Record industry wants to kill the radio star.

[Drivestort]

http://www.noperformancetax.org/


This is something I just heard about today on the radio while driving home from class.


Long story short is that there's bills some people in the American government are wanting to push that would force radio stations to be taxed for playing music, funneling the music to recording companies. Radio stations don't have a lot of profit, and, at least the stations I've listened to, tend to give away a lot of money in various forms, including just plain cash money. They'll almost certainly die or switch to talk radio, all because the record industry can't keep up with the times. They're more or less asking for money because they failed to pay attention to trends.


If you like listening to music on the radio, I think you should take a look at the link.

[Callie Del Noire]

This is a joke yes?

They can't be trying to get this much money out of EVERY revenue source? I mean.. talk about killing the golden goose. No one can be THIS stupid and greedy...

[HairyHeretic]

Would you care to put money on that?

The recording cartels would charge you for singing along with a song if they could.

[Callie Del Noire]

They (the radio stations and syndicates) should charge the recording industury then.

'Promotion play time' of their records.

[September]

We have this in the UK.  Calling it a tax seems a bit misleading since it doesn't go to the government, but to the label (and therefore to the artist).  Shouldn't it more properly be called a performance fee?

Seems like the radio stations are getting something for nothing and they don't want to lose it.

[Callie Del Noire]

We have this in the UK.  Calling it a tax seems a bit misleading since it doesn't go to the government, but to the label (and therefore to the artist).  Shouldn't it more properly be called a performance fee?

Seems like the radio stations are getting something for nothing and they don't want to lose it.

It's something new, and with the way the economy has gone into the crapper over here it's almost certainly going to kill a LOT of radio stations. Think about it. Is it smart to shit in the pool that is some of your best cost free advertising medium?

[rick957]

Very few people listen to the radio regularly to begin with, and very few of those people listen to small local stations, which make up only a tiny portion of broadcasters.  Plus, radio play on any station hasn't significantly impacted the success or failure of recording artists in decades; artists get played because they're already popular or already have the backing of a major label.  NPR has nationally-broadcast shows that routinely play music from obscure artists and have little or no effect on their profitability.

Railing against the big record companies isn't necessary anymore, even for dedicated music fans; they just don't matter like they used to.

It's more worrisome to me that music has become a valueless, universally-stolen commodity.  Small artists aren't going to fail because some small local radio station went broke.  They're going to disappear (and mostly already have) because no one wants to pay for their recordings anymore, and live performances and merchandise sales don't add up to a livable wage.  Music is going to become a profitless, free-time hobby for lots of moderately-talented amateurs, while gifted new artists will have no way to reach an audience of any size, until something big changes.  (Kinda doom-and-gloom-sounding, but it's mostly already happened, IMHO.)

[Callie Del Noire]

I find it amusing that the record companies find it necessary to find new ways to screw the buyers, and squeeze every penny out of their profits through legislating rather than innovation and streamlining. They spend ungodly amounts of money to screw their artists and such.

[Valerian]

The real problem with losing small local radio stations has little to do with music.  When the small stations go out of business, they're bought up by communications conglomerates.  It's infinitely cheaper to run such stations with preprogrammed music and no announcers or DJs physically there at all.  You then lose all the charity and community events radio stations traditionally run, but that still isn't the real problem.  It might quickly become the norm to have things such as this happen.

The radio giant Clear Channel owned all six commercial stations in Minot, North Dakota. None of them broke into regular programming to provide emergency information to the city’s residents. After the town’s Emergency Alert System failed, local officials tried to call the stations–but no one answered. The stations continued to play music piped in from out of state.

The emergency in question was the derailment of a train carrying anhydrous ammonia.  One person died, about 300 needed emergency treatment, and over 1,000 people needed treatment over the next month for related problems.  No one quite knew what was happening, and calls flooded the 911 operators, who urged people to tune in the designated emergency broadcast station -- which continued to play preprogrammed music because no one was at that station (or any of the other five area stations) to answer the panicky phone calls of residents and the authorities.

This happened eight years ago, and the last lawsuit (out of hundreds) in connection with the accident was only settled earlier this month -- many of which would never have been filed if the residents had known about the ammonia and been able to take the necessary simple precautions to avoid injury.  Right now, this is a relatively unusual situation, but if we start losing radio stations by the dozens or hundreds (and, incidentally, the related jobs, which we can ill afford), this could become the norm.  Simply being able to find out if that storm raging outside has turned into a tornado or not might quickly become very difficult without those "small local stations."

[Doomsday]

The record industry wants to kill everyone in general.

[Callie Del Noire]

I recall something to the effect that one of the earlier mouthpieces of the RIAA had spent years to actively screw out some very sick artists out of their medical benefits because they'd have to spend money. (Wish I could recall who and which company, sadly my rabid Anti-RIAA friend has dropped off the edge of the map..he could tell you ALL the evil they've done to get the last red cent they felt they were owed)

[Chris Brady]

We have this in the UK.  Calling it a tax seems a bit misleading since it doesn't go to the government, but to the label (and therefore to the artist).  Shouldn't it more properly be called a performance fee?

Seems like the radio stations are getting something for nothing and they don't want to lose it.

You don't get it.  The actual artist (Unless he/she IS the recording company, a few bands are) would NEVER SEE a single pence. Period.  And the Radio Stations are doing bands/artists a FAVOUR by putting out their music in a free format for people to listen and if they like it, buy it.

Believe it or not, a lot of people who get things for free (Whether by piracy or what have you) will actually turn around and PURCHASE the article in question.  See, we WANT to give people our money if we like something, we DON'T want to feel as if we're being FORCED to.  Even if the reality there's no difference.

[Trieste]

So reading the article that Val posted got me thinking. Here's a quote from it:

Many of us know the stories of musicians who felt that they were punished for their political views. I mean, imagine musicians advocating peace, criticizing war. I mean, this is something that American musicians have done for a long time. But Clear Channel, which has avowedly conservative politics, supported President Bush, supported the war in Iraq, actually fired a number of personalities after they came out publicly and criticized the war, is thought to be the kind of company that will punish musicians for speaking their minds. And that has created a kind of culture of fear in the music community. People don’t want to offend this company, because [Clear Channel] can keep them off the airwaves, etc.

This came after a discussion of how much Clear Channel owns in the way of concert venues and ad space in addition to radio and other media. They own a LOT.

Think about your idols... and about some of the most forceful vectors of change. Music stirs us in a way that few mediums (media? whatever) can stir us. Bob Dylan. Jimi Hendrix. U2. Rage Against the Machine. All of these artists have had a message, and all of them made us think in one way or other. People want to complain about 'kids today'? Who have we given them to look up to?

It really doesn't seem like much of a coincidence that the current generation, which seems so sedated  by comparison, is just laying down and taking the knocks that they're given. In part it's because our generation structure is broken (the oldest generation should never outnumber the younger generation - a situation that will eventually - hopefully - right itself as the baby boomers go kaput) but in part it's because, like it or not, popular culture can be more effective in some ways than parents  could ever dream.

So, assuming the above quote is actually true, we're taking away diversity in the media, and anything outspoken in music that could be said to rock the boat. Such things really seem, to me, to go against what we like to think of as American sensibilities of 'free speech'.

[Drivestort]

You don't get it.  The actual artist (Unless he/she IS the recording company, a few bands are) would NEVER SEE a single pence. Period.  And the Radio Stations are doing bands/artists a FAVOUR by putting out their music in a free format for people to listen and if they like it, buy it.

Not entirely untrue, but damn close. The labels will be giving half of the money from the tax to the artists, and keeping half for themselves. Of course, considering even small labels can have a dozen bands on their bills, and the large ones have hundreds, that doesn't come out to a whole lot.


I've read an article supporting it, and it seems the musicians who do support it are... Old. Like, seriously, people who just aren't putting out albums any more, which of course would put them even further removed than the labels.

[Trieste]

Linkie linkie?

[Drivestort]

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/?q=articles/news/moving_america_news/9829


I think the keyword is 'music vets' in the title of that article.

[Trieste]

*reads*

I can see where they are coming from. It's really not fair that the song writers get paid every time the song is on the radio but the performers don't. If they're going to do it, it needs to be a flat fee per song. It needs to work kinda like a pack of gum: distributor pays the manufacturer, store pays the distributor, customer pays the store. You don't make the customer pay the store, the distributor, and the manufacturer, and with the bulk of music the radio plays, you don't want to charge them per use. The way to figure it out is the way you figure out the use of an iPod: you figure out what seems like a fair price for the thing, the customer pays it up front, and even though they could get years of use out of it, the distributor still makes some money.

Of course, that would be too sensible and would require pop stars to live like normal people instead of multi-million dollar mansions (that they may or may not have seen)...

[Drivestort]

It'd also require the major record labels and the RIAA to understand the long term effects of how they handle their business, and more importantly, be able to come to decisions with the evolution of media and distribution methods in mind in a timely manner. At this point, I think the world would be better off just killing themselves, because I don't see a light at the end of a tunnel that involves them being smart. The RIAA specifically has become so drunk and bloated on their position, they go out and try to sue the very people they're supposed to be there to protect, even.

[Jude]

You can't make the evolution of media argument against the RIAA and then at the same time ignore it when it comes to radio; radio really is an antiquated medium for entertainment, especially music, given the digital revolution.  Killing off musical radio stations might be the next logical step in the evolution of media.

I also don't understand how making musical artists less likely to make political statements is a bad thing.  They have a right to say whatever they want, but they abuse the additional power granted in them by celebrity status in an attempt to spread their beliefs to the populace.  It's every bit as bad as when businesses try to use their enormous wealth and power to influence causes.  They're two sides of the same coin, right wingers complain about musicians and left wingers complain about corporations;  they just bitch about people who abuse their power to say things they don't agree with, not people who abuse their power to say things they do agree with, it's hypocrisy at its best.

Artist's political opinions are rarely well-researched and people aren't really punished for making political songs as much as loud, political statements on the public forum.  When in public, in a very real way, celebrities are on the job because their public appearance is part of the marketing.  If I made political statements at work I would be fired; why should it be any different for a celebrity who goes out of their way to spout off their beliefs (and often it occurs during during public events; award acceptance speeches, etc).

Every medium other than radio has to pay royalties for the use of music to the artist and the recording label, why should radio be exempt?  If the medium cannot survive as is while compensating artists for their contributions to their success, then why should it survive as is?

We need radio to deliver public service announcements and talk radio isn't going anywhere no matter what.  Sports channels, political channels, and the faith channels are going to be perfectly fine.  If this passes it'll only hurt the music stations which already do a poor job of serving the needs of people who actually have nuanced, individualistic musical tastes to begin with.  Yes, some local radio stations may be closed, jobs will be lost, but new frequencies will open up for technology (and radio frequencies are popular real estate).

If I was in congress I still don't know how I would vote.  My mind isn't made up, I see the points either way.  I know that they provide free advertising, but the way they do it is by using their products to make money for themselves.  Painting it that way is a bit dishonest, as is this whole tax nonsense.  It's clearly an effort to associate the performance fee with taxes in order to capitalize on the swelling tide of public dissatisfaction with anything deemed a tax; it's dishonest as are many of the arguments here including the one that said artists wouldn't see a cent.  That's blatantly untrue.

When you're discussing a topic and you take it to an extreme level and use dishonest tactics you will convince people who may otherwise have been on your side to support your opponents, as such it's really important to consider the language and the honesty of your arguments.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well the things is.. when I'm driving I LIKE listening to the stations that play classic rock, r&b and some current music.

I do not listen to : talk radio, sports radio, religious radio or political radio. I know of at least five artists I discovered to like driving back and forth to work when I had a job. I know a LOT of folks who pick up new music they like that way and will lose out on it. Digital media ISN'T the future yet, and local stations are simply being targeted as the newest 'goose' to kill by RIAA and it's composite parts.

What is next?  Charging folks who play cover songs at bars, proms, weddings and what have you? An annual 'usage fee' for music you download?

[Trieste]

It'd also require the major record labels and the RIAA to understand the long term effects of how they handle their business, and more importantly, be able to come to decisions with the evolution of media and distribution methods in mind in a timely manner. At this point, I think the world would be better off just killing themselves, because I don't see a light at the end of a tunnel that involves them being smart. The RIAA specifically has become so drunk and bloated on their position, they go out and try to sue the very people they're supposed to be there to protect, even.

Their anti-pirating thing really really needs to stop. They went and shot themselves in the foot by taking it over the top and I'm not even sure they've realized it. Maybe they have, I don't know. What I do know is that they haven't even once made a move in the direction of an apology, and that's pretty important. Whether they acted incorrectly or not is not really at issue; what is at issue is that they made themselves into public bad guys and they're not going to get back any respect until they acknowledge and apologize for that fact.

Once they've done that, then they can start talking about a performance fee or tax or whatever, but until they've established themselves as an entity that's capable of saying "I screwed up, I'd like to move on", they will not have the social currency to introduce anything without it being seen as another ploy.

It doesn't matter if it's within their power or even their right. Like health care recission, the RIAA's persecution of even the most ludicrous targets may be a legally permissible act and it may seem like a good idea at the time, but the social backlash should nonetheless warrant some pause and hopefully some rectification. That seems to be at the base of a lot of these arguments.

[Jude]

1)  I can counter your personal stories with my own which are in direct conflict just as easily, but personal stories don't matter.  They speak of individual events and not trends.

2)  Slippery slope arguments present situations where, if the logic was applied in the most extreme manner possible, those things would occur.  Fortunately, there's no reason to believe the logic would ever be applied to its most extreme.  You can support the performance fee and at the same time insist that laws the law include protections against that very stuff you're worried about every happening, and then things are just fine.

The bottom line is, if a studio produces a television show the TV station that carries it in order to compete for the market share so that they can sell advertisements has to compensate that television studio.  It's not always financial, for example the Networks will often trade programming for ad-time, and other things.  You could make the argument that those stations shouldn't have to pay since they're advertising for those television shows which will make money off of selling DVDs of their seasons and individual episodes on iTunes, that's basically the argument you're making for radio.

People don't hate television studios like they do recording companies, but they do the same thing for a different medium.  True, this is partially because the recording industry has a bad reputation for its anti-piracy measures, but their profitability has been in decline for years.  The point is, the two situations are analogous, the question is very simple:  why should radio get special privileges that other forms of media don't?  Why shouldn't musicians and record companies have full creative control over their product, including the right to demand these fees if they want their music played?  Being against this is essentially advocating continuing to deny them that control over their own product, no one's going to force them to play popular music if the price is too high, but we're currently forcing them to give it away almost for free.

[Vekseid]

...I have to admit I don't think I've heard the phrase "abuse the additional power granted in them by celebrity status in an attempt to spread their beliefs to the populace" used in a serious argument before. That's... quite special.

It does not in the slightest compare to a corporation funding a message, of course, since in the celebrity's case, you know who is behind it.

What is next?  Charging folks who play cover songs at bars, proms, weddings and what have you? ...

This has been going on for some decades now.

Given the predominance of payola I'm not sure what sense this move makes, except possibly as a thicker cover for payola in general to drown out the digital medium. Then again, the RIAA could just be batshit crazy. The MPAA has been working with a much lighter touch, with a more valuable product, and has been better received for it.

[rick957]

Jude's points above (and Vekseid's too) seem far more logically sound and overall sensible than much of the criticism being lobbied at the recording industry here.  (And it's really weird for me to be saying anything in defense of the recording industry, which I generally detest for its consistent historical track record of shortchanging artistry for the sake of profits.)

Yet, here I go again.  :)  Trieste, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm flabbergasted at your suggestion that the recording industry owes the public an apology.  Of course, I think the decision to prosecute individual file-sharers is an absurdly ill-advised and counter-productive tactic, but it is a legal tactic, in response to theft.  No matter how low your opinion is of the recording industry, it is made of people, and those people have lost their livelihoods due to the widespread, unstoppable, and completely illegal practice of file sharing of copyrighted works.

The inexorable slow death of copyright is a lot more worrisome to me than the death of the loathsome recording industry, however, because the former seriously threatens the livelihood of full-time-career artists of all kinds -- musicians, writers, actors, directors, you name it.

[Jude]

...I have to admit I don't think I've heard the phrase "abuse the additional power granted in them by celebrity status in an attempt to spread their beliefs to the populace" used in a serious argument before. That's... quite special.

That's extremely condescending and rude.

It does not in the slightest compare to a corporation funding a message, of course, since in the celebrity's case, you know who is behind it.

You're saying it's a false analogy because of ways in which I didn't compare it.  It's true, it's a false analogy if your problem is the lack of transparency, but I was comparing the concentration of political power in the handful of a few (or in the case of celebrities one) individuals.  If you're against that in the case of companies, then you should be against it in the case of celebrities, was my point.

[Vekseid]

That's extremely condescending and rude.

I apologize.

You're saying it's a false analogy because of ways in which I didn't compare it.

You are dismissing an argument because you did not make it.

It's true, it's a false analogy if your problem is the lack of transparency, but I was comparing the concentration of political power in the handful of a few (or in the case of celebrities one) individuals.

Name one celebrity that holds complete and utter sway over the entire populace.

  If you're against that in the case of companies, then you should be against it in the case of celebrities, was my point.

This is false on its face by your own admission, you simply dismiss the counterargument, admitting it is there but instead pretend that it is not relevant because you did not account for it.

[Jude]

Celebrities don't own complete sway over the entire population, but nor do companies.

Your point seems to be that the two are difference because of transparency, and you're right, they are different in that way.  They're not perfectly the same, and I can see how you might consider that abuse of power more egregious for that reason.  My point was simply that celebrities abuse their status to expose their political beliefs in a similar way that corporations do.  There's no reason anyone should listen to them more than any other citizen, but people do because they have enormous personal popularity.  Their opinions are often less intelligent and fact based, but they use that personal magnetism to propel stupid ideas.

I'll give you an example:  Oprah supports a wide variety of pseudo-scientific practices, often enabling con-artists and "snake oil salesman" to peddle their BS to the populace.  Her ideas wouldn't stand up under scrutiny, but because people have such blind faith in her, they ignore the evidence (to their own detriment).

I guess I'm starting to see your point a bit more.  They work in different ways.  Corporations mislead the public, often knowingly, primarily for their own benefit by using their enormous wealth and power.  Celebrities tend to use the Cult of Personality to influence people to believe whatever it is they do, but their motivations are more complex.  I think more often than not they truly believe the things they're peddling and are trying to make a positive difference.  I guess my point more or less was that the end result is the same.

Corporations have helped fund global warming deniers, so if climate change becomes a real problem, they've fed to that.  Celebrities have supported the anti-vaccination movement which otherwise would've been easily quelled, now because of Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, and others we're having outbreaks of diseases (especially in England) that by all rights should be dead and gone.  The end result is similar, but the process is different.  It's sincerity versus deception; maliciousness versus honestly held opinions.

I can agree corporations are worse.

[Trieste]

Yet, here I go again.  :)  Trieste, I tend to agree with a lot of what you say, but I'm flabbergasted at your suggestion that the recording industry owes the public an apology.  Of course, I think the decision to prosecute individual file-sharers is an absurdly ill-advised and counter-productive tactic, but it is a legal tactic, in response to theft.  No matter how low your opinion is of the recording industry, it is made of people, and those people have lost their livelihoods due to the widespread, unstoppable, and completely illegal practice of file sharing of copyrighted works.

As I said, I don't think they owe an apology because they did something illegal. I think they owe an apology because they did something wrong. There is a difference, and there is such a thing as going about a legal action in a wrong manner. Completely different things, and, yes, worthy of apology to those that give them money.

[Vekseid]

Celebrities don't own complete sway over the entire population, but nor do companies.

Disney, Time Warner, General Electric, National Amusements, News Corporation.

There are no fifty celebrities with that level of power and reach, much less five.

[rick957]

Jude and Vekseid, I'm impressed by how civil and substantive your disagreement has been.  That's a highly rare and valuable thing, and it reflects well on E as a community, IMHO.

Trieste, it may just be something we disagree on, but your perspective still seems unreasonable to me.  This is an entire industry that has been decimated by illegal actions, and governments worldwide have failed to prevent that from happening.  Whether we pay for music or not, our governments have failed to enforce laws upon which that industry depended for its existence.  Hundreds of people at the least have lost their jobs as a result. 

I don't disagree with you that their responses may be wrong in some ethical sense, but weren't their actions part of an effort to right an enormous wrong that had been perpetrated against them?  They're literally facing extinction, and it's due to crime, and the public is responsible.  The public has betrayed the record industry, by either directly causing or allowing it to fall victim to illegal plundering.  If any apologies are owed for their dumb responses, it would be to the wronged individuals from the suits, not to a public that has let them down so completely.

Think of it this way.  A huge mob loots a retail store, top to bottom.  The owner has lost everything; it was her only store, her entire livelihood.  She's distraught.  In her aggrieved state, she grabs one of the people who she knows for certain was part of the mob, and she beats the crap out of that person. 

Is it the right thing to do?  Of course not.  Is it going to help restore what she's lost, or even prevent further mob looting?  Nope.  But do you really expect the owner who lost everything to make a public show of contrition for beating up that looter?  At most, she might be a decent enough person to apologize to the individual looter in the hospital, and then not beat up any more individual looters.

Unfortunately, even that much isn't happening, because it turns out the store owner wasn't a very nice person to begin with; actually, she's kind of a scumbag, and pretty stupid to boot.  :)  But expecting anything more still seems unreasonable to me.

[Trieste]

Jude and Vekseid, I'm impressed by how civil and substantive your disagreement has been.  That's a highly rare and valuable thing, and it reflects well on E as a community, IMHO.

Trieste, it may just be something we disagree on, but your perspective still seems unreasonable to me.  This is an entire industry that has been decimated by illegal actions, and governments worldwide have failed to prevent that from happening.  Whether we pay for music or not, our governments have failed to enforce laws upon which that industry depended for its existence.  Hundreds of people at the least have lost their jobs as a result. 

I don't disagree with you that their responses may be wrong in some ethical sense, but weren't their actions part of an effort to right an enormous wrong that had been perpetrated against them?  They're literally facing extinction, and it's due to crime, and the public is responsible.  The public has betrayed the record industry, by either directly causing or allowing it to fall victim to illegal plundering.  If any apologies are owed for their dumb responses, it would be to the wronged individuals from the suits, not to a public that has let them down so completely.

Probably, and that's ok with me. :) The fundamental difference here seems to be that I don't believe the RIAA's sob story of being so decimated. People could record movies by means of two VHS players back in the day, and anyone with a tape deck with a 'record' button on it could rip a song off the radio. You can pirate movies, and yet the movie industry still thrives. How much do stars get paid? How much did Avatar make? What about the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises? What is their version of 'decimation'? Is it that Lady Gaga only gets ten backup dancers instead of twelve? Really, now.

Moving past that and saying that they have been decimated and poor little Britney has to scale back her renovations to $750,000 instead of $1 million, what possible good do they think suing a 12-year-old, or even a college student, is going to do? Make an example? We have a word for people who try to make an example of children by harming them. We call them barbarians.

Yes, I very much expect them to apologize, just like I would expect your hypothetical store owner to apologize. I feel a little bit like the store owner example is an uneven example, since assault is a whole lot more immediately damaging than suing someone. The RIAA was not physically attacking its victims (thank goodness) but it very much was attacking people who had no money to defend themselves, and that's just pitiful. You don't defend yourself by kicking a puppy.

[rick957]

Oh well, I suppose we just see those issues differently.  :)  As to this:

The fundamental difference here seems to be that I don't believe the RIAA's sob story of being so decimated. ... What is their version of 'decimation'?

I'm no authority, just a music fan, but the recording industry's woes have been well-documented; there's a lot of concrete info out there.  A couple hastily-unearthed links, in case anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#2000s

The first paragraph there, under "2000s," provides a nice short summary, complete with sales figures.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/6099/

This guy doesn't cite references but he describes the changes that have taken place pretty well, and he mentions many of the contributing factors, including changes in radio, Clear Channel, the Internet, etc.  I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some great points.  (He concludes by sort of suggesting that Rock is finally dead.  Yep.)

Personally, I'm not shedding any tears over Britney or GaGa, but a whole slew of my favorite artists have stopped releasing music over the years, and too often it's been due to financial considerations or negative changes in the music industry.

P.S.  For the record, I do disapprove of puppy-kicking.  :)

[Jude]

The differences between the movie industry and the music industry are too great, I think, to really say they're analogous.  I for one firmly believe that if it was as easy and satisfying to steal movies as it is to steal music, the movie industry would be in just as much trouble (if not more).

As far as easy goes, songs are much smaller to upload and transfer.  The smaller size means you can download more of them quickly and leave less of a footprint for the authorities to follow.  A decent quality movie today is several GB, where an MP3 will be around 10 MB; that means you can literally download hundreds of songs in the time it takes you to get one movie.  For a long time movies were simply too big for anyone to download and pirate because connections didn't support the transfer of that much data.  There's always been a lot more songs out there for pirates to grab because of this, whereas there are some movies that you simply can't find on the net.

And for satisfying, even if you do manage to steal a movie, if it's a new recently it's a poorly done bootleg camera job with terrible sound and lighting effects.  Sometimes a DVD quality rip will be leaked early, but that happens rarely.  So generally speaking while a movie is in the theater you have no choice but to go and see it if you want a decent experience.  Even if you could get a DVD quality rip, it's still a more satisfying experience in the theater because the sound and visuals are of a higher quality.

Although it doesn't line up perfectly, I think music piracy is a closer comparison to the video gaming industry.  PC gaming is in major decline right now because it's just not that profitable with the amount of piracy going on.  You notice a lot of classically PC-only studios beginning development for consoles and doing multi-platform launches and putting no extra effort into the PC versions (oftentimes simply porting them as in the case of Borderlands).

PC games simply aren't that great of an investment anymore without some serious Digital Rights Management, and in every case where they attempt to implement them (other than steam possibly, people seem to like that) there are a ton of complaints.  Ubisoft is getting slammed right now over their latest which requires a user to stay connected to the internet while playing to feed them data.

A lot of people are speculating that PC gaming is going to continue to decline and the signs are clearly there.  Many PC conventions are being done away with by publishers to save money (dedicated servers) and some games that were supposed to come out for the PC are being made console only (Alan Wake).

Sometimes it's not the company's fault.  We like to pretend we live in a world where anything and everything can be anticipated and we blame the victim (when the victim is impersonal enough to accept it anyway, such as a corporation) for failing to keep up.  But lets face it, no one saw the internet coming, no one saw P2P coming, the MP3 Codec, or Torrents.  Technology has been highly unpredictable.

It's true that the music industry was drunk on wealth and power before the internet knocked them down or a peg or two, but in order to adapt to the changing times, they would've had to make drastic changes.  People needed to be fired, wages had to be cut across the board, and they needed to do drastic restructuring.  It's no wonder that they didn't want to adapt and instead wanted to go after those responsible for their decline as forcefully as they could.

Was it right...?  No.  Was it wrong...?  No, possibly, maybe.

The real culprit is the freedom and lack of consequences that the internet grants.  In many ways this is a good thing, but the net has given us all an amazing amount of power and anonymity with very little responsibility.  Unfortunately, there's going to be casualties; no technological advancement is without a downside.

[Trieste]

Oh well, I suppose we just see those issues differently.  :)  As to this:

I'm no authority, just a music fan, but the recording industry's woes have been well-documented; there's a lot of concrete info out there.  A couple hastily-unearthed links, in case anyone is interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_industry#2000s

The first paragraph there, under "2000s," provides a nice short summary, complete with sales figures.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/columns/medialife/6099/

This guy doesn't cite references but he describes the changes that have taken place pretty well, and he mentions many of the contributing factors, including changes in radio, Clear Channel, the Internet, etc.  I don't agree with everything he says, but he makes some great points.  (He concludes by sort of suggesting that Rock is finally dead.  Yep.)

Personally, I'm not shedding any tears over Britney or GaGa, but a whole slew of my favorite artists have stopped releasing music over the years, and too often it's been due to financial considerations or negative changes in the music industry.

P.S.  For the record, I do disapprove of puppy-kicking.  :)

Okay, so no go on the puppy-kicking, check.

I may be spoiled. I live in a musically diverse area, and I know where to find some of the good local stuff. Clubs, cafes and university auditoriums provide me with a good music scene, when I have the time in between classes. So I listen to the actual music on the radio only when I'm in the car. This doesn't count Lady Gaga, with whom I have a completely indiscreet infatuation, musically. This is a small portion of the music scene that I found when I lived in Halifax, too. Halifax was glorious. I wish I could have frozen it in time and saved it for a haven of creativity and intellect that I could revisit for years to come. I have no idea if it's still like that now, alas.

So when you talk about some of your favorite artists that have not produced music in a while because of finance and negative changes, I'm still respectfully skeptical as far as what that has to do with anyone except the RIAA. And who is the RIAA? Who are these people? According to their website, they are a conglomeration of music labels responsible for signing and promoting the various artists we hear on the radio. Their profits declined from 14 billion to 10 billion, according to the Wiki link, and not even all of that is attributable to downloads. It's essentially that people stopped buying CDs, records, etc - although they apparently didn't stop buying them because they were downloading them.

When they can still count your profit with more than seven zeroes, I'm not really inclined toward sympathy. Really, I'm just not. At least they didn't ask for bailout money.

Back to the artists, it's awful that they don't put out new stuff, and financial considerations have hit a lot of people very hard. (Obviously.) However, it's not just due to one cause.

I've managed to ramble pretty far off-topic with this tangent, but if you'd like to continue in PM, rick, I'd be happy to trade viewpoints. Otherwise... *tips hat*

[Serephino]

I'm going to have to go with Trieste on this one.  As a person who is struggling to survive, I have a very hard time feeling any sympathy for someone who can no longer afford an olympic sized pool in their backyard.  I don't doubt that they're suffering a little, but much of it was their own doing.

For one, the lawsuits pissed people off.  Every time they managed to shut down one P2P networking site 10 new ones would take its place.  That was a symbolic middle finger to the RIAA.  They were suing for 10k per song for crying out loud!  I could have gone and shop lifted a CD from Wal Mart and maybe gotten a $200 fine.  They didn't care if the person caught was unemployed and on the verge of loosing their house, they sued for thousands of dollars.

They spent tons of money on the legal fees for this, and I'm guessing they haven't seen much of that money they won.  They paid people to sit and catch these downloaders.  They had people embedding viruses in mp3's.  If they were so broke where did all this money they spent come from?  If they were only broke after the lawsuits, well, it's their own stupid fault. 

I also think they owe people an apology.  What they did may have been legal, but it was insane and unreasonable.  They should forgive the debts and apologize for going overboard.  There had to have been a better way.  They criminalized themselves, and they'll be looked at as greedy pigs until they finally admit that how they handled things was stupid.   

[thebobmaster]

I thought is was video that killed the radio star.

Anyways,  taxing radio stations to play songs? Yeah, that's really feasible. It's not like there are thousands, if not millions, of radio stations out there, playing songs at the same time.

[rick957]

I've managed to ramble pretty far off-topic with this tangent, but if you'd like to continue in PM, rick, I'd be happy to trade viewpoints. Otherwise... *tips hat*

I'm passing on the PMs for now, but it's been fun trading viewpoints with you.  *tips hat back*

PC gaming is in major decline right now because it's just not that profitable with the amount of piracy going on. 

Now we're ridiculously off-topic  :-[  , but this issue intrigues me, being uninformed about the world of gaming.  I was under the impression that gaming was one of the few areas of popular entertainment that hadn't yet suffered severely due to file-sharing.  What's going to happen when all the people who make content for the latest shiny gadgets stop doing so because there's no money in it anymore?  Are we heading for a future in which all the popular arts and entertainment are recycled from the past, because younger artists/entertainers can't build meaningful careers?  There are no more U2s or Nirvanas or even Coldplays coming down the pike, just for that reason.

Apologies for the thread hijack.

[September]

You don't get it.  The actual artist (Unless he/she IS the recording company, a few bands are) would NEVER SEE a single pence. Period.  And the Radio Stations are doing bands/artists a FAVOUR by putting out their music in a free format for people to listen and if they like it, buy it.

I think you're wrong about that.  In my youth I used to hang around some musicians and they got paid royalty cheques.

Believe it or not, a lot of people who get things for free (Whether by piracy or what have you) will actually turn around and PURCHASE the article in question.  See, we WANT to give people our money if we like something, we DON'T want to feel as if we're being FORCED to.  Even if the reality there's no difference.

I think the seller should get to decide if they want to give things away for free, not the "buyer".

[Callie Del Noire]

I thought the reason the record industry was in decline was their CHRONIC lack of accepting innovation and new media. If they their way we'd still be using LPs. They aren't the happiest people to deal with and give up a single penny is painful to them (of course MOST american industries and services have fallen behind in 'upkeep and innovation'.. for example .. high speed bandwidth providers..but that is another subject)

And I don't think that the industries 'projected losses' are as valid as they like them to be. More along the lines of 'wishful thinking'.

[National Acrobat]

Hand in hand with that, is that a lot of bands and small labels are using technology to bypass traditional marketing and distributing models, by offering singles, albums and what not available directly from the artist via a website, or by partnering directly with Itunes or Amazon, for instance, not needing a record company anymore. It's very easy to make a highly professional 'cd' in your own garage now with the recording equipment available today.

[Callie Del Noire]

I know they had at least one presentation in front of Congress where all those 'Alternate' venues for release were 'accidently' left out of the profit margin back in the early 2000s.

A lot of the woes of  the industry seem to be that they (like a lot of american industry) is they are getting lazy and want more of the 'same old same old' business model.

(Such as the Comic Syndication groups for example)

[rick957]

Callie, the major record labels' financial decline is a widely-documented matter of public record.  The layoffs of record company employees have numbered in at least the hundreds (Wikipedia says thousands) and were announced publicly each time they occurred.  You're right about the anti-innovation thing, but not about the LP thing:  CDs became a financial windfall for the whole industry, and they'd love to replicate that success with another new format.  The problem now is that they can't find an effective way to charge for the newest format people are switching to, MP3s, which became popular through piracy. 

The second of the two links I posted above might correct some of your misimpressions.  Like Clear Channel, the major record labels have a deplorable record of shortchanging artists and consumers, but their true failings can be obscured by exaggerated or unsubstantiated accusations.

National Acrobat, your points are all true.  The problem is that the promotional power of the big record labels has withered, and younger artists haven't found an alternative way to build and sustain a significantly-large fanbase.  New avenues of distribution have only paid off big for artists who became established long ago, with the help of the record labels.  Younger artists can now record very cheaply and make their music widely available on the internet, but the traditional ways of getting lots of people to pay attention to them -- radio, MTV, even large-scale touring -- have become almost entirely inaccessible to them.
        P.S.  Sabbath rules!  *flashes devil horns and headbangs*

[Jude]

Now we're ridiculously off-topic  :-[  , but this issue intrigues me, being uninformed about the world of gaming.  I was under the impression that gaming was one of the few areas of popular entertainment that hadn't yet suffered severely due to file-sharing.  What's going to happen when all the people who make content for the latest shiny gadgets stop doing so because there's no money in it anymore?  Are we heading for a future in which all the popular arts and entertainment are recycled from the past, because younger artists/entertainers can't build meaningful careers?  There are no more U2s or Nirvanas or even Coldplays coming down the pike, just for that reason.

Piracy has always been a small problem for gaming (both PC and console).  We've had emulators for running consoles for a long time.  Right now if you wanted, you could pick up a DS Emulator and ROMs for it and play Nintendo DS games on your computer without spending a dime.

You can't emulate PSP on your computer because no one's created a PSP emulator, but they have hacked the PSP.  A hacked PSP can play a dump of essentially any commercially available game for free.  Sony even built a Playstation emulator into the PSP so that any Playstation game can be played on the PSP, but then they locked the emulator and don't allow their customers to use it except with games that they purchase via the Playstation Network.  If you hack your PSP though, you get access to that.  It's a little messed up that you can't play the PSP games that you own on your playstation unless you buy them again even though the software is all there, so I have a bit of sympathy for the hackers.

There's ways to mod your PS2, Xbox (360 and not), and just about anything else to play free games.  However, because hardware modifications are required or things that could possibly brick your console or get you banned from playing online, very few people try to modify an expensive console.  PC gaming is suffering the most because it's as easy as downloading a file and installing it.  There are organizations dedicated to PC Piracy out there, that make torrent files of games which are specially modified to get around any anti-piracy measures.  It's actually pretty impressive in one way; they cut out all of the extra garbage to make the files very small and in many instances can manage to bring a six gig file down to two.

There's no way to stop it really.  Power users who are good with programming and hex editing will always be able to reverse engineer or otherwise modify these products unless there's an online component (which both Command and Conquer 4 and the latest Ubisoft games have been slammed for).  The only way I can think of that PC will ever be able to defeat piracy, is if there's a digital rights management chip directly in your PC to prevent piracy.  But because PCs are designed by so many different groups, the technology is too decentralized for such a thing.  It'll never happen.

There's another big lesson to be learned from Piracy in Gaming, it's not the price.  Buying games on PC is always far cheaper than purchasing them on consoles.  The most expensive multi-platform games right now are 60 dollars on consoles and 50 on PC.  In many instances, the differences in price are even more drastic than that.  The bottom line is, piracy is not legitimate users lashing out at corporate greed (which is the favorite narrative of pirates), if it was PC gaming would be one of the least affected sectors of the gaming industry, and it's not.  It's all about how easy it is to do it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Callie, the major record labels' financial decline is a widely-documented matter of public record.  The layoffs of record company employees have numbered in at least the hundreds (Wikipedia says thousands) and were announced publicly each time they occurred.  You're right about the anti-innovation thing, but not about the LP thing:  CDs became a financial windfall for the whole industry, and they'd love to replicate that success with another new format.  The problem now is that they can't find an effective way to charge for the newest format people are switching to, MP3s, which became popular through piracy. 

The second of the two links I posted above might correct some of your misimpressions.  Like Clear Channel, the major record labels have a deplorable record of shortchanging artists and consumers, but their true failings can be obscured by exaggerated or unsubstantiated accusations.

Fair enough, but I'm willing to be executive pay has gone up a LOT more than anyone else involved in the process. These are the same sort of folks (from the Movie and TV industry granted) who tried to ban Video RECORDING units in the home. They would rather the government do something than try and come up with an orginal solution that involves THEM spending their bonus money.

I think something along the lines of a 2 or 3 cent tax of recordable media would go a long way in covering their 'losses' and would be a lot less visible in the long run. How much hate and discontent with their buyers have they done by finachially ruining a small handful of sharers?