Janis Ian on the Internet Debacle 443
Datasage writes "Janis Ian, famous songwriter and artist, writes about her views of free music downloads, the music industry and the evils of the RIAA in this article." Yet another artist with substantial first-person experience speaking out, reminiscent of Courtney Love's speech.
I want an apology (Score:2, Flamebait)
I said it before, I'll say it again - absolutely nobody is listening to the musicians. For all the lawyer bashing that goes on here, you'd think some of those 'filesharing is the devils work' posters would clue in that the parties with the megaphones in this debate arnt even remotely interested in the welfare of artists - only the lucrativeness of the music industry.
What a great article. It should be required reading if you want to be a music consumer.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if you happen to be a formulaic nobody churns out the same old dirges album after album (mentioning no names Lars.. oops), then people are going to be sick of paying 15quid (I'm English, dollars to you I guess) for an album with perhaps 2 or 3 reasonable tracks. And what do they do? They download/copy/rip the stuff they like, and don't pay for the filler. And as far as record companies are concerned, filler pays.
You see, people who download aren't really hurting the artists who have been around for a while, and have a hefty back catalogue that will actually be aided by new listeners. No. The people that are 'harmed' are the so-called 'musicians' who are happy to stamp out track after track, album after album of the usual cookie-cutter chart crap. These are the tunes that appeal most to the very people who can't afford to buy a 15quid/dollar CD, Children. They're the very same people who haven't the intellectual ability to crack some encryption or whatever. So whats left? Downloading.
Sure, Janis Ian is right. People downloading a 27 year old hit isn't going to hurt sales of an ancient Ian album. But thats not the same as saying its not going to hurt anyone.
I'm as bad for this as the next pirate. I would never have gone out and paid for the latest Puddle Of Mudd album, theres only 1 good song on it, but I have it. I've not bought the Blade 2 OST, but I'm listening to it. Just a couple of examples as to where the recording industry has been hurt.
If artists want me to pay my hard earned cash for their music, then they ought to make albums I'd be happy to pay for.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2, Insightful)
This is different from saying that the recording industry shouldn't be piled high on a bonfire and doused with lighter fluid.
The problem is that you 20-to whatever morons want to exploit the artists even more than the recording industry. You don't want to pay them anything!
If you were to seriously campaign for artists' rights and to propose somethng that would help artists at least as much as your personal music collection, it might be easier to take you seriously.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2)
Dont you ever tell me what I want. I know what I want, and I want to pay artists.
You are way off base dinotrac (Score:2)
He's a musician. I know many professional musicians eking out a meager living off of live performances who will say much the same thing the previous poster wrote, as well as what's in Janis Ian's essay. This music industry is destroying the incentives to "innovate" just as Microsoft -- through their anti-competitive tactics -- has destroyed the very market they feed from. Piss in the communal soup pot and you get the soup all to yourself; of course may taste like piss but it's all yours!
It may seem counterintuitive, but to an undiscovered musician giving out product for free makes the best marketing sense possible. It's a loss leader for the profitable live performance market. That few musicians -- even those signed on label contracts -- make money from CD sales is further proof of a disincentive for musicians to follow the RIAA's lead and break free. Ani DiFranco is a great example of how a talented musician is better off producing and distributing their own music because of onerous and exclusionary recording contracts, ridiculous accounting methods, and blatant payola on radio. It's more profitable for the individual artist to give away selected tracks. This is a real financial incentive from the bottom up, which may be bad for the monopoly positions of the major record labels, but is very much to the benefit of individual artists.
Cheers,
--Maynard
Re:You are way off base dinotrac (Score:2)
The moron comment was completely fair in response to his "40 year old morons" I don't like being called names any more than you or he does (even though I'm actually closer to a 50 year old moron).
As to responding to the post, I did.
My response was simple:
Reviling the recording industry doesn't pay artists. If you read my post, you saw that I have no conceptual issue(maybe a few legal and moral issues) with piling the entire record industry on a bonfire and soaking it with lighter fluid.
Artists should have the right to sign deals with folks who will handle distribution, publicity, etc, if that's what they want to do. However, the music industry isn't taking artists on as clients, with an obligation to serve their interests and abide by their wishes. It steals from them and treats them as chattel. This is more than wrong, it's criminal. Musicians continue to be bonded in much the way athletes were held before the Curt Flood case opened the floodgates. Musicians need their own Curt Flood, that's for sure.
I agree that artists would do well by giving away some music. Teasers are a great way to attract buyers. I just think that the decision of whether to give something away, when, what and how should be at the musician's discretion.
I don't see how musicians are helped by a world where anybody can take as they please without regard for those who created it. Who's ripping you off matters less than the fact that you are being ripped off.
As I said, positive suggestions for taking care of musicians are a desirable thing. Mere statements that "record companies suck, so I'll take what I want" don't help a soul.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2)
Sorry for the agism, but so far my collective opinion gathering points to most of the 'there is no room for a grey market' posters come from a more bricks and mortar time.
It wasn't my intent to diss 40 yr olds
> I always sample before I buy.
Yeah, thats what most people do! There's a reason nobody buys cheap shoes and has somebody paint on the swoosh - people want the official gear, as Janis pointed out.
Re:I want an apology (Score:2)
Re:I want an apology (Score:3, Interesting)
Congratulations to Janis Ian for the excellent article she wrote. As a musician myself, I completely empathize. I've said this before, I'm planning on starting an Internet on label. I could use some help. Drop a comment in my journal if you are interested in getting involved.
Sandman, that really strikes home. My other half and I frequently ask each other if our parents are coming home soon. Gotta love being 42...
Re:I want an apology (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure. How much does an mp3 weigh?
Re:I want an apology (Score:2)
I dont really believe age has much to do with it (but I believe "clueless twentysomethings that parrot what they hear" is quite possibly right on the money)
Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:4, Interesting)
The fame-junkies are going to ally with the record companies no matter how much or little they get paid. But to quote Bowie, "Fame...makes [someone] loose and hard to swallow."
The ironic part is, if they ditched the record companies and made a *real* effort to come up with an internet-based music distribution system with micropayments, they'd all probably make more money, AND get more direct control over their work...which is a much more 'real' power than the record companies' 'fame' they peddle.
Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Metallica was in it because, unlike 90%+ of the artists signed to the big five, they actually *own* their recording rights. Look at a Metallica CD. It doesn't say (C)(P) Electra (their lable).
Now, this is not to say I agree with Metallica's stance, but its understandable why theirs and Janis' view points are different.
Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:5, Interesting)
The fans turned on Metallica like rabid wolves because they went directly against what they said and stood for. Bootlegs is what MADE metallica. Photos shot with crappy throw away cameras is what MADE metallica. the fans are what MADE metallica. not their genius, Lar's F**King drumming abilities (there are tons more and better drummers than lars) or anything to do with what they did.
The same is with current bands.. I saw Nickleback this past tuesday, they insulted and made mad a large number of fans as they over searched everyone TWICE looking not for drugs,liquor,or weapons but CAMERAS. enough to get a large group to complain about it.
it's time that people get tired of the crap that bands and the labels pull. Me taking a grainey/far away photo at a concert is not going to cost anyone anything.... not letting me do so costs a fan and sales.. as I will no longer buy anything that they are affiliated with and let everyone know that they are fricking greedy bastards.
hopefully more artists will have the moxy and arent corrupted too badly to follow Janis's view.
Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has gone to a Metallica show knows that they ENCOURAGE recording of their shows fror your own enjoyment. In fact I have even heard instances of them letting people jack recording gear into their console at the show should you happen to be close enough.
Their argument, whether you agree with it or not, was that artists should have final say on what is shared and what is not. On this point I would have to agree with them. It shouldn't be the fan's or the label's decision. The decision should be the artists that created the work. If they want to selectively allow some works to be shared and others not, it should be their perogative.
--Jon
Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely correct. It's the letter and spirit of copyright law.
Unfortunately, it's also largely irrelevant, because the vast majority of artists don't own the rights to their own work. They have chosen to sell them to big labels, and have no legal or moral rights to comment on how that work is used.
The only people that can comment on the work are the weasels in suits at the labels. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the law, and I suggest that it's also what's right, because artists are persuaded to sign away all rights not by being beaten with a stick, but by being shown a huge carrot.
You can argue that artists don't have a choice, that the only way to get wide distribution is to sign in blood to a label. Bullshit. If you want wide distribution, put your music on gnutella. Signing with a label is about greed, it's about gambling that you'll be in the 1% that actually makes money, and makes it big. Oh, delicious irony, that 99% of artists are wrong, and get screwed. Dumb, greedy fucks.
I was one of the few people that actually agreed with the substance of what Metallica were saying. But the trouble was that they should have stuck to just talking about themselves, rather than appearing on a platform with repulsive label weasels, and dribbling on about other artists' rights (most of whom have none). If they were being honest, they should have said "Screw everyone else. Just don't pirate our stuff, because we've been good to you in the past, you selfish fuckers." But they didn't, they toed the corporate line and tried to imply that the respect that they'd earned also applied to the hordes of talentless meat puppets that infest the airwaves and MTV-a-like channels. Bzzt, wrong, both legally and morally.
An Artist's Life (Score:2)
While I think your comment hits very close, it doesn't quite get the bulls eye. Say gold ring. Anyway, you have to remember that the dream of every artist in any media is to be able to devote themselve to their creativity. In a perfect world, an artist would simply create. People would buy art out of a sense of asthetic duty, the state would support them or what have you. Sadly, the world ain't perfect, and artists like everyone else have to make comprimises. A musican may have to think they have to make faustian deals with record companies. A writer may support their works of love through writing crappy genre fiction. And a graphic artist may have to make some easily consumable pieces of art. It's either that, and a whole lot of luck, or they have to have a day job. I know exactly one artist who leads an pure uncomprimised life. She scrapes by on shows, music festivals, and whatever part time job she needs to get. She lives on something like $12-15K a year. She won't ever be big. She knows that, but she gets just enough attention to get by. I admire her for leading that life, but I can't do it. Neither can the other artists(meaning here musicans, writers, and so on) I know. The rest of the bunch have day jobs to support themselves while they find that big break. The downside is that you lead a very sleep deprived, exhausted life that way. It's really hard for me, especially now that I'm married, to sit down and write for four or so hours every night after work, but I do it. I look forward to the big break I know is out there, and I'm heart broken everytime something fails to come through. That heartbreak alone is enough to lead an artist to cut corners and make deals that comprimise them.
Re:Debate reveals artists' true colors (Score:2)
Certain bands have leverage to negotiate their own terms. Some bands don't. Unfortunately, us westerners are uncomfortable in beliving that anybody but the uber-best deserves any fair treatment at all, so those artists that dont have the leverage are usually glibly dismissed as 'sucky' or whatnot.
Of course, thats not the point. Diversity, lots of smaller acts would be good for music and musicians. The more powerful *any* entity becomes, more likely they become the next RIAA or MPAA, so not having the leverage should be dealt with by asking, "Why do the labels seem to have *much* more leverage than most artists." rather than "Why do so many arists sign their life away so quickly."
Remeber, us musicians cant become experts in legalese. If we put too much time into studying what we have to do protecting our interests, we dont have any time left over to write music.
I guess this is where the market is supposed to step in - if the musician camp hunch is right, the music industry will essentially die at some point because labels will only be able to sign the flash-in-the-pan idiot bands to their draconian contracts. Doesn't seem to be happening however; if anything, the western world's addiction to flash over substance appears to be ever increasing.
Compassion for the artists? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that the RIAA is just frightened that they are losing control. If they were really worried about the artists, they would be paying them more, and not resorting to some of the more unethical practices that have become standard in the music industry.
If they really wanted to help the consumer, they could lower CD prices everywhere, so that more people could purchase more songs.
If they really wanted to help the artist, they would funnel more money to the artist, rather than their own pockets.
The truth is, though, that they only want to help themselves, and as such, there isn't much we can do about it. We can let our voices be heard, and hope that one day, CD copying will be just as legal as taping something off the radio or television.
Re:Compassion for the artists? (Score:2)
Great Article... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a thought, but it would be great if more stars of the 60s spoke out against the record companies on this one. Those decrepit baby boomers owe it to us later generations...
Lobby your favorite aging rocker. I bet their back catalogues make up a sizeable portion of record company revenue, and the've already made a fortune so they have less to risk by speaking out. And once we get Ozzy Osbourne et al on the case...
Ozzy! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ozzy! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ozzy! (Score:2)
Very interesting article (Score:2)
For the vast majority of musicians and performers (the vast majority not being Madonna or Britney...) the Web is a very positive thing - a way for them to promote themselves and distribute their music at very low cost.
One of the ways the big multinational record labels have defended the price of CDs in the past has been by saying that selecting and promoting an artist or band is very expensive. Not any more it's not - bands can promote themselves, and we the collective Joe Public can do the selecting, thank you very much.
Re:Very interesting article (Score:5, Informative)
"Furthermore, the advent of Napster in 1999 was followed by an overall increase in record sales by the RIAA for the next two years! The RIAA sold 10.8 percent more CDs that year even after increasing the price on those discs by over 12.3 percent. In 2000 this trend continued with another increase in CD price (from $13.65 to $14.02 on average) and an increase in sales again by over 3,600,000 CDs. It is worth noting also that in the last nine years the RIAA has tripled their annual income during a supposed economic downturn. For the years 1999 and 2000 the total profit made by the RIAA went from 14,584,500,000 dollars to 14,323,000,000 dollars. However, they lost 579,500,000 dollars on vinyls, cassettes and music videos, areas that Napster cannot possibly have an effect upon! In the formats Napster can trade, the RIAA made 318,500,000 more dollars than before!"
These numbers [riaa.com] don't lie....
The fact is that Napster's popularity appears to have spurred CD sales to new levels. This makes sense, if you think about it: The large majority of people are not on fast broadband connections to the Internet. On a 56K modem, downloading an MP3 can take some time, certainly enough to make downloading an entire album seem like a lot of effort. Then, more time is required to get the songs onto the CD. Common sense says that if people using Napster liked a song enough on MP3, they would probably go out and buy the album, just as if they heard it on the radio. Napster gave people the chance to experience music they otherwise might have been loathe to pay money for, only to find out that the music wasn't something they particularly enjoyed. Need more proof? In 2000, CD sales were up 8 percent, even with Napster usage at an almost all-time high. At the same time in 2001, CD sales were down 8 percent, but the RIAA's lawsuit had all but halted Napster usage. See the correlation?
---rhad
Re:Very interesting article (Score:2)
Yup, thats their own fault, really. They are responsible for clogging the communicative channels betwixt the labels and the consumers, and they have nobody to blame for the 'barrier to market' than themselves. Its like they're shouting at the top of their lungs, and then turning around and complaining that they have to be loud to sell an artist.
Screw em. I know constraint isn't in the playbook of multinationals, but they should eat their own deserts if they cant control themselves.
I fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, corporations such as Disney and industry groups such as the MPAA and RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) cannot seem to fathom the existence of a customer who is both honest enough to not steal, yet smart enough to not let him/herself be ripped off.
The opposing view: A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed 16,000 Americans between the ages of 13 and 39 who say they listen to more than 10 hours of music a week and have spent at least $25 on music in the past six months. Among the findings: 59 percent of those who said they heard a certain piece of music for the first time while online ended up purchasing that music as a CD.
What is truly patheitc is how they rant and rave about how they want to "protect the artist", all the while doing just the opposite--and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. What the RIAA does not want you or I to realize is that they most certainly do NOT represent the artists contracted to their labels. They represent nothing more than a coalition of companies milking copyright to its fullest extent.
Copyright is no longer a good thing. It is sad that such a good "idea" has become such a misused and abused facet of corporate ideology and overwhelming greed.
----rhad
Re:I fear (Score:4, Interesting)
But it sounds like a good answer to a reporter, and won't usually be openly scoffed at. If for no other reason, then because the publisher doesn't want to offend a large advertiser.
Re:I fear (Score:4, Interesting)
I would put the period right there. Too many corporations cannot fathom the existence of a customer.
I was watching some talking head on one of the tv money shows the other night. They were discussing, what else, corporate mismanagement. This guy was some kind of hot-shot investor, and he was all hot and bothered because company executives had forgotten their one true purpose: to serve the shareholders!.
WTF?!
The ignorance is so rampant, no frickin' wonder we're witnessing such a show of corporate suicide. What about the goddamn customer?! What about developing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and supporting a product that customers want to buy!?
The tail is wagging the dog. Customer satisfaction has taken a back seat to corporate profitability and shareholder value. Selfishness is regularly promoted as the root of all that is good and holy. It should be the other way around. Hence the expression "the customer is always right." - it used to be a maxim of good business practice. When is the last time you heard anything resembling that expression on "Money News with Pinstripe Boy"?
Look no further than that epitomy of self-serving capitalism - Microsoft - to see just how far awry this philosophy has taken us. If they can't compel people to buy their products because they want to, then damn it, let's force them to upgrade by continually changing file formats and protocols. Oh, and let's not forget lobbying Congress to create new laws declaring certain undesireable competitors criminals.
Re:I fear (Score:5, Informative)
If a corporation is too abstract of a concept, let's do a thought experiment. Pretend you have a child who wants to start a lawn-mowing business. The child needs money to buy a lawn mower, print up fliers, pay for gas, etc. You agree to give your kid the money in exchange for, say, 25% of the profits. In effect, you have just bought 25% of your kid's company.
Who is the kid responsible to? If you have a consciencious child, you hope that he wants to pay back your faith in him by making money. After all, that was the deal. The primary responsibilty, as you can see, is to the person who made this little company possible in the first place.
If screwing customers is a good plan for a company to make money and increase its value, you can hardly fault the company beacuse the customers put up with being screwed. Long-term, companies survive because the put out a product that people want. Generating ill will doesn't work long term. Unfortunately, the Enron/Worldcom/Adelphia/whoever's next bastards don't care about the long term, don't care about their customers, and don't care about their shareholders. If they did care about the shareholders, they wouldn't have been lying to them. The system needs fixes because it's too easy for lying weasels to get away with hiding things from shareholders. After that, everything else will fall into place, including customer satisfaction.
Heck, if you don't like how record companies are currently working, start buying record company shares. Don't like how MS works? Buy MS shares. Set up a fund. Every time you want to buy a CD or DVD or piece of software, use that money to buy stock instead. Let lots of people pool their money, get a large voting bloc of stock. Then change the policies. That's how the system works.
-jon
Re:I fear (Score:2)
Alas, however, I fear you are right. You are describing the way most people expect the sytem does and should work. I just beg to differ. I think it should be otherwise.
Really, though, we both want the same thing - companies that provide value to their shareholders and value to their customers. I just happen to think the customer should come first. When customers come first, the rest will follow quite naturally. When shareholders come first, sometimes the customers don't even count anymore.
Re:I fear (Score:3, Informative)
Assume that a person buys in average 1 CD per day. For that person to aquire 1% of Microsoft shares (at 31 March 2002 - my source [yahoo.com] - market capitalization = $286.6B) would mean saving their CD money (assume $15 per CD) for a period longer than 523112 years.
The other possibility is for 10000 persons (that's a small stadium full of people) to save their CD money for 52.3 years and then get together and use their 1% of the company to try and change things (assuming they all agreed on the direction to take).
The whole idea that the Average Joe Shareholder has any influence whatsoever in managing corporate Americe is pure hot air (and the smelly type, at that)
Re:I fear (Score:2)
Great plan. I'll get right on it. Never mind those social commentaries or regulatory options...the REAL answer to corporate greed is BUY MORE STOCK!
Re:I fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Shareholders have to get some return on their investment or they won't stay shareholders or attract new ones. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Of course, the proper way to give them a return on their investment is please the customers who buy their products, thereby keeping the company healthy, and ultimately delivering some profits that can be distributed back to the investors (and/or re-invested to fund the continued operation of the company.) So, yeah, make money for the shareholders by having lots of happy, paying customers.
But pleasing consumers and making competitive products can be hard work. So some CEOs, for their own immediate benefit and to satisfy impatient shareholders, have taken advantage of all sorts of short-cuts to make profits appear without the hard work of actually offering decent products or services. It might be massive "cost cutting" that fires the most competent employees or sells off strong but unglamourous assets, accounting tricks to hide poor sales and bad investments, or lots of other things. All of these get rich quick schemes tend to maximize short-term financial gain at the expense of the long-term health of the company. So it's not really matter of selfishness vs. pleasing the customer. It's more a matter of enlightened self-interest vs. immediate gain with no interest in the ultimate consequences.
Something I think is just as bad is the current demand for constant growth. It forces otherwise sane companies to overextend themselves with pointless acquisitions and other silly corporate strategies simply for the sake of keeping irrational market advisors happy. Corporate growth, like growth in living things, must be directed, purposeful, and carefully controlled or it weakens the body rather than strengthening it.
(I think obligatory MS-bashing there at the end is a bit off base, BTW. MS can do whatever it wants with its products, and they're really no worse than many other companies as far as rampant upgrades are concerned. MS has supported some bad legislation in the past, but they're boy scouts compared to really nasty companies like Monsanto, which can do way more real-world damage than any computer company ever dreamed of.)
Wrong, wrong, wrong ... (Score:2)
... both honest enough to not steal, yet smart ... (Score:2)
They're trying to remove the option.
Wierd Al? (Score:2)
A study compiled by the Yankelovich Partners surveyed...
Holy shit! You mean Wierd Al is doing music industry studies in addition to making music? Now that's diversification!
GMD
Famous? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Famous? (Score:2)
Certainly this isn't the only meaning. Famous is frequently used as a synonym for nortorious, though most consider that to be an incorrect usage. It is also sometimes used to mean someone who is widely known at some particular instant in time. This brief and (hopefully) episodic meaning for famous is a correct usage, though many consider it to be less valid than the more enduring meanings. Thus Rodin is still a famous sculptor, though he has been dead for quite awhile.
Re:Famous? (Score:2)
She says she normally gets 75,000 hits on her website a year. I think
For those who don't know ... (Score:5, Informative)
She released several albums on the Verve label in the 60s and gradually sank into obscurity. After signing with Columbia, she made a comeback during the mid-70s with the hit "At Seventeen". Again, she wasn't able to follow it up with another similar hit and sales gradually dwindled until she was dropped. Due to mismanagement and bad accounting she ended up with tax problems and eventually went broke.
She's managed to keep herself going in the music biz in the last few years, although I have no idea what kind of music she's doing now.
Re:For those who don't know ... (Score:5, Informative)
She's one of the regular columnists for "Performing Songwriter" magazine. She and Christine Lavin have written several good commentaries on the music industry and how the Internet has helped independent singer-songwriters. And she's a big Science Fiction fan to boot!
Some choice quotes (Score:5, Interesting)
It's interesting to note that this is not someone who could be dismissed by an RIAA flack as a no-name musician whining because the Internet might get her recognition that she's not gotten from "The Industry" -- she's had nine Grammy nominations, and her music has been recorded by just about everybody [janisian.com] at one time or another.
How could you miss this one? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. Anti-RIAA and anti-Microsoft in eight words. The girl can write.
You forgot one... (Score:2)
burris
"I wanted a profession that didn't require my physical presence." - Kinky Friedman, commenting on his decision to become a novelist.
Re:Some choice quotes (Score:2)
Um, the web is only about 10 years old.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not get too excited for Courtney Love. She wishes she had the power the RIAA had. If you want a clear description of the RIAA's underhanded tactics, check out Steve Albini's article [razlerrecords.com] about treatment of bands by record labels. Steve Albini was a producer of one of Nirvana's early albums. I think the slashdot croud would find this article interesting.
BTW - I know I linked to a record label's website but this article can be found elsewhere. This is just a record label which is, at the very least, attempting to set itself apart from other record labels. Probably an independant. I'll be looking over their site after this is posted.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Courtney's speech is a direct rip of Steve's "The Problem With Music", not surprising considering the animosity the two of them had during the recording of In Utero. My writeup of it [petdance.com] is a bit prettier. For other info on other Albini stuff, like Big Black, Rapeman and Shellac, visit Action Park [petdance.com].
A brilliant article (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more with the facts or sentiments expressed in this article. While not connected to the music industry in any way, I have heard from numberous band members the difficult of getting a contract, and the ridiculous provisions to which they would be bound. Fortunately some of our best artists have not signed to "known" labels, but produced albums themselves.
Worse still, the entire music industry here is being slapped with a class action for backpayment of royalties which have been withheld under very questionable circumstances.
But in particular I want to address three of the RIAA's statements:
1. So, lots of people are downloading music. They're also watching MTV and listening to radio. I, like many people I know, cannot find music of my preferred taste as local shops because it is mostly on labels which are not pressed locally, in low demand, and therefore not viable for music shops to keep in stock. I will not buy a CD without having heard at least a few tracks first; so either I sample by downloading, or (occasionally) hear a new track at a club.
So while the analysts cry "1.8 billion downloads times $15.95 means the industry has lost nearly $30 billion" ... the reality is that they may have lost at most sales totalling $3 billion (yeah, there are on average 10 tracks on a CD), of which less than 40% gets back to the Big 5 as profit ... and that's STILL assuming that every download is in leiu of a CD. Bollocks.
2. I have a CR-RW drive. I have written over 60 CDs with it. Three are music CDs. One is a duplicate of another, and BOTH contain MP3 versions of around 12 albums which I own.
We have 2 CD-RWs in general use where I work, which aren't used for MP3 writing. Many of my friends work for businesses which go through several hundred CDs in a year for backup, sales demos, distribution, etc - anything but MP3s.
3. And my favourite: "In a recent survey of music consumers, 23%...said they are not buying more music because they are downloading or copying their music for free." Classic sales talk. So 23% are not buying more music. Does that mean they are buying LESS music? Does it mean (as is implied) that they are not buying music AT ALL?
And what about the other 77%? Are they buying more music? I mean, if 23% aren't ...
There are three types of untruth: lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Re:A brilliant article (Score:2)
People are also buying blank CD-Rs to copy pirated games and software.
So tell me, how can 100% of the blank CD-Rs be used to copy music, and 100% of the blank CD-Rs ALSO be used to pirate software? That make no sense, but they don't want you to realize that.
Let's not also forget that people are buying CD-Rs to save a permanent copy of their digital pictures from all these digital cameras! And what about that video of Grandma's 60th Birthday that was digitized, burnt to multiple CD-Rs and then sent out to various members of the family?
The recording industry wants to slap a tax onto CD-Rs, yet a good portion of the CD-Rs are not used for anything even remotely music related!
As an example, in the last two years (since I bought my MP3 Cd player) I've burned 4 (count them, FOUR) music CDs! One was an album which isn't available through ANY of the RIAA companies. I have yet to purchase that album, yes I admit it, but it's only because I'm lazy. Despite that fact, because of this album I have gone out and purchased at least SIX other albums by various members of this band that I probably otherwise would not have purchased. The other CDs were collections of my MP3s, each one has about 11 total albums on it ALL of which I had ALREADY purchased. One CD has a directory of random songs for artists that I have NO INTENTION of ever buying any of their CDs, but just happened to like some of their songs. Had I been given the oppurtunity to purchase these single songs for a reasonable price, I would have. But I'm not going to pay $15-$20 for a bullshit album that has only one song I like, no fucking way.
The rest of the CD-Rs have been for backup, applications, pictures, and heaven forbid GNU/Linux shit you can download off the internet.
My father isn't much different. In fact, he used most of his CD-Rs to transfer old tapes of classic radio programs onto CD so he could listen to them in the car while he drove to work. All material which was legally purchased (either by him) or given to him as a Christmas/Birthday gift. He doesn't have the time to listen to this stuff at home, so he chose to listen to it in the car. Good choice I say. The RIAA has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with these recordings, they existed long before the RIAA was even a glimmer in some fat cats eye.
Now, I ask you, why should my father and I pay the RIAA even MORE money for using these technologies in such was as I outlined above?
The fact is, we shouldn't, and I won't stand for it.
I've never voted before. I've never cared enough about things to bother (I'm 26, and realistically, Gore, Bush, Nader, they all sucked). But this time around, I *AM* going to vote. I can't stand this crap anymore, and I hope others feel the same way as I do. Here's to Nov!
Bryan
Re:A brilliant article (Score:2)
Heh. I'll bet that the RIAA would be squawking if that figure was 0.23%. From their distorted viewpoint, the mere existance of a CD/RW drive in a computer available to the general public means the sky is falling. You almost wonder if folks like Hilary and Jack wake up in the morning and find themselves consumed with the fear of: a) terrorists with nuclear weapons, and b) consumers with music and video recorders. (And not necessarily in that order.)
Artists get screwed... (Score:4, Informative)
One argument, that is false I might add, is that the recording industry should get most of the pie because they do all the work promoting it.
Well, this is complete bullshit. Ask anyone who is a musician on a label. They charge marketing costs to the artist. Sure, they give the artist a nice advance, but then they charge marketing costs, packaging, etc.
If you are really curious to see how the numbers REALLY work, check this [mosesavalon.com] out. It is a pretty decent royalty calculator that shows you how many albums you need to sell to make a dime.
--Jon
A slight counter-opinion (slight mitigation) (Score:2)
So it would be really interesting to find out what percentage of artists make money, kind of a customer vs profit curve. My business has it, and I've seen a sanitized version of it. If the music industry doesn't have one, then they're incompetent executives and deserve to be fired.
But aside from all this, as the calculator says, they cook the books in every way to chisel the artist. In the title I said "slight mitigation", and the word "slight" needs extra emphasis.
Besides which, those lower-volume artists deserve a more efficient distribution means. The record labels clearly aren't up to the task.
Re:A slight counter-opinion (slight mitigation) (Score:2)
The calculator is showing when the artist breaks even, that is when the artist's royalties have paid off the advance, promo and other charges. A more interesting calculation would be when the label breaks even, that is when sales revenue pays off the cost of producing and distributing the album, and the percentage of albums that sell enough for the labels to break even but don't sell enough for the artist to break even.
Apologies to Ms. Ian (Score:5, Interesting)
That music's made for R I double A
And dull execs with coked up noses,
blow dried hair and rockstar poses
Though Britney may be vapid crud
It sells so well to braindead youth
And in this world that makes it good
The other day, I learnt the truth
Re:Apologies to Ms. Ian (Score:2)
great article, one small flaw... (Score:2)
One word: Macrovision.
An interesting article about record companies (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe the distribution of cd sales is the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
The number of cd's that I have bought has gone up, but they aren't any of the one's that are being promoted by these companies. I really wonder if these count in the sales numbers or not...
Since this was well thought out, researched and .. (Score:2)
RIAA are the real pirates. (Score:2)
I suggest a letter writing campaign... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not to Congress/Parliment/whatever your country has either.
That's been done, and frankly, won't do any better now than it did then.
Boycotts won't work well either. They'll just blame it on piracy anyway.
No, I suggest letter writing to the ARTISTS.
If you decided to buy a CD or go to a live show by [insert artist here] after sampling some of their music, but wouldn't have before, let them know! Most bands have websites, with ways to send email to them. Send one letting them know that they got MORE of your money thanks to your being exposed to them through free downloads.
Maybe, just maybe, if enough people do that, then more artists will step up to argue against the RIAA claims that piracy is hurting artists.
Janis Ian is Project Gutenberg's 3001 entry (Score:3, Informative)
Janis Ian's "Society's Child" is Project Gutenberg's etext
#3001 (the lyrics) and #3002 (sound files).
The lyrics are short (shorter than the Project Gutenberg header,
unfortunately), and are in sochi10.txt or sochi10.zip
The sound is in 4 different formats, made from the same digital
audio source tape:
sochi-high.mp3 MP3 file, no degradation
sochi-med.mp3 MP3 file, slightly reduced sound quality
sochi22.wav WAV file at 22kHz
sochi11.wav WAV file at 11kHz
** These are copyrighted files, including the sounds and the lyrics!
** Please read the header in sochi10.txt or sochi10.zip before
** redistributing them.
The lyrics are Copyright (c) 1966 Taosongs Two (BMI) Admin. by Bug
The musical performance is Copyright (c) 2000 by Janis Ian
Thanks to Jason Moore and IBiblio (formerly Metalab) for creating
the digital files. Thanks to Janis Ian for donating these files for
distribution by Project Gutenberg.
The machine and software used to create the MP3 and WAV files was:
- Power Mac G4 running at 500Mhz
- Yamaha DSP Factory DS2416 sound
- Bias Peak and Media Cleaner Pro software
Frank Zappa (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems DIFFERNT from Courtney Loves speech.... (Score:2)
Re:This seems DIFFERNT from Courtney Loves speech. (Score:2)
How does that make sense? (Score:2)
Re:How does that make sense? (Score:2)
It's a cover up! (Score:2, Insightful)
The real reason is that record companies spend a lot of money on generating one hit song and a persona to go with it. If you delve beneath the surface of the album (listen to any other song) you will realize it's a piece of shit and the jig is up. The record companies survive on the top 40 radio songs that convince people to buy the album because the song is so catchy, knowing full well that the rest of the album is crap.
Like any sales practice (including software), it's about vaporware. Any movement to shed some light on the "product" would be squashed by any company.
Can you imagine Microsoft or Oracle allowing people to sample snippets of source code before they buy the product? That'll be the day.
I'm so tired of this debate.... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The music industry's that want to control music so that they can maintain their high profits. They don't care about the artists or the fair use rights of individuals.
2. The internet takers who want no controls over music so that they can get what they want without paying for it. They also don't care about the artists or about the law in regards to the rights of the copyright holders.
3. The people in the middle who believe in fair use rights but also know that for good or bad, sharing copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission is just plain stealing.
I fall in the third group. The fact is that if an artist decides to disseminate his music to which he has not already signed the rights away, over the internet for free he has every right to do this and it is perfectly legal to so. However, it is also a fact that the copyright holder has the legal right to decide how his work will be disseminated. It is also important to realize that the artist isn't always the one who controls the copyright. If he has sold the copyright to the recording industry then he has further say in the matter.
The fact that the recording industry is an evil empire is irrelevant to the issue of music stealing.
So, the bottom line is be responsible. Share only the music that you have been given permission from the copyright holder to share.
15% -- damn good results for direct marketing (Score:3, Interesting)
"When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who'd downloaded Society's Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information. Of those 100 people (and these are only the ones who let us know how they'd found the site), 15 bought CDs."
Anyone else notice this is a 15% successful direct sales rate? ANY marketer would be thrilled to have a 2% contact rate, and delerious with joy if only 5% of those contacts made a purchase. 15% is a solid testament to the power of "free samples" as a sales technique. Try the MP3, buy the CD.
BTW I had no idea she was such a good writer. There are lots of well-considered articles on her site, on all manner of topics. Gotta spend a day there sometime soon!
No mirrors yet? (Score:2)
History lessons (Score:2, Informative)
Why is the RIAA scared of this? Simple, it forces them to be more selective. So far, the marketing trends place quantity over quality, that way you can sell more records. P2P allows me to make sure I want to buy the album in the first place, and if I don't, I keep the songs I like, and will pay for them when there is a sane and stable system in lpace for doing so. Here, I excercise my ultimate power as a consumer, the ability to refuse to pay $20 for 3 or 4 minutes of audio, and P2P allows me to be able to make that informed choice. RIAA is corporate, so they naturally want the consumer to have as little freedom as possible. If these recording industry types just made sure that they were churning out a quality product each time, there would be no need for P2P, as far as I'm concerned.
Then again, if wishes were horses and all that.
Speaking of DRM... (Score:2)
So even if you can't do anything on the 17th, feel free to send the government your thoughts on DRM and its place in technology.
Janis Ian's who you want to listen to, yes (Score:3, Informative)
This is a woman with something like nine grammy nominations in at least three different decades, from what I can dig up in a few seconds' searching. She's been a big star, first for a sort of social-issues breakthrough song about interracial love in the sixties and then with a more mainstream hit, "At Seventeen." She's become a "back list" artist, and then a decidedly niche artist. (She released an album more-or-less about coming out as a lesbian.) She's released albums in different styles -- country, pop, folk -- with different labels. Tons of her songs have been recorded by other artists. Basically we're talking about the classic singer songwriter, and one with more than the usual longevity, versatility, class, and eloquence.
Sounds like someone you'd maybe make an effort to listen to rather than trumpeting your own studied ignorance as if it renders her views meaningless. You think?
Ye. Freaking. Gods. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've sold one, for two bucks in 'royalties'.
That's two bucks more in royalties than Janis Ian has ever been paid for her entire major label career, by her own account. "In 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money." I'm not even 37 years OLD, myself...
As if that's not enough, I can get CDs made pretty cheaply if I made 1000 or so, and can get them one at a time back from Ampcast for 7-10 bucks- and even at that, it's a better deal than BMG artists can get on their own CDs, should they wish to sell 'em at shows: "BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts - $11 per CD."
This article is even more damning than the Courtney Love article. My jaw is just dropping, and I was far from uninformed to start with... and I never knew how well off I was as a starving indie with no sales. Funny how I'm owed more royalties than a multiple Grammy winner...
the point people keep missing (Score:4, Insightful)
It is about control. The RIAA record labels want to close down any venue that is easily accessible to the public where the independent (as in unsigned by major record label) artist can upload her own music without having to go through a gatekeeper under record label control.
The ability of RIAA record label suits to make a living depends on their being able to say "You can't make a living without us."
With easily available CD on demand and band merchandise on demand, all a musician needs if his/her material is any good is exposure... a musician no longer needs record labels and record stores to sell CDs and T-shirts.
The last choke point that allows RIAA labels a chance to make money off artists and the public is exposure to masses of people. Internet Radio and P2P allowed an easy way for the independent artist to get to the people.
When people say "I bought CDs from bands I never heard of thanks to Napster, etc.", this doesn't make the RIAA want to keep P2P / Internet Radio open, their business is to make sure you only buy from RIAA artists... to find RIAA artists, turn on any Clear Channel radio station. Where an independent without a major promotion budget isn't going to be heard.
Re:famous? (Score:2)
*fffsszzzt* hello, kettle, come in, come in, this is the pot *fffsszzzt*
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
What? He's black?
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2)
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2)
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2)
You ignornant fuck.
Michael Jackson suffers from a rare skin disorder that results in very pale splotches (like reverse birthmarks, big, ugly, and prominent) all over one's body and face. He had the rest of his skin lightened to hide the blotches, not because he had some desire to "be white." To insinuate such is bigotry at its most despicable.
Having said all this, I don't particularly care for Michael Jackson's music and his personal habits are, to put it mildly, questionable. I have no idea if the pedophile accusations had any merit or not, but the skin whitening accusations are totally bogus and profoundly racist.
He is very misguided IMHO to be solely emphesizing the racism of the music industry (though I'm sure it exists, it is clear that you can find labels that actively promote such black music as Hip Hop, Rap, Gangsta Rap, Blues, Jazz, etc. so where it does exist, it can be worked around). The "oppression" he is feeling is likely the oppression virtually every artist, black, white, green, or purple, who has dealt with the recording industry has felt: the cold certaintly that you have been forced into a form of indentured servitude and are being taken, firmly, to the cleaners. This form of artist misuse and abuse is so profound, so widespread, and so dramatic, that one wonders if any racial components aren't dwarfed in comparison.
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2)
Re:more artists against RIAA (Score:2)
Yes. That is what happens when you contract a disease at > 13. The symptoms (skin blotching in this case) set in at > 13.
Batting about 60 on the IQ test, aren't you.
Re:A little tip... (Score:2)
i have a feeling that the numbers are being skewed here
Several reasons (Score:2)
CD-R is a more universal platform.
And the media is cheap and un-reliable enough, why not one time use it?
For perhaps daily backups in business RW media is ok, but for any kind of archival sitation, read only is actually prefered.
The media is cheaper as well.
Re:A little tip... (Score:2)
I always thought they would make really cool wall paper if I had enough junk CD's to throw at the task. I would like to thank MSN, Compuserve, and most of all AOL, for helping me build my collection.
-
Re:A little tip... (Score:3, Informative)
This is already pretty much their official position. The RIAA thinks you're pirate if you burn a copy of a CD to play in the car. Any recording of a CD distributed by one of their members is contributing to the destruction of their industry. Hell, even loaning a CD to a friend is taboo according to what you see printed on most major label CDs.
What the record companies are failing to realize is that they will eventually make it such a hassle that their potential customers will find silence far preferable to having to deal with the restrictions that are placed on listening to music. Who will they blame for the falloff in sales then?
Re:Famous songwriter and artist? (Score:4, Insightful)
That may be true. But her point about music downloads increasing sales (even for forgetable artists) is true.
Most music out there is utter crap. I've been burned badly so many times by buying discs by highly-hyped, but untalented "artists" that I'm almost afraid to buy anything.
Enter the Internet.
Now I can preview music and give it a test drive. Do I find a lot of crap? Yep. And I don't buy the discs, nor do I continue to listen to it.
BUT... I do find a fair amount of good stuff and do you know what? I actually BUY the disks. Really!!
I have 20 - 30 CDs full of MP3s that I've downloaded from the 'net and about 1200 CDs that I've purchased from the store (approx 250 since I've been "stealing" music from the Internet).
Are there people who just download the music and never buy a disc (effectivly stealing the music)?
Yes..
They need to pay for the music they listen to in order to reward the artist for producing it. Otherwise, why should the artists continue even trying?
Things need to change. The record companies need to lighten up and people who download and listen to the music need to get some ethics and pay for what they use.
My 2 cents.
Re:Famous songwriter and artist? (Score:2, Informative)
went to see movie "Rock Star". heard song "Colorful" by "The Verve Pipe". went home, powered up my favorite P2P App. downloaded "Colorful". listened to it, liked it. went to OLGA and downloaded the tab and learned it. liked it. went back to said P2P App and downloaded a few more "The Verve Pipe" songs. liked them. went to "Barnes and Nobles" and bought "Underneath", latest "The Verve Pipe" album. listened to it a couple times. liked it. went to "The Verve Pipe" web page and checked out their tour schedule, made plans.
have I ever heard "Colorful" on the radio? no. will I ever? probably not. did being able to get "Colorful" for free keep me from buying the CD? far from it, being able to get the song for free is the SOLE reason I eventually bought the CD. and I had a CD burner and all the MP3s for the album already.
Re:Janis is missing two points (Score:2)
Re:Janis is missing two points (Score:2)
1. She wouldn't have a career at all if it weren't for the exposure she got on major labels in her early years.
Nice theroy. Proof please?
2. The major labels are being facile if they ever pretend to care what happens to the Janis Ians of the world. Those are the artists they're losing money on. What they really care about is what happens to the Britneys, because that's where the bulk of their revenue is coming from. But the money Britney earns them is their fund for giving other artists a chance.
That's that's a major problem with our "culture", O Large Ugly Green One, when how much money an artist makes a corporation takes precedent over how good they actually are. Taking away my freedoms to protect the musical Pablum from Brtitney? Again, Mr. Troll, you've got your priorities seriously screwed up. Nice tits != Good Music. (No, I know how to spell her name. Think about it.)
If downloading cuts into Britney's sales (and that seems quite possible to me), it will lead to "marginal" artists getting dumped and fewer getting signed in the future. No exposure, no career. Make a list of all the successful professional musicians who have succeeded without any major-label help. Kind of got bogged down after Ani DiFranco, didn't you?
No kidding. Look, I don't wear a tin foil hat or anything, but if you think for one minute that an artist who gets popular on the 'net - without being in a record labels stable - would get any further than that, you're crazy. I'm sure that the RIAA has more than a few A&R people scouring the web for new band that might get popular without needing them. If they let that happen, it would prove just how ridiculous the RIAA's current business model actually is. That's why, troll - Ani DiFranco is the "One That Got Away". Rest assured that there will be others as well, once artists figure out that with the Internet, a CD maker and a bit of exposure, who needs the RIAA?
So yes, until there's a viable promotion infrastructure outside of the current major labels (and efforts at this are underway), downloading can hurt the Janis Ians, and the aspiring Janis Ians, despite her simplistic observation that incremental downloads aren't currently costing her anything.
Other than bandwidth, what, pray tell, are those downloads costing her? You said yourself that the record companies don't care about her, so why should she care about them? Putting up with 30+ years of RIAA Bovine Fecal Matter would not lead to a simplistic opinion. You'd rather trust Brtitney to inform you of what goes on? Now, that would be a simplistic opinion.
I'd better stop feeding you, Mr. Troll, since you're likely already ben stuffed full of RIAA platitudes and pure bullshit. Go away.
Soko
Re:Janis is missing two points (Score:2)
In her case, there's no question that the benefit of the exposure (180 CD sales) exceeded the cost having the songs out there (almost nothing, given her obscurity). Unfortunately, it's naive to automatically assume that this extrapolates to any circumstance.
Does this remain true for an already well-known/pop artist? Maybe, maybe not. On one hand, quite a lot of people are already getting bombarded with the artist's work via the radio, MTV, and even TV show soundtracks. On the other hand, there's a definite reinforcement value in that when you're in the store, you're more likely to remember the name of that artist who's mp3 you listened to quite a few times.
Does this remain true for the case where the entire album is available as an mp3? This is even less likely to be true, as the "free download" is rapidly approaching the value of the album. You'll still have people who want to "support the artist", but you've now got a business model that relies on the willingness of your customers not to cheat the system. That's not a very good business model.
Fortunately, getting an entire album off the P2P services currently requires quite a bit of effort. However, I honestly believe that we're just a few engineering tweaks away from achieving it. Pick and choose the best of the P2P features seen so far, throw in freenet's anonymity, and create a wrapper file to keep an entire album together as a continguous chunk -- BAM! You've just negated a lot of the unique value of a retail CD.
As it stands currently, I've already seen people distribute (via non-P2P means) collections of multiple CDs by a single artist, all encoded at a decent bitrate. It's really only a matter of time before it catches on.
Re:Janis is missing two points (Score:2)
Check out some of her other articles in Performing Songwriter. She is very aware of record sales, exposure, and the interrelated cost. For artists who don't sell millions of CD's, the biggest source of revenue is touring, unless another artist has a mega-hit with a song you wrote. The cost of exposure via downloads is worth it if it means larger attendence at concerts.
Christine Lavin had a great article on the cost, and why it was worthwhile in Billboard. She has a copy of the article here [christinelavin.com] at her website [christinelavin.com]
Re:You are missing two points (Score:2)
But her point is that NOBODY needs the record companies any more. Or are you suggesting that because the record companies made someone famous (and made 100x the money their 'stars' did), that they should be immune from the laws of economics?
2. The major labels are being facile if they ever pretend to care what happens to the Janis Ians of the world. Those are the artists they're losing money on.
You missed the biggest point of the article: the record companies are not losing money on her or any other artist. The recording contracts are set up so that the only way a record company will lose money on someone, is if the artist stops recording, declares bankruptcy (or dies), and nobody every buys any of their material.
In any other case, the record company can't lose money, because the artist's contract says that they must pay back every expense the record company incurs.
Re:You are missing two points (Score:2)
Not quite. The label doesn't get paid back out of the proceeds, they get paid back out of the artist's share of the proceeds. Say the artist is getting a 5% royalty, was fronted $20,000 to make the album and each copy sells for $15. Assume a 25% retail mark-up, ie. the label gets $11.25 per copy. Break-even is just short of 1800 copies. But the artist won't start getting a royalty at the 1800-copy point. They won't start getting a royalty until 26,667 copies have been sold, at which point their 5% has paid off the $20K advance. In between those sales points, the label is making a profit but the artist doesn't see a penny from it. The only way the label loses money is if the album doesn't even sell the 1800 copies needed to break even.
Any signed musicians out there, feel free to plug in actual advances and royalty rates. Yes, I've omitted any promotional costs the label might incur, but those come out of the artist's royalties too as I understand it.
Re:Control (Score:4, Insightful)
This absolutely correct, and Ian seems to not quite get it
All true, and if you think about it, you realize that this is why the music industry is terrified: if you have the internet, you don't need the record labels.Further discussion at How The Internet Will Make The Record Labels Evaporate [std.com].
Re:It's good for clear skin smiles... (Score:2)
Um... do you realize the irony of what you just wrote?