Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register) [LWN.net]

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 1, 2004 20:10 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]

Honestly, it's not clear to me whether the RIAA would _want_ to inflate
the number of illegal downloads. On the one hand, they make it seem
like they're still being victimized by people who want something for
nothing. On the other hand, if the pay-for-download services showed
_better_ numbers, they'd have a stronger case against the remaining
free-swappers, since they'd have "proof" that pay-per-download is
a viable and acceptable method for getting music. Those still downloading
songs for free would then look more like criminals.

Since we don't know how reliable the presented numbers are, it's even
harder to ask the meaningful question: How would ppd sales vs. free
downloads look if the cost of a song were changed? Populating your
hard drive with songs you kind-of like at $1 a pop is vastly different
from doing it at $0.30, and both are worlds away from the cost of a
CD with one or two "good" songs. If the perceived cost of a single
download becomes negligible, it's possible that sales will skyrocket.

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 1, 2004 20:56 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

I think you are giving them too much credit here. They don't care if
pay-per-download is viable, they just want to stop the "illegal" downloads
and appear to be the victims.

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 1, 2004 21:05 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link]

However, they're pretty successful, so at least in the context of
their business they're not completely thick. Is it really better
for them to claim that 99.5% of their online customer base is "evil"?
I have no idea what their reasoning is, one way or another, nor how
they'd choose to skew the numbers given the chance. Really, I think
any amount of downloading when CD sales are "low" (whatever that
might mean) will be used as "evidence of massive copyright infringement
and loss of revenue".

Here's a study I'd like to see: How do CD sales vary with the number
of positive critical reviews? What about request volume for new songs?
Are CD's not selling because people don't like the albums being released
enough to shell out $20 for them?

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 2, 2004 0:42 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Well, consider this: the average retail price of a newly released music CD is not much less than the average retail price of a DVD movie, even though it takes about 100x as much money to produce a film as to produce 45-50 minutes of music. How can such high costs be justified? Well, one way is to convince everyone that the pirates are stealing almost all their profits.

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 2, 2004 1:11 UTC (Fri) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Not only this ... the artists only get 6% of the price. Where I live the state gets just as much for sales tax.

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 2, 2004 5:06 UTC (Fri) by crouchet (guest, #1084) [Link]

In the end, most artists make nothing from record sales or actually OWE money to their
record company. If you want more details from someone in the music industry, see this
story:

http://www.baen.com/library/palaver11.htm

(BTW, you can get some great free Science Fiction from http://www.baen.com/library/
too, from famous authors who WANT for you to download their stories.)

Yes, a lucky few make big bucks on royalties but there are more lottery winners out
there than people who have gotten rich off their records. For all but a tiny few of those
who make a living playing music, record sales count for little or none of their income.

JC

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 2, 2004 20:33 UTC (Fri) by oxide23 (guest, #20520) [Link]

These guys are kind of interesting: http://www.magnatune.com/
They actually make sure the artist gets some cash.

Triple setback for music giants' global jihad (Register)

Posted Apr 1, 2004 22:09 UTC (Thu) by crouchet (guest, #1084) [Link]

Really, it's simpler than all that. They simply want music distributed in a channel where they cannot be circumvented.

The big fear of online distribution is that the artists will be able to distribute their own music. A little pirated music doesn't really mean much to the record companies but more and more artists are choosing to sell their own music -- or even give it away free since most of their money is made on live appearances anyway -- and that spells the end of the music industry as we know it. Session musicians can be hired. Studio time can be rented. Everything an artist needs can be purchased today as a service. The only lock the record companies have on their artists is the distribution channel. Online distribution -- ANY online distribution, but especially one that actually makes money -- endagers that.

So there are some few half hearted efforts to create an online distribution channel but where the distributer is very tightly locked down legally. The rest of the industry keeps it's head in the sand and hopes online will go away. Why else would it be so hard to create a working, legal online distribution channel? Half the LWN readers probably have the technical knowledge.

Targeting piracy is the Big Lie. The real threat is successful artists NOT under contract but the record companies can't say that without angering both the artists and the public.

Come in here, dear boy, have a cigar...

Posted Apr 2, 2004 14:13 UTC (Fri) by 87C751 (guest, #11362) [Link]

You nailed it precisely. The present "legal" download services are less than half-hearted. Even non-tech people have commented that they seem designed for failure. (why, in this age of easily available broadband, do pay-for-download services insist on distributing compressed music?) This is the real "information revolution" that Toffler predicted way back in 'Future Shock' and 'The Third Wave'. It's not surprising. The established Music Industry is literally fighting for its own life, despite the fact that its life has grown out of the subjugation of the very source of its product. And adding insult to injury (from their perspective), they're not being killed outright by some superior force that they can tangibly fight. Instead, they're just being rendered irrelevant by the same wave of technology that gave birth to the industry in the first place.

Edward Van Halen as object lesson.