Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use

[Rob Lister]

I posted this in business because...that's what it is. I would like to hear ideas on what new business models could best profit from the apparent failure of the current one. I'll post one possibly silly idea at the bottom. Feel free to opine on it -- even if in so doing you feel the need to also ridicule.

Yet another case of bringing a buggy whip to a gunfight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

Here's a snip...

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

another snip representing an opinion I pretty much share...

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

I'm the last one to say that the non-musician part of the current music industry does not add value. I actually think the value of the producer, the mixer, the promoter and possibly the babysitter is at least as important, if not more important, then the artists that make the music (or sing the music, or lipsync the music, or whatever).

I also think they are very, very Sisyphus-like.

One possible solution is to partially follow the broadcast TV model. Stick advertisments in every song!

[JoeEllison]

They are driving the nails into their own coffin with crap like this. What they are saying is that I have to buy one copy of a CD for my car, another for my house, and then pay to download it for my computer/mp3 player. Why should I buy a CD three times for personal use? And why shouldn't I go ahead and steal music, since they consider my use of purchased CDs to be stealing as well?

[HarryKeogh]

from the article:
The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a classic example of an old media company clinging to a business model that has collapsed. Four years of a failed strategy has only "created a whole market of people who specifically look to buy independent goods so as not to deal with the big record companies," Beckerman says. "Every problem they're trying to solve is worse now than when they started."

Truer words have never (yes, never!) been spoken.

[Deus Ex Machina]

from the article:


Truer words have never (yes, never!) been spoken.


Hear hear!!

[WildCat]

IYet another case of bringing a buggy whip to a gunfight.
Problem is, the laws were created by people who know only buggy-whips. It may well be illegal to make your own copies of your own cd's the way the law was written. I doubt the lawmakers even understood what the hell they were doing when they wrote the law.

And if it is illegal, 98% of what I have on my computer's iTunes is illegal.

Screw the RIAA.

[Rob Lister]

But this thread is not about agreement or the lack thereof. We can do that in Politics or Social Events. This thread is about ideas to solve the problem -- to brainstorm new business models.

This situation really isn't a new one. It is the same situation that existed prior to analog recording and playback devices. It used to be that an artist would commit his music to paper in the form of notes. Of course, this music was easily duplicated by 'priates' and used/sold. It was only a tiny bit more difficult than it is using today's computer technology, but you didn't get the original style/talent/production that you can today.

How did they deal with it then? Are there any lessons from the past we can learn?

[Rob Lister]

I can't resist but to add this tidbit about Sisyphus from Ask Yahoo

First, Sisyphus angered the gods by telling Asopus that Zeus had carried off his daughter, Aegina. Then when Death came for Sisyphus, the king chained Death up, thus temporarily granting immortality to all of humanity (until the god Ares freed Death). Before Sisyphus was finally brought down to the underworld, he instructed his wife to leave his body unburied. This served as a good excuse to travel back up (in order to punish his wife), and he lived for a long time before dying again. By that time, however, he had run out of delay tactics and had built up a lot of bad blood down in Hades. This resulted in a cruel and unusual sentence.

apropos, no?

[BPSCG]

I think a big part of the problem is that the consumer now has the ability to make perfect copies of the music, which he didn't have before the advent of burnable CDs. In my misspent youth, I might copy an LP onto a cassette for a friend, but the cassette recording would be clearly inferior to the vinyl. And the vinyl itself degraded over time. So while there was a certain loss of revenue for the recording industry, it wasn't catastrophic. There would always be plenty of people willing to pay for new LPs.

But today, I have 20-year-old CDs that sound as good as the day they were pressed, and if I were of a criminal bent, I could make perfect copies of them for friends at ridiculously tiny expense. So in 2008, there is a much greater incentive to steal music than there was in 1978. And millions of people have shown that given the opportunity to steal where there is little or no risk and the quality of the stolen goods is indistinguishable from the original, they will do so (and then pitch a bitch when they hear that the politicians they elect are as venal as they are).

So the issue appears to me to be, how do you make people willing to pay for music again? Answer: I don't know.

[BPSCG]

apropos, no?No. Appropriate.

[/peeve]

[Rob Lister]

So the issue appears to me to be, how do you make people willing to pay for music again? Answer: I don't know.

If only that answer is a summary of the music industry answer. They don't know either so they are doing what they can, over and over, even though it is clearly failing.

There IS an answer. maybe no answer that fits with the model that currently exists, but there is an answer nonetheless.

Can you find any solution that works better than the solutions thus far implemented?

Here are examples of some of those:

1) threaten the consumer (hasn't even come close to working but the end result is that they will go out of business and the quality of the music you find in the future will, IMO, go downhill because there is no profit in the 'behind-the-scenes' artistry).

2) Produce and distribute it independently as freeware/shareware (suffers from the identical problem opined in item 1...no profit to the rest of the team).

[rwguinn]

In reply to the OP:
I have no answers to this situation either. It seems the rules RIAA and everybody involved are arbitrary and capricous.
I love to play guitar (I am a mediocre rhythm player, in case you were wondering). I lear by listening, and downloading the Chords and lyrics.
It seem that RIAA is even after this! (http://www.guitarzone.com/w/Main_Page)

now, not all websites are this extreme--there are still lots of ways to get lyrics/chords/tabs, some of which are tolerated by the original performer/writer, but it is still frightening that they would stoop to this.
where is the line drawn? I agree that the writer should get paid for his work when performed, but for learning purposes? Is it going to get to the point that we get threatened with lawsuits for practicing somebody's intellectual property in our own homes? For showing a friend the particular licks you learned? For having jam sessions? will we be reduced to jamming to Public Domain (not Jerry Jeff Walker's version--that's copyrighted!)
I don't believe that it will happen, but what RIAA is doing is what I consider "intimidation by threat of legal action", which is a form of blackmail.

[tsg]

But this thread is not about agreement or the lack thereof. We can do that in Politics or Social Events. This thread is about ideas to solve the problem -- to brainstorm new business models.

This situation really isn't a new one. It is the same situation that existed prior to analog recording and playback devices. It used to be that an artist would commit his music to paper in the form of notes. Of course, this music was easily duplicated by 'priates' and used/sold. It was only a tiny bit more difficult than it is using today's computer technology, but you didn't get the original style/talent/production that you can today.

How did they deal with it then? Are there any lessons from the past we can learn?

Porn. Seriously.

Just about every new recording technology has been met with resistance by the RIAA and MPAA. This objection of copying CD's to the user's computer is no different from their objections raised about cassette tapes and video tapes. Eventually they had to embrace it.

I remember hearing a story one time (I'll have to dig to verify it) when the VCR first came out about someone approaching the movie industry with the idea to rent movies on video cassette. He even had a mechanism where the video could only be watched once and had to be returned to the store to be rewound. The movie industry objected because they couldn't control how many people were watching it. The porn industry, on the other hand, saw a new way to deliver their content. The analogy to the internet should be fairly clear.

I will state that while I object to the current implementation, I am in favor of copyright in principle.

Digital Rights Management (stay with me, I know it's a dirty word) can be used to make copyright viable while delivering content in an inherently copyable form. Most current implementations of DRM are broken in that they don't allow for fair use, and prevent otherwise unregulated use. A modification of copyright laws could fix that. I would add a clause to the current laws that says, in essence, you are free to restrict usage however you see fit, but if you do so in such a way as to prevent free or unregulated use of the content, you lose any protection under the law should it be broken. In short, if you want the benefits of copyright law, you have to play by the rules. And the rules are that only certain uses of content are protected. How to fix the rest of the current broken copyright implementation is really a discussion for another thread.

Another thing that would encourage playing fair with DRM is the market. When anyone can be a distributer of music, the people buying the music will prefer the artists who release their content with the fewest restrictions. Obviously that will tend to favor the artists who have no restrictions, but if that impairs their ability to make money doing it, they won't last long. So it will tend to gravitate towards a happy medium that both the artists and the consumer can live with.

Where I see this going, ideally, is that the entire industry is changed from having a few superstars making ridiculous amounts of money to one where there are a great many artists all making a decent living making music. Not all will be successful, as it should be, but many more will have the chance.

[Blue Mountain]

This got me thinking about "open source" music, in the same way the Linux and BSD operating systems are done. A lot of Linux development is done by people who write programs for business during the day and develop open-source stuff in their spare time. This is not directly related to music, though, because while a lot of business programs are intended to be used only within the company, music is written to be heard ... there isn't too much demand for music that will be heard only within the company.

Red Hat and SuSE give away their stuff and charge for (hopefully) good support. Unfortunately, this also doesn't apply to music because it's only rarely that music needs end-user support.

A couple of models may evolve:

1. Musicians and bands that have regular day jobs and put together stuff in their spare time. Makes it tough to tour, though.

2. Corporate sponsorship, in a fashion similar to earlier times when rich and titled people would be patrons to musicians and composers.

(I suspect it will be something rather different, however, because I don't have a good imagination for these things.)

I have very little music in my (admittedly tiny) CD collection that comes from a major label. A lot of the reason is I generally despise the types of music they put out. Within the last five years or so, it's also been because of their anti-consumer practices. A lot of my music these days comes either directly from the artist, or from a bargain bin--and I think twice about buying from there if I recognize the label that produced the album.

The analogy to buggy-whip makers is a good one. It's kind of unusual to think about the big record companies a occupying a "niche" market.

[tsg]

So in 2008, there is a much greater incentive to steal music than there was in 1978.

It's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

[/peeve]

[Rob Lister]

In reply to the OP:
I have no answers to this situation either. It seems the rules RIAA and everybody involved are arbitrary and capricous.
I love to play guitar (I am a mediocre rhythm player, in case you were wondering). I lear by listening, and downloading the Chords and lyrics.
It seem that RIAA is even after this! (http://www.guitarzone.com/w/Main_Page)

now, not all websites are this extreme--there are still lots of ways to get lyrics/chords/tabs, some of which are tolerated by the original performer/writer, but it is still frightening that they would stoop to this.
where is the line drawn? I agree that the writer should get paid for his work when performed, but for learning purposes? Is it going to get to the point that we get threatened with lawsuits for practicing somebody's intellectual property in our own homes? For showing a friend the particular licks you learned? For having jam sessions? will we be reduced to jamming to Public Domain (not Jerry Jeff Walker's version--that's copyrighted!)
I don't believe that it will happen, but what RIAA is doing is what I consider "intimidation by threat of legal action", which is a form of blackmail.


Wow, great response even though it did not attempt to address the thread, it certainly eluded to another major concern (in MPAA terms, anyway) which is the downloading of tabs.

My son is a budding guitarist (unlike is dad -- him being a failed one) and he downloads tabs like tkingdoll downloads porn (lol, kidding). I'd say that the vast majority (>99%) of same-said tabs are guessed.

How does the MPAA combat this?

[liverleef]

Frankly, I find it comical that the record industry is in a losing battle. I get sick and tired of seeing self-righteous musicians who live in luxury complain about the world's woes. I think of the folks from Pearl Jam and others who have extolled the writings of Noam Chomsky who has a very anti-capitalism message.

Whenever people start stealing their tunes online, these same pretentious jerks run to the side of the big evil corporations faster than Rosie O'Donnell running toward a ham sandwich. You can't have it both ways ya numnutts.

[rwguinn]

Wow, great response even though it did not attempt to address the thread, it certainly eluded to another major concern (in MPAA terms, anyway) which is the downloading of tabs.

My son is a budding guitarist (unlike is dad -- him being a failed one) and he downloads tabs like tkingdoll downloads porn (lol, kidding). I'd say that the vast majority (>99%) of same-said tabs are guessed.

How does the MPAA combat this?

Sorry.
Perhaps a subscription-like service would work to get the creative paid?
In the past, back before the dinosaurs, we had these things called "Magazines" which were choc-full of neat stuff, and each "Magazine" was taylored to a specific interest: Golf, news, model airplanes, Hunting, war, fishing, etc.
Perhaps such a concept would work with music?:):D

[Rob Lister]

Frankly, I find it comical that the record industry is in a losing battle. I get sick and tired of seeing self-righteous musicians who live in luxury complain about the world's woes. I think of the folks from Pearl Jam and others who have extolled the writings of Noam Chomsky who has a very anti-capitalism message.

Whenever people start stealing their tunes online, these same pretentious jerks run to the side of the big evil corporations faster than Rosie O'Donnell running toward a ham sandwich. You can't have it both ways ya numnutts.

I believe that the artists you see are not, in any real way, representative of the business (MPAA) that is fostering this failure. Certainly some are part, but mostly in a pawn-like position. The fact is (IMO) that most "artists" are nothing more than mined ore, as far as the industry is concerned. I'm not dis'ing the artists; I'm stating what I think to be the truth of the matter -- that being: the original artists are a dime-a-dozen compared to the talent behind the scenes that mints a million.

-----> Lister running for cover after that comment he believes correct.

[tsg]

I believe that the artists you see are not, in any real way, representative of the business (MPAA) that is fostering this failure. Certainly some are part, but mostly in a pawn-like position. The fact is (IMO) that most "artists" are nothing more than mined ore, as far as the industry is concerned. I'm not dis'ing the artists; I'm stating what I think to be the truth of the matter -- that being: the original artists are a dime-a-dozen compared to the talent behind the scenes that mints a million.

-----> Lister running for cover after that comment he believes correct.

As the business model is, the RIAA and the MPAA hold all the cards. They control who becomes a star, and a good number of people (enough to keep them in the driver's seat, anyway) have a huge desire to be a star, to the point where they will put up with almost anything to become one (my father's favorite response to "I have a relative who's an actor/actress in Hollywood" was "Yeah? Which restaurant?"). They care little about art and all about making money and tend to favor the styles that will sell the most albums/tickets with the least amount of work.

A good example of the recording industry mindset was that deplorable Hansen tune from years ago "Mmmm bop" or whatever the hell it was called. No substance, bubble-gum crap. But if you actually listen to it, the out-chorus goes on for half the song. Some marketing exec years and years ago figured out that the best selling songs took the form of verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, and were, on average, 2 minutes 45 seconds long. Since then, the vast majority of hits have followed this format. "Mmmm Bop" was too short so they padded it with a minute long out chorus.

Andy Warhol once mused that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. What he didn't mention is that the same five people would benefit from everyone else's fame.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

My idea would be for the RIAA to create and sponsor their own file-sharing software, and make profit via advertising, subscriptions and/or a per-song fee. In other words, something similar to ITunes, except that it allows users to share all of their music with other users, and anyone who downloads a full song from another user is charged a minimal fee (almost like they charge for cell phone minutes).

Admittedly, this wouldn't provide a huge advantage over other existing file-sharing services, except that it would perhaps be more organized/trustworthy, and more importantly, perfectly legal. Compared to most current commercial download services, however, it would allow users a lot more freedom with what they download. The downside would be that if their hard drive crashed and they lost all of their songs, they wouldn't get to re-download anything for free.

So there's my idea. I agree with the OP that the RIAA is basically fighting tooth and nail to hang on to a dying business model. Instead of innovating their product, they're trying to force people to keep buying outdated products.

To make it clear, I do not think people have the right to steal music (and yes, I do consider some forms of copyright infringement as theft, but I don't want to get into that conversation). However, clearly the technology has changed, CDs are becoming less viable products. The RIAA has done a terrible job of adapting.

[Rob Lister]

My idea would be for the RIAA to create and sponsor their own file-sharing software, and make profit via advertising, subscriptions and/or a per-song fee. In other words, something similar to ITunes, except that it allows users to share all of their music with other users, and anyone who downloads a full song from another user is charged a minimal fee (almost like they charge for cell phone minutes).

Admittedly, this wouldn't provide a huge advantage over other existing file-sharing services, except that it would perhaps be more organized/trustworthy, and more importantly, perfectly legal. Compared to most current commercial download services, however, it would allow users a lot more freedom with what they download. The downside would be that if their hard drive crashed and they lost all of their songs, they wouldn't get to re-download anything for free.

So there's my idea. I agree with the OP that the RIAA is basically fighting tooth and nail to hang on to a dying business model. Instead of innovating their product, they're trying to force people to keep buying outdated products.



Can you be more specific as to how the revenue is generated? I like your idea in post but I'm not sure of its implementation.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Can you be more specific as to how the revenue is generated? I like your idea in post but I'm not sure of its implementation.

Some revenue through advertising on the program itself, perhaps revenue through a monthly prescription free, and then a small fee for each song downloaded (a cheaper fee than any service available today). With a smaller fee, it would actually be in the interest of the RIAA to encourage people to share more songs and download more songs. The more people share, the more revenue the RIAA companies get.

This is all off the cuff, so if you're looking for detailed ROI and risk analysis, you're not going to get it here ;) Maybe the RIAA has already considered this and found it not feasible, I dunno. I have a hard time believing, though, that with the sheer volume of files that are shared, they couldn't find a way to make it profitable -- especially considering the fairly minimal infrastructure required, given that most of the bandwidth is the users' own. The trick, like with anything, would be to find the pricing and usability "sweet spot" that would get people to switch to the pay service.

[Michael Redman]

File sharing and copy distribution is a completely different matter from copying a CD onto a computer to listen to it, while the CD remains on your possession.

I'm fairly certain that all CD players operate by copying the music into a buffer, and then playing the music out of the buffer. By the RIAA's logic, this is illegal.

How long before they start going after the copy that exists in my memory?

[tsg]

File sharing and copy distribution is a completely different matter from copying a CD onto a computer to listen to it, while the CD remains on your possession.

I'm fairly certain that all CD players operate by copying the music into a buffer, and then playing the music out of the buffer. By the RIAA's logic, this is illegal.

How long before they start going after the copy that exists in my memory?

If they could find a way to charge you every time you heard a song, they would try it.

[liverleef]

As the business model is, the RIAA and the MPAA hold all the cards. They control who becomes a star, and a good number of people (enough to keep them in the driver's seat, anyway) have a huge desire to be a star, to the point where they will put up with almost anything to become one (my father's favorite response to "I have a relative who's an actor/actress in Hollywood" was "Yeah? Which restaurant?"). They care little about art and all about making money and tend to favor the styles that will sell the most albums/tickets with the least amount of work.

A good example of the recording industry mindset was that deplorable Hansen tune from years ago "Mmmm bop" or whatever the hell it was called. No substance, bubble-gum crap. But if you actually listen to it, the out-chorus goes on for half the song. Some marketing exec years and years ago figured out that the best selling songs took the form of verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, and were, on average, 2 minutes 45 seconds long. Since then, the vast majority of hits have followed this format. "Mmmm Bop" was too short so they padded it with a minute long out chorus.

Andy Warhol once mused that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. What he didn't mention is that the same five people would benefit from everyone else's fame.

I agree with much of what you say, particularly that artists are far more money driven than they would have us believe. I think that my point in my original post was that certain artists have aligned themselves (to some degree) with the anti-capitalist crowd. I find it comical that they shout fight the power while at the same time begging the RIAA to protect their right to make a fortune off the grass cutting money of 13 year olds.

The music industry certainly controls who becomes a star although I would think that the ability for artists to distribute their music online would diminish some of their power. Just speculating there, maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

I would argue that artists that have established that they can make money may wield a great deal of power. Now obviously, once they lose their money making ability they will be thrown out like yesterdays garbage but that goes for anybody.

Also, I buy my tunes. At only 89 or 99 cents a tune why run the risk of getting into trouble with the RIAA? Also, I want to support the bands that I like by buying their music and going to their concerts.

[tsg]

I agree with much of what you say, particularly that artists are far more money driven than they would have us believe.

I think it's less of a case of lust for money than it is for glory. Although I am sure there are people who are recording artists only because there is good money in it.

The music industry certainly controls who becomes a star although I would think that the ability for artists to distribute their music online would diminish some of their power. Just speculating there, maybe someone more knowledgeable can enlighten me.

It is almost certainly because it would diminish their power that the RIAA is fighting it so hard.

I would argue that artists that have established that they can make money may wield a great deal of power. Now obviously, once they lose their money making ability they will be thrown out like yesterdays garbage but that goes for anybody.

Also, I buy my tunes. At only 89 or 99 cents a tune why run the risk of getting into trouble with the RIAA? Also, I want to support the bands that I like by buying their music and going to their concerts.

For the record, I have only ever downloaded two songs, and I owned the album for both of them. I was just too lazy to go get the CD out of my car.

[Tiktaalik]

1) People should have to own a single version of legally bought music (I could be persuaded otherwise).

2) Recording-industry employees are going to have to get by on salaries derived from live performances & single-time sales.

How to make this happen? Don't know - but I think the industry has lost it's war, in the long run.

Consider this:

I bought a USB turntable. That means I can:

a) record LPs to WAV files on my computer.

b) burn the WAV files to CD.

c) convert the WAV files to MP3, using a different program if necessary.

d) upload the MP3 files to my MP3 player.

No downloading required. No way to know that I have 4 copies (LP, WAV computer, WAV cd, MP3 (all for personal use, of course)) of each and every song, without a search warrant.

The USB turntable even records from 45s, so it's possible I might have an entire cd of obscure 70s pop music (Sniff N the Tears, anybody?).

[WildCat]

2) Recording-industry employees are going to have to get by on salaries derived from live performances
Why the hell should recording industry employees get even one penny from live performances?

[krelnik]

So the issue appears to me to be, how do you make people willing to pay for music again? Answer: I don't know.

I think you are making the same mistake the music industry is making: you are asking the wrong question!

I think the question is: how can we earn money from publishing music, while presuming that a large number of recordings will be copied illegally and we can do little about that.

I think among the answers are:

* Reduce price. Why is it that the original retail price of a CD in the U.S. is still around $18 these days? That's a ridiculously high price for a product that is primarily marketed to people below the age of 30, who often have limited disposable income. A few years ago Warren Lieberfarb of Warner revolutionized the DVD market by dropping his prices (http://ultimateavmag.com/news/11222/). More recently, DVD prices have been slashed in China (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/07/warner-battle-piracy-cutting) to cut down on piracy there. The record industry needs to do the same.

* Drop prices as time goes on. The record industry does this a little bit, but not nearly to the degree the movie industry does. If you look at how movies progress from theatrical release to pay-per-view to DVD to broadcast, the effective price of the movie to the customer goes down and down and down as time goes on. At the end of its life, a movie is essentially free to the end consumer, via broadcast television. So it should be with music.

* Enhance value. I know I get really annoyed when I buy a CD only to find out later there was an enhanced DVD version of the same recording in the works. Similarly, music videos are often released after the CD comes out, and then sold separately on a DVD. Why shouldn't the original purchase of the CD entitle me to later "add ons" to the content? Giving people free stuff they don't expect is a great way to create loyal customers.

* Renew your focus on touring artists. With alternative sources of revenue like corporate tour sponsors, shirt and souvenir sales, a cut of alcohol revenues from club owners, etc., there's all sorts of opportunities here. Yes, its harder than simply stamping a million plastic disks and shipping them to Best Buy, but life is hard. You will notice that Madonna's recent $120 million contract was with a concert promoter (http://valleywag.com/tech/music/madonna-dumps-record-companies-signs-with-concert-promoter-309800.php), not a traditional record company. She (and they) get it.

* Diversity of talent. The original onset of the CD brought economies to the record industry that created an explosion of diversity through the 1980's and 1990's. (There was a great paper on this I read once, but I can't find a link). The industry seems to have completely abandoned this more recently, with a return to the "cookie cutter" mentality of days gone by. Basic business sense says that you should spread your risk. For every Britney Spears who can make millions but also flame out spectacularly, there are hundreds of other talents who will bring in solid revenue without the inherent risk. And its better art to boot.

* Embrace the enemy. Instead of fighting internet copying of tracks, use it to your advantage. Deliberately put your latest single on the file sharing sites to get people to listen to it. Offer discount coupons to buy the full album to anyone who copies the single to a friend.

The important thing is to get out of the mindset of "we sell pieces of plastic". A record company should think of itself as a very diverse set of inter-related streams of revenue.

--Tim Farley

[tsg]

* Reduce price. Why is it that the original retail price of a CD in the U.S. is still around $18 these days?

This is, interestingly enough, one of the prime complaints by people who do download music illegally: paying $18 for an album that they only really want for one or two songs. This is not to say that it justifies copyright infringement, but I think it is a valid complaint and an example of how the recording industry is not paying attention to their market.

[Solitaire]

I would like to hear ideas on what new business models could best profit from the apparent failure of the current one. I'll post one possibly silly idea at the bottom.

One possible solution is to partially follow the broadcast TV model. Stick advertisments in every song!


This record company claims they are not evil. But you just never know, do you. (http://www.magnatune.com/info/whynotevil)http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/arr.gif

[jimtron]

...I think of the folks from Pearl Jam and others who have extolled the writings of Noam Chomsky who has a very anti-capitalism message.

Whenever people start stealing their tunes online, these same pretentious jerks run to the side of the big evil corporations faster than Rosie O'Donnell running toward a ham sandwich. You can't have it both ways ya numnutts.


Have Pearl Jam complained of unauthorized downloads (not a rhetorical question)?

[Rob Lister]

Why the hell should recording industry employees get even one penny from live performances?

perhaps becasue they more than earned it. Not understanding that is not understanding the industry...personal opinion.

ETA: perhaps you don't comprehend what it is "recording industry employees" add to the product. I assure you it is "not" nothing. They are not, as is commonly believed, leaches. They add at least, if not more, worth than the artist.


As an example, consider the case of an old-time band...Alice Cooper.

99.99% crap, by any music standard (I stand by that!). And yet they were such success!

99.99% crap + 100.00% promotion = profit.

[JoeEllison]

File sharing and copy distribution is a completely different matter from copying a CD onto a computer to listen to it, while the CD remains on your possession.

I'm fairly certain that all CD players operate by copying the music into a buffer, and then playing the music out of the buffer. By the RIAA's logic, this is illegal.

How long before they start going after the copy that exists in my memory?

That's what I'm wondering. I have over 3500 songs on my hard drive... and, give or take a few, I have the CDs that go with each one of those songs somewhere in my house. Yet, they can apparently go after me for copyright infringement?

[alfaniner]

That's what I'm wondering. I have over 3500 songs on my hard drive... and, give or take a few, I have the CDs that go with each one of those songs somewhere in my house. Yet, they can apparently go after me for copyright infringement?

Another question is, what if you happen to sell or lose one or all of your CDs, yet still retain the converted computer file?

[blobru]

... Perhaps a subscription-like service would work to get the creative paid? ...

Really; or reward. Set up passworded webcasts, DRM extras (alternate tracks), 'physical' fanclub giveaways, discounts, available only with proof of purchase.
Less stick, more shtick... err, carrot.

[liverleef]

Have Pearl Jam complained of unauthorized downloads (not a rhetorical question)?

Good question and I have no idea and I didn't mean to single them out. I should have worded my statement better. I guess I was speaking of actors/musicians in general who preach one thing but live their life in an entirely different manner. I'll just shutup now before I get accused of thread-jacking.

[JoeEllison]

Another question is, what if you happen to sell or lose one or all of your CDs, yet still retain the converted computer file?

Like if my house burns down, but I save my computer? I guess they can send the FBI after me... idiots.

[WildCat]

perhaps becasue they more than earned it. Not understanding that is not understanding the industry...personal opinion.

ETA: perhaps you don't comprehend what it is "recording industry employees" add to the product. I assure you it is "not" nothing. They are not, as is commonly believed, leaches. They add at least, if not more, worth than the artist.
They add value to the studio recording, and take a risk in doing so. That's why they get money from the studio recordings. But unless they're paying for the tour bus and driver, the hotel rooms, booking the shows, paying for the equipment etc etc they shouldn't get a penny of the tour revenue.

[Rob Lister]

They add value to the studio recording, and take a risk in doing so. That's why they get money from the studio recordings. But unless they're paying for the tour bus and driver, the hotel rooms, booking the shows, paying for the equipment etc etc they shouldn't get a penny of the tour revenue.


Well, I agree that they add value [where the value most counts]. But I assert they also add very much value to such trivial things like live performances. I'd go so far as to say that without them, such performances would be...lacking...in an metric you choose.

Just my opinion, of course. Still, I'm trying to picture a megaband such as the aforementioned Alice Cooper doing a live performance without the aid of those worthless leeches.

Another megaband comes to mind: one with a bit more talent than 'them'. Fleetwood Mac. Do you remember their demise?

[Lithrael]

I'm not quite sure why so many people are convinced that good popular music would die if huge record labels weren't a part of the picture. One of my favorite artists, Susumu Hirasawa, quit dealing with the industry years ago, and was one of the first musicians to start selling all his own stuff over his website. He has free mp3s, albums you can download for decent prices, and a regular hardcopy catalog. He does just fine, between sales and concert revenues. http://noroom.susumuhirasawa.com/?ml_lang=en

I've seen a few other artists going this route, and bought a good number of self-published CD's from small independant musicians too.

And personally, having crap taste anyway, I enjoy a heck of a lot of amateur music that's freely available online, at sites like the Newgrounds audio portal - http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/

The whole music industry is getting very close to that Marxist ideal where everyone has access to equipment that's cheap and can yield professional results. I agree that it would suck if nobody could make a living at it, but I thought that was where promoters still have their place, still getting a cut of the profits, only now the profits are mostly from concerts and only a bit from mp3 and CD sales.

About that Alice Cooper story - so what's the problem with hundreds of crap acts NOT getting rich off the sheer luck of working with the right promoter at the right time? I feel like it would benefit the music industry to scale back and concentrate on acts that are already turning heads based on talent. The high-end pop music writers will still be able to find something to do, I'm sure.

[Rob Lister]

I'm not quite sure why so many people are convinced that good popular music would die if huge record labels weren't a part of the picture.

Let's pause there and and assess who you think "so many people" are.

Better yet, what is your proposed solution to the failed business model?

I offered one, albeit silly -- so silly it seems that no one even commented on it.

Have you another?

eta: I may have misread your post. I could be me you are accusing of being so convinced. If you are accusing me of believing that highly skilled promoters, mixers, etc, (artists themselves) have value...well, you caught me dead to right.

[esquel]

I will continue to transfer music back and forth from medium to medium as long as:

a. I have an original purchased copy of the item in question. As far as I am concerned, this gives me "fair use" to make a copy for my own personal use; i.e., burn a compilation of songs to CD for my car, transfer MP3s to an iPod, etc.

b. There are soundtracks in one medium that have not been released in a currently viable format. My DH has a copy on LP of Nicol Williamson reading "The Hobbit", which AFAIK, has never come out on anything but an LP. A friend who does sound editing transferred it to CD for him; we haven't owned a working record player in 20+ years, and can't put one in the PT Cruiser.

RIAA, apparently, would like the millions of recordings on LP, 8-track, and cassette which never were digitized to disappear into obscurity because they couldn't make money off them.

[Rob Lister]

I will continue to transfer music back and forth from medium to medium as long as:

a. I have an original purchased copy of the item in question. As far as I am concerned, this gives me "fair use" to make a copy for my own personal use; i.e., burn a compilation of songs to CD for my car, transfer MP3s to an iPod, etc.

b. There are soundtracks in one medium that have not been released in a currently viable format. My DH has a copy on LP of Nicol Williamson reading "The Hobbit", which AFAIK, has never come out on anything but an LP. A friend who does sound editing transferred it to CD for him; we haven't owned a working record player in 20+ years, and can't put one in the PT Cruiser.

RIAA, apparently, would like the millions of recordings on LP, 8-track, and cassette which never were digitized to disappear into obscurity because they couldn't make money off them.

yada, yada...

so what is your proposed solution to the business model?

stop your yapping.

Start producing!

[Gazpacho]

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.Although I believe Howell got screwed, I really ticks me off when journalists distort straightforward legal cases like this.

1. Howell was sued for transferring music on a legally purchased CD into a shared Kazaa folder on his computer.
2. Howell appeared pro-se and, through careless wording, effectively admitted to Atlantic's allegations while offering no evidence for his own.
3. The case was decided on existing case law. No precedent was set in the case.

[pipelineaudio]

A LOT of people don't want to look honestly at this issue.

Before anyone accuses me of BIAS towards the RIAA, a quick google search should pretty much dispell that. They DO NOT represent me, notr do they represent the interest of the vast majority of people who have lost their livelihoods. The RIAA represents the RIAA...MAYBE some publishers too, but they have a funny way of showing it. That said;

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without consequences. Many peoples' livelihoods were tied into an assumption that there would be a good faith effort on all sides to follow these laws, thus they undertook the labor they did.

That it is an old business model is no excuse to violate the terms of agreement. It was a voluntary thing to enter into this contract, you had the choice not to.

That said, you making a copy of your cd for your PC, car and ipod, though technically in violation, wouldn't really violate the spirit of the agreement.

IF, as the theft proponents always claim, THAT is what the fuss is over, there wouldn't BE a fuss.

But of course that isn't what its about. In software and media both, its the amount of theft vs actual sales that is the problem.

Now, I know its cool to "stick it to the man". Make sure you know who "the man" is

bands are NOT "the man"
recording studios are sure as hell not "the man"
record companies may or may not be "the man"

I don't know who "the man" is. All I know is programming and media are dying. The brain trust is jumping ship in frightening numbers. We are sitting technologically stagnant in many areas where other industries are plowing ahead.

Bands are getting smart and doing product placement in their songs and videos, but I really really don't want to listen to songs about how I should drink pepsi or what kind of shoes I should wear.

By all means, take on the RIAA if you got a beef with them, I always do.

But lets first be sure we are HONESTLY complaining about what we are charging them with.

[MG1962]

That's what I'm wondering. I have over 3500 songs on my hard drive... and, give or take a few, I have the CDs that go with each one of those songs somewhere in my house. Yet, they can apparently go after me for copyright infringement?

Absolutely not - And I would like to see them try it in court - When you buy the CD, part of the cost to the consumer is the royalty payment to buy limited copywrite (personal use) And once assigned, the copywrite does not have to be renewed (ie purchase another copy)

If they really believed this dribble they are peddling, they would have started charging annual subscriptions on music years ago.

The biggest problem in the music industry today, and for the last 15 years or so has been the music industry

[Lithrael]

Let's pause there and and assess who you think "so many people" are.

Better yet, what is your proposed solution to the failed business model?

eta: I may have misread your post. I could be me you are accusing of being so convinced. If you are accusing me of believing that highly skilled promoters, mixers, etc, (artists themselves) have value...well, you caught me dead to right.

What the crap? Did you even read my post? Did you miss the part where I said "I agree that it would suck if nobody could make a living at [making pop music], but I thought that was where promoters still have their place, still getting a cut of the profits, only now the profits are mostly from concerts and only a bit from mp3 and CD sales." And I don't see any reason these skilled mixers and other support types couldn't be employed at the sort of recording studios where the band pays to do a session and then goes on to publish their own material. Bands could still cut rough albums at home, then get a loan from a promoter or small label to cut the pro version, just like always.

It's not as though people have stopped buying pop music outright. I don't see why the music industry wouldn't do just fine, scaled down. The biggest thing the Internet's done IMO is removed all barriers to getting your stuff heard. You don't NEED massive amounts of money to pump into advertising in order for people to find out about you. Getting shot of huge record labels sounds a hell of a lot like campaign finance reform to me. Why should your shot at popularity be dictated by how much money is being slung around on your behalf?

The 'failed business model' is just too-expensive CDs. I don't see how the big labels can't take a hit on this.

I really think it's a problem the big music sellers have made worse themselves, wal-mart-izing the business model. They have tons of mainstream crap at prices artificially lower than independent record shops' prices. So the indie shops that WOULD be able to cater better to the local scene go out of business and the megastores don't do all that well either, because music needs to speak to people in a way that cheap food and $20 fridges don't.

[El Greco]

so what is your proposed solution to the business model?

Proposing solutions has no meaning, no matter who proposes. We can only guess.

[pipelineaudio]

Did you miss the part where I said "I agree that it would suck if nobody could make a living at [making pop music], but I thought that was where promoters still have their place, still getting a cut of the profits, only now the profits are mostly from concerts and only a bit from mp3 and CD sales."

There's a few things about this.

In many places there are few or no small bars to play anymore. Once the nannies got rid of smoking, they went after volume. Some places can nail you for c weighted 85dB, thats a normal conversation. Also liability laws making bartenders into cops and psychic blood alcohol level meters put the nails in the coffin. Bartenders are just plain giving up.

Second, for the few bars that are left, the promoters ARE the problem. You would think the word itself meant they were promoting something but its not the case. With the bar attendance at a frightful low, these guys have convinced the bar owners that they are THE way to increase traffic, thus putting themselves in as a middleman between the bands and the clubs. Back when there WAS money there still wasn't usually enough to go around this far, but ...

Now the scam you will see most commonly with promoters is "pay to play" and "battle of the bands"

Lets say a club holds 200 people. Small place so normally there wouldn't be a cover charge...well.....Because its "battle of the bands" there WILL be a cover charge. Let's say for this example its five bucks per person. Each band will be given a number of tickets to sell, used to be 1/4 capacity usually but nowdays its almost invariably full capacity.

The band must "ensure patronage" by either handing the promoter the $1000 they sold the tickets for or hand the tickets back, at which point he will scream that "youll NEVER play one of my shows again". Now, it seems to me its the PROMOTER's job to bring people, not the band's job to sell ^%& tickets, but hey Im stupid like that.

At least in the old Starwood pay to play scams, you KNEW you could just hand the money to the club, and there was no pretense about selling tickets or "battle of the bands" nonsense

But wait it gets worse. There are five sets tonite. So, 200 tickets divided by five bands? At least that's doable right? WRONG. EACH band gets 200 tickets. That's $5000 dollars for the promoter for a night where in times past the band may have walked away with gas money, or at least not had to pay, but NOONE would have been getting any real money.

In the extremely unlikely chance that each band really sold all their tickets, the place would be over capacity and those who had prepaid but couldn't get in will be PISSED, and they can and do hold it against the band, not the club or the promoter.

This deck is stacked against the working band, quite obviously, so it is parents of younger bands who pay their way into these schemes. Its weird to see kid clubs so packed with parents, but at least it might be keeping one or two bars open

It certainly isn't paying any bills for the bands.

And I don't see any reason these skilled mixers and other support types couldn't be employed at the sort of recording studios where the band pays to do a session and then goes on to publish their own material.

In the late 80's, at the height of studio rates, your average studio worker looked with extreme envy at a McDonald's worker's paycheck. I've had my name on 5 platinum and 18 gold albums and Ive never made 20k a year. I'm one of the more fortunate ones. In the 90's the rates dropped a LOT

Today, the standards for production have dropped so low that there's absolutley no reason for many people to waste money on a skilled engineer. Add to that that there are now numberous recording schools turning out new engineers by the truckload with promises of fame and fortune.

Because these kids are well off (recording school isnt cheap), when they get out of school and find there is no work, the parents buy them a studio. Because theyre just learning they cant really charge, but theyve got as much gear and usually BETTER looking facilities than real working studios can afford to buy. So their rate is 0$-10$ an hour and the real studios have to vut their rates.

Invariably, the parents get fed up after a while and send their kids off to "real school", at which point they dump the nice new gear into the market for half of what they paid for it, whiuch gets more hands on it and the price spiral goes down.

There isn't any employment in the studios which could give you three meals a day. Maybe 20 jobs that could feed you in any large metropolis. Even LA and New York have little to offer. Nashville maybe a bit more, but still not enough to make up for all the studio closures.


Bands could still cut rough albums at home, then get a loan from a promoter or small label to cut the pro version, just like always.

Its funny when people say that its the music business that needs to learn new tricks, when stuff like this which has been outdated for at least 15 years is always repeated.

It's not as though people have stopped buying pop music outright.

Well its not that NOONE is buying any albums right now, but the numbers are too low to recoup, that's for sure

I don't see why the music industry wouldn't do just fine, scaled down. The biggest thing the Internet's done IMO is removed all barriers to getting your stuff heard.

The internet gave people a chance to do just what they said they wanted to all along: Buy ONLY the songs they wanted and buy them cheap.

Strange thing though, they really arent. Some people are, but not in any way shape or form in the volume that could sustain even a very stripped down industry

You don't NEED massive amounts of money to pump into advertising in order for people to find out about you. Getting shot of huge record labels sounds a hell of a lot like campaign finance reform to me. Why should your shot at popularity be dictated by how much money is being slung around on your behalf?

And yet the opposite thing is happening. It costs more than ever now to market music. The sheer volume of releases is one staggering contender. Without the "filters" of record companies and distributors to cut the wheat from the chaff, people are innundated with albums. Im not at all saying this newfound choice is bad, but you have to understand just how much more money it takes to be heard among 150,000 albums instead of 15,000

If you want radio, that's a whole nother can of worms. Turn any of your major stations on at 4 in the morning. Hear something funny? Same commercial for an album or tour with the same song over and over? Even if used in a commercial, if a song is played for a certain amount of time (18 seconds IIRC) that counts as a "spin", and spins determine the billboard chart.

That's right, a song can be a number 1 hit without anyone ever hearing the whole song. Advertising in this way costs money. Graveyard used to be cheap commercial time on the air, not anymore. You gotta pay for that if you want to chart.


The 'failed business model' is just too-expensive CDs. I don't see how the big labels can't take a hit on this.

Yet, now when you can get songs for cheap, the people aren't buying it

I really think it's a problem the big music sellers have made worse themselves, wal-mart-izing the business model. They have tons of mainstream crap at prices artificially lower than independent record shops' prices. So the indie shops that WOULD be able to cater better to the local scene go out of business and the megastores don't do all that well either, because music needs to speak to people in a way that cheap food and $20 fridges don't.

This is an important one. Loss Leader tactics have killed the record stores off. The one place where people could get fannish enough over a new band to do an underground break.

[Wildy]

On a side note when will the RIAA sue Microsoft or those people who own Realplayer for having the software that allows you to convert songs on CDs into a digital format?

[JoeEllison]

On a side note when will the RIAA sue Microsoft or those people who own Realplayer for having the software that allows you to convert songs on CDs into a digital format?
Last night, I thought about this... and I decided that this lawsuit may actually be aimed at putting pressure on Microsoft over that very thing.

[Wildy]

Last night, I thought about this... and I decided that this lawsuit may actually be aimed at putting pressure on Microsoft over that very thing.

Maybe. It would make some sort of sense.

[Rob Lister]

How did Mozart earn his living?

[rwguinn]

How did Mozart earn his living?
Wealthy Patrons.

It was the height of fashion to "own" a composer at the time...

[Rob Lister]

Wealthy Patrons.

It was the height of fashion to "own" a composer at the time...

Did that business model change? I'm tempted to think, 'not'.

[rwguinn]

Wealthy Patrons.

It was the height of fashion to "own" a composer at the time...

Did that business model change? I'm tempted to think, 'not'.

It's just better disguised now...:D
A whore is a whore no matter what the work is...

[krelnik]

Less stick, more shtick... err, carrot.

That is very astute. The industry should be pursuing a carrot-and-stick approach to the problem, but they seem way more interested in building bigger sticks than providing compelling carrots.

Personally, a fantastic carrot for me would be better meta-data on digital downloads! I have a very diverse music collection, and I rely on meta data to slice and dice it in various ways. Mostly I use iTunes Smart Playlists, but this is applicable to whatever technology you use to manage your digital music collection.

Why is it that most of the time when I either download digitally or rip a CD, I have to spend upwards of half an hour correcting the track information on the tracks? Gracenote's database (http://www.gracenote.com/) (which is what iTunes and most of the services use) is full of the worst misinformation about disks. Simple things like what year something was recorded, or who wrote the song, is often wildly wrong or just missing. Usually at least one song title or other element on each disk is misspelled.

I would almost be willing to accept DRM on my tracks, if I could be guaranteed that I would get very rich and accurate meta-data on every track. And when I say rich, I mean really rich--something that goes way beyond what you get now. Things like:

Title, composer, date recorded, all completely accurate.
Full list of performers on each track, with accurate instrument info.
High-quality album artwork, and not just the front cover.
Full liner notes accessible, legible and searchable via each track.
Complete lyrics to the song embedded in the track.
Time-code the lyrics within the file so that I can sing along if I want.
Time-coded indications of which performer is doing each "solo" in the song.
Hyperlinking to all other recordings of the same song by the same artist.
Hyperlinking to all covers of the same song, and accurate info on who recorded it first and so on.
How about a free service that tells me when artists I've downloaded are going to be in my area based on this data? (Yes, I know these do (http://www.beethere.net/) already (http://www.last.fm/events/) exist (http://eventful.com/my/performers/import), but they are not being run by record companies and often have very incomplete data).This info amounts to a trivial amount of text in most cases, maybe a couple kilobytes of data in a 3 Meg digital download. But having it available makes your music collection so much more accessible and usable.

This is easily doable for a big record company. Its the kind of thing you can put a bunch of college interns on and they'd probably enjoy doing it. And it would be a MAJOR difference between digital downloads and CDs, that would provide a compelling carrot for folks to download their tracks via a legit service.

And yet, nobody does anything even close to this! Even the iTunes Music Store, the industry leader, has inaccurate meta data on most of its tracks. Emusic.com (http://www.emusic.com/), which I use alot because it doesn't use DRM, has crazily wrong data on some of its tracks. (Funniest one: "Various Artists" in the artist field on a single track download. C'mon guys, I know the disk as a whole is a compilation, but some individual must have recorded this track, is it so hard to track that down?).

It wasn't until just last April that lyrics were even available legally (http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSN2419515620070424) (through Yahoo Music via Gracenote) but only for a subset of tracks. (I don't think anyone does time-syncing yet, even though there are standards for doing this in various file formats).

This is my dream. In the meantime I'm going to continue to spend a bunch of time manually creating this info

--Tim Farley

[pipelineaudio]

That is very astute. The industry should be pursuing a carrot-and-stick approach to the problem, but they seem way more interested in building bigger sticks than providing compelling carrots.


You gotta take this on a case by case basis. There is no "the industry" to speak of. A lot of forward thinking people really do and did take a carrot approach, realizing the need to be VERY nice since this downloadable was a new, and rather scary thing for many, putting your credit card info on the net and such. Not many people took the carrot. The bigger record companies for the most part said "see? told you so!"

Personally, a fantastic carrot for me would be better meta-data on digital downloads! I have a very diverse music collection, and I rely on meta data to slice and dice it in various ways. Mostly I use iTunes Smart Playlists, but this is applicable to whatever technology you use to manage your digital music collection.

This is an important thing! Bands often do this, and quite well. The problem is apple, when they entered decided not to follow the existing protocols and pull a lot of sharky monopoly tactics with their ipods, pretty much requiring the non-tech savvy to run itunes instead of simple file transfers. Their system was not set up to use the already existing standardized metadata system that apps like audiograbber and winamp were pulling off.

I know in so many peoples' eyes Apple is the great liberator, the artistes' computer, sticking it to the man, etc...The truth is, they are meant to be easy, for smart and dumb alike, and as always, they toss out existing, working standards and replace them with proprietary half assed crap

Why is it that most of the time when I either download digitally or rip a CD, I have to spend upwards of half an hour correcting the track information on the tracks? Gracenote's database (http://www.gracenote.com/) (which is what iTunes and most of the services use) is full of the worst misinformation about disks. Simple things like what year something was recorded, or who wrote the song, is often wildly wrong or just missing. Usually at least one song title or other element on each disk is misspelled.

case in point ^



This is easily doable for a big record company. Its the kind of thing you can put a bunch of college interns on and they'd probably enjoy doing it. And it would be a MAJOR difference between digital downloads and CDs, that would provide a compelling carrot for folks to download their tracks via a legit service.

A lot of them ARE doing this, but if they dont want to cough up money for apple's proprietary stuff, it may not show up in there

(I don't think anyone does time-syncing yet, even though there are standards for doing this in various file formats).

What do you want time synced, and what time do you want it synced with? I will look into this

This is my dream. In the meantime I'm going to continue to spend a bunch of time manually creating this info

After you do, connect to winamp's database and share the corrections. You'll find that far more accurate and complete than itunes for the most part.

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer

That's certainly odd, seeing as how they say doing so is okay (as long it's for private, noncommercial use and you're not distributing the music online) on their own website. (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law)

[Brainster]

The solution to me is pretty obvious: Make the cost of downloading ridiculously cheap, maybe 25 cents a song or even less. Then when somebody wants to listen to a song, they don't bother searching through their CD/DVD collection, they just download it again. The internet makes such transactions reasonably painless. Not that I expect the industry to embrace this, mind you.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Although I believe Howell got screwed, I really ticks me off when journalists distort straightforward legal cases like this.

1. Howell was sued for transferring music on a legally purchased CD into a shared Kazaa folder on his computer.
2. Howell appeared pro-se and, through careless wording, effectively admitted to Atlantic's allegations while offering no evidence for his own.
3. The case was decided on existing case law. No precedent was set in the case.

a shared Kazaa folder? That does put a different completion on the case doesn't it?

Can we re-start this thread? :D

[tsg]

a shared Kazaa folder? That does put a different completion on the case doesn't it?

Only if he happened to be running Kazaa while they were in there. Otherwise it's just a directory on his hard drive.

[Gazpacho]

Only if he happened to be running Kazaa while they were in there. Otherwise it's just a directory on his hard drive.
or if Atlantic offers evidence that it found a folder full of music being shared over the internet from Howell's machine, which is what Atlantic did in this case.

[Damien Evans]

There's a few things about this.

In many places there are few or no small bars to play anymore. Once the nannies got rid of smoking, they went after volume. Some places can nail you for c weighted 85dB, thats a normal conversation. Also liability laws making bartenders into cops and psychic blood alcohol level meters put the nails in the coffin. Bartenders are just plain giving up.

Second, for the few bars that are left, the promoters ARE the problem. You would think the word itself meant they were promoting something but its not the case. With the bar attendance at a frightful low, these guys have convinced the bar owners that they are THE way to increase traffic, thus putting themselves in as a middleman between the bands and the clubs. Back when there WAS money there still wasn't usually enough to go around this far, but ...

Now the scam you will see most commonly with promoters is "pay to play" and "battle of the bands"

Lets say a club holds 200 people. Small place so normally there wouldn't be a cover charge...well.....Because its "battle of the bands" there WILL be a cover charge. Let's say for this example its five bucks per person. Each band will be given a number of tickets to sell, used to be 1/4 capacity usually but nowdays its almost invariably full capacity.

The band must "ensure patronage" by either handing the promoter the $1000 they sold the tickets for or hand the tickets back, at which point he will scream that "youll NEVER play one of my shows again". Now, it seems to me its the PROMOTER's job to bring people, not the band's job to sell ^%& tickets, but hey Im stupid like that.

At least in the old Starwood pay to play scams, you KNEW you could just hand the money to the club, and there was no pretense about selling tickets or "battle of the bands" nonsense

But wait it gets worse. There are five sets tonite. So, 200 tickets divided by five bands? At least that's doable right? WRONG. EACH band gets 200 tickets. That's $5000 dollars for the promoter for a night where in times past the band may have walked away with gas money, or at least not had to pay, but NOONE would have been getting any real money.

In the extremely unlikely chance that each band really sold all their tickets, the place would be over capacity and those who had prepaid but couldn't get in will be PISSED, and they can and do hold it against the band, not the club or the promoter.

This deck is stacked against the working band, quite obviously, so it is parents of younger bands who pay their way into these schemes. Its weird to see kid clubs so packed with parents, but at least it might be keeping one or two bars open

It certainly isn't paying any bills for the bands.




Your post would be a lot more interesting if this part in any way resembled reality.

[pipelineaudio]

Your post would be a lot more interesting if this part in any way resembled reality.

It sure as hell does in the USA

Nuts, even wiki has some on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_Play

"In music

Main article: Payola

The term also refers to a growing trend, where venue owners charge an up-front fee to performing artists for the use of their facilities. The practice began in Los Angeles, CA, during the 1980's. It has become common in many U.S cities at low-turnout all-ages shows where performers are required to guarantee a minimum attendance through pre-show ticket sales. reference, article"

ooops on you

http://www.wig-out.com/&pay-to-playBODOG.htm

oops

http://www.sonicbids.com/forum/topic_view.asp?topic_id=22354&page=2

oops

Before insinuating anything about my perception of reality, have a look outside

[Ove]

Well im glad i do not live in USA. Over here you CAN make a living playing live for people, i prefer to be the "happy amateur" and keep my day time job but i still make good money playing. :) To me, -us, -a lot of live bands, -the CD is a way of getting jobs. It is something we sell during our concerts (cheap) to make a few bobs for the band. But that goes for big stars too. Madonna has stated public that she doesn't mind illegal downloading, that it in fact has HELPED her. Boosted her concert sales and also ironically her CD sales. One of the biggest (moneywise) Danish bands make 50+ concerts every year, touring the whole land each summer. True, they make money from CD's too but their main income is their concerts. ALL their numbers are played live first and THEN recorded, -perhaps, which is the way it should be IMHO, even Dark Side of The Moon was played live first and then recorded.

I have said it before and i will repeat: "If illegal downloading kill performers like Britney, SPICE, etc. my eyes will be dry". I have no respect at all for those manager invented super styled money making "artists" and the world will be a better place without them....

[egslim]

I think a big part of the problem is that the consumer now has the ability to make perfect copies of the music, which he didn't have before the advent of burnable CDs.
Recorded music yes, live performance no. The whole music distribution industry only became viable with the advent of recording devices, now they have become obsolete again due to even more advanced recording devices.

Artists will simply have to go back to making their money from live performances, which are also great venues for selling CD's and other merchandise. Recorded musics will reduce from a cash cow to a form of advertising.

[tsg]

or if Atlantic offers evidence that it found a folder full of music being shared over the internet from Howell's machine, which is what Atlantic did in this case.

Have a link?

[Rob Lister]

The solution to me is pretty obvious: Make the cost of downloading ridiculously cheap, maybe 25 cents a song or even less. Then when somebody wants to listen to a song, they don't bother searching through their CD/DVD collection, they just download it again. The internet makes such transactions reasonably painless. Not that I expect the industry to embrace this, mind you.

Yours is the only post that addresses both the topic and the question asked:: what is [will be] the solution.

What technologies present today might enhance the results of your predictions beyond the way you simply stated them? What becomes of all the current Music Industry corporate madness? Lots of questions like that...

[volatile]

1. Musicians and bands that have regular day jobs and put together stuff in their spare time. Makes it tough to tour, though.

This already exists, in great magnitude. In every form of music that currently rests beyond the sanctioned tastes of the masses, there are hundreds of thousands of people playing stuff they love, touring to decent crowds and, yes, working day jobs.

The entire DIY punk scene works on this principle, and whilst the band members don't make any money from their craft, they are able to survive. There are countless bands who tour and play simply because they love to tour and play.

That's the future of the music industry - no major labels (who needs them these days anyway?), with real musicians playing the music they love to fans who love music. No superstars anymore, but vibrant local scenes and much greater craft and diversity in the stuff being performed and released.

[volatile]

That's certainly odd, seeing as how they say doing so is okay (as long it's for private, noncommercial use and you're not distributing the music online) on their own website. (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law)

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/31/record-industry-prac.html

"Record Industry Practices Revisionism"

[krelnik]

What do you want time synced, and what time do you want it synced with? I will look into this

I want:

(1) Text that can be displayed on your portable media player (PMP) or PC screen at a certain timecode in the song. This is for two uses:

(a) Lyrics appear as the song plays for a "karaoke" like effect. (Personally I don't want it for karaoke, I want it because I can't understand the darn singer and would like to know what was sung).

(b) Where applicable, when a soloist is playing in the track, I want a textual indication to appear indicating which soloist it is at that moment.

(2) Pictures synced in the same way. You could put album artwork that related to the song, or if it is a live track and there are still photos from the performance you can do that.

There is a spec for doing (1) in MP3 files, it is called SYLT and is part of the ID3 stuff. The only thing I've seen that supports it is a Winamp plugin from 3 years ago. An Apple patent filing from July (http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/07/20/apple-rocks-the-cat-box-with-synchronized-lyrics-patent-application) seems to indicate this may be in the pipeline for iTunes/iPod users.

I know for a fact that Apple's file format supports (2), because I've seen it used on podcasts to put photos on the iPod screen that relate to the discussion at the time. (From Apple's website: "Using the AAC file format, audio podcasts can include synchronized still images to create a narrated slideshow.") Of course, given (2) you could simulate (1) using text rendered into graphical form.

--Tim Farley

[69dodge]

That's certainly odd, seeing as how they say doing so is okay (as long it's for private, noncommercial use and you're not distributing the music online) on their own website. (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_ the_law)


I just read what you linked to. They don't quite say that it's okay to transfer music to your computer from a CD that you own. What they say is thatthere's no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of [a] CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concernsWhatever that's supposed to mean.

They also list, as something that is not allowed:You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.This seems to imply that making an MP3 copy is not allowed, in their opinion, even if it won't be put on the Internet, unless the CD "expressly permits you to do so".

[Wildy]

Well im glad i do not live in USA. Over here you CAN make a living playing live for people, i prefer to be the "happy amateur" and keep my day time job but i still make good money playing. :) To me, -us, -a lot of live bands, -the CD is a way of getting jobs. It is something we sell during our concerts (cheap) to make a few bobs for the band. But that goes for big stars too. Madonna has stated public that she doesn't mind illegal downloading, that it in fact has HELPED her. Boosted her concert sales and also ironically her CD sales. One of the biggest (moneywise) Danish bands make 50+ concerts every year, touring the whole land each summer. True, they make money from CD's too but their main income is their concerts. ALL their numbers are played live first and THEN recorded, -perhaps, which is the way it should be IMHO, even Dark Side of The Moon was played live first and then recorded.

I have said it before and i will repeat: "If illegal downloading kill performers like Britney, SPICE, etc. my eyes will be dry". I have no respect at all for those manager invented super styled money making "artists" and the world will be a better place without them....

It's actually a rather odd consequence. Some bands have found their audience growing because of people downloading their songs, and then they go to concerts of buy CDs etc.

When you hear about things like this it seems that the record labels are just annoyed that they can't control the downloading.

I think they are trying very hard to make sure that people care about those that you said you wouldn't care about (neither would I) because they aren't good (or even) musicians.

If there is one thing that I have found coming here, it would have to be that people here know what music is, which seems to be more then what the record companies do.

[Damien Evans]

It sure as hell does in the USA

Nuts, even wiki has some on this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_to_Play

"In music

Main article: Payola

The term also refers to a growing trend, where venue owners charge an up-front fee to performing artists for the use of their facilities. The practice began in Los Angeles, CA, during the 1980's. It has become common in many U.S cities at low-turnout all-ages shows where performers are required to guarantee a minimum attendance through pre-show ticket sales. reference, article"

ooops on you

http://www.wig-out.com/&pay-to-playBODOG.htm

oops

http://www.sonicbids.com/forum/topic_view.asp?topic_id=22354&page=2

oops

Before insinuating anything about my perception of reality, have a look outside

*looks outside* yep, you're still totally wrong. In case you don't get why, there is a bunch of letters to the right of the location bar which might help you

[AtomicMysteryMonster]

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/31/record-industry-prac.html

"Record Industry Practices Revisionism"

Interesting...it cites the same article that was shown to have distorted the reason Jeffrey Howell got taken to court. The person who said they supposed one could call copying "stealing" seems to only represent Sony and not the RIAA as a whole, altough I'd need to see the full documentation in order to verify this (and to make sure that the quote wasn't taken out of context).

The person who wrote the BoingBoing post is correct that the statement on the RIAA's website has changed. However, the basic idea that copying songs from CDs for personal use is okay along as long as you don't distribute them/use them for commercial purposes has not changed. Only the wording has.

I just read what you linked to. They don't quite say that it's okay to transfer music to your computer from a CD that you own.

One (and I'd guess it's the most common) way to transfer/convert songs from a CD to a CD-R is done by transferring songs to a computer's hard drive so that they can be converted into .mp3s and burned onto a CD-R. And, as you noted in the quote you posted, "...burning a copy of [a] CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won't usually raise concerns."

But, admittedly, they could have worded that a lot better if they were trying to say that "copying music to personal devices is okay as long as you don't share/distribute it" (which I suspect they are based on the context). Similarly, they could've worded the bit about no legal right to "...copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R" more clearly. I think (and this is just a guess based on my own feelings) they're trying to say that the ability to do so, although it's okay under Fair Use (unless you're distributing the music), is not the same as a right. I personally wouldn't compare the ability to make .mp3s for a mix CD to a person's to a fair trial (or free speech, etc.). But maybe someone with a better understanding of such things can clear this up for me if I'm wrong about this.

You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.

This seems to imply that making an MP3 copy is not allowed, in their opinion, even if it won't be put on the Internet, unless the CD "expressly permits you to do so".

Maybe. Based on everything else in that section of their website, I'm reading it as "CDs give you permission to make a copy, but you can't put the copy online." However, I could be wrong about this.

[Michael Redman]

They are intentionally not saying it's legal, just that it won't raise concerns. In other words, it's illegal, but we're not prosecuting. Yet.

Of course, just because they think it's illegal doesn't make it so.

I wonder if they realize that if they win this fight, no one will ever buy another CD.

[pipelineaudio]

ALL their numbers are played live first and THEN recorded, -perhaps, which is the way it should be IMHO, even Dark Side of The Moon was played live first and then recorded.

Let's get one thing in NO uncertain terms though. Dark Side of the Moon would NEVER, EVER have been made in today's conditions. That sort of expenditure would never have even been considered without a likely way to get some of the money back.

I have said it before and i will repeat: "If illegal downloading kill performers like Britney, SPICE, etc. my eyes will be dry". I have no respect at all for those manager invented super styled money making "artists" and the world will be a better place without them....

While a fun sentiment, what about all the other, good bands, who can't afford not to recoup?

[pipelineaudio]

Artists will simply have to go back to making their money from live performances, which are also great venues for selling CD's and other merchandise. Recorded musics will reduce from a cash cow to a form of advertising.

Live music is now a form of advertising and has been for quite some time. Alcohol companies figured this out long ago, but now other's are seeing it too.

Just as a reality check for all the "Its ok to steal CD's bands make their money live":

A professional tour COSTS a band money, it does not make money for them.

[pipelineaudio]

This already exists, in great magnitude. In every form of music that currently rests beyond the sanctioned tastes of the masses, there are hundreds of thousands of people playing stuff they love, touring to decent crowds and, yes, working day jobs.

The entire DIY punk scene works on this principle, and whilst the band members don't make any money from their craft, they are able to survive. There are countless bands who tour and play simply because they love to tour and play.

That's the future of the music industry - no major labels (who needs them these days anyway?), with real musicians playing the music they love to fans who love music. No superstars anymore, but vibrant local scenes and much greater craft and diversity in the stuff being performed and released.

That future died sometime around 1993.

The DIY punk scene went away when "the underground" did. With no circuit and no record stores, its a goner. Today's "punk" is pop40 aimed straight at the radio and financed by extremely rich parents living thru their kids

Its nice to see Maximum Rock And Roll hit their 25th anniversary, but as nice as it is to see them still here, theyre are no longer a real force, nor do they represent or report on anything very viable.

Luckily, self made punk IS one of those bennefiting from the internet. At least we can share stuff back and forth, and none of it will die forever because its on so many PC's now. Doesn't mean the makers will be able to continue, but neither will their work be lost.

[pipelineaudio]

*looks outside* yep, you're still totally wrong. In case you don't get why, there is a bunch of letters to the right of the location bar which might help you

Like I said, in the USA.

You are lucky things are the way they are in australia (they actually aren't as rosy as you paint), but it will only be a matter of time before these parasites get there

[Rob Lister]

Live music is now a form of advertising and has been for quite some time. Alcohol companies figured this out long ago, but now other's are seeing it too.

Just as a reality check for all the "Its ok to steal CD's bands make their money live":

A professional tour COSTS a band money, it does not make money for them.

dude, if I may, you are still trying to turn this into a moral issue. I think you are in the wrong forum. The only thing that matters is what good it is, or is not, for a particular business.

Clearly, 'stealing music' ain't good under the status quo.

Create -- though recommendation -- the new status quo.

[pipelineaudio]

dude, if I may, you are still trying to turn this into a moral issue. I think you are in the wrong forum. The only thing that matters is what good it is, or is not, for a particular business.

Clearly, 'stealing music' ain't good under the status quo.

Create -- though recommendation -- the new status quo.

You are right. Its hard for me to separate the two in my brain. But in this case the moral issue dictates the quality issue. We are losing our brain trust, FAST.

What will be left (as it pretty much is now) is nothing worth buying, so no business to have a business model of.

The hardest thing for me, is that one of the guys who signs my checks, is the same person nearly everyone holds responsible for the "file sharing killed the music business" idea. That was not his intention, and it would have happened sooner or later anyway.

It's only a matter of time till EVERYONE has a fast enough connection that even full quality video will be downloadable instantly. This isnt just music, its every type of intellectual property out there.

I LOVED the idea a few posts back about paying a quarter to watch something online. That's the kind of thinking we need going forward

Brainster, I nominate you to start your own media distribution company. You've got as much of a chance as anyone else, and finding you bands to sign up for your experiment wouldn't take me long at all

[Lithrael]

There's a few things about this.

Thanks for clearing up my misconceptions. It looks an awful lot like there's nowhere for pop music to go but amateur. There's got to be a better way than advertising for someone with good music to rise above a sea of mediocrity though.

[Prometheus]

Seems to me that the recording industry ought to be buying its way into ISP industry. Join the bandwidth auction, set up it's own ISP's that include free unlimited content downloading as a perk for buying your 'net connection from them.

As far as selling hard copies is concerned, package 'em with other stuff that's not so easily copied, like coupons that could be saved and exchanged for concert tickets or other band merchandise.

[pipelineaudio]

As far as selling hard copies is concerned, package 'em with other stuff that's not so easily copied, like coupons that could be saved and exchanged for concert tickets or other band merchandise.

Yup, tickets, stickers, and promo codes. People are doing this.

One that people rarely take advantage of, though it will be obsolete as download speeds increase, is using the tons of space left over for videos

If the average new album has 11 songs on it at 3:25 a piece, there is aquite a bit left over for medium quality video

[volatile]

While a fun sentiment, what about all the other, good bands, who can't afford not to recoup?

There are hundreds, if not thousands or hundreds of thousands, of bands who produce music, tour and make a small but decent living entirely outside of the major label system. None of those bands "recoup", at least not in the way you mean, but they're all still out there, playing to good size crowds every night of the week. Punk bands, jazz bands, rockabilly bands, zydeco bands, hip-hop artists, electronic DJs, those performing dub, jungle and drum and bass, many good (even great), not many of them profitable, most of them heartfelt, genuine and passionate.

Most of these bands don't want to be signed, they just want to play music. The current system makes that harder, and good riddance to it, frankly.

There is no truth at all in the major label line that people would stop making music if they weren't paid to do so, as the entire existence of independent musicians proves them wrong several times a day.

[bigred]

I actually think the value of the producer, the mixer, the promoter and possibly the babysitter is at least as important, if not more important, then the artists that make the music :boggled:


One possible solution is to partially follow the broadcast TV model. Stick advertisments in every song!
I hope that was a joke......

I agree with screw the RIAA, personally, but as to a solution, I'm amazed they haven't been able to simply come up with technical ways to prevent people from "ripping" CDs. But then there would still be the issue of selling individual tunes online....

[bigred]

I'm stating what I think to be the truth of the matter -- that being: the original artists are a dime-a-dozen compared to the talent behind the scenes that mints a million.

OK now I better understand your initial comment regarding so-called "artists" - ie the ones who put out unoriginal, low-grade crapola that's the musical equivelent of cotton candy (at best) - and is all about form with precios little substance or requiring much at all in the way of talent - which, sadly, does describe a great deal of what's out there now...certainly the bulk of what's popular IMO.

No model I can see stops this, so die like pigs, IMO, and good riddance.

But actually, they won't "die" - this puts a dent in the music industry, but that's all it does. It won't kill the beast.

[volatile]

That future died sometime around 1993.

The DIY punk scene went away when "the underground" did. With no circuit and no record stores, its a goner. Today's "punk" is pop40 aimed straight at the radio and financed by extremely rich parents living thru their kids

Its nice to see Maximum Rock And Roll hit their 25th anniversary, but as nice as it is to see them still here, theyre are no longer a real force, nor do they represent or report on anything very viable.

I beg to differ. Indeed, I guess YMMV, but in Leeds in the UK, for example, there are good (and some great) local and touring bands playing to decent crowds most nights in many genres, all coalescing around an independent punk ethos (though not necessarily a punk "sound", whatever that might have come to mean).

I'm a naive optimist, but I can see that as global pop megastardom becomes less and less viable, local music becomes more and more attractive. Not lucrative, of course, but attractive.

I guess that's at the heart of things, really. Yes, the age of the rich musician are over (but have been for a long time, even under the label system), but that resolutely does not mean that people will stop making, or performing, music. Is that a bad thing?

[bigred]

On a side note when will the RIAA sue Microsoft or those people who own Realplayer for having the software that allows you to convert songs on CDs into a digital format?
When they can afford it.

Gotta love the consistency of their stance eh :cool:


The solution to me is pretty obvious: Make the cost of downloading ridiculously cheap, maybe 25 cents a song or even less. Then when somebody wants to listen to a song, they don't bother searching through their CD/DVD collection, they just download it again. The internet makes such transactions reasonably painless. Not that I expect the industry to embrace this, mind you.
Sorry but I don't see how this makes any sense. It's easier to double-click on a song on my PC than it is to download it - it's also quicker and oh btw, free. What possible incentive would I have to pay even 5 cents to do otherwise?

[pipelineaudio]

If there is no place to play then there is not much playing going on. Things are somewhat different in the UK, but not THAT different. Our DIY's can no longer go there to tour unless they have LOADS of money saved up to do it.

Most of the memes you are describing are nearing 15 or 20 years old, and this discussion is a lot like talking with a creationist who is still pulling the "where's the missing link" canards.

Trying to blame "the system" or "the man" or "the industry" really misses the whole point

[volatile]

If there is no place to play then there is not much playing going on. Things are somewhat different in the UK, but not THAT different. Our DIY's can no longer go there to tour unless they have LOADS of money saved up to do it.

Most of the memes you are describing are nearing 15 or 20 years old, and this discussion is a lot like talking with a creationist who is still pulling the "where's the missing link" canards.

Trying to blame "the system" or "the man" or "the industry" really misses the whole point

I'm not "blaming the man", I'm just pointing out to you that musicians will play music whether they are making money from it or not... Music does not have to be financially rewarding.

You implied that without a check on illegal downloading, "good bands, who can't afford not to recoup" would, well, what? Stop making music? Stop touring? The very fact that tiny bands from Washington or Tokyo or Melbourne will come and play the back room of a pub in Leeds on a cold Wednesday in February for not much more than a hot meal and 3 square feet of floor space proves you wrong. Furthermore, if you aren't recording your album on a label advance, what exactly is there to "recoup" anyway? Most bands I know are mastering their own stuff on sub-$1000 equipment that they'd have bought even if they weren't in bands!

Whilst the "memes" might be old, that's because they are true. Most bands outside of the label system don't make any money from being musicians, but play music anyway, because they love playing music. full stop. Touring bands are, for the most part, live on subsistence wages under no pretences (or even desires) to crack the "big time", and even those who do manage to get a major label deal rarely walk away from the situation financially better than they were before.

Downloading might kill the music industry, but those bands who were never part of the industry anyway don't lose anything at all as far as I can see, and in fact have a lot to gain from a de-stratified system of music consumption.

[Damien Evans]

Like I said, in the USA.

You are lucky things are the way they are in australia (they actually aren't as rosy as you paint), but it will only be a matter of time before these parasites get there

I missed the part where you said USA. My mistake.

[blutoski]

I'm not "blaming the man", I'm just pointing out to you that musicians will play music whether they are making money from it or not... Music does not have to be financially rewarding.

It doesn't have to be, but it's the difference between a profession and a hobby.

I'm a session worker - my job is to provide fiddle music for bands that do not actually have a fiddle player. I make money by sitting in the studio, but I can't go on tour because I can't afford it. If these smaller bands can't sell albums, but have to support themselves by doing gigs, there's no money in it, and they will simply stop, as will I, because I *have* no performance.

I also do arrangements for bands like this, and again, their motivation comes in two varieties: financial or religious.

I would estimate that if the financial incentive was removed from music, 90% would stop being able to tour (the purpose of a tour is to increase local album sales), and 99% would stop doing quality recordings, probably over half would stop recording altogether.

In the music world, performance is considered a headache. You have to be exposed to smoky bars, drunks who get up on stage, or worse. But it's worth it if it sells albums. Otherwise, as a rewarding effort, I rank it down there with waiting tables. I suppose there are people who would wait on tables for free, but is this something you see a lot of?

[volatile]

It doesn't have to be, but it's the difference between a profession and a hobby.

I'm a session worker - my job is to provide fiddle music for bands that do not actually have a fiddle player. I make money by sitting in the studio, but I can't go on tour because I can't afford it. If these smaller bands can't sell albums, but have to support themselves by doing gigs, there's no money in it, and they will simply stop, as will I, because I *have* no performance.

I also do arrangements for bands like this, and again, their motivation comes in two varieties: financial or religious.

I would estimate that if the financial incentive was removed from music, 90% would stop being able to tour (the purpose of a tour is to increase local album sales), and 99% would stop doing quality recordings, probably over half would stop recording altogether.

In the music world, performance is considered a headache. You have to be exposed to smoky bars, drunks who get up on stage, or worse. But it's worth it if it sells albums. Otherwise, as a rewarding effort, I rank it down there with waiting tables. I suppose there are people who would wait on tables for free, but is this something you see a lot of?

There are plenty of amateur fiddle players who both perform and tour for little to no money. In fact, as I keep pointing out, there are plenty of musicians of any and every stripe who currently tour for little to no money, because they enjoy it. I would hazard to guess that most small bands playing local shows are in this position at the moment, but they still do it. Why, if they all hate it as much as you claim? They certainly aren't selling hundreds of records - hell, a lot touring punk bands already give their music away for free as MP3s. I know dozens of musicians, from (yes) fiddle players to bongo drummers who play night after night in town after town just because they want to. They don't make money from CD sales, and the door money from their gigs just about pays their food bills. They work as writers, web designers and even postmen to pay the rent and to afford to fund the next tour because they love playing music.

That is not to devalue music, it is to de-commodify it - those who love to make and perform music will continue to do so, even with little financial incentive, as that's what they do already! The "music industry" dying, or the death of the CD format, won't affect most of the working bands in the UK or the US one iota; at least not those who are really passionate about what they do. It seems strange to decry the lack of financial incentive for musicians disappearing when there hasn't really *ever* been one for the vast majority of those who play music.

As for professional session players, I don't know that many that I can comment, really. The ones I do know already also play in touring bands and run and promote club nights, and all seem to have found the niches they need to inhabit to survive.

I don't see what the alternative is, Blutoski, frankly. You're like King Canute if you think you can turn back the tide...

[Prometheus]

Sidenote for anyone interested: There's a lot of really good (and unfortunately also a lot of not so good) live recordings of small-time bands available free to download in the Live Music Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/etree)

[pipelineaudio]

The "music industry" dying, or the death of the CD format, won't affect most of the working bands in the UK or the US one iota;

What year do you think you are living in?

[volatile]

What year do you think you are living in?

As I said, YMMV, but I know hundreds of people in touring bands. There are bands playing every pub in Leeds, nearly every night of the week. My girlfriend's a touring burlesque dancer, so we get to see working bands at close quarters most nights of the week.

I don't quite know what you're arguing. There are lots of amateur musicians who play, record and tour music for no financial gain. There always have been and always will be, . The loss of "financial incentive" will have no effect on their desire to make music, as they had no financial incentive to start with.

Do you dispute that?

[Ove]

Volatile: HEAR HEAR :) I am one of those musicians. The music will never die, the music INDUSTRY might, and so what?

Blutoski: i can see your problem but if you wanted you could get gigs around to add to your income (off course i don't know your style) and you could get a regular job to earn a living. Music, to me, is meant to be played live, that is the purpose of music. Either you give people a good experience at a concert or you get them dancing all night long to a party. The industrial production of music started at Tin Pan Alley and continued by people like Chinn/Chapmann - Stock/Aitken/Watermann and more is a thing i can live without -and so can the world.

But here a quick take on just this situation :) http://www.foxtrot.com/

[bigred]

As I said, YMMV, but I know hundreds of people in touring bands. There are bands playing every pub in Leeds, nearly every night of the week. My girlfriend's a touring burlesque dancer, so we get to see working bands at close quarters most nights of the week.

I don't quite know what you're arguing. There are lots of amateur musicians who play, record and tour music for no financial gain. There always have been and always will be, . The loss of "financial incentive" will have no effect on their desire to make music, as they had no financial incentive to start with.

Do you dispute that?

Depending on your definition of "lots," I sure do. I've known a # of musicians in my life as well and I think I can safely say precious few if any would tour or do gigs for "little to no money" - in fact I can guarantee almost none would play for NO money or just enough to cover gas for the van and dinner.

But having said that, also I'd say very few make much if anything on CD sales either - hell most don't even come out with albums. So as far as the mom n pop musicians, no, I don't see this impacting them very much.

[bigred]

Volatile: HEAR HEAR :) I am one of those musicians. The music will never die, the music INDUSTRY might, and so what? :confused: Are you serious? There's a lot great music and musicians most people would have never otherwise heard over quite a few years, that's so what. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Music, to me, is meant to be played live, that is the purpose of music. I agree there's nothing like a live performance, but it's not exactly the most practical way to listen to music, and it's safe to say most people's listening experience is via recorded music - so again the "music industry," in one way or the other, is extremely important.

[blutoski]

There are plenty of amateur fiddle players who both perform and tour for little to no money. In fact, as I keep pointing out, there are plenty of musicians of any and every stripe who currently tour for little to no money, because they enjoy it. I would hazard to guess that most small bands playing local shows are in this position at the moment, but they still do it. Why, if they all hate it as much as you claim? They certainly aren't selling hundreds of records - hell, a lot touring punk bands already give their music away for free as MP3s. I know dozens of musicians, from (yes) fiddle players to bongo drummers who play night after night in town after town just because they want to. They don't make money from CD sales, and the door money from their gigs just about pays their food bills. They work as writers, web designers and even postmen to pay the rent and to afford to fund the next tour because they love playing music. That is not to d