"We've got guns to our heads," said Robert Lorber.

Lorber is a University of California, Davis, professor - but more important to this, he's also a Tower Records board member, and it appears Tower is on its way out.

"In a little more than seven weeks, Tower may be walking into bankruptcy court," says Dale Kasler in an August 9 Sacramento Bee story, going on:

"The West Sacramento retailer defaulted on its debts June 2 and put itself up for sale to avoid bankruptcy. Its bankers have given the company until Sept. 30, a date they could extend. Its bondholders haven't said how long they'll wait."

"Growth is going to come from new stores," Kasler quotes Russ Solomon, the man who put the chain together, as saying in 2000. Tower added five that year.

"The crash came in 2001," Kasler continues, "$90.3 million loss. A noncash charge for accounting purposes was partly to blame, but Tower also took $46 million in write-offs as it closed 14 stores. The carnage included Tower Books. Tower closed several bookstores, including Russ Solomon's beloved New York site."

Still "drowning in debt", Tower spent the next two years closing stores and making deals with lenders to avoid default, says Kasler. "It ceded control to outsiders for the first time, hiring a retail specialist as CEO on orders from its bankers. And it lopped off its healthiest limb. Facing a big loan payment, it sold its profitable Japan stores last year for $129 million, prompting bankers to make new loans. But the sale, completed last fall, left Tower a third smaller and unable to generate enough cash, leading to the June default.

"The sale also sparked a dispute with Tower's bankers. The proceeds included a $13 million royalty for the Solomons for use of the Tower name in Japan. Some banks wanted that money reinvested in Tower, said David M. Schulte, an official with Tower's former investment advisor, Chilmark Partners. Schulte disclosed this in a lawsuit between Chilmark and Tower.

"The Solomons kept the money ..."

own3d?

CodeWarrior come back, we miss you man!

Hill875 - Code posted saturday in another thread. He'll be back later today if I remember right. He's a good poster and valuable member in our fight.

CodeWarrior Lives

I feel so sorry for Tower.

Boy, I wish we could claim ownage on this one, but I don't really care how/why they go out, as long as they go.

.
RIAA’s criminal (?) oligarchy’s greed claims another victim.

But wait, I have a plan… Just sue them!

After all it works for all your other captives – Right RIAA?

And the walls..

Every record chain that goes bankrupt means less revenue for the recording industry. It will hasten the RIAA's downfall and also make them more desperate. It's fascinating to watch this all unfold. I think we'll either see the recording industry completely changed in a few years OR we'll see copyright infringement enforced with even greater viciousness, back by new and even more draconian laws. Let's hope it's the former.

I was in Tower Records last spring, I think. Tower's not just in the crapper because music as a whole is hurting, it's also the worst experience I had with buying music.

The kids they hired were nice, but just didn't know anything about music pre-Brittany. There was Metallica's St. Anger being played over the loudspeakers - loud enough so that I had to shout to be heard.

I asked them if they had an indie section. They said no. Then I asked them if they had a used section. Again, they said no.

I said sayonara.

They were dissapointed. I was the only one in the store. On a saturday afternoon. In the shopping district.

-- Funksaw

One fine day in 1994/95, I was working as a hardlines manager at our local Media Play. A lady came into the dept. and requested a copy of Windows 3.11 (then it was still the choice OS). She looked and sounded rather desperate. With a shaky voice, holding the Microsoft box in her hand, she began to explain to me that she was replaced at her job by someone who knew how to operate a computer. She was an older woman who knew how to use a typewriter. She said she had to learn about computers because, basically what she was telling me was, she was outdated. Phil Tippet (sp), a special effects wizard for such movies as Jurrasic Park, Star Wars and Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, once joked in an interview during a Jurassic Park behind the scenes interview, that the new way of doing computer animated effects was in, and the old fashioned stop-motion effects were outdated -- a thing of the past. He didn't want to be replaced by effects guys who knew how to work computer software to created the stunning dinosaur effects, so he was forced to upgrade. What I'm saying is, because Tower-Records and the RIAA are not moving forward with the new technology, they will someday be found buried on the side of a mountain in New Zealand by an archeologist and then put in some Canadian museum for every new company to learn from.

If the recording industry is going under due to advances in technology, why is it the government's role to pass laws to try to save it? When cars were invented did the government pass laws to prop up the horse carriage and buggy whip industries? I seriously doubt it. Of course, the difference is that corporations made a lot of money from manufacturing and selling autos (along with generating tax revenue) and noone's making money from P2P file sharing. Our economy is stagnant, and manufacturing, programming, engineering, and customer service jobs are disappearing overseas in droves. The entertainment industry is one area in which the U.S. is still dominant and the government doesn't want it to go belly-up. My fear is that the government will take whatever steps are needed to make sure that file sharing doesn't pose a threat to that area of our economy. Am I just being paranoid?

Hey y'all, have you seen this? FUCKING EPIC!!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/riaawar/petition.html

OK, I used to own a record store, and I know how easy it is to go out of business (I sure did). Unfortunately, this probably wasn't the result of sales declining shortly. I used to go through Valley as a distributor, and man, the profit margin on record sales is just that - marginal. We would purchase a new CD for 11.00 from Valley, and sell it for 14.00. Just wanted to let you guys know the most probable reason for Tower going down.

This is exactly right. The RIAA is no longer needed. They won't adapt to the future. They are dinosaurs. I work as a medical transcriptionist. Voice recognition systems is overtaking my job field. It's still a few years off, but already 1/4 of the notes I do each day are actually proofreading what the computer has done. They are not going to pay me $14.64 an hour to proofread. My job is becoming obsolete. No one is fighting for this technology to be stopped, we are having to adapt or change careers. So should the RIAA. So should farmers for that matter. The government actually pays farmers to NOT grow crops! Sure, farming is a way of life, but it no longer works, it's become a dinosaur as well. Adapt or die out.

eaglesniper:

I sympathize with the outrage expressed in that petition, but I feel that it's not that well written and also too antagonistic for me to be able to sign it. Also, how is this petition going to be used? Will it be sent to congressmen? If we come off as too angry I'm afraid we might alienate mainstream politicians.

The reason Tower is going under is because the executives are idiots. I used to work at Bayside Entertainment Distribution which is a distributor Tower owns. All the executives pay themselves large 6-7 figure salaries and pay the regular employees low barely above minium wage and treat them like pee-ons. Also since Bayside is owned by Tower a lot of independant stores don't like to order from them because they view it as purchasing from their competitor. After buying Bayside, Tower modeled their P.O. system after Tower's, one that only Tower uses and retailers and one-stops hate using. Tower also refused stick to the pricing grid and price lower priced CDs at lower retail price, instead used the opportunity to make extra money and piss of the independent labels. For example a CD they would buy at around $10.50 should retail for around $14.95 but they would still sell it for $18.95. Things really got bad a Tower when Russ Solomon gave control of day-to-day business to his son Michael. Ever since then they've lost money. I hate to see any retailers go, but Tower did this to themselves. In the last year and a half we've seen Wharehouse file for its second bancruptcy in 5 years and transworld closing some of its stores and now Tower will most likely go under. It more like due to a combination of losing touch with core customer needs, bad economy and high prices. The rest of 2003 and probably the first half of 2004 will be even worse for the music industry/RIAA member labels. But they won't likely surrender in their "Operation: Eliminate Music Freedom". Instead they will blame the continued sales slump on piracy and P2P, instead of correctly acknowledging their war has turned off their customers from buying new music them. Also I think independent sales will continue to be strong as people will reach out to the independent artists and labels who aren't suing them and are embracing digital downloads. Maybe in 5 years there won't be retail chains in the traditional sense but sort of like internet kiosks they will offer downloads that can be burned to CDs or portable media for a price. Then again the RIAA's PAC money could by then bought new laws that outlaw non-DRM'd computers and we'll have to pay each time we listen to any song no matter if we've already bought it, like some pay-per-listen system on steriods.

That's my fear. The RIAA will use declining sales as an excuse for maintaining their aggressive anti-P2P campaign. The final blow would be DRM. That would reduce my PC's usefulness to that of a word processor. The internet would just be a marketing and sales tool for corporate America. However, from what I've read, hardware DRM is years away (if ever). The idea is meeting opposition from consumers. Also, I can't understand why Intel, AMD, etc., are jumping on the bandwagon. They must know that DRM would hurt PC sales. Lastly, I have trouble imagining that hardware DRM would be government mandated. Unlike the RIAA, elected officials can't afford to recklessly piss off the public. They have to get re-elected. Then again, perhaps I misjudge public opinion. I know some otherwise highly intelligent people who think the RIAA is completely justified in suing college students for copyright infringement. Mostly rich republican types who support the status quo.

I'm sure that any loss is going to sold as a caused by P2P file sharing. The state and direction that things are going are horrible for consumer rights. Even now its almost like we have no rights at all. The sellers have every right to pick us clean. Its tragic to know so few have any idea what could happen down the road. I fail to see how the customer raping practices will lead to anything other than economic ruin in the future. Bleeding a sue people dry so they have nothing left to give to even live off of is no way to keep a country strong and healty.

Hey RIAA, in case you don't know or haven't realized yet, these poor students someday will graduate and go on to be lawyers, industrialists, politicians and businessmen. They will remember you and your croonies. Who will have the last laugh? Let me pratice now jejejejejjajajajijiji.

Hill875, I couldn't agree with you more. Are children the people we want to put in jail? I mean yeah they may be annoying little farts but I don't think the American people will let this happen. I laugh at the RIAA. When/if I get a lawsuit, I will laugh harder.

If I remember correctly, it cost around $56,000 per bed to build a new prison. At the rate the RIAA wants to prosecute people, no one will be outside working, buying worthless recordings, and paying taxes. Where would each state get the money to build new prisons, pay the guards, feed the inmates and keep up with their medical needs. Way to go RIAA!! Soon you will have it all and no one around to efing with.

Hill875, I was thikning the same thing, but not only are they pissing off future lawyers, industrialists, politicians, and businessmen; they are encouraging myself, a Computer Science major to take programming more seriously so that I can make programs to screw them over.

More power to the people "AZAZUL"

I hope you RIAA moles are writing these posts down. There are a lot of angry people here. We didn't start these fiasco, you did. Like they say "if you can't fight them, join them" GIVE THEM HELL AZAZUL.

Made a mistake. I meant to say "this" instead of "these" I get too involved in this ciber fight. I am sounding like I am a monster, I am not. What gets under my skin is that these people with power they think they can kick us, and kick us until they had enough. I gave up a good part of my life to serve my country. 21 years in the military, and pround to have served in the U.S Army. I remember many young people loke me were runing off to Canada or faking illnesses or pretending to be in college so suckers like me will serve in the military.
I wore my county's uniform to guard our freedoms and say what ever we please without the fear of getting lock up, fined or label a criminal without the due process of our laws. So bite me RIAA.

I agree with you Ifeelfree, the petition thing is a good idea, but firstly it MUST be written very articulately with facts, not feelings and we would also have to figure out what we were going to do with it. Sending it to our representatives would be a great place to start.

Wonder if we could compel CodeWarrior to write one up for us?

can anybody give me the email of the artists that are against p2p file sharing and are supporting the RIAA Terrorist and their scare tactics, cuz i got a few things to say to them

thats what the recording industry gets for trying to stop us!!!

This does not surprise me at all.. Not because of the economy or the p2p thing... but the company as a whole sucked.. Killa bee you're right. I used to work for a tower records here and when russ's son took over it all went to shit. Back in the day, for a record store, tower treated there employees very well(paid vacations, charge accounts, sick days, etc etc). Since then.. they have cut back on raises, cut back on labor(making everyone else work harder).

Now when you treat employees good you can get ones in there that know what they are talking about. When you dont'... your gonna have a high turnover rate and shitty employees thus having pissed off customers. Now when I was there I liked Latin "alternative" rock... which gave me a so-so knowlege on the other latin stuff, so I quickly became the latin buyer for my store. so the employees there thought since I was the Latin buyer, they would send customers to me for all world/foriegn music. Not that I wouldn't take the challenge of helping them on that.. But these employees knew just enough about "German Drinking Songs" as I did. It was good to have a couple "top-40 junkies" in there for the customers who only listen to top 40 radio.. but other than that they were completly usless.

So what I gotta say... Burn Baby BURN!!!!!

What if this site became more active in the media somehow? Maybe claiming p2p users as a reason Towers went out of business, which is what everyone is going to suspect anyways, and state very specifically that we demand changes in the current music industry structure. And until then, will continue to oppose any dinosaur business that sells music.


And a comment on DRM, as it was mentioned earlier; don't worry about DRM, sound cards are so advanced today, looping audio from the line-out to the line-in is almost a perfect recreation and eliminates all DRM, so that it will never become an issue for someone who's willing to spend a little extra time. And of course there's the BORA (brake once, run anywhere) principle.


And certainly manditory DRM over-night will never happen, just look at this country's adoption of digital tv...

What an interesting site! So many non-diverse points of view. Let me see if I've got it straight: artists should perform for free. Songwriters should write for free. It's inherently wrong to seek compensation for the sale or distribution of recordings. People who write and make music don't have to eat. Talent finds and develops itself. All power to the people. Izzat it?

Moments of inspiration sometimes only come after long periods of exposure to the subject. I've had a few and here is another that leaves me wondering why I didn't see it sooner.

Anything with the name industry , inc., ltd or that otherwise represents a huge company with more accountants and CEO's than any given branch of the military has ammunition, always turns into a money sucking, pepople hating, employee raping machine that defames the country in which it resides. Given examples Microsoft, RIAA/MPAA, and Enron are a few.

That stated our solution should not be an industry changed. It should not be an industry at all. It should be RAAA Recording Artists Association of America and by association I mean nothing more than a union of people with mutual interests that correspond with eachother from time to time. Artists are the ones that do the work to begin with. Truth be told there are other parts that the artist doesn't contribute much to, but how many of you here run your own label or produce and package your own music? You know it can be done. I believe that the recording industry was started with the right idea, to get the music to the people, but it became corrupt as we all know. Now with the internet and p2p the channels that the industry provided are no longer needed. We don't need the likes of Carry "I own your soul" Sherman breathing down our necks we need an entirely new way not just a new industry. Think of the diversity that would explode everywhere, there might be tons of new types of music created. There might be musical Einsteins to rival Bach and Beethoven emerge. It could all be easily distributed and sold via p2p and the internet.

With this thought I realized that the people in the recording industry might not be as stupid as we think. With this thought I realized that the people in the recording industry might have already had this very thought when Napster came about. Now they fight to prevent this future which will not include the satisfaction of their greed. Greed was and is the problem. Greed ate the music, it's eating our country and it's eating us.

BAD NEWS!!

I was watching Malcolm in the middle tonight because my girlfriend makes me and then it happened......

A commercial showing all the faces of people whose livelihoods are jeopardized by downloading and illegally copying of music. I had to get on and post immediately. Keep your eyes posted for this BS.

It's Official. The media is a puppet of the RIAA.

Good news. It didn't make me cry. Hell, I was laughing at their sorry asses.

Maybe you can only buy one porsche now. Oh the tragedy.

What they failed to mention in the pity party commercial is that they still had jobs!!!!

They should be glad that they aren't farming hollywood jobs out to India and China like the rest of American jobs.

I aint buying it.

This aint a joke. Watch for the commercial.

dbasskin:

As it turns out, most musicians make the majority of income by performing. Most have been snookered into contracts with the record companies that insure the musicians make very little from CD sales. Many of us argue that musicians could sell CDs directly to the public and make greater profits. The internet makes sales and distribution fairly easy, bypassing the recording industry middlemen. Musicians can burn CDs themselves, put up their own website and sell the CDs online. Except that most have probably signed contracts with the industry which prohibits them.

Many, including myself, have supported the idea of low cost, high quality music downloads without restrictions on use. The currently available music download sites are just not acceptable. Not only is 99 cents per song too high, but the type of music I'm interested in simply isn't available. Buy CDs? Much of what I like is out of print or unavailable. Even when it is available, why should I have to purchase CDs just because the RIAA is dragging it's feet adapting to new technology? If the industry would make good legal download services available, or sign reasonable licensing agreements with existing P2P sites, there would be plenty of profits available for the artists without gouging the public.

In part, I blame the musicians with dreams of fame and fortune who sign exploitive contracts with the RIAA-affiliated record companies. If they had more courage and integrity they'd go it alone, as many independent artist do. Then they could direct their own careers and the public could get their music for a reasonable price without having to enrich the recording industry fat cats.

Well, a good number of people were still buying music, based on cd sales. The sales might increase if the product was priced more fairly. Considering we are in a recession.

With the new lawsuits sales should skyrocket? right.

wethepeople:

The RIAA knows they may be losing the public relations battle so they're fighting back with these misleading "break your heart" ads. As an analogy, could you imagine when automobiles started to be mass-produced, if the horse carriage and buggy whip industries put out ads in newspapers about all the people being put of work? It's absurd, of course. People are put out of work all the time due to changes in technology. Just ask people who used to have manufacturing or computer programming jobs, jobs that were moved overseas in recent years. Stop whining. Things change. Get over it.

Wethepeople:

Those comments were directed at the people who created those ads, not you, of course!

I'm a struggling writer. I just got laid off from my job as a computer technician(sp). Anyway, I have my novel here. I'm in the process of looking for an agent. But I have to be careful, because there are a lot of agents who will try to suck my blood. See, they will try to charge me for a reading fee, critique fee, or try to take me for more than 10-15% of domestic sales. That's because some agents are blood suckers. So what is an unknown writer to do? I've been considering online publishing, and then when I make a name for myself, maybe hunt down a good agent, and then go for the book sales. My point is, there was a post here by a person named dbasskin
and I think he/she was being a little sarcastic when he/she said, "So many non-diverse points of view. Let me see if I've got it straight: artists should perform for free. Songwriters should write for free. It's inherently wrong to seek compensation for the sale or distribution of recordings. People who write and make music don't have to eat..." I don't know if you guys caught that, or just chose to ignore it. What this person doesn't understand, is that the artists are being ripped off by the very people who claim to represent them and protect their copyrights? It happens in the writing world if writers are not careful, the very people who claim to represent the writer's book will rip them off. Is it true an artist only sees 3 cents on every dollar made from an album? What does the song writer see? Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to copyright law, doesn't all the proceeds from a song go to the song writer, and then he decides who gets a cut...am I wrong? Someone correct me. Am I making sense???

You know I just saw Pirates of the Caribbean, and at the beginning of the show, that dumb "Movies. They're worth it." ad ran. I thought it was really funny when at the end of the movie, one of the characters says something like,"Sometimes piracy is the right course."

In my best British accent, I thought,"Mmyes old chap, I do believe you are correct."

Its ok.

ghosthouse:
I know what you are talking about as far as writing. You can send out a thousand letters to agents and get a thousand and one back. That one you get back is an "editor" wanting to sell you his or her high priced services to "edit" your work. There are the "vanity publishing services" , but beware of those. You are paying them to publish your work, and most don't have any distribution network. There is a publishing firm associated with Barnes and Nobles. I think you pay a fee for them to publish, but I think they provide face space for your book in their stores, which can get a beginning career kick started. I had some info on it, but don't know where it is. You might try doing a google search about it, and if I find a link to more info, will post here, or if you want to leave an email, will send it to you there.
Anyway, ignore idiots that only make idiotic comments. You are constructive, he seemed to be lost and useless.
Good luck ghosthouse! More later.
~code

I think dbasskin needs to hang around awhile and learn from those who know more about this. I've learned alot about the recording industry thanks to the many wonderful posters on this site.

We're not all in this for free music. We want the artists & songwriters to get their money, not the RIAA. We want change to the copyright law. We want good music at a reasonable cost.

dbasskin is this too much to ask for??

Pay attention, you'll learn alot here.

demon-3012 and Hill875 , thanks
Just got in from out of the country late tonight and wanted to give a shout out to everyone! Will post more tomorrow...We are winning more everyday...especially since the best and brightest in this country and other countries are coming on board!
Take care all...more l8ter
~code

ghosthouse

I guess I missed the genious that posted that. I would have taken great pleasure in raising hell. I really wish people would stop trying to show me/us the error of our ways.

None of us ever made the assertion that artists shouldn't eat. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I really really really want to pay for music. Just not shitty music, not always from record stores, and not 20 bucks no matter how good the 8-15 songs are.

I want iTunes type pricing with the ability to download just as easily whatever I choose as I could on kazaa. Getting exactly what I want may not be realistic, but come on.. let's try here people.. damn.

And concerning things out of principle: I'd like to see the RIAA burn in hell for creating morons that think someone that downloads is someone that steals from artists when the RIAA charges 20 dollars for a cd that costs 2 bucks (absolute maximum) and gives the artist a buck. They keep 17.. and for what? Owning the songwriters like whores? Sounds like a deal!

I was in the library 2+ weeks ago "doing" my homework when I walked past a music law book. I took it out and sat down and forgot about my assignments. In one section, the book broke down the cost of making the booklets, the jewel cases, burning the cd, recording the cd, marketing, distributing, etc. The more cd's that are produced, the cheaper per cd it is (duh). The bottom line: $2 was the ABSOLUTE max per cd.

I'm responding to that person as if he/she just said that. But it still pisses me off because if I hear one more person make that claim, I'm going to kick them in their neck. *If* downloading costs artists money, it costs them very very very little. The RIAA costs them the life they very much deserve.

Also, to that person. I would absolutely love to go out to my local overpriced record store and put some food in the poor artists bellies, but doing so also puts gas in Cary Sherman's Lexus. So.. bite me.
~Boycotting until the people have it their way.

ghosthouse:

dbasskin obviously hasn't read very many of the posts on this forum. If he/she has indeed read most of the posts then I believe his/her basic reading comprehension is severely lacking. I've been following this site for quite some time now and I don't honestly believe that anyone on here wants to deny an artist their monetary due. dbasskin hasn't been enlightened to the fact that the RIAA has an long history of raping artists out of CD profits. I don't personally know the hard facts, but the money artists recieve for CD sales is a mere pittance to the total made. The bulk of their money is made from other sources such as touring, t-shirts etc. Over the years the RIAA has established a system that is 100% to their benefit, NOT the artist. As far as the copyright laws, maybe someone else on this forum with more knowledge than I can answer you better. Cheers

As far as Tower going under, all I have to say is good riddance. Haven't set foot in one of their stores for over ten years. Their selection was extremely poor as well as the prices being ridiculous. Out of curiosity I clicked the link up above for 'cdbaby.com' a couple weeks ago and have since ordered twice from them for a total of four Cds. All four are incredibly well done without a crap song among them. Most of their CDs are between 10 and 12 bucks! The site usually has three or four songs per album you can listen to before you buy. Highly recommended.

You guys.... Tower falling is a good thing, but it is also the worst thing. Let me explain myself: Who are they going to blame now for poor Tower falling???? P2P networks, thats who. This is going to bite us in the ass.. This will push more RIAA lovers, i.e. politicians, to pass more stringent legislation. This is going to turn out badly

Regarding efforts to pass legislation to keep the RIAA alive:
Where did people in government get the bizarre idea that it is their job to prop up failing businesses with draconian laws that prosecute average citizens? Tower Records is both poorly run, and clinging to a failing business model, i.e., distribution of music through over-priced CDs. The more laws that are passed to keep unprofitable companies like this on life-support, the more we become like some innefficient socialist republic.

Just a quick note for anyone who hasn't checked out the specifics of
the Pac-Bell complaints, they are online at these links
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh1.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh2.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh3.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh4.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh5.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh6.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh7.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/PacBell_v_RIAA/exh8.pdf
~code

The record companies killed the record stores, who were sucking the RIAA teats and still got left hanging out to dry.

Just like the artists.

Tower never did anything for the indies, anyway. No tears for the tyrants' bedfellows. Let them all die.

WOW!!! Talk about shock and awe..

jsc252, I agree that the most likely statement we'll hear is "p2p destroyed Tower Records" or something along those lines, but if the RIAA does pursue that battle cry I've got a few questions to ask:

1. Where do used CD sales factor into your assessment of contributions to falling sales? Do you even track the sales of used CDs and their effect on the sales of new music?

2. Same as question 1, substitute "non-RIAA" for "used".

3. Where does the sales of other forms of entertainment (DVDs, video games) factor into your assessment of contributions to falling sales? Have you ever bothered to study the effects of other forms of entertainment on CD sales?

4. Where does the industry's continued refusal to listen to their customer base and/or meet the current needs of the average customer (leading to the alienation of the average music fan) factor into your assessment of contributions to falling sales?

5. Where does the public response to the industry's continued assault, in both the media and the legal system, on the character, liberties, and intelligence of their customer base (leading to the FURTHER alienation of the average music fan) factor into your assessment of contributions to falling sales?

6. Finally, if p2p is REALLY hurting artists as badly as you claim it is, then could somebody please give a rational explaination as to why we still see the music stars who are yelling the loudest featured on MTV Cribs, E! TV, Entertainment Tonight, etc. flaunting their extravagant lifestyles, showing off their FLEET of cars that SEPARATELY are priced beyond the means of the average music buyer, and giving video tours of their multi million dollar homes, all the while expecting us to belive that they are now starving because little Johnny downloaded the latest (s)hit? And while we're discussing blatant discrepancies, could you please reconcile with us why we hear reports of record shattering sales and profits at the exact same time we're hearing the sad, sad story of p2p's ill effects on the industry?

So, to the RIAA, I say before you even think about blaming any more of your woes on p2p, we all deserve reasonable answers to all of the questions asked above (although we honestly don't EXPECT them).

btw, Welcome Back Code!

I have a question about deciding which albums are covered by the RIAA. I noticed some albums are released by several labels and if one of those is RIAA then does it mean its off limits according to them? Also the difference sometimes is that the RIAA label version has +3 in the title meaning 3 additional songs. Can you share the one without the additional songs from the non RIAA label or are they the same without the songs?

I’m just asking because I’m going completely independent.

5903 Signatures Total

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/petition-sign.cgi?riaawar

CodeWarrior and Urethra901, thanks for the input. Code you seem to know a lot about the publishing industry. Yes, it can be just as cut-throat as the music industry. That's why a lot of writers are turning to self-publishing and online publishing. The book I am writing now, is my experimental novel, the one I don't mind taking a financial blood bath with. I want to get my name out there with this one. When I do, then I can bring out the big guns, the book idea I've been toying with since I was in high school. The one an established writer told me is very marketable. Anyway, back to music: Is it me, or does the music today suck anyway? I was walking down a bad neighborhood with my wife (because they don't scare us) and we heard someone blasting music in their car. Another car came by with a different song that pretty much sounded like the one before. Then I was sitting in a Cost-Cutters watching my wife get her hair-cut by a 19 year old, and this girl proceeded to tell me how much she hated 80s music, while our local radio station bellowed out something I could not identify. I said to this girl, "Tell me -- how the hell do you dance to something like this?" She replied, "I don't know. I can't dance." And I thought to myself, maybe you can't dance because today's music has no rythem. They are putting out songs faster than Nabisco can make crackers. The teenie-bop groups and singers today are popping up every week on the Disney channel, and basically are all the same. I think we are in serious need of another British invasion, like we had in the 1980s! That's when we had some good music.

furrball316, thanks for the welcome back,and excellent assessment you did!
Seraph,petition signed on this end.
~code

In classical economics hey-day, maybe when people were crying that their jobs were being replaced by technology, and called for restrictions by the government, an economist satirized this to show how retarded it really is. At the time the candle-making industry wasn't doing so well. He demanded a law so that everyone keep all their blinds, windows, etc tightly shut during the day, so that the unfair free competition of natural sunlight would not infinge upon the candlemaking industry. Using the same idiotic arguments they did, he claimed with this new measure, jobs would be saved and the livelihood of britain would be increased 10 fold. Everyone would have to use candles all the time! Basically this all was a joke to show how stupid some of the arguments were at the time, how you should not try to "stop" technology. I forgot the economists name.

kool good to have ya back code

thanks seraph
and ghosthouse, I totally agree with you. The 70s and 80s were MUSIC (But i'm an old dude...so whatta I know :0) ). I've been down that road looking for agents (I've written three books and still looking for an agent). Please keep me up to date on your publishing efforts. I'm pulling for you to succeed big time!
nyer82 , loved your post about the satire...things in the 21st century are getting crazier than the candlemaking satire!
~code

This is great, a entity of the evil empire (r.i.a.a.) is going by the way-side. Sooner or later these clowns will learn that you can not try and force the consumer to by their horrible product. We are no longer going to shell out 20 bones for a cd that may contain 1 or 2 good songs.

All of these artist that are siding with the evil empire better take notice, we know who you are and we will boycott your music, concerts, etc.... You need to remember the people made you who you are and just as quickly we can unmake you as well. Don't get on our bad side.

The only thing evil needs to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

Code: Good to see you back bro. Missed your insightfull posts.

Peace Brothers & Sisters

Looks like the ISPs are trying to get together to fight the RIAA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/technology/11LETT.html

It is sad to see Tower is going down, even if they cater to the RIAA, but we will be protesting in 2 weeks unless the store is Closed.
Educate!

Caught a bit of TechTv yesterday, and they had an interesting report. Of three seperate polls, and statistics from the three companies that ran them, not one of them matched any of the others. Figures on file sharing ranged anywhere from a 65% drop in p2p usage to only 10% or a bit less. Their figures also showed that not nearly as many folks are using p2p as the RIAA likes to think.

Also in that line, they had a brief story with KaZaa's CEO and Hillary Rosen (note: FORMER ceo of the RIAA, why is she still sticking that beak of hers in, claiming to represent the RIAA?), in which it was told that the RIAA had turned down several offers and plans to make KaZaa fee-based. I know this is probably true, because Napster did the same thing, and every advance was shot down or ignored.

As far as that goes, the RIAA is killing itself, quickly. There's ways to destroy that industry without hurting the artists who need the money.

As far as Tower goes, they've been on the brink of disaster for years now. The only one I'm close to is in Boston, and I've gone there once. I can agree that it was probably the worst store I have ever been in. Music blasting so loud I couldn't think of the song I was in there to look for, a cross-dresser at the counter who only knew about dance music, no used CD section, and the store itself was a mess. I'd find a CD by the Cranberries in the W's, jazz mixed in with rock, and, I kid you not, Puff Daddy in the same rack as Pavarotti.

'Nuff said. I wonder when people will finally realize that the bigger you get, and the more you distance yourself from the folks who made you that big, the harder you fall.

To CodeWarrior

Good to see you back on. I've missed reading your post and learning from them. Thanks it helps when you are teaching an old dog something new. Never to old to learn.

gilbd, thank you so much my friend!Your kind words mean a lot, and are really appreciated!!!
We are all in this together.
~code

CodeWarrior
Do you know anything about this place Future of Music Coalition.

http://www.futureofmusic.org/

Gaaaa!!

Well guys, we got giant front page article in St. Louis' most prominant newspaper.

What does it read?

"Downloaders may face the music"
Right underneath, a little chart showing a "sales plunge."

I hate the post dispatch.

And the focus of their article, besides RIAA propaganda, is a person named John Marchesini, who claims to have downloaded "thousands" of free songs.

Here is your link
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/stories.nsf/Entertainment/Music/9A78E6BD94A9FFF386256D7D007A159B?OpenDocument&Headline=Downloaders+may+face+the+music&highlight=2%2Cdownloaders%2Cmay%2Cface%2Cmusic

If that beautiful link doesn't work, then go to http://www.stltoday.com and search for "downloaders may face the music"

I would enjoy a large effort on our behalf of emailing these people.

Did anyone see the poster thing that says "If you're downloading MP3s, you're downloading communism"? Thats BS! I went on google and under images, typed in riaa. A pretty interesting cartoon came up... Check it out:
http://morpho.dar.net/~northrup/images/riaa.jpg

Tip of the hat,
Captain C

gilbd , hadn't seen this yet. I bookmarked it so I can look at it more in depth later. Thanks for the link.
TheSherminator , I scanned that piece you linked to...it made me gag. What's happening with Tower, and with this article, indicates to me that we are already having impact which is troubling and scaring them, and they are going to step up the propaganda efforts. And, parenthetically, I read this morning that 100 ISPs are doing something I suggested at the beginning of this mess, they are uniting against the RIAA and going to send them a nice little letter. From that article in STLtoday, we find again, the unbelievable arrogance that the RIAA continues to maintain vis-a-vis the American Public, which is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette's phrase "Let them eat cake" (which was her response to the observation that people did not have even bread to eat in France, right before the French Revolution). Cary-Sue Sherman said:
"And Sherman isn't worried about public relations.

"Is Saks Fifth Avenue worried about prosecuting a shoplifter?" he says. "No, and we're not worried about going after people who are stealing music. People call them potential customers, but there's not much potential in a customer who steals thousands of dollars worth of your product."

Well, Marie Antoinette lost her head after showing such callous disregard
to the body politic.

Captaincupcake123, that is what they call in debate terms, the fallacy of reduction to the absurd. Most of the RIAA's arguments are all basic and low level fallacious argumemnts including ad hominem attacks, reliance on the halo,post hoc ergo propter hoc,red herring, bandwagon effect, and hasty generalization. You could teach a freshman debating team ALL the low level debating fallacies by exposing them to the RIAA propaganda.

They have tried to ignore us, and the sales are dropping. Now, they are going to step up the propaganda, because they are going to be heading into these lawsuits before long, and they are going to try to taint the jury pool by a campaign of national disinformation. Since now, they see they are going to have to go all around the country to file these subpoenas, I predict you will start hearing "anti-piracy" adverts on the radio, TV, local papers (that article to me qualifies as some of their propaganda). End of this month, should see a blitzkrieg of ads trying to brainwash potential jurors, and customers at large. That ad reminded me of the campaign against marijuana in the 1920s, and the film "Reefer Madness".

This approach of trying to associate anything they don't like with either communism, terrorism, or both, is going to end up becoming a parody of itself, and the campaign will fall of its own weight when people start literally laughing at it out loud.

They are employing the Nazi propaganda technique of "The Big Lie" which says if you say something, no matter how patently false and crazy, loud enough and long enough, people will start believing it.

~code

haha code... freshman debate team.

Sorry my link doesn't work. Just go to google's image section and type in riaa to find the cartoon. Trust me, it's great!

Tip of the hat,
Captain C

This place has a contract from the record labels. They are breaking it down to let everybody know what they are doing. It is telling how the artist are being taken. When you get there go to resources in the menu. Down below there is a place that will take you to this breaking down it's call

The Major Label Contract Critique
they take it step by step. Looks like it may be a good place.

One of the lies they repeat over and over is that file sharing is "stealing". Wrong. Stealing is when you deprive the rightful owner of the item. That's not the case with file sharing. In addition, some believe that file sharing encourages CD sales by allowing people to sample music which they might not have purchased otherwise. So it's not clear that artists are losing potential income. Established artists maybe, but new or lesser-known artists very likely benefit from the increased exposure they get from P2P. It might be copyright infringement but it's not stealing.

hehe ot but i found this on packetstormsecurity's site

Call your Reps for Free - May 25, 2003
A toll free number for the US Senate + Congress is 1(800) 839-5276. They immediately answer "Capitol" and will happily transfer you to your congressional representatives. Call during business hours and feel free to speak your mind, asking them not to expand the Patriot act, repeal the DMCA, etc.

To IFeelFree

If you read that article carefully you'll see that they are not really trying to protect their users, but find a way to stop RIAA from trying to make them the bad guys ie policing and the costs to them from all the subpoena flood.

an excerpt:

The NetCoalition letter instead focuses on the details of how the record industry is carrying out its goal of filing thousands of subpoenas in the coming months. It asks for a meeting to discuss how the industry trade group ensures the accuracy of the subpoenas, how it decides whom to target, and it raises concerns over the cost of compliance.

"There has to be a better answer than litigation," the letter says.

To TheSherminator

ACK!!

To TheSherminator

Well at least there's one bright spot in that news article:

Downloaders may face the music
By Daniel P. Finney
Post-Dispatch
08/09/2003




John Marchesini loves music.

He owns hundreds of albums and thousands of songs in his voluminous CD collection.

He's just the kind of guy the recording industry hates.

Marchesini, an information technology professional from St. Louis, downloaded a big chunk of his music from the Internet using software similar to the now-defunct Napster.

That means Marchesini didn't pay a penny for many of his tunes.

He once claimed to have the largest digital music library in St. Louis, but these days Marchesini is a little shy about saying how many songs and albums he's gotten off the Net.

His caution comes with good reason.

The recording industry is going after downloaders like Marchesini in a big way. The Recording Industry Association of America has issued thousands of subpoenas to Internet service providers trying to find out who is downloading and sharing music over the Internet.

It hauled four students from three different colleges into court for running file sharing networks at their schools, winning settlements of up to $17,500. The RIAA plans thousands of lawsuits against individual users in a sweeping effort to end what they term rampant violations of copyright law.

"If you download music from the Internet and don't pay for it or if you upload music to the Internet and are not a copyright holder, you're breaking the law," says Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA. "It's stealing, and we intend to put a stop to that."

The piracy, the RIAA argues, has cost the industry billions and has hampered its ability to find new artists, requiring the harsh crackdown. If the trend continues, it could limit the number of good songs written, as well as the number of CDs produced, and reduce the number of new artists discovered because of declining profits, according to record industry experts.

Yet consumers argue that consolidation in the radio industry has made it nearly impossible to try new music, forcing them to turn to downloading music for fresh sounds.

As the recording industry scrambles to curb piracy, it also is desperately trying to develop a new business plan that incorporates legal online music downloading that is profitable enough to eventually replace - or at least substantially supplement - the current CD business.

Caught in the middle are music stores big and small trying to meet the demands of both the customer and the recording industry, as well as artists and songwriters, who are cheated annually out of millions in profits.

Through it all, some downloaders such as Marchesini seem more determined than ever to find free outlets for music.

The lawsuits by the recording industry are "all a legal ruse," Marchesini says. "They're trying to protect a failing business model, and they're taking it out on the consumer. Suing people into bankruptcy isn't the answer."

Taking up the slack

Stopping music piracy is no easy trick. After years of lawsuits, Napster - the software program that first mass-popularized free music downloading - finally folded under legal pressures last year.

Instantly, dozens of other alternatives took up the slack, including Kazaa, Morpheus and WinMX. These new programs were more advanced than Napster, allowing for the trading of video files, including bootlegged full-length movies.

The programs build file-sharing networks, which allow users to share music over the Internet and download copies of songs on another user's hard drive. The largest networks allow users to surf and download virtually every song recorded.

Today, downloading is more rampant than ever. In its heyday, Napster boasted 80 million registered users. Today, Kazaa has more than 100 million registered users, and the software, with more than 230 million downloads, is the world's most downloaded software. An estimated one-third of all Internet surfers - about 35 million people - use file-sharing software.

If consumers copy a CD they buy at the store onto their hard drive, that's legal, fair use. The problem is that if those consumers then allow others to copy the songs - especially people unknown to them - it's a violation of copyright law, the RIAA says.

And downloaders don't care about the laws. A survey taken by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, a nonprofit group, showed that Americans ages 18 to 29 aren't worried about copyright laws when downloading music using Napster-like software. Full-time students overwhelmingly shrugged at potential copyright infringements, with 82 percent saying the risks didn't worry them.

While the survey was taken before the RIAA announced its plans to sue thousands of individual copyright infringers, it shows the resilience of downloaders in spite of the stiff penalties copyright law provides.

In the case of digital music downloads, if downloaders are found to have infringed copyright law, they could face a fine of between $750 to $30,000 per work infringed.

And if the infringement is willful, as the RIAA argues, then the fine jumps to $150,000 per work - meaning a possible fine of $1.5 million for just 10 songs downloaded in willful copyright infringement.

The RIAA also has stepped up its educational campaign, sending instant messages on some file-sharing services, such as Kazaa, warning that music pirates risk lawsuits and fines. At colleges and universities, the RIAA has pushed schools into blocking - or severely limiting - file sharing services on campus-provided Internet services.

At the University of Missouri at Columbia, for example, the school allows file sharing only between midnight and 5 a.m. If the school receives a letter from a copyright holder, a technology services official contacts the student and tells the student to remove the offending file and amend the behavior. On second offense, the issue is turned over to student legal affairs.

"Not a day goes by that we don't get at least one letter, and on many days it's several letters from copyright holders," says Todd Krupa, spokesman for Missouri's Information and Access Technology Services. "Schools can become a big target, and we want to comply with the provision of the law in every way and help the students understand what they should and should not be doing."

Downloaders beware

The RIAA faces another battle in the court of public opinion.

"In general, it's hard to sympathize with the big, giant company cracking down on the little guy," says Peter Jaszi, a law professor who focuses on copyright issues at the American University Law School in Washington. "This represents a particular public relations problem for the recording industry. But these are very smart people, and they're likely to select offenders who have unsympathetic profiles, that is people who are abusing the system to an extreme nature."

Reports in USA Today and by The Associated Press say the RIAA is targeting those who are sharing (allowing others to download from their computer) anywhere from 100 to 600 songs at a minimum. Sherman, president of the RIAA, won't say exactly what kind of users the association is targeting, other than the focus, for now, is on those who are offering copyrighted material for downloading.

And Sherman isn't worried about public relations.

"Is Saks Fifth Avenue worried about prosecuting a shoplifter?" he says. "No, and we're not worried about going after people who are stealing music. People call them potential customers, but there's not much potential in a customer who steals thousands of dollars worth of your product."

The RIAA's rhetoric has been enough to scare off some downloaders.

"After these kinds of stories started popping up, I just gave up," says Nate Reid of St. Charles. "I primarily used it to try new kinds of music, but I really don't want to get into trouble with it, so I'm out."

Reid's awareness of the issue is rare, says Richard Keyt, a copyright lawyer in Phoenix who operates a Web site on copyright law and the Internet called Keytlaw.com. Keyt believes most music pirates are woefully ignorant of copyright laws and the penalties they face if the recording industry comes after them.

Beyond that, they simply believe that things on the Internet should be free, regardless of copyright law.

"It's an uphill battle in terms of education," says Reid. "When I talk to my own kids, who are 19, 22 and 28, they either don't know about the laws or they say, 'Well, it shouldn't be this way. It should be free.'"

That attitude provides a major challenge for the recording industry. If entire generations are growing up thinking music is free, the industry must find some way to persuade them to pay for it.

The recording industry says revenues are down almost $2 billion from 1999, the year Napster was introduced, through 2002. The RIAA attributes that loss directly to the estimated 2.6 billion files, mostly songs, downloaded daily worldwide.

"People say it's the economy, while this industry has always done well in a bad economy," says Sherman of the RIAA.

"A cut of every penny"

The effects of downloading at the retail level, however, earn a mixed reaction. Brian Lucus, a spokesman for Best Buy, the Minneapolis-based electronics giant, says, "We really have no way of knowing what the effect of downloading is on retail sales. CD sales have been off, but what that exactly attributes to is impossible to say."

At Vintage Vinyl in University City, manager Steve Pick says the RIAA's crackdown on downloading has actually hurt business.

"The heyday of Napster coincided with the busiest boom we'd seen in years," Pick says. "People who download are more likely to buy more music. The recording industry has gotten it in its head that it should have a cut of every penny made of music, and it's hurting everyone."

Too bad we can't see more published comments like these.

My apologies to the forum

My cut and paste got away with me and the only paragraphs I 'intended' to paste were the last 3.

Sorry

I particularly like this quote:

"At Vintage Vinyl in University City, manager Steve Pick says the RIAA's crackdown on downloading has actually hurt business."

Does this mean that file sharing is GOOD for record companies? Or does it mean that the consumer is turned off by the RIAA's recent actions? Or that the boycott is starting to have an effect? In any case, it's very interesting.

I just needed to mention this: I'm from overseas. Pretty save from RIAA (I hope). Over here we also have organisations like RIAA and album prices comparable to $20 a piece. In other words, what you're experiencing in the U.S. is a test case for the rest of the world.

Something that does excite me is the following. Nowadays we have, more or less, two kinds of people:

- people that swallow whatever the big companies feed us: $20 albums and preinstalled $150 operating systems. They don't know and/or don't care about "the truth". The trend still shows mass ignoration (is that a word?).

- people that get educated. These are the people like you and me. We shout, but we don't shout loud enough. We don't shout loud enough because we don't have enough mouths.

It wouldn't suprise me if we get situations like in the 60's in a few years. Large groups of people trying to educate the mass, and and fighting for the rights (read: income) of the people that really earn them. Demonstrations agains companies like RIAA and Microsoft.

However, there are alternatives for MS products, there aren't for albums by a specific artist; also MS sells it's products in a dirty way. Btw, I wonder what would happen when MS sues Little Johnny for copying the newest Microsoft(TM) Windows(TM).

So far, I'm happy not to live in the U.S. We don't have such claim culture as you guys. Still, you (Americans) got some attention...

P.S. Why don't artists sue RIAA for unrealistic cuts?
P.P.S. I'm sorry for bringing the MS up, it's kinda off topic...

Ya know, I'm glad they have old puffy lipped Cary-Sue as their front man because, in an unbelievably insane fashion, he keeps oozing the party line that other label execs have said, i.e. that he doesn't care how mad he makes Americans. I also hope he says he doesn't care how mad they make congress, or the courts. American people hate arrogance, and they hate big businesses trying to bully the little guy. So Cary-Sue, you just keep flapping those collagen filled lips of yours, and you keep being the arrogant jerk we know you to be. And, get on primetime news and just say to Americans, we are suing you all and don't care if we enrage every consumer out there. It's amazing how someone as small as he is, can get his foot into his mouth so far!
~code

I got a tower records gift certificate for a gift..never used it..oh,well..Keep on keepin'on

ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

Jazzmary ,

I'd hold on to that gift certificate if I were you . Never know , 5 years from now it might look real nice in a frame on the wall , might even get big bucks for it on E-bay . It seems some folks will by anything . Even the propaganda the big 5 want you too !!

PEACE WABBITMAN

Too bad they all don't go broke! Then who would they blame???

BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!

IMissedIt:
If you hadn't have screwed up on the cut & paste, I would have never seen that article. Thanks for screwing up!

Let the boycott continue.

I have to agree with TheSherminator, and everyone else who posted things about what dbasskin posted.
as I've said before, and I'll undoubtedly say again, this isn't about "free music".. it's about the right to not PAY for crap.
ttmmm

Nice to see another record company struggleing. Shame about the bookstores through.

today i wanted to order the new cd from my german electronic idols "kraftwerk". a cd i thought that would be worth to actualy buy it, so the artists get their money (wonder how many percent they would have actualy seen from the $15, though lol).

but the cd is "copy protected". hell, i don't have a stand-alone cd player. i wouldn't be able to listen to the cd on my pc!! this is f@#* crazy! guess buying cds actualy *is* kinda outdated...

shut down all cd stores, they are completly worthless to today's customers!!!!!

i didn't order the cd... sorry kraftwerk... will listen to your old stuff... radioactivity, the model, autobahn and all your other great works...

"If you download music from the Internet and don't pay for it or if you upload music to the Internet and are not a copyright holder, <