Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Music and the Internet Reprise

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the play-it-again-janis dept.

Music 325

Paul M. writes "Janis Ian, nominated for nine Grammys since 1967, writes, "RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense." She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us', something I've advocated all along. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired." Janis' interview makes for good reading as well.

cancel ×

325 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

At seventeen.... (3, Funny)

peterb (13831) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513062)


I still have a Janis Ian vinyl 45 of "At Seventeen..."

Memo to self: rip this to MP3 later this week, release new "At Seventeen (hardcore Phunked-up remix)"

Re:At seventeen.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513129)

A first post that's on topic and makes sense?

Help... how do I get back to the Neil Armstrong timeline?

Re:At seventeen.... (2)

peterb (13831) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513165)

It was an accident, I swear! (I even wrote it up in my journal...)

(will the slashdot First Post Wanker's Union come break my legs now because I violated their monopoly?)

Re:At seventeen.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513218)

Only if you promise to enjoy it

Re:At seventeen.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513257)

The fr0st p1st crowd love to be violated.

Mr. peterb, please assume the position (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513570)

>Re:At seventeen.... (Score:2)
by peterb on Wednesday October 23, @11:48AM (#4513165)
(User #13831 Info | http://peterb.telerama.com/)
It was an accident, I swear! (I even wrote it up in my journal...)

>(will the slashdot First Post Wanker's Union come break my legs now because I violated their monopoly?)

don't you know *that's* also a Union job. What are you trying to put us out of a job?
*TWHAPP*

Re:At seventeen.... (2, Informative)

Triv (181010) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513341)

[shameless plug of favorite CD]

Like "At Seventeen?" Go buy this CD [webtunes.com] . It's got a live version of that song that makes me weep plus tons of awsome stuff (like Barrett Strong playing "I Heard it through the Grapevine" - It's been covered left and right, but he's the guy who actually WROTE the damn thing, as well as short interviews with the songwriters. Promise, you won't be disappointed. :)

Triv

Hornblower (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513073)

something I've advocated all along


Whoopdee.

I think it's time (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513090)

to give Janis Ian her own icon and group here on /.

RIAA's solution: (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513101)

More concerts and less CDs. What, the "R" in RIAA stands for "recording"? Well too bad for them then.

Janus Ian? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513104)

Is this the same cat who duped Jon Katz into thinking he was writing from Afghanistan on his recently unearthed Commmodore 64? The guy who loved Survivor?

If that article doesn't totally disgrace Katz I don't know what does. Zero journalistic integrity.

Best quote I've seen all week! (4, Funny)

jaymzter (452402) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513107)

the record companies' utility has expired

Mod her up + Insightful

<rocky-the-squirrel>Agaaain?</rocky> (3, Insightful)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513110)

So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.

Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?

Re:Agaaain? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513187)

"heard that!"

Re:Agaaain? (5, Insightful)

Asprin (545477) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513189)


So, I guess all I have to do in order to get a submission finally accepted is resubmit a rehash of something that already made the front page half a dozen times then.

Don't get me wrong, I dig Janis Ian and her stand on this issue, but geez, can't we find some news that's actually NEW?

Again, this article is newsworthy NOT BECAUSE OF THE CONTENT (with which you and I are both already ridiculously familiar), but BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CONTENT APPEARS.

Maybe the wind blows up where you live, but my mother-in-law reads the USA Today, not /.

Re:Agaaain? (2, Insightful)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513226)

Might have made sense for the editor or submitter to POINT THAT OUT then, don't ya think? Because GOD KNOWS that Janice Ian quated saying the same things again is not something I really am going to bother go checking all the links on, just in case it's something new.

Re:Agaaain? (3, Interesting)

jglow (525234) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513421)

I agree. She doesn't express any new ideas on the subject.. but it is nice to see someone who's "been there, done that" to step up against te RIAA. She makes some good points, too.

"That's how artists become successful: exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, and no one buys CDs. After 37 years as a recording artist, when people write to tell me that they came to my concert because they downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled."

That's how I am. Sure, I might not buy CDs that I download, but I sure as hell do support the artist by buying merch, going to shows and telling my friends about how good a certain band is.

Required Related Reading... (5, Informative)

TheGreenGoogler (618700) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513114)

Be sure to visit Boycott-RIAA [boycott-riaa.com] for further coverage of this and all issues anti-RIAA (Not that there are any /.'ers against the fine institution of the RIAA, but link provided just in case ;)

YOU'RE A GOOD WHORE. CAN I BE YOUR KARMA PIMP? (-1)

Subject Line Troll (581198) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513536)

Not first post for ERIS! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513120)

All hail Discordia!

Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513126)


Washed-up has-beens like Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, and Tom Petty; one-hit-wonders like Courtney Love.

In short: Failures who want to blame their failure on someone, anyone, other than themselves.

Why don't these fuckups just bite the bullet and admit that their records don't sell because their records are crap?

Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513246)

Tom petty? one hit wonder?

WOW, is all i can say.

of course if it isnt on TRL im sure you dont like it

or the other extreme, the more obscure the better, doesnt matter the quality, just as long as no one else knows about the band. then youll be cool!

Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (1)

bje2 (533276) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513404)

Washed-up has-beens like Janis Ian, Joni Mitchell, and Tom Petty; one-hit-wonders like Courtney Love.

Read the original post again...the AC didn't call Tom Petty an one hit wonder...he/she called Tom Petty a washed up has been...not that that's necessarily true either...i'm just pointing out the clarification....

Tom Petty is a HAS-BEEN. Learn to read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513555)

It clearly says in that writeup that Tom Petty is a has-been; Courtney Love is a one-hit wonder.

If you're so stupid you can't even parse a simple declarative sentence, it's no wonder you've fallen for Ms. Ian's ludicrous bullshit.

In a free market, quality always rises to the surface. That's a fundamental law of economics. You don't like it? Tough. You can't change it.

Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (4, Interesting)

Rader (40041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513280)

Just because Janis Ian isn't prancing around in a pepsi commercial, doesn't make her a failure.

Janis has never complained about her records selling. Her complaints usually relate to not being ALLOWED to sell them. I won't really go into it, since it'll look like an article, and we know you don't read those...

Dem be fightin' words... (1)

kvn299 (472563) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513313)

I suspect you've never listened to any of Joni Mitchell's album. However, I do suspect you've listened to a great deal of musicians who have been greatly influenced by her. Even if you don't know it.

Give her a try, you might be surprised. And inspired to eat your words.

You CD collection must be a real gem.

Re:Notice which artists object to the RIAA... (5, Insightful)

LinuxWoman (127092) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513399)

I always found it quite interesting that the most vocal anti-napster groups were the soon to be totally washed-up has-beens from the early 90's. Come on, let's face it, even the stupidest 17 year old spending mommy's money on cd's knows that after a while all metallica sounds the same. When will the RIAA and their pet artists realize part of why alternative music sources succeed largely because THE LISTENER decides what songs to get and the RIAA can't force their decisions on us anymore?

A very vocal group speaking out in favor of swapping services (whether you're talking "weeds", napster, kazaa or just a recording/swapping party) is CSN. True, they've had periods where they've been much more successful and other periods when they've pretty much fallen totally off the radar, but they most certainly can't be called a one hit wonder or producer of "crap" that no one wants.

Janis did make a very smart comment "I don't pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing: If a record executive says he will make me more money, I'd immediately protect my wallet." The RIAA doesn't want to protect anything other than its own wallet. It doesn't take much searching to find a smaller artist (not a major commercial success) or older (no longer "successful") artist who can easily show the record companies owe them what amounts to a LOT of money or that the record companies (or their reps) have successfully stolen all rights to their songs. The RIAA no intention of protecting the artists, they're just smart enough to know that they can fool a lot of schmucks by pretending to care about more than their own money and the more schmucks they fool the better their chances to win this war by BS.

Of course piracy isn't a problem. (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513135)

If I download a song, the RIAA hasn't lost anything. I've just gained it. Copyright laws should only be applied against publishers, not members of the public.

Re:Of course piracy isn't a problem. (5, Insightful)

jkauzlar (596349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513231)

If the RIAA has sex with your wife, you haven't lost anything...

Re:Of course piracy isn't a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513288)

No, but I've gained a wife

Re:Of course piracy isn't a problem. (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513350)

If they can take her they can have her.

Re:Of course piracy isn't a problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513361)

I've lost her fidelity, trust, respect and more importantly, love. It may not mean anything to you, but thats worth more than anything to me.

Question... (5, Interesting)

CaptainAlbert (162776) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513145)

I remember reading about the music industry from "insiders" before Napster et al. The story about six years ago went thus:

"Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."

I'd be interested to know what happened to this story and the people who used to tell it. Sounds to me like it's every bit as relevant today. But the RIAA don't want anyone to hear it, because now it has a scapegoat for its members' lousy market performances.

Ho hum.

Re:Question... (5, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513319)

> "Record companies lose money on CDs. Recorded music has not turned a profit for a long time. The real money is made from concert tickets and merchandising."

You have that backwards. This is about the artists, not the record companies.

Artists are the ones who lose money on CDs, and make it up on tour selling T-shirts.

The "record companies" make a killing selling a 0.02$ plastic disc for 20 bucks, after all the content was provided by the artist. Their only expenses are production and promotion.

Re:Question... (5, Interesting)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513471)

Their only expenses are production and promotion.

Which the artists typically have to cover. This is one of the reasons why they are considered the last stand for slavery! The RIAA usually gets nothing but a free ride.

Imagine this. You sign a 5-disc license with someone. You're first disc sales great. You make another disc. They don't like it. You still owe 3 more discs AND now you're out all the money it took to record/produce it. Now, you're stuck. You can't sale or even attempt to make you're money back as they own the rights to the disc. They won't sale you're latest and all the money you made on the first disc is now spent and down the drain in living and making the second disc. What do you do? Make a third disc? You don't have any money. Okay, so now they front you the money with horrible terms (ownership rights to the previously made disc and you still owe them four more) because they have all the leverage.

You're screwed!

Yes, the RIAA is past its time just like the buggy whip! They are corrupt and no longer serve any purpose.

Re:Question... (2)

einTier (33752) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513324)

Strangely enough, I remember this as well. I think it might have been in relation to the whole TicketMaster mess around that time. Don't quote me on that, but I'd be [i]very[/i] interested to find that quote.

um (1)

filmsmith (608221) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513332)

That wasn't a question.

Re:Question... (3, Interesting)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513335)

One story [mp3.com] in particular that I read about four years, which was similar to this but good enough to earmark, went thus:
...the vast majority of music revenues are built around the "pay before you can listen" model in which customers have to buy a CD or cassette before they can hear a song. The Internet makes possible a wealth of new revenue models in which free music can play a significant role...

This article essentially represents how I feel about the industry today. Sure, it isn't entirely accurate and the theories aren't laws unless they work in the real world... But in theory, it looks good.

left out a word (1)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513358)

Oops. I meant "four years ago". (-:

Re:Question... (2, Informative)

Moekandu (300763) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513352)

They lied.

Record companies make money from CD's. Hell, the profit margins are ridiculous compared to many other industries. Pressing a CD is $0.20, the jewel case is $0.05, and the printing may be as high as a dollar. Recording costs? Travel expenses? Venue fees? Those get charged back to the artists. It's the artists that lose money.

Moekandu

"It is a sad time when a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."

Jimmy Cliff releases free CD (5, Interesting)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513156)

Reggae pioneer and Grammy award winner Jimmy Cliff [jimmycliff.com] , famous for his starring role in cult movie classic The Harder They Come [imdb.com] and several hit songs, has recently released his entire newest album online for free download at his website [jimmycliff.com] . You can listen to the music by downloading People Music Media from the site, a P2P application that streams the music to you. It's great that famous artists are finally developing new music distribution schemes and revenue making models for the Information Age! Perhaps the RIAA [riaa.org] could take a few notes from him...

And I just downloaded the album last night, it is amazing. (-:

corrections (4, Informative)

I Want GNU! (556631) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513181)

It doesn't stream, it downloads the album in a protected albx format. It doesn't let you burn to CD but you can listen to it all you want on your computer and again, it's free (as in beer). He could theoretically release the whole thing in OGG or MP3 format but since people could copy and burn the CD easily and legally then it might hurt album sales, which I think we can understand him not wanting to do. Still, this is an amazing step!

Re:corrections (1)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513519)

"I think we can understand him"

Don't count it on, this is slashdot...

What's the point of discussion? (5, Insightful)

ErikTheRed (162431) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513159)

The core problem here is that the RIAA (and MPAA if you want to go there also) leadership is not comprised of reasonable people. They're busy breathing heavily into paper bags over Internet File Sharing and are unwilling to consider any options other than locking up music as tightly as they can, prosecuting everyone they can get their hands on, and lobbying congress for more laws.

This is a textbook example of incompetent leadership in business - management is religeously inflexibile and lives in a complete state of denial while steadily circling the drain.

If the music industry wants to survive they need some fresh blood at the top because all of the laws and lawsuits in the world won't solve their problems, in fact, they will only make them worse...

Re:What's the point of discussion? (2)

Rader (40041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513317)

.....because all of the laws and lawsuits in the world won't solve their problems, in fact, they will only make them worse...

Unfortunately, we have yet to see about that.

Remember Children (5, Funny)

M3wThr33 (310489) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513162)

When technology goes past current methods of revenue, we must stifle the technology, rather then letting go of what made us money previously, just like movie previews on VHS tapes, because consumers certainly appreciate being held back.

AMEN (1)

xagon7 (530399) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513170)

"now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost"

This can be applied to ANY digital medium.

Not entirely true (5, Insightful)

Faggot (614416) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513183)

now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.

I don't agree.

An anecdote some people here may share: back when I started surfing the web in 1995, websites were a lot easier to find. Back then, I'd happen upon more cool sites than I do now. These days, there is just so much of the web available that you need to use a portal/weblog/etc just to get there.

Internet-distributed music falls victim to the same problem. Sure, anyone can get it anytime anywhere, but what good is that if no one will find it? Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.

That said, I am very glad that someone in Finland can download my band's mp3s anytime.

Re:Not entirely true (2)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513271)

I definitely agree with the points you've made here. But without writing a story of feature length, which would have required too much effort for the potential of rejection, I just wanted to be as general as I could. Excellent points!

Re:Not entirely true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513306)

you dont think community sites will grow very popular. like freshmeat for music?

or a particular style of music, with ratings and a place to donate to the musician?

but then again its not the same as bribing radio stations to play a particular song 4000 times a day. like that god damn pink song that was played every 45 mins on a milwaukee station. its a horrible song to begin with, but it gets really bad hearing it that often. of course you could have a song of arm pit farting and it could be number one "requested" everwhere, all you need is money.

"it doesnt matter if you're black or white, the only color that matters is green"

Someone will always find it (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513336)

but what good is that if no one will find it?

Sure, if you had to sift through ALL the music out there on your own, you would be lucky to find a fraction of the good stuff that makes it to your ears today. However, you don't need the RIAA or their recording companies to do that.

A perfect analogy is news. Frankly there is too much of it. Because you posted on slashdot, I'll assume, that like myself, you let this site do some of your filtering for you. In the web world there is always competition for eyeballs, and those with the best merit will survive. (e.g., Slashdot.)

In a world where music is available from millions of direct download sources on terms dictated by the artists, I don't find it too far fetched to think that a website or two will spring up to fill the void left by the recording company talent agents that refused to logon.

Not entirely false (5, Insightful)

Codex The Sloth (93427) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513379)

Record companies provide valuable services to musicians: distribution, promotion, sending CDs to radio stations, booking, etc. To discount all these just because there are some greedy record companies is foolish and immature. The Internet is not the final answer for musicians.

These were once valuable services but they are decreasingly so... Distribution is (obviously) no longer a problem -- this is traditionally where the music companies have had a stranglehold. Promotion is really the only value add they have but the value here is highly debatable. Sure someone has to sift through a bunch of crap but how good a job do they do? If you never hear any of the ones they reject, what makes you think they aren't good (ok, probably a bunch of them are crap...). Wouldn't a moderation system where music listeners (who don't have a vested interest in an artist) rate music work just as well, if not better?

Re:Not entirely true (2)

Rader (40041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513386)

However in any free-competitive market, if there is a need for a service, then that service will be created.

The service you describe as being needed is a way for you to find good music.

I'm sure there are web sites, radio stations, online radio stations, music magazines that could fill this void, if only they were allowed a level playing field.

Combining music and computers is great. You can compile databases of genres and their descriptions. Reference artists and albums to these genres. Build a database of artists you currently like, and reference this info to new artists you hopefully would like. I've seen similar things with movies.

Answer: through these portals you speak of (3, Insightful)

mekkab (133181) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513397)

Memepool.com, obscurestore.com, slashdot.com,
the list goes on.

How do you use the net? you search for stuff- chances are you will find a place where you agree with what is being said more often than not. And in the meme-propagating world that is the Internet if something is quality it will spread like wildfire.

Instead of being bombarded with big money commercials you get testimonials. You go to the Onion's AV room and you read some reviews, you respect the reviewer, and when s/he later on says "This is the Next big thing" you weight the opinion not on how much hype you have heard about it, but on the integrity of the source.

Its like the zoo.pl stuff at slashdot- you like what someone has to say, you make 'em your friend.

It's what people have been doing for years before there was advertisement.

Re:Not entirely true (4, Insightful)

jrst (467762) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513448)

It is true if you change the playing field, which is the point of the article.

RIAA+Labels = Promotion + Distribution + Obstructionism

Internet = RIAA+Labels - Distribution - Obstructionism

What's left is promotion. So how do other industries deal with promotion? They use "adverising" or "PR" firms. But those firms don't (and shouldn't) get a lock on the intellectual property associated with the product just for promoting it.

The functions of promotion and distribution will not disappear, but their implementation in the form of the RIAA and labels can, and should, be replaced.

The power to make the change is in the hands of artists. Artists could set up their own alternative to the RIAA and labels at any time. Why haven't they? The technology is a no-brainer.

No, this doesn't address physical CD distribution. But look at the context of this discussion, the debate, and the industry's cry for action against piracy--it all centers around the Internet. That's where the solution needs to start.

Obviously a replacement wouldn't address the back catalogs controlled by the labels. However, once a viable alternative is in place, the labels would probably be much more amenable to rational negotiation.

In short:
1. Construct a viable alternative; then
2. Bring the RIAA & Labels to the table; then
3. Negotiate acces to the back catalogs.

Anything else is wishful thinking--and whining--and requires the largesse of the RIAA and the labels (good luck).

Re:Not entirely true (3, Insightful)

Reziac (43301) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513513)

Erm.. if no one can find it, where do all these loose MP3s come from?? :)

Seriously, I find unknown (at least to me) and independent artists by tripping over whatever looked interesting in an FTP listing (having searched most generically for "MP3") or via some MP3 search portal -- which you can't avoid finding from even the most cursory Google search. I don't HAVE radio access, so if it's not on the net, I never hear it.

I'd think a DMOZ category (sorted by genre) would be a good place to start.

Relaxing the iron grip of control. (3, Interesting)

bl968 (190792) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513211)

The RIAA is not interested in anything that empowers the artist or the consumer unless they are the sole source for it. While free downloading is infinitely better publicity and promotion for bands it provides little benefits in return to the recording industry. They can not charge the artist or bands for the free distribution of their material on the net as they do with off net promotion. They can not report their ever increasing profits to their share holders. It is going to take a redefinition of the consumers and artists rights by Congress before the recording industries strangle hold on the music business is relaxed even a tiny bit. I am generally against legislated solutions however in this case it may be our only hope.

XXAA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513212)

The RIAA was never anything more than a "head" on the entertainment industry cartel anyway. The only purpose it's ever had was to ensure the monopoly of its members. The tactics of the music industry can very easily be described as those of a pirate. They established themselves by cutting out the competition, and have maintained their pirate monopoly by picking fights that they can win, mainly against penniless artists that they can bully, and more lately, anyone they want via the DMCA. They've been trolling for a nice test case that they can easily win and use to establish a precedent. It's a Very Good Thing that the ISP stonewalled them when they did, otherwise they'd have been able to get a lawsuit in under the DMCA before it has a chance to be altered.

I don't particularly care what concessions the music industry will eventually be forced to make because I've been burned before with their pirate tactics, I've been ridiculed in the media as a thief and scourge to creativity itself simply because I'm a computer user, and I'm not going to be burned again.

The business model of screwing everybody and blaming your customers for your shortcomings has failed. Prepare to be marginalized Hollywood.

I'm going to rape your comment now (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513363)

The only purpose it's ever had was to ensure the monopoly of its members.

monopolies only have one member

The tactics of the music industry can very easily be described as those of a pirate. They established themselves by cutting out the competition, and have maintained their pirate monopoly by picking fights that they can win, mainly against penniless artists that they can bully, and more lately, anyone they want via the DMCA.

pirates boarded ships and looted everyone/everything on board

They've been trolling for a nice test case that they can easily win and use to establish a precedent.

'trolling' refers to putting out bait and seeing what comes. maybe you mean 'looking'

I've been ridiculed in the media as a thief and scourge to creativity itself simply because I'm a computer user, and I'm not going to be burned again.

yes you are

The business model of screwing everybody and blaming your customers for your shortcomings has failed.

keep telling yourself that

Prepare to be marginalized Hollywood.

ummm... that's where movies are made. you're dumb

Re:XXAA (1, Troll)

Rader (40041) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513417)

I was wondering who those articles were ridiculing. Now I know it was YOU!

Re:XXAA (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513528)

The RIAA was initally founded to ensure a standard for records and players. IIRCC.

Now, they are just plain bastards, for sure.

It's a true dichomoty (1, Insightful)

Jack Wagner (444727) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513213)

In a capatilistc society we deal with these dichotomies on a daily basis. The consumer wants to get the best value for his/her dollar and the Businessman wants to get the most profits for his/her goods. This is simply the way things work and actually quite proven as the best way for a society to function.

In a real-world model you will see supply and demand come into play which affects the price of the products. When a product is in low demand the businessman will raise the price and when we see high demand the price comes down. Again, simple micro-economics from your freshman year at the Uni.

The real problem comes into play when people start stealing products. In the traditional sense of the word we have to view downloading copywritten music off the web as stealing as you are receiving goods that you didn't pay for against the wishes of the person/company who owns those rights. I'm not talking about the moral issue of right or wrong here.

So basically we lose the whole supply/demand controls which are the underlying foundation because you have an unlimted supply of "free" music to download which gives many false positives on the demand. It's no wonder the RIAA has trouble showing an accurate profit/loss report from the past few years with all this going on.

We need some Internet auditing controls to be put into place before we villify the RIAA as being this evil entity.

Warmest regards,
--Jack

Re:It's a true dichomoty (1)

panthera (562913) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513315)

Haven taken a Microeconomic course, I find your example incorrect. The law of supply and demand shows an inverse ratio, as supply goes up, price goes down as the glut on the market increases. As demand increases, price goes up on the rarer item.

I would respond further but lack the time.

Regards, Scott Young

Re:It's a true dichomoty (2)

elmegil (12001) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513320)

So Jack: if the distributor doesn't want me to download the music, but the creator of the music does, who's got control? Wait, you think that if the creator signed that excessive contract s/he doesn't have any say? That'd be legit, if the RIAA didn't have an effective monopoly on contracts; if there was somewhere for the creator to turn where they could get their music to the mass audience effectively without the draconian contracts. The Internet has the capability to become that alternative, but the RIAA is doing everything they can to stop it.

Re:It's a true dichomoty (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513384)

It is obvious that you never did your freshman economics at Uni as your statement is the sort of simplistic view pushed out in most middle schools. In reality there are far more factors determining price than such a simple concept as supply and demand.

In the music industry the product is the music (not the physical CD). The marketing provides the thrust into the proper channels and must be paid for by sales (of CDs, Cassettes, concert tix, merchendise) - there are other cash flows, but according to RIAA marketing new matieral is the number one cost. Now anyone can go into just about any store and get a Cassette of a band for about half the price of the CD version - and yet demand for the CD is higher (as shown by overall sales) and the cost to produce the CD is lower; so according to your view the CD should be lowering in price (which it obivously isn't).

RIAA is having problems shifting to a new marketing strategy; afterall the existing one has netted them very large profits and near absolute control over the music industry. Like most revolutions (cultural, industrial, and now digital) it is going to be a fight.

Re:It's a pitiful attempt to justify a bad degree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513395)

I'm not a consumer, I'm a customer. You can consider a very large group of people as consumers, but smaller groups have to be considered as customers. With the targetted advertising of today, trying to market to a very large group of people isn't smart. It's better to market heavily to the people who will most likely try to buy your product (ie, your customers).

The music industry hasn't responded as they ought under your economic model. They've kept their prices largely static in response to either increased or decreased demand, and haven't tried to change from a business model that's been losing them money for many years. The break of the economic model was started by the music industry. The model doesn't work when there's a monopoly.

Economic theories are all flawed anyway. They all use impossible premises, and the economist always sits himself outside of the human race before making any statements. It's just plain dumb.

Capitalism is like a game. If everybody plays by the rules, then it works fine. If one music industry decides to cheat, then they can expect to be thrown away from the gameboard.

Re:It's a true dichomoty (2)

operagost (62405) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513521)

Dear Jack Valenti,

You reversed the dynamics of supply and demand again. You really need to stop doing that, we have very little credibility as it is.

Sincerely,
Hilary Rosen

Nice, but... (3, Insightful)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513214)

...her 9 Grammys hardly qualify her as an expert in this area. They qualify her as a musician but it doesn't mean she has some great insight into the business end of the industry.

Now, if she had started and run a successful indie label then I'd take her comments more seriously. Good that the submitter found a way to plug his writings though.

Re:Nice, but... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513322)

On the first day I posted downloadable music, my merchandise sales tripled, and they have stayed that way ever since. I'm not about to become a zillionaire as a result, but I am making more money.

What more qualifications does she need?

Re:Nice, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513356)

They qualify her as a musician but it doesn't mean she has some great insight into the business end of the industry.

Great insight. Of course, you know that she was mainly addressing the RIAA's claim to be acting in the best interest of musicians, with only a few side jabs at their "attack the customer" mentality.

In that context, her qualifications as a musician seem to make her an expert at what's good for musicians, don't you think?

Re:Nice, but... (5, Insightful)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513449)

The fact she's been around long enough to win 9 Grammys AND afford to continue to write, record, and play means that she obviously has SOME business sense.

Why does she need to have a label to be taken seriously? It doesn't take an idiot to get screwed in the biz. The odds are so stacked in the industry's favor that you might as well be a farmer. She has managed to stay alive in a business that eats artists for lunch, and craps 'content' or product or whatever the flavor of the week is.

BTW... The Stones, Bowie, and McCartney are all examples of musicians who are excellent businessmen. I think they may have won a talent show award or something, too.

Yeah right! (0, Troll)

ksplatter (573000) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513219)

She wants the industry, artists, and consumers to work together 'to make technology work for all of us

Why doesn't she just ask Bill Gates to Install RedHat on his home PC!!

It just aint gonna F***in happen Lady!

And this just in...... (-1, Offtopic)

Mairi (619093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513237)

Microsoft releases a new SP for Windows XP, with the "No Janice Joplin DRM Management" software. Ballmer states, "We cannot allow evil communist terror-mongering recording artists to take money from the hard working recording communities. I bet she uses Linux, also." *Bad try on being funny, but, after re-installing XP *8* times, I'm jaded. Mod down as wanted*

Re:And this just in...... (-1, Redundant)

Mairi (619093) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513262)

Sorry, Janice *IAN*, not Joplin..3am is not a good time to post to /.

My next /. submission... (2, Funny)

dmauer (71583) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513249)

Representative Gurm Dorbson of North Carolina recently wrote This piece [timecube.com] on how world hunger should be eliminated, something I've [dougmoon.com] advocated All [compearth.com] Along.

*cough*.

Re:My next /. submission... QWZX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513344)

Well, the difference is that everyone's in favor of world hunger being eliminated. On the other hand, some of us are in FAVOR of artists being paid for their work, and people not being able to steal music.

Excellent (5, Insightful)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513255)

Its about time theres a song writer to whom's high priced lawyers havn't brainwashed into thinking they are getting ripped off.
I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.

And what about cd's that you've either gotten lost or stolen, or broken even? I think you should be entitled to download the song if its availiable. After all, why not? I'm sure I wasn't the only one really ticked off when I bought that one blind melon album and found all the songs except for the one that they played on the radio all the time (you remember, allllll I can say is that my life is pretty plain *breum brah brerum* I like watching the pluddles gather rain*).

And don't forget the main issue here. EXPOSURE. Time to take away the strangle hold a couple of stuffed shirts think about what is "good music." I stopped buying music all in all not long ago, but when I did stop, the last couple albums I bought were from those labels that were created by the songwriter. Ok, so *maybe* I didn't pay for that kid rock cd, but how long could you really listen to that one for? :) Anyways, back to my point that the little guys really benifit from this. If i'm listening to an mp3 stream and hear a really jazzin song that i've never heard of the artist before, I might buy it.

Otherwise, they would have just ended up in the fatcat's rejection bin.

Re:Excellent (2)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513509)

I know I bought metallica albums before their napster crusade, but I flat our refuse to now.

So, Lars & co. should have just sat back while their unfinished tracks were being distributed en masse?

The item that caused the "Napster Crusade", which Metallica was only the first to notice, was the distribution of unfinished songs as MP3s, against the artist's wishes.

This is the equivalent of buggy alpha code being given to anyone who wants it even when the coders know it's faulty.

I was a Metallica fan before Napster, and I remain a fan after Napster. And the band has even got samples of their entire song library online for sampling... http://www.metallica.com/

I'd say they've done an OK job in finding a happy medium between "digital is bad" and "here, have access to everything I ever record, even the bad things."

alright already (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513259)

enough with the janis ian bullshit .. nobody
cares .. really .. Nobody At All .. let me put
it together

Janis Ian == bad, failed, obscure musician
RIAA == millions of gojillions of dollars,
senators in their pocket, and one hot hillary
rosen at the head

blah

Stupid statement (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513264)

Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.

That's just idiotic. In fact it's the opposite -- because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.

I'm sure there are innumerable good bands who put up a web site expecting the flood of CD orders to come charging in -- and then are bitterly disappointed when people don't magically show up.

The fact is, good musicians just aren't that rare. The ones that become extremely popular happen because of combination of luck -- and promotion. The way to get noticed is still to play local clubs hoping that you get good word of mouth. And if that happens, hope that a national promoter (duh) promotes you nationally. Just opening a web site and hoping is not going to cut it.

Or to put it another way, somehow you have to rise above the noise. What makes you unique by just putting up a web site? And even if you did become as popular as a big group, exactly how are you going to produce those million CDs? Can you say "record distributor deal"?

[P.S. This is my 2500th comment on this account. That's not including the 400+ on my old account, though, or miscellaneous A/C posts. And yes, I manage to distribute my wisdom while still having a life! Boy it's great to be me. :)]

Re:Stupid statement (2)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513462)

That's just idiotic...because every idiot who owns a guitar can put up a web site, the good bands are drowned by even more noise that we've seen in the past.

That's not idiotic, that's a necessary part of life, especially in a capitalist world (which this ultimately is). Preferences are just that, preferences, and for every "trash" band or song out there, there is someone who likes it or it wouldn't be there.

Darwin's idea of evolution suggests that "only the strong survive". In today's world, there are a lot of survivors, but only the strongest break through to mainstream or otherwise profitable success.

You're ultimately right. Good musicians aern't that rare, and as the Internet speeds up and offers more, it won't be difficult to find something that's worth listening to (or reading, or seeing, etc.). Sure, some artists are better than others and still won't receive the credit they deserve because the Internet is so massive that equal opportunity exposure is impossible (emphasizes because I think it's a good quote, heh), but that doesn't make what I said previously "idiotic". The record companies' utility has expired, or it is at least winding down.

Obviously I had no room to elaborate in an introductory blurb... If it were a feature article, I would have covered it better. :-)

I want my MTV.. (4, Insightful)

chefren (17219) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513289)

Small artists which do not get screen-time on MTV or air-time on popular radio stations have no other way to let people "try before you buy" than the Internet. Some [telarc.com] recording companies provide samples of music from the albums they publish, but an artist should have the right to do this him/herself if the record company doesn't. I know of only one [discipline...mobile.com] record company where the artists own the copyright to their own work. DGM only functions as a recording and publishing company, they don't buy intellectual property. Arthur Brown [godofhellfire.co.uk] made a record which sold 5 million copies in three months and never got anything for it. Somehow I don't buy it when the big recording companies say they work for the artists. They are in fact only working for artists that sell millions and then only to rip them off completely.

Or Do it yourself (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513345)

I think more artist should rely less on the corporations and just release their music themselves.

I know Kevin Martin, former lead singer of Candlebox, has gone this route. I don't know how successful he has been yet but at least he is doing it on his own. He can be heard at www.kmband.com and my opinion is that it's good. I hope he is successful and that other artists will be able to follow his lead. Then "The Man" can cry "wee wee wee" all the way to the poor house.

9 Grammies, eh? That's nothing (0, Offtopic)

Savatte (111615) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513353)

I had perfect attendance in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 7th grade. I also won "most improved" on the intramural floor hockey in 10th grade. The Grammies have nothing on me!

Re:9 Grammies, eh? That's nothing (0, Offtopic)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513566)

Er, nice. Cal Ripken played in 2632 consecutive games from 1982 to, er, 1999? 2000? Sixteen consecutive years of showing up to work every day. Physical labor (though fun) with occasional broken bones, random illnesses, etc. But... how irrelevant!

I too had perfect attendance through most of my school days. Not until I turned 16 did I learn the value of occasionally skipping... when it was necessary... like on a Wednesday in the middle of a long stretch, like seven weeks or so, without holidays.

Who cares what Janis Ian has to say (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513360)

slashdot is showing how lame it is by repeatedly running stories on this hippie windbag. please /. , next time you quote a musician please have it be someone relevant to today.

The FULL article on Ian's website (5, Informative)

BigDaddyJ (38640) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513372)

Check out the full article at http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.h tml [janisian.com] . It's a lot more useful (and interesting!) than the USA Today snippet.

--bdj

Urge to Rant Growing, Growing, AHH! (4, Troll)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513373)

The following is a rant about Action versus talk, not a rant about the Music industry. Please keep children away from this rant, it is contagious.

---Begin Pre-Luch Time Rant--

Am I the only on sick of hearing about Janis? Great, wonderful that Janis is speaking about rights and all that bull; so does Bono for animal rights your point? Sitting around bitching about why things are the way they are does NOTHING. The question Janis is what are YOU going to DO besides sit and lecture? We know what the problem is Janis (Doctor Scott, Brad, ROCKY!) we have heard this over and over again. Why not try something that few people understand. Instead of bitching and whining and being all "Touchy-Feely" and sympathetic with your fans, why not OFFER SOME CONCRETE SOLUTIONS! I am sick of hearing whiny maggots from the music industry, BOTH SIDES, sitting say A is bad and B is bad when neither of them can do the following SIMPLE things:

A: Define the problem
B: Offer concrete evidence on the fact the problem is real
C: Offer SOLUTIONS that work in the real world.

This nonsense with the music industry is pissing me off. With nuclear powers facing off, people dying from murderers, war looming, and all sorts of bad things that go bump in the night you think these whiny commies would get a clue and realized if they had stuck with capitalism they could have simply used the old law of supply and demand to stop this (Most are, it's called bootleg MP3s). People are sick of the record industry and all they do is whine and talk and talk and talk. If EVERY person that hated the RIAA gave $10 to a general fund they would have 4 times the disposable income that the RIAA has. The RIAA would have to dip into profits (creating debt) to battle YOUR $1!! That is a vicious cycle if you have a few brain cells left. If every person that didn't vote in a presidential election gave $1 every month how many millions of dollars would you have? Can't spare a $1 a month? Bullshit. All I see is entitlement lazy assholes with too much free time that CHOOSE not to get organized and actually do something about their problems because they're too busy whining about shit instead of doing something about the shit they see.

There is the problem and I'll say it again:
I see is entitlement lazy assholes with too much free time that CHOOSE not to get organized and actually do something about their problems because they're too busy whining about shit instead of doing something about the shit they see.

I contribute a whole whopping $5 buck to my candidates and political party each month. Why don't you? Because you're too damn busy whining! Why is it every time some singer start crying about a cause it becomes profound? How many fucking lemmings post on this board?

The fundamental problem of 90% of problems is your too god damn busy talking to DO something.

There are no corrupt politicians, they WORK HARD for the people that elected them, too bad you did elect them. You were too busy whining.

You have become lazy and CHOOSE not to defend you freedom with your vote. You must PARTICIPATE in the political system, if you don't be surprised if they don't listen.

Now, like so many, you lemming behind some famous person without doing the 3 simple things:

A: Define the problem
B: Offer concrete evidence on the fact the problem is real
C: Offer SOLUTIONS that work in the real world.

The problem isn't the RIAA buying politicians. It fails a typical logic test. The ROOT problem is the fact we are not being active in politics. I am reminded of a simple poster I saw at a police station. There on the poster is an inmate lifting weights. The poster asks," He's getting stronger, are you?" Well the companies are pushing hard in politics, did you forget how to compete? You have to pusher HARDER than the competition. I am sad to see that the American spirit on competition has been replaced by lazy, whiney, bitchy, slackers who have to rally around a musician instead of their own ideals.

I have a great SOLUTION, go buy Sony Stock and vote the fuckers off the board and put your own people in there. Oh wait, that would be too easy. Who would have thought that you have to work hard in order to win.

Can't afford it? Yes you can, first form an ethical investment firm in your local area and RAISE MONEY to battle bullshit like this; SHUT UP AND DO SOMETHING!!! ARG!!!

--- End Pre-Lunch Rant---

I'm sure I'll feel better after lunch, please take my rant as just that, a rant. I might have drifted into a blind range of madness and babbled about gold fish or something but I had to get it off my chest, that's why I like Slashdot, it's a great place to vent rational and irrational statements. Later

The problem... (3, Insightful)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513501)

...is that it is extremely rare for any mind on its own to contain all the answers. I'm not God. Are you? (-:

That is why we share little bits of arguments in this way. I share one view, you share another, the rest of the world (potentially) shares billions of others, and somewhere down the line the best solution is realized, pursued, and achieved.

The political philosopher John Stuart Mill said it best in his essay On Libety in 1859:

Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Why Record Companies are not completely obsolete. (2, Informative)

thefinite (563510) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513378)

Record companies would still be useful down the road as publicists. After all, do any of us believe that Brittany made it this big on talent alone? They help certain artists onto the public radar (deserving or no).

The problem is that record companies are no longer the only mode of production and distribution. That means that they can't make artists into indentured servants. They would still be able to make money, just not all the money.

Nonsense ? (3, Interesting)

tmark (230091) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513380)

RIAA's claim that the industry and artists are hurt by free downloading is nonsense. Record companies were to provide a means for exposure; now that the Internet provides near-universal exposure at comparatively no cost, the record companies' utility has expired.

The above is nonsense.

The record companies don't care about "free downloading" per se. They care about free downloading of content owned by their members. BIG difference. Any war the record companies are waging upon filesharing is the result of the obvious fact that most of the music available on these networks belongs to RIAA members and the equally obvious fact that a significant amount of downloads are being done by people who don't have "fair-use" license of this content.

As for whether or not record companies serve a function, bands have been putting out their music for sale and download on the Net for years now, and there have been but a handful of modest success stories. I defy anyone to name more than 5 such bands, recognizable to an average guy on the street, who still maintain independence from traditional music distribution channels.

I am certain that if you were to survey the MP3 collections ("legal" and "shared" alike) of all Slashdot users (not just a perverse few), we would discover that the vast majority of MP3s are of artists signed to RIAA member companies. And I would bet you that these infinitely self-motivated musicians and bands will continue to be signed to said companies, because they serve thema function, just like these musicians and bands will continue to pay for artists.

Industry lies. (4, Interesting)

Rip!ey (599235) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513383)

I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital. But I do object to the industry spin that it is doing all this to protect artists. It is not protecting us; it is protecting itself.

I see a very common theme appearing these days.

Neither the artists nor the consumers want the RIAA and record companies to have the absurd power that they currently have (which they seek to strengthen and extend).

A /. poster said it best (can't remember who). It's not about destroying on-line distribution. It's about destroying the early competition so that the industry can move in afterwards and take it all for themselves.

A Sidenote... (3, Informative)

crashnbur (127738) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513414)

If you scroll down past the (ugly) header, the meat of Tony Fletcher's iJamming article/feature [ijamming.net] is entertaining and insightful. It was published in March 2002 in response to Michael Greene's speech at the Grammy's.

He slams Greene, record labels, and the industry in general and promotes the best interests of artists and consumers. His points are laid out cleanly in numbered paragraphs with bold "headline" statements, which makes it easy to skip the ideas with which you may disagree or of which you've heard too much of, and simply get to the stuff you want to read.

It's a very good article, but Fletcher misses the point a little when he says:

Selling albums is no longer the only way for artists to make money. They have other options - publishing, touring, merchandising, soundtrack commissions, TV commercials, Djing or other public appearances, sponsorship

Correction: Selling albums was never the only way for artists to make money.

The artist should still keep the copyright (3, Interesting)

waxmop (195319) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513422)

from the article:

I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission. Copyright protection is vital.

Janis Ian recognizes that the artist has the right to choose what happens with her output. This often gets overlooked in all the RIAA-bashing around here.

If the artist doesn't want to allow sharing, then that's her choice.

The best thing about Internet music sharing.. (5, Funny)

Doomrat (615771) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513423)

..is that it gives all the new wave of (pop) nu-metal & alternative bands who claim to be "all about the music" a kick in the pants when they start complaining about losing money. "Yeah man, we is da hardcore, we is all about the music. But the money is nice too."

ask a musician who makes royalties about the riaa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513475)

i mean what does she care if people download her music free? its not like anybody pays for it anyway. this negates her opinion as being relevant.

RIAA Need to get a grip... (4, Insightful)

azadrozny (576352) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513485)

It is very true that the ability to copy and freely distribute music, movies, etc. has the ability to very seriously hurt the industry under their *current* business model. However I don't understand why the RIAA is so resistant to changing the model. I guess they feel it is easier to keep the old system than to learn or create a new one.

There has to be a way for them to make money off of all this. Sure, there will always be someone trying to rip off your work, but companies like M$ have seemed to adapt very well. Who would have though 10 years ago that local and national newspapers could give away free electronic copies of their content and still make money. There has to be a way to make this work for the entertainment industry.

This is just like saying that your market is ready to buy your products, but you are unwilling to sell.

Has it occurred to anyone (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4513503)

that the only reason the music industry worked so hard to close down Napster was not really because people were exchanging copyrighted music - people have been doing that since the inception of magnetic tape, no, the real reason is because suddenly, overnight, there was a music distributor with millions of subscribers that they (the music industry) didn't control, and this distributor (Napster) was actually promoting independant bands. THAT'S THE REAL REASON.
Notice that the record companies BOUGHT Napster? Now you'll be forced to feed on the sludge THEY decide to feed you.
Suckers. All inflamed with this intellectual-property jazz when it's ALL about dollars & cents.

Help technology work for all of us (1)

jadon (615328) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513538)

Help technology work for all of us. Reply to the DMDA's CfP [dmda.org] .

Near universal exposure? (4, Interesting)

matman (71405) | more than 11 years ago | (#4513561)

That's a bit of bull shit. It could be said that they already have near universal exposure since they all have telephone numbers. Having your music on the Internet does not make people notice you; marketing is still a very important utility that the record companies still provide.

Personally, I'm exposed to music primarily through my friends, but also listen to radio shows and sometimes music TV stations. I find that when I find a single that I like, I download it, and don't pay for it. However, when I find an artist who is really neat, I'll buy their CD, even if it costs 30 dollars or so. I find the

Here's what I think applies to most consumers of music:

o If they like an artist's work, they'll shell out cash
o If they are checking out artists (sampling their music), they will pay a few cents per song, but the cost of managing the transaction would be prohibitive (not necessarily financially, but in a pain in the ass sense)
o If they want a single, they'll pay about a dollar, but the cost of such a transaction is still probably prohibitive.

So, realistically, fans will shell out cash, but people who are casual listeners will only shell out cash if there is no pain in the ass factor. If record companies can make music available at a low cost (money) and reduce the pain in the ass factor to below the GNUTella/Kazaa level (good download speeds, good quality, etc), people will pay.

We already have laws to deal with copyright violation. We don't need more laws (we didn't need the DMCA). If they sued a few thousand joe downloaders (and of course settled out of court for a few hundred bucks each), people would hear about it and be afraid of using kazaa. Lots of kids (warez kiddies) would still use it, but their parents would be afraid and give them shit. At least, that's what mine would have done (and did, when I was 15, and trading warez, perhaps?)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>