State of Online Music: RIAA's Efforts Paying Off 311
melquiades writes "The NYT (regreq) has a new article about online music, suggesting that the recording industry's war against P2P is paying off: pay-to-download services are rising in popularity. "Largely because of tough actions by the record companies to combat free music sites through the courts, legislation and even through techno-guerrilla tactics, there is a noticeable change of sentiment in a small segment of the downloading cognoscenti. Though their numbers are low, many are the early adapters who spot a trend first." Though the article falls into the common fallacy of equating P2P with illegal copying -- I'm one of the numerous artists who wants people to download my music for free -- it sums up the state of affairs well, particularly in this quote from online music consultant Michael Haile: "Record labels know what consumers want. We all do. They want a Napster you pay for. We all know that. But why would the labels want that at all? Making CD's is like printing money.""
What are these services like? (Score:4, Interesting)
Another bit of news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Better subscription services (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA is not thinking ahead (Score:5, Interesting)
In this future world, perhaps about five to ten years from now, how on earth will RIAA prevent music and video piracy? It seems doubtful that drm initiatives will succeed; people have an enormous incentive to bypass it, and as bandwidth increases, that incentive will only grow.
I think eventually we'll have to come to some sort of compromise between the content producers, marketers, and consumers, and settle on some sort of "reasonable fair use" doctrine as once existed with cassettes and VCRs.
What consumers want (Score:3, Interesting)
As a consumer, I DON'T want to pay for mp3s. Maybe I'm being a luddite, but I have a problem paying money for something I can't hold in my hand, even software. Maybe it might be different if I was able to download CD-quality audio, but I think I'd still rather buy a CD. I like flipping through the booklet while I listen to the music. I like getting stickers and posters and stuff with it, and I'll buy a CD with well-designed packaging over a thousand downloads any day. It's too bad labels just get cheaper and cheaper. Oh well--the CDs I sell will always be fun to look at (not to mention listen to); I guess that's the most I can do, outside of becoming a media mogul and dictating good design, thereby sacrificing the bottom line and getting fired.
Re:sure... (Score:3, Interesting)
That is what they are doing.
I am going to spend less movies on Hollywood movies in the future as well. I can smell it coming.
I think I'll buy more books
But not from patent-crazed ama-zone.
Dvorak has a better article here (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought this was one of the best things I've read on this well worn subject in awhile.
RIAA want to maintain control. (Score:2, Interesting)
Just as if there were a cure for cancer, who in the business world would release it to the public. Not only would people start to live longer, all the pharmaceutical companies would go broke. Or the 100% renewable fuel source.. the energizer battery that lasts a lifetime.. so on and so forth.. Music, food, and healthcare should all be free! *Love, peace and happiness*
Sticking it to the inherently evil big guy? (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems at times that some people have some "high moral ground" as they demonize companies - granted some companies are pretty easy to demonize - but are only really after something for nothing, a free lunch.
Is it really illegal or is it "sticking it to the inherently evil big guy" or is it a moral stand or is it that "I just want free music because, well, then I don't have to pay for it, duh."
If it is legal and okay and whatever, fine. If it isn't, how much is your integrity worth to you?
A new business model? (Score:2, Interesting)
A couple of weeks ago, I attended an electronic music event. One of the performers really caught my ear, his music was simply amazing. I stuck around after the show and talked to him for a while, I asked where I could hear more of his music and he said (surprisingly enough) to check the internet.
I was shocked to hear a musician telling me to check kazaa and other p2p programs to find his music, so I asked him about it. He said that he saw the Internet as a promotional tool. (much like radio for commercial artists). Then mentioned that he made his real money from shows (much like a lot of electronic musicians and DJ's these days).
At first I didn't get it.. but looking back, it makes perfect sense. If you think about it, a real musician that has a true passion for music enjoys performing in front of an audience and playing for their fans. Going to a show, and feeling the energy of the people around you is something that can't be replicated digitally (at least not yet
Re:Sad state of the affairs... (Score:5, Interesting)
my band's solution is to remove money from the equation. take our sounds for free (ok, pay for the hardware -- actual cd's, shirts, etc).
why don't we care about the money? because, and this is the part that pisses other bands off most, we believe we actually OUGHT to have day jobs. yep. and we pull it off, too. we have mortgages and wives and 9-5 day jobs AND we tour once a year AND play gigs about twice a week. in the spring we're touring europe for 4 weeks. this is a lot of hard work. we do it because we love it, not because we want to make a fortune. and, in my opinion, great music has to come from a passionate and difficult place inside. not a comfortable one.
ok now i'm rambling.
anyway, point is, i have no sympathy for a greedy musician. a band CAN survive on enjoyment, love, energy, and passion, without the corrupting notion that the band is a "business". mine is living proof.
Buy used CDs instead (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I want to pay for music? (Score:3, Interesting)
The other thing I think should really be payed attention to is, who's the clear winner (among the pay-for services) here:
"EMusic, possibly the most popular music-subscription service (60,000 registered users), offers unlimited and unrestricted access. The downloads are fast, the audio is of good quality, there is no waiting, and most important, the odds of ending up with a virus that will destroy a teenager's homework folder are next to none. But because EMusic places no restrictions on the songs, major labels -- even Universal, whose corporate parent owns it -- have been reluctant to license their music. Working around this, EMusic is trying to attract fans of specific independent labels and niche genres, like electronic dance music and punk."
This is a GOOD thing, this is what pay to download services on the internet should be about. Better access for people who might not drive enough product to justify distributing CDs all over the world, a chance to check out new music that's more cost-effective than the CD single. Now if these bands REALLY get smart they'll also start allowing royalty-free internet radio streaming* and non-mainstream music can REALLY start the long, slow, inevitable process of kicking the Biz's ass by way of simply being more damn efficient. My lips to God's ears, man...
*(y'all who are gonna come on and tell me you can't do that are wrong, okay, you're stupid and you don't know the law. Copyright law and the first amendment say that anybody can stream whatever information they want FREE OF CHARGE AND FREE FROM ROYALTY CHARGES provided the person who controls the copyright gives them permission. The minimum royalty charges in the new internet radio laws ONLY apply when you start playing music that is registered through one of the royalty processing services, as long as everything you play is by private arrangement with the copyright holder you NEVER need to register as an internet radio station and therefor you never need to pay anyone a dime. There would have to be some seriously draconian and first-amendment shredding legislation to pave the way for anything else... nothing even close to that has been on the table yet.)
Re:Sad state of the affairs... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway. i don't believe that artists should be entitled to a living wage because once it becomes a job, it ceases to be art. the motives change. you can't deny that when there are dollar signs behind something you like to do, it changes the very nature of how you approach doing that thing, no matter if it's painting or singing or snowboarding or, in my case, rocking the fuck out. =]