File sharing services not the reason for music sales decline

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://msn.com.com/2100-1106-949717.html">http://msn.com.com/2100-1106-949717.html</a><br /><br />Well, it sounded good when they said it, but it didn't hold water. Lemme hear it - a big <b>"DUH!"</b> <img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif" /> "Forrester pointed to the economy and competition from other media for the music market's downturn, rather than the emergence of free song-swap services like now-idled Napster and several similar sites in its wake, which the recording industry has claimed in several copyright lawsuits have hurt sales. "Plenty of other causes are viable, including the economic recession and competition from surging video game and DVD sales," Bernoff said."<br /><br />And for those of us that want one song from 1983? You think I am going to buy a CD? You must be joking. $15 for one song? I have downloaded plenty of recent songs and have in every case either purchased the CD or deleted the samples from my hard drive. In my case, music sharing services have cost me money. I have purchased far more CDs in the past two years because I have been able to listen to new music. And I only buy music I can rip and listen to wherever and however I want. And until someone comes up with a way for me to pay for those songs from my younger days without buying a $15 CD, I'll continue to download those songs. The industry isn't losing money on that. I wouldn't pay for it in the manner they want anyway. Give me the songs in a hassle free manner and someone gets an instant $200-$300. I have my credit card handy. What has happened is it has caused the music industry to realize we want digital content that isn't rented, isn't locked to a single computer or isn't insanely priced. PressPlay is definitely headed in the right direction, but they aren't there yet.<br /><br />So Mr. Music Exec, give us what we want and how we want it. Charge a reasonable price and your sales will go up. Trying to keep us buying music in 2002 like we did in 1982 isn't going to work anymore, and your revenue line clearly shows that. Source: Jim Mulder.

[Janak Parekh]

Isn't it clear, by now, that the music industry is more interested in control than short-term profits? The "losing money" argument is just a tactic they can use to cut down on services that reduce their control.

If they can dictate how, when, and where you listen to music, then they can feed you all the music they want, at their price, and you don't have a choice, except silence.

OK, so the above is unlikely to happen exactly like that. But it doesn't mean the industry isn't trying, and seeing how far they've taken over radio, it isn't impossible. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=582&e=2&cid=582&u=/nm/20020816/wr_nm/media_copyright_dc_4 is a step...)

--bdj

[Sven Johannsen]

I'll continue to download those songs. The industry isn't losing money on that. I wouldn't pay for it in the manner they want anyway.

I sure hate seeing that rationalization. Just because you wouldn't pay for it, doesn't make taking it OK. Just because I wouldn't buy a copy of Photoshop at the price they charge, and therefore Adobe isn't losing any money on me personnally, that doesn't make my copying the CD right. It is still wrong, whether it is a $700 software package or a $2 song.

[Ed Hansberry]

I sure hate seeing that rationalization. Just because you wouldn't pay for it, doesn't make taking it OK. Just because I wouldn't buy a copy of Photoshop at the price they charge, and therefore Adobe isn't losing any money on me personnally, that doesn't make my copying the CD right. It is still wrong, whether it is a $700 software package or a $2 song.

Lets work though that for a second.

Photoshop is a single package. There are cheaper alternatives (I personally use PaintShip Pro 7 for $99 from www.jasc.com ) to do what you want. Photoshop is not unreasonably priced compared to its competition for what it does.

Now, lets look at a song. A CD can be broken up. It in fact is broken up for a few select singles that are sold via those mini-CD's or cassingles (do they still sell those? :? ) The technology clearly exists to sell single songs or even entire CDs via a download. The record companies don't want that though. They like their model they came up with when albums started that for the most part, you pay for 15 songs whether you want them or not.

Now, for the first time in the history of music, we have an alternative. If they won't sell us the music, we can get it from somewhere else. And you know what? That is forcing them to rethink their model. "Hmmm... maybe we should sell the consumer what they want?" As I said, the first one that does it gets a check for ~$300 from me. I am watching PressPlay, but I don't like their subscription model. Do I subscribe to Wal-Mart? Do I subscribe to Amazon? Why should I have to pay $20/mo to buy a song? That is like the original video stores that used to charge $50/year for membership before you could rent back in the early 80's. That died out quick. PressPlay's model will to in favor of a single purchase model. Is it $1, $2 or $3 per song? I don't know. Would $3 upset me? Sure. I think that is too much. But I will for darn sure pay $3 before downloading a song from a file sharing service.

It is a very gray area Sven. Is it stealing? Probably. I won't deny it. Is it forcing the music industry to rethink their 50 year old model? Yes. It is about the only form of protest possible. Emailing or writing letters to execs at Sony isn't going to cut it is it?

[pt]

lawrence lessing pointed this out in on of his recent speeches. with 401ks, new jobs, disposable income and the stock maket being down %50+ and more (some would say way more)...the sales of cds have slipped by about %5.

cheers,
pt

[heov]

It is a very gray area Sven. Is it stealing? Probably. I won't deny it. Is it forcing the music industry to rethink their 50 year old model? Yes. It is about the only form of protest possible. Emailing or writing letters to execs at Sony isn't going to cut it is it?

Ok... So you think just because you have to buy an entire album over one song for a price that you think is expensive, it's OK for you to just steal that one song? So tell me this, if these albums only costed about 3 bucks (you can't buy a single song though), would you still steal one song? If so, then you are just complaining about the price of CDs.

And if so, I personally think the 3975 is WAY over priced for what they give you. Since emailing or writing letters to execs at HP isn't going to cut it, I am just going to go steal the products in the hope that one day they will lower their prices.

However, if you don't want to buy an entire album, and just want one song, how much are you will to pay. If the Music industry began selling downloadable songs in whatever format you desire, and sell them for 5 bucks each, would you still steal the songs? (UPDATE: from reading yoru posts again, you said you would pay for it, i think).

Maybe when you steal a song, you could think of it as Civil Disobedience ;)

[Sven Johannsen]

Photoshop is a single package. There are cheaper alternatives (I personally use PaintShip Pro 7 for $99 from www.jasc.com ) to do what you want. Photoshop is not unreasonably priced compared to its competition for what it does..

So? You are still not getting Photoshop. You could buy one of those $1.99 or $2.99 CDs I see at the discout stores. Sure they don't have what you wanted, but they are an alternative. My point was that you are getting something that has a price (though bundled in what you consider an unattractive package) for nothing.

You could just as easily justify acquiring Windows XP for free because you use Music Match as a media player, Netscape as a browser, etc., etc. and darn it, MS won't sell you just the OS portion you wanted.

How about books. If the publisher choose to only offer the title you wanted in a $20 hardback and not in a $5 paperback, would you feel justified in getting that pirated .pdf or .lit off the internet.

How about mapping software. Would you get a copy of MapPoint from you friend because you only wanted the southern states and MS made you buy the whole US?

Now, for the first time in the history of music, we have an alternative. If they won't sell us the music, we can get it from somewhere else. And you know what? That is forcing them to rethink their model.

Oh yea, you could get a tape of a song or a whole album from your friends for a long time. You just don't have to know anyone who got a legit copy anymore.

I see it forcing the industry to re-think things, but I see more tendancy to think about copy protection than unbundling albums into singles. That direction will be bad for us all. Those of us who buy our music will no longer have the ability to copy them to our hard drives or MP3 portables, without resorting to illegal tactics.

At least you allow that it is probably wrong. I am a child of the 60's, so the civil disobedience angle is more palatable than the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it is OK to steal it' ploy.

[Paul P]

So Mr. Music Exec, give us what we want and how we want it. Charge a reasonable price and your sales will go up. Trying to keep us buying music in 2002 like we did in 1982 isn't going to work anymore, and your revenue line clearly shows that. Source: Jim Mulder.

The industry doesn't have a problem with people like you. As a matter of fact, they probably want more customers such as yourself; customers that will not distribute the track to thousands of people within hours of getting a hold of it. The problem is that most people lack the good intentions of simply ripping the song to a computer or a PDA and enjoying it just for themselves.

Also, not long ago, we discussed the issue of software warez. The main concern revolved around the negative effects of software piracy on the people who created it. Why are you leaving out the artists who made the music you are taking? Should they be okay with what you are doing? If I was a musician, I would be angered to see someone stealing from me. I would agree with you that the music industry is taking advantage of and is being unfair to the consumers, but that's life. The music industry is a business like any other and it is there to make money. Their obligations to you do not extend beyond anything other than to make sure that the CD you purchase plays music.

[Ed Hansberry]

At least you allow that it is probably wrong. I am a child of the 60's, so the civil disobedience angle is more palatable than the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so it is OK to steal it' ploy.
And you have never gone over the speed limit have you?

[jrappold]

I very rarely download much new music, but I'm big into film music, and Audio Galaxy was a treasure house of out of print material. I got stuff I had searched years for in used CD stores, and likewise, folks got to listen to rare stuff I have in my own collection. But those RIAA bastards have made AG a shadow of its former self. For the "niche market" I'm in, there was no means for me to purchase this material since the music companies have little desire to re-release it.

[CoreyJF]

It must be very easy for those of you who live in a black and white world. My world has always been a bit more on the gray side. In my world driving 60 on a 55 mph highway isn't quite the same as committing murder. And back in my college days when I was a bartender, I actually gave a drink or two away to good customers. Was that stealing from my employers? Absolutely! Did that help them by bringing in steady customers? Without a doubt. Occasionally I even download a song or two from the Internet. Is that stealing? Yes. Have I spent more money on music since Napster and Kazza? Again, YES! I make sure I support the artist in the Music worlds version of Shareware. I buy or delete. For those of you who say you wouldn't walk into Best Buy take something and use it for a while then return or pay for it later. I say wow your right!!! I don't look at intellectual property as quite the same as physical property. Am I saying that the artist shouldn't be compensated, NO!!! That is why I buy or delete. I find that morally acceptable. Just because something is Illegal doesn't necessarily make it wrong, If you don't believe me ask someone like Anne Frank.

[Ed Hansberry]

It must be very easy for those of you who live in a black and white world.
Corey, please don't muddle the issue with common sense. :wink: :lol:

[jrappold]

Do I subscribe to Wal-Mart? Do I subscribe to Amazon? Why should I have to pay $20/mo to buy a song? That is like the original video stores that used to charge $50/year for membership before you could rent back in the early 80's. That died out quick.

Exactly. Look at the model Fictionwise uses. You can pay an optional monthly/yearly fee that gets you better deals if you are a heavy purchaser, or you can simply bypass that, and if you want a single short story for 50 cents, you've got it.

[Janak Parekh]

Why are you leaving out the artists who made the music you are taking? Should they be okay with what you are doing? If I was a musician, I would be angered to see someone stealing from me.
I am not condoning piracy, and I buy all my music, but interestingly enough, the artist is the smallest part of this equation. They make next to nothing from album sales, and virtually zero from singles. It is the recording companies who are "losing" the most money, yet at the same time are stealing the most from the artist. :)

That is, if you assume that downloaded music directly hurts sales, and it's not clear if it does among professionals, who often buy a CD to support music they encounter through downloading music.

Among college students it's a different matter, but is also muddied somewhat: they used to share CD's, now they share MP3's... privacy is very large-scale there, but it's not always clear they'd spend the money on the albums in the first place.

The music industry is a business like any other and it is there to make money. Their obligations to you do not extend beyond anything other than to make sure that the CD you purchase plays music.
Absolutely. I think EdH is commenting that they could be making far more money if they knew how to run the business model. My point is that they have far outstepped their boundaries in making a profit by trying to impose DRM and other restrictions which limit our fair-use rights.

--bdj

[Will T Smith]

I'll continue to download those songs. The industry isn't losing money on that. I wouldn't pay for it in the manner they want anyway.

I sure hate seeing that rationalization. Just because you wouldn't pay for it, doesn't make taking it OK. Just because I wouldn't buy a copy of Photoshop at the price they charge, and therefore Adobe isn't losing any money on me personnally, that doesn't make my copying the CD right. It is still wrong, whether it is a $700 software package or a $2 song.

Stealing from thieves is different from stealing from artists. If you want to compensate artists 500% better mail them a nickel every time you download one of their songs.

The thieves are the record executives. I have no problem stealing from the Sheriff of Music-Ham. Robin Tunes shall continue to plunder the oppresive Prince Jukebox who oppresses talented artists while pimping moronic stupid boy bands.

Mail your nickel to your favorite artist and you'll do them ten times better then their oppresive task-masters.

[Paul P]

Absolutely. I think EdH is commenting that they could be making far more money if they knew how to run the business model. My point is that they have far outstepped their boundaries in making a profit by trying to impose DRM and other restrictions which limit our fair-use rights.
--bdj

The point is that they are not asking anyone to help them, or rather to have them coerced into making changes on how they conduct their business affairs. There is a difference between 'them' making more money and expressing your opinion on how they can do so and actually forcing them to change by taking what is legally not yours. There is nothing wrong with wanting the industry to change. There is something wrong, however, when the means you are using to make your point is one of illegality.

The music industry also has rights – rights not to have their products distributed beyond that of the purchaser. And again, I don’t think the music industry is set out against buyers like you and EdH. Your rights are only limited because of the people who violate the rights of the music industry by distributing what is not theirs.

[Brad Adrian]

The heart of the issue really resides in trying to understand WHY people download "pirated" songs. Is it because they simply don't want to pay for the music, or is it that (as Ed mentioned) they don't want to buy an entire CD in order to get the one or two songs they really like?

For me, it's 100% the latter. Not 30 minutes ago I downloaded an old Chicago tune from 1980 (sorry). It was a single song that I could only find on a $24.99 "greatest hits" collection. If I had been required to pay $5 for that single download, I'd have paid it. But not $24.99.

[farnold]

I don't want to participate in the legal aspects of file sharing. Everything is said thousands of times.

But I think, that the entertainment industry cannot expect to grow while we run through an almost worldwide recession. How much did IT shrink last year? What happens in other industries? And the entertainment industry thinks they would live on another planet of milk and honey or what? At the end, we are the ones to pay for their products. Once we have less in our wallets we are very likely to spend less as well - especially for too expensive, luxury products we don't really need!

[Sven Johannsen]

And you have never gone over the speed limit have you?

Don't think I ever claimed or even suggested I was perfect. Interesting approach though, somehow believing my distance from sainthood absolves you of your actions. I thought we were discussing whether taking things that didn't belong to you was right, wrong with rationalizations, wrong with extenuating circumstances, or wrong. (There you go, you shades of gray folks.) I happen to think it is just wrong.

As far as speeding goes, sure I do. But I don't do it believing that the speed limits are set too low and therefore my speeding is OK because it will make the government re-evaluate the limits. I don't think that because we can go faster because the cars and roads are better, that therefore it is oppressive not to let me. And when I am caught, I don't think the judge will see the logic in 'everybody does it.'

What aggravates me though is the amazing number of folks who believe I am doing something terrible if I do abide by the speed limit. They indicate this by honking and flashing obscene gestures as they pass. Sort of the 'that's a rule I don't like so it's null and void in my world' attitude.

Don't know if I'll continue on since this is one of those subjects that folks have already made up their mind on how they stand. I still think it is wrong. I specifically didn't say illegal for those using that approach. I would hope right things are legal and wrong things are not, but that certainly isn't always the case. I would venture to suggest however that right and wrong don't change a whole lot, while legal and illegel do. Regardless of whether the music moguls are gouging, the pricing model is not to your liking, the artists are being ripped off, nobody gets hurt because it's intellectual property you wouldn't buy anyway, I think those things are all irrelevent to the central issue of taking something that does not belong to you. Illegal, schmilegal, I was taught that was wrong. No wait, I don't think I needed to be taught that, I just figured that out on my own.

[Janak Parekh]

The music industry also has rights – rights not to have their products distributed beyond that of the purchaser. And again, I don’t think the music industry is set out against buyers like you and EdH. Your rights are only limited because of the people who violate the rights of the music industry by distributing what is not theirs.
I don't argue about the point you made in the previous paragraph--and as I mentioned, I do buy all my music. However, I don't think the music industry should have the right to tell me I can't rip my CD's into MP3 format so I can carry it around in my digital player. Fair use rights have long suggested the right to make personal copies, and those rights are slowly being taken away from me, thanks to the grey area these rights are in. Worse, as I pointed out in my original post, is their attempts to derail Internet services in their quest for music control. There are more practical ways to curtail piracy than this, and more win-win ways to distribute music that will not only give them greater profits but make consumers happy.

--bdj

[pt]

I don't want to participate in the legal aspects of file sharing. Everything is said thousands of times. But I think, that the entertainment industry cannot expect to grow while we run through an almost worldwide recession. How much did IT shrink last year?

5%. cd sales were down 5% in the worst economy we've had in like 10 years. luxury car buying was down 17% last year, but you don't see the auto makers blaming it on car theft.

cheers,
pt

[Jeff Rutledge]

I'm staying out of the entire "is it right or wrong" aspect of this conversation because I think it's one of those topics that can go on forever and make little or no progress.

However, I believe one of the core topics in the original thread was the fact that the music industry is blaming file sharing as their reason for declined sales. Personally, I feel that this is a cop-out, an excuse. It's the same as Air Canada blaming 9/11 as the reason they're failing and asking the government for money to bail them out.

Sidenote: Please don't misunderstand this point. I believe that September 11th affected everyone, and that the travel industry was adversely affected. My point is Air Canada specific. Air Canada was doing terribly before 9/11 and they used it as an excuse. Their business model is terrible. That's the analogy. I do not mean to stir up controversy or be overly dramatic with a 9/11 reference. I hope this did not offend. --JR

Further, I think the product has to be looked at. I don't think there is a great deal of good music coming out right now. I'm not saying there isn't any, but I don't see the early 2000's as being an era looked back on as a great period in music. Also, a little off topic: Does anyone else feel that there aren't any more great groups? I find myself liking a lot of new songs that come out, but I don't get excited for any particiular groups like I used to. Actually, perhaps that does tie in slightly. People are less willing to buy a whole CD just for a couple songs. Then again, maybe I'm just getting old. 8O

[Rob Alexander]

8O What amazes me isn't that lots of people here dip in the pirated music pool, nor even that they try to rationalize it with weak arguments about not being able to buy them in exactly the way they want. What amazes me is how holier-than-thou, how indignant, how totally black and white many of these same people are when it comes to software piracy. I can live with the grey areas, and I do understand many of the motivations of otherwise well-behaved people, but it is the ultimate in hypocracy to steal music (or ebooks or tv shows or whatever) and then crusade against software pirates. There is absolutely NO difference between pirating one song and pirating Photoshop except value. And that's not a valid argument. By that logic, it's okay to steal a candy bar because it's inexpensive, but not a watch because it costs more. Nonsense. Jason may not be a part of this thread, but it didn't go unnoticed a few weeks back that he came down completely black and white against software piracy, yet freely admits to the illegal distribution of copyrighted television shows. I'll never understand how otherwise intelligent people can convince themselves that whatever they want to steal is okay to steal, but whatever someone else wants to steal actually is stealing. :? I give more credit to those who both admit to their own transgressions, for whatever reason, and then at least recognize that they're in no position to criticize others for the same basic thing.

[Aceze]

Thanks Rob, that's exactly what I wanted to bring up. The stark difference in opinions between pirating music vs pirating software from virtually the same people is quite eye-opening.

Very dangerous calling a kettle black around here! :)

Aceze

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I think there are two threads happening within one:

1) The real reason music sales are on the decline
2) Whether it's right or not to "steal" music
If we want to discuss why music sales is on the decline, stolen music is somewhat irrelevant because I don't believe anyone here believes this is the cause for the decline. This brings me to my point. The music industry has spent countless time in court trying to ban file-sharing services. They've also spent inordinate amounts of cash in the "labs" concocting a new method to prevent people from stealing their music. Supposedly the spirit of doing all of this is to reverse the decline in music sales.

This is what's particularly upsetting b/c for anyone who has spent countless time looking for songs that weren't available or weighing whether the song is worth $15 or not, we know there is a better solution. However, the music industry's solution is to ban the services and create an expensive technical solution attempting to strip us of our right to rip our own music for our own personal uses.

All this effort to supposedly reverse the decline of music sales?

Everyone is arguing the law, but the SPIRIT of the law is to ensure that the creaters of the product are compensated by the consumers of their product. In this case:

1) The creaters (the artists) are actually not the ones getting directly compensated and
2) The compensation is normally in the amount of 10-12 songs when the consumer is really only "consuming" 1 or 2.
THIS is ludicrous and when looking at the spirit of the law, comparing the software industry to the music industry is apples to oranges.

Ekkie

[farnold]

Rob Alexander, right, stealing is stealing - no matter what one steals. But music sharing is not something that started with NAPSTER. Way back (yes, I'm a bit older) the music industry used the same arguments against tape recoder and cassette recorders.

So, are the manufacturer of these devices that do nothing else than enabling one to steal the real criminals? No, no, a kitchen knife can do good things as well - besiders it can be a leathal wappon. But a cassette recorder can do nothing else than supporting one to break the law. The discussion around it stopped after all the manufacturers realized that they could use this technology to reach a new market. Still being illegal, SONY, one of the biggest producer or music - even invented one of the real killer devices in this section, the Walkman.

So, isn't the real lesson we are learning here: If you and me do it, it's criminal. If the SONYs in our world do it, it's business.

I think the whole discussion is very hypocritical. Wait for newer devices / sales models and nobody will discuss file sharing anymore. Or is there anyone out there who still feels bad, when he takes a song on a cassette recorder?

[jlc, just jlc]

What really scares the RIAA, IMHO, is not the ability to make exact copiees of their music. That's existed for a long time (remember bootleg LPs?) While the ease of copying is worrisome, it's only marginally easier with file sharing for what is probably the biggest copiers - college students. Let's face it, I'd bet virtually every student knows someone with a legit copy of an album they want, and could rip it if they want, just as there always was an original LP in the 70's. Quite frankly, if copying was that rampant, I'd bet they'd see more of a drop than 5%.

Without rehashing the right or wrong of copying, here's what I think really scares the music industry:

They realize their customers are attracted to the music, not the record label (who goes into teh store looking for the latest Sony released CD?). Right now, the labels have the upper hand, since they control the promotion and distribution. Once they lose the ability to control how and where music is distributed, the balance of power starts to shift. Once people can email a song to a friend to get them to listen to a new artist, the promotion model shifts. Which means the label's ability to keep the lion's share of the money from CD sales is lessened, and that's what scares them.

Musicians, OTH, can benefit from file sharing. Not only does it give them more exposure, but it lets them build on the fan relationship. It can build awareness of their music, help sell concert tickets and merchandise, as well as downloaded music. Would you pay $5 for a full album, knowing most of goes to the band and helps them? Would you not pirate music if a band lets you freely tape and trade concerts? It's a model that has worked before (see Dead, Grateful).

The music industry sees their world changing, and corporations fear chaneg. It means what worked before may not work now, and the things that made teh successful executives successful my not be what they need to know to continue to succeed, and they don't want to risk losing out to someone who has a better idea for thenew marketplace.

[Ed Hansberry]

What amazes me is how holier-than-thou, how indignant, how totally black and white many of these same people are when it comes to software piracy.
If Pocket Informant cost $199 and Photoshop cost $3,995, I might have a different opinion on software piracy. That, and software authors get the money for their product. Music execs get most of the money for a recording artists.

That is why I love sites like http://www.aimeemann.com/main.html and will continue to shop there.

[Jeff Rutledge]

That is why I love sites like http://www.aimeemann.com/main.html and will continue to shop there.

Thanks for the link. That's a great concept. I think this is the way music distribution has to go. Plus the option just to buy those songs you like. Although I think personally I'd more likely buy the whole album. I always find songs that aren't widely released on CD's I buy that I really like (even though there aren't many groups I find myself crazy for lately). 8)

[ThomasC22]

I'm staying out of the entire "is it right or wrong" aspect of this conversation because I think it's one of those topics that can go on forever and make little or no progress.


You’re probably right here but I have to give it a try :)

Seriously, I think people debating this point simply have to agree to disagree because the area is so vague.

Point 1 - Everyone agrees that breaking the law for a noble cause is a good thing. Perfect Example: The Boston Tea Party. You'll rarely, if ever, find someone who claims the Boston Tea Party was wrong and that they shouldn't have done it but at the same time what they did then is the same thing that people who pirate music are doing now.

Point 2 - There is no way to give a difinitive definition of "a noble cause". I mean, is trying to bring the price of music down noble? Is protesting outside an abortion clinic? What exactly is right and what exactly is wrong and who gets to be the judge? It just isn't an answerable question.

Bottom line, neither side here will be able to prove their point to the other because in order to do so they would have to convince the other side that they are in fact right, which they don't even know themself (at least not beyond any doubt).

[Jonathan1]

Also, a little off topic: Does anyone else feel that there aren't any more great groups? I find myself liking a lot of new songs that come out, but I don't get excited for any particiular groups like I used to. Actually, perhaps that does tie in slightly. People are less willing to buy a whole CD just for a couple songs. Then again, maybe I'm just getting old. 8O


JR you need to know where to look. Forget Sony, Virgin, Warner broths, BMG, and the like for good music. You AREN'T going to find it there. You need to go to independent artists. That is where the originality is still alive. Today’s top hits, and I use the term loosely, suck. If you really look at the most popular music their biggest draw is the fact that its loud and has a nice beat. There is no originality to the crap. Let me look at what is topping the charts today. Complicated, Just Like A Pill, Hero, Hot In Herre, and Heaven. There is some good music there but like anything that is just my opinion. Heck even I like listening to this music from time to time and I am partial to Hero.

The simple fact is that labels have turned into a bunch of money grubbing aholes. They are in search of one hit wonders now a days. It’s no longer about quality. It’s about having 1 or 2 good songs on a CD and fill the rest of it with total crap. THIS is why labels are refusing to move to a single track purchase scheme. They KNOW that they can charge for that "filler" right now. The alternative is a loss in revenue. So how would everyone suggest altering the studio's view? Not listening or purchasing music? No the only way for these people to realize that they NEEED to change, even if that means lower bottom lines in the future, is to hit em where its going to affect them. In the wallet. You want to call me a thief? Fine. Put me up there with DB cooper and the people at Enron. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I am a criminal, a thief, a crook by the standards set by who? The music industry? The US government? The laws of the US? Wait a second! Aren't the laws of the US only put in place by us the citizens of this country? The people we elect are the ones who implement them and that is a direct response to what society deems acceptable. Simply put if enough people deem that file trading is an acceptable thing it becomes an accepted norm in a culture. And once that happens laws usually follow suit. Tell me why prohibition was repealed way back when? Could it have been that enough people where breaking that law that the powers that be finally realized it was like trying to swim against a riptide? The same WILL happen now. It may take 20-30 years but it will happen.
I’m amazed that people actually support these greedy bastards in the entertainment industry with excuses that the law is on their side. So if the law made it legal for them to hack into your system would you still be supporting them. No one can tell me there aren’t some seriously messed up laws on the books. Just because a law exists doesn’t automatically make it right. And if it isn’t right I personally feel we have the right and necessity to rebel against that law or set of laws. This is no longer about ripping off the RIAA or the MPAA. This is no longer about getting something for nothing. This is about right and wrong.
Now with that being said everyone deserves to make a living. Be it the RIAA, MPAA, Mel Gibson, NSYNC, or whatnot. However, the way they are going about it is WRONG! Every time a new technology has come about the industry that it affects the most comes out to congress stating that X tech is going to spell the end of their industry. This happened with 8 track tapes, recordable tapes, VCR’s, and now D-VCR’s and MP3’s. These industries ALWAYS overreact. And this time the idiots in congress are actually listening. Better be careful people. In a couple of years you aren’t going to be able to record anything on TV because it’s encrypted and breaking that encryption will be a criminal offense that could land you in jail for 5 years. God forbid little Timmy records an episode of the Simpson’s and keeps it for personal use.
Where is this little rant going? 2 things.
1. A consumer’s bill of rights NEEDS to be established. Period. Up to now there was no need for such a thing. But with the entertainment industry breathing down congress’s neck its becoming a necessity.
2. Copyright laws NEED to be revamped for the 21st century. My god how old are these laws? The very notion of the internet, or MP3’s for that matter, weren’t even a glimmer in the eyes of the originators of these laws. The original intent for copyright laws was to keep others from plagiarizing one’s ideas. To promote original thinking. This is the spirit of copyrights that we have gotten away from. We need to get back to it again. The DMCA is a bandaid for copyrights that has done a HELL of a lot more harm then good.

The RIAA’s days are numbered. The internet has brought advertising at the press of a button. Mass distribution is easy in the extreme with the internet. The RIAA KNOWS this. They are scared pissless of this. If a new artist no longer needs their bloated, dinosaur aged services that puts them out of business. This is what the RIAA is fighting against. And you all know what happens when an animal is wounded and fighting for its life. It is most dangerous when it is in this state. Be careful people. The RIAA is wounded and on the offensive.

Bring on the revolution! :twisted:

Oh on a side note I my DVD collection is 350 and my CD collection is 110 so never say that I don't give the makers of movies or audio their due.

[CoffeeKid]

You guys should all move to Canada...

Because of recent benevolence by our government, we pay just under $0.50 "levy" (it's called a levy because "tax" is a no no word) on blank CDRs, and even more on other media, especially digital. Supposedly next year it will be around a buck per CD. The money goes to (supposedly) music artists, but I have no doubt it's the big labels that get the money to "distribute".

My company burns approximately 250 or more CDs a year, backing up our data about 3-4 times a week from a couple of computers, packaging up our graphics, code, and software for clients, etc etc. I burn maybe 3 or 4 custom compilation CDs a year.

So thanks to the Cdn govt, with every blank cd you buy, morally and ethically you should be entitled to 47 cents worth of music. By my count I'm entitled to some $125 or so worth of music. Given that an average CD in Vancouver is $15, that means I'm owed about 8 CDs worth of songs, or at least 100 songs. Next year it will be double. Man, I can't wait to harvest.

Thank you, Canadian Government, for removing a moral and ethical dillema I had!

Mark

[CoffeeKid]

2. Copyright laws NEED to be revamped for the 21st century. My god how old are these laws? The very notion of the internet, or MP3’s for that matter, weren’t even a glimmer in the eyes of the originators of these laws. The original intent for copyright laws was to keep others from plagiarizing one’s ideas. To promote original thinking. This is the spirit of copyrights that we have gotten away from. We need to get back to it again. The DMCA is a bandaid for copyrights that has done a HELL of a lot more harm then good.

Copyright laws in the US have been changing. The original laws are old, but the entertainment industry has been getting them successfully modified to their wants and desires for years. That's where the problem is. As long as Washington is run by lobbies with lotsa bucks, it's not going to change, except in their favour.

Remember, Mickey Mouse was supposed to be public domain by now. :)

Mark

[Dance Monkeyboy]

Anyone (even an estate) can renew the copyright. The patent expires... ask Merck of Pfizer. The copyright can be renewed.

Thought you should know.

[Jeff Rutledge]

It’s no longer about quality. It’s about having 1 or 2 good songs on a CD and fill the rest of it with total crap

Don't forget they have to look good too. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney shake her bon-bon as much as the next guy and I think she actually has a bit of talent. But when they see the success of someone like her and that makes them break out the cookie cutters. It's too bad really. As long as the "industry" decides that they know what we want more than we do, we're the ones who get short changed.

[fundmgr90210]

Neither myself nor anyone I know has bought a CD in the last 2 years. Gartner is insane if they don't think file sharing services are having an impact on the bottom line.

So yes, the recording industry does need to change its business model; however, this will come very slowly as the current one has made them so much money for so long.

[PhatCohiba]

PressPlay is an intersting card into this debate.

If you say, you want a convient way to listen and try lots of songs and only pay for the ones you want to keep, PressPlay does a good job at this. You can listen to the entire library, anytime, as much as your want, and download the WMA to an internet connected windows media machine and listen to your hearts content for 9.95 / month. You can then pay around $1 per song (depending on how many units you buy at once.)

There are only two drawbacks to this system:

1) The WMA files are of limited quality (128k WMA download, 96k WMA stream.) If this level quality is unacceptable then don't join.

2) Their library is limited, but it seems to include about 65-75% of what I'm looking for.

I'd encourage those looking for a legal way to do Napster like stuff to join.

If you believe that the labels are the root of all evil, ripping off artists of their music, and consumer of money, then don't hide behind the convience argument.

Lastly, why is it ok to steal music to many people? Because there are 1000 radio stations playing music for free all of the time. If I record a song off of the radio, I can legally play it and give it to my friends. The XM song rippers are going to be a much worse legal problem for the labels then napster (et al.).

I personally am pretty close to joining PressPlay to demonstrate to the industry that I'm willing to reward them for a good first effort. If they can grow the bredth of music, and I can hook my computer up to my stereo it would be valueable enough for me.

-John

[Take1]

I really don't have any sympathy for the record companies ever since the Hollings bill (i.e., Big Brother hardware bill) was introduced. These companies will stop at nothing to 'protect' their music including crippling your electronic devices to suit THEIR needs. While I don't condone wholesale theft of music, I really don't feel that they are completely innocent of wrongdoing either (remember the fixed CD prices a couple of years ago?). The whole 'rent music' schlock is so idiotic, it makes you wonder if this is really a scheme to destroy e-tailing music while they lobby congress to put DRM chips in every electronic device.

[ThomasC22]

I really don't have any sympathy for the record companies ever since the Hollings bill (i.e., Big Brother hardware bill) was introduced. These companies will stop at nothing to 'protect' their music including crippling your electronic devices to suit THEIR needs. While I don't condone wholesale theft of music, I really don't feel that they are completely innocent of wrongdoing either (remember the fixed CD prices a couple of years ago?). The whole 'rent music' schlock is so idiotic, it makes you wonder if this is really a scheme to destroy e-tailing music while they lobby congress to put DRM chips in every electronic device.

OK, two things you made me think of:

1 - Renting music is stupid. This is a perfect example of how arogant the record companies have become, to the point that they would try to market a product that has NO public support whatsoever. Really, do it yourself informally, go out and ask the first 10 people you see on the street what they think of renting music that expires, I'm willing to bet not one, NOT ONE of them supports it. Very Sad...

2 - The Record Companies need to stop trying to stop this on a technical basis (such as DRM chips). Here's the deal, no matter what technology you come up with, someone is going to find a way around it. No matter how rich the record companies are they will never manage to employ as many people to create the new technology as there are people out there willing to work day and night to get around their technology.

The only way the File sharing problem is going to be fixed is by record companies realizing that if given the choice people would prefer not to steal things and find a way to market music in a way that consumers are willing to pay for it.

[bjornkeizers]

How about books. If the publisher choose to only offer the title you wanted in a $20 hardback and not in a $5 paperback, would you feel justified in getting that pirated .pdf or .lit off the internet.


Well, speaking as someone who has distributed books on occasion, it might surprise you to know that my answer to that would be a "No." If I like a book like LOTR, I want to buy it and on occasion I do buy paper books. Mostly for reference but occasionally some hardback book that will look good in my library..

I've read lots of books, from Sherlock Holmes to LOTR to Harry Potter.. and I admit, I read all of those as .lits or .txts converted to lits... Yes, I got them off the net.

Why you ask? The answer is simple: I have a visual handicap, and as such I cannot comfortably read small print for longer then say 10 minutes, and as such I am forced to get an illegal copy. If the publisher would sell me the files directly so i can read them when I want to for a reasonable price.. then yes i'd buy them. But right now.. with all this rights management crap.. i'll just stick to file sharing..

[pendragn]

Fair use rights have long suggested the right to make personal copies, and those rights are slowly being taken away from me, thanks to the grey area these rights are in.

Allow me to nitpick for a moment. There is no such thing as "The right to Fair Use". Fair use is NOT a right. Fair Use is only a legal defense against a charge of copyright infringement. Big Media is not infringing on our rights by keeping us from making fair use of the material we buy.

Having said that, I think what they're doing sucks, and I hope they fail miserably and go broke in the process.

tk

[Ed Hansberry]

Allow me to nitpick for a moment. There is no such thing as "The right to Fair Use". Fair use is NOT a right.
Congress would disagree.

http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/fairuse.htm

"CONGRESSMAN RICK BOUCHER URGES REAFFIRMATION OF FAIR USE RIGHTS
The American public has traditionally enjoyed the ability to make convenience and incidental copies of copyrighted works without the necessity of obtaining the prior consent of the owner of the copyright. These traditional "fair use" rights are at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American public."

It goes on in some detail.

[pendragn]

Allow me to nitpick for a moment. There is no such thing as "The right to Fair Use". Fair use is NOT a right.
Congress would disagree.

http://www.house.gov/boucher/docs/fairuse.htm
snip..
It goes on in some detail.

I think "A Congressman would disagree" would be more correct than "Congress would disagree". If all of congress agreed that we had a right to Fair Use this wouldn't be an issue.

I did a couple of research papers on Copyright law. It was made pretty clear to me with case law and the like that Fair Use is not a right, only a protection against a charge of Copyright infringement. Congressman Boucher would like to see Fair Use become a right of consumers, and I support him.

When I get home tonight I'll try to remember to dig up my research about Fair Use and post them.

tk

[Jason Dunn]

A very interesting thread to read (as I knew it would be), and I wish I had the time to contribute a few lengthy posts, but I'm overdue on a book chapter. :-)

The one point I'd like to make to some of the people who feel I'm a hypocrite for downloading MP3s but condemning software piracy: with every single piece of software I can think of, there are alternatives. Think Photoshop is too expensive for $700? Pick up PhotoImpact for $99. Think Microsoft Office is too expensive at $500? Pick up a freeware office suite. There are always alternatives, and in the case of most software, I use it to make a living so I consider it a good investment. Heck, even a game is fun and worth the money to me.

But when it comes to music, every artist is unique. Despite comments about the "cookie cutter" nature of the industry, every artist, every voice, every talent - all unique. I've never found a "low priced alternative" to one of my favourite bands: Wide Mouth Mason. (http://www.widemouthmason.net/) You can't just find another band who's giving away their music for less - it's not the same music.

That's one issue. The next is the issue of who gets my money. If the software industry were like the music industry, CompUSA would be the only one allowed to sell WarCraft 3, a new game from Blizzard. CompUSA would get $45 of the $50 price I was paying, and Blizzard would get $5. The people providing the infrastructure get the lions share, the people doing the creating get a crumb. Seems pretty unfair right? That's exactly how the music industry works. Much to my constant dismay, so does the book publishing industry - I'm lucky to get $2 for every $20 book I sell. Would I support someone who photocopied my book and sent me $15 for it? I honestly don't know - that's a tough one, because I like the people I'm working with at Microsoft Press and they're giving me an opportunity to write a book and release it to a huge audience, and that's not something I could have done on my own.

That's why I love shareware and authors who release their own apps directly - I download something, I use it, I love it, I buy it. I want to do the same thing for musicians! I want to buy the album right off the band and have THEM get the majority of my money vs. a record company getting most of it.

There's no perfect answer to this, nor is there a perfect analogy to bring it all into focus. I can only say that I'm satisfied paying $80 CND for WarCraft 3 and having Blizzard get the majority of my money, but I'm not happy with paying $15 for the new Wide Mouth Mason CD and knowing that the band gets to keep perhaps $1 from that. I'll buy it anyway, because I'm a big fan of the band, but if given a choice I'd rather buy it directly from the band. It's just not right, and that's the moral grounding I'm on, right or wrong.

[jlp]

When I get home tonight I'll try to remember to dig up my research about Fair Use and post them.

tk

What an abrupt ending to this thread. Were you lost enroute? :D

[pendragn]

When I get home tonight I'll try to remember to dig up my research about Fair Use and post them.

tk

What an abrupt ending to this thread. Were you lost enroute? :D
Heh, I'd forgotten all about this. I did look for that paper, but I couldn't find it. If I find the time today, I'll see if I can't scare some stuff up.

tk

[Aerestis]

This thread is a great read so far. It turned out far better than I expected it to when I read the first post... usually this topic or other topics with such diverse elements turns into arguments and it's just silly.

But anyways, I am one hundred percent pro-artist, and I really wish I could send my favorite artists a couple dollars now and again when I download their songs. I know they are human as well, and would probably appreciate it as much as I would. But of course, I am one hundred percent pro-industry for providing excellent artists with a huge audience. I have no problem with paying them a bit of money now and again for doing their job. But still, it's clear now that they get far too much of our money. So where can I come to an agreement with myself? I don't know my position for sure on the topic. I am really happy with the new Napster... But I still see flaws in the future. It's a really tricky topic.

I do feel that our current situation with file sharing, cd copying, so on, can be turned into a great thing, if it's not already. I truly doubt that music has EVER been this wide-spread, and the artists benefit so much from that. But then again, I am really young, so I wasn't old enough during the eighties to even know what music was, and I haven't read up on the popularity of music over the decades. But it does seem very popular today. I think nothing's wrong with that. It's just a matter of directing funds into the right places and being fair to everyone in the situation, including artists and consumers. I think the record labels are doing ok for now, and don't have too much to complain about.

I'm sure there will be a conclusion within a year or two and no one will care very much anymore.