My Very Own RIAA Rant
Oct. 2nd, 2003 08:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8As I consider the aggressiveness with which the RIAA has been attacking P2P networks and their users I am forced to conclude that they really are battling for survival. Sure, they were disturbed when tape recorders came out, but they compromised. Same with DAT (which never materialized into the threat they thought it would). But their policy on this whole computer thingy, and P2P networks in particular is nothing short of draconian. And that is because its not just about their Intellectual Property. It's CERTAINLY not about the artists. Its about a deep down threat to the very foundation of their existence. And anyone who has read Scott McCloud will surely have guessed at my meaning by now.
A P2P Network isn't much more troubling than cassettes when its just listeners exchanging music from listeners. These people will grow up and by legal albums of the pirated music they listened to in their youth. For thirty years that model has worked. But, when its artists exchanging music with listeners, things get truly dangerous. The RIAA becomes superfluous. And the issue of payment that plagues the web-comic world is of less import to musicians who get pittances from the RIAA but get their gravy at live shows. So, if an artist takes a P2P network by storm, and he puts on his web page "hey, I'm playing in Pullman tonight, come see me," he's getting his gravy, but the recording industry isn't getting theirs. Especially if the P2P networks make him popular enough that he can say "hey, I'm playing the Meadowlands tonight," and count on a packed house.
This has record execs quaking in their boots, I expect. And the best way to prevent this scenario is to completely demonize the P2P networks, to create an image of them that causes the listener to say "hey, if I download ANYTHING from here, I might get sued." Then, even if an artist releases a song under the GNU Public License, people will be afraid to download it.
This is also why the record execs don't worry about image. They're fighting to remain the only game in town, and when you're a monopoly, it doesn't matter what people think. But the REAL mark of fear is the recent price reduction on CD's. The RIAA gives enough credence to the threat that P2P networks can pose to their very reason for being that they are not only willing to scare users away with lawsuits, but to lure them away with lower prices. Now that's like publicly wetting your pants!
A P2P Network isn't much more troubling than cassettes when its just listeners exchanging music from listeners. These people will grow up and by legal albums of the pirated music they listened to in their youth. For thirty years that model has worked. But, when its artists exchanging music with listeners, things get truly dangerous. The RIAA becomes superfluous. And the issue of payment that plagues the web-comic world is of less import to musicians who get pittances from the RIAA but get their gravy at live shows. So, if an artist takes a P2P network by storm, and he puts on his web page "hey, I'm playing in Pullman tonight, come see me," he's getting his gravy, but the recording industry isn't getting theirs. Especially if the P2P networks make him popular enough that he can say "hey, I'm playing the Meadowlands tonight," and count on a packed house.
This has record execs quaking in their boots, I expect. And the best way to prevent this scenario is to completely demonize the P2P networks, to create an image of them that causes the listener to say "hey, if I download ANYTHING from here, I might get sued." Then, even if an artist releases a song under the GNU Public License, people will be afraid to download it.
This is also why the record execs don't worry about image. They're fighting to remain the only game in town, and when you're a monopoly, it doesn't matter what people think. But the REAL mark of fear is the recent price reduction on CD's. The RIAA gives enough credence to the threat that P2P networks can pose to their very reason for being that they are not only willing to scare users away with lawsuits, but to lure them away with lower prices. Now that's like publicly wetting your pants!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-10-03 07:05 am (UTC)I've never met, or even heard of a real artist who liked his record company (bands like the Backstreet Boys and n'Sync love their record companies because they only exist becuase of them). The history of popular music is awash with stories of bands getting screwed by them. That's why so many who could started their own, starting with the Beatles. That's why Wilco's recent screwing of their own record company became an instant legend.
Record companies are basically like banks. They lend bands money to produce and record records, they pay another company to manufacture the records, and they are paid back by record sales. Bands don't usually earn a penny from a record until the production, mastering and initial manufacturing costs are paid back. Record companies have legions of accountants out to prove that to the bands that they lost money, even on very successful records. Of course, they do take some speculative risk and should be compensated for that.
It used to be that recording equipment was bulky and expensive and studio time was expensive. Now you can buy a first class recording setup for under five grand and its completely portable. That might sound like a chunk of change at first, but most rock band's sound systems cost that much and really good guitars can easily run two grand. You can set up and spend as much time as you want on your recording without paying studio overhead and do everything your own way. You can tinker with it until you think its perfect. You can manufacture your own CDs. You can promote yourself by email and on the web. Record companies, and studies, are becoming superfluous, and they know it.
I think the record companies will continue to survive by producing overly-commercial, over-produced, over-hyped teenybopper crap. The real artists out there who produce adult music and actually consider themselves "artists" rather than "singers" or "performers" are going to start ignoring them.
Still, I do think there is an intellectual property problem with P2P. It's not only music but software and pretty much anything else that can be downloaded in electronic format. I'm somewhat surprised that software companies aren't on the bandwagon. If I were Adobe or Macromedia I'd be pissed about all the copies of Photoshop and Dreamweaver floating around out there.
no subject
Date: 2003-10-03 08:15 am (UTC)Software companies do get a bit upset, and tend to prosecute businesses rather than individuals. I think that's a great business strategy, because the college kid who uses a pirated or cracked copy of dreamweaver is going to recommend it when he needs to choose a tool for the company he winds up working for to use. Truth is, if they went after that kid, he'd switch over to something free, like Quanta Plus for Linux, and that's what he would use professionally too.