backtop

Internet 2007: A Bad Year To Be a Music Exec
Tom Corelis (Blog) - January 5, 2008 5:12 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 114 comment(s) - last by mikeyD95125.. on Jan 9 at 12:39 AM
Brick-and-mortar music sales crushed under the boot of a maturing digital menace

2007 was a dry year for music sales, echoing the larger year-to-year trend of an industry’s struggle with changing times.

The numbers are brutal, according to Nielsen Soundscan’s recently-released annual report: U.S. album sales are down by over 15 percent, and digital music sales – while positive – slowed as well, showing a measly 2 percent increase as compared to 2006’s triumphant 19 percent jump.

Christmastime is a usually a strong holiday for the music business, but this year the season proved less than merry: whereas 2006 saw 31.3 million albums sold, 2007 saw 25.6 million in sales – a 19 percent drop.

Together, total yearly sales plummeted to 500.5 million units.

Experts attribute a variety of reasons for 2007’s decline: a lack of big hits to drive sales, piracy and competing forms of entertainment, like videogames.

“I was astounded: There was no CD to give as a gift,” says Mike Dreese, CEO of Brighton, Massacheusets-based Newbury Comics. “I have never seen that before.”

Dreese attributes his stores' slump to a combination of the aforementioned factors as well as bad luck. With heavy snow and a New England Patriots game, Dreese saw an 80% drop on sales on a traditionally high-volume weekend.

Dreese’s statements seem to mirror the sentiments of other retailers around the nation. While Omaha-based Homer’s Music and Gifts expected the usual December weather, company president Mike Fratt says that shootings at a local mall “led everyone into a malaise for about a week.”

Some experts think the music industry squandered its time and goodwill in the battle against digital distribution, with the results ending up as the loss of “a whole generation of kids,” said industry attorney Kenneth Kraus.

Kraus, a partner at Nashville-based Loeb & Loeb, thinks it may be a good five years before the industry is able to recover, hopefully by enacting a pricing system that gives fans the freedom of legally downloading music without restrictions.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
..
By Mithan on 1/5/2008 5:37:53 PM , Rating: 5
Is this a surprise with all the crap out there this year as far as music goes?

As for sales, perhaps if the music industry could get their shit together and start capitalizing on the music downloads instead of fighting it, they could turn things around.




RE: ..
By Wagnbat on 1/5/2008 5:44:12 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising at all really... There honestly has not been much in the manner of notable albums this year. A couple singles yes, but not the phenomenal albums of the year that most are used to.

Combine that with services like Napster offering unlimited downloads of those singles, and I can easily see how industry sales are down overall.


RE: ..
By FITCamaro on 1/5/2008 7:31:01 PM , Rating: 5
I also think the sales are down because as long as the music industry vehemently goes after people for the slightest infraction, people will be pissed at them and more likely to pirate. Who wants to buy music when the record companies will try to sue you for making a copy onto your own computer?

I don't pirate music but I also haven't bought a CD in years.


RE: ..
By Odeen on 1/5/2008 8:39:44 PM , Rating: 5
Indeed.

A few years ago, I thought it was a matter of paying according to your monetary means on one hand and your technological sophistication on the other.

Now, any cent spent on major-label (i.e. RIAA-affiliated) music goes directly to feeding the enemy - the cabal that will use the money that I've given it to sue me. This is why anyone who has ever taped a song off the radio (never mind burned a CD, or used P2P software) should avoid paying for major label music if at all possible - because they will use the money to find you and sue you.

Please note that I'm NOT advocating not paying for music. Support independent artists, the ones who play in your local clubs and then stay around sell and sign CD's. The ones who you can actually talk to after the set. The ones to whom you alone represent a much larger percentage of fanbase.

I went to see The Bobs in late December of last year. During the break between the sets I happy picked up a copy of their latest album, "Get Your Monkey Off My Dog" and the career retrospective DVD "Sign My Snarling Movie." I knew where the money was going to go, and it was my way to make sure that I'd get to see The Bobs again sometime in 2008.

Please consult a list of RIAA-affiliated music labels (as well as labels that have been incorrectly listed as RIAA members) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_l...


RE: ..
By Spuke on 1/5/2008 10:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please consult a list of RIAA-affiliated music labels (as well as labels that have been incorrectly listed as RIAA members) here:
Wow! That's pretty much everyone. LOL!


RE: ..
By mikeyD95125 on 1/9/2008 12:39:32 AM , Rating: 1
Aw not Fat Wreck.....

Are you sure that list is accurate. That would be mean NOFX is just a bunch a bullshitters. Which is disappointing because they are my favorite bands.


RE: ..
By BladeVenom on 1/6/2008 7:11:05 AM , Rating: 5
No need to stop buying CDs if you don't like the RIAA. Just use www.riaaradar.com to make sure your not supporting them.


RE: ..
By Regs on 1/5/2008 8:22:04 PM , Rating: 5
When TV commercials are using music from the 70's and 80's, you know there is a problem.

Back then, all you had to do is walk in and demo your music to a recording studio. Now you need an agency, a manager, a publicist, a tour coordinator, full time make up artist, and tons of lawyers to figure out the tremendous red tape for TV and music contracts because of ridiculous law suites and contract battles.

It could also be that parents or retail stores now have become more enforceable in not selling adult content to minors. Hence another reason why minors have likely been pirating.

Radio stations suck. Sorry. I can't find current music on any of them worth listening too. The play the same songs over and over again any they no longer play music for the "niche" crowds. They also have to have a 20 min commercial every 5 minutes likely just to afford the royalties they have to pay to such people as Britney spears and the rest of the boy bands who work for big time agencies who take a good 20% chunk.

Kids who play instruments. God bless them and their talents but you just don't see them as much as you did back then. Maybe I'm hanging around the wrong places, but I'm starting to think teenagers rather play Cyrsis than play the drums or guitar. How many bands do you see today on a major record? The band no longer exists. Take U2, Smashing Pumpkins, or Nirvana for an example. Remember how we could actually identify who the lead base guitar was or the drummer was? You don't see much of that today.

We need musicians, not just singers and performers. One's that write their own music from their hearts and experiences. Agencies and marketers have too much influence now on today's musicians in what they sing, write, or play. It's a damn shame.


RE: ..
By Regs on 1/5/2008 8:36:49 PM , Rating: 5
And one more thing. Music will never go away. It's been a part of our culture since the beginning. These "troubled" times is just the balancing of what has become a corrupted commercial commodity.

So let the bad go out of business. What will be left in the wake is a group of entrepreneurs with a better understanding of how to make and sell music.


RE: ..
By TSS on 1/6/2008 6:45:31 PM , Rating: 5
there's another perspective to consider, namely the influence that culture of mediocre singers backed up by nameless bans has on future artists.

my dad i's a composer, of classical music. he went to music college for about 6 years studying music theory and all that. he has a website now, with sheet music on it (doing wquite well, actually) both of great classical artists as well as his own. so i've asked him if anybody ever sends in work for review, to ask his opinion or maybe to list it on the website.

basicly his awnser is he doesn't do that anymore. there have been people sending him their work, the problem is it's not nearly good enough. he has looked at sheet of music of people who have been writing songs for years, with flaws in the very first line, multiple even. music is a very intricate thing. now, i don't expect any artist in what my dad calls "the popular industry" to do such a thorough research... but you have people who know nothing of it at all writing songs, or people who do know but are beeing dictated what to write.

there might be so much "crap" on tv, but you need to define crap. for me, that definition would not be something like idols, but idols 2,3,4 and 5. when you make a cd with 12 songs on them, with 3 new ones and 9 filler of old stuff you arleady knew of with artists you completly don't know or don't want to know, that would be defined crap no matter the greatness of those 3 songs. who, by the way, will appear on the original album, the single, the remix, and on the greatests hits album. and they tell us not to copy *cough*.

i'd say, pirate by all means. isn't that stealing? kinda. but musician never was a occupation you made money with to begin with, aside for street performances. my dad knew he would never, or atleast for very long, make money with composing music. it took him 30 years and the invention of the internet to make not even a fraction of what these guys make a month, and he damn well works much frickin harder, that i know for sure.

all the bands we now call great, never started out for greatness. all of them liked to play, they just happened to find a lot of people that liked to listen. there is hardly anybody left who works that way, simply because the record company's will not give you a deal that way and you don't have a way to promote your music some way else (or they don't have enough knowledge of teh internets).

they know that too. but as long as people are payin, it's all good.


RE: ..
By Proteusza on 1/7/2008 5:03:09 AM , Rating: 3
As I've said before, the RIAA doesnt sell music as much as it sells personalities.


RE: ..
By tdawg on 1/5/2008 9:48:44 PM , Rating: 3
It can be a problem finding good music to listen to. I suggest listening to KEXP (www.kexp.org), paying attention to SXSW (South by Southwest) in Austin every year, and give a music subscription service a try in order to broaden your search for good music. Even MySpace has some good music. It really depends on what genre you're looking for, but KEXP and SXSW offer a wide range of talented bands/artists and a wide variety of music without resorting to radio singles and the same tracks over and over.


RE: ..
By Hare on 1/6/2008 4:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think ultimately radio will turn into something like pandora or last.fm. Music genome projects are interesting and the concept of listening to music that's similar to your own favorite bands is great.


RE: ..
By Icepick on 1/6/2008 3:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
It depends upon the market you're in. In upstate NY and Vermont the best station is 102.7 WEQX. That is one of the last independently owned and operated radio stations in the country and they play modern alternative rock almost exclusively with plenty of alternative gems from the 80's and 90's thrown in. I think that since they are not part of a corporate conglomerate they are free to take chances with new bands that are not necessarily "main-stream". WEQX and NPR are the only radio stations I listen to now.


RE: ..
By tdawg on 1/7/2008 2:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in the same boat, Icepick. KEXP based out here in Seattle is an amazing independent radio station. No commercials every five minutes. And it is streamed live on their website, provides several podcasts and a reviewable playlist with on-demand listening. Along with NPR, it's basically the only station I listen to.


RE: ..
By zsdersw on 1/7/2008 7:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
I miss The Smashing Pumpkins. Fortunately, I have most of their CDs in my car's CD changer. :) Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness is my favorite.


RE: ..
By shabby on 1/5/2008 10:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
With the talent pool shrinking im not surprised at all, majority of these "musicians" are nothing more than entertainers with no vocals.


RE: ..
By Christopher1 on 1/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: ..
By Chadder007 on 1/6/2008 5:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. 2007 was IMO the worst year ever in music. There was nothing of interest to me to purchase or even listen to on the radio for that matter.


RE: ..
By zsdersw on 1/7/2008 6:43:50 AM , Rating: 2
That won't stop them from having an awards show or fifty.. which says as much about the people giving the awards as those receiving them.


RE: ..
By AlexWade on 1/7/2008 9:05:29 AM , Rating: 2
Not surprising to me. I haven't bought a CD in over 2 years. I am going to buy Paul McCartney's Back in the US live, but I'm buying it used not new. I do, however, subscribe to eMusic.com. eMusic.com has lots of original music, but never from the evil Big 4. Be that as it may, eMusic.com also has some of the lame pop that made me buy a XM radio subscription.

It is very bad when a rocker who first started writing music before I was born is the only artist on the Big 4 labels I'll even consider.


RE: ..
By PWNettle on 1/8/2008 5:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I like many genres of music and there just isn't much worth buying lately, especially with the garbage passing for harder rock lately. I can't even listen to the local hard rock radio station anymore since all they play is highly commercialized and repetitive emo-rock cheese that's basically just a different form of pop music with low tuned distored guitars.

If they were to lower the prices on overpriced CDs they'd probably sell more units.


piracy? pfft.
By wwwebsurfer on 1/5/2008 5:42:24 PM , Rating: 5
Piracy is just a huge scapegoat. While I agree that it's a problem, I still stand on the side that if the music is worth a crap people will go out and buy a new CD. The root problem of the industry is that you have the most popular segment advocating crime, racism, and bigotry -- how can you expect to sell more records legally? Compound this problem with an overly liberal RIAA who thinks if 2 people are riding in the car you should have to purchase 2 licenses to hear it and you've got a HUGE recipe for failure.

Frankly I think the only solution is to deregulate and embrace technology instead of continuing to fight it. Why can't I walk into a FYE, plug up my MP3 player, and buy tracks for 89 cent DRM free? If I can get it on Amazon for $6 shipped to my door why do I have to pay $17 at the B&M? Sell me a cup of coffee and cut down the CD prices.

INNOVATE OR DIE, and I for one wish they would just die a little quieter.




RE: piracy? pfft.
By Alexstarfire on 1/5/2008 6:00:47 PM , Rating: 3
Yep, and that's the problem. Several SINGLES are great, but then you take a look at the rest of the album and it's horrible. I also don't support DRM. It doesn't stop the real pirates. I just want good quality songs that I can do what I want with, and are cheap. Hard to find without pirating sometimes.


RE: piracy? pfft.
By Christopher1 on 1/5/2008 11:46:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Several SINGLES are great, but then you take a look at the rest of the album and it's horrible.


That is the best quote of all time right there. I have bought albums from artists where I have thought "This song is good! All of their songs must be good!".... Only to be proven absolutely WRONG!

I remember a soundtrack for a movie that was done mainly by one artist..... One song was good, the others absolutely sucked.
I thought "Oh, it's a movie soundtrack, usually one good song, the rest are trash.... I'll buy his next album."

I bought it..... worst regret of my life, and the only time when I returned an open CD and DEMANDED my money back, I wouldn't even take store credit for the trash.


RE: piracy? pfft.
By 80Morphine on 1/6/2008 2:37:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The root problem of the industry is that you have the most popular segment advocating crime, racism, and bigotry -- how can you expect to sell more records legally?

/me stands up and claps.

Get pregnant at 15, shave your head, abuse your children, use bad language, do drugs, smoke, drink, cheat, steal, and fight...BUT BUY YOUR MUSIC LEGALLY!


By SteelyKen on 1/5/2008 8:34:08 PM , Rating: 3
I can only speak for myself, but when I bought my first computer in 1998 my cd purchases nearly stopped completely.
I was a member of BMG and Columbia clubs and never made another purchase.
Was piracy to blame? NO. Napster didn't even exist then. It was simply music lost its mystique and all my entertainment money went towards the computer and related software.
For me, music was never again worth the money charged for it.




By Spuke on 1/5/2008 10:08:44 PM , Rating: 3
Interesting that you say that but I started cutting way back around the same time. Now I haven't bought a CD in a few years and I don't plan on buying one anytime soon. I only buy singles from iTunes and Amazon (DRM free tracks) now.


By FITCamaro on 1/5/2008 11:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the music I like is at least 10 years old and I can hear it on the radio.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/7/2008 2:52:02 AM , Rating: 2
I'm perhaps in the minority here, but the amount of music I've been purchasing has increased substantially in the last 5 years. Admittedly a major cause of this is that I'm now working full time instead of being a student so I can actually afford to buy more stuff, but either way I'm still buying more. I also like a LOT of stuff that's being made in the last 5-10 years, in fact I would say that from 2000 to 2006 was probably the best period for music ever IMO.

A few things though. First off, 2007 was a bit of an off year as compared to the previous 6. I think I only purchased a single 2007 CD all year (Neon Bible by Arcade Fire), though there are at least 2 or 3 others that I would like to purchase. This is definitely down from the 5-10 albums I wanted from the previous few years.

Second, the trend away from the big 4 continues. Looking at the Info Week article quoted here you can find that the percentage of sales from non-big 4 companies increased from 12.7% in 2006 to 13.4% in 2007.

Third, it wasn't all bad news. Again from the article, sales of single downloaded tracks was up 45% year over year. The fact that on-line album sales were up only 2.4% but on-line single sales were up 45% tends to point to what some have mentioned, music this year was full of a number of good singles but very few good albums.


By robinthakur on 1/7/2008 7:07:15 AM , Rating: 2
I've not bought a CD since 1997 (apart from multiple copies of MJ's album in 2001) and have downloaded all my music since then. Most albums I download I won't even listen to, and those that I do, I only listen to a couple of tracks and then delete the rest. No DRM, simple, done. I do have an iTunes account and occasionally buy stuff on there (7 tracks in 5 years, so very occasionally). I must say that I do consider this a true WASTE of money as I rebuild my computers so regularly that one day the songs will just stop working because you can only tie it to so many different computers. I'd much rather just download the music, that way there are no limitations, which as a consumer is the ideal situation. I also don't pay to go see the artists live as I normally get decent seats for free due to my contacts. However if I didn't get free tickets, I would probably pay for them.

My ten cents.


they asked for it
By MrGuitar on 1/5/2008 6:36:30 PM , Rating: 4
giving paris hilton "someone with no musical talent or experience" a record deal and expecting it to do well is a pretty big problem with the industry. they could have easily just found an up and comer or a band with what it takes, but they just screw the consumer in every way they can.

being a guitar player, i was pretty upset when they started closing tab sites. at that moment i said i would never support THEM but instead just support the bands.
i listen to metal music, one of the few that doesnt rely on huge record labels, and actually thrives through distrobution by torrents. if it werent for torrents i wouldnt know a fraction of the bands i do now to even get thier albums, or go to shows.

when i think major scale record labels the first thing that comes to mind is some sort of mob movie gone wrong.




RE: they asked for it
By Gnoad on 1/5/2008 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
The day they shut down mxtabs.com I almost cried. How is it wrong that I learn to play one of my favorite songs on guitar for my own enjoyment?


RE: they asked for it
By Missing Ghost on 1/6/2008 10:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
I listen to metal too. 95% of my music library (100GB) is not from RIAA-affiliated bands or labels. Most of it comes from bittorent, FTP, The Web. If I wanted to buy it legally, I would not be able to, because it's not available in stores. The way you can get some of it is by mail or web order directly from the record labels. Older stuff, you can search for it for hours in small resale shops or ebay. Finally the only way to get a lot of stuff is to download it... I have no other choice.


RE: they asked for it
By Sulphademus on 1/7/2008 3:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
KMFDM.net

Buy KMFDM & CombiChrist, ect, right there. BAM! (with your spice weasel) And there you have it, music straight from the musicians at a reasonable cost.


Look out! Videogames!
By dflynchimp on 1/5/2008 11:38:56 PM , Rating: 5
for those keeping score this year, videogames are now responsible for:

The Virginia Tech Shooting (ty Jack Thompson)
The lackluster takes at the box office
The decline in the music industry.

never misses a chance, do they...




RE: Look out! Videogames!
By Icepick on 1/6/2008 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
haha

You're missing declining ratings on network and cable TV. Execs have been trying to blame video games for that too. I say - good.


RE: Look out! Videogames!
By onwisconsin on 1/6/2008 10:11:53 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, people really want to see shitty movies but they were too busy playing Halo 3!


Cry mich ein river
By Darkefire on 1/5/2008 5:40:19 PM , Rating: 5
It's tough to feel sorry for these people when they've had so much time to get with the program. The instant that Napster became an overnight success, the music industry should have been putting together the groundwork for a digital distribution network while they squashed out piracy. At that early stage in the internet downloading era, the deep pockets of the industry could have offered faster speeds at competitive rates, which would have been a preemptive strike against Napster's replacements, like Kazaa and WinMX. They could have bought these technologies, adapted them, made them better, and people would have paid for them. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand and stubbornly stick to the brick and mortar sales, spending precious loose cash on substandard DRM and lawsuits instead of fighting on the modern battlefield.

Now, they've all but screwed themselves over. Bandwidth has gotten so cheap that Joe Sixpack can afford to download incredible amounts of data over a short period of time. Services like Rapidshare can offer nigh-unlimited hosting for relatively no cost to the end-user, rendering P2P nearly obsolete. The juggernaut of Bittorrent makes everyone a bandwidth provider. There's no incentive to buy from the music industry, because whatever you can get from them can be had for faster and better with a little bit of searching, and come DRM free along with its price tag of $0. Apple made a good attempt, but their efforts are still only a tiny drop compared to the oceans of free music and movies out there. Instead of learning to play with the big boys, the music industry took its ball home, sulked, then complained to Mom about how unfair it was.

The era of corporate suits controlling entertainment is rapidly drawing to a close. We have the power to bypass them, supercede them, and ultimately forget them. Until they realize this and adapt, they are the dinosaurs, we are the small little mammals scurrying around, and the internet is the big honking comet bearing down on their world.




RE: Cry mich ein river
By Muirgheasa on 1/5/2008 7:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't have said it better; any impartial observer would say that the music industry has squandered one of the biggest new markets they'll get for quite some time. I sometimes wonder what kind of person has the power to make these decisions and doesn't. What's wrong with these people?


RE: Cry mich ein river
By Christopher1 on 1/5/2008 11:42:12 PM , Rating: 1
They are old dinosaurs who don't like to change. You apparently did realize the battle it took to get the record industry into CD's, did you?

Man, it took LOTS of whining, begging and finally, THREATENING, by the artists to get them to switch to putting stuff out on CD's.

The recording industry is like any other industry, excepting the personal computer industry. They don't like change, think change is bad, and think that any change is going to lead to lost sales from the 'older generation' who aren't really the ones who buy all the music and weren't 20 years ago even.


Record industry losing control.
By ice456789 on 1/6/2008 12:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
This is entirely about control for the RIAA, and they're losing it. In the past few decades the music industry has been controlled by those who can market music the best. It's all about who can have the flashiest video, who can have the hottest singer, who can have the best dancer. Notice I didn't mention the music. The most marketable people are the ones who got the contracts, and therefor those are the ones we listened to. The RIAA fights music sharing on the internet because it is leveling the playing field. The internet provides a way for us to listen to music that has not gone through the MTV filter, music that wasn't made for marketing purposes. I don't want music videos. I don't care if a singer is hot, or if they dance really well. I can't watch them dance while I'm driving my car or working out.

There are millions of girls who sing better than Britney Spears, but we never hear them. There's a million guys out there who actually play instruments and write their own music. Those groups are just as good or better than anything you hear on the radio, and finally they have an outlet to have their music heard. And they aren't owned by the RIAA, they aren't created or bought by music mogul billionaires who want to change them for marketing reasons. They play music because they are good at it and they enjoy it. And THAT'S what the RIAA is afraid of. They are afraid of losing control of the music we listen to and the way we listen to it. Right now the RIAA is fighting for their life, and they're slowly losing the fight.




RE: Record industry losing control.
By morton on 1/7/2008 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
Is that what Britney Spears does? I always wondered how she got famous.


By bldckstark on 1/7/2008 12:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
Britney was one of the Mouseketeers. She was owned by Disney, and sang for them like most of the Disney stars do now. Later, Britney got picked up by the labels, and the rest is history. I'm just waiting for her to buy a castle in England and pick up a fake accent a`la Madonna.


...
By piydek on 1/5/2008 5:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
Death to music business! Long live music!

This is very happy news indeed.




RE: ...
By Sureshot324 on 1/5/2008 10:26:08 PM , Rating: 3
I think the internet will massively hurt the industry's profits, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It will hurt the industry, but it won't hurt music.

These days, thanks to computer, music is not expensive to make. You can have a very high quality recording studio for very little money. People who love making music will keep making it, even if they aren't getting payed multi millions to do it.

The main costs of producing music is the physical distribution of CDs, and promoting the artists, and paying high ranking exec's salaries, all of which we can live without.

There will always be substantial amount of money to be made from touring, merchandise, etc., so I don't see the downside of cutting out the money from music sales to music as a whole.


One hit wonders
By v1001 on 1/5/2008 6:39:19 PM , Rating: 3
Here's the problem for the studios....

Now we can all just download and buy ONE song if we want. No longer do we have to buy all the other songs if we don't like them. And in the past studios have been able to just go find tons of one hit wonders. Market the crap out of it like the band is the second coming and rake in all the sales from people who thought the whole album must be great. They really conned people for decades on that one. They can't get away with that anymore. Instead of making $15 off an album they are now going to only make like $1 off a vast majority of them. I also foree studios no longer bothering with piss crap bands anymore that have only one good song. They just wont be able to make the money off them. However that means less music out there altogether.

And yes do not play down piracy. Millions and millions of people still steal songs. It does at least play some part in all this.




RE: One hit wonders
By B on 1/5/2008 6:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
I for one like filler music, and am willing to pay $15 for one hit. ;-)


I blame the RIAA.
By justinmcg67 on 1/5/2008 6:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I only bought one CD this year, a Foo Fighters CD. That was it. I generally never download music or even purchase it, because quite frankly most music these days sucks to me. I've got the radio in my truck for music if I so choose to listen to it.

But I blame the RIAA for all of it. They seem to think that anything music related is illegal. Hell I'm just waiting for the RIAA to ban listening to tracks at the store. You know how you can select an artist and preview a song? Yeah, they'll wipe that out sooner or later.

And the RIAA makes me want to spend my money on music why...?




RE: I blame the RIAA.
By Sungpooz on 1/5/2008 7:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
B-but... Maroon 5!!! :(


By ShadowZERO on 1/5/2008 7:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
I listen to an underground style of techno music called drum & bass. If I want to legally pay for a full length track, most of the time I'd have to have 12" vinyl shipped over from Europe. Because of this I use a popular file sharing network. I would estimate only about <10% of the tracks that I want are officially available in digital format, and only about %70 of the vinyl that never makes it digital ever gets ripped to end up on my p2p network. Needless to say there are hardly any stores in my area I can walk into and even find the genre of music I listen to, much less a certain artist or track I'm looking for.

I think this one example illustrates a bigger problem. The major record labels and the RIAA have no interest in supporting any music that doesn't net them big money. Thats why indie music is starting to have such a large following, the music is more closely tied to the creativity of the artists. I have no numbers to quote but I think its no secret how much money is spent getting some mainstream artist's album to have a "certain sound" a big dollar record company feels will sell well.

I think the record execs and mainstream artists have gotten so wrapped up in a multi-million dollar industry, they have become decadent. Now they cry like babies when they have to have a taste of their music being shared, not every song making them a residual profit. Sad when you consider thats something the indie/underground labels have been dealing with all along.




By TomCorelis (blog) on 1/6/2008 3:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
As a fellow DnB scenester and producer-in-training, I disagree with you.

There are services like beatport.com or digital-tunes.net that sell MP3s from all the major DNB labels for $1.50. Any track I hear, as long as I can get the artist, title, and label (or even just the catalogue number), in most cases I can find it in almost no time on beatport.

I usually streamrip online radio broadcasts, and the DJs are almost always willing to give trackIDs if you ask them nicely over AIM/Myspace/etc.

If you are interested in supporting the scene, then there should be almost no excuse to resort to p2p.


to know the future, look to the past
By ikkeman on 1/7/2008 6:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm no historian, nor an musician, but here's my 2c.

When reading these doom and gloom cries from the entertainment industry, telling me there is no future without massive CD sales, I get puzzeled.
As I said, I'm no historian, but wasn't there a time before we could record entertainment (a weird concept if ever there was one)? knowing names like Shakespeare and Bach proves there were entertainers back then to. How was the industry supported back then?

I think people back then payed to actually experience the entertainment. They went to a play, dined in a restaurant (with live bands - there was no other way) or went to a concert, and this was how the artists were payed.

How did the artist earn their money? by actually performing or licencing the performance of their copyrighted material (nothing wrong with copyright ! poeple should get payed for their effort). Basically, they got payed for actually dooing some work - the way most talented bands work these days. They do gigs and small concerts for a fee that's enough to allow them to live off it. I'ts not a lot of money but if you're talented you can make a living by playing gigs n stuff. This part of the music industry is almost completely independant of the mayor labels.

So here's my theory: The death of the major labels will only effect the sale of mediocre - marketable - artists that actually don't do any valuable work. britney, justin, 50c, None of them EARN the millions currently parked on their bank accounts.
The same death of these power houses will allow a bloom of actual talent and will allow these local bands to generate a local following and earn money.

Therefore I say - Death to the RIAA. Tey're within their rights to sue piretes - just not in their right minds. and all hail the new glorious future of the actual talent.




By johngflower on 1/8/2008 4:18:53 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't there some poet, umm, Homer? Recited a few poems that got turned into movies a few thousand years later. What about that story teller Aesop? I can buy his books in a book store. What about that artist who dabbed a bit of paint on a cave wall 20,000 years ago.... bet his descendants are kicking themselves that they don't hold the intellectual property rights :).

I'll bet all those artists made good 'money' from their work and would be proud that their works are being reproduced years later.

Good call, ikkeman, History repeats (though Split Enz might disagree)


The lost me when...
By michal1980 on 1/6/2008 3:41:29 PM , Rating: 1
the closed down every guitar tab site I used to learn to play their songs, which caused me to by the cd so I could hear the music.

but nooo guitar tab is illegal too. I hate piracy. But the riaa is just as evil as the people stealing the music.

like the old sayin goes: two wrongs dont make a right.




RE: The lost me when...
By eye smite on 1/6/2008 7:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Piracy affects them alot less than what they are doing to themselves right now. It's easy to see they are the cause of declining sales. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot, let them have at it.


Where to look...?
By skitlets on 1/6/2008 4:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
To those complaining that music today is worse...I'm not quite sure you guys are looking too carefully for music. Sure, if all you listen to is Clearchannel radio, you're gonna get the same recycled tunes. If you really love music, there are many avenues to get introduced to new, original and "good" music. Try music forums, internet radio, local music scenes, concerts and festivals, etc. To say music is worse now is nearly impossible to substantiate.




There are always good albums
By Ihmemies on 1/6/2008 5:13:53 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know why people keep complaining that nowdays music sucks. You just need to spend more time finding good music, if you don't like the junk coming from radio/tv. I haven't noticed any decrease sofar, and there's always more good music to listen to than I have time for.




It's their own fault
By dgingeri on 1/6/2008 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't bought a CD in over a year and a half.

a year and a half ago, They wrongly sued someone uninvolved in the music sharing, some old person who would have had no idea how to do any of that, and won a big judgement or settlement. (I can't remember if it went to court or not.)

I swore at that point, I would not buy another CD until they stopped suing and quit this garbage DRM movement, and I have followed through on that. I will continue to follow through on that as long as they keep on assaulting our rights.

They are rich enough. They don't need to rob us through suing people on top of the ripoffs we have to pay on CD's. Perhaps if they were to make some music worth buying, they might have some more business.

However, these guys are both too stupid and too greedy to see their own fault in this matter.




Oh my what will they do
By eye smite on 1/6/2008 7:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
There's no albums that were worth buying in 2k7 on a general note. The whole drm issue and windows vista being problematic with cd's and dvd's has to have played a part in this. Some execs will never learn that people don't want to be controlled, so they choose the only option left and that's just not to buy. Oh well, money talks and BS walks as they are learning once again.




The future of music
By johngflower on 1/7/2008 4:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't buy CDs. I don't play CDs. I don't have a traditional stereo. I have a digital audio player. With a double ended stereo cable I plug it into my guitar amp or my car stereo. I can plug it into my TV, my friends TV, computer speakers, headphones. The only reason I have a CD/DVD drive on my computer is for music that I can borrow from my local library (who I am sure pay for their CDs) for $2.00NZD. I've put Linux on three peoples computers so they can use their iPods and iPod shuffles freely. I hire one night DVDs on cheap night, put them on my computer and watch them at my leisure. I'm looking at getting a bluetooth car stereo for my wifes car so she can play music from her cellphone. The business model of listening to a song hyped up on the radio or MTV and running down to the CD store is on the way out.

I put it to you that:-
1) Profitablility in music is in live performance and sales at the performances venue.
2) Marketing will focus on live performance revenue by developing strong fan bases on and offline.
3) More music will be freely available as a way of attracting people to live performances.
3) Physical music media will disappear (except for diehard vinyl fans)
4) Traditional bulky stereos will disappear and be replaced by wireless and wired digital audio players capable of good quality multichannel sound.
5) The elephants of big music business will learn to dance or go the way of the mammoth. The ice is melting and the world is getting greener.




Imagine
By voivod on 1/8/2008 4:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly has the music industry done for anybody? I mean if all the record exec's just flat out disappeared what we lose as a society? Would music stop? Would musicians stop playing or creating music,..No. In fact maybe we could even see better music? The recording industry has become a parasite between the artist and the consumer. Its not some small label trying to make a living with a few good acts. No it is a profit driven juggernaut that has poisoned musical innovation and turned the idea of being a rebel into a packaged commodity. The most incredible music has come from poverty and struggle. Does Britney Spears deserve to make $700,000 a month? Does making these people filthy rich do anything for us? Is the music better?




I blame Metallica
By BlackJew on 1/6/2008 1:52:17 PM , Rating: 1
Some may argue that because of piracy, music turned to shit, and in turn, people stopped buying it. I say, Metallica started to suck about 3 years before (remember load?) Napster came out and the dwarven Lars Ulrich started suing people.

I refuse to buy cd's or legal mp3's these days just because they sue the people who just want to listen to the music. I will steal it. Yes I admit it. I steal the shit out of it. If I really like a band, I will actually support them and not their label and go to a concert or buy a damn t-shirt.

Besides, who can afford a $20 cd when they're being sued by a corporate conglomerate?




RE: I blame Metallica
By michal1980 on 1/6/08, Rating: 0
buy cds?
By tastyratz on 1/6/08, Rating: 0
Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 12:27:29 AM , Rating: 5
You are WAY off base and must be part of the industry or an industry supporter. Your mastery of the clueless tipped me off. Most of us here aren't anti-copyright. Don't know where you got that from. We're definitely anti-dinosaur (that's you). Get with the times, hell get with a good English tutor because it's been explained already in this thread where the industry (that's you again) is lacking.

I'll reiterate one thing. Until you guys get a clue, my money stays in my wallet and it looks like there's a few million other people that agree with me. Have a nice day.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 12:41:30 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry, I do not and have never work for anything related to the RIAA. I do have a sister that is an artist and I'd like to think the world would respect her rights to her artwork. I've done my share of work as well that I'd prefer wasn't stolen from me either (mostly programming code). Copyright laws give us all an avenue to get retribution for stolen works.

I support the enforcement of copyright law and I feel that the entertainment industry has been trying to deal with this new medium of piracy. They created copy protected systems, and consumers wouldn't buy into it (because they couldn't share it and they had underground alternatives).

I do not see any posts above that cover the issues I mentioned. I sincerely wanted to hear what people thought the world would evolve into if the RIAA didn't defend their group's rights, but now I fear all I get are ad-homine attacks for not getting in line with the rest.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 12:55:27 AM , Rating: 4
I'm still waiting to see where you got the idea that we all support piracy. You STILL haven't addressed that.

I'll help you out. THIS thread is primarily about how current music sucks (might include your sister..I don't know), how the music industry has NOT embraced the digital age (they haven't), and how they are currently circling the bowl as a result (see the blog post above).


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 1:03:48 AM , Rating: 1
There are several anti-copyright posts, including the highest rated one by Darkefire. I'm assuming the rating was done by other commentors (but I'm ignorant to how to rate posts myself).

The Music industry has done many of the things you guys say they didn't do. They bought Napster, turned it into a store, it is doing poorly. Then there's iTunes which has DRM and yet even yourself state you won't want to buy DRM music. Why shy away from DRM unless you want to copy and use it however to wish without any regard for the artist's wishes?

I'm asking these questions because, as you said, sales of CDs AND digital downloads are declining or significantly slowing. What will the future be like when sales get to a point where making the content just isn't worth it anymore?


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 1:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
I never said I didn't buy DRM music. I said that I only buy singles from iTunes AND Amazon (which IS DRM free). Besides, some of iTunes music is DRM free. DRM is irrelevant to me. I am a geek. Napster was long dead when it was bought and EVERYONE except the dinosaurs knew it. They should've bought it when it was popular. Sure they would've lost some of the customers, but with some good marketing they would've made a killing.

quote:
What will the future be like when sales get to a point where making the content just isn't worth it anymore?
Ever heard of indie's? They're doing just fine without the big industry dinosaurs. Quite frankly, I look forward to the death of the Jurassic music industry.

Maybe in 30 years, they'll have marble statues of the former CEO's in the Getty Museum.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 1:32:40 AM , Rating: 1
So you think if Napster were purchased when it was popular and it suddenly began obeying copyright laws by selling music (passing off a cut to the artists) instead of allowing free downloads, it would have made money?

My understanding of Napster's death was that because it had a centralized system people got freaked out that their sharing could be traced. Hence why all of the current P2P networks used for piracy nowadays are completely decentralized.

I listen to Indy music often, all-be-it I don't know where the edges of Indie reside (the last two Black Rebel Motorcycle Gang are my favorite albums). But imagine your favorite band makes a fantastic song and another band or artist decides to take it, change it or play the original song to make money. Does your favorite band deserve a cut?

What if companies sprung up that purposefully stole other people's music, sent it through pre-made bands with better marketing and made tons more money than the original artist?

We can look at history for this answer, since copyright laws were created because of this and are in fact rights given to us in the original Constitution of the United States.

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


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 1:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
You still think we're talking about copyright laws here? Again, we're talking about the eventual death of the music industry because it can't adapt. The article shows they are dying. Piracy is only a part of their problem. I and others here don't have a problem with piracy being illegal nor do we have issues with copyright holders protecting their interests. I do have a problem with the RIAA's tactics but since I don't pirate, I'm not worried about them personally.

Moral of the story? The music dinosaurs will die and be replaced by an industry that understands how to use current technology as a marketing and distribution tool. Indie's will rise and Britney Spears will fall. At least until they get stupid and greedy then it starts all over again.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Consumer content of the Future
By JAB on 1/6/2008 4:10:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you are geting the whole concept that the recording industry needs a markering/buisness model that works. Good will and image are everything in an entertainment buisness. Loost that and you have lost everything. Right now they are looking more like the enemy than anything. Most of big buisness music has lost its cool factor with the music police and the insane DRM.

In the end the internet will mean more mony to the artists- no middle man. They can now record and mix at home and sell direct. You dont need record sales to know where your fans are read the forums, talk to the fans or just dont throw a mega million doller tour the first time in town.

Let you into a secret the best music you will ever hear is in a club not the stadium. Not slamming the big names- there is good music yet but very little of it is truly great right now.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 1:52:28 PM , Rating: 1
Good will and image? So if Universal Records or Virgin are bad people, you'll stop buying the music of your favorite artist being represented by them? I doubt it. We've already seen in other posts here that the artists aren't guilty of association with the RIAA. Most of the ire is being directed at the "music execs" or the RIAA lawyers, but trust me when I say they wouldn't be doing it if they didn't have the blessing of the artists. Artists won't come out in support, because then they'll be targeted (like Metallica) as well.

As far as reading every forum to get info back from fans, do you know how colossal a project that would be? Even some of the Indie bands have hundreds of thousands of fans all over the world (like BRMC I mentioned earlier) and only a small percentage will post to forums. How are they suppose to know where the rest are? The only way is to get statistics from sales and if no one is buying, only stealing, those statistics would be lost.

I agree, in that the best concerts I've been to were in small clubs, but that's a personal preference. If an artist hit it big and had a lot of fans, a small club won't do. I don't think people realize that even though you might not like the musical artists that get into stadiums and big venue, someone obviously does to be buying the tickets. This kind of selfless recognition is absent from a majority of the comments above.


By ice456789 on 1/6/2008 7:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This kind of selfless recognition is absent from a majority of the comments above.
Wow, you sure are high on yourself aren't you. Your definition of 'selfless recognition' seems to be that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

I think that the RIAA has every right to try and sue whoever they want. They are a business that until now has thrived because of shrewd maneuvers and overpowering market presence. But just because they have the right to sue people doesn't make it a good business decision. If they continue on the road they're on right now, their ultimate destination will be their own irrelevance. It is a business that is run like the mafia. They take a large percentage of your income to join their ranks. If you don't join, they use their power to prevent you from entering the market. If you don't go along with what they say, they will 'whack' you with a big lawsuit. Eventually the disenfranchised populace will stand up to the RIAA, and we're seeing the beginning of that movement now. Or maybe I'm just lacking 'selfless recognition'.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By mars777 on 1/6/2008 4:17:57 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you that piracy is a problem to them.
But i frankly state that they will not save themselves by suing customers. They must instead adopt to the market.

Lower prices, find alternative distribution methods etcetera...

Lawsuits are a bad thing for either side.
They are dinosaurs like the OOP said, they are unable to find a common sense way out, and because of that they DESERVE to die.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 1
But they aren't customers. These people are TAKING the content without paying for it at all.

Imagine a supermarket has it's produce stolen all the time. Should they lower the prices on the produce, even though they'll take a loss? Should the farmers expect less money because people are stealing their produce from the stores? No, the opposite happens. The store ups the prices and puts more security in the produce department.

You don't succumb to theft, you fight it. They shouldn't be stealing, and that's it. No argument will ever absolve someone from taking something without reparation, especially music or movies which are a LUXURY!

I won't stop buying music because the RIAA sues someone else who stole or distrubuted thousands of songs or movies. Pirates get pissed they are suing and as far as I'm concerned the only people who don't like the RIAA defending their clients are those ripping their clients off. Those who don't do it see the piracy as a way to force the content producers to lower their rates, but as I'm trying to explain they can't.

Would you stop shopping at a store because they had the police arrest someone that was shop lifting? Do you start hating the police for punishing someone that did something wrong? It's the same thing. You can't get pissed at someone for defending themselves.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 2:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But they aren't customers. These people are TAKING the content without paying for it at all.
I'm sure these people have bought and continue to buy CD's and mp3's legally. Maybe they pirate more than they buy but if they buy one song that's makes them a customer. And the RIAA IS indeed suing its own customers. No doubt there.

quote:
I won't stop buying music because the RIAA sues someone else who stole or distrubuted thousands of songs or movies.
I have stopped and millions of others have stopped as well. Did you even read the article above? The music industry is going bye bye. You go ahead and keep supporting the RIAA. The rest of us are going to continue down our path.


By Mach Omega on 1/7/2008 4:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
MatthiasF, I hate to burst your bubble but CD sales peaked when Napster was at its MOST POPULAR. Most people only used the service to get music that they could not acquire through any other means. All those cool songs from your youth? Couldn't get them in a music store. Rare live shows? Nada. Stuff that got no airplay? Same thing. The music industry did not provide an effective way to get the songs you wanted. People used Napster to DISCOVER music, then they went out and bought CDs when they could. If people acquired more music than they paid for, it was often simply because they couldn't afford it and, in that case, the labels weren't going to get a sale anyway. Napster was actually spurring people to BUY music, not steal it. The music labels attacked Napster because of its POTENTIAL to supplant traditional distribution, not the reality which was quite the opposite. Piracy became an issue when the lawsuits started. The ASSUMPTION was that people would steal but the reality was that people actually purchased MORE music.

The music industry's short-sightedness created this situation. It still has not really attempted to address the fact that digital distribution has completely destroyed the traditional distribution and copyright protection of CDs. You can't just stick your finger in the dam and expect the problem to go away.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By NullSubroutine on 1/6/2008 4:30:01 AM , Rating: 2
The media conglomorate hide behind copyright as they always have. The record industry is not and never will be protecting artists rights, in fact they do the opposite and take their rights from them.

The record industry finds an artist it believes it can it can turn into a new cash cow, buy our the rights to their artistic creations, have them sign a contract, and own them and their music from then on out.

They pay the poor artists chump change and promise them radio play. They produce an album that the record company owns, then proceeds to do nothing but market the music and the artist. The artist rarely sees anything but more chump change from every album sold where the record company executives run laughing to the bank.

Music artists get most of their money off concerts, merchandizing, or if they create a studio themselves. Rarely do they ever make anything off the sale of albums, epecially compared to what the company makes.

So please stop lecturing how the media conglomorate is 'protecting' artists rights and works when in fact they are doing nothing but steal them via 'contract'. The record companies are nothing more than copyright theives that profit off the adverstising of others works.

And this is the reason they will not survive, they already know they cannot survive in a digital age as music on the internet via myspace, facebook, and a multitude of other social/music networking sites advertises itself. Instead they are trying to change copyright law and how media is legally viewed so that upon purchasing an album you agree to an EULA and do not 'own' what you just purchased, you only bought a license to 'view/listen' to the media. And they want to charge for every instance or devise you 'view/listen' to that media.

Car cd-player - pay them
MP3 player - pay them
home stereo system - pay them
dvd player - pay them
computer playback - pay them
portable video player - pay them
cell phone - pay them

have a multiple devices? pay for a license for each one, the record company loves your money. the list goes on.

This country is supposed to be of the people, by the people for the people, which is currently clearly not. It is of the rich, by lobbying, for corporations.

there are many of us 'people' who do not believe or adhere to the idea of intellectual property or that intangible items can be stolen. we also believe that those who work and actually produce something should not be paid inverse proportions to those who 'monitor/manage' or those who own the land er, i mean business that the serfs, er i mean workers work on-sorry-for.


By FITCamaro on 1/6/2008 9:03:13 AM , Rating: 2
Woah woah.

I'm for the most part agreeing with you but don't go touting "by the people, for the people" crap. There's nothing about our countries founding that says you're entitled to cheap, DRMless music.

The copyright laws that exist are mostly fine. It's the RIAA's interpretation of them thats flawed. And once a song/movie/tv show is legally available in a digital form without DRM on it, you are breaking no law by converting it to other formats for your different devices.

The problem comes from that it not being legally available in a digital form without DRM on it. Music is getting better, tv shows and movies have a long way to go. Currently the only legal way to get a DRM-less digital copy of a tv show or movie is to record it with a TV tuner card. And I think even thats a grey area.

To answer the OPs 2nd post question, we are not against having to pay for music. We are against paying too much for much and having it be restricted as to what we can do with it. To me a single song is worth about $0.50 in a DRM-less form. That puts a 10 track album worth about $5.00. And that would be more than sufficient for the artist if the artist actually saw any of that money. Right now, the music label would get around 98% of that.

The problem is the music industry went from an industry that was about making music and a profit off it to an industry making profit with the actual music as a 2nd thought.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By MatthiasF on 1/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Consumer content of the Future
By FITCamaro on 1/6/2008 2:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
We're not saying we own the content. We're saying we've paid for the right to listen to the content whereever we like. Just because I bought a CD doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to listen to it on my computer without having the CD in the drive, or on an MP3 player, a PSP, your phone, etc.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Spuke on 1/6/2008 2:53:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We're not saying we own the content.
He's not really listening and his reading comprehension skills are lacking otherwise he would understand given the previous posts in this thread where we are coming from. What I think is funny is that it really sounds like he's trying to convince us to go back to buying CD's and such by telling us that the people that get sued aren't customers at all. Like these people have never bought an album just popped out of Mom one day and started pirating music. Fact is the RIAA IS suing their customers and the customers are showing their displeasure by not buying. And as sales continue to slide, the RIAA will tighten the grip around our necks.


By MatthiasF on 1/6/2008 8:08:15 PM , Rating: 1
I was responding to NullSubroutine's last paragraph. I know the comment lines aren't always accurately drawn.

I agreed with what you said in response to him, FITCamaro.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By morton on 1/7/2008 11:30:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People feel that they should be able to take and distribute without any reparation.


I have to disagree with this. Radiohead's In Rainbows album released last year on the internet was basically priced at "pay what you feel it's worth". According to Thom Yorke (lead singer) "Radiohead's profits from the digital download of In Rainbows outstripped combined profits from digital downloads of all of the band's other studio albums."

Another quote from Yorke; "I like the people at our record company, but the time is at hand when you have to ask why anyone needs one. And, yes, it probably would give us some perverse pleasure to say 'Fuck you' to this decaying business model."


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By Darkefire on 1/6/2008 2:10:40 AM , Rating: 3
Where did I say "copyright" once in my post? I'm all for copyright laws, they're the only thing protecting artists from blatant ripoffs of their work. My big point was not that the industry has failed to get with the digital distribution era, but that they missed the vital window in which they could have been more attractive than the piracy alternative. Who in their right mind would pay a buck a pop for singles encoded at 128kbps when ten seconds on Google would yield the full album at 256 or above, even in alternate file formats?

The main reason people hate DRM is because it doesn't work as advertised. Instead of preventing copies from being widely distributed, it instead prevents the very person who buys it from transferring it from device to device. Telling someone that they can't listen to the file they purchased on the player of their choice isn't good business. The secondary reason people hate DRM is because it treats the paying customer like a criminal, plain and simple. It says, "We don't care that you've paid for this, it's still ours and you're not allowed to use it that way because you'll just help other people steal it." How would you feel if your fries came with an alarm that went off if you shared them? Or if a restaurant charged you extra for sharing part of your meal with your friend? I already see this at certain restaurants that charge extra for additional plates, and I don't eat there more than once. The music industry had an honest chance to provide a fast, safe alternative to pirated MP3 files for a small fee, and they blew it by locking it down harder than a chastity belt on prom night.

And as to your question about declining sales? The free market rules all, my friend. If people don't want to pay for the current music, then it disappears, and good riddance. If that means the entire entertainment industry vanishes, too bad; they couldn't hack it anymore. Something will always take its place if people are willing to pay for it, and the beauty of capitalism is that such things come very quickly. You have a problem with that? Vote with your wallet, or fill the void yourself.


RE: Consumer content of the Future
By InsaneGain on 1/6/2008 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have no connection with the music industry, but I think MathiasF has a valid point. The average person doesn't understand that their narrow self interests heavily bias their opinions. People self maximize. They love to get something they value for free, and they will be very motivated to come up with reasons and excuses about why they should have every right to do so, or that their behavior is non-damaging. I've read excuses like "the giant, powerful recording companies are evil and deserve it", or "they refused to embrace the internet age" etc. In the past, the recording industry may have abused their position and maximized profits, but that is irrelevant to the current issue. People would still be downloading music for free even if the industry was always a complete angel. I read an opinion that "music sales are dropping because the quality is dropping". What are the odds that after decades of steady sales, overall music quality is falling just as piracy has become culturally mainstream? The fact is, when people can steal anonymously and without repercussions, they WILL do so. The act of stealing this product will gradually become trivialized, which will increase the theft rate in the general population. The product they are stealing will then become irreversibly devalued. Inevitably, less investment, resources and talent will be allocated to the industry. It's basic economics. The only thing that can stop the process is adding a potential cost to the theft, which is what the law suits are all about.


RE: Consumer content of the Future