Don't Sever A High-Tech Lifeline for Musicians 485
Licensed2Hack writes "Janis Ian, who provided this slashdot interview last September, has written this editorial in the Los Angeles Times. Janis says, "After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online." And the RIAA's stated goal in preventing this type of activity with their lawsuit against Verizon is to increase sales..."
To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, I just realized, her sales probably went up before she even made any public statements about it. Hmm, interesting.
Re:To be fair (Score:2, Redundant)
Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s (Score:3)
Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, thousands of slashbot geeks who would never even consider giving an old-skool female folk artist a second look probably became instant fans of her just for visibly being on the white-hat side of the whole MP3 debate.
It's kind of like how we were all willing to forget how much we hated Wesley Crusher when Wil Wheaton turned out to be "one of us." Our objectivity has been skewed a little regarding public figures who turn out to be good eggs.
Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we're starting to assemble enough data points to be able to say with some confidence, putting out free stuff helps sales of both the rest of the IP portfolio and sales of the free stuff as well.
Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is Janis the only one who knows how to rip MP3s (Score:3, Insightful)
At some point, won't the artists have to treat recordings as simply free advertising for their concert tours... Nothing more?
Re:To be fair (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To be fair (Score:5, Interesting)
This only holds true when all the extra variables hold equal, like any experiment, but we all know not every person either likes both of these women or hates both of these women equally. What we do see with this situation of technology vs. RIAA is the strong dichotomy between fans. Check out this month's WIRED for a great blurb on methods record company's are using to disuade critics from ripping and distributing MP3's in prerelease. I loved the example of Radiohead's 'listening party' at an aquarium - not only was it a great idea, but it sold tons of albums in the area. However, it's highly doubted if the artist was a more (primarily) commercial one, their fans would do the same (I'm guilty of being biased towards Radiohead here, but you get the idea).
Britney will still sell billions of CD's (and, unfortunately, do some RIAA commercials) even if it's less than she's used to (sorry, sweetie - only 4 new houses this year). And Janis will probably keep selling more albums if the technology is still available, albeit still far less than Britney. It boils down to the fans. I guess if you're a recording artist and you find your fans refuse to spend money on your music, maybe you should reconsider either you rmusic or your career. (I don't know about you but I take pride in my purchases.)
-e
Motives (Score:4, Insightful)
The RIAA's interest is it's members: Recording companies not artists or music(except when it's convinent for buisness).
Their current way of doing business is largely based on publicity and they have lots of control over the media they use.Competition from independant artists via the internet is not in their interests (obvious parallels here with M$), so to eliminate this competition they are using the indirect tactic of trying to lock the use of the net down by lobbying for apropriate laws.
If a larger chuck of commercial music was done by artists independantly, online, then there would be more focus on that group from the public - it would become a decent sized market (bazaar
So just like M$ they are trying to use their lobbying power (Money without ethics..) to preseve their buisness model from it's impending doom.
The standard of music should go up too
no shit (Score:5, Insightful)
2) they like it and buy the cd
3) profit
Re:no shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Being able to hear the music means you'll buy music that you really like, rather than what has the sexiest photographer putting the CD together or the most advertising behind it.
It means people will begin to use their own judgement and initiative to choose what they really like.
And that means you might buy something from a non-RIAA distributor.
Re:no shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Which can be damn difficult sometimes. For example, I'm trying to buy some albums put out by an Australian jazz singer (Nina Ferro), but there aren't any US distributors for her music. In essence, she doesn't exist, despite the fact that she's one of the hottest Australian jazz acts.
Now, you're probably asking, if she's persona non-grata here in the states, how did I get to hear her music? Easy, I listen to the Jim Cullum jazz band every weekend via PRI (Public Radio, International), on Riverwalk, Live from the Landing [riverwalk.org], where Nina has sung before. Variety shows like Prairie Home Companion [prairiehome.com] are also another great source for music. Unfortunately, I got into these shows about 10 years ago, when public radio was a lot more diverse. These days, many of the older shows have been dropped, as all radio homogenizes, both public and commercial.
Internet radio really needs to be built on as a viable, wide-audience alternative to current radio, in order for these types of shows to survive, and in order to expose the buying public to music that they might want to try.
No exposure = no sales. And no, exposing someone to Shakira on screen, stage, and radio isn't going to make that person buy 10 of the same album. Exposing someone to 10 different artists might get them to buy 10 different albums. Face it, the music industry is approaching diminishing returns for the amount of payola and promotion that they're spending. Time to cut back on the amount of money for new acts, and broaden the palate. And a cheap way of promoting more acts is to stream mp3 samples!!!
Seriously, why isn't there a Capitol records streaming MP3 station? Why isn't there a Sony records streaming MP3 station? You think people are going to discover their back catalogs themselves? Nonsense!
Why aren't the executives jumping at the chance to kill off 3/4ths of the middlemen in the business and rake in the pure profit themselves? Any rational businessperson from outside the recording industry would do it. The only explaination is that there's a lot of vested interest in preserving the current system (aka, kickbacks/payola.) Thus, instead of serving the shareholders, the music execs are ONLY SERVING THEMSELVES.
Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm pulling numbers out of my hat below, just to make a point. But I'm sure youcan find real numbers to back up the argument.
The recording industry decided that since people collectively will only be buying 300 million CDs per year, then if they only run 30 marketing campaigns to push 30 artists, they would still sell 300 million CDs - but spend a heck of a lot less than they would pushing say 3000 artists.
The problem which they are unable to recognize is that not everyone likes the 30 artists that are being forced down our throats. So they are not seeing the 10 million CDs per artist that they expected. But since nothing is being done to promote the other 2970 artists, they might just conceivably want to see some additional sales - but that would involve online distribution of their music.
But wait, their music is "owned" by RIAA members.
Re:no shit (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA doesn't give a shit about any of this. The RIAA is an organization of lawyers and administrators which was originally formed to standardize shit like the little equalizer that goes into all turntables (the reason why you can't plug most record players into your standard RCA inputs), and to make sure people are not stomping all over copyrights.
Recently, the RIAA's number one purpose has been to serve as a lightning rod, drawing criticism away from the big record labels. As long as all of you were shouting "fuck Hillary Rosen," she was doing her job, which was to keep the actual assholes behind shutting down napster completely faceless. It's worked like a charm. I'm sure everybody will assume Rosen's replacement is a pariah as well, and give the dicks running the big media companies a pass.
but in a perfect world (Score:2)
2) people are pissed off and return it
3) ???
4) profit!
I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:4, Interesting)
In a few years time when broadband is standard, that same user would instead download an individual song, like it, and then download the whole album in less time than it takes a dialup user to download a single mp3.
Song-swapping encourages album purchases because it's still too difficult for many people to download whole albums with their slow connection speeds. This will change with the arrival of broadband. And when downloading a whole album becomes dead easy, album sales will fall off, alot.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, okay, 'most people' have modems.
but a lot of people in the 'young adult' (I mean recently adult, not teenager) category are in college, and most colleges have massive broadband penetration (almost everyone around here off campus has broadband, and EVERYONE in the dorms with a computer has it). That compounds the 'it's too hard to get a whole album' theory.
I can hop on windows networking and find giant massive piles of whole albums to listen to without even 'downloading' a thing in the classical sense.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:2)
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:2)
Whoops, the school network has been routed to
---Likewise they routinely inspect windows file sharing directories.
What if you're not sharing, say by killing of smbd and nmbd?
---Don't *even* lock them out, or your off the net.
And how do they prove that you're "locking them off"? Would their 'hacking' be unauthorized entry?
---My running Norton Internet Security on my windows partition was a problem for them. I had to appeal being kicked off.
They're just fucking with you. If you were serious, I' do a class action suit under the terms of harassment, Hacking, and threats to my educational careear. Get a shitload of people too.
---(They also reserve the right to intercept email.)
But can they decrypt 4096 bit RSA keys? Methinks not.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:4, Interesting)
While pop today is liked by people because it's shoved down their throats, music like I mentioned only sticks around if people like it on its own merits, only then does it get "passed on." You can't put a price on viral marketing like that.
If you want free music, go here.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:5, Insightful)
There has always been an element of people who never bought their music for as long as home-recordable media has been available. My dad used to borrow LP's and record them on reel-to-reel, and, later, I copied friends tapes on cassette. The important issue here is that the vast majority of people out there (you know, the non-Slashdot folks) who aren't going to copy music. Sure, some of them will, but you'd be surprised how important that pretty little book that's inside the CD is to people. They may download enough to make their own CD, but they won't have THE CD.
If the pretty CD booklet isn't enough, then do what groups like Audioslave do and make extra songs available for download to those who own the CD. Either way, the overwhelming majority of folks who buy music are still going to buy it. That is, as long as the product isn't crap and they don't feel like they're being ripped off due to overly-inflated prices.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:2)
Oh, really [billboard.com] ? Maybe they don't think too hard about the prices.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:2)
With the proliferation of broadband 'net access, commonplace CD burners (even those $399 el cheapo PC's are shipping with them) and the ever increasing quality of "consumer" grade printers, it is becoming that much simpler to produce an identical copy of a store purchased CD. I don't just mean the music, but the CD cover, the little book, the illustration on the CD disc itself.
The RIAA knows this. The LAST thing they want is every high school and college kid owning a 50x CDR, a photo quality CD label printer, and a photo quality PC printer.
Today, these are several hundred dollars worth of peripherals that are not standard fare on your average consumer PC. It would be impractical to purchase these accessories for the sole purpose of illegally duplicating CD's. But in not too many months from now, these could be every-day items that even the Wal-Mart PC comes with. I think you get the picture.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:3, Insightful)
So... tell me how radio works again?
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:3, Insightful)
It's ridiculous to think that downloading mp3's is theft because there is no scarcity. Downloading an MP3 does not mean a CD suddenly disappears from your local Best Buy. The 'theft' is an entirely theoretical loss of _potential revenue_. You may choose not to buy a CD for many reasons. You may borrow it from a friend and decide it sucks, or he may give it to you outright because he already knows it does. You could even buy a used copy off eBay. All of these options cost music companies revenue. Is this stealing too? It's beyond silly. I had a song stuck in my head the other day- am I a criminal? You'd laugh if someone called you a thief after you told your friend who was about to go see "The Hot Chick" that it sucked because he ended up not seeing it. The movie companies still 'lost' the same $8.50 though. Shame on you for taking food out of Rob Schneider's mouth.
If I were a freak show performer and people paid five bucks to see me at the state fair that doesn't mean the people seeing me at the grocery store are stealing from me. Hell, I might think everyone walking behind me on the street should pay ten dollars for the privilege of viewing my sexy ass, but that sure as heck doesn't mean it's going to happen. Why the hell is this any different? No one has an inalienable right to make money anyway they want to. I don't sit around and fucking cry because money doesn't grow on trees and they shouldn't either.
Anyone who tells you that disregarding all this idiocy will hurt music is on crack. You can cut an album for a few thousand. Even if you spend way more by far the biggest expense is still making all those damned CD which we don't even need anymore. You can still charge for concerts and T-shirts and a lot of other things that actually make sense. Excellent artists make music for nothing all the time. Hell some of them you couldn't pay enough to stop. And yes, being in a cool band will get you laid regardless. We are in for a sorry future if every single piece of crap that you happen to spout out of your mouth is suddenly worthy of protection by the government. I tremble when I think how they might actually do that. Look at the war on drugs and be really fucking afraid.
Re:I keep saying this, but nobody listens (Score:4, Informative)
That's not hard evidence, it's a quote from a Web site. It's far less valid as a reason for believing something than even anecdotal evidence. Actually, the general success of shareware is support for my argument.
The argument doesn't hold water, not because the exposure is ineffective for the artists, but because it's still not an excuse for theft.
Well, to me, the definition of stealing involves depriving somebody of something. If I walk into your home and steal your TV, it's stealing because now you no longer have a TV. You paid for that TV, so now you're out a certain amount of money because of what I did.
Let's analyze the different uses of music piracy, and the extent to which I've stolen from the musician in each case:
a) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.
I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything, whether I continue to listen to the music or not. If I enjoy the music and listen to it, I've gained, making my actions at least a little questionable, but nobody else lost by my gain, so labelling my actions "theft" is unreasonable.
b) I wasn't going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.
I've actually benefited the artist by my actions in this case. There is no way this can be considered theft.
c) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm going to buy the album.
Obviously I haven't deprived the artist or label of anything in this case. My motives may be a little questionable, but if I ultimately bought the album I can't be considered to have stolen it.
d) I was going to buy the album, I downloaded the music, and now I'm not going to buy the album.
This is the only case where I'm depriving the artist and label of something. If I proceed to listen to and enjoy the music regularly, and keep the recordings, obviously I have thoroughly cheated someone out of some money they deserve. If I proceed to delete the music because it turns out I didn't like it as much as I expected, the ethics of the situation are less obvious but it's still pretty clear I've done something wrong.
This is something of a simplification, since what is done with the music afterwards makes a difference as well, as far as morality is concerned, but for the most part 3/4 of the possible ways to "pirate" music involve no detriment to...anyone. In the face of a complete lack of any research into this, there is no reason to believe that one or another of these possibilities is more likely than the others in practice, so until such research is done the only logical assumptions are:
a) The probabilities are equal, so that 3/4 of all music piracy causes no harm, while the amount that causes harm is exactly balanced by the amount that causes benefit to the same people; or
b) Anecdotal evidence gives an accurate view of the situation, and people buy more CDs if they download music than if they don't, so the RIAA's position is indefensible.
These are the only defensible positions; the RIAA's statement that music piracy is eating into their profits is sheer speculation until some market research shows one way or another. I suspect that if research into this is ever conducted, the RIAA's position will go from being speculation to being wrong...unless the research is funded by the RIAA, in which case they have the option of only publishing results that favor them.
Frankly, I'm surprised no real research has been done into the effects of music piracy on CD sales, considering the amount of press the subject has received.
On the mark... (Score:5, Insightful)
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. The RIAA is not, by any means, interested in "sales" or "artist's livelihood." What the RIAA is interested in is keeping a very tight rein on what is seen as cool, what is heard on the radio, and what makes their profit margins exceed their own expectations.
RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music. As I've often said before, plenty of people think that radio and music in general truly suck in these days and times (how many people do you know that haven't bought a "new artist" cd in the last five years, perferring to spend $11.98 on "Skynard's Greatest Hits" or what ever?)
Re:On the mark... (Score:3, Insightful)
The demands that the labels place on their artists to re-create the success of a smash debut have a lot to do with this. Rather than build a legacy of quality, the labels rush the artist to reproduce whatever the artist did in their first album and then slam it out on the streets to while the artist is "hot". How many acts that danced to this tune have had a followup album worth the plastic it's pressed on?
Not everyone has drunk the Koolaid. Bands like Pearl Jam, Phish and P.E., and performers like Prince, have the balls and knowledge to flip off the suits and build long, profitable careers. It seems these days that such things happen despite of, and not because of, the management of the major record labels.
Re:On the mark... (Score:5, Funny)
Nice alliteration, but I have a better one:
Performances purveyors Pearl Jam, Phish, P.E., and players like Prince, possess perspicacity, preventing pandering to profiteers, preferring portraying poetry prolifically. Presently, performers procure popularity from performances; pessimistic pilferers perish.
Re:On the mark... (Score:3, Interesting)
You do, of course, realize that this is pure, unadulterated nonsense, don't you? Throughout the history of time people have frozen their tastes at a certain period of time, and from thenceforth assured anyone and everyone that music had gone to hell in a handbasket. This sort of personal time lock gets justified by claims that everything just isn't as good as it used to be. If you don't think it's happened for decades, if not centuries, then you are deluding himself. When Beethoven first started his piano concertos the elites assured themselves that this newfangled contraption was but a lowly passing fancy...it just didn't measure up to the harpsichord. Rinse, repeat.
Re:On the mark... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd admit it were pure, adulterated nonsense if it were 45-year old mullets buying all that fucking Skynard. But it isn't. It's 18 year-old kids stuck in a "retro" trip.
Why retro? Because their own, mass marketed, youth culture sucks ass. They'd rather feed off the ghosts of the past than starve with the shades of present.
While there are a certain number of people who reach a point where "nostalgia" becomes important to them and "new and shiny" is just not acceptable, I don't think that it invalidates my argument at all. After all, there is plenty of corporate music out there that is "new" that appeals to the "old" tastes, eh? And where are the sales of those groups? Down in the gutters with all the other new artists.
Re:On the mark... (Score:5, Interesting)
Discovering (Score:5, Interesting)
You might know all the Pink Floyd hits from Careful With That Ax Eugene to the more recent masturbatory epics but for an 18 year old, that's a whole new world.
I was listening to a Yes live video (the one with the young girls in the symphony orchestra) with an older inlaw and our 15 year old niece who is a budding musician came down to the basement and went Wow!...what is that song?
"Uh.....its called Roundabout and Ive heard that song about as often as Freebird and hotel California"
What's Freebird she asked?
When her friends came by to check out some of my 70's stuff recently, it was an amazing revelation, for them and me. Songs that I had OD'ed on were new and fresh to them.
Mind you it helps that these kids were all interested in playing music so their tastes were not limited to the prefab top 40 stuff.
Hell, if you want to play music and get to hear
the Allmans Brothers Live at the Fillmore East for the first time, it will mark you, no matter when it was made.
zack
Re:On the mark... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes, and in the 90s noone listened to disco remixes. In the 80s noone listened to Dee-Lite or the B-52s. "Retro" has always been hip. Young people who need to be "cooler" than the average young person have always listened to retro music. Young people who are quite happy being "just plain cool" will listen to Limp Bizkit and love it, and in five years they'll be complaining no music has come out in the last five years that was any good - that Limp Bizkit was The End Of Metal. Bullcrap. It's common knowledge that around the age of 19-20, most people's tastes get locked in time. Either they only buy old music, or they only buy "retro" music. Just admit it - you're getting old. It happens to almost everyone, you get to a point when current pop music doesn't excite you any more. To me, this is a wonderful nod in the direction of musicians and particularly A&R people, who are able to stay with the trends and keep giving the teenagers what they want.
Re:On the mark... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could Elvis do much more than just plink a few simple chords on his guitar? Do countless millions of fans care? No. Pop music is about the whole package, not about musical skill. And if someone prefers pop music to "virtuoso music" that doesn't make them any less of a person. I personally love listening to Britney, not because of the lyrics or the vocals, but the production is some of the sweetest you'll ever hear. Listen to "Oops I Did It Again" on a good sound system, hear how the bass synths cut through the mix so sharply, but at the same time don't take away from the melodies on top. Listen to those curling effects on her voice as she goes "yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah". Listen to the way the songwriter put the song together so even if you hate the song you'll still remember the hooks, the tunes, even a year later. Look at the video clip and the way they've choreographed her dancing, look at her make-up and clothes. Look at the way she is pushed in the media. These are the things that make a pop musician popular, and they are just as valid talents as being a skilled "traditional" musician. Just because you don't appreciate those talents doesn't mean it's not still something to be blown away by. Think about ALL the work that goes into making a Britney album, not just the time spent writing the melodies.
Re:On the mark... (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a lot of other people like me as well, who refuse to listen to the crap that is modern music. Some listen to indie bands, some get into the local music scene, some gravitate toward older music, and some tune out of music alltogether.
Of course, there will always be the sheeple who buy Britney Spears and stuff. But, most of their audience is children who will grow up and realize that it's all crap. Hell, I liked New Kids on the Block when I was 5, now my 6 year old sister is a big fan of Britney, I grew out of it and so will she.
Re:On the mark... (Score:3, Interesting)
This piece really hits the mark in a very roundabout sort of way. RIAA wants to stop peer-to-peer through actions like its lawsuit against Verizon because those actions threaten their stranglehold on commercial music.
I dunno. That's pretty roundabout logic. What Janis Ian basically said was "I put up music that people can download for free off my website, but the RIAA wants to stop me by suing Verizon to force them to reveal the names of people who illegally share copyrighted files via P2P." Somehow I just don't follow. I know there's a logical fallacy in there, but what could it be?
-a
I agree completely. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I agree completely. (Score:5, Funny)
Idea to help indie artists... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know the law in the US allows them to disable file sharing computers without worrying about damages, but would it protect them from damage it causes other people with secondary effects such as that?
Re:Idea to help indie artists... (Score:2)
> file sharing computers without worrying about
> damages
No it doesn't.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
so wait... You're telling me that all I have to do (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I have a short list of people who I believe have been pirating music:
Hillary Rosen
George W. Bush
William Jefferson Clinton
Gandhi
Carrot Top
Ann Coulter
Jesse Jackson
The Dell Dude
mathew lesko (The question mark guy selling the book on how to get free government money)
Rick Fox (from the Lakers...)
Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to (Score:2, Funny)
Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so wait... You're telling me that all I have to (Score:5, Funny)
Swaying Indecisively (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA can't stop you from sending your own music careening across the Internet. BUT, I'm concerned that the RIAA CAN put you in the courtroom long enough or often enough to drain your coffers and shut you down permanently via the tried and true method of bluedgeoning a less financially healthy victim with constant lawsuits. This could be an effective new marketing technique, in fact. Just drag indies and single artists/bands into the courtroom who might be "stealing sales" by offering their music for free, then beat them into submission by outlasting their bank accounts.
I don't know yet what to make of this. However, I've learned both through harsh personal experience and by watching other cases play out, that the courts in this country are rarely inclined to do the right thing. Justice is blind... blinded by money that is, and the RIAA has enough of it to make sure that they can make more of it.
Re:Swaying Indecisively (Score:3, Interesting)
So the next time you are sued wrongfully, find yourself a nice pro-bono lawyer. The RIAA has plenty of cash, just like you said. If you are truly in the right, you should have no trouble winning their initial case against you. Then, as retribution, you counter-sue them for about 5 million dollars to cover your court costs, lawyer fees, therapy bills (from induced stress), lost wages, and mental anguish.
The door swings both ways my friend. You just need to know the right people, and (more importantly) be persistant and never give up.
Re:Swaying Indecisively (Score:3, Insightful)
works great for small artists.. (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I don't think her example is valid on a multi-platinum level. We get enough exposure to bigger bands through mtv and radio where we already know if we're gonna buy their shirt and concert tickets.
Re:works great for small artists.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:works great for small artists.. (Score:2)
> multi-platinum level.
So? What need is there for "multi-platinum level" bands to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue?
Built-in players (Score:5, Interesting)
At one point it seemed everything had an AM radio built into it - lamps, planters, kitchen appliances. You can find these kitschy, unenlightened objects in thrift stores nowadays, or tucked embarrassedly in people's basements. A while before that everything had a lamp built into it (culminating in that grass-skirted hula girl lamp you just can't get rid of), and before that it was a clock (you know you've got one of those elephants too). Whatever technology is just past the cusp seems to get built into everything as a cheap add-on (as long as it's simple enough, anyway - making toast, for instance, is a dedicated task).
Now people are asking for MP3 players in cellphones and PDAs - is this the kitschy inclusion of the future? Will alarm clocks and stoves and fridges and (dare I hope) toasters of the future all include a de rigeur network interface with an IPv6 address and an MP3 codec? It seems likely they will.
Built-in players already happening... (Score:2)
MP3s are popular and MP3 support is so easy to add, why not add it? And this is a good thing because the more people who are exposed, the harder it is to stop the whole thing.
Brian Ellenberger
This is a logical cause and effect (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're interested in free music, go here [etree.org].
Re:This is a logical cause and effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a logical cause and effect (Score:2)
While this method does work good for some bands, it will not work for others. The bands it works for are bands with a smaller, extremely dedicated following. It works well if people are willing to go see you every night for a week in concert. But for the average band (ie most bands) that doesn't inspire this type of fanatical devotion, giving away free music usually means people take their free music and leave. Most people are not fanatical about their music. They can be inspired to go and spend $15 on a CD to hear the band, but they would be much happier if they could get online and hear the band for free.
Sabrina (Score:2, Funny)
The RIAA I'm sure sees this increase in sales (Score:3, Interesting)
They took radio along with Clear Channel -- let's not let them take the net.
Legacy of Greed (Score:4, Informative)
The entertainment industries are controlled by people so blinded by greed that they are completely incapable of comprehending any business model that does not revolve around iron-fisted totalitarian control of their product. The list is lengthy and has been repeated many times:
Jack Valenti wanted to outlaw VCRs, saying they would destroy the movie industry. Instead, they have produced billions in profits.
The MPAA claims that they are currently suffering enormous harm from the trading of movies on the Interent. In reality, box office receipts in 2002 were up 11% from the previous year and the number of movie tickets sold was the highest in 50 years.
In 1981 the RIAA was making the same claims that they are today about lost profits due to "piracy". Back in those days, CDs, Personal Computers and the Internet didn't exist. The villian, according to the RIAA, was cassette tape recorders. People were allegedly taping their friends records instead of buying them. But studies showed that people who owned sophisticated home recording requipment spend 75% MORE money buying records than people who didn't.
The list goes on.......
The greed and stupidity of the enterntainment industry goes on....
The irony here is that time and time again the entertainment industry has had to be saved from itself.
Re:Legacy of Greed (Score:2, Funny)
Without use of amplifiers, if they want to make the noise of 10,000 musicians, they would have to hire 10,000 musicians. Amplifiers put musicians out of work!
Re:Legacy of Greed (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA wants to increase sales.....OR....... (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point....Ani Difranco has sold nearly, if not MORE than 1 million albums....ALL ON HER OWN!! And that's just ONE WOMAN from that musical hotbed of Buffalo, NY *sarcasm*!!
Imagine that, if you multiplied that more than 100x with talent from around the world! The labels would not be able to compete......
Mod UP (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember discussing this over and over again at the time and how everyone was sure the companies wanted to destroy IUMA. Then Napster came along and made them forget about it.
Whoever modded this down either didn't read it or didn't understand the point he was trying to make. The Record companies DO want control over the music and how it is distributed. File Swapping takes that away from them. They don't want a bunch of small tiny artists selling directly to people who take away sales of their mega-bands. They just want Mega Bands, and a cut of the profits these mega bands make.
Digital Music Distribution HOW-TO (Score:5, Interesting)
repeat after me - The RIAA doesn't represent Me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Artists.. Not music consumers..
doesn't that feel better?
There actions may drive you nuts , but what can you do. Your not paying them. They're defending the "Recording Industry" The fact they have the influence they do isn't there own fault. If you don't like it don't buy the music they produce..(I'm not advocating stealing it either by obtaining it and not paying for it..)
Slashdot shouldn't jump every time the RIAA does something..
Well, obviously... (Score:4, Interesting)
For that matter, it should come as no surprise to people who know the history of VHS. The movie industry was up in arms when tape recorders came out, saying people would no longer go to movies because they could just pirate a friend's copy. Today, most of the movie industry's revenue comes from sales and rentals of video tapes and DVDs. The VCR caused a boom in the movie industry, and if it weren't for a) the current economic slump and b) the RIAA's stubborn opposition of new technology, P2P would be causing a boom in the music industry.
Re:Well, obviously... (Score:3, Funny)
Ballsy. Stupid, but ballsy.
System of a Down (Score:5, Insightful)
That's added value. The CD itself has more information and value than the collection of the same songs on mp3.
An album is not just the music that it has; it's a whole piece of art, expressed in the music, in the cover art, in the packaging, in the booklet, etc
Such albums would make me want to buy the CD instead of just having the mp3s
Re:System of a Down (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:System of a Down (Score:3, Insightful)
You call that added value? They do NOT provide something, they force you to download some app and "unlock" what you get with other CDs normally?
Re:System of a Down (Score:4, Interesting)
To have the MP3 tracks of the songs embedded on the CD also.
The technology to make mixed-mode CDs (Data Track 1 + Audio Tracks 2..n), that *work* in devices like walkmen, car audio, and computers, has been around for YEARS and YEARS.
An album I put together for some friends of mine who all attended this concert was a big hit. On the audio portion of the CD, I put the most well known track from each of the 18 or so bands that played. On the data portion, I put the same track in MP3 format.
I've bought a few CDs and ripped them to MP3. If when I bought a CD, it came with the MP3s already (buying a CD legally entitles you to the MP3s, you just have to go find or rip them) that would be excellant. ALso acceptable in this case would be DRM-enabled WMA files that require the physical CD they came from the first time they are played, to unlock them; after that, they're yours and yours alone. Reformat, just copy and reactivate.
The "stated goal" (Score:3, Insightful)
The suit against Verizon involves someone who made music illegally available, i.e. the copyright was held by a RIAA member. It does not involve someone making available music that no RIAA member held the copyright to. (damn, what a messy sentence). RIAA didn't go after the biggest file sharer - they went after someone they could win against. Garage bands are safe.
Focus of interests (Score:5, Insightful)
If I work for a union and the union is offered a contract that will significantly increase my salary, but also reduce the number of union employees, it is very unlikely that the proposal will be accepted (even when the staff reduction is done via attrition).
Similarly the RIAA's interests have nothing to do with artist's best interests, so why the surprise? Artists (like misreprested union employees) need to realize when the people they pay (very well), are no longer working in their best interests and move to find new representation.
Heads in the sand... (Score:3)
Tell it to the artists themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
We should take the time to contact our favorite artists and let them know that we are not going to buy their music until we can purchase it in a format that we want. Let the artists themselves put some serious pressure on the recording companies.
I personally have not bought a CD since 1996 despite wanting to buy a number of almbums. For me, CD's are simply not worth their current prices. The latest moves by RIAA have just hardened my resolve.
When I can buy high quality MP3's or FLAC encodings online, for a reasonable price, I can easily see myself spending a couple thousand dollars buying the music I want. Until then, I simply don't listen to music. I won't download it because I don't believe that is fair. I will, however, exercise my rights as a consumer not to purchase their music.
-sirket
Profit lost... (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is that the recording companies can see a "free market" in the future, which means their relitive profit will probably come close to zero.
In Ellen Fiess-ese here's the senario:
"So the RIAA guy was like, 'Ah, like, I was doing my homework, and like,,, if these, like people start using mp3s, they will, like, stop buying CDs from us
So I was like Nooo Waaay!, so I made the switch from opressing music artists to suing and getting court orders to ransack small buisinesses trying to establish file-sharing on the internet.
I'm so totally pleased in my desision to broaden my circle oppression, cause, like, I feel so much more totally secure.'"
-- All your sig. are belong to us
The RIAA acts in the interests if its constituants (Score:5, Interesting)
--CTH
Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The RIAA acts in the interests if its constitua (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to nit-pick, but Janis is a woman.
Recently, I attended the Consumer Electronics Show and Janis was on a panel with Dan Gillmor from the Mecury News, Steve Wozniac, Scott Dinsdale (a weasle from the MPAA), a mega-weasle from the RIAA (the "little pischer" from Courtney Love's rant), and someone from the HRRC. Janis daid a lot of interesting things, including talking about a blind kid who had his computer wiped out by a copy-protected Celiene Dion CD.
Anyway, Dinsdale was asked about Jon Johansen and the right to watch legally purchased DVDs on the computer system of one's choice. He replied (I wish I had this on tape) that just because someone was stupid enough to use the wrong operating system, they didn't have the right to watch anything they wanted. Yes, I'm serious...he called Linux users "stupid". This should be on the recording of the CES "Supersession on Digital Downloading" of the 2003 CES.
To repeat, a legally authorized representative of the MPAA called Linux users stupid. This is true. This is NOT a troll. There were several hundred people in the room.
Am I the only one ... (Score:3, Funny)
To: spamvictim@aol.com
Subject: MAKE EASY MONEY AT HOME
After I first posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales went up 300%. They're still double what they were before the MP3s went online.
Re:Am I the only one ... (Score:2)
Yeah, pretty much.
The Cost of Stupidity (Score:2, Insightful)
For the stuff out of print, I can't buy it, so no loss to the industry.
For the new stuff, if I like it I buy the CD, if I don't I delete it and would have never gambled the price of a CD anyway.
And I'm especially pissed about the stuff out of print. They are screwing both the artist and listener by having a business structure that can't be profitable with small run/demand items. Rhino did a lot to rescue some catalogues, but there are many others languishing out there that a smaller and smarter business could profit from.
The music industry wasn't destroyed by the MP3, it was destroyed by the bean counter and the corporation. They will die, and I hope it will happen soon, because then new business will spring up in it's place, dedicated to the music, and serving both artist and listener.
Re:The Cost of Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
If we assume that you have only so many hours in a month that you can devote listening to music, then it follows that if you are spending your listening time listening to free out-of-print music, you'll be less motivated to investigate and buy the new music the RIAA is selling. So they lose income that they would otherwise have got from you.
(not that their hypothetical loss of income bothers me in the least, of course -- but this would explain why the RIAA doesn't want people to have easy access to out-of-print music)
I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
www.machinaesupremacy.com [machinaesupremacy.com] allow people to download their music for free. although they have no cd's out atm I know if they did I would gladyl buy it and support them. but thats just me I find by sampleing the music I am more apt to buy it.
In regards to the damages (Score:2, Interesting)
People don't always buy cd's (Score:2, Interesting)
I live in LA... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their NOT.
Free downloads can actually help sales in the same way that radio does. And the pirates who have 1000's of mp3's probably would not have paid for any of that anyway.
So what are they worried about?
Distribution. Their greatest fear is that artists will start releasing music on their own, side stepping the recording industry and their slave like contracts. Once an artist can release music (without the record company) through the Internet. The record companies will cease to exist. End of story
Far of P2P: A Musician's Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
However...
What we're really talking about here is the notion that one must fork over a monetary sum and wait (maybe minutes, but sometimes days, sometimes years, depending on a recording's availablity and rarity) to hear it. P2P cuts the wait and the inconvenience of "real" shopping, and is (currently) free.
The price of a CD is justified through the reward of owning a physical media that is as close to the original master as is possible, given mass-production's capabilities. Fairly-priced CDs ($5-$15) are a good bargain in this regard. If you know that a recorded work is required for your library, then ONLY a legitimate copy of that thing, with full audio quality, is an acceptable solution to that need. MP3s won't cut it.
MP3s are merely "near-CD" facsimiles of an actual, valuable thing. They, in and of themselves, have *NO* value. Even the highest quality MP3 files suffer from degradation, and can't be replicated without further degradation. Without hard-media backups, they are prone to instant and irrecoverable loss or corruption. They provide none of the tactile rewards of real media (quality artwork and printed liner notes are, indeed, worth something) and are even incapable of replicating the CD listening experience in certain cases (where tracks flow one song into another, seperate files for each track result in gaps).
Some might say these are minor things, but I feel strongly that no one would ever settle for having MP3s of a work that they truly love.
So the real question is: why should people feel pressure to pay for the privelege of auditioning works that they may not actually desire to have in their physical media library for the long term?
I don't think they should.
Readers can audition nearly any book at their public library without a financial transaction taking place. I feel that P2P applications are roughly the audio equivalent of public libraries, and, as such, are beneficial for the public's musical education.
As a musician with works in release, I do not fear downloading, because anyone who would download my record and be content with that piss-poor representation of my work wasn't going to buy it anyway. But, perhaps, through having heard it in it's entirety, they might learn to love it and need to purcahse it. Or, if they don't like it, they might recommend it to someone who *would* like it, and they might purchase it.
And another thing: if we're going to be upset about P2P music trading, why aren't we upset about used CDs? Artists don't get a *dime* from those transactions, and those transactions lead to the purchaser actually obtaining the thing of real value - a physical copy!
Janis Ian is a Famous Special Case (Score:2)
Publicity is significant to Janis Ian's case.
She is famous among the "filesharing" community because she is on their side.
Drawing the conclusion that "filesharing promotes sales" from her case is drawing a false conclusion.
Drawing the conclusion that "filesharing reduces sales" is also false, but that's not the point, here.
It's a need that must be filled somehow... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a music fan I have a need to hear the voices in the heads of other kindred spirits who I can connect with via music. I'll get a hold of that through what ever means is available. Most of the music in my collection is special order. There is, make that was, a great deal I was never able to aquire until the internet united us all whether it be purchasing cds directly from the artist's web site or just downloading a mp3.
My personal feeling is that the RIAA is fighting to save itself under the guise of protecting it's artists. Technology has made the old system ( as ineffective as it was ) obsolete. Artists can now deal directly with their fans no matter how distant they may be. The Industry tried to ignore the technology, but the musicians and the fans created the system they wanted instead. Now the Industry is on the outside looking in.
If it were not for mp3's and the internet..... (Score:5, Interesting)
In 2002, I received about $4000 in paypal donations from complete strangers who happened to stumble across my site. Whilst this was in no means a real salary, it kept the wolves from my door and the taxman fed.
It sickens me that the RIAA and the greedy fat record executives are trying to prevent anyone who does not produce 'commercial music' a chance to live off of their talents....
Regression To The Mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Downloadable music doesn't increase sales. It doesn't decrease sales either. It regresses sales to the mean.
For unsigned artists, it increases sales because they get global exposure which they can't get through some other medium.
For big name artists who are already known worldwide it decreases sales because the people who might otherwise knuckle under and pay will just download instead.
The people who argue that downloading increases sales for *everybody* are just trying to find arguments to support their desire for free downloads. Likewise, the people who argue that it decreases sales for *everybody* are just trying to protect their business.
Now obviously attacking the format, be it MP3 or whatever makes no sense at all. If the bigtime copyright holders want to persue illegal copying that's fine, but attacking P2P systems and the file formats makes no sense.
As much as many don't like it, the old bit about "when you're downloading MP3s you're downloading communism" has a kernel of truth to it. Socialist systems often regress people to the mean. Usually, the mean ends up lower too although command economies sometimes distribute resources towards one particular aspect of society and exceed the mean of that particular aspect under capitalism (see, Sputnik, Cuban Health Care). In a sense, the MP3 people have risen up and redistributed the wealth from large copyright holders to computer companies and smaller artists.
This presents me with a moral quandary. On the one hand, I dislike the Leftist revolutionary attitudes that some have. I don't believe people can justify the taking of something just because they think they should have it. On the other hand, the manipulation of the government by the corporations offends me equally. A pox on both their houses! When one side buys the law, and the other side breaks the law, the framework of society begins to unravel.
Our laws are supposed to be formed on the basis of civilized debate, not the outcome of a slugfest between thieves and scoundrels.
So for now, what very little music I buy, I buy legally; I haven't downloaded music very often, and when I did I felt like I was being a hypocrite, since I have argued in favor of IP rights. Of course, I'm mostly in the "radio is good enough" category of listener. If I were really, really pasionate about music I'm not sure what I'd do.
They don't know what they are missing. (Score:3)
Just like back in the days of those analog magnetic tape recorders, friends and I would swap collections. After a while I got sick of the static, siblings tapeing rude comments over my favorite tracs, and broken tapes. So I would go out and buy the CD. Why? As far as my ears (and several electrical engineering principles) it is a perfect recording. Unfiltered, unaltered, un-everything from when it left the mixing booth.
Why haven't I bought a CD in a while? For starters, I can't really think of any new music that has been worth buying. Hell, two top selling albums of last year featured artists WHO HAVE BEEN DEAD SINCE I WAS AN INFANT. I don't really get exposed to new music on the radio:
Damn, I remember the days when you would see a new video on MTV and go "I have to own that album." I can't name the last time I've actually SEEN a rock video on MTV. These days it's all quiz shows and psuedo journalism.
The industry as a whole stopped taking risks long ago, and in the process they have lost the novelty factor that WAS their business.
Re:This is all fine and well... (Score:2)
But just because one person benefits from something that a lot of people feel hurts them doesn't mean that the claim of most everybody else is invalid. This is a situation where both the MPAA/RIAA and download-friendly artists can have it their way.
Re:What's good for Janis Ian (Score:5, Insightful)
Ian's story may be anecdotal but it entirely agrees with any economic analysis of the situation.
Retailers have a rule of thumb that cutting the price of an item in half increases your market by a factor of (IIRC) four - until it's free and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
If you allow people to download your music for slightly over the cost of providing the bandwidth and overhead (i.e., you still profit), people will have no incentive to get it from a competitor (unless that competitor has better marketing - which is an expense he has that the original artist does not). This is basic economics.
The difference is, you don't have a middleman - the record label - charging you for the production of your product, then wasting money on payola, then cheating you on the royalties by claiming X% "breakage", etc., not to mention that you are not supporting THEIR profits instead of yours...
It's common sense that an artist selling their own product will make money if they can do a reasonable amount of marketing to come to the attention of the people who might like their work.
What WON'T happen is that artists will make millions of dollars because some corporation paid some radio station operators in cocaine and hookers to play those few songs the corporation decided to promote.
It's laughable - first the record labels screw over Metallica, then Metallica thinks they're owed millions of dollars, then they sue their fans to get it...
This is what happens when the vast majority of domesticated primates are clueless about economics...
Re:MP3's and the RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod parent up.
Borders CD: $18.99
Artist: $0.94
Label: $18.04 from which they pay their RIAA dues, among other things.
Artist CD Direct: $10
Artist: $10 from which we pay for more studio time, guitar strings, etc.