Slashdot Log In
The Recording Industry's Failed Digital Strategy
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Feb 19, 2007 08:28 PM
from the north-winds-of-change dept.
from the north-winds-of-change dept.
An anonymous reader sends us a link to the Toronto Star, where Michael Geist has a terrific article on how the record labels got the Internet completely wrong. While somewhat specific to Canada, the article' arguments are more broadly applicable. The article links together the misplaced reliance on DRM and the Canadian industry's advocacy for increasing levies on blank media to demonstrate just how wrong-headed this strategy has turned out to be.
Related Stories
[+]
Canadian Copyright Group Wants iPod Tax 408 comments
soulxtc writes "Unable to define memory as a 'recording medium,' Canada's Private Copyright Collective goes directly after portable music player devices, memory cards, and anything else that can be used to make private copies. The PCC submitted a proposal to the country's Copyright Board that suggests levies of $5 (Canadian) on devices with up to 1GB of memory, $25 for 1-10 GB, $50 for 10-30 GB, and $75 for over 30 GB. If approved, this propoal would increase the price of a 30-GB iPod by 26%. These collections are intended to compensate artists and labels for the losses they suffer when people 'illegally' copy or transfer music. The PCC is also seeking a new $2 to $10 tax on memory cards. The backbone of digital photography has become tangled up in the fight for making sure music companies get every nickel and dime they feel that they deserve."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Network providers (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA:
So now what? A tax on internet access? Charging per port?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I download a track from my favourite band, then I see that I morally ought to be making a payment to that specific band. I don't see that the RIAA, or any recording company, come into the deal at all. I don't see why they should. They're anachronisms. Same with movies. If I download a movie, I need to make a payment to the people who made it. I don't see why I need to make a payment to MPAA, or any other similar body.
DRM is on the way out (Score:5, Insightful)
It took them years to allow internet distribution in any format. It might take a few more before they will allow it in a format which will gain wide acceptance, but ultimately it's in their best interest as well as the consumers'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish you we're right. I just imagine my mum coming up against these artificial restrictions. I bet she will just assume its a technical limitation. (DVD region coding was "probably something to do with the southern hemisphere" for her - maybe they spin it backwards
Education of all your mates is important - but you run the risk of soundi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I.e. you can do whatever you want with the file, but there is a digitial hash somewhere in the file that uniquely identifies you, so don't share it, else we will sue.
Re:DRM is on the way out (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I'd love to see watermarking replace DRM. There will be no artificial limitations on what people can do with their media - I could copy all my DVDs to my computer (and play them on Linux) and have a great media center without having to worry about violating the DMCA, yet the media companies would still have a way of pursuing actual copyright violators. I think it's quite reasonable for the media industry to want to protect their investment, and water marking allows them to do just that while allowing the consumer to use their media the way they want it.
Parent
watermarking unsolved problem (Score:4, Insightful)
watermarks solve nothing, you cannot sue anyone for being robbed.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Greed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Greed (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Most of the music they publish DOES tax our mind... pun intented
Ah, some are coming around... (Score:5, Interesting)
Article doesnt mention DE-AACS (Score:5, Interesting)
Trusted computing is the last on the table, though I don't really classify it's completed implementation as DRM.
Because the "ideal" trusted computing platform is built to refuse to run unsigned code period, a "trusted computing" compliant computer really cannot be classified as general purpose any more than a box wrench could be classified as a screwdriver.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
AACS was not cracked, what has happened is that people are taking the title keys out of the memory of software players and using it along with an implementation of the published AACS standard.
It doesn't matter what they do. Bottom line is that people are capable of bypassing the encryption scheme and use the content in ways contrary to the intent of AACS. Therefore, AACS has been cracked. When will the idiotic recording companies figure out that DRM is a lost cause and find another business model. Thats the biggest problem with IP and Copyright and DRM just makes it worse. With the advent of computers, it became trivial to copy distribute music etc. The response was to try and block technology.
That's not how TCPA works (Score:3, Informative)
Because the "ideal" trusted computing platform is built to refuse to run unsigned code period
This is a common /. meme, but it's incorrect. A TCPA TPM has no ability to control what code can or cannot run on the system. It's just a little device that sits on a bus (usually USB, though I think there may be PCI implementations) right next to all of the rest of the devices on your system. Like all of the others, a TPM is controlled by the OS and applications, not the other way around.
A TPM does four basic things:
There's so much free stuff online... (Score:2)
Sure, Increase the Levy (Score:3, Interesting)
Given that I just got a cease-and-desist for sharing "Click" (my network was), and I don't want to have to bother with it -- I want movies treated the same as music is here in Canada.
Unfortunately, I predict that the Candian Recording lobby will "convince" the government to eliminate the levy, and put in strict DMCA style regulations; you know, to conform to the American model.
Maybe I am alone here, but, on reflection, I LIKE the levy. The idea of spending a bit more up front to keep the weasels away appeals to me. I don't really want the government trying to introduce "micro-payments" (I am sure they would REALLY fuck that up). I don't want an "on-line" levy -- because a lot of on-line activity is NOT for "copyright material". But media commonly used for that purpose? Sure, give them the levy.
Just my opinion.
Re:Sure, Increase the Levy (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's too late for most (Score:4, Interesting)
From the conference website: "The conference program will include a presentation from legendary producer Bob Ezrin. Having produced, mixed and played on legendary albums by Alice Cooper, Nine Inch Nails, Lou Reed, and KISS, Ezrin is perhaps best known for his production work on Pink Floyd's seminal The Wall. He is currently working with Universal Music Canada on talent development and the creation of a next generation music company."
RIAA's entire business model has evaporated (Score:5, Insightful)
Music and song were thriving for thousands of years before the recording industry.
The only thing that brought the music industry to life was the ability to control distribution due to -cost of equipment- (recording studio, vinyl production, radio stations)
with technology advances, this control has gone away, and their entire business model has evaporated.
They really have no choice but to try to artificially create a business model based on DRM and legislation, but obviously, these measures are bound to fail.
Can anyone here at
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sell music in an open format at a guaranteed quality level with access to their entire back catalogue at a reasonable price (i.e. not $1 a track)? In other words, give their customers what they want at a price they'll pay?
Nah, that would be too much like hard work.
Re:RIAA's entire business model has evaporated (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should we? And while we're at it, why can't we whip back? After the bullshit they've put us and our friends and family through, why should we just walk away? It's not good enough that their business model has evaporated, the coke-snorting abusive record label executives need to hold up cardboard signs saying "Will work for food" before justice will be satisfied.
Parent
Re:RIAA's entire business model has evaporated (Score:5, Insightful)
Reputation management. Which is pretty much what they do today.
They think their business is selling little round plastic discs. It's not. It's selecting and marketing artists, and there will always be a market for that.
See, here's the thing: If we postulate that all music become free for the copying, how do you select what you want to hear? Consider the 500 channels of crap you already have on your cable TV feed -- an embarrassment of riches to be sure, but how much of it do you actually watch? How much can you watch? How do you decide what to watch? The explosion of available content is not going to slow down (absent a global disaster), and you're going to need intermediaries to help you sift through it all.
Consider American Idol. Just one viewing of the early episodes of any given season will reveal to you the true depth of horrifyingly self-deluded suckage out there. And there, through it all, sits Simon Cowell, the show's creator. He sits through the crap so you don't have to. You may argue that what he lets through is still crap but, honestly, the stuff he's pruned out is much, much, much worse.
This is the primary service the RIAA members still provide, and still can. They could position themselves as P2P search engines and filters, picking through songs available on the various P2P networks, and rating music based on their evaluations and your preferences. Note that they're not offering up the tunes themselves. The tunes they're listing are out there somewhere on the Net; Google would find them, too, if you typed in the right filename. All the label's search site would do is present what they warrant to be quality music that you're likely to enjoy. This would, of course, be a subscription service -- say USD$7.95/month. What you'd be paying for is not the music, but the recommendations.
This would leave the RIAA members with the ability to present a "portal" they control, so promotion opportunities for new performers would still be possible. Streaming music would allow the label to feature "celebrity DJs" pushing a mix of their featured tunes -- just like the old payola days, only without the middlemen. And they could also earn money on the back-end by offering "promotional services" to new artists who want to boost their position in the search results. Each label could open multiple "fronts" on the Web, each purporting to specialize in particular music genres, or optimizing for particular aspects you feel are important (and billing for each separately).
...Basically, the philosophical antithesis of Google. Except that everyone would know that going in. You'd know your music filter service would be a heavily biased party, which is why you'd subscribe to two or three of them to try and even things out. This would probably be a really great idea right up to the point ClearChannel took over all of them.
Schwab
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No; don't be silly. You can tell other people about facts you got out of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. This isn't substantially different.
You're free to post recommendations of as many artists and tunes as you want. What you can't do is wholesale copy the recommendation
Re:RIAA's entire business model has evaporated (Score:5, Insightful)
As the man said "Music and song were thriving for thousands of years before the recording industry." ...and now - it's totally corrupt. Just think about it - how the record industry created these "Big Stars" - just like Hollywood and the National League [of your favourite sport here]. What fools we have all been to elevate these people to the status of gods! Of course, we have been manipulated by the mightiest marketing machine history has never known, but still, we bear the responsibility for our own actions in the end.
It's totally absurd that in this world where a quarter of the world's population suffers famine and we have so many other problems and priorities, that a few "stars" earn millions, and their promoters earn billions. And who are these people? For the most part, they are not musical geniuses; rather, they are icons of a corrupt pop-culture. They are stand-in symbols for whatever the current generation wants - anti-authority figures - 'sex, drugs, and Rock n' Roll'.
Centuries ago, art and music served as a form of worship, reaching for the highest ideals and aspirations that Man could strive for. Bach wrote his Fugues. Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Shakespeare wrote his plays, Byron, Shelley, Keats wrote poetry, Handel wrote his choral works, Beethoven, Vivaldi, Mozart composed their symphonies, the list goes on and on. Did any of these people, whose works have endured for centuries, ever earn millions of dollars? And did someone acting as their agent or producer earn many times more?
What has this world come to? I just typed "Greatest artists of all time" into Google and what do I get? Michelangelo? Leonardo da Vinci? Rembrandt? No, though that is exactly what I was looking for. Get this: According to Google, it's 1. The Beatles, 2. The Rolling Stones, 3. Jimi Hendrix, 4. Led Zeppelin, 5. Bob Dylan, 6. James Brown, 7. David Bowie, 8. Elvis Presley, 9. The Who, 10. The Police, 11. Stevie Wonder, 12. Ray Charles, 13. The Beach Boys, 14. Marvin Gaye, 15. Eric Clapton. Isn't there something wrong here?
Give me a break! "Greatest artists of all time" - how many of these people will even be remembered a century from now? I would only call one of these people an artist - Bob Dylan, and many of the rest are monster pop-icons created by the music industry back in the good ol' payola days. (Well, I have to admit, I too liked their music - most of them anyhow - what can I say? But that doesn't make them the "Greatest artists of all time". It's a matter of proportion, isn't it? What kind of a narrow view do we have, as reflected by Google?
Now, please don't get me wrong. I love contemporary music as much as anybody. I probably don't know any more about Classical Music, Fine Art, or Great Literature than you, and there certainly were times in my life when I would have liked nothing better than sex, drugs, and Rock n' Roll if/when I could get it.
My thesis is that record companies grew to be giant multinationals by catering to the worst within us, corrupting us with there greed, polluting our values, hijacking our culture for thier own monetary gain. Let them go back to Hell where they came from. It's time for this bullshit to end.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, provide a higher quality product.
For starters, let me make one thing clear: I am not a pirate. I don't try and get a free ride on music and movies, and almost all of my software is Open Source.
Let's ignore pricing for a minute. On iTunes, I can get a song encoded in AAC audio at a bitrate of 128 kbps, and I can only play it on up to 5 computers and iPods, or burn it to a CD. Again, I'm not a pirate, but I've been under the impression
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comical (Score:4, Insightful)
They need to concentrate on finding some real talent. Right now they seem to concentrate primarily on finding second-rate wannabe-models, and then try to cover their complete lack of talent with lousy recording, lots of digital processing and when that doesn't work, attempt to distract from the mediocrity with synchronized dancing.
Once they've found some talent, they need to do a good (not over-produced) job of recording them, and sell the recording at a reasonably fair price. Here again, they've fallen down badly -- at one time, the amount of work and machinery raised enough barrier to entry that prices are recordings were at least partially justified. That's just no longer the case. Photocopiers haven't hurt the book market noticeably, simply because most people prefer a nicely printed and bound book to a photocopy, and a photocopy generally doesn't save much (if any) money anyway. The recording labels don't want to compete similarly because it would cut their profit margins -- but it's the only route that has any chance of being truly viable in the long term.
The fact is, if you want to sell something, you have to start by providing something that people actually want. Then you have to set a price that people will accept. These are simple facts the record companies have to face. Until they do, neither DRM nor lawsuits will improve their situation -- or even noticeably slow the rate at which it deteriorates.
Dam breaks free (Score:2)
As soon as consumers found a way to bypass the aging distribution model, the dam was let loose. Or to abuse a few other metaphors... the genie is out of the bottle... the cat is out of the bag...
So easy to poke holes (Score:4, Insightful)
I will just say this: I think the industry's paranoid, DRM-pushing strategy is based on them hugely misinterpreting the data of recent years.
"Piracy is increasing!"
"Our sales are declining!"
Flawed conclusion: Sales are declining due to increased piracy!
Flawed course of action: Get more strict about stopping piracy!
Reality: Very few instances of piracy are lost sales; most people pirate just because they can, but if they couldn't, they sure as hell wouldn't go out and buy legitimate copies of everything they've pirated. People will pirate anything regardless of quality, but most people won't pay for content that sucks and just keeps getting worse. Also, you can't expect people to keep paying $18 for a pre-pressed audio CD when they know damn well it only costs $2 to make (since they can do it themselves at home on a PC and know what's involved).
Correct conclusion: Sales are declining due to decreasing value proposition (overpriced sucky content on increasingly cheap media).
Correct course of action: Aggresively seek out (or create!) better content and promote it; stop promoting crap; drop price-per-unit.
Just some thoughts... (Score:2)
A better solution may encompass letting the recording industry go tax free in all regards. By this I mean no income tax, no sales tax on the materials purchased (i.e. the CDs), etc. In exchange for this, they would have to agree not to sue anyone unless it's for true piracy. I.e. selling someone else's intellectual property (like making copies and eBaying them off).
DRM has slashed my consumption of music (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of these were purchased before DRM existed and include numerous full-catalogue purchases. I have no ripped-off material.
I have about 3 or 4 DRM'd cds. They SUCK. They all give me problems on older players that I have, or refuse to play on my PC through the speakers. That's not trying to copy them or anything fancy, they just don't F'n work on sub-optimal equipment, where everything else does.
End. I don't buy music anymore. Not if it has a DRM logo on it. Neither do I steal it BTW, I just don't consume music anymore, except for some local homegrown bands who cut their own slugs, sell direct and pocket the income.
Goodbye RIAA.
Re: Toronto (Score:2, Offtopic)
"As an Aussie - I'm considering a contracting stint in Toronto. Those Canadians might have flappy heads and a penchant for saying "eh" a lot, but they do have one of the most liveable cities in the world, and more sensible copyright laws."
Toronto?!? Come on - everyone knows Montreal's got better food, better public transit, better parties, and cheaper housing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blank media taxing (Score:4, Funny)
You'll trade that for -40 C? You aussies are nuts, eh?
Parent
Re:Blank media taxing (Score:5, Funny)
Peter
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your solution would effectively cut out the distributer/label with the current model. Any other effective model would require a complete paradigm shift in the distribution/control aspect; this is what the RIAA and MPAA are worried about- distribution rights as a business model, and they have lots of cash to throw at our lawmakers to help keep that outmoded business model viable.
I completely agree with you, but until the money involved changes drastically, this is what we are stuck with.
Some things can be do
Re: (Score:2)
Me? I buy
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But will this new strategy really keep piracy at low levels? If I know that one of my friends has a hot new track that he downloaded from a site that lets the users download MP3s, it would seem stupid(in my opinion) for someone to fork over a dollar for the track. If I can get a good from free(from the friend), why in the world would I pay for it?
Convenience.
We (at least in the first world) are living in an age of unprecented personal wealth and great laziness. People are lining up to throw away their d
I'll pay for the convenience (Score:4, Interesting)
I buy a newspaper almost every day, although if I wanted to save the 50 cents, I could surely find a discarded newspaper or ask a friend to give me his copy after he's done. Or I could hang out next to a newspaper vending box and piggy-back on somebody else's coin to steal a copy for myself. But the convenience of picking it up from the vendor or the box without having to look around or ask around is worth more to me than the money that I could save.
Parent
Re:havent RTFA, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Rewind back to the 1970's with LP sales and easy access to cassette tape recoders. Fast forward to the 1980's and Cable TV and VHS and Betamax VCR's. Why would anybody subscribe to cable TV when someone gets something off HBO and passes the tape arround. Fast forward to today with portable MP3 recorders and Sirrus radio. How can they sell subscriptions?
New content without DRM in a reasonable format at a reasonable price is more convienent. Only overpriced content gets pirated in mass. Most people buy their own DVD's instead of copy them on VHS or DIVX. Most people who listen to subscription radio do so with their own subscription. Most people who watch pay tv have their own subscription instead of passing along the latest HVS tape.
But will this new strategy really keep piracy at low levels? Good question. How does Blockbuster and Hollywood video manage when people can just go online and download it for free? Good price, convience, and high quality....
DRM-free content with the same parameters will sell. Good price, Convience, and High Quality.. Don't forget it. It's called Value Someday, the RIAA will get it.... Maybe.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)