Raising Barriers to Entry into the Music Business 272
An anonymous reader writes "MP3newswire.net has an interesting commentary, inspired it seems by the woes of the Webcasting community. Basically they are saying that the RIAA is less concerned about piracy and more about the low barrier of entry into the online music business. For example, most slashdotters right now can start their own radio streams or distribute music files for next to nothing, just download the appropriate freeware and go. Through lawsuits and the DMCA the entertainment conglomerates are trying to make such acts much more expensive. So expensive that it is no longer affordable for the "average Joe" to trade or broadcast. The article makes a good argument on how the Internet has empowered individuals and artists to affordably express themselves online, and how a threatened record industry wants to stop that." Update: 10/20 6:55pm EST by C : More news from the webcasting front can be found in the article...
Rusty reports: "Friday afternoon, the RIAA and SoundExchange announced a temporary payment plan and fee reprieve for small webcasters while congress considers legislation.. Basically, by Monday, Oct 21st, small webcasters will need to pay a $500 a year minimum fee ($2500 max). While this rate still may be a problem for hobbyist webcasters, it is lower than the $2500-$6500 minimum that HR5469 called out.
From the RIAA's SoundExchange site:
This still provides no relief for Live365, although their appeal hasn't been heard yet.""Any webcaster that qualifies as an 'eligible small webcaster' under H.R. 5469 will not be required to pay on October 20 the per performance (.0762 cents) royalties otherwise due under the Librarian of Congress' decision of July 8, 2002.
Instead, by October 21st, these eligible small webcasters may instead pay only the $500 annual minimum fee set by the Librarian of Congress for each year or portion thereof they have been in operation since 1998 (a maximum of $2500) until this Congress has had the opportunity to act on the pending legislation."
Ann Gabriel writes the following in response to Rusty's report from our last article on webcasting:
Brian Hurley of Detroit Industrial also had his response to Rusty's words from that article.It appears that the message being sent to me in the response by SOMA FM's Rusty is that since HR 5469 does not directly affect me, I should sit quietly by and watch this travesty play itself out without saying anything.
What happened with HR 5469 directly affects EVERYONE is the webcasting community and to pretend otherwise is a joke.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that a group of people set out to negotiate a private deal for themselves intending to save themselves from the retroactive royalties that will come due on October 20, 2002.
But there is something horribly wrong with the FACT that what began as a private negotiation ended up being turned into a piece of legislation forced as a yolk around the necks of people who had no say in the matter.
I am tired of being asked as a member of the webcasting industry to accept something so horribly wrong just because some people think this deal was "the best they could get."
To sit by and accept the events that led up to the negotiations and the formation of the actual bill language is something I cannot do.
To me it would be like being invited over to lunch and expecting to eat Chicken Salad - and then being served Chicken S**t. There might be a large portion of the webcasting community who can stomach that, but I can't.
The RIAA never had any intention of dealing fairly, honestly and respectfully with the webcasting industry. Those that sat down privately to negotiate a deal for themselves did so in their own best interest and for their own individual reasons. I don't believe there was anything wrong with that.
But when the self-serving agenda of a few becomes something that is foisted upon the community as a whole, then I cannot, must not and will not stand by and accept such an American Injustice.
It is patently clear to me that the IWA and the VOW are separate organizations. To that end if you read my open letter carefully you will see that I point out the deal was NOT negotiated on behalf of the IWA and it's members, of which I was one until last week.
Just because people are claiming right now that HR 5469 in its present form will not really hurt the industry does not mean that is the truth. The only entity that HR 5469 helps is the RIAA and it is a sad truth that they care nothing about the industry they are destroying.
Ann Gabriel
Gabriel Media Inc.
In case you haven't had a chance, here's the latest article from The Register on the state of HR5469 as it was introduced to the Senate, earlier this week. And as a bit of a wrap up to this roller coaster week, this Reuter's article serves to provide a nice summary of the situation so far.
RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Prices from local media play (shitty pop stuff, I know):
Avril Lavigne - Let Go - 14 dollars
Linkin Park - Reanimation - 14 dollars
James Taylor - October Road - 14 dollars
Santana - Shaman - 15 dollars
Less popular, though better, stuff:
Angel's Egg - Gong - 13 dollars
Erpland - Ozric Tentacles - 13 dollars
Close To The Edge - Yes - 13 dollars
Leftoverture - Kansas - 11 dollars
And so on and so forth. If you want to make a case against the RIAA, by all means, do so. But please stop artificially inflating CD prices. It just hurts ones credibility, in the end.
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
Here in holland it used to be 45 guilders and thus now 22 Euros...which in return is about 21,50 Dollars..
And no, that's not because I live in some shitthole, but that's everywhere!
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Informative)
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Informative)
If I were to go to any of the major reatil outlets here and buy a regular CD (not on sale, not part of a specially reduced back catalog series), yes, it would cost me $17.99 or $18.99 pre-tax. Prices get a little better if you visit a more independently minded retailer [othermusic.com], but the selection sometimes suffers. (Stocked titles are often more ecletic, and if your idea of "eclectic" doesn't match the owner's idea of "eclectic", yer out of luck.)
I wouldn't presume to say that the Big Apple is an accurate representation of the music market as a whole, but those prices the parent mentioned are indeed a reality for those of us in urban markets.
Re:RIAA (Score:2)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
Allow me to recommend perusing some of Moses Avalon's [mosesavalon.com] books, which spell out the whole deal in detail on how royalties are computed.
Notable details include: if it's on CD, royalties are 75% because CDs are "new media". If it sells for 80% of full retail ($18) or less, you lose 50% because it's mid-tier (if it sells in bargain bins, you get nothing per unit). If it sells over the Internet, there's a 25% levy for a wire cost.
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
The parents parent was refering to "artists' royalties" which can be nothing (or less in some cases). A famouse example, the "Dixie Chicks" getting less than $1M on over $200M sales. That's less than a half-penny on the dollar.
Re:RIAA (Score:2)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Informative)
Prices (Score:3, Insightful)
In Sweden and the UK (the only two nations in which I know the price situation) $18 is definately not much for a CD.
Although RIAA is a US organization, their pricing affects the rest of the world too...
Re:What the hell? (Score:2, Informative)
When will you learn, things are cheaper in Canada!
Some of what you say is true, for example automobiles are far cheeper in Canada than they are in the US. For example you can buy a Honda Civic for 18 grand CDN, whereas in the states it goes for around 15 grand. Obviously not inline with the exchange rate of 1.5 cdn to 1 usd...
Unfortunatly, in Canada you'll be lucky to find a new artist for less that 20 dollars. As for old stuff, crappy stuff like the proclaimers or abba go for 15 dollars, whereas quality stuff like say the rolling stones can go for 25-30, and I have seen CDs for 40... all canadian dollars. The point is some things are cheeper in Canada, however CDs are more or less the same price.
As I side note, remember when records were like 8 bucks?
Re:RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
explains it (Score:2, Insightful)
What about music I create?! (Score:2)
I can understand (a little) if these fees are for paying the RIAA when you play THEIR music, but what about my own. Is this not a violation of free speech? Why should I have to pay to play my music? How is it any different then me playing my music to my friends in my living room, except in this case my friends are in another state thru an internet connection?
duh? (Score:5, Interesting)
i really came to understand just how much power we have (and how little they do) when my father suggested the industry was going to develop a new medium and that CDs would be obsolete, i rebutted: "well, the RIAA may make something new, maybe even better - but CDs won't die easily. anyone can publish their own music, now, at a nominal cost..."
they have lost the power because they lost the monopoly. and they're scared as hell. that seems to be typical in many industries now...
Re:duh? (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be clear to everyone, but people forget quickly. Just as people consider it a new and shocking claim that the US's war in Iraq has something to do with oil.
Prevention? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm overestimating the intelligence of the public, but if technology exists today that enables people to trade and distribute information freely (music, in this case), and such technology is in use literally everywhere you look, how can you really stop that? Even if you implement some new technology that enables you to stop the exchange, the old systems are still out there.
I don't see how the RIAA can really stop Joe Musician from burning his own CDs and selling them through his webpage. The best they can hope for is to criminalize it, right? Wouldn't it just go 'underground' like software piracy at that point?
=Smidge=
Re:Prevention? (Score:5, Interesting)
He is not interested in fighting Napster or Kazaa, as most of the songs you find there are MP3s in the 128 bitrate area - real fans aren't satisfied with them. To win the piracy, he simply sets the price of his records to a half or a third of other companies. As people see this as a fair price, they are willing to pay for it and support the artist.
Now his label is promoting new artists, who wouldn't have a chance in the big, payola driven, record companies.
Re:Prevention? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what needs to happen elsewhere! This is where artists need to go - direct to thier listeners.
If I had the business smarts/time/money, I think I'd start a company that did one thing only - helped artists go direct to the public like this guy did. Help them set up a web site that provided thier listeners with such services as:
- buy pre-made CD
- burn tracks direct
- special recordings (my wife would flip if I got Creed to sing a song just for her - worth mucho $ to me)
- lots of other cool stuff
(Sorry - I have to...
- ????
- Profit!!!!)
I'd also provide the promotion needed to get people to the site. You would then be certain that your money is going to the artist in question, not some (In My Humble Opinion)looney executive's [riaa.org] pocket.
There are other hurdles to clear - radio play being a major obstacle - but I bet it would work.
Soko
Re:Prevention? (Score:2)
Sounds like you're looking for something like The Orchard [theorchard.com].
[TMB]
Re:Prevention? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it'll not be as much huge monatry like the record companies make, but more like emotional profit. Both the artist and the people profit.
The artist doesn't need to work too much to create an album and distribute it (except for the actual musical work, ofcourse)
The customer gets to listen to many different artists at a reasonable price.
Both not feeling ripped-off.
Re:Prevention? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's a related point: independent artists won't need RADIO anymore either. And if enough ears go elsewhere, that means radio won't draw the big advertising bucks anymore. This in turn will impact how much it's worth to buy air time for any given song. After a certain point, the entire current system could become untenable.
There are a lot of layers of financial interests here, but they do all boil down to *controlling the distribution channels*, which in turn controls where the money flows. (Which I've been saying every time this topic rolls thru Slashdot. And now some news organ picks up the story? Obviously they've infringed my copyright!
If CD's cost $5... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you could buy the CD at full quality for $5, why would you bother downloading an mp3 with a much lower quality sound?
The only way the record industry is going to survive is if they realize that they need to provide a BETTER SERVICE at a LOWER PRICE, instead of relying on LAWSUITS for their existence.
Most people trading MP3's can afford the $1500 computer to do so - and they could also afford all the $5 CD's they could possibly want.
Re:Prevention? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yes. Pandora's box is already open and the winds of change are blowing. No matter how big an ass RIAA has (is?), it's too late to sit on this.
What I really hate is the amount of consumers' money that is being expended to postpone the inevitable. I would like to see tech companies dreaming up cool new things, rather than concentrating on complicated DRM technologies will be DOA. I definately don't want to pay a tax that goes to support a dying industry.
Well, DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
The only good thing to come out of all this is that if they continue their currect practises, they'll render themselves irrelevant...
Backwards! (Score:5, Insightful)
from their side, hell yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good grief. It's obvious to me, if you have a business model based on total control, and something comes along to challenge that control, you do one of three things:
Adapt
Squelch competition in any manner necessary
Die
Of course, it causes much pain and suffering on the parts of the musicians, the djs, and last but not least, Mr Average Pete. (Joe gets too much credit)
Raising barriers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a shock. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I disagree with the first thesis of the article on face. The RIAA could not give two shits less where their fees come from. I promise you, if Satan himself (the real one, not Hillary Rosen) were to bring them a business plan, they'd jump on it. So, why do they care about the startup costs of traditional, "terrestrial" radio stations? They don't. They just want to receive money whenever "their" music is played. They don't care if it's net stream, radio, or on TV commercials. Say what you want about the RIAA (and you can start by saying they're rat-bastard pieces of shit), but one thing they're not about is caring who it is that gives them money.
This whole article reads like it was written for the back of a cereal box.
Re:Well, there's a shock. (Score:5, Insightful)
Executives in the RIAA know how to make the former type of deal. What they are not dealing with well is the idea of having to deal with thousands of companies (perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands) all of whom are going to want their personal perspectives considered when it comes time to pay up.
The article states that: "...cheap and easy distribution of media devalues the obsolete distribution methods they make their fortunes on." and this applies equally well to the royalty collection practice. If the RIAA cannot take advantage of the economies of scale offered by large scale distributers (radio/retail et al.) they risk being sucked into a system that may cost them as much to administer as they stand to make from it.
Re:Well, there's a shock. (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't understand. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well, there's a shock. (Score:2)
And as we are happily chitt-chatting, RIAA is coming up with schemes where they can rent music in digital form, which expires or just can't be played on unauthorized equipment. RIAA is coming up with ways to rent you music, where your freedom will be even more controlled.
Whatever you call it.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If some new means of distributing content would hurt the bottom line of the RIAA and may not be legal, in our adversarial capitalist world it's the RIAA's job to try to squash the new means, the new mean's job to fight back, and for the courts to decide where the line should be drawn given the ultimate goal of the granted-not-natural right of copyright to encourage the creation of useful arts for generations to come.
Small business argument... (Score:2, Informative)
The Internet Is Great For Musicians (Score:5, Informative)
Not just Kazaa/"pirate" sites... regular web too (Score:3, Interesting)
good example are the Ex-Models and SICK FM. (NJ's own!)
While googling "The Idea of North" (a dope shellac track, I wanted to find out what it was about) I found the Ex-Models "The idea of Peter North"- dl'd all their stuff from mp3.com, and loved it. THrough them I found out about Sick FM.
Oh, RE: prince's last announcement- someone de-133t'd it on slashdot- (they just s/3133t/elite/g for every annoying word) it was a little over blown but held some interesting points that no one can disagree with: Creativity
Big_Corporations
non-RIAA music (Score:5, Interesting)
what i'm interested in is what RIAA could due to make this impossible, because this is something that will weaken RIAA in the long run.
put another way, what can RIAA do to prevent non-RIAA music from becoming more and more popular?
Re:non-RIAA music (Score:3, Informative)
Please, name some.
Somebody below posted www.rantradio.com which plays non-RIAA industrial.
Time to vote with your $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
Creating your own music or 'net radio station hasn't gotten any harder. This is simply new incentive to dump mass-produced drivel right where it belongs.
(crinkle, crinkle, STUFF)
Re:Time to vote with your $$$ (Score:2, Interesting)
If CON is the opposite of PRO, Shoudn't that
make CONgress the opposite of PROgress?
The Ball is in our Court (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't see why it would be so hard to set up a net radio station and say "send us your music under a licence that allows it and we'll play it". Frankly, if somebody could post a link of a net station doing that right now, I'd be listening too it.
People out there need to stop whining about how evil the RIAA is, that is old news. Just make, play, and listen to free music. That's all it takes.
Re:The Ball is in our Court (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to get this straight. I've been told a number of contradicting things here. Some folks say that they CAN hit you for webcasting fees, whether or not you have permission from the copyright holders. Some folks say they can't do it justly, but they can harass you.
This has come up a fair bit in the context of a discussion inside of a non-profit musician's organization I work with. We actually get booking at a chain of bookstores (Border's) because our members do original music... presto, no ASCAP dues! But we're not certain we're on totally solid ground...
Re:The Ball is in our Court (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can publish for free if you have the permission of the copyright holder. Since every original thing you say is copyrighted, to suppose otherwise would say you have to pay fees to talk.
In fact, the fees are proportional to the number of ASCAP song listenings, so if that number is zero, then the fees are zero. If they hassle you, send them a check for $0.
An OT story, regarding 0$ cheques.. (Score:3, Funny)
A person's credit card was charged for 0$. Since it's 0$ he didn't "pay" it.
A month later, he recieves a warning "pay or we take measures".
Again, he thought it's BS. A month later they limited his account.
He got pissed and did what they asked. He wrote them a cheque (or was it a bank transfer?) of 0$...
A few days later they called him, furious, and said that sending 0$ made them system crash and caused major problems to their database
So sending 0$ might actually prove useful!
www.rantradio.com (Score:5, Interesting)
And they are always looking for new things.
MORE LIKE THIS!! (Score:2)
I'm listening to it right now in XMMS. We need **"MORE LIKE THIS"**. (Anybody got other ones?) I love their slogan
Folks, this is the path. Stop trying to coexist with the RIAA and start ignoring them. Build a system that works the way we want.
stream offshore? (Score:4, Interesting)
Dinosaurs Will Die (Score:5, Interesting)
Sit back watch it crumble, see the drowning watch the fall
I feel just terrible about it, that's sarcasm, let it burn
I'm gonna make at toast when it falls apart
I'm gonna raise my glass above my heart
Then someone shouts that's what they get!
For all the years of hit and run for all the piss broke bands on VH one
Where did all their money go? Don't we all know?
Parasitic music industry as it destroys itself
We'll show them how it's supposed to be
Music written from devotion not ambition, not for fame
Zero people are exploited there are no tricks up our sleeve
Were gonna fight against the mass appeal
Were gonna kill the seven record deal
Make records that have more then one good song
The dinosaurs will slowly die and I do believe no one will cry
I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be there to watch the fall
Prehistoric music industry three feet in la brea tar
Extinction never felt so good
If you think anyone will feel badly you are sadly mistaken
The time has come for evolution, fuck collusion, kill the big five
What ever happened to the handshake?
whatever happened to deals no one would break?
whatever happened to integrity?
It's still there, it always was for playing music just because
A million reasons why all dinosaurs must (will) die !!!!
Replace the word "music" with "software..." (Score:5, Interesting)
They Must Be Right (Score:3, Funny)
Freedom of Expression = sharing of ideas
Therefore, freedom of expression = evil
Patriotic Americans should oppose evil.
Therefore, go RIAA!
That opinion piece isn't very clear... (Score:5, Informative)
Just glancing at stuff, a very disturbing aspect of the bill is that for an individual webcaster, it defines as "gross revenues" to include any revenue from media, entertainment, Internet or wireless business where the individual owns more than %5. I don't really know, if this is how it works, but if Joe Blow owns a computer consulting company doing wireless installs, (or hell has 5% of it), and he streams mp3s somewhere, does he have to pay licensing and royalty fees on the revenues of his business?!?!?!?
Looks like Gephardt and some other Democrats opposed [house.gov] it.
It All Started With Punk! (Score:5, Interesting)
Punk bands were recording tracks onto 2 track tape in their bedrooms and pressing up a few hundred 7"s to sell. The costs were low and there was a huge explosion in musical diversity. Then.... it all kinda went away for a bit, suddenly synth bands were everything and synths cost a load of money, production values went up again and the music business regained some control over what was getting released. But... the computer technology that was so expensive in the early 80's obeyed Moore's law and the gear came down in price quickly. By '86 we start to see the first house records coming out of chicago. Artists would create reel to rell versions of their latest productions to try out live, then they'd tweak it until it was time to press up some vinyl.
Then it crossed the atlantic and the UK rave scene suddenly grew up out of bedroom acts. Orbital talk about producing 'Chime' for the cost of a high quality blank tape. Anyone doing electronic music could sidestept eh expensive recording studios, press up a few hundred 12" records and have an underground hit. As time went on the electronic tools got better and better, and the producers got better too, expanding the range of music coming out of their bedroom studios.
Then we have the advent of the recordable CD and variable pitch CD players, now you didn;t even need to press up 12"s or carry around tapes which had a habit of getting chewed up (the first acid house record famously got destroyed by the tape machine - 'Acid Trax' originally had a vocal, but that version was lost). About the same time the internet really got going and people began sharing mp2's on download sites so people could get hot tracks without waiting for them to be released. Later mp3 came along with better sound quality and smaller file sizes.
The music industry of course ignored all this, except for the occasional crossover electronic track used in commercials.
In november '97 I released mp3serv - the first live microcasting radio system, it was a bitch to setup, but a few people used it to do live radio from PC's. A year later Shoutcast brought the concept to windows PC's. Then web services like myplay made radio possible using nothing more than a web browser.
Barriers to entry are always getting knocked down, technology is really good at solving some types of problem.
Re:It All Started With Punk! (Score:3, Informative)
Chris
Re:It All Started With Punk! (Score:2)
Good Gawd they're boring
Art (Score:5, Insightful)
But art needs to be public in my opinion.
If something like the RIAA existed 1000 years ago think of where music would be now.
Art is inspired by art.
I say this with a grain of salt as I like to call myself an artists of several mediums. But the only truely original artist was that caveman who first smeared his shit on the wall, or the first to beat the ground with a bone in a rythm. The rest of us have all been inspired by some form of art whether we admit it or not.
My point is that the more art is stifled the less art evolves.
Just my opinion
indy (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like more of the same (Score:2)
What it all boils down to is that the recording and movie industries are reaping the benefits of digital technologies (ease of duplication, ease of manipulation, ease of distribution, fidelity of media) and then working their hardest to deny those benefits to everyone else (ease of storage, duplication, reproduction, transport esp. networked transport, etc).
I won't even go into their 'right to virus' and 'p2p hax0rama' efforts...
Recommendations for books to take as ones own. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what books you have read but I urge you to read the following two books. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them and I plan to re-read them as soon as my friends return my copies back to me:
Around February 2003 you should be able to find Vaidhyanathan's new book The Anarchist in the Library (ISBN 0465089844) in hardcover. Given how approachable and clearly written Copyrights and Copywrongs is, I fully expect Anarchist in the Library to be worth everyone's while.
Lessig's book is the more scholarly of the two, but that takes away nothing from Vaidhyanathan's excellent book. I would not hesitate to cite, quote, and paraphrase from both of them in any research paper.
In case you're not familiar with Vaidhyanathan and Lessig check out Siva Vaidhyanathan's brief interview [slashdot.org] on Slashdot a while back. Lawrence Lessig's name might be more familiar as the lawyer who argued Eldred v. Ashcroft [eldred.cc] before the US Supreme Court on the side of Eric Eldred. Lessig has also done a Slashdot interview [slashdot.org].
Simple... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it makes it more difficult from someone to trade or broadcast material that is controlled by the RIAA. It doesn't hinder "average Joe" from broadcasting material of his own creation, nor material created by other that "average Joe" has been given permission to distribute.
If "average Joe" wants to broadcast my music, he can damn well pay me for it. If he doesn't want to pay the prices, according to the value I put on my music, he should make his own or find cheaper content.
Re:Simple... (Score:3, Informative)
Even with things like microphones, the price seems to increase by 4x between the highest grade "consumer" item and the lowest grade "pro" item (sometimes the consumer item is actually HIGHER quality). The effect, whether intentional or not, is lifting the barrier of entry.
Re:Simple... (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that if I were to webcast only myself talking into a microphone I would have to pay $500 per year to the RIAA and keep records of who listened for how long. This does seriously hinder the distribution of material outside the control of the RIAA, even when done with the permission of the creator.
Really nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, in 1985, I wrote a piece for Rolling Stone about a company, Personics, that had a system that would allow people to make custom audio cassettes at high quality and speed in music stores. People loved it because it was what they were doing ANYWAY -- making tapes of their favorite songs in the order they wanted. But the record companies used their control of music copyrights to deny Personics access to popular music. And this was in spite of the fact that it partially solved the enormous cost of returns from music stores (50 percent) and the lost sales when sudden hits weren't in stock (and most hits are sudden hits).
Here we are 17 years later and they're still abusing copyright to control distribution of music. Personic's founder had a good idea -- create a compulsory license for music distribution, similar to the one that exists for music performance.
Nick
The new music industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Now is the time when we should be paying close scrutiny to the RIAA however, since instead of bowing to market (consumer) pressures, they are hellbent on strongarming everything that comes in between them and their fiefdom.
I look forward to the day when all of the media cartels have fallen, and the sham that is hollywood swirls (counterclockwise) into the shitter.
This keeps coming up. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an glimmer of truth to the article's line of argument but, the low cost and ease of publishing by the internet has long been touted as one of its major advantages. To an extent it certainly is true, the internet does empower the "little man". But, there is much more to it and Slashdotters seem unwilling to acknowledge this.
The fact is that publishers of art, specifically musicians need more than an inexpensive distribution channel. They need two other things, talent and, more so, marketing.
I'm sure that there are numerous extremely talented musicians out there that we will never hear of and it has nothing to do with the RIAA controlling streaming. Their obscurity will be because they lack a powerful marketing arm promoting their work. This marketing power is what the RIAA members or recording labels provide. Without the marketing power of the labels almost all musicians will fade into obscurity regardless of what distribution channels are available to them.
Regardless of anyone's willingness to accept this fact it is clearly born out today. For the past 5 to 10 years musicians have had the ability to publish and distribute their productions at a very low cost. Yet, there has yet to be a single artist who has achieved wide-spread popularity or fame through these channels.
Conversely, there are countless "artists", that are household names today, who haven't even a smidgen of talent. There are dozens of Top 10 performers that would still be growing corn in Kansas or washing cars in London if it weren't for the powerful marketing of the big labels.
Now be honest, could the Spice Girls have sold any significant number of albums had they gone it on their own and distributed through the internet? Would Brittney be flashing her belly button for Pepsi or, would she be doing Country & Western in some sleazy dive in Ohio for $8 an hour?
Re:This keeps coming up. (Score:2)
I dunno. Try some of those sites for unsigned musicians. Most of them suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This keeps coming up. (Score:5, Insightful)
Counterexample: Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park [comedycentral.com]. Their fame was earned by a single, badly-digitized QuickTime movie called The Spirit of Christmas that got copied all over the Internet. In the span of a few months, Comedy Central offered them a deal.
It's probably also worth pointing out that Parker and Stone didn't digitize or upload the QuickTime file themselves. One of the recipients of their original VHS tape did it. So Parker and Stone's wild success proceeded from a massive case of unsanctioned copying (or, to use the misleading slang term, "piracy").
Schwab
Obscurity? Kind of... (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth is that we don't NEED to all be listening to the same people. I really enjoy listening to my friends do their things. And I enjoy singing with them. Can you say that you've sung with your favorite artists?
Perhaps the problem is that you equate fame with musicianship. I don't think we should have famous singers at all - at least not because of marketing. There are a few singers who worked their way to the top by playing and clubs and bars first (Jewel comes to mind).
There is one thing that should remain, I think: famous songwriters - it takes a lot more talent to write a song than it does to sing/play it, and the average minstrel can't pull it off.
There a plenty of songs that have found their way into the mainstream over the centuries without any known channel of distribution. I won't cite incredibly modern examples, because recently we have a lot more advertising, but here are few one hit wonders that have run their course on word of mouth alone: the Kookaburra Song (Austrialian folk song, now popular worldwide), Danny Boy (American song set to Irish tune).
Flawed (Score:2)
Mainstream labels market their artists. They don't rely on people digging for research on Shoucast to get the word out about a new band or album. They put the word in everybody's face, whether they like it or not.
The labels advertise with giant posters and billboards, everywhere. They get radio stations to play the songs incessantly, via payola or some other arm twisting or back scratching. The labels advertise on television. They make deals with the movie studios (sometimes the same people) to use and promote the artist in movies. They arrange and further promote concert tours.
When a label decides to promote a new artist, it is an all out media blitz. Everyone is going to see it, regardless of whether they want to or not, regardless of whether they think the music is great or sucks!
When an independent puts up a web site on some obscure corner of the internet, hardly anyone ever sees it and no one notices when it dies shortly there after.
Up and Coming musicians (Score:4, Interesting)
Contradictions in the Arguement (Score:3, Interesting)
The 'barrier' seems to be in place when people want to put up Web broadcasting sites and use the mass marketed pabulum music. Which is NOT the music made by the independent musicians.
It always seems to revolve around a 'gimmie gimme' attitude that people seem to think they have the right to broadcast music made by artists whose permission they do not have, nor do they care if they have.
If you're going to build your alternative music industry, stop trying to play Brittney on it. It's really that simple.
Funny tidbits... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is also another quote by her that went something like 'When am I getting my check from napster?' but I can't find where I read it...
The RIAA helps make software more robust (Score:5, Interesting)
The death of Napster-style centralized p2p lead to the dominance of Kazaa-style distributed p2p, and the death of traditional streaming will lead to the dominance of distributed p2p streaming [peercast.org].
Please take some time to write the RIAA and thank them for their support in advancing the state of the art in free content distribution.
RIAA != The Music Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'd like to broadcast releases to which I own the rights, more power to you.
If you run a broadcaster and the RIAA is all up in your face, I encourage you to just stop playing releases from RIAA member labels.
The cost of entry to the music business is in fact lower then ever. Todays home studio is able to do what 10 years ago was the stuff of wet dreams. Plus CD reproduction costs are lower then ever. You can start an record label for less then $5k these days, I'm living proof.
Re:RIAA != The Music Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
The webcasters will in any case be burdened by the obligation of keeping an exact log of anything they broadcast. Not easy as it sounds. Think about a live webcast from a club when the DJ himself has no idea where the f**k half the tunes in his mix are coming from. There is an urgent need for a system to track and propagate anti-RIAA licenses embedded in the music files.
But more important, the legal system on copyright is now based on a presumption of guilt. And that, my friend, is wrong, plain wrong.
It's evolution baby.... (Score:2, Interesting)
And for those of you that like to throw this "artists must be paid" mantra around....DEFINE Artist for us all before you start slinging around ill conceived opinions.
I would argue that PERFORMERS should be paid, the product at issue with the RIAA vs. internet users is information, we're not even talking about a nicely printed album inserta with lyrics and snazzy cover art, which in it's own right deserves a few pennies.
Information control will only become more difficult as technology progresses, the RIAA would be better off adapting rather than resisting, but this is one dog that just isn't learning any new tricks. I'm still AMAZED that they have not yet jumped on the biggest internet bus of all - that of MISinformation. I could digress, but maybe I shouldn't hand them the control they want without a price;)
similar to MS strategies (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyways, I asked him once what he thought of the whole palladium issue, and he said that the best way to tell anything that Microsoft is going to do is simply to see what could earn them the most money. Just follow the trail, and you can pretty much figure out exactly what business strategy they're going to take.
As obvious as that is, people tend to classify big market forces such as the RIAA and Microsoft as giant evil entities set on destroying all competition, crushing the human spirit of independence, and so forth. All the RIAA really wants is just to net its investors as much money as possible. Making it harder for webcasters to startup is a two edged sword; this will give the RIAA et al the power to control the future of internet radio, and thus, the type of music that people will be able to readily hear on the internet. It's all about market control, and it seems to me that the RIAA just wants to clear out the battlefield before they get involved in this particular arena.
Hrm...don't see how this is legal... (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA, too stupid to live. (Score:2, Interesting)
Price comparison is disingenuous (Score:2)
The "hundreds of thousands of dollars" versus "thirteen year old's allowance" comparison is bordering on an outright lie.
I'm no expert, but I'm sure the biggest piece of the radio station cost would be the "staff, management, DJs, and [...] sales personnel". You could theoretically try and run a radio station without all these people. But it would show in the quality of your product.
Similarly, if you ran an internet radio station all by yourself, the quality of your product would suffer in just the same way as for a conventional radio station. But the article implies that you could do it just as well.
Finally, unless he's suggesting that all internet radio stations should borrow equipment from their parents, the cost of a computer alone would probably take it outside the realm of a "thirteen year old's allowance."
My music is here (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a thing the RIAA can do about it. And that's the answer - you don't want them to control it? Easy - don't use music that they control.
Cheers,
Ian
Piracy != "breaking into the music business" (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to break into the music business, then create something of your own. Want to give that away? Go for it -- it's your right to do so if you choose, and the world will be a slightly better place for it. Share your work via P2P networks; set up your own Net radio stream so people can hear your work. That is legitimately "breaking into the music business", and do you want to know something? The RIAA can't do a thing to stop you.
You people buy music? (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA charges a broadcaster for the right to distribute their music by RF, IP or whatever -- so when it arrives on my TV, radio or computer then it's already been paid for.
Bearing this in mind, I simply capture and record the music I want onto CDR (MPEG-1 is fine) and also rip the audio tracks to MP3 format.
My library of music is not as large as some -- but it contains all of the chart-music I like and it has only cost me a few $ for CDRs.
If the RIAA or whoever, doesn't want me recording this stuff then don't broadcast it.
Hell, I've got a great collection of stuff in MPEG and MP3 format -- and I've never ever used Napster, Kazza or any of the other P2P networks -- it all just arrives by RF, delivered by broadcasters who have paid the royalties.
If the RIAA demand their right to earn money from broadcasts but still condemn my recording activities then they should sanction those in their own ranks (such as Sony) who aid and abet people like myself by selling us mini-Disk players/media, audio cassette players/media, VCRs/media, CD burners, etc.
Perhaps the bottom line is that the recording industry is trying to make a huge fortune from a product that is really only worth a small one. Of course to do that, you must have a monopoly, charge more than the product is really worth, and preferably -- charge multiple times for the same service/product.
The current situation (regarding broadcast and bitching about piracy) is somewhat akin to handing a child some candy and then slapping them upside the head for eating it.
It seems that the RIAA wants its cake, eat it, and then eat it again -- all at our expense.
Re:You people buy music? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, I buy music. For example, last night I went to a relatively new bar/music place in Baltimore called The Talking Head. My friend Matt Dahl was playing, as well as a band called Soltero who had been recommended to me by another band I like (The Beatings, when I saw them about 2 weeks ago, also at The Talking Head).
Anyway, I liked Soltero, and bought their CD for $10. I don't buy so very much music, since I'm constantly under a flood of music to review for the radio station, but when I do buy music, it's always like this: from bands that are going out there, writing great songs, and driving around in their own cars to play them for small crowds in strange cities. They obviously care about what they're doing, and it shows in the music. They get all of my $10, and they deserve it.
R.I.P. icecast (Score:2, Informative)
Sad.
The little guys are knocked off.
The RIAA is screwed (Score:2)
The RIAA is screwed because the artists have come up with a better business model. One that puts money in THEIR pockets not the RIAAs and the managers and producers and other parasites sucking the life out of the artists.
Many million record seling artists are still perfoming not because they want to but because they HAVE to.
Would they qualify as a Monopoly? (Score:2)
Their very ( admitted ? ? ) foundation is to have total control, in the disguise as 'for the musicians'.
Would this qualify them as a predatory monopoly and be subect to governmental intervention?
Or am i just dreaming.. considering they are that the point where they are excempt. ( like other larger coporations we know )
Small webcasters are acting foolishly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Killing HR5469 won't mean that both sides go back to the bargaining table to negociate a new deal. The RIAA had little reason to negociate HR5469 in the first place. They only did it because they saw it as a PR win due to the negative publicity stirred up by webcasters like SomaFM. Since webcasters came to the table with very little to offer the RIAA, HR5469 basically represents what the RIAA was willing to give up. If that means the smallest webcasters are SOL, then there was basically no posibility that they wouldn't be. Opposing the bill is basically just sour grapes that those large enough to be helped by HR5469 will be able to continue to operate legally.
Let me respond point by point to the letter posted above:
"What happened with HR 5469 directly affects EVERYONE is the webcasting community and to pretend otherwise is a joke."
This is true. While small webcasters will not be directly affected by HR5469, if the bill isn't passed, the mid-level webcasters without pockets deep enough to pay CARP fees will go away. Then who will be left to oppose the RIAA and fight for the small webcasters? No one. The RIAA will have no one left who is organized enough to lobby against them. Small webcasters like to make it seem like HR5469 is exactly what medium-sized webcasters wanted. This is completely false. There is specific language in HR5469 that says that that the agreement is *not* voluntary and has been forced upon them by the RIAA. HR5469 is a first step, but there might not be any further steps if it doesn't pass.
"But there is something horribly wrong with the FACT that what began as a private negotiation ended up being turned into a piece of legislation forced as a yolk around the necks of people who had no say in the matter."
On the contrary, the yoke you're feeling is the DMCA. You're free to ignore HR5469 completely if you so choose. The only difference HR5469 has is that it gives you the option of paying $500/year instead of the outlandish per listener charges imposed by CARP.
"I am tired of being asked as a member of the webcasting industry to accept something so horribly wrong just because some people think this deal was "the best they could get."
Ok, so you try getting something better from the RIAA. You hire a lawyer/lobbiest to negociate a deal. Saying that this isn't the best deal that could be gotten is disingenuous and assumes that there was good faith on the part of the RIAA to find a solution that would be acceptable to small webcasters. I think most of
"To me it would be like being invited over to lunch and expecting to eat Chicken Salad - and then being served Chicken S**t. There might be a large portion of the webcasting community who can stomach that, but I can't."
On the contrary, you were told that you can eat the leftovers if you so choose. You're getting free food...it's entirely your choice whether to eat it or not. So you're hungry...but that isn't the fault of the people who gave you the leftovers.
"The RIAA never had any intention of dealing fairly, honestly and respectfully with the webcasting industry. Those that sat down privately to negotiate a deal for themselves did so in their own best interest and for their own individual reasons. I don't believe there was anything wrong with that."
Exactly. The RIAA has never intended to make it possible for very small webcasters to operate legally. The fact that the mid-level webcasters sat down and hammered out a deal with the RIAA that would allow them to continue to broadcast can only be seen as a good thing. For the most part, these webcasters are not faceless corporations who only care about their own existance. They are labors of love who will continue to fight for the rights of the smaller webcasters. To silence them will mean that there will be no one left to negociate with the RIAA.
"But when the self-serving agenda of a few becomes something that is foisted upon the community as a whole, then I cannot, must not and will not stand by and accept such an American Injustice."
Again, I challenge you to show that anything has or will be "foisted upon" you by HR 5469. You're free to go by the CARP regulations if you so choose. Please show how the agenda of the webcasters who negotiated this deal has hurt your situation (and you might try using an actual argument instead of just spouting rhetoric.)
"Just because people are claiming right now that HR 5469 in its present form will not really hurt the industry does not mean that is the truth. The only entity that HR 5469 helps is the RIAA and it is a sad truth that they care nothing about the industry they are destroying."
Fact: if HR 5469 does not pass, any webcaster that has any voice in Washington will stop broadcasting (aside from the large corporations unaffected by HR 5469.) You're right that the RIAA doesn't care. But shutting down the only people with a voice loud enough to make the RIAA take notice is misguided, short-sighted and foolish.
This whole "rift" in the webcasting community only helps the RIAA. Webcasters should be happy and support any measure that benefits any member of their community. To do otherwise only ensures the RIAA will get their way.
This is article is so right. (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever.
It isn't about copying or piracy, it's about competition.
The tools you use to steal their content are the same tools you can use to COMPETE with their content.
They are lying when they talk about piracy. Don't talk about piracy, because if you do, then you're being reeled in by their lies. Make sure that you tell people that it's about competition, not stealing.
It's about using copyrights to hinder the progress of the sciences and useful arts by trying to take away the machines that people could use to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. They can't allow these machines to exist or else they'll make less money as people become able to compete with them on an even playing field, but with much less money.
It's about giant corporations using lies to subvert the Constitution to destroy freedom because they think that they'll make more money.
So, please don't give money to the copyright industry ever again. They won't ever stop, and they will wait as long as needed between laws, and they're willing to take steps as small as needed to get toward their goal of preventing the existence of machines that will let people compete with them.
On the subject of raised barriers... (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider:
An allegation against you, Joe Webcaster, that your site streams copyrighted material. Even though you stream music that is 100% free (or otherwise requested to be mass-distributed by whatever means), the mere allegation and C&D almost requires you to stop streaming until you can be proven innocent (I don't beleive the DMCA actually follows innocent till proven guilty). Meanwhile you are "off-the-air" until it is cleared. An obvious win for the labels, regardless of the outcome in the trial.
It would be nice to know if whether it would be considered libel for an organization to claim copyright infringement when in fact there is none... Of course, this would require that such webcasters be 100% legit, because we do know the lengths to which the RIAA will go to put someone down.
Anyway, thats my 0.02.
-Bob
Complaining about RIAA or because it's not free? (Score:3, Interesting)
Conversely, if you want to webcast music they have got their mits on, well, there's no reason you should be any different than any other radio station that has to pay royalties on it. The main difference is they advertise or hold beg-a-thons so they can pay the royalties (and for other minor things like salaries and equipment). Granted, the royalties should be scaled to the audience size, but if the rates are unreasonable, I find it really hard to believe that artists that have signed away all rights to their works to RIAA are the only ones making good music.
Webcasters need to tell RIAA to stick it, and come up with a working model that works well for good new independents looking for exposure, and by working, I mean keeps working after they're exposed so they can actually make a living from it (which I think should be easy to do if RIAA/studios are taking so much off the top). When webcasting then takes off with good new unaffiliated talent but won't air the "mainstream" artists because of the restrictive rules/pricing, I think you'll see a lot of major squawking and rewritten contracts and rules.
Re:"Expressing oneself"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but they're also trying to prevent one from self-broadcasting their *own* music; effectively saying, 'if you want your music released into the public market, it MUST go through us.'
Re:"Expressing oneself"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually it's in the bills themselves. If you read the text, there's no mention at all of an exemption from the royalties when you broadcast songs on which you hold the copyrights. The bills are written with the unstated assumption that the RIAA holds the copyrights on all songs and doesn't leave any outs for when they don't. So, any artist broadcasting their own music has to pay the royalties on every song, then go begging to the RIAA for a small slice of the money back. And if they aren't an RIAA member, they aren't entitled to the money.
Re:Freeware?? (Score:3, Informative)
Sources of Free (Open) Music (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there enough non-RIAA-ontrolled content to make web radio, son-of-napster, etc viable again?
I would suggest that such a point of viability is subjective. Someone who intends to boycott "corporate music" will perceive that viability at a much lower quantity of available work than someone who is still mostly sold on entertainment with the corporate stamp of approval.
If so, someone please post links!
The link in my .sig, to the Open Music Registry, is one starting point for you. There are hundreds of songs listed in it, all licensed with the EFF's Open Audio License. But are "hundreds" of songs "enough" to be viable for the stated purposes? (Luckily there are works licensed with similar licenses, but I don't know how many are actually available.)