![]()
by George Ziemann
Looking back at the state of things a year ago and the state of things today, it's easy to see that, despite the lawsuit plague, the consumer and the artists stand a much better chance of being declared the ultimate winners of the "music wars" than the RIAA.
Fact number one is that, even though many people were aware of Napster and Kazaa, a year ago there weren't half as many regular visitors to this site. The recording industrys' lawsuits, if nothing else, have fanned the flames of indignation against the arrogance of the industry.
The artists were already pissed at the labels but traded their testimony at Napster a few years ago for the RIAA's sign-off on rescinding Mitch Glazier's work-for-hire amendment. Unfortunately, a few of them (the handful of artists listed at music-united.org) have ended up falling in lockstep with the RIAA's stance on file-sharing as theft, including Don Henley and Elton John.
So if we were to make a list of bad guys, it would definitely include the artists quoted on the site listed above. It's really a small group and I will never buy records from any of them again. They have nothing to do with music any longer.
The difference between now and a year ago is that a LOT of people agree with this stance, as opposed to the few that were voicing this concern prior to the first wave of lawsuits. This, in and of itself, is a good thing. Awareness has been raised.
Unfortunately, along with this awareness has come a raised level of hating the recording industry by the consumer. Even though the RIAA would like to think that the consumer doesn't pay attention to which label Bruce Springsteen in on (and maybe that was true prior to Napster), the RIAA's actions alone have made an increasing number of people cast their votes on this issue at the record store front doors. We just say no and sales are dropping like a rock. Vivendi's most recent report said Universal Music Group's profits were down 75 percent.
Another great development this year is an increased awareness by independent artists that the last thing they want to do is sign a major label contract. We now know full well that doing so is the worst move for your long-term financial future. We know there's got to be a better way and we have the tools to do it without the labels.
The RIAA itself has conceded that they cannot stop P2P and even go so far as to profess that they wouldn't if they could because, as we all know, they are "not anti-technology" (until technology actually appears).
There are so many independent acts that are using the Internet to reach their audience (and many of us do use P2P) that the RIAA can no longer ignore our existence. They cannot shut down P2P because the indies outnumber them by at least 30 to 1. As long as we keep our music visible, the major labels have to work around us. No matter, what Michael Robertson says, I believe Universal had no intention of allowing the music of 250,000 artists remain available for free.
So the mp3.com artists have been dispersed once again, but not eliminated entirely. This too, will be a good thing in the long run, as Vivendi ruined mp3.com a year ago when they began "hiding" the majority of the music we had already posted unless we paid a monthly fee for promotion. It'll take a while for them to regroup and I'm hoping a lot more show up at DMusic.
Which brings us back to the question of whether a compressed audio track is actually a promotional giveaway item or a viable product. If so, how much is one worth? Certainly the current 99 cent price point is more desireable than the $2.49 they were asking a year ago.
Hilary Rosen is pretty much gone now, the RIAA has no convincing voice, down to its final idea (suing customers) for survival, all the "legitimate" sites are laced with DRM diseases.
The world is now much more aware that the RIAA does not and never has represented the interests of the artists, contrary to what Rosen tried to tell us three years ago. The truth is out on that one.
U.S. consumers have won at least two price-fixing suits against the recording industry this year, courtesy of the Sherman Antitrust Act -- which we hope to see in action again very soon, as Kazaa and the Webcasters Alliance have initiated suits against the Big 5 for various anti-competitive practices.
As the RIAA is delivering the "last arrow in the quiver", the rest of us are just waking up to the reality that the major artists have known for years and never told us, with a few notable exceptions.
The next phase, is of course, the moment when everyone realizes how stupid it is to help artists who do not deserve it by posting major label music. I'd like to see all RIAA material removed from P2P altogether.
Of course, the labels would claim victory if this happened. But not for long. For one thing, they'd be wasting their money on their subscription to Big Champagne data.
More important, it would signify that the consumers had revoked their invitation to the major label artists. If Don Henley doesn't want Kazaa's audience of 120 million to listen to his songs, well fine. See ya. We've got a million other songs to listen to. But don't expect me to buy your next CD, either.
As for the indies, well we're just now gathering steam. And we ARE moving ahead. I know that sometimes it doesn't seem like it, but every once in a while, take a look back over your shoulder and you can see that if the battle lines are shifting, we have gained some valuable ground which we will never have to fight for again.
The battle cry has not really faltered -- Support file sharing or die.
And the RIAA is now a completely foreign organization. We will shed no tears for its demise.
George D. Ziemann
Suikiogiaz
compmore
nitedreamerxp
CodeWarrior
