If only I was taller. If only I was thinner. If only I was richer.
If only the RIAA could sue the P2P networks, music piracy would be reduced and artists of the world would cheer. The chorus of music from the increased creativity (That is what the RIAA has promised isn’t it ?) unleashed by the P2P ceiling placed over every keyboard and cymbal across the world would cause music sales to skyrocket.
Or will they?
Well Grokster vs MGM has apparently removed the “if only” lid from the RIAA. They now are going after LimeWire,Bearshare, MX and their peers (sorry, had to do it) for as they wrote in their cease and desist notice, “We demand that you immediately cease-and-desist from enabling and inducing the infringement of RIAA member sound recordings.” Now personally, I think the inducement was to get unknowing users to download spyware so they could profit. But that’s me.
More importantly, it starts to put the RIAA in put up or shut up terrority.
I hope the RIAAwins this case. I hope they shut them down. I have no more love for these guys than I do Grokster. What I do have love for is protecting individuals rights to use the music they own as they see fit. For making it easy to do backups and protecting our purchases. For protecting the ability of technologists to be creative and invent new and amazingthings without having to invest more in legal fees than theirideas.
Bearshare, MX, Limewire and 4 others have become the sacrificial lambs.
Will their consumption satisfy the RIAA?
Will their destruction reduce the amount of P2P file sharing? We will find out.
Will that satisfy the RIAA,or will it just embolden them? Maybe it willgive them confidenceto monitor every high school software programming class. Who knows how far they will take it.
The good news, it helps removes the excuses. No more “if only”. It will put them on a shakyfence between protecting their copyrights and technology terrorists. This gets us closer to seeing who they really are and what they really are trying to accomplish.
As for “bitterness,” let me tell you a little story… I once practically BEGGED the CEO of a company to present a business concept for his startup that I knew would keep his business alive in the face of stiff competition. I volunteered to fly to his location on my own dime to do it.
Comment by runescape money -
If you want to steal it, you can, but there is a penalty. There are many, many items marketed towards kids, and none of them have to worry about how their customers are going to pay for them, why should music be any different.
Comment by wow powerleveling -
yeah there are tons of loses right now because of music piracy, millions of dollars by the way.. Anyways, that’s the same thing that my boyfriend from webdatedotcom told me about a couple of weeks ago, there’s nothing we can do about this right now… People will always find way to bend the rules
Comment by thynoe -
very good!
Comment by 11nong -
Piracy causes enormous loses to many industries especially software corporations, however, i’m still really wondering, if there were no piracy in this world, meaning no loses for those who produces piratable-content, taking Microsoft as an example, how much wealth then would Bill Gates reached?!
Comment by Computational -
How many politicians did not try to get rid of a piracy at them it turned out nothing, especially on the Internet.
Comment by whales -
The media companies are missing a critical piece of the equation. Digital files are a superior way to consume music. I can stream them to various places in my home. I can carry my whole music collection in my pocket. I can program playlists that don’t require me to attend to a CD player. I am quite happy to acquire music files legallly as a consumer. However, I may exercise my right to want to consume them through Apple’s channel, ITunes, and if they don’t offer them that way, I won’t buy them, very simple. Others may not like ITunes, but they are the new distributors. How much cost can be taken out of the distribution channels by offering digital rather than shrink wrapped discs? So the old guard that has to be overcome is the folks in the distribution channels today, that stand to lose it in the future.
Comment by Joe Daly -
I’m not sure Mark actually reads this… if he has he may have tuned out due to my diatribes. But if you haven’t Mark your feedback would be sorely appreciated.
Comment by James King -
Actually, protecting the artists is a by product, protecting the labels is the main and only goal of the RIAA.
Let’s see if this holds water –
“Bob, regarding your point about business, we don’t agree. profit should be the result of running a business effectively, not the goal. But we don’t have to see eye to eye on this, time will bear me out.”
The only person on this board that has proven to effectivly run a business is Mark. Others may have, but because of the somewhat anonymous nature of the internet, he is the only one for sure.
Mark, would you care to put your thoughts in? Should the first goal of a business be profit?
Comment by Bob -
Grant hardware encryption/decryption is important because the movies could be transferred as encrypted files and decrypted ON THE FLY via a specialized chip. The only piracy that would be an issue is direct transfer of the signal and there really is no way to circumvent that. Piracy is always going to be a problem but my belief is that most people would rather pay for content, as long as the process requires virtually NO EFFORT and is priced FAIRLY, at least the people who can afford the content to begin with.
Piracy isn’t a cut and dried issue. How many people who pirate content would have paid for that content to begin with? I know a lot of people who pirate software that they can’t afford. And, ironically enough, I know people who have gone out and PAID for software they originally pirated once they COULD afford it. It’s easy to call piracy “theft” and, in the strictest sense, it is but sometimes it CAN help your business. P2P may hurt the RIAA but most artists agree that, under the current system, it HELPS them. Doesn’t changing that dynamic fall to the RIAA and its counterparts, the very groups who are supposedly representing the artists? How can you fight a war in front of you and a rebellion behind you? The RIAA would have a lot more credibility in this battle if they were actually doing what they claim to be doing, which is protecting their artists. They are only protecting their BUSINESS and, quite frankly, no one’s gonna give a rat’s ass about a group of millionaires losing money. That’s the REALITY of the situation.
Comment by James King -
Bob, regarding your point about business, we don’t agree. profit should be the result of running a business effectively, not the goal. But we don’t have to see eye to eye on this, time will bear me out.
As for pointless discussions, they don’t become pointless until someone refuses at least consider the evidence put before them. I respected your statements but didn’t agree with the last one. I think using the legal system to compensate for a gaping flaw in your business model ultimately will not solve the issue, which at its nature is one of technology and demand. In the end, it’ll take the RIAA and its counterparts more resources to police the issue than to come up with effective alternatives. I know quite a few musicians and independant recording artists so I very much respect the spirit and law of copyrights. However, I think this issue is well beyond the law now. It’ll be virtually impossible to halt the use of this technology now that it is so widespread.
Grant, hardware encryption is MUCH, MUCH harder to circumvent, that’s why a specialized device would be superior to a software-only solution. I mentioned hardware encryption in my initial post regarding this device. It’s funny cuz I got feedback like this regarding my concept for PCs designed specifically for multimedia about 10 years ago. They’re here now. I can even tell you why the ones that are out aren’t selling well… well I could but I won’t. That’s for another blog. As I stated before, remember where you read the idea first.
Comment by James King -
James, it doesn’t need to be a device, it is a pay version of bit torrent, I am sure that will work real well and won’t get hacked. Putting the content on the client side, although it sounds like a great idea, it opens the content up to easy theft, and at that point, is it really theft if you are storing it on someone’s machine?
Comment by Grant -
If you don’t focus on profits, you might as well focus on your next job… you won’t be in business very long.
James, why would you engage in a pointless discussion with anyone? Your put downs against the people you are in discussions with, do nothing but tarnish your point, however relevant or irrelevant it is.
Comment by Bob -
Grant, the reason why it is a good idea is because it would allow a company to theoretically offer every movie ever made to millions of people at a fraction of the business costs of satellite or cable. A large back-end structure (and the tens of millions of dollars it would cost to build it) wouldn’t be necessary, the existing IP infrastucture would be more than enough. My concept would allow a start-up to effectively compete against the established satellite/cable companies for a fraction of the investment. If you don’t understand the relevance of that then there is really not much more we need to say about it.
As for the concept, it is not one I’m pursuing regardless. If I was, why would I post it? I don’t have the connections or personal resources necessary to make it happen but I GUARANTEE someone will. That’s the power of P2P, no centralized structure and none of the associated costs. P2P lowers the costs of distributing ANY digital content SIGNIFICANTLY. You don’t like the concept because it came from me but that’s cool. Remember that you read it here first when the first device hits the market within the next couple of years.
As for discounting people, why would I engage in the same pointless discussion with Bob as I have with you?
And FYI businesses should focus on solving problems and providing products and services EFFICIENTLY and EFFECTIVELY. Do that and profits and share price will generally take care of themselves.
Comment by James King -
If your idea is so good, make it happen.
It won’t happen, because it isn’t good. There is already an infrastructure in place to do what you are proposing, why would someone waste their time and more importantly, their money, recreating that infrastructure.
I like the way you discount anyone that doesn’t agree with you, like Bob.
BTW, just an FYI, if you ever want to be more than an average moe, you’ll need to learn that for profit businesses don’t last long if their focus isn’t on share value and profits.
Comment by Grant -
“I don’t think the burden to find a better delivery method falls on the recording industry as much as legitimizing their product falls on the shoulders of the P2P networks.”
Bob, you actually had me until this last sentence. But I’ve had my fill with Grant on this matter and I’m done in general with the narrow-mindedness exhibited regarding this topic.
And if you have a problem with people going at it on the Internet, watch TV. Standing on the fence doesn’t give you any high ground.
Comment by James King -
You’re done Grant. Just accept it.
And a sat/cable box requires a massive infrastructure behind it. The device I’m talking about would require a relatively MINISCULE fraction of the backend stuff because every box would act as a storage unit. The network would leverage EVERY BOX in EVERY HOME for storage and processing, the only real backend needs would be billing and maintenance. In other words, we’d go from the centralized satellite/cable distribution model to a relatively decentralized system in which every box would form part of a specialized distributed computing model (or so to speak). Who’s doing THAT? No one that I can think of. Hell, this idea would be perfect for that new Cell chip everyone is bragging about.
Claiming that I have a problem with every big business is a cheap way to get around my arguments. I have a problem with companies acting UNETHICALLY and sadly the news is filled with them. I do not believe EVERY company is run unethically. But I do believe that the focus on profit and share price has removed a level of responsibility from the people running SOME companies and institutions. I think people WANT to do what’s right but are starting to feel justified in things such as P2P because they are starting to feel as if they are being treated as cattle. The sword cuts both ways but many businesses seem to have forgotten that.
Dude, when did I say I was a successful businessman? I’m an average moe like everyone else.
I love the world you live in. Can I buy a house there? I bet I could pay for it with lollipops and rainbows.
Comment by James King -
You guys are like children. Can’t you figure out that you aren’t arguing the same point?
Grant, James is arguing that P2P is a good innovation.
James, Grant is arguing that P2P is theft.
You are both right on these respective counts. No one can argue that P2P is not a great technological innovation, nor can you argue against the fact that it is primarily used to share copyrighted content.
Drop it already.
It may be viewed as wrong for the RIAA to sue the music downloaders, but it is within their rights as layed out by the laws of the US. I don’t agree with sueing kids for downloading files, but they don’t know if it is a kid or an adult until after all the paperwork is filed.
P2P does have legitimate uses as well, I have used Bit Torrent to download legal Linux ISOs for quite some time, but the overwhelming use is for piracy. If they (the P2P systems) can’t come up with a legitimate use, they will get shut down. I don’t think the burden to find a better delivery method falls on the recording industry as much as legitimizing their product falls on the shoulders of the P2P networks.
Comment by Bob -
Let me guess James, you have an issue with any and every big business? Every single big business leverages the fact that they are who they are. It allows them a number of benefits based on their proven track record to do well. Some of those benefits involve contracts.
Let me explain something simple. If you have something that someone else wants, they can take what you are offering for a price, go elsewhere, or make it themselves. Microsoft has the OS that all of the big OEMs want, and they pay MS for it. They could go to Linux, but the downside to the average user far outweighs the cost of Windows. Supply and demand is the biggest determination of cost.
You talk about how you are a successful business person, yet you don’t understand the benefits of leveraging your position? I guess successful is subjective.
BTW, your device is called a sat/cable box, someone must have stolen that idea from you 10 years ago, there goes another one.
Comment by Grant -
By the way, I like your post Kray Mitchell. However, be careful not to say that when you are searching for funding because they’ll think you are “bitter,” haha.
Comment by James King -
Thanks Grant for substantiating everything I said about you.
Where was the record company’s morals or ethics in those bad contracts? So because they COULD fleece those artists they SHOULD have? Man, you are ridiculous. It’s clear cut when someone steals a file but not clear cut when someone does something that is CLEARLY wrong ethically, such as knowingly taking advantage of someone else’s ignorance? You’re a real piece of work.
You can’t have it both ways but I guess you are determined to. It’s attitudes like yours that make P2P file sharers completely unsympathetic to the arguments of the record company. Your hypocrisy does more damage to your arguments than anything else.
As for my device, of course the signal could be copied but at least you’d have economies of scale on your side. As commodity pricing for the devices kicked in, their ubiquity would ultimately MARGINALIZE file sharing. You can only get one movie at a time when you steal them but what if you could buy a device that allowed you to get THOUSANDS of movies for 4 or 5 bucks apiece for $100-$150? That’ll eliminate A LOT of casual piracy. Maybe you don’t agree, but then most people are just thieves waiting to happen anyway, right? It’s cool, you’re not obligated to like my concept. But it’s cynicism like yours that is helping to stifle innovation as well.
Comment by James King -
Regardless of what happens file sharing eill continue for a long time.
servant5150
http://hookahForum.com
Comment by adam -
Regardless of what happens file sharing eill continue for a long time.
servant5150
Hookah Forum
Comment by adam -
the RIAA suing everybody is the dumbest move in history. Instead of spending the money on finding better legal alternatives, and advertising them, they waste time and money suing p2p companies and 12 year old girls.
The record companies should not be behind this move at all, it makes them look bad. And as for you comment on Artists of the world will cheer is wrong. Artists are not the ones being affected by piracy, they have always had crappy contracts from labels. The people that get hurt by this, are lower level workers, shipers, recievers, packaging, designers, loaders, you know, the expendable people that make lower wages.
You will not see Madonna fired over piracy, nor will you see the head of MGM lose his job over it. All they want is to make more money and it is sickening.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer (Sorry Mark! Your a great guy, but I still struggle by)
I chose Piracy as the topic for my first documentary because of some of these issues. Hopefully some of you check out the trailer!
Comment by Kray Mitchell -
Music and the enjoyment of it is a choice, not a requirement to sustain life. We are talking about people who may or may not have the means to purchase what they want, not what they need. If you can’t afford to, for whatever reason, legally acquire something, it doesn’t give you the right to steal it.
I don’t understand how the argument can go any further than that. Now if you understand that, then you can get into the argument that the record industry is ripping people off/not distributing content in the fashion that the public wants it, but that argument comes after, not before.
How can you compare plain and simple theft (stealing content online) with the contractual obligations that two parties knowingly and agreeably entered into? There is no comparison there. Many people sign bad contracts in all walks of business, whether it is music, software, services, etc. You have to ride it out and learn from your mistakes. It happens constantly in life, and you either learn from history or you are damned to repeat it. How many times does someone have to touch a hot stove?
No musician has ever been forced to sign a deal with a major record label, they have choosen to. If you blindly sign a bad deal, you have to deal with it, the opposite is true for the Mariah Careys of the world who have fleeced the record labels.
The “device” you refer to will still have to output a signal to a TV, which can easily be captured by a number of recording devices.
Comment by Grant -
By the way, with the device I’m referencing, theft would be a whole lot harder than just BUYING THE MOVIE. Yeah some folks will continue to troll Usenets but, when simplicity comes down to just hitting a button on a remote, people are just gonna cough up the four bucks. It reminds me of a quote from Aaron Spelling:
“TV is the path of least resistance from complete boredom.”
Never underestimate the laziness of the public.
Comment by James King -
“The minimum wage is low, I agree, but I know I have never worked for minimum wage, even as a 15 year old. Now you get down to a discussion about disire and motivation, work ethic, the desire to acheive, etc”
This is the core of your inability to understand the P2P situation from a real-world perspective. Not only are you unable to conceptualize the differences in people’s lives, you actually seem to be implying that some set of character traits make you better than others. You’re not myopic, you’re downright blind.
“James, if you can’t get past the morally/legally right or wrong concept behind stealing, then obviously you can’t understand the other points I am making, since that is the basis for all of them.”
I have absolutely no problem understanding right or wrong and, considering your “socialism” statements, you have very little reason to pontificate. I notice that moral issues generally crop up for the wealthy when it involves losing money but then it’s “just business” when they profit from someone else’s exploitation. Do you intend to champion the many artists past and present that were fleeced by record companies and left penniless? Oh that’s right, that was “just business.” But now it’s “theft” when the shoe is on the other foot. I’ve heard of choosing your battles but don’t you think that’s just a tad hypocritical?
Whether it is right or wrong, legal or illegal is moot… it’s going to keep happening. Since we are living in your dream world, shouldn’t the legal system be used for justice and not be whored for business purposes? But we’re NOT living in that world are we? To you, it’s a black and white issue, to me I don’t think thievery has suddenly become a world-wide movement. Everyone using P2P doesn’t have a malevolent need to rip someone off.
Comment by James King -
There have been rumblings of that happening from the large movie studios, but the directors don’t want it because they want “the movie to be seen and heard as it was intended” which they can’t control in that scenario.
The other issue is no matter what you do, there will be a way to record that feed, which means cleaner pirated copies will hit the streets as fast or faster than the crappy ones do today.
Mixerman, those are round numbers. I don’t know anyone that pays $12-14 for a cd today, I just bought the new Institute CD for $11 at Sam Goody, using that as a gauge those numbers still hold up.
The minimum wage is low, I agree, but I know I have never worked for minimum wage, even as a 15 year old. Now you get down to a discussion about disire and motivation, work ethic, the desire to acheive, etc… anyway you slice it, the cost of music today has only slightly changed over the last 25 years. Look at the gas, milk, or pretty much anything during that same period.
James, if you can’t get past the morally/legally right or wrong concept behind stealing, then obviously you can’t understand the other points I am making, since that is the basis for all of them. We will have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Grant -
By the way, a device like that would be awesome for TV on demand. Just a thought.
Comment by James King -
I think the movie studios are being a little short-sighted on P2P. A closed system P2P would be excellent for movie distribution (I think I read an article that said something to the same effect). For that matter a closed system P2P box for the home could probably compete against on-demand pretty effectively and marginalize piracy. Imagine a TiVo style device that provided relatively quick access to movies for a fee via TCP/IP/BitTorrent-style technology… as a closed system (preferably with a hardware encryption scheme), it could probably be built in a fashion that would thwart all but the most sophisticated piracy. In essence, the movies generally wouldn’t pass outside of the network but would be shuttled within the network to users as they pay for them. It would require some R&D but most of the technology already exists for a concept like this. I’m thinking movie studios, with the help of consumer electronic companies, could nip P2P movie piracy in the bud right now with such a device which would be far more convenient than piracy. I buy movies on-demand right now, if I could get movies in an on-demand fashion at a pace that matched DVD releases, I’d be sold.
The bottom line is why wait for the sky to fall?
Comment by James King -
Once again, awesome post Mixerman. My red flags always go off when someone quotes statistics because they rarely tell the whole story. People use them as crutches to justify not having to think.
And as someone who has “edit(ed) the living shit” out of digital recordings, I can’t agree with you more. When I hear great acoustic and music done with analog equipment, the difference is incredible. But software DAWs are a godsend for guys like me that can’t afford the good stuff. Digital is definitely a mixed blessing.
Comment by James King -
Grant Wrote: “Look at it this way, in the early 80’s I paid $7 for an album on cassette, now, 25 years later, I pay $12-14. If you take the high end of that, the cost in 25 years for an album has doubled and the quality of the recording (not the act, that is subjective) has more than doubled. That is actually lower than the rate of inflation in that period. Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1980, they would cost you $14 and $5.51 respectively.” (source – Statistical Abstracts of the United States)”
First of all, if you were paying $7 for a cassette in the early eighties, then you were getting ripped off. New albums were fetching $4.99 at Sam Goody in 1983. I remember it like it was yesterday.
Minimum wage was $3.35 then, and that is typically what a teen was paid. At that wage, a working teen could pay for an album in just over an hour-and-a-half of work.
The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. A teen making minimum wage today would have to work nearly 3 hours to purchase a $14 album. Four years ago, when albums were at about $17 and the minimum wage was lower, a teen would have been approaching 4 hours of work to pay for an album.
I think that is far more telling statistic as to how expensive an album is to today’s teen than your “statistical abstract.”
Secondly, your statement that “the quality of recording has more than doubled,” is completely misinformed. The quality of recordings has in actuality, suffered severely in the past 20 years. CDs are considered by many professionals in this industry to be barely acceptable, and the labels jumped the gun when they switched to that format. They figured they would have upgraded formats by now, but the consumer wasn’t going to go for that.
As to recording, many of us that make records for a living still use equipment that is 30 years old (and older) because it so easily smokes today’s equipment. The advantages of digital recording and workstations, particularly the more common platforms, have never been about sound quality. The main advantage of a DAW is that one can edit the living shit out of a band and manufacture an illusion that below average musicians can play in perfect time and perfect tune, that is, if you find that to be an advantage. I personally don’t. The labels do, because then they can sign bands purely on their look and their one good radio song.
Lastly, I don’t think kids would find $14 to be too much money, if they weren’t afraid of getting burned buying another CD with only one good song by a band that sucks donkey balls live, and likely won’t ever even put out a second album.
Mixerman
Comment by Mixerman -
Grant, arguing against your myopic view is pointless. Your arguments boil down to “P2P is just wrong.” Unfortunately, you can’t solve a problem by moralizing. It’s going to take a tangible solution, not wishful thinking.
What’s funny is that I’ve had someone else read your comments and they thought you were agreeing with me until I told them you weren’t. As for your obsession with my supposed “socialism,” saying nobody has the right to determine that someone’s 8-12 hrs per day isn’t as important as someone else’s is HUMANE, not “socialism.” I’ve had this same exchange with an Ayn Rand objectivist. Relationships of the type that are created in business are ultimately symbiotic. Bill Gates is a brilliant man but he wouldn’t be where he is today without the work of others. The determination of value in our society is no longer based on real supply and demand, it’s artificial. I happen to agree with Buckminster Fuller in that our species has reached a point in our advancement that no one has to go without the basic comforts of life. The entire notion of capitalism is contingent on the notion of finite supply and finite. We’ve reached a point technologically where that is no longer the case. You don’t have to agree but trying to label me a “socialist” is akin to a conservative calling someone a liberal (which you also implied)… just a cowardly attempt to delegitimize an argument that you can’t based on the merits. I don’t worry about cowards. By the way, by the time I was done with him, that guy wasn’t an objectivist anymore. I won’t waste such time on you.
As for referencing Courtney Love, once again you’ve used a label in a cowardly attempt to delegitimize an argument that you can’t based on the merits. I referenced Courtney Love because she is a MUSICIAN with a RECORDING CONTRACT (or at least HAD one, I’m not sure). If you are so interested in “references,” then search on articles by Wendy Day, who specializes in advocacy for urban music. Attacking Courtney Love’s personal life to delegitimize her statements is the type of weak rhetoric I’ve come to expect from you.
As for arguing against the RIAA, will it make you feel better if I called it the “global music distribution hegemony”?
You’ve shown an adequate ability to throw around labels, regurgitate propaganda, and engage in semantics but you’ve failed miserably to make any cogent points whatsoever. Arguments like “that’s life” and “it’s just wrong” may fly in your dream world, but the simple fact is you have not made any point. I’ve referenced articles that support my points and people have posted information that has also supported my points. You on the other hand, have simply held on to the hard-headed view that P2P is theft, which I don’t think anyone, including myself, have denied. But as I said before, moralizing isn’t going to change it. It is a problem that requires a constructive solution, one that may HEAVEN FORBID cause the RIAA and it’s worldwide counterparts to change the way they do business. Adapt or perish, pure Darwinism. You aren’t going to reverse the hands of time.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
Comment by James King -
Completely off topic, but that whackjob Trump just took another dig on you on Martha Stewart’s talk show. What an idiot. Maybe if he had actually watched an episode of The Benefactor, then he would have an inkling about integrity and also know that it wasn’t not an IMITATOR of The Apprentice. I learned more about how to conduct myself business wise with one season of your show than three seasons of his.
Comment by Amy -
Wow, I can’t believe I am saying this, James I agree on something with you. The ownership rule changes for radio stations severly changed the landscape of the music industry, in my opion, for the bad.
I also agree that P2P downloads of movies won’t affect the box office in the same manner as it affects music. It isn’t as wide spread right now, the combination of Netflix + a DVD burner + DVD XCOPY is probably a bigger hit on DVD sales than downloads. That will change eventually.
From 1995 to 2003, my download speed went from 14.4kbps to 9mbps (an increase of 625 times). I don’t think it is unrealistic to think that in the next 5-10 years that the download speed could be 100mbps, which would make downloading movies roughly equivalent to downloading a song 5 years ago.
Comment by Grant -
Ok James, let me break it down for you Barney style…
“Of course I’m arguing against the RIAA.” My post was referencing the fact that you were talking about a global system, when then referencing a strictly American organization. The problem they are trying to solve starts here like a bush with small roots going overseas.
“It’s using P2P as a red herring to cover its failures. It used the DISTRIBUTION method as the means to protect the content. The minute a legitimate substitute came along, it’s model was gutted. Happens in business all the time. How is that “socialism”?”
That is not socialism, that is capitalism, utilizing someone elses idea for your gain. Socialism is “What right does anyone have to say that someone’s 8-12 hrs per day are less valuable than anyone else’s? ” and “A real and true choice is one in which, regardless of the decision, there is NO PENALTY.”
The only time in life that there is no penalty for a decision you made was in elementry school.
“The reason P2P hasn’t been eliminated by iTunes is because it’s a proven fact that the use of credit cards for micropayments is inconvenient.”
That is a proven fact? I googled it and couldn’t find that. I know people who use nothing but a debit card for everything, if it is $1, or $1000.
“Everyone is focusing on the fact that P2P is free when its CONVENIENCE is just as important. As I said before, LimeWire is just as easy to use as iTunes but you don’t need a CREDIT CARD.”
No, I can’t speak for everyone, but I am focusing on the fact that downloading copyrighted music on a P2P is theft. Sure, it is convenient, free stuff often is. You don’t need a credit card for iTunes, you can get a debit card attached to your bank account, or a secured debit card through thousands of companies that wouldn’t mind the float on your money.
“So because iTunes didn’t solve the problem, the problem has NO solution? That’s pretty funny…”
Let’s look at it in the most basic format for a moment. Virtually non-traceable stealing will never be replaced by something that costs money, it just doesn’t happen. Regardless of the cost or the way that you pay, it isn’t practical. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think for a moment that the songs being downloaded on P2P systems would equate in 1 to 1 sales, that isn’t accurate or realistic, but they do equate in sales on certain levels. It is way to convenient that record sales started going down at the exact same time that these P2P systems got popular.
“As for how I would attack the P2P problem, hell, that’s simple. My methods wouldn’t eliminate the problem but they would marginalize it. If you want more details, you’re gonna have to pay for them.”
I am sure all of the big record companies will be knocking down your door for this one.
“So DRM is the only option, the be all and end all of innovation? Our ONLY shot? Once again, you are being narrow-minded. If DRM isn’t the solution, does that mean we stop looking for solutions? Oh ye of little faith…”
DRM is a step towards a solution, if it was a solution we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
“As for lawsuits, if it was so effective, why is P2P use GROWING? The cat’s outta the bag and it’s not going back in.”
I don’t know that it is or isn’t growing, but I do know that cd sales are down and online theft is up with the introduction of P2P systems. Here is a paper that will give you some stats both for my and your arguments. http://www.digitalcutuplounge.com/newsite/jvs_papers/file_sharing_report_2002.htm
“By the way, I never claimed that I would use a P2P system. In fact, none of my business concepts on this matter utilize P2P at all. P2P is a better distribution model than CDs but I didn’t say it was the BEST one.
By the way, have you noticed that, other than early in the process, you almost never hear from artists supporting the RIAA?”
The only artists that are going to support this are the ones that own their masters and all the rights to their music, like Metalica. As we all know, artists don’t make a lot of money off of album sales, indie or big label. They make it off of concerts, and the free distribution of their music helps them in many cases. Others negotiated much better contracts and make a lot of money off of music sales, they have been the vocal ones.
“As for references, I don’t see YOU providing any.”
Any is a strong term – “Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1980, they would cost you $14 and $5.51 respectively.” (source – Statistical Abstracts of the United States”
Here is another, I didn’t post this but it is quite an interesting read.
http://www.mercenary.com/balofmidarby.html
“For that matter, Paul Lambert posted an excellent article by Courtney Love that does far more to support my views than yours. You may want to read it.”
Great, now you are referencing a coke and heroin addict for support… not sure that is a plus for your point.
“As for that last sentence, you are a joke. When someone tries to act tough behind their computer, that’s when I know they’re beaten. Save the tough guy routine for your wife. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.”
Act tough? I merely pointed out that you probably pulled the numbers out of your ass, that is acting tough? Sorry if I offended your overly liberal psyche…
When it is all said and done, it comes down to legitimate and illegitimate. The technology behind P2P is great, someday someone will find an even better legal use for it, but right now it is about as legitimate as a software key generator.
Comment by Grant -
As far as I’m concerned, radio lost it’s legitimacy when consolidation was approved by the FCC. Now it’s just as bad as network TV as far as pushing agendas.
As for P2P affecting movie sales, I just don’t see it. I have a very high speed connection and I’ve used BitTorrent and let me tell you, it still requires TREMENDOUS patience. In my opinion, that whole scene still sucks. I removed BitTorrent from my system because I couldn’t use it to get one half-hour TV show that I probably could have seen a thousand times in syndication. In fact, I personally was not succesful getting any content with it. Movie studios worrying about P2P movie sharing should probably not waste their time. It would probably take high-speed connections at least five times as fast to make P2P movie piracy worth it. For that matter, I really don’t think viewing movies at home can replace the movie going experience. I think huge high-definition TVs and inexpensive 7.1 surround sound system are more of a threat to studios than P2P. I think being able to duplicate the movie “experience” at home will have a far more reaching impact on movie sales than bad-quality bootlegs downloaded via P2P.
P2P for movies and movie piracy is probably a greater threat to rental businesses and on-demand movie services. Even then, I think it’s always going to be easier to just GO to the movies and rent a video than steal it. Hell, my DVD is gathering dust because I buy movies on-demand almost exclusively now because it is the most CONVENIENT method. The minute on-demand matches DVD releases, I’m completely done with DVD. And I’ll happily pay for it. P2P is more significant for music because it’s WAY more convenient and improves the music experience DRAMATICALLY. Let’s face it, radio sucks and dropping $15 for a CD that may only have two or three decent songs has been frustrating for a long time. P2P has made accumulating music CONVENIENT and INEXPENSIVE (yeah, I know, FREE) but I people would pay if an easier method that offered music at a reasonable price was available. As I said before, iTunes isn’t the answer.
I think people who steal movies wouldn’t have paid to see them anyway. I remember when the movie studios had a similar paranoia regarding VCRs. Studio exec really underestimate the value of the movie experience… if they invested more in bringing back the fun in going to the movies, P2P wouldn’t even be an issue. Make great movies and great venues to play them in (and charge a reasonable price) and P2P won’t be a threat. Hollywood and the RIAA really should stop blaming the public for their failures. Focus on the experience and the dollars will keep flowing. Focus on the dollars and the public will feel pimped and go around you for their entertainment. It’s that simple.
Comment by James King -
Karmakin:
Dude, you put forth an interesting argument.
I don’t think P2P was the deathknell for radio per se, though. I think digital music players have spelled the end of radio. I can carry around my own radio station without annoying talk and no ads. I can program my playlist independent of traditional programming guidelines, etc.
Re: the rise of the independent publisher: human psychology doesn’t work that way. The RIAA dies, and another “tastemaker” will arise. It’s the same way in the art world – so called art experts run around and tell you what is relevant, and then people with money correspond by paying boatloads of cash for it. The psychology of human consumption of media in general relies on a filtration model. Harry Potter is not a cultural phenomenon if it is not embraced and pushed by traditional book distribution methods.
I think music radio will die in its current iteration. However, I don’t think talk radio will. Because talk radio is inherently variable, there is a market for it still. Also, talk radio is a method of social communication that imparts a sense of community at large. It’s like being a fan of a sports team. For the most part, fans of a sports team feel a sense of kinship for their warriors whom they routinely send in to war. Watching the 76ers is no different from the Romans watching gladiators in the coliseum, just better luxury boxes and officiating. It’s also no different that listening to Stern. I don’t dig talk radio personally, but I know boatloads of people who swear by Howard Stern and the like.
The truth of human society is that a small percentage of people define social evolution, and many people respond by buying into it, thus ushering in the cultural shift.
Nothing in human history points to decentralized models ever working. People would rather a despot than no leader. So the RIAA might die, but another centralized model will take its place.
But I agree with you; radio, in its current iteration, is a wrap.
However, I still think that P2P affects music sales.
I think in short order, P2P will affect movie sales significantly.
Comment by Laz -
Ok here’s the thing. Here’s the PLAY. P2P is NOT competition for record sales. If you think it is, then you’re so out of touch that you have no place to talk about this stuff period.
I’ll repeat that.
P2P does not directly impact record sales.
P2P is a replacement for domestic radio, which has largely failed by every cultural measure. People want more than the typical Top-40 stuff. They want more than just the singles. If radio provided this, the P2P networks would not have had to do it for them.
Music is a cultural good. It’s not a typical widget that is replacable. It enjoys a special place in society. And with that, it does have certain business risks with it. Mainly that people put the cultural value above the buisness value of the companies.
P2P could have been nipped in the bud with a webcast friendly licensing agreement. In that case, we would have thousands of stations out there, probably some software would be released to easily “switch through the dial” (Actually WinAMP does this, but it’s automatic). It would WORK.
The problem the RIAA has with that is that they would lose the ability to control what becomes popular. It’s very likely that an indie act would become the next huge thing…and they just can’t have that. Because once that happens..it’s OVER. P2P isn’t the horses. It’s the rise of the self-publisher.
And that’s what the RIAA is fighting against. And IMO, the tactics they are using in that fight are unfair. And in a just world, they would be threatened with losing all copyright protections unless they KNOCK IT OFF.
Comment by Karmakin -
“If only I was taller. If only I was thinner. If only I was richer. If only the RIAA could sue the P2P networks, music piracy would be reduced and artists of the world would cheer. The chorus of music from the increased creativity (THat is what the RIAA has promised isnt it ?) unleashed by the P2P ceiling placed over every keyboard and cymbal across the world would cause music sales to skyrocket. ” Mark Cuban said in recent his post “If only”.
When I read this, I felt like I heard some background music haunting my year: Abba’s ‘I have a dream’.
“If only” shows that Mark Cuban truely is a dreamer and he dreams on:“Bearshare, MX, Limewire and 4 others have become the sacrificial lambs………I hope the RIAA wins this case. I hope they shut them down. I have no more love for these guys than I do Grokster. ………….No more “if only”. It will put them on a shaky fence between Protecting their copyrights and technology terrorists. ”
Technology terrorists?! That’s exactly P2P in Mark Cuban’s eyes. I don’t feel a tiny bit of surprise by this. You may feel shock at first because you think brother Cuban is a cool guy and a cool guy shouldn’t have such hatred against P2P—one of coolest technologies in the recent internet innovation, but if you rethink it, you’ll undertand that Mark Cuban has one thousand reasons to hate P2P. Mark Cuban is a business man and he has a huge business interest in Hollywood Studios and Records Studios. Think about it: if say RIAA is National Mafia Commission of all the big studio bosses, Mark Cuban is one of the GodFathers. Everbody remembers Broadcast.com—the online media giant sold to Yahoo? That used to be Mark Cuban’s business and it’s the major reason why Brother Cuban is so rich today. So we all know now P2P is the thief in Cuban’s business backyard. It’s no surprise that Brother Cuban brands P2P technology terrorists,cause the money stolen by those Kazza Cowards is terrifying him.
RIAA is going nuts against P2P in recent years. We can see the reason in the Recording Industry World Sales 2003 released by IFPI:“Global music sales down for a fourth consecutive year…..Illegal file-sharing hits markets internationally…….The global music market was worth $US32 billion* (28.5 billion Euros) with total unit sales (including music video) of 2.7 billion. Music on audio formats fell 9.9% in value. A small portion of this loss was compensated by an encouraging increase of 46.6% in music video sales. Sales of CD albums around the world dropped by 9.1% in value, while sales of singles fell by 18.7%…” As you can see all the records companies are heavily bleeding:Global music sales down for a fourth consecutive year!Sales of CD albums around the world dropped by 9.1% in value, while sales of singles fell by 18.7%! This is very serious!
RIAA is in ‘put up or shut up terrority’. So here we go: P2P is all to blame. If this is the logic, should we blame VCR for people not going to Cinema?! Should we blame that nuclear electricity for all the business loss of coal power plant?!
Is there a basis established to prove a causal relationship between the size of the drop in music sales and the rise of P2P file sharing.?Sales of CDs, as well as the success of licensed online music services are likely to have been affected to some degree by a variety of other factors, for example physical piracy and CD burning, competition from other, newer entertainment products and faltering consumer spending in some markets.
What’s the answer?! This just proves Karl Marx’s judgement is so witful: between technology innovation and capital profit, capitalism always choose the latter even if it means killing new technology in the cradle.
Guns are being made, people uses guns too kill innocent people,P2P is invented, people uses it to download illeagal music. No court said ‘ sent guns to prison’, so why should P2P takes the defense’s seat?! P2P is neutral, it’s only technology, how to use it is people’s individual choice, P2P is not to be blamed.
I know RIAA is hurt pretty bad by the profit loss. But are they too blind to see this is majorly because their business model and way of distribute music is too outdated. Technology is the driving force of Productive force, relations of production needs to adapt to the development of technology and productive force. RIAA goes on a wrong way to save music industry. Technology is unstoppable. Killing P2P doesn’t necessarily means more sales revenue.
I am afraid that Mark Cuban may feel ice rocketed as the cheerleader in the RIAA parade against P2P but in the end the result of it may not be so cheerful as it seems now.
Comment by levisu -
Hey Grant were you trying to tell me that you are part of the RIAA? If so…
I rescind NOTHING! Get your act together and stop blaming the public for your incompetence.
Comment by James King -
For that matter, I’ve listed at least three articles in other posts. I doubt I could list enough to convince you though.
Comment by James King -
Man, your arguments aren’t even coherent anymore.
Of course I’m arguing against the RIAA. It’s using P2P as a red herring to cover its failures. It used the DISTRIBUTION method as the means to protect the content. The minute a legitimate substitute came along, it’s model was gutted. Happens in business all the time. How is that “socialism”?
The reason P2P hasn’t been eliminated by iTunes is because it’s a proven fact that the use of credit cards for micropayments is inconvenient. Everyone is focusing on the fact that P2P is free when its CONVENIENCE is just as important. As I said before, LimeWire is just as easy to use as iTunes but you don’t need a CREDIT CARD.
So because iTunes didn’t solve the problem, the problem has NO solution? That’s pretty funny…
As for how I would attack the P2P problem, hell, that’s simple. My methods wouldn’t eliminate the problem but they would marginalize it. If you want more details, you’re gonna have to pay for them.
So DRM is the only option, the be all and end all of innovation? Our ONLY shot? Once again, you are being narrow-minded. If DRM isn’t the solution, does that mean we stop looking for solutions? Oh ye of little faith…
As for lawsuits, if it was so effective, why is P2P use GROWING? The cat’s outta the bag and it’s not going back in.
By the way, I never claimed that I would use a P2P system. In fact, none of my business concepts on this matter utilize P2P at all. P2P is a better distribution model than CDs but I didn’t say it was the BEST one.
By the way, have you noticed that, other than early in the process, you almost never hear from artists supporting the RIAA?
As for references, I don’t see YOU providing any. For that matter, Paul Lambert posted an excellent article by Courtney Love that does far more to support my views than yours. You may want to read it.
As for that last sentence, you are a joke. When someone tries to act tough behind their computer, that’s when I know they’re beaten. Save the tough guy routine for your wife. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Comment by James King -
You think “big bands” like Dave Matthews, Green Day, U2, etc… just started out that way?
The talent will usually work its way to the top, but on a lot of occasions it needs help breaking the surface the first time around.
Indie labels play an important part in the recording industry, I don’t think anyone can discount that. They cater to a much smaller niche than the big labels.
So that is how the contracts work, I would love to get your insight on where your information comes from? How about you post some statistical references, or does your a$$ not provide a reference section?
Comment by Grant -
I am dead wrong about your socialist views? Your posts speak for themselves…
So if taking TVs off the back of a parked truck was the preferred distribution chain of the public, does that mean that Sony should just allow it?
No offense, you do realize that you have been arguing against the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), which represents the US recording industry.
When your product is getting stolen, you have two options – allow it, or stop it. I have heard every excuse as to why the music is stolen on P2P, everything from “why buy a cd for 1 good song” to “it is in the format I want”. Explain to me a reason that hasn’t been solved by iTunes or another online music store? Free, that is the only thing. Those reasons, for most people, are easy cover ups for the fact that they want free music. If they weren’t, then P2P music theft would be minimal.
You are wrong again, innovations and lawsuits will help protect the rights of labels and artists. Innovations like DRM are being forced down our throats, penalizing those of us that are buying music legally because of the many that are not. Lawsuits shut down services that prosper from the trading of stolen materials. Sure, the technology is cool, now use it for a legitimate purpose and all is well. If you remember, it wasn’t a label that really stirred the pot on Napster, it was an artist.
If you are so for a P2P system, produce good content that people want and try to sell it. Then watch your hardwork go down the drain as people steal it on a P2P system. That would probably change your views on it.
Comment by Grant -
BTW Grant when was the last time a record label nurtured a small band until it became commercially successful? Your own argument about the costs of “promotions” guts your argument. The indies are bringing up the small bands, not the big labels. Mixerman already laid out the REAL landscape in the music industry, you’re simple regurgitating industry propaganda. Let me guess, “that’s the way it’s always been done,” right?
As for your statement regarding contracts, there isn’t enough time in the day deal with all the nuances of a recording contract. But the gist is, the artist is responsible for repaying the record label as much as is legally possible for any investment made by the label. If the label irresponsibly throws money at an artist, the artist is generally responsible for paying it back. Simplistic, yes, but accurate.
Comment by James King -
As for being a socialist, you’re dead wrong but hey, you’ve been dead wrong about everything else so why break your streak?
As for everything having a price, you aren’t taking into account that changes in technology will sometimes reduce or completely eliminate the tangible value of an item. Using the law to protect the value of something that is becoming more intrinsically commoditized is like trying to stop a leak in a dam with your finger. Either you have to reestablish the value of your product via improvements or innovations or accept that the product no longer inherently has value. Record companies may sell music but they are ultimately selling a tangible product (the CD) that technology has now found a way to commoditize. The problem that the RIAA has is that it has no way to protect the value of THE MUSIC ITSELF. P2P is supplanting CDs as the distribution method of choice. It’s apparent that the music itself has value but how do you protect it? Through lawsuits? You can’t turn back the hands of time. This is a failure of the RIAA to find an effective way of protecting the value of THE CONTENT. Instead, it is trying to eliminate an alternative DISTRIBUTION method that grew legitimately from consumer demand. It isn’t trying to find a way to protect artists rights, it’s attempting to protect its DISTRIBUTION MONOPOLY.
As for promotions, you’re engaging in semantics. At any rate, you’re stance is that the expense is necessary. I’m saying that it can be done at a fraction of the cost. Record companies don’t even ATTEMPT to innovate in this area. For that matter, they’ve completely ignored the formulas that DID work for them in the past. You won’t be convinced until someone proves it can be done differently so I won’t continue on this track.
It’s funny that you should assail my credibility when the core of your argument is “that’s just life.” As for anyone getting credit or debit cards, do you mean AMERICANS? It’s this narrow-minded thinking that stifles innovation. You gotta just face it… the world is very different now. The inherent value of the CD format had been gutted. Only innovation will help artists protect their rights, not lawsuits. P2P is a legitimate innovation in the distribution model, finding a way to use it in a fashion that protects the value of the content is the answer, not attempting to destroy it. This is a challenge… is the music industry or anyone for that matter willing to step up to the plate?
Comment by James King -
James,
Technically they refer to it as Promotions, and it spans everything from the end cap at a record store, the guy on the corner who tries to get you to go to the record store, TV appearances, to dealings with the radio stations (like in studio appearances, special radio station concerts, and give aways). Promotions as a whole are the largest portion of the cost of a CD. Bands that seem like they have made it (in the listeners eyes) still don’t always make money. I have been shocked by the bands that a friend of mine has to work his ass off to break their new albums. I used to think it just happened, but it doesn’t.
In addition to breaking a new album in one genre of music, many artists now have a cross appeal to many different listening groups. The label then has to double and triple (or more) their promotions levels in order to get them on the proper stations to maximize their ROI.
Also, you are off base on how an artist gets paid. First of all, it is all contract specific, no two are the exact same. Second, you get paid differently for writing a song on an album, vs recording the song. A great majority of artists get paid on every album, not just after the label makes their initial investment back.
Many would consider Dave Matthews Band to be an artist that is big and doesn’t require a lot of advertising, but surprisingly enough, it does. You have to think of the artist as an investment for the label, if the album tanks, they lose. Because of that, and other factors which I will get into in a moment, they have to spend the money to ensure the success. In addition to stuffing their pockets, the labels rely on big bands to allow them to take chances on small ones. It is hard to uncover the next big band, and you do have to throw crap at the wall until something sticks.
Comment by Grant -
James,
After reading your post on Capitalism, and now this last one, I am starting to get the feeling that you are a socialist. The following post probably isn’t necessary, your last one killed any morsel of credibility you had, but I digress…
The reality is that everything has a price, and that price is set by the owner. If you want to steal it, you can, but there is a penalty. There are many, many items marketed towards kids, and none of them have to worry about how their customers are going to pay for them, why should music be any different. We can spew socioeconomic bs for hours, but what it comes down to is right and wrong.
Not everyone in this world is going to be able to afford, or have the means to get, everything they want, that is just life! Don’t confuse right and wrong with justification. It is wrong to steal, regardless of how much money you have, how bad you want something, or whether or not you have a credit (or debit, and yes, anyone can get a secured debit card) card.
It comes down to right and wrong. I want a Ferarri, I can’t afford a Ferarri, therefore I don’t have a Ferarri, period, end of story.
Comment by Grant -
BTW Grant, ADVERTISING is the single most significant cost to the record company when promoting an artist. THE ARTIST pays for everything you stated. THE ARTIST doesn’t make a dime until those costs are recouped to the record company. Studio time, artwork, engineers, marketing… oh yeah, all ARTIST. when done properly, record companies assume very little risk. Do you know which artists the record companies love the most? The ones that sell millions of albums with virtually NO ADVERTISING. But “word-of-mouth” artists are exceptionally talented and difficult to find. So record companies spend millions in saturation advertising trying to CREATE “superstar.” But that approach shortens the careers of artists with questionable talent to begin with. Record companies CREATE their own risk by not investing in the PROPER methods for finding, developing, and promoting artists. P2P is just a red herring.
Comment by James King -
Grant,
You do realize that the number of 18-25 year olds without credit cards FAR outnumber those with credit cards? An what about all of those kids under 18? Those are the demographics that purchase the most music and for them, iTunes isn’t an option. And that’s just in the U.S., let’s not even include Europe, Africa… heaven forbid, CHINA. For the overwhelming majority of these folks, P2P is the ONLY solution. I think all of you anti-P2P guys have a very simplistic outlook. It’s easy to wave your fingers and yell “Stop stealing” but not solutions are forthcoming from either you or the RIAA. Many artists realize that the RIAA has a monopoly on music distribution and they want support P2P as an alternative. It’s simply going to take a new approach. It’s funny, ever since conservatism became the norm in this country, our answer seems to always be to try to turn back the clock rather than innovate and move forward.
Comment by James King -
James and everyone that thinks the music industry is price guaging, read the last paragraph!
The cost of physically burning a CD has gone down, you are correct, but that is a very narrow minded view on “the cost of a cd”.
There are many other factors that go into “the cost of a cd”, including studio time, engineers, marketing, artwork and others. All of those things take money, and lots of it. Sure, it costs less to reproduce the cd, but just like the cost of a concert has gone up “because the price of doing buisness in the entire music industry has gone up” so too have the costs of recording the album.
Look at it this way, in the early 80’s I paid $7 for an album on cassette, now, 25 years later, I pay $12-14. If you take the high end of that, the cost in 25 years for an album has doubled and the quality of the recording (not the act, that is subjective) has more than doubled. That is actually lower than the rate of inflation in that period. ” Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2005 and 1980, they would cost you $14 and $5.51 respectively.” (source – Statistical Abstracts of the United States)
Comment by Grant -
Dan,
They aren’t antagonizing potential customers, the people who download 1000’s of songs aren’t going to buy 1000’s of songs. They are stealing them because they can, not because they aren’t available to buy at a reasonable cost. 5 years ago, that may have been valid, but iTunes is a low cost solution, and it isn’t changing those people who just want something for nothing.
Comment by Grant -
Courtney Love has a pretty interesting perspective on this. Check out http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.xml
I remember a line I once heard — “if the railroads had understood that they were in the transportation business and not just the railroad business, we would be flying New York Central Airlines these days” Dated as that reference might be, the point is that the “music industry” and the “record labels” are not the same thing. The internet is a vehicle that allows music distribution without the record labels. Some artists will decide that their best choice is to market through the record labels. Others will go direct via the internet. But the record labels (nor the movie studios) don’t get to make the choice.
Comment by Paul Lambert -
hey man! P2P is an older one. the latest craze is the Gmail. I liked your writing style. Quiet impressive and influentical.
Comment by Marry -
Mark,
The single thing I want out of the RIAA/P2P debate is an environment where the value of creative goods are respected. That if a creative person decides to price his goods at $2/unit, people who want to use the good will pay and people who don’t will pass it by. Same if it’s priced at $200. Hotel proprietors generally can expect people to pay for rooms they use. If the rooms are priced too high, that’s no excuse for people to just go stay in them and not pay! I’d like the same for musicians, software developers, authors, etc. I’d like it if they are individuals or companies that pay creative individuals. I’d like the freedon to fail on the merits of my product, the soundness of my business plan, and the competence of my execution, but not because of a disregard for my rights in my creations.
I look at this situation like a nice lawn. A nice lawn requires feeding and watering, but it also requires trimming and weeding. And occasionally it requires hydration. And sometimes, you just have to rototill the damn thing and replant. So maybe the RIAA is like a wildfire engulfing the hillside, but they are managing to burn the weeds.
Comment by Brad Hutchings -
My impression Laz is that you are a businessperson and likely very successful. I could be wrong. So as for your advice:
Every successful business started with an idea. I’ve heard your advice often from others but the reality doesn’t match it. Microsoft isn’t where it is today because of Bill Gates. Dell isn’t what it is today because of Michael Dell. Companies are built on ideas and I have yet to see otherwise. Your response is what I usually get when I bring out the chicken-and-egg scenario that exists in business nowadays. Sell yourself. Been there done that. I don’t have a Ph.D. or a Masters. I didn’t even finish college. I guess that means I don’t know what I’m talking about right? However, I’m in pretty decent company because many of the greatest businessmen also don’t have college degrees. The difference between myself and them are only the conditions. But the cream always rises to the top, right? Or how about “life ain’t fair”? It’s either one or the other but it can’t be both. I’ve accepted that life isn’t fair, so I have no intention of believing in the fairness of the current system. Like I said, it can’t be both ways.
As for “bitterness,” let me tell you a little story… I once practically BEGGED the CEO of a company to present a business concept for his startup that I knew would keep his business alive in the face of stiff competition. I volunteered to fly to his location on my own dime to do it. It wasn’t a blind request, I had exchanged several emails with him already. He totally blew me off. His company is now defunct. The business concept I presented… implemented two years later by a company that was eventually purchased for 600 million dollars. I wish that was the only story. Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Mark Cuban, hell, ANY great entrepreneur is PASSIONATE about what they do. A person who believes in his abilities SHOULD be frustrated when he feels he’s fighting a system that supposedly should be ripe with opportunities. Should I be happy watching Microsoft do something that I strategized SEVEN years ago? But I haven’t quit, I’ve developed new concepts and made substantial improvements in the way I present and promote my concepts. I express myself in this manner on this forum because one of the key elements in a useful exchange is HONESTY. Anyone who takes that as being “emotional” is judging a book by its cover.
Comment by James King -
James: I tried resisting, but I couldn’t.
Re: selling an IDEA. That’s your first mistake. Don’t try to sell an idea… that’s not bright. Everybody has ideas. Sell yourself. It’s the only unique thing everyone has. That’s the first rule of sales. People will buy anything if they believe in you and trust you to follow through.
Re: all that other stuff – you could probably CHARGE all that stuff. *shrugs*
Re: Complaining: bitterness is a turn-off. Most VC people would stay away – they’d take it to mean that you’re not resilient to failure, that you can’t bounce back.
Just my $0.02. Good luck with everything, dude.
Comment by Laz -
By the way, as for effort, I’ve probably had more ideas and business concepts stolen than you’ve ever had. Try selling an idea in today’s market. You better have a legal team, a management team, a substantial level of your own capital or a source for it, and a business plan as thick as your wrist. That’s all pretty funny when many of the most successful businesses in this country were started with little or none of that. The game has changed A LOT… the big ideas aren’t coming out of garages anymore. Big Business has made sure of that. That’s okay though because I’m still trying. But let’s stop pretending that the system is benign because it isn’t. I may play the game but I don’t have to like the rules.
Comment by James King -
Laz, you live in a dream world. You seem to be accusing me of being jaded but you are the one who seems to have lifted cynicism to an artform. Like I stated clearly before, capitalism is a GAME. If you aren’t good at a particular game you are not obligated to play, you can always walk away. Not so with capitalism, you MUST play within the system whether you want to or not and you are PENALIZED for not being good at it. It’s YOUR arguments that don’t hold water. You’re like a guy who’s good at basketball making fun of someone because they don’t know how to play. But think about this… even Warren Buffett acknoeledged that his skills in capitalism would have been useless had he been born in Bangladesh. Like every other game, capitalism is only fun when you are WINNING. It’s not my “perspective” that’s skewed, the system is FLAWED. A real and true choice is one in which, regardless of the decision, there is NO PENALTY. Anything else is a SACRIFICE. Capitalism isn’t a choice for the overwhelming majority of the people on the planet. Acting like people are stupid because they aren’t good at the game shows a serious lack of understanding on your part.
You haven’t proven that P2P would still exist if CDs were $5 but Apple HAS proven that people are willing to pay for something they could steal just as easily. LimeWire is no more difficult to use than iTunes… but the difference is YOU DON’T NEED A CREDIT CARD. Give people what they want in a fashion that is SEAMLESS, charge a good price for it, and they will BUY IT. Simple as that. Will people still use P2P? Absolutely. But a whole lot of people WILL STOP.
As for your prostitution statements, you are so wrong it’s unbelievable. The sex slavery market in Europe is HUGE and generates millions of dollars per year for Eastern European organized crime but I guess that’s all just a myth, eh? My drug and prostitution comments were about your callous excuse of “it’s just capitalism” to defend your narrow-minded viewpoint. Since it has fallen on blind eyes, I have to assume you lack a certain level of moral understanding that would make my arguments seem cogent to you. So I’ll let it be.
Comment by James King -
James:
The reason Americans don’t save money is because they don’t. When given the option of placing money in their savings accounts, they spend it. It’s not because other people have hands in our pockets; it’s that we don’t know how to manage our pockets.
Let’s imagine that P2P exists for every good – like real world goods, etc. Every market would suffer. P2P isn’t a rejection of a particular brand of pricing – it’s a rejection of PRICE – as there is zero price – zero cost. People would be downloading if you could get CDs for five bucks. Your argument has holes.
re: credit cards – that’s exactly my point. You look at it as a burden – but its a tool if properly managed. An amazing toolthat allows one to gain access to capital to develop businesses and accrue wealth. It’s your perspective that’s screwed. It’s a tool, and most people abuse it; but this is a societal problem, not the credit card companies. lol.
Brothels in Eastern Europe – I’m sure they’re selling sex, thus the percentage of rapes is pretty low. If they’re selling sex, then price it to whatever the market bears. I stated before – and I state again, that I have no footing to take any kind of moral high ground. Thus I cannot say what is right, but if it’s legal in your area, make money off it, I say. I’m not mad at it.
Would drugs infect our streets if Cocaine, Inc. sold standardized crack? or if Sativa sold weed? LEgal drugs decimate our society daily: alcohol and cigarettes are the earmarks of our decadent and decaying society. Are you saying that alcohol and cigarettes are more right than “illicit” drugs? Lol… too many holes in your arguments – in fact more holes than argument.
Change does take more effort. Tough break buddy. If you want to change, pony up the effort. It’s actually not as hard as the internet makes it easy to find those of like mind, thus reducing the per person sweat equity needed to really make change. Tech has also reduced the barriers to entry. And let’s not forget the lovely patent office – you can always cash out that way. *shrugs*
I don’t know dude… your arguments just don’t hold water for me.
Comment by Laz -
Dan, I have taken economics. I’ll elaborate.
I never inferred that the RIAA operated in a competitive environment. Prices under a monopoly are always higher and output lower under a monopoly than under a competitive environment. However, it isn’t up to the RIAA to regulate themselves as a monpolistic entity. This is my point first and foremost. They protect their interests, which any corporation or corporate entity should do. My point on that was that the EMOTIONAL demonizing of the RIAA seems irrational to me and seems to continue to be so. It’s a great opportunity to develop a working model to dethrone them, which I also inferred.
Second, the demand was NOT elastic until P2P came around. Therefore, higher prices were the way to go for a monopolistic entity. Prices went up throughout the 90s and music demand and sales increased until about the end of the decade. So it’s funny that you asked me if I was aware of rudimentary economics. lol.
Even at those prices, record companies made cash hand over foot until they got sucker punched by downloading.
I have not made an argument supporting the RIAA. I never said that their practices were fair. I contend that there few companies that practice “fair” tactics. The entities that exhibit anti-competitive muscle do so because they CAN – they have positioned themselves in order to be able to dynamically shift the industry. I find that interesting. I’m interested in monopolies and companies that exert monopolistic practices because this means that they’ve been inordinately successful. I’m interested in inordinate success.
Lol. Don’t be mad because Shaq clogs up the middle in a zone defense. lol. Get a jump shot!
The RIAA will probably die, but this is the way with all monopolists. I take a very “Clockwork Orange” approach to markets… I do not assume benevolence on the part of the underdog because they are the underdog. Any one of Alex’s victims in the book would have inflicted as great pain and violence on him given the power and opportunity. The RIAA’s carcass will be quickly devoured without sympathy.
With all due deference to those who have suffered and died due to Katrina, P2P is akin to looting. It’s a store and it’s wide open and nobody’s there to stop you. Let’s not put it on a pedestal with obtuse talk and praise. It’s theft according to current law. I dig it; I still download. It’s all good.
Lol… and re: demand. lol. I can imagine the demand for EVERYTHING goes up when the cost is ZERO. lol. Lol. lol. Good luck “tapping” into that demand. lol.
You respond emotionally. That’s cool. You also try to slip in insults on the sly. This is cool also. lol.
Comment by Laz -
By the way, has the RIAA factored in the negative publicity it has generated based on their agressive legal tactics on the decline in CD sales? That can’t be helping either.
Comment by James King -
Great post Mixerman. You said it way better that I did.
The problem lies in the BUSINESS MODEL, not the consumer. There are always going to be those who seek to “get over” but I think the overwhelming majority of people would pay for music if they had the means to do it cheaply and instantaneously. iTunes is a decent start but it isn’t the answer.
Comment by James King -
Laz, read Dan’s comments.
On top of that, one of the reasons Americans don’t save money is because they always have someone in their pockets. Your comments about the market charging the highest sustainable price is why people are NOW downloading P2P, this ridiculous notion that you should fleece people just because you can. I’ll tell you what, let’s see what’ll happen if all the record companies decide to charge $20 per CD. Will millions of people still buy them? YES. But will P2P downloading TRIPLE? YES!!!!!! In your method there is no criteria to determine when the market has decided to reject a particular brand of pricing. P2P is the quintessential rejection of the pricing of the record industry.
As for your comments regardig credit, HELL YES it’s indentured servitude. As far as I’m concerned, one of the major problems with the capitalist system as it stands now is the notion that a person CAN NOT work enough in their lifetimes to afford the things they want WITHOUT credit. What right does anyone have to say that someone’s 8-12 hrs per day are less valuable than anyone else’s? Compound interest is one of the most criminal concepts ever devised. Our entire economic system is a game that penalizes those who can not master it and it’s one that NO ONE can choose not to play. Please don’t use “capitalism” as some kind of justification. Teenage girls are raped in brothels every day in Eastern Europe and drugs infect our streets… that’s capitalism at its purest form but is it RIGHT?
As for downloading being stealing, I stated that people were looking for an inexpensive solution, the fact that it’s now free is an excellent example of your market dynamics. The market is REJECTING the pricing of music.
As for record companies putting up the lion’s share of the cost, I can address both you and Grant on this one… record companies justify their business practices with this reasoning but it’s a smoke screen. Artists can be effectively marketed and promoted at a fraction of the costs but record companies haven’t changed their strategies. Their answer is to THROW MONEY at the situation rather than innovate new promotional techniques. Anything that’s not growing is dying, and the record companies have not evolved their tactics. Bob Lefsetz has some excellent articles at http://www.rhino.com about why music is becoming more expensive to market and promote. The saturation tactics of today’s record companies is like using a Martingale gambling system in a casino, double your bet after every loss. It’s a formula for failure.
Grant, the costs of concerts has gone up because the price of doing buisness in the entire music industry has gone up. But the costs of making CDs has actually dropped a little. It’s easy to say “don’t use” something but creating alternatives costs money and involve risk. Not many people with the resources to change the situation have the guts to actually try. After all, they’re already at the top of the mountain, why risk anything? Do you honestly think most people would use MS Windows if there was a comparable alternative that was just as easy to get via commodity pricing, interoperability, credit offers, etc. A lot of why things are done in particular ways is the inertia created by years of doing something in a certain way. Ask Mark Cuban (haha). Changing takes exponentially more effort than just going with the flow. This notion of individual self-empowerment is mostly a myth in todays world. Change is still possible but it takes courage and sadly that is sorely lacking among most of those who have the opportunity to make things happen.
Comment by James King -
Laz wrote: “If CDs were too expensive, people would stop buying. They are not too expensive.”
Actually, CD’s are and were too expensive, and Major Labels acknowledged that both in a press release, and by their decision (one at a time of course) to lower the price two years ago. I have been making records with major labels for 15 years here in Los Angeles, so I’m very familiar with all of this.
While I agree that saying CDs are too expensive is a vast oversimplification of a complex problem, it is certainly a valid complaint since it’s the perception of the consumer. But we can’t place the blame purely on price. Frankly, there are many reasons why the music business is struggling, most of it their own doing.
To break it down as simply as possible, the Record Labels have been using a short-term business model for well over a decade. After fifteen years of putting out CDs with only one good song; after a decade of treating acts as disposable; the labels are now struggling. Their business model of the nineties, which was designed purely to boost quarterly profits, alienated their audience. But after being burned for so long, purchasing $17 CDs with one gem of a song among a plethora of mediocre ones, the record buying public spoke. They stopped buying CDs like they used to. This business model has caused a major glut in catalog. Make no mistake—a large percentage of label profits come from catalog. Staggering prices are paid to purchase catalog because it has been proven to be the gift that keeps on giving and giving.
Piracy has been going on ever since the cassette recorder. There are many that argue piracy helps to sell more records, and I believe that’s probably true. It surely boosts ticket sales. But back in the days of cassette piracy, labels typically signed career artists. So, even if someone pirated an album, if that pirate became a fan, they would likely purchase the next album, and they would usually begin to purchase back catalog. With disposable acts, this doesn’t happen. Fans never get the opportunity to invest in an act, because the act is replaced with another. This business practice has resulted in a lack of catalog, which has proven devastating to the business.
The Music Business forgot that they were selling acts for people to invest in. They now think they’re selling songs. But songs have no intrinsic value to people. Songs are not tangible. I can sing a song right now, and I don’t have to pay anyone for it. So why the hell should anyone purchase a song? The consumer doesn’t buy songs. They buy into an artist. They invest themselves in a person or group of persons that speaks to them through the performance of songs. Sometimes consumers invest themselves for free to test the waters before investing their money. But ultimately, the consumer is buying the act. Not the song.
Consequently, people are stealing songs from acts that they can’t invest in as there is no actual body of work. I can buy scores of albums by the Rolling Stones. How many can I buy by EMF? The consumer has learned that there is no point investing in a new act, because they will be gone and replaced by another act. There is no investment by the consumer. Consequently, CD sales are down and piracy is up.
While technology has certainly made it easier to pirate music, the rampant stealing of music is the symptom, not the ailment. And going after the pirates is aggressively attacking the symptom of a Music Business ailment. But shouldn’t the Industry also try to cure the ailment itself?
When you have kids selling pirated CDs at school with no regard to Title 17, there certainly needs to be some education. But if the Record Industry doesn’t start to attack the ailment itself and start providing the consumer acts in which to invest in long-term, I’m afraid their efforts will all be for naught.
Mixerman
http://www.mixerman.net/
http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/
Comment by Mixerman -
Laz: have you taken basic economics? I’m just curious, not trying to be antagonistic.
B/c charging the highest price the market will bear is rarely the profit-maximizing solution in markets with elastic demand. I think what all the P2P groups have demonstrated is that there is far greater demand for music than the record industry has ever tapped in to. You mention CD sales as if they weren’t an issue, but the pricing policies for CDs have already been ruled anti-competitive by a wide variety of courts.
Mark and the earlier poster Phil Hershon are absolutely correct: build a bigger customer base, reward those customers and they will continue to fork over $$$ on a regular basis. Antagonizing 1000s of potential customers, shoveling money into lawyer’s pockets, and whining about the horror of file-sharing is just bad business.
Comment by Dan -
As a musician and not as a big industry, big money creation, I am in favor of full freedom of the P2P networking. The only ones these laws and court rulings are protecting are big industry cash cows. Almost the entirety of real money earned by musicians is earned on the road playing live productions. Those that earn a large portion of their income from the large music industry giants are not musicians, they dont write their material, and they are nothing less than pure add driven revenues. This continues with the help of big brother, limited such free networking to keep the real working man musicians down, with little control over available marketing resources. F*** the juggernauts of the music industry and their unconstitutional help from big brother.
Brian
Mala Vista
Comment by Brian -
Where the current distribution system fails, at least for me, is in the area of CD singles, live recordings, and out-of-print or limited edition pressings. If I, for example, wanted to get the “B-sides” for the current Coldplay single, Fix You,” I would have to order the import CD single at $12.99 from Amazon. CD Singles have historically done poorly in the United States. However, I would have to pay more for the single than the CD at your local Best Buy or Target, and get only 25% or so of the songs. Unless the B-sides appear on iTunes for $0.99, I am unlikely to pick up those extra tracks and both the artist and the record company fail the “wallet test” (i.e, what would convince me to give them my dollars over something else).
Similarly, P2P networks allow me to get live recordings from shows I may not be able to attend either due to distance (living in Peoria and the show is in Texas, for example) or the lack of a band-supported recording. Certainly, many record companies and artists are missing ample opportunities by recording a show and posting it on the band’s website for download.
A third reason for P2P usage, at least for me, are perhaps DJ remixes that aren’t available for purchase. Or, certain tracks on vinyl were never transferred to CD for purchase, and someone went to the difficulty of creating mp3 tracks and posting them online. Again, missed opportunities.
About 5 years ago, the Beastie Boys made their entire catalog available on their website. You were charged a flat rate for the CD and were allowed to put as many tracks on the CD as the size would allow. They created the artwork and CD and you didn’t have to worry about problematic downloads (i.e., your computer freezes up) or fake labeling of tracks. I haven’t understood why more artists haven’t created a similar model.
Comment by Matt -
James, I am not arguing that the cost of a CD is too high, as you will see in my post I stated ” Sure, everyone complains about the cost of everything, that doesn’t change.”
Your numbers, although somewhat accurate, only paint half the picture. Did you know that in order for a record company to break even on a CD it has to go gold, that is 500,000 copies.
Artists don’t release albums to make money, it is merely a vehicle used to get people to concerts, where the real money is. Record labels make exactly $0 off of concerts and merchandise sales, which are the most profitable pieces of the music industry pie.
Why is it that over the last 15 years, the cost of a concert has gone up 3-10x but the cost of a CD has stayed relatively stable, and no one complains about the concert? I saw Elton John in the early 90’s for somewhere around $25 for a lower level seat, 10 rows back. If I want to go see him in Vegas, that same ticket is between $150-200. What has changed? Oh, I know, there is no way to steal that media. There is no way to download a file and see the entire concert, like you can an album.
Right or wrong, the company that produces a product, sets the price. If you want to send a message, don’t use their product. Don’t buy it and don’t steal it. If TVs were too expensive, would that justify stealing them?
Comment by Grant -
I didn’t buy music cds until napster. I grew up listening to AM Radio and sports talk wasn’t until college, using napster that I discovered I liked listening to certain music, artists and how music could help me train in the weight room or keep me from falling asleep writing a thesis paper.
Comment by Ryan -
James King: It doesn’t matter that there is “controversy” over CD sales. Record companies should charge the HIGHEST price that the market would bear. that’s what they did. It’s sound business acumen.
If CDs were too expensive, people would stop buying. They are not too expensive. I firmly believe that a sales dent came about because of downloading; it’s simply a better “price”. Everyone complains about the cost of everything, yet we live in the primary consumer society in the world. Our savings rate in the US is barely 1%.
The onus to “protect” recording artists is on the artists themselves. Perhaps there should be a lobbying industry for recording artists – a minimum work contract similar to SAG contracts for actors. But then, the onus is on recording artists to put that together. What ever you deem recording contracts, they are entered into voluntarily.
Credit Card companies prey on college students and saddle them with credit cards early on in their credit cycles: much of this is preying on the ignorance of the prospective user. Is this indentured servitude? Is it a questionable business practice? Is it the responsibility of the credit card company to educate the consumer on the pitfalls of irresponsible credit card usage?
It’s not indentured servitude – your argument obviates the self-determination of artists themselves and is frankly insulting to them. Beyond that, it’s just kinda lame.
As far as record companies getting a lion’s share of the revenue; they put up a lion’s share of the COST. Most investors on first time entrepreneurial ventures get a lion’s share of ventures. this is rational, as they bear a disproportionate percentage of the risk and are footing the bill. I bet you’re paying your student loans back in spades now, right? This is the way of the world. Artists that prove their mettle and establish a market can otherwise negotiate more favorable terms because such terms justify sales potential. It isn’t rocket science. For the most part, marketing a recording artist along the venues traditionally noted to garner high sales is relatively expensive. It is what it is.
Also, the internet “company line” about the RIAA is lame. A rational discussion about the benefits and detriments of anything CAN HAPPEN without DEMONIZING and/or LIONIZING entities.
I’ll save you the trouble: assume that EVERY COMPANY wants as much money out of you it can possibly get. I’ll simplify; in your parlance, assume every company to be “evil” (emphasis yours, not mine). Also assume that given opportunity, you would take all goods and services for free, or $0. Everything else is a search for common ground.
Oh, and dude, downloading off peer networks is stealing. lol. it’s not “inexpensive” as you put it. Uploading is piracy. lol.
Comment by Laz -
Mark & blogmaverick.com surfers, this comment is relevant to every post and needs to be said. It is hard for all of us not to perceive every comment any of us posts as brown-nosing. Even when one of us is criticizing, it is easy to wonder if that person is not trying to appeal to Mark even more than the obvious sycophants. Whether we like it or not, there will almost always be the impulse within us to gain Mark’s positive attention, no matter how sincere we probably are. Merely imagining that a person with Mark’s profile is affirming us is a nice ego boost, let alone continuing an open dialogue with the public for so lon. The point of this peculiar post is twofold: 1) Mark, I hope that you will continue to seemingly ignore the politics of this board and the unusual abrasiveness of the readers’ comments relative to other blogsites due to your being somewhat objectified by many readers since you are a public figure and 2) comment posters, I ask that you please avoid negativity as much as possible to do our small part to maximimize Mark’s–the rare successful man who is willing to share his thoughts with strangers–enjoyment of posting. Let’s try our best to continue an environment where he feels relaxed to voice every little thing because even the most successful or apathetic of readers can find themselves thinking stimulating thoughts based on Mark’s posts. No doubt a few of you will think this comment one of the better ass-kissings: yes, I would be stoked if Mark thought my post was so wonderful he just had to contact me. Nearly every one of this knows he usually feels that way with each comment posted. Now here is the final, really cool thing I want to say to all of you guys and gals: the most surprising, enjoyable thing I have been realizing about this blog compared with the few others I read quite regularly is that the comments themselves are very often insightful and enjoyable. You readers reading this and possibly posting strike me as a unique audience, many of you drawn to this site because you know you have in you many of Mark’s attribute’s and are here simply trying to unlock your immense potentials. That is how I feel myself and the impression I get from reading many of your comments. Keep up the comments too!
Comment by James Vaughn -
Another Lefsetz article:
http://www.rhino.com/rzine/storykeeper.lasso?storyID=567
Once again supports my view.
Comment by James King -
Grant, you’re dead wrong. The price of CDs has been a controversy since they took over from vinyl as the standard for selling music. The price of CDs has been inflated FROM THE BEGINNING. It’s been no real secret that it has always costed maybe two to three dollars for a record company to print and distribute a CD but have charged for them in the $13 to $15 range. If the artist is lucky, s/he sees approximately $1 of that AFTER the record company recoups production, marketing, and promotions costs. The record company banks about $8 to $10 per CD FROM THE VERY FIRST SALE. If the CD is sold at a reduced cost, THE ARTIST loses points from the sale, NOT the record company. THAT’S theft.
Comment by James King -
here is the funny thing, 10 years ago when p2p didn’t exist, no one complained about having to actually pay for content. Sure, everyone complains about the cost of everything, that doesn’t change. Now it is here, and you have people saying “I would gladly pay $250 a year to have unlimited downloads that I could burn onto CD from any album in existence. ”
Hey Phil, I would gladly pay $1000 for every DVD ever made but do you think that will happen? Come on, the majority of p2p users are stealing content, not sampling it, or seeing if it is something they will like then buying the CD. Some of you either have a real warped sense of reality or spin this so you don’t feel as bad about your theft.
Comment by Grant -
I’m repeating mark Goodchild’s link because it really supports my point:
http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7772/?SQ=8b3878125a5e867d3b977ca8b4d36689
And I’m adding this one as well:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=611968
Comment by James King -
The hypocrisy of the RIAA is incredible. It paints itself as the defender of artists’ rights while representing companies that are generally holding their artists in a form of indentured servitude. Only a tiny fraction of artists make any significant money from album sales and that’s the way it’s been long before P2P file sharing. Ask Lauren Hill or Prince if they give a rat’s ass about the RIAA. The current system only works for a small few when it comes to actual dollars from album sales… to most artists, album sales and radio airplay are simply promotional tools for the REAL money making prospects for them, such as live performances, ring tones, and any other peripheral opportunities that may crop up. They already know that the record company is going to get the lion’s share of album profits… why do you think you rarely hear anything from artists themselves on this issue? Artists generally only fret over album sales because each sale goes to lowering the enormous DEBT record companies saddle them with, not because of profit or any love for the current system.
Most people have forgetten that file-sharing networks came into existence because people desired CHOICE and EFFICIENCY when it came to accumulating music. People got sick of paying inflated prices for whole CDs when they may have only wanted a song or two from an artist’s album or when they wanted songs they could no longer find because the album was out of print. Theft wasn’t the motivation and it generally isn’t now. People wanted a way to get music QUICKLY, SELECTIVELY, and INEXPENSIVELY… record companies didn’t provide the means so someone else came in to fill the void.
The worst part is that the problem STILL exists. I don’t have any stats but my guess is that iTunes sales drop precipitously for younger demographics. Steve Jobs was bragging about Apple having 10 million accounts attached to credit cards… what about the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of potential customers that don’t have or choose not to use credit cards? The simple fact is that purchasing STILL isn’t as seamless as it could be and the record industry has done nothing to innovate the processes of marketing, promoting, and selling music. The entire process is bloated and inefficient but it doesn’t matter to the RIAA because the fat cats that own the companies it represents are STILL GETTING PAID. It doesn’t matter that artists are being burned through and burned out at an incredible rate. Remember those 80’s hair bands that were selling MILLIONS of albums? Where are they now? Did they suddenly lose their talent? Their careers are in the tank as a result of playing the game from the record companies’ perspective. Record companies throw big money into the system but innovations that would make releasing music more inexpensive are ignored. The record companies don’t suffer, the ARTISTS suffer from this greed and short-sightedness.
If you’re interested in how a modern record company should operate Mr. Cuban, then I hope you’ll take the time to visit the URL I plan to send you. I’ll be providing solutions using today’s technology that will be far more beneficial for the artist AND the consumer. P2P file sharing is a problem that is best solved through innovation, NOT the legal system. The Pandora’s Box is open and will never again be closed. It’s time to live in the new world instead of trying to return to the old one.
Comment by James King -
The hypocrisy of the RIAA is incredible. It paints itself as the defender of artists’ rights while representing companies that are generally holding their artists in a form of indentured servitude. Only a tiny fraction of artists make any significant money from album sales and that’s the way it’s been long before P2P file sharing. Ask Lauren Hill or Prince if they give a rat’s ass about the RIAA. The current system only works for a small few when it comes to actual dollars from album sales… to most artists, album sales and radio airplay are simply promotional tools for the REAL money making prospects for them, such as live performances, ring tones, and any other peripheral opportunities that may crop up. They already know that the record company is going to get the lion’s share of album profits… why do you think you rarely hear anything from artists themselves on this issue? Artists generally only fret over album sales because each sale goes to lowering the enormous DEBT record companies saddle them with, not because of profit or any love for the current system.
Most people have forgetten that file-sharing networks came into existence because people desired CHOICE and EFFICIENCY when it came to accumulating music. People got sick of paying inflated prices for whole CDs when they may have only wanted a song or two from an artist’s album or when they wanted songs they could no longer find because the album was out of print. Theft wasn’t the motivation and it generally isn’t now. People wanted a way to get music QUICKLY, SELECTIVELY, and INEXPENSIVELY… record companies didn’t provide the means so someone else came in to fill the void.
The worst part is that the problem STILL exists. I don’t have any stats but my guess is that iTunes sales drop precipitously for younger demographics. Steve Jobs was bragging about Apple having 10 million accounts attached to credit cards… what about the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of potential customers that don’t have or choose not to use credit cards? The simple fact is that purchasing STILL isn’t as seamless as it could be and the record industry has done nothing to innovate the processes of marketing, promoting, and selling music. The entire process is bloated and inefficient but it doesn’t matter to the RIAA because the fat cats that own the companies it represents are STILL GETTING PAID. It doesn’t matter that artists are being burned through and burned out at an incredible rate. Remember those 80’s hair bands that were selling MILLIONS of albums? Where are they now? Did they suddenly lose their talent? Their careers are in the tank as a result of playing the game from the record companies’ perspective. Record companies throw big money into the system but innovations that would make releasing music more inexpensive are ignored. The record companies don’t suffer, the ARTISTS suffer from this greed and short-sightedness.
If you’re interested in how a modern record company should operate Mr. Cuban, then I hope you’ll take the time to visit the URL I plan to send you. I’ll be providing solutions using today’s technology that will be far more beneficial for the artist AND the consumer. P2P file sharing is a problem that is best solved through innovation, NOT the legal system. The Pandora’s Box is open and will never again be closed. It’s time to live in the new world instead of trying to return to the old one.
Comment by James King -
http://marsh.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7772/?SQ=8b3878125a5e867d3b977ca8b4d36689
I just noticed this a day after your post Mark. Good reading for those interested in the debate.
Comment by Mark Goodchild -
It seems that legal downloads would be the logical way to go for the artists (and possibly the labels) and consumer. Most artists don’t produce end to end hit records anymore, so I don’t want to pay for what I don’t want.
However it seems that the labels are backed into the infrastructure legacy of the industry (probaly even major investments in the distribution chain, retail, etc.) that losing those investments prohibits them from moving forward with a more fluid means of distribution (that the artist would probably make more money and even break away if they are big/good enough).
Currently, the labels hold the power until the artisit wise up and go direct themselves. I know someone who works for a company who owns several major labels and they bait they guys on the front end and kill them on the back end. Artisit, like many pro atheltes, live short term and don’t think long term about their futures so the quick dollar seems great.
Keep the dialogue going Mark, it will take education of the artist and consumer to correct the system.
Comment by midosm.com -
Apple’s model is not the future. They impede innovation by artificially depressing music prices in order to artificially inflate the price on relatively inferior tech. This isn’t innovation. The IPOD nano isn’t innovation. Nintendo has used this same strategy to stay alive for a long time. They essentially re-release the same product over and over with minor modifications (gameboy). In Nintendo’s instance, the gameboy remains the standard, despite many more innovative and progressive models that come and go – because Nintendo understands the psychology of the consumer. So does Apple. This does not make it innovative.
To promote and adhere to these tactics makes the consumers of Apple products as guilty of stifling innovation as the RIAA is. Your support of such a business model stifles the development of truly innovative next-gen tech and business models, because the industry sees them as successful and uses them as models or adopts them as standard.
Record companies can’t exist on a dollar a song. Centralized entertainment is necessary to cut through the chaff; there’s too much being produced for a decentralized model to be effective.
Someone is going to make an argument about music prices: I’ll defend it now. Apple charges a dollar for songs. Ringtones go for 3-5 dollars and sell briskly. This suggests that songs are underpriced at a dollar. Apple knows this. This is to say that the music industry can realistically expect to sell songs for 4-5 bucks a pop. They might make some cash that way. But they can’t because Apple’s giving them away for a buck. Peer networks are giving it away for free.
I saw Lord of War last week and it came out in theaters yesterday. This is a problem for the industry and there is no easy solution to it. The burden of “defense” as it were, is on the industry. I’ll download shit as long as there’s stuff to download. It’s the way of the world, and I presume to be no different.
Let the good times roll.
Comment by Laz -
Interesting and valid points in this thread. What I wonder about is that there surely are some underground labels almost requiring P2P networks to spread their work. Can RIAA or other organizations really demand to shut down these services then? Is /that/ legal, destroying platforms for small competitors?
Comment by Jens Meiert -
p2p is so old school. everybody I know uses gmail to swap files now!
Comment by James Vaughn -
There is an violent rise in p2p use. Napster was the model-T. You can drive a maserati now. I hope the riaa pushes the spyware peddlers into the river also. I hope they create a perception in the general tech retarded public that they have won. The faster that happeneds the faster we can all go about our business. I hope drugs are legalized one day too. I guess there’s a perception that the war on drugs is also being won. A few news feeds, a couple commercial spots, a few lawsuits and there in control. Please….they are a gnat on p2ps king kong ass.
Comment by DM -
These stupid people would rather get 100% of $1 million, then 10% of 500 million. I personally think that anyone who is middle class & below & pays $1.00 to download a song is a complete fool. I would gladly pay $250 a year to have unlimited downloads that I could burn onto CD from any album in existence. So would millions of others. But these greedy lamebrains want 100% of something that they’ll never see. I’m not on Grokster or other services just because of the adware & a lot of the stuff I collect isn’t on there. What I now do is buy used CD’s on Amazon.com & Ebay, and unless a CD is totally fantastic, burn myself a CD & then resell the original record. All in all its like renting, and its costing me maybe $2 out of my own pocket to do this. In some cases I even sell the album at a profit.
Comment by Phil Hershon -
I’m a freelance recording engineer. I can’t tell you how many times Limewire has helped me in recording sessions. Since the majority of studio rats in the music biz use Macs, we all frequent iTunes. I go to the iTunes Music Store first when looking for a song, but if they don’t have it, I have no choice but to go to Limewire to get it. There are times we need to find songs for sample clearance purposes, there are times we need to make sure our song doesn’t sound like something else. We even use iTunes to leak unreleased music to start a buzz. (I work primarily in the urban market)
I have about 220 purchased songs from iTMS, and about 130 from Limewire. I still buy several CD’s a month. My iTunes has about 6000 songs in it. Most of it from CD imports. I also have a vinyl collection that numbers in the 1000’s. I bet 80 of the songs I have in my Limewire folder I already own. So that means maybe 50 songs unpaid for? And some of these are sound f/x we needed. Or instrumentals that are otherwise impossible to find at 3am.
My point is this: There are a ton of us that use Limewire, and don’t abuse it. Of course I know there are a lot of kids that do. I would hate to see it go, but I do understand why the RIAA would go after them.
On the flipside, Digital Rights Management has it’s flaws too. I am also a hip hop deejay. I recently bought Serato’s Scratch Live. It’s basically a software/hardware combo that allows you to use 2 control records (vinyl) to play music from your laptop as if you had it on the turntable. It’s a revolutionary concept. For all of us deejays that have bad backs from carrying record crates around, we can now convert our vinyl to aiff, wav, or mp3 and play it off the laptop. But, we still have the feel of vinyl. (This is very important for hip hop deejays as we tend “play” our turntable) The major problem is this. Any songs we purchase from iTMS has DRM, and the developers of Scratch Live can’t implement a way around it. So, I can’t play music I legally purchased. Of course I could burn the CD, re-import it, and try that way. (I haven’t yet) But this makes DRM a pain in the butt. Makes me want to use Limewire to get a song that is not in stores but I have to have at the club.
The music industry hasn’t made a big enough effort to figure out how to ride the new digital millenium, and I’m not sure they will. But I do know this: iTunes is a step in the right direction. I haven’t bothered with the other music services because they seem limited, or the music formats were something I don’t want to deal with (Windows Media files, Real Player, what a bunch of crap…) Maybe I’m Apple biased, but they are the only ones who seem to want to lead the way post-Napster. The other thing about Apple that I like is that they stand up to the music industry in regards to pricing. Thank good somebody will stand up to the mooks!
Comment by Mark Goodchild -
Wow Mark, you really have taken a turn on your blog, it went from interesting and informative, to ridiculous.
I think it is starting to show that the fall of P2P networks is affecting the recording industries bottom line.
“The number of CDs and other music products shipped from record labels to retail merchants rose 2 percent last year, to 814 million units, the first annual increase in five years”
The file P2P networks that are left, are nothing compared to those of yesterday, ie Napster. The people who are finding it harder to download the files illegally than it is to get them legally are turning to the legal sources of downloading.
Does this mean no one is downloading music illegally? Of course not, this won’t ever happen. The fall of the major P2P systems and the rise in legal download methods are leading to an increase in record sales.
One of the issues the record industry is facing right now is that they can’t tell if the fall of the P2P systems, or the DRM on the CDs is responsible for the decline in file sharing. In order to make the determination, some labels are considering removing the DRM from CDs in order to get more accurate numbers.
This still holds true, if someone was able to walk into a mavericks game with out paying, you would probably have them thrown out, or at the very least, you would shut down the hole in your security that let them “steal” from you.
Comment by Grant -
charles- fake/knockoff clothing is not actually popular in the US. it may be a novelty item when in manhattan, but otherwise you won’t see people buying this. maybe it’s because of limited distribution, etc/
Comment by friendlyguy -
one stupid question why do they not arrest all those trendy kids that are wearing the fake Polo,Nike, Tommy,… and other fake clothing bit they will arrest kids for having mp3’s?
Comment by charles -
one stupid question why do they not arrest all those trendy kids that are wearing the fake Polo,Nike, Tommy,… and other fake clothing bit they will arrest kids for having mp3’s?
Comment by charles -
Yep. and then the RIAA can go after the CDs stores of “enabling and inducing” shoplifting for displaying CDS near doors. And anyone who sells a CD burner someone who owns CDs.
Comment by Mark Hamilton -
When playing chess, there is a certain point at which you know you are beat, but you continue to play anyway. You try to survive for as long as possible. Even when you are down to your king, a bishop and a rook, you still keep playing for some reason.
The RIAA represents it’s association of large corporate studios. They are doing their job, however unpopular it may be. That job is to maintain the status quo, and to fight the coming paradigm shift.
Sucks to be them.
Comment by Bill Paul -
I’m a tad surprised that you’d cheer for the RIAA over the tech innovations being put forth by the p2ps, but i also know youre in the digital media business. bottom line is that the RIAA is WAY overboard with their tactics and suing their customer base, which will in the end hurt them more than shutting down the entire internet would help them. furthermore, i have no numbers to back me up, but i guarantee that bands on labels not represented by the RIAA are enjoying a surge of popularity fueled primarily through file sharing. thus the majority of musicians (those not on RIAA labels) are reaping the benefits and cutting into the majors market share.
Comment by worst weather ever -