Slashdot Mirror
Will the New RIAA Tactic Boost P2P File Sharing?
newtley writes "The RIAA's claim that it'll stop suing people may have serious consequences... for the RIAA. When it dropped its attack on seven University of Michigan students, Recording Industry vs. The People wondered if the move was linked to three investigations, with MediaSentry as the target, before Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth. Now, 'LSA sophomore Erin Breisacher said she stopped downloading music illegally after hearing about the possibility of receiving a lawsuit, but now that the RIAA has stopped pursuing lawsuits she "might start downloading again,"' says the Michigan Daily, going on to quote LSA senior Chad Nihranz as saying, 'I figure, if there aren't as many lawsuits they will come out with more software to allow students to download more.'"
What about some of the other potential tactics we've discussed recently, such as the UK's proposed £20 per year film and music tax or the $5 monthly fee suggested in the US? Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
But if I get taxed £20, i'll be sure to download at least £200 worth of media.
yes
How about producing music people actually want to buy?
I'm sure if Putin and Dell get together they could figure out a great way to sell music in any format the customers want and at a reasonable price!
They are just saying they wont sue anyone so that people will be open about it and then sue like 100,000people at once.
An annual fee of £20 is significantly less than I spend on music/DVDs as it stands, so it sounds like a pretty good deal.
I must assume that's not their intent, and that they just want to use this top up their revenues to what they think they 'should' be, but if they're going to charge me on the assumption that I'm illegally downloading copyrighted materials, the least I can do is illegally download some copyrighted materials, right?
[quote]Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?[/quote] Make a system that is as easy as thepiratebay and has as much stuff. Now it is convenience that is killing them. The Free part doesn't hurt, but it also doesn't help as much as the fact that the legal options are as painful as a root canal.
I believe the ultimate goal for the RIAA is to get a fee from every customer of an ISP. Money for doing nothing. The distribution of these fees will be such that independent artists get a token sum, while the RIAA gets money for nothing. That's what all the litigation is for -- to get this fee system established.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I know this sounds like the start of a bad joke, but this seems to be a fairly simple principle. When the USSR made it nearly impossible to get normal goods that the public wanted, an underground sprang up to fill the need. This is simple supply and demand economics. To generalize, making things overly expensive and tied to one internet connected device is only going to encourage a larger underground market.
People, on the whole, want to do the right thing, but you should not deprive them of their right to do whatever they want with things they have legally bought, or they will circumvent it. Humans adapt, learn, and defeat stupid things like copy protection and vendor-lock in all the time. If they really want to decrease piracy, then they should stop price gouging, stop overly restrictive DRM, allow better "try before you buy" methods, and truly embrace college communities via viral marketing techniques rather than call them criminals.
But hey, you already knew this. At this point, we're just beating a dead horse with this argument.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
Yes. Sell songs in an open and non-DRM-encumbered format for a fair price. Then accept that when someone buys a song they can listen to it on their PC AND their i(river/pod/whatever). Stop trying to sue people for tens of thousands of dollars for "stealing" a $.99 song.
No, I firmly believe there isn't. They chose the wrong strategy, and got caught out in the cold. They lead lives that are so different from ours, they've become convinced by their own arguments, just like the Wall Street bankers and their bonuses. The RIAA really doesn't have much of a choice but to throw in the towel and start off in a different direction. Of course, they won't, and I'll be one of those cheering their burial.
They've made it this far because a large part of their argument comes from the idea that file-sharing is globally illegal. This type of file sharing has to be made firmly, clearly, and once-and-for-all clearly legal. Somewhere, we have to ask ourselves what value do recorded music, video, and programs have? If we're not happy with the free-market answer, we have to find it in ourselves to come up with a solution that modifies the free-market such that we support these activities. Simply declaring the free-market illegal is not a valid strategy. It hasn't ever worked in the past-- witness alcohol, drugs, etc...-- and it's not working now.
Now, I for one think that the arts are far more worthy than the sciences. As an engineer, I was offered a salary 5 times what a friend was making, even though I was going to do numerical analysis of toilet paper (no shit, pun intended) and she was working 80 hour days with children's theater. If the fact that we live in a society that values toilet paper more than theater offends you, then you need to make the decisions in your life that reflect this.
Science is an awesome hobby, and it's what I do for a living, but somewhere we're seriously out of whack when business is worth more than life. The RIAA mentality shows this, and there's really nothing they can do except fight until they've carved out a sufficiently well protected niche that they can survive in some minimal fashion. To take an analogy from Go, they're trying desperately to make two eyes, even though the game is practically over.
www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to stop copyright infringement without looking like a bunch of asses? Sure, but they've now in a deep hole dug on the unsustainable premise that they could either sue all infringers out of existence or at least enough of them to cow everyone else into staying off P2P. Turns out that wasn't working either.
Here are my proposals for ways they can get turned around:
1. Do their damnedest to promote all the usable online services. iTunes, Amazon, the whole smash. No DRM anywhere, though I think people won't mind fingerprinting. Do a mix of buy-to-own and subscription services; there are separate markets for each. Sell audio with lossless encoding (Apple Lossless and FLAC if that works in the non-Apple ecosystem). Raffle off concert tickets for buyers on the download services. Try to reach everyone -- Windows, Mac, Linux.
2. Do a "legal" P2P service that traffics purely in 128kbps MP3s of popular songs with lead-in or lead-out ads. "Weezer's Red Album -- now available from your online music store." That kind of thing.
3. Let Web radio live. I'm sure there's a reasonable profit stream there that everyone can tap into if nobody strangles the golden goose, so to speak. It also drives sales -- when I was a kid the only music I actually bought was stuff I'd already heard on the radio. Get people to actually use the "radio" function in iTunes and web browsers and whatnot. Music radio on 3G phones. The possibilities are endless here.
4. Instead of chasing homemade music videos off YouTube, get people to pay a "licensing fee" of say $5 and then let them be. There are also cross-licensing deals for advertising dollars to be had with the video services.
5. ENOUGH WITH THE MEDIA TAXES. If I pay a "tax" on recording media or my iPod's hard drive or whatever I will download everything I can for free. I'm going to assume I'm already "paid up" because guess what, I am. Besides, if we pay a media tax the music industry should be quasi-nationalized.
6. (the one they'll never accept) Deal with the fact that music is now a more distributed phenomenon and that the massive profit margins the record companies saw on audio cassettes and CDs just can't exist anymore. Make what profit you can instead of getting sucked down the toilet with the rest of the economy.
I will bet good money, though, that the RIAA won't do any one of these things over the next five years-- instead they'll just chase the phantom of infringement that they'll never be able to stop, music sales will go completely down the drain, and the world music industry will restructure around the online services being labels themselves. Cut your song in a recording studio then upload it to Amazon and iTunes. They take 35%, you take the rest. Hell, the RIAA should be very very scared of this happening, and I expect they are, but they're going to make it happen and maybe that's a good thing for all us music buyers.
"Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?"
Well, LOTS of things. /. article on big downloaders also being the biggest purchasers.
1. Stop treating their clients as criminals, (see earlier
2. Make more of their catalog available, faster, and more easily, to more paid download services.
2. Skip the DRM crap, (which will save money, too)
3. Divert the cash currently wasted on criminal clowns like MediaSentry and Sony rootkits to efforts to educate the public on how to download music safely, legally & cheaply.
4. Ink deals with content creators that take into account all revenue streams, (including concerts, the real money-spiners for many artists these days), with a fair share for all and which takes into consideration the investment made by production organisations in developing new talent.
5. Make it easy for people to buy/access, and archive/backup 'premium/HiRes/lossless' content (see 'DRM' above).
6. Promote standards for inteeoperability between various media storage and playback devices. Would I pay for to have my vast mp3 collection automagically tagged and sorted, with the ability to stream/upload to any device I own, and maybe grab the video if I want? Well, yes!
Now I'm going to stop dreaming, and go back to helping my teenage daughter convert a YouTube pop video for use on her iPod.
STOP BUYING AND/OR DOWNLOADING COMMERCIAL MUSIC.
Just stop. Seriously. Boycott any and all bands that go through publishers that have any affiliation whatsoever with these criminals. And yes, regardless of what you think, the RIAA ARE indeed criminals. I'm not talking "criminals" as in America's law, I'm talking "criminals" as in moral and ethical laws. Think "LAWFUL EVIL" for all you D&D fans out there. The only difference between you and them are dollar signs. That goes for the MPAA too.
If we could all go one, maybe two years without buying any music or movies (and I'm sure that's possible...it's called self-restraint) that have ties to these asswipes, they WILL go away because they won't have those pretty little dollar signs any more. Now is the BEST time to do this because of the economy. They're more vulnerable than ever.
As I posted in the £20 tax thread, I can't find any evidence that such a proposal even exists.
The UK government did propose, in the interim Digital Britain report, to explore the willingness of rightsholder organisations (eg, the equivalents of the RIAA and MPAA) to fund a Rights Agency [which is stupid idea, but still...] but there never was a "broadband tax" proposal.
I think that the Times article was simply wrong (did you see it quote anything or anyone? Thought not). However, if anyone can find some counter evidence, then I'd like to read it.
I hold no candle for the Labour government - bash away, but when you bash at a non-existent straw man, then you undermine all your legitimate arguments against the real world shit that the bastards try to pull (ID cards, Internet use database, DNA records, etc.)
--Ng
Lower prices.
It's simple economics. Lower prices will result in higher marginal utility and more people will buy instead of download.
Look at it this way. If all of the millions of songs that people are downloading for free were to go away, not every one of those people would go out and buy the music. If the prices were reduced to, say, (allofmp3.com levels) then many people who wouldn't otherwise buy the songs would.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Maybe instead of all the trouble of finding the owner of an IP address, they will wait for filesharers to get lazy and confess. Now that Erin's full name is known with an admission of guilt, the case should be easy.
The only thing missing is the list of songs shared, so who is the copyright owner? I wonder if suspicion of downloading one of my songs is enough even without proof.
Can we start discovery?
The truth shall set you free!
Everyone knows that the Michigan Daily has a list of the most clueless people on campus which they call up whenever they need quotes for an article. I wouldn't put much stock in two anecdotes.
When anyone can easily and cheaply transmit books, movies, music, software, papers, pictures and any other digitized piece of information, the medium that they use becomes not like a marketplace, but like a public library.
In a library, the killer app (what you are paying your tax dollars for) is storing, organizing and retrieving the information in the library. The primary cost is not the acquisition of the data in the first place, but rather the overhead.
Now, how does one make money producing information so much of it is available for free and anything you make can be instantly retransmitted for essentially zero cost? There are a couple options:
- Build the library and charge for access.
- Make works on commission.
- Produce physical things and charge for them.
- Ask for donations.
That is it, AFAIK. Until the music and movie industries comes to grips with this they will be wasting time and effort as other companies build businesses around the reality of today.
The days when a record was worth $20 are long gone. Data reproduction is easy. Data is in virtually infinite supply, and therefore worth infinitely close to nothing. Meanwhile, music recording costs have dropped massively. Even without claiming any copyrights, the costs of recording an album should be easily paid with CD sales. The artists can easily get plenty of money off of live shows and merchandise sales.
How to increase sales and decrease downloads? Easy.
1. Make stuff I want to buy.
Granted, that does not reduce P2P useage, because I don't download either what I don't want, and I tend to think many think likewise. Make good music/movies that I want to see/hear and I'll buy them!
2. Get rid of DRM and other nuisances
I still do not buy a good movie if I have to fear the installation of a rootkit, or that it doesn't work in my PC at all (which happens to be my media machine, why'd I buy a dedicated DVD player?). I do not buy the movie if it forces me to sit through ads for movies I neither want nor care for. This is, if anything, the main reason for people to go to P2P instead of buying movies (besides the monetary reason). I don't mind the 20ish bucks for a good movie, but I do mind the hassle I have to worry about.
3. Give additional benefits
Downloaded content can only carry the content itself. Give people something besides the things they get on their disc. Artbooks can have a value of their own, and they can't be reproduced easily. Start hyping the "collectible value" of CDs, maybe design the covers of CDs from an artist so that they all together form nice pictures that would look cool on the collector's CD rack. But for that, you might have to return to artists that crank out more than one or two CDs before you dump them, I know. Another idea would be some sort of "limited edition" versions of CDs, create batches of about 10.000 with different artwork. Some people might buy the same CDs over and over because they gotta have them all. People are hunter and gatherers at heart, exploit that!
4. Create other media and offer discounts
Movies beg for a making of and maybe a published script. Add coupons for this and other media you want to sell that offer discounts on those additional things. People will consider it a bargain and buy them, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I stopped buying CDs when they started producing more and more CDs that were actually "music discs" and not CDs. I found that I could no longer rip them as easily and eventually just gave up. I like having my music in ogg, which no music store has, so I gave up on the idea of downloading legally. And I don't want to be the target of a lawsuit, so I refuse to download illegally. As a result, my music collection is getting kind of stale and the music industry is missing out on the 20-30 CDs a year I used to buy.
It seems that every step they take to reduce piracy just makes it that more unlikely that I'll buy legitimately from them. They make CDs rip-proof and I won't buy CDs. They make online music stores use DRM and I won't buy MP3s (or more technically WMAs or AACs).
I can't speak for every individual obviously, but if they were to just totally stop all of their anti-piracy initiatives, I'd be buying $300-$400 more music each year. There is definitely a cost to trying to stop piracy.
Considering that most people would quite guiltlessly keep any extra change that a cashier might give them without saying anything, or will generally drive as fast as they can without regard for the actual speed limit, but rather as fast as they _feel_ they could get away with and not get arrested or kill anyone (never mind the fact that the number one cause of traffic-related deaths involves excessive speed), I don't even think that education about why copyright infringement might actually be any sort of ethically wrong thing could help matters very much. It is, unfortunately, a sad truth that people will generally do whatever they think they can get away with if they think they will benefit from it, regardless of who it hurts or inconveniences, unless they happen to personally know who might be adversely affected.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I think the 'fees' and 'taxes' on broadband connections may very well work, but they depend very much on the details.
There has been a suggestion of the same thing being applied here in Sweden, with a strange twist: by paying the fee, you would be allowed to download everything your heart could desire. BUT (and it's a big but) it would still be illegal for you to _upload_ things! The net effect would be that you would be paying for the content the creators put on internet, not for anything else! Marvelous business plan...
If the 'fee'/'tax' allowed uploads as well, it could work. Until the porn industry starts claiming it's fair share of the money. I find it hard to believe there is no porn distributed illegally on internet, so the porn industry should have it's fair share. Yet, I would like to see the politician or high executive from an ISP supporting the porn industry's claim....
i suppose it's possible for people to download more, although my acquaintances seem to be to doing it already with as much abandon as there is impunity. i personally know of no one affected by any legal campaigns, and lets face it, with file sharers numbering the 100s of millions, and lawsuits in the thousands the odds will always favor the file sharers, and overwhelmingly so. the most startling trend however is the exuberent rise of sneakerware. now that harddrives have crossed the 1tb threshold and easily hold 10,000 albums at high bitrates a quick perusal of craigslist shows "dj" drives being openly offered in the 300 dollar range fully loaded with karaoke, cds, videos or any combination the buyer chooses. then there're movies: a 1.5 tb drive holds 1000 high-bit avis when the avg blockbuster has i think less than 5000 titles. obviously at present transfer speeds it would take months to grab such prodigious amounts - assuming the unlikely event one found an uploader willing to service the transfer for that duration, but a friend to friend hard drive dub is measured in hours, and perfect for a socially acceptable afternoon barbecue or big game.
the internet will always be a convenient medium for occasional impulse transfers and the copyright mavens have in all likelihood resigned themselves to it, and the realization their lawsuit strategies are beginning to encounter serious and expensive legal resistance. it's also beginning to dawn on them that the big issues moving forward will be full quality library swaps via hard drive, where the entire tcm archive, or all the films in maltin's movie guide, are available for a few bucks to be plugged directly into a tv via devices such as the western digital tv hd media player, and no amount of limewire trolling is ever going to stop it. in a few years time the riaa will be looking back to the good ol days of napster/bt with fond remembrance because the media companies brain trust will be occupied by a really difficult paradigm: enticing consumers back to the store when they already have every album they can conceivably hear and every movie they could conceivably watch, and for less than the price of the tv they're watching them on.
- js.
I know of people who trade USB keys. They fill them with their favourite songs, and either hand them around, or mail them. I know of people who have exchanged external Hard Drives. Think 500 GB external hard drives full of movies and songs. People will adapt. The RIAA will fall just like the IRA.
A bigger effect on the number of users downloading has been the emergence of imeem and Myspace Music which both provide instant on demand access to almost everything ever released. imeem isn't nearly as well known as myspace, but because it allows users to upload their favorite tunes to share it has a larger selection (imeem was founded by a load of ex-napster 1.0 engineers). So between them they've essentially removed a huge number of people who would go to P2P to just find one or two songs. There are a load of other less popular music sites (last.fm, pandora etc) but myspace and imeem are vastly more popular (and legal), so they're having the biggest effect.
The entire U.S. has done business in that very way for a very long time - why should the music business be the one to capitulate? Do other businesses?
I can think of home prices, home and car insurance, automobiles, iPods, taxes, cable, and even license plate fees and registrations based upon a car's MSRP; all have prices based upon something other than real cost + a small profit margin, i.e. not a commodity. Please don't talk about the "market" as it has little effect in such twisted and non-competetive environment, whoever did it.
I believe in what you say, but why should they? Because their particular business had an unforseen trapdoor and is now under attack?
The whole model is broken.
Sounds to me like a way to get the Govt to collect money for an industry. In spite of how things appear with what the Thundering Herd of Dumbass in Washington is doing, it is not the Govt's job to ensure profits for any business or industry.
I have one thing to say about how good a Govt run business in the U. S. can be: AMTRAK! (money sewer on rails)
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The old RIAA tactics didn't thwart downloading one iota, so it's hard to believe them 'dropping the lawsuits' will have much, if any, impact on the scenario.
The fact is The record companies that the RIAA represents, put out pretty crappy generic music. It's formulaic, and meant to sell - not be innovative or good.
The 'Indie' record industry has taken the place of most big record labels, by providing music that is more in line with what the artist wants to produce. The music is better, more creative, different, and quite honestly - what people prefer to hear.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
This seems to completely ignore software developers. Does the music industry get it because they were more childish?
If the Music industry gets a slice of a tax pie simply because people -may- be illegally copying their crap, then so should the porn industry, the games industry, the software industry, the movie studios, the indy music and film developers, authors, scientists, university professors, webmasters, graphic designers,photographers, font calligraphers, etc....
This was a good comment, and I accidentally modded it "flamebait" because my finger twitched at the wrong moment. :'(
The MAFIAA come off as greedy bastards, and fairness is an instinct in all great apes.
It's amazing. I'm reading past articles in Slashdot, and we were already talking about RIAA and MPAA since 8 years ago.
From an article on Sep 11, 2001:
I felt a mix of emotions: disappointed that I wouldn't have the chance to testify and lock horns with the MPAA and other industry lobbyists, and guilty for having such self-centered thoughts during this crisis.
The earliest article I've personally found is the article MPAA vs. 2600 dated May 2001.
If I am charged a fee for something I don't do... you can bet your sweet ass that I'll start doing it in huge quantities.
I think they would gain allot by allowing legal P2P sharing of low bitrate mp3's. Say less than 128k mp3's are of low sound quality where they sound OK, but are not CD quality.
I think that if they were to allow free access to radio quality and ask people to by higher bitrate versions of the music they like/want, I think many would abide by that.
Their current model really needs an overhaul. The cost of a CD is too high... and the music quality sucks. Buying a full CD for $13-$17 with 2-3 good songs is not bad form compared to buying the same 3 songs elsewhere for $3. The cost of the album should be a discount compared to the cost of the individual songs.
Because in order to buy that argument, you have to assume that the prior tactics were REDUCING the amount of piracy before the strategy changed. You would also have to assume that a significant percentage of the pirated songs would have been purchased -- a dubious assumption at best.
If the lawsuits were working, the RIAA would pick up the pace or at least maintain the status quo. Given the RIAA's legendary learning deficiencies, there must be a preponderance of evidence to prove the ineffectiveness of the lawsuits before they were willing to pull the plug on their legal department.
Nothing is really stopping anyone from downloading whatever they want. And the availability of files to download is, well, just about everything. The individual lawsuits are meaningless, especially the argument that the defendant is "making available" some file that would not have been available otherwise. Take away that one person and the same file can be downloaded by roughly the same number of people in the same amount of time.
It's like suing someone for causing global warming because they cooked a batch of burgers on a charcoal grill. Subtracting one grill, a bag of charcoal, and six burgers from the planet accomplishes nothing. There are not enough lawyers or laser printers to sue everyone who lights up a grill for a burger feast. No matter how many people are sued, ground beef is ending up on toasted buns and the "problem" of global warming remains unchanged.
Class action suits are for multiple plaintiffs, not multiple unrelated defendants, so it really IS all about the copyright infringement of a small number of $0.99 songs every time the RIAA goes to court.
The RIAA should have done what I suggested back in the days of the original Napster. A voluntary $5/month service that tracks the existence of downloads via the existing P2P infrastructure. Revenues allocated to artists proportionally based on their share of the monthly "traffic". Tracking is not intrusive because it is being used to calculate royalties -- nothing more. I would gladly pay $5/month for an "all you can eat" guilt-free download experience. That is $60/year more than I pay for CDs now.
Instead, they continue to find new ways of collecting $0 and my existing library of CD's plays just fine on my iPod.
The RIAA "tax" plan is dead on arrival because there is no way that business use of the internet should be subsidizing recreational downloads. In order to justify the receipt of any money, the RIAA will need to provide something of value. Until they bring something to the table, no deal.
The 20 pound proposed tax in the UK was not a media tax designed to compensate the *AA or similar. It was to find an organization designed to file P2P lawsuits. It wasn't instead of the lawsuits, it was to encourage/fund them.
-- All your booze are belong to us.
Haven't the RIAA always targeted heavy uploaders vs downloaders? Haven't they always sued these folks that, by default, serve up every file they've downloaded via their P2P app?
Seems this psy-op has worked better than the actual lawsuits.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
Well, they could build an altar on the front steps of the Lincoln Memorial and sacrifice their lawyers on it. I bet thousands of people would be willing to give up illegal file sharing for a while as the price for attending such a ceremony.
Quite a few would give it up for good if they could participate directly.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Why do all of the suggestions here assume the world still needs the RIAA, or record labels for that matter? Record labels exist to distribute and advertise music, both of which can now be done online without them. Just get rid of them.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Here's a few options:
- Start treating the indies and non-"top 40 list" artists with respect.
- Stop putting out crap content that isn't worth the price they want to price-fix it at.
- Bring back the single (why do you think iTunes and similar do so well? Because most of the time only one song on the album is any good if it's a MafiAA-produced album).
- Start making the production value of CD's worthwhile again. This means put in proper cover art, lyric sheets, etc rather than just a tiny scrap of paper. Also, stop pushing the normalized volume of the recording so fucking high that it clips out and sounds like crap. Master them lower and retain audio fidelity, thanks.
- Sign some fucking new artists for god's sakes.
There's also one thing I'd love to see happen from the government's end, which would be to reinstate the radio station ownership rules. It used to be, there were over 5000 different radio companies in the US. Now, 98% of the US market is owned by only 5 companies; the biggest and crappiest, "Clear Channel", owns over 50% of the market.
You want to know why your radio sucks today? Because you don't GET local shows any more. There are a small handful of local shows, and the rest is either national-syndicated talk radio (schlesinger, limbaugh, hannity, beck, savage, etc), "top 40" generic shit "music" stations with pre-recorded loops and a guy three states away "reading your local news" to you, or "niche top 40" crap we get down here based on exploiting some racial group (local stations we have here: "La Raza", aka "The Race", the vilest racist mexican Aztlan-movement shit you've ever heard, and "the Box", which is all (c)Rap music about killing cops and regularly features "guest" appearances of the local New Black Panthers leader).
Clear Channel moves into a city, cuts all the employees, pretty much just sets up the stations on automatic reproduction of their master feed, and forgets about you. They get an almost "captive audience" of commuters, and that's that. In many local markets, there is no such thing as "competition" any more because CC owns the entire area.
Reinstate the media ownership rules; make it so we get REAL local music stations again, with REAL DJ's who make their OWN daily playlists, occasionally spin a whole album, and maybe (just maybe) there will be a better chance for music to spread.
Of course, the MafiAA loves media consolidation. That way, they send just one gift basket to one person and get Britney Spears' latest pile of crap spinning on half the stations in the US for five weeks or more, and lock the independent artists completely out of the system much easier. Gyah.
If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
The RIAA doesn't have to do anything. What the music industry giants need to do is change their business model so that it suits the current trends. You can not stop copyright infringement, period. Those that want to will find ways to do it.
These guys have been extremely slow to adapt. Quicker adoption of an emerging market should be the key here. Brick and Mortar stores are too expensive. Business models that screw over your artists is not necessarily something that 10% to 15% of the people out there want to deal with (just a random guess).
User maintains more than a dozen sockpuppet accounts on Slashdot.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
No. They are fscked.
... say five cents. That lower price should increase consumption, probably somewhere around the point where it will about equal revenues for the 99 cent stuff on iTunes (because right now people still do not want to pay 99 cents). This will also allow folks to say "hey, isn't this song cool, go ahead and copy it using this snazzy interface that beats any freeware crap... oh, btw the record company is going to get 5 cents for this". People can start to quickly and easily SHARE music, which is what people want to do with music. They need to know how to build good software for themselves.
But their best bet is to:
1) Accept the fact that they will have a choice between vastly lower profit margins and no profit margins and
2) Make an attempt to implement some kind of micro royalty system, where upon you purchasing a song, it costs you
Not a perfect solution, by any means, but at least it's got a chance. Right now, they're just buying themselves a few last gasps of air and suffocating people along with them. In reality, I think the RIAA is going to keep their massive fear of software development and the power will ultimately go to the musicians and recording studios. The young musicians will want to just have their music heard an appreciated by other people, and they won't get rich, unless they can draw huge crowds of people for concerts... And if that happened, I can't say I'd be too sad about it. Art should be for art's sake, and I think when it became big business, folks (including many musicians) lost track of that.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Although you make some great points, I'm not sure why people get so annoyed that the RIAA "treat their customers like criminals"
Every retail store I've ever shopped in does exactly the same thing.
When I find something I want, even if I have the exact change, I have to queue up for someone to remove the security tag from it. All the time, they watch me on CCTV and security guards man the exits to prevent me doing a runner.
This happens worldwide, all the time. Stores treat their customers like criminals because a non-zero percentage of them *are*.
The only difference is that retail have managed to do this without affecting the end product once you have bought it. But in principle, people selling stuff will always assume that a buyer *might* be a thief.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
No.
Any attempt to restrict what we do and how we do it, will be received with massive backlash.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Make it legal, and just find out some other way to get paid, like working real jobs.
Just in time, as if they really clamped down on file sharing people really would have stopped sharing en mass. mafRIAA cartel leaders would have watched their profits falling and found it harder to push and promote new music. The industry would retract ... the recession would get blamed.
Because piracy is the only thing supporting the industries profits amidst a global economic downturn.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
For the return of Oink.
semantics are everything!
the nationalization of music? i'd rather see us fix the the assinine copyright laws that created this problem in the first place
Great list, I'd only add one item. Stop trying to bankrupt internet radio. Use at as a medium for promoting new music. Commercial radio is real good at promoting the twenty or so 'hits' that they play over and over and over. Internet radio could be good for promoting everything else. That is if the music industry wasn't intent on killing it.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I want to see the music industry giants BANKRUPT.
Nothing short of a personal apology and a big wet kiss on my ass from ALL the music execs will ever make me buy music again.
I supported them with my money for 3 decades. And what did they do... turned around and gave a big 'FUCK YOU' to all their customers with their insane greedy antics.
Yeah... well... Fuck you guys too. I don't need you. The world doesnt need the music industry anymore. Especially when they tend to act like spoiled little brats.
So they can do whatever they want. They will never EVER get my business again.
Has anybody that was already pirating, ceased pirating, because they fear the RIAA? Anyone at all? The most I figure is some soccer mum who downloaded a rick astley album and got suckered in by a "IF YOU STEAL A MOVIE / YOU'RE A CRIMINAL / NO WHITE COLLAR PRISON FOR YOU" kind of we're-going-to-get-you fear mongering.
./ story on it tagged "goodluckwiththat". I'd like to know why them giving up has people saying anything other than "about time", followed by alt tabbing to whatever they were previously doing.
When RIAA first started suing children, there was probably a
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
"Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?"
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce the efficient distribution of music and limit people's actions without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
Probably not. Anyone who downloads illegally doesn't have any sympathy for whoever wants to force them to stop.
If the RIAA wants good press, they should figure out how to profit from music as advertising and focus on selling something else. But due to the internet doing their job for them, they should be making less money.
Or you could go onto any of the numerous websites that let you listen to sample tracks from an album, or go into stores that let you listen to CDs before you buy them.
Really, the companies do give some consideration to trying the music before you buy it. Yet you didn't even mention the other options...
Look- I dont listen to a lot of music. Its unfair to charge everyone for that. You want to fight terrorists, USA? Fight the RIAA.
Means i can download anything i damned well please and they cant complain.
Not that the RIAA has helped release anything worthwhile for decades, but you get my point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I rent video games that I'm not familiar with, if I like them, I go to Amazon or Gamestop or whatever and I buy them. Sometimes I just buy the game when I know I'm going to like it, if I could pre-order Starcraft II right now I would.
I rent movies, DVD & BD, and download rentals from the Playstation Network, if I like the movie, then I buy it. If I know I'm going to like the movie, Blade Runner, The Thing, I'll order it before renting it. If LoTR extended editions were on BD right now I'd have them without renting them.
I watch TV shows on my cable connection, if I like them, I might purchase the series on DVD.
But where do I rent my music? The clips on most websites (aside from the excellent DJDownload or Bleep) are only 30-60 seconds long and are in 96kbps/mono or worse quality. How am I possibly supposed to tell if a song is going to be good based on that clip?
I don't listen to music you'll hear on the radio so I can't get a preview from radio or TV. I DJ professionally (underground electronic dance music) in New York (hence Vinyl being in my nick) so being able to hear a full track before I purchase it is extremely important. But not only that, but being able to hear a file that is not compressed (such as .WAV) is also equally important. The only place to do that is piracy.
I would love it even if I could rent music that had a voice-over embedded in the middle of the track. Say you have a five minute song. Cut some parts of it or add in a voice saying "THIS SONG IS A DEMO" for a couple of segments so that DJs can't use it in a club without looking like idiots.
I probably spend $5,000 on music each year so I'm going to get burned by some bad purchases in hindsight but nothing aggravates me more than hearing a clip of a song on a digital download site, then downloading the song, and having it sound completely different, or the rest of the track sound nothing like the preview clip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
A tax would be the worst possible solution, because it is not a solution at all.
First, the wrong people will be paying. A tax that punishes everybody for the "sins" of the relative few is a bad tax.
Second, where does the tax money go? To the state or federal government? Why? Would it go to the recording industry? Why? Isn't the idea supposed to be to get the artists paid?
Plain and simple, a tax would take money from the wrong people, and give it to the wrong people.
BAD IDEA!
Check Google for blank media tax.
Hasn't stopped them from pursuing copyright violations so far.
You must remember these people are completely desperate. Their business model is dead. And it's a model that gave them millions for *nothing*. Sit behind a desk and collect royalties. Who wouldn't want that to continue? And if you happen to have the morals of a shark, why not try something like this? Double dipping would hardly be the least of their sins.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
"Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?"
They could put more effort into making file-sharing legal. That would reduce the amount of illegal file-sharing.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
...making illegal files? ....shrug....
If there were a way to return crappy music I'd feel better about paying for it, but they assume if you open the package all you did was copy it and try to get it for free. If they want to assume I'm a pirate I have to play their game, and it ends up hurting them.
Note that at lala.com you can play just about anything once for free. I consider that a big step in the right direction. Too bad they sued a bunch of other companies that would have done this years ago out of business...
If I get charged a fee whether or not I've been downloading (I haven't) then I'm going to start downloading whatever I want, whenever I want - and how much I want. If I HAVE to pay, then I will take what I am paying for.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
- Books Publishers
- Comic Book Publishers
- Game Publishers
- Software
Better throw a share of that tax to them. You can download all of that stuff too.
What about some of the other potential tactics we've discussed recently, such as the UK's proposed £20 per year film and music tax or the $5 monthly fee suggested in the US?
If you're already in a position to introduce a new tax, you are in a position to extend fair use and tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves as well.
So, why is this up for debate again?
I think I'll probably end up buying more. 3$ for a DVD, its strange though the stuff I buy is worse quality than what I could have downloaded. And theres people arguing in aribic while the camera gets shuffled about that was recording the screen. I suppose the middle east is far removed from the long arm of coporate sponsorship.
Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
I was watching an Australian late night music show (Rage - ABC) the other night and they had an interesting clip of a spokesman from the MAFIAA lamenting about the deluge of pirated music, while standing in front of supposedly 100s and 100s of copies, that was hitting the country from Asia and that, unless things changed, the music industry would be DEAD in a couple of years.
He then went on to wax lyrical about the quality of the copies and getting no value for money etc etc.
The laughable thing about this is that the clip was from the mid 1970'S and he was holding cassette tapes !!
Over 30 years ago, the music industry was facing the same death and mayhem from pirated music that they face today, and yet, they didn't die. Didn't go broke. Didn't get pirated out of existence. In fact - most of them thrived!
I'm not saying they don't have a legitimate issue, but for decades now, they've seriously overstated the threat.
Would you have bought that media without the tax being introduced?
I only listen the music on the radio, or tv, and I see no reason I should be forced to stuff money in the RIAA's pockets to access the net.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I shouldn't be forced to pay for music I don't listen to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
P2P users who share and download music and movies are not pirates. They are the cure to a societal disease the has been infecting our country and culture for a long time. So, finally the cure comes along and the cancer (RIAA and MPAA) are screaming because they are dieing. Good! Let the disease drop dead. Stop looking at the pirates of music and video as bad people. They are helping to destroy that which has been destroying American culture for decades. The RIAA and MPAA don't have a leg to stand on. It's ok to pump out trash and shit by the truck load as long as your charge for it? But it's not OK to get trash and shit for free eh? Amazing. I can't wait until they finally prove the damage inflicted upon generations of youth by this crap the RIAA and MPAA have produced. Oh yeah we all get upset about big Tobacco...but we are supposed to feel sorry for the RIAA and the MPAA. Screw the RIAA and the MPAA and screw, especially, Jack Valente!!!
What can the RIAA do to reduce illegal downloading? Simple, reduce prices.
I went CD shopping this weekend. Everything I was interested in was $16.99 or more, except for one independent label release that was 'only' $12. Guess what I came home with?
$9.99 for downloads is somewhat expensive too, especially when they're not FLAC or 320kbps MP3, or even lame --preset standard. I've bought several albums at $5 or so, though.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Ha, I have it...Sell the CDs for half the price and add a second cd with high quality, drm free digital versions (flac, ogg or hq mp3). So i can have them archived on a shelf, put them on my terrabyte disc and have my cover art.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
If the music industry wants to set things on fire again, they should:
1. Fire the RIAA, cancel all memberships, sue them for anything they can think of in order to firmly disassociate themselves from those lawyers. No one has done more to tarnish their image. No one gives more negative vibes.
2. Approve of and highly encourage music downloading, even pirating. Counter intuitively (to the labels), people who download music represent the most valuable customers in terms of money spent.
3. Encourage local development of musicians. That includes sponsorship of venues, regular contests, musical education, and paying the top artists to tour while actively encouraging other company sponsorship.
4. Develop centralized music delivery systems which offer rock bottom prices and use the latest p2p protocols. Stop discouraging internet radio stations through draconian licensing schemes.
5. Open up new venues by sponsoring community events with local artists. Offer location specific search features for the delivery services. This will provide a jumping off point for other products such as news and sports events if that is a desired pursuit.
6. Begin a program of purpose-built venues in cities lacking such. Vector local, statewide and national content to those venues with incentives and sponsorship.
7. Build your industry around the environment and event rather than tired and static delivery of content. It is only when that content can remain alive and dynamic that the music will flow again.
...so I sure as heck don't want a $5/month fee on my ISP going to the RIAA. I wouldn't want it in any case, but not listening to music gives me 100% justification for that position. If such a fee were instituted, I'd try to make it back somehow. Perhaps by pirating music on behalf of others, or perhaps by doing direct damage to the RIAA. How much does it cost them to clean up urine stains in their HQ lobby, I wonder?
People get annoyed at that, too. As a result, in the better neighborhoods, they try to be unobtrusive about it.
worthwhile again. This means put in proper cover art, lyric sheets, etc rather than just a tiny scrap of paper.
I'd substitute vinyl records for CDs. Here'a an interesting article from "Wired", "Vinyl May Be Final Nail in CD's Coffin". Best Buy and Costco are starting to sell vinyl.
Sign some fucking new artists for god's sakes.
There are at least 4 shops within a couple of miles of me that sell vinyl. At one someone told me vinyl was popular with local artists.
There's also one thing I'd love to see happen from the government's end, which would be to reinstate the radio station ownership rules. It used to be, there were over 5000 different radio companies in the US. Now, 98% of the US market is owned by only 5 companies;
Which rules are you talking about? The rules I'll support are those used before the FRC, Federal Radio Commission, which was the predecessor to the FCC. Back then radiowaves were homesteaded. The first person to use a radio frequency was allowed to use that frequency in that area. If someone came along after and started broadcasting and it interfered with the first broadcaster the second station had to move to another frequency or stop broadcasting. And the courts were applying the common law theory of property rights to this. It was after Radio Act of 1927 which created the FRC that airwaves were licensed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
Anything the RIAA can do? No. They're one-trick ponies: "OBEY, or we will destroy you!" By definition, they have been trying to generate bad publicity, because if they don't there is no upside, no deterrence, no reduction in widespread copyright infringement. Not that they've been particularly successful anyway.
Now that doesn't mean that nothing can be done. The studios can do a lot, if they're willing to accept that they can't ever return to the halcyon days of total distribution control. There's still plenty of money to be made, but they'll have to drop their past century of sleazy business practices, and start competing on the merits of their products.
I don't hold out much hope of that happening, but hey, even pigs have been known to fly now and then.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Illegal filesharing"...
Filesharing isn't illegal at all. I wish they'd quit calling it that.
If someone is violating copyright by allowing someone to download something, then call it copyright violation.
The person who downloads isn't breaking the letter of the law. The method used to transfer the file isn't breaking the letter, or intent of any law.
So - illegal filesharing? non-sense term used to bait people and strike fear into people?
I'm not sure, but I think someone ought to cram several dictionaries and a couple full sets of encyclopedias down their farging throats and tell them to get a clue.
Is there anything the RIAA can do to reduce illegal file-sharing...
We never used to have illegal music in the last century. Stop releasing illegal music and this problem will disappear. Keep making it and the answer is no. ...without generating massive amounts of bad publicity?
They haven't been able to do it even with massive amounts of bad publicity.
In case you missed it (I didn't and it was on /.), the RIAA has signed agreements with Charter Communications and The New AT&T (formerly SBC, BellSouth, and Cingular) to monitor P2P usage by their DSL and Cable subscribers, and to threaten them to reduce and potentially cut off service to those who do not respond positively to their threats.
Sounds like the RIAA just shifted gears to me. Which is stupid, considering how the statistics clearly state that P2P is driving sales of music purchases.
The music industry commandeered the commercial broadcast spectrum to provide us with advertising for their products. This deprived the public of the use of this spectrum for useful purposes such as education. I consider my loss from this piracy to be one trillion dollars in gold, payable as of this date in arrears plus interest. I accept major credit cards and cash at the current exchange rate. Ditto for spam.
Doesn't mean a lot to my girlfriend, who grew up in Romania. Even now, a good salary over there is about $200 a month (net).
She's a profligate pirate of music, films, software - anything she wants that she's able to get free over the tubes. She finds it hard to understand why we would choose to pay for something that's available for free. She earns a very good wage now, but the habit and attitude are ingrained.
Under the circumstances, I can understand her position. This comment is really only an aside, but it's worth bearing in mind that the majority of the world's population is not wealthy enough to interest the global publishing industry, but is connected enough to undertake file-sharing. Bear that in mind when you shake your head at those who still don't feel like paying $.79 per track...
An annual fee of ã20 is significantly less than I spend on music/DVDs as it stands, so it sounds like a pretty good deal.
In addition to the points that others have made (unfair tax on non-downloaders, not clear that it gives right to download, etc.), there is another issue.
If the industry revenue becomes a fixed tax, independent of their costs or efforts in developing musical quality/talent (bear with me here), then their business incentives become even more twisted. In effect, their aggregate income would be largely fixed, and they could control only their individual costs.
One inevitible result would be a great reduction in the quality of output, in order to minimize costs and maximize profits. It may seem almost impossible to reduce the quality of mass music much further, but I am sure it is the kind of surreal challenge which the Music majors would meet.
Another consequence would be the in-fighting between the major labels concerning the division of the spoils. The machinations leading up to each annual agreement might deliver more entertainment (in a pathetic or ironic sense) than the entire musical output of the year. Each would demand the lion's share, and attempt to game the system appropriately. Such attempts might include proliferation of labels, increased output of even cheaper trashy tracks (i.e. output might even go up, but with worse music), shill downloaders to boost "popularity", and so forth. Of course, there's a near certainty that any long term agreement would be challenged legally, and any attempts by non-majors to get a share of the spoils would be vehemently resisted.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
When you sue someone you have this annoying thing called the law to contend with. By intimidating ISPs into cutting service, they don't need to be limited by the law anymore in their quest to persecute pirates.
One big problem the RIAA has had is that they can only sue file sharers, not the downloaders. Why can't you persecute downloaders? Because downloading a song you own is LEGAL, and there is no way to know if a downloader owns the song. If it ever came to a lawsuit, where the RIAA was suing Joe Downloader for downloading song X illegally, Joe Downloader could just go buy a copy of song X and say 'here, I already owned that song, so go piss off.'
Really, if you only leached, there was no way you were going to get caught.
Although file sharers *were* vulnerable for the act of 'sharing' ( as long as the RIAA had all their ducks in a row such as hiring a *licensed* private investigator to do the downloading ), there were always enough newbies that it was a wack-a-mole game where the moles far outnumbered the whackers.
It's interesting to note that no P2P file sharing system with cryptographic protection for file sharers has come to prominence despite the RIAA's best efforts. If the moles ever stopped winning overwhelmingly, then there would have been sufficient demand. Such demand has as yet never materialized proving that the RIAA's lawsuits had negligable effect. They never succeded in removing enough content to cause downloaders and sharers to move where they would be protected from the RIAA.
So what is the RIAA up to? By dealing with ISPs they no longer have the law to contend with. Instead of the judgement of a judge, they need only the judgement by an ISP that harassing a customer is cheaper/less hassle than pissing off the RIAA.
And the judgement of an ISP can be just as effective at preventing sharing / downloading as that of a judge, especially if the ISP is the only broadband provider in the area.
Now the RIAA can host file sharing servers, sharing it's own files to entrap downloaders. Then notify the ISP that the IP was downloading illegally. If the RIAA did that and tried to sue, the sued could say that since the RIAA gave me the song, that must constitute permission for me to have it.
All the legal problems they had going after file sharers go away too when it's only an ISP and not a judge they are dealing with. That ISPs don't like P2P that much either means it's likely to be a sympathetic judge.
The RIAA is only concerned about their content. I don't think this will affect other uses of P2P such as downloading linux distros via bittorrent.
But this may finally drive illegal filesharing underground.
...
I like making music videos and to do this I need high quality lossless non DRM music. High quality also means without the music volume being boosted so high that it starts clipping. If they provided that to download I would get it legally much more often.
I have a modest proposal. The RIAA should ask Congress to remove copyright protection for sound recordings. That will eliminate illegal file-sharing (by making sharing legal) and will rehabilitate the RIAA's reputation.
NO ONE abuses musicians more than the RIAA. I'm going to explain the recording industry for you folks. Follow along and see if you kids can keep up. Let's pretend for a few minutes that you're a musician. You bust your butt gigging, playing all over town and one day some guy walks up to you and says, "Hi! I'm with (fill in name of record company here), and we'd really like to sign you to a recording contract." Well, you get all excited and you sign your deal with the devil.
The devil says "Come to my recording studio and we'll cut the record." Once you get there, they've got the studio lined up, the producer, and a few other people to "help you" make your record. If you ask about how much is going to cost, you get told, as is standard in the recording industry that "it will come out of the profits." Then you cut your album and "you have to promote it". If you ask how much that's going to cost...you guessed it kids, "it comes out of the profits". Now that you have to market your album, you have to go on tour. That means a bus, lights, roadies, stage, sound equipment, etc. If you ask how much that's going to cost...you guessed it kids, "it comes out of the profits".
While you're on tour, you need to have T-shirts, posters, bumper sticker, etc. You also need to have hot dogs, twinkies, beer, and cokes for people to consume during the concert. If you ask how much that's going to cost...you guessed it kids, "it comes out of the profits". By the time they're through pulling all the costs out of "the profits", there usually aren't any profits left, which means all that the artist gets is what ever they get as a signing bonus. Not the advance - the signing bonus - since the advance comes "out of the profits", too.
The way that this works out is that if you're lucky, the artist on any given album might see 1 or 2 cents of the $16.99 you pay for CD of music at Wal-Mart. Given that the Internet is the ideal distribution medium for music, I'd rather just go to the artists web site and buy the songs directly from them. Then the artist would get the whole $16.99 for the album instead of $0.02. But you see, the RIAA can't allow that because in that $16.97 lies their profit margins. Without them, it's a brave new world for digital music.
Why do you and I have to pay a third party middleman to broker the transaction for nothing more than a song? Worse yet, we are required to continue to pay this middleman who threatens to sue both the consumer and the musician when we try to cut him out of the transaction. If the artist tries to sell their songs on the website the RIAA will try to sue them for contract violations. If you and I try to download the music, we get sued. The only reason for this is that it leaves the big, fat RIAA profit margin intact.
The RIAA complains that their sales are down and points an accusing finger at "piracy". I'd like to take a moment to dispel that myth. When Napster was operating at it's peak, music sales were up 20% without the RIAA doing any additional marketing. Viral, word-of-mouth would spread quickly about new bands and good new interesting music. People were buying CD's because they'd get a taste of some stuff and like it. Then they'd go to the store, find the artist and buy some stuff. Now, there's no place to share that isn't full of viruses, worms, trojans, fake files, etc. No more free marketing RIAA - you pretty much litigated the goose that laid the golden egg out of existence.
Compounding the problem is that the RIAA is key in determining what gets pushed to the public. Frankly, I think that they've lost the pulse. We don't care about Brittany Spears, although my husband was caught peering at her photos when she got snapped sans the undies. For some reason, the music industry has decided to cater to 14 year old girls. Why? I don't really know. When's the last time you saw a 14 year old that had more than $20 of disposable income at any given moment? If you have no money, how are you supposed to buy a CD? Yet, this is the market segment that they've chosen to
HDGary secures my bank
has to realize that filesharing is going to happen weather they like it or not.
Reasons why the RIAA should f@#K off!
merch(including CD's, t-shirts, etc...)
This is why i support independent music. They don't care if their music goes up on internet because they record it them selfs.
Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. - Nikola Tes
I agree with the general argument you're making (and I've heard similar from musicians), I have something to say about this
The internet may be the preferred medium for distributing music, but it is decidedly not the preferred format for distributing albums.
Recall that an album has liner notes, cover art, and a relatively lossless digitization of the music.
I wouldn't say MP/RIAAs business model is dead but they do need to modify it.
The publisher is no longer required to publish the music, the creators of the music can simply do it themselves.
I think that some local bands around here do, publish their own stuff. Actually some release vinyl records.
The time period in history for charging for 'dead' music rather than live music is over
If I had a turntable, I hope to get one RSN, there are old albums I'd buy such as BTO, Beatles, ZZ Top and others.
So distributed music media is going the direction of the vinyl record.
Those vinyl records are making a comeback. "Back to the future: Vinyl record sales double in '08, CDs down". Best Buy is selling records in some stores.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?