by Derek Caney

Monday, August 26, 2002 7:07 p.m. EDT


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Compact disc shipments fell 7 percent in the first six months of this year versus last year as growing use of Internet downloading services undermined sales, the record industry said Monday.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the world's largest record labels, issued a study by Peter D. Hart Research Associates indicating that Internet users who say they are downloading more music also said they were purchasing fewer albums.

"Among people who said their downloading from file-sharing services had increased over the past six months, 41 percent reported purchasing less music now than six months ago, compared to only 19 percent who said they were purchasing more music," the RIAA said in a statement.

The record industry successfully defeated the first popular file-serving service Napster, which a court ruled violated copyright law by offering the ability to share digital music. Since then several similar services such as Kazaa and Morpheus have cropped up.

Earlier this month, Forrester Research issued a study saying piracy was not to blame for the sharp decline in record sales. Its study discovered no evidence of decreased CD buying among frequent digital music consumers, noting that the general economy and competition from other media were larger factors.

"I would not argue that downloading and copying are the only factors at work," Geoff Garin, chief executive of Hart Research said. "But we have clear evidence that downloading and copying do not have a favorable effect on record sales."

Jonathan Potter, executive director of Digital Media Association, a lobbying group that represents many music sites trying to promote and sell music over the Internet, said such surveys were of little value.

"The way to defeat illegal music distribution services is to offer comprehensive, innovative, fairly priced legal services," Potter said. "Until the record companies offer their content ubiquitously in a consumer friendly way, studies like this are useless."

The five major record labels -- Sony Music, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group, EMI Group Plc, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, Bertelsmann AG's BMG Entertainment -- and other companies are trying to trying to win users over to subscription-based services. But none have reached the mass appeal enjoyed by the unauthorized services.

Garin said the survey tried to get an understanding of what would inspire consumers to abandon the free file-sharing services, although the results were not made public.

"We do know that consumers don't have a very high recognition of what the alternatives to the free services are," Garin said. But he added that subscription services will find it difficult to compete with free services.

Potter remained unconvinced. "I'd like to introduce the recording industry to something called bottled water," he said, referring to an example of successful retail items that are also easily available for free.

"The point is if there were a high quality product that was affordable and available across multiple services, they would be able to defeat the free services," he said.

The RIAA's survey is based on 860 music consumers with Internet access between the ages of 12 and 54.

The survey also found that the number pirated compact discs acquired by Internet users has doubled from a year ago. Asked when they hear a song they like by an unfamiliar artist, 20 percent of the respondents said they would download the song for free, while 14 percent said they would buy the album.

For respondents between 12 and 18 years of age, 35 percent said they would download the song for free, while 10 percent said they would buy the album.


Reuters/Variety ^ REUTERS@

Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited.

See how the industry feeds their propaganda to the media, and see how the media -- in this case Reuters -- faithfully reports it.

I think this more has to do with the economy, and the RIAA's negative publicity campign, that many people are migrating to indie label music for more variety.

Retail sales in general are down since Sept 11, 2001. With the corporate fraud and layoffs (Enron, WorldCom, etc), this has slowed retail sales in general. I do not doubt that record sales would be down as part of this.

There is clear evidence that P2P does not hurt sales. Janis Ian, has reported at 300% increase in album sales since she started putting MP3s on her site. When Napster was online, sales were increasing. When these lawsuits started, music sales went DOWN!

Many tech savvy people I have talked to have not bought as many CDs because they are upset at the RIAAs campaign, especially their lobbying to make "fair use" illegal.

If anyone will fail out of this whole mess, it will be the labels not adapting to the new technologies. The labels "D-Grade" subscription services do not even compare to the catalog of music you can get from KaZaa, Gnutella, Opennap, or giFT. Most label owned or licensed services have "Digital Rights Management" which limits what the user can do with their music files, which often causes compatibilty issues with media player software, portable player devices, CD burning software, and leaves non-windows operating systems (Such as Mac OS, Linux, Unix, and BeOS) out in the silence.

What the labels need to do to make a successful subscription service, is MAKE IT BETTER than KaZaa, Gnutella, WinMX, giFT, and Opennap in terms of catalog, audio quality, and usability. If a service was this good, people would pay for it. Otherwise, people will stick to open source, decentralized P2P systems (which cannot be shut down with a lawsuit easily).

In a sense, it sort of reminds me of how in the 1970's, the U.S. automakers regularly blamed "foreign competition" for the fact that American cars were made so shoddy that every day one would hear about one recall after another of various models (i.e. the Ford Pinto).

But of course, as to these Hitlerian-Goebbelsesque Big Lies: Consider that an elite clique of huge multinational corporations, insulated almost completely from those they seek to disenfranchise, control not only the record companies that comprise the RIAA's core membership, but also the film studios, the TV networks, the news media, our "elected" officials, and so forth. So it's not surprising that this "coverage" on this issue would be so one-sided.

Also notice that no-one factors in such things as massive lowering of wages thanks to the likes of NAFTA, and equally massive layoffs and plant closings, so that for the poor souls affected by such invidious "globalization," a CD is more of a luxury item, and thus has some bearing on this decline.

As for the issue of "multinationals" and how it relates to the RIAA's politics of disenfranchisement and exclusion: Raise your hand if you read an article in today's (8/26) New York Times about how the Argentine people are venting their wrath at Vivendi Universal for the fact that the average peon's water bill has been going through the roof in the wake of the privatization of the water supply in that country (overseen by the likes of Vivendi, natch'). That, plus V-U's (rhymes with . . . you get the idea) sponsoring of a French-made collection of short films relating to last Sept. 11 which has been criticized in some corners for being virulently anti-American.

Anybody notice that there was no mention of people boycotting the RIAA's product as a contributing factor in the decline?

Message I posted on the Yahoo message board:

On that survey did they ask if the quality of music in their opinion has improved in the same frame of time?

Look at Def Leppard (x), Bruce Springsteen (the rising), Linkin Park (reanimation), Red Hot Chili Peppers (by the way). They have a fairly good list of music that was very good in the past, yet there newest offerings are a shameful example of how someone should slowly fade away instead of use their name to sell trash that nobody wants. The Chili Peppers put an album out with one song on it, "by the way". The rest sucked! Why not just make a single so we dont have to be ripped off?

Like that wasnt enough they put out trash albums of new bands that have one good song thats overplayed on the radio anyhow. Then theres the new Rap, but I'm having problems getting any of the new albums straight. They all have the same format. A song, bunch of talking on the next track, song, song with talking crap in it... Listen to Nore, Nellyville, Big Tymers, camron and please tell me where i'm wrong.

They boast about the Eminem and how great it is, how it sells more in one week than anything ever has. I heard that album too and honestly I cant see what it is other than hype. If it didnt have the name eminem on it it wouldnt even get space on the dusty shelf in stores.

I am really unimpressed with what the music industry has to offer. Why is retro so big? Because thats when they used to actually make the music thats sampled and repackaged to sell on the shelves now. A guy thats been dead (elvis) for nearly 30 years has 2 songs on billboard? Come on, I dare you to tell me how music has improved so that we should be buying more albums than we did 6 months ago in a bad then worse economy thats left unemployment the only rate soring.

"CD sales down" claims RIAA...

One day, the Congress will look at them and say:

"That's great, and..?"

...and then suddenly the RIAA will feel the agonizingly close wisper of DEATH...

The Register has a story on this as well

According to the register they also claimed that seisures of pirate discs are up 60%, so there must be more internet piracy. The massive increase in RIAA anti-piracy spending clearly has nothing to do with it

Of course sales are low. You cant sell a product if everyone has it. They play their stuff on every radio station, plus all the music TV channels. Who would want to pay for music when they have a hard time getting away from it?

Welcome back to posting, Milla. Glad to see you again

I think the Association has a point when they claim it's due to internet file-sharing, and let's be plainly honest here. I WISH our boycott was successfull enough at this age to account for this dropoff, though I am positive that our boycott IS impacting them somewhere. Where this is biting them the hardest is in their core sales demographic. NO ONE buys music like the young. The Association has been rightly accused of pre-packaging and sculpting these musical numbers, and they are VERY guilty of it, in order to pay homage to today's teenage fans. THEY are the ones who consume the most music, taken across the country. Neil Young is a talented musician, but lets face it, Britney outsells him. So now, these fast-food-working, high-schoolers are all logging on to get FREE music. Why? Cause at $6.50 an hour, you have to work 3 hours for each CD you want (Before taxes mind you). They are logging on in their millions and getting it all for free. Collectors and audiophiles might care about cover art and bonus errata, but the average 16 year old urban Eminem fan does not. This music is so packaged and "for the moment" anyway, that these 'value-added' components are worthless anyway and the Association is being destroyed by their own engine.

Like him or not, Ozzy is STILL selling discs and selling out tours. Fleetwood Mac is releasing YET ANOTHER 'Best Of' disc. But not these new packaged flavor-of-the-month bands. The industry creates disposable idols and then gets angry when we treat them like saran-wrap on a microwaved burrito, useful but temporary. They are reaping what they sow now, and they don't like it much at all. You can't extort a teenager very well, even parents have a hard time nowadays

Evolve or die.

Perfectly valid points. I agree internet file shareing is partially to blame for the lower sales, but only partially. Lower consumer spending on luxury producsts like music and falling intrest in the flavor-of-the-month bands has had a greater effect than p2p systems. I still dont agree with the RIAA through, they still try to blame p2p exclusivly for the drop in sales.

Im still waiting for eminem to disappear. Hes all image, the hard rapper with the chainsaw. He probably sleeps with a teddy when noones watching . Just an empty rapper-wrapper . Hes music is awful too, but as I like the music produced by a CPC464 and eight lines of basic I cant really judge music . Edventually hes going to fade into obscurity like the former spice girls, good for nothing except scandal space filler in the gutter press.

If the RIAA wants to stop p2p piracy they should just start finally dumping CDs and switching to DVD-audio. They would gain some points with the CE industry selling the new players, they get to put some encryption on their music (probably be broken quickly) and, most importantly, Stereo MP3 will sound pathetic after listeners hear 96KHz 24-bit 5.1 surround.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it".. anyone know where that came from? I don't, but it seems to suit.
Did Prohibition work?
HELL NO!
This is slowly (for some *wink*) becoming the same sort of issue. There were many "speak easies" BEFORE prohibition, and some bootlegging. AFTER the law was passed, guess what.. it all went downhill. The law was repealed because the powers-that-were saw that it wasn't doing any good anyway.
Point......
People will do what they want, when they want, and no law or series of law(suit)s has been reasonably seen to curb this behaviour. They keep coming at us on p2p, yet p2p is now coming close to bumping porn off as the number one reason people use the internet. Why is that? Because people have rights. Rights are NOT "granted".. rights are implied, meaining they can't be taken away with a stroke of a pen.
I agree that there needs to be some sort of business model adapted to p2p, but until then.. no amount of posturing and/or law(suits) will have a significant effect. Get with it RIAA. you can't win, so you may as well just concede defeat and try to come up with something I'll pay for instead of giving me the same old shit on the racks. Till then, I'll keep downloading, and I'll keep my settings at "share".. there's toooo much good music out there that's not available thru any other means.

W-B, that's a terrific analogy to '70s American carmakers.

..And thank you Dee and Sven.

Ms. Ian is indeed correct when she asserts that p2p is more helpful for the artist than hurtful. Hell, she's helped to prove it. The only people music sharing hurts financially are the industry moguls in control and the minute amount of the world's music that they control. Garth Brooks gets _much_ more press when he complains than does, say, The Guppy Killers.

Far be it for the industry to report directly that since 41% of the people surveyed were buying fewer copies of music, 59% were buying the same or more! A minority of the extremely limited number of people surveyed didn't go to the store as often (nothing indicates they stopped completely) to buy the industry's distribution. ...But look how they use it to their advantage in their attempts to programme the public.

As Mr. Hinkle points out, _all_ retail sales are down since last year's tragic events. I wonder where the blame went during the Depression when sales of records went from 200 million in 1927 to a mere 6 million in 1932.

I speculate (now, this is just speculation, mind you) that record sales would be even _fewer_ at this point in time if it weren't for p2p. ...but try telling' Hilary that.

And, again, I point out that we really oughtta keep separate the differences between pirating/bootlegging and p2p sharing. There _is_ a difference.

Just in line with what Hinlke was saying about making subscription servers better, if they cut the middle-men and hence their costs, and then did the unthinkable and passed those savings on to us, I'd pay. I love gnutella but phuc 1 and 2kb downloads.

This kind of logic amazes me. One example of an artist who, let's face it, was probably not selling a lot of albums this late in her career, does not consitute 'clear evidence.' '300% increase' sounds impressive, but did she sell 3000 CDs this year compared to 1000 last year, or 30 CDs this year compared to 10 last year? The RIAA isn't the only ones who can use facts & figures to their advantage.

To me it's clear that the sales drop is due to several factors, including CD burning but also including a general drop in the ecomony, plus a lack of blockbuster hits.

Also please remember that artists like Janis Ian are able to control their own music & make downloads available by their own choice. I think that's a terrific way to go for artists in her position. Show me a 300% increase (or even a 30% increase) for current artists like Garth Brooks, or Britney, due to file downloads, and I might have sympathy for your position.

Actually, I know quite a few people who refuse to buy any major label music anymore,and it has NOTHING to do with filesharing. They are sick and tired of the manufactured sound that the majors put out. Last year I personally bought 51 CDs all from independent musicians, probably 4 or 5 times what I have bought in years past. Great music, at reasonable prices and not one of them is similar to the others, unlike the major label artists.

To Remye, about that quote of "Those who do not remember the past . . . ": That quote was from one George Santayana, who also had another pearl of wisdom -- "A fanatic is someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim" -- which could also be descriptive of the RIAA to a degree.

As for Garth Brooks: He controls HIS own music, too. Capitol, his label, merely puts out his product under license. Unfortunately, he is also virulently anti-consumer as well (and thus, the 180-degree opposite of Ms. Ian); his call for a ban on the sale of used CD's (blaming availability of same for lost sales to the industry) has been approximated by the RIAA in the form of a "resale tax" or whatever it is they seek to impose on used product.

That's part of the reason I don't buy any major label music, unless it's used and the price is right. Mostly I feel dirty paying exorbitant prices to suits at the Rotten Idiotic Asshole Association so they can screw decent artists harder and put out more propaganda and legislation.

"A pox upon the media and everything you read / They tell you your opinions and they're very good, indeed" --The Soft Boys, "I Wanna Destroy You"

My point with Garth Brooks (& it would apply to most major label artists) is that in a sense he DOESN'T control his own music - if people are able to freely download it without compensating him.

There is a distinction between artists who want to offer free downloads of their music, and artists who don't. Even Janis Ian makes a point of saying "Please note that I am not advocating indiscriminate downloading without the artist's permission." If Garth Brooks etc. don't want to be part of this 'brave new world,' they should not be forced to.

As for artists who want to offer downloads but are not allowed to by their labels & lawyers: that's a different subject. My sympathies are with the artist in most of those cases.

And as for Garth Brooks' specific problem with used CDs - that position just seems, well, silly. I don't imagine he has much support on that issue.

My main problem is with the popular opinion that 'free downloads are good for musician's careers, so I should be able to download any music that I want to.'

But I guess I have similar problems with all of the following ideas, that I seem to keep coming across. As this seems like a fairly civil discussion site, I would welcome any defense of the following statements - & I am willing to admit my opinion could be changed with a cogent argument!

1.) CD prices are too high.
(Putting aside for a second the real possibility that the industry has kept prices artificailly high - what is too high? If you live in an urban area, you can get most CDs for $15 or less. 25 years ago, vinyl albums were selling in the $10 range. Adjusting for inflation, it seems that CD prices are pretty reasonable.)


2.) I shouldn't have to pay $20 for a CD with only one or two good songs on it.

(The vast majority of people I read this complaint from go on to make it obvious that they are talking about the hit songs, the ones that get the most airplay, the ones that in previous generations would have been released as singles. Singles aren't commercially available, but it seems like compilations on CD are more popular than ever. I guess this complaint always comes to across to me as 'I don't like this artist enough to actually listen to an entire album of his/her songs; but I don't have the patience to wait for the song to be available on a compliation either." )

3.) I refuse to buy major label CDs because of the RIAA. Besides all the music on major label CDs is crap nowadays.

(So, you're trying to make a point by not buying something that you wouldn't have bought anyways...and how is that a boycott?)

MY point re Garth Brooks was that he's afforded much more exposure when he's got a gripe than most artists. He represents an extremely small percentage of the world's artists. The largest percentage of the world's musician's are being helped by the exposure they receive. I don't think we can nor should be distracted by the minute amount of extreme moneymakers.

"If Garth Brooks etc. don't want to be part of this 'brave new world,' they should not be forced to." Too late for Mr. Brooks. He may be thought of as a great artist, but he was locked into the industry long before this nonsense began. The bulk of the world's artists currently have every right to not put their music out to the public for their enjoyment. Today, the artist does indeed have complete control.. unless they sign with a major label. Like it or not, the scene has changed, and they can either, as Svansta put it, evolve or die.

Exposure isn't good for an artist's career? Are we basing our opinions on Garth's expense account again? Most of the world's musician's want good pay from their craft, but most of them are realistic and make their goal as much exposure as possible. Fame comes first in a true artist's mind. If one of my songs hit today and it was all from free downloads, I may not be rich but I'll be well-known. I've been poor all my life, so I won't notice the change, but I'll be a poor cabdriver with a hit song. One outta 2 wouldn't be bad. And I don't care what anyone says, where there is fame, there is fortune.

What you need to understand here is that the future may have 1000 artists makin' $50k a year from their work rather than 10 makin' $5M a year while the rest make Nothing. No fewer people will know their music -- more in fact -- but the playing field will be more level and popular tastes will be decided by the listeners and not the manipulators who control them now.

What we all need to understand is that each download does NOT represent a lost sale. Nor does it represent a new sale. We can't make up things that don't exist. Where is it written that the only way for an artist to make money is to sell portable media? Ever been to Greenwich Village? Private donations (tips) have been sustaining that community for decades.

1) I'm sorry, sir, but you are mistaken about price reasonability. While I agree that high price is hardly a justification for stealing, p2p file-sharing is not what I consider to be stealing. No supply nor demand has been lost. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the download itself shows an increase in demand. Further, the price of all other entertainment, excluding the price of a large-arena concert ticket, has increased dramatically less than a hit record album. Twenty-five years ago, in 1977, vinyl albums cost $3.99 at average retail. In 1982, the general list was 5.99. By '84, the list was $6.99. By $10 you say? Guess again. Cd's came out in 1984 and immediately cost $25-$30. They lowered the list to the $13.99 level by 1990, but since has risen to the $19.99 level in 2002. Wanna go to the movies and compare prices again?

2) Various artist compilations? We should wait for our favorite songs to be released by "Now!" or K-tel?? You're kiddin', right? Why aren't singles still available? It isn't because we don't want them, believe me. It's because they're not PROFITABLE anymore. Again, my point isn't about the most popular songs. It's about ALL songs. Remember, radio is also part of the problem.

3) Good point. But you also have the stance that if they're able to download the music for free, they _would've_ bought copies otherwise. Can we have it both ways?

Btw, how many copies of their music did Beethoven or Mozart sell?

i dont buy cd's anymore. and i never will. i made a promise to myself when napster was murdered that i would never buy a cd again from those who supported the death of napster.

praise kazaa
freemp3boycottriaa

Milla's last comment gets to the heart of the issue.
There are people alive today who can remember when recorded music didn't exist. Record singles were supposed to be promotional and not an end in themselves, now, in the RIAA's eyes, a musician's worth is decided by their record sales.
The demise of the recording industry would force musicians to re-adopt the lifestyle which sustained them adequately until about ninety years ago.
Let's face it, being a musician is an honorable profession but that doesn't mean they should own their own private jet.
A touring musician can make a decent living without ever selling a cd, it's a hard life but it has its rewards just like any other career.

I think you're absolutely correct shoshidge. ..altho recorded music's been packaged for the commercial sale since 1890.

btw, I forgot to add that used sales can take a BIG chunk out of an artist's pay. They can also take big chunks out of Hilary's pocket. http://news.dmusic.com/article/4139

"Compact disc shipments fell 7 percent in the first six months of this year versus last year __as growing use of Internet downloading services undermined sales,__ the record industry said Monday."

"__I would not argue that downloading and copying are the only factors at work,"__ Geoff Garin, chief executive of Hart Research said. "But we have clear evidence that downloading and copying do not have a favorable effect on record sales."

Note that the first statement is from the industry itself and that it totally blames file sharing.
Also note that the second statement is from the mouth of the chief of the very research foundation that did RIAA's study and says that files sharing is not the ___only___ factor. Does anyone think this guy still works for that foundation? As for purchasing cds well I don't think you could find a store in any state where RIAA will receive part of the profits for the theme to Beverly Hills Cop, and is it even possible to go to some place like FYE and find a copy of Cars by Fear Factory? All you need to do RIAA is point me to a decently priced site that has oldies but goodies like that and I'll buy. Until I see it my doors are open on Kazaa (screw the ip and download tracking, I use Kazaalite anyway) for anyone who wants to have a look.

I stand corrected. I was estimating the time when musical recordings became available to the masses

1.) CD prices are too high.

the problem is this, the big record companies can only do business one way. they simply donÕt have the ability (or the desire) to make money on runs of cdÕs that small indie labels thrive on. and by the way, that doesnÕt necessarily make the indies morally superior. they just understand that small things can sometimes be more efficient. sometimes. this is a complex issue but suffice to say, the big guys have to sell cds for what they do because they canÕt function at a lower level. whether or not that business model is legitimate isnÕt the issue (at least right here).

yes, I think cd prices are far too high. were it not that a few large and powerful companies control virtually all the music that gets national exposure in the tradition media, one might see the market correct itself. cd prices should have dropped considerably about eight years ago (a long, involved thought in and of itself). but they havenÕt and they wonÕt (see paragraph one). pressure from popular indies and regionals would force the majors to justify their out of control expenses. no pressure, no control, no price drop.

and btw, consumers havenÕt been real vocal about stopping buying cds. letÕs just theorize that a large group of consumers agreed that it was time for a statement and letÕs further speculate that this large group of consumers rallied around a web site and picked one month to not buy cds. finally, letÕs make this month, december. donÕt buy a cd in december. do you think then the record would be as intransgient as they currently are? I doubt it. they might just then gather together to balls to do something. maybe even the right thing. but without some show of consumer disgust and resolve why should they change?

2.) I shouldn't have to pay $20 for a CD with only one or two good songs on it.

two thoughts here.

the first one is, I shouldnÕt have to pay $40k for an audi tt either, but I do if I want one. ÒshouldnÕtÓ is kind of a dumb word sometimes.

second, and much more important (and to the point), the real valid issue buried in this is the question never asked in the media. in fact, even when rosen or some other mouthpiece of the machine spews forths Òsingles sales are down 65%Ó no one ever asks *why*?

well, how about the fact that record companies have, and have been for more than ten years now, drastically cutting back on the number of singles they release for sale. the strategy, and itÕs no secret, is that by not releasing the single, they may be losing a few single sales but they are also gaining album sales.

once again, itÕs a matter of the record companies wanting legal sanction to stick to a business model that isnÕt valid.

singles are a way of giving the consumer a taste of the album. itÕs a cheap intro to the material and has been for decades.

in the early nineties, as the cd started to realize itÕs potential, we saw all the major record companies begin to not release as many singles as they used to. with elimination of the vinyl 45 from the majorÕs menus we saw cassingles sort of, kind of, but not really supplant them. now, as cassettes are almost a faded memory (in the view of the big retailer) those singles disappear as well. cd5Õs are getting harder and harder to find in this country.

so, given that for maybe sixty years in this country a consumer could buy three or more singles from most every major artist with a current album and a blinding array of new singles from as yet popular artists (and an enormous catalog of ÒoldiesÓ singles), it was easy for the music buyer to try several different artists out for a small amount of money.

now, if you do things the way the riaa wants you to, you have to buy one $18.98 cd to get anything more than the soundbyte on the radio or the blip from music television.

the question really is, why in the hell is there not more purchasing options for the consumer? singles are a good place to start.

3.) I refuse to buy major label CDs because of the RIAA. Besides all the music on major label CDs is crap nowadays.

of course, this is two separate issues. so the person who would mention them as one is already guilty of some muddled thinking. taken together, I agree with your assessment.

however, separately, the first one is vitally important. voting with your dollars is about the last real political power many people have. boycotts can and do work.

as for the second point, luckily, as old as I am, I have still managed to avoid that pitfall. itÕs all too common. but then again, many, rather shallow viewpoints are.

that said, I was impressed with svenstaÕs very articulate and interesting point about some ÒlegendsÓ having the ÒlegsÓ where a lot of the new fluff doesnÕt. IÕm not sure that I buy it entirely. IÕd have to look at some sales data and see. but as I said, it was most intriguing.

I could list of bunch of brilliant major label projects but that would encourage this thread to devolve into a discussion of my personal taste (or the lack thereof). good music is where you find it. the major can make art just as the indies can. as I said above, the indies are by no means morally superior. sometimes the only real difference is one of scale. but I know too many people with ÒindieÓ contracts to be pollyannic about that scene.

finally, while I think the last point is somewhat specious, I do think there is something to be said, in general, for a peek at the bigger picture here. music sales are traditionally cyclical. some years theyÕre just up. some years, theyÕre down. trust me, if anyone could predict it, they would rule the music world. this may be a dark or fallow time for the majors muscially. IÕd have a hard time arguing against it. and when considers the small numbers of losses (percentage wise) of the majorsÕ sales, well, it hardly seems as though itÕs worth the chicken little act from hilary and company.

some final random thoughts to post in this thread.

---

I know of a local indie store that has itÕs own way with garth, Òyour stealing money from my kids college fundÓ brooks. they buy all used garth for a buck. they sell it for $1.99. they always have the entire catalog and it turns quite quickly. screw garth indeed.

---

ÒexposureÓ is ALWAYS good for an artist. I can name one convicted mass murderer whose cd still sells even though it is dreadful and horribly distributed. there truly is no such thing as bad press and p2p is good press. thatÕs why radio is free folks. sure, the record companies and mewl and moan about it ÒhurtingÓ them. they did so with cassettes in the eighties. who here is old enough to remember capitol cassettes with the little skull and crossbones logo and the Òhome taping is killing the music industryÓ tagline. stupid then. stupid now. but if there is one thing record labels are good at, itÕs being stupid.

---

thanks for the chance to ramble.

The price of music CD's are too high the fact that people arn't willing to pay 18 dollars for 10 songs isn't in the survey. also we are in a recession so how do they expect the sales to be up. The sales of blank CD's are up among internet users. Of cource they are people download data as well with faster internet there are more programs being downloaded.

The RIAA often says CDs are expensive to produce. Clearly exageration. The CDs themselves are only a few pence. Add the costs of boxes and labels and its at most 50c a disc. The cost of produceing the song, making the many mixes and cencored versions, designing the cover art, all seem very expensive but not when spread over the ammount of discs they well. Add the reatiler markup and perhaps the discs cost $5 each at most. They sell them for $18 or $20.

Maybe if they actually put out good music instead of the garbage they release these days, people might start buying Cd's again. Plus the cost is just outragious for a compact disc. The quality of the bands that are getting sighned these days is pathetic here today gone tomorrow pupetts for the R.I. A.A.

Apologies for going off on a tangent . . .

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/forums/general/255

PRICE: Steely Dan's "Gaucho" was released in 1980 & helped push the list price of vinyl albums from $8.98 to $9.98. At least according to "Reelin' in the Years,' the book by Brian Sweet. So I think both of our recollections might be off - but you're right that vinyl was not >$10 at that point.

Maybe it's just the Midwest where I live, but I would have to work hard to pay more than $16 for a CD (probably by going to a Sam Goody's or other mall store, where prices are higher partly due to high mall rent.) I buy most of my CDs for $13 or $14 at Best Buy (where, granted, they use CDs as a loss leader) or online, where price & selection has driven stores like Tower to the brink of bankruptcy.

Also, I think forgotten in this discussion is that CDs are not a necessity. Even if there is price fixing (which wouldn't surprise me) there is no reason you ever HAVE to buy a CD. That doesn't justify stealing the music (online or in the physical world.) The boycott is the best answer. Unfortunately, the popularity of Napster etc. has actually hurt the chances of a boycott working.

The other method of being heard by the industry would be to heavily support - yes, by spending dollars - independent artists. I believe that if the Janis Ian story had happened with a better-selling artist - say, if Wilco had stayed indie & not signed with Nonesuch, and had had tremendous success selling their new album online -that would make more of a statement than a boycott ever will. Face it - a drop in sales will be attributed to anything else, but a large success story independent of the majors would have to be attributed to 'hey, we're missing something out there!'

***********************************
Regarding fame rather than fortune - I'm all for it. No one is saying that musicians shouldn't be able to choose their own path. Want to promote yourself via the Internet? Go for it. Want to support yourself on private donations? Fine with me (good luck in Harrisburg, PA, or Lubbock, TX, or most places that do exist OUTSIDE of Greenwich Village, though.)

This is just diversion from the real topic though...since no one is trying to prevent the independent musicians from providing free downloads, what is all the fuss about? It's about artists who are signed to labels. Some of the artists want to provide free downloads to promote themselves, but the labels won't let them - those are the situations where I'm most inclined to believe there's a moral dilemma. (Other artists agree with their labels & don't want their music to be available for free without their permission. I'm still waiting for an argument as to why they should be forced to.)

"Popular tastes will be decided by the listeners and not the manipulators who control them now..." I don't know about you, but I have free will when it comes to music. I'm not locked into listening to or buying only the music that they play on the radio, or promote in other ways. I may not like that, and I may find it difficult to find new music that I like (in fact, I do. I've walked in & out of record stores several times over the last year with money in hand, unable to find anything that really interested me.) But I would never think that I was constrained by what the industry wants me to buy!

As for singles - I agree with you, the market determined the eventual failure of singles. I don't buy the argument that singles were phased out to pump up sales of the full length albums, because I believe those are two different markets. From what I can tell, the market that used to buy singles is now driving every "Now that's what I call Music" compilation into the charts.

I guess the question that no one (including myself) can answer is: What kind of music should I be able to download for free? (pick one, several or all!)

1. Music made available by the musician themselves, for purposes of exposure;

2. Music made available by the musician themselves, but against the legal wishes of their current or former label;

3. Music made available without the musician's permission:
a. Individual songs, which are not available as singles but are on the artist's album;
b. Individual songs, which are available as singles;
c. Individual songs, which are not available as singles but are on a compilation;
d. Individual songs, which are not commercially available in any form (i.e. live tracks, B sides, etc.)
e. Entire albums, or several tracks from an album.

I'm getting a little tired of the," yeah but they only put out garbage anyway" arguement.
We all know that there is tons of good music put out each year, you don't have to buy the top 40 shit.
Hey, if you want cheaper cd's, move to Canada. Cd's there cost about the same or less but their in Canadian dollars so it would work out to an average of about 10 buck per cd!

Regarding the price: When I worked in a NY record store in 1983-84, we sold most albums for $5.99 or $6.99. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" and The Police's "Synchronicity," as well as many other top albums of the day were all listed at 8.98, but retail was usually less than SRP in the smaller stores. If anything, "Gaucho" may've helped push the SRP up from $7.98, but definitely not to $9.98. (ironic, too, since "Gaucho" wound up in the discount rack relatively quickly.)

How has the popularity of p2p hurt the chances of a successful boycott? I'm not goading you here; I've just never heard that thought before.

How is downloading a song from another person who's sharing it called stealing? If someone can give me a good argument about that one, I'm all eyes. Again, supply and demand. (okay, so here I'm goading.)

Outside Greenwich Village? How 'bout the internet? Does being from a smaller physical market place as many restrictions on us these days?

"...I'm still waiting for an argument as to why they should be forced to.)" Because they're signed to a major label! The major labels are forcing them to share their music, since they're unwilling to adapt to the changing times! Today, if you're signed to a label, you have no choice in the matter; it's the label versus the music lover, and the artist has nothing to say about it. Don't sign to a corruptorate label if ya wanna be in control. The fact the p2p is so popular just means that the more popular artists are gonna be shared more (thus listened to more). Should the 2 or 300 incredibly well-off artists who don't want their music shared be given more weight than the millions and millions of artists who just want exposure??? Let's not forget what a small minority the RIAA represents.

Listening tastes: That's you. And that may be me. ...But that's not the majority of the world music listeners. The majority are HIGHLY manipulatable. ...and the majority are highly manipulated.

We're in full agreement about singles. When singles were generally affordable to purchase, they sustained. When the cd single started outselling the cassette single, it was doin' it at prices that were often twice as high as the cassingle counterpart. But let's face it, not many people wanna spend $5.99 on a single, so they were phased out due to poor interest. ...a poor interest that the industry brought on itself by overcharging.

My opinion about what music should be shared is ALL music that is available for public enjoyment. By putting his or her music out to the public in this day'n'age, they're accepting that p2p may become a part of their equation. They may just consider a large number of downloads as SUCCESS! Today, if an artist doesn't want their music traded, then they should keep it to themselves. That's my opinion, but I like to think in simple terms.

All I know is that when I started buying CDs back in the early 90s, I'm pretty sure that they were priced in the $11.99-$12.99 range. Now, WHY IS IT, a DECADE later, the prices have gone up, sometimes doubling that amount? Seeing how inexpensive it is to own a CD-playing stereo (tape players/turntables are now a different story!) shouldn't it be LESS expensive to purchase a CD? These days, we're lucky if a store offers a new title ON SALE for $12.99 or less. Once in a while, Virgin Megastore will offer great new artists for less than $10, like Pete Yorn, Ed Harcourt, John Mayer, Zero7, etc. but that's a few months before their records really take off. It is the lucky few who don't listen religiously to Top 40 mind-numbing music who already know about these soon-to-be successes, and therefore are able to snatch up the CD before it starts to climb both the Billboard and the price charts.

And hey, here's a GOOD question: when was the last time someone who actually WORKS in the music business bought their OWN copy of something? I know plenty of people who have stacks and stacks of CDs that they got for FREE (whether they be reviewers, record industry employees, etc). Now, if I copy MY music from THEM, doesn't THAT hurt the industry as well...since those discs were never paid for in the first place, or rather, they were "allocated" as press copies, etc?

I say this: if the recording industry kept their prices REASONABLE and just waited out the economic slump that's affected EVERY industry since last fall, then they'd be just fine. People are going to buy music. It's an evitable consumer fact.

Will people now become more selective about their purchases, thanks to online file sharing services? HELL YEAH. I hope so! Will people find out about artists' music that they'd normally not bother to check out for $18.99 an album and up? I sure hope so! File sharing has broadened my already broad musical taste.
I'm not ashamed of being a music pirate. GARRR matey! I say to the RIAA. Yes, I will purchase more of your products, but I will also be more informed about my choices.

I still won't buy any CD that isn't a double album or boxed set if it costs more than $12.99 (and even that is pushing it).
Perhaps these labels should start looking internally at their $$ troubles and misappropriation of funds instead of putting the onus on the customers.

When you break down how much it costs to actually produce a CD and then how much the store price is, it's pretty obvious to see that most consumers are just getting milked for their hard-earned dollars.

Until things change, I'll still copy, share, and visit my local used music stores to find what I want to listen to. And I feel pretty good about that decision.

Cd prices have only gone down in my neck of the woods, you just have to shop around. For instance, some stores will offer the big, new platinum sellers for super cheap and then bump up the price of the other cd's to compensate, hoping that you'll show up to buy the new Brittany and maybe spot a Boney M cd on your way to the counter and grab it too.
Other stores do the bargain bin thing, putting the old stuff on sale.
Living in a city helps, towns usually only have one or two places to buy music, so you don't have many options.

Gooooooood, it's starting already.......

Milla - Thanks for a thoughtful discussion. So much better than the name calling on so many forums on this subject!

How has the popularity of p2p hurt the chances of a successful boycott? My thought was: look at the article at the top of this forum that we are discussing. Sales are down in the industry, and the industry has a convenient scapegoat - p2p. (I happen to think they're partially right, that p2p sharing- among other things - has hurt the sales of CDs.) More to the point, I think the industry *believes* that p2p is hurting their sales - so how do you convince them that a boycott is the reason their sales are down? I think that's a losing battle.

How is downloading a song from another person who's sharing it called stealing? Strange question, I guess you're playing on the concept of 'sharing' and questioning how you can 'steal' from somebody who's 'sharing' with you?

Of course, you're not. But in a very real sense, you are 'stealing' from the copyright owner of that work. The person who shares the file with you is an accessory to that crime.

Now, there are some arguments about 'fair use.' How you can lend an album to a friend, or tape it for them, without violating copyright. (Or make a copy for your car, etc.) Many of the industry's arguments I think go way too far here (the blank tape tax, copy protecting on CDs, etc.)

But, honestly, the people who defend p2p by comparing it to home taping are deluded, I think. How is sharing copyrighted music with dozens, hundreds or thousands of people you have never met in any way similiar to sharing CDs with a circle of a dozen friends or so?

I understand your Greenwich Village reference now. Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that musicians in small markets could afford to forgo royalties because they could survive by busking!

You did lose me in your next paragraph. Maybe my thoughts weren't clear - I think that there is no inherent right for the consumer to be able to download any song they want to. The decision (of whether or not a particular song should be available for free downloading) should be made by the artist that recorded it, and the label that paid for that recording.

I understand that major labels that want to be involved in p2p will force the artists they sign to agree. I see nothing wrong with that - as you say, if you (as an artist) don't want your music promoted/disseminated in that way, don't sign the deal.

As for listening tastes, of course the majority of music listeners in the world are highly influenced by advertising. That doesn't change the fact that they could still *choose* to do without that new album by Eminem or whoever, if they don't like the price, or only like a song or two on the album. That used to be the option for consumers - if they didn't perceive value for money, they didn't make the purchase. Nowadays, it seems like there are some reverse arguments going on to justify p2p sharing of copyrighted music - i.e. "this is technologically possible to do, so I'm going to do it. And...and...after all, CDs cost too much, that's why I do it, yeah!"

Cut CD prices in half tomorrow, and I doubt it would have much effect on illegal p2p sharing. Why? Because (I'm convinced) the majority of (illegal) p2p file sharers have either convinced themselves it's morally right, or don't have any concerns about the morality of what they are doing.

Speaking of CD prices, I've seen a number of arguments that claim that, since a CD is so cheap to produce, the retail price should be much lower. I don't know how wholesale costs compare to retail - but on the wholesale side, I'm sure that production costs (studio costs, studio musicians, etc.) have gone up over the last ten years; and on the retail side, don't forget that retail stores are now having a very difficult time competing not only with the Best Buys and Circuit Citys of the world, but now with the online sellers like amazon & CD Now, who can offer a much wider selection than a physical store can afford to. You get what you pay for. Virgin Megastores & Tower Records offer the convenience of not having to wait for your CD in the mail; also the experience of browsing through CDs and being able to look at & hold the CD before you buy. But for that convenience, you're going to pay $16 or $17 rather than $12 or $13.

Milla; if there's one statement I disagree with, it's your "..if an artist doesn't want their music traded, then they should just keep it to themselves." In other words, unless an artist can support themselves by touring or merchandising or other means, they shouldn't count on compensation for their music? Too bad for bands who don't tour, or don't draw large enough crowds to turn a profit. Too bad, too, for artists who have retired and were counting on royalties from their songs to keep them solvent. Guess they'll get screwed by the same people who are irate at the RIAA for screwing artists!

"CD Sales Down" ?

ALRIGHT!!

Samsonite, I too thank you for the first more-than-halfway decent discussion I've had around here in a long time. I only wish I weren't repeating much of what I'm sayin' from 2 years ago.

I see your reasoning now re the potentially hindered boycott.

We also happen to agree that p2p is partially responsible for a decline in major label sales. ....But what's wrong with that? ...I'd like to know. ...'Cause here I go ... agaiiiiiin (hehe). Is it that difficult to imagine how many artists are havin' their sales helped by p2p? So what that it's not on the major financial scale of the Big Five's artists, a multitude of artists are doing better than they were.

Stealing: This is one of my favorite debates, because it's usually held with people who continue to consider every download as a lost sale. Listen, when we go to the store to "buy music," we're not buying the music; we're buying the disc that contains the music. We're not paying for the content, since we can't "own" that, but rather the distribution medium and the service of bringing it to your local retailer. In our money is also included Eminem's stipend and Hilary's cut. Now, when we get our music in mp3 form from a p2p network, how are we supposed to give our money to the artist? We obviously don't need the distribution service anymore there. Have the labels set up a system by which monies would be appropriated properly? No. But are we not taxed on every computer, blank disc, videotape, hard drive, burner, et al, for supposed losses bein' incurred by the industries? And shouldn't we be allowed to send as much money as we want directly to any artist who brings us pleasure? Why would any artist want to account for every stupid copy? Yes, selling copies is great, but the content shouldn't be thought of a product. Music is not a product; music is a service. The disc is the product; the content is the service.

But I digress. The only way I can possibly see music as being "stolen" is if it's plagiarized. If current copyright law turns millions and millions of music lovers into criminals, then shouldn't laws be modified to conform to contemporary mores? Obviously, the majority of people are indeed morally okay with downloading. And, imo, their consciences _should_ be clear.

This is to differentiate between simple stealing and pirating, which I consider to be synonymous w/bootlegging. When no money is transacted, I cannot consider it piracy.

And once again, I point out that no supply nor demand has been lost with each download. Nothing has been intrinsically forfeited by anyone. I reiterate the each download does not represent a lost sale.

Stealing from the copyright owner: Stealing what? A lack of interest? Understand that most artists are looking for nothing more than your interest. What is it that makes people think that to maintain a living as an artist, it needs to be off one's art? So, if they can't tour or print paraphernalia or whathaveyou, then they'll drive cabs, or practice law, or lay cables, or wait tables, or keep books, or dig graves, or sell cocaine, or whatever it takes to live in this world while still allowing for their music to be heard! Again, I think it's time to stop thinking as if the small amount of unhappy artists signed to a major label represent the majority of wishes of the music community. They don't.

Also, copyright is a relatively new concept, MUCH newer than the concept of music. I put it to you again, how in the hell did Wagner, Beethoven, Mozart, or any of the classical greats who wrote their repertoire well before the concept of copyright, and very well before the realization of recordings, much less those packaged. What would THEY have considered stealing? Plagiarism.

Fair use: So, where do YOU draw the line. Obviously, it's somewhere between a dozen and dozens. Where should we draw the line? WHY should we draw the line? Most artists want as many people as possible to hear their creations, and yes, they desire you to possess a copy so that you can listen again at will if ya want. Someone listening once is a musician's dream, but someone listening twice is a musician's wet dream.

Nobody suggests that the artists go without compensation for their craft. But to put a required price on each copy is counterproductive to the exposure of the great artists of the future. Many will indeed continue their "day jobs," but hey, that may be part of the nature of the future game. The ones who can perform then have an advantage financially, but not exposurally. Retired royalties? Again, you're kiddin', right? How many of the world's artist do ya think are gonna miss out on those? I simply will not entertain the idea that the few artists that benefit from the current system are to be given more weight than those who can benefit from a new one.

It's evident to me that it's more about control than about the willful free distribution of art. Don't you see, tho, that by simply releasing something today, you're exposing yourself to the technology that's out there. P2P is out there. Do you suggest we curtail technology in order to make a few folks some farthings? If we don't want people to be interested, we should keep it to ourselves. That's all I mean. Supporting ourselves w/a music related occupation is actually a separate issue.

It dismays me to think that the RIAA screwing the artist outta collected money that should be rightfully theirs can be equated with music lovers showing interest in an artist's songs, thereby "screwing" the artist outta money they _should've_ paid for the copy the possess. I think it's specious logic. But hey, that's jmo.

Milla: I'll start with copyright. The classical composers (Bach, Beethoven, etc.) actually did a fair amount of stealing by your definition - Variations on a Theme of Composer X, etc. for which the original composer was never compensated. It was a different era - I doubt many composers ever got rich from the stipends they received for commissioned works they wrote for the king of this & the prince of that.

However, you can't really compare today's artist to the classical composers. Most classical music (pre-20 th century at least) was written by one person to be played by one or several others. The definition of success was when a lot of performers (or, the peak performers in their field) would perform your music. Now, the definition of success is when a lot of listeners listen to your music (Eddie Van Halen clones notwithstanding, I think the majority of music written today is performed by musicians on the original recording and rarely by anyone else thereafter. At least not to the extent and not to the audience size that classical music was.)

Anyways, the other reason I don;t think the 'Beethoven' comparison is legitimate, is that copyright law differentiates between the composer & the performer. Yes, you can record Beethoven's "Fur Elise" and not pay a cent to Beethoven. But you cannot play Vladmir Ashkenazy's recording of "Fur Elise" in many situations without paying the performer.

The analogy with classical composers would be printed music. Music publishers would pay composers for the right to print their scores, for sale & for rental to other performers. To relate this to p2p: what if there was technology available that would allow anyone who wanted to, free access to a composer's score, bypassing the publisher who paid for the rights & bypassing the composer who would not earn a cent? That's what the Xerox machine is, and if music publishers had not vigorously pursued lawsuits against individuals & organizations who copied music, they'd be out of business. But they did - hundreds of lawsuits, particularly against schools & universities who knew the copyright law, but broke it anyways, to save a few bucks. Without the threat of legal action, copyright laws are already meaningless.

We agree on bootlegging, although ironically I imagine most bootleggers understand that what they do is illegal!

You ask "if current copyright law turns millions..of music lovers into criminals, then shouldn't laws be modified...?" Are you really serious? Does a law become meaningless just because many people choose to break it? Current law turns millions of cocaine & pot users into criminals - is this enough reason to justify decriminalization? Speeding & drunk driving laws are broken on a daily basis too, but I haven't seen a Boycott-MADD site (well, maybe I should go look before I say that!

I say, if current copyright law turns millions of music lovers into criminals, then responsibility belongs on both sides. The industry needs to make that message clear & needs to pursue violators in the legal system; the public needs to recognize that what they are doing is illegal, and that they either must stop, or suffer the consequences - or use the power of political will to change the laws.

True that 'each download does not represent a lost sale.' I'm sure many people download music to try it out, and would never have bought the music on the same basis - so no 'sale' is lost. It would be silly to say "Artist X lost over 3 million sales on his new album, because it was downloaded over 3 million times!"

But the fact is, some sales are lost. So we're back to square one, since there is no way to accurately determine how many sales are lost. If you're the industry, do you put on a show of strength now, try to prevent things from going any further and risk overreacting, or do you sit back and say 'let's see how things turn out?'

My contention has always been that if the people who claim illegal downloads actually benefit the artist - (because it allows people to 'test' the music before purchasing - & that people who would not otherwise have bought the CD would now) - that the industry needs a site or sites where you could hear the first 30 seconds or minute of each song (in the way that you can on amazon.com.)

Ever bought software on line? I have. Anti-virus software (no, it wasn't a good purchase.) The 'content is the service.' But someone paid programmers to write that software, and someone else got paid to market it, and set up the website, and etc. etc. Some company is dependent on sales of that software to keep paying their employees. Now, I could probably dig around & find that software for free on the Net, and download it for free, without any money going to the creators of it. // Then, I could go & download another program from a shareware site for free - with the creator not getting any compensation except the knowledge that his program was useful to someone.

Becuase the second program was available free to me, should the first company forgo profits and offer their programs free as well? If it makes business sense, I say sure. BUT THEY SHOULD MAKE THE CALL.

i wonder if anyone got the idea of distributing scanned college textbooks on gnutella...
now THAT would save me some real money!

Okay, so many classical composers "sampled" or embellished other works. Hell, most operas are just classical works with lyrics and theatrics added a century or more later. Big difference between embellishment and plagiarism. Composer X was often credited in the title.

Just because there's a difference btween a PA form and an SR form doesn't mean they should be treated any differently. A composer copyrights the song and the performer copyrights the recording. The song copyright has much more to do with plagiarism than does the recording copyright, which has almost everything to do with control. Perhaps those classical composers didn't control their works or make loads of money, but some of them got famous, no? A small percentage, of course, because as with any trade, you're gonna have only a handful that make the top 1%. But famous nonetheless. Awesome compensation for their art. Ya can't take your $$ with you.

"Now, the definition of success is when a lot of listeners listen to your music." That's exactly right.

Printed music is not, imo, the analogy for classical composers. Sheet music has been around since papyrus became paper. It's always been seen as a product. And it is. After all, the music itself is contained on the sheet only symbolically. Music has been a product for only a little more than 11 decades.

Do you really think Xerox'd be outta business were it not for suing educational establishements and public libraries. *shakes head in disbelief*

"Are you really serious? Does a law become meaningless just because many people choose to break it?" Yes. Yes it does. And it should be made official be the lawmakers elected to represent the majority. A majority opinion should be respected and upheld. "Current law turns millions of cocaine & pot users into criminals - is this enough reason to justify decriminalization?" Yes. Yes it is. "Speeding & drunk driving laws are broken on a daily basis too..." Yes, but these are not broken by the MAJORITY of the populous. They're laws meant to protect others from dangerous behavior, and they should be enforced, yet of course, modified to suit the feelings of the general public.

Responsibility belongs on both sides you say? The responsibility of the industry to attack and the responisibility of the music-loving public to submit? How much more of the artists' money should the industry waste goin' after music lovers? "...or use the power of political will to change the laws." Good idea, and I agree that that's the best way to go about effecting change. In this case, however, we're talkin' about BIG business vs. Dudley Do-right, so the politicians tend to be swayed by their kickbacks... erm.. contributions.

"But the fact is, some sales are lost. So we're back to square one, since there is no way to accurately determine how many sales are lost." To paraphrase you, ...but the fact is, some sales are gained. So we're back to square one, since there is no way to accurately determine how many sales are gained. It works both ways. For every Eminem who "loses" a few sales, there may be 1000 GuppyKillers who gain some. If ya ask me, the lost and found is kinda balanced.

30 seconds of a song. Feh. As an artist, my incomplete recording would irk me no end.

Your point of software is good, but the fact remains that Chris Sawyer doesn't command as much as Eminem, so there isn't as much press about it. Ever read the article about the knitting pattern designers who became upset that their patterns were being traded online? We're talkin' needlepoint here. heh. Additionally, the companies that hire these programmers have incorporated general piracy into their pricing systems. They also pay the creators a better percentage of income than does the entertainment industry. I have much more of a beef with the thieves we call the RIAA. So, I continue to assert that since no supply has been depleted, no theft has occured. ..software included. No loss in sales can be assumed if I make my friend a copy of a program I've bought or downloaded.

I also continue to assert that goin' after the very users showin' interest in what you have to offer makes extremely bad business sense.

Winded? We evidently have sumpm to say. I'm sure you can relate to that. I mean, I know you're so soft-spoken and all, but cut us some slack, eh?

And I can never give GuppyKillers enuff unecessary plugs.

Once again the RIAA has to throw their usual bullshit of downloading the cause of declining music sales. I think its mostly bad music and a slow economy that is the reason myself. Fuk the RIAA, buy used cds.

I think you guys should keep going, I'm enjoying it.
If the record companies are losing millions, and I'm sure they are, that just means they were making too much money in the first place.
The problem with software delevopers is that they don't have the 'live performing' income option that musicians do, I doubt its very entertaining to watch someone write software but I might be wrong.
Also, someone mentioned earlier that musicians can always get a day job. Speaking from experience, its hard to find the time and energy to put real effort into your music when you're swingin' a shovel for fifty hours a week. Sure some guys do it out of necessity, but the dream is to be able to support yourself with music, not get rich, just be able to live comfortably practicing your trade.
I'm a good example, I haven't put a note on paper in three weeks, I'm always too exhausted,( I've also been spending too much time here).
In the golden days when I was a musician by trade rather than by hobby, I practiced more, played better, and therefore the music improved. Which was better for the folks who payed to be entertained by me.
I'm going to download some GuppyKillers and see what all of the fuss is about.

Big corporate America is coming to an end. Look at the baseball strike that's coming--millionaire babies that can't take their average $2.4 million a year for playing a kid's game.

The same thing is starting to happen with the music industry--everyone wants to make millions from some guy plucking a guitar, and poorly in most cases I might add.

They made it so expensive to buy crappy music that people aren't doing it any more, but they're turning around and blaming the people who buy their stuff anyway. I used to buy CDs and also download songs, but I won't buy any more CDs until either the price drops to meet the quality or the quality rises to meet the price.

And as for the baseball strike, I won't *ever* go see another MLB game just to pay for the overpriced talent--and I'm starting to feel that way about CDs, too.

If you are boycotting, make sure you let the RIAA know by their website.

I did. The public needs to see this thread too.

And remember Alan Freed!

Last post for the night. (yawn)

Majority rules? Not necessarily in our political system. As I understand it, it was set up that way by the founding fathers precisely because they did not trust complete control of the government to the majority. And I agree. Somewhere out there is an alterate universe where the majority really rules, and "Survivor" is on PBS 5 nights a week by national decree. Ighhhhh (shakes head in horror)

I suspect there are areas of the country where the majority of the public DOES break drunk driving laws, for example. So, should the law be changed to suit the whim of the local populace there? What about my right not to face a driver who's stoned out on cocaine? Every right tramples on someone else's right, in some ways.

Re: Xerox, no I think I wasn't clear. I didn't think Xerox the company was in danger. Just that the educational organizations that were breaking copyright laws were convinced not to, by the realization that publishers were enforcing their rights under the law. Yes, that means that an organization took it upon themselves to sue their customers - but not all of their customers, just the ones who were breaking the law. If you think that's bad business, I don't know what legal defense that leaves a company.

Hackers? I've missed it. Working on a fake today.. Ahh the demands of my art. What got hacked?

Deb.

CD sales down, it's non $15 a cd crappy produced by a greedy music industry music to my ears!

I have many different views on all the issues surrounding P2P... Mainly because I've seen alot of different sides to it... I've been a musician (I haven't played in a few years now though), I've worked at several places sellign new CD's (never worked at a used CD place yet), & I'm an avid music fan (to real music not pre-made cookie cutter stuff).

As a musician I would have loved to get a larger audience to hear the stuff I played... We had a solely local audience at the time though & the net hadn't come of age, so local venues were all we had... It didn't lead anywhere as most people didn't ever get to hear us & lots of places wouldnt' let us play because we weren't 'popular enough' (which begs the question of how anyone could become popular 'enough').

When I've worked at CD selling stores we marked up maybe $0.75 on a CD above the price we paid... We made little or no money on them & frankly the upper management had no desire to carry music outside the major labels (Sony even got them to add a new form of Audio player & new type of 'high fidelity' CD's... Not one person in the year it's been their has yet to buy anything from that display...

As a music fan I use P2P to find the stuff I can't get... I live in a region aparently obsessed with major label artists & not one store carries a single indie label... One of my main musical interests is in Techno/House/Club music... Which is almost compeltely ignored by the major labels...

Which leads me to another concept... Those composers of old wouldn't be out of place in the techno/House/Club music scene, these types of music are very commonly mixed & redistributed whiel crediting the original artist... Case in point, I just heard some Kosheen played on XM radio today (Channel 81, BPM if so equiped to listen) & grabbed 4 different mixes of the song "Hungry"... All of which use the same original sample (which is one of my 4 copies), but make it into varied works which appeal more to certain people (one for instance makes it more of a house song, another more techno, etc...). Bahtovan would have msot likely understood this concept & enjoyed it himself...

We could compeltely change the music industry if we'd drop alot of the things we think 'have to' happen... Bands could start doing local venues & release music on the net... This is where things like the ill fated mp3.com came in (which is a service I used til they got bought & sold), giving a single site where you could go to find various different types of music & if desired purchase a CD full of their work (at $6.99 most often as well, I bought several D.A.M. CD's). As they grow more well known they could get noticed by radio stations (which would exist with or without the music industry as is & without would probably have to hunt up new talent to spotlight). From their they can start to get larger gigs in a larger region & evnetually if they are good enough they could do tours (with a collection other artists most likely) & spread even farther yet... Selling CD's at their venue tghat are more like collectable souveneirs than modern CD's...

That system would have the very best (or most liked) artists make the most money without limiting consumer choice & without needing a monolithic music industry... Those 15 seconds of fame groups would be gone mostly (some would keep enough fame to get quite high up still, but only if they could hack it)...

The RIAA should just lower CD prices instead of launching a full scale war against the people they expect to buy their CDs.In the end they're going to lose anyway. They can slow down filesharing but they can never stop it.
RIAA R.I.P. }>

BigMac, the major difference I see between MLB and this topic is that there are millions of people in the world struggling to earn a living from the ballplaying.

Also, I think your resentment for the high pay that the players receive is a little misdirected. The money is there. Why shouldn't the people who command it make their fair share? This is one of the beefs we have with the labels, too; that they don't give the artists a big enuff percentage of the income. Why should Fred Wilpon make so much more money than he needs? It's only right that Piazza gets paid appropriately for commanding interest. (My problem with the sports pay is that too much is agreed upon BEFORE the player performs and earns the higher numbers.)

Samsonite, thank you for a good discussion. I agree that our founding fathers didn't wanna relinquish _complete_ control to the will of the people, but the will of the people is exactly what founded it in the first place. Majority opinion is what gets lawmakers elected, and as such, the majority is, in theory at least, represented. Money plays too big a part today if you ask me. "Survivor" 5 nights a week on PBS. lol

I think it's worth pointing out again that driving drunk is a dangerous act. An act dangerous to others. Sniffing cocaine is an act dangerous to only the person who sniffing it. It should be legal. Driving after sniffing cocaine is an act dangerous to both, but since it therefore includes danger to others, it should remain illegal. For the same reason drinking, in and of itself, is legal, but driving while intoxicated isn't. All drugs should be decriminalized imo. Put a label on it with a warning, tax it, and let me choose for myself my own personal liberties, so long as they harm no one else.

As for goin' after the lawbreakers, I think good business sense would mean figuring out just how effective your efforts are gonna be before you jump head first into some courtroom. Legal departments are just lookin' for ways to dream up lawsuits and keep themselves employed. If upholding whatever law in your favor means alienating most of your clientele, then I believe it makes bad sense, financially and in the way of good will. Imo, if a business needs to instigate lawsuits as a rule, then they really oughtta question how they're doin' business, and perhaps think about adjusting themselves appropriately.

To resurrect the topic of baseball, team owners once openly rejected television coverage for fear of it cutting into attendence revenue. Did it? Hell, no. In fact, once the owners opened their eyes to see how much MORE could be made from the contracts and advertising that television could bring in, they did a complete 180 to openly embrace it. Today, television accounts for about 85% of a team's revenue while the turnstiles pull in about 10%.

Get it? The recorded entertainment industries need to adjust to the changing times. No, they haven't figured out the proper business model yet. No one has. But I think if they were to spend as much energy thinkin' of that model as they do goin' after the MAJORITY of the people showin' interest, they'd've worked it into effect by now. This is a $4B a year industry that could easily be a $10B a year industry if they were to just wake up and smell their own shit.

And, Dee, I'm still waitin' for you to put all your thoughts into a single post.

o I see on the news again this morning that Cd sales have dropped again and the crybabies at R.I.A.A. blame internet file sharing.Odd that they fail to mention overly inflated prices for CDs(here in my city of Toronto,there is really now only one chain that sells Cds-HMV and their cd prices have gone up by 25-50 percent since last year).I do not mind paying for cds as the music I listen to(heavy metal)does not seem readily available any other way,but on the other hand I sure do not care to be ripped off either($30 for a 45 minute cd is a rip.)

correction, first paragraph: ...are _not_ millions of people in the...

Could it be they put out one too many lousy records??? - Dead Kennedys

Oh geez, the RIAA is crying. Saying they are losing money to online downloading.
Uh morons(RIAA), sales are down because of the economy. Go read the paper or have someone read it to you. If you are that stupid. Which it appears you are.

God Bless America

Has anyone stopped to remember that statistics are great, they allow you to to manipulate the truth. They can say anything you want them too, even if at first the numbers don't seem in your favour. One commentor here has written that the industry aims their mighty marketing guns at the teenage buyer.

More accurately the 11-24 age group. This is the largest segment of the population with the most disposable income. They are the consumer group that makes and breaks companies based on their buying decisions.

There are plenty of studies out there to indicate that for the first time in history (recorded that is) this group has no BRAND loyalty. They are also 1/2 the size of their Baby Boomer cousins in numbers, and the group is shrinking.

Large companies are terrified by this group because they can not do the old advertising campaigns that have worked for the last 50 years. Their parents bought one kind of Jean, one manufacturer of cars, on brand of ketchup. This new group doesn't care. This group likes what ever is good at the time, and that is likely going to be different tomorrow.

P2P has something to do with declining record sales, and so does selection of the main stream music. I personally think today's music sucks ass juice. I have my favourites, and not one of them includes RAP CRAP. I think RAP did for music what the Edsel did for Ford.

One person commented about the automakers in the 70's complaining about the imports. Your analogy was lost on me. The pinto recall had nothing to do with competition, as much as it had to do with a major lawsuit served up by the servivors of the three girls killed in the explosion of their Pinto on the side of the road after a refuelling incident that saw them forgetting to put their gas cap back on.

Ford's solution was ingenious, if not the cheapest thing I have ever heard of to save lives.... a piece of 1/2 inch plastic between the rear bumper and the gas tank... the recall installed this for free. Oh Ya baby, that makes the whole car safer.

If you can't stand the competition, you don't deserve to be in business. And trying to put the blame on the people that you need to support your business is a little like shooting your customers before they come into your store.

Music hasn't been the same since Disco died, and I remember disco, and thought it sucked, the 80's saw a decade of one hit wonders. The industry sucked bands in and chewed them up and spit them out. The 90's saw remakes of everything that was good and pure about the 70's, oh ya, and wrecked every single version of them. But here's this point. Why are the current bands doing covers of all the 70's stuff? Because the music was better. The worn out saying "They don't make them like the used to" is still around for a reason..... THEY DON'T MAKE THEM LIKE THEY USED TO. If the music industry can't see their own point, then all the discussions so far on this page are pointless.

RIAA wonders why people are not buying their garbage? Maybe the world is seeing more educated consumers, and if that isn't it, they are at least becoming more selective.

Choice is the word of the day. People want choices, they want to be able to choose their own way of getting what they want, and are not going to be limited by some CEO's definition of the way to purchase music.

Back to the automakers and the 70's problems, People bought imports because they recognized the garbage that Detroit was trying to unload on the buying public. Just try and find a 1976 FORD "anything" on the road today. They ALL rusted out shortly after the public was duped into shelling out their cash. Of course people bought imports, they were cheaper (at the time), better mileage, and they had resale value.

Today, Detroit has forced all the imports to build in the states, they chose not to improve their own quality, but to force the imports to downgrade by using local manufacturing labor.

We are seeing the same complaint here with the RIAA, "You people are not buying our product". But in this case, there are no imports to get. The Big labels own everything, and don't think they don't. Sony owns half the world and Coca Cola owns the other half, and the third half is owned by DAEWOO.

If you think by purchasing an independant label you are not giving money to Sony, think again. It is only independant because the mother ship hasn't pulled them under their wing. How the heck do you think they get shelf space in the first place. The big guys tell the record stores what goes where. It is all advertising revenues that get kicked back to these stores. It works the same in any business. Big business tells the little business how to run their business. I will sell you my disc at a highly reduced price, but you have to guarrantee me 50% shelf space. I supply you with the cataloge and I ship you my stuff.

It works the same at the record store as it does at the movie theatre as it does at the grocery store. You wonder why the price of a bucket of popcorn at the theatre costs a hundred bucks for you but it cost them 3 cents to make? It's because the box office $$$'s all go directly to the distributor of the film (Sony formerly Paramount/Coca Cola) as a rental fee.

Your $13.00 admission is 95% rental fee right off the top. Don't believe me? Ask one of your usher friends why the popcorn cost so much.

You $20.00 CD at the store costs about $1.00/cd to manufacture AND ship. Who is getting all the dough? Retail marks all their prices up 100%. So that 20.00 cd cost the retailer about 9.95 to buy it.

The point has been made on this site that if the price came down to what vinyl used to cost 30 years ago, people would be willing to buy it? I call bullshit. The product is still crap, and P2P is more popular than religion.

And someone tried to make the point that P2P isn't to be confused with Bootlegging and Pirating. Hmmmmm, if I can download software off the net for free that lets me rip from CD/audio-in/DVD/anything with sound.. and then turn around and share that file with anyone that wants it....by definition is pirating and bootlegging. Your a dork if you think otherwise. It is a backup copy of something that you have no right to share with anyone else under copyright law. Now, if you chose to ignore copyright law, that is an entirely different subject. But don't get these two confused.

Oh Ya, my favourite. Jean Chretian and his boys put in a tax on January 1, 2001 that went on all recordable media. The money is for what, you ask????? The answer is simple my friends. It is supposed to cover lost revenues by the change in the copyright law in Canada. The money is to be distributed to recording artists in Canada. Not the writers though... oh no, we don't want to pay writers of music for any lost revenues. Anyway, todate... they have collected some large embarrasing amount in the 100's of millions of dollars, and not one cent has been distributed. It has gone into general revenue.

PS, don't blame NAFTA for lost jobs... if major corporations thought that moving all the jobs to Mexico was a great idea because they were willing to work for a $1.00/hr, the companies would have already moved the jobs to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Labrador because lets face it... those people have the same skill sets as Mexicans, and they would work for a dollar. But that hasn't happened and it isn't going to happen. NAFTA encourages competition. If you can't afford to sell your product at a reasonable price, then you don't deserve to be in business, because I don't want to be ripped off. If I can buy exactly the same thing cheaper next door, but it was manufactured somewhere other than locally,,,, who the fuck cares. I am buying the cheaper version and you can go out of business, because I won't be shopping at your place, and I won't miss you when you close your doors forever.

Long live P2P.

Whoa, I was waiting for someone to start saying something juicy.
Whether you like rap or not, they said the same things about rock and jazz.
You think Maritimers would work for a buck a hour? I know some newfies who would slap you for insinuating that.
In fact, the opposite is true, the main reason why the Canadian east coast is so depressed is that they only want to work on their terms. They're proud people, that's cool, but Alberta has, I believe, the lowest minimum wage and the least amount of union sentiment. As a result, Alberta is booming. If you live in Calgary or Edmonton and can't find work, there is seriously something wrong with you.
We'll see what happens to that when Kyoto gets ratified.

Heh, heh, heh.

sucks 'Ass-juice'

What the RIAA should be thinking about is that kids are turning to piracy and downloads because the cd's they sell are overpriced. It probably costs less than a dollar to make a cd (some1 correct me if i'm wrong), add a couple of bucks for 'proprietary costs (for the artist?)' and another dollar for miscellaneous expenses/overhead. Why the heck should anybody buy from these inequitable businessmen?

I personally think they need to start counting better... realistically there's not contribution into the methods of collecting data. In all reality, sales, overall, are probably up. Take into acount a few basic things... the independent record sales, including well known artists selling on their own, I know of quite a few, this wasn't available as widely 8-10 years ago, then take into account the media types and the re-buys, for instance, how many people got Guns N Roses on Tape & CD, or Fleetwood Mac on Records then Tape, then even CD. How does that play into it. Lastly market cycles, comparing the current climate of the industry with other lulls based on the #'s of records, like you would compare the value of a dollar 15 years ago to todays dollar. It is my belief that a full look into this would show something the record industry doesn't want to deal with.

Additionally, the Record Industry, which I believe will rebound after the fix their own problems, created the problems. When there were too many records in stores, they started buying floor space, which raised expenses, then they bought out the competition for radio by offering more to the radio stations then indies could do, more tickets, more support, more shows etc... payola if you want to call it that... and there are another good 100 examples of how industry created what they thought would be a balance that would be in their favor, until the industry changed at least, until they couldn't afford to keep their end of the bargain and hense, not sell as many records..

lastly... there's no accounting for good taste... good music sells... bad music sells, but it costs more to sell it.

that's my 2cents.

I find it terribly telling that, if you look hard, you can get a CD player for less money than it costs to buy a double disc album.

In no other technological entertainment industry is this the case. Even a VCR, outmoded technology that it is, will still cost you $50, while a VHS tape will cost around $10. Videogames cost around 1/5th of the purchase price.

Wait, there IS one other area where this is the case. New printers cost $50 (and typically don't come with a full ink cartridge) while the ink cartridges for them cost around $30. Again, though that's through a monopoly on the product. Still, at least prices there are contained because even though you're stuck with buying, say Epson catridges for an Epson printer, they're still competeing with lexmark and HP, and other places.

Of course, if one WAS experiencing a decline in sales of a profit - and this is simple supply and demand logic... and this decline in sales was due to a decrease in demand (whether people boycott, download, or just don't have the money) wouldn't you - REGARDLESS of the source of that decrease in demand - in order to get your total profit to it's maximum - start DECREASING your price so that it reaches an equilibrium?

That, to me is the most telling. If the RIAA's members were *really* losing money, CD prices would go *down* Instead, they're obviously *at* the equilibrium point. Blaming downloading for lost profits and sales then is shown to be inconsistent with the evidence.

Why then, does the RIAA want to stop file sharing? I think it's because that file sharing gives people an alternative to the primary method in which they control the market. It's like why Microsoft wants to 'defeat" linux. Microsoft is still making money hand over fist - and probably will for most of our lives. BUT linux represents an alternative. They do not wish to lose *control* of the market. Without control of the OS, they cannot control the services on the OS to drive out competitors in markets they have NOT conquered.

It's similar to the RIAA. They are driving people to alternatives - be it file-sharing, indie-music, or even, in my case, re-learning to play the harmonica and make my own damn music. Radio is similar - Clear channel is driving alot of people to in-car MP3 players, satellite radio, webcasters, and again, file-sharing.

I don't think XM could have gotten off the ground if it was not for radio deregulation - you'd need people completely dissatisfied with the free product in order to have them try something new and expensive.

Hell, you've got to have people completely dissatisfied with the world of CDs if they're willing to try something that they KNOW is illegal as an alternative.

It's not about money. It's never *been* about money. It's been about power and control. They are trying to defeat the file-trading not because they lose profits, not because it erodes copyright, but because it provides an alternative.

-- Funksaw.