Should the RIAA offer music downloads?

Great Debates
1

The problem with file sharing networks is that by providing free music downloads they undermine the value of CDs. The recording industry killed Napster, but file sharing still happens on a wide scale.

Obviously there is a consumer demand to download music. Perhaps the RIAA should produce their own “Music on Demand” (MoD) service. Could this idea be good for business?

Although file sharing is an easy and convenient way to get music for free, I think that people would be willing to pay a small fee for a better service. MoD could offer higher quality files, greater selection, faster downloads, more search options, and more security than any file sharing program ever could.

A recommendation feature (such as found on Amazon.com or TiVo) could help expose artists to potential fans and reduce traditional marketing costs.

Because MoD would be run by the RIAA, it would bring the power of distribution back into their hands. Artists would have to go through the RIAA (possibly paying a ‘marketing’ fee) to get their music to the public.

In order for MoD to be a success, it must replace file sharing and complement CD purchasing. MoD within itself is not meant to generate revenue, but rather to reduce file sharing and create exposure for new talent. CD purchases could be encouraged by limiting the MoD files.

2

Put it this way: People are going to download music whether you want them to or not.

If RIAA manages to shut down most KaZaa connections, they’ll head back to newsgroups, IM circles and chats. Instead of being traded over a large network, it’ll be done between friends and buddies and guys you know in a chatroom.

No lawsuits will stop it, no threats will kill it, people are going to swap music as long as there’s music to swap. Period, end of discussion.

Now, they can keep alienating their core audiences, suing everyone within reach, disabling CDs, reducing sound quality and so on, or thay can take advantage of it.

As someone recently said, release everything. Put everything they have available, old, new, out-of-print, all of it. Much of which is simply sitting there gathering dust, making no money for anyone.

Charge a quarter a download for older stuff, no more than fifty cents for newer stuff. Make it in a decent, widely-available format with no encryption crap (nothing wrong with mp3 for the most part) and start giving the damn artists themselves more than eight cents on the goddam dollar.

They won’t do any of it 'til it’s too late, of course, but that’s what they should do.

3

That is presicely my idea. Release everything (except music released in the last 2 years) in the form of Music on Demand. I think it would be better as a subscription service rather than a per-download charge. This would nearly eliminate file swapping as most people would be able to access the same files first-hand using their own subscription.

Without the huge piracy forums (Napster, Kazaa, etc.), the average user becomes a CD purchasing consumer instead of a file-swapping thief. A few people might still avoid paying for their music, but they’ll be in a minority.

4

Another idea:
A 2-tiered system. Free protected files for computer playback only and $0.25-$1.00 for each unprotected file. This way, one would be able to listen to anything for free, and have a way for paying for it without purchasing a whole CD. Eventually CDs could be phased out all together.

5

Yes, they should. Apple’s iTunes service has been pretty successful by any standard, I believe, and just look at how few people own Macs. :wink:

However, limiting the files is not the way to go. Most people don’t want files that only work on a computer, files that can’t be burned to CD, or files that stop working after a while.

6

Even if the RIAA did offer music downloads for some small charge, I would not use it. Instead, I would continue to use the various P2P services, where I can get everything for free. The era of paying for art is over.

Furthermore, the RIAA would probably offer MP3s encoded at a poor bitrate, whereas I prefer Ogg Vorbis encoded at 256kbs.

UnuMondo

7

That’s just speculation, but I wouldn’t put it beyond a greedy executive to sabotage a brilliant plan with an idiotic idea. As I had stated in the OP, MoD would be better than file sharing because of consistently high quality files, among other things. Offering crippled files would definitely hurt the adoption of MoD.

As I envision it, MoD would offer multiple file formats: A small high-quality proprietary format for free downloads, a standard high-quality mp3 file, and possibly a premium lossless compressed format for audiophiles.

Technically, one could break the “protection” on the free files, but as long as the prices are reasonable, enough people would pay for their music to make it profitable.

8

I’ve heard that the reason why they were so resistant to the idea of releasing music and allowing people to download individual songs was that the artists refused to allow it, saying that it would undermine the concept of their albums. IOW, they didn’t want people getting the one or two good songs on the disc, they wanted people to buy the throwaway songs as well. The RIAA, as their representative, was just doing what their clients wanted. And now they’re paying the price.

Anyone care to try to confirm this? I Googled it, but no dice.

9

A few artists, most notably Radiohead, decided not to participate in Apple’s iTunes initiative because they believe in the album format and feel that if someone hears only a couple of tunes they are missing out on the work as a whole. However, it seems most artists don’t feel that way because iTunes has so many artists’ tracks available on it now, with indie labels jumping at the chance to sign on.

UnuMondo

10

And soon the era of art would be as well.

11

Don’t. Phase. Out. CDs.

Some of us need that feeling. We need to hold the music in our hands.

It’s like eBooks. Even if eBooks become cheaper than regular books, I still wouldn’t read them unless they managed to simulate the smell, and the feel, of paper. Period.

12

Sounds like a lame excuse to me. They already release singles to be played on the radio; why not at least sell the singles online?

13

Yes.

I’m currently happily paying 10 bucks per month to emusic.com to download vbr 194 mp3’s from a bunch of labels ranging from the obscure to corporate “indie” imprints. You’re allowed to burn or transfer as many copies as you want. Hell, they even have a Linux client.

And I don’t even use file sharing.

Oddly enough, Emusic.com is owned by Vivendi. Go figure.

14

Though this is Earth, and anything is indeed possible here, I just don’t see that one. No matter how good the quality of an RIAA sponsored mp3 is, I just can’t see spending a dollar that could go for say, my daughter’s education, on something I can get just as easily for free.
I know there are differences between mp3’s & higher quality files, but they have never registered to me enough that I would pay real money to correct. Just me though.

Also, as a matter of principal, I could not possibly force myself to reward their disgusting behavior of late. Extorting money from potential customers should be the real moral debate there. IMHO, they’ve committed a pretty unforgivable blunder there in the first place, and I think there are many people who will never give them a dime again over the issue. Again, just my $.02 though. . .

15

You’d probably be in the minority of pirates. As stated earlier, piracy would be minimal as long as prices are reasonable. Some people will steal subscription access and/or break file protections; this is inevitable.

There must be a balance between money and effort. You will NOT be able to get the same file for free just as easily. The enhanced features, consistent high quality, and greater selection will win you over even if the legal issue doesn’t. If you were to decide to steal music, you’d steal it from MoD and not file sharing networks.

Offering free “protected” computer playback only songs will satisfy the desire for free music for most of us. Most people won’t need to take their entire collection of music around, just the ones they like most (ie. the ones they should pay for). Most people would pay a reasonable fee for a good portable format (mp3) rather than go through a long conversion process.

16

That’s very romantic of you, and I agree. Kind of.

I really am not so concerned with the whole smell/taste/feel of books.

For me, a book is ultimately portable. I’ve got a laptop, and let’s face it, between IRC, Usenet, and the like, I can get any book I want for free. And, because of the laptop, I can take it everywhere I want.

So, why do I buy books (even hardcovers)?

Well, first of all, I prefer reading paper to a CRT or LCD. Maybe it’s psychological, maybe it’s really physiological, but for me it’s a whole lot more comfortable to my eyes to read a real book.

But I could cope. Hell, free is free. People (including me) go through all sorts of crap to get [whatever] for free.

Second is portability. True portability. Can my laptop (Ebook reader, whatever) go anywhere? Sure, pretty much. As long as it still has power. As long as I’m in a place where I can unfold the thing and still read it.

Third is the biggest thing for me. I’ve got a brain like swiss cheese. I can tell you what any given girlfriend was wearing the first time I met her, but I usually can’t tell you what my last meal was unless the Wendy’s cup is sitting on the desk in front of me.

The moral of the story? I lose stuff. A lot. A lot a lot. If I lose the paperback I’m reading, I’m out $7. If I lose the hardcover I’m reading, it’s $30. But if I lose my laptop or Ebook reader, I’m out a whole lot more.

-Joe, at least I remembered that

17

-Because Van Gogh would never have considered being an artist if it weren’t for the women and the cash that such a profession attracted.

-Because Poe was enthralled by the economic incentives of being a writer.

-Because Thoreau knew exactly how to make a buck.

-Because if people give Grog rabbit to see cave pictures, Grog no need hunt.
Artists are in it for their art, not the money attached to it. The only people who honestly are in art for the money are the imitators.

18

But that is the problem…people in this thread have suggested anywhere between $.25 and $1 a song.

I’m a college or high school kid with a few thousand MP3s. I work a part time dead end job to pay my cell phone bill, car loan/insurance, and then hopefully have enough left over to take my GF/BF out in hopes of getting lucky friday night.

Am I going to shell out $4000 for my MP3 collection? Hell, I couldn’t even pay 1/10th of that!

Subscription MP3 services CAN work, but I don’t think the industry is even in the BALLPARK.

$25-$50 a year, unlimited MP3 downloads, unlimited burnings, ALL artists from every label, no strings attached. THEN we’re talking! I’m not holding my breath…

19

Nope, that won’t work. How about this: $0 a year, unlimited MP3/OGG/FLAC downloads, unlimited burning, ALL artists from every label and some who aren’t even signed, no strings attached.

Having to pay money, it doesn’t matter how much, is unacceptable. That’s why P2P will continue to flourish, and expand beyond music to movies and other forms of art.

UnuMondo

20

UnuMondo,

so, it is your contention that musicions should basically work for free to entertain you? Can they extect the same from you?