Napster Not To Blame 620
enjo13 writes "Slate is running an article on the music industries recent troubles. It articulates exactly what Slashdot has preached all along.. that the Music industry is suffering at its own hands and has no one to blame but itself. All I have to say is... finally." There's actually been a number of pieces like this, but I think this one says it best.
Hasn't this been said... (Score:2, Insightful)
the RIAA themselves said it! (Score:3, Interesting)
So. Music today basically blows. The major component of the music market are less likely to buy a ton of CDs from one artist and are instead more likely to just hop the bandwagon for a short time...
Their price model is BAD too.. $15 a CD?! NUTSOS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the RIAA themselves said it! (Score:2)
We collect a range of music (whether or not we feel it sucks, there's always the "next" button) so that just about anyone that comes over can hear something that they appreciate. It keeps the serious drunkards happy.
Re:the RIAA themselves said it! (Score:5, Interesting)
These two sources are probably the best way to experience artists in their element.
Just seems like people would rather rape and pilage the P2P networks instead.
Great - now will Someone ressurct Napster? (Score:2)
The problem is... (Score:3, Funny)
It's not the pirates... (Score:3, Interesting)
Britney Spears' latest album has moved 4 million copies--a big number, but less than half what its predecessor did.
That's one statement that sums it all up: music industry's slumping sales are not because of the pirates, it's because of the crappier cookie-cutting kind of music that's being rewarmed over and over and over.
I won't believe that Britney's albums are not selling as well as they used to because everyone wants to get them for free.
(aside from the obvious, why would anyone listen to it, not mentioning OWNING a cd with her music???)
Re:It's not the pirates... (Score:2, Insightful)
"like, you know...like briteny was like my favorite when i was 14...but i'm like sooo much older now and i like listen to cooler stuff now."
dude.
Re:It's not the pirates... (Score:3, Interesting)
Take, for example, my neighbors kid. She's 14 and can't afford a $20 CD so she asked her mom. Her mom says something like: "All her music sounds the same. Just listen to the radio." She asked my son if she could download it at my house.
I told her I was doing her a favor, and gave her 3 phish CDs.
The good news... now she wants to download phish cds.
The point? Well she wasn't buying CDs to begin with - this is not lost sales. Downloading the legally traded phish stuff does build word of mouth fan base for phish. Maybe it will generate sales for them in the future.
Sounds like my daughter (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The why rip and collect it if so bad? (Score:2, Informative)
Quality of Illicit Data (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the fact that someone trades data is proof that the data has some aspect of quality, then you simply do not understand the draw of illicit data. It doesn't mater if the data is warez, credit card listings, music, or bomb recipes. The draw is that the data in question is illicit... forbidden knowledge... prohibited... or otherwise illegal to own.
Think Eminem is an untalented idiot and his music is audio tripe? That's not the point. The point is that YOU got a copy of his recent album before it was even RELEASED. There's a brand new game that you'll constantly rant bout sucking... but you've got a copy of it in your collection. And whether you know how to use AutoCAD, much less have a desire to ever install it, isn't as important that you HAVE a copy of it.... cracked and dongle-less.
When I was a kid, I used to collect bomb instructions. I was convinced a large portion of it was created by people with just enough knowledge to be dangerous - to the unfortunate who followed the instructions. I never had any interest in actually creating any of the devices and substances described. But it was forbidden data - and I had a lot of it. And that idea alone appealed to me.
Sure. Some people who collect bomb instructions want to make bombs. Some people who download music see value in that music. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of file trading is simply a combination of packrat behavior and the thrill of handling illicit data.
Re:It's not the pirates... (Score:2)
There is very little incentive for a record store to keep a stock of non-pop/non-hip titles. They sell for less money, and far fewer people buy them. Classical music/jazz/international music are taking space AWAY from the umpteen billion copies of whatever the hell you pop music people are listening to. The very few brick and mortar record shops I frequent keep the same inventory of classical titles, at least, from year to year. THAT's how low tunrover can be.
At the same time, when I jump on a filesharing service, I can't find anything more than the most basic catalog for those non-hip music styles ("Beethoven" returns 200 hits with Kazaa Lite, but if I do a search for something more unusual than that, I'm lucky to get any matches at all). These non-hip types of music, AFAIK, aren't being shared at all, except by oddballs. Personally, I maintain 57GB of classical music that I share through Fasttrack, as a favor to anyone who wants classical music. Maybe 10 people download something from me in a given day.
I think that a lot of fans of "non-hip" music have just gotten to the point where they don't even try to collect recordings any more. Why should they? Record stores basically shit on them and the alternative distribution systemss don't work very well for anything but Britny and dubs of live Grateful Dead concerts.
Re:It's not the pirates... (Score:2)
A somewhat similar article, (Score:5, Interesting)
The online version is still up here [usatoday.com].
It's not just the music industry (Score:5, Funny)
finally... (Score:2)
Even if that CD costs $4242 in the store, it's a product. If you want it, buy it.
I wouldn't be so sure (Score:5, Interesting)
The main reasons are:
1) Very often I want to listen to just something very particular, and I believe it is silly to pay (and ask) $15 for just one song.
2) Convenience. Using file-sharing programs, I can get anything I want in a minute or two, in a convenient format that I can copy to my laptop and listen in my car or whatever. Buying a CD will never give me that. And yes, I know that there are ways to buy single songs online etc but the choice tends to be crappy, (the late) Napster and its clones have always had a better and more interesting choice.
I believe that there are many people who share these reasons and there's going to be more and more every day. Now, the point is that the music industry could definitely do a better job here by making it cheaper and more convenient to get what I want but it is also wrong to say that online music sharing has no effect on their revenue.
Re: I wouldn't be so sure (Score:2)
> Personally, I can definitely say that the labels are getting less money from me than they used to.
I went on an extended CD buying spree from ~95 - ~00, buying up all the remastered editions of my favorite "classic rock" albums as soon as they hit the shelves. But that's pretty much over with, so unless they can think of another way to sucker me into buying my old faves for a fourth time, my purchasing habits will remain at a background level from now on.
I'm somewhat on the tail end of the Baby Boomer generation, but if lots of other BB's did the same thing, you can imagine how the music industry might be feeling a morning-after effect from their remastering binge.
Even the Once-Cool Now Sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't get me started on the dogshit that passes for Aerosmith music as of late.
The point is, it's not just new artists targetted at the 18-25 market...all of music is sucking ass lately. Sometimes, I think that there was more to the move to ban Napster and other P2P systems than just the "loss of sales" argument. I found some real gems on Napster -- stuff I'd never listen to before, Napster started me on a blues kick that continues to this day, for example. God forbid that the record companies should have to start dropping their NuMetal Poserbands and Bling-Bling Flash-in-the-Pan Rap Acts in favor of signing some bands with real musical talent, because real musical acts are harder to sell than a prepackaged pseudo-lifestyle.
I guess part of why music sucks is that the idiots in the RIAA know they have a losing formula, but stick to it because it's all they know.
You're both right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet at the same time, the music industry wants bands like Aerosmith to stay together for album after ass-like album, and usually, they have legal language in the contracts to enforce it for the first few albums. (After those few, if a band is still popular, they may have the clout to be able to write their own contracts. But they're usually dead by then.)
With very few exceptions, bands that have been around forever suck because they've been around forever, and their sound is tired and dead. But people keep buying their albums, as you just said yourself. The music industry, including the artists, realizes this: big name = more sales. New artists have little choice in the matter but to stay together. Big artists who get greedy try to stay together; big artists who care about the quality of their music go on to try different things. Those different things may not sell as well, but they sound better.
Re:You're both right (Score:3, Insightful)
but the truth is good bands break up because they get bored doing the same old shit, and they need fresh blood and fresh directions to keep making good music. Band breakups sometimes result in less good music, but I think the new (and different) bands that result are better for music quality on the whole.
Absolutely, but here's the $64 billion question:
Do you want to bother dealing with the new bands' sounds? Recall that this means:
a) some of their albums will suck. Music is art, not craft or science, and that means like in baseball, if you bat above
b) you have to get accustomed to a new sound. This sounds lame and staid, but how often have you dismissed an album only to come back to it later and discover that you can really get into it? This is why pump the same songs over the radio works - often people's resistance to a song is grounded in not liking something new.
c) There seem to be a lot of people who don't care that much, they just want some kinda music for their days. And they've got it - music is more ubiquitous and commoditized than ever. The record companies may want every band to be a U2, but they'll probably settle for a Cypress Hill.
You also pointed out:
But people keep buying their albums, as you just said yourself. The music industry, including the artists, realizes this: big name = more sales.
This is brand development, the lifeblood of any consumer-driven corporation (hell, just about any corporation). In a market of infinite choices, what do people want: a lot of them want a stable choice that they can trust - hence the brand relationship. The more stable and reliable the conneciton between the brand and the product, the more durable it will be. Anyone who's reading this knows exactly what a McDonalds hamburger tastes like - the taste is a brand. The much-loved Microsoft is probably one of the most brilliant branding engines of all times - you can recognize a Microsoft program from 50 miles away, and damn if they don't all work the same.
Recording mavens are businesspoeople, and they're just using the standard things they learned in business school. Problem for us and for them is, people are incredibly fickle when it comes to music, (for reasons I don't really understand, or articulate, but I surmise have a lot to do with how strongly popular music and identity are related in modern society) so building a brand is counterproductive. Until someone comes up with another way to describe building a stable place in a fickle market, these guys are gonna be hammering the square peg into the round hole. The question is, who's got the clout to do build a new way of doing thigs? Could actually be that the consumers refragment this market on their own - that'd be a damn good historical precedent. I ain't holdin my breath tho.
Re:Even the Once-Cool Now Sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Well, perhaps not all music. For my money, there [flecktones.com] are [galacticfunk.com] still [lesclaypool.com] some [phish.com] acts [charliehunter.com] out [johnscofield.com] there [radiohead.com] with real musical talent [mmw.net].
Solution to lame commercial music: (Score:5, Interesting)
- Expand your taste to include a wider range of musical forms through exploration.
- Seek out new local acts by attending live performances at small clubs, bars, and concert halls.
- Purchase CDs directly from those performers and bands whom you have enjoyed seeing live.
Not only does buying CDs directly from the artist provide them better compensation, but since you've already heard his/her music you know you'll enjoy much of what's on the CD. And to top it off the music cartels don't get a dime of your money. SCORE!This is primarily how I buy music now. I haven't purchased a big label pop disc in well over a year -- because the music sucks. I don't "steal" music across the net; I don't tape or burn CDs to trade with friends; I don't tape off the radio. I go to shows and if I like the act I buy some music. Fuck the RIAA and all their noise about "piracy".
--Maynard
Music Suggestions (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want a political bend to go along with your new music, a good place to start is with Radiohead. Another one is Mos Def and Blackstar (which is Mos and Talib Kwali) who are this generation's Public Enemy, and they are incredible.
As far as I know, the punk scene has degenerated politically, but Joe Strummer (of the Clash) is putting out incredible new stuff with his new band The Mescaleros. There's a band I happened to catch live at a music festival called The International Noise Conspiracy, who are a really fun act to see (communist/socialst propaganda from Sweden, how can you not love a song named "Capitalism Stole My Virginity"?)
Also, if you've looked at the American radioscape lately, a lot of the Nu-Metal junk has faded away. The focus these days is on more standard rock, with bands like Jimmy Eat World, the Strokes, the White Stripes, and the Hives all doing a great job kicking the crap out of Fred Durst and his various imitators. Some of the stuff (particularly The White Stripes) is really outstanding work. There's still a lot of pop out there, but that's never going to change (hence the name). There's a lot of good non-political music out there too, that I didn't mention, that is just off to the side of mainstream, but is actually very good. As for the political/social stuff, I don't think there's a whole lot right now, but who knows? The new Rage Against the Machine album should be out soon.
Re:Audiogalaxy (Score:2)
Hold on. (Score:3, Interesting)
You CAN'T. You need a study that shows what happened when Napster came around. We have plenty of those. Now you need a study that shows what happened, in the exact same time period as napster, without napster. Anyone got a time machine?
Napster (and other file sharing programs/piracy) MAY OF done the music industry bad. Napster (and other file sharing programs/piracy) MAY OF done the music industry good.
But there is no possible way you can say it is one way for sure. File sharing still exists and is still widely used (KaZaA and Morpheus come to mind), so there is no possible way we can look at stats and compare.
So take this article with a grain of salt, not with absolute conviction.
Re:Hold on. (Score:2)
I assume that, from the mis-spelling of "knucklehead", you're being cute. But in case not: (from Merriam-Webster)
So, no, it really is "proofread". And it really is "may have", too.
And to think, increased constraints are just.... (Score:2)
Was watching a Voyager rerun last nite - it was broadcast in digital and had more digital corruption in it and the analog air wave static..
First time I saw that epsoide, it wasn't being broadcast in digital format and look fine...
Like music I guess TV is going down hill too.
All in the name of anti-piracy.....
It works too......if nobody wants it.....who's gonna pirate it?
The ultimate in piracy protection!!!! yeah buddy.....happy now?
Occam's razor again (Score:2, Insightful)
So they are staying away from this trash in droves, and the RIAA is blaming piracy? The truth is more likely that there has been a sudden unexplainable outbreak of good taste by music-listeners.
Re:I'm curious about your reference. (Score:2)
The RIAA blames wholesale digital piracy for a downturn in music sales. Or it could be that the music is so bad nobody is willing to pay for it. The simpler explanation seems to be the answer here. Current music is simply not worth purchasing. Ergo, Occam.
I think it's finally just time to stop... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: I think it's finally just time to stop... (Score:2)
> If we arbitrarily assign 1957 as the first year of Rock and Roll, then we've got 45 years' worth of music we can all go back through and mine for gems
When the "Classic Rock" radio format first came out it was really nice, because they would play lots of B-sides and other non-warhorse material, and you could hear lots of stuff you missed during the Top 40 radio era.
Unfortunately, the broadcasters have the same "sure thing formula" mentality that the recording industry does, so they started airing all those "vote for your favorite tunes" programs, and five years later the top-voted tunes was all you ever heard on those stations anymore. Some of us tuned them out. I, for one, don't need to hear Bob Seeger sing "Old Time Rock and Roll" three times a day.
Maybe that's the same effect the RIAA is seeing?
Napster started it all (Score:2, Insightful)
Napster popularized P2P, and really brought about the try-before-you-buy mindset that alot of people have developped since in buying CDs; the effect has been lowered sales of mediocre products. David Bowie will continue to sell millions of CDs despite P2P, good luck to the middle-of-the-road acts though.
Also, P2P brings about lowered "thought-out" purchasing decisions much more than impulse buys. I would think that music that appeals to teenagers who have less disposable income (and thus are more prone to thinking out how to spend $20) will be much harder hit than music which appeals to the more affluent "older" crowds. It's a terrible thought, but I bet Britney Spears would have sold many more albums ten years ago - wheareas I doubt that an artist like Eric Clapton is much affected either way.
Re:Napster started it all (Score:2)
But before I did P2P, I never bought new CDs. Except for presents. Or maybe once a year doing that BMC "15 CDs for the price of 1" deal, and then getting out of the "club" immediately. Ok, not exactly immediately. They'd send me CDs, and I'd scrawl "REFUSED" on the carton and throw them back in the mailbox. Eventually they'd expel me from their club. But 6 months later, they'd be missing me and asking to get me to join again. Anyhow, and I'd buy a few used CDs, the price being much more reasonable.
Now that I do P2P, it's pretty much the same. Except that I seem to know more musicians, and buy their CDs new, from them, more as a social obligation than anything else. But none of them is on a label that's a member of the RIAA, so they don't count.
Ever take economics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just a freak, but I know if I'm trying to curtail my spending, as many are in the uncertain economy, music purchases would be one of the first things I'd stop.
I know, their sales have been diminishing since before the US economy started heading south, but it's a possibility.
Maybe if the price of a cd was less than 700% profict for RIAA (dont know the number, but I know it's HUGE), and they cost what they were worth they would sell more.
I know this is theory, but I was taught in my econ class back in college that the sale price was where the supply and demand curve met. That point was the price that the consumer considered 'fair'.
Maybe RIAA needs to think about THAT. Maybe more and more consumers are thinking that cd's are just not worth the money and are settling for what's on the radio and not buying cd's. I'm sure some are turning to P2P software too, but I imagine that really is the minority.
I dont download music (used to - delted them all) and I will buy cd's. I've not bought one in almost 6 months because there hasnt been one that I think is worth the money.
Maybe I didnt think there were any worth the money because they are cookie cutter as the article stated. Maybe it's because it's just too damned expensive.
NAPSTER NOT TO BLAME? (Score:2, Funny)
Napster not to Blame (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Napster not to Blame (Score:2)
I've seen this argument 4 times today. You know what the end result will be, if we relentlessly point out this disparity? $50 DVDs.
Color me unimpressed (Score:2)
Let me know when it shows up in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, or some of Jack Valenti's ti^Hrade mags.
The issue really isn't about "someone else just joined our bandwagon." It's about who just joined your bandwagon, and if the who doesn't include the folks making, marketing, and distributing the music, then it really doesn't make a whole hill of beans worth of difference, does it?
Re:Color me unimpressed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Color me unimpressed (Score:2)
Add in the people who are really in charge here -- Congress -- and you're on your way.
Innovation is still out there... (Score:5, Interesting)
She even does things like put *full* sample tracks on her website. *gasp*
And her sales and profits climb...
And her music continues to be her own...
And her music continues to kick ass.
Are you reading, RIAA?
Re:Innovation is still out there... (Score:2)
Re:Innovation is still out there... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Innovation is still out there... (Score:2)
Re:Innovation is still out there... (Score:3, Interesting)
curiouser and curiouser...
A half-done article? (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't however, go the the next stage of the argument -- that P2P networks have provided an avenue for (currently) non-mainstream artists to get exposure and market share.
They also seem to miss the question of whether the rise and fall of Napster coincided with the rise and fall of CD purchases. These seemed like obvious next steps for the article, but then it just seemed to .... stop.
Things change (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, instead of instruments, all the kids I hang out with are buying mixing decks. They all want to be club DJs.
They play four hour sets of techno. House, trance, bass&drums, whatever. It's got no lyrics. It's got no melody. It's got a GREAT groove. And without a melody, or lyrics, it's REALLY HARD to copyright. I like a lot of it.
They've done it again. Rock, punk, whatever it takes to take the music back from the corporations. The kids are alright.
Fuck the RIAA. Just wait, they WILL try to copyright 120 beats per minute.
How to run your business into the crapper (Score:5, Insightful)
- Snub the over forty crowd that makes up 44% of your business.
- Make sure you stagnate so that you don't come out with anything fresh.
- During a recession raise your prices.
- Forget any lesson you might have learned from the late 70's when the industry underwent a similar crisis.
The only thing left to do to put that final nail into your coffin is to implement some "creative accounting" practices.RIAA is their own worst enemy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Recent events have changed all that. I had put my CD collection on my hard drive so I could listen to them while I worked. But, through a series of events, I had to rebuild my entire system. Unfortunatly, I couldn't reinstall my purchased copy of RealPlayer/RealOne/Real and didn't want the new one because of their stupid subscription based service.
I dumped Real and bought MusicMatch at a real store, intending to dump my CDs to my new 40GB hard drive. In the box was an offer for MusicMatch radio. I had done Winamp before, but again, the quality just wasn't there. To my surprise, I discovered that for $4 a month, I can get crisp, clear music delivered over my broadband, and was able to create my own 'stations' based on the music I liked. I could skip tracks too if I wanted. The best part was I could click on the playlist and create lists of CDs to buy later, or buy them right on the spot. Wow
Then, a few days ago, RIAA announced their legal action regarding list4ever.com. Curiosity got the best of me, so I fired up Google and started looking around. Know what I discovered?? Hundreds of sites where I can download music and videos, sites I never knew about before. I still haven't downloaded anything, but now I know where to go if I want to, all thanks to RIAA.
I never did dump my CDs to the new hard drive.....
If songs were a quarter... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to know is, if they did start selling tracks at a quarter apiece, how much more music would people have to buy to make up for the drop in price? (Not taking production or bandwidth costs into account, it people would need to download about 60 songs for every CD they purchase now). Is it plausiable that you'd buy five times as much music if it were a fifth the price? I probably would myself, but I very rarely buy CDs.
twisting the numbers (Score:2)
I dislike the politics of the content industry so much that I avoid full price movies and I mostly content myself with the music I already have. This is an effective form of protest which I would like to see more people employ.
Except. Except that the content industry is pointing to their loss of sales as evidence that everyone not giving them money is a crook and that they are therefore justified in destroying the PC as an open platform.
Who needs clever accounting with logic like that?
what/who IS to blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
are there people out there downloading music who would have otherwise bought it? yes.
but aren't there people out there downloading music that will spur future purchases? yes.
are cdr's used to copy cds? yes.
but aren't they used for other purposes as well, and doesn't a percentage of cdr sales go to the riaa? yes.
is the nation going through an econonic downturn on the whole? yes.
but aren't other countries' music industries being affected as well? yes.
i'm certainly against the **aa and all for fair use, but i think this situation is much more complicated than most people realize. and i think the best way to figure out what's wrong (if anything), is to conduct more independent (and independently-funded) surveys, especially outside of the united states. we get nowhere by propagating lies/rumors/FUD on either side, so it may be best to get as accurate and truthful a view of the problem as we can, whether we like it or not.
Large labels as 'superstars' (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing I thougth of when I read this snippet was how similar the big record companies are acting to the 'superstars' Read as:
I am NOT sympathetic to the labels and RIAA, but if I had refused to keep my eyes on my cash cow, (and where the market was headed two years in the future) and was now facing a greatly reduced revenue stream you can bet I would be upset too.
Though not eloquent, what I am trying to show is how similar the labels act to their divas and darlings. What they have not yet figured out is how to reinvent themselves every few years to stay fresh like their artists have (think U2, the Beatles, or REM)
NoOne is to blame (Score:2, Insightful)
Making the customer happy is their job... (Score:5, Insightful)
The customers' message to the RIAA will get louder and louder until they finally hear it or until they go under. Which one happens is ultimately the RIAA's choice.
The RIAA probably believes that because it's a monopoly (or oligopoly ... same thing from an economic perspective) like Microsoft, that it can get away with the same market tactics that Microsoft does. But what they haven't figured out is that unlike Microsoft's products, which are essentially required to keep a business running (Openoffice and friends aside), the RIAA's products are not required, they are optional. Having a monopoly doesn't help you if your customers can get away with not buying your product -- and that's exactly what's happening now.
So my message to the RIAA is simple: you'd better figure this shit out, and fast, because your number is coming up.
What sucks the most is that the RIAA is going to do a hell of a lot of damage before they either finally learn or go under.
who woulda thunk... (Score:2, Insightful)
And they honestly wonder about why nobody is making money? This is the biggest money maker for the industry, and its total crap. I dont think the american public has enough intelligence to finally understand that the stuff that they are spending their money on is crap, so why are they not buying CD's anymore? My guess is that if they actually liked this "music" they dont really care about music in the first place and they just gave up entirely. I dont think it has anything to do with the "new" trend of swapping music, be it over the internet, recording on tapes, or even just listening to the radio. I think the main problem is that people have been spoon fed the same crap (if nothing has changed in the pop world since disco...) for 30 years and they've just gotten bored.
The next question that gets brought up is why then are better bands, who actually do offer something intellectually selling records? Maybe because there arent all that many that exist; I'll still fork out my 13 bucks for a new Fugazi record, or my new favorite band Queens of the Stoneage, but most people dont like to think, and therefore, wouldnt like or even give a good new band a chance.
If the death of pop (please dear god kill it now!!!) is gonna bring the music business down with it, so what, I'll still be strumming away on my guitar, and I know that anyone who had any real interest in music in the first place will too.
But if anybody has any conflicting viewpoint on this, I'd actually like to hear it, unless you liked N'sync or britney spears...
Reflection of Society (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not use existing p2p networks? (Score:2, Insightful)
Kazaa implements credit card billing features so that whenever you download a song owned by the RIAA, a fee is charged to your account (and for this to succede it'd better be reasonable - around a dollar). Kazaa gets a cut of that dollar, and the rest goes to the RIAA.
This would not only be unbelievably easy for the consumer (any idiot can download a song), but would use an already well established network that, if done correctly, would use the people on the network for distribution. Of course the RIAA would be wise to put up it's own servers sharing the files, too.
The only downside i can see is if you get lamers sharing missnamed or incomplete songs that you end up paying for. Any ideas (checksums, etc?) for fixing that?
These articles make me sick (Score:5, Interesting)
The assorted and supposed failures of the music industry and the presumed decline in quality of today's music - even if true - can NOT be taken as evidence that file-sharing isn't hurting the industry, just like declining record sales can't necessarily be attributed to the accompanying rise in file-sharing.
BOTH types of 'evidence' marshalled by both sides are correlational and don't really say anything about what the proponents are arguing about, namely the root of the problem. Maybe file-sharing is going up because today's music sucks, or because people want this method of distribution. Or maybe file-sharing is on the rise because people just like grabbing things they don't have to pay for.
You've heard it a million times: Correlation is NOT causation. Once we get past the stupid "X is happening, and Y is/isn't happening, therefore X does/doesn't cause Y", we'll be able to really and fairly consider the issue instead of looking through these blinders that seem to get narrower and narrower as time goes on, and hearing the tautologies flogged like yesterday's dead horse - by BOTH sides.
History Repeats (Score:2)
In 1978, record sales began to fall, and the major labels blamed a larcenous new technology: cassette tapes. The international industry even had an outraged official slogan: "Home taping is killing music." The idea was that music fans--ingrates that they are--would rather pirate songs than pay for them, and that sharing favorite songs was a crime against hard-working musicians (rather than great word-of-mouth advertising).
This helps me remember that as fast paced as our world may be, we're really just handling the same problems that have been dealt with in the past. The article goes on to say how the emergence of MTV and Rock Videos saved the music industry now, and that if the Music Mavens don't stop blocking every new technology that comes along, they miss their own savior. Bravo for a great article and let's hope the RIAA will study some history as well.
Musical innovation is across the pond in Europe (Score:5, Interesting)
With the one hit wonders we have now, you can't even name the vocalist for the bands.
Skip across to the pond and see what the 'peans are up to. Let's see, progressive metal bands like Stratovarius, Blind Guardian, Avantasia, Edguy, Theatre of Tragedy, etc are HUGE stars. They play arena concerts, like GNR, VH, Selloutica and others did in the 80's and 90's. Members are usually classically trained musicians and have technical abilities that most US musicians only dream of. Many of the band members collaborate with other bands for entire albums (ex. Demons & Wizards).
Granted, this music may not be to everyone's tastes, but looks at the techno scene overseas. People like DJ Tiesto, Oakenfold, Van Dyk, etc are huge....yet unless you go to a trance club in the US, you are unlikely to ever hear them.
The US labels are failing for the same reason the US carmakers failed late last century:
Lack of innovation.
This is an easy question to answer (Score:3, Interesting)
I have neither these numbers available to me nor the interest to properly evaluate them (properly meaning statisticly... not just scanning them with the naked eye.) But the numbers are there and any interested party could resolve this.
If concert ticket sales have declined it would be very difficult for the industry to say that this is the fault of filesharing. But at the same time if it is found that Britney Spears concerts are still selling out then it is also very hard for consumers to say there is less interest in listening to her.
Perhaps by stating their claims so heavily, both sides have too much to lose if they are found to be wrong.
They fell behind the technology (Score:5, Insightful)
First there were '78's made of shellac. Then they came up with vinyl, much easier to handle and able to hold more data, at 33RPM's. Still too pricey for kids, they did 45's.
Now, America was moving towards an automobile culture, and you just can't run an LP in a car (ignoring the Lexus ad).
So, they came up with 8-tracks. Great, an LP in your hand, and shock-proof to boot. But they were awfully clumsy, and apparently not all that cheap to manufacture (which ought to translate to consumer prices, but that's another rant).
So, they came up with cassette tapes. They were small, portable, and dirt cheap. I remember buying albums for $6-7 in the early eighties. But the quality of the cassettes was fairly miserable.
Tape also has a tendency to stretch and wear out, so it's tough to commit to a music collection on 8-track or cassette.
So they came up with CD's. Finally, very high quality, random access, and portable (after a few shakey years). With the advent of the CD it finally made sense again to collect music for the long haul, so the music industry saw a boom in replacement purchases, from all the people who had purchased 8-tracks and cassettes.
But the CD is close to perfect. It doesn't wear out, it has random access, it has really good quality, it's portable, and it's cheap to manufacture. People had their music now, and they didn't need to replace it. This was a new situation for the music industry. They would have to keep producing good new music to keep up the sales or come up with a better format.
What could be better than a CD? Well, what are the CD's weaknesses? You couldn't record on them (before the past few years). You also had to carry quite a stack of CD's around for just a few good songs. Sony recognized this and made a few stabs at the market with MiniDisc. They got portable, small, random-access, and cheap, eventually, but the quality of the first round of MD's was pretty poor. It used a 3-subband lossy coder, and it just didn't compare to CD's. It was also fairly proprietary.
It seems that at this point, the industry just gave up. I don't know what really happened behind the scenes, but the entire industry seemed to undergo a cranial/anal inversion. When DAT tried to get near the market, they got scared and had the Digital Home Recording Act [Tax] enacted. This was the start of viewing the customer as the criminal adversary.
Meanwhile, the personal computer industry was booming. Computers started to get hard disks capable of storing lots of music and good perceptual coders came to market. I remember ripping all my CD's onto my 601-based Mac in '96 (in MP2, at 0.2x, after a separate rip stage, typing all the track names in) and it was just amazing. Soon everybody noticed that you could listen to your music in a form that you wanted. With the advent of CD writers and the iPod, the missing portability element came back. By 2001, the technology provided by the music industry had been totally overtaken by the technology the computer industry provides, and that's when they started sueing everybody in sight.
So, as I see it the music industry has 3 options:
1) Come up with a better technology. If I knew what it was, I'd be doing it, but it obviously involves the internet, probably 3G cell. The only thing I can't do with an iPod is get my music I don't have with me. Note: I don't want SACD's or DVD-A's. They don't solve any problems I have.
2) Put out good music. I doesn't even have to be new, I just bought a box set of remastered Miles Davis on Monday and In a Silent Way is my new favorite CD.
3) Criminalize everything the customers want to do and sue the begezus out of everybody who tries to help them.
What's behind Door #1 and Door #2 are sustainable options. Lurking behind Door #3 is a business model that has outlived its usefullness and is trying to get by on the creation of artificial scarcity. Stockholders ought to be very leery of a management that doesn't want any part of a sustainable market.
Re:They fell behind the technology (Score:3, Interesting)
The music subscription idea is right on the mark. Funny enough, there was a Canadian company in the late 80's that had a whole system ready to go into Sam Goody stores to make custom CD's like you mentioned. Not quite coin-op, but you filled out a slip, gave it to the clerk, and went to do some shopping. $1.50 a song, IIRC. In an hour your disc would be ready. I was lead to believe the recording labels backed out at the last minute. I forgot about it until you mentioned it, but that might have been the next big thing that they missed out on. It would have likely forstalled the whole Napster thing because it filled a need and made the customers happy. I wish I knew what was going through their minds at the time. Probably the same issue, they think they'll buy all 10 albums if they're not allowed to get a compilation.
Their fatal flaw is probably plain-old greed.
BS Fan and Proud to Admit it (Score:5, Interesting)
And it has nothing to do with the latest trend or whatever. Eminem's also one of the latest trends, and I hate what he has to offer.
So, why do I like her? Well, simply put, because her music is fun to listen to. And its fun to watch her videos. I'm not saying its intellectually rich music, but I really don't care. If I want intellectually enriched music, I'll go someplace else (like Ernesto Cortazar, Beethoven, John Williams).
That said, I can understand why this style of music means a slump for the music industry. Its not something I want to listen to all the time. In fact, there's very few artists I'd like to listen to all the time. The only musician who's music I've been able to listen to repeatedly over and over again is Beethoven.
So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is the zillion Britney-alikes that pop up (you know what I'm talking about, Pink, etc). And its not even so much them. I like some of Pink's music. I like alot of the stuff by Pink, No Doubt, Shakira, Aquilera, Spears, etc. Its not that the music's that bad. It's that it gets OVER -PLAYED.
This, my friends, is the fault of the music industry and the radio stations. Hearing the same song 500 times in one day is going to make me sick of it (i.e., anyone remember "I Saw The Sign" -- they played that song to death).
That's part of the reason I love the 80's stations, because they have a large selection to choose from, and I probably won't hear the same song twice in one day. That's also part of the appeal of P2P -- you get to mix it up.
So, ultimately, the current slump in the music business is completely the fault of the RIAA and music companies, along with the radio stations. Start mixing it up more, and people will be more interested. But really, who wants to buy that latest Britney Spears album when the songs in it have been played on the radio 500 times a day? If I listened to the radio more, I probably wouldn't buy CD's, but since I don't, I don't get so sick of songs that I want to puke when I hear them, like most people do.
So, the take home message to the RIAA? Well, lets say it like this. I like ice cream. I really like ice cream. I really really like ice cream. But if I've been eating nothing but ice cream for a week straight, I'm going to puke the next time I see it and I never want to see it again.
Re:BS Fan and Proud to Admit it (Score:3, Funny)
You seem to have misspelled cleavage.
-
The Record Industry is looking for a bail out.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another better article (Score:2)
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist
They're Doomed (Score:3, Interesting)
All we lose is the saturation media bombing to promote the latest 15-minute megastar. Well, darn.
The movie industry is in a stronger position - at least for the time being. You can't get some friends together and make The Lord of the Rings, no matter how much creative talent you have. And I still enjoy going to the movies with my friends and munching popcorn and seeing it all on the big screen.
The MPAA still needs to be clubbed senseless, though. Maybe we can get some out-of-work seal trappers on the case.
Re:I feel that this article is in error (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the "easier" part is the crux of the issue. If record companies make it easy to download and pay (a reasonable price mind you) for your music then a majority of folks would. The key is to make it easy and cheap and this will destroy any blackmarket or free file sharing communities. Make so easy and cheap that it is not even worth saving it your disk in most cases.
The video rental market is a great analogy. There was a lot of concern that when video rentals people would just copy video's and share them with their friend and sales would plummet. The opposite is true because it is just not worth the hassle and space.
Re:I think you are correct. (Score:2)
Yeah, if you think $0.50 is a lot of money - and I've seen that kind of pricing in quantities of a few thousand, I can only guess how low it gets if you press millions.
Perhaps you meant to include the cost of recording, mixing, mastering, graphic design, and such, but those are one-time expenditures and get spread over all the CDs, adding another fraction of a dollar to the cost (at least for major labels).
That said, you're probably right that folks would be willing to pay $0.50/song for downloads, but only if none of their friends had already downloaded it and copied it for them.
Re:I feel that this article is in error (Score:2)
Re:Wrongo. (Score:2)
Nice logic.
Re: um, no (Score:2)
sure the kids download stuff instead of buying it, but they wouldn't buy as many anyway. sure when people were introduced to napster, they downloaded tons of music. i'll bet most of it is a listened once or twice and never touched again. i wouldn't buy a cd i would only listen to once or twice.
but i have downloaded music. if i like a song or a band, i buy the cd. if i don't like it, i erase it. it's more of a try before you buy thing than not paying at all.
i hope all of the corporate propaganda tasted good when you swallowed it all.
on an aside, it would be interesting to see how the sales of blank cassette tapes have changed since the sales of blank cd media has increased. i'd like to see them compared on a minutes of storage basis, as well as dollars.
Re:Like DUH! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Like DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:silliness (Score:3, Funny)
Finally, I too have bought CD's from artists I would not have before. But I have also NOT purchased albums from artists because they sucked much harder than I thought they would. And I have 20 or 30 friends in the same boat.
Re:Slate is hardly unbiased journalizm (Score:2)
Anyone sharing Britney doesn't claim that it's their own work (who would *want* to, but that's another item).
SigmaDesigns copied code and claimed it as their own work.
See the diff?
Re:Slate is hardly unbiased journalizm (Score:2)
No, they are NOT. Stealing means depriving the original owner of the use of that material. The RIAA has a long way to go before they can make a direct link between music copying and loss of revenue. All P2P clients are doing is copying music. No more, no less. It's only in the last 100 years that artists and publishers can expect to make money while no one is physically playing their instruments.
Re:Slate is hardly unbiased journalizm (Score:5, Insightful)
No. No. No. and a final time, No. They are "infringing" -- a well-defined crime, distinct from stealing. How do I know? Leaving aside the single-user issue, let's also consider: No court anywhere has ever set up guidelines for "reasonable theft" of physical property. But for intellectual "property", the courts have -- as much as the RIAA wishes to God they hadn't -- carved out an expanse called "Fair Use", wherein use of copyrighted material without compensation is considered legal. (I am not arguing that Napster was or was not Fair Use. I am just pointing out that Fair Use exists in well-codifed law.) Likewise, real property rights don't expire. If you own a car and never ever sell it to anyone, then guess what? It's yours, forever and ever, world without end, amen. But if you publish a copyrightable item, and never ever sell a copy to anyone else, do you know what happens? Eventually your "property" rights evaporate, again without compensation... it's not a government "taking", it's the (legal) nature of the beast.
So unless you're willing to draw the analogy both ways -- that is, to allow "Fair Use" of your physical property and to recognize that your ownership is time-limited -- then stop BSing and drop the "infringement is stealing" crap.
Re:What is this slate.msn.com? (Score:3, Informative)
Slate has been around for years. Almost as long as Salon (if not longer.)
Michael Kinsley used to edit it. (The same Kinsley who used to sit off to the side of Buckley's _Firing Line_ and goad good ol' Bill with nuggets o' thought.)
Wait, if you don't know Slate, you probably have no idea who W F Buckley is either, right? Or his National Review?
Last time I saw WFB was on Charlie Rose. WFB hosting for Rose. My god. What a painful experience that was.
Anyway, do yourself a favor. Even if you think NR is fulla shit and WFB is fulla shit then hop on over to (a) Slate (occasionally), (b) National Review (occasionally), and (c) the New Republic (occasionally).
You don't need to agree with the views -- but dear god, my boy, get yourself at least a respectable smidgeon of political knowledge -- and awareness of the "standard" political rags -- so you can refrain from posting bizarre stuff like "What is this Slate thing?"
Re:What is this slate.msn.com? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think the RIAA goes far enough. I blame cassette tapes for
the 1979 oil crisis
the hostage crisis in Iran
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
and El Nino
Re:i don't believe the RIAA is so clueless.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Reminds me of Futurama with the commercials shoved into your dreams... Would the Music Industry throw you in jail if you hummed a song to work? Or dreamed about music?
As far as "loss of sales" last year.. give me a break. It was a recession. Some companies actually lost REAL sales. Not some made up, "wish we made 9 billion" dollar sales.
And believe it or not, some companies go out of business when their services are too expensive or simply suck ass. The music industry as a business shouldn't be immune to this.
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
Its not stealing in neither case (See definition's emphasis on stealing being the removal of something from its rightful owner), in the first case it would surely be copyright infringment, and in the second case, a license violation, perhaps too a copyright infringment.
As long as copyrights are used against their explicitly mentioned goal ("To Promote Science and Useful Arts") and as such have unlimited times [in practice] and do not require publishing the information (keeping programs closed, etc), they will not be honored and protected.
That is, I will not respect copyright in its current form - to make profit for the large companies that funded its legislation.
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
However, if you won't respect copyright "in its current form", how do you make the distinction between what is and isn't acceptable? (note: that *wasn't* rhetorical
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
What Napster did was "filesharing", in the traditional and well-known networking sense: A given file was placed on a network and made accessible to others on the network. Or are you morally opposed to MS Windows "share folder" mechanism, too?
Now, it's legitimate to feel that supporters of Naptser liked to use the word "fileshare" because "sharing" has such a nice connotation -- everyone's all nice and friendly and Sesame Street-like. But then, the RIAA chose "piracy" to utilize the negative connotation of the word, even though infringing a copyright is nothing at all like raping and pillaging on the high seas. But at least in Napster's case, the word has a legitimate technical meaning that is actually related to how it's being used.
If someone took GPL code but violated the license, well, that would breach-of-contract and also copyright infringement -- both well-defined crimes but neither "stealing".
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
No, it's blocked because Napster set up a service specifically designed to allow people to "share" their MP3's. You can't honestly tell me they were trying to capitalize on legal trading. There isn't (yet) much of a market for that. Same thing with AG. If Napster, AG, et al were really into legal trading, they'd make a Napster-like frontend to MP3.com.
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:3, Informative)
Except that what you describe existed a long time ago. It was a service hosted at, unsuprisingly, my.mp3.com. You could download anything from a huge library, the only catch was that before the server would give you a digital copy of your CD you had to provide it with a checksum of the data off your CD. Sure you could hack around this, but for 90% of people it meant that you had to prove you already owned it before you could download it. Legal sharing.
3 guesses what service was the first target of the RIAA, long before Napster even existed, and the first two don't count.
Re:Hypocritical bastards... (Score:2)
Re:Don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people download only. Other people download to find new music, which they then purchase. Personally I have bought a lot of CDs because I downloaded music from a band I read about first. In any case the situation is much more complex than you portray, so don't act so confused when it doesn't add up.
Re:Don't get it (Score:2)
I have never burned a single CD of music I have downloaded. In fact, every piece of music that I've downloaded and since kept have been added to my list of CDs to purchase. As many of these have been out of print for awhile and of limited quantity to begin with, that can sometimes take time. I am, however, on a complete RIAA boycott and while my CD purchases have gone up over a hundred fold in the last two years, none of it has been published by a member of RIAA.
I suspect that my actions more represent the majority than your "everybody and their dog" comment. Neither, of course, are very accurate.
Re:Napster is to blame (Score:2)
And I'll be the first to admit (well ok not likely the first) that I just don't even LISTEN TO RIAA crap.
Well, I do occasionally accidently overhear a bit of RIAA produced drudge, but it is not willingly. ^_^
Re:Boycotts ahoy (Score:2)
I haven't bought a CD from an RIAA member company since 1998. It wasn't so bad for a while, because there was an excelent independant radio station in my area (WAAF, Boston), but just over a year ago they sold the station and have been playing crap ever since*. I was pissed for a while, but I soon found that there are lots of good bands around that you and a friend can go and see play over a few beers for less then the cost of one ticket (or CD) to some "major" rock group, and the music is as good or better. The best part is, when you buy their CD you're handing cash to the artist (usually literally), not to a glorified lobying group that is trying to take away your rights.
If you don't live in an area with a good local music scene you can still find almost all of these bands on the internet. Download their songs, if you like them buy the CD, and you can go back to loving music again.
* If I turn on the radio and flip to AAF nowadays there's like a 10% chance that they'll be playing "Rooster" by Alice In Chains, a 20% chance that it'll be something by the Beastie Boys, and a 50% chance it'll be a commercial. They never play anything that's not on the 30 song long playlist on their website. I don't understand why they still have listeners.
Re:Napster to blame?! (Score:2)
And, ironically, those automatons had been trained to fanatically follow trends by none other than... the marketing army called the RIAA.
Re:Those darned stats (Score:2)
You know, just because someone's moral compass points in a different direction than your own, doesn't imply that they don't have one. But then, people who can throw around phrases and judgments like that are generally terrified by the idea that someone might believe legitimately other than them, and so must tar everyone with a broad brush. What a sad world to inhabit.
For the record, I don't download anyway. So you can just close the reply you'd opened saying "You're just trying to justify your theft."
Re:An insider's theory on falling CD sales (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was younger (back in the days before CDs up until the point where albums still outnumbered CDs in the record stores), you could buy '45s of your favorate song.
Later, while in high school, the 45s dissapeared, but you could still buy cassette singles in record stores.
Today, I don't see anyone using this. Occasionally I'll find an extended singles 'remix' CD with 4-5 different mixes of the same song, but typically at a price point I'm not willing to spend at.
So why don't the record companies, in earnest, try to revive the singles? (I do vaguely recall a few attempts at CD singles, but nothing that ever took off).
There are very few big name modern music songs I'd like to buy, but even when I do hear a catchy tune on the radio that I'd like to listen to more, I'm not going to run out and buy the record. I've been burned too many times with those seven tracks of 'filler'.
I duspute the theory your friend has too, but I can't help to think that the record companies could squeeze a few bucks more out of their artists if they sold the popular singles for $1.99 a CD.