The Effect of Pirated CDs 835
Moderation abuser writes "The real reasons music isn't selling as much as it used to, and not a lot to do with file sharing." I'm not sure that I agree that piracy is the reason for all of the music industry woes - I think creativity also has something to do with it, but those are still some huge numbers for pirated CDs.
I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing I read this and immediately thought, "Crime Bosses, is this going to be about Record Industry Corporate Executives?"
But in all seriousness this quote is the most telling of all:
According to the RIAA's own figures, over the last two years the US music industry has produced 25% fewer CDs.
The peak of production was in 1999 when 38,900 individual titles were released. But by 2001 this was down to 27,000. Releases grew again in 2002 but were still below the previous high.
Musician George Ziemann says if only 3,000 copies of each of the "missing" CDs were sold, the fall in sales would be wiped out.
For Mark Mulligan, an analyst with Jupiter Research, the music is weathering a hangover after the 80s and 90s boom, when everyone was buying CD versions of their old vinyl records.
"Now the CD replacement cycle has drawn to a close," he says.
Also the global decline in CD sales is taking place against the background of a general economic recession that is depressing sales of almost everything.
When is the RIAA going to address these concerns? How can keep saying it's all file sharing when it's obvious these factors come into play.
Mike
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't have to address those concerns. As long as it can buy politicians it can continue saying anything it likes.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
What has changed is quality. 10 years ago, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) technology wasn't good enough to make boob toting hacks like Britany Spears sound good. Now we are inundated with manufactured bands who don't have the quality or maturity of the groups who cut their teeth playing in local pubs to crowds of 4 people. NSYNC isn't famous because of an increasing demand of local fans. They are famous because the RIAA packaged and marketed them down the throats of the 12 to 18 demographic.
Bottom line is that the crowd with the real money (adults with real jobs) is only going to pay for something they will want to listen for a long time and "BackStreat's Back" is NOT it.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW, 10 years ago, most then-popular acts did work their way up through the "standard" channels, starting in clubs as the GP mentioned. It's right about that time, IIRC, that the record companies began to package the "Seattle sound" (eg grunge rock), and not 3-4 years later, music was back in the shitter.
My $0.02
Brandon
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems to me that there are two states of the music industry, the "creative" and the "marketed", like a yin and yang. Mostly it is run as 'marketed' but every so often (late 60s, late 70s, early 90s), the 'marketed' just gets too vapid, too crappy and the 'creative' gets a chance. After a while, the 'creative' self-destructs and the 'marketed' creeps back in.
The Cheeky Girls are a sign that we have reached so low that the 'creative' is probably around the corner.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heroin may be bad, but it sure as hell hasn't hurt my CD collection
-Bill Maher
Although I generally agree with your statement, I do have one caveat to add. Your statement is about "popular" music. That which is on major labels. I can't remember the last time I bought a record on a major label. I'm sure I've bought one or two but that's about it. But there are a TON of very good, creative bands locally in town (Seattle) and I'm sure your town has them too. A nice side benefit is that the concerts cost $5-$15, not $50-$60. Consider them the open source software of the music industry. *grin*
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing to do is to enjoy whining about it. I mean it. Back in the 80's, the Dead Kennedys told us our faults in the U.S.A. I'll excerpt from my warped memories:
When they dig this up in a thousand years
They'll either laugh or cry.
Jock-O-Rama
Save my soul.
Come lick the bu___ of the beef patrol...
Jock-O-Rama on the brain.
Redneck-athon drivin' me insane.
The future of America--leave it to them.
Watch it roll over Niagra Falls
MTV get off the air!
Is my c_ck big enough,
Is my brain small enough
For you to make me a star?
Give me a toot,
And I'll show you my soul.
Pull my (marionette) strings,
And I'll go far.
Well, chick, you're outta luck.
'Cuz I'm rollin' down the stairs,
Too drunk to...
The thing is, some of us have bragging rights. While the cute girls were happily bobbing their heads to "You spin me round round, baby, round round--like a record, baby..." (retch, retch) some of us knew that it sucked while it sucked, and some of us said so and how and why. You Brits would call us wankers as a consequence of our principled aesthetic stance. Oh well. It all comes out in the wash, huh? (snicker)
Nirvana invented pretty much nothing. When I stumbled into "...Teen Spirit" while flipping channels on TV, then I realized that not only had punk gotten self-pitiful--it had become immensely profitable. Oops. Didn't the Brits show us the debacle of that stuff with "...Bollocks"? Oh well. Everyone claimed to understand precisely this "misunderstood generation" X. Yeah. Billy Idol's old band.
Last night a little dancer, came dancing to my door. Last night a little nouveau riche, self-absorbed fella fell OD'd to the floor.
So what else is, ahem, "new"?
Next.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, what's changed is that the RIAA has spent the last 30 years buying as much influence in politics as they can. Why else would a middling-sized outfit like them be able to push around the tech industry, whose gross sales figures outstrip them nearly 10 to 1?
The RIAA is scared, plain and simple. They now see that the power to create, publish, and promote music is available to ANYONE, and when you combine that with the degeneration of television advertising as a viable income (broadcast television is almost a thing of the past), they are about to become redundant, and they have no ideas for reinventing themselves. Their choices are:
- Reinvent. Come up with a way to make money off the emerging trends in digital media, home and portable theatre, and live webcasts.
- Fire-Sale. Drop the prices on everything to the point where people will want to buy the physical media again.
- Sue. Use the political clout they've been cultivating over the years and make money by taking it from others, and stifling innovation in the process. This has worked for the oil companies for decades.
- Fade away. All the top execs have money, they could liquidate the franchises, and leave a power vacuum after they take the cash. Let artists fend for themselves (as they do anyways).
Option 3 looks like it has the best potential for short term profit and a lingering continued existance.Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of racism. People confuse what it was intended to do. It was a tool to convience your everyday European it was OK to abuse Africans. It was NOT a tool to convience Africans of their own inferiority.
The RIAA is using filesharing in the exact same way. To convience, not the file sharers, of their bad deeds, but to convience the people that the RIAA represents, that the RIAA is valuable.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, pop music was full of REAL TALENTS back in those days, like Tiffany, and Debbie Gibson!
I realize that they were closer to 15 years ago, but since you're still hung up on Britany (sic) and the Backstreet Boys as the Icons of pop music, I figure you're stuck about 5 years ago yourself.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
B) If pirated CDs are to blame, why aren't there FBI raiding Chinatown's over the U.S. everyday?
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Informative)
They are. Commercial pirates are busted all the time.
Just because it each individual case doesnt make a slashdot headline, doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
See, bootleg CD's aren't all that big here, so it's not as much of a market-threat. In China, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and other Asian marketplaces, it's dominant. It's hard to justify a chinatown raid when the actual crime is happening in china.
And regarding why RIAA won't "show me" these statistics about decreases in production, it's because that's too much for simple middle-america folk to think about. Mom & Pop Smallville can't handle statistics, but they sure do understand a villain and breaking the law.
What I don't get is, if CD sales are down 16% (I think the article said) and CD production is down 25%, doesn't that mean that per CD, sales are up? With your releases down 25%, shouldn't your total expendatures be down as well, and with the incresed sales/release, profits should be increasing. If the RIAA's members are hemoraging money, it can only be due to internal incompetence and waste.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its comments like this that will make the record industry create a new recording medium, and force us all to change again.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason people bought CD's to replace vinyl and tapes is because CD's were a breakthrough in technology (i.e. convenience) - there was the value added for the consumers to buy into it. About the same as MP3's/AAC is now - new technology will only succeed if it adds something new and useful, regardless of whether it is driven by the record companies or not.
oh my goodness (Score:5, Funny)
For those non-pr0n fans out there (any on
Re:oh my goodness (Score:5, Informative)
-72
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:3, Insightful)
And excellent point, but new technology means more compact storage, and the ability to hold more music. The RIAA and its members would have to come up with innovate ways to make the average joe want to give up their CD player that works with all of their current music just fine, thank you very much.
I do not see new technology supplanting the curre
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with RIAA anti-piracy enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course the RIAA is afraid and targeting domestic file-swapping. Congressional lobbying/bribing allows them to use their muscle most effectively on their home turf (US Soil). Domestic file-swapping is also a source of revenue drain, just not the primary one. Yet they are afraid because their revenues are down despite having produced fewer units to sell. Their prices are inflated to the point that file-swappers often feel that they are pseudo-Robin Hoods that steal from the rich RIAA and give to themselves and others. The few bad apples who flagrantly do this in violation of copyrights on a large scale "justify" the RIAA "anti-piracy" efforts in the mass media, which the RIAA subunits often hold stock in as well. They have the money and moxie to make the rest of us pay their over-inflated prices while morally justifying it to those people who do not know better.
Meanwhile the international criminals are difficult to track and catch. Thailand may be bulldozing the copies it finds, but I find that the more extreme the public demonstration of enforcing law, the less often it is actually enforced. Thailand, China, and other areas of Southeast and East Asia are the HQ of large-scale piracy. Anyone with friends who visit Hong Kong, Beijing, or Taiwan regularly is likely to have been offered pirate DVDs or CDs of recent movies or music. Even the soundtrack for recent movies are available...often before they leave the theater. Enforcement of copyright in those countries is more difficult, especially since the WTO is reluctant to enforce rules so stringently against the truly huge economies.
Copyright may be an outdated notion according to some, but the RIAA has the money and Congressmen that it deserves watching if only on a civil liberties basis. The DMCA is only one example of how creatvity is stifled for the benefit of copyright holders. Any future moves by the RIAA could be as stringent or worse. I'm not suggesting we appease the dragon that is the RIAA, but instead we keep vigilant watch on where they are actually losing money as this article does. Thus when the RIAA proposes legislation like the DMCA hard evidence can be used to discourage legislators from enacting such laws.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not inconsistent with piracy as cause. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that fewer commercial CDs were produced and marketed is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that piracy was the cause, or at least one of the causes, of decreased CD sales. It may be the case that for a marginal band the record company projection that "X" number of CD sales will be lost to piracy is enough to tip the decision from "Yes, we'll produce and promote the CD" to "No, we won't produce and promote the CD because we don't think we'll recoup our money." But for the projected amount of piracy and lost sales, the CD would have been produced and marketed.
Re:I'm from the Show-Me State, prove it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it possible that the lack of new releases is a consequence of music piracy? Isn't it possible that some people are consciously not releasing because they are afraid their work will be stolen?
When is the RIAA going to address these concerns? How can keep saying it's all file sharing when it's obvious these factors come into play.
Well, file sharing very likely plays a role. This experiment [hackvan.com] with shareware showed that only about 20% of the people pay for the shareware they use if they are not forced to pay. I'm sure the same thing happens with other media.
Here is the text of the article:
Why Do People Register, Does Crippling Work, Does Anybody Really Know?
Colin Messitt
Most authors...
There are many, many things that must happen for a shareware program to become sucessful (and I define sucessful as producing a good income for the author, not just being a widely used and acclaimed program), but there are five that seem to me to form the fundamentals for success.
Five Fundamentals For Success
First, the program must be something that users actually need, which, sadly, a lot of shareware releases aren't.
Second, it must actually be good, and again the vast majority of shareware releases are second-rate and buggy (and consider that this becomes more important for shareware because it is much simpler for the user to reject it than for him/her to reject commercial shrink-wrapped software if he/she doesn't like it).
Third, potential users must be alerted to the availability and desirability of the program - good old fashioned marketing that, again, a lot of shareware authors either don't enjoy or aren't very good at.
Fourth, the product must get into the hands of the potential evaluator, either by his getting the evaluation version himself (from a BBS or Vendor or the Internet etc.), or by it being presented to him in some way (on a magazine cover disk, bundled with other software or hardware etc.).
And finally, assuming the user actually needs the program after all the preceeding steps, there must be a reason for him to pay for it.
Industry Myths
As anybody reading this will know, there are a vast number of "experts" in the shareware industry who purport to know what works and what doesn't, and they put forward any number of reasons why a user would pay for a piece of shareware, including additional features, removal of nag screens, printed manuals and just plain honesty. These so called "experts" also often put forward the myth that crippled software doesn't get distributed, doesn't sell and harms the shareware industry in general.
However, if you ask for statistical evidence of any of these claims you won't get any. And perhaps most sadly these mythical beliefs have been enshrined in what is known as the ASP's Policy on No Crippling (PONC) and taken to be gospel without a shred of evidence. Indeed people who put forward alternative views were decried in almost the same way as people who suggested the Earth was round back in the Middle Ages.
When I started attempting to market my programs as shareware I effectively time-limited them, and achieved a reasonable if not spectacular measure of success. Then I listened to the "experts" and thought that maybe I was doing things wrong, and would have more success by removing the time-limiting.
My registration rates went down dramatically, even though there were the suggested incentives of a manual an
So many reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that issue, there are of course several other factors that are at work - the soft economy during 2001/2002, competitors for the teenage spending dollar, and of course the rise of online file trading. I know personally that I haven't bought a CD in a couple years, mostly due to the fact I haven't heard anything that compelling, but also that if I want a particular song (rather then blow $$$ on the whole CD), I can get it in a couple minutes online. If these knuckleheads could implement a useful, cheap service to pay for songs, I just might do it. But I want to be able to burn CD's to play in my car, and have access to a wide selection of music - not just one company's stable of trick ponies.
Nothing worth buying is my reason! (Score:5, Interesting)
I've bought maybe 2 CD in the last few years. Even that wasn't new music - I think the Stones and Floyd. Also, I don't use any sort of downloading service. Quite frankly, there isn't anything I want.
I think I'm the poster child for the "lack of content" angle. I have money. I'm sick of my old CDs. I'd like good, new CD's. But they keep throwing a bunch of shit at us, and what decent music they give us is mastered so shitty (see slashdot last friday) that it's unlistenable.
BTW, if anyone knows of any decent, modern bands in the spirit of great 60's and 70's rock, I'd be damn grateful. Major label or indie, I don't care.
Re:Nothing worth buying is my reason! (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I have purchased several CDs recently, but they are nearlly all soundtrack/game music from Japan (Imports are expensive). I have "ripped" all of my CD's so that I can use them in portable electronic devices such a my notebook computer etc. I have not stollen any music, and if I could not have my music in digital formats I would stop buying it all together.
On a side note, as long as a computer can play the music at all, it is possible to rip it. It is just a matter of re-directing the sound output from the speakers to a virtual sound device. Even without that, the best the anti-digital music forces can hope for is one analog copy followed by an infinite number of digital copies.
Re:So many reasons... (Score:5, Insightful)
but there's one interesting thing going on. i'll never replace the music i do own again. ever. it will be migrated from one media to another for as long as i live, and likely for as long as my survivors want. that upgrade from vinyl thing only happened once as far as i'm concerned. but the record companies are trying to build in a similar 'periodic cycle' via the licensing agreements for music bought online. its just one more way they're trying to screw over the consumer.
Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a lot of family, a lot of friends, and a lot of coworkers (all in all, about 50 people that I converse with weekly, and at least 15 of whom I converse with daily). All but a few of them participate in music piracy. All of them used to buy cassettes and CDs. I can't remember the last time that I saw any of them even set foot in a music store. I don't know anyone that has purchased a CD in the past year. I have one friend that is a manager at a Warehouse music, the other worked at Sam Goody's. The Sam Goody's closed down, after 6 years of doing awesome business, three years ago sales slowed to a crawl. You want to know what their biggest selling products were? Blank CD/RWs and MP3 players. The Warehouse Music is a pitiful shell of it's former self - they now sell more movies and blank CD/RWs than music. And despite this lack of sales in record stores, millions of songs created by today's modern artists are downloaded daily - even though they supposedly suck and lack creativity bla bla bla.
I can't be alone in my observations.
People can blame a lack of creativity, a reduction in available albums, etc. But I find it amazing that people are so quick to dismiss the effects that rampant, undeniable piracy is having on the music industry. I stopped buying music years ago because I realized that the prices were too high. However, my morals prevent me from stealing, hence I do not pirate music.
Queue the predictable responses! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Because no loss of physical property = no theft.
2. Because copyright infringement isn't a big deal.
3. Because artists are getting screwed by the RIAA.
4. Because overall quality of music is down.
5. Because I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway.
6. Because information wants to be free!
Re:Queue the predictable responses! (Score:5, Informative)
theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.(Emphasis mine) See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
2. The thing stolen. [R.]
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, . . . he shall restore double. --Ex. xxii. 4.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
Re:Queue the predictable responses! (Score:3, Insightful)
If it doesn't meet the definition of theft, it shouldn't be called theft.
>Personally, I don't think "infringement" correctly identifies the act either, and perhaps a new legal term needs to be written into law to concretely define it.
And what exactly is lacking about "infringement"? Maybe it doesn't sound criminal enough?
Re:Queue the predictable responses! (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I can't understand how strong copyright by default behavior has only been in our society for about 30 years, yet it is considered up there with murder and rape as acts that are always going to be wrong and can never be considered right under any circumstance. Before 1971, most of the copyrightable work out there wasn't copyrighted at all. Before that, copyright lasted 14 years plus a 14 year extension. Before that, copyright didn't even exist, the Ancient Greeks got along without it just fine while contributing alot to art and science. Yet today it's considered an inalienable right that cannot be altered. Go figure
Re:Queue the predictable responses! (Score:5, Insightful)
downloading music you haven't paid for is wrong
Really? I know this gets hashed out here a lot on slashdot, but there was a specific period of time set down for copyrights when this country was founded - 14 years. Now, that time has been changed to "basically forever". This is just as "wrong". Or maybe there should be no copyrights at all...while I don't love that idea, copyrights are in no way any kind of natural right, or commandment or anything like that.
Say it with me everybody - Just because the government makes it illegal doesn't make it "wrong". It just makes it illegal. I shouldn't have to give examples to demonstrate this point. Just because the RIAA or disney or whoever want to lock everything up forever and bleed everyone dry doesn't mean they can get away with it. Heck, every time you download something, consider it civil disobedience. Maybe try only downloading things 14 years old or older, make a statement. Unless you feel the founding fathers were wrong and the current government is right, or at least scary. Copyright is not nearly as important as the many other ways governments have abused their powers or made perfectly ok things "wrong". There are plenty of examples of civil disobedience with no moral leg to stand on. But anyone who thinks this is one of those cases, or that all music downloading is automatically wrong, worries me.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:5, Insightful)
SUPPORT THOSE BANDS THAT ALLOW THE FREE TRADING OF THEIR MUSIC!
I just went to a Dead show in Joliet, IL (I am still smacking myself for not going to the show in Somerset, WI as well as it is on my way home from IL). I saw quite a crowd there to see moe. (they didn't play due to a wrecked/rebuilt stage the night before), Robert Hunter, Bob Dylan, and The Dead.
Amazingly enough, these bands allow and promote the free trading of their music. Somehow, they are still able to turn QUITE a profit, make some INCREDIBLE music, and even have a steady following (Bob Dylan and The Dead have been playing for what 40+ years?)
Here [wagnerone.com]'s a list of bands that you SHOULD be supporting.
DMB, a band which is more in the mainstream, makes a pretty penny on CD sales AND touring sales. Imagine that, someone who allows his own stuff to be taped yet makes a profit.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:4, Interesting)
How about we continue... Norah Jones? Read [startribune.com] one person's feelings on a recent concert of her's. She won how many awards? Her studio stuff is great, her live presence is crap.
Perhaps people don't care for studio music from so-so artists and want a REAL taste of GOOD music?
Where are the legendary bands of the 60s and 70s? The ones with MAJOR staying power? They don't exist anymore. Record labels WANT major profits fast.
I say fuck supporting studio recorded music and only support those bands with the balls to show themselves in public and REALLY play their music.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me point out MY own point of view to the main problem to music sales.
I think that the main problem is almost solely the advent of used CD stores. I know it sounds silly, but when Joe Musiclover buys a CD at Sam Goody, the record label (i.e. Warner Bros) sees revenue. However, when I buy the same CD at a used CD store the record label recognizes $0 of revenue.
I have a large network of friends and I don't know a single one of my friends that will pay the money asked for a new CD when they know they can wait a month and get it for a small fraction of the cost of a retail CD store.
Last "new" CD I purchased was in 1992, and ever since then I have made all of my purchases at used stores which has saved me a bundle of money.
This is another primary loss of revenue that people like the RIAA just seem to overlook and do not want to acknowledge. I have sent them quite a few letters with some facts and figures based upon the people that I alone know. If you were to multiply this across the nation you'd see a LOT larger figures.
Just something to think about and yet it is something overlooked anytime this subject is considered.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:5, Interesting)
It appeared as though prices had been jacked up and then discounted back down to the same price I would pay anywhere else (CD's for 18 and 19.99? The hell?!?!)
The music industry doesn't get it, even when they fail.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:5, Informative)
As for conscience-clear cheap music aquisition, try out EMusic [emusic.com]. It's not for everyone, but if you're into indie rock and/or jazz, it's well worth it. $10-$15/month for all-you-can-eat, no-DRM, 192Kb/s average VBR mp3s (encoded with LAME [sourceforge.net], no less). Support for Mac/Windows/Linux.
Piracy happening on the high seas (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that IP laws are difficult to enforce especially during a time when so many other things seem more important. Additionally the bigger problem for MPAA/RIAA is not home user swapping but the rampant copyright infringement of counterfitting happening in Asia and the third world nations. Those areas are the only areas these companies have to grow into and they can't because the black market is so much cheaper and more convenient for the consumer.
These corporations know exactly what the cause of their current financial problems are. Should they admit that the problem is just a cycle or due to their own inability to react consumers requests for services and the consumers changing taste in music? Yes. Will they? No.
They need to keep shareholders investing money. The way to do that is to show that sales are artificially slowed due to "piracy". If "piracy" were stopped their sales would be up - so just wait to sell that stock because they're on top of it.
The fact is that many consumers who are internet enabled are finding that there's a wider range of music available online than there is at Sam Goody. They're finding that Sam Goody has stopped selling the music they like to listen to and has turned into little more than a top 40 store. They've also found that some of the artists that they liked that Sam Goody et al still sell, have jumped to the pop ship and no longer have any edge.
Since being online my music tastes have shifted because I've been able to find music from Germany, France, Japan, Russia, etc. Plus I've been able to find more independent bands that fit my tastes instead of "Joe Radio Listener" (which is who Sam Goody typically stocks for).
The fact is that Sam Goody and all the little mall music stores chains are getting hit hard and it has less to do with copyright infringement than it does to do with changing times. Wal-mart can sell a CD for $13 and Sam Goody sells the same CD for $18.99. While Sam Goody et al are going out of business a lot of local independent record shops that don't cater to the top/pop 40 crowd are thriving. They're thriving because they have or can get what people really want and that generates loyalty and cash flow.
I know plenty of file swappers. I know those that buy no music, but then they didn't before file swapping. I know those, like my friend Laurie, who downloads gigs of music a week, but also spends about $60 a month on new CD's (not CDR's). I don't think it's accurate to say that EVERY file swapper is infringing, nor is it accurate to say (and studies have proven this) that file swappers purchasing decreases.
Mostly people are buying at Wal-mart or wherever happens to be convenient to shop and not making special trips to the mall for what they can get at any store close to home. It used to be that you could get something different at a music specialty store like Sam Goody - that's no longer true.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:3, Insightful)
So that has definite contributions..
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:3, Insightful)
Theft from a store is stealing from the store - the label has been paid for that CD.
Unlawful duplication+distribution is taking unfair advantage of the record label.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called The DAT Tax [brouhaha.com].
One interesting thing about the DAT tax is this --
In any event, the DAT tax only applies to audio media, not data media (Audio CD-Rs, which are needed for stereo component writers, have a bit set that say they're audio CD-Rs and cost much more. Of course, most people just use data CD-Rs in their computer anyways.)Often when I see people buying Audio CD-Rs in the store, I ask them if they're going to burn it on a computer or a stereo component. In every case, they've said `computer'.
Now, I've heard that companies that make analog media, like cassette and VHS tapes, pay a certain amount to the recording and movie industries -- sort of a `hush' money -- but it's not something that has been codified into law like the DAT tax.
Bullshit! (Score:4, Insightful)
People say this all the time, "I hate the music the RIAA is making now, artists these days suck, the songs suck, I hate buying CD's with 1 or 2 good songs and 12 tracks of filler crap", while happily downloading every Top40 hit from a P2P App. Which is it? Does the music suck, or do they just want it for free? Because if it REALLY sucked, I imagine they wouldn't be downloading the same artists they keep saying suck.
Re:Dismissal of piracy is astounding (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should we not value the ability to make a great sounding album? I rarely go to live shows; almost all the music I hear is recorded. If they sound great on the CD, then for my purposes, they are not shitty.
Are you really arguing that if someone doesn't put on a good live show, they don't deserve to make money for producing a great CD? Seems like they don't deserve to make money performing live.
I've seen live bands that totaly rocked, and been awfully disapointed by their albums. I've owned albums that were great but not expected the live band to live up, assuming I ever had the chance to go see them (unlikely).
It seems to me that live performance and CD production are two different (but related) art forms. I don't see why one should be declared the "real" one, or why an artists failure in one should justify ripping off their work in the other. If a band produced a lame album, would it justify sneaking in to their concert?
The 'Real' reason... (Score:4, Funny)
Too bad, evolution takes millions of (y)ears.
-
Re:The 'Real' reason... (Score:4, Funny)
God did not implement a business model while building the human ear. He should have spoken to Bill Gates or Hillary Rosen or Hatch and implemented DRM in the cochlea or tympannum or whatever.
But there are quite efficient filtering hard/software already installed:
: are you at the computer again ? I told you to wash the dishes yesterday
: hmm. Did you say something, dear ?
Wrong people! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong people! (Score:5, Informative)
huh (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if we could all visualize complete sentences?
Sigh
perhaps its also a quality thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Meaning, as more and more merchandising of the performer comes into play, we get more and more "teenie-bopper" mediocrity such as Britney Spears and O-Town
I mean, now
Bah, perhaps its because I'm an old poop now.
Re:perhaps its also a quality thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:perhaps its also a quality thing (Score:5, Insightful)
People shouldn't get so nostalgic about the past, we remember the good stuff from then because it was good and forget the bad. I don't think the quality of music has a whole lot of affect on these numbers. In any case the peak sales numbers that the RIAA uses when talking about the recent decline are from the late 90's, not exactly a golden era of music (unless everyone here thinks the Spice Girls are going to be making a big come-back soon).
Some interesting ideas (Score:5, Informative)
Pulling numbers out of backside.. (Score:5, Funny)
1 million
237 Billion
A Hundred Kajillion!
Wow! those sure are some big numbers I just made up. And I bet I know where those losses come from - Radio. Think about it, where else can you get *TONS* of music for free? And after hearing how damn crappy most of it is, who's going to buy the cd?
Re:Pulling numbers out of backside.. (Score:4, Interesting)
In particular, an article called
Radio - pay for play? [go.com]. But more than that, just search google for "radio payola", and see what you can read. Most of the money made by ads that isn't profit goes into operating costs.
PS - it scales downward like that, independent radio stations with enough of an established listener base get sent almost all (if not all) of their music by labels for free, while lesser ones still may have to pay for their music.
Its simply the price (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P is the scapegoat (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly they screw over small webcasters, eliminating the hobbyist and enthusiast DJs (these are people doing it for love not profit and so should be encouraged).
Then they proceed to annoy everyone else online that has downloaded music (illegally yes, but it's infringement not theft under current laws).
Keep it up RIAA, keep us in the dark ages, the Internet had the possibility of being a new method for distributing and selling music but you blew it. You've sealed your demise.
Consumer Backlash (Score:5, Interesting)
Now "The Industry" is suing their own customers!
I haven't purchased a single CD for five years, and I don't plan to ever purchase another. I am content to listen to the radio.
Torsten
The problem is twofold (Score:5, Insightful)
The second problem is piracy. I say piracy second because the really good work that's done isn't pirated like the pop trendy teenie bopper music is. Peopl may download a really great song but will typically then go out and buy the album.
It's been a long long while since a new artist came out that was actually talented. I played better than most of these tards when I was in 8th grade. Where did all the Bob Dylans go, the Janis Joplins, the Stevie Ray Vaughns and B.B. Kings? Clapton is a memory and the Bettles are history. Good bands like Jimmy Eats World and Weezer barely get played, drowned out by Brittany Spears and J.Lo.
Turn on MTV and watch for about an hour. Keep track with a pencil and paper, count how many of these pop artists actually play an instrument. Then count how many of those actually write their own music. It's disgraceful to call these people "professional". They in no way act professional. They neither write music, play music nor perform it. They have dance instructors for the performances and lipsync the albums.
With all of this how can I as a consumer respect the music? If I don't respect it why in the world would I buy it?
Re:The problem is twofold (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh, there are plenty of artists out there who are talented. Just because you don't hear them on the radio or MTV doesn't mean they don't exist. Do you need to be spoonfed music? Search a little, it's out there. When I started looking for things, talking to true music lovers, following similar artist links on allmusic.com, reading cringe.com, I suddenly found myself unable to buy all the cd's I wanted due to lack of time and money. There is a lot out there.
Competition for the traget demographic dollar (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, the real damage Napster did to the music industry wasn't lost sales. Instead, it created an "ala carte" mindset in that same once-loyal cd-buying demographic. Put another way, my kid won't buy an entire cd when he likes maybe only a couple of songs. CDs are a package deal, and the package deal is dead. Ultimately, the recording industry could do themselves a real favor by reviving singles.
but everyone was buying this shlock before... (Score:4, Informative)
yes, they're putting out less albums - but because they're marketing individual 'pop sensations' more. the trend to produce less began before the sales fell.
and it's not because 'pop music is crap' that sales are falling. this bubble-gum shlock is the predominant bulk of what people are trading online. not to mention that britney is not qualitatively divergent from marky mark and the funky bunch. or wham! or winger before that.
people need to stop pretending that file sharing isn't going to kill cd-sales. it will. just as CDs killed cassette, just as cassette killed vinyl (audophiles and their tastes notwithstanding)
the artists -do- get most of their revenue from touring and tshirts and stuff, but the RIAA exists solely to distribute music. they -do- get rich off the rights to sell CDs so naturally their business revolves around protecting their rights. particularly because they dont have the infrastructure or the expertise to control, in any small way, electronic distribution. (since mainly you just have to post mp3s and advertise, or license apple to soak up the bandwidth costs for a share of your per track cash.)
but stop pretending: sales are down because trading is easy, and no-one except people who had money before and will have money after is being effected. not because pop music is 'crap'. not because there's 'less'.
yes, p2p is killing it. and for good reason.
i do wonder though, if file sharing has had a hand in the increase in concert attendance these last few years. (note number of summer concert 'festivals' and their earnings increases)
The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The real reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is an analysis of Houston radio, which is mostly clearchannel owned crap:
93.7 The Arrow - Classic Rock Station (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Thankfully, there are no other classic rock stations, so the songs are at least not played anywhere else.
94.5 The Buzz - "Alternative" (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. The songs rotate slowly with the incoming new music, but you hear the same stuff most every day with little change.
96.5 The mix - Mix of "Alternative", "classic" and 80s rock (clearchannel owned) plays the same songs every day. I mean every day. Since it does not have the virture of an older "fuddier" listener group like the arrow, it does slowly rotate in new songs every now and then from the "alternative" scene.
101.1 -Hard rock/Alternative- (clearchannel owned) This one is the worst. It was a very cool station before clearchannel bought it. Now it is horribly repetitive and plays the same shit as 94.5, only with some AC/DC every now and then to pick up some older 80s rock fans.
I'm leaving out country and rap, but they tend to not be owned by clearchannel. They have their own issues though, rap plays the current songs over and over and then never again. Country is the same.
anyhow, let's analyze the stations i listed. take a popular band for instance, say evanesence (sp?). This band is played on 94.5, 101.1, and 96.5. Which does it belong on? I would say only 94.5 and 101.1 based on the "cataloging". Likewise, Eminem is playe don the rap stations, but also sometimes on 94.5, the "alternative" station. Classic Rock gets played on 93.7 and 101.1, whereas the "mix" plays a little of all three genres (classic rock, heavy rock, and alternaitve). Ths point is that you hear the same songs one every station, more or less without fail and regardless of station "identity".
it sucks.
----rhad
Re:The real reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Strange math (Score:5, Insightful)
Too often the music industry (and the software industry, and many other industries) simply state that they have lost X amount because those people didn't purchase their copy.
You need to instead consider whether they would have actually aquired it if they had to pay for it. For instance a student with 200 gigs of music would not possibly have bought that music if it wasn't downloadable, so the loss is actually nothing.
The same may apply here, I really don't know. They cite markets like China where these pirates operate, but China does not strike me as the main audiance for American music. Further, they have a long history of piracy, I am not sure if you can honestly say they have stopped purchasing recently.
This isn't to say that I think piracy should be legal - there is no reason that people should enjoy the benefit for free merely because they would not have purchased it - however you cannot merely count the number of pirated copies as lost sales, most likely a legitimate copy would never have been bought.
creativity my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
See Rock N Roll, New Wave, Grunge, etc.
Organized Crime... (Score:3, Funny)
CmdrTaco: (shoves release-contract for CowboyNeal in front of RIAA exec)
Either your brains or your signature, will be on this contract...
Pirate CDs sell more than original in Argentina (Score:5, Informative)
People who can't affort Internet access, buys this cheaper CDs. Almost nobody buys original CDs.
Another popular way of getting CDs, is asking them to your favorite software dealer. They send it on MP3 or wav, as you wish.
At least here, downloading music is not something RIAA should take care for. There are other issues more important for them (like the booth at every train station full of illegal CDs).
Re:Pirate CDs sell more than original in Argentina (Score:3, Informative)
In the article, they don't single out Argentina, but say that more illegial copies are sold than legitimate copies, in every country of the world except USA and Japan. That's surprising because this story is from the BBC, which is in the UK... That doesn't bode well for their efforts to stop illegial copying.
A personal offshoot of file trading (Score:5, Insightful)
I've found that my exposure to a diverse range of music has increased significantly due to the availablity of cheap (read: free) music. My friends have told me about bands that I'm sure that they wouldn't have heard about if not for file trading. I have been to concerts that I wouldn't have seen if not for file trading. I have bought band merchandice that I wouldn't have thought about buying before. I have heard music that has changed my life. I would not have had these experiences without file trading.
I give money back to bands or music acts that I really like. I still buy CDs, although very few of them and usually only to get high quality recordings instead of MP3s/oggs.
File trading has changed music in the way it is made and listened to, whether the RIAA likes it or not.
It's an economics thing, not a piracy thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
For as long as music has been for sale an interesting economic trend has emerged. As a new format is produced (sheet music, player pianos, records, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, etc.) it's sales are small at first. As the format catches on, sales boom. People are buying music in the new format left and right (both new music and old music which they may or may not already own). As time goes on (typically takes 20 years) sales decline. The format is not "new and cool." People have purchased the majority of the back catalouge that they are interested in. Sales are limited mainly to newer releases (although back-catalouge sales still exist, just not in massive quantities).
Just about the time this happens, a new format for music distribution is released. This new format has classically featured improved quality and/or convience. After sheet music, the big thing was pre-recorded music. "That's right kids, you don't have to play it anymore! Just listen!" Later, records were replaced by cassettes "No more scratch and it's portable!!" Yay Walkman and Boombox!
Then CD's "No more switching sides and much better quality!" Horray for the Disc man, CD players, and computers.
But the CD format has been around for over 20 years now. People own the back catalouges that they want and will buy any new music that they want.
The music industry lacks a new format that can easily replace CDs. Although DVD-Audio offers much better quality and capacity, consumers have just finished replacing all of their records with CDs. They have installed CD players in their car. They have purchased home stereos, disc men, boom-boxs, and CD-Roms. The economy is down. Consumers won't shell out money to convert to another format now, espcially since the only thing that DVD audio has to offer is better quality and capacity. Many CDs right now don't fill to their capacity (how many of us have CDs that are only 30 or 40 mintues long?!) and many cd players have crappy speakers. In order to really get the quality of a DVD audio disc you need a *good* player, something which costs lots of $$$ and therefore won't sell like hot cakes.
Consumers are happy with CDs.
Although I believe that MP3s and priated CDs are stealing some sales from the record industry (lets face it, they have lost money from the college aged group), they are very few adults which are actually downloading music at a rate that would cause such a drastic deline in sales.
In fact, the Goldmine article pointed out that percentage wise, the decline in CD sales is no worse than the drop in sales that ALL formats before CD suffered on their decline.
The only way for the record industry to get the sales it wants is to get consumers to convert to a new format.
Or to release a bunch of *great* music. I'm talking a contemporary Beatles, the Who, Rolling Stones, Doors, Marvin Gaye, Miles Davis, Eretha Franklin, Michael Jackson, and hell, even another N'Sync or Brittney. (although these last two aren't music greats, they are niche markets which will produce a large number of sales)
It's an economics thing, not a piracy thing.
Clue to RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Customers have spoken! They want single songs.. provide and your sales go up..don't and you die by customer hands..very simple Business 101..
Article Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't this align quite well with what we've said all along? If the RIAA was willing to drop the price of legitimate media to $4 or $5 a copy, record stores might suddenly find themselves with a market again.
If I could go to a record store with $60 and take home ten titles, I'd find it worth my while. As it is, I'd be lucky to take home four albums for that price, and it's just not worth the effort.
Hmm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
9% of all albums are complete failures (Score:4, Interesting)
Well now, isn't that a nice number. How can piracy or file sharing possibly make a dent into profits when 95% of all albums suck so bad no one wants to buy them?
The Lyrics Made Me Do It (Score:3, Funny)
I was listening to a song that told me to blow stuff up and fight the powers, and so, I quit buying music.
Sorry.
Any thoughts on Vinyl? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have been the pround owner of a VPI Aires Scout [vpiindustries.com] for almost a year now.
Although I listen to alot of classical, I found that my wallet took a beating when I went shopping for classical CD's. Little did I know that the same music is available on vinyl, and it's availalble for as little as a dollar.
I recently picked up 3 mint classical records at the New York City Opera thrift shop for a buck a peice. One of these titles on CD still command close to fifteen dollars (on sale, 16.99 regular price)at the local Tower Records. [towerrecords.com]
I also find my vinyl listening session are less iritating on my ears and last longer.
How About... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's been a few times where i've gotten hold of a couple of mp3s from an obscure band that that i totally dug. And i went out to buy the CD.
Another case in point- I've got a pile of CDs that are many years old, plus tapes and vinyl that are even older. Most of this older stuff i would buy on CD, but they've been out of print for years and years.
Call me guitly, but i just spent the weekend ripping songs and copying CDs for my dad. 6 albums in total. If i could go to a store and buy him the retail version i would, but they're simply not available.
Another case in point-
Some years ago i licensed a few of *my* tunes to be used as commercial spots. I've never seen a dime. I've never heard these tunes on t.v. or radio either, but that's not the point- you pay to use them whether you do or not. I can't afford a lawyer right now to chase them. So i'm out $10K.
You'd think that the RIAA would be all over this, as it is thier job to protect the rights and property of musicians.
Nope. Sorry. "Your claim is insignificant compared to most. Go away."
Piracy, Pap, Replacement and Rant (Score:4, Insightful)
I do know that when I was in college (a long time ago in a galaxy far far away), I could buy three vinyl LP's for under $20 when they were on sale, and I'd do that on a pretty regular basis, probably every two weeks or so. These days, 20 CD's in a year is probably an overestimate.
CD's cost too much. They probably cost a bit more than the old vinyl, but should be cheaper to produce than cassettes. And why does the latest pop pap cost $19, or maybe $13 on sale, yet the record labels will push a disc out to BestBuy for $7 or $9 for a hot new artist? They must be able to make money on that, so why not all the time?
I buy a fair amount from BMG music club. Their shipping prices suck, but it's a good way to catch up on back catalog, when they've got "Buy one, get three free" or "Buy one, everything else for $1.99" sales.
I don't download music. I hate headphones, and my current car CD player won't play CDRs, nor will my DVD player attached to the home theater. Yeah, I could replace those, but I'm not in a hurry.
So where's the problem here? I'd buy more if I knew I was getting a decent disc. WXRT in Chicago used to be a bastion of new music, digging deep into the tracks on a disc. Now, they're barely above the level of a top-40 station, but to a different demographic. And they answer to Viacom. And they're advertising more.
At this rate, I'll be like my parents: listening to the same dozen artists for the rest of my life, because I can't stand to turn on the radio to find out if anything's better.
But there's cool new stuff out there, and I've been lucky to find it:
How do you find it? Stay away from the mega-stadiums, and visit a club, coffeehouse, small theater. Actually listen to the opening
act! They're often at higher energy than the headliners, because they've got more to gain.
DMCA & Patriot Act save America from (c) Terro (Score:4, Funny)
Up until the August break, the RIAA and MPAA were lobbying Congress to bridge the DMCA and Patriot Act, giving the government to send song-swappers to Guantanamo Bay [ridiculopathy.com] for indefinite periods of time without the aid of legal representation.
Attorney General John Ashcroft was reportedly shocked to learn of "illicit book-sharing parlors" [ridiculopathy.com] located in nearly every city and town in the United States, many of them government sponsored. He has vowed to use the DMCA to shut them down.
Replacement's end + (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they're hurting because:
1)They've been dragged into anti-trust courts and lost, (the prices for CDs aren't going to rise for a while,)
2)Everybody's tossed out their old turntable and albums a long time ago and have replaced what LPs they though were worth replacing and that source of funds has dried up FOREVER (CDs last a lot longer than LPs.)
3)Recycling may be good for the environment and for lounge/live acts but its lethal for record sales. Most people don't want to shell out more money for yet another cover of the same old song (most people can't tell one version from another after a couple of beers,) and they don't.
4)The RIAA is not capable of creating content, they can only try to make money from it. The more they meddle in the processs, the more it sound like music created by and for accountants. Its really hard to make a move on somebody accompanied by the sound of ringing cash registers.
5)They got used to the marging and never planned for when they would end and the river would run slowly and sluggishly.
Now they're attacking their only reason for living, their only source of funds, the people who 'd buy CDs if they didn't feel so ripped off and insulted at some of the shlock that's pushed at them.
I predict accelerating death for the xxAAs.
CD's ARE THE ONLY MEDIA?!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I checked, totally legal RETAIL sites for downloading music have been springing up all over the place.
Also more downloading of indie work (ie MP3.com) has probably affected the sales of the big boys. I know a lot of the music I like is harder to find retail than on MP3.com. Further, a lot of people with CD burners are now also making copies for themselves so they don't scratch up the original and have to repurchase--something that didn't happen in 1999 since most people didn't have burners, especially fast ones.
All these are just small chunks but they add up.
Much like I stated with the laptop/desktop report... statisticians can report whatever you want people to see.
Someone needs to do a report on the revenue making it to the artist themselves (from recordings) excluding all concert revenue and memorabelia items and I bet you'll still find an increase.
-- Enigma
Buying CDs (Score:4, Insightful)
I would never pay for MP3s because the quality isn't as good as a CD, plus I feel like I should get something tangible if I pay for it.
Also the "I don't buy CDs because nothing original has been released in the past 5 years" response is a cop-out. Newsflash: Britney Spears isn't the ONLY person who has released a CD in the past 5 years... look around there are a few gems out there, you just have to look places other than MTV.
And if you REALLY don't want to support the RIAA, just buy all your CDs from CD Baby [cdbaby.com]. They may not have the artist you're looking for, but they probably have an artist who sounds a lot like em.
I'm tired. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else tired of talking about this subject?
I really, really tire of complaining about the music industry, and the music industry complaining right back. Personally, for all of the lies, insane justifications, and pure virtriolic hate coming from both sides, I could personally care less anymore if I turn on a radio, or listen to a CD and all I get is static. Never before has so many billions and so many lawsuits come out of such a useless part of our society. People, it is just organized sounds.
Headphones with user end licenses. Internet computers not being allowed to communicate with each other. Capitol hill attorneys. Rock stars that are now internet experts. Music snobs. Federal laws. Soundtracks that cost more than the DVD. Nine thousand lawsuits a day.
The music is crap. The said justifications for overpricing said music is crap. The stealing of music is crap. Consequently, justifying stealing music is crap. It's all crap that is not worth our time.
I think I'm going to go outside to hear the birds chirping with a little highway noise arpeggio in the background. Unless I am not allowed to anymore. I am not listening to any more CDs than what I have. I am not downloading a thing ever again. I am not listening to the radio anymore.
I choose to not participate anymore in any of this. If it bankrupts a company or two, if some kids go to jail over some tunes, so be it. But no one is getting my money, support, or time on this crap ever again.
Does relying on the honesty work? (Score:5, Interesting)
I found this interesting experiment [scrawlsoft.com] concerning shareware registration/payment and I think it has some bearing on discussions about music copying, file trading and sharing.
The same experiment is also related here [hackvan.com].
What it shows is that people were 5 times more likely to pay for the shareware when they were made to pay versus relying on the honor system. So when the shareware was "free", only 1/5th of the time was the author paid for his work.
The extension of this result into the discussion of music sharing I think is obvious.
Basic Economics Slaps the RIAA Upside the Head. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pirating + economic downturn + vinyl replacement finished = far less CD sales. Also mentioned were that teenagers are more interested in cell phones than music these days.
The RIAA and CD Industry has been fined twice for price fixing, and pirating is heavily undercutting the pricing schemes established by the CD industry. So overchaging to the point that pirated copies become massively popular is the implication.
No singles available on CD translates to file sharing with the current high pricing scheme as well.
What would be a good solution?
I remember when Dave Matthews stirred up people, by sending in anti-bootleg teams to bust record stores across the country. They were selling bootleg copies of his concerts, that were unavailable on commerical releases. Apparently demand for his product was higher than delivery. His response was to put people out of business for trying to meet the demand. His record sales dropped as the hard core fanatics got pissed and quit buying his stuff.
Bob Dylan's response. He went out and bought all the bootlegs. Then picked the best tracks and released a 3-cd set of "Bob Dylan: Best of the Bootlegs", thus meeting the demand for more music. He undercut the bootleggers, because his collection was of known quality and cheaper than buying a bunch of $30 bootlegs to find the good tracks.
The RIAA needs to get real and realize that it's current business model is failing. One, it needs to offer more reasonable pricing and cut out the excessive "advertising/promotion" budgets that are used to rip off the artists. Secondly it needs to offer downloads of mp3's at even more reasonable prices since no manufactoring is requited. This would handle the singles market. Then it can attack the bootleg market head on, because it offers a competitive affordable product in line with demand.
Attacking filesharers, is not the best approach. Here's the reasons I see: 1) It would take 2000 years to supoena every file sharer at current rate. 2) Filesharers tend to be youth who are fans of music. Attacking them is attacking your future market. Creating animosity with the primary consumer is not good business strategy. 3) A lot of filesharers probably wouldn't buy a copy if left with no other choice than buying it. In my youth, I was a pirate of computer games, I had no money to buy them--therefore I couldn't and I stole them. Had my only option been purchase at $35/title, I wouldn't have. If I could have bought them for $5/$10 a piece I probably would have. I'm not justifying my behavior, just explaining the business case that the RIAA seems to have missed.
A bunch of entrenched lazy bureacrats who can't keep up with change is half of the problem. The other half, is people without enough self control (encouraged by continuous marketing and consumer culture), who feel compelled to create large markets based on theft.
Supply/Demand economics slapping the RIAA upside the head is what's going really going on.
The vinyl replacement boom is over (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now the CD replacement cycle has drawn to a close,"
Yep. That pretty well describes my CD buying pattern. I replaced the LPs that were broken, lost, flood damaged or scratched. I also wanted them on CD for convenience. Except that some were never released on CD. I got those via file-swapping. Later, I aquired the means to rip them myself. So, the RIAA thinks I'm a pirate. They are the ones with the eyepatch and the parrot on their shoulder. So, now I've replaced these albums. There ain't much new stuff I want. I know there are people who can play today but you'll probably never hear 'em. They don't fit the mold. That's why I think the music business died a little over 20 years ago. It's been kept alive largely by the replacement market but now that's played out.
The legality of this is not black and white (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a real problem, since there is the precedent of libraries
having made copyrighted material available to anyone who wanted to read, listen, view, copy, etc, for scores and scores of years.
Is it illegal to lend a cd to someone? And if not, in what manner can something be lent to someone? Can you read a book, then discuss and provide the detailed information in that book. As a fiddler, I often learn tunes from books, then I share that tune with another? Using the RIAA's
viewpoint, you would be in violation of copyright, since it is transmission of musical information outside of their money earning.
If a law makes *everyone* a criminal, that law is bogus.
If one were to take the RIAA's stance on everything, I would be in violation of the copyright, merely PLAYING a fiddle tune I learned from a copyrighted book, unless royalties were paid.
So you cannot say that you can only provide that information to another if you provide the original form (CD, tape, record, DVD, photograph), since we have, for decades, circumvented that procedure in our schools, living rooms, political discussions, etc. Once you have information in your head, does it cease to become copyrighted?
Likewise, when you put a melody on a network, allowing another to listen to it, are you violating copyright?
When you broadcast a tune on the radio, and someone tapes it, are you violating copyright by broadcasting it? Are you violating copyright by taping it?
With that answer, then consider that if someone wears a Jerry Garcia tie, and then you take their picture, are you violating copyright? What is the difference between recording a broadcast and photographing your buddy with their tie?
If you are listening to a cd and someone calls you on the phone, overhearing it, are you violating copyright, since you are engaging in a digital transfer of information that is copyrighted? Note that phone conversations are digitally encoded and transferred.
All these sorts of things involve "fair use", which the RIAA is trying to totally eliminate, such as their attempts at making it impossible to do some fair use activities, by intentionally making damaged cds that won't play on certain equipment (violating their implicit contract with Phillips, the CD patent holder, IIRC).
The scale by which this "fair use" can be done has grown immensely, however, through the digital sharing possible on the internet, so this has to be worked out. The RIAA wants as much money as it can get (notice that this doesn't mean that the artists get any money from the material, it is the recording industry that receives the money, sometimes sharing some of it with the artist).
Studies were also done which showed that the file sharing of music actually increased music sales, rather than depressed them. Studies have also been done that showed the reverse. So what is the "truth?"
And then think about the money that you contribute to the RIAA everytime you buy a cd or tape (I imagine minidiscs are included in this boondoggle as well) that goes to their "royalty" income because they assume you are violating copyrights with that media. So that sounds like I have permission to record copyrighted material, since I am paying for the privilege to do so, when I buy the blank media.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of musicians making money off their music. But this current setup is amiss.
I suspect, that in the long run, all music will be digitally
transferred and the RIAA will go away. People will store the
information as they wish, and the artists will benefit, because the huge "middleman" is gone. But also, the chance for a great lessening in quality is there.
Also note that if individual songs were purchasable, then the sales of "filler" music (the 11 other songs that suck on the album) go away, and the result is that they make about 10% of what they did. Maybe that would mean be
Re:Let the market dictate prices (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the artists don't see a dime from these "pirated" cd's. Because the pirates don't have to go through legitmate means to manufacture and distribute (payrolls are smaller, no taxes, etc). Because the pirates can fend of competition with a Glock or an AK. Because the pirates don't have to advertise or have marketing campains (the industry does it for them). etc,
Re:Let the market dictate prices (Score:5, Insightful)
So, all they pay is for duplicating the cd and leaching off of someone else's work, and you're using that as an example of why prices should be lower?
Re:Let the market dictate prices (Score:4, Informative)
Neither do record companies - the artist does
# Don't pay the artist whose music they're stealing
True but it is typically less than ten per cent of the retail price
# Don't pay for the artwork on the cd
Couple of hundred bucks mostly
# Don't pay for promotion or advertising, since that's all done by the label
Not all promotion is paid for by the label. It does on the other hand promote the artist -- see Microsoft's attitude to piracy in China (would you rather they used linux?)
# Don't pay the lawyers to research the songs to ensure you're not stealing some stupid snippet of lyrics or a partial tune, as just happened with Flaming Lips and Cat Stevens
True but music is not supposed to be welfare for lawyers.
It is unclear why CDs should be have been more expensive than vinyl or why their prices should rise in real terms. Normal economics would suggest that faling production and distribution costs should make the optimal price lower, possibly substantially, but that hasn't happened.
Re:Let the market dictate prices (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, so, we aren't allowed to distribute music in any other mass medium (because artists can't stand the fact that their individual songs are being sold instead of purchased as a CD thus hurting their chances at worthless Gold/Plat. records?)
We aren't allowed to find music for free (because god forbid we support REAL artists who perform live and allow you to freely trade their music).
Yet they can't make money on selling CDs that
Re:Stop blaming creativity! (Score:3, Insightful)
But how do you find out what they are? I've found several really good artists through filesharing and, as a result, have started buying CDs again.
HH
--