Look, I hear ya, breaking the law is breaking the law. I'm just saying that their (the RIAA and the Majors) intentions are not what they appear to be, and while illegal downloading is a crime, and I certainly don't stand with piracy ( a far greater crime, IMHO - it's one thing to steal for personal use, another entirly to steal for personal profit), labels need to realize that the consumer has spoken, and a new model needs to be developed, one that increases the
legal downloading to minimize the
illegal downloading.
The point is that the RIAA is promoting this masquerade as "we are doing something to prevent the problem". The core of the problem is supposed to be lost income. The fact is that the proliferation of alternate outlets such as file sharing HELPS to maximize profits, not curtail them.
The LAW is "no downloading". The REASON FOR THE LAW is supposedly that it protects against lost profits, right? So THE ACTUAL SPIRIT OF THE PROBLEM is lost profits, right? So that's what I am addressing, not just the letter of the law, which no one is debating.
How about those people that follow copyright law by making a copy for educational and professional reasons, and have 30 days free access? Gee, RIAA, I'm writing a book on hip hop, so I downloaded "The Thong Song". I've been deleting and then redownloading it every 30 days, as per the law.
So while CD sales have gone down,
actual profits have gone up, because more people have more access to music! Look at the success of the MySpace/YouTube paradigm - bands have gotten signed because they have built huge internet fan bases... how?
By giving their music away. Is downloading illegal? Yup, and NO ONE HAS ARGUED OTHERWISE. But is " the deterrent" of a lawsuit really scaring anyone, to the point where profit is recouped? Uh, no. The RIAA has every right to do what they are doing, and again, no one is arguing that they don't. Is it the best strategy for accomplishing their stated aims? No, and the numbers are clear on that. Not just me, the numbers on the little spreadsheet don't lie.
My point is that your average consumer is STILL going to spend their "music budget" regardless of how much stuff they download. People like music. People support music. They might not spent that $15 on a CD, but they'll then spend it on a hoodie at a show. Or a DVD. By giving up the $2.50 of a CD, you are able to gain more fans, who are then going to spend that money on you anyways. If you insist on controlling every aspect of delivery, you are going to limit the number of fans that have access to your product - which is the core of the problem, isn't it?
It has nothing to do with CD sales, per se. It has everything to do with control and power - and the labels are losing their control of distribution, their dominance in the marketplace, the control of promotional outlets such as MTV and radio. I have as much access to the actual potential fans as many major acts, and that is NO F&KING GOOD for the Majors. THAT is what they are fighting for! They can no longer tell the masses what to like, or control the trends to maximize profits, or sign 400 Nirvana sound-a-like bands to capitalize on an indie phenomenon like they are used to.
This has f*ck-all to do about legality, punishment or deterrence. These are a smoke screen for the real issue - one of market monopoly and access to consumer dollars. How can a major compete against a band willing to give away their songs for free? Certainly not by threatening lawsuits they can't win. This strategy is an attempt to regain control of the outlets of promotion and distribution, plain and simple.
The Majors are going to have to realize that the people that steal music are going to anyways, and have been for decades. They have to trust that there are people who download with intent to buy. Downloading is often the new equivalent of "let me lend you my new Tom Waits CD". How about if I burn a CD for a friend? If they wouldn't otherwise have been exposed to the music, how can they spend money on it? So the elimination of this helps only those who control the mainstream outlets... you can then only find out about the music we tell you to like!
They have to stop blowing smoke up our asses about "lost profits". They have to look at an artist AS a brand, and realize that people DO buy into the brand, and the easiest way to do this is to get people into the store, as it were, with a loss leader. Look at the business model for this year's Ozzfest.
As a metal consumer, the business case for this has already proven to be effective - look at tape swapping in the early '80's. Metal thrives on the paradigm of making music available for free, and then fans making sure they support the bands financially. Indie music is becoming the same way. The fact is that there are more bands making a good living now than at any time in history. Yeah, the era of the blockbuster might be over (which, again, points to the singleminded approach of the RIAA as a pawn for the Majors), but the actual number of dollars spent in the industry is UP.
I have no problem with the Majors making money, I just find it ironic that their strategy is COSTING them money by clinging to an outdated model. I'm truly sorry that they can no longer put together a pre-fab team of pop crap purveyors ripping off the same hit they had last year, and spend 10 million to record it with some talentless set of tits or bunch of GQ models and then force it down the throat of the mainstream and make ******** amounts of money. I really am. Sorry that we are taking gold plated back scrubbers out of the hands of spoiled self entitled coke addicts and putting it in the hands of bands and artists that actually work for a living, and sell only based on actual talent.
My bad.