Why the Record Industry Doesn't Stand a Chance

Newhouse News Service ^ | Aug. 19, 2003 | JAMES LILEKS

[new cruelty]

Forget Napster. The newest place to steal -- sorry, "share" -- copyrighted materials is Earthstation 5. They claim 22 million downloads of their software, offer digital copies of movies still in the theaters, and boast that no one will be able to shut them down. They may have a point.

They're located in the Jenin refugee camp on the West Bank.

You can imagine the discussions in the Recording Industry Association of America's legal office: "You serve them with papers." "No, YOU serve them." (Pause) "OK, we'll send an intern."

Earthstation illustrates the problem the record industry faces: It's a big planet, it's wired together, and it's filled to the gunwales with pirates.

You've heard of Napster? So 2001. Now there's Kazaa. Now there's Grokster, whose corporate location in the West Indies just screams, "Come and get me, copper!" There's Blubster, another music-swapping program provided by a company in Spain. The day there are two servers in Greenland, the second will be devoted to letting 20-somethings in a Vilnius dorm room download Metallica songs.

The recording industry hasn't just lost control of its product; the product itself has lost its reason for being. The CD is as dead as the album, and for the same reason: Most bands have one or two good songs, a couple of so-so numbers and a half-dozen tracks of dreck you'll never hear again. We all know what CDs cost -- you can get a hundred blanks for a sawbuck. So why does the disc cost almost 20 bucks? Well, there's the cover art, the distribution, the advance to the artist, the cost of catering a five-week recording session for a band made up of ultra-vegans who eat only imported Irish loam, and of course the all-important $19.99 PROFIT.

You can't begrudge them a profit, of course. It would be nice if it trickled down to the average recording artist as well, but let's not be silly dreamers here. What really plagues the industry is an antiquated business model that requires putting out 10 tons of overpriced junk in the hopes that 3 ounces will make 11 tons of money.

But no one wants albums anymore. They want songs.

Unfortunately, they want them for free, and that's where the RIAA steps in -- with hobnailed boots. They've threatened file-sharers with huge fines for each download, meaning that kids with 30 gigs of "shared" music could face fines equal to the gross domestic product of sub-Saharan Africa.

The downloaders insist they have the moral high ground; they'll complain about the cost of the product, the unjust contracts musicians sign, the shoddy treatment the industry gave Blind Willie Simon in 1937, etc. They'll sniff that the musicians should give away the product and make their money touring, which is akin to saying restaurants should give away food and make their money selling souvenir forks. They'll craft shaky analogies to libraries -- as if the public library lets you take a book, make a perfect copy, and give it away to 4,982 people.

It's all a justification for the Internet's eternal problem: No one wants to pay for anything unless that something is nekkid women. And even then they'll complain about the price.

So what's the solution? Congressional hearings, of course. That'll fix everything! The creepily named Senate Government Affairs' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will soon hold hearings on the RIAA's dilemma.

But get this: The subcommittee's chairman thinks the RIAA is being "excessive." And he's a Republican -- Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota solon who admits to having used Napster himself.

Coleman has a point; copyright laws permit fines up to $150K per tune. There's no sense in suing some kid eleventy million bucks for file-swapping songs. On the other hand, no one is going to stop stealing music unless he's scared of being arrested, sent to jail and forced to share a cell with a smelly old hippie who sings Mungo Jerry songs all night.

But there will never be enough arrests or convictions to stop the hard-core downloaders; there will never be a technological fix that someone won't find a way around. Copyright violations will cease when enough people decide they're morally wrong, when the old explanation -- "But Ma, even senators do it!" -- doesn't feel right. When the Internet is governed by reason, decency and conscience.

Never, in other words. See you in Jenin.

[eno_]

Ding! We have a winner!

The two main problems with copyright are that the RIAA is trying to protect not the music, but a pricing and distribution model that is not defendable, AND that copyright protection is a travesty of original intent - it runs waaaaaay too long.

[ampat]

I download from Apples's iMusic site for 99 cents a track. Funny, I seem to be downloading 60's-80's music exclusively.

[discostu]

Gannett isn't like that. Gannett considers lawsuits to be a recurring revenue stream. They love to sue people, but they're also very good at determining if they should ("if they should" being lawyerspeak for "if they'll win").

I understand how it works quite well, if Gannett is suing us we're in good shape, AP UPI and Reuters I don't know, but I've live in a Gannett town for 20 years. I know them, they don't dilly dally, they sue hard and fast.

[tsomer]

I like Han Zimmer, especially Gladiator soundtrack; another favorite is Horner's Braveheart.

This is a bit off topic, but have you seen and listened to the soundtrack of Princess Mononoke? I haven't compared the credits, but the leitmotif melodies is very similar to one in Braveheart. I love both movie soundtracks, but the similarities are striking.

I wouldn't be surprised if one did influence the other; it happens all the time.

There are people who would try to bottle air and sell it to you. They would declare each breath a you took an act of theft.

[discostu]

Oh they'll get a shot at it (it's only good and right and proper), but I garauntee they won't return the phonecall. I just hope they live long enough to regret it.

[discostu]

I don't listen to radio at all, I'm a CD junkie of the most severe order. But that doesn't change the fact that Clear Channel is horrible and has turned music radio into a land of vanilla boredom.

Ahh bluegrass, great genre, I don't listen to it nearly enough.

[discostu]

We cool.

It could be a loss leader, to a large degree it already is. But like any form of advertising it needs something to push it out. You could make the best commercial for a product ever but if you can't get that commercial broadcast it accomplishes nothing. Making the album is great, getting the album out there is tougher. Websites are cool but people need to know to look there, if you've never heard of a band how will you know to visit their website? On the other hand if you stumble onto the band on radio or in the music store you now have the initial knowledge.

All of the things you list happen, but understand they happen to small time artists with small time followings and small time earnings. That's the difference between getting a major label and not getting a major label, a couple of zeros on your tax return. People do it from the ground up that way a lot, but where "up" ends is a little shy of where they could have gotten to otherwise. A lot of bands exist currently as touring bands, you've probably never heard of them, I've probably never heard of them, but they're out there, usually sponsored by a beer company, playing in a different bar every night to a couple of hundred people. one of those bars just opened up across the street from where I work, I've learned a lot about this particular phenomena since then. It's cool, I like it, but if the RIAA dies that'll be the top of the pile.

Actually I just thought of somebody that made the whole climb: Melissa Ethridge. She'd been around forever as a bar act of survivable but not impressive success, then she hooked into a movie soundtrack and was huge for like two albums. I remember, being into blues I was familiar with her before, and I just about fell out of my chair when I heard our top 40 station introduce her as a "hot new act" when she finally hit the bigs.

[discostu]

There's always exceptions to the rules. I credit my fondness of classical directly to Warner Bros cartoons. 90% of the classical music I enjoy I first heard while Bugs Bunny was beating someone up, I then followed up digging through my grandmother's collection. But the problems with exceptions is they're not the majority. Most youths have no connection to classical music and never will develop it. Remember music lovers are actually the minority of the population, that's the difference between top 40 and everything else, top 40 is music for people with only a nodding and very casual connection to music; they'll have a favorite band in high school and by the time they graduate college they'll have closed the musical chapter of their life (a sadder existence I couldn't imagine, but it's true).

Yep, movie soundtracks are the last refuge of classical music. There are some very good composers working in the soundtrack section right now. But a large part of the "classical community" really snubs it's nose at it, luckily they're all dieing and will probably be out of the way in another decade or so.

[ClearBlueSky]

First off let me say that I have never downloaded a piece of music or a video from the net. Not that I wouldn't, but it's still too complicated for this 'techno nerd'. That being said, as much as has been argued about on this issue I have yet to see anyone address the fact that there would BE no 'copying' of anything if there were no machines that offered a 'copy' feature. How much sense does it make to allow the manufacture of things that are designed to duplicate tapes, videos,CD's etc and then scream that the public that bought them uses them for that purpose?
Why isn't the RIAA suing Bill Gates for selling product that allows you to 'steal' from online? It doesn't make any sense to prosecute the end user when the real ' criminals' are those who give them the means to 'steal'. Who designed the file sharing programs, who ok'ed the 'record' feature of anything?
How long will it be before you can't even LISTEN to a recording, or watch a CD/video before you pay for it at home? What are we looking at, VCR's , CD players, even radios that operate only by inserting cash?
That's like saying it's legal to grow tobacco, make and sell cigarettes but illegal to smoke them.
Wait....that's already happening. :-(

[new cruelty]

[budwiesest]

killed the product containing the basic unit of value in popular music,

Good point. I remember the stack of 45s my brother had. When I got old enough to buy I created a stack of albums. Seems sites like Apple are simply returning to the days when you could get the song you wanted (but do they send a 'flip'side tune at the same time?- some of those were actually better than the cover. Now that would be cool).

[general_re]

Yeah, that's the one major hole I can see in this - how are people going to find you if they don't know about you in the first place? And I think the answer is going to have to be a lot of self-promotion and a lot of public performances in order to build up a following. Obviously, this means that overnight success, where some A&R guy discovers you in a seedy club and six weeks later you're sipping champagne in the back of a limo, is pretty much going to be a thing of the past. I still think artists will be able to reach that level, but it'll be a longer and slower climb for them.

And I think mass-media will still have an important role to play. Rather than have the record companies come to the radio stations and essentially tell them which songs they'd like to see in the rotation, it would be nice to have a return to the days when a DJ or program director could actually discover a talented newcomer and find space for them in the lineup. I think this might be good for radio, really - if "Bob & Jim and the Morning Zoo Crew" develop a reputation for finding hot new acts, they might very well see their audience expand as a result. Interesting and thoughtful people like discostu might get to spin records again, as opposed to the collection of freaks and retards that populate most local radio stations these days ;)

Think about it - general_re organizes and promotes a day-long show of a dozen or so bands. Maybe they're all local, maybe he publicizes the show in the trade sheets and gets tapes from regional or out-of-state acts and books a couple of them too, but either way, part of his pitch to the artists is that discostu, the number-one afternoon drive-time DJ for Cleveland's Hot 100 FM, is going to be there. Suppose discostu finds that he really likes a few songs from some band nobody's heard of, The Drooling Gimps. Stu plays a few cuts from the Gimps (who remembered to bring CDs for people to buy, and to give away to guys like Stu) on the air and tells people where to find more like it. And if Stu has a good ear and the Gimps have a good sound, they both win.

Yeah, most people won't get a break like that, mostly because most garage bands, to put it plainly, suck. But I think in a lot of cases, true talent will be hard to ignore, both among the audience, and the people who can still put artists in front of an audience.

[discostu]

There will always be ways. Directors like Scorcese and Chase are wonderful tools for exposure to new and very interesting music (I like to pick up their soundtracks even if I don't like the movie/ TV show because I know there will be a couple of cool gems I never heard of before). It's just going to takea lot more work and a lot more luck.

What? Allow DJs to show their personality?! Can't be done, the station has to solidify its image ;). I actually used to listen to the radio, I remember a time when you memorized a station's line-up because each DJ was a little different. I remember Larry Miles who would play "One of These Days" from Pink Floyd's Meddle nearly every Thursday around 1:30. There was a chick who always snunk in "Fish" (Yes, Fragile, the song after "Long Distance Run Around" with no segway between them) as the third song on Two-fer Tuesday. DJs with personality and stuff. I'm feeling old.

Hey I always but the CDs if the band is good. I understand the nut and a band's need to meet it ;) Those kind of festival days are pretty popular. It can work. But like I said, the end result is that music will be regional like microbrews and very few acts will go national with any prominence. Maybe that's a good thing, I don't know.

[George W. Bush]

It looks like I'll only be able to participate on those that are in the public domain. Gotta leave this one.

Awww, don't be like that. Now I wish I hadn't pursued the point...

You can come back and read (and agree) with discostu's opinions and stick around.

Honestly, I don't hold a moral judgement on you one way or the other in this matter. Given that I am a committed radical on the subject, you shouldn't pay attention to me.

[George W. Bush]

Gannett isn't like that. Gannett considers lawsuits to be a recurring revenue stream. They love to sue people, but they're also very good at determining if they should ("if they should" being lawyerspeak for "if they'll win").

The merits of their case will not diminish against any ongoing abuse of their copyright. This is different than trademark law.

They'll have as good or better case years from now. And a larger potential revenue stream. That's the way it's working out with other big lawsuits that are comparable.

But we can each agree to hold our own opinions on the topic.

[Lael]

I download from Apples's iMusic site for 99 cents a track. Funny, I seem to be downloading 60's-80's music exclusively.

LOL!!!

Yesss! The quality and appeal just isn't there...look at the FM Radio Stations using various "Oldies" format. My 16 year old son listens to that pretty exclusively!

[Jim Cane]

Even when you can get younger people to listen to long lyricless music they tend to want someone they can identify with, somebody that's been dead for 300 years doesn't cut it.

Maybe, but Vanessa Mae is doing her part to correct that. It's funny that classical music, fossilized as it is, won't quite die. It pervades television, movies, and of course, enjoys a sizeable following. (If only 1 percent of 6 billion people listen to classical music, that's still a huge market.)

Does classical music need better PR? You bet. If record labels hyped Diane Krall as much as Brocolli Spears, would the hugely talented-nice to look at babe be as popular as the merely nice to look at one? Probably not. But the popularity gap would be considerably less.

Good music requires education to be fully appreciated, as snobbish as that sounds. It is nevertheless true. It is no different than the appreciation of good food or wine. The immature palate will favour twinkies and pop rocks while the more robust and seasoned palate will explore beyond mere sweet and salt.

How does one teach an appreciation of nuance? There's the tricky pickle.

[Jim Cane]

And I thought that the mention of the G. Henle Verlag was too snobbish!

It is, ha ha ha...

God bless you, and don't give up the good fight.

[George W. Bush]

God bless you, and don't give up the good fight.

Well, one snob to another, I think you know there's really no giving up after a certain point. You're doomed. Can't pull back.

[FLAMING DEATH]

"Theft is always an illegitimate taking of someone else's personal property. "

By "illegitimate", do you mean according to the law, or do you mean against someone's wishes? And if you mean under the law, do you feel it is appropriate to use man's law to interpret God's? Also, why did you include the term "personal property"? I doubt if music could fall under this scope, since most of it is clearly owned by large organizations.

"Those who've complained to FR about preserving their property rights have had them preserved. "

Sure, those large organizations like the Washington Post and the L. A. Times have the money to undertake such litigation. But, so many articles are posted from so many sources on this site. In fact, there may be some articles posted here from sources that have no knowledge that this site even exists. Can you definitively say that EVERY publication's desires have been met?

"Those who put their product out in the public domain with no expectation of remuneration cannot, by definition, have that property taken. "

Then, once I record a song off the radio, which is as much in the public domain as a website, it is free for the taking, right?

"If you check the source addresses for most articles on FR, you'll discover that the articles are posted as free for the taking. The fact that they appear on FR is actually a benefit for those organizations in that multiple thousands see their articles and over time are more likely to navigate to their website and produce "hits." It is "hits" that generate advertising income for many of these websites. "

That's fine, but if you want me to assume that this is universally the case on Freerepublic, I won't. Even you used the term "most", suggesting that if there is a fair amount that is legitimate, then it is OK. Last week, I clicked an article on the topic of downloading music, intent on finding out what that publication's policy was. It sounded a lot like they didn't want us doing this...it was a typical copyright legal notice. And there, on Freerepublic, was the article posted in full. If you want to look at it, I'll put the link up here, as well as the link to the original thread.

My point is this...clearly copyright laws need to change, in both recorded and printed media.

The fact that you're taking two situations that are very similar, and justifying one, while simultaneously condemning the other, illustrates this perfectly.

Also, I don't think you're looking at it with an open mind. Clearly, you're looking for every loophole to support the idea that copying news articles is right. You should then sympathetic those who look for similar loopholes on the issue of copying music, instead of using the Bible to judge them as thieves.