RIAA, This Is Earth, Please Come In! 759
ccnull writes "You might remember George Ziemann as the musician who found his own music banned from eBay because it was recorded on CD-R. Now he's back with a new rant about the RIAA's statistics, which blame piracy for the dire condition of the music industry. What's to blame? Price hikes and fewer titles. The latest rant (including analysis of the RIAA's own data) is mainly circulating by email, here's a readable link. (As an interesting side note, Ziemann says that songs are really just ads for CDs, and thus should be freely traded.)"
yup (Score:5, Insightful)
most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least
xao
re: yup (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think they do. I mean they are suing a few kids for 97 billion dollars, that's more than the actual market value+potential, perhaps. For that amount, the marketing potential in filesharing is rather psychotically huge.
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
But what everybody keeps forgetting is that the choice is THEIR prerogative -- NOT yours, NOT anybody else's.
There's plenty of good free music at mp3.com [mp3.com] and other legitimate sources.
Taking copyrighted mp3's off of Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever is unethical -- yes, unethical:
If you don't like the price they charge, you have no obligation to purchase -- but you have an obligation to not deprive people of their income.
Re:yup (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:yup (Score:4, Insightful)
While mp3s are still at the same sampling frequency and bit depth of a CD, the compression algorythm is far from perfect. Almost every mp3 I've ever downloaded was encoded at 128 kbps, far from CD quality. As a musician and an audiophile, I've found that mp3s usually need to be at 256 or 320 kbps before they're accurate enough for long-term listening. Of course, this is all subjective, and if you're just listening casually, 128 kbps is probably plenty.
You're also probably right about the damage p2p can do to the RIAA, but if there are many people like me that find the mp3s floating around to be poor substitutes, it's about the same thing as tape trading, only with less legwork. In the end, the CD will probably be bought by the audiophile or musician if he/she enjoys the music sampled as an mp3. The cheapskates won't buy the CD anyway, they might even steal it off the shelf if it's good enough (costing even more). The average consumers are most likely to buy the artist's next album if they like a song or two.
All other arguments aside, people are going to do what their personalities dictate, filesharing just speeds up the process.
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yup (Score:3, Informative)
Almost every mp3 I have seen on the trading services is 128kbit encoded and many of those were done with inferior encoders such as the old Xing encoder. What you are seeing is not hypocrasy. A clueful ri
Re:yup (Score:3, Informative)
Recording off the radio is making a copy of coprighted material. In almost all jurisdicitions this constitutes a breach of copyright. In fact in some jurisdicitions playing the radio in a public (or sometime not so public) area counts as a public performance of copyrighted material and is also a breach of copyright.
I don't see how the fact that more effort is involved red
Re:yup (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. Copyright basically prevents unauthorised publication, not the act of copying itself. If you sold or eevn just gave away copies you certainly would be vio;ating copyright. Making a "backup" for your own use is exactly the same as time-shifing TV shows, which "in almost all jurisidctions" is legal.
Unless some fascist interpretation of the DMCA has changed t
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact situation is unlikely to occur with regard to the recording off the radio. But you are right, I should have written "In almost all jurisdictions this constitutes a facial breach." Clearly there are 'fair-use' (and other) exceptions.
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
I've argued in the past that the ease of "consumer copying" should increase the burden to prove piracy (i.e. with intent to profit). But I don't know how hard it is to tape a song, especially when you can call in and make a request.
By recording off of t
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
> Clearly this does not apply to a situation where a song is being copied in lieu of being purchased.
It isn't clear to me. The Court actually said that broadcasters would have no objection to expanding their audience. I think this holds true to radio broadcasts.
OK firstly, the non-objection of broadcasters (or the other owners) was a matter of evidence (fact), not a point of law. In the case of Radio broadcasts of music, the artists, record companies and the RIAA might, as a matter of fact, have so
Re:yup (Score:3, Interesting)
MP3 is not cd quality, even it its maximum bits. it doesn't come in a case or on a disk. No art work, no lyrics, no stickers.
Yes, it ould be difficult to broadcast free music through the air..I mean if you could do that it would destroy the music industry. Or be a billion dol
Nope. (Score:5, Informative)
obligatory simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)
Milhouse: Why no sir, we're just exibiting them for profit.
Wiggum: Fair enough, but the owner of these tapes is in big trouble.....
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should *I* be obligated to lose part of my income because the recording industry thinks I should, but not the other way around?
I say fuck 'em, they've cost me enough over the years as it is.
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
The word extortion comes to mind.
Re:yup (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:yup (Score:3, Informative)
So, I'm a bit of a loner. Should I be penalized for not having many friends in the real world? Kazaa here I come
The problem is the RIAA, not necessarily copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
He then branches out to issues like the DMCA, which are being used to enforce an artificial oligopoly which is completely contrary to the intent and purpose of copyright law.
a few questions on ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
1) if I own the cd and it is copy protected?
2) if I own the tape (or 8 track or record)?
3) if I have a bad cd?
4) if the video is on MTV? It is legal to record that video off of MTV correct?
5) if the band has a video on their website or a website like launch.com? With the videos you get the music + more why would just the music be worse?
I dont think artists should be deprived of income but I see plenty of reasons that I should be allowed to use kazaa, or whatever else. I also am sick of the copy protected crap so I mostly *buy* music, after trying it from mp3.com.
Re:a few questions on ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if I buy a computer game I am buying a license to the game... this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that if one of my game CDs gets damaged I can send it back to the company (in general) perhaps with a cursory media replacement fee and they'll replace it with a new one - or in the
Re:a few questions on ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never found a book shrinkwrapped with an EULA. Books are sold on the basis of first sale doctrine - you buy that copy of the work, and get all the rights associated with owning a thing - the right to sell it on, the right to lend it to a friend, the right to tear it up and wpaper your house with it, and so on. What prevents you from copying the content of the book out and running off your own copies for your friends is the author's copyright, which was the same right the author used to allow a publisher to print a few thousand copies of their work and sell them in the first place.
This was how it was supposed to work for music as well, and to all intents and purposes, it is precisely how it does work. Until the RIAA or BPI or whoever get the laws changed, I'm going to assume that this remains the case, and treat my CDs just like I treat my books - things I own, that I'm allowed to read, lend, sell, and so on. And just as it would never occur to me to rip the content of a book (or download an electronic copy of it, since that's pretty much the same thing) so I can give a copy to a friend, I'm not going to do the same thing with my CDs.
Re:a few questions on ethics (Score:3, Interesting)
A proposal:
Someone set up a clearinghouse for people who have downloaded music from Kazaa or whatever. They can drop in $1 via Paypal and indicate the artist whose music they downloaded. Then the money can be sent to the artist, who will get more than if the person had bought the CD in the store.
Re:a few questions on ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
6) if I'm paying through the nose on digital media taxes that compensate the artists for the music I'm supposedly stealing?
Re:yup (Score:4, Interesting)
I might support you in that comment if the RIAA's business practices were fair. However, their perogative is strengthened by their monopoly (oligopoly? cartel? heck I don't know the exact word) on the music industry. Have CD prices gone down? Nope. Do they fill customer demand, such as purchase of individual songs? Nope. Do they offer you a refund if you're not satisfied with your album? Nope. They don't need to. They would if they played by the rules everybody else plays by.
The way I see it, music trading on the web is an expression of customer demand, not some massive move to save money. The RIAA could have prevented this a long time ago (and made money to boot) if they had just sat back and said "Gee, why would people spend 15 minutes to an hour just to download a single song?" If they were actually responsive to supply & demand, they would most definitely have done that. They'd be the ones offering MP3 players and websites where you can buy music.
For the record, I'm an artist, not some dude who wants free music. Copyright's very near and dear to me. But I feel that the RIAA is being absolutely ridiculous. I've already expressed my view about this before, you can check out my post here [slashdot.org].
Re:yup (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some laws that are unjust. Like the DMCA. Like the segregation laws of long ago. In order to remove unjust laws you must disobey them. You must be willing to take the heat as well. Just like Ghandi. Just like Martin Luther King Jr. While this issue isn't nearly as important as racism or freeing an entire country, copyright law is still unjust. And the method to undo it is the same as the one they have used.
So until all these laws go away, I'm going to
Your ethical position makes me nervous. (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more we are moving toward a choice between polar opposites:
- On the one hand, RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, USAPA, USPTO and even MS with DRM are moving toward an environment of total information control in which absolute restriction of concepts like the free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought will be introduced through avenues we haven't seen before: by supposedly benevolent (from the capitalistic view) corporations rather than oppressive regimes. But the effect will still be the same.
- At the same time, because of the continued march of technology and increasing global awareness among common people, there is a strong popular and democratic push toward total information availability and unregulated, unlimited, infinitely shareable speech.
Only one paradigm can win. If you are on the side calling the sharing of information "unethical," you are marching headlong down the path to total information control. I hope you enjoy your stay there, because once you arrive, it's verrrrry difficult to leave.
Re:yup (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are keeping a copy of the song, you are entitled to pay for that copy. By keeping a copy of the song, and not paying for it, you are depriving them of income that belongs to them. It really is a very, very simple concept.
If you don't want
Re:yup (Score:3)
Because the artist makes royalties [investorwords.com] off of the sale of the CD.
And if you're not willing to pay for it, fine, but that doesn't entitle you to steal. Go find music that is being given away for free and listen to that -- there is PLENTY of good, free music available on mp3.com [mp3.com] and elsewhere. I mean, shit, go out to a bar sometime and
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the artist makes royalties off of the sale of the CD.
So, instead of getting 8% of $0.00, the artist gets 0% of $0.00
Your logic is faulty, as it misses the expressed point of the parent - if people have no intention of buying a CD, regardless of whether or not they download mp3s from that CD, there is no income. You cannot deprive the artist of money that doesn't exist. You can only say that downloading music deprives the artist of income if you can successfully prove that a person would buy the music in the absence of free mp3s.
The problem is that we are not dealing with tangible objects. Stealing a song in the form of an mp3 only harms an artist/label as much as the money a person would spend buying the song. If the person would never buy the song, there is no loss. If you were to steal a CD, though... there would be a loss. The artist/label would have lost the cost of the CDR used to make the CD, as well as the jewel case and printed material. Thus, stealing a CD is a bit different than stealing a CD's worth of mp3s.
But, that's beside the point. The ethics lie not in the loss that theft incurs, but in the basic idea that you *should* pay money for music you enjoy. The artists and labels choose to distribute their music through sales of various media, and it's only because someone chose to disrespect and circumvent those distribution channels that you are able to get songs for free online. The moral obligation here is to either pay for a song (buy a CD/tape/record/etc) or not listen to it. Artists ought to be compensated for their work.
On the other hand, if you honestly believe that the big problem in the music industry is lost income for artists, your primary objective probably should be the dissolution of the RIAA.
Re:yup (Score:5, Insightful)
The Nazi Government was in power. Hell, they were even democratically elected by the people.
Once a government is in power they make the laws.
Texas and some other states say it's OK for the state to execute criminals. Nazi Germany said it was OK for the state to execute Jews. From a strictly legal standpoint there's very little difference.
So it really comes down to ethics.
Is it ethical to kill an entire race of people? Most people say not. We make some new laws to reflect this.
Is it ethical for a small group of companies (remember this is the RIAA member companies; the artists no longer own their own work) to lie about profits and losses, maintain a stranglehold over distribution, maintain artificially high prices, lobby to perpetually extend copyright, and keep 80% of art unavailable (depriving both the artists from potential revenue, and the buying public from legally purchasable content?)
If most people think not, then it's time to change the law. That's how a democracy is supposed to wor isn't it?
Re:yup (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Constitution, Copyright exists "to promote the sciences and useful arts". If 80% of recorded music is simply unavailable for purchase, then argueably the current situation is 'not promoting' a fairly substantial amount of art. If indie music can't get air time because of the 'payola' system, then the current situation is not promoting the arts.
Is it ethical for large corporations to pervert a law that was intended to promote the arts, effectively doing the exact opposite in the name of 'profit'?
There's two sides to the coin... and right now, there are laws that govern the side I'm talking about...
The constitution does not read "In order to promote corporate profit and monopoly control.. "
The law needs to be changed. The DMCA and perpetual copyrights promote corporate profits only, they don't promote the arts. That 80% of older music that the pigopoly won't release should already be public domain!
Re:You don't deserve a reply, but here it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is one of the most frightening and evil ideas I have ever heard.
In some parts of India, women are thrown alive onto their husbands funeral fire. But since it's part of their tradition, you are saying that it's all right.
In some parts of China, girl babies are drowned because boys are preferred. But it's part of their tradition, so you are saying that it's all right.
Lynching a black man in the old south? Killing whit
Re:yup (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it doesn't work that way.
If you don't like the price, you don't pay it, but you're not entitled to take something just because you disagree with the price. The price being charged is not your decision to make, it is the decision of the person providing the good or service, end of story.
Re:yup (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to nit-pick, but that's not technically correct. If he took something from them, then they wouldn't have it anymore. Making a copy is not "taking" or "theft". At most, it's copyright infringement. It's really quite a different animal.
Re:Actually, the choice is OURS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hehe. For some reason it's legal and moral to download an MP3 from MP3.com but it's "illegal and immoral" to download the same one through a P2P client! Funny. You have a RIAA style sense of humor.
Re:Actually, the choice is OURS! (Score:3, Interesting)
You wish..
If you're a taxi driver and play CD's or the radio, you have to pay performance royalties. ~NZ$300/y iirc. Same for minivans, coffee shops, etc. If you have customers and play music, you pay.
It's probably more of a grey area if you're carpooling or if your friend asks for a ride and then gives you some petrol money..
Here is an alternative way to think about it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I never need to buy corn again, because I can infinitely replicate the supply.
Did I steal ?
What If I sell some of my corn-supply to my neighbours ?
Am I stealing from the farmer now ?
Or what if I give some corn for free to any neighbour who wants it, solving the problem of some of my neighbours who would otherwize have starved. Is that stealing from the farmer ?
The farmer himself had to do that in the beginning right, plant seeds from somewhere else.
The only difference between this and file trading, is that the RIAA actually steals the corn they sell you.
Now how about this scenario, I discover a machine that can infinitely and immediately replicate corn cobs, although they taste a little worse for it.
I have the cure for world hunger in my hands.
I start supplying corn for free to the world.
Would you allow the farmers union, or the restaurant union to stop me ?
How is it different ?
Music is the food of the human soul, we have made it as long as we have existed, surely if we did not need it to survive, evolution/God/Alah/[insert deity/theorem of choice] would have long since gotten rid of so big a timewaster.
Would people stop going to restaurants because they can get all the food they need for free. Nobody goes to the restaurant because he is hungry, the supermarket is a far better solution to the problem. We go to restaurants because it tastes better.
Let's truly complete the metaphor. I have my instant corn for the world from one cob maker, I also have a teleporter on demand so I can instantly send it to everyone who wants it.
Would you honestly say that the farmers union should be allowed to prevent me from operating it.
Sure it would put traditional farming out of work, great for the enviroment btw, so the farmers would have to adapt, a few farmers can produce the master corn cobs I copy, the others need to find new jobs, because the world has changed, at least they won't go hungry.
The restaurant industry won't even be harmed.
The same goes for music.
The artists are farmworkers. The RIAA is the farmer (think feudal system here) and the CD's are restaurant meals.
If you permanently cure world hunger tomorrow, restaurants will still survive.
The difference is that this farmer owns the restaurant (and it's a macdonalds at that), and he wants to legally forbid anyone from eating anywhere else (as well as making it impossible for farmworkers to go work on another farm - in fact he wants to own ALL THE FARMS), be it my instant free food, or buying from the supermarket and cooking for yourself.
That is the true system here, we have the potential to bring art to the entire world for free, while the artists survive through the people who will never stop buying CD's (e.g. the same way we will never stop going to restaurants), and everybody has won.
Do you see now ?
Ads for CDs (Score:5, Funny)
So, songs are ads for cds which contain songs which are in turn ads for more cds which contain
Error: Stack Overflow
RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy (Score:5, Funny)
Just remember... (Score:5, Funny)
Ships with nuclear reactors count as 8 ships.
Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy (Score:5, Informative)
Feh (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because there is precedent doesnt make it any more right.
Comparing copying to piracy was as stupid back then as it is now. It was likely done for the shock value of the term pirate, which was probably an even more loaded word back then.
Youve just proven that its both old and stupid.
Dissemination of ideas can never compare to annexation of physical matter.
Re:RIAA has no hard numbers on piracy (Score:3, Interesting)
From the OED:
"[1668 J. HANCOCK Brooks' String of Pearls (Notice at end), Some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies.] 1701 DE FOE True-born Eng. Explan. Pref. (1703) 6 Its being Printed again and again by Pyrates. 1709 STEELE & ADDISON Tatler No. 101 1 These Miscreants are a Set of Wretches we Authors call Pirates, who print any Book,..a soon as it appears.., in a smaller Volume, and sell it (as all oth
I read the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another thing I am tired of hearing people complain about is the cost of CD's. Sure, they can be considered expensive. I agree that the cost of replication is way lower than what they sell CD's for. But replication is probably the cheapest step of the CD-making process. Next on the list is the actual studio time spent recording the CD. But the real money-burner is promotion and distribution. Thousands, hundreds of thousands are spent on replication and distribution and marketing just so regular people (including the non net-savvy) can hear about new music. So I think $12.99 is more than fair. Even $14.99.
Not to say the RIAA is always right, but if music pirating wasn't making the record companies lose money, why would they be so against it? If they lost no money, it would be a great marketing scheme. But they lose money. Not as many people buy CD's.
Re:I read the article... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I suppose you think that the record company pays for those costs, right?
Last time I checked, most contracts for smaller artists included studio time and promotion as recoupable costs. In other words, they are fronted by the record company and the recouped out of the artist's royalties. That's right, the $1 per disc (if that) that the artist gets FIRST goes to pay back the costs of making the recording in the first place, and (usually at least part of) the costs of promotion, etc.
You're right, those things are expensive. But the label is just loaning that money, not giving it. And if the label happens to own the recording studio, do you think they charge the artist at a discounted rate? Ha! How about if the artist buys discs, at distibutor prices, from the label to sell at shows? Guess what - they don't get royalties off of those! Nor do they get diddly-squat ($0.05?) for those Columbia House discs.
Fact is, even if your first album goes Platinum you probably wind up owing your record company a shitpot of money.
Cry for the RIAA if you want to, but you're a sucker if you do.
On music and 'advertising' (Score:3, Informative)
Huh. In the good old days (and golly gee, today even!), people found out about new music through things like the radio, MTV, and (when you get a little older) what's playing in the clubs.
All 3 venues require payment to the copyright holder in order to play the music.
No thanks, I'd prefer not to be paying $14.99 per CD just so some marketd
Re:I read the article... (Score:3, Insightful)
but then again, they also produced less albums. so google for the stats, but their profit margin INCREASED. so they cant cry to me that they made less money when they made less products.
besides that, here is a nice idea. why does the record industry believe they are exempt from the economy. gee, the last 3 years the economy has had troubles, why should record sales be ANY different.
people are buying less of everything. cd's are and always w
Re:I read the article... (Score:3, Informative)
Are you sure you read the article? In it, George Zeimann, says:
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot shooting yourself in the foot, then hand
Re:I read the article... (Score:5, Interesting)
This just got easier, by the way.
Surf to CD Baby [cdbaby.com].
Check it: Record album on your dime. Create CD's on your own dime. Pay CD Baby $35. Send them any number of your CD's. Sell them at whatever you want, CD Baby keeps $4 of each sale. CD Baby retains no rights to the music, the name, the distribution rights, or anything. All they are is hella-cheap internet distribution.
Case in point: You're a punk band, not interested in making a lot of money. You produce your CD on your own time, pay for the recording. Then you buy a truckload of cheap CD-R's and cases. You use your friend's 32X burner to burn 100 copies, and you print out the inside case label. Say it costs you $1.75 per CD. You send them in, charge $7, and you make $1.25 per CD, after costs.
That's cool. Distribution has always been the problem.
Or, there are other people, like Ian Mckay of the DC/mathrock scene and Dischord records. His solution is this: No written contracts. Just handshakes. He pays for the recording and mastering of your band's CD. He distributes the CD. All out of pocket. When it's done, he keeps all the proceeds of CD sales until the debt is paid off, and then the band and the label split it 50/50. He doesn't touch merchandise or touring profits. If a band ever gets into a disagreement with Ian and want to screw him, he hands them their master and tells them to get the fuck out, deal off, and they lose him as a contact and gain him as a bad reference.
So, I think slowly, music is changing. Attitudes are changing. The industry is changing. If I was to say one band has given me more joy over the course of my lifetime, I would have to say it was Less Than Jake. However, I'm seriously considering not purchasing LTJ's new album, because it's being put out by warner bros. records.
I honestly think, in the long run, there are too many people willing to eat what they're given by the RIAA, and pay $21.99 for a CD. But the number of people who know what major labels put bands through and aren't willing to put up with it is increasing all the time.
~Will
Re:So this guy is better than a major label why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because one of them adds bogus costs like charging extra for "experimental media" until there's almost nothing left and then takes your copyrights, claiming you did "work for hire" for them. That's why.
Well, for one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Yes, I know someone whose career was ruined this way.)
Songs? more like singles... (Score:3, Insightful)
Advertising? (Score:4, Interesting)
By the same logic, rental cars are just advertising for the automobile company, so we shouldn't have to pay to rent cars. And apples (the fruit, not the computers) are just advertising for apple trees, so we shouldn't have to pay for apples.
Re:Advertising? (Score:3, Interesting)
By RIAA logic, the internet is just a device for copyright infringement, so it should be banned. A CD burner is a device for copyright infringement, so it should be taxed by them. Encryption is just a device to hide copyright infringement, so it should be banned.
Unless of course they want to use those devices to run their businesses or for a DRM censorship system, then it's okay.
Compensation is not the end though..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the same is true with copyrights. The question we should be asking, is not - how will artists be compensated? - but rather is it right to restrict peoples copying behavior at all?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Compensation is not the end though..... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is such a great point and its rarely brought up. It seems since napster everyone has developed a pet theory on how to keep everything going. At a certain point its fair to ask, "Why should be keep anything going?"
Case in point: I live in an urban center and in a "hip" neighborhood full of artists of all stripes . I think I've met one or two who make a living off of it, yet the others working their day-jobs still make art and enjoy making it. Stranger still, people enjoy their art. Just because they can't quit their day job doesn't mean their art is somehow worth less than Britney's platinum records.
Music is art, afterall. The payola, price-fixing, back-room deals, artist rip-offs, etc make something that is not very profitable into a profitable industry. Let's not act too surprised as we watch the industry collapse because its sole function (delivering music) has been usurped by MP3s and P2P.
So what's the worse case scenario? "Rockstar" bands trying to "make it big" on looks and poses drop out of the game while people who really want to make music keep producing excellent art. Oh man, that's terrible.
Let's face it, music if left alone in a laissez fair environment will be very unprofitable because there's just so much good stuff out there. The day a significant number of people say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe the RIAA is wrong and the music they deliver isn't the best its just limited choice to produce profits" is the day the industry collapses regardless of how many college students they sue for 12 billion dollars each.
I think we're quickly approaching that critical mass. I know this will sound like a cliche, but the sooner the sun sets on big (actually too big for their product) business the better off we all are. Only few industries can scale this huge and prosper and selling pop-tunes just ain't one of them.
Re:Compensation is not the end though..... (Score:3, Insightful)
As the earlier poster said, the goal is more and better art. There is also another goal he neglected to mention which is that it be unrestricted.
If these are our goals, it MAY be that the best way to achieve them is, as you suggest, to have life terms for copyright. HOWEVER, if the best way to achieve them would be a 20 year copyright. Or no copyright at all (since there's always some production of works, and that definately involves no restrictions).
We need to try to do
Fake arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Completely 'Just Ads' (Score:5, Insightful)
It helps if most albums out there don't suck in their entirety. As time goes on I find fewer and fewer albums that are composed of good tracks. Usually it is just 2-3 good tracks that force 'you' to buy the other 7-12 bad ones. This sickens me.
What happend to albums like REM's Automatic For the People, and Weezers self titled blue disk? There isn't a song on either I dislike, and by sales I'd say I'm not alone.
I wish the RIAA would stop to think. (Score:5, Interesting)
Today I was casually browsing the web. As an amateur musician, alot of my browsing happens to fall on music related sites.
I stumbled across www.begoodtanyas.com
Wonderfully, on the site, they have sample mp3's of their previous album, and streaming audio via realplayer for their ENTIRE current album. After listening for about 15 minutes - I was quite impressed, and ordered the latest CD online, it should be at my house shortly.
Now, previously, I had never heard of this band. Even if I had, I wouldn't have given them a second thought. However, since I HEARD them play, I put money in their pockets, and ultimately in their label's pockets. Without the sample, the RIAA would have LOST a sale in this case.
Re:I wish the RIAA would stop to think. (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud your efforts, and I agree with you whole heartedly on the online music sampling idea.
However, I wouldn't say they would have lost a sale otherwise. I would say they gained an unexpected sale because of it.
The logic behind this is that saying that they would have lost a sale assumes you would have bought the album, but then didn't because they had no MP3's. It's the same thing as the RIAA saying that when someone downloads a so
If you'd like to learn more about P2P software (Score:3, Informative)
What I wish people could see is that P2P networks don't have to be about illegal content, just as FTP and IRC are not just about warez. Reliable P2P can become a core internet technology of the future. Imagine fast downloads of just about any large media (e.g. slackware CDs, public domain broadcasts/recordings, etc.).
The real reason for the music industry's sales (Score:5, Funny)
It's the public's insatiable appetite for BOY BANDS and VIN DIESEL MOVIES!
We need more! These fine artists are simply not producing enough content to satiate the public.
There are still a few television shows that have not been made into feature-length movies. There are still more country tunes that need to be written about rodeos and lost love. How about an epic triology featuring Garfield? What's with the lull in "rogue cop" screenplays? I need MORE talking animal movies featuring Eddy Murphy! It's been almost a month since Tupac released an album! Hollywood! Are you listening??
Will the industry get it? I guess time will tell.
How many times (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone that hasn't grasped the fuedal relationship between the music industry and it's customers by now, isn't going to get it at all, so further 'evidence' that there is a problem is just so much more sand on the beach.
Stop buying music from retailers, such as Virgin & Tower. When those art deco shelves start collectiing dust, the retailers will scream and the predators will be forced to acknowledge the problem. Until then, things won't change....regardless of how many more anecdotes we have about who/what/when/why piracy exists.
Don't think these things can't be changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Along came barcodes, and with them, the data that was suddenly accrued meant the stores were in a position to tell the distributors what was selling, and thus what they would buy...and when they wanted it and where it would be placed inside the store, etc. The distr
How does RIAA influence CD/DVD sales? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand that the purpose of RIAA is to increase the multimedia industry (the big ones) profits. Now, in my opinion they didn't start very well:
They started off with lawsuits against students - are they really counting on those students paying off any possible sentences? Com'on - they will file bankruptcy (if they lose that is) right after walking out of the courtroom.
I believe those lawyers at RIAA charge quite a bit for that stuff - does it really increase the profits?
Who is actually gonna be encouraged to buy anything from those guys (that is CD/DVD business) if everybody has a hangover after their actions?
Somehow I don't see those bilions of dollars flowing into the industry crooks' pockets...
CD Baby / Half.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Support independent music you can listen to before you buy at cdbaby.com [cdbaby.com].
The great thing about CD Baby is that most artists there have at least four streamable songs (in mp3) per disc. You get to listen to the first two minutes of each song, and I don't have a problem with this (as opposed to the full song). Why? Because the indie artist doesn't make me feel like I'm the enemy for listening to their music before paying for it.
A feature that I also like from CD Baby is that you can search for indie artists that are similar to a national artist you know. That helps get you moving in a direction you're comfortable with.
For those of us who are trying to wean themselves off the RIAA but haven't yet kicked the habit, I recommend half.com [half.com] (owned by Ebay). As an example, I recently got into Tori Amos. (Regardless of how you feel about her music, you do have to admit she's talented and original.) I picked up her latest CD a few months ago because it had 70 minutes of music and it cost me $10 new. I found myself really liking it, and willing to look at her other work.
Now, I could go to Best Buy and drop over $100 picking up the major discs of her backcatalog (5 discs plus a 2 CD-set), or I could go to half.com and get the same discs (albeit used) shipped to me for a grand total less than $30. As long as I can get a decent rip off the used discs, I don't care about their condition.
Between CD Baby and half.com, I really don't see myself buying many new discs from RIAA artists.
Ummm...the economy? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the RIAA's sales drop also seems to coincide with the dot-com bubble burst, the Terror attacks, and the lack of sunsequent economic resurgence.
I know that, as a resident in New York, freelance work has shriveled up -- if I hadn't had personally satisfied past clients who wanted to work with me again, I would have had to move. Quite frankly, we just don't have money to piss away on CDs right now, even if we didn't want to boycott the assholes at the RIAA.
I just want one reporter to, like, ask them why they think the economy has not had a deleterious effect on their business?
All this bullshit about MP#s being an ad for CDs, and so forth is just that: bullshit, IMO.
Two things are going on: (1) the economy sucks; (2) CDs are becoming obsolete.
Either way, the RIAA has no argument.
Re:Ummm...the economy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the RIAA has done some pretty interesting research on downturns and entertainment. A few days back, I was at a seminar by a media tech professor who was also a Bertelsmann consultant, and he told us this:- industry research suggests that music-buying goes down just as the economy is getting out of a recession.
Which, technically, should be good news for people like you and me. Just that, important to remember that the RIAA isn't complaining a decrease in sales; it's complaining of a decrease in growth of sales. Similar sounding, but entirely different.
What really got me (Score:3, Interesting)
So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and has been verified by SoundScan via BusinessWeek.com), the record labels began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.
Because it was engineered.
I don't understand why nobody's commented on this yet. This has some pretty big implications, doesn't it? I'm sure they can shoot it down just as easily as anything else, but if this can be proven somehow (or even if just a couple respectable firms agree on it), this would make a nice dent in the RIAA's argument, and might even get the unwashed masses to start thinking about the people behind that shiny new Britney Spears CD.
Old Song or It's all about control (Score:5, Insightful)
But the issue to them isn't really the money that they claim they lose; it's the control. You see the recording industry is trying their best to keep us all in a world dominated by the MTV, not the MP3. In the world of MTV they can rely on certain things that will sell, they can even go so far as to control fads to control what will sell. With the MP3, that's all out of their hands.
Ofcourse the first record company to figure this out gets the capitalist prize!
I never buy CD's anymore unless (Score:4, Insightful)
Example from another industry (Score:5, Insightful)
You can read the details at their website, but what they did was allow authors to voluntarily put books in the "free library" and they seem to be happy with the results. Oddly enough, people read the free eBooks, and wind up either buying the paper copy or other books from the author once they determine they like it! Surprise, suprise... There's also a good article [baen.com] comparing what Baen is doing with the record industry also.
conspiracy theory... (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it difficult to believe that they havn't clued in on how filesharing would make a good business model.
o_O
I have also noticed (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the RIAA get special treatment/attention/laws passed in their favor? They KNOW what people want. People want:
Good songs
The abillity to pick and choose individual songs from a huge diverse catalog.
The abillity to listen to those songs on their chosen device.
The abillity to backup, create mix CD/tapes/8-f'intracks, and store/index their songs.
I'm sure there are a couple more, but that's what comes to mind. The RIAA KNOWS this. How can they not?
And yet there is no 'solution' in sight other than lawsuits. Sure, there are a few sorry tries - all held back by expense (1.50 song?) and value (oohh - 30 artists from the 70's!)
As a musician, when mp3s were first rearing their head, I recall thinking, "Wow. No more Rock 'n' Roll Stars." and being tripped out and scared by that thought, as that was what I had devoted myself too.
Now, I realize that there are still ways to make $$$ being a musician, it's just different.
The RIAA enjoys its stature as *the* place to go for music. Rather than compete with value, they have taken the low road with lawsuits and poor laws.
Sure, there are some issues with copying, but then again there always were. I used to get tapes from some 'records for a penny' club, copy them and send them back.
I don't anymore, but there isn't really anything worth copying. I buy vinyl at garage sales. Most music from the RIAA is rehashed from earlier times; I own the albums that influenced most of the good artists of today. I don't buy CDs (and haven't for 5-7 years), even though my wife works at a place where I can get many for 5 dollars. I don't have a giant mp3 collection. Perhaps one or two songs from 20 artists (give or take). I don't support the RIAA, with $$$ or otherwise,and since they aren't troubling with supporting an artist's career longterm, why should I be so worried about what happens to them? How many records from the Backstreet Boys will you see at garage sales or thrift stores in the next few years? Compare that to Beatles records.
Supporting the artists means sticking with them. You cared enough to sign them, where are you when the first record doesn't do as well as you hoped? Sure, it didn't go multi-platinum, but is that the artists' fault or yours?
Someone posted a great post right before me, lambasting the 'lowest common denominator' music and movies we as the lucky public are allowed to see. Read it after you're done rambling with me.. ;)
Buy the Jayhawks new record. (it's great) And make it your last.
Once again, I ask Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Friday, June 29th 2001
into a wonderful place to review and discuss new and old music and artists that *do not* support the RIAA.
It seems that every /.er listens to music, and would welcome the chance to push their favorite band, song, or albums available on the net.
Besides, as a place that is (usually) current, shouldn't the sections reflect that? Perhaps /. could even get a kickback...(wink wink nudge nudge)
Who's with me?
Part of the problem.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd guess that music companies currently spend millions, if not billions of dollars, trying to figure out how to get their music in the hands of consumers
I'd guess that if the RIAA's strong-armed legal tactics were introduced side-by-side with an affordable online music-download service, they'd see that a large population of users wouldn't mind paying for a well-marketed digital distribution service. Right now they'd rather spend their time trying to get the genie back in the lamp instead of cashing in on what the consumer is telling them they want.
CDBABY (Score:5, Informative)
CDBaby [cdbaby.com] is one of the few online stories that really get it.
I left RIAA music behind a few months ago, why not try and do the same?
Why CD sales are down (Score:5, Informative)
-
Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them.
-
Most of the radio stations in the US are now owned by Clear Channel or Infinity Broadcasting, which play the same old music over and over again.
-
Everybody has already converted from analog vinyl to CD.
-
We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music.
-
Concert attendance is down about as much as CD sales are down.
-
Rock music tanked a while back, and nothing since has a similarly broad appeal.
With all this, it's surprising that CD sales aren't down something like 50%. We may yet see that happen.RIAA's members don't sell music (Score:3, Interesting)
Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clarification (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember that I do not even have to register a copyright to gain protection under the law. All I have to do is put a date and the copyright symbol on it. Registration merely provides me the extra legal option of punitive damages.
Shouldn't someone else have to prove that I DON'T own the copyright? Why should the burden of proof fall on the accused rather than the accuser?
I'll say this everytime... (Score:3, Insightful)
A darn good read (Score:3, Informative)
Why don't I sleep?
Digital radio's gonna be an interesting topic.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The danger of piracy (Score:3, Funny)
Covert terrorist activities now uncovered in Iraq were far more serious than even the staunchest Bush advocate could have feared. US Marines in Baghdad today (Monday 4/14/03) uncovered secret bunkers containing many tens of thousands of illegal copies of works of American intellectual property.
Captain Pitalist of the US Marines commented on the seriousness of the situation: "Saddam's regime has already defrauded the American recording industry out of billions of dollars, without us even knowing it. Had this been allowed to continue much longer, the entire US economy would have been in ruins."
Said a spokesperson for the Whitehouse: "We expected to find a few WMDs, hell, maybe even a nuclear missile or two, but this... All I can say is we're lucky... we're all damn lucky this was caught right now. It doesn't bear thinking about, how many livelihoods would have been lost..."
Free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so sick and tired of people who claim their "Constitutional rights" have been violated when some group won't let them speak their mind.
Excuse me? Did I miss the ammendment which gives me the right to say whatever I want on eBay?
Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want everywhere you want to say it, George. It gives you the right to say it without government interference. And that's it.
Please download my MP3s absolutely free (Score:5, Interesting)
Please feel free to download and share the MP3s for my album:
-
Geometric Visions [geometricvisions.com]
The album consists of me playing my compositions for the piano.You can feel free to share these with your friends, but I would prefer that rather than sharing them with strangers over the Internet, that you link my page from your own homepage or weblog. That will help others to find out more about me when they download my music.
They're not stupid... (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Big Bucks: My record sales are slipping. Make them better again.
RIAA: Well, there's a few things affecting your sales. There's your own high prices and lackluster quality...
Mr. Big Bucks: Are you planning on getting paid?
RIAA:
Mr. Big Bucks: Guess which one we can do something about.
RIAA: High prices?
Mr. Big Bucks: You are clearly delerious from the lack of money in your pockets. Here's a few million. Feel better now?
RIAA: Oh, we go after piracy?
Mr. Big Bucks: Excelsior.
Completely Off Topic: White Stripes/Citizen Kane (Score:4, Insightful)
From a legal standpoint, it is fairly clear, The White Stripes copied the lyrics and gave no credit and no royalties to the actual author. What is interesting is the moral or even economic dilemma: The White Stripes almost certainly did nothing to harm the movie Citizen Kane. In fact, they probably inspired some people to watch the movie who otherwise would not have watched it. Economically, the products are non-competing, as one who wants to watch a movie will not susbstitute a song for the movie, and vice versa.
Just curious as to /.ers opinions on the matter.
The Poodle's Core (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of seeing this as it is and doing something about it, the music industry has entered a self-destructive pattern of denial and blame. The RIAA's arguments are akin to the emperor's new clothes: Nothing at all, backed by enormous power.
But, in the long run, all the power in the world cannot keep alive the network of lies, distortions, and lawsuits. We are in a transitory period.
Sooner or later, a service or company will emerge that will give us what we want. For me, a $5-download-album@256k music service would be sufficient (sorry, no 95% profit margins). Easy. Convenient. Good quality. Give $2,50 to the artists, divide the rest among the distributors. Doesn't sound hard, does it?
George Ziemann asks what we can do: The answer is: Nothing. All we have to do is sit back and wait for them to collapse. And share files with friends in the meantime.
Re:Nitpick (Score:5, Interesting)
Paradigm Reference Studio 100's
Bryston 4B ST Amp
Adcom GFP-750 Pre-amp
ROTEL RCD/971 CD-player
and I can honestly say that I can not discern between a good 192kbps mp3 and the original cd when listening to non-classical music, which is 99.9% of what the RIAA peddles.
"I'm sure there are audiophiles and other music enthusiasts who disagree with me"
Don't worry about them, these are the same people who say that you need to keep your cables suspended in the air.
Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, most of the folks using MP3s don't have the same quality of equipment as a sound editing studio ought to have, and the difference in quality is near enough inaudible to the great majority of those folks. I mean, hardly anyone using MP3's is doing it in a quiet, acoustically neutral environment. They're doing it in office
Re:Nitpick (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the original CD is technically better.
Yes, the MP3 is lossy.
No, it doesn't matter when the equipment used to make either one audible costs $19.95 in WalMart...
Re:why CDs cost so much (Score:5, Insightful)
12.00
-.25 (artist royalties)
-.50 (Blank CD)
-.25 (To make up for piracy loss)
______
$0.00
What? The math doesn't add up? But it worked for Enron.
Re:Riaa exempt from the economic downturn? (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed the economy would have something to do with it. This works in two ways, investor says music sales are taking a hit due to the sluggish/hawkish economy. RIAA says music sales are taking a hit because of P2P etc. The RIAA might as well use sluggish sales as a weapon to go after P2P regardless of it being true.