Here's what the rekid bizess is thinking. 12 years in the music bidness. Imagine that!
Name: Truth Seeker , but can he handle the truth!
Email: seekingthetruth@macmail.com
Message: Dear Friends,


I feel it my duty to advise you that as a professional career music composer and producer with over 12 years in the music industry, I disagree with your position against the RIAA. You seem to be misinformed, and clearly unaware of the big picture of the entertainment industry with regards to intellectual property: past, present and future. There are so many unexamined elements in your argument that it would take a fairly long correspondence to cover them all. I\'ll limit myself to three items.



One of your primary concerns, even beyond your concerns regarding the RIAA, seems to be the fact that the big five record labels take undue advantage of their artists. This is a ridiculous position to take, in light of the fact these labels have yet to adopt the policy of putting a gun to the head of their prospective artists and thus force them to specific terms. Your position regarding the evil of the big five was similarly adopted enough people to get a hearing with the Senators in California. The Senators took steps only to get the labels to comply with their agreements. What else are the labels to do? Do you suggest that the labels have a moral obligation to do right by their artists? Like GM has a moral obligation to the union workers...



There are two elements to the Music Business: the business of making music and the business of selling it. Neither has anything to do with the other; never has, and never will. You can compose the most beautiful song in the history of creation and die in a pauper\'s grave. Alternatively, you can record the squeals of a pot-bellied pig and sell millions of records around the world. If you tune into MTV or the Grammy Awards, you\'ll see a surplus of evidence to sustain this fact.



Let the artist beware: know the business end of the music business. If you think that people owe you a living just because you write music, you have another thing coming. If it were that easy we\'d all be musicians instead of lawyers, astronauts and brain surgeons, no? It\'s up to the artist to know the elements of his or her recording agreements, and to negotiate the terms before signing. I have several recording contracts with several labels in USA and abroad. Only one time did I experience one of these labels ( a fairly large one, I might add) trying to take advantage of me. I didn\'t get excited or offended. There was no need to; I knew my position and I knew their position. I simply turned my contracts over to my lawyer. Within a week, the label was kissing my ass. They paid for my legal fees (per the recording agreement between us), and backed down immediately. I showed them no spite. I didn\'t mention the incident to anyone outside my family, much less the public at large. In fact, I\'m


Secondly, if you have not found an artist who has been paid his or her royalties for the Home Recording Act, you\'ve probably been consulting members of the same ignorant caste of the artist demographic that informed your position on record label policy. No surprise there that they haven\'t collected anything. To them I say two things:



1. grow up, and



2. see http://www.ascap.com.



ASCAP collects these royalties on behalf of their members, myself numbered one among them.



Third. The price of CD-R is going down, down, down for one single reason: market demand. The more you order, the cheaper the bulk rate becomes. It\'s the same story with CD-burners. But while the price of CD-Rs and records has gone down, retail audio CDs have gone up. This is because they are not selling. Why buy a CD when you can log onto Gnutella? This is not to say that raising the price of the CD is a solution to the problem. But what else are they going to do until the government finally takes an interest in prosecuting people who distribute these files online without a license from the copyright holders?



Furthermore, until the RIAA can put sustainable pressure on the government to prosecute the illegal online distributors of artist copyrights, licensed online retailers like the Apple Music Store do more harm than good: now you don\'t even have to buy the CD to make copies of your favorite tracks.



If things keep going the way they are going, if people keep ignorantly plodding along in this fashion and pointing the finger at the wrong parties, we will soon have a world wherein it will be impossible to make a living in the music business. And we\'ll only have ourselves to blame for it.



The RIAA is being assailed by people who are ignorant of the facts. I\'d be interested to see an in-depth diagram of the anatomy of the music business cashflow and profit/loss system on your website. It would clearly illuminate a few facts for the ignorant artist demographic. On the other hand, it would then leave you without a platform to sell coffee cups and t-shirts, wouldn\'t it?



Signed,



Seeking The Truth...

The concept of forced collectivization of songwriters is a century old, and doesn't make sense in the age of narrowcasting and international self publishing. I DONT WANT MY MUSIC ON CLEAR CHANNEL, OK? I don't want to be pooled with the heirs of Irving Berlin, Ok? Besides - we are talking about music and musicians not just songwriters or jingle writers, ok? You guys sit back and benefit from perpetual or near perpetual royalties, while the singers and musicians starve for life. The Coasters are not about two Jewish teenagers from New Jersey. 12 years in the music buisness, imagine that. Such experience. You are talking to people with many more years in that that!

lol... a "major label" (emi) didn't pay me a cent for 3000 sold cd copies in my country and they sold the cd for $20... (sum it up!) the non-riaa and independent dmusic or even the commercial iTunes pay more than that! your 12 year game is over!

THANKYOU!!!!! You are the second person I spoke to about EMI!!!!! Tell me more ( or private notes , if you want.)

well... i'm just so glad i didn't sign their latest "contract update". these "worldwide 3 or 4 letter organizations" just don't dig it, today any artist is a "worldwide organization" by it's own internet powers they just don't dig it. they are not uptodate at all! dmusic is!

Let's see---where should I start on this mess. I have been in Los Angeles for 33 years once attaining my legal age. Who do you think you are talking to? Normally i wouldn't take the bait on a letter like this, I can't remember if I saw half this letter on pho and actually know who this Truth Seeker is.. But my reaction is that this writer lives in a cloud, and needs to get into a real list serv somewhere and get a reality check.

I cannot imagine anyone actually defending the RIAA.

musicians making a living... ahhhh im sorry.. maybe your scared

i dont make a living off of music in the first place so anything is cake

ASCAP those are just some more ways the record labels could extract money ... why the hell would i want radio to pay me to play my song ... seems stupid

i imagine alot of companys didnt make money in thier first years of business....yeah im sure ford made alot of money trying to sell his horseless carriage.. or being able to listen to music from all over the world on your computer.. never..

also you might want a DMusic lunchbox when you go back to school and dude when your out of work and dont have a pot to piss ... i will send you a DMusic coffe mug

Tom, you've been in LA too long.

I'm moving to Iowa. Ain't no record execs out there. But we do have a studio. And venues. And tourist traffic. Lakes. Open space.

We start on July 4. If you're going to be in the area between July 4 and Labor Day, well, I bet we could find you a place to play.

Next year we start on Memorial Day.

But we won't be doing business with pirates, so this guy's letter is irrelevant anyway. It's as far away from the labels as we can get.

And halfway between Omaha and Minneapolis.

And you can your coffee mugs. And t-shirts. And CDs. Hats, posters, etc.

And you can sell...

I'll dissect the points, one by one.

Point One: One of your primary concerns, even beyond your concerns regarding the RIAA, seems to be the fact that the big five record labels take undue advantage of their artists. This is a ridiculous position to take, in light of the fact these labels have yet to adopt the policy of putting a gun to the head of their prospective artists and thus force them to specific terms.Your position regarding the evil of the big five was similarly adopted enough people to get a hearing with the Senators in California. The Senators took steps only to get the labels to comply with their agreements. What else are the labels to do? Do you suggest that the labels have a moral obligation to do right by their artists? Like GM has a moral obligation to the union workers...

Rebuttal: First off, I do believe that GM does have a moral obligation to it's employees. One of those rights is collective bargaining. Of course, the RIAA does not allow collective bargaining. Unlike a GM worker, a RIAA label artist cannot effectively go on strike. If they find themselves mistreated by a label, they are required to continue on the record contract.

While the RIAA does not hold a gun to artist's heads to sign the contract, they *do* hold that gun - i.e., threat of suit, threat of livelihood - against the artist's heads after the contract is signed.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the "Deal Memo" method of business, many artists do not even know that they have entered into a contract until after they have signed. Tell me, if a con man sells you the Brooklyn Bridge, do you blame him for his dishonesty or you for your gullibility?

This wouldn't even be as big a problem if the RIAA's members lived up to the bargains which they themselves set. Between odd charges such as 15% for packaging, another 15% for "new technologies" (referring to the 15-year old technology known as the CD) and other dubious charges, an artist's pittance is whittled down further. This doesn't include promotional material, it doesn't include overseas sales (which are never reported in figuring an artist's royalty payments.)

Indeed, the measure passed in California's State Senate was brought about to address the specific problem that the major labels do NOT accurately keep track of sales for the purpose of royalty payments. Had the RIAA been playing by the rules to begin with, such measures would not be necessary.

Even then, the RIAA still cheats at one very flagrant rule. They're a trust, controlling 80-95% of the market, depending on who you ask. That's been illegal since the Roosevelt Administration - that's Teddy Roosevelt, by the way, also known as the "Trustbuster" using the powers granted by the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is older than the oldest record label in existence. It almost predates the Edison record player. So you can't say that the rules have changed any...

In particular, I'd like to rebut this point:

QUOTE: There are two elements to the Music Business: the business of making music and the business of selling it. Neither has anything to do with the other; never has, and never will.

Rebuttal: This is prima facie absurd, but to explain it to you in words you can understand: The business of making and selling music are linked because the music sellers do not have a product to sell unless someone makes it. It's as absurd as thinking that agriculture and farmer's markets have nothing to do with one another.

QUOTE: Let the artist beware: know the business end of the music business.

Ironically, it is also the RIAA's greatest weakness. Many bands (who now know the business end of the music business) refuse to sign with the big labels, precisely because they are bad business decisions. Without quality product, sales will decline. (However, the RIAA seems to want to blame this on some sort of pirating boogyman... more on this later)

QUOTE:The price of CD-R is going down, down, down for one single reason: market demand. The more you order, the cheaper the bulk rate becomes. It\'s the same story with CD-burners. But while the price of CD-Rs and records has gone down, retail audio CDs have gone up. This is because they are not selling. Why buy a CD when you can log onto Gnutella?

Rebuttal: Your basic knowledge of the simple supply/demand curve of economics 101 is a bit skewed. First of all, the price of not just CD-R, but also CD is going down. Which means the cost of production is going down for the RIAA's labels. Technologies ALWAYS go down in price - look at any commercial technology - TV, Telephone, Cellular Phone, Computer, - oh, yes, the Computer is a prime example. When something becomes cheaper to produce, in most cases where there is NOT an artificial reason for the prices to be up (such as collusion between competitors) the prices also go down. When the prices go down, more people will purchase the product - this is not rocket science.

The price of items go up - and the market will bear them - only when there is a small supply of that item. Now, who controls the supply of these items? The RIAA's members, which act in collusion.

The point at which the price is set becomes largely artificial. The only reason why the prices are so high for CDs is that the CDs are artificially set high by a oligopoly of producers who act in collusion to act as a single monopoly. The price of CDs is typically much higher than the price of DVDs, despite DVDs having a larger technology cost, a larger production cost, and a larger value, and the idea that the demand has gone down simply doesn't cut it.

And, as if that wasn't enough: Consider this - sales have risen every year until 2001 (when the RIAA produced less albums AND the country slipped into recession.) Yet there is no fluctuation in the price except that it has continued to go up, up, up. Yet, the RIAA sees no need to lower it's prices in order to increase sales. Wouldn't that make more sense than trying to demand higher prices for sales already made - it would in any market where you didn't have a monopoly or trust.

QUOTE: Furthermore, until the RIAA can put sustainable pressure on the government to prosecute the illegal online distributors of artist copyrights, licensed online retailers like the Apple Music Store do more harm than good: now you don\'t even have to buy the CD to make copies of your favorite tracks.

First of all, you've already admitted that artists do not own the copyrights. Secondly, you once again fail to see how this is simply market forces at work. People cannot afford to buy $20 CDs. Some might be able to afford $10 digital CDs, and others might only be able to afford to get the hits off of the album at $.99 a pop. This is a demand which has until now gone unsatisfied - the reason the Apple Store does so well is because it provides a service - a 100% legal service, mind you - that does EXACTLY what people want, at a price they can afford.

QUOTE: The RIAA is being assailed by people who are ignorant of the facts. I\'d be interested to see an in-depth diagram of the anatomy of the music business cashflow and profit/loss system on your website. It would clearly illuminate a few facts for the ignorant artist demographic. On the other hand, it would then leave you without a platform to sell coffee cups and t-shirts, wouldn\'t it?

REBUTTAL: Well, unfortunately, the RIAA has never been open with it's numbers - which is why the California Senate had to pass a law telling them to do exactly that.

But we do have something that WILL interest you. It turns out, we DO have a cashflow and profit/loss system at boycott-riaa.com - well, not on the site directly, but a link from http://www.negativland.com/albini.html That should give you the entire picture of the RIAA cash flow - and why we think that your story is full of holes.

If anything, we are not ignorant of the music business. In fact, it is our very knowledge of the music business that makes us want to do away with the monopoly power of the RIAA. It is that monopoly power which allows them to bribe congressmen to pass onerous laws invading our privacy - it is that monopoly power which gives them the money to wage barratry against innocent college students (unless you think Google should be sued for linking to MP3s, hmm?) - it is that monopoly power which gives them the incentive to destroy helpful technology in order to continue with their outdated, overpriced business model.

I boycott the RIAA not because I want free music. I boycott the RIAA because it's using it's power to trample over our civil rights. I boycott the RIAA because it wages war against the innocent in civil courts. I boycott the RIAA because I don't want ONE DAMN DIME OF MY MONEY to end up being used to fuel a lawsuit against some poor kid just trying to get his future started.

And unlike you, I am not afraid to sign my real name.

Signed,
Brian R. Boyko.

I just love reading stuff from those who think their way is the only way. I gives me a good laugh.

I agree with Funksaw. If the price of CDs weren't so friggin' high, I'd be buying more, provided I had the means (ie, a JOB) to do so. When I do have the money, I try to buy my CDs when they first come out or go on sale, since places like Target and Wal-Mart are gracious enough to go against the RIAA. Shoot, if I had the money now, I could buy that new Metallica album (sorry, but I still listen to them, no matter what they think. I refuse to give in) for $10. $9.98 at Target. Probably $9.96 at Wal-Mart, though that one'll be censored so I wouldn't buy it there, despite saving two cents that I can use.

I have a friend that I haven't talked to in two years, but she's in a band. When I first met her, she told volumes about how the recording industry was evil and all, but I didn't listen. Yes, maybe I was brainwashed, but that's beside the point. I discovered Napster soon after and suddenly I began to appreciate music and even got to listen to stuff I never got to listen to during all those years of having to listen to nothing but country. Then Metallica got me banned from Napster. Did I stop? No, I simply worked my way around the ban and kept right on downloading. Then I got a job and had money so I bought my music for a while. Then I lost that job and thus had to go back to downloading. Then I got another job and was able to buy again. Then I lost that one and haven't had enough money since. I've bought only two CDs in the past year. The year before I bought several.

So no, Mr. Seeker, I don't believe a word you say. I refuse to go back to my previous way of thinking. Once someone is exposed to the truth, as it appears you haven't been, it's hard to convert them back.

Mr. Seeker,
Another thing to consider is the simple sign of the times - for starters, this is 2003. I don't have the stats in front of me nor do I have the interest in making them up, but I would venture a wager that the number of people owning CD burners, iPods, bulk spindles of CD-R's, other MP3 players, even premium computer speakers is at it's highest level EVER. In case that sentence was too hard or long to understand, people own the tools they need to enjoy their music on their **COMPUTER** - they no longer have to buy the whole CD for $18-20 to enjoy music.

In your 12 years of 'music business experience', have you not noticed the RIAA's model of forcing a customer to buy the whole CD? (yes, FORCING has been the proper term for quite awhile) Customers no longer have to do that, and thanks to many techniques (Apple's iTunes and Kazaa being stellar examples), one can find the EXACT songs they want. If the big 5 cannot adapt to what THE CUSTOMERS want, that us their problem, not 'pirates'... I sincerly hope you've read all the comments, and invite your reply.

Sincerly,
Chris Backe

Recent Commentary with Bill Evans...

-----

Hi Bill, thanks for getting back. Much appreciated...

>All we have done is to inform the public of an
>alternative point of
>view, one they can't get via the major
>media, who do most of their
>reporting via press release.

By the public, I presume you're speaking to the artists at large. The things of which you speak should not be news to the informed music business professional. Believe me, I know exactly how the media is manipulated by dollars. The labels that I've signed with have done and do this very thing to my favor, I might add. Is this supposed to be a secret? Or is there a small demographic of people out there who still believe everything they read or watch on tv is driven by creative content? For years I worked at a record label that was purchased by one of the big five. I've been on both sides of the coin: artist and label. Both sides are equally populated by both ignorant assholes and intelligent and generous players. No different from any other business...

>What
>are you going to do when your work is taken out of print because
>it
>doesn't sell millions of cds, and you obtain no income from
>either your
>songwriting or performance? ut et there is still a
>demand.

I have had my past releases removed because they didn't make the sales cap. And when that happened I did what all the other guys did: I took it like a man and kept on writing new material. But I do obtain income from all of my releases. This is because I flat out refuse to sell my copyrights, no matter the size of the carrot that is dangled in front of me. I will never, ever be taken advantage of by a record label. Not until they put a gun to my head. This is because I have a working knowledge of the music industry and the various elements of the recording and publishing contracts. No one can take that away from you once you put it inside your head. It's true self-empowerment; knowledge is power.

>Its my position that the legend artists are the ones who
>are hurt the
>most by file sharing, not the current artists.
>There is a demand for a
>lot of material that is no longer
>available by any other means than file
>sharing.

My god. Am I talking to a middle-school student? Are you serving this puppy from your Dad's old Imac? Surely you must be joking. The middle independent artists are the hardest hit. These are next-generation of artists who could almost make a living for themselves, save for the fact that the independent label that has signed them is going out of business because of this file-sharing mania. As an example, one of the biggest demographics to get hit are the artists, labels, and distributors of electronic music. This is because they're listener demographic is young and internet-savvy; they know about Gnutella and they don't give a thought to how they might be savaging their favorite artists by file-sharing. They presume, as you do, that the artist is at loggerheads with their label and that they are doing the right thing by 'sticking it to the man.' In the meantime, the retail shops are closing, so the distributors are dropping labels, and consequently the labels are dropping artists...

I played a gig in Europe not too long ago. I came home and logged onto Acquisition and found a live recorded performance of my gig from two days before. The whole two-hour long concert. The label would like to consider coming out with an exclusive live recorded cd of the tour. But with stuff like that pirated recording floating around the net, they hesitate to take the chances with the overhead of producing the thing. And I don't blame them.

One of the players in this very band I performed with in Europe is hoping to get signed on to a permanent position with the group. He's a supercool cat and a humble musical genius. In the meantime, I know this guy and his girlfriend go into restaurants to steal toilet paper to take home. Between gigs, they are pretty broke despite the fact that they both have jobs.

This same guy has in the past written original music for several labels... and signed away his copyrights in the process! I tried to talk to him about copyrights and publishing. He didn't try too hard to grasp the concepts; in the back of his musical mind his conscience was telling him to simply concentrate on the music and that everything would be all right. He didn't want to listen to me, and I was trying to do everything I could to educate him so that he could protect himself. I understand him. Music to him is a holy thing that he doesn't really want to associate with money, yet I see him and his girlfriend starting to get a little bitter because the label is getting fat while they get nothing. They see lesser artists getting fat, and they don't understand why. Eventually, the bitterness will affect his writing or the lack of funds will affect the time he can spend writing and practicing: at which point he'll give up and the industry will have lost a gifted and talented artist to the retail industry, or wherever he lands to make the rent. And you say this is the fault of the label?

This man is my friend and I love him. But it's all in the contract between the label and the artist, my friend. Steve Albini's breakdown doesn't apply to everyone; I dare say it only applies to idiots who elect to get themselves into the ring without learning the ropes. I've never needed an accountant, a personal manager, a tour manager, or half of the other people on Albini's list. I would never cater to all those middlemen; if I was going to have to trust and pay that many people, I might as well do something else for a living.

>My suggestion
>to the record labels for a long time has been to make
>available
>via licensing the out of print catalogs. I know I'll buy.

It costs money to produce and promote those cds. You might be one out of a million buyers.

> I'm not looking for a shiny plastic disc, I'll settle for a high
>quality
>digital file that I can burn.

And the songwriter is supposed to trust that you won't pass it along? I'm a songwriter, and I don't trust you.

>Don't take
>our word for it. Research. Learn. Don't be
>Manipulated."

I don't. And I will, Bill...

Still Seeking...

Recent correspondence with Brian...
-----

>Rebuttal: First off, I do believe that GM does have
>a moral obligation
>to it's employees. One of those rights is
>collective bargaining. Of
>course, the RIAA does not allow
>collective bargaining. Unlike a GM
>worker, a RIAA label artist
>cannot effectively go on strike. If they
>find themselves
>mistreated by a label, they are required to continue on
>the
>record contract.
>
It can be argued that no one on this earth has a moral obligation to another single human being. So how can you argue that GM has a moral obligation to it's employees? In never-never land, maybe. It's an impractical and childish assertion that people 'should' act one way and not another in order to construct a world that works according to the logic of a single individual.

>While the RIAA does not hold a gun to artist's
>heads to sign the
>contract, they *do* hold that gun - i.e.,
>threat of suit, threat of
>livelihood - against the artist's
>heads after the contract is signed.

Sigh. Of course the artist has this same gun against the head of the label. I've successfully pulled this move on a large label myself, as I mentioned before. You're not bringing logical arguments to bear on this thread, but I'll continue for the sake of amusement.

>Unfortunately, due to the
>nature of the "Deal Memo" method of business,
>many artists do
>not even know that they have entered into a contract
>until after
>they have signed. Tell me, if a con man sells you the
>Brooklyn
>Bridge, do you blame him for his dishonesty or you for your
>
>gullibility?
>

I blame myself for my gullibility. I pulled away from the apron strings some time ago.

>This wouldn't even be as big a problem if the
>RIAA's members lived up
>to the bargains which they themselves
>set. Between odd charges such as
>15% for packaging, another 15%
>for "new technologies" (referring to the
>15-year old technology
>known as the CD) and other dubious charges, an
>artist's pittance
>is whittled down further. This doesn't include
>promotional
>material, it doesn't include overseas sales (which are
>never
>reported in figuring an artist's royalty payments.)
>

You shouldn't sign such agreements then, should you? I don't. Again, where's the gun to the head, forcing you to sign the deal memo or the contract?

>Indeed, the
>measure passed in California's State Senate was brought
>about to
>address the specific problem that the major labels do NOT
>
>accurately keep track of sales for the purpose of royalty
>payments.
>Had the RIAA been playing by the rules to begin with,
>such measures
>would not be necessary.

Not quite correct. The artist who is judicious correct by the interpretation of his or her contract may in fact sue the label for his or her position. Furthermore, the artist may then sue for reclamation of the legal fees. Again, I've successfully done this, as I mentioned before. I didn't have to go crying to the Senator, who surely has better things to do.

>Even then, the RIAA still
>cheats at one very flagrant rule. They're a
>trust, controlling
>80-95% of the market, depending on who you ask.
>That's been
>illegal since the Roosevelt Administration - that's Teddy
>
>Roosevelt, by the way, also known as the "Trustbuster" using the
>powers
>granted by the Sherman Antitrust Act.
>
The RIAA is not the music industry. "Depending on who is ask" is right: a paronoid schizophrenic, a lawyer, an artist, a media broker... they'll all give you different answers.

>In particular, I'd
>like to rebut this point:


>The business
>of making and selling music are linked
>because the music sellers
>do not have a product to sell unless someone
>makes it. It's as
>absurd as thinking that agriculture and farmer's
>markets have
>nothing to do with one another.
>

Anyone can make music. Anyone. There is no accounting for taste. You can make music by busting two rocks together. I've heard worse than this win at the Grammy's. I dare say that there was music before there was a music industry. Since any sound can be construed as music to someone, I daresay there will always be music available to the people who wish to pimp it to somebody else, no? The fact remains that you can play the piano as pretty as you please and not know a thing about how to make a dime from it. Can you tell me where Mozart is buried?

>Ironically, it is
>also the RIAA's greatest weakness. Many bands (who
>now know the
>business end of the music business) refuse to sign with
>the big
>labels, precisely because they are bad business decisions.
>

I wholly agree that this is the best policy, but I would argue with your use of the quantitative "many." I'd argue that it still remains the dream of most to sign with a major. I'd say the most informed bands refuse to sign bad contracts and leave it at that.

>Without quality product, sales will decline. (However, the RIAA
>seems
>to want to blame this on some sort of pirating boogyman...
>more on this
>later)
>

Without quality product sales will decline? And how do you define quality? Are you an authority on quality? Shall we establish the definition? Without media support, sales will decline. Quality has nothing to do with it. Again, tune into Mtv or the Grammy awards for sustainable evidence, I'd say. But this is my particular prejudice, because many people regard a Grammy as a token of quality...

>
>Rebuttal: Your basic knowledge of the simple
>supply/demand curve of
>economics 101 is a bit skewed. First of
>all, the price of not just
>CD-R, but also CD is going down.

The retail audio music CD, as a retail product is not going down. You seem to have somehow missed my point altogether.

When the prices
>go down, more
>people will purchase the product - this is not
>rocket science.
>
This has nothing to do with our topic but I can argue with you here. It is not 100% guaranteed that when you lower the price of something that more people will purchase it. One thing does not necessarily follow the other.

I would agree that retail CD prices should be lowered, only because the profit margin is currently so ridiculously high in light of the fact that people can download the music for free.

In other sectors of the arts industry, your assertion is even more unbound; particularly in the fine arts and fashion. There are many cases wherein you can lower the price and people will not pay because it's "cheap" art or clothing, no?

>The price of items go up - and the market will
>bear them - only when
>there is a small supply of that item.

Not when you can get a copy of that item for free. Forgetting how we got onto this? I know a few labels and artist who got burned trying to rope people into buying one of their 'limited edition' releases. Doesn't do any good these days, I'm afraid...

>Now, who controls the supply of
>these items? The RIAA's
>members, which act in collusion.

Again, pointing the finger at Big Brother. The RIAA, I repeat, does not control the music industry. I make a living as a composer/producer/performer and I can tell you that my only complaint is with the bootleggers; digital and physical. They are thieves, and should be addressed as such.

>The point at which the price is
>set becomes largely artificial. The
>only reason why the prices
>are so high for CDs is that the CDs are
>artificially set high by
>a oligopoly of producers who act in collusion
>to act as a single
>monopoly. The price of CDs is typically much higher
>than the
>price of DVDs, despite DVDs having a larger technology cost, a
>
>larger production cost, and a larger value, and the idea that
>the
>demand has gone down simply doesn't cut it.
>

The price is so high because people were willing to pay that much before file sharing technology allowed them to skirt the issue of purchasing altogether. It's as simple as that. How do you think the price of a gallon of gas is set? The price of a long distance call? A Big Mac? A condom? Yes, there are many products in the world, and they are all priced to profit.

>And, as if that
>wasn't enough: Consider this - sales have risen every
>year until
>2001 (when the RIAA produced less albums AND the country
>slipped
>into recession.)

This is absolutely incorrect. The sales have been going down for years, while the sales of cdr-s and burners have gone through the roof.
>
>First of all, you've already admitted that
>artists do not own the
>copyrights.

I most certainly did not. I am an artist and I own ALL my copyrights; I clearly mentioned this.

>fSecondly, you once again
>fail to see how this is simply
>market forces at work. People
>cannot afford to buy $20 CDs. Some
>might be able to afford $10
>digital CDs, and others might only be able
>to afford to get the
>hits off of the album at $.99 a pop. This is a
>demand which has
>until now gone unsatisfied - the reason the Apple
>Store does so
>well is because it provides a service - a 100% legal
>service,
>mind you - that does EXACTLY what people want, at a price they
>
>can afford.
>

What you're forgetting is that these files can be copied and distributed. Apple is making money, more power to them. But they are not a solution to the problem. When the government gets serious about busting people for serving mp3 files without a license, Apple's business model, and those of Pressplay, etc., will bepart of a complete a working business model. Without the policiing, this is an imcomplete business model.

>
>But we do have something that WILL interest you.
>It turns out, we DO
>have a cashflow and profit/loss system at
>boycott-riaa.com - well, not
>on the site directly, but a link
>from
>http://www.negativland.com/albini.html That should give
>you the entire
>picture of the RIAA cash flow - and why we think
>that your story is
>full of holes.

Everybody's read Albini's ancient script before. It's nothing new. And it certainly doesn't constitute a cashflow diagram derived from a composition. A composition, from it's birth until it's death (which, I might add, goes far beyond the life of it's composer) has many sources of revenue, and none of them are completely outlined or diagrammed by Steve Albini. I'm talking specifically about artist sales royalties, performance royalties, synch licenses, and mechanical royalties. Where this money comes from and where it goes under what specific set of conditions. I know these things. It is not clear to me that you do. It is not clear to me that even Steve Albini does; at least not by his diagram. You seemed to have missed my point.

Furthermore, you would have to be a complete moron to sign a contract which allowed so many middlemen into your business as outlined by Steve Albini. I make a living without one tenth of that garbage on his breakdown. The record label will take you for all of that, but only if you're dumb enough to let them do it. And GM will do the same to the auto workers, as would arguably most of the heads of any other industry. Your point? And again, where is the gun to the head that makes you sign on the dotted line; deal memo OR contract?

>If anything, we are not
>ignorant of the music business.

I'd argue that, but I guess I'd have to be satisfied to say that the jury is still out on that one...

Still Seeking...

12 years eh'? sounds like its time to accept current technology.

CD's were launched in about fall of 1982, (invented a year or so before), makes em 22 years old. Which is crazy that we still are being legally forced to buy them for such a price.

I wont.

seekingthetruth: Go suck on your mommy and dont be such a prick.

Why on earth should the govt go around putting mp3 traders in jail? What in the hell makes the music industry so special that they should deserve this right?

You go grow up you worthless piece of RIAA govern'd trash.

Sorry but that trash talk just gets to me.

The RIAA has to much power right now as it is.

DMCA must be scrapped, and the RIAA must embrace todays technology. Every other company must embrace today. What makes the RIAA so special that they dont have to??

Copyright wasent meant to allow a corperation to do things such as this. When does copyright allow enforcement of an outdated model that needs to be redefined???

seekingthetruth needs to toss the 20 year old compact disks and get with todays world i think, rather then come here and talk RIAA sided trash.

(this is Bill) Seekingthetruth, While you may realize that music is a business, many people start out and do it for the love of doing it. When they are approached by the labels, they have no clue what to do. The first thing they do is run and see a lawyer who has "entertainment" experience, who most often tell their client "this is the standard contract for new artists" The label isn't willing to offer more, or let them keep their copyrights. When you're living on Ramen noodles and peanut butter, it takes an awfully strong willed person to walk away from an unfair contract, when the carrot that is dangled is $100,000 or so. Or when Clive (ioughtabeinjail) Davis approaches them with his charming personality and won't take no for an answer attitude and finese and promises of stardom. Check out http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20C14FB3F5F0C778CDDA10894DA404482

Amanda Latona signed by the diva maker (andmoneytaker)hisself was signed to J Records in February 2001, but yet still no album. A quick search of Amazon turns up nothing. Clive is a genius and certainly has an eye for talent, but he is also the prime example of what is wrong with the music business today (and in the past). Same with Miles Copeland.

For most of my life I've prided myself on being able to step outside the box and see things from a little different perspective. You should try it sometime. Hell just peek over the edge. It comes down to this, the music business has changed. Like it or not it has. THAT'S A FACT. Adapt or die...(go back o waiting tables) it is that simple.

In your original comments to us, you say: Your position regarding the evil of the big five was similarly adopted enough people to get a hearing with the Senators in California. The Senators took steps only to get the labels to comply with their agreements. Exactly and that was all that the artists were asking for. You know those poor misinformed artists like Don Henley, Patty Smith, Lester Chambers, Sam Moore. When accountants tell the CA. Senators that 99 out of 100 audits they have done turn up with the labels owing the artists, something is wrong. If it was just human error, the numbers should relatively balanced. It is about time that the labels do what they said they will do.

I will admit that you are right in one respect however is that artists need to pay attention. Read the "Major Label Contract Critque" http://futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm I would be willing to bet 99% of all artists don't understand what those clauses mean. So is the FMC off base here too? IS the Recording Artists Coalition off track as well? (They are who convinced the CA. Senate to hold hearings).

As for copyright terms I have found myself agreeing with the new proposal brought up recently. Original Copyright 56 years. At the end of the copyright period (56 years) you pay $1 to extend it to the current max. If it isn't worth it to you financially to renew, then it should pass into public domain to allow others to use it, to build on it, to extrapolate from it, as all creative people have done since the beginning of time.

seekingthetruth just doesn't get it. It's about CONTROL stupid. The record labels have it. And they DON'T want to lose it.

Sure no one has a moral obligation to anyone, but record labels have a LEGAL obligation to honor their agreements. And just because they might be honoring their agreement with YOU, doesn't mean they are with most other people. The fact is, THEY AREN'T!!! Testimony to congress and frank talk with artists prove THAT!

Your comment about not signing a major label contract is just plain stupid. Of course, you shouldn't sign it if it isn't a good business deal for the band. The problem is, no other major label will offer a different or better "Business Deal". They tantalize a band with the idea of becoming "STARS". If Bruce Springsteen were to try to make it big in today's music industry, he would have been dropped and never made it. It is clearly about the MONEY and not the Music.

The Big five act like a monopoly, and use the RIAA to do so. The law doesn't say a monopoly has to exist to be illegal. It says companies only have to "ACT" like a monopoly to be illegal. The RIAA and the record labels have done so for years (as the price fixing lawsuit demonstrates). Our government hasn't begun to go far enough to stop this.

Finally, whoever made the point about the Record labels FORCING us to buy the WHOLE CD hit the nail on the head! Internet file sharing exists because we were given no other alternative (another sign of monopolistic actions).
The 45rpm record disappeared, and so did the cassettesingle. The record labels didn't even give the small 3" CD a chance to act as a single. Most songs are available on import single only, and we all know how much THEY cost.

The record labels and RIAA did this to themselves, by being greedy and not responding to their customers' needs. I have been a customer for much longer than 12 years. THAT is why I boycott-riaa.

INeedALover

More Replies:

>It can be argued that no one on this earth has a moral obligation to another
>single human being. So how can you argue that GM has a moral obligation to
>it's employees? In never-never land, maybe. It's an impractical and childish
>assertion that people 'should' act one way and not another in order to
>construct a world that works according to the logic of a single individual.

Sure there is. That's why we have laws, religions, and social mores. In fact, the only reason why we have society instead of acting like anarchic monkeys bashing each other's heads in with rocks for foods and mates is because we have recognized the very basic moral obligations to each other - the very fact that people SHOULD act on way towards one's fellow man precicely because they would not want that man to act the same way towards them.

THe interesting thing about this logic is, by your reckoning, no one on earth - including the file-sharers - has a moral obligation to buy your CDs instead of downloading them. How can you have one and not the other? How can you assert that file-sharing is wrong, when, by your worldview, there is no "wrong."

>Sigh. Of course the artist has this same gun against the head of the label.
>I've successfully pulled this move on a large label myself, as I mentioned
>before. You're not bringing logical arguments to bear on this thread, but I'll
>continue for the sake of amusement.

I don't know if you're James Hetfield or Madonna, but your case - if true - is certainly the exception to the rule. When a band signs, it is at a disadvantage. There is only one supplier, and it is a monopoly supplier. The monopoly supplier drafts the contracts. The band has no leverage, no pull, since there are plenty of other bands out there that will sign the same contract, on the same lousy terms. If you're suggesting that a band not sign until they get into a position to get some leverage and fair terms - I agree with you. The problem is that the member companies of the RIAA are not offering fair terms - and they are the only game in town - or at least they were, until the advent of the Internet. Now the distribution and exposure playing fields are a bit more level - and bands are signing with indie labels because they're more profitable than signing with the big labels. Indie contracts offer more flexibility, and the main advantages of big name labels - distribution, exposure, and promotion - have quickly become no longer an advantage.

>You shouldn't sign such agreements then, should you? I don't. Again, where's
>the gun to the head, forcing you to sign the deal memo or the contract?

Agreed - which is why fewer and fewer artists are signing such agreements.

>Not quite correct. The artist who is judicious correct by the interpretation
>of his or her contract may in fact sue the label for his or her position.
>Furthermore, the artist may then sue for reclamation of the legal fees. Again,
>I've successfully done this, as I mentioned before. I didn't have to go crying
>to the Senator, who surely has better things to do.

This assumes two things: 1) That the legal courts are fair and just, and 2) That the artist has money to spend on a suit.

First off, courts - like any other organization run by human beings with human fallacies - can be influenced by money - something the RIAA's labels have plenty of, and something that the artist does not. Second, just because the artist has a grievance does not mean that they have the money to wage a suit. If they win in a lower court - at a great expense - the process - and costs - are repeated in appeal. Stalling tactics, counter suits, etc, these are used to drain the artist's limited resources. An artist can be forced to drop a suit if he cannot afford to continue it - the analogy is the slot machine that hits on $250,000, is at $249,900, but you only have $50 in your pocket. If you had the money to play - you'd win. But you don't.

>The RIAA is not the music industry. "Depending on who is ask" is right: a
>paronoid schizophrenic, a lawyer, an artist, a media broker... they'll all give
>you different answers.

Quite frankly, the RIAA consists of the overwhelming majority of the music industry, they obviously act in collusion - at least for the sake of lawsuits - and all of them adopt similar business practices and price points. Sounds like collusion of a monopoly trust to me. What's your definition.

>Anyone can make music. Anyone. There is no accounting for taste. You can
>make music by busting two rocks together. I've heard worse than this win at
>the Grammy's. I dare say that there was music before there was a music
>industry. Since any sound can be construed as music to someone, I daresay
>there will always be music available to the people who wish to pimp it to
>somebody else, no? The fact remains that you can play the piano as pretty as
>you please and not know a thing about how to make a dime from it. Can you tell
>me where Mozart is buried?

In the discount rack, behind Jazz and old New Kids on the Block albums.

I only quote this because you do not seem to grasp the point. If anyone could make music, anyone would. I'm sure that without the artists, the RIAA will do just fine with thier own rock-banging, elephant-skin drum banging, digeridoo bands. Hilary Rosen can play the triangle, Cary Sherman can play with his tamborine. Plenty of people are making money WITHOUT the big labels - that is the very point - while plenty of people are not making money WITH the big labels. The trick is - artists ARE learning how to make a dime from music - and it means only signing the contracts that give them a square deal. It also means promoting on the internet, since payola has got terrestrial radio more of an exclusive club than Skull & Bones.

>I wholly agree that this is the best policy, but I would argue with your use of
>the quantitative "many." I'd argue that it still remains the dream of most to
>sign with a major. I'd say the most informed bands refuse to sign bad
>contracts and leave it at that.

Absolutely. Fortunately, bands are getting more informed every day - the stink that is being raised by the RIAA over file-sharing has caused more people - bands included - to be aware of other unsavory practices. (Kinda like shooting yourself in the foot, isn't it?) Remember, this is just the beginning. 8 years ago, I doubt you could ask anyone on the street what the RIAA was - now I'd bet more than half know - and the RIAA's infamy grows with each additional suit.

>Without quality product sales will decline? And how do you define quality?
>Are you an authority on quality? Shall we establish the definition? Without
>media support, sales will decline. Quality has nothing to do with it. Again,
>tune into Mtv or the Grammy awards for sustainable evidence, I'd say. But this
>is my particular prejudice, because many people regard a Grammy as a token of
>quality...

So, you're saying the consumers are sheep, who will buy anything flashed in front of their eyes? My dear friend, Napster became immensely popular because it created an informed consumer. This is a new era - people won't buy the album unless the songs on it are - according to their ears - quality. Pure hype and payola won't cut it anymore. Your line of thinking assumes that the labels can continue to dictate culture. I'm sorry, but that's the old paradigm. The new paradigm is that consumers are informed, more savvy, and less likely to buy albums on the quality of a single. Instead of taking the word of Rolling Stone or whatever rock magazine you prefer (and Rolling Stone gave St. Anger 4 stars, so I think their taste is in significant doubt) for it, you can hear it for yourself before you make a purchase. Furthermore, through file-sharing, people get exposed to more music - different music. Or do you think Electronica is one of the highest growing genres in music because they get tons of airplay. (Hint: They dont.)

>The retail audio music CD, as a retail product is not going down. You seem to
>have somehow missed my point altogether.

No, it hasn't. I was talking about the costs of production of MAKING the CD, not what it sells at retail. You're the one missing the point.

>This has nothing to do with our topic but I can argue with you here. It is not
>100% guaranteed that when you lower the price of something that more people
>will purchase it. One thing does not necessarily follow the other.

Hello. Economics 101. The only way that lowering the price of something does NOT increase in units sold is if the demand for that product has been completely saturated. There's a simple proof that people are unwilling to buy the product at $20 but are willing to buy it at $10 or so - look on half.com for used CDs.

>I would agree that retail CD prices should be lowered, only because the profit
>margin is currently so ridiculously high in light of the fact that people can
>download the music for free.

Finally, we agree on something, although I think that they're ridiculous in the light of the fact that you can get an indie CD for $6-12, or a used CD for $5-10.

>In other sectors of the arts industry, your assertion is even more unbound;
>particularly in the fine arts and fashion. There are many cases wherein you
>can lower the price and people will not pay because it's "cheap" art or
>clothing, no?

What planet are you living on? If I saw a $50 Vera Wang dress, I'd buy it. Er.. um, not that I wear Vera Wang dresses.

Vera Wang caters to a market that is different from the general market that sells Dockers and Polo shirts. The Music industry has no "high-falootin" music for formal occasions. (Remember where Mozart is buried?) In the meantime, I'll stick with my $20 shirts and my $30 slacks, and call it a day. (Although if I can get 'em cheaper, I will.)

>>The price of items go up - and the market will
>>bear them - only when
>>there is a small supply of that item.

>Not when you can get a copy of that item for free. Forgetting how we got onto
>this? I know a few labels and artist who got burned trying to rope people into
>buying one of their 'limited edition' releases. Doesn't do any good these
>days, I'm afraid...

How do you explain Vera Wang dresses? There's only a few of them, so of course the price is kept artifically high. I don't boycott Vera Wang, though, because Vera Wang doesn't have a monopoly on clothing.

But let's take that challenge, hot shot. One of the hottest bands out there right now is Evanescence. Their label CD is "Fallen" but they're other CD is "Origin" - a small printing, mostly around Little Rock, AK. Demand for the few copies of Origin is so great that it is now going for >$250 on Ebay. Look for yourself. Even though every one of those songs can be downloaded via kazaa, there's STILL a great demand for the CD. I wonder why that is?

Or is it because the price of items go up - and the market will bear them - only when there is a small supply of that item?

>Again, pointing the finger at Big Brother. The RIAA, I repeat, does not
>control the music industry. I make a living as a composer/producer/performer
>and I can tell you that my only complaint is with the bootleggers; digital and
>physical. They are thieves, and should be addressed as such.

You are in the minority. Limp Bizkit likes the fact that people share their work - it increases demand for the albums and for the live shows. Dave Matthews Band got noteriety by allowing bootleggers at the shows - and encouraged tape trading - back before there WAS a Napster.

>The price is so high because people were willing to pay that much before file
>sharing technology allowed them to skirt the issue of purchasing altogether.
>It's as simple as that. How do you think the price of a gallon of gas is set?
>The price of a long distance call? A Big Mac? A condom? Yes, there are many
>products in the world, and they are all priced to profit.

And they were willing to pay that much because the RIAA had a monopoly on what people were exposed to, what was played on the radio, and what got stocked on the shelves. Now they're exposed to other things. How else can you explain that indie music sales are UP, despite the fact that they, just like the big names - have CDs that can end up on the net through file-sharing?

>This is absolutely incorrect. The sales have been going down for years, while
>the sales of cdr-s and burners have gone through the roof.

If you're not going to do basic homework, I'm not going to make it easy for you. Until 2001 - when the RIAA convieniently stopped collecting records - sales went up. Even after 2001, sales went down only after a 25% decrease in albums released. Sales rose per album.

Do some research, then get back to me.

>I most certainly did not. I am an artist and I own ALL my copyrights; I
>clearly mentioned this.

Then you got a REALLY good record deal. Most artists who sign with a label do not. The fact that you do does not make it indicative of the majority.

>What you're forgetting is that these files can be copied and distributed.
>Apple is making money, more power to them. But they are not a solution to the
>problem. When the government gets serious about busting people for serving mp3
>files without a license, Apple's business model, and those of Pressplay, etc.,
>will bepart of a complete a working business model. Without the policiing,
>this is an imcomplete business model.

Hmm, $3 million in sales in less than a month - even before a complete rollout. Hmm, seems like a complete business model to me. Besides, if you actually used Apple, you'd know that they sell .m4p files, not .mp3 files, that they won't work on other people's computers, etc.
But they're still popular cause you can still burn CDs with em. You can also put em on your iPod, and you can, if you want, convert em into mp3 for use with MP3 players if you want. People will not buy products that they cannot use the way they see fit.

>Everybody's read Albini's ancient script before. It's nothing new. And it
>certainly doesn't constitute a cashflow diagram derived from a composition. A
>composition, from it's birth until it's death (which, I might add, goes far
>beyond the life of it's composer) has many sources of revenue, and none of them
>are completely outlined or diagrammed by Steve Albini. I'm talking
>specifically about artist sales royalties, performance royalties, synch
>licenses, and mechanical royalties. Where this money comes from and where it
>goes under what specific set of conditions. I know these things. It is not
>clear to me that you do. It is not clear to me that even Steve Albini does; at
>least not by his diagram. You seemed to have missed my point.

Then give me your cashflow diagram. Until then, I'll take Steve Albini's word against that of an unknown internet poster, especially cince the Albini diagram has been corroborated by many, many other people, such as Courtney Love, such as George Ziemann, etc.

>Furthermore, you would have to be a complete moron to sign a contract which
>allowed so many middlemen into your business as outlined by Steve Albini. I
>make a living without one tenth of that garbage on his breakdown. The record
>label will take you for all of that, but only if you're dumb enough to let them
>do it. And GM will do the same to the auto workers, as would arguably most of
>the heads of any other industry. Your point? And again, where is the gun to
>the head that makes you sign on the dotted line; deal memo OR contract?

There's no gun for the deal memo - that's achieved through deceit. Once the deal memo is signed, the contract's "gun" is the threat of lawsuit if the band decides not to sign.

But you're right. You don't need that garbage anymore, and bands are beginning to realize it. File-Sharing creates an informed consumer, and the fight against the record labels by artists (which have gone on for years) is gaining new followers because the record labels are out to screw Joe Consumer now. It's building steam and you can't stop it.

In the meantime, your industry is dying - not because of file sharing - but because the labels refuse to adapt to survive in the new market. Pass the laws you want, invent the technologies you want - it doesn't matter. Eventually, you will run out of money the more consumers you piss off. You can't expect to both threaten and sell to your consumer base.

That's why I boycott the RIAA.

Niceguy2003:

Re: St. Anger... trust me, you're wasting your money. Go to metallica.com, listen to St. Anger there, and realize that this is the BEST song on the entire album.

Don't even need to break copyright laws

first of all, i have a question for everyone: does the amount the riaa is reaping from lawsuits equal the amount they are losing from filesharing? are there any figures or references on this?

if they are not recouping what they are losing from filesharing (perhaps even if they are at this point in time), it brings up an important practical point that has been mentioned at least once in this debate: the medium of music production and consumption is changing! i think this is an exciting thing! especially with modern technology, people want their music in a different form. the internet and information-transfer has taken hold, and is not going to go away.

this is a change that needs to be ACKNOWLEDGED by the music industry. yes, they are losing money, but primarily because they have not made the transition adequately. i believe the best way for the music industry to do this is to make it EASIER to buy music in the format and medium that people want it (mp3, mp4) than it is to come by a track through illegal mp3 swapping. there are clear advantages the apple music store has over kazaa, for example. aside from being able to purchase tracks legally (and not having to worry about being hunted down by the riaa), you are guaranteed a set, high quality, large choice of material, and ease of finding and buying what you want. THIS is the way of the future. the cd (as we have said) is outdated, the new medium for music is hard drives and mp3/aac players. the cd will likely be used largely as a BACKUP medium. there are always difficulties in changing between musical mediums, but i do not think that this is something that will go away. perhaps part of the problem is that the music industry does not realize that this is not just bastard songs spreading over the internet. it is a new MEDIUM, which has obviously caught on much more than the minidisc ever did. there are hard drive recorders out there for tasks such as location audio, etc -- it should soon be obvious that trying to suppress it will not help.

the apple music store is a step in the right direction. if the music industry wants to save itself (which really is all they can do - they can't really expect to make money forever by suing everyone), they all need to jump onboard. this sort of online music store needs to become more common, and available for non-mac users.

i think it is worth repeating my point: the only way for the music industry to survive is to make it EASIER to come by quality tracks legally than illegally in the new medium. there will probably always be illegal filesharing, and i am not condoning it, but there is no way for the riaa to go after everyone or to make enough money off their lawsuits for long. if they want to survive, they must evolve.

ohmyhead - Well, an interesting thing - when file sharing goes up, so do music sales per album. After all, free exposure. Some big names - Eminem, Advil Laverne Wassername, and such might go down a bit due to file sharing, but smaller names benifit from filesharing since they don't get airplay.

We'll never know for sure, but it's more likely, based on sales records (up to the point where the RIAA convieniently stopped collecting them) that the labels GAIN from filesharing rather than lose money. The lawsuits are just about control - which 60 million Americans are not about to let them have back.

-- Funky.

Just a quick point which I don't think you've considered yet.

You've had 12 years in the music business.

When you started with your first contract, it was an entirely different situation. The big 5 were more like "the big 12," CDs were priced at $8.98, and you could afford to negotiate around for a label that would let you keep your copyright.

That's just not true today. I don't doubt that you had the oppertunities that you claim you have - I bemoan the fact that those oppertunities don't exist today.

Try searching for a record label that would give a new band the right to their own songs today. You won't find it.

Yes, you're shrewder - but you're already in the door. You've already broken in and have some leverage, from back when artists had some measure of choice. A new band does not.

I read this little tirade today on my lunch break at work. It's sorry to see that someone with "12 years" of experience in the music industry has been so poisoned and indoctrinated with their pathetic ranting that he actually agrees with it. Don't get me wrong, I do understand and appreciate the idea of intellectual copyrights, however, I also don't see the need for a non-elected group of recording industry executives who won't even come public with their own financial figures to chase after Joe Shmoe in the Navy or Jim Beam at the 'ol University for 'copyright infringements'. Give me a break. The only reason they would ever have for doing so is if they (or one of their conglomerate partners) owned the copyrights to said material and not those responsible for the material itself. These people trumpet up justice (as long as they can meet their bottom line each fiscal quarter) and apparently go on to persecute those who provide that justice.

Something else I might add is that if these people were so concerned with copyrights and all this that they might make the effort to ensure that copyrights stayed with the people who are responsible for them, i.e, the artists themselves. These are the same people who corrupt our congress and sneak things like the "Works for Hire" into bills that in no way relate in subject matter to the recording industry. "Were you just born stupid or did they grow you that way?!"

The artists responsible for creating the music, art or what have you should be responsible for pursuing copyright infringements and no label or panel of people (like the RIAA) should be allowed to sit in for them and determine what is popular enough to try milking the general public for a couple more lawsuits over. Period. If Metallica wants to throw a fit because someone found some of their sub-standard music on Napster, fine. At least they're taking enough interest in it to look into it. If Britney Spears is too busy pretending to be a virgin and wants her label to look into it, too bad, she misses out.

I am a musician and I outright refuse to give away copyrights for material that I have labored over to people or record labels seeking to make money from them. I do not record music for the sake of making money, I record music because it's where my passion is. It's so sad to see that society and these 'artists' have no appreciation for the 'art' (or mockery of it) they try to cultivate.

What the record companies and artists should do is create a 'leasing' of copyrights, which would eliminate a lot of confusion over who owns what if an artist should switch labels or something of that nature. The copyrights stay with the artist, who leases them to the label (who is inevitably going to make more than the artist is) for the duration of the recording contract. Upon termination of the contract, the lease is terminated as well and all rights stay with the artist. This way, if the artist has a hit song, the label can make their killing while the artist is not only paid for royalties but also for the label's usage of the copyrighted material. Think of it as dynamic, contractually-retractable licensing.
That would at least make the labels consider the artists for what they are.

That's the problem, too many people are brainwashed and will defend the RIAA till death due them part!

ya know since I've been coming here and reading articles there seems to be 1 person on here who is an RIAA bootlicker and has like god only knows how many accounts, could this author be related to musicfann I wonder? Since, musicfann hasn't been around lately and he/she/it is the loudest bootlicker I've seen on here yet....

hmmmmmmmmm.

"12 years in the music bidness"

what the heck is 'bidness?'

"Its da rekid bidness" he said, drooling all over his shirt as he lisped...

Eminem's eminem show sold millions, yet was the most popular download across P2P. Sure didnt effect his sales thats for sure.

Hey Seekingthetruth..., I got a question for you. Why'd you get in the 'recording industry' in the first place? All you talk about is royalties this, royalites that, consumers are stupid because they pay too much for CDs, I know economics, and all this other nonsense, but all you talk about is how you don't make enough money off your own material. Why don't you post which band you've been in, grace us with your musical presence and let us decide why you want more in royalties, especially since you said yourself that the last few albums of yours didn't make the sales cap. I'm going to go out on a limb here and state for the record that some albums don't sell because, dare I say, people don't want to listen to garbage? Musical taste is relative, and this is true, but a CD of some jackhole farting on a snare drum doesn't sound like it'll be a real stocking stuffer this Christmas season.
The decline in the music market has nothing to do with music piracy, it has to do with what people want to hear and how they have to go about getting it. Nevermind the overall economical state the world has been in these past two years. People don't go out on a hunch and buy a CD from some lame 'artist' and hope it'll be good because they can't afford to, that is honest truth. People will, however, go out and buy a CD from a band that they already like, but just don't own yet.
I also want to state for the record that those of us who are against the idea of a large oligopoly forcefeeding us 'a diverse range of music' that is nothing more than pop star wanna be crap are not necessarily 'music pirates'. Your proctologist just called and told me he found where your head went.
Finally, my initial point was that all you talk about is royalties and money that you feel you deserve, that some guy with a handycam or a tape recorder is dicking you out of, and I think it's pathetic. Either you write music because you write music or you write music to put food on your table. The only problem is that with that second choice you're stuck catering to the masses, and that puts you in the same ballpark as these RIAAssholes if you ask me. Creativity is about just that; not trying to come up with something you think other people are going to like. Now quit bitching about 'your royalties' and 'bootleggers' and go write something I can move my bowels to.

Muz wrote:

What the record companies and artists should do is create a 'leasing' of copyrights, which would eliminate a lot of confusion over who owns what if an artist should switch labels or something of that nature. The copyrights stay with the artist, who leases them to the label (who is inevitably going to make more than the artist is) for the duration of the recording contract. Upon termination of the contract, the lease is terminated as well and all rights stay with the artist. This way, if the artist has a hit song, the label can make their killing while the artist is not only paid for royalties but also for the label's usage of the copyrighted material. Think of it as dynamic, contractually-retractable licensing.
That would at least make the labels consider the artists for what they are.

STT writes:
This is the kind of deals that I do with the labels that I deal with. A variation is that I give them permanent use of the masters for the life of the copyright. After that period, I'm free to re-record the masters and license to whomever I wish.

I'm not poisoned nor indoctrinated by anyone my friends. Not the RIAA, and certainly not by this forum. The RIAA aren't angels, but they aren't the entirety of the problem either. You're not the entirety of the problem, but you sure as hell ain't angels either...

The truth lies between somewhere between you people and the RIAA. Both the RIAA and it's antagonists are very defensive and eager to point the finger at anyone but themselves. Neither one of you want to back down. The RIAA has absolutely no moral imperative; their most vocal antagonists seem to be moral zealots. I can see this, as can many of my associates in the industry.

I'm privileged to be a part of a very private email discussion regarding the evolution of technology and its effect on our industry. This email discussion is composed of high-profile label execs, artists, producers, lobbyists, publishers, retailers, performing rights organizations, hardware and software R&D technologists, accountants, media brokers, lawyers. Mostly people from the USA, Europe and Japan. It doesn't have a website. It wasn't organized, not officially anyway. It just kind of happened.

The agenda of this website popped up in our email discussion around the same time the discussion got around to the RIAA. I had to see for myself what goes on here. I was very disappointed to observe a lacking application of categorical syllogisms to a problem that is in dire need of a bit of sober logic.

"Ohmyhead"'s last post seems very close to getting to the meat of the matter. The real meat of the matter is protecting the copyright. Everything after that can be worked out between the owner of the copyright and the parties who wish to exploit it; that's a battle that's been going on for ages, and will continue to revolve throughout time. But it seems the meat of the matter is being for the most part ignored by salty souls who want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Brian, if you can convert an Apple Music file into an mp3 file, then what is the difference? It can be copied and distributed as an mp3. It remains that any and every copyright that has appeared before tomorrow is subject to mass distribution of a scale never before seen on earth.

I'd rather not argue with anyone in here about what this copyright infringement scenario presents to our industry. I participate in that other forum composed of people who, together, are more qualified to address these highly technical issues and legal principals and bring potential resolutions to bear on them.

I should not have gotten so frustrated to find so many people with such a shallow view of the big picture. I was just so very surprised. Maybe 12 years is not a long time to some but man, I haven't been on this level in a long time. Your energy and time could be put to so much better use. It pained me so much to see, I just wanted to crack some heads together. But that hardly solves the problem; it only served to make a few people even more defensive...

Yes I did and do continue to compose music for pleasure. Sometimes I can please myself and sometimes I can't. This is the process of making music.

Yes and I did and do continue to profit financially from the few songs given to my creative faculties by creation (choose your own source definition here). Sometimes I can pull it off, and sometimes I can't. This is the process of selling the music.

Now you tell me, friends, how these distinct activities are entertwined? They are not in my studio. In one time and place, I may elect to put on my composer/performer helmet. The next day, perhaps in a different place, it's time to put on my product development helmet. So I remove the composer/performer helmet and put it on. In my experience, you can literally drive yourself to tears trying to task a product development issue while wearing your artist helmet. Further, that helmet will not protect you in that game. Conversely, the product development helmet won't do you much good in the studio. In either case, it's very easy to fool yourself, isn't it?

The business of making the music.
The business of selling the music.

Both activities can be creative play. Both activities can be fun.
Both activities can be work.
Both activities can be a painful experience.
Both activities can be educational.

Just like pumping gas. Like putting up fencing. Like designing databases. Like typing. Like kickboxing. Like cunnilingus. Like anything else I've ever done...

And you?

Still seeking...

>Brian, if you can convert an Apple Music file into an mp3 file, then what >is the difference? It can be copied and distributed as an mp3. It remains >that any and every copyright that has appeared before tomorrow is subject to >mass distribution of a scale never before seen on earth.

$3 Million in sales the first week is the point. It's not like these songs weren't already on Kazaa etc., yet people were still willing to BUY them to the tune of $3 million the first week. Why? Because people are willing to pay for music that they can play whenever they wish, and on whatever medium. How much more do the labels want??

I'm in a band. I don't know much about anything except that a lot of people who have already made a lot of money off their music wish to take away the only merketing medium that I have. What it comes down to is that the RIAA wants to take away the only means that I have to get my music out to a wider audience than I can physically reach. I will fight its attempts to do so, because you're right - my copyrights aren't worth jack shit if I can't get my songs to anyone. I think that's the crux of the matter: could it be that a certain trade organization would stand to benefit heavily if all musical copyrights that they DON'T control were worthless because they also control the delivery medium?? hmmmm...

So what IS your solution for the REAL independent artists, ie the ones who aren't affiliated with either a major label or a not-so-indie-indie label?? I have no interest in becoming major label; by your own admission they are gluttonous whores who would like nothing better than to rape me. Since that doesn't sound very appetizing, maybe I'll try to get my music played on my local radio station... oh, wait, can't do that... they effectively own it. Maybe I could share it on the internet, but no one does that anymore, because sharing my own mp3s on the net contributes to stealing and takes money out of Lars Ulrich's kids' mouths. Or, maybe I could just go reapply at McDonalds, because if things go your way, then indie artists won't be able to make an honest living in the post-DMCA world.

By the way, on the off-chance that STT is Lars: I'm a better drummer than you, and I'm just a lowly guitar player.

QUOTE: I'm privileged to be a part of a very private email discussion regarding the evolution of technology and its effect on our industry. This email discussion is composed of high-profile label execs, artists, producers, lobbyists, publishers, retailers, performing rights organizations, hardware and software R&D technologists, accountants, media brokers, lawyers.

REPLY: But I'll bet you not one consumer.

QUOTE: Brian, if you can convert an Apple Music file into an mp3 file, then what is the difference? It can be copied and distributed as an mp3. It remains that any and every copyright that has appeared before tomorrow is subject to mass distribution of a scale never before seen on earth.

REPLY: You can make an MP3 of any sound - on a worst case scenario, you could always run a line-out from the speakers to the line-in of the microphone on your soundcard.

I've bought .m4p files, and haven't found the need to convert them. If I was still using my mp3-only player, I'd need to - but I haven't felt the need to share them online. Good god, man, there's only been $3 million in sales in less than a month, with less than 3% market penetration! People want to buy the music, but they can't afford the RIAA's prices and they want to be able to use the music in ways they see fit.

After all, every one of those 3 million songs could probably be found on Kazaa anyway.

QUOTE: I participate in that other forum composed of people who, together, are more qualified to address these highly technical issues and legal principals and bring potential resolutions to bear on them.

REPLY: I'm pretty damn qualified. I could solve the "piracy problem" in three moves:

1) Scenario One: Spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, lobbying, litigation, and DRM, all of which will be ignored/defeated, and only the honest people will buy the music anyway.

2) Scenario Two: Spend millions of dollars on online ways to buy music (such as iTunes Store,) make money by fulfilling the demand that's out there, just go with the flow, and the honest people will buy the music anyway.

It'd also help if they'd lower prices to that which the average person could afford, and promoted more diverse and higher quality music, to drive up demand. While you believe that people will buy anything that is promoted, I disagree wholeheartedly. Now that P2P exists, consumers can be informed. They will seek quality. I only buy quality.

QUOTE: Both activities can be creative play. Both activities can be fun.
Both activities can be work.
Both activities can be a painful experience.
Both activities can be educational.

REPLY: Think about it this way. The internet doesn't disable you from making money on music. It enables you to share the music that otherwise wouldn't be heard by human ears. Indeed, if you've got a song the label doesn't pick up, sell it or share it online. Since 90%+ of the bands in America won't be picked up by the big 5, the only way to transfer the music to the world is through the internet. It allows smaller artists to do their own distribution.

It's not about the money, for the RIAA. File sharing increases sales. It's about control. They don't want the 90% of the bands out there NOT to sign with the RIAA - they don't want the 90% of bands out there to not be dependant on them, they don't want the 90% out there to be heard, because they want to control what is.

And until you say who you are, seeking, you've got absolutely no credibility in convincing anyone to see your point. You could be Michael Kamen. You could be Cary Sherman. So put your identity where your mouth is. If you care about your words, own up to them.

Brian.

When I buy a name brand T shirt that's plain black it costs @$10, at the same store the same brand T shirt with a band's name on it is @$16. It costs this same store @$1 to put custom silkscreening in bulk on shirts, is the band getting $5 a shirt?
When I buy any product I want to know where the money is going. Look for the union label, remember the outrage at child labour sweatshops?
When I buy a CD Im buying what the artist created (depending on the artist the label may have helped very little {Tool}to have helped so much that the artist shouldnt be called an artist {Britney}) and I feel that no one should make a higher profit then the artist. Consitering newly signed bands get @50¢/CD if theyre lucky and established band can get @$1.25 wheres my $15 going? Even if a band's frist two albums are platnum what's their bargining chip? "Write me a new deal or I quit recording forever?" cuz they cant change labels as easily as pro-athletes change teams.
Im not against Angus Young being a millionaire, Im against the label and Kmart each making more then he does off his music. (btw Im against the filesharing of copyrighted material, but a $150,000 fine is NOT justice)
Im still wondering who TruthSeeker is also...

That's another thing - people don't pay for CDs cause they don't like where the money goes - towards bribing legislators and waging barratry against college students.

How can you expect me to buy YOUR music when 95% of the money goes towards supporting actions which I find illegal, immoral, and reprehensible.

"QUOTE: I'm privileged to be a part of a very private email discussion regarding the evolution of technology and its effect on our industry. This email discussion is composed of high-profile label execs, artists, producers, lobbyists, publishers, retailers, performing rights organizations, hardware and software R&D technologists, accountants, media brokers, lawyers.

REPLY: But I'll bet you not one consumer."

hahaha, hang on there, funksaw... you're assuming that none of those people (especially artists) are consumers as well. artists are probably some of the biggest consumers in this area.



"I'd rather not argue with anyone in here about what this copyright infringement scenario presents to our industry. I participate in that other forum composed of people who, together, are more qualified to address these highly technical issues and legal principals and bring potential resolutions to bear on them."

and seekingthetruth, you are automatically assuming that no one in here has any sort of experience or technical qualifications? i'm sure we don't have the combined qualifications of a group of lawyers, producers, engineers, etc, but you make a great presumption in assuming that any one of us does not have equivalent qualifications of just one member of that group. if you don't want to argue these points here, then what precisely are you doing arguing here? the only two reasons i can see (correct me if i'm wrong) are that you're here to bicker and let out some steam, or else you're here to get practical ideas from outside sources that you might not have considered. the latter is a great idea, the former might not be such a good use of time.

of course that all presupposes my idea that the main crux of positive change in this situation will be from within the recording industry, and not by forcing people to stop p2p filesharing (including mp3 swapping as well as legal exchange of other files).

If artists got off their lazy asses and did more touring they'd make more money but everyone except for "Ozzy" likes to sit on their ass and cash in their checks once a month and wonder why they are broke. If you are a serious artist you ahve to get your face out there tour your ass off and then, maybe the kids will buy your CD.

seems everyone is so laxy these days they feel they dont have to tour. even Michael Jackson realises that you cant just sit on your ass and expect the money to keep flowing without promotion.

leflaw,

you crack me up dude.

12 years in the music bidness and I've never heard of you? why is that I wonder?

because he's a composer, duh. composers are completely behind the curtain sort of folks. the general public think they're "in the know" when they talk about john williams. there are so many composers, and you've heard of... how many?