The Music Business and the Internet 376
Lots of people sent in links to stories about the music industry holding a press conference and claiming that people are copying music rather than buying it (see their press release if you like). But there are some alternative points of view too: a study at the University of Buffalo claims that music sharing may cut down on superstars and promote new music. The New Republic has a story about a band that released their album on the Net six months before CDs were available, and is now wondering whether fans will buy more, less, or about the same number of aluminum and plastic circles. And a nice chart I saw a few days ago compares CD sales vs. price over the last several years and suggests that price-fixing by the recording industry may play a part in slowing sales.
Support local bands (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Support local bands (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Support local bands (Score:2)
At the mall next door a regular priced CD is either $18.99 or $19.99 at "FYE". An "On sale" CD is either $14.99 or $15.99. $20 for a CD is pretty par for the course once you include tax.
And by "accomplished artist" you mean bands (most of them) that I question how they even got signed (especially ones that don't write their own music)? I'll stick to the local stuff. If I don't like a local act, I don't go see them again. Simple.
psxndc
Re:Support local bands (Score:3, Funny)
For instance... (Score:2)
The Skullies [geocities.com]
Elohsa [elohsa.com]
Middleground [middlegroundmusic.com]
Showbread [showbread.net]
Gee, that's too bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
Re:Gee, that's too bad. (Score:2)
And now they want to make it so I can't play it on my computer. Really makes me want to go out and buy more audio cd's.
Re:Gee, that's too bad. (Score:2)
Devil's Advocate: If cars became cheaper to make, but they lasted longer and performed better, should they be cheaper than their predecessors, or should you pay more for quality?
Re:Gee, that's too bad. (Score:2)
car makers already have that (Score:2)
Re:Gee, that's too bad. (Score:4, Insightful)
Translated to Music containers we have:
- same performance for the last 15 years (CD stereo quality)
- rising prices (about twice as much as I used to pay for a vinyl album 15 years ago)
All this while the price for recording/mastering has been constantly dropping (digital equipment becomes cheaper and better), the price for CD manufacturing has been constantly dropping, transportation and storage is less (smaller size and weight) and cheap new flexible distribution mechanisms (Internet,CD burners etc.) have become available.
(and btw. the quality of the content certainly hasn't improved either)
Now please tell me, where the fsck does all the extra money go? Video clips? Marketing drones?
Yeah right...
Truth is: the music industry's complaining is simply pathetic. Where is the innovation? Why can't I go to a record store, walk up to a big jukebox machine, listen to some songs and mix-n-match my own sampler to have it burned to a Audio CD on the spot, with individual prices for the songs (from different artists)?
And would I want to pay more for that? Of course not! I expect our world to improve, so I want more quality for a cheaper price. In other business areas companies have no problem delivering both and if the music industry can't deliver that then it's about fscking time they went out of business and were replaced with another business model.
Re:Gee, that's too bad. (Do you have to buy new?) (Score:2)
Here in Israel we pay about 80 NIS (which is about $16) for a CD - and it's not even import taxes (those CD's are manufactured here under a license from the record companies) while making a CD costs about $0.5 (with plastic envelope and a leaf that goes $2) - don't even ask what the singer gets from it...
supporting the bands (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:supporting the bands (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is... (Score:3, Interesting)
The record companies lose money so start charging more for CD's
People download even more music.
This circle is set to continue unless record companies start pricing CD's realistically. If AOL/Compuserv/Freeserve can give away CD's in shops and with hardware then why do i have to pay £20 for a music CD?
Re:The problem is... (Score:2)
* Instruction for yankees: s/bloody/fucking/
Re:The problem is... (Score:2)
Now, aside from the rather handy 'listening protection' incorperated into this CD, here are canonical high-street prices:
CD: £16.99 ($24.46)
Anyone fancy paying $36 for Celine Dion?SACD (no extra content): £24.99 ($35.98)
Huh? (Score:2)
By the way, the name of the album discussed in the thread you linked to is "A New Day Has Come," so I'm not sure if you're looking at the correct price. Here in Canada, new releases are often a couple of bucks cheaper than older works ("All The Way" was released in 1999), though I have no idea if that's the case in the UK.
Clarification would be appreciated.
Re:The problem is... (Score:2)
The analogy for the music industry would be to give away the music, but charge you for the use of equipment to allow you to hear it.
Cheers,
Tim
Re:The problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
If music CDs were like AOL CDs, music stores would give them away like candy. Then, when you got home, you'd only be able to do anything with it as long as you paid $19.95/month. And since it's online authentication, you wouldn't be able to listen to them in the car. In short, you're really comparing two completely different things here.
Or to put it another way, if an AOL CD is really equivalent to a music CD, you don't need music CDs. You can just get free AOL CDs instead, and rock on to the groovy sound of "You've got mail!"
Besides, the price of music CDs has nothing to do with the physical medium. It costs money to produce the information on a music CD. The information on a music CD has value to many people. The physical CD is just a way of getting around the problem of transferring that information. In short, it's the information that has the value -- you'd think that out of everyone, Slashdotters would understand this.
(And yes, I'm well aware of the "information wants to be free" argument. Without supporting or condemning that philosophy, it doesn't change the facts above -- whether it's a fully GPL'd Linux distribution or a commercial, shrink-wrapped game, it still costs money to produce and has value to the users.)
Re:The problem is... (Score:2)
Great idea!! I wonder if Weird Al can offer a little contribution and make a parody of an old Sonny and Cher hit called, "You've got Mail, Babe"
Before my SPAM has all been sent,
all my thousand hours have been spent.
Babe. You've got Mail, Babe.....
Re: Overpriced? (Score:3, Informative)
> The recording companies has costs.
AKA "payola", long illegal in the USA, still done under a pretense of it being something else.
In addition to being illegal, payola is commonly believed to be the major cause of crap being played on the radio.
Add in the problem of having one company own nearly every radio station in the USA, and switching stations between formats at the drop of a hat if they think it will earn them a dollar more next year, and you start getting a picture of an industry that's very, very sick.
Live Music (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Live Music (Score:2)
If the Recording Industry would wake up ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would be willing to give about 10 cents per MegaByte for professional, complete MP3s. Barring that there is NO Copy Restrictions.
If the RIAA would stop worrying about people sharing the MP3s and actually become a supplier for what people want, they would make tons of money. They are in the position to capitalize on this, but they are too busy worrying about losing some sort of "control" they have over music.
Re:If the Recording Industry would wake up ... (Score:4, Interesting)
but somewhere on the curve is a bump - probably around $9.99 or so, but that is just a guess of course - where the labels would be selling so MANY damn CDs the money would be pouring in. likewise somewhere on the tax curve - probably around 19% or so, but that's just listening to economists - where income is maximized to the government.
why doesn't anyone pay any attention to economical fact, statistical fact?
-rp
ps - there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Sales up in UK (Score:2, Interesting)
It might be something to do with a country's cultural background as to whether you buy or download for free.
Re:Sales up in UK (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus, if these guys are talking $20 for a CD (£16?) then we can get them cheaper anyway (£10 at Tesco stores and online stores).
New Business Model Needed (Score:4, Insightful)
This, combined to other non-downloadable merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc.) and -- of course -- live performances, should enable musicians to keep making a living while preventing customer alienation (which you'd imagine would be the "prime directive" for the industry -- not so). As for big-time, multi-million producers, well...we have no moral or legal obligation to keep them multi-millionnaires. Just because an industry is well-established doesn't mean it has to be preserved by law -- especially when it alienates customers, infringes on their constitutional rights and goes against technological development.
Re:New Business Model Needed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an oft-repeated fact that record labels lose money on 90% of their roster of artists, and make it all up and then some on the 10% of artists and records that become blockbusters. Thus, if P2P sharing is primarily undercutting the superstars (as the UB study states), that's the logical attack point for the RIAA.
There's no question that a new business model is needed, not just because of P2P, but because the idea of an industry where 10% of a company's products underwrite the losses on the other 90% is inherently unsound. The music industry managed to make it work for a while, but the inefficiencies and alternatives have caught up, and the RIAA is going to have to adapt or die.
Re:New Business Model Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were, we'd still see horse drawn buggies, since they auto would have been banned. It cuts into buggy sales, and we can't have that.
Or, if you want to allow products to be replaced (ie tapes were replaced by CDs, so buggies can be replaced by cars) but not allow business models that feed off of others, then I have another argument. How do you explain taxi services and forms of public transportation? You can't tell me that these don't cut into auto sales. Why have a car when you live and work in downtown Chicago? Or even take a bike.
The government endorses public transportation, but it shuns public music distribution channels? What the fuck is up with that?
All I can say, is I'm getting sick of these government officials being on the side of large businesses simply because they are large campaign contributers. I have a nice new law for you. If you accept money from a corporation or individual, you may not vote on any issues directly relating to that corporation or individual's well being. In other words, if the RIAA 'donates' $100k toward your campaign, and you accept it, you aren't allowed to vote on any bill, or push any legislation, that has to do with digital rights management, music copyright, or anything else the RIAA gets their fingers into. I guess you better stick to water purification and eco-system issues.
Damn polititians....
Re:New Business Model Needed (Score:3, Informative)
Won't work. Bills are passed through the age old tactic of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". Every bill passed is chock-full of riders that have little or nothing to do with the original proposal. Even in states like Texas where the law explicitly states bills should address one issue only, voting favors are exchanged all the time. All any politician would have to do is take the perks from the lobbyists, lean on a few buddies in private to push the bill, and return the favor later. Real reform would rest on eliminating or restricting the money altogether, which is actually much harder than it sounds.
Any other business threatened in the same way (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have to become leaner and more focused on quality and price instead of just driving legislation.
I understand that the music industry wants to keep their stranglehold, where they can charge pretty much what they want.
There is a strong competition on furniture, electronics, computing etc.. so why not in this industry as well?
The whole napster/gnutella/whatever issue is just a wakeup-call from the consumers that they are sick of price-fixing and control-freakish behaviour from RIAA and their members.
Instead of just listening to the industry, legislators should let the music-sharing force the industry onto a new path.
What the consumers want is pretty clear:
1. We want to be able to buy a lot more music. Price has to go down.
2. We want more control over how we get the music and what music we want (no longer having to buy an album with 13 shitty songs, just to have 2 good ones.
3. We want a much more innovative and competive industry.
Re:Any other business threatened in the same way (Score:2)
- 1. We want to be able to buy a lot more music. Price has to go down.
Just a note-- #3 is good, #1 is not. There's a minimum price that a certain good costs to produce, and you can't sell a product under that price, no matter what the market may want. Put another way-- people may want to be able to fly everywhere, but it just isn't going to happen. #1 is only feasible if you can prove that it's possible to produce the desired quality of music for the desired price. Stating #3 by itself (should) allow the market to find that price.3. We want a much more innovative and competive industry.
Re:Any other business threatened in the same way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Any other business threatened in the same way (Score:3, Insightful)
The balance is off, the producers have stopped anything from coming into the public domain for decades, and it's harming the promotion of the arts and sciences. Keep an eye out for the Eldred case where this is being ruled on, probably next year.
Re: Any other business threatened in the same way (Score:5, Interesting)
>
I said essentially the following about proprietary software in one of my very first posts to Slashdot:
The music industry is suffering the same phenomenon that got a certain part of the USA labeled "the Rust Belt". Technology changes; sometimes the window of economic exploitation opens, sometimes it closes. There was a time when you could become a zillionaire by covering your continent with railroads, but in much of the world that opportunity has passed, and in some places tracks are being removed. Technology makes things possible; technology makes things obsolete.
For half a century the music industry was needed by the artists: studios were expensive, pressing masses of vinyl was expensive, shipping stacks of vinyl all over the country/planet was expensive, racking it in stores was expensive. This needed middlemen with lots of money, and it was only right (IMO) that they made a profit off it.
But times have changed. A band that can afford a drum kit can afford a multi-track digital recorder; the internet can bypass the rest of the infrastructure. Bands don't need middlemen who have turned into fat cats. (At least not to get their music out; they may still need them if they want to be superstars and appear on the cover of magazines.)
As GauteL says, the music industry should be required to adapt to the changed environment. Instead, they want the USCongress to assure them their profits as an entitlement. Why should they be allowed that? What antiquated industry is it going to be next? Why should voting consumers put up with it?
This is nothing but trade protectionism, but in this case the USCongress is trying to 'protect' the US music industry from US citizens. Hey, Congress -- whose side are you on?
What I want to do with a CD I paid for... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the music industry can't satisfy my wishes but the file sharing networks can, what do you expect me to do?
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, why should the artist, who does 99% of the work, get less per album than the distributor who simply puts it on trucks and ships it out the door? Switch those numbers around and I'll join you!
The brutal truth... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you say that compared to a year ago file sharing is up by X% and sales are down by Y%, then that doe not tell you if that X% caused or contributed to that Y%, if Y would have been larger without the grass roots marketing effect of file sharing, or something else entirely. A single data point (or pair of data points in a time series) doesn't provide you with enough information to reach the kinds of conclusions people on both sides of this debate are pushing.
But then, this isn't science, it's politics and money, so everyone involved has a huge incentive to twist the facts to support their position.
Another point of view (Score:2, Interesting)
Mixed music is often found on the web and is very hard to credit back to its original source..but the club scene works in exactly the same way. Music is played through DJ'd sets and the artists are hardly ever credited.....but the club scene works.
I dunno, can we draw correlations here, or are producers of dance music just a different breed? Whaddya think?
BBC News (Score:5, Interesting)
- Internet music sharing was rampant in the UK (probably partly attributable to increased availability of broadband) and
- CD sales in the UK rose 4% (NB: vinyl sales rose by even more; go figure), contrary to a downward trend everywhere else
Hrm, let me see...Unfortunately, this information didn't make it through to their web site, as far as I could see...
Re:BBC News (Score:2)
I don't think this is the case in the UK, where, from what I hear, the teeny bopper thing wasn't as big a deal as in the US. The level of piracy is the same, our "popular" music just sucks more.
CD $10 casette $3 (Score:3, Interesting)
it really does suck. (Score:2)
And that's what the industry fears... (Score:2, Interesting)
I wrote about one of the first digital custom music systems (Personics) for Rolling Stone in the mid-80s, and even back then, the industry feared technology because it might break their stranglehold on distribution. They've long been using copyright law to prevent any technology that would broaden distribution and therefore create broader choice in music.
What you'll find in a music shop these days... (Score:3, Funny)
The reason I download my music versus buy it is because..
o The last time I went, I couldn't find the CD I was looking for. However, they did have several hundred copies of a Britney Spears CD and pair of Reebok sneakers in a glass case.
o Their selection consisted almost entirely of rap, hip-hop, and other sonic diarrhea. My tastes in music extend a little further than incessant warbling up and down the scales and complaining to a drumbeat.
o They wanted to sell me candy, magazines, coffee, soda, biscotti, bottled water, bumper stickers, incense, candles, videocasettes, and DVDs of movies nobody wanted to see in the theaters to begin with. Not what I came in there for, an album.
o Even if I were to have found the CD I was looking for, I would have had to shell out nearly twice as much money as I would have 10 years ago FOR THE SAME CD. Apparently, it costs the shop alot of money to keep those Reebok sneakers in a glass case. Probably air-conditioned.
o The store expected me to give my money to a guy wearing lipstick wearing earrings. In his face.
o Some marketing bozo decided that putting anything other than rap and "best of" albums on the shelves was a good idea.
o I cant burn my own CDs at the shop, with the music I want on it, and nothing else.
Need I go on?
Cheers,
Re:What you'll find in a music shop these days... (Score:2)
No, since you're apparantly online, and dumb enough to shop for music at a regular CD store instead of one of the dozens of cheap places online that offer wider selection.
Re:What you'll find in a music shop these days... (Score:2)
I thought he was talking about Tower. It was the body piercing that did it for me.
At this point, I buy just about all of my "impulse" music at borders, and all the rest of the stuff from Amazon. Prices aren't significantly better, but their customer service and selection have always been worth it to me.
Of course, if I could find a good used-CD store that was of the same quality as the old used-LP store I used to go to (Yesterday and Today Records in Rockville, MD -- if you're an old vinyl freak, this is the place to go), then, well, I'd buy everything there, instead. And, guess what? The artist would get just as much $$ from that sale as they do from a Napster download. But at least it's legal, and I wouldn't feel guilty...
It's been said, but bears repeating (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the dawn of Napster, it was obvious that the record companies can't stop file sharing. As bandwidth increases, CDRs get cheaper, and prerecorded CDs get more expensive, new ways of ripping and sharing files will stay far ahead of the record companies and legislation.
Another factor in slowing sales, Death of the Sing (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I had the link to a recent online news story I read which talked with the industry reps who discussed their decision to abandon Singles as they felt it was cutting into their album sales.
It seems to me that they believe that when a consumer can't get just the muisc they want a la carte, they would be willing to buy a whole lot of extra music to get it. In this situation what they should be selling is the single in downloadable and usable (read MP3) form for a small price. (Memo to Record industry: charging $7.99 for one song when there is no physical cost of goods and encoding it in a format that users can't play on their iPod/Rio/Empeg/Nomad/Archos/Etc isn't going to fool very many consumers).
I can recall back in the late '80, I used to buy a lot of "45's"
In the early '90's the record companies moved to put out Singles, both 7-inch (2 songs) and 12-inch (3+ songs/Remixes) in CD format. I even bought some of those 3-inch CD-Singles in mini-longboxes (remember those).
Selection of CD singles in the USA, at least at the retail level, seemed to peak in mid '90s and has really diminished in the past 5 years.
However, this situation seems to be confined mostly to US retail. Amazon is good source for CD singles, and in Europe the format is much more popular, so ironically sources like Amazon.uk are great for getting singles to popular songs in the USA.
So this is where the availability of single song MP3 files, available for download, could be doing damage... entirely because they are filling a nitch and need that consumers have, but the labels have abandoned. A lot of those people who download probably would be good customers to buy a cheap CD single, if it was available and had the content they wanted.
Re:Another factor in slowing sales, Death of the S (Score:3, Insightful)
I have many times heard a song I liked on the radio, and gone to good lengths to identify that song and the artist. I live in MA, and I called a "urban" gospel radio station in SC to get a song title when I could only sing a lyric or two of it (Thanks, guys).
The algorithm for getting a single in the last five years was this.
1) Hear song on radio. Like it. Get info.
2) Go to record store. Search for single. Find R&B, hip-hop, ghetto-blastaz; all songs from very recently.
3) Ask person behind counter for single.
4) Listen to how they only recieved a handful of the singles, they are sold out, and the companies that release the single only produce a small amount anyway and Never Makes Them Again.
5) Go to other record store. Rinse. Repeat.
I can buy singles at Walgreen's (pharmacy), but nothing near what I want. My musical tastes are all over the map (hence the gospel music), but I also listen to top-40 and other popular music.
Here's an idea. The CD singles, when priced at about $3.99 to $5.99, weren't too attractive compared to a $11-$13 CD, back a few years ago. For double the price, I get five to ten times the songs. So I could see that the singles may not have been very popular.
Now, CD's go for $15-$20, and I would think that a $1.99-$2.99 CD single would sell well. But the RIAA sees not a customer that bought $2.99, but a sale that they lost of $20. In that perspective, no wonder they only made a few, and then stopped entirely.
Considering that P2P downloading is about getting the "singles" (How many people have downloaded an entirely album, every song? Be honest.), and that I would download a song and burn it myself at 25 to 50 cents a pop, it just seems like the RIAA has become inflexible.
Different businesses have different business models. Some businesses adapt to change and make it work. Some create new markets ("Why would someone make a shipping company? Isn't that what the Post Office is for?"), and some change markets.
The RIAA is trying to stick with what worked in the past. Too bad it has a virtual monopoly on music in the US, otherwise another company could make a new market and make the marketplace better.
Info on death of the single (Score:2)
I wish I had the link to a recent online news story I read which talked with the industry reps who discussed their decision to abandon Singles as they felt it was cutting into their album sales.
As it happens, our good friend George "Big Content" Scriban (source of the sales vs. price link in the original story) has also posted some information on the decline in availability of singles. [scriban.com] George provides links to a variety of sources for the story.
Re:The LP and MY generation (Score:2)
Maybe more important to creation of the music and the live presentation of it, but not to unwashed masses of teens who buy it. Take 100 average teenagers and how many of them actually own a turntable and have vinyl records in their bedroom? Not a huge percentage I would wager.
Yea, the little memo comment was a bit agressive, but don't take offense 'cause none was meant. Most of the young teens that I've come in to contact around here don't know that much about records - all they've ever had has been CD's and cassettes (which they seem to look down on).
In my experience, saying the term "B-side" to them usually gets me a blank stare. On the 'flip side' though, these kids usually know better than I how to burn a CD with more than 77 minutes of music on it and not wind up with a toasted disk...
Another good source for CD singles is.. (Score:2)
Unless it is a particularly collectable and rare CD you can usually find what you want for just a couple bucks on average.
Lies, I tell you. (Score:4, Insightful)
It does not hurt the artist. It hurts the pop star, the producer and the sleazy lawyers (hi, Hillary!), but not the artist.
You know, there was a time when artists (and athletes, and scientists and whatnot) did not aspire to earn billions of dollars and live on crack. There was a time (I'm really dating myself here) when they just loved their art (sport, discipline) and considered themselves lucky to just make a living doing it. Not millions of dollars. A living.
Greed is the bane of our time.
Britain Is Different Because... (Score:3, Funny)
I know we all hate the **IA, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
The **IA may be guilty of inventing scapegoats, but that doesn't mean the antis should too.
Supporting Documentation (Score:2, Insightful)
And on another note, it seems that for every "good thing" mentioned in the article, they quickly mentioned piracy and copying. Surely there are other factors at action here, say the recession or perhaps even lack of new material or interesting artists (not all of course), and lets not forget the recession...or did I mention that already?
The RIAA is simply trying to spook new legislation into existence by pointing at their new boogyman; Peer to Peer file sharing. Pretty soon we won't be allowed to tell our friends about new artists that we like; they'll have to be notified by the recording companies' advertising only, less we risk being prosecuted by the RIAA for some sort of "information sharing".
too bad (Score:2)
Too bad the main stream doesn't seem to get all sides of the issues. Sure, it's one thing for a site like
This whole article can be summed up in a few sentences:
We (the recording industry) were making a butt-load of money off of people. Sales are down, and we blame the internet and Piracy. (my favorite word, has NOTHING to do with stealing music, and everything to do with boarding a ship with intent to harm or pillage, but I digress yet again). To keep our extremely rich share holders happy, we are going to have an all out campaign to kill music on the internet and have it GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS(TM)
Printing press anyone (Score:2, Interesting)
As good church going citisens, RIAA feer this evil creeping into music, via the file sharing networks as we all should.
So by putting in legistation we can kill of the heritics that use file sharing networks.
Without the RIAA we would all burn in hell.
Printing press (Score:2)
oliverthered burbled,
Bull. The first book printed in the West with movable type was the Gutenberg Bible. You may have heard of it. It was a Catholic Bible. The Protestants for their part had no reason to ban the printing press, as it was far too handy a tool for mass production of broadsheets and books.
not free? (Score:2)
Its called radio!
Hell, we've got an entire industry that thinks people should like what they are told to, THAT's not a "sustainable long-term business model".
Guaranteed Increase in Sales? (Score:2)
So sales peaked, so what? One year's drop does not indicate a long-term trend. The RIAA acts as though they are entitled to constantly growing sales every year no matter what they do. And they're all too eager to blame others (file-sharing in particular) for any drop while praising themselves for any increase.
It's not the Pirate, it's the Independent (Score:2)
What they are really trying to prevent is the trend for new and unreleased bands going to the internet and releasing their music instead of signing their soul away to a record company. When the record company gains all rights to a new bands music they don't just make money off CDs. They also make money off selling the songs to advertisers and gaining royalties for years. If all the bands started publishing themselves on the internet through MP3.com or their own website it would mean the end of the recording industry and that is what they are trying to prevent.
Yeah - 10% off the biggest year EVER in sales (Score:2)
It isn't about the money. It is about the control. That is why we are spoon-fed music. That is why songs are played to DEATH before the next one is released. It is also why I haven't bought a new CD in a couple of years, and I am not a big downloader. I shop in used CD stores, the recording industry doesn't get any of that money. Am I depriving the artists? Nope. The record companies are. They need to get screwed, so they will revolt against the people who are screwing them, and hint hint - it isn't the customers who are stealing their money.
Part of the problem is that we are consumers, not customers. We are taught to consume things. It isn't about listening to music, it is about hoarding music. I have more CDs now than I need, and I know a lot of people have more than me. If I never bought a new CD again, I would have enough music to last me a long time. I have some CDs that I listened to once or twice.
Bottom line, it is just music. We don't NEED it. The record industry needs to realize that it isn't something we need to survive, it is entertainment. If they piss on us long enough, we will reject them because of it. I know I already have.
How many CD's does one "need"? (Score:2)
To be pedantic, nobody "needs" ANY CD's - we could all survive and reproduce in a Pol Pot society where intellectual and creative thought were outlawed and people laboured from dawn to dusk. However, my CD collecton continually grows because I grow as a person. This includes picking up new releases, but also discovering older artists and bands who may have long since disbanded. Did I know 2 years ago how good the Velvet Underground were? Nope. Conversely, I eagerly await an opportunity to buy Microbunny's [microbunny.com] new album, "hot off the press". If I stop buying CD's, I basically become like my uncle, who has decided that nothing worthwhile has been recorded since 1970. Not so good.
I'm buying the Wilco album the day it comes out (Score:3, Interesting)
Would I buy the album if the mp3s were 320bit? Probably, but I might just save my money to see Wilco if they come to town. Would I buy the album if I thought it was bad? Probably not.
While Wilco IS one of the bands that I would buy a new album from without ever having heard it, I would be much more likely today to download some or all of the songs before making a purchasing decision. Occasionaly even bands I like put out crap albums.
What I would like to see is labels and artists put up all of their music that is no longer being printed for download. I would happily pay $4-5 to download mp3s, oggs, etc. of an out of print Alejandro Escovedo album. That is money the label and artist would never see if I spent $25 buying the album from somebody on Ebay.
Profit Maximization (Score:3, Interesting)
1. You are what you listen to, just as you are what you drink and what you wear; you are the car you drive and stuff you buy. You must buy what everyone else buys to be accepted. People who choose not to buy are strange and suspicious; marginalize them at all times. Their politics must be repressed.
2. You must buy this thing NOW. You must subscribe to the illusion that you 'got it first'. Buying things later is not acceptable. You must buy when demand is highest and supply is limited.
3. You must believe and support the supposed American ideals of 'freedom of choice' and 'rugged individualism'. But then, you must buy what we tell you to buy and you must eat at McDonald's. You must drive a sport-utility vehicle.
4. We will use modern streamlined methods of industrial manufacturing, production and marketing; but at all times you must refer to our products as 'art', and the manufacturers as 'artists'. Our right to produce these products must always be protected; however, your rights to use the products or criticize them must be limited sharply. We do not wish for you to use the product, or even to enjoy the product - we only want you to buy it.
Re:Profit Maximization (Score:2)
Hmm, that's very insightful.
I haven't bought a new CD for several years. I have however purchased many, many used CDs. I also do NOT download music off the net. I do listen to streaming radio off the net, like SomaFM (which is about to die, and thousands of other internet radio stations, due to the bastard RIAA [somafm.com]). I also do not buy DVDs. Actually, I don't own a TV, and the only radio I listen to is Public Radio (yeah, NPR!).
My point being, that according to point 1, I am that strange person they are marginalizing, under point 4, I refused to exploited.
Wilco is a fluke (Score:3, Insightful)
Wilco is a VERY GOOD band that has an almost "Cult" Status to it. The fans will buy it to support them, but anyone who hasn't heard of them probably won't download it or buy it.
Wilco is virtually the American Radiohead in terms of creativity, direction, and vision. The Woody Guthrie collabrations with Billy Bragg are part of what did this. Reprise is full of morons (look for Neil Young to get the boot next) - and the collective outcry when Wilco was released was hilarious.
I just wouldn't take this as a sign of how all things will go. Wilco will easily sell in the same category of about 500,000 - but I don't think the online prerelease will have much to do with it.
RB
"New Business Models" (Score:2)
As long as the recording industry continues down the path of promotion truly horrible music, they will succeed in reducing the amount of pirated music that is exchanged.
Big band's opinion on all this (Score:3, Interesting)
"MS: Well the industry as we've known it is dead. Gravitational shift, complete upheaval and extinction. It makes way for the stuff I just mentioned, and kind of settles the "art versus commerce" dilemma. Where it will go from here I can't say, but it is certainly exciting to watch." - Michael Stipe
"MW: What are your thoughts on the Napster issue and free music over the internet, because it really annoys me.
MS: I'm fine with it..
MW:
MS: I like anything that shakes up the status quo, and in the entertainment industry, not just music, file sharing has certainly done that. We'll see where it goes from here. I have a few ideas of where it's headed."
- MS = Michael Stipe, MW = a country singer from Atlanta.
"Q: How do you feel about people trading R.E.M.'s music for free over the internet?
A: People that are looking for live & rare tracks online, well, that doesn't bother me at all. People that are too cheap to buy the CD's and decide to get them for free (online), well, I personally would feel bad about doing that. I feel like I would be taking something from someone, and I don't believe in that. When you break it down it's stealing, and there's no other way to look at it."
- Mike Mills
And of course the Yogurt man, Peter Buck talking about Wilco and the industry as a whole:
"ERK: Well, you have to look at the music industry right now. Its not conducive to artists like R.E.M., Wilco or anybody with remote talent (laugh).
PB: You know, that's the thing. Warners has been in chaos in America for five years and, you know, I just think they might have dropped the ball a bit this year, and not just for us either. That Eric Clapton record sure disappeared pretty quick.
ERK: Seems like every record they put out disappears...
PB: Linkin Park is the only thing that sold. You know, there are new people coming into Warners this week and next week, and people will probably get fired. It's a constantly changing company and we feel that, well, we have a commitment to them. They have done great jobs for us outside of the United States, and in America, who knows what went on. I certainly wouldn't point my finger at anyone.
ERK: The state of the American music industry, I think, is in a huge flux right now. Grant Lee Phillips is getting more promo for Mobilize than you did for Reveal, and you're on Warners and he's on Rounder. There is something not right with Warners.
PB: Yeah, well, put this into perspective. Aimee Mann sold a quarter of a million of her records out of her apartment with a guy helping her mailing it out. And Warner Bros sold 330,000 of our record in the States, with all the might of Warner Bros behind it. I love the Aimee Mann record, but I don't think there is a huge amount of quality difference between the two. I think her record is really great, she deserved it.
ERK: I've been following the whole debacle since Grant left WBR.
PB: Now, with Wilco gone too, what is happening is that these record companies are doing these huge conglomerations and essentially what they then do is drop half their acts. So instead of having what used to be 8 record companies with 60 acts, it's gotten to 3 record companies with 15 acts.
ERK: Then you have people like Rounder picking up what's left.
PB: When you consider, it doesn't make business sense to drop someone like Wilco, who makes the record company money. They are recouped, they don't owe Warners any money, they make records inexpensively and tour their asses off. They make critically acclaimed records, and sell half a million world wide. And there is always the chance with those guys that Jeff is going to turn out a Top 20 single that will blow one of their records wide open and sell eight million copies. You know, when I heard that they got dropped, I just thought it was the most insane thing I had ever heard. One of the things we signed with Warners about and we were so excited about was catalog, you know, people like Randy Newman for 25 years. Those records are in print. They held onto some really great artists and that is disappearing, and disappearing everywhere, not just Warner Brothers. There is no such thing as signing someone and they do great work and they back them. Now it's, you get one record and you're out.
ERK: Do you think there will be a resurgence or upheaval in the music industry like 91?
PLB: What I think is going to happen is that the major record companies, and they are in this position, where they are run by accountants and promo people who don't know about music. So they're just imitating each other. The promo people go, "We've got to have a boy band" and the accountants go, "We need to sell a few more records."
ERK: I think that is causing a huge thing for record labels. Websites have eliminated the need for distribution deals for some artists.
PB: When you're talking about Destiny's Child, where you can sell 10,000,000 more records if you get the right video and promotional push, that is when you need a major label. If you're talking about someone who is playing...a smaller artist, there almost is no need for a record company. Essentially, I think a lot of things are going to go through MP3, the net. You know, the play music I put up for free. Have you downloaded it?
ERK: Yeah, it was great!
PB: It was something that I wanted to put out there. It was only 7 minutes long. I trimmed it down to what I liked the best. I wanted it out there and didn't want to press it, choose a cover, a title, charge people. Essentially, I just wanted it out there. I'm into the idea of spreading things in that way. Eventually, I'd love to download whole concerts that way."
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
The press release from the IFPI says in part,
So, in other words, 65% of the people in the U.S. who download the most music off the 'Net either:
So overall it appears as though downloads might not be to blame for cutting into sales. One would want to know, for example, how much more and how much less these subgroups bought, and whether they were heavy music buyers before.
This is a rather clumsy blunder in a press release intended (apparently) to scare the music industry and raise sympathy for their plight among their friends in government. A minority of the heaviest users of a new technology are buying less. Hard to feel sorry for the industry.
I see a great poll (Score:2)
1. Music is life, it's immeasurable
2. I am happy with the current price
3. Cut the price in half
4. $3
5. $1
6. FREE
7. charge it to CowboyNeal
They are losing control (Score:3, Insightful)
If you wanted to buy a painting, would you want it straight from Picasso's hands, or would you rather have Picasso paint it, give it to a producer who messes it all up, and packages it, and then sells it to you for a huge markup? Duh! Get it straight from the artist.
From the Article... (Score:3, Insightful)
"We have the right to protect our exisitng business, and we have a moral duty to protect our artists and songwriters," said Mr Larsen."
Talk about hypocritical/double standard/load of horsecrap. Don't most artists make something ludicrous like a fraction of a penny per disc sold unless they have a renegotiated contract (after some success on previous albums which they got paid jack for)?
My take is that as long as the RIAA doesn't give a shit about the artists, I won't give a shit about the RIAA.
Virgin Megastore Sale (Score:2)
At a recent Virgin Megastore Sale, they were advertising 2 DVDs for $20 (some good, some bad, I bought The Manchurian Candidate and WarGames) or 2 CDs for $25. Less data for more money? Older technology costing more than new? Come again?
That's price gouging, plain and simple (although price gouging usually only refers to necessities), and I won't tolerate it.
Well, nevermind the fact that I can only play those movies in North America . . . one crusade at a time . . .
Let's look at this another way... (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the 82% of germany consumers who bought MORE music because of burning cds? What about the 65 percent of people downloading 20 or more songs a month who bought MORE music as a result?
And how do CD singles fit into the picture? I remember the whole scandal last year about drooping cd sales, only to find in the fine print it was CD singles that were accountable for this statistic, full album sales themselves were either the same or higher. Maybe I'm talking out of my ass... Regardless, you gotta love how people always phrase statistics in a way that suits their view.
I'd just download and mail it (Score:2, Interesting)
The heart of the problem (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Weed out the lousy artists - find something that people will like.
2) Record the music, with the fancy mixers and recording studios so it sounds "right".
3) Distribute the music. With this could be considered promotion.
The real problem here is that the RIAA perform all three functions, but only gets paid at the 3rd step, while the Internet obviates the need for the 3rd step!
Via Gnutella, KaZaA, etc. the method of distribution has largely shifted to the consumer, and people frequently won't pay for something they can do themselves for much cheaper.
Find a way that RIAA, inc. can get paid for 1 and 2 above, and I think we can move on.
And, if you don't think that RIAA is important, and should be disbanded, go to mp3.com [mp3.com] and listen to something BESIDES Britney, Nsync, and Pink Floyd. Otherwise, shut up and help figure this out...
arrogant young pricks (Score:3, Funny)
Something you little egomaniacs need to know before you pull your dicks out of shorts and start playing with yourselves here:
- music is a matter of taste. As in, I've got mine and you've got yours. It isn't an "I've got taste and you don't affair", no matter how bloated your ego is. If you think otherwise you need meds, and lots of them.
- consider the possibility that alternative bands aren't popular is because *most people think they suck*. This is a more likely explanation than the idea that you have better taste than everyone else, or that you're smarter. Odds are that half of the people out there have better taste than you, and are smarter than you.
- the music you listen to says little about your character, abilities, mores, or ideals. Listening to alternative bands doesn't make you any more enlightened than believing in crystal power does. Claiming otherwise just makes you look dumb, although this is probably an accurate assessment of your intellect if you do so.
- popular music isn't popular because the RIAA brainwashes people into liking it. This is just another ego argument (i.e., "i'm superior and therefore immune to brainwashing, while the rest of you are a bunch of sheep"). Popular music is popular because *alot of people like it*. Deal with it.
I'm probably too late here but man am I sick of those little college boys blathering on with their stock lines "popular music sucks anyways!" or "support local bands and stop buying cds!". Enough already. Try acting like an asshole in a novel way for once; your lines are tired and old and rapidly becoming pathetic.
My rant for the day.
Max
Re:Offspring (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what you're saying is that Offspring didn't pay attention to the contract they signed and then, when they wanted to do something that the contract didn't allow, they were "opressed by 'The Man'"?
Hmm... is the industry at fault for protecting what they own or are the Offspring at fault for giving up "their music" when it was convienent for them to do so to make money and then decide to complain when they'd rather be the "cool" band who gives away music?
Re:Offspring (Score:2)
Re:nothing's gonna change.... (Score:2, Interesting)
"statistics are for somebody else. not me. i can't be a statistic."
-rp
Re:nothing's gonna change.... (Score:2)
Re:Slow Economy (Score:4, Insightful)
RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION! RECESSION!"
Very true. Interestingly their own stats seem to show it's the impact of the recession, saying that England, one of the few places not impacted by it, saw sales rise. There were earlier statements in other places where they said that CD sales were down for the first time since a drop that had occured 10 yrs ago. Guess what. That was a recession too. It sure goes to prove, anybody can take stats and make them say what they want. I'd guess they'd say the drop in sales 10 yrs ago due to ? (Guess they'd better think up a new excuse.) In my case, my purchases of CD's are down to nil. Not the recession, and I've never had napster or other file sharing on my computers. I simply won't pay obscene prices to buy what I consider crap. (Though someone's study could as easily, and rightfully so, indicate that a small n %age drop in prices would spur a n% increase in sales. Did they ever consider the raping of the customer to be one reason they don't sell as well?
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it - the whole point of the free market is that the cost of goods and services will reach the level that people are willing to pay for them. If more and more people are downloading, copying or otherwise getting their music for free, it appears that the market is saying that music is overpriced. Thus, the price should fall to a level which people are prepared to pay. (Note that there is no guarantee that this level is not zero)
By outlawing the methods by which people obtain music for free, you are in effect attempting to artificially keep the price of music higher than the market wants it to be, thus making the market less free.
Incidently, your comment about free speech is wrong. Freedom of speech guarantees just that - the freedom to say whatever you want. It does not, and should not, guarantee you an audience. In other words, you should have the freedom to speak, and I should have the freedom not to listen. I should also have the freedom to make whatever comments about what you say that I like, including calling it socialist propaganda
Cheers,
Tim
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2, Interesting)
This may seem like a Good Thing when it comes to the talentless, manufactured chart acts today, but ultimately it will affect everyone. Can bands like Radiohead really make enough money touring to pay for making "free" records? There is a cost.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
Music is in no danger of falling below production costs.at the volume that music sells at, the first 100,000 CDs sold covers the cost with many hundreds of thousands more to spare.
now if the price of CDs were to fall to about $10 that first 100,000 CDs would only cover the cost of a 1 million dollor budget (a large budget for any production). but what about the next million CDs sold...well that is free and clear profit. everything past 100k is free and clear profit.
the RIAA is looking to get their profit margins up rather than looking at the big picture and realising that taking a smaller margin will actualy get them more money.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
However, I will still not slam this comment as "socialistic propaganda". Instead, I shall slam it as "incoherent troll".
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:3, Interesting)
Downloading mp3's and writing them to cd is not free. It takes hardware, blanks, and TIME. What the record industry should be doing is figuring out ways to get these people to actually buy the cds. I am not sure how much profit is in each cd sold, so I don't know what is the absolute lowest they can go. BUT, if I could buy cds for around $7-$10, I would buy many more to just see if I like them.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
I've also NOT started buying CDs again. I've pretty much given up on music for the time being. If there was an official source of reasonably priced, high quality, unprotected MP3s, or even if CDs came down to under $10 each, I would gladly pay for them. Until then, I'll just do without.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
Ironically enough though, file trading services are turning into corporate radio little by little. The trendy, unwashed masses type songs are the ones that are readily available online. Just like they're the only songs you hear on the radio. So it's difficult to get an idea of how a whole albumn sounds. For those of you with Morpheus (or anything really), try this experiment. Try searching for an artist who has a song currently on the radio, see if you can get more than just that song from a file trading service. Most likely not. You'll find plenty of hosts that have that "hit single" but barely anyone has any other songs off of the album. It's like MTV is running Morpheus. Which is why I stopped even using the damn thing, I can't make a decision on whether or not the CD is worth my money from that one pre-packaged, homogenized for the masses song.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the cost represented by the price of 20$ for a cd is not related to the music creation process (i.e. the artist's work). Instead it is related to the production, marketing & distribution of plastic discs containing the music. Napster has 'reliefed' the record industry of these tasks so the record industry is no longer adding any value to their products. Given this reality, our capitalistic system is simply functioning properly and the only result can be that either the record company finds a new way of adding value to their product or will simply die.
The record industry has managed to slow this process by price fixing, seeking legal protection, persuading politicians to adapt the law when that didn't work, trying to persuade hardware manufacturers to adapt their products and many other tricks. However, they have so far failed to add value to their product and have even started to remove value from their products (e.g. the celine dion cd that makes your pc crash).
It's as simple as this. Because the record industry is no longer adding value they are losing market share.
Consider the invention of book printing. Before book printing, clerics would spent months or even years manually copying books. The resulting volumes were expensive. Then book printing was invented and greatly reduced the cost of creating a copy. This probably killed the market for hand copied books. Is that bad? Is that evil? No it's a simple case of no longer adding value. Just like hand copying books is no longer a good business model, creating little plastic discs with music on them has also become a waste of time.
Re:Hypocricy in the western world (Score:2)
The convienence of unrestricted MP3 adds more value then any thing I think would come from the RIAA.
Mp3's make up over 75% of my listening time but IMHO they do not come close to the actual CD quality. Each person is different but it boils down to quality vs convienence. I use MP3's primarily on my handheld player, and at any of the networked computers in my house. My car is split between mp3's and audio cds and my home stereo, although capable of mp3 playback via my DVD player or my networked laptop, rarely plays anything but an audio cd. Each one of these locations is fully capable of both audio disk and compressed audio. In my car and home stereo, I have decent equipment and I am listening for the pure enjoyment and prefer the relative quality of the raw uncompressed audio, with everything else, convienence is the main factor. The cd's I purchase are a delicate balance between price and quality of the audio. A change in price or inital quality could swing my habits drastically in the other direction.
Re:Proof that downloadable books has not harmed sa (Score:2)
The same model doesn't translate well to music, at least when albums usually aren't dependent on each other and when much of the content is conveniently already digitized and online for free instead of just a little to whet your appetite.
Not a good comparison (Score:2)
The reason e-books have not harmed book sales is because nobody wants to stare at a computer screen for hours reading a book, forgetting where they left off and having trouble following the scrolling as they go. People still want a set of pages they can physically touch. It's been like that for hundreds of years, and I know I don't find reading a book on a computer relaxing AT ALL after I've been staring at it for 10 hours at work already.
The music all ends up in the same medium most of the time; namely a CD. So the delivery mechanism is the same. Not so with e-books. Hence the apple and oranges comparison.
Re:RIAA gets money from CD-R sales (Score:2)
You are mostly wrong. The music industry does not get a cut of ordinary CD-R sales. They do get a piece of the action from music CD sales, which are probably a tiny fraction of the overall CD-R sales.