Moby: The RIAA Needs to be Disbanded

[chrisso]

Interesting.
I'm warming to your opinion.

I think it's that a workable new industry model hasn't been invented yet.
OK, the major labels should be doing more to speed up that process.

Looking at the print media as a similar situation.
Newspapers are going under by the week.
People who once bought newspapers are flocking to free services on the net.
So it's another choice between paying or getting something for free.
The difference is.....
Free news online is by and large created by online writers. It isn't copied word for word from the front page of the NY Times, or copied from the BBC News website holus bolus.

So I think that's why these music industry actions have taken place.
If people were running away from music they had to pay for, towards music that was created with the intention of giving it away via the internet, I don't think anyone would have a problem.
With news, people outside the news media have set themselves up as an alternative.
With the music industry, that has rarely happened. There is no widespread free alternative, so people have found a way to take it anyway.
Like walking out of a cafe with the cafe owned copy of the daily paper under your arm.

[Jam]

Diversity and competition are what drives a market. Innovation is brilliant, wonderful and necessary in any market.

Personally I have no problem with anyone who wishes to pursue alternative methodologies for engaging with and ultimately monetising their fan base.

But I still can't see how this negates the need to protect intellectual properties, if you start a "new model" based enterprise, there are costs, for some products these will be small for others large.

An example, hypothetical band A, funds, creates and distributes an album on the web, hoping to recoup their costs of capital expenditure and labour by selling advertising on their website. They have an offer of one band with one record.

An unscrupulous individual takes this work and the work of nine other bands pursuing the new model and bundles them together on a new website. They have an offer of ten bands and ten albums, which offer is more appealing to the consumer and advertiser ? Which offer has the lowest start up cost ? Which offer has the greatest chance of profitability ?

If the "new model" really is the way forward then it should be relatively straight forward for it to enter the market place and out compete the old model. This seems to me the logical, ethical and appropriate way to test the validity of these claims.

In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.

What I have a real problem with, is a few people who find no hypocrisy in tossing around defamatory terms, like "suits", "corporate shills" and defaming other peoples wishes and beliefs while behaving in a way that borders on totalitarian themselves.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Diversity and competition are what drives a market. Innovation is brilliant, wonderful and necessary in any market.

Personally I have no problem with anyone who wishes to pursue alternative methodologies for engaging with and ultimately monetising their fan base.

But I still can't see how this negates the need to protect intellectual properties, if you start a "new model" based enterprise, there are costs, for some products these will be small for others large.

An example, hypothetical band A, funds, creates and distributes an album on the web, hoping to recoup their costs of capital expenditure and labour by selling advertising on their website. They have an offer of one band with one record.

An unscrupulous individual takes this work and the work of nine other bands pursuing the new model and bundles them together on a new website. They have an offer of ten bands and ten albums, which offer is more appealing to the consumer and advertiser ? Which offer has the lowest start up cost ? Which offer has the greatest chance of profitability ?

If the "new model" really is the way forward then it should be relatively straight forward for it to enter the market place and out compete the old model. This seems to me the logical, ethical and appropriate way to test the validity of these claims.

In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.

What I have a real problem with, is a few people who find no hypocrisy in tossing around defamatory terms, like "suits", "corporate shills" and defaming other peoples wishes and beliefs while behaving in a way that borders on totalitarian themselves.

James

Hi James.

I agree with your entire post including the part where you a problem with me EXCEPT for this part:

In the meantime it seems moral and appropriate to respect the wishes and intentions of the "old timers" as the "new model" wants respect from them.

That part is kind of irrelevant. What do morals have to do with this? In a perfect world they would...but sadly, morals have very little place in this discussion. Trust me. You can put little quotes around it, too, and not say my name again.

Anyway, i think some labels are already doing some of what you suggested. This site, RCRD LBL | Free MP3 Downloads, for example, is a big promotional tool for a handful of different labels.

[XHipHop]

"Dear potential consumer,

I feel you are immoral..."

See... doesn't really have a good ring to it.

Hasn't really worked too well for the industry either. It's about time to leave that out of the convo.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

That part is kind of irrelevant. What do morals have to do with this? In a perfect world they would...but sadly, morals have very little place in this discussion. Trust me. You can put little quotes around it, too, and not say my name again.

Well to me, evaluating whether to do something that is against another's wishes or not, is an explicitly moral issue.
In this specific case, ( music piracy ) if there's no legal consequence, which there isn't for majority of transgressors, I don't know what other criteria one would use to asses it.

I do accept that absolute morality is subjective.

I'm not avoiding you or using your name, I'm just to lazy to read back up the thread and quote.

Allow me a specific question ? As you say you largely agree with me, how do you imagine protecting your intellectual property in the "new model" future ?

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Anyway, i think some labels are already doing some of what you suggested. This site, RCRD LBL | Free MP3 Downloads, for example, is a big promotional tool for a handful of different labels.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out !!

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Well to me, evaluating whether to do something that is against another's wishes or not, is an explicitly moral issue.
In this specific case, ( music piracy ) if there's no legal consequence, which there isn't for majority of transgressors, I don't know what other criteria one would use to asses it.

I do accept that absolute morality is subjective.

I'm not avoiding you or using your name, I'm just to lazy to read back up the thread and quote.

Allow me a specific question ? As you say you largely agree with me, how do you imagine protecting your intellectual property in the "new model" future ?



Thanks for the link, I'll check it out !!

James

The new model really has little to do with intellectual property. It has to do with connecting with fans and selling them something.

James, EVERY SONG EVER RECORDED HAS BEEN COPIED DIGITALLY. You can't go all gestapo into every harddrive in the world and remove them. It's just not going to happen. They are out there.

We can't go back in time "Back to the Future" style (yet! that's the only viable solution so far to stopping piracy and supporing the old model that i've thought of thus far).

All it takes is for a song to be uploaded once and that's the same as it being copied a million times as far as the internet is concerned; it's out there.

So why even discuss that!?!?! Every back catalogue has been compromised and since all it takes is one upload, every album in the future will be, as well.

If you have the time to watch those videos NARM videos from Topspin, they talk about how the beastie boys just successfully reissued their old catalogue with a ton of added material and it was a success because people like the added value of that package.

Radiohead is about to rerelease 3 of their albums in the same way. It's not rocket science. Connect with fans, add value, sell them something.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

"Dear potential consumer,

I feel you are immoral..."

See... doesn't really have a good ring to it.

Hasn't really worked too well for the industry either. It's about time to leave that out of the convo.

Whereas calling a person who behaves immorally immoral seems perfectly reasonable.

Establish the facts before acting is good advice in all walks of life.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Whereas calling a person who behaves immorally immoral seems perfectly reasonable.

Establish the facts before acting is good advice in all walks of life.

James

James, the internet is all about sharing. To convince someone that it's immoral means you have to convince them that they should not be using the internet in the way that it is intended to be used.

We're talking about a whole generation that is growing up that has never bought a cd in a store before.

This is not a war you are going to win.

And society deems a lot of things perfectly moral today that weren't ok even 20 years ago. Times change.

-Robert

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

The new model really has little to do with intellectual property. It has to do with connecting with fans and selling them something.

James, EVERY SONG EVER RECORDED HAS BEEN COPIED DIGITALLY. You can't go all gestapo into every harddrive in the world and remove them. It's just not going to happen. They are out there.

We can't go back in time "Back to the Future" style (yet! that's the only viable solution so far to stopping piracy and supporing the old model that i've thought of thus far).

All it takes is for a song to be uploaded once and that's the same as it being copied a million times as far as the internet is concerned; it's out there.

So why even discuss that!?!?! Every back catalogue has been compromised and since all it takes is one upload, every album in the future will be, as well.

If you have the time to watch those videos NARM videos from Topspin, they talk about how the beastie boys just successfully reissued their old catalogue with a ton of added material and it was a success because people like the added value of that package.

Radiohead is about to rerelease 3 of their albums in the same way. It's not rocket science. Connect with fans, add value, sell them something.

I'm probably being really dense, so take it slowly for me.

In my initial post I tried to illustrate that respect for the creator and defence of intellectual property are important even in the digital age. You posted a reply which included but wasn't limited to.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Hi James.

I agree with your entire post including the part where you a problem with me

I don't have a problem with you in anyway and I'm flattered that you largely agree with the point I made. But you didn't answer my question.

To be clear I don't believe you can un-eat the apple.

I would also respectfully suggest that both models could peacefully co-exist and that would not require the discovery/invention of time travel.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

I'm probably being really dense, so take it slowly for me.

In my initial post I tried to illustrate that respect for the creator and defence of intellectual property are important even in the digital age. You posted a reply which included but wasn't limited to.



I don't have a problem with you in anyway and I'm flattered that you largely agree with the point I made. But you didn't answer my question.

To be clear I don't believe you can un-eat the apple.

I would also respectfully suggest that both models could peacefully co-exist and that would not require the discovery/invention of time travel.

James

Well good luck with your fantasy.

EDIT:
I mean you just told me you believe in something being possible despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. That's a strange position to take but I really meant the good luck part.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

James, the internet is all about sharing. To convince someone that it's immoral means you have to convince them that they should not be using the internet in the way that it is intended to be used.

We're talking about a whole generation that is growing up that has never bought a cd in a store before.

This is not a war you are going to win.

And society deems a lot of things perfectly moral today that weren't ok even 20 years ago. Times change.

-Robert

Society does not currently deem this behaviour moral or legal, this is evidenced by the successful court case against the individuals and organisations.

There is a section of society that does not agree, it is their role, if they choose, to get a democratic mandate to change this if they disagree. If that happens you'll get no argument from me.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Society does not currently deem this behaviour moral or legal, this is evidenced by the successful court case against the individuals and organisations.

There is a section of society that does not agree, it is their role, if they choose, to get a democratic mandate to change this if they disagree. If that happens you'll get no argument from me.

James

The legal part you are correct about. Most of the people that find it moral to download are very new to the political process and not very active. Give them about 10 years.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Well good luck with your fantasy.

EDIT:
I mean you just told me you believe in something being possible despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. That's a strange position to take but I really meant the good luck part.

I'm not sure suggesting I'm a fantasist is that productive.

Specifically what evidence points to the contrary ?

My personal, first hand, experience is that I've worked on a major label release ( old model ) and web promotional give away for a band ( new model ) in the last thirty days.

James

[XHipHop]

Jam,

Why are so many bands signing deals with livenation where livenation gets a cut of merch?

Why are the record labels trying to get cuts of the bands' merch.

Just more evidence to refute that the old model can coexist with the new one. Even the big corporations wouldn't agree with you on that one.

[XHipHop]

This is from the videos that I keep referencing:

"Top 5 music retailers:

1. Itunes
2. Walmart
3. Best Buy
4. Amazon
5. Target

What do they have in common? They all use music as a loss-leader or very low-margin leader. (from the Mike Masnick video)"

Ok, so basically music now is being sold to sell ipods or to pull you into a store. And since sales keep dropping, how long will that exist?!?!

Best buy is about to cut their music sections in half, according to those videos. Sales keep falling - they have no reason to waste the shelf space!

(best buy is one of those electronics superstores...i see you are in the UK...)

The answer is to use the music to sell something for yourself. or in a group with other bands like you suggested. that is what music is proving to be good for and its time for people to get creative and turn it into some profit.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

Jam,

Why are so many bands signing deals with livenation where livenation gets a cut of merch?

Why are the record labels trying to get cuts of the bands' merch.

Just more evidence to refute that the old model can coexist with the new one. Even the big corporations wouldn't agree with you on that one.

The examples you state, aren't evidence of inability to coexist.

They are evidence of the existence of a new model in the first case and the ability of an "old" business trying to find new revenue streams in a declining market.

Specifically, what about these two example would not allow them to coexist ?

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

The examples you state, aren't evidence of inability to coexist.

They are evidence of the existence of a new model in the first case and the ability of an "old" business trying to find new revenue streams in a declining market.

Specifically, what about these two example would not allow them to coexist ?

James

Well one of those can't exist, is my point. It's done. Just google the sales figures.

They co-existed before with bands like Phish and the grateful dead...so i guess you're just arguing semantics now? Sorry i worded my thoughts wrong but yeah....the old model is dead and not coming back and i've presented the evidence to support that (as has pretty much every expert on media. again, google is your friend).

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

This is from the videos that I keep referencing:

"Top 5 music retailers:

1. Itunes
2. Walmart
3. Best Buy
4. Amazon
5. Target

What do they have in common? They all use music as a loss-leader or very low-margin leader. (from the Mike Masnick video)"

Ok, so basically music now is being sold to sell ipods or to pull you into a store. And since sales keep dropping, how long will that exist?!?!

Best buy is about to cut their music sections in half, according to those videos. Sales keep falling - they have no reason to waste the shelf space!

Specifically, how does this demonstrate that the old model and new model can't coexist ?

Originally Posted by XHipHop

(best buy is one of those electronics superstores...i see you are in the UK...)

It's cool, I've spent quite a bit of time in the states over the last ten years, so I have some idea of the retail landscape.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

The answer is to use the music to sell something for yourself. or in a group with other bands like you suggested. that is what music is proving to be good for and its time for people to get creative and turn it into some profit.

Have no problem with this !! Still can't get my head round the idea that I wouldn't want to protect my IP in this scenario, care to elaborate ?

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Specifically, how does this demonstrate that the old model and new model can't coexist ?



It's cool, I've spent quite a bit of time in the states over the last ten years, so I have some idea of the retail landscape.



Have no problem with this !! Still can't get my head round the idea that I wouldn't want to protect my IP in this scenario, care to elaborate ?

James

Are you talking about licensing for tv, radio, video games, commercials etc? Your rights are totally protected there.

As far as the internet goes - i think i explained pretty well how the internet works, didn't i? do i need to clear that up anymore? You might "WANT TO" protect your IP...tell me how you would? impossible. I went over that. That's not how the internet works.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Specifically, how does this demonstrate that the old model and new model can't coexist ?


James

It demonstrates that it's dead. I gave the reasons why, for some reasons i have to keep showing you more evidence. It's dead. DNR.

[Toro]

i think i want to share some 100 dollar bill Y0!

[XHipHop]

In summation:

- The brick and mortar stores are giving up on the old model (and the ones that haven't been able use music as a loss-leader have closed up shop ie: tower, virgin megastores closing, etc).
- The labels are giving up on the old model and trying to get a cut of merch and touring.
- Most bands are giving up on the old model and jumping on web 2.0 to spread their music (all of the examples i've been giving- umm... metric, trent reznor, all of the labels on rcrdlbl.com)

You told me that you understand that you can't un-eat the apple.

So, James...what else do i have to prove to you? I'm confused.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

It demonstrates that it's dead. I gave the reasons why, for some reasons i have to keep showing you more evidence. It's dead. DNR.

So if I were to check the sales charts of the aforementioned outlets, your choices not mine, would I find the majority of media would be from "new model" businesses ?

That would be evidence that the old model was dead or at least DNR to coin a phrase.

If I were to find the opposite it would prove the contrary ?

James

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

In summation:

- The brick and mortar stores are giving up on the old model (and the ones that haven't been able use music as a loss-leader have closed up shop ie: tower, virgin megastores closing, etc).

Wouldn't that just prove that record shops are dead ? Or to be little more wordy that new distribution methodologies have given rise to cost savings, through horizontal and vertical integration.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

- The labels are giving up on the old model and trying to get a cut of merch and touring.

Or that they've realised that there a revenue streams they weren't exploiting and that competition has provoked them to have to realise every cent.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

- Most bands are giving up on the old model and jumping on web 2.0 to spread their music (all of the examples i've been giving- umm... metric, trent reznor, all of the labels on rcrdlbl.com)

Most bands is greater than 50% I'd need to see data for that. The vast majority of material in the charts I've just checked is still from the old model, this was also the case for the PirateBay chart.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

You told me that you understand that you can't un-eat the apple.

The internet is here to stay and will no doubt become more important.

Originally Posted by XHipHop

So, James...what else do i have to prove to you? I'm confused.

That you understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and proof.

James

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

So if I were to check the sales charts of the aforementioned outlets, your choices not mine, would I find the majority of media would be from "new model" businesses ?

That would be evidence that the old model was dead or at least DNR to coin a phrase.

If I were to find the opposite it would prove the contrary ?

James

No. Wow. Ok...we have a fundamental problem here if you even asked that question. I think you need to start over and reread everything...but if you just watch those 2 videos from the other thread, it will actually save you a lot of time and put everything together in a nice little package.

Your question is so flawed - charts prove nothing, unless you want to look at today's charts vs. the charts of a few years ago and see how the old model is dying? Waste of time though, we know how they look.

I think only two albums this year have gone over a million sales...Taylor Swift and the Hannah Montana soundtrack...maybe Eminem has? i haven't looked since the first week of June.

In those videos you'll also find that Trent Reznor made $1.2 mill gross his first week of sales, metric debuted at #1 on the billboard charts JUST FROM ITUNE PRESALES and on their own label, etc.

Mosdef is selling his album on a tshirt, btw...you buy the tshirt and there will be a download code on it...and soundscan has decided that they will count tshirt sales as sales. it's hilarious/awesome! (oh wow it just debut'ed at #9...wonder how many were tshirt sales)

But very few bands in this new business model sell their music at walmart now. So yeah, question is flawed.

God, i'm almost tempted to throw that shill word out again...i'm sorry i know you hate it...but it's really strange how you're unwilling to accept things despite all the evidence.

[XHipHop]

Apple - iTunes - iTunes Store - Charts - Top 10 Songs

DRAKE.

Check the charts. unsigned. (and didn't even clear the sample...ouch. someone is going to get a lot of publishing off of that one).

Please don't respond to this post. It's off-topic and i bit on your off-topic trolling.

Charts have very little to do with this.

[XHipHop]

Originally Posted by Jam

Wouldn't that just prove that record shops are dead ? Or to be little more wordy that new distribution methodologies have given rise to cost savings, through horizontal and vertical integration.



Or that they've realised that there a revenue streams they weren't exploiting and that competition has provoked them to have to realise every cent.



Most bands is greater than 50% I'd need to see data for that. The vast majority of material in the charts I've just checked is still from the old model, this was also the case for the PirateBay chart.



The internet is here to stay and will no doubt become more important.



That you understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and proof.

James

See...yeah, but i've been offering proof.

Music sales drop for 7th time in 8 years - Jan. 1, 2009

There is your proof. I'm sorry that i have to point out very obvious things that everyone else knows to be true to you. I hope that helps. In the future - try google?

[Jam]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

No. Wow. Ok...we have a fundamental problem here if you even asked that question. I think you need to start over and reread everything...but if you just watch those 2 videos from the other thread, it will actually save you a lot of time and put everything together in a nice little package.

Your question is so flawed - charts prove nothing, unless you want to look at today's charts vs. the charts of a few years ago and see how the old model is dying? Waste of time though, we know how they look.

I think only two albums this year have gone over a million sales...Taylor Swift and the Hannah Montana soundtrack...maybe Eminem has? i haven't looked since the first week of June.

In those videos you'll also find that Trent Reznor made $1.2 mill gross his first week of sales, metric debuted at #1 on the billboard charts JUST FROM ITUNE PRESALES and on their own label, etc.

Mosdef is selling his album on a tshirt, btw...you buy the tshirt and there will be a download code on it...and soundscan has decided that they will count tshirt sales as sales. it's hilarious/awesome! (oh wow it just debut'ed at #9...wonder how many were tshirt sales)

But very few bands in this new business model sell their music at walmart now. So yeah, question is flawed.

God, i'm almost tempted to throw that shill word out again...i'm sorry i know you hate it...but it's really strange how you're unwilling to accept things despite all the evidence.

You said said the music industry was dead, this is binary, it's dead or it isn't.

The only way I can think of to measure this is to look at sales, the charts are still dominated by traditional record labels, that seems pretty unequivocal to me.

You said the two models can't coexist, yet the charts of the outlets you named are full of releases from traditional labels, you go on to name a number of "new model" acts that are doing great, how is this not coexisting ?

The make up of the charts both the P2P and legal, seem to show that major labels are still here and dominant, you may know better but you seem unwilling or unable to demonstrate this.

I totally accept sales aren't what they used to be, you can prove this with data, I can't understand why anyone would argue the contrary. I certainly didn't.

You can toss out any casual insult you like, you've called me a fantasist and stopped just short of calling me a shill. You won't provoke me and it won't make what you're saying any truer.

James

[Koed]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

See...yeah, but i've been offering proof.

Music sales drop for 7th time in 8 years - Jan. 1, 2009

There is your proof. I'm sorry that i have to point out very obvious things that everyone else knows to be true to you. I hope that helps. In the future - try google?

That's evidence at most, don't forget we're in a worldwide economic crisis.

[Jam]

Originally Posted by Koed

That's evidence at most, don't forget we're in a worldwide economic crisis.

There's a lovely expression, correlation is not causation, it seems fair to use it here.

James