RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg 817
Bruha writes "It appears the RIAA is being very low key about the fact that the five major labels think that 99 cents per song is too cheap, and are discussing a price hike that would increase the tariff to $1.25 up to $2.99 per song. I was a huge fan of the 99c per song, but if they think that they can raise the price on me just because I don't buy full CDs anymore, they've got another thing coming. Suggestion: make good CDs, and maybe I'll buy the whole thing."
$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:4, Insightful)
$3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you thought it would last, you're either really stupid, really naive, or really really optomistic.
RIAA was fined for price fixing to make more money. They are all about money, not music or entertainment.
Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you download you just get the tracks you like.
I think the music industry is afraid thier "bundling" days are over!
cds are just single with a bunch of crappy songs (Score:2, Insightful)
Labels are like Microsoft, all about getting some more money...
test the market, then raise the prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the RIAA, like every other cartel, just wants to charge what they think the market will bear. People don't pay $20 odd per CD anymore, or at least, they perceive the price to be too high.
So, after the initial offering, they'll try to gouge more money out from the consumers of online stores. Why don't you think that for some, $1.25 is still going to be worth the price ? If you don't like it, vote with your wallets and don't buy it.
What, you don't think CDs started at $20 a pop, did you ?
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Insightful)
These guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Insightful)
They would have to make a great album now... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's too much work to get a real band together that can produce 50 great songs in a career.
Re:$3? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, only four good songs per album.
Guilty monopoly.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different? (except that they have the balls to tell beforehand)
While I understand It's unpopular, (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes no sense to sell a $15 or $20 CD's songs, of which there are between 10 and 20, for 99c each, simply because in that case, there is no incentive to buy the CD. Volume discounting makes perfect sense, andhaving a cheaper alternative if you buy per song is bad business for them, as much as you want to complain about it.
There is altogether too much whining about the RIAA deciding that it has a legitamite, legal rights to profits they generate through their research, promotion, and effort. While they may be robber barons, or jerks, they do have a right to protect themselves from the market that wants to pay nothing.
The Information may want to be free, but it also wants to be expensive, and it is clear that although the paradigm the RIAA works with is unfair, and failing, the fact that they are attempting to re-work it to be usable with technology is not a bad thing.
OK, now that I've said it, you can mod this post to hell. I have the Karma to burn. And no, I don't work for the RIAA, but I decided that I can live without illegal music, rather than steal it, or help out the RIAA.
Re:Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
The art of music is not a leisurely pastime nor an avid pursuit. The common folk just want some nice sounds to "fill the void." Hence Top-40 bubble gum was born. As for it being a utility, the people think they need music to carry on with their lives. Truth is, we don't "need" music to survive. On the day the music dies, our brains will still be churning away and the heart will still pump blood to our vital organs.
When something becomes a utility, it means that both the rich and the poor can have access to it. The poor can afford a little bit, the rich can afford a lot. But everyone needs it. The price for the utility must also be justified; if it is too high the people will complain, but because they "need" it they will continue to pay the money and hope that the government will control its price.
Remember the difference between a want and a need: you NEED food, clothing, and shelter. You want electricity, phone service and music because they are convenient, entertaining, or whatever. But you can still survive without these things. True, your life will be drastically different, but your basic functions are still operating.
George Orwell was not too far off in his predictions for our society.
Re:They're only screwing themselves over... (Score:2, Insightful)
Regardless of your opinion on the issue of copyright infringement or increased prices, stealing a piece of property is "wrong" (isn't it?).
When you or someone else voluntarily copies their music and gives it to others, they are not losing anything. If you steal a CD, somebody has lost their physical property, however worthless it may be (20 cent piece of plastic).
It's important to make this distinction, since too many people are trying to link the two together.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no way to get the music of signed artists except through the companies they have signed for. If it's just about lifestyle, and not the music, then fair enough. You can choose a different brand. But if it's about the music, then tough. They have a monopoly on that person's / group's music.
What idiots (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anybody tell me exactly how this ISN'T price fixing? Eh? As far as I know, the whole iTunes thing is doing pretty well, and $0.99/song seems like a pretty fair price to me, considering how you just get a DRM'd file, no CD case or nice insert/booklet thing or whatever. This move just looks like the RIAA is some kind of cartel or something, who just try to keep prices as high as they can get away with because they have a stranglehold on the market... oh, oh, hang on, is that EXACTLY WHAT IT FRICKING WELL IS?
I'm truly sorry if there is some reason apart from lust for coinage that means they have to raise the price, like bandwidth has suddenly become more expensive, or the money generated does not leave the artist with enough money to live or something like that, but to this customer, it almost looks criminal.
Bastards, I'll laugh when you're dead, RIAA, and I'll never pay you a penny again.
Re:What's the big problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Re:agreement (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:cds are just single with a bunch of crappy song (Score:2, Insightful)
Step a tiny bit off the beaten path and you'll find all sorts of well-known-but-not-huge-commercial-success artists with great albums, not tracks.
Maybe this is good (in a specific way...) (Score:3, Insightful)
I was amazed that they ever used the flat-rate-pricing. Who would pay the same price for Picasso as some amatuer work (regardless of merit). Or in young lingo, the same price for a T-shirt by Abercromie or by K-Mart.
Anything over $0.99 is too much (Score:2, Insightful)
I occasionally buy music from the iTunes store because it's cheaper and I don't have to get every track. If they hike it up to this new proposed price range, buying half the songs on a CD will practically cost as much as the whole disc would in a regular store. So what's the point of buying them online anymore? Convenience alone is not a big enough motivator for spending more money for lower quality audio that doesn't come with a physical backup copy.
If they raise prices this much they're not going to increase profit from online music sales, they're going to kill online music sales. Of course that's probably what they'd like anyway.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:4, Insightful)
To be consistent you must apply the same rules to every market, so you have no right bitching the next time OPEC decides to cap production to drive up oil prices.
What the market will bear, right?
Re:Artists: This is your cue: (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's figure up the average for recording a full-length CD. If you get a deal cut for the studio time you might get 3 days at $1200, which would be $50 an hour. We'll assume that mixing is thrown into that figure to simplify matters. Toss in $500 or so for mastering, and it's time for artwork.
You could do it yourself, but more than likely you want to get someone to do it for you. For a quality CD layout with a multi-page booklet you're probably looking at $300, maybe more. We're up to $2000 and haven't even started duplication...
Which we'll do now. Printed CD, not stickers. Multi-page color booklet. Standard jewel cases. Figure $1200 total for 500 CD's (including extras. I got this figure from oasiscd.com).
$3200. That's a fucking FORTUNE to most people, let alone guys that spend 18 hours a day in a van moving from gig to gig hoping that the manager of the club they're playing tonight doesn't fuck them out of their money so they can eat and gas up the van.
It's not as easy as 'Just do it yourself' all the time. Most artists HAVE to have a label to forward them cash to produce recordings. End of story.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunatly this is win win for them:
Maybe, ya might just think, it is the sleasiness and questionable practices of these companies that drove people away from honest purchases? Somehow there is a lot less guilt when you steal from the theif. . . .Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tired of it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I own nearly 200 CDs and have bought 4 in the last year or so. Why has my purchase rate dropped by 2/3 or so?
1) I'm already happy with what I have.
2) Changing perception of how much music is really worth to me -- not in terms of "because I can get it for free" but just in terms of its price relative to other things I want to do in my life. Looking through my already-existing collection I can look at each CD and go "Was that really worth $20?" I honestly feel like maybe 20% of it was worth it. Maybe that makes me a dumber buyer than most.
3) Second thoughts every time I'm in a CD shop and think about how the RIAA treats file traders. I understand that what's being done is illegal, but I don't agree with assuming that they've caused $90,000 in damage by sharing one song with 14 downloads in the last month.
4) Access to Internet radio which gives me far more of an opportunity to listen to the genres of music I enjoy with far, far, far less ads.
I understand that the popularity of Internet radio might change the ad ratio in the future, but while my choice in the FM radio is limited, my choices online are not.
5) Using my local library for movies, books, and music. I understand that some people don't live in a large city and can't take advantage of this, but those who are might want to give it a try. The city I live in allows me to reserve an item from any library in the greater metropolitain area and have it sent to the library closest to where I live. Returns work the same way.
The library might not have the CD of a random indie group you heard at a bar/club/rave last night, and some of the waits for a reservation can be long (think in terms of half a year for some items -- this is balanced out by the fact that you can book 50 things at a time) but they can help with some needs
--
I was considering buying music online but the sound quality and the idea that I didn't really have much more than an ephemeral/virtual "proof of purchase" were those that stopped me (with a CD, you can consider ownership of the physical item a proof of purchase in a sense). Adding a ludicrous price to the equation doesn't help.
Anyway, the market will sort itself out. It should be an interesting decade for music
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it can.... even on broadcast FM. Think Tivo for radio. You'd have a lot of persistent storage in your car stereo -- a 4 GB Flash drive would hold 1,000 songs' worth -- and a smart, low-power-drain receiver that would seek out and record the songs you've told it to listen for.
Skipping commercials and idiotic station-ID blurbs (buzz beep buzz Q102 FM ROCKZZZ!!!!11!! buzz buzz orchestra-hit beep buzz sound-of-toilet-flushing beep buzz) would be pretty easy, too. The receiver would be equipped with a long-term correlator that would basically say, "If I've heard this segment of audio within the last 24 hours, don't record it."
Something like this would have the potential to make radio not suck... which in this day and age would take nothing short of magic.
Isn't the RIAA the very definition of a cartel. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Surprised? (Score:1, Insightful)
I completely reject your assertion that people could do without music. Not even John Ashcroft can do without all music. Not every culture has found need for electricity, in fact there are still hunter gathers in Africa who manage to do without agriculture. What to take bets on whether they still sing? Music, like stories, are important aspects of our community, that while more diffuse and vastly larger, is still critically important. I would say that the diffusion of our communities, has made these durable forms of communication more important not less.
As so many others have said... (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is, What can we do about it? I've got a list of starting suggestions:
On a lighter note, This [happytreefriends.com] is what their easter egg makes me think of.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you think that's more than a little unrealistic? Fifty cents a track means a total cost of less than six dollars for most albums. You can pay more than that for a six-pack of decent beer, and it certainly won't last as long as a good album.
I've never understood what people's problem is with paying $10-15 per CD. I have at least a hundred that I bought ten years ago that I still like. How many products in that price range deliver that kind of long-term value, besides film and music?
If I were a professional musician, and my alleged "fans" would only pay fifty cents for their favourite track, I would pack up and quit because it would be so insulting. You can't even buy a soda pop from a vending machine for that little anymore.
Capitalism... With a twist. (Score:3, Insightful)
True capitalism allows for unfettered and equal access to competition. This certainly is not the case here where they toy with pricing simply because NO ONE ELSE CAN!
The RIAA is the OPEC of music.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yeah NPR, CBC and BBC via Real Streams, too..
Re:While I understand It's unpopular, (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want value-added extras like liner-notes and leather seats, you pay extra for it per song by buying a cd. Thats the incentive for paying extra for the CD.
No, downloaded music costs should have zero parity with the cost of music ON the actual CD. It should be much cheaper, if for no other reason than for the fact that all you're getting is lousy compressed audio.
A few points (Score:5, Insightful)
Suggestion: make good CDs, and maybe I'll buy the whole thing.
I'm sick of pointing this out--kids today LOVE the music coming out. The fogies at Slashdot think that their niche opinion represent the majority. Today's computer users aren't downloading music because they don't like the whole albums--they're downloading because it's free and available.
Well, considering that the RIAA still hasn't figured out that the ridiculous prices CDs sell for is one of the major reasons why illegal filesharing became so popular in the first place, I'm somehow not surprised that they don't realize this point, either.
Same thing. Illegal piracy isn't popular because of "ridiculous prices." It's popular because it's convenient and everywhere, and it lets you rip off albums for free. They RAR up whole band discographies now and stick 'em up on eMule.
Slashdot wants you to believe that piracy is justified because CDs are overpriced (they're $12.99 at my store...that money covers a lot more than the pressing of the CD), that the RIAA is somehow bad for going after copyright infringers (which is exactly what Slashdotters were saying they should do when Napster was being sued), and that they somehow rip off artists even though artists willingly sign their contracts, shit on gold toilets, and never asked you for your "help" in ripping them off.
The anti-RIAA propoganda around this place is so annoying. Look at the headline--raising the price of downloads by a dollar is suddenly a "nasty easter egg." Slashdotters think their niche opinions represent the majority. You guys need to get off this site and see the rest of the world. ADMIT THE TRUTH--those millions of traders aren't using Kazaa to "sample" albums, they're not using it because they have some sort of righteous opposition to something called the "RIAA"--they're using Kazaa to download music without paying for it. People have yet to offer a valid legal or moral justification for ripping artists off.
But go ahead and post another anti-RIAA article, then after that another anti-Microsoft article. Recycle, repeat.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The record industry is about controlling how music and what music is able to make it to your ears. The fact that they want to raise the price so online music is a marginal service aimed only at the overmoneyed is an expression of this desire to control. Itunes, Napster, MusicMatch are now effectively record labels. The next step is for them to cut deals with the artists directly.
The last thing record companies want is anyone to interfere with their indenture of recording artists. For most musicians record contracts are proof that slavery was not abolished by lincoln. The latest gem from the record companies is just an acknowledgement that they are deaply worried that digital technologies are disrupting their traditional tactics of ripping off the consumer and artist alike.
The single truly annoying thing about this is how our elected officials from both parties have done absolutely nothing but protect the Labels right to be stupid.
Re:Artists: This is your cue: (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up.
Most independent musicians I know are lucky to make about $100 playing a show. When a couple of them went on tour a few years ago, they actually *lost* money the whole time, because it was so expensive to tour up and down the west coast. This wasn't living the rockstar lifestyle, either. They were throwing down sleeping bags on the side of the road at night because motels would have been too expensive.
Like it or not, being a major label band has its benefits. You don't see Evanescence getting kicked offstage after four songs because the club's sound guy is an asshole, or having to threaten physical violence to get more than 50% of the payment for the show they were "guaranteed."
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Good riddance. And you wouldn't be called a "professional musician" in that case, you'd be called a "recording artist" who depends on artificial-scarcity enforcement to make money as your first priority.
A real musician would be playing for the love of it and building human relationships with actual fans who would have no problem paying for fresh and scarce concerts, scarce physical merchandise, and CDs-as-a-patronage-thankyou.
You can't even buy a soda pop from a vending machine for that little anymore.
And if you could make an exact molecular copy of a can of Coke for next to nothing (and you soon will), would you feel bad that CocaCola (and WalMart, and the rest) are now being "ripped off"? CocaCola would have to reinvent themselves by having to work again ... by continually coming up with new recipes. Of course, they'd never be a giant sugar-water-advertising-&-distribution company again (just like the RIAA is going to have to downsize).
--
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:2, Insightful)
contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Some songs should cost $3 or $4, while others (the much-maligned filler tracks) should cost $0.30. The songs are not all of the same quality and are not demanded equally, and so the prices should not all be identical.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
The really alluring thing about on-line music sales is that it offers the opportunity for a much, much larger portion of the music sales proceeds to go back to the artist - I can assure you that any musician would be absolutely thrilled to see even $.25 per track.
Reasons for Downloading Music (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, it's more a convenience argument. I don't have to go out to the store, browse the collection, discover that they don't have what I'm looking for, go to another store, repeat. Or order CDs online, several at a time so I won't add 100% to the price for shipping charges, which requires me to assemble a list of albums that I want, and typically doesn't enable to me to try before I buy. Or consider if it's worth it to buy the whole 10 track album just for those few really good tracks. And then rip and encode so I can just play it without having to swap CDs.
Instead, I go to a site where I can listen to samples, then pay (if someone gives me something I like, I don't mind giving them something they like) and download the songs that I like, and start listening.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is this about the free lunch that no-one wants to give you?
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:1, Insightful)
If the five biggest labels think that $2.99 is a correct price, then it's a price fixing which contradicts the free market...
RIAA can't plug the analog hole (Score:4, Insightful)
They must feel awfully confident that Digital Rights Management would work
Foolishly confident. I can prove that digital restrictions management does not prevent lawfully massaging a restricted phonorecord to the point where unlawful reproduction and distribution of the work over a P2P network is trivial. Given a PC authorized to play a DRM'd file and a second PC, both with sound cards, I can run an analog cable from one sound card to another and start Audacity on the second. This so-called analog hole introduces much less audible noise than the WMA encoder introduced.
Almost likewise with video; I can copy an audiovisual work from a VHS or DVD machine through a $30 video stabilizer [directsalesinc.com] to another VHS machine. But unlike video, audio remains at acceptable fidelity even after one trip through the analog hole.
What I find absolutely funny (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA is a classical textbook case of a cartel. The rules the music industry is operating by are no longer located in the chapter in the microeconomics textbook labelled "free market capitalism".
It's NOT capitalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not capitalism. Capitalism is where they charge $2.99, you don't like it, so you buy from SOMEBODY ELSE at a LOWER PRICE. That process continues until it's impossible to produce the song any cheaper.
They've been selling at 99c for ages. Now they are discussing a unilateral hike of 200%. That should be your first warning sign that capitalism is not working here! Where are the other online vendors selling the same songs at 50c? Or the same songs at 10c? If 10c is unrealistic (maybe it is but I suspect it isn't) then THE MARKET will find the actual sustainable pricepoint. The very second you hear that the RIAA is deciding the "sustainable" pricepoint instead of the market is the very same second you should have realised this is not capitalism. This is a cartel.
If capitalism was working then the prices would have dropped for music. That's how it works in every other industry. Company A makes steel bars for $1/bar at 10% profit. Company B thinks 5% profit is sufficient and sells bars for 99c/bar. Company A decreases their production costs (perhaps by innovating new techniques) and sells bars for 95c/bar. THAT is capitalism. It's using THE MARKET to drive innovation, reduce costs, self-regulate the quantity of production, while still producing the cheapest goods.
In the music industry the prices have gone up and up and up. Even faster than inflation. While production costs have gone down - a music studio and CD production facility can be built in your spare bedroom for under $10k these days, compared to $10s of millions only 2 decades ago - the CD prices have not dropped. Why? Because this isn't capitalism! Production costs are down, yet prices are up. Market is flooded with alternatives, yet prices are up. Look at the big picture. It's NOT CAPITALISM.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I want your credit card and social security numbers and you refuse to sell them to me at a price I deem reasonable, it's my duty to steal them from you?
The solution is obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott RIAA labels (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Artists: This is your cue: (Score:5, Insightful)
First, not all labels are corporations. The OVERWHELMING majority of labels are simply people that are involved in the local scene that have a bit of money. To these dudes, putting $3000 on a credit card and paying it off sometime soon is feasible. They can afford to go long-term because they know they'll get their money back.
But for the bands? Most of the bands out there have a hard time even making their rent. They have to find new jobs when tours are over, then quit them as soon as the next tour starts up. Vans are usually borrowed, sometimes they're owned by one of the band members. Equipment is something you have to have before you even consider touring. That's something you get out of the way before you hit the road. But once you do, money is tight. Putting $3000 on a credit card is out of the question. For a lot of these guys, that's a year's worth of rent.
Two shows a week? Uh... no. If you want to do stupid shit like EAT and sleep someplace with a bed, you're doing five shows a week, MINIMUM. We're talking about traveling across the US, not England. Texas alone is bigger than most countries. Van mileage sucks, and gas isn't cheap. On a recent tour the band High on Fire drove from Houston to Austin to Fort Worth to Austin to San Antonio to (IIRC) New Orleans. That's about 2000 miles of driving in 7 days time. Also, good luck selling 10 CD's at a show. One to three per show is a much more realistic number. Maybe someone will buy a shirt too.
The fact of the matter is, it is NOT a realistic alternative for the majority of REAL, TOURING bands to completely fund themselves. Some can do it, most can't.
Re:"Suggestion: Buy a clue" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A few points (Score:5, Insightful)
No we don't. We like certain songs. We just get sick of paying 15 dollars for a cd when we hear a good song radio. I have stopped doing this. For example, this week I am going to buy two cds. Ocean Avenue by YellowCard and Palm Trees and Powerlines by Sugar cult, the cds are 7.99 and 8.99 at Circuit City, respectively. Those seem like fair prices, I know I will like 3 songs total guaranteed (as I have already bought them off itunes) With those prices I am willing to chance the sample(s) were misleading (other than the ones I bought of course)
I have/will purchase/d 5 cds in the last 12 months. but to say I am thrilled with music today is like saying I am thrilled with movies, because I liked Master and Commander and Lord of the Rings.
--Joey
cartels (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies are not untouchable like OPEC. They do NOT control a resource that, if withheld, will ruin our nation within the week.
Send Mr. Ashcroft a complaint. Inform him that you would like the DOJ to look into this matter... what these corporations are doing is overtly criminal. Hell, tell your Congressman and Senators, your Mayor, Governor and the President. Get every level of every branch of your government on this fucker.
If you don't, it means you are too lazy, too disenfranchised or too apathetic to even alert the bureaucracy that _you_ pay for, that is charged with aggressively prosecuting such flagrantly abusive violations of Federal law. If you are indeed that stone-helpless, you have only yourself to blame and you _will_ continue to spend your life complaining about the saddle on your back.
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I don't buy music online (besides my 50 or so free tracks, thanks to Pepsi making it impossible to lose [macmerc.com]!) is I think $0.99 is too expensive for a track. It's just as bad as shelling out $17 for one at the music store. If they think people are going to buy tracks for $2.50, think again. But of course, the RIAA has never been in touch with consumers, so it's unlikely they'd start now...
the only way is up... (Score:3, Insightful)
But look at it from a historical perspective!
When CD's replaced vinyl, prices went up, since the cost of production in the early transition were higher.
But afterwards, production cost would be a lot less, and then prices would fall below vinyl.
But surprise surprise: prices only went up up up.
Now consider that with digital distribution, production costs once more will go down. Not only that, but even in the early transition period, costs are down. And not even factoring in distribution, reprinting costs, art-work, etc...
Well, considering the lessons learned from the CD experience, there's only one logical conclusion. The price MUST go up. And a lot.
Can't you see?
Isn't there a law against collective pricefixing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, in the real world, we can expect that artists of any level of talent will write songs that resonate with some people and piss others off. Sure, I like some bands more than others, yet I've never once found a CD where I love every single song.
Please don't send out these calls for people to be more discriminating. People will like what they like. Why should you care?
Re:A few points (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason you don't love what is coming out is because you don't listen to quality music.
Personally, I love a lot of the music being released today. Opeth, Dream Theater, Blind Guardian...all of then are amazing and consistently release worthwhile material.
Part of the problem with a lot of popular bands today is that, upon achieving stardom, they stop practicing and their playing goes to shit. There also seems to be a problem with releasing albums which are mostly tracks which should have been shelved for a while or worked on more before release.
Hell, a good example of this is OSI [osiband.com]. The second disc of the special edition version of the album contains a track entitled "The Thing That Never Was" which is a 17 minute and 20 second long track. They recorded everything except for the vocals and then scrapped the song. Yes, they scrapped a pretty much finished song. All was not in vain however; they yanked pieces of the song and turned those pieces into the beginnings of many other songs which comprised the album. Another classic example is Dream Theater's "A Change of Seasons." The song was written in 1989. It wasn't recorded until 1995. The song was played live several times and a new keyboardist reworked the keyboard sections and the song was heavily changed. The result was a really really good song clocking in at 23 minutes and 8 seconds.
A lot of popular musicians need to release albums every two or three years instead of every year or year and a half. Most professional musicians would have thrown out most of the material which actually makes it onto a lot of those albums. Thus you get one or two good songs and a bunch of demo material which needs to be ripped apart and rewritten. Or scrapped entirely.
Re:Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not impossible, but rare.
There are everal reasons for this:
1) Artist like to try different things(well, the good ones) sometimes they miss. Personally, I'm glad they try.
2) The listener just finds some songs not to their liking, but enjoy the other songs. Britney Spears has a song out right now, and I like it(yeah, yeah, pipe down in back). I am old enough to know that 1 good song, does not mean the entire album is good, but people closer to her demographic aren't as 'experienced' in the ways of business as a crusty 39 year old.
It has been my experience that the overalll comparitive quality of the music as gone up since the CD has been introduced. Mostly because of no B side. For a while the usic industry wanted a 'part' of the CD to be treated as if it where a 'B' side. That didn't work for the obvious reason thats its lame as hell.
I used to know people that have never heard the 'B' side of some albums they purchesd. Use to drive me up a wall. I would be like
"Dude, that could be the best song you ever hear on the be side of that album"
"Naw, B sides sucks, besides I don't want to risk scratching the side I want to listen to."
Finally, you talk as if MTV plays music? Did they start doing that again?
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea the man-hours required to produce an album.
Basically, I guess it comes down to composition, rehearsal and playing costs, and production costs. Classical music probably costs a bit less given most of the works are already composed and perhaps, depending on the arrangement, royalty free, and then probably costs a bit more as a more performers -- in some cases whole orchestras, choruses, and opera singers -- are required.
But in either case, I suspect the total man-hours devoted to the album itself (and not promotion, gigs, etc.) probably compares to, or is less than, the man-hours required, on the part of author and editor and publishing house, to produce a novel.
Hardback novels are sold for something between twenty and forty dollars, but most of the novels I own are in softcover. These days, the cost of a softcover novel is about $7 or $8, or about half the cost of a CD.
As for comparing the two by hours of use, an average album probably gets a single play of an hour at most, an average novel a single read of three to six hours.
Admittedly, a really good album probably gets played more hours than a really good novel gets read and re-read, although some of my favorite albums I've re-read more times than I can recall.
Perhaps the record companies could emulate the book publishers, and publish mp3 downloads like softcover books: a year after the "hardcopy" CD has been published? Let those anxious to get the trendy music immediately pay a premium, and let squares like me buy from a cheaper online back-catalogue?
Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:5, Insightful)
For the money the RIAA spends on one artist, we could fund 1,000 independent artists who would almost certianly make better music. And each of them would make 1/1,000th the total profit.
In fact, those artists are out there, and you've never heard of them. Yeah, you've probably heard of the ones local to your house, but you've never heard this great band in Minneapolis who... the point is, we're talking about the RIAA because you've heard of the RIAA, and the artists the RIAA supports.
There are some resources that are scarce. Not the artists, who are essentially free (if it's not your band it'll be any of ten thousand other bands) but the TV and radio airtime (for both ads and for the music itself), for billboards, for promotional tours. Even the front page of iTunes is a limited commodity. The commodities are limited and they help sell records. Which means that who spends the money, makes the money. That's the RIAA. Those things allow a few bands to get really rich, and a few executives to get really rich.
Who wants to hear it? Well, a lot of people, apparently. Not me, and not you, but an awful, awful lot of other people. So many, in fact, that the RIAA simply doesn't give a rat's ass what you want from music.
Nor do they care much about the independent artists. Let 'em produce, and let them collectively make 1% of the total money spent on music. If you don't think to look for them on iTunes, you don't buy their music. Simple as that.
Re:Artists: This is your cue: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy fuck! I make that much in two weeks, and so do many of the people who read slashdot... Breakeven on those 500 CDs would be something like $6.40. Charge $10 each and that's $1,800 profit, easy. I, and many people like me, would'd be more than willing to pay $3,200 for production costs on a band that we like if we got an even 50/50 split of the profits... (Aw heck, how about a 95/5 split and you are still better off than going with a recording label!)
Suggestion? Don't break the law, stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruha needs to get off his little soap box and realize the world isn't all about him. If you don't like the prices, don't buy. That does not give you license to steal the property of others.
I know, I know.. It's so unpopular on
Just because it's popular, does not make it cool. For example: Brittany Spears
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:2, Insightful)
A lost art (Score:1, Insightful)
No one puts a quality ALBUM (or CD) out anymore. Can anyone think of anything that come close in quality to the Who's "Who's Next" album? If there was something being put out of this quality I would buy it.
Re:Please stop this FUD! (Score:1, Insightful)
they don't want to *just* control distribution of their music.
they want to control distribution of ALL music.
they want to control all possible distribution methods.
as long as they want to take over independent music, i will 'take over' their music by downloading it. as long as they feel it's right to screw over the actual artists, while parroting "save the starving artists", i will do as i wish.
Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:4, Insightful)
Choose from over 500,000 songs from all genres of music.
Right, it's not my favorite artists or songs I'm looking for, it's my favoritie genre.
Collect your favorite tracks and tune into your own playlists.
Okay. Computers are neat, huh?
Download music on up to 3 PCs--for online and offline listening.
So the parent who wanted to listen to music in their car now has to find a pc with a car radio form factor?
Get more tracks for less when you buy in bulk through Napster's Track Packs.
The parent was asking for a flat rate for as much music as they wanted, not a reduced bulk rate.
Plug into over 50 different commercial-free stations that are customized to your favorite genres.
What is it with this genre thing? I don't like musical genres, I like music that I like.
Set up and save tracks to your own playlists and share them with others.
Okay. Computers are neat- wait a minute this is almost just like a previous bullet point!
Build your own custom radio station.
Would this radio station almost have the funtionality of saving my own playlists and sharing them with others?
and more...
Let me guess- we can download music? Off the internet? And then the music files are in the computer?
Article seems to indicate price fixing (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh?! Are they discussing it jointly or separately within each record company? If the former is the case, that's illegal price fixing in the US. Does anyone have the original WSJ article at hand to see what it really says? Or am I missing something fundamental here?
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever heard of a "book?"
Will the RIAA Kill Music? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a huge fan of the iTunes [itunes.com] music store.. So huge, in fact, that I'm actually PURCHASING music through this outstanding service and bought myself a 20 gig ipod [apple.com]. My inclination is hardly to convince the world to pay for their music vs. downloading them ilegally; rather it's because I happen to like paying only $10 for an album. I'm a bargain hunter.
It was bad enough that the RIAA shunned legal digital downloads long enough for the pirates to take over the industry. Add to that their decision to continually fight a customer-driven demand for a more flexible (and cheaper) medium of distribution.. Now just when something out there is working, they want to jack the price up to a level that will send all of those wouldbe legal customers back to the P2P world using anonymous [sourceforge.net]networks.
The RIAA needs to wake up and recognize their issues here.. Their customers want a more flexible delivery mechanism, they want to pay less, and need the flexibility they currently have with a CD. Apple accomplished much of this with their product, which the RIAA will subsequently destroy with their greedy price increases.
Let's face it - in business customers drive the industry. When Americans stopped buying domestics, the industry responded with better products that met customer needs. When New Coke flopped, Coca Cola wisely switched back to the old formula.
The RIAA and its member companies had an opportunity in 1997 when illegal MP3's first surfaced to nip this problem. The early adopters were trading heavily on the IRC [mirc.com] network, which led the rise of Napster and later Kazaa. These networks suceeded because it was just so darn tough for file traders to find the songs they were looking for. Had the RIAA member companies set up a site at any point between 1997 and 2000 (even without digital rights management [webopedia.com]), they could have easily circumvented the rise of these illegal networks. CD's themselves were insecure enough to create this massive proliferation in the first place!!
Fight them. Write to them [mailto] and tell them what a stupid decision this is.
Re:Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
If they are good tracks, even from an otherwise shitty artist, why wouldn't you want them to listen to ? To "not-like" a song solely because the artist usually spews garbage is as juvenile as mocking the newest teen-band just because they appear routinely in your girlfriend's (or boyfriend's ?) erotic fantasies.
I'm way out of touch on the music industry issue here, but from what I've read, it sounds like many of the complaints have been that people are "forced" to buy crap in order to gain legal access to non-crap or lesser crap. I suppose it would be like hardware vendors requiring that you buy their POS junky computers in order to get one of their wiz-bang video cards.
I know first hand the frustration of buying a really shitty album after having built up high expectations of it; I'm sure the producers would be thrilled to know that I don't really regret it (I got the song I wanted, I just payed too much for it). But they probably don't want to hear that it was the last CD I bought (about 9 months ago)-- not out of protest, but because I really don't listen to much music other than what I already have (80's, 90's. I'm "old.")
Since I anticipate a response to the tune of "but there are so many indie labels and local bands you should listen too ! Free your mind ! Toss aside that mass produced garbage !" Yeah, no shit. I enjoy local bands immensely, when I have time to see them. And let me just remind some of you that just because it's a local band doesn't mean they don't suck too.
Re:Mixing the good and the bad. (Score:2, Insightful)
Methinks that's quite a bit like when your grandparents asked you why you didn't like Lawrence Welk. It was pompous and ignorant then, and it's pompous and ignorant now.
Seriously. People (or Kids, in this case) like what they like, or perhaps what their friends like. They don't choose their music based on the proficiency of a given band at filling up a whole CD. That's just stupid. I would be surprised if you really chose bands that way, rather than it just being a happy accident.
I'm an adult now, and I listen to adult music, but I imagine that if someone had suggested to me back then that the whole problem was because I liked the wrong bands, I would have laughed and laughed and laughed. And then I would have punched them in the nose. It's a preposterous suggestion. Seriously.
Re:Please stop this FUD! (Score:2, Insightful)
The customer is always right. Until the labels make something we want to buy, we don't owe them a goddamn thing.
Do they care? (Score:4, Insightful)
No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Then Apple came along and screwed it all up.
The labels are just trying to get the price back to where they wanted it in the first place.
Re:A few points (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is a better value to the consumer who bought a 2 hour movie for $3 more how? To make a CD, they didn't need a set, Movie Cameras, boom trucks, key grip, do location sets and cast wordrobe, write a script, build a set for the many scenes, hire stunt doubles, hire animators, hire folly team, painters, model makers, etc. and still produce a professional soundtrack. The CD crew just did a soundtrack. So they used a few costumes for the album cover, but they were usualy already in the wardrobe for the concert tour. There is a whole lot less goes into making a CD than a DVD. In some cases the sound-track CD is priced higher than the DVD. It's not hard to figure out why people percieve the CD's are overpriced. It's because it's easy to see they are way overpriced.
Why your head is in the clouds (Score:1, Insightful)
No, he'd just be a disappointed artist who has realized that morons like you have gotten so used to the convenience of piracy, they expect everything to either be free, or less than a dollar, and so he'll never make a living fulfilling his dream. Doing club shows all year doesn't get you by, sorry. I guess you didn't know being a "professional musician" means music is your profession, which means you get paid for it.
Very quickly, it's getting harder and harder to make money on anything in this world. I've seen whole medical textbooks ripped and put online before. Audiobooks, entire discographies, etc. The things you'll find being thrown around on P2P networks are incredible. Nobody cares about the consequences anymore. What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?
A real musician would be playing for the love of it and building human relationships with actual fans who would have no problem paying for fresh and scarce concerts, scarce physical merchandise, and CDs-as-a-patronage-thankyou.
GIVE ME A BREAK. No, better, FUCK YOU. A "real musician" has to eat, because they make their living making music. That's their choice in this life. A "real musician" has the right to be successful from their music. You, sir, are not a musician. You're just another Slashdotter going with the groupthink--another consumer who comes on and replies to anti-RIAA propoganda put forth by OSDN-owned Slashdot. You have no right lecturing people on what a musician should be caring about. I'm a musician myself, and your attitude pisses me off. If Slashdot were made up of musicians, the entire opinion of this website would change. Your opinion is just a result of the justification going on in your head over how piracy has made people expect things for free or for extremely cheap.
By your logic:
* John Carmack is not a "real programmer" because he should only care about hacking out cool engines and building relationships with content creators and game players, blah blah blah, and be happy when people bother taking the time out of their day to bother paying him, out of the goodness of their little golden hearts.
* Peter Jackson is not a "real filmmaker" because he should only care about making epic trilogies to build "human relationships" with the Tolkien fans who take the time out of their day to bother paying him for the things he made, out of the goodness of their little golden hearts.
* Nobody should be upset over anyone not being willing to pay enough to cover expenses. Instead, everyone should be on their hands and knees, grateful and kissing the asses of those who dare--*gasp*--pay fully for shit instead of demanding it be
And if you could make an exact molecular copy of a can of Coke for next to nothing (and you soon will), would you feel bad that CocaCola (and WalMart, and the rest) are now being "ripped off"? CocaCola would have to reinvent themselves by having to work again
"work again?" They're not working now? I could have sworn they made soda that a large majority of the world drinks and enjoys. Yes, my friend, accept global capitalism and deal with it.
by continually coming up with new recipes. Of course, they'd never be a giant sugar-water-advertising-&-distribution company again (just like the RIAA is going to have to downsize).
Your attitude has to be the most pompous and misinformed I've read in a long time. "You're not a real musician if you expect to be compensated for your career choice!" Fuck off, and whatever job you do, I hope you get paid for it so you can make a living. You should
Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA is just a lobbying group for a collection of major record labels. As for why an artist would need a record label to succeed--go out and try to be as successful as, say, Metallica without a record label promoting and advertising you and making you available.
Contrary to Slashdot's niche opinions, the Internet hasn't made it easy to promote yourself as an artist. People don't like net ads, remember? People like tangibles like posters and singles and so forth.
I guess they haven't learned... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess I will be able to expect a much higher check in the future.
Re:A few points (Score:2, Insightful)
So you ask for a "valid legal or moral justification" for RIAA opposition. How about the contrast of these propositions:
1. Charging fix costs for things with no marginal cost, extending our property regime into the (strato-)sphere of intellectual property in the name of "artificial creation of scarcity" so the RIAA can continue to control social wealth
2. Creating a system where goods can be infinitely replicated to the benefit of all, where the burden of their production is borne by those who can most afford to bear it.
And when this arrangement fails, will we have musicians and producers working as indentured labourers?
Re:Why your head is in the clouds (Score:1, Insightful)
This hypothetical musician is NOT making 50 cents a download as is and will not make 50 cents a download if the cost of a file is $1.50. The problem is the labels plain and simple.
"Very quickly, it's getting harder and harder to make money on anything in this world. I've seen whole medical textbooks ripped and put online before. Audiobooks, entire discographies, etc. The things you'll find being thrown around on P2P networks are incredible. Nobody cares about the consequences anymore. What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?"
These would be the market conditions. It is interesting that you advocate that us average Joes and Janes are the problem but not the record labels that want to ignore these market conditions. You also fail to note that said technologies that make music available and accessible also promote music and music purchases.
"You're not a real musician if you expect to be compensated for your career choice!"
Most "real musicians" are not and have not before file downloading or even computers. It is only a tiny fraction that do. This has held true for even classical composers many of them had other jobs that they could live off of. Are you so much better than they were? Also you are aware that many governments do in fact have arts funding because they recognize that the starving artist of all stripes is all to common.
"Yes, my friend, accept global capitalism and deal with it."
Amen
Re:$33 cd? It is going to decrease profit (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, come on. Because musicians don't have to eat?
Then why is it OK for a programmer to charge money for his program? He should be doing it for the LOVE of programming and the open source movement.>
Re:Why your head is in the clouds (Score:5, Insightful)
"What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?"
I'm sorry, but commerce existed long before the idiotic idea of "intellectual property" ever crossed anyone's mind. The inevitable result is what should have been apparent all along: intangible objects will cease to be sold like they're anything similar to tangible ones.
Music existed long before the RIAA and copyrights. I have no doubts that it will continue to do so if both disappeared tomorrow. Musicians, such as yourself, will always have a place in society, and the good ones (think: Mozart, Beethoven, and so on) will always be at the top. It's only a matter of understanding that you're a performer, not an entrepreneur.
In a world where anything that can be seen, heard, read, or thought can be copied and then distributed worldwide at little to no cost, how can you honestly expect the marketing ideas of 100 years ago to work?
-Grym
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why your head is in the clouds (Score:4, Insightful)
We'd still find a way to muck it up of course, but it sure sounds nice, doesn't it?
Or are you operating under a more narrow definition of "anything" than me?
Re:The only way for the RIAA to die is by suicide (Score:2, Insightful)
In 2004, any group of doofuses with a Macintosh and a microphone can burn a CD. In 1954, it took rather expensive equipment to make records. So the people who could afford record cutters got power. Then they grouped together, and consolidated their power. They spent the decades developing monstrous back catalogs, buying the rights to songs and distribution. Jump to today. If a radio station or record store wants a song by one group, they have to carry a certain number of CDs from the publisher. Or, if not forced, they'll get a discount for bulk purchases/plays. Or, the publisher has enough money to 'influence' the habits of program managers and others.
Summary: publishers used to have a valid reason to exist. They used that valid reason to leverage the situation, and hold onto it even today, when they have outlived their usefulness. They serve no purpose today, but have set up the rules of the game to extend their dominion for at least a little while longer.
Real fans buy their music (Score:2, Insightful)
And that would work out just fine, if we "real musicians" didn't need to, oh, I don't know... EAT.
Why are people so quick to judge the value of something on its availability? When you do that, you devalue not only the effort and energy gone into creating it in the first place, but any personal connection you have with the work, as well.
Seriously, could you be any more short-sighted? The scarcity of creative work is not artificial. It is all too real. The media on which that creativity resides (be it compact disc, paper, or data file) may no longer be scarce, true, but creating appealing, relevant, and/or lasting art is a difficult task, and it is insulting that you would insinuate otherwise -- Your argument is equivalent to saying, "Time to get a real job." I feel for the programmer who complains that everyone thinks his job is easy just because he sits at a computer all day.
Music Industry Bigwigs aside, artists do need to make a living from their work if they are to continue to devote their full efforts to it. And it is that devotion that provides the public with writing, music, and artwork that, as far as I'm concerned, makes life worth living. If you aren't willing to pay for good art, then you don't deserve good art. What you deserve is the rapidly declining, homogenized music industry you already have. If you think you deserve better, perhaps you should consider putting your money where your mouth is.
I don't support the RIAA in any way, as I find their actions in the legal arena contemptible. I buy used CDs so as not to directly line their pockets, and I advocate file sharing of RIAA-distributed music as civil protest against their legal tactics. But if/when the RIAA dies, will you really have enough respect for the remaining artists to actually pay for the work they do for you? Or will you continue to claim they should do it as a labor of love?
It's becoming clear that the main reason artists haven't rebelled against the RIAA is simply because they realize that the consumer public is even less likely to give them a fair shake. Without the "enforcement of artificial scarcity," a creator depends on the conscience of the public, on the audience's willingness to provide payment for services rendered despite a lack of enforcement. Would you be willing to place your livelihood into the hands of the consumer public on faith? After seeing how people rationalize NOT paying for music here, I would not.
Granted, enforcing artificial scarcity is not a workable long-term solution. But it is those who pay for the music they love who will be rewarded with... well, with music they love. Simple economics -- you get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay for good music, then sit back and enjoy Ms. Britney Spears with the rest of the less discriminating public. Because that narrow selection of music marketed to the lowest common denominator is the only thing that will survive off the pittance offered by those who don't value music enough to pay for it.
The bottom line is, real fans pay for the music they love. I do, as do others who want to see the works they love flourish and continue. Do you?
Re:Why your head is in the clouds (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't speak for the original poster, but I'd like to see a system where the artist can decide how much their songs are worth, how and when they will be released, without worrying about cutting into sales of an artist more popular with the record company.
Doing club shows all year doesn't get you by, sorry. I guess you didn't know being a "professional musician" means music is your profession, which means you get paid for it.
It should take real talent to survive as a pro musician. Most musicians shouldn't quit their day jobs. What I think most of us want to see is a way that lots of good musicians can make a living, instead of a very few able to make millions. I'm sure that there are plenty of musicians who would love to survive playing club dates.
Very quickly, it's getting harder and harder to make money on anything in this world. I've seen whole medical textbooks ripped and put online before.
This is an(other) odd situation, where the people paying for the book have no say in the selection. Another non-free market. My father is a college teacher, responsible for textbook selection. It's incredible what the publisher's reps are willing to give him, if he wants.
Audiobooks, entire discographies, etc. The things you'll find being thrown around on P2P networks are incredible. Nobody cares about the consequences anymore. What happens when nobody can sell anything anymore? Why do people ignore the inevitable result of this?
I'm not that worried about music. There are enough people able to do it for the love and exposure that there will always be good stuff to listen to. Textbooks--Probably Podunk Community College will use the MIT courseware or similar, instead of a beginning psych book that rearranges it's chapters every 2 years to kill off the used market. Novels kind of scare me. We won't lose writers, but we will likely lose editors, and that will really suck.
All the things you mention are limited by old distribution methods rather than supply.
GIVE ME A BREAK. No, better, FUCK YOU. A "real musician" has to eat, because they make their living making music. That's their choice in this life. A "real musician" has the right to be successful from their music.
No. I don't have a right to make a living as a geek, either. We both have the right to try. The current label system does nothing positive for musicians, with a few statistically insignificant outliers.
* Nobody should be upset over anyone not being willing to pay enough to cover expenses. Instead, everyone should be on their hands and knees, grateful and kissing the asses of those who dare--*gasp*--pay fully for shit instead of demanding it be
I am upset about good musicians not being able to cover expenses, but I think the RIAA is a big part of the problem.
Your attitude has to be the most pompous and misinformed I've read in a long time. "You're not a real musician if you expect to be compensated for your career choice!" Fuck off, and whatever job you do, I hope you get paid for it so you can make a living.
I'm not working as a writer, because I predict that I'd starve, even assuming I had enough talent. Geek is a close second, and I can eat and be happy with my job, so that's what I do. If nobody wants to pay me, I have to find something else. Declaring myself a writer, or musician, or whatever has nothing to do with it.
You should hope the same for anyone else trying to eke out a living in this economy, especially people who try to make music and sell it in a world where it's become a "wink-wink" joke to rip it