular iTunes model and other similar companies.
Perhaps the upcoming younger execs of these music corporations will have a better sense of how to "join" P2P technology and not "beat" it.
Maybe thats why the *AA are scared.
People aren't paying attention and still finding what they want.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Oh, 'They' are still making great music... mountains of it in fact.
What is happening is that only formulaic music is marketed.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
"The recording industry are just a bunch of puffed out suits beating their own chests in response to the threat of something surpassing them. They'll get bored eventually."
No, they won't. Their livelihood is threatened, and no one gets "bored" in the face of rapid loss of income. It's definitely going to get worse before it gets better.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I have long maintained that the label's real concern is loss of control, not the money that is lost. The major labels have managed to snuff out the minor labels and effectively control the industry. Once they got control they have perpetuated formula bands and contracts that favor the label over the artist (it has always been that way, but the current contracts pretty much reduce the "artist" to a minor contract employee). The Internet is a huge threat because it is hard to control. The labels did manage to get rid of a lot of the small music streaming sites, leaving them with a smaller number of larger players. But P2P and torrents are largely uncontrollable and represent the major threat.
Yes, we are the cusp of Disc Jockey Super Competition. DJs used to be the Gatekeepers. But that role faded fast when Clear Channel owns the bulk of Top 40 radio stations across the USA, and the same set lists play on repeat 90% of the time for 90% of the big market big stations.
You go out to a dance club, and hear music you have no idea who the artists are. That will change. And there will be new money and new fame for new talent, for new different artists and new different gatekeepers.
Those pushing Payola music will have their clocks cleaned by those pushing new raw talent not inhibited by restrictive play lists. Sure, some Payola music is good, but some of it is just old model artificial scarcity pushing of tired formulaic drivel.
I never understood why information in the music industry is so far in the dark ages. It's not at all easy to even know the name of the artists and songs which are playing on the radio. How many times have you heard a good song and it takes listener effort to discover who the artist is? You see tons of internet threads asking for help finding the artist/song with "...lyrics...".
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
This also keeps alive the myth that independent music is of poor quality, and only appealing to a small group of people. The truth is that a lot of people aren't aware of the struggle that most bands went through to get on the "local" corporate stations, and that they were at one point, most likely, an independent artist trying desperately to get noticed!
Anecdotal example: Death Cab for Cutie. Most people are shocked to learn that they have more than one album when I ask them which one they favour. Most people are MORE shocked to learn that the band has been around longer than their children have been alive...