| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 08/22/2003 : 08:35:48 AM
.....That is the question!! Here is a great article that was forwarded to me. I am pretty sure I know where most of you will fall on this issue and being that most of you are musicians Janis Ian presents a pretty strong case. Alot of you may not know Janis Ian, but I bet you know her music without even knowing it. Please take the TIMe to read this and if you feel like posting your thoughts feel free. If you feel strongly and want to share your thoughts beyond this board, I have provided a link to the discussion group concerning this article. It's a very interesting(albiet long)read!
A freedom that works: the upside of download
Janis Ian
17 - 7 - 2002
The threat posed to the recorded music industry by unauthorised download is an article of faith to many insiders. It is also a myth, says this ageless independent singer-songwriter: freedom is good for artists and for business.
When I research an article, I normally send thirty or so emails to friends and acquaintances asking for feedback. I usually receive ten to twenty in reply. But not so on this subject!
I sent thirty-six emails requesting opinions and facts on free music downloading from the Net, outlining my argument that free Internet downloads are good for the music industry and its artists.
I’ve received, to date, over three hundred replies, every single one from someone legitimately “in the music business.” What’s more interesting than the emails are the ‘phone calls. I don’t know anyone at National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) – home of the Grammy Awards – and I barely know Hilary Rosen, head of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Yet within twenty-four hours of sending my original email, I’d received two messages from Rosen and four from NARAS requesting that I call to “discuss the article.”
Huh. Didn’t know I was that widely read. Ms. Rosen, to be fair, stressed that she was only interested in presenting RIAA’s side of the issue, and was kind enough to send me a fair amount of statistics and documentation, including a number of focus group studies RIAA had run on the matter.
The NARAS people were a bit pushier. They told me downloads were “destroying sales”, “ruining the music industry”, and “costing you money”. Costing me money? I don’t pretend to be an expert on intellectual property law, but I do know one thing. If a music industry executive claims I should agree with their agenda because it will make me more money, I put my hand on my wallet – and check it after they leave – just to make sure nothing’s missing.
Am I suspicious of all this hysteria? You bet. Do I think the issue has been badly handled? Absolutely. Am I concerned about losing friends, opportunities, and my 10th Grammy nomination by publishing this article? Yeah. I am. But sometimes things are just wrong, and when they’re that wrong, they have to be addressed.
The benefits of download
The premise of all this ballyhoo is that the industry (and its artists) is harmed by free downloads. Nonsense. Let’s take it from my personal experience. My site gets an average of 75,000 hits a year. Not bad for someone whose last hit record was in 1975? When Napster was running full-tilt, we received about 100 hits a month from people who’d downloaded Society’s Child or At Seventeen for free, then decided they wanted more information.
Of those 100 people, 15 bought CDs. Not huge sales, right? No record company is interested in 180 extra sales a year. But in my book that translates into $2700, which is a lot of money to me. And it doesn’t include the ones who bought the CDs in stores, or who came to my shows. Every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales of all the CDs go up.
Now, the RIAA and NARAS, as well as most of the entrenched music industry, are arguing that free downloads hurt sales and destroys the industry. Alas, the music industry needs no outside help to destroy itself.
Let me remind you that the music industry responded exactly the same to the advent of reel-to-reel home tape recorders, cassettes, DATs, minidiscs, VHS, BETA, music videos, MTV, and a host of other technological advances designed to make the consumer’s life easier and better.
The only reason they didn’t react that way publicly to the advent of CDs was because they believed CD’s were uncopyable. I was told personally by a former head of Sony marketing, when they asked me to license Between the Lines in CD format – at a reduced royalty rate, “Because it’s a brand new technology.”
Realistically, why do most people download music? To hear new music. Not to avoid paying $5 at the local used CD store, or taping it off the radio, but to hear music they can’t find anywhere else. Face it – most people can’t afford to spend $15.99 to experiment. That’s why listening booths (which labels originally fought against, too) are such a success.
You can’t hear new music on the radio these days; I live in Nashville, “Music City USA”, and we have exactly one station willing to play a non-top-40 format. On a clear day, I can even tune it in. The situation’s not much better in Los Angeles or New York. College stations are sometimes bolder, but their wattage is so low that most of us can’t get them.
In the hysteria of the moment, everyone is forgetting the main way an artist becomes successful – exposure. Without exposure, no one comes to shows, no one buys CDs, no one enables you to earn a living doing what you love. In 37 years as a recording artist, I’ve created 25+ albums for major labels, and I’ve never once received a royalty check that didn’t show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.
I spend hours each week with the press, writing articles, making sure my website tour information is up to date. Why? For exposure to an unfamiliar audience. So, when someone writes and tells me they came to my show because they’d downloaded a song and got curious, I am thrilled!
Congress thinks otherwise. Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee said to Newsweek, “When Congress sits idly by in the face of these [file-sharing] activities, we essentially sanction the Internet as a haven for thievery”, then went on to charge “over 10 million people” with stealing.
So that’s what we think of consumers? Thieves, out to get something for nothing. Baloney! Most consumers have no problem paying for entertainment. Particularly when they’re paying $50-$125 apiece for concert tickets, and $15.99 for new CDs they know costs less than a dollar to manufacture and distribute.
I don’t blame the RIAA. They are, after all, the Recording Industry Association of America, formed so the labels would have a political lobbying group in Washington. But given that our industry’s success is based on communication, their response to the Internet has been abysmal.
Of course, communication has always been the artist’s, not the executives’, job. That’s why it’s so scary when people like NARAS’ ex-president Michael Greene begins using shows like the Grammy Awards to drive their point home.
Grammy viewership hit a six-year low in 2002. Moves like the ridiculous Elton John and Eminem duet did little to make people want to watch again the next year.
In his speech, Greene told the viewing audience that NARAS and the RIAA were, in large part, taking their stance to protect artists. He hired three teenagers to spend a couple of days doing nothing but downloading, and they managed to download “6,000 songs”.
For free “front-row seats” at the Grammys and an appearance on national TV, I’d download twice that amount! But who’s got time to download that many songs? Does Greene really think people are spending 12 hours a day downloading our music? If they are, they must be starving to death, because they’re not making a living or going to school.
This sort of thing is indicative of the way statistics are tossed around. It’s dreadful to think that consumers are being asked to take responsibility for the industry’s problems, which have been around far longer than the Internet.
It’s the exposure, stupid
The industry has been complaining for years about the stranglehold the middle-man has on their dollars, yet they wish to do nothing to offend those middle-men. BMG has a strict policy for artists buying their own CDs to sell at concerts – $11 per CD. They know very well that most of us lose money if we have to pay that much; the point is to keep the big record stores happy by ensuring sales go to them. NARAS and the RIAA are moaning about the little Mom & Pop stores being shoved out of business; no one worked harder to shove them out than our own industry, which greeted every new Tower or mega-music store with glee, and offered steep discounts to Target and WalMart for stocking CDs. What was the Internet’s role in this?
And for those of us with major label contracts who want some of our music available for free downloading… well, the record companies own our masters, our outtakes, even our demos, and they won’t allow it. Furthermore, they own our voices for the duration of the contract, so we can’t even post a live track for downloading!
The music industry should be rejoicing at this new technological advance! Here’s a foolproof way to deliver music to millions who might otherwise never purchase a CD in a store. The cross-marketing opportunities are unbelievable. It’s instantaneous, costs are minimal, shipping non-existent… a staggering vehicle for higher earnings and lower costs. Instead, they’re running around like chickens with their heads cut off! As an alternative to encrypting everything, and tying up money for years – potentially decades – fighting consumer suits demanding their first amendment rights be protected (which have always gone to the consumer, as witness the availability of blank and unencrypted VHS tapes and cassettes), why not take a tip from book publishers and writers?
There is zero evidence that material available for free online downloading is financially harming anyone. In fact, most of the hard evidence is to the contrary.
It’s sheer stupidity to rejoice at the Napster decision. Free exposure is practically a thing of the past for entertainers. Getting your record played on the radio costs more than most of us ever dream of earning. Free downloads give a chance to every do-it-yourself’er out there. Every act that can’t get signed to a major label, for whatever reason, can literally reach millions of new listeners, enticing them to buy CDs and come to concerts. Where else can a new act get that kind of exposure?
In a time when there are arguably only four record labels left in America (Sony, AOL Time Warner, Universal, BMG)… when entire genres are glorifying the gangster mentality… when executives change their positions as often as Zsa Zsa Gabor changed outfits… when “A&R” has become a euphemism for “Absent & Redundant”… well, frankly, we have other things to worry about.
Please check out the discussion group:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-40-26.jsp# |
| 11 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Black Lotus |
Posted - 09/05/2003 : 7:21:21 PM
Realisticly, I can see both sides of the issue (which is not obvious in my above mindless rant). I think it should come down to the individual artists. If artists choose to sue their fans and alienate themselves, let 'em. I doubt it would take a long time before artists figured out that suing their fans hurts their income even more. Let the RIAA represent the artists that wish to sue and leave the rest of the people alone.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 11:21:43 PM
i'm going to disagree with you on one thing.
here it comes.
wait for it.
people will like what you tell them to like. you put some jerk on the radio with about as music musical ability as this half eaten pop tart i'm looking at, and you tell everyone to "listen to this hot new artist!" people will go "yeah. we like that. it's kind of fun." this, of course, has limits. if someone to were to put shoenberg's verklärte nacht o the radio, i can think of about 2 people who would like it, not including me. the point is, for the most part, people won't decide what they like. you could put someone wonderfully skilled in the art up there, but if they aren't presented in the proper format, i.e through the radio or tv, they won't be given any thought by the general public.
|
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 7:21:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Black Lotus
Pretty soon, MTV is going to have a show called 'Dick & Bush' and it'll be a reality TV show about life in the whitehouse.
I can see it now...a teeny bopper host in tight pants and a tank top, and a thugged out white boy following around the president in the white house talking about the "dope curtains" and asking if they got the stains out of the carpet in the oval office, while snoop dog plays in the background. |
| Black Lotus |
Posted - 09/04/2003 : 7:10:59 PM
What does it boil down to? Greed, pure and simple.
The RIAA is enticing all these artists (except Metallica, because the're greed mongers all the way) to represent them and claim 'oh, you're hurting my income by downloading.' Bullshit! Have you watched 'cribs' lately? Those motherfuckers are making money hand over fist - I actually WORK MY ASS OFF for a living and make barely over $100K a year, but most artists that rip off someone elses music for a 'beat' and rap to it make a bizillion dollars a day. Hmmm .. isn't that stealing as well? Nah, because the RIAA gets a kick back on sampled music.
See ... it's all good when the RIAA gets paid. If they don't get paid, they bitch and moan and cry foul. If you are an artist that is actually talented (like TIM), people will buy your music. Personally, if I really like a song or an artist, I want the album artwork just as much as the music. Even though I may have downloaded the whole album (and may even have the art in JPG format), I still buy the CD. Most people are the same way that download and trade music.
The RIAA isn't losing money because of MP3, KAZAA and Napster. They're losing money because of shitty artists, crap music and American Idol.
Have you noticed that a majority of good musicians have an open taping/trading and downloading policy? They know that their music still sells, people still go see them live, simply because they're talented musicians.
Maybe if the RIAA opened its eyes and signed some talent and yanked that bubble gum crap off the radio the world would be a better place.
But, back to my main point ... greed ... it's all about money. The RIAA needs to continue to steal from the starving artists of the world and they need your help - STOP DOWNLOADING MUSIC! We have to fuurther pilliage starving artists our of their money. Or, we'll just sue all of you for downloading music and keep it for ourselves. You didn't think that money actually went to the artists did you? Fuck no, that goes back into the machine ... the RIAA and their congressional lobbying. Pretty soon, MTV is going to have a show called 'Dick & Bush' and it'll be a reality TV show about life in the whitehouse. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 8:06:12 PM
i download whole cds if i can't find it at the music store. then if the band has a show in my area, i'll buy the cd there. if not, i keep my burned copy. it's wrong and i really have no excuse for it. most of the bands i burn cds of aren't on big labels, so it's not like i'm doing it to spite any company. i'm just too damn lazy when it comes to ordering shit online. i ordered stream, nomadic wavelenght, and chaos view online and i always get shafted on the delivery time. |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 08/25/2003 : 2:44:46 PM
My use of downloading is pretty much right along the lines of what has been mentioned. I'm a sucker for sound quality, I'll gladly spend 15 bucks for a professionally mastered or remastered recording. But I will use a download to test out a few songs, or like VWF said, live or unreleased songs. Also, I don't really like buying soundtracks, or compilations, so if there is a song by an artist I like, I'll get that one song.
Unfortunately, I really don't think the majority of people see it this way. In fact, I'm quite sure the majority of users would rather download a whole cd than buy it. I know because working in music stores so much I overhear costomers saying it all the time. I also think it's pretty ironic that most music stores, even ones like whereouse that went bankrupt all carry blank cds and cdrs, and some even carry mp3 players, and cd burners. It's like selling the poison that kills you. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 7:05:03 PM
I never download whole albums either. I mean most of the time when I download songs it's because a particular song was in my head, and instead on spending $15 dollars for the complete album I'll take the one song. Usually because that one song is the only good song off of the album. |
| victorwootenfan |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 3:23:40 PM
My take on it is when i download music 97 percent of the time it's live shows or live music that hasn't been released..so there are no cds of it for me to buy in the first place...so i say WTF?
*gives the finger to the music industry*
...
*realizes i am a music industry major, and says "d'oh." |
| tericee |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 2:51:39 PM
If people are spending 12 hours per day downloading music it's still good for the economy. Think of how much storage they need to buy! |
| Saint Jude |
Posted - 08/24/2003 : 1:06:38 PM
I feel that free downloads do not effect the music industry much at all.
I (like most people i hope) dont download entire albums. but perhaps one or two songs. if a friend says, check out band A, here are some of their better songs, i will d/l those songs. and if i like it, i will buy the album... if not, i wont. Its about having a good product. Not just being the only thing out there. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 08/23/2003 : 12:40:23 AM
it would bother me less if they cut all this nonsense about "intellectual property" and just said "we want as much money as possible." then i could handle it. why do they have to saturate it with bullshit that you can smell a mile off but see right through at any distance? |
|
|
