Hmm... this is definitely strange. The formatting of this document did not take place, making it damn near impossible to read. Man...
A musician's take on the RIAA, piracy, etc.
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 1
For the record, I am an alternative rock somgwriter/vocalist, and am forming a band at the present time. I was once offered a record deal by Capitol Records, but I refused the offer, deciding that I wasn't at the time wanting to relocate to Nashville to start my singing career. I have released no records or singles at this time.
Most people wonder why, for the most part, when there is complaints about music piracy, they originate more often from the RIAA than from the artists themselves. Why is that? Look at what an artist will receive off of an album, and that should explain it. The typical wholesale cost of a CD is between $8-$10. Of this, the artist will receive (normally) somewhere between 50 cents and $1.50. If you have an album go platinum, then it works out (usually). However, those earnings are only from the first release of your album. If the album is re-released, you will rarely see a cent from the sales. In addition to this, you, as the artist, have to pay for your agent, management staff, assistants, music videos, etc., which usually means you end up breaking even off of the sale of an album.
"If I knew how much this damn job paid earlier, I'd have taken a job at McDonald's." - Courtney Love
I could go into many of the other perils of an RIAA-based record contract (such as being forced to reside in a certain area), but that is beside the point. The main thing is that artists usually don't make their money off of the albums that they sell. Where do they get it? From touring. If your songs are available online, it means you can expose your music to a larger audience, whom, in turn, may later on attend your concerts, buy your merchandise, etc., which are sources of income for the artists. This also explains why many artists will go on the road for as much as two years at a time; they often do it out of necessity. Only the few make exorbitant amounts of money in the industry as artists.
"Well then," you might ask, "but how come artists like Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna decried MP3's?" Simple: THEY OWN LABELS. If you're getting up to $5 an album because somebody else sold a record of their music, you'd want them to be selling as many records as possible. There are notable exceptions to this, most of them being in the metal/alternative bend (Korn, for example. Love them or hate them, they own a label, yet support MP3, since they know that, in a non-mainstream genre, you need to find alternate sources of getting your music out to fans).
As an artist, I find it appalling that outside sources are trying to dicate how your music can be distributed. Even worse, I find it deplorable that they would sink to the level of attacking people's home, business, and school computers to further their financial well-being. Attacks with a financial benefit are usually considered assault as well as larceny. Shouldn't somebody have the District Attorneys in Nashville, New York, and LA looking into this? Such action, if commensurated, would certainly violate numerous criminal laws. Crime is never justified, even if it is to maintain your financial well-being. If a homeless person steals your wallet, wouldn't you want them put in jail for what they had done? The RIAA is the homeless person in this story, albeit a very rich, arrogant homeless person.
In addition, from the technical aspect, I find such an action to be half-baked at best. Such attacks could easily be stopped with a firewall, or by releasing a new version of the P2P client that would filter out DDoS attack traffic or add automated administative control, or by administering your P2P client manually (such as limiting connections per IP or kicking very slow connections). What about other options of this vent? Back Orifice? USE of Back Orifice is generally illegal, and it would probably be so in this case as well. Re-engineering the P2P clients themselves? Not likely, they don't own them, and it would be hard for them to pressure any one of them due to their decentralized nature. Suing all client makers? Well, what about open-sourced clients? Would that mean that, by default, you could have to sue the entire community of that software? You know that would never fly in court.
What about other anti-piracy efforts, like copy protection on CDs? Some can be defeated by downloading a "fix" DLL for your system (as is the case with the Macrovision-based solutions), some can be worked around, and all can be recorded to MP3 through an analog recording program such as the one that exists in AudioCatalyst (it slows the process down, sure, but doesn't come close to stopping it). Public service announcements? You've got to be joking. If PSAs worked that well, you'd see a drug-free, violence-free, well-educated society. If you just casually look around, we have about the polar opposite, which is a testament to their effectiveness. Musician spokespeople for the RIAA? Nope, Metallica has been crucified over this, and Dr. Dre has stepped aside a bit in recent months. None of these has seemed to put a dent in music swapping online.
Here are some suggestions to the RIAA to try to diminish piracy:
1) Eliminate "copy-proof" CDs. All that's gonna do is convince people to develop ways to copy them, and it adds to the cost of each CD substantially.
2) Abandon tbe "studio system" in the music industry, making artists literal "free agents". With more pressure on labels to appeal to musicians financially, it will take a toll on the level of administration as well. Of course, this would also essentially be the death knell of the RIAA, but that's not that bad, is it?
3) Re-examine retail price points. A CD should, in theory, be able to possess as low of a wholesale cost as $4.50 according to a more balanced distribution of money ($3 to the artist, $1 to the label to cover publicity expenses, which could be handled by the band's manager in the case of a smaller label, and the 50 cent cost of production, recording, and distribution). If this were done, you could theoretically see the retail cost of CDs drop to around $7-$10 each, far more palatable to the consumer.
4) Include a digital version of the album on the CD in a mixed-mode session. There, give people their MP3s for their own use with each copy sold of the album.
5) Stop price fixing. Of course, if point #2 occurs, the labels will really be unable to work together on all that much, but prices cannot just be kept artificially high. Cassetes cost more to produce, the artist gets about the same cut per copy sold (about 80%, normally), but they cost half as much as CDs to buy. Hmm... something's up when I can buy the DVD for Pink Floyd's The Wall ($20) cheaper than I can buy the CD album ($33).
Just some random suggestions of mine, feel free to analyze and leave comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... this is definitely strange. The formatting of this document did not take place, making it damn near impossible to read. Man...
For the record, I am an alternative rock somgwriter/vocalist, and am forming a band at the present time. I was once offered a record deal by Capitol Records, but I refused the offer, deciding that I wasn't at the time wanting to relocate to Nashville to start my singing career. I have released no records or singles at this time. Most people wonder why, for the most part, when there is complaints about music piracy, they originate more often from the RIAA than from the artists themselves. Why is that? Look at what an artist will receive off of an album, and that should explain it. The typical wholesale cost of a CD is between $8-$10. Of this, the artist will receive (normally) somewhere between 50 cents and $1.50. If you have an album go platinum, then it works out (usually). However, those earnings are only from the first release of your album. If the album is re-released, you will rarely see a cent from the sales. In addition to this, you, as the artist, have to pay for your agent, management staff, assistants, music videos, etc., which usually means you end up breaking even off of the sale of an album. "If I knew how much this damn job paid earlier, I'd have taken a job at McDonald's." - Courtney Love I could go into many of the other perils of an RIAA-based record contract (such as being forced to reside in a certain area), but that is beside the point. The main thing is that artists usually don't make their money off of the albums that they sell. Where do they get it? From touring. If your songs are available online, it means you can expose your music to a larger audience, whom, in turn, may later on attend your concerts, buy your merchandise, etc., which are sources of income for the artists. This also explains why many artists will go on the road for as much as two years at a time; they often do it out of necessity. Only the few make exorbitant amounts of money in the industry as artists. "Well then," you might ask, "but how come artists like Metallica, Dr. Dre, and Madonna decried MP3's?" Simple: THEY OWN LABELS. If you're getting up to $5 an album because somebody else sold a record of their music, you'd want them to be selling as many records as possible. There are notable exceptions to this, most of them being in the metal/alternative bend (Korn, for example. Love them or hate them, they own a label, yet support MP3, since they know that, in a non-mainstream genre, you need to find alternate sources of getting your music out to fans). As an artist, I find it appalling that outside sources are trying to dicate how your music can be distributed. Even worse, I find it deplorable that they would sink to the level of attacking people's home, business, and school computers to further their financial well-being. Attacks with a financial benefit are usually considered assault as well as larceny. Shouldn't somebody have the District Attorneys in Nashville, New York, and LA looking into this? Such action, if commensurated, would certainly violate numerous criminal laws. Crime is never justified, even if it is to maintain your financial well-being. If a homeless person steals your wallet, wouldn't you want them put in jail for what they had done? The RIAA is the homeless person in this story, albeit a very rich, arrogant homeless person. In addition, from the technical aspect, I find such an action to be half-baked at best. Such attacks could easily be stopped with a firewall, or by releasing a new version of the P2P client that would filter out DDoS attack traffic or add automated administative control, or by administering your P2P client manually (such as limiting connections per IP or kicking very slow connections). What about other options of this vent? Back Orifice? USE of Back Orifice is generally illegal, and it would probably be so in this case as well. Re-engineering the P2P clients themselves? Not likely, they don't own them, and it would be hard for them to pressure any one of them due to their decentralized nature. Suing all client makers? Well, what about open-sourced clients? Would that mean that, by default, you could have to sue the entire community of that software? You know that would never fly in court. What about other anti-piracy efforts, like copy protection on CDs? Some can be defeated by downloading a "fix" DLL for your system (as is the case with the Macrovision-based solutions), some can be worked around, and all can be recorded to MP3 through an analog recording program such as the one that exists in AudioCatalyst (it slows the process down, sure, but doesn't come close to stopping it). Public service announcements? You've got to be joking. If PSAs worked that well, you'd see a drug-free, violence-free, well-educated society. If you just casually look around, we have about the polar opposite, which is a testament to their effectiveness. Musician spokespeople for the RIAA? Nope, Metallica has been crucified over this, and Dr. Dre has stepped aside a bit in recent months. None of these has seemed to put a dent in music swapping online. Here are some suggestions to the RIAA to try to diminish piracy: 1) Eliminate "copy-proof" CDs. All that's gonna do is convince people to develop ways to copy them, and it adds to the cost of each CD substantially. 2) Abandon tbe "studio system" in the music industry, making artists literal "free agents". With more pressure on labels to appeal to musicians financially, it will take a toll on the level of administration as well. Of course, this would also essentially be the death knell of the RIAA, but that's not that bad, is it? 3) Re-examine retail price points. A CD should, in theory, be able to possess as low of a wholesale cost as $4.50 according to a more balanced distribution of money ($3 to the artist, $1 to the label to cover publicity expenses, which could be handled by the band's manager in the case of a smaller label, and the 50 cent cost of production, recording, and distribution). If this were done, you could theoretically see the retail cost of CDs drop to around $7-$10 each, far more palatable to the consumer. 4) Include a digital version of the album on the CD in a mixed-mode session. There, give people their MP3s for their own use with each copy sold of the album. 5) Stop price fixing. Of course, if point #2 occurs, the labels will really be unable to work together on all that much, but prices cannot just be kept artificially high. Cassetes cost more to produce, the artist gets about the same cut per copy sold (about 80%, normally), but they cost half as much as CDs to buy. Hmm... something's up when I can buy the DVD for Pink Floyd's The Wall ($20) cheaper than I can buy the CD album ($33). Just some random suggestions of mine, feel free to analyze and leave comments.