Music and the Internet Reprise 325
Paul M. writes "Janis Ian, nominated for nine Grammys since 1967, writes, "RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense." She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us', something I've advocated all along. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired." Janis' interview makes for good reading as well.
<rocky-the-squirrel>Agaaain?</rocky> (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
What's the point of discussion? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a textbook example of incompetent leadership in business - management is religeously inflexibile and lives in a complete state of denial while steadily circling the drain.
If the music industry wants to survive they need some fresh blood at the top because all of the laws and lawsuits in the world won't solve their problems, in fact, they will only make them worse...
Not entirely true (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree.
An anecdote some people here may share: back when I started surfing the web in 1995, websites were a lot easier to find. Back then, I'd happen upon more cool sites than I do now. These days, there is just so much of the web available that you need to use a portal/weblog/etc just to get there.
Internet-distributed music falls victim to the same problem. Sure, anyone can get it anytime anywhere, but what good is that if no one will find it? Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
That said, I am very glad that someone in Finland can download my band's mp3s anytime.
Re:Agaaain? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.
Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?
Again, this article is newsworthy NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT (with which you and I are both already ridiculously familiar), but BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CONTENT APPEARS.
Maybe the wind blows up where you live, but my mother-in-law reads the USA Today, not
It's a true dichomoty (Score:1, Insightful)
In a real-world model you will see supply and demand come into play which affects the price of the products. When a product is in low demand the businessman will raise the price and when we see high demand the price comes down. Again, simple micro-economics from your freshman year at the Uni.
The real problem comes into play when people start stealing products. In the traditional sense of the word we have to view downloading copywritten music off the web as stealing as you are receiving goods that you didn't pay for against the wishes of the person/company who owns those rights. I'm not talking about the moral issue of right or wrong here.
So basically we lose the whole supply/demand controls which are the underlying foundation because you have an unlimted supply of "free" music to download which gives many false positives on the demand. It's no wonder the RIAA has trouble showing an accurate profit/loss report from the past few years with all this going on.
We need some Internet auditing controls to be put into place before we villify the RIAA as being this evil entity.
Warmest regards,
--Jack
Nice, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if she had started and run a successful indie label then I'd take her comments more seriously. Good that the submitter found a way to plug his writings though.
Re:Agaaain? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course piracy isn't a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.
And what about cd's that you've either gotten lost or stolen, or broken even? I think you should be entitled to download the song if its availiable. After all, why not? I'm sure I wasn't the only one really ticked off when I bought that one blind melon album and found all the songs except for the one that they played on the radio all the time (you remember, allllll I can say is that my life is pretty plain *breum brah brerum* I like watching the pluddles gather rain*).
And don't forget the main issue here. EXPOSURE. Time to take away the strangle hold a couple of stuffed shirts think about what is "good music." I stopped buying music all in all not long ago, but when I did stop, the last couple albums I bought were from those labels that were created by the songwriter. Ok, so *maybe* I didn't pay for that kid rock cd, but how long could you really listen to that one for?
Otherwise, they would have just ended up in the fatcat's rejection bin.
Stupid statement (Score:3, Insightful)
Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.
That's just idiotic. In fact it's the opposite -- because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.
I'm sure there are innumerable good bands who put up a web site expecting the flood of CD orders to come charging in -- and then are bitterly disappointed when people don't magically show up.
The fact is, good musicians just aren't that rare. The ones that become extremely popular happen because of combination of luck -- and promotion. The way to get noticed is still to play local clubs hoping that you get good word of mouth. And if that happens, hope that a national promoter (duh) promotes you nationally. Just opening a web site and hoping is not going to cut it.
Or to put it another way, somehow you have to rise above the noise. What makes you unique by just putting up a web site? And even if you did become as popular as a big group, exactly how are you going to produce those million CDs? Can you say "record distributor deal"?
[P.S. This is my 2500th comment on this account. That's not including the 400+ on my old account, though, or miscellaneous A/C posts. And yes, I manage to distribute my wisdom while still having a life! Boy it's great to be me. :)]
I want my MTV.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have that backwards. This is about the artists, not the record companies.
Artists are the ones who lose money on CDs, and make it up on tour selling T-shirts.
The "record companies" make a killing selling a 0.02$ plastic disc for 20 bucks, after all the content was provided by the artist. Their only expenses are production and promotion.
Re:Nice, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
What more qualifications does she need?
Someone will always find it (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, if you had to sift through ALL the music out there on your own, you would be lucky to find a fraction of the good stuff that makes it to your ears today. However, you don't need the RIAA or their recording companies to do that.
A perfect analogy is news. Frankly there is too much of it. Because you posted on slashdot, I'll assume, that like myself, you let this site do some of your filtering for you. In the web world there is always competition for eyeballs, and those with the best merit will survive. (e.g., Slashdot.)
In a world where music is available from millions of direct download sources on terms dictated by the artists, I don't find it too far fetched to think that a website or two will spring up to fill the void left by the recording company talent agents that refused to logon.
Not entirely false (Score:5, Insightful)
These were once valuable services but they are decreasingly so... Distribution is (obviously) no longer a problem -- this is traditionally where the music companies have had a stranglehold. Promotion is really the only value add they have but the value here is highly debatable. Sure someone has to sift through a bunch of crap but how good a job do they do? If you never hear any of the ones they reject, what makes you think they aren't good (ok, probably a bunch of them are crap...). Wouldn't a moderation system where music listeners (who don't have a vested interest in an artist) rate music work just as well, if not better?
Re:It's a true dichomoty (Score:1, Insightful)
In the music industry the product is the music (not the physical CD). The marketing provides the thrust into the proper channels and must be paid for by sales (of CDs, Cassettes, concert tix, merchendise) - there are other cash flows, but according to RIAA marketing new matieral is the number one cost. Now anyone can go into just about any store and get a Cassette of a band for about half the price of the CD version - and yet demand for the CD is higher (as shown by overall sales) and the cost to produce the CD is lower; so according to your view the CD should be lowering in price (which it obivously isn't).
RIAA is having problems shifting to a new marketing strategy; afterall the existing one has netted them very large profits and near absolute control over the music industry. Like most revolutions (cultural, industrial, and now digital) it is going to be a fight.
Answer: through these portals you speak of (Score:3, Insightful)
the list goes on.
How do you use the net? you search for stuff- chances are you will find a place where you agree with what is being said more often than not. And in the meme-propagating world that is the Internet if something is quality it will spread like wildfire.
Instead of being bombarded with big money commercials you get testimonials. You go to the Onion's AV room and you read some reviews, you respect the reviewer, and when s/he later on says "This is the Next big thing" you weight the opinion not on how much hype you have heard about it, but on the integrity of the source.
Its like the zoo.pl stuff at slashdot- you like what someone has to say, you make 'em your friend.
It's what people have been doing for years before there was advertisement.
Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (Score:5, Insightful)
A very vocal group speaking out in favor of swapping services (whether you're talking "weeds", napster, kazaa or just a recording/swapping party) is CSN. True, they've had periods where they've been much more successful and other periods when they've pretty much fallen totally off the radar, but they most certainly can't be called a one hit wonder or producer of "crap" that no one wants.
Janis did make a very smart comment "I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing: If a record executive says he will make me more money, I'd immediately protect my wallet." The RIAA doesn't want to protect anything other than its own wallet. It doesn't take much searching to find a smaller artist (not a major commercial success) or older (no longer "successful") artist who can easily show the record companies owe them what amounts to a LOT of money or that the record companies (or their reps) have successfully stolen all rights to their songs. The RIAA no intention of protecting the artists, they're just smart enough to know that they can fool a lot of schmucks by pretending to care about more than their own money and the more schmucks they fool the better their chances to win this war by BS.
Re:Not entirely true (Score:4, Insightful)
RIAA+Labels = Promotion + Distribution + Obstructionism
Internet = RIAA+Labels - Distribution - Obstructionism
What's left is promotion. So how do other industries deal with promotion? They use "adverising" or "PR" firms. But those firms don't (and shouldn't) get a lock on the intellectual property associated with the product just for promoting it.
The functions of promotion and distribution will not disappear, but their implementation in the form of the RIAA and labels can, and should, be replaced.
The power to make the change is in the hands of artists. Artists could set up their own alternative to the RIAA and labels at any time. Why haven't they? The technology is a no-brainer.
No, this doesn't address physical CD distribution. But look at the context of this discussion, the debate, and the industry's cry for action against piracy--it all centers around the Internet. That's where the solution needs to start.
Obviously a replacement wouldn't address the back catalogs controlled by the labels. However, once a viable alternative is in place, the labels would probably be much more amenable to rational negotiation.
In short:
1. Construct a viable alternative; then
2. Bring the RIAA & Labels to the table; then
3. Negotiate acces to the back catalogs.
Anything else is wishful thinking--and whining--and requires the largesse of the RIAA and the labels (good luck).
Re:Nice, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does she need to have a label to be taken seriously? It doesn't take an idiot to get screwed in the biz. The odds are so stacked in the industry's favor that you might as well be a farmer. She has managed to stay alive in a business that eats artists for lunch, and craps 'content' or product or whatever the flavor of the week is.
BTW... The Stones, Bowie, and McCartney are all examples of musicians who are excellent businessmen. I think they may have won a talent show award or something, too.
RIAA Need to get a grip... (Score:4, Insightful)
There has to be a way for them to make money off of all this. Sure, there will always be someone trying to rip off your work, but companies like M$ have seemed to adapt very well. Who would have though 10 years ago that local and national newspapers could give away free electronic copies of their content and still make money. There has to be a way to make this work for the entertainment industry.
This is just like saying that your market is ready to buy your products, but you are unwilling to sell.
The problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is why we share little bits of arguments in this way. I share one view, you share another, the rest of the world (potentially) shares billions of others, and somewhere down the line the best solution is realized, pursued, and achieved.
The political philosopher John Stuart Mill said it best in his essay On Libety in 1859:
Has it occurred to anyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice that the record companies BOUGHT Napster? Now you'll be forced to feed on the sludge THEY decide to feed you.
Suckers. All inflamed with this intellectual-property jazz when it's ALL about dollars & cents.
Re:Not entirely true (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I find unknown (at least to me) and independent artists by tripping over whatever looked interesting in an FTP listing (having searched most generically for "MP3") or via some MP3 search portal -- which you can't avoid finding from even the most cursory Google search. I don't HAVE radio access, so if it's not on the net, I never hear it.
I'd think a DMOZ category (sorted by genre) would be a good place to start.
Re:Stupid statement (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be some system to select the best artists. Today we have one system, but it requires the artists sign over the vast majority of their earnings to a cartel.
That cartel arose because of the characteristics of mid 20th century media technology (i.e., the cheapest and most effecitve way to distribute music was plastic disks and plastic tape).
Now that technology has advanced, it might be possible to create a better system. Maybe something along the lines of EBay. It's still a cartel or "natural monopoly", but at least anybody could participate without signing away all their rights, and the system might only skim 15% or so. The best music could be determined by customers' moderation points.
I know there have been many attempts at this kind of thing, but none have yet hit the critical mass needed to stamp out the old cartel. One big reason for this is that almost all of the current popular artists are locked into long term exclusive contracts. The old cartel thus perpetuates itself even though it could be replaced by an alternative that would be more efficient for both artists and consumers.
Hint: read the original articles. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm almost weaned off the major labels, by chance, since most of my favourie artists are also going independent. I think Britney's or Eminem's albums should come with a government health warning: "Purchasing this major label album may be detrimental to the health of music and music lovers worldwide".
You may have some valid points in your rant, but, like many here, I tend to switch off when the personal insults start appearing. We don't need this, do we?
Re:Industry lies. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the net were the *original* way of distributing music, and CDs were the newfangled method used by unsigned artists, we'd instead see the RIAA trying to shut down the manufacture of CD-related items.
Oh, wait...
Theory: Metallica and selling out (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same.
Actually, Metallica didn't start to go artistically bankrupt until the infamous Black album. Prior to that, each of their albums sounded quite different from the previous one. I've often wondered if there is any connection between the fact that Metallica started making a lot of anti-Napster noise about the same time as they started watering down their music to appeal to a wider audience. Here's my pet theory: Metallica started to get older, looked back on their work and decided that they had done great stuff. Now, they decided, we can sit back and churn out some genri-rock that will really earn us the bucks. We've already earned our place in metal history. It's kind of like when university profs finally get tenure and then take a breather from working so hard. However, much to Metallica's horror, Napster and p2p services start trading their music. "Good lord", Lars says to himself, "We've sold out for nothing! Those little bastards! I traded in my musical intrigity for more money and now it's not going to work out that way! Well, I'm not going down without a fight!"
Again, this is only my little pet theory. But does anyone think that the band that made Kill 'Em All would be rubbing shoulders with politicians to try to squelch the digitial music rebellion?
GMD
Not True....Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been loving Janis Ian's campaign against the recording industry-- in my opinion, her micro-distribution technique is one of a very few viable new options for artists to pursue, and it's a great thing besides. I just thing she's a little bit early in declaring the end of labels' useful lives.
Let's look for a minute at why labels exist. Not every artist needs a label, either now or fifteen years ago. Performers ONLY "need" a record deal when what they need to do takes more time, money, and expertise than they and their friends/agents/managers/assistants can give them. If you have a record that's doing well locally, you can sell out the Iota, the Mercury Lounge, the Corn Exchange, or Viper Room, and you are happy at that level, you probably don't need a record deal. Doing it Janis' way is perfect, and in fact waaay preferable to having a deal with a large label.
Where labels are handy--still-- is when you start to grow beyond your borders. Do you want national distribution? International distribution? Has your record done well on local radio, and you feel like it could have a nice run nationally? Are you spending more time putting together mail-order packages than you are writing songs? You could probably use a label to help you with these tasks. Labels are better at marketing on a large scale, better at getting traditional radio play (and NOT NECESSARILY POP RADIO), better at getting press, and better at setting up and managing distribution on a large scale-- not to mention labels can help you get your music licensed into films/tv-- many artists make most their money that way rather than through traditional album-sales channels. This is what they're FOR-- they have the bankroll and the contacts-- the shady business practices of certain elements notwithstanding.
It's a rough time for the music industry, and things are going to change rapidly. I just want to make sure that I speak my piece to my fellow slashdotters. Labels are not, and have never been, for everybody, and they probably shouldn't go away altogether (not least because I like what I do, and I work with great, GREAT music). I sincerely hope that more musicians are successful with Janis Ian-styled strategies, because it will have the very beneficial side effect of killing off those parts of the music industry who are least able to adapt.
Jan: established musician with skewed view (Score:5, Insightful)
Janis Ian has made a point in her piece "That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs" and the usual line heard from pro-napster people is that the internet/downloading provides exposure, when in fact it does not; it provides a means of access, and that doesn't mean any more people will be exposed to your music than if you were not on the internet. The job of record companies is exposure and distribution (and they do tend to shaft artists for these services), but exposure and distribution are/were not impossible without record companies, even back before the Internet. Does anyone remember independant labels? A lot of those were set up by musicians looking to do the grunt work themselves. Ask the Barenaked Ladies about that.
I wonder if Janis Ian is aware of the differences between her version of "downloadable music" and that of the general internet community; yes, Janis has files for download on her site, but certainly not her entire catalogue, and I question the quality of the files she has available. Again, offering a few songs for download is a great idea and has worked for her, but would she be willing to give away high-quality mp3s of every recording she has ever made? That is what Napster/P2P music sharing is about, and it is about doing so with or without the consent of the writer, the performer, or the producer.
Yes, I agree that the music industry as a whole has to change its business model, and there are a lot of jerks involved in the industry, but saying that there is nothing wrong with free access to every and any recording is just stupid.
I write this as a person whose line of work is in a creative industry, and I have been a serious musician in the past, so I have an inside opinion of the issues. I'm a little surprised that the free download idea is so popular around /. when (I would guess) there are so many programmers reading this who (I would guess again) get paid for ideas/concepts that come out of their head. Music, painting, movies or code - it's all creative and people need to be paid for it.
Re:Not entirely true (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'd also agree that what was a cool site back then probably wouldn't get you to stick around today. Almost every site had to win out on content back then, but there was so much novelty to the www at the time that any content at all was good enough for some page views. Now it's more about relevance and depth of content, rather than whether or not you can find any content.
Internet-distributed music falls victim to the same problem. Sure, anyone can get it anytime anywhere, but what good is that if no one will find it?
Most of the music I listen to isn't on RIAA labels and doesn't get airplay. How do I find it? Word of mouth, (non-RIAA) record label websites, band websites, genre-specific websites, and so on. I find far more music by making my way through various websites than any other way, because very little of the music I listen to has many other ways of getting out there. Sure, I can find a lot of it in smaller record stores, but I don't even know to look for it unless I've heard of it. Once I've found a band I'd like to hear, it's pretty simple with P2P systems to listen to a couple of songs to decide whether or not I want the CD. The only real problem is that even the P2P systems don't have a lot of obscure music, it's all relative to the number of people that listen to the music and have the knowledge to put the MP3s up for download.
Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.
Yet the record companies bill the musicians for all of those services at prices that the record companies determine. The artists also rarely have many choices about how their CDs are distributed in the first place if they sign up with a major label. The RIAA has sewn up the airwaves with a pay-to-get-played system that keeps smaller labels and DJ choices from getting aired, so now they're trying to do the same to the internet. The record companies own the distribution and promotion channels that they bill their artists to use, and if you go through any company that isn't part of the RIAA you will definitely not have access to that level of distribution and promotion, because the smaller companies can't even contract the same distributers and promoters for most of their artists (and especially in distribution even when they can their stuff gets pushed out only when the major label stuff has cleared the lines, rather than in normal production orders where first on the line is first out or the one that pays more for rush order gets a slight bump).
If the RIAA's members didn't own the entire production line, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal for most artists to get most of those things done for themselves. At best they'd need some initial investment (or a loan) to get a run of CDs pressed, and in many cases people are doing this anyway just to get a major label contract.
Re:Tom Petty is a HAS-BEEN. Learn to read. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, what he fails to recognize, much like how rabid anti-abortioners 'fail' to recognize killing people for killing people is still killing people, is that quantity sold is a function of quality *and* price; and furthur more, that cheaply made, cheaply sold shit often sells better than less cheaply made good shit. The *only* way to measure quality is through analysis, since the market has never demonstrated any preference to selecting quality over quantity or value, nor for that matter, not be subject to the forces of marketing.
Hell, I can put him in touch with money making CEOs if he likes, probably his heros, who could demonstrate that the advertising market wouldn't exist if products outsold each other based on quality alone. Alas, anyone that sticks to an absolute like that ("
Re:It's a true dichomoty (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not stealing, it's copyright infringement. There is no loss of product. If someone copies a song illegally, they don't have to produce another one to replace it. It doesn't cost them anything. The only loss is a perceived lost sale which is only true if the receiver of the illegal copy would have bought a legal copy and now won't. Most people who download music don't fit this category. The software industry realized this years ago and now the recording industry needs to realize it.
It's no wonder the RIAA has trouble showing an accurate profit/loss report from the past few years with all this going on.
What the fuck are you talking about? P&L statements are very easy to calculate: $ earned - $ spent = profit. Copyright infringement doesn't affect their P&L. It affects what they think they're revenue should have been. When the RIAA talks about the money their losing to "piracy" they are talking about sales they think they are entitled to, not money they had to spend that they won't get back now.
We need some Internet auditing controls to be put into place before we villify the RIAA as being this evil entity.
This is exactly what the RIAA wants you to believe. They aren't worried about copyright infringement, they are worried about losing control. They've had a monopoly on the music distribution channel for years and now their business model is suddenly obsolete. They don't want you to even be able to buy music on the internet if you don't have to buy it from them. They want to be able to threaten file sharers with C&D letters without the slightest bit of evidence that they own the copyright in question. They want carte blanche to commit what would otherwise be computer crimes against people they "suspect" of violating copyright law. They want to stifle a $300 billion industry so they can maintain their $30 billion industry. They have villified themselves quite successfully without any help from us.
Re:What's the point of discussion? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NOBODY. WILL. BUY. THEM. (Score:3, Insightful)
a) Janis turns a profit.
b) Janis still sells records.
Didn't want to shatter your perfect little argument there, but hey, thems the breaks.
I dont know what to say about 98% of the other stuff youre saying, considering that most of its seems to be pure conjecture and disillusioned reductions
a) youre somewhat bitter with life?
b) you dont like your job very much? (otherwise you probably wouldn't spend so much effort trying to portray other people as having it cushy compared to you?)
Which leaves me with: I dont think Janis cares too much what you think of her, so why waste your time rambling on when clearly you have so much hard work to do?
Re:Not entirely true (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine a radio station where what's played is really decided by the listeners (votes, rankings, directly viewable data) instead of some marketing numbers dreamed up by people high on crack? Easy to do with icecast, an sql database of music data, and a few php scripts -- once the pesky RIAA people die off.
If you STILL want to buy into the dream that the RIAA helps musicians promote/book/etc... how do I find your album? I'm willing to bet that if I walk down to my local music store, there's at best a 50/50 chance they'll know who you are, and usually only if one of the employees listens to your stuff. OTOH, if you were played on an internet radio station, I would know who you were if I ever heard it (unlike airwave radio, internet radio always provides the data while you're listening), and if I knew your name I could look you up via google (or a more specialized search engine). How is the RIAA going to help me buy your stuff? They'll put up a few posters in places I don't go... great.
The RIAA *could* have been at the forefront of this. They *could* have leapt in with both feet and helped develop and mature the ideas of streaming audio and compressed formats. Instead, they tried to have them declared witchcraft and are being burned by their own fires.
Re:Question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Example: in 1992(?) when "Epic" had been on the charts for months and Faith No More had been in heavy rotation for almost a year, they still had to borrow money from friends and family to buy groceries and several of them still lived with their parents in order to save money.
The money for artists come from merchandising (which is why labels so often now require artists to sign over their merch rights as well to get a deal) and touring (which monies labels are trying to steal as well).
Labels are useful for boy bands and Britney Wannabes and that's it. Any other artist will do much better going indie.
Hardly (Score:2, Insightful)
What would happen without record companies?
Well artists still need to record thier music professionally, so maybe we would have smaller companies that just record for the artists.
Now artists need to make some money (both to pay that recording company and for themselves) so somehow they have to sell thier music. Well, if they're a new artist that nobody's heard of then nobody will buy thier music. So they need to promote themselves. They only way thier promoting efforts will get them national exposure is if they contract a promoting agency to do it. If you think the web is good enough by itself then your living in a dream world. Maybe in 20 years. So now we need a promoting agency.
Now they've got lots of exposure and lots of people around the country want to buy thier stuff. How are they going to distrubute thier music to everybody that want's to buy it? They need a publishing agency to do that. Again, the web isn't good enough.
Now we've got a recording company, promoting company and a publishing company.
Now lets say we've got an artist who's got a great song but he can't afford to pay the recording company and the promoting agency because he doesn't know if people will buy his music. Those companies will want to get paid no matter how many copies he sells. Most new artists won't be able to afford that risk.
However if all those companies were combined into one company, then *that company* could take that risk because they have money. They could say "we like your music so we're going to take a risk and record, promote and try to sell you." If the artist flops; well then company loses out, but they have the capital to absorb the loss. An independant artist wouldn't.
No my friend, the record companies utiltiy has most definetly *not* expired.
Re:Hardly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
This would be like me, being a developer, being asked to pay for ALL my development efforts on a product which they tell me they need. Then, after I deliver it, they tell me that I'm going to have to eat it because they spent too much money advertising it and that they are not even going to bother selling it. The flip side of this is, they are taking very little risk and ride freely on the tails of any returns. Furthermore, their fees and any front money get reimbursed before they turn over any money to the bands. This means bands can still take a loss on a record while the RIAA still made money. Again, their downside is always protected. Again, they have ALL the control, little to no risk, and nothing but money.
Wish I knew of any other business that worked like that so I can get a free ride too. In fact, if artists had any business smarts, the first time the RIAA offered someone a deal like that they be laughed out of the room...just as any other industry would do. It's insane! I guess if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything given to you.
Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (Score:2, Insightful)
By being their own publishers, they make a lot more money - I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but publishers split royalties with whoever has song writing credit on the song. So, Dr. Dre can be the publisher of many songs (possibly every song on his label; he has a label, right?), and make 50% of the royalties on those songs, even if he didn't write them or record them personally. Thus, in this respect, Dre is closer to a music industry exec than an artist - he is financially hurt by music sharing, because his publishing royalties come directly from CD sales. A very quick search [alankorn.com] found this article for reference.
So, many of the vocal opposers were some of the very popular bands / musicians who also have a larger interest in higher CD sales than most bands. So if music is shared, while a regular band might see increased ticket or merchandise sales that could improve their bottom line (meager as it is [mosesavalon.com]) the publisher only loses. (OK, so more downloaded songs might mean more CD sales, but you understand the publisher's objections I'm sure.)
In this respect an artist like Dre would be very valuable to the RIAA, because while he seems to be primarily a musician, I imagine most of his money actually comes from publishing credits. So, he can appear to be a musician opposed to sharing, when he is actually a publisher/musician opposed to sharing.
sheephead
Who is Janis Ian (Score:2, Insightful)
Honest question, not meant to be rude
Why don't they allow musicians to decide this issue by noting in their contract whether they want free downloads or free Internet Radio airplay.
When I had my option to sign a recording contract (yes, I was more of a nobody than I am now but...) there was a clause dictating (not asking mind you) how many of MY CDs would be pressed for free give away to radio stations. These stations would Never play our stuff. Not because it was not Radio Freindly, but rather because it was not known. Yeah, we could get on local shows but never anything that was new exposure.
You want to guess who paid for those copies?
The recording industry is just trying to squeeze those last few cents out of their cattle (artists) not looking out for their best intrest.
Congratulations (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not a solution at all, it's selective prejudice, like trying to tell me that LINUX is the one true solution to all out computing needs, neglecting that the vast majority of computer users aren't geeks and don't want to be.
Nice try, though.
the deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardly (Score:3, Insightful)
No, a website doesn't make you money... everyone learned that lesson 3 years ago. You get the word out about your music the old fashioned way... YOU TOUR. But now, instead of your fans just chatting amoung themselves and trading show tapes, people email all of their friends with links to the website, concerts are available for download via the file sharing networks, and you open yourself up to a much broader audiance. You can sell CD's off of your website, either by shipping them or offering the ISO image at a discount, and make money through performances. After all, once all the overhead of a record company is accounted for, artists make mere pennies on the reported sales of their CDs, and that number is usually much less than what were actually sold.
Re:Nobody allows my DOG to sell records, either. (Score:2, Insightful)
There was a documentary on why country music was beginning to sound much like "pop." It was on TV and I was bored so I watched it. The conclusion of the documentary was that country music was becoming so much more like pop because the big music companies wanted to specialize in billion dollar records. They don't want to sell many different records, just hundreds of millions of copies of a handful.
The music industry specializes in a small demographic: the 14-22 year old. Not a huge fraction of the population of any country in the world. Listening to radio and cruising through the record stores will give good verification to that conclusion. I'd buy more music, if I could easily find music that I liked. But since I'm out of that demographic, I'm not a customer. The industry doesn't care if I buy another album or not--ever.
With Clear Channel having a near monopoly on the radio, the RIAA fixing prices, and a small target market, can there really be any surprise that Janis Ian hasn't been "popular" in a few years? The argument that just because an artist is not the latest thing equals "nobody will buy that crap" is vacuous.
What the RIAA is trying to crush is the small market record. Just as there are small grocery stores, mom and pop diners; family owned hardware stores, and chemical companies owned by one guy, there are records that have a small market. It is true that a multibillion dollar corporation with large fixed costs is not going to be interested in a small market product with a lower per unit profit than a high volume higher margin product.
But saying that nobody is buying that crap is wrong. In the case of Janis Ian, somebody IS buying her records. Other artists with a limited market should be allowed to operate without being squashed by the RIAA.
I don't like what the RIAA is doing because they have the monopoly mentality: All of the music must be sold by us or one of our agents and WE don't care if YOU don't like it because it's the only MUSIC in town.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002) May be used without persimmons.
Re:Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Not to knitpick, but in this case the artists don't have a right to control who can copy their work. The copyright holders do. The copyright holders are not the artists. They're the record companies. There are plenty of reasons to feel sorry for artists given the current state of the industry. However most of them don't stem from p2p, they stem from the actions of the RIAA and the virtual distribution/promotion monopoly that is collectively held by their members.