by George Ziemann

Every year at this time, writers across the world are putting together a "year in review." That's where I intended to go with this article, but then I found out too much information. So instead of talking about the past year, let's look at a quick history of the beginning of the recording industry. After all, if you've been paying attention at all, you know what happened this year -- threats, lawsuits, claims of piracy and admonitions that music can not be distributed for free.

As you shall soon see, this is exactly the same thing the recording industry went through 80 years ago.
Let's start with the RIAA's version of the story:
By the mid-1920s, advancements in areas such as microphones and loudspeakers that had been spurred by the advent of radio were also being applied to recording. Electrical recording and playback systems developed at AT&T's Bell Labs were introduced by Western Electric in 1925. Long-playing records were demonstrated by Brunswick in 1925 and again by RCA in the early 1930s. At the same time, German scientist Fritz Pfleumer was learning how to apply iron-oxide particles to paper tape for magnetic recording, and motion picture sound moved from the lab to theaters.

Despite these promising technical developments, the 1930s were a tough period for a record industry that found itself competing against the free content offered by radio in a time of deep economic distress. The industry, dominated by 78 RPM records with a playing time of just three to five minutes per side, bottomed out in the early 1930s. Fortunes began to revive somewhat in the mid-1930s, due largely to the popularity of newly-introduced juke boxes. The outlook brightened further by the end of the decade, but continued to be hampered in the 1940s by wartime diversion of materials, as well as by a lengthy dispute with the musicians' union over recording royalties.

As usual, the RIAA has taken the simple truth and left out enough facts to paint an unrealistic picture. "...the 1930s were a tough period for a record industry that found itself competing against the free content offered by radio in a time of deep economic distress."
But if you put together the events that occured in the seminal years of radio, it's easy to see that there is a lot more to it than what the RIAA says. They left out all of the interesting parts.

Emily Berliner replaces Edison's wax cylinder phonograph with the audio disc in 1887. This was pretty much the entire market for music, which still accounted for more than $10 million in sales in 1914. 78 R.P.M records were introduced in 1915 and the recording industry continued its campaign to convince people they needed music in their homes. The public took the bait and the industry sprouted, pushing sales over the $47 million mark in 1921. Surprisingly, according to the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), when recorded music sales are weighed as a fraction of US gross domestic product, sales have never surpassed the peak reached in 1921.

By the early 1920s, RCA started mass-producing commercial radios. While everyone agreed that the radio did not sound as good as the phonograph, if you had a radio, the music was suddenly free to listen to. The recording industry was incensed and attempted to sue the radio stations to prevent them from playing recordings on the air. The first judges presented with this issue, decided that if the radio station had purchased a copy of the recording, they had a right to play it, since there was really no law preventing it.

Sounds familiar yet? Free music, doesn't sound as good as the actual recording, but the public eats it up anyway. Industry tries to sue the "offender" into submission. Comes up short.

The recording industry, particularly Victor and Brunswick (two major players at the time), decided to forbid all of their artists to appear on radio. Artist contracts were redefined to stipulate the ban. Then the labels began to stamp "Not Licensed for Broadcast" on their recordings. Three court cases supported the right of the labels to use this technique.

I'd like to point out here that this is the step that the recording industry has failed to make in the current situation. After three years, they have failed to offer a mechanism for identifying which music is and is not available for use on peer-to-peer. This is because they assume they control all of the "legitimate" music, of course, another mistake they've made in the past.
Let's look at the RIAA version of the story again: "Despite these promising technical developments, the 1930s were a tough period for a record industry that found itself competing against the free content offered by radio in a time of deep economic distress."

The truth is that radio did hurt the recording industry, but not as bad as they make it sound. Sales went from $47 million in 1921 to just shy of $27 million in 1925 (a more than 40 percent drop) before climbing back to $34 million in 1929. Radio had damaged the music market, but it certainly had not killed it. Another reason for the uptick in sales could be the introduction of the 33-1/3 LP record in 1928.

With 1929 came the stock market crash and the Great Depression, which completely removed discretionary income for most Americans, driving record sales down to a mere $2.5 million in 1933. The recording industry had seen a 95 percent decline since 1921, with the largest drop between 1929 and 1933. The phonograph division of the Thomas A. Edison company was the first to go, folding in 1929. RCA bought Victor, CBS bought Columbia and most labels simply disappeared. Radio may have hurt the industry, but it was the Depression that almost killed it off.

"Fortunes began to revive somewhat in the mid-1930s, due largely to the popularity of newly-introduced juke boxes," says the RIAA. I guess "somewhat" is the key word here, since 1939 sales (the best of the decade) were still less than $20 million. This was because the industry had adopted an "anti-airplay" mentality.

Recording industry personnel eventually concluded that their firms suffer when stations broadcast pre-recorded music. Their conclusion rested on what would later prove to be a flawed assumption: consumers will not buy records when they could hear them "for free" on radio. Their conclusion also rested on an accurate evaluation of U.S. copyright law. When broadcasting pre-recorded music, radio stations must pay royalties to the composers, lyricists, and publishers of the music, but they need not pay royalties to record firms. In other words, radio stations can generate income by repeatedly playing hit records and, aside from the initial purchase price, they need not compensate record firms.

Given this conclusion, the recording industry developed a business model that featured two elements. First, record firms sought to prohibit broadcast of their pre-recorded product by stamping inscriptions on recordings (for example, "Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast"). They received validation from the courts; three rulings required that stations cease broadcasting records with prohibitive inscriptions. Second, record firms proposed that stations broadcast live performances by recording artists, thus offering material that did not duplicate the pre-recorded products of record firms. Powerful actors in government and broadcasting concurred with this proposal. Both CBS and NBC, for example, had long emphasized live shows and were receptive to the entreaties of record firms. Indeed, both networks discouraged their stations from broadcasting the products of record firms.

The record industry's successful adoption of the "anti-airplay" model corresponded with its economic recovery in the mid- to late-1930s. The model not only skirted what recording personnel viewed as a failing of copyright law (that is, radio's ability to broadcast recordings without paying royalties to record firms), it also encouraged a symbiotic relationship between the recording and radio industries. "While the impact of radio in broadcasting in its earliest years disturbed the sale of phonograph records," noted one report, "appreciation of recordings has been further stimulated by broadcasting."
-- Timothy J. Dowd from the Academic Exchange

Much like with the state of the peer-to-peer battle that is going on now, the industry's response to radio was to attempt to keep their music off of it. As major players in the radio industry became more interested in broadcasting recorded work, ASCAP reinforced its control over distribution. Artists who were not ASCAP members had little hope of exposing their work to wide audiences.

In the late 1930s, the primary licensing body, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), founded in 1914, comprised only 1,100 writers and 140 publishers. To gain admission to ASCAP a writer had to have published five hit songs, a requirement that not only precluded the entry of new blood to its membership but also favored a small body of established writers. Likewise, the system favored established publishers, about 15 of which regularly controlled 90 percent of the most-played songs on network radio.
Country artists had access to the public through the Grand Ole Opry, broadcast over Nashville's WSM since 1925, and a few artists became nationally known recording stars, but membership in ASCAP eluded them. Country stars such as Gene Autry and jazz greats like Jelly Roll Morton were rejected for years by ASCAP before finally gaining membership.

BMI entered this tightly controlled industry in the fall of 1939. Its organization was precipitated by the oncoming expiration of a five-year ASCAP contract, in which radio had agreed to pay five percent of its annual advertising sales revenues. Radio industry leaders considered the creation of an alternative music licensing source, in the event that ASCAP and the industry could not come to terms. A special radio group met in Chicago in the fall of 1939 to consider a charter for a new licensing body to be named Broadcast Music Inc. drawn up by Sydney M. Kaye, a young copyright attorney. That charter called for broadcasting organizations to pledge sums equal to 50 percent of their 1937 ASCAP payments as capital and operating funds. No dividends were to be paid to stockholders, for BMI's main purpose was to provide an opportunity for those writers and publishers unable to gain entry into ASCAP to share in performing rights revenue and provide an alternative source for broadcasters and other music users.

BMI's charter was filed on October 14, 1939, and its offices opened in New York City on February 15, 1940. This was none too soon, as in March of 1940 ASCAP's newly proposed contract called for a 100 percent increase in radio's rates over the previous year.

Already between 1931 and 1939, radio had seen licensing payments rise from $960,000 to $4.3 million, a jump of 448 percent. Not surprisingly, by the end of 1940, 650 broadcasters had signed licenses with BMI. When ASCAP's license contract ran out, only 200 small stations still continued to use its catalog, thereby effectively blacking out all ASCAP repertoire for much of 1941.
When the 11-month battle between the networks and ASCAP ended by late 1941, BMI was well on its way to establishing a base of support for its aims.
-- From BMI

This was a bad time to be an artist. Suddenly, a lot of entertainers who were making a living doing live versions of pre-recorded material by others, found themself in a difficult position. They could no longer play the music that had garnered their audience. DeFord Bailey is a perfect example.

Though best remembered as the first black star of the Grand Ole Opry, DeFord Bailey was far more than an obscure historical first or footnote to Opry history. In the fifteen years he spent on the Opry (1926-1941), he was one of the show's most popular performers and one of the single most influential harmonica players in Country music history. Skilled at playing Blues, Jazz and Old Time music, Bailey amazed generations of fans who saw him on Opry tours throughout the South and on the many WSM radio broadcasts.

He was always dressed in a sharp suit and stood on a Coke bottle carton, played his harp into a huge megaphone and impressed everyone. In 1941, he was fired from the Opry in a complex dispute arising from the ASCAP-BMI feud; because his record company producers had copyrighted many of his songs with ASCAP and since ASCAP had banned their songs from the radio networks, DeFord was now being told he could no longer play his old favorites, like John Henry and Fox Chase. Puzzled and confused, he refused to produce "new," non-ASCAP songs and was eventually fired. For years afterwards, Bailey was bitter and refused to have anything to do with the show or its history.
From CountryWorks.com

By this time, the recording industry had been fighting with radio for 20 years. At the same time the ASCAP catalog was being banned from radio (although some sources say that ASCAP called a strike, refusing to allow broadcasts of music it licensed), the recording biz was ready to be changed, like it or not.

This is the part we should all pay attention to. It should provide a clue to what is eventually going to happen with peer-to-peer.

First, the New York Supreme Court ruled that once radio stations purchased a record, they were free to broadcast it – even when it bore a "Not Licensed for Broadcast" inscription. Displeased with this ruling, the dominant record firms pursued plans for obtaining fees from stations that broadcast pre-recorded music. To this day, they have still failed to get radio to pay the record labels for airplay.

In 1942, arguing that the new jukeboxs were putting live musicians out of work, James C. Petrillo of the American Federation of Musicians declared a ban on recording. The AFM went on strike on August 1, 1942 in an attempt to get record companies to establish a fund for unemployed musicians. Most of the smaller and independent companies signed new contracts almost immediately; Decca signed a contract in September 1943, and the other major labels followed suit in November 1944.

Second, a new record firm broke ranks and introduced a "pro-airplay" business model. Capitol Records (est. 1942) executives believed that broadcasting recordings would stimulate rather than harm sales. In search of airplay, Capitol routinely promoted its recordings at radio stations, and it became the first record firm that routinely delivered free recordings to disk jockeys. With a dramatic increase in record sales, Capitol quickly rose to dominance in the record industry. Unable to ignore Capitol's successful "pro-airplay" model, other dominant record firms begrudgingly ceased their quest for attaining fees from radio stations. In fact, in search of symbiosis, they likewise courted disk jockeys with free recordings.

"The past few years have seen the emergence of the radio disk jockey as one of the most important factors in record sales," gushed one company document. "The record manufacturers are happier than they have ever been." (Timothy J. Dowd from the Academic Exchange)

An ASCAP footnote -- Showing their arrogance, ASCAP chose not to license country and rhythm and blues songs. BMI began licensing rhythm and blues and country songs that ASCAP had chosen to ignore. When country and rhythm and blues became rock and roll, ASCAP found itself out in the cold.

In conclusion, I would suggest that the RIAA is still replaying history, making the same mistakes over and over, based on the same shortsighted vision. They never got what they wanted from radio which, in the end, proved to be their greatest ally for a half century. But they fought it for 20 years first, losing artists and income in the process, purely due to stubborness and an inability to accept the changing technology.

Capitol Records executives believed that broadcasting recordings would stimulate rather than harm sales. That's what changed everything in the world of radio. But it took 20 years of wrangling for someone to grasp the obvious. Given the ability of the recording industry to learn from its own mistakes, we can expect that it will be 2020 before any of today's record execs realize peer-to-peer can be a good thing.

Unless the peer-to-peer users heed the lesson taught by the radio broadcasters. The fastest way to get the record labels to embrace peer-to-peer is by excluding them from it. I've said this before and now I see it reflected in history. It's more than boycotting the sales of records. That's a good thing and sales are down again for 2003, which the Hollywood Reporter somehow interprets as a "bounce back," merely because the decline was less severe than in 2002. It's still a decline. No bounce.

Take the RIAA music off of the Net. This must be the goal for 2004. If radio has taught us anything, it is to give the whiners what they've been requesting for 80 years. Stop listening to their music for free.

George , this is clearly the best work I have seen from you. Want to collaborate on a law review article? I have all the cases on - line.

Well, thanks, leflaw. Sure, make me a law review writer.

I will get the case sites together. See if barger wants to add anything ( except that naked girl picture...)

For those that may care, an identical copy of this story is at (htt;://www.azoz.com/riaa/news/whine.html). The only difference is that the sources are all linked and that story is formatted better, allowing you to more easily discern which material came from which source. I was very careful to credit all the sources in this manner.

George, you never cease to impress. I'm gonna start sending your articles to school with my kid and when they start preaching to the kids about copyright infringement and stealing and all that I'll have her present the other side of the story.

and leflaw, what's this about a naked girl picture? :0)

More naked girls the fans proclaim. You're showing yr age, Mighty Leflaw.

I can always top you tho.

The last AFM strike was in 1941. MCA owned the country as far as band bookings go. Lew Wasserman virtually invented the concept of sweetheart union contracts (with muscle provided by Sidney Korshack. The horse head in the bed stuff in Godfather was dead on.)

You are correct, Leflaw, in telling Mr. G. to his face that the AFTRA union for good reason doesn't have the word musicians in its name. And it follows from that---no union is worth dick without the threat of walkouts.

Here's the scenario, you'll like this.

Chicago Mob at the time owned every jukebox in the country. In 1954, Stanley Adams President of ASCAP (a legendary guy I knew later in the 70's) starts thinking he should get royalties on jukeboxes. At the same time, the Mob has their own family members at the top of the charts... they meet with Adams and shook down ASCAP instead. ASCAP pays a piece to jukebox operators! Pretty funny huh? Details are hard to come by but it's all in a little document called Chicago Crime Commission report of 1954.

What a colorful era that was! Estes Kefauver (Senator from Tennessee) goes on a mob--busting tour---until the day he gets set up (and photographed) in bed with two naked girlies.

Still want to do the site?

And right after that, ASCAP decided that the only reason BMI was doing so well (ignoring the fact that they had thumbed their noses at country and R&B, which became rock and roll and took off in the 1950s) was because they were paying the disc jockeys. This prompted the payola hearings in 1959 and a new law in 1960.

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Leflaw is right George, this is an excellent article, very informative and interesting. I'd imagine you put a decent amount of work into it, thanks for the effort.

Suikio

Thanks, Sukio.

Let me extend the focus of the article one step further.

What we need to do is start a new Performing Rights Organization, geared to the Digital Age, made up of independent artists, especially those who are not already BMI or ASCAP members, to negotiate with companies like Kazaa for a few pennies per download.

If the peer-to-peer networks wanted to, they could block all major label music. You know it, I know it, the RIAA knows it, hell, I'd bet even Bob Dole knows it, even if Orrin Hatch doesn't.

The new PRO makes a deal with the p2p nets, whereby they get paid a miserable rate that is way below what the majors would even consider, but more than is currently offered to the independents, which is zero.

Napster offered the majors 5 cents a play.

We should do it for two cents.

Throw the RIAA off of Kazaa.

superb. who do you talk to to get this ball rolling. Maybe you could even get Kazza to include a web stream into the program so you could sample the music then dowload what you like. there's alot of possibilities here. personally I'm still not opposed to a reasonable flat monthly or quarterly fee

I'm wondering if Royalty Logic is perhaps the route to go in order to facillitate this. They may be poised to fulfill this precise service. I have to go study up on them some more.

I know Lester Chambers is member #1.

George just love reading your articles !Rich of Empireday!
Keep it up!

Kazaa will tell us to go to AltNet. At least that's the way they felt in March.

But here's what I don't like about AltNet...
------------
Promote and sell.
Sign up and get started
for just $99!

------------

And as much as I don't mind letting people listen to my music for free, I'll be damned if I will pay for the privilege while the majors are suing people for downloading from the same basic source.

It will be up to the p2p "controllers" as to where this goes. But nothing will change until they turn the tables on the labels. Just like the radio, as soon as everyone suddenly stops seeing any major labels on the net, someone will have enough brains to step forward and do what BMI originally did -- forget the existing majors and recreate the business based on everything they said wasn't good enough.

That's where we got rock and roll. It's also where we got jazz. Get a bunch of old musicians together that can't read a note (but were strill true players) and let them play live. No one could accuse them of having infringed on anything because half the time it was improvised anyway.

It all needs to happen again. And probably will in anouther 50 years, if not sooner, as soon as that new model becomes complacent and greedy.

It's a cycle we must confront and, if nothing else, reduce the amount of time we have to spend in the dregs. Geez, if we solve this by 2010, we'll have done a faster job than what radio went through by a decade.

Anything better than that is gravy.

I have a book here about modern soundtracks as an artform. The first 100 pages is hilarious. ASCAP threw its full weight into boycotting rock 'n roll, smashing records, Congressional hearings, preachers a'preaching and all. Mebbe i'll xerox some pages for ya, Leflaw.

GeorgeZ , you are a genius. "Just like the radio, as soon as everyone suddenly stops seeing any major labels on the net, someone will have enough brains to step forward and do what BMI originally did -- forget the existing majors and recreate the business based on everything they said wasn't good enough."

That is our mission here now.

Les miserables!

The tide has been tunred. We won. Clear Channel is headed for a shipwreck at FCC and congress. Payola hearings upcoming.

The corporations are selling off music services as dead weight. Some suggestion here that the CEO's of Sony and BMG dilberately headed staright into the iceberg in order to lower the value, and throw off the last of restriant of trade considerations.

That means the record labels will be merely licensing old catalog to Coke, WalMart and ITunes. etc. The value of music is devalued when it serves only as a comeon to buy other dreck.

Okay, the challenge is to break new artists without radio and millions of bucks in meaningless tie-ins to clothing etc. Like fake artists Hilary Duff and Beyonce.

We need to make sure the Grammies are a farce. History's lowest ratings.

Royalty Logic has it all together. We're all set in that regard. I have no interest in ASCAP or BMI monitoring my songs at radio nor using the good will of indie artists to set an onerous royalty rate. We seek promotion. Let it go forth and multiply.

The problem with this solution is that it forces control over P2P. ASCAP and BMI are evil monopolistic entities in their own right. Why create a new one. People should be able to share any files they want, RIAA files included.

maybe if someone went to the webcasters alliance and said "look, we got an idea. Maybe we could start up something like the realplayer network used to be with a p2p subscription service included in the deal. Listen and download all you want for $10 a month." If Kazaa doesn't want in on the deal there are about 30 other services.

ok I type way too slow. skip that. you guys are awesome.

"People should be able to share any files they want, RIAA files included."

And instead of paying to be included, you should have to pay to be excluded. Kazaa should just say, "Fine, we'll block your stuff, but it'll cost you X per song."

Why can't (we) (you) (people) put together their own LOCAL (American) (Canadian) (??) Indie Idol show, promoting Indie artists only, every six weeks or so? Every city has a local tv station or radio station, and people can phone in their votes, and the group or artists can sell their CD's either via the internet or whichever station is promoting? Other ideas? ~~pepe~~

Excellent Article George! If you are doing a part 2 to this article please include the battle over FM radio. I also understand that the breakup of the Lowes movie system where the government separated Lowes cinemas from the studios was interesting.

This time the fight is with the computer users. And they can and do break every type of protection they have.

You know it is funny how they never learn.

Maybe it is up to the Indies to show everyone the way, like BMI did to ASCAP.

Great article!

George, this is really good stuff here, man...

As a "fossil" who has been around awhile I might suggest this:

There is a chapter missing from this history book. Prior to Edison's invention the music industry thrived in the form of printed sheet music published by specialty publishing houses. Back then if you wanted a song you bought the sheet music and took it home and played in on your piano, banjo, guitar, whatever instrument was available. Then came the new technology and Mr. Edison who completely destroyed the "music industry" by inventing "players" to play "recordings" on. The sales of sheet music dropped significantly as the this new upstart recording industry caught on quickly to a technology-hungry public. Isn't it intersting how history repeats itself?

Yeah, and I skipped the player piano controversy, too.

Also failed to mention that, while the industry suffered at the end of the 30s as a result of a similar leadership as we see now, they blamed any sales problems then as the fault of the "talkies."

Or George, a penny a meg. That model is already taking off in other parts of the world.

Wait a second...

There is a big difference between radio and p2p. Yes, the record industry was clueless about the effects radio would have on sales back then, but how is p2p going to help sales of recorded music in the long run. It's not. It will help live show sales dramatically; it will allow the the unknown, the up and coming, the regional artists to make more money from live shows for sure; it will help with the rediversification of music after many years of it turning into this generic thing, but it won't help the sales of recorded music.

Radio allows you to listen to music for free, but does not allow you to play your favourite songs whenever you want, you have to live with the radio station play list, and advertisements etc. p2p allows you to listen to music for free and play it whenever you like; there's no reason to buy a copy, other than a purchased copy gives you a better quality recording, and in the not too distant future even that reason will be gone when we can easily share the full wav file over improved future networks.

I don't think, when you look at it closely, that the battle over radio broadcasting rights in the 40's has many similarities to todays fight, other than the recording industies tendency to act like a bunch of dicks.

p2p returns us to an era similar to what existed before music copy-rights and recorded media, an era where no-one has control over music anymore. Record companies need to make their money elsewhere or go the way of the dodo.

"how is p2p going to help sales of recorded music in the long run. It's not."

This is exactly what the record labels said about radio for 20 years.

The closer you look at it, the more it is the same.

"Radio allows you to listen to music for free, but does not allow you to play your favourite songs whenever you want"

Have you ever seen "American Graffiti"?

I found a copy of an old song ("Beautiful Texas", by W.L. "Pappy" O' Daniel...yes, there really was such a guy) and was amused by what I found at the bottom of page 1: "All Rights Reserved, Including Public Performance For Profit".

(interesting side-note: Pappy O'Daniel, much like his counter-part on "O Brother Where Art Thou", also had a radio program, organized a band called "The Lightcrust Dough-boys" to promote Burris Mills' flour, his slogan being "Pass the biscuits, Pappy". Many Western Swing artists, like Bob Wills, got their start in Pappy's band. Pappy ran and won the governorship in Texas in 1938. Now you know the REST of the story...)

"This is exactly what the record labels said about radio for 20 years."

Yes, and what I'm saying is using that as an argument to defend p2p is false because p2p and radio are apple and oranges. Radio is complimentary to CD sales, whereas p2p is a replacement for CD sales.

"The closer you look at it, the more it is the same."

Is this going to turn into a no-you're-wrong NO-YOU"RE-WRONG tit for tat? . I'm going with the closer you look at it the more they are different argument, and I've said why above.

"Have you ever seen "American Graffiti"?"

Yes I have (if it's the movie with Harrison drivin' 'round town in his hot rod). I saw it a fair while ago so I'm unclear what your point is?

I think looking at the Seldon Patent and what happened there is a better example of history repeating itself. You cannot litigate out of existence a technology that benefits more people than it handicaps.

They will find new ways to make money in the future for sure but personally I think making money from recorded sales will soon be extinct. There will be a period of prohibition I'm guessing though, as the old business models go down fighting, reluctant to give up on past ways of making money because those ways were so good for them (and so bad for everyone else).

I really hope that this news item doesn't get lost to the sands of time like so many of the great items posted here. I really can't emphasize how much I think george, leflaw and code should have their own editorial pages archived on the sidebar. Too much of the important stuff whithers into irrelevancy here. Maybe the editorial sidebar can flash the way the register button does everytime a new one is posted. The eye will be drawn to it and the new editorial would be read and curiosity would lead the reader to look at other posts by the author.

Then again, maybe I'm just tired and not thinking clearly, maybe you guys just don't have the time and resources to make such a change to the site.

shrugs.

"Radio is complimentary to CD sales, whereas p2p is a replacement for CD sales."

According to what evidence do you make this claim?

Agreed paulruss instantly. I was looking for that Seldon Patent post from a few months ago and couldn't find it in here. I eventually found a copy someone had copied to another forum.

I'd really like to see some of the really good articles kept in a sidebar or something for easy reference.

I guess I was off topic. Or something.

What am I doing?

ah, well, I guess I can see b1's point, that is one way of looking at it. It can also be said (and has been repeatedly) that p2p can work every bit as well as radio to promote artists, so the radio/p2p comparison is apples/apples. Maybe p2p is a genetic hybrid between apples and oranges, an appange, maybe. Has potential to usurp cd sales to some while promoting sales to others. Maybe it's easier to peel but makes a nice pie.

Or maybe I'm just a silly old man.

"According to what evidence do you make this claim?"

It's based on logic not evidence. I explained my thinking in the third paragraph of my first post starting "Radio allows you to listen to..."

b1. there you go, thanks. squeaky wheel and whatnot. Man, this site has potential! But some of the old stuff needs to be frankenstiened!

b1 -- Unfortunately it'll be a few more years before we find out who is right on this one.

As far as archives, if you go to the news section at news.dmusic.com, most of my older articles are in "George's Corner" and there is a "leflaw's Corner" there, too, as well as Tom Barger's and several others.

In fact, all of the posts are archived there categorically, whereas the boycott-riaa site give you a chronological archive.

george, bless your heart. So, if all the stuff here is mirrored there...

maybe there should just be a link to those archives here.

I really need to get some sleep.

Astoundingly on-topic article here George!

b1, even if your assertion of apples and oranges is correct... it is STILL wrong to stop the advance of p2p. I am a musician and would hate to loose the potential to sell my own album because folks just get it for free. (I don't belive this to be the case, I believe p2p availability makes the recordings I make MORE likely to be sold...)

But even if your arguement, and the RIAA arguement were true... that p2p kills the ability to sell of recordings, we will all just have to "suck it up" and call the business model obsolete. It is a worse harm to society when you prohibit the exchange of ideas (inluding IP) between folks (p2p) in favor of the content creator.

If I come up with something I don't want anyone to know about... I keep it secret and tell NOBODY.

Remember the INTENT of Copyright itself is to protect the content creator from someone else SELLING that content unlicensed. Copyright is a monopoly granted by the powers that be to encourage the creation of content via financial incentive... If "copyright" no longer works, it should just be thrown out if we can't modify it in a fair way.
The "right" to share ideas among each other freely outweighs the "right" to profit from those ideas. It is nice to be able to record an album and be able to sell it... but just because you can hear it or download it does NOT mean it is right to keep folks from listening or downloading. Freedom of exchange of ideas freely amongst the citizens out ways the alternative of monopoly.
We must NOT forget this, or we risk corporate totalitarianism.

Freedom before all else!

Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
Support Local and Independent Music!

Oops, forgot an important point...

If anyone gets the right to benefit financially/proffit from a work (a copyright,)
it should be the creator of that work.

plug that into my train of thought above somehow

And what if the CD does die? We just have to play more live shows.

That's the only way I've ever made any money in music anyway.

me too George!

Wasn't allowed into the "artificial scarcity" of an unfair advantaged position on the unlevel playing field before... why should I support the corporate RIAA demand for an unlevel playing field now?

Shmoo

independentm... you're preaching to the choir. I believe in p2p 100%. I just read the article and comments and thought there was something off, so I posted the way I look at it based on logic, not any RIAA propoganda. As I said at the end of my first post, the record companies need to find another revenue stream because p2p is here to stay.

"Freedom before all else!"

Absolutely. The RIAA is about control, restrictions, and wealth for the few; p2p is the antithesis of this: freedom of choice, innovation and the unrestricted distribution of information for the benefit of everyone.

Even if the amount of revenue available to artists is reduced because of p2p (it probably will be, but only because the available revenue was inflated by past monopolistic record company practices anyway), I believe the overall benefits to music will be enormous: you can just imagine how many fanatical music fans there will be (almost everyone on the planet - who doesn't like music) if the free sharing of all music is eventually encouraged; and how many music creators this will translate into; and what kinds of strange new hybrid music types will emerge from all over the globe.

Going even further with my enthusiasm for p2p, I can't help but think that it is the start of a wider change from the capatilistic model that encourages competition in the name of wealth, to something else, that encourages cooperation in the name of the increased pace of innovation. You just have to look at the rise of open source and linux to perhaps get a whiff of where we're headed. Of course, the devil is in the detail, and people can't eat free information, and artists definately should be compensated for their work and not have to make do with the gratefullness of some hive mind of humanity (only non-artists would argue otherwise).


Seeing as this thread still lives, I thought I'd just add something I missed before. There is one thing that may yet keep alive CD sales: that of the fan wanting to support their favourite artists. We may be able to share full wav files in the future, removing any need to buy a CD, but fans will still buy them as if they are a badge of honour that says to the world you support your favourite artists.

Right now there seems to be very little stigma attached to freeloaders because of the argument that very little money from CD sales goes to the artist anyway; but once all the sueing stops, and full disclosure CD revenue is common, perhaps it will be frowned upon to not buy the CD.

Maybe it's premature of anyone to suggest CDs will soon be no more, afterall the sale of vinyl has been revived by the electronic scene; who knows what the future holds .