A Duke graduate student, Justin Moore, has done an interesting analysis comparing the RIAA sales declines to some top corporations in the country that is really quite interesting. While he doesn't draw any hard conclusions, he does include a couple of very telling sentences in the conclusion "I would assert, however that it does make the case in cold, hard numbers that the RIAA's claim of digital piracy ravaging their sales must be taken with a rather large grain of salt. The CEOs of Eastman-Kodak are in a nearly identical economic situation as the RIAA, yet do not have the luxury of blaiming digital piracy. But perhaps they should try. It'd be interesting.

Who is Justin Moore?

"I am a graduate student in computer science at Duke University. I have finished three years of study, and am currently an intern at HP Research Labs."

NOTE: "The views, figures, opinions, and conclusions expressed here are my own, and do not represent those of Duke University or Hewlett-Packard in any way whatsoever. This is an indepedent project, and is not funded or supported by any third parties whatsoever."

"I have taken a class in copyright law at the Duke University Law School, and have taken classes in probability, statistics, and the analysis of experimental data. I do not profess to be an expert in these fields, but know enough to perform this cursory analysis."

On to the analysis

Wow, this has been here for hours and no comments yet.

Let me capsulize Justin's research for you. Here's the Reader's Digest version.

The record industry's sales follow the economy tighter than any other corporate conglomerate. People stopped buying overpriced CDs. "Piracy" has had nothing to do with the sales decline.

It's the economy, stupid.

One more piece of sarcasm-free observation at the risk of dominating just one more conversation, a practice which I intend to curtail shortly. But no one had much to say yet anyway, so there was no real conversation to dominate yet.

As I have said before, the record companies were created to connect the artist and the consumer.

For the first time in history, a musician does not need a record label to reach a global market. For the first time in history, the record label is the greatest obstacle between the artist and the consumer.

And I think I mentioned this before also, but at the time it seemed like so many separate issues to so many of you that it bears repeating. It's really what draws all of this together, especially in light of what Justin brought out with his study.

Because here's how things used to work, and unfortunately, it requires a little story.

At my last "real job", we sold what I call junk jewelry to what I call tourist traps -- Disneyland, Sea World, et.al.

My boss really wanted a Republican president because he knew the economy would go to hell. When the economy is strong, people buy things like houses, refrigerators, cars, microwaves.

When the economy sucks, they buy junk jewelry and shiny rocks. And music and books. Cheap entertainment.

When times are tough, the bars are full, the bands are playing, and everyone is looking for the cheapest way to lighten their soul just a tiny bit. If they had it, they'd pay more. But they just don't. So they go to a bar and dump $5 or $10 instead of $20 to buy a CD.

The music business thrives and sprouts an entire new underbelly about a year or two before the majors even recognize it.

Like right now. It's our time.

I'm twice as lucky. For the first time in my life, I'm in the right place at the right time. Look around. Old rock and roll is back, too.

That's all I could ever do in the first place. After 30 years, it's cool again.

I knew if I waited long enough...

Read it but It doesn't tickle my fancy.

we already know this anyway but the RIAA will cintune to blame it on P2P no matter what. Facts & figures dont matter to a hill of beans with them. They are like terrorists only concerned with their next targets and nothing else.

I guess the reason I hadn't posted sooner is because this is a no brainer, since I've been following this for quite some time, as I'm sure most of the regulars here have too. Putting it in quantifiable numbers is helpful to "connect-the-dots" for the less informed, but unfortunately most of the less informed are that way because they don't care in the first place. Honestly, this issue won't "boil over" like we want it to until it starts to affect lots and lots of the general public. Then we'll start to see the B.S. flags rise. Some of you might contest that we're already there, but what I've seen from most is a shrug of the shoulders and a "who cares" comment 'cause it's not affecting them yet.

The best direction I think we can move in right now is to push this info in the direction of our legislators and others to keep the RIAA from pushing any further than they have, and then work with the bigger lobby groups to ensure our fair use rights get protected and upgraded.

The economy will force the Big 4 or 5 and RIAA to adopt price changes eventually, we just need to make sure they aren't allowed to guarentee their out dated business model with new laws in the mean time. We can survive this fight a lot longer then they can and they know it. We just need to make sure the playing field doesn't tip any further in their direction and then just wait them out. They'll have to change or go bankrupt....quite honestly for the good of the music I hope it's the second option.

gdZiemann, ahh never curtail your posts thats why I enjoy coming here. where is everyone today? lol.

airider -- It's the colleges that are the key. The educational community is the one that turns up the heat and makes it boil.

Knowledge is power. The truth will win out. Like you said, we can survive this a LOT longer than they can and they know it.

If nothing else, I have gotten the attention of the educational community, which was much, much more important than getting in EMI and Hilary's faces, no matter how much fun it was.

The thinkers understand. In the US, in the UK, at NASA, in the government. I was only ever talking to them anyway. Now that they can connect the dots, the process speeds up exponentially.

It's almost over and we don't have to do a thing anymore except to continue as we always have.

But with our heads held a little higher. After all, we're "unsigned." We're already free.

I bet Tom Petty would like to be with us. I know Janis Ian would. Courtney Love already is. Natalie Merchant already is. And Simply Red.

The tide has turned. All we have to know is get it into the public eye. Hell, my Mom even knows that the record companies are thieves. She's heard her old country artists talk about being broke and penniless.

It's all over, really. We just wait for the fat lady to sing.

Hilary?

Damn. Should have said, "All we have to do now..."

In order to attract the government's undivided attention, we must do something monumental, historically significant, in line with the intent of our country's founding fathers, legally acceptable as a proper way to approach a situation such as this and publicly accepted by those it claims to represent.

If I came up with something like this, if it fit all of the described criteria would you be willing to electronically sign it by using your real name? Provided, of course, that you agreed with the contents of the document?

It seems strange that when it helps to prove filesharing isn't bad, that comparing art and music to tangible items of commerce is accepted. However, in any argument that doesn't support filesharing as completely legal and very helpful to artists, the comparison of art and music to tangible goods is frowned upon in this forum. It is quite curious. It seems a bit biased to say the least. Just an observation.

The internet has been around for a while now. It is still very new, and constantly growing and changing. It has wonderful potential for sharing of information. More and more methods of reaching consumers are available. Currently there are numerous methods for an independent or unsigned act to reach out to the public. However, I haven't seen these methods successfully used to propel anybody into stardom or to launch a lucrative or successful career in music. That isn't to say that it hasn't happened, but it seems like if all of these internet options really could help independent artists, we would have a large number of unsigned acts as household names with some kind of public notoriety.

Some bands have used the internet along with other more traditional marketing methods and have become moderately successful. But I haven't seen it done with just the internet only. I think that it can be done, but I just haven't seen it. It would be great to have some specific examples of the proven benefits of filesharing or internet promotion of any kind.

One would think that just by the sheer number of artists striving to reach an audience, we would see lots of success stories. Having a million downloads and almost no record sales, and some gigs that don't pay enough to support the whole band, isn't success. The average cover band or bar band is able to do this (except maybe the download part) without even trying very hard. I've seen cover bands selling their CD's with cover songs but not paying the small mechanical royalty (currently about 7 cents per song per disc).

I have hope that someday there will be more successful methods of reaching the public without some kind of help from a publisher or record label or someone with connections, but I don't think it's quite here yet. The desire to create a direct marketing system is here for sure.

I have been very impressed with some of the postings here that show genuine concern over the rights of artists, despite the sentiment of others. It helps give me hope that there is a viable future for all of us involved with creating music. It is quite nice to hear from people who really believe that artists do have certain rights.

Gee, you said one study wasn't enough. Now there are two. How many is enough? 5? 35?

Record labels are publishers do have a place and I'm not being sarcastic. But that place is as a service to the artists, not the owners of their copyrights, their voices, their words, their faces, their songs.

I still don't know of any artists who used only the internet to propel them into stardom, or even a successful career in music. The potential exists, and there are many options, but I haven't seen it proven to be a feasible launching ground for real careers in music.

It still seems weird to me that comparing music/art with tangible items of commerce is acceptable when it is trying to show that filesharing isn't bad, but if it is used in a context that shows potential misuse of filesharing, the comparison is almost treated as blasphemy. That seems quite biased, in my opinion. It seems like a classic double standard.

I'm not sure I understand the comment about "how many is enough". I don't remember saying one study isn't enough, but perhaps I have said it before. I agree with the statement, but I don't remember making it, nor do I understand what it has to do with my post that you were replying to.

I don't agree that this study, or any study, really proves anything. I am still undecided, but I lean more toward the possibility that filesharing can be bad for owners of intellectual property, as well as having potential for exposing new artists to the public. It is a very complicated issue, but I see more misuse than positive use, again, in my own opinion.

Because every time something starts to work, the majors sue it out of existence.

Every P2P attempt has been litigated before it has any opportunity to expose anything to the public. Other than the labels' iron fist of control.

At the DMCA, Brewtser Kahle of the Internet Archive brought out a pile of software from 20 years ago that he was trying to save. He had been unable to secure permission to bypass access controls in 15 out of 16 titles. The DMCA prevents him from adding them to history.

In 20 more years, he'll be back, with a pile of major label music that is locked away with copy protection.

No one owns intellectual property. They may own the rights to commercially exploit the works, but if the world does not embrace and share those ideas they are worthless.

Want to protect your intellectual property, musicfann? There's only one way.

Keep it a secret.

Actually, intellectual property IS owned. That has been the point all along, that filesharing contributes to the perception that intellectual property is not as valuable as tangible property. Intellectual property ownership isn't anything new either. Intellectual property is highly valuable.

Just because someone may wish for some kind of Eutopian scheme where all intellectual property is available to everyone, doesn't make it so.

Wanting something for nothing has it's own implications.

If anything was really and truly starting to work (as far as P2P), it wouldn't also be tied in with a system that allows for such large scale piracy. That isn't a responsible distribution model. Litigation against P2P isn't because of how it makes it possible for independent acts to promote themselves. It has always specifically been in direct response to the rampant piracy on such systems. What does anyone expect "them" to do? Just sit back and allow piracy because the technology makes it possible?

There are plenty of P2P networks out there still. More pop up every day. They aren't all being shut down. All of them still haven't single handedly helped anybody become successful, despite the claims of how it can potentially do just that. I believe it could be possible, but it hasn't happened yet, and not just because of the RIAA or other orgs.

If somebody would create a legitimate system that respects the rights of authors, songwriters, and creators, it would surely flourish. Creators would be able to decide for themselves whether to offer their art for free, or to charge for usage. Personally, I would love to see such a system. It would be hard for it to compete with free P2P schemes. But I would love to see such a system. I personally know of one, but it wasn't received to well on it's debut promotional tour. I'm told that there are others also, but I don't think the ground level support is out there in the public sector. People are trying, but nothing is as good as free in many minds.

Again, I must re-iterate that intellectual property IS something that is owned by it's creator. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm saddened that you feel that way.

I feel bad for the guy who is trying to make backup copies of obsolete software or out of print software. I'm not sure that anybody guarantees backup copies of software for the lifetime of the buyer. If such a guarantee was made, I would feel that the person is entitled to obtaining or creating backup copies. If not, them sometimes things like this will happen. It must suck to be in this predicament, but I don't think the solution is to not have any copy protection just to allow for this unique scenario.

So you suggest that I keep my intellectual property a secret as my only way to protect my rights? No middle ground or any type of negotiating, just keep it to myself or allow anyone and everyone to do what they want with it? Does anybody see anything wrong with this besides me?

you've all been slashdotted.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/20/2135207&mode=thread&tid=98&tid=99

Yeah, guess who submitted the story

how many sites is this one connected too? lol.

Musicfann -- No one owns an idea unless they keep it a secret.

Einstein told us about E=mc2
Now it belongs to us all.

Lennon and MacCartney shared "Day Tripper" with us. We all own it. That's what culture is all about. If it is not shared it has no value.

If you create it only for money, it has no heart, no soul. It's no longer culture but a product.

You can fight for your right to a couple of pennies in p2p royalties. Go ahead.

I'm fighting for my place in history.

George, I'll sign your document.

Speaking of copy-protected, CDs, I sent a letter to my local television station asking their "watchdog" section to investigate and let everyone know that this exists. Not to mention the harmfulness of some of these. I sent it out on Saturday, so they should be getting it soon. The reporters of this segment are always listening and should do a story about it. If anything comes out of it, I'll let everyone here know.

And since you like to debate (that's why I'm here), here's one for you.

You started out saying that the internet was insignificant. After all, who ever heard of someone getting rich and famous from the Internet, except maybe Eminem, Linkin Park and the Foo Fighters?

And yet, you're so worried about its impact on an artists income.

If it doesn't work, if it's so insignificant, what is there to worry about? What if it's just a fad, like cassette tapes?

Logic cannot support both positions simultaneously. Is the Internet significant?
If not, what's the problem?

If yes, then as what? A black market or free promotion?

We'll just have to see how it all shakes out, won't we? Go read what the people at slashdot are saying.

It's not just me.
It's not just the people who hang out here.
It's everyone.
No one can stop it. It's impossible. Just ask anyone.

Ah, the document...

You want to see it?

musicfann, 50-cent, he's a rap artist. He got to fame through p2p. He was a nobody until then.

ahhh...
I wonder what will happen if one day, artists and entertainment industry execs wake up and realize that they no longer have the cheap money-making scheme called copyright law. That they suddenly have to WORK for a living, like those among us with REAL college degrees. Like those who DIDN'T flunk out of highschool to do crack and/or live it up with their homies.

George, I don't know if mathematical equations qualify as intellectual property. And for the record, the equation doesn't belong to anyone, it is just a widely accepted theory. It's just math, not art. Are you comparing math with art now?

How do you figure that we all own Day Tripper?

I'm not fighting specifically for P2P royalties, pennies or otherwise. I'm fighting for recognition of intellectual property and the idea of letting creators have a certain minimum level of security and control over their work. Not complete control, mind you.

Georege, I never said that the internet was insignificant, but I still don't see it as a great way to bypass the rest of commerce when trying to market my CD. Eminem, Linkin Park, Foo Fighters ..... Seen 'em all on MTV and heard them in HEAVY rotation on commercial radio, and have major label contracts. That isn't what I've been talking about anyway. With that kind of backing, even Hayden's Wall would be famous. Those guys didn't get rich or famous from the internet. The internet was ONE of many things they used to help them launch their career. They worked hard, making music, playing gigs, making contacts, selling records, all on their own without a major label at first. Instead of just complaining about things, they found a way to reach their goals. It attracted attention, then they moved on to the next step. Their notoriety came from big bucks promoting their work, not from P2P or the internet.

Cassette tape copies are made one at a time, and require some sort of physical contact or at least a mailing address to give out copies. The internet is vastly different. It allows for untraceable unlimited copies. If you can't see that huge difference, and the potential for fraud and theft, then you just see things way differently than I do.

No, George, it's not everyone. Sure there are lots of people who like to get something for nothing. That will never change. Freeloading has always been popular with a certain cross section of the population. P2P caters to this. It doesn't prove anything. It's quite amusing when somebody who wants to get something for nothing, calls somebody else greedy. Not wanting to pay for something is more greedy.

Kneo24: 50 cent also has had lots of major media publicity. He is a household name with a certain degree of notoriety, but it didn't come from P2P. He is part of what you see as the problem. Urban music has their own dark side, and it's less hidden than mainstream media. It is a financially manipulated system, just like the big boys, perhaps even worse in some ways.

Spica, Not everybody in the entertainment industry is lazy. You have no idea what some folks schedules are like. Some people work VERY hard to make things happen. Some in the industry work for a living. Just because they don't scrub toilets, or flip burgers, or pound nails, doesn't mean they aren't working. Granted, some have a cushy job with lots of perks. There are also lots of unglamorous and thankless jobs involved in the industry. Roadies are a great example of hard workers. There are many more. Not everybody where a suit and tie and sits in a great big office smoking cigars all day. There are lots of people with college degrees in the music biz.

"How do you figure that we all own Day Tripper?"

If we didn't make it part of our social consciousness -- if it were locked away in a copy-protected CD -- it would be worthless. It gets its value because it still lives on in the culture. Every time a crappy cover band gets up on stage at the local bar and plays the song -- no matter what their level of musical ability, the song lives on and retains its value and place in culture.

If we, as society, turn our back and refused to embrace it, it dies. It only has value when it is shared.

You say I'm more greedy because I want something for free? Are you talking about downloading an mp3 or the fact that I'm annoyed the majors must get paid for anyone to listen to their music but I must pay for the privilege?

If it's downloading, I would respond "asked and answered."

If it the latter, we suddenly have issues again.

George,
Your idea of locking something up has finally clicked in my head. The Record will fall, because they are thwarting there best distribution channel to date: THE INTERNET!!!
Thanks George, keep the info coming.

George,
Your idea of locking something up has finally clicked in my head. The Record comanies will fall, because they are thwarting there best distribution channel to date: THE INTERNET!!!
Thanks George, keep the info coming.

“musicfann” (– as if), “justsomeguy”, “PRT452anon”, et al: You realize (sic) in the process of ‘selling your soul’ to the RIAA you have given up any pretense of rational thought.

Or, in other words: You couldn’t pass the Turing Test!

(REFERENCE
@ PRT452anon http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/28462
(NOTICE THE SIMILARITIES)

Turing Test: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/turingtest.html

“…invented by Alan M. Turing (1912-1954)… The basic setup of the test includes two people and the machine to be tested. One person is an interrogator, and the other person and the machine are respondents… The machine is said to pass the test if the interrogator can not tell the difference between the respondents, or guesses at chance at the identity of the respondents. The machine fails the test if the interrogator can tell the difference. Turing thought that any machine which passes the test should be considered intelligent, or more precisely, should be considered to 'think'...”

HOW MANY OTHER RIAA flunkies are out there talking up the ‘cause’?

Are you paid by the hour, or are you on commission?

I hope it’s by the hour because you aren’t making very many ‘sales’.

LOL

"Some people work VERY hard to make things happen"
No sir. Entertainment folks' work only SEEMS hard to them because they are intellectually inferior AND they never tried getting a real job (one that contributes to civilization, like engineering or science/medicine).
Even if they pass out from exhaustion "working", it is still not even close to being hard work.

Spica, it's not the work that's hard, it's getting paid for it without selling your soul that's the tough part.

And for some of us, this is our contribution to civilization. We're not normal people. We hear voices in our heads. With accompaniment.

We play music. Some of us have no choice, believe it or not. I've tried to quit but it's worse than heroin.

Clapton kicked heroin. But he's still got a guitar strapped over his shoulder. And it will never let him go.

Amen, George. I also can't quit playing.

Re:Turing

I was the questioner, I believe.

justed, you are wrong. Not in your analysis, only your identification. This person does not work for the RIAA. This is actually an ally who only has a problem with my tactics. Understandable. I'm unconventional.

Just a wild-ass guess, but it's a female that works in the Washington, D.C. area and no, it's not Hilary.

musicfann?

musicfann, numerous musicians have backing by the big labels. Some of them you never hear about anyway. 50 cent did happen to get popular first through p2p. Naturally, his label did help make him bigger.

musicfann, I have to disagree with a comment you made a few posts back:

"I'm not sure that anybody guarantees backup copies of software for the lifetime of the buyer. If such a guarantee was made, I would feel that the person is entitled to obtaining or creating backup copies."

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do believe that a guarantee of back up copies WAS made, not by the copyright holders, but by the fair use laws. The fair use laws that have never been repealed. The fair use laws that say that if you legitimately purchase a piece of recorded media (CD, DVD, computer software, etc) you have the legal right to make copies for personal use. I would think that back up copies would fall under personal use. So now we've got Macrovision and the like on our videotapes and DVDs, computer software/video games are coming copy protected, the RIAA is getting into the copy protection game and the DMCA says we're criminals if we circumvent the copy protection in order to exercise our legal rights.

"It must suck to be in this predicament, but I don't think the solution is to not have any copy protection just to allow for this unique scenario."

Could you please tell me what is so "unique" about wanting to exercise your legal rights? The solution IS to not have copy protection. If I'm not mistaken, I do belive it's against the law to deliberately interfere with an individual's peaceful performance of their legal rights. If I'm right about that, then that would actually make copy protection illegal already because it's interfering with my peaceful performance of my legal right to make back up copies of my CDs to carry with me so I can keep the originals protected at home. As it stands now I buy a CD, I can take that disc and copy it to a CD-R and put the original on my disc rack. When I take my walkman to work I carry the CD-R and if any calamity should befall the disc I'm out about 50 cents or so and the time to make a new copy. With copy protection I'm forced to carry the original and if any calamity should befall the disc I'm out $20 to replace it and the RIAA double dips my pocket (provided that the album in question hasn't gone out of print between the time I bought it and the time the disc got destroyed), something they can't do with a CD-R copy (yet another reason for the RIAA to favor copy protection). On top of it all, if my facts are in order, there is a royalty included in the cost of Audio CD-Rs that the RIAA collects. This royalty is for the express purpose of reimbursement for copied music. So lets see here...RIAA collects royalty for copied music from sales of CD-Rs yet wants CDs copy protected so that they can't be copied...isn't it illegal to collect money for something then refuse to provide what the money was collected for? Name me any industry/business other than the music/movie industry that would actually be allowed to get away with that. As far as that goes, can you name any industry other than the music/movie industry that has been handed the power to forcibly prevent people from enjoying their legal rights? Think Ford putting technology into their cars that would limit them to a top speed of 40mph and a law being passed saying it's illegal to bypass that system so you could drive the legal speed limit of 65mph on most major interstate highways. Would you let a privately owned business (in this case Ford) dictate the speed limit on public roads for you?

I didn't think so.

As I read thur Justin Moore's wonderfully done work I get the impression that CDs just dont sell as well as other media formats have. My car's CD player sucks, my old home stereo CD player sucked 'til it died. My PC with all my CDs turned into mp3s plugged into a stage PA rules. CDs are only a slight improvement over vinyl and cassette tapes mostly because of the players. Slap a laptop in my car with the soundcard straight into some amps and I'll be happy. Most people are rather disappointed with their equipment and Ive turned a few into PC geeks with WinAmp. Some didnt even know that one can make mp3s themselves and thought they HAD to download them. Anyways, there are plenty more reasons for a slight decline in CD sales then filesharing.

contemplating what might happen afterward.

so let's say that the idea of intellectual property is abolished and all music becomes free without any restraints. do you think there would be a risk of people claiming other peoples' music as their own, thereby making it impossible to become well-known musically because nobody could believe that you were the one who actually wrote the stuff? i guess they could tell by the sound of your live performances of it was real or fake, but what about electronic or more instrumental acts?

would it be possible to maintain copyrights on music but still allow it to be totally free? seems like that might work.

i don't know if i answered my own question there. i'm just conjecturing to see what might happen as an aftermath of the fall of record labels.

i wonder if all labels would go extinct, or if just major labels would die. maybe labels would stop producing albums, and instead focus on tour promotions or web promotions, or any other non-CD aspect of being signed.

seems like there are a ton of bands who tour and are popular on a local or regional level simply from exposure of playing live and maybe having a band website. the next step is national and international recognition, usually achieved by signing to a label and letting them promote and distribute. now this can be done on your own with the internet for music savvy people to discover, but the thing that gets you exposed to the idiot masses is the huge money that labels invest to put your faces in ads and on mtv.

it seems that for label-less success to occur, the mentalities of average dumbass americans will have to change and stop relying on listening only to music that is fed to them by the big bucks companies.

however, if these giant corporate resources didn't exist, then there would be nothing fed to consumers in the first place. i wonder what that would do. a renaissance of musical appreciation where people would listen to music based on its quality, instead of hype?

but consider where communications technology is going as a whole. by the time this happens we probably will be listening to webradio in our cars instead of FM. tv might be more customizable for the average viewer as well. so given the ability to choose exactly what we want to listen to/watch in all media mediums, will the average consumer shed their previous vulnerability to eye and ear-popping ads and pop culture and become true appreciators of quality art?

then the bands that deserve to become popular, will. phony acts that were promoted by labels will fall by the wayside.

or is it the culture of being into something popular that will prevent p2p-only success from becoming common. maybe there is something about the human psyche that drives us to become teeny-boppers and top-40 junkies. maybe the idiot masses will find their own ways to keep alive mega-pop culture regardless of big label involvement.

i'd say the best way to find out what might happen is to look at how things were before the age of labels and promotion. how did the great classical composers become so popular? were they usually popular during their own time? in the absence of copyrights, did people adore the song and the creator as a duality, or did they just flock to whoever was playing the latest hit and not care about who penned it? i don't know these answers, but i would be interested to find out.

as for my opinion, i believe that all music should be free, not so much as a personal desire to be cheap, but as a fundamental belief, or cultural law of nature or something. ya dig? i will never force people to pay money for any music i ever create.

The times are changing. Things need to evolve.

You mentioned about listening to web casts in your car radio. I wonder how that would work, and if it would be feasible. I suppose satellite radio would do it. We already have that. Any other ideas though?

Even after that, I doubt fm radio would cease to exist. You can listen to tv on fm radio, if you have the right radio.

ewetupper -- I was brought up to believe that this was exactly how radio worked.

Copyrights prove your authorship and that is all they were designed to do, to prevent exactly the scenario you described. But using the copyright laws to prevent people from listening to music is simply absurd.

The record labels could serve a function as a service to artists. But the slavery of recording contracts and the use of them to wrest control of copyrights must end.

i bet if the record companies were cut out of the picture, then artists could still make just as much money from cds. with no middle man, they could sell them at a much lower price, like 5 bucks.

the only middle man would be the cd pressers, and i bet it costs a ton less to just get a cd pressed straight up than to get it promoted and shit.

if sales slumped any from lack of big-budget promotion, they would be made up for by the ease of purchase since they'd be so cheap. there are tons of cds i'd love to buy, but i just don't have 45 dollars to spend on 3 albums. if prices were divided by 3, i would definitely buy more than 3 times as many CDs than i do now. so the artist makes the same (or more) money, the consumer gets more albums, and the only losers are the major labels, which won't exist anymore.

plus, there could still be laws requiring payments of royalties and such for using other peoples' music FOR PROFIT. the vast majority of this online "thievery" as they call it is just people who want to hear songs because they like them, not because they're trying to make money by selling them. and if it's a real hit then people will want to cover it, or use it in a movie, or use it for an endorsement... all ways that the artist still makes money. usually these types of hits are manufactured by big labels, but if labels are eliminated, these songs used for endorsements and such will have to come from artists who are good enough to deserve that recognition.

bands make the big money by touring anyway, and that wouldn't have to be affeted in the least. CDs could be sold at concerts and become popular like souveneirs, like those cool Weezer shirts that you can only get if you go to the concert.

without labels, the demand for CDs would decrease only by how much their prior sales had been affected by big budget marketing. this would likely only hurt the biggest of the recod label drones; the wholly false pop icons and cookie cutter bands that are forced into fame through sheer money power. those already in existence will not be impoverished by any means, and those who had wished for stardom of that sort might have to resort to doing it through hard work like the rest of us. as far as the masses of indie artists, this would even the playing field big time, with no need to morph to fit into a label.

it's a lot like 3rd world economies in a way. all the wealth held by the few elite, and outside of that is mass poverty. and those few elite are not elite because they are the hardest workers in the nation. it's because they play a crooked game, or have blood connections, or do shady business.

take away the labels, and the money goes to those deserving of it through talent and hard work, not to the ones who manipulate and deceive.

This site should host an organized coalition for bands to join who believe people have the right to free music. there could be a listing of bands who support the cause, along with links to those bands' websites that host their songs. it could start with the more popular acts who have already expressed this sentiment, and then "sign" new acts as they come. except there would be no money changing hands, no contract.

it could be a way to stir up some waves, to demonstrate more forcefully to the RIAA that people are serious about this, and organized. and that metallica are a bunch of idiots who obviously don't care about what music is anymore, and hopefully, that they are in the minority.

Everytime I see a new nick on here siding with the RIAA musicfann comes to mind, talk about trolling.

If the record labels are cut out of the picture and the artist can deal direct with the customer, the royalty becomes 100%.

If the artists is incapable of dealing with the public without a major label and is foolish enough to sell his copyrights, well, too bad, so sad.

Collecting pennies for downloads is a waste of time. No one is paying us royalties anyway.

Ok, I was just going to read but now I gotta say a little something. Here it is all at once.

1. I really respect what you are doing here and probably agree with you 99% but am very troubled by the tone of "agree with me or you are the enemy" approach. Musicfann is not allowed to disagree without being called a "RIAA troll". Truly one flatters oneself to think that the RIAA is spending time posting on this board.

2. The idea that everybody in the Entertainment industry is some coke-snorting do-nothing is just plain naive. I would consider myself in the "Entertainment Industry" as a Hip-hop producer and owner of a (very, very) small label. I can guarantee you that no one with "a real job" works harder than I do. I work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, trying to make and sell the music I love. And what sort of classist, elitist bigot says that no one without a college degree works for a living.

3. I think the idea that "record labels are cut out of the picture and the artist can deal direct with the customer" is f*ing brilliant. However it does overlook a few unfortunate realities. That being you need to get your music heard and heard about to sell any. For rap music that requires at least some sort of marketing machine. Even if radio only picked music on its merits (HA!) you would still need people to send out CD's, make sure they listen to it, etc. Even w/o the evil record companies, its a competitive business. You still need to talk to DJ's, put up posters, etc. That takes money, and with money comes a little bit of evil you need to chase off. I would love to give my music away, but my cat and I need to eat, and for those of us in Rap music, live performances are just not a decent enough source of income.

4. Similar to this study, Billboard magazine (hardly a mouthpiece of the proletariat) says that the drop in music sales is largely due to the increase in price of CD's, and that if CD prices were to drop below $10 sales would double.

5. A underestimated development that I think is also helping to kill the music industry is the death of the single. The idea of "album" as discreet work of art is largely a product of the baby boom generation and surely in the age of the internet is meaningless. Not to say that I devalue larger bodies of work, but certainly there is nothing particularly magically from an artistic standpoint about 74 minutes is there? Why should I buy the whole album (for $17.9 when I only like the one song? If your music does not lend itself to this, don't do it, but record companies have shut down this form, and besides discouraging music sales, also removes a big avenue for unknown artists to be heard.

6. I agree with the idea that the RIAA is not the problem (although as good of a lightning rod as any). Of course they are evil, they represent big corporations trying to keep their monopoly. You can't change them any more than you can convince a scorpion not to sting. Artists need to speak for themselves and work with the legislature to make sure their rights are protected (although clearly we all don't agree on what that should be, but hey, we're artists). Also, we need to educate the one REALLY underrepresented group here which is the music fan/buyer. Certainly they are suffering through paying too much for music and lack of variety in both retail and on the radio. They need to understand that the RIAA is working against their interests as well, in both economic and artistic ways, and that most artist just want as level a playing field in trying to sell their MP3's as people do at selling say, MP3 players.

Thanks for listening and keep up the great (if somewhat dogmatic) work!