RIAA impending lawsuits (1 Viewer)

[Todd Hochard]

It would be interesting to see how many pennies everyone gets for the sale of 1 CD.

I've heard that an artist typically gets about $1 per CD sold.
Too many hands in the pie. It's too bad that artists won't pull an Ani DiFranco en masse.

Todd

 

[Travis Olson]

Ran across a funny little cartoon the other day.



I'm fed up with all this stuff. As long as there is an internet, there will be an underground to it. There is no way for them to stop this now, they lost. Instead of wasting all that money filing all these lawsuits, which they will see very little return on, they should be using it to create an online music service that is actually worth a damn. Why do huge corporations have to be brought to their knees to learn simple lessons?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I propose the business model in which artists earn their living off concerts and tours. I heard off of a show (VH1 Behind the Music maybe? Or MTV?) that most of the money (or lost depending on the entourage) an artist makes is on tour or concert events. My logic, of course, is based on the fact that an artist is only worth a damn if they can perform live music. Just look at Jimmy Buffett. They guy doesn't do much on record sales or singles charts, but his concerts sell out in seconds. And he's living the fine life.

Of course, that doesn't include the multi-million dollar contracts some of the musicians get.

But then again, this kind of business model would leave producers and record labels out of the loop which is probably why my model wouldn't work. They earn their money off record sales. Well, that and there's too much "manufactured" music out there that a live show probably wouldn't be a good idea anyway.

Crap, and I thought I contributed something significant on the subject matter.

 

[BrianB]

I remember when everyone used to record music off the radio and no one said shite about it.

Which, strangely, the radio station pays to broadcast.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Sure I could get it on Amazon for less, but when the CD is $18 one place, and $12 another place, I'm thinking the music industry is really taking me for a ride with inflated prices, and I'm not so willing to buy as much anymore.

Where is this any different from thousands of other industries? If I go to one retail outlet, I'll pay more for a hammer than if I go to another. There are many factors which influence end pricing, none of which are limited to the music industry. If a huge chain is buying items by the tens of thousands, chances are they are getting a discount on them, so their pricing is more competitive. Conversely, a smaller retailler may not do the same volume and pays more. Retaillers in a shopping mall will charge more due to higher overhead costs for a more convenient location, as opposed to a warehouse somewhere less local. What you are seeing is a free market at work. If you are upset because there isn't a single fixed price across the board, then I guess you either need to accept that you may pay more for more convenient access to a product, or do the leg work of locating the lowest price and go with that instead.

It is true that for most major label artists, they make about $1 per unit sold in royalties. The label gets a cut, the distributor gets a cut, the retailler takes a significant cut, and other costs such as frieght add to the net price. Should the artist make more? That depends. I think most artists would be happy to be getting 10% of something than 100% of nothing, which is what they would be getting if the record company wasn't bankrolling and promoting their careers.

 

[Clinton McClure]

I believed everything I saw in Josie & the Pussycats.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I propose the business model in which artists earn their living off concerts and tours.

They already do, but that shouldn't stop them from earning money from record sales as well. Your suggestion is the same as me saying that although you work 40 hours a week at your day job, if you want to be paid you need to work weekends too. This also eliminates all the talent that is behind many of the best songs out there, which aren't written by the performers, but by songwriters.

Record sales don't only benefit the label. Everything surrounding the business of music relates to record sales - what the artist can get as an advance, how much money they can spend on their records (which hopefully relates to a better record), what they can budget for tours, how much they can charge for their performance services, how much the can spend on publicity, and on and on. While it may not be their bread and butter in every case, sales certainly are a major leverage item in negotiating the terms of other aspects of the business, and in many if not most cases make the difference between continuing their careers or not.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

They may be going after uploaders first, but in no way does that exempt downloaders. The key is personal, non-commercial use. Gaining something of value is considered by the courts to be a commercial transaction, whether or not money is exchanged. Downloading whole songs for your music library in no way falls under fair use, except perhaps in very limited and rare circumstances.

By this logic, taping songs off the radio would be a commercial transaction, as well. The end user is getting something of value afterall. The only difference is the means and the medium.

Looking back on history, the mp3 is the RIAA's straw man arguement of this generation just like the audio cassette was of the last. In both cases, I think it will be remembered as something that was morally and legally questionable, while ultimately economically beneficial.

The bad thing about it is broad new RIAA unconstitutional legistlation that severely handicaps fair use rights and personal privacy and liberty. The good thing about it is forcing new technology like iTunes to the fore which allows the greater possibilities in the acquisition and format type of content.

 

[PatrickL]

I came across a very interesting year-old article in support of file-sharing written by singer-songwriter Janis Ian.

The Internet Debacle - An Alternate View

I was wondering if any other recording artists have published anything or made strong comments, pro or con, about Internet file sharing.

 

[Mark Shannon]

I've been reading, and I myself am curious... Do any of these suits concern those living outside of the United States? Do they have the ability to take legal action on us?

 

[Glenn Overholt]

That was an awsome read. I had heard before that a couple of bucks per CD paid everyone off except for the resellers/distributors, but it is scary thinking how much profit is made for each one sold.

For those of us that can go back far enough to remember when we'd tape songs right off of the air, nobody even conceived of it being illegal. What happened? Did they just get stupid?

Maybe we can record some songs from FM right to MP3, or even from an internet music station. It may take longer for your 'right song' to come around, but that would be a funny one to hear in court, wouldn't it?

And the recordable CD shit has just got to go. Royalities are paid for each one sold already. I'm beginning to think that a good attorney can take care of this whole mess. I'd love to see that.

Glenn

 

[Rob Gardiner]

The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.

Link Removed

Here's another fine article by Steve Albini, describing the same phenomenon at work in 1993, years before Napster came along.

The Problem with Music by Steve Albini


PatrickL,

I think you'll find the links above interesting.


On the issue of legality of downloading MP3s, I don't think it's any different than taping off the radio or buying a used CD, for that matter. In all three cases, you are obtaining a copy of the work that has not been authorized by the studio, nor do they collect any $$ from the transaction. And the used CD transaction is most certainly a commercial one. Yet no one would suggest that taping off the radio or buying a used CD is illegal (even though the labels have tried to stop that in the past).

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Courntey Love, who knows more about this (first-hand) than either of us, has this to say:

What Courtney fails to recognise the value of in her scenario is that 1. The band got to make a record. 2. The band got exposure and publicity, and was able to build a massive audience to sell their next record to.

Did they make a profit off the record? No, but they were allowed to work their craft and get noticed, which is of immense value to a new artist. Who would have ever heard of Courtney Love if the record company hadn't fronted her the money to become famous, and put their publicity machine to work for her? Her scenario also assumes the band has no business sense, and can't negotiate a deal. It is valuable in pointing out the areas to be wary of when doing a record deal, but it doesn't point out the recognizability factor that is key to negotiating better future deals. Tom Cruise didn't make a mint on Endless Love, but it got his foot in the door, and allowed him to build a career. A band who can't finance their own career can use the label to establish themselves, which isn't just about making money.

As for my free market comment, you have taken it completely out of context, since it was in regard to variations in retail pricing.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Your suggestion is the same as me saying that although you work 40 hours a week at your day job, if you want to be paid you need to work weekends too.

Welcome to the world of the typical salaried professional in the US.

The bottom line to me is that sue, sue, sue, is the "half-empty" approach to a solution. It's like beating your dog into submission- sure, he listens to you now, but if he could hold a gun, he'd kill you. Why not just take every single penny that would be spent on lawyering, and put it into an iTunes shop for everyone? That would be a "half-full" approach. I can guess why- because streamlining the delivery of content to the consumer WOULD begin cutting out the middlemen, most of whom are the biggest supporters of organizations like the RIAA.

Todd

 

[Dave Poehlman]

I've breezed through this thread and there will always be some form of file sharing on the internet. If it's not peer to peer, it'll be file servers in chat rooms or attachments to newsgroup messages. I think the RIAA is coming to realize how unstoppable this is.

They managed to stop Napster, and Audio Galaxy, but I think they realize another music sharing resource will pop up in its place. They're now resorting to making an example of a miniscule number of users to frighten everyone into giving up downloading. I don't think they realize how resourceful the public can be. Didn't they look at the bottom of their Kazaa window and see the 3 billion user total? I have a better chance at winning the lottery than getting pinched by the RIAA.

They'll never be able to stop file sharing completely. There's always ways to get files (ie: chat room file servers, FTP, newsgroups)

The only way I see the RIAA solving this problem is by requiring all ISP's to pay a fee which would be passed along to end users in the form of higher monthly rates. And letting the users download their brains out.

I'll admit I've downloaded music.. mostly from obscure artists who I can't find at my local B&M shop (I hate popular music) or my kid's favorite childrens tunes to listen to in the car.

 

[Scott Strang]

Do the pay music services such as Apple's offer high bit rate files? Or are they offering only "high quality" 128 kbit/s versions.

So if I have hundreds of songs on my PC (mp3, wav,whatever) and I DO NOT share them out, how are they going to be able to tell that they're there.

These songs came from CD's that I've bought over the years and from CD's I burned from LP's,45's, reels and DAT's that I also own.

Can I be sued for simply having them?.

MP3s from p2p services typically sound like shit. Movies from these sites are just downright unacceptable.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

MP3s from p2p services typically sound like shit.

Another good point.. If I download an artist I generally use it as a guage on whether to buy the CD or not. It's better than those 5 second song clips you find at CDNOW or AMAZON. But, I've downloaded some songs that sound like they were recorded using the computer's microphone and a boombox. The RIAA needs to start touting the quality of CD's over MP3's. Comparatively to a VHS movie recorded off of TV to a DVD version of the same film.

However, with technology advancing as it is, it probably wont be long when DVD quality movies will be able to be downloaded in minutes. I think the RIAA realizes this and is trying to squelch it before it gets to that point.

Stopping MP3 downloads is like trying to stop porn on the internet... It just can't be done.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The RIAA needs to start touting the quality of CD's over MP3's

People don't care. There is word from a legitimate DVD manufacturer in Singapore that they are getting out of the DVD business because they can't compete with the rampant piracy, even though their prices are extremely low. The bootlegs are stuffing 13 hours of material on a few DVDs, but their selling price is making them move over the properly licensed, and high quality product.

No, they won't be able to stop file trading, but they can certainly provide a disincentive, and perhaps raise some awareness about the issue with parents whose kids are trading, or colleges and universities whose computer systems are being used.

 

[Scott Strang]

What about material that is only available on LP and someone has a clean copy and transfered it to CD with a decent turnable/tone arm/cartridge/pre-amp or pre-preamp combo.

One song in particular is Marilyn Martin's Night Moves. It may have flopped in the 80's when it was released but 'til this day it's an obscure single, and IMHO, a good tune. Likely it will never see the light of day on CD and I was actually able to locate a good sounding 320 kbit/s copy on napster.

I've never seen this for sale in the form of a used LP. I have a 45 copy but most know that 45's are seldom of the same quality of that of an LP.

 

[Ryan Wright]

The only way I see the RIAA solving this problem is by requiring all ISP's to pay a fee which would be passed along to end users in the form of higher monthly rates. And letting the users download their brains out.

Totally the wrong way to do things. My grandmother doesn't download MP3s. She doesn't even know what they are. Why should she pay a monthly fee?