Who needs the RIAA?
p2pnet news | Music:- I attended a talk this morning at the Silicon Alley Breakfast Club, where one of the panelists was Jessica Morris of OurStage.com.
OurStage is a site which permits any musician or filmmaker to put a 15-second segment of his or her work on line, and have it exposed to the world at large (presently more than a milliion “uniques” per month) for competitive judging, commentary and feedback, the opportunity to win prizes and mentor opportunities, and other good reasons to post 15-second slices of their work product.
I asked Jessica if musicians can sell their whole songs there, too. She said sure, it’s 99 cents per download, of which the musician gets 80 percent… but she then wrote in and corrected herself: the artist actually gets all 99 cents — or 100% — of the total purchase price.
So any musician could go to OurStage.com, get free exposure for his or her music, and even sell his music to the public, receiving more than 80% of the purchase price.
And anyone who likes music, can go there, listen to their heart’s content, buy something if they like it, and be sure that more than 80% of what they spend goes right into the artist’s pocket, where it belongs.
Four questions:
1. In such a world, who needs record companies?
2. If people don’t need record companies, wouldn’t record companies have to somehow make people want to do business with them?
3. Who thinks the RIAA’s litigation campaign is a way of making musicians want to do business with the Big Four record companies?
4. Who thinks the RIAA’s litigation campaign is a way of making music lovers want to buy their music from the Big Four record companies?
Anyone who can’t figure out the rather obvious answers to those four questions, doesn’t deserve to be running a record company. (Or should I say “running a record company into the ground”?)
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
(Updated – March 20)
[NOTE - p2pnet is running a special reader's survey. It only takes 20-30 seconds and it'd be a huge help if you'd fill it in. Please click here. Cheers! And thanks ... Jon]
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“She said sure, it’s 99 cents per download, of which the musician gets 80 cents.”
Oh, the music cartel is soooooo in trouble, now the new artists just need to get smart, and we’re good to go.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:48 am
ILLEGAL FILE SHARING IS WRONG. IT IS STEALING. THERES NO OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT. YOU CAN MAKE UP 1,000′S OF REASONS TO TRY AND JUSTIFY IT, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT IS ILLEGAL AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL IF YOU STEAL MUSIC.
JUST LIKE IF YOU STOLE SOMETHING PHYSICAL FROM A STORE, SAME THING.
Millions of people listened to music before their was file sharing and music downloads when physical media was the standard format. Their is no reason why we shouldn’t pay for our music in this day and age. Do we get less pleasure or enjoyment out of our music than people did 30 years ago?? Seems like people still like music? Concert ticket sales are stronger than ever. People must still enjoy music. So why should we think that it should be free? File sharing and free music is cheapening the value of the recorded art. File sharing and digital downloads are hurting the industry in more way than one.
For starters there is a whole new generation of kids who are growing up thinking that free music is the norm. Is that what artists who are starting out or trying to make music their career are wanting their potential fan base thinking? I personally am not playing music to go out and make millions of dollars but would enjoy making it a full time career. With no one to sell your product to, how should one expect to fund their further progression? Of course the big artists who support free digital downloads or file sharing do not mind because they have made their money and are established and stable. How do you think a band like RadioHead got to the point where their at? Millions upon millions of CD sales. Where as now they have the luxury of giving away their music for free due to the mass amount of money they have acquired through their Cd sales from early 90’s-2000’s. It does not effect the multi million dollar artists as it does the little guys who are trying to work their way up the ladder.
In this new day and age for music, the people who pour their blood sweat and tears into seeing an album through its infancy to its debut still deserve recognition, compensation and piece of the pie as well. There are song writers, lyricists, publishers, managers, sound engineers, mixers, recording technicians, and the artists themselves that spend countless hours of their time in creating these works.There is a certain moral boost as an artist, an accomplished feeling that you get when someone actually purchases the results of this labor. To finally have a finished product that is ready to sell, just to have it stolen from you is a pretty BAD feeling. Not to mention that you are not only stealing from the band you are stealing from everyone and more who I have listed above.
We are all going through massive changes in the way we share, distribute and listen to our music. The industry has seen changes that it could have never foreseen 12 years ago. We need to come up with ways to ensure that artist and industry revenues through the sales of music continue. For an industry to thrive their needs to be SALES & REVENUE, if those sales are through digital downloads, fine then we need better ways to regulate the file sharing that goes on through sites such as Limewire. We also need to make it clear to the people that are doing these illegal downloads that their doing much more than ” just downloading one song.” I know there are people out there that dislike this attitude towards this issue and others that support it.
As an Independent artist that has music for sale, I say if enough people get sued, or ISP’s start getting held responsible, or the “three strikes your off the net” ideas are put into effect, there will definitely be some change.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Why is it that these people never have the courage to say who they are?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Sorry – I meant the poster who starts off with ILLEGAL FILE SHARING IS WRONG. Is this another RIAA shill or a real person?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I was wondering the same thing.
Cheers!
March 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
No My Name is Chris im a real person
March 19th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Sorry i just forgot to put a name in
March 19th, 2008 at 11:54 am
If I lend my mum my Gary Glitter collection to listen to in her hospital bed, this is illegal?
According to poster number 2, I should be locked up until after my dying mums death, then whipped naked in the streets, tarred and dusted with her ashes for depriving GG of the money he needs to be able to live in warmer countries. Not that GG would ever see much (if any) of the money anyway because he is just a tool of the Uk government brought out of the cobwebs in an attempt to smother bad news this past decade.
Of course it isn’t illegal or stealing to share music or other ‘art’ or literature.
IT NEVER HAS BEEN ILLEGAL.
I could chose to buy a book or I could borrow the book from a library or even ask them to buy the book so I can borrow it. Similarly, if I hear some music, regardless of its origins, I will buy it if I really like the artist or leave it if I don’t. Just like I really don’t have to pay for a book (not directly anyway) I really don’t have to pay for music either, even if I have heard it or downloaded it.
Now I’m off to browse the magazines in the shop across the road.
I never buy any, just read a few articles.
Such a criminal am I
March 19th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Thats not enough, you would need further punishment.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
No of course thats not illegal I am not talking about you giving your dying mother a Gary Glitter CD to borrow, (which is cruelty in itself and should never be done). Or letting your friend borrow a CD in general or 20 CD’s for that matter. I am speaking of the millions of people downloading millions upon millions of tracks each month, that otherwise could have been sold over iTunes or Amazon Mp3. Or bought in a store on Record or CD.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I think that illegal P2P was necessary to push a change at the recording industries. Without it, they would have never got out of the overpriced CD sales. Once things like Ourstage (and Jamendo, by the way) start getting steam, illegal sharing will diminish. I doubt it will go away totally, but the comparative difference between “legal and scarce” and “illegal and plentiful” will start waning.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
@ Chris, “I am speaking of the millions of people downloading millions upon millions of tracks each month, that otherwise could have been sold over iTunes or Amazon Mp3. Or bought in a store on Record or CD.”
You’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?
Cheers!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Well thats actually encouraging to hear, my band is currently a member of “Ourstage” I hope for the future of the recorded art and the industry as a whole you are correct “someone there Says”
March 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
If the p2p networks were shut down I would have to think that people would still want music and therefore purchase it. Wouldn’t you?? Not necessarily on the CD format, no. CD’s are on there way out. But would have at least downloaded them LEGALLY through sites that actually contribute to artists rather than steal from them Jon.
-Chris
March 19th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Chris,look at the album Ghost by NIN.
I happen to have uncle ,who has his own band beside regular daily job.He likes P2P as do I.If I do not know about you,about your music.If I cannot listen to that in its entirety anywhere(DRM-less) for some period of time,there are no money for you from me.Spending money on music is luxury and not every time possible.
And you forget that there are even artist publishing their work for free!Machinae supremacy,various remixes and so on.
And BTW Chris,I seriously am thinking about adding you on NO-GO list (You know what does that mean…) if I by chances see you somewhere!!!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
There is a problem there, Chris. Be warned, it is not my opinion, but technically speaking, some p2p networks are impossible to “shut down”, most of the ones that survived until today are decentraliced, with no central server to pinpoint, no weak point at all. It is like bacteria, if you abuse antibiotics (MPAA and RIAA actions) you will sooner or later get a superbreed that is inmmune to them. And, like Jon implied, in the unlikely case all the p2p networks were shut down, I think most of their users would simply stop consuming music. Nobody said it is an easy affair to solve.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@ Chris: As I said earlier, you’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?
And you’re not seriously trying to suggest sharing is the same as stealing, are you?
In the meanwhile, p2p and sharing are here to stay and it’d be best for everyone if bands and individual musicians would work with that idea, and the innovators who, by various means, are trying to set music free (in the sense of free as a bird, not free beer), not cage it.
Cheers!
March 19th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The whole idea that everyone is expected to pay just to preview the music they could potentially purchase repulses me as it no doubt does billions of the worlds population that isn’t tone deaf or simply deaf.
All this ILLEGAL in block capitals is dumb too.
There is nothing illegal in sharing music or anything else for that matter.
Unless it’s Chris sharing his VD on unsuspecting strangers.
(Verbal Diarrhoea: or WHY?)
March 19th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“Klimax”
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, isn’t that what these blogs are put here to do? Let us express our opinions about topics and talk about them? We don’t have to agree on the subject matter, but its good to chat it out with others. I in no way meant to offend you. I would hope you would take these conversations in a mature fashion and not to let them upset you. Just as you agree with p2p sharing and are entitled to do so, I do not agree with p2p networks and also am entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours.
“Someone there”
Yeah I know there almost impossible to erradicate, and probably never will be, your right. And as a consumer yeah it would be sweet to have free everything, but for a business model or lack there of just doesn’t work. I highly doubt that people will ever under any circumstances stop consuming music, at least in my lifetime. People love music even when we were all getting screwed by the record companies at $17.99 for one CD, people still loved and consumed music. I’m not promoting that the record companies screw us like they did in the 1990’s, no that sucked. But i think there will always be a market for music.
Heres an example of what i was talking about with the effort to try and at least slow the illegal trade of music.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7240234.stm
Who knows if it will work.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
To Mr. ILLEGAL FILE SHARING IS WRONG. IT IS STEALING. THERES NO OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT:
I don’t have a problem with paying for music.
I do, however, have a problem with funding the RIAA’s SUE FUCKING EVERYONE campaign.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@ Chris: “I’m not promoting that the record companies screw us like they did in the 1990’s, no that sucked.”
Don’t kid yourself. They’re trying to do the exactly same in the 21st century.
And as I said earlier, you’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?
And you’re not seriously trying to suggest sharing is the same as stealing, are you?
“In the meanwhile, p2p and sharing are here to stay and it’d be best for everyone if bands and individual musicians would work with that idea, and the innovators who, by various means, are trying to set music free (in the sense of free as a bird, not free beer), not cage it.”
In other words, no one, least of all me, is suggesting music should be free as in free beer. Reasonably priced would be nice, though.
Cheers!
March 19th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
@ Chris: I dont think things like the one at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7240234.stm will help. The only effect efforts like that one has made is to make p2p networks stealthier and better encrypted. Some people dont know it, but we are living in a digital arms race. After comcast started disconnecting people using bittorrent, protocol encryption was born. If the corps keep pressing on the legal side, the people will press on the technical side, making the clients stronger than before.
@ Jon: I fully agree on the “reasonably priced” matter, and also that sharing isnt stealing. Real world thieves and gangsters are dangerous folk, while your average p2p user is utterly innofensive.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“I do not agree with p2p networks” – Chris
Dumb gets dumber.
You can’t disagree with a legal protocol.
The very idea of not ‘agreeing with P2P networks’ is a bit like not agreeing with people being able to talk to one another without a middleman taking notes and interrupting whenever you mention the boobies or our great leader…
March 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Chris,may be it was too sharp,quick,not organized,but you sounded like p2p is EVIL,which ruins every single artist.Screw downloaders,screw everybody who thinks p2p is for good.
May be I wrote too quickly,but I am open to discussion-but my initial stance is p2p is good,serve me good arguements why not!
And remeber my uncle is musician and likes p2p as well!(for music,movies)
March 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
@ Chris. It is very interesting that you are ignoring Jon’s questions.
I will repeat them for you —–
— you’re not seriously trying to suggest these “millions” would’ve bought a CD had they not shared, are you?
— you’re not seriously trying to suggest sharing is the same as stealing, are you?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
NIN and Radiohead would have to disagree with you Chris.
True, they disagree with each other as well, but that’s kind of the point.
Choice.
They are free, without the label chains on them to choose a method of distribution
that THEY are comfortable with. One is even using ‘ the evil Pirate Bay’ as a
distribution point.
If the label had their way, that door would be closed to anyone, even those that WANT
people to get their music in this way.
The point is choice.
You wish to choose the labels way of doing things .. good luck, and bring lube.
I think NIN and Radiohead would say they did very .. very well , even when giving it
away was involved.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Dude, you can’t magically make something disappear, like you can’t unpour water, without having a better alternative. And I seriously doubt that this, or any other paying service, is it.
According to Dunbar’s Number, you only get to know about ~150ish people well enough to care. Everyone else might as well be made of dark matter, as your brain can’t handle them. Most people don’t care about other people, people who they don’t know, and they don’t care if downloading means lost sales, they really just don’t care. This is why humanitarian efforts ultimately fail to get enough donators; people just don’t care about some sick person in who-knows-where, they don’t concern you. Same with music. Who cares about somebody in somewhere, I can get stuff for free! No paying service can compete with free, unless the paying service is of higher quality/better than free. Until paying gets more than DLing, people won’t give up P2P.
March 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I would like to ask. How come every time someone from the record companies throws in their two cents it is always saying that everyone else are thieves looking to get music for free? I truly believe that the artists deserve to get paid for their work. Artists include songwriter, performer, musician and basically anyone that creatively contributes to the art. where I have a problem is the record industry lawyers, execs, etc thinking they are owed a damn thing. The lawsuits, the push to have ISP’s police and lobbying for different laws is not with the artists in thought. It is so these execs and such keep their payrolls and bonuses. If they had their way I am sure they would cut the artists percentage because they are just not making the money they used to. They are already trying to get a take on money that traditionally went to the artists in touring and merchandise.
If you want to get an idea of why today’s youth are thinking they can get music downloads for free, look at all the advertisements for free music downloads. If you dont click on the ad you don’t see it comes with stipulations or a purchase, all you see is free music downloads. Today alone, I saw three on different websites that had nothing to do with music.
when figuring out where all the lost sales are; file sharing is the easy target but is far less of an effect on sales then they are saying..
let’s look back to the 90’s when they were charging so much for a cd.. then let’s look into 2000 when the FTC hit the record companies with price fixing and collusion.. estimating millions upon millions of dollars the consumer was overcharged and money stolen from their pockets..
let’s look at the true value and talent of some of todays artists and the ones that are getting airplay and slammed down the consumers’ throats by the record companies.
let’s look at the economy and the effect on how people spend their money
let’s look at the video game industry and the growing numbers of kids that spend their time with games and computers compared to music
and let’s look at the ticket sales of concerts.. it is stated previously that concert tickets sales are stronger than ever.. well that tells me that the record companies are putting a bad taste in consumers’ mouths and they are supporting their favorite artists and paying and going to see them directly.
and there are quite a lot of other examples
dang.. even one of the record company bigwigs put money into the original napster trying to get a headstart from the other record companies and make the money from the idea..
March 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Chris! There is no conflict here. People are willing to buy and support the artist in any way they can. People LOVE the artists. It is the record companies that makes it so darned bad to buy music today, with closed formats, drm-crippling, overpriced and often of non-chosable quality. That kind of scheme can not compete, hell the dont even play in the same division as lets say, the pirate bay.
I wish more people could turn their eyes towards the already existing repositories of free, or CC-licensed music such as Jamendo… That way, there would be no need to share copyrighted music. Unfortunately, the record companies still have to much money to spend on advertising, giving their products an artificially high demand.
The current ways of the music business is doomed no matter what, and it is sad that people like you fear the new, instead of embracing the future.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Chris, you haven’t heard of what happened with Radiohead in the beginning, haven’t you. When they started out, they had very little radio air time and hardly any CD sales and then they came from out of nowhere and their CDs started selling out as did their concert ticket sales and they went to number one on the sales charts. What happened? Their new CD was leaked onto Napster and gave them more attention leading to their ability to grow in popularity to become the band that they are today with the resources to launch the CD on their own and break away from a record label.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
” What happened? Their new CD was leaked onto Napster and gave them more attention leading to their ability to grow in popularity to become the band that they are today with the resources to launch the CD on their own and break away from a record label. ”
RadioHead is one of many that benefitted becuse of Napster.
Another Group was Metallica ( ironically ). There was just NO airplay for a metal band
like them. Of course, until Napster made them a household name, and Lars made
them the most hated band on the planet.
There is so much more evidence that sharing benefits sales.
One has to wonder why it’s ignored.
Maybe loss of sales isn’t the REAL reason the cartels want to destroy P2P ??
March 19th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
” Maybe loss of sales isn’t the REAL reason the cartels want to destroy P2P ?? ”
It’s slightly possible that NIN making a mil and a half and having to
give none of it to a label, plus using pirate bay as a download point
could be seen as a reason to fear P2P. What if everyone tried to do that ?
March 19th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
My posting on “The RIAA vs Tanya Andersen story” is even more appropriate here. Power to the little guy!
Jon, enjoy the following two articles about some small name musician making it big on the internet and showing how the new business model of “True Fans” can work: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080311/183620503.shtml
Building up your “True Fans”. Now this one is even more interesting: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080304/174129438.shtml
March 20th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Dear Chris I’ve read most of your post here and i would like to offer my opinion on them.
First off sharing isn’t stealing by definition.The stealing part comes as a result of the new business model that makes profit out of copies in that sense you could call it stealing as in the company doesn’t make profit anymore.But the trick in it is that its a vague description because u have no way of knowing for sure that the guy receiving a copy without paying would actually pay if he didn’t receive it.Thus the whole stealing description is merely an assumption and thus can’t be taken as a fact.
Second the part about shutting down p2p so the people buy the music is basically the monopoly idea.You are suggesting to create a monopoly so you can earn profit. Monopoly in itself is a bad thing for consumers and because the world rolls around the consumers and not the other way around we are the ones to decide.In the beginning there was the consumer that demanded. Then companies came and produced what they wanted when the demand became a common need businesses tried to monopolize it to switch power from the consumer to the corporates so they can have full control. But in our age that balance is switching back the way it should have always been. Many people like yourself take the current monopoly as granted. Fact is your job besides creating is to CONVINCE people to buy it not FORCE people to buy it.
Third being able to create music is not the only thing you need to be successful anymore.If u are unable to convince people to buy it you will fail.Thus I’ll take your complains as expressing your frustration because you don’t have the ability to convince people to buy your products.Hence your at the mercy of the masses.
Fourth many many fail to view the internet and p2p for what it is.You say you don’t make profit out of p2p. Well think about it this way its a huge way to promote yourself.Its like a global radio you don’t need to pay to get broadcasted but you wont get any royalties out of it either.Also if you music is good enough and you provide a way for people to pay you directly they will buy it from you but they wont pay money to the record labels so avoiding them is key. Because the war between the consumer and the record labels at this current time, working with one puts you in the line of fire.You wouldn’t run trough a field that has two battalions of enemies shooting at each other so why would you do that same thing by working with a big record label.And in the end if your content isn’t good enough for the current standards you don’t deserve money for it anyways because consumers don’t pay for crap.
I hope i explained enough to make some ideas clear that are currently running around.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:47 am
“Heres an example of what i was talking about with the effort to try and at least slow the illegal trade of music.”
But WHY are the record companies putting so much effort into trying to shut down these P2P tools? Has it not occurred to them by now that they have an amazingly efficient distribution method, if they could just find a way to remunerate the artists in a FAIR way?
It makes me so mad when I hear quotes like that, because it’s blatantly clear that the RIAA is too scared to experiment with new technologies like this and decides its time is better spent making even more money by suing people.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:26 am
” But WHY are the record companies putting so much effort into trying to shut down these P2P tools? ”
The short, accurate answer is that P2P tools enable anyone with a home studio
to distribute and promote themselves .. worldwide .. without having to, heh ,
’share’ , a dime of any money with a major label.
It means anyone can compete.
They HATE that shit..
March 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
It is about control and greed.. simple truth.
They are screwing the independant artists with their radio tactics and internet radio.. Do you think the independant artists see any of the money they collect from these entities? Even the artists that are signed with them don’t see all the money they are owed.
They are putting effort into shutting down and controling any avenue in which artists might get money without going through them.. whether the artist is signed with them or not..
It is pathetic..
March 20th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
@Chris
I find it hard to believe that you are an independent
musician when your postings seem to parrot the **AA
line that file-sharing=stealing, a downloaded file=a lost sale,
or that if p2p networks were to disappear, people would go
back to paying ridiculous prices for lossy downloads and CDs.
As long as the industry continues to see p2p as the enemy rather
than competition, and continues to suppress it by suing their (now
former) customers, hobbling technology for their own benefit, trying
to get legislation passed that does the same, they are going to lose
the digital arms race (as they are clearly doing now).
March 21st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Chris, you seem to imply that the record companies have somehow improved since the 90’s. Have you any evidence of this? Please cite specific examples. Are you a signed artist with these people? Have you, or any artists you know received any money from the RIAA from all the lawsuit money they have been collection off file sharers on behalf of the artists? I have asked this particular question on posts before, and have never received an answer, nor have I even once read anywhere that the RIAA had distributed ANY of the money collected to artists.
So you would like to shut down p2p? Don’t you think that is unfair to small artists and software engineers who would like to use that to freely distribute their music and code? The fact that it is used by some people to violate copyright law does not justify shutting it down; if someone uses a car to rob a store do you put the car company out of business?
I suspect if you are not an RIAA shill you are not very computer literate, perhaps you need to learn more about what p2p is and how it works.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:35 am
” So you would like to shut down p2p? Don’t you think that is unfair to small artists and software engineers who would like to use that to freely distribute their music and code? ”
Small and now large artists ( NIN – Pirate Bay etc .. ).
Easy to see now why the labels really want sites like that shut down.
They fear the success of those they can’t control.