by George Ziemann

As I wait patiently for the RIAA's top-notch accounting and fiction writing team to serve up the year-end statistics for our amusement and derisive comments, I'm giving this compulsory licensing thing a lot of thought.

After reading the analysis of Prof. Fisher's plan, I really don't understand the RIAA's reluctance to be pushing that route. It's like guaranteed income for them, just by virtue of the fact that they own most of the music out there. Fisher cut them into a $1.68 billion piece of pie that many of us think they don't deserve in the first place.

Remember, they turned Napster's 5 cents per song offer down. At today's Kazaa file-swapping levels (4 billion songs a month, last I heard), which works out 133 million songs a day, times a nickle, which gives us $6.7 million a day in royalty income. For a full year, that's a tidy sum running in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion.

So Fisher's $1.67 billion is a lot less than they could have taken from Kazaa. In fact, over the four years they've been fighting about p2p, the RIAA's members have effectively passed up on almost $10 billion in income that wasn't good enough for them.

While Forrester Research claims that unauthorized downloading costs the recording industry a mere $700 million a year, the RIAA likes to pretend that it's in the billions.

Reality, of course, is probably (but not necessarily) somewhere in the middle. It is all a guess though. There is simply no way the RIAA can reasonably or accurately estimate how many downloads would have actually turned into a sale had they not been available or, conversely, how many downloaded songs prompted consumers to go out and actually buy a CD.

But we can see how much they've lost by being arrogant, greedy bastards. It's easy, just add a nickle for every Kazaa download that goes by.

$10 billion and counting.

Personally, I would be glad to have a mere nickle for every time my songs were downloaded. For most of last year, that would have produced two or three hundred dollars in income every month. Not just for myself, but for several of the artists on my sites.

And Kazaa tried to negotiate with them to end the stupidity. Again, the copyright cartel refused to budge from their platform - "We own everything ever recorded."

So what is the RIAA actually after? It must not be the money because they have passed up so much of it. To make the puzzle even more conflicted, consider the down side of the iTunes Music Store, Napster, etc.

With CDs priced at $18.98 and averaging 12 songs each, you're looking at $1.58 per song. At CD quality, if anyone cares. 99 cents would be less, thus devaluing the physical CD, at the same time the RIAA is consistently trying to raise prices. Of course, the RIAA is ALWAYS trying to raise prices, so that's an easy jab.

So while they're still pretending to try and sell CDs in real record stores (okay, in Walmart), they're letting the online services shave about 33% percent off of the going retail price for a song, all the while screaming about fewer sales dollars.

So why Napster 2? Why iTunes? What makes these pay-per-song models so attractive to the industry?

Demographics and targeted marketing.

To buy music you have to pay for it, and until we figure out how to feed cash directly into the Net, that means a credit card. It also means you have been identified.

They can study your habits, to the point of offering you selections based on your prior listening preferences. This also gives them access to the wide-scale demographics -- who's buying what, where are they from, how old are they and what is their credit rating?

The RIAA will not get that valuable information from a $5 fee on your cable bill. Or even from traditional record stores, where they still accept that ancient anonymous payment mode known as cash.

But spend $5 at iTunes, and they've got your number. In return, you get digital rights management.

Power and Control. that's the ticket. always has been

you hit the nail on the head with that one. It is all about market research. What crappy product can we force on kids next. Reminds me of that movie.... Think it was jossie and the pussycats or something like that.

Its about the ability to exert control over supply and demand.

There is a big problem with charging for songs on P2P networks. You don't always get what you want...I think someone wrote a song...er...nevermind.

Anyway, how many times have you (Kazaa users) had to "re-download" a song? Songs on Kazaa have errors in them, cut off too soon, have too much silence in the beginning or the end, and some are not even named properly.

Charge me money for that?! I think not.
Give the riaa my name?! I think not.

I share my 8000 songs on Kazaa, but the riaa doesn't really care about my songs, 'cause they're "not legit" according to them. All of them have been checked for errors and named properly before being placed in my shared folder. If everyone on Kazaa or other P2P networks would do the same, it would be a great place to share indie music. We don't need the riaa garbage.

Try downloading any of the newest NuMetal, Pop, Rap, or R&B on Kazaa. How many times do you have to download before you get the file you want? Hint: search parameters must include "better than 160kbps quality". If you try downloading a 128...you will be very lucky to get the good one the first time.

I download all my songs from other sources and they are all high quality. I am paying a small monthly fee and it is well worth it. The riaa has nothing to do with this source and that makes it all the better.

As far as demographics go, the US will never get out of the NuMetal and Rap demographic it is mired in at the moment. My demographic is in Europe and Japan. Those albums don't get sold here in the US.

If the riaa wants to sell the Power/Progressive/Traditional Metal overseas, then I will download their albums, 'cause it's the only way I can get it. I would love to buy some of these groups music and get full quality, but it isn't going to happen as long as the riaa chooses to sue us.

As far as the indie groups go, I'm sure they are happy to get their names out there on Kazaa and hopefully generate interest in their music. At least 35% of my shared folder are my own CDs ripped at 192.

If the riaa wants to charge, "per song", they are going to have to do it in a manner that we can live with. Laced with DRM is not something I can live with. The new Napsteriaa site can go to hell and the same with i-tunes and the rest of them. They still don't offer any of the bands I listen to.

My current dowload project is all 7 albums by Tad Morose (Black Mark/Century Media) out of Sweden. Great Power/Progressive Metal!

I don't use my cable internet for downloading songs...I don't want the RIAA tunes and don't want to be associated with them...and if I'm not gonna pay for CDA versions on music CDs at the record shop...I'll be damned if I give them money when I'm not even downloading compressed MP3 versions of them....

They've lost a customer for life....I don't need, don't want, and will not avail myself of their shyte!

"Anyway, how many times have you (Kazaa users) had to "re-download" a song? Songs on Kazaa have errors in them, cut off too soon, have too much silence in the beginning or the end, and some are not even named properly."

But it was NAPSTER that offered that. And Napster, in my experience, was always able to deliver the right song. If they had taken that offer, maybe KaZaA wouldn't have grown to the enormous virus it's become.

You can thank the RIAA for your fakes and blanks...

"I don't use my cable internet for downloading songs...I don't want the RIAA tunes and don't want to be associated with them...and if I'm not gonna pay for CDA versions on music CDs at the record shop...I'll be damned if I give them money when I'm not even downloading compressed MP3 versions of them....

They've lost a customer for life....I don't need, don't want, and will not avail myself of their shyte!"

I can't honestly call myself loyal to the boycott even though I don't buy any music or download the studio releases. I am still planning, when I have money next, to buy some music. I feel I have to support the artists and my favorite music store as much as possible without giving money directly to the artist.

I like a lot of the music out there, and I like going through the racks of CDs to find some of the old music that I grew up on (REAL gangsta rap) as well as everything from the 50s through today. I should try to stock up as much as I can before CDs become nostalgic. There's no way in hell I'll ever purchase a digital copy of anything.

"..how many downloaded songs prompted consumers to go out and actually buy a CD."

I know this has been the case for me, particularly in the last week. But according to www.magnetbox.com/riaa the CD I bought is not a "legitimate" recording. I suppose that since I could have theoretically bought one of their CD's, they probably consider it a lost sale, according to their monkey math.

"I am still planning, when I have money next, to buy some music. I feel I have to support the artists..."

Undeath,

I feel similarly, but I won't be buying anytime soon. Supporting them "morally" or whatever it is called when you buy their CD knowing they'll get none of your hard-earned money isn't worth it to me. It won't make a difference. A concert maybe....

“It's like guaranteed income for them, just by virtue of the fact that they own most of the music out there”

They don’t own most of the music out there; most of the music is just never played on mainstream radio, segregation for the supposed elite.

“Fisher cut them into a $1.68 billion piece of pie that many of us think they don't deserve in the first place.”

They’re really obsolete and no longer necessary, we don’t need them anymore and they’re trying to force themselves upon us, to retain dominate status.

Someone who knows what they are doing, can mix there own tracks and distribute them effectively; this has been proven many times over.

The cheap pc has replaced expensive equipment, and the labels need to stop this with DRM in order to be in dominant control.

Making all audio files temporary to one machine, will eliminate cheap and easy distribution for poor musicians and will force them back to the “Big Five”, it’s all about money and control.

P2P networks have almost eliminated the need to have an expensive server with high bandwidth to distribute material.

If more people find this out and use it effectively, musicians will no longer have to sign exploitive slave labor contracts to be known, and the “Big Five” will be doomed.

We will have more and better music, not just generic manufactured music for money.

“industry a mere $700 million a year, the RIAA likes to pretend that it's in the billions.”

Four cheap $20 SoundBlaster 128’s cost me 80 bucks, plus Linux(free), multitrack recording software(free), some cheap Radio Shack microphone cable($10), a soldering iron(have a few), and some connectors($20) give me a digital eight track recorder.

Not enough for the entire drum mix mind you, but nothing the little Beringer mixer can’t handle.

I get surprisingly good recordings out of this that can be adjusted democratically for the bands preference.

Certain, messed up tracks can even be punched in so the whole band doesn’t have to replay the song to fix one mistake.

How much did they spend now?

(In the end it doesn’t matter what recording equipment you have if the band just doesn’t sound good.)

”And Kazaa tried to negotiate with them to end the stupidity. Again, the copyright cartel refused to budge from their platform”

And you know it’s funny, now with iTunes it’s ok.

The RIAA affiliates deserve nothing; in the end the RIAA is the richest organization in the world that complains about money.

Sorry if I I’ve offended anyone, I along with many others dislike the music industry, because of there unfair historical tactics.

To think of all of the music I grew up with, those musicians now sold out and exploited, and now they have come to persecute and oppress the customer with lawsuits and DRM.

Don’t give in to the industry in any shape or form, here was there job:

1 Find band
2 Mix tracks
3 Get exposure
4 Sell CD’s

At one time two, three, and four were very expensive, and musicians were forced to accept there terms, now the PC has made them cheap enough so that the middle class can afford them, and the Recording Industry is making excuses crying thief.

Please will someone just let them die; don’t think up business models for them, they like other companies need to think on there own.

Mark my words they are obsolete and no longer necessary, we don’t need them any more.

I’m not paying anyone royalties to play a song I wrote in a concert for a little exposure to end up on welfare with no retirement.

I will not buy or listen to any CD’s that support this business model, it makes me sick.

Sorry about the rant, I’m glad all of you are here posting and writing articles, sorting out the truth from the propaganda.

If you want to downlaod the right song on Kazaa (only mainstream RIAA songs, pop, rap, etc), open up Naster and search the song, it will display how long the song is. Now search on Kazaa and you should only download song that matches Naspter elapse time.

undeath,

for my edification, define REAL gansta rap.

Before you start arguing about it, the definition of real gangsta (not a word) rap would be defined individually by each fan and each artist.

However, I have a feeling the music he's looking for doesn't involve SnoopDog or any of the other 5 million rappers who could change their names to SnoopDog and nobody would know the difference.

... in the first sentence i meant "you" collectively. not saying you're trying to start an argument

I'm talking about NWA. And old Snoop Doggy Dogg. Ice-T. Everything that caused a huge controversy. Gangsta rap is rap about gangs, gang violence, violence in general, all while they lived it.

Anything else, including today's music isn't hardcore at all. Compared to everything going on, today's 'gangsta rap' is soft. I know 12 year olds that are harder.

Ofcourse it's about power and controol, that's what the entrie thing has been about. they can't controol p2p and they don't like that.

"It's like guaranteed income for them, just by virtue of the fact that they own most of the music out there."

George, please RESTATE the last part of this sentence (I know you really meant to say something like "they own most of the KNOWN DUE TO THEIR MONOPOLY music out there.")

hate to be picky

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

WE independents own most of the music out there!

I have to admire you George. you have an insight on this business that is rarely seen. I just wish that the people who are raising the most stink about some of this stuff could get the message.

undeath,
I see you & I share the same definition of what "gangsta rap" really is.

George Z you hit it right on the head. The associated companies of the riaa create NOTHING, it is the artists that do that. All the riaa does is market the product.

George, can this arguement be made for a P2P license for movies? Even those first run movies?

Dude, its so freakin stupid of how they are charging per song, cuz if you pay for everysong on a cd, your paying for more then the cd for itself. besides that, riaa are such buttheads, its like, stupid, ya know. Freakin a man, i hope someone hacks in there computers and screws them over!!!!

Die, those filthy bastards

Mr.Cky

"George Z you hit it right on the head. The associated companies of the riaa create NOTHING, it is the artists that do that. All the riaa does is market the product."

surfside6, I only WISH this statement were factualy true

the TRUTH is that (these days) the RIAA creates (or severely modifies) the product to meet their marketing goals and uses monopolistic power to keep you from hearing anything other than that very product.

If it WERE artist creates, RIAA only markets... we would have a much smaller
gripe.

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

(Check out the amazing keyboard stylings of George Z on an Electric Gypsy cover of Heart's "Treat Me Well" at dmusic. search for Electric Gypsy to find.)

"It's easy, just add a nickle for every Kazaa download that goes by."

If only it were that easy, but I think you are grossly oversimplifying. To quote Bl1ster:

"There is a big problem with charging for songs on P2P networks. You don't always get what you want...I think someone wrote a song...er...nevermind.

Anyway, how many times have you (Kazaa users) had to "re-download" a song? Songs on Kazaa have errors in them, cut off too soon, have too much silence in the beginning or the end, and some are not even named properly.

Charge me money for that?! I think not."

Charging money for tunes via a peer to peer system will never work because the downloader never knows what he is getting from his peer. Charging money will only work with a central server serving up tunes because the quality of the product can be guaranteed.

"Check out the amazing keyboard stylings of George Z on an Electric Gypsy cover of Heart's "Treat Me Well" at dmusic. search"

Hey, pretty cool! That's an obscure tune to pick from my favorite Heart album - Little Queen. I think that's one of the few songs sung by Nancy Wilson. Nice! : )

Schmoo -- You're right about my statement that the RIAA owns most of the music. To be more correct, they own most of the music that the majority of the mindless masses listens to.

But the indies have more music.

if they keep it up will be dependent again.

Them and their little attemps at control..funny.
When I heard that the song by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake had been circulated on the net soon after it was performed....forcing the relord label to release it....I felt great joy. Goes to show you what little control they have.

It just confirmed to me that the sharing is still as strong as ever....and all is good!

Speaking of independants as some of the posts have been speaking of...I am such. Ifyouguys wanna check out samples of my stuff..you can find it by going to www.jodemusic.com

The songs there are only samples so far..stuff that I've done at my house using my guitar, bass, CoolEdit and Fruityloops. They are in the rough so don't be too critical of the quality just yet..LOL.

I am going into a real studio in April to record a full CD and hopefully I will be able to get my stuff on DMusic.

If you like just plain guitar rocking music...check me out.

"When I heard that the song by Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake had been circulated on the net soon after it was performed....forcing the relord label to release it....I felt great joy. Goes to show you what little control they have."

That's not what happened. They released the new Janet single to radio to capitalize on the publicity. That is not the song that was performed at the Super Bowl.

If they keep what up?

"Charging money for tunes via a peer to peer system will never work because the downloader never knows what he is getting from his peer. Charging money will only work with a central server serving up tunes because the quality of the product can be guaranteed."

You may be right. But isn't there such a thing as a "hash" that identifies a proper file from a mislabelled or phony one? I don't understand hashes, but it is supposed to be some kind of electronic signature. KaZaa might have to change the architecture of their software a bit, but there might be a way KaZaa could "certify" the songs a person was offering to share -- that they were proper album tracks for which a micropayment must be tendered. Then a downloader *would* know what he was getting.

I tend to think that where there is a will, there is a way. Right now there is no will, therefore no one is trying to develop a way.

I would pay a nickel per mp3, but not a penny more. Already have. Do you speak Russian?

damnit mroop, we are "supposed" to be "against" each other. lol and TY

ronnie, your sentiment is dead on!
We here in America fought and won a war FOR independence!

zxilton, checking your stuff out immediately after this post... but I MUST let you know something... it is NOT a Boon to the wonder of file-sharing that the superbowl "fiasco" has been hyped so much via the internet (even as has been done here in these threads)
THAT whole debacle is a symptom of part of the REASON for the whole fight AGAINST the monopolistic mega media powers.

Viacom/CBS/eMTv (might as well say RIAA) KNEW about "shocking" content beforehand. (And I and I think most folks free speech/content lovers are not even offended about the "shocking" thing that happened.)

What REALLY bothers me about THAT event was that the media picked up on it so quickly and now it is a "household word" so to speak... and I find it sinister that it occured in an election year AND within a few weeks that OTHER "FCC is gonna start "cracking down" on what they deem obscene" type news...

Something DARK is happening behind the major media corporate board doors...
I smell it... s

orry mroop, you are a lawyer, your mind needs specific proofs of such things as the silly statements I make...
...don't have em (yet)

Everybody, just be aware of manipulation of public oppinion via the media more than ever, it is election year after all

rant rant rave rave

gonna shut up now and go check out www.jodemusic.com because I expect there are independent and DRM-free music files to be had!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy


Shmoo

Actually there are a lot of other P2P networks that have completely elliminated bad files. Kazaa has not because they are being threatened with shut down. Why should they invest in development when the RIAA has pretty much said, screw you we want you dead.

Certainly not shocked, but also not very happy that they choose to stamp my freedoms into the ground and at the same time stretch the limits of our legal system, test the patients of everyone and expose our children to crap television. By crap I mean the whole performance in general not just the titty, although janet jackson's is the last tit i want to see. I'm not sure which was worse. Kid rock or jackson's tit. Or timberlake rising from the ground like some sort of underling. Or how about putting janet jackson onstage twice.... There should be a law against that. It really was a crappy show, but just because of the performers. The stages and effects and all were nice i guess, if you go for that sorta thing, but pretty lights are nothing without a good performer to entertain.

zxilton, do you control the rights to your music? If so, PLEASE put some other format at some other site of the FULL songs online somewhere and LINK to them from your site. dmusic.com or garageband.com or iuma.com or about a dozen other sites will host mp3s of your FULL songs for FREE!

You are apparently limited on what you can allow on your site due to bandwidth costs and whatnot...

IMHO put just one song on that site if that is all the space you can squeeze out of it and LINK to other sites with your music.

I will look again, and will even risk the .wma file samples if there is not links to full non DRMable files to be found.

but seriously, if you want to share your music with the world,
SHARE the music with the world.

Shmoo

LOL...kyodylee...even if the tunes had a copyright notice...i don't read cyrillic

I saw your disclaimer as to why they are only "clips" and sympathyze, but there ARE ways to put your music out on the net at NO COST to you if you want.

(Not saying YOU are doing it, but a LOT of wrongheaded indie bands/artists think that if they only put clips up, then more folks will buy the album...
That is the RIAA's line... I advise AGAINST that route.)

Shmoo

If I have to read just ONE MORE posting that uses the word 'there' instead of 'their' I shall go mad!

Just my niggle for the day.

Autodidact - mebbe so. I suppose you could implement some sort of verification system that vets the file as it passes through the system to insure it's veracity. But what if there is a skip or any kind of anomaly in the track? I know I wouldn't feel comfortable paying for a track that I got from "RaPdUde". I'd much rather get it from a central server.

mroop -- I agree with you on the central server. I just don't want the RIAA to own it because I don't trust them to pay the rest of us, if we are even allowed in.

I even (gasp) agree with your criticism that I oversimplified. I was visualizing the original Napster with Kazaa's traffic levels of today.

It probably only adds up to $2 billion a year.

"I agree with you on the central server. I just don't want the RIAA to own it because I don't trust them to pay the rest of us, if we are even allowed in."

I wouldn't trust the RIAA to pay me either. I do know that with Itunes, for example, anyone get on there through CDBaby and they have a very good reputation for paying their artists.

I believe the licenses Kazaa was seeking were for a central server model. Kazaa acted like they could simply take their user base and turn them into a paying user base. (Wayne Rosso of Grokster to the RIAA - "We have your customers.") I think they have their user base because their content is (mostly) free.

Radio has a user base because IT IS FREE!

(well, a radio reciever costs a couple dollars at the pawn shop... and you can get one for about 20 at Wal-Mart if you must shop there.)

Shmoo

The AIRWAVES are public domain

The INTERNET is too!

(or so we thought)

...maybe I am comming around to the compulsory licence idea...

JUST DON'T TELL ANYONE THAT I WILL GO FOR IT

(until the RIAA is DEAD!)

I'm starting to lose you George... sound like a lunatic on this one... I liked the explanation that the RIAA refused for "control" more then this one...

You credit the RIAA with too much inteligence. The real reasons much simpler. They have been making a profit from selling plastic discs for decades, and they just dont want to let a load of techno-nerds tell them their business is dead.

Sorry guys I got my facts wrong about the song that was released on the net.

independentm..., thanks for taking the time to visit my site. And know this..that when the full cd comes out...the full songs will be out for full download for all. I tried mp3 format but i had to go wma because of the file size. God knows i hate microsoft and wma,...I am with you guys all the way against the RIAA.

Per song model is wanted because it brings in the most profit. Sort of like the single, everyone wanted that one good song. Maybe they learned something from the dropping of the single. It is obvious that the pay for the album if you want the song didn't work after they started loading the ablums with trash.

The DMA in downloaded songs will never work unless they can get p2p off the net. As long as those songs exist without copyguard in them why would anyone want a crippled song?

With DMA in the songs is where the money is. Sure it cost them some in royalites to get it embedded. But the thing is with the limit you are again forced to buy the same album over and over through the years. Only now they don't have to wait for a new format to take hold in the public realm. They have created the need artifically. If you have to wipe your hd because of a malware, if your hd goes bad, if your OS messes up and it is the only hd you have on your computer, if you copy the songs to the limit, or if you have put it on enough computers you have used up your license and must purchase again what you already had a right to hear. (What percentage of computers in the US only have one hd? I would suspect the majority.)

Notice that the media the song is on is no longer in the equation (other than the hd), the thing that allowed you to do backups in unlimited numbers over time. (We are not talking backups for sale but for personal use.) We might also mention that until the ipod and other portable players that taking mp3's with you was pretty limited.

Yes, I understand why they want a per song model when it is coupled with the DMA.