by George Ziemann

Sometimes elucidation comes in the strangest places. I spotted an article in the New York Times' science section addressing how your brain decides if you like something. Naturally, this made me think of the RIAA.

Which is precisely the RIAA's problem.

The article goes into the famous Pepsi Challenge, which was an advertising boon to Pepsi a few years back. For some reason, more people always choose Pepsi in a blind test. Researchers now have a way to see which parts of your brain kick into gear and they have verified that it's not a bogus claim, more people actually DO prefer Pepsi.

Unless they know which one is Pepsi and which one is Coke, in which case the majority will always prefer Coke.

This has been attributed to the medial prefrontal cortex, which is apparently where your ego lives, along with your brand name affiliation reference center.

Whether the RIAA knows it or not, their three-year the-consumer-is-a-criminal campaign has has certainly branded them in my median prefrontal cortex in the same category as, oh, poison.

I'd say I'm not the only one. It's going to take a lot more than changing the packaging to make us forget.

I suppose I'd drink coke if pepsi tried to tell me that I couldn't share my beverage with anyone because everyone had to have their own can. Additionally, if I shared my can then pepsi employees would be robbed of revenue which takes the food of the table of every bottler, capper, janitor, and button pusher in the pepsi plant. I know that's an MPAA tactic, but as far as I'm concerned the MPAA and the RIAA are really run by lucifer.

So right, this past year I will remeber for allways as the year corporate America went to far and the year that thr RIAA tried to kill the music.

With So many artist retiring and making there own Labels Who Needs The Riaa? Thats what This Whole thing is about, Dont Believe me check out the Offical Web Site Of Ice-T and read for yourself whats going on with artist and them trying to shut the Big Riaa Machine Dead!!

I agree 100%, I have a question for those of you that have used ITUNES...anyone figured out a way to convert the aac format of the songs and convert them back to mp3?

Burn them onto cd then re-rip them!

of course you have to have the proper plug-ins! www.cd-rw.org is a great site!

JL-Not sure what machine you are on, but supposidly the PC version is like the Mac version..in any case, go into Prefs under "Import",make your encoding choice and use "Custom" for your specific kbps needs. Highlight the songs you want imported in your iTunes library. Click Import. That should do it.

:::hopeful look:::

I always thought that the RIAA would go after the pipeline -- the service providers. Actually I supported, to a degree, those efforts. Being a songwriter I felt it important to protect the interests of the songwriter and the artist. But for me the move to sue the customer was a fatal blow. After this happened I re-examined my entire feelings toward the issue and the organization. I belong to ASCAP and feel that for the most part ASCAP takes care of my needs as a songwriter. BUT... the suits by the RIAA opened my eyes and I have since done a lot of reflective thinking about the entire globalization of the entertainment industry. For the most part the internet is very good. I believe as songwriters and artists we have a right to share our music in order to facilitate our exposure to the world. But what I see now are a group of multi-national corpoations attempting to take over the latest and last venue (internet) in a very insidious and incestuous manner. To take legal actions against the customer while at the same time trying to control how the rest of us can present our craft is very, very bad. Obviously the music industry is seeing sales as being down -- but not for the reasons that they are trying to propagandize. They are losing sales because of an ineffective business model and because of us. More people have turned to supporting independent record labels and independent musicians because we have the hidden talent and because we offer quality for very reasonable costs to the public. It is hard for the multi-nationals to compete with "free" for for 25 cents so they are trying to take us out using a campaign to brainwash congress and the consumer by associating "free" with "piracy" and "stealing". To me this is the "real" evil. It is so hard to get my fellow songwriters and musicians to see this angle -- but the method of how we deliver our music is at stake. What it is coming down to is that all of the popular players and burners and associated software will not even recognize independently produced MP3's because it is assumed that any download that is not part of a "licensed and certified" system is therefore "stolen". I see this already when I try to take my group's own music to burn and the software tries to access GEMM or Yahoo Music to determine if there is information avaialbe -- and of course being independent and new material the seach link makes it appear as if we don't even exist....

So in this case we are the one's becoming RC Cola (remember them?) in the taste test -- simply becuase the RIAA (and their partners) don't want to acknowledge that we exist -- because would do so would be to admit that we are their strongest competitor.

This is why it is so important to fight for our rights as independent copyright owners to be able to freely share our files to our fans in order to promote ourselves -- because the RIAA sure won't do it for us and they sure don't represent us.

Yes... They have made a deadly decision but we must be pro-active in our approach to protect our rights and the rights of our fans. This to me is the most important battle that is being fought right now behind the clouds of file sharing. It would be intersting to find out -- if anyone has any way to obtain this information -- just how many of the files that Kazaa and Grokster, etc. were actually "independents" ??? Or were they just automatically assumend that because they had an MP3 extension that they were RIAA material?

And Itunes is giving away free downloads to attract people to use it -- why aren't the songwriters and artists screaming about "loss of royaties" on that massive campaign? After all the free downloading is like having free downloads anywhere else -- the end result is that the artist's won't get paid anyway -- right? If it were me as a consumer I would use the "free downloads" feature to "legally" obtain the music that I really wanted and then never ever buy anything from them after that... talk about "opportunity cost" to the artist....

"With So many artist retiring and making there own Labels Who Needs The Riaa? "

The RIAA labels still own the back catalog. In fact, they bought up all the small labels from the past so they have vast holdings of classic music.

"More people have turned to supporting independent record labels and independent musicians because we have the hidden talent and because we offer quality for very reasonable costs to the public."

I believe I read that independent sales are up 1 percent while major labels are down about 30 percent, so the lost sales are not really moving to the indies. I read recently that catalog sales are tanking. Everyone replaced their lp's with cd's, then they bought the remasters, now the labels are trying to sell re-remasters and "deluxe editions", but even the hardcore buyers are sick of buying the same music over and over again. I see this amongst my fellow collectors. This is just one reason that sales are down.

"And Itunes is giving away free downloads to attract people to use it -- why aren't the songwriters and artists screaming about "loss of royaties" on that massive campaign?"

The artists are getting royalties on the free Itunes downloads.

Yes Mroop -- I agree with you on the "sales" (being up 1%) -- but what are the numbers on the "free" downloads? I know We have had CD sales -- yes --- but our download numbers are very significant on our personal site....

It is also intersting about the royalties for the ITunes being free... Where is the source on this? I must have missed it somewhere -- how much do they receive? Is it paid to RIAA or to the labels?

OK, here is a "music challenge" that somebody should try:

(1) Here in the US, play about 3 very recent popular RIAA songs and 3 "indie" songs of the same genre. See which set of songs, on average, is rated highest by the 'test listeners'

(2) Now go to some remote place in Africa or Asia where there is a long lag time between new releases and when they actually listen (so that the listeners don't know which songs are popular hits back in the States or Western Europe). Repeat the listening test.

Wonder if the results would be different?

On the paid downloads, the artist take on a 99 cent iTunes download is about 12 cents.

Re: AAC to MP3 conversion

As it turns out, you can't convert AAC to mp3 using the "import" command in iTunes. However, if you have a copy of Total Recorder (or similar program), you can directly record/encode the wav out into an mp3. I recommend Total Recorder, since it allows direct soundboard recording (keeps track length exact, other benefits). For a while, I thought that TR wouldn't work, but it turns out my copy was unregistered. Actually PAID for the program ($12), and now use it for iTunes and transferring my 7" singles into mp3.

gdZiemann

The 12c on a 99 cent download looks (well, is) very small, but compare it to the $1 (or less) that most small -> mid artists get on traditional album sales. Especially, when you consider that the artists don't even get that $1 if the entire album isn't sold, $.12 per single download may actually work out to more money (net) for the artist.

Of course, the system itself is hellacious, and many (not all) indie labels give their artists much better terms. But people are going to use iTunes (hell, people pay $2 for their cellphone to play a midi version of "Hot in Herre"), and, in the end, it may be RELATIVELY better for some small bands on major labels.

I took the Pepsi challenge several times. Always chose Coca Cola. I must have done it at least a dozen times (Hey! Who would turn down a free glass of cola? Heh). Always chose coke. Always blindfolded. Always prefer Coca Cola everytime. Pepsi is too sweet and has a slightly cheaper tasting syrup.

So either that article is complete BS or most people have no goddamned taste!

Yea, back in the day's i prefered coke myself, but it got too expensive now it's just o'douls !!!snort snort har har excuse me fellas but here in the southland it's a holiday and it's so smoky outside we all be in door's nuttin to do 10/4 flbgbt

DeadMan -- Not being part of the majority is not necessarily a bad thing.

Halfwit -- True. In some cases, artists only get paid royalties based on 9 or 10 songs, no matter how many songs are on the CD.

Which makes me really wonder why McCartney is still sitting tight with the Beatles' material, except that the per-song price model will screw up a lot of it.

For instance -- Mean Mr. Mustard/Polyethylene Pam/Bathroom Window

How many songs?

Once again I ask: How much are the "artists" getting on the "free" Itunes downloads per song PLUS who is getting the money? The label or the artist? I can understand the 12 cents on the 99 cent deal (but does the label or the artist actually get that?) -- but during the promo period MRoop stated that the artists got paid on the "FREE" downloads -- so I have asked for the source of this statement and also the distribution of the funds... This is important, I think... Maybe not -- maybe I'm picking at flies or something....

Good point, gdZiemann. The entire B-side of that album is technically one continuous song ("Polythene Pam" and "Bathroom Window" were actually recorded straight through). Based on the track listing on the CD, however, each song would probably be sold separately.

DeadMan - as I recall the actual "science" behind the taste test, Pepsi discovered that their cola tasted better than Coke's when it was at room temperature. If your taste test was done with cold drinks (or if you just don't like too much sugar), you'd always pick Coke. Americans generally go for the sweet, so Pepsi rigged the campaign to get the best results.

fossil, the 100,000 song giveaway is jointly sponsored by Pepsi and Apple. They cover the costs of the 100,000 songs.

I would guess that means Pepsi pays .99, Apple pays .65 per song. .65 is the cut of the .99 that Apple pays to the studios. The artists are supposed to be paid by the studios according to their contract. downhillbattle.org figures the actual amount going to the artist is around .11 per song.

Neither Apple or Pepsi will have me participating. (unless they stick free songs on the Monutain Dew bottles)

Darknite9, thanks for the great url --- BUT..

My question is still not answered... Apple and Itunes have said they will be giving away free downloads to everybody who registers for the service (as a subscription bonus). I have not been able to find any place in any documentation (including the great url you just provided) that documents how lmuch the artists are going to be making when a fan takes advantage of the FREE download -- despite the fact the Mroop has said that the artists will be getting paid for the download. My point is I believe this is a corporate myth and as a result Itunes and the RIAA paretners are ALSO stealing by file sharing... the very practice that they are suing people over. Until someone can get me the facts and source that shows where Itunes and the IRAA are actually compensating the artists for the FREE downloads then I have to assume they are just as guilty as Kazaa, Grokster and any opther pipeline that offers the music for free without compensating the copyright owners.

By the way -- I can tell a coke whether its hot or cold, with or without ice... Remember when Coke increased the sugar in their product to try to beat back Pepsi -- I admit that I am a card carrying member of the Coke generation (the softdrink) and there just isn't a substitute.

.. free songs on Mountain Dew Bottles.. Hmmmmm.. now there is double the addiction.. and is that ll cents to the artists gross or net? 'Cause you know the labels will take their processing "cut." first.

fossil, I just visited my local Apple specialist, they said that Pepsi's part of the the promotion would pay for the 100,000,000 songs. They were unable to download they big iTunes for windows announcement where this was suppossedly revealed. It looks like anything said about who pays for it is only going to be random speculation at the moment.

However, if the 100,000,000 songs were NOT paid for, you can bet that the RIAA wouldn't hesitate to turn on Apple and sue them for damages of 150,000 per song.

I honestly don't think the artist will see their fair cut of the profit, since that is in the hands of the record labels that hold the contracts.

for Jazzmary, downhillbattle.org figures that for a .99 song, .65 goes to the label, and of that .65, .11 goes to the artist. Not fair to the artist to be sure, but better than .05 I guess