In a changing music world it seems like the RIAA is only hurting both the artists and the public, taking far too much money from each. Also the dawn of filesharing and the ability of people to copy CDs is only making the RIAA more desperate. Should the old system be abandoned? If so, what sort of structure should take it’s place and will it happen naturally or by government step in?
oh, I was reading this thread when I came up with this.
I suspect the recording industry will slowly but surely dry up and die over the next decade or so.
Check out this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=117151
I would not say that the RIAA is outdate per se, but the general trends indicate that the current distribution model for music is poised to be radically changed. The RIAA at this point has several options. While my preferred one would be for them just to slowly disappear, allowing a slew of new companies to tackle music distribution, this is also the least likely. They may, for instance, slowly move to a model that cannot so easily be shared for free. For instance, they may find a medium that is far more difficult to copy, and use it instead. This could give them breathing room until the work-arounds become more wide-spread, but it will have to constantly be updated. An alternate version of this is a format that requires far more space than Redbook audio, giving more advantages to those whom buy. This possible model is far more likely to work, but is still temporary as bandwidth increases. Of course, many of the music companies also control the broadband, so a combination of these could throttle the existing trends. They also may move towards embracing the internet as a distribution model or a method of advertisement. While this sounds attractive to us, it gives them far less control over what happens to the music, and lowers the gates so people can avoid them entirely. The worst-case scenario is that they’ll simply legislate all other models away, giving themselves a freehand and undercut all other methods of music, and much of the freedom of computing. At this point, it could go in any direction. In any case, they are not yet obsolete simply because people do not have the necessary bandwidth for serious music downloading, a condition they appear to be attempting to keep people in. As this changes, different measures will be taken in order to try to either buck the trend, move with it, or leave the sector. In many cases which path they take could have consequences beyond music, including the freedom of people to do what they wish with their technology.
Of course they don’t represent the artists or the public. The represent the recording companies. If the RIAA, will not die only if they find a new business model or are given lfe support in the form of Laws that enforce Digital Rghts Management and allowing them to attack p2p networks, etc.
I don’t see why we should pass laws to ensure their profit. I think they could make more money if only they would embrace digital distribution. I pay for emusic.com so that I can download mp3s. I’d gladly pay for mp3s of my favorite songs. The cost of digital distribution is not all that much. What the companies really fear is that anyone can do it.
The RIAA relies on music being difficult to distribute. IF an artist could easily distribute their own music they might find ways just to pay for studio time and distibute the music themselves. BUT if music is expensive to record and distribution means having a huge specialized peration to physically distribute media, then distributing their own music is not an option for individual artists.
A friend of mine has a boyfriend who is in a band. His music, as he managed to record it, is good enough that I won’t mind forking over $10 for a cd. This kind of thing has great potential for putting the RIAA out of business or at least out of their monopoly.
MP3 copying is not nearly as much of a threat. While there are those that pirate everything they can and are determined to never to pay for music, there are those like me. My music purchases have sky rocketed from 1 cd a year or less to spending well over $200 in the past year. I love ripping my cds and using my PC as a jukebox. I hated switching CDs. I hated dealing with those jewel cases and I hated risking scratching my media. Now I rip and put the original away. I don’t allow others to unlawfully copy either my mp3s or CDs. I love emusic.com. I have dloaded many gigs of music. I only dload a few albums a month now, but it will remain well worth the $10 a month for me.
The big thing is that the same techniques that they are advocating to squelch piracy will squelch truly independent artist like my friend’s bf.
BTW: Why aren’t the RIAA considered an unlawful trust?
Good point lee… Why isn’t the RIAA considered an unlawful monopoly?
It’s not as if it could be considered a “good” monopoly such as the power company is (and other necessaties which Teddy R. decided upon), it’s a TRUST which is fiercely protected by our nation’s laws and is limiting the community online from exploring and advancing their own computer’s capabilities in barely even related ways (such as other p2p filesharing possibilities which don’t even relate to music, movies or other copyrighted media).
I say this has gone on too long, the FIAA must fall.
If anyone is going to stand up against the RIAA, it will have to be the artists.
I recently visited the sites of the Trey Anastasio Band and Page McConnell’s Vida Blue, both of which are Phish “hiatus projects”. On both sites you can listen to the band’s new album in its entirety, any time you want. (I’m sure that capturing it would be a simple matter.) Even knowing this, I have Trey’s album and I have Vida Blue’s ordered, because they’re great albums.
The RIAA would like us to think that great artists like Trey and Page will starve in the streets if people can listen to their music without paying an exorbitant fee. They’re proving otherwise, knowing that a fair number of people will buy the album anyway and that in any event they’ll see far more income from their live shows than they’ll ever see from the records.
I think artists like this who take care of and trust their fans and use the internet to bridge the gap will be the ones who lead the evolution of the music business. The RIAA, fatally convinced of its own necessity, unconcerned with the music-buying public, and unwilling to change, will be left behind. I hope.
Interesting side note: in a previous discussion here, I mentioned that the world between music promotion and product promotion would become far more blurred than it is now; we would see hit singles emblazoned with product ads. I was in my local record shop a few days ago, where I heard “Days Go By” by Dirty Vegas, as featured in the Mitsubishi Eclipse ad. They are making a big marketing push right now, making a point to mention the commercial in the ads and on a sticker on the CD. Blurred lines indeed.
Dr. J
One thing I’d like to see is more of is simply laws that make it easier for artists to promote themselves on their own, or tighten restrictions that the RIAA can place on contracts. If this is done, and the artists simply start migrating away, the RIAA will either simply die or split itself to better service and promote the artists, instead of simply treating them as commodities.
The FTC, business friendly as it is, already put the RIAA on record for collusion.
Is anyone here on the side of the RIAA?
I think this just proves my point.
I think one of the best examples of how obtuse the RIAA is (there are many) is their recent tirade against used CDs, since it seems to tell them two things which they are ignoring.
First, they try and blame a drop in CD sales on piracy. Nevermind that fact that (yes, I realize this is subjective) most of the mainstream music these days is crap. But apparently, no one makes a bad record anymore. Case in point–Moby blames slow sales of 18 on internet piracy. Occam’s razor, folks–maybe, just maybe, it’s not as good an album as Play? People want the used CDs because they don’t want the new music out there.
Second, they complain that too many people are buying $6-$10 used CDs instead of new $15-$20 CDs. Well then shit, don’t you think it’s time they cut CD prices? Look at DVDs. They have dropped pretty substantially in price from when they were introduced, especially if you factor in what you get on most DVDs now in terms of bonus features. And as a result, they are selling through the roof.
Neither the government nor the consumer has the obligation to ensure that the RIAA continues to make money on an outdated business model, and I can only hope that “fair use” is not usurped for that very insidious purpose.
The RIAA can blame piracy if they want, but that overlooks two very dangerous trends that have nothing to do with Mp3’s or computers at all.
#1: The Grammy awards viewership hit a six-year low this year. If millions of people were gorging themselves on all this free pirated music, you’d think the Grammy awards would have had plenty of viewers. But they didn’t.
#2: There are no new radio hits. This can’t be explained away by lack of radio listening, because radio listening is way up. But people are tuning into Classic Rock, Easy Listening, 80’s and 70’s retro stations, etc.
Those two facts are indicative of a bigger problem: Most of the music today is CRAP. The big music conglomerates are afraid to take risks any more. As a result, instead of supporting challenging bands with big artistic talent, they are more and more turning to ‘packaged’ bands that are the creation of the music studios. They are focus-group tested like other products and their music is designed to be bright, appealing, and ultimately devoid of artistic content. Think Backstreet Boys, N’Sync, NKOB, Britney Spears, Destiny’s Child, The Spice Girls, etc. These bands may get single hits, but they don’t inspire a following, and as a result they become one-hit wonders.
The studios did the same thing in the 1960’s as a way to combat the ‘dangers’ of black-inspired rock and roll. There was a whole flood of utterly forgettable whitebread singers like Fabian choking the airwaves. But the artists of the time were pushing forward faster than the record companies could keep up with, and ultimately won.
Let’s see, Backstreet Boys Greatest Hits album has sold over 10,000,000 worldwide, NKOB had 3 #1 songs, destiny’s Child has had AT LEAST 3 #1 hits, N’SYNC has had over a dozen Top 10 hits, Britney has had 7 Top Ten hits, the Spice Girls had 4 Top 10 Hits in the US…I think that pretty much blows your whole one-hit wonder crap away.
As for none of the afore-mentioned acts inspiring a following, to paraphrase Mr. Hand, “What are you, on dope?” Oh wait, you probably don’t consider it a following if it consists mainly of pre-teen/teenage girls.
Get real.
You missed my point: The studios are VERY good at churning out hits. What they are not very good at is cultivating art, and it’s art that creates long-term fans. Look at Mariah Carey: Once a chart monster, now she can’t give an album away. Why? Because there’s really not much talent on display there. She was a fad.
Ask yourself this: How many NKOTB fans will still be listening to them when they are 50? On the other hand, The Grateful Dead never had a SINGLE top-10 hit for the first 22 years of their career. “A Touch of Grey” was their first hit. And yet, the Grateful Dead was an immense cash cow. They had the most popular concert tour for years, and a fanatical fan base that bought every album they ever put out.
The industry actually recognizes the problem. They have a ‘gap’ in record sales. New acts that are focus-group packaged to appeal to today’s young people sell very well. And ‘classic rock’ acts still sell very well. But there’s nothing in between. Since the mid 80’s, and especially in the 90’s, there are very few acts that still sell particularly well. How many people are going to buy the Spice Girls monster album 20 years from now. My guess? “Spice Girls? Who were the Spice Girls?”
On the other hand, Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” STILL flirts with the charts, as does a number of older rock albums that were first made 30 or 40 years ago. Many of these acts sell better today than they did when they were actively recording.
Again, you can see the same phenomenon when the studios tried the same crap in the early 60’s. ‘Classic’ acts from the earlier era still sell well. Acts like Sam Cooke, Elvis, James Brown, etc. But those whitebread studio creations like Fabian (and plenty of others that I can’t even remember any more) faded away permanently, because there was nothing of substance to sustain them.
Part of the problem is that modern production for mega-acts is extremely expensive, what with having to produce mega-buck videos and all, so the studios are less and less willing to take a chance on someone, and if they do take that chance, that someone had better be a hit right off the top. If Beck or Eminem had been poor sellers for their first album or two, they would have been dropped like a hot rock. In better days, oddball acts were given a chance to grow if they showed talent. And they eventually found an audience. Maybe not a huge one, but a respectible, profitable audience that will buy every one of their albums no matter how easy it is to pirate them.
If you’re a big Tom Waits fan, you’ll buy his album. If you like N’Sync because they’ve got a good beat and you can dance to it, you’re more likely to just grab an MP3.
To prove the point, look at Eminem’s new album. He has a fanatical fan base, who are also the most likely demographic group for pirating MP3’s. But they’re buying his CD - so many people are buying his CD that it’s setting all-time sales records.
This scenario has NO potential for putting the recording industry out of business. Any band with a good master and a couple grand can get a thousand CDs manufactured with quality graphics, inserts, jewel cases, shrink wrap, the whole nine yards. What any band can’t do is get their CD into every Walmart, Kmart, and Tower Records across the country and get nationwide radio airplay, advertisements, tour support, T-shirts, action figures, whatever.
Unless this particular band has a live act that’s nothing short of incredible (such that they can inspire legions of die hard fans) and they’re able to tour nationwide constantly, there’s no way they can put their music out on the market on a scale that would even come close to what a record label can do.
That depends on what you mean by ‘record label’, because a lot of indy labels are pretty darned small. Some of them cut production deals with large producers like Sony, some produce themselves. And an awful lot of regional bands have their own CD’s produced purely for sale at concerts and/or offered on the web.
Today when John Entwhistle died, an article mentioned that the reason The Who kept touring is because Daltry and Entwhistle needed the money. Townshend wrote almost all of the music, and gets the sole sogwriting royalties. Performance royalties that used to go to the artists were stripped from them in a rider to a farm appropriations bill by the RIAA.
The record industry has a history of sleazy practices going back to the start of the industry. Payola, collusion, flexing muscle against the government or spending huge money to gain government support in giving them a virtual monopoly over all musical arts. This is only possible because the government passes bills extending copyright lifetimes, causing internet radio to pay exhorbitant fees that are not paid by the record-company influenced Radio industry, and levying royalties on blank CD’s, payable to the record industry.
This is true, and it acts as a farm system for the big labels, rather than being any kind of a threat to the industry at large. I should have written “big record label”.
Why should it be considered an unlawful monopoly? It’s not stopping anybody from starting up their own record label.
I’m not saying that the RIAA is correct in standing in the way of new filesharing technologies, but come on, who thinks for a moment that said technologies won’t be used to download copywrited material? The online community is suddenly going to adopt an honor system?
Eminem and Dr. Dre are saving the music industry. Let’s say it again: Eminem and Dr. Dre are saving ther music industry. Now Eminem is one of the best performers in any genre, and Dre is Dre, but will the music industry give them the props like the movie industry did for Shirley Temple during the Depression? Nope, and that is why when the two see the light, the music industry as it is today will finally fall.
You realise of course gentleman, that there are other countries besides the U.S.? And that there are other Industry Associations other than the RIAA in those other countries? And that the U.S. population is but 1/24th of the worlds population? And that piracy is world wide issue? You realise that, don’t you?
You realise do you not that blank CD’s outsell printed CD’s in Asia for example by a ratio of 9:1 - such is the level of institutionalised piracy?
Here’s the bottom line, from an Aussie’s point of view. I personally don’t give a damn about the welfare of the ‘big’ recording labels - they’ve been sitting on a gold-shitting monkey for years and they’ve poured VERY little back into the music industry per se so they deserve ‘zero’ sympathy - but anyway you look at it, copying an entire album onto a blank CD robs the ACTUAL ARTIST of rightful earnings. And that isn’t good. But oddly enough, I’m all in favour of ‘LIMITED’ file sharing which allows net heads to ‘try before they buy’ - this is a good thing because it allows music to be assessed WITHOUT videos, and as such, the music lives or dies purely based on it’s merit (and word of mouth).
Still the question remains - in light of the endless stories of corporate ripoffs by the major labels, why would any remotely intelligent person sign up with a ‘major label’ in today’s atmosphere? Simple - distribution and exposure. The Golden Gods of music sales… going all the way back to Tin Pan Alley.
More importantly, the great unknown which begs to be answered is this - are there any realistic alternatives on the immediate horizon to the current ‘distribution and exposure’ business models?
Internet radio - nah… too slow, poor quality blah blah. Most importantly, way to much choice and lack of ‘market cohesion’…
Commercial radio? Doubt it - they’ve fallen into the same ‘demographic research’ trap that the major labels have fallen into… scared to take risks… blah blah blah.
Music Television? Same current cozy kickback hi-jack as commercial radio…
So… my opinion is that we should disregard the issue of piracy and downloading - my personal research shows that users are aware that mp3’s don’t sound as good as Redbook audio and they mostly download to ‘try before they buy’ - so I reckon what really counts is this - the Holy Grail of music is to find that elusive Golden Radio Station which can make the public aware of ‘something new’ which is both meritorious and culturally worthy WITHOUT having a cushy relationship with the Music Distribution houses. They key is to somehow smash the current cozy relationships. First and foremost, it is NOT a good thing that 1 in 4 public radio stations in the United States are owned by one company… well it’s not good thing for music at any rate…
I personally really, REALLY want to be able to read a crystal ball on THAT ONE!
The thing is, are we talking about musicians as:
(A) artists (paint-artists eg don’t all make a lot of money and aren’t necessarily that well-known outside art-fans, bar the odd media-whore like Tracey Emin or Damian Hirst), or as:
(B) mass-fame performers, who sell music from fame, rather than achieve fame from music.
Critical question: how many limos do you need to be a musician?
I don’t think music will die, or musicians. I do believe it will be a far less lucrative industry though. for all. There will still be Britney-Spears types, but there will be less of them, and a higher proportion of their income will have to come from live performance, sponsorship/advertising and merchandise sales, rather than actual music sales.
“Real” musicians with more loyal, discerning fan-bases, will still sell CDS. But like the Bubblegum Pop squad they will all sell less. They also will have to rely more on live performances. They may find it even harder, without mass-market appeal, to raise alternative revenue streams like sponsorship and advertising. However, being creatives and creating their own stuff, they do have a product that can be sold commercially, eg as film/TV music.
Yes, the internet will change the face of the music industry. It already has. Copy-protecting CDs is futile:
(a) because all copy protection can and has been cracked
(b) a CD has to be playable somewhere, so wherever it is playable, you could always live-rip it
© copy protection is a disincentive for people to buy CDs AND CD players
(d) CDs are big and bulky and most people ultimately will want digital/mp3-player style storage
(e) it only takes one pirated copy of a song to be duplicated and spread like wildfire
(f) copy protection on CDs encourages people to find music elsewhere if they want to put it on their mp3 players, hence they are more likely to turn to the internet for digital copies of music they own, and then of course music they don’t own
The RIAA may slow things down with CD copy protection. It may take a few days (weeks? hours?) for a new song to get spread around, if there are less original pirated copies. But it will still happen.
The RIAA may slow things down by lawsuits against Napster/MusicCity/Audiogalaxy. But the hackers/pirates will always be one step ahead. Forcing the mainstream, central-server services to close down or become unusable just means that everything will end up going to p2p, which is far, far less controllable, and greater demand for p2p will just bring out more sophisticated, better software and networks that eventually totally replaces centralised ones.
Then of course, there is the issue of centralised servers in countries where the RIAA can’t touch them. Is the US going to bring sanctions against an Asian country that refuses to shut down a company with pirated servers? What if the servers are put on some micro-country like Sealand? What if the servers are put in some country where the US already has sanctions? Is the US Federal Government really that stressed and influenced by the RIAA that they are going to declare war on China for its piracy rates? I don’t think so - they haven’t so far!
So in answer to the OP, yes, and like blacksmiths being made redundant by automobiles, there isn’t a flying fucking jot they can do about it.