Although I never enjoy my rent going up, I don't consider this being screwed by my landlord. Or him paying taxes, water bills, etc.
I was thinking of actual "screw you" activities. Things that are borderline sue-able, but you wonder if they are worth pursuing.
For me, the worste in history was long ago while moving out, not getting any of my security money back. The list of problems I was getting charged for were things on my list of problems i wrote down when I signed the contract. However, since this landlord didn't have the original sheet (magic?) he wouldn't honor my copy. Refusing to see me at his office is another example. Refusing to answer the phone... Being charged $50 for cleaning the fridge. (Even though it was clean and only 2 weeks old)
Anyway, not to beat a dead analogy, but being the naive, broke, college kid in a bind, I either could spend money and go to small claims court (and maybe win) or just take it in the ass. I did the latter. I also moved to a better place, and have tried to make sure everything is in order before making the same mistake.
Since the Big-5 are the only "landlords" in the main music biz, artists don't have a chance to "move" somewhere else.
Good luck. Selling 1,000 by word of mouth or through the web (which is surfed by mostly freeloaders) doesn't sound like any fun.
I wonder if you'll even sell 1000. I know that Nirvana were getting successful when they sold 10,000 (right before they signed). Obviously they were pretty big in the Seattle area.
It sounds like you're saying that for the last 25 years you and 1,000 other musicians-turned-CS have been developing software that will crush the RIAA.
Well, what is it? Napster? Sean wasn't even 25 years old when he wrote that in college. Do you mean the internet in general? Was Al Gore with you at the time?
Or is it something yet to come out? When? Is your plan to have the RIAA members die of old age?
I don't know. You say the development of RIAA-killing software isn't an accident. But I can't search on those generic terms. I'd love a real link or two. I think it was an accident. Or, more likely, a way for a kid to listen to other music.
I mean really, what is p2p? It's like FTP. but searchable all under one umbrella. Without any of the login-password security front end. It's something that could have been written over a decade ago on a green screen. However, the bandwidth (and number of users) would have sucked.
I agree that college students have had the thrill of 'talking' with each other and sharing bits for the last 20 years (I remember my first IRC chat in '91) but I doubt the seed of developing RIAA-killing software started then.
I couldn't agree more. With only 1,000 cd's to sell, I doubt people getting to hear the music on p2p will HURT your sales.
In this case, I would imagine the scenario would be: downloaded it from internet... fell in love with it... downloaded more.... know her name... noticed she is coming to town for a gig... had a great time at the gig with my friend... bought a cd while I was there.
(everything but the last one might come true, but if they weren't there in the first place, then they wouldn't have bought the cd there either)
You might as well use Kazaa. It's not like you're going to make a real dent. People like me will continue to do a lot of swapping, so the RIAA will always have a finger to point at.
...Unfortunately, most musicians suffer from "rockstar" syndrome, and do not want to work and instead only think about the trappings that stardom will give them rather then producing music that moves people....
Well, there's always the RIAA for those types then!
There's no reason why the artists can't contract a graphics company to produce the liner notes to go with the CD that they have someone like Buffet's label to produce & distribute.
you might even get more liner notes that usual. More creative, too, since they won't have the Big-5 shaking their heads with sensoring, etc.
Although paper isn't free by any means, the cost of doing such things is getting cheaper and cheaper as printing comes closer to home users. (as aparent with color printers)
For run of 1,000, you might even be able to do it with a $600+ color 2400dpi printer, $500 for the right gloss paper, $100 for a professional cutter, and $50 for a professional stapler. Ink is pretty expensive, guessing 20 cartridges @ $50 each.
For runs in the 10,000+ you could have a small shop with a real press do this job pretty easily. Most weekly-town newspapers have this $20,000 setup to run such things at the place that prints their newspaper. (I used to run an A.B. Dick press)
Speaking of not wanting a CD-R... I've heard of places PRESSING your CD's for about $1 a CD for atleast a 500 count. That's cheap, and that was the cost years ago. I'm sure you could get some kind of art ON the CD too.
Not measly contracts than an artists signed, but law regarding copyrights that have changed dramatically in the last century.
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48625,0 0. html
Copyright has bloated from providing 14 years of protection a century ago to 70 years beyond the creator's death now, he said, and has become a tool of large corporations eager to indefinitely prolong their control of a market. Irving Berlin's songs, for example, will not go off copyright for 140 years, he said.
...Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.
"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....
What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.
Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.
*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.
But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
...Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits.....
I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)
What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.
Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
Maybe it's just taking the artists longer to figure out what's going on. And definately a while to figure out what to do about it.
It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?
It should be interesting as these multi-year contracts start to run out, and artists start to look for other solutions. (Unfortunately there aren't any other great solutions. Most of the good ones lack any real marketing) With sales not increasing, and artists speaking up, the Big-5 might actually have to do something.
Or maybe not. I'm sure there's always another "Korn" willing to sign their lives away for fame.
If the Big-5 can go back to controlling everything (i.e., successfully sue any future P2p users, successfully push DRM worldwide, etc) then consumers will have no choice.
Inversely, I think the answer to your question is the answer to: Can they continue to control all aspects of music? If Yes, then yes. If No, then probably no.
....If the business model favors spending money on litigation over spending money developing something consumers want, then I'd expect a continuing series of legal actions...
That's true, we keeping thinking that p2p/better contracts/ better choice/ more selection, etc could mean MILLIONS of dollars, and even MORE artists being moderately successful (financially). But the Big-5/RIAA want to continue making their BILLIONS of dollars. Our thoughts are meager...afterall, my biggest hurdle is paying off VISA. Wow, I must be a financial wizard.
The Big-5 have kept their monopoly on all aspects of their business, and thus have easily continued ot make their money for decades. They'll continue to go that route, if possible. After all, if they can wipe out this pesky thing called computer, they can go back to raising their CD rates.
....And as you said, artists dont make that much from the CD sales anyhow, so the pain incurred on artists during the transition from RIAA-model to P2P model is very much a fabrication of the RIAA
That's a good point. 97% of the CD sales go to the Big-5, not to the artist. Thus, a dip in CD sales hardly affects the $1.09 the artist might have gotten.
But then I thought about the perspective the RIAA would put on it: The less money the Big-5 make, then the less money they can pay the artists. You sure as hell know that the Big-5 will pass along the piss&moan down to their indentured servants. (artists, if you will). Sure, logically, this might not make sense to you and me, but with their bottom line being first, reality isn't much a concern to them.
Anyway, great post. I think OF COURSE p2p would be great for artists if the current walls weren't in place!
We just can't look at "giving away free songs" as a loss of revenue, but instead look at it as increase in very cheap Marketing AND Distribution. Considering that the Big-5 are always crying how much money they put into these 2 things (gouging the customers, and even making the artists pay for some of these costs) then I think the continued evolution of p2p could have been a great business model.
People look at advertising as a mandatory cost. If you picture mp3 files on the internet as a form of advertisement... as long as it lured the customer to other services (merchandise, concerts, videos, etc)
Slashdot Mirror
ah, I thought this was john Sankus. I got the two confused.
and my comfort of 125,000 mp3's.
I'd like to follow up on that question as: Did anyone take a deal and cough up information on you??
I'm guessing that since you got the most time, you were the one they were after. (as the grand prize)
Although I never enjoy my rent going up, I don't consider this being screwed by my landlord. Or him paying taxes, water bills, etc.
I was thinking of actual "screw you" activities. Things that are borderline sue-able, but you wonder if they are worth pursuing.
For me, the worste in history was long ago while moving out, not getting any of my security money back. The list of problems I was getting charged for were things on my list of problems i wrote down when I signed the contract. However, since this landlord didn't have the original sheet (magic?) he wouldn't honor my copy. Refusing to see me at his office is another example. Refusing to answer the phone... Being charged $50 for cleaning the fridge. (Even though it was clean and only 2 weeks old)
Anyway, not to beat a dead analogy, but being the naive, broke, college kid in a bind, I either could spend money and go to small claims court (and maybe win) or just take it in the ass. I did the latter. I also moved to a better place, and have tried to make sure everything is in order before making the same mistake.
Since the Big-5 are the only "landlords" in the main music biz, artists don't have a chance to "move" somewhere else.
Good luck. Selling 1,000 by word of mouth or through the web (which is surfed by mostly freeloaders) doesn't sound like any fun.
I wonder if you'll even sell 1000.
I know that Nirvana were getting successful when they sold 10,000 (right before they signed). Obviously they were pretty big in the Seattle area.
Again, good luck
Honest question here...
It sounds like you're saying that for the last 25 years you and 1,000 other musicians-turned-CS have been developing software that will crush the RIAA.
Well, what is it? Napster? Sean wasn't even 25 years old when he wrote that in college.
Do you mean the internet in general? Was Al Gore with you at the time?
Or is it something yet to come out? When? Is your plan to have the RIAA members die of old age?
I don't know. You say the development of RIAA-killing software isn't an accident. But I can't search on those generic terms. I'd love a real link or two. I think it was an accident. Or, more likely, a way for a kid to listen to other music.
I mean really, what is p2p? It's like FTP. but searchable all under one umbrella. Without any of the login-password security front end. It's something that could have been written over a decade ago on a green screen. However, the bandwidth (and number of users) would have sucked.
I agree that college students have had the thrill of 'talking' with each other and sharing bits for the last 20 years (I remember my first IRC chat in '91) but I doubt the seed of developing RIAA-killing software started then.
I couldn't agree more. With only 1,000 cd's to sell, I doubt people getting to hear the music on p2p will HURT your sales.
In this case, I would imagine the scenario would be: downloaded it from internet... fell in love with it... downloaded more.... know her name... noticed she is coming to town for a gig... had a great time at the gig with my friend... bought a cd while I was there.
(everything but the last one might come true, but if they weren't there in the first place, then they wouldn't have bought the cd there either)
...What you can do:
1.
2.
etc...
We just have to get off our asses and do it.
Actually, just by sitting on my ass and trading mp3's, I've actually accomplished all 4 of your steps.
You might as well use Kazaa. It's not like you're going to make a real dent. People like me will continue to do a lot of swapping, so the RIAA will always have a finger to point at.
And would you think that there should be no inheritance at all either? Sounds like the government.
So if your parents die, you don't get their house? (after all, YOU didn't pay for it)
after reading 3 of the books, i don't think i'll be reading "children of the mind" anytime soon.
...Unfortunately, most musicians suffer from "rockstar" syndrome, and do not want to work and instead only think about the trappings that stardom will give them rather then producing music that moves people....
Well, there's always the RIAA for those types then!
There's no reason why the artists can't contract a graphics company to produce the liner notes to go with the CD that they have someone like Buffet's label to produce & distribute.
you might even get more liner notes that usual. More creative, too, since they won't have the Big-5 shaking their heads with sensoring, etc.
Although paper isn't free by any means, the cost of doing such things is getting cheaper and cheaper as printing comes closer to home users. (as aparent with color printers)
For run of 1,000, you might even be able to do it with a $600+ color 2400dpi printer, $500 for the right gloss paper, $100 for a professional cutter, and $50 for a professional stapler. Ink is pretty expensive, guessing 20 cartridges @ $50 each.
For runs in the 10,000+ you could have a small shop with a real press do this job pretty easily. Most weekly-town newspapers have this $20,000 setup to run such things at the place that prints their newspaper. (I used to run an A.B. Dick press)
Speaking of not wanting a CD-R... I've heard of places PRESSING your CD's for about $1 a CD for atleast a 500 count. That's cheap, and that was the cost years ago. I'm sure you could get some kind of art ON the CD too.
a few millions dollars and no fans would work for me.
-- a poor nobody
Considering that they're having no problems buying legislation in our country now, I doubt they could find a more favorable country!
Not measly contracts than an artists signed, but law regarding copyrights that have changed dramatically in the last century.
0 0. html
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,48625,
Copyright has bloated from providing 14 years of protection a century ago to 70 years beyond the creator's death now, he said, and has become a tool of large corporations eager to indefinitely prolong their control of a market. Irving Berlin's songs, for example, will not go off copyright for 140 years, he said.
...Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.
"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says....
What the hell? True, I'm not an ex-punk band leader or label maker, but not being able to sell bad music in a 10 block radius shouldn't be a gauge.
Maybe some type of co-op is needed. A huge number of artists get together, and with power in numbers (and dollars) able to procure the cheapest marketing, distribution, and processing they can get for their dollars. Figure out the costs, and that's what you charge the artist to put out a new record. Profits can go to the artist, with maybe a small percentage going to the investment of the co-op. Merchandise, touring/concerts, part of the working equation. Make rMTv channel (r=real) to play their own videos. Crack into the radio stations market to play their own music only.
*sigh* Probably impossible to do with the monopoly in place.
But then again, maybe it has been done, and the RIAA = the co-op.
...Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits.....
I wonder if this includes the artists who died penniless. (Back pension to the widowed families)
What would be nice is if they could reverse the law that lets the Big-5 keep the copyrights forever. Retrieval of copyrights back to the family of deseased artists could be a form of income for them.
Although it's possible the Big-5 think of these as revenue for themselves, the fact is, they sit on them without re-releasing songs because it's not "profitable" to them. These families have smaller overhead, and it could be profitable for THEM.
Cool that he didn't bother giving you the time of day
I hope that legislation doesn't allow a big dying industry to survive longer than it should..
Considering that legislation is being bought and new laws supporting the Big-5 keep coming out, it doesn't look like your wish is working.
Maybe it's just taking the artists longer to figure out what's going on. And definately a while to figure out what to do about it.
It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?
It should be interesting as these multi-year contracts start to run out, and artists start to look for other solutions. (Unfortunately there aren't any other great solutions. Most of the good ones lack any real marketing) With sales not increasing, and artists speaking up, the Big-5 might actually have to do something.
Or maybe not. I'm sure there's always another "Korn" willing to sign their lives away for fame.
You're a better man than me.
700GB and counting........
If the Big-5 can go back to controlling everything (i.e., successfully sue any future P2p users, successfully push DRM worldwide, etc) then consumers will have no choice.
Inversely, I think the answer to your question is the answer to: Can they continue to control all aspects of music? If Yes, then yes. If No, then probably no.
....If the business model favors spending money on litigation over spending money developing something consumers want, then I'd expect a continuing series of legal actions...
That's true, we keeping thinking that p2p/better contracts/ better choice/ more selection, etc could mean MILLIONS of dollars, and even MORE artists being moderately successful (financially). But the Big-5/RIAA want to continue making their BILLIONS of dollars. Our thoughts are meager...afterall, my biggest hurdle is paying off VISA. Wow, I must be a financial wizard.
The Big-5 have kept their monopoly on all aspects of their business, and thus have easily continued ot make their money for decades. They'll continue to go that route, if possible. After all, if they can wipe out this pesky thing called computer, they can go back to raising their CD rates.
....And as you said, artists dont make that much from the CD sales anyhow, so the pain incurred on artists during the transition from RIAA-model to P2P model is very much a fabrication of the RIAA
That's a good point. 97% of the CD sales go to the Big-5, not to the artist. Thus, a dip in CD sales hardly affects the $1.09 the artist might have gotten.
But then I thought about the perspective the RIAA would put on it: The less money the Big-5 make, then the less money they can pay the artists. You sure as hell know that the Big-5 will pass along the piss&moan down to their indentured servants. (artists, if you will). Sure, logically, this might not make sense to you and me, but with their bottom line being first, reality isn't much a concern to them.
Anyway, great post. I think OF COURSE p2p would be great for artists if the current walls weren't in place!
We just can't look at "giving away free songs" as a loss of revenue, but instead look at it as increase in very cheap Marketing AND Distribution. Considering that the Big-5 are always crying how much money they put into these 2 things (gouging the customers, and even making the artists pay for some of these costs) then I think the continued evolution of p2p could have been a great business model.
People look at advertising as a mandatory cost. If you picture mp3 files on the internet as a form of advertisement... as long as it lured the customer to other services (merchandise, concerts, videos, etc)