Blogcritics Interviews RIAA President Cary Sherman

Lunenburg writes: "Blogcritics has posted an interview they held with RIAA head Cary Sherman. Mr. Sherman took questions on the RIAA's policies on digital rights management, fair use, and the need for the RIAA in the internet age, among others. Great quote by Mr. Sherman from the interview: 'Actually, we're not lobbying for copy-restriction technologies.'" There are some mighty slippery answers in here.

A bit out of touch with reality, isn't he?

If P2P systems are displacing sales, then who is going to invest in an online delivery system that actually pays royalties to artists, songwriters, producers, publishers and labels?
How about no one? Why even try... now that the P2P ball has been rolling for a while, almost noone will pay for P2P if it's obtainable for free.
My favorite: the Internet will become nothing more than a haven for piracy, with no legitimate alternatives.
WILL become? I think he'll give us all chills when he predicts that *gasp* internet users may soon be using something called IRC to distribute pirated media at alarming speeds on technology that may or may not be called "high speed internet lines"... the horror! :P

Bad Experience?

<blockqquote>"That's one of the reasons the US labels are proceeding so cautiously, because they don't want the consumer to have a bad experience."</blockqquote>

They are going to have to stop producing Back Street Boys if they want to stop that.

Do they seriously thing we are going to have a good experience with music force fed down our throughts rather then allowing users to listen to music on their own terms?

Record labels and emerging technology

"Record companies have been major beneficiaries of new technology (from wax cylinders to vinyl to LPs to CDs)" is something of an understatement. Just look at the way artists were screwed when CDs were becoming popular. Labels took cuts from their earnings to cover "increased production costs" which were dramatically overstated. Organisations like the RIAA are not out to protect the rights of artists to make music, they want to enhance the ability of labels to make money.

Interesting

It is not a fact that "archival" copies are allowed. Copyright law specifically allows certain kinds of archival copies of software, but not of music, movies, books or anything else.

Interesting...could someone validate whether this really is true or not? If it is, it would invalidate a number of the fair use arguments you typically see on Slashdot.

All in all, I thought the interview was pretty good...definitely some slick talking, but I would like to see the surveys used to find some of those percentages. And why, in God's name, didn't the interviewer mention that the reason for the decline in sales could have been from a general decline in US markets? I've been waiting to hear an RIAA spokesman answer the question "Couldn't the decline be because of the current recession?" Grrr!

--trb

Been to a music store lately

I love his statement:

[I quote the whole thing because I hate snippets of quotes. They almost always mirepresent.]

"I guess you haven't been to a record store lately. A lot of them feature this really cool "wand" that you can swipe across the barcode of any CD in the bins - and you will immediately hear samples from the various tracks on that CD! It's really great.

Most record stores also feature "listening posts" where you can sample the music from CDs, but those are limited to the specific CDs being offered that month.

The Internet presents an unbelievable opportunity for sampling. Go to online music stores (like Tower, or Amazon, or loads of others) and click on the album you're interested in and you'll be able to hear samples all day long.

In short, everyone is better off when you, the consumer, get to know what you're buying before you buy it. You're a happier music fan, and we don't have an unhappy customer who feels ripped off."

----
First:
I don't like to listen to 'samples'. I want to listen to the whole song, from beginning to end. and not just once, but several times.

Second: In the second paragraph, he states that there are listening booths that features the music being currently offered. I say that the 200+million files being shared on the net offer a slightly better selection. Besides, who wants to sit through "trash of the month" to find that ONE good track among the piles of BAD cds?

Third:
Going to an online music store entails:
- giving my information (name, email, etc) I hate that.
- Being bombarded with popups and other spurious advertising (thank God for Moz)
- see point one. I don't want to listen to a 30 seconds snippet at 128Kb when the whole song is available on KazaA at 192Kb, or sometimes at 320Kb.

Lastly:
If I just listen to samples, I don't, in fact, know what I'm buying. The only way for me to know if I like a CD is to buy it, get home, turn the lights low, lay back in my sofa, put on the headphones, and listen to the whole album from start to finish. Then I'll be able to tell you if I like it. And if I don't, I want to be able to return it for a full refund.

As long as I can't return a CD for the full price, then I'm not a happy customer. And that's the fault of the recording industry (thanks Sony), and not the fault of the internet. It's a case of shooting oneself in the foot, if you ask me, then blaming everyone else for the bleeding foot when they have the smoking gun in hand.

Apology

"In 2001, sales were off by 10% in the US. That's a huge drop. Sales are down more than 10% so far this year (according to SoundScan). What's more, this is happening around the world, not just in the U.S. It's hard to think that people suddenly don't like the new music being offered in countries as diverse as the US, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the UK, etc. But what all these countries have in common is growing Internet access and increasing numbers of CD burners and burgeoning sales of blank CD-R discs. Get the idea?" -- Cary Sherman

In the same spirit:
Every morning, my uncle's rooster crows. Shortly after that, the sun comes up. Get the idea?

Is this person really so out of touch with reality so as not to realize that there has been a recession in the U.S. (with effects felt in other economies) at the same time that prices on CDs have gone up? HELLO!? It is not clear at all that P2P have had any discernible effect on CD sales. It may have, but the point is we don't know and neither does the RIAA. (Not that they'd tell us outright that sales were up.)

Favorite Quotes from the Interview

I'm an advocate of Free (as in free speech) Music, mainly because I have an open mind. I like to consider new ideas and new options liberally, giving the benefit of a doubt before formulating my opinion. When I first encountered the notion of GPLing music I considered it, read some more about it [eff.org], tried it [angelfire.com], and decided that it was a good thing. I used a similar process while reading this interview. I read with an open and impartial mind. I was sort of surprised at how much sense he made. To give a few examples:

"Yes, I do believe that most people are honest and would pay a reasonable amount for convenience and quality. What I also believe is that it doesn't take much for people to justify not paying. If it's a major artist, they say "they're already rich enough." If it's an unknown artist, they say "I'm doing her a favor by promoting her work." But in the end, convenience will count for a lot; and security will count for even more (only now are the security flaws in P2P systems becoming known, not to mention the privacy risks). So I'm optimistic about the prospects for legitimate businesses online."

He makes some good points here. His justifications for not purchasing music are right on. I've encountered those very opinions here on /. and elsewhere. He also has a good point about convenience counting for a lot. I think that's where Emusic.com could really make a killing. Trying to find what you want on a P2P can be more trouble than its worth (time = money). Going to Emusic is easy as pie (when they actually have what you want, that is). I'm not so sure about his security concerns, though. I personally feel more insecure giving my personal information to Mp3.com before downloading or streaming.

"...record companies have been working very hard at getting music on the Internet legally. That happens to be difficult - because you need the permission of the songwriters and music publishers, and in many cases the artists as well, and those clearances aren't easy to get. (Everyone is nervous about piracy, and trying to figure out how much revenue they should earn, and what the business model is going to be, etc.) And then there are the technical infrastructures that have to be built to account for downloads and streams and pay royalties to rightsowners; the security for the content; and so on. It's a lot easier to do it illegally (just post it, don't worry about security, and don't pay anybody anything); doing it legally takes time. But the companies are getting there. There are a lot of subscription services that are up and running with lots of content; more companies are allowing more downloading, and burning; there's a lot of experimentation on pricing. In other words, a real market is emerging!"

He's got a point. They're trying to fit their old 70's marketing stragegy into the new market of cyberspace. That's no easy task! It's like trying to fit a Ford V8 into a 17th century horse cart. :)

The Question???

How come no one ever asks what happens when a copyright runs out and something reverts to the public domain? Why is it illegal to write software that circumvents an access control when that access control will eventually be null and void by the expiration of the copyright?

Could it be that the current trend is to have it so that copyrights never expire and as such the "IP" is actually considered PROPERTY instead of what it really is? All ideas/music/movies/whatever are built on something from the past. We stand on the shoulders of giants. To take that away is to stop forward progress of all humankind.

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped ,or turned back, for their private benefit."
- Heinlein's Lifeline

Contradiction?!?!

From the 1st answer: on one hand

the US companies have been conscious of the fact that lots of consumers listen to music on their computers, so they've been using additional technology to give consumers the ability to play the CDs on computers (in what are called "second sessions")

but on the other hand

You mention Enhanced CDs. As it happens, lots of consumers have had trouble with Enhanced CDs, because they may not play on all devices. So every time you mess with computer technology, there are unexpected effects.

So it seems to be OK to put data sessions with crappy 64kbps MP3s on otherwise copy-protected CDs, but when it's about giving the customer (remember, we're still customers, not "consumers"!) some added value (lyrics, pictures, ...), the technical problems seem insurmountable? I don't get it...

Smooth-talking, but ...

Unfortunately, a lot of the arguments just don't hold water. Comments such as the fact where he states that 50% of royalties go to the artists assume that 100% of the money fronted to the artist's project has been recouped. That money comes from where? Sales and, you guessed it, royalties. The artist doesn't see a penny of those royalty cheques until the album begins to make a profit. So, unless you're Celine Dion selling squillions of albums and singles to the unwashed masses, you, as an artist, will get your royalty statements for life indicating how much money you still owe the record company.

The fact of life for most artists is that they make their money from playing live engagements, and those engagements are attended by people familiar with the artist. How better to get the exposure necessary to build and maintain your fan base than by having your music out there in the open for the world to hear?

This whole idea that they're championing the cause of the starving artist just doesn't wash. Nasty stuff that really gets up my ire!

trane

Un-smegging-believable

I have to call bullshit on just about everything that came out of this guy's mouth.

Actually, we're not lobbying for copy-restriction technologies.

Ok, even supposing for one minute that that were true, they seem awfully eager to jump on the DMCA bandwagon. Napster, Felton, Webcasting, to name a few, all got smacked upside the head with copyright-circumvention legislation courtesy of the RIAA.

You mention Enhanced CDs. As it happens, lots of consumers have had trouble with Enhanced CDs,

So actually adding value to the purchase is beyond their ken, but fscking up the disc so it won't play in a computer or on a Mac or in many stand-alone or car CD players is easy as 1-2-3? Nice to see what their R&D funding priorities are.

Also contrary to your impression, record companies want Internet radio to succeed.

Sure, to the same extent that a wolf wants the farmer's herds to be healthy. Web radio is a stone's throw away from being as impenetrable a market as regular radio. The RIAA evidently has a radically different notion of 'successful'.

It would not allow, and we would never seek the right, to go into people's computers and "scan" their files. No viruses; no deleting MP3 files; no hacking; just technical measures to prevent distribution of a file after it leaves someone's computer

Being a computer science major with training in networks and telecom, I for one an extremely interested in how they, acting purely as a third party, plan to go about stopping a packet once it has left my computer.

Of course record companies want to embrace the technology for greater profits

These fucktards have fought tooth and nail against every technology that could possibly reduce the grip they have on the music industry. Recordable cassettes, recordable CD's, DAT, and even normal radio all had attempts made on them to outright ban, tightly control, or merely tax into oblivion.

So the market for downloads is developing, and it will probably start to move more quickly now that a lot of the clearance problems have been solved.

They've been saying that for years. It's bogus. They want to have it both ways: easy use of digital music (i.e., enough fair use to keep the masses from rioting) but with strict/total control over how it gets used _on someone else's equipment_. They will work on this for another century and still not have it.

filesharing. (I hate that term, by the way.

This from the same guy who gives the act of copying data the same name as theft, rape, and murder on the high seas. Tell you what Sherman, if you call it what it really is, 'copying bits', then we will too.

To me, "sharing" means we each get a little less. If I share my pie, I only get to eat half. I share my car, I can't use it when the other person has it.

Remind me never to let this guy so much as be in the same room with a kindergarten class. Sharing means spreading a good thing around; it's generally encouraged and for good reason. The absolute best kind of sharing is one in which we can share with everyone and never run out. To hear this grown man implying "Anything that detracts from my pleasure is a bad thing. Only legitimate publishers (like myself!) are allowed to share", is utterly appalling.

That the signal-to-noise ratio for this interview approaches zero doesn't really come as a surprise to me. These were exactly the questions the RIAA doesn't want the public to know the answers to. The RIAA needs to take a lesson from the tobacco industry about lying to anyone and everyone. I just wish this had been a debate like the MPAA one awhile back; Lessig would have chewed him up like he did Valenti.

Question Not Answered

In the interview, "Jon" asked, "I can walk into any bookstore and peruse a book for hours before buying. I can also return that book for store credit without the bookstore accusing me of photocopying the book at home. I generally cannot peruse the contents of a CD, and I can not return it once it has been opened. Thus, I'm treated as a criminal, and forced to buy a $16.99 raffle ticket. Why are you hiding the contents of a CD from the consumer? Are you afraid that generally once they hear the full album (rather than just the radio hit that has been drilled into their heads) that the consumer will not buy it? Please elaborate on why, as a consumer, I am not entitled to know what I am buying."
Ms. Sherman responded,"I guess you haven't been to a record store lately. A lot of them feature this really cool "wand" that you can swipe across the barcode of any CD in the bins - and you will immediately hear samples from the various tracks on that CD! It's really great. Most record stores also feature "listening posts" where you can sample the music from CDs, but those are limited to the specific CDs being offered that month. The Internet presents an unbelievable opportunity for sampling. Go to online music stores (like Tower, or Amazon, or loads of others) and click on the album you're interested in and you'll be able to hear samples all day long. In short, everyone is better off when you, the consumer, get to know what you're buying before you buy it. You're a happier music fan, and we don't have an unhappy customer who feels ripped off."
Ms. Sherman did not answer Jon's question. He was asking to listen to the whole CD-not a "sample". He wants to know why he can't listen to whatever tracks he damn well pleases in the store before he buys the CD. I would like to know that too. In a bookstore, I could, theoretacaly, read the whole book. Why can't I listen to an entire CD in a record store?