A few days ago, I received an e-mail from ASU about the RIAA coming to campus to give a talk about copyright and the state of the music industry as part of ASU's Security Awareness Week. I went this morning, and it was fairly interesting. The guy, whose name I didn't really catch, is the Senior Vice President of Technology for the RIAA... I believe it was David something. [Correction: the guy's name is David Hughes.] Anyway, his schpiel (sp?) was noteworthy. He made some good points and he made some really ridiculous points.
I got there about 10-15 minutes early and there were 2 guys running the video/audio recording equipment and two other guys waiting for the event to start. One guy was wearing an Invisible Children shirt. It turns out he's the president of the Young Democrats club, or something to that effect. The turnout was looking quite bleak until the event was just about to start. Students started coming in, slowly, but surely. About 20 minutes into the event, the room was about 3/4 full.
David, if that is his real name, started talking about the history of the music industry, the way things work with record companies, etc. It was a fairly decent background and he was quite casual, even throwing out a few profanities, possibly to look "cool" and "laid back." He went on about how record companies need money to do "research and development," and that they're essentially "venture capitalists" who will sign somewhere around 20 new artists per season, lose money on 17 of them, break even on 2, and make a lot of money on 1. It's that 1 artist, the Britneys and Jessicas, that make a ton of guaranteed money that allows the record company to sign less successful artists. He mentioned that many of these artists end up making a ton of money off the record company with big advances and poor sales, something I questioned him about regarding recouping costs. He also mentioned that he estimates 50% of college students actively steal music, to which he got some pointed retaliatory remarks, and said that he had some studies to back his point up. Basically, he wanted to tell us that we [college students] used to be the recording industry's best customer and now we're the worst enemy. I guess that's what happens when you suddenly lose your monopoly in an industry.
Shortly thereafter, excitement was thrust upon us when...
Four people, likely students, walked into the back of the room, all holding cardboard signs. One sign had a scythe attached and said, "Don't fear the RIAAper." Another guy had no pants on and had a sign that said, "The RIAA sued the pants off me." Another girl had a sign that said, "Download like it's 1999." And the last girl had some spare change in her hand that was to go to "Metallica's retirement fund." It was quite funny and David reacted fairly well, laughing loudly and wishing he had his camera. After they had a brief debate, none of which was captured by a microphone, David essentially kicked them out and had some (defensible and understandably) snide remarks for them. As they were walking out, they said, "Some people still believe that sharing means caring.'"
After David had started speaking again, it was apparent that the audience, most of which were students, were growing antsy and needed to get their anti-RIAA questions off their backs. Few people asked particularly good questions, unfortunately. One guy even mentioned, "I only make enough money to buy one CD per month. What am I supposed to do?" to which I replied, "You're justifying your stealing," and David had a few things to say as well. That sparked the series of mostly-immature, folly-that-comes-with-youth questions including one guy saying, "You keep saying 'stealing' when you should be saying 'copyright infringement.'"
Anyway, the presentation left me feeling irritated because of two things:
David's argument was basically that we should feel sorry for the fact that his business is quickly becoming irrelevant and they don't know how to change. It's expensive to find new artists and they're releasing bad music because they know it'll sell and it's expensive to change a business model. So, instead, they're going to use what he calls "Education through litigation," which disgusted me and other people in the room. Basically, it's our fault that the record companies sell music from Britney Spears and it's our fault that Wal-Mart is the #1 music retailer in the country. We've forced the "lowest common denominator" on ourselves. And if the RIAA can't find new talent because of us, then "that's a shame."
Many people who steal music have an immature perspective about stealing music and don't realize foolish they sound to real adults. The RIAA isn't bad because people want to steal music! The RIAA is bad because they have bad business practices! They sue stroke victims, 10-year-old children, people who don't own computers, and make many lives a living hell. They intimidate people without substantive proof, they bully ISPs and universities to hand over network traffic data, and they don't care about the customer. They treat the customer like she's a thief or criminal. It's implied that nearly everyone college-age is a pirate. At least, that's the way I see it. Like my friend said, you don't go to the gas station and steal gas, even when you hate the oil companies and refineries. Why? Because there's accountability... you're on camera, they'll track you down, etc. But, when it comes down to something like music, it's socially acceptable to steal music. There's definitely a supposed-anonymity and a disconnect of ethics. Also, college students are total moral relativists, as my friend put it, and there's no way the RIAA is going to convince them not to steal.
I was glad about a few things, though. The RIAA is well-aware that they are becoming irrelevant. They are also aware that nobody likes them, but they don't care about that. Someone also brought up the fact that the RIAA was recently voted as being the "worst company in America", to which David responded with some laughs and a quip about how they've been "beating Exxon-Mobil for years" in that arena. Another guy also brought up the fact that the RIAA is losing credibility with its customer base by suing everyone and their grandmother.
Another thing David brought up that was interesting is Steve Jobs' open letter to the music industry about removing DRM from electronic sales of digital media. David brought up a meeting and some e-mail exchanges he's had with Jobs and called Jobs a "hypocrite." When asked if Jobs would be willing to sell Pixar movies through iTunes without DRM and DVDs without CSS encryption, there was no response. When asked about interoperability of downloads from the iTMS, Jobs responded, "Ask me again when we have less than 50% of the market share." He thinks Jobs posted that letter to get the attention off of him and the bad press he'd been getting regarding Norway's tying laws, which I think was a really good point that most of the tech blogs has missed. Jobs knows exactly what he's doing and he's one of the world's most wealthy businesspeople for a reason.
Someone asked about the out of court settlements that they're offering to people who get the DMCA notices in the mail. Apparently, they think it's a very nice way to settle things and doesn't skirt the law by any means. In fact, it can be considered "beneficial" to the John Doe being sued in that if John is trying to get a job with the FBI, a copyright infringment settlement never goes on his record. So, it's actually a "good thing" (my words, not his). Personally, I think it's ridiculous because people can be threatened with a lawsuit by the RIAA without the RIAA having any proof of the person actually stealing. But, whatever... people seem to be settling out of court all the time now.
What the RIAA needs to do is cope with downsizing, realize that some aspects of their industry are going to fail, they no longer have a monopoly, there are better distribution and business models, and work around the fact that "piracy will always exist" (as David put it). His argument is that in the 1980s/1990s, somewhere around 80% of people who had cable were getting it for free through illegal, "illegitimate" channels. That's not how the industry is anymore and the record companies want it the same way. Unfortunately, this is a bad analogy because there are no reasonably-cheap alternatives to getting cable. In my area, we have a choice of going through Cox Cable, Qwest digital cable, or some satellite TV. And they all cost about-the-same. With the music industry, you can release your own music at little to no cost (as I did with my newest album, Within) and the distribution/business model is completely different. If they truly are venture capitalists, then they'd realize that there are other ways to earn money. They're just too comfortable with the monopoly they used to have that they won't use their venture capitalism to try a different model.
David kept going on about "basic economics" when it comes to the prices of CDs and whatnot. Unfortunately, his understanding of "basic economics" stops there. The demand for music has changed and the supply needs to change. They must reform or die. And no one will care if they die because artists will find another way to distribute their music. The RIAA sees their way as the only way to do business. That's the way it's been for the last 50 years and that's the way they want to keep it. Musicians never spoke poorly about the record companies 50 years ago because no one wanted to bite the hand that fed them. Now, the RIAA is unnecessary for success and the world is ushering change. Whether the RIAA will survive or not, we won't know for another 20-30 years, likely. Especially considering the rate at which copyright law changes.
The entire presentation was filmed and will supposedly be released on iTunes U and ASU's security website. There was a microphone going around for people to use if they had questions, but more than half the time, the microphone didn't make it to the student, so I'm sure it'll be hard to hear the questions being asked. Nevertheless, a few other students were recording, including a woman who recorded on her camcorder for Geek Method's podcast. I don't think the official ASU recording picked up the protestors, but I know the Geek Method recording did, so your best bet is to stop there when it's available.
I've posted a rant about copyright infringement being the same thing as stealing. Bring it on.
On 2007-03-28 16:42:39, Don said, "RIAA Voted Worst Company"
Hey look at that, you quoted my wonderful question about being the worst company in the US, got to love the consumerist.
On 2007-03-28 17:07:34, Scott said, "Thanks"
Thanks for summarizing the forum which I had forgotten to go to. Looked like it was what I thought it would be.
On 2007-03-28 17:27:15, JRR said, "RIAA"
I can't believe that the RIAA can't find new good artists. They are looking for too many generic artists that sound the same--basically Briteny Spears was the new version of Madonna, and since the Britney Spears engine is almost dead, they're trying to find someone to replace Britney Spears.
Everytime I walk into a local bar or restaurant on a weekend night, there is always someone performing who is way better and more original that anything the RIAA offers. This is the kind of music that I like--hence; I don't see any more need to buy RIAA merchandise.
The RIAA has no excuse!
On 2007-03-28 18:25:35, Marty said, "another business model"
I liked your comment:
"If they truly are venture capitalists, then they'd realize that there are other ways to earn money. They're just too comfortable with the monopoly they used to have that they won't use their venture capitalism to try a different model."
Hit this right on the head and the main reason I think RIAA is being ignorant about not wanting to adapt to new ways of promoting music. I think 20-30 years is a bit long for them to go away. I would guess less than 10 years from now, if they don't change their ways, RIAA will be gone and artists will be making a lot more money then they would have under RIAA.
Did anyone ask the question about how much of the settlement money actually makes it to the artist?
On 2007-03-28 18:43:11, Anthony said, "Nope"
@marty: No one asked the question about settlement money going to the artist. There wasn't enough time to let all the questions get answered.
@jrr: You're right. There are plenty of great bands out there that you don't need to spend a million dollars to find. There is no excuse.
@scott: Sorry you couldn't be there. I'm glad my summary helped!
On 2007-03-28 19:11:38, geekMethod said, "Thanks"
Thanks for the link, we'll be posting the video on www.geekmethod.com just as soon as we get the editing done. We'll keep everyone posted.
On 2007-03-28 23:00:49, electronicmaji said, "Its sad"
It's sad to see you say that people who commented on the fact that this Riaa representative was using stealing when he should of been using copyright infraction were immature. The fact is downloading music is nothing more than copyright infraction and is not technically stealing. Not only is it not technically stealing its also true that very small amounts of the money that one spends on CD's goes to the artist and the fact is copying and downloading music files hurts n one but the very RIAA we hate.
Frankly I don't download any RIAA supported music. I don't listen to it. The only cds I buy are independent artist ones. And I frankly don't give a care what the RIAA thinks about downloading music being stealing. If you don't have money and you download a cd you wouldn't buy in the first place how is the RIAA losing money? How are the artists losing money? At least in this case you might be able to listen to the cd and maybe even like it! That might actually add to business. Fact being the RIAA constantly pulls bullshit like this they are a sad sad company. I wouldn't be afraid to go up against them in court. I willingly would be a matyr. Plus suing someone like me would be absolutely pointless.
Ultimately the RIAA are americas worst enemy in todays world. They use terrorism to achieve what they do achieve. And that is saying very little. The goverment should stop looking at middle eastern terrorists and set their eyes on those in our own backyards. No agent of the RIAA will ever intimidate me.
On 2007-03-28 23:22:13, Andy said, "Untitled"
EZ steps to stop giving RIAA money.
1. stop buying big labels CD. (if it's on MTV or Clearchannel, it's big label) Generally, buy only indie.
2. use hypem and elbo. Use blog to get your music news and info http://hypem.com/ http://elbo.ws/
3. Buy Used CD, if you must buy big labels.
4. Copy CD from friends
5. Pass around DVD-RW (one disc can fit 20-30 FLAC compressed audio)
6. support indie artists. Go see their concert.
If you must use P2P, use it smartly.
On 2007-03-28 23:23:43, jamie martin said, "Untitled"
very well written
On 2007-03-29 09:10:42, Jay said, "Stealing?"
If you have already bought into the RIAA's claim that downloading music is stealing, then they've got you right where they want you. In their mindset. And you won't be able to think about the subject from any other viewpoint.
It's copyright infringement. And up until the technology existed to try to stop the practice of sharing music, it was known as word-of-mouth advertising.
I personally don't buy any more music from anything but independent, non-RIAA labels, and I download only legal, paid-for DRM-free .mp3s.
I refuse to support an industry which sues its own customers and considers them all guilty until proven innocent.
On 2007-03-29 10:12:46, Anthony said, "Copyright Infringement is Stealing"
@electronicmaji: I've posted a rant about your line of thinking. See the last paragraph of this post. If you don't like the RIAA, don't listen to their artists. The artists have signed contracts with the RIAA at their own whim, so if you don't like the RIAA, don't listen to the artist. The artist CHOSE to sign with the RIAA.
@Andy: I agree with some of your points, but copying a CD and giving it to friends is the same thing as stealing. Again, if you don't like the RIAA, don't buy their music. Period. Buying used CDs sends the music to the record store, which is fine and good, especially if you're buying from an independent record store, like Hoodlums here at ASU.
Also, using P2P to download illegitimate music files is still stealing. Even if it doesn't make anyone "lose anything."
On 2007-03-29 23:34:01, Wesley said, "Sorry but."
"@electronicmaji: I've posted a rant about your line of thinking. See the last paragraph of this post. If you don't like the RIAA, don't listen to their artists. The artists have signed contracts with the RIAA at their own whim, so if you don't like the RIAA, don't listen to the artist. The artist CHOSE to sign with the RIAA."
Sorry but your extremely wrong. Artists sign contracts with labels who decide to use a service to protect their music 'rights' that theytake from artists with terorrism and mafia style tactics. The RIAA will go into independent music stores in New York with its own swat force of illegal cops and do fake busts taking mix cds that they don't even check to see if its music represented by them. They do this without a warrant, without a right, and illegally. The RIAA are a sad, sad company and while most bands don't know the extent of their criminal activities they do dislike the DRM which sole reason of existence is the RIAA.
Popular bands such as Switchfoot and Coldplay have instructed the people who buy their cds how to circumvent these DRM systems. This under the DSMC is illegal yet they see how the RIAA and the music industry is misrepresenting them and making the fans their number one enemies. ]
Frankly its just wrong.
On 2007-03-31 11:33:18, James said, "Trying to be nice"
It's funny how you make all these students sound immature, when their points seem more valid than your incomplete and nonsensical sentences.
Digital media is not gas, it's an infinitely reproducible non-rival good. If gas were infinite, I'm sure the price would drop. Now that the distribution of music is essentially costless and everyone in the world can have a song for almost free, wouldn't you expect the price to drop dramatically?
RIAA wants to retain their giant profit margins in a post-digital world. This is not possible. Consumers recognize from their market intuition that if the supply is high, the cost better be low. I can't really afford a lamborgini, but drinking water is pretty cheap; so is music now. We really only need $50,000 to record an album, and that's it--no graphics artists, no record stores, no powerful agents or big companies, no songwriters--these get in the way of quality music for humanity to share. Now RIAA will try and litigate their way into subsistence, like the telegraph industry trying to convince the telephone companies that they have a right to exist. But they can't win, the progress of our markets, our values of music, our altruism, and our humanity wont allow it.
On 2007-04-11 16:10:16, John said, " Missing the point"
No question that the business model for commercial music production and distribution needs transformation. Stealing an artist's intellectual propery rights, however, whether it is music, a movie, a novel, software or some other product of an artist's brain, is not a business model, it's a recipe for disaster. That model was tried and failed miserably -- it's called Communism. Anyone here recall Karl Marx' "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?" Just because you CAN get a digital copy of an artist's product for free doesn't mean you have a right to it. What makes stealing intellectual property less aggredious than stealing physical property? Just because you're stealing a few dollars or cents at a time, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of your fellow criminals, doesn't make what you do less of a crime. If it's not OK to steal a painting, why is it OK to steal music?
I have yet to hear a reasoned, viable alternative business model that will allow the artist make a decent living...I'd love to hear one from those who advocate "free" distribution of music.
On 2007-04-11 16:47:10, Steve said, "re: missing the point"
[quote] What makes stealing intellectual property less aggredious than stealing physical property [/quote]
er. if someone COULD steal intellectual property, then sure, that would be bad.
Think about it - Would you steal a car ?
if you steal a car, the owner no longer has it.
Would you steal a song from the (insert label here) ?
If you did this, the label no longer has it.
Would you copy a car ?
etc, I'm sure you can work it out from here, but the point is - copyright infringement, while still wrong, is nowhere near as bad as theft, this is why there are different laws and repercussions surrounding each. Is it still wrong ? yes, but please don't claim that copyright infringement is the same as stealing.
Oh, and for the record, True communism is a very desirable state, however, due to human greed (primarily) it has never been reached. nice try on spreading the FUD however.
On 2007-04-11 18:53:44, CuriousGeorge said, "RIAA Incompetence"
First of all, the Supreme Court has made it clear that copyright infringement is NOT theft. That's why it's a civil offense, not a criminal one.
Ironically, the RIAA rep accurately described the core reason for the rapid decline of the music business, namely that 85 percent of the acts they sign are going to wash out. The ironic part is that it's their lame excuse to sue people.
Maybe if they had better taste...
On 2007-04-11 22:54:55, Ugly American said, "Talk to artists not RIAA"
Try talking to some real artists and see how they get ripped off and abused by RIAA publishers.
Then ask who the real crooks are.
On 2007-04-12 01:36:30, LA artist said, "stealing is stealing"
The arrogant and ignorant attitude of some who would illegally download music or justify that behavior is humorous at best.
First of all, the RIAA is not a company, it is a music industry trade association. It reveals an ignorance to call them a company. Record labels pay into this organization to represent them; they are a legal assistance and lobbying group for the music industry. And that they would win "worst company in America" over a sham operation like Halliburton (who is responsible for billions of wasted taxpayer dollars in Iraq) kind of shows the priorities that fans of music piracy have. But I digress. So because the RIAA is not a company, they don't have a monopoly on anything. There are plenty of independent record lables that are not part of the RIAA, and they can do business however they see fit.
The bottom line is this: Artists of any creative venture, whether it be literature, film, art, music, or what have you, have the right to make money off of their creations. When music is illegally downloaded, the singer or songwriter is denied that right. Period. You can go on and on and argue that the record company representing that artist makes money off the back of that artist, and in fact makes much more money than the artist does, but that is of no consequence. Singers and songwriters aren't forced at gunpoint (as far as I know) to sign contracts with record companies. They can spend their own money to produce, record, release and promote their own music, and then take in every penny from every piece of music that they sell. But many do sign with record companies because they feel like they'll get more exposure by doing so. When they do, they agree to give up a portion of their sales (granted, a very large portion for most emerging artists) in exchange for the record company to pay for the production, release and promotion of their music.
One argument that keeps coming up is that the RIAA "has been doing business this way for 50 years and they'd better get used to changing". This may or may not be true. Who knows if the music industry as a whole will continue to thrive or even survive. Perhaps it is a poor business model to have such a large portion of artists wash out and to only make money on one artist. Perhaps they do sign too many no-talent wannabes. But that does not give someone an excuse or a legal right to steal.
One thing that is for sure is that no industry survives by continually giving away its product for free. Try going into McDonald's and asking for a free Big Mac value meal. See how far that gets you. Call up American Airlines and see if you can get a free flight to Hawaii. Stop by your neighborhood car dealership and ask them if you can have a new free sports car. "But Big Macs and cars and airline flights can't be copied", you say. It doesn't matter. And here's why:
Let's say you're a singer. And let's say you've struggled in your career for some time but you recently got seen by some record industry executives and they sign you to a deal. And then let's say that they pay for you to record an album and film a couple of music videos. In return, they get to keep most of your money. You agree in the deal that you'll make ten cents off of each album. So if you sell one million albums, you'll make $100,000. But if one million people illegally copy or illegally download your music, you make $0. And that is inherently unfair - the same amount of people in both scenarios benefitted from your work (i.e. listend to your music) yet under the second scenario you are not paid for that work. And it's the same unfairness whether you're a musician with an album, or a writer with a book, or a movie director/producer with a film. Those artists all have a right to make money off of their creations. And when they are illegally copied, that venue to make a living is taken away.
Perhaps the RIAA goes too far when it attempts to sue people who have never illegally downloaded anything, simply because someone used their computer to do so. But there needs to be a consequence to illegal behavior. If the RIAA didn't come down hard, then there would be no disincentive to illegally download. And the artists would continue to make less and less money.
Finally, I have to laugh when I read that one student stood up and said "but I can only afford one CD a month". I didn't go to college that long ago, but I don't think I've ever met someone who is really that ignorant.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not shill for the RIAA, I'm not in the music industry at all. I'm just responsible enough to know right from wrong.
On 2007-04-12 07:30:24, Damon Allen Davison said, "Major record companies are not the industry"
I've enjoyed reading this post quite a bit. I agree that there seems to be a tendency towards justifying illegally downloading music by pointing the finger at the RIAA/MCPS/GEMA/etc. and saying they deserve it because of the tactics they use. To me, these tactics are a well-concerted act of desperation on the part of major record companies who realise that their business is changing and are doing whatever they can to avoid being bankrupted.
The majors and their apparently obscene levels of income off the work of the artists they have signed do not represent the industry as a whole, and independent labels (I work for one of them) are suffering as well from people's lack of respect for the artists that produce the music. Most artists on independent labels have at least an equal share in the profit, once recording and promotional expenses are cleared, but the labels are still unable to sell enough for the artists to support themselves. The artists have to have "real" jobs and their ability to produce music is limited by time and simple financial necessity.
Some might say the artists will find a way to sell their music, but they don't have the time or the resources to record projects on their own. Labels exist mainly because of the economies of scale: One artist might not be able to record something, but when part of the income of many artists is pooled, this becomes possible. Many labels have come into existence from such communal efforts of artists, and artist-run labels are very common in the independent record industry, so an "artist direct" model already exists in this sense. But what will happen to them now that illegal downloads appear to be the norm?
On 2007-04-12 08:41:10, JuggerNaut said, "what about Microsoft's DRM?!"
"When asked about interoperability of downloads from the iTMS"
the RIAA should be asking Bill Gates when its own DRM interoperability will be expanded to Mac and Linux. RIAA are the only hypocrites that I see!
On 2007-04-12 12:48:23, Paul said, "On the topic of hypocrites"
Agree with the poster above - funny how the Apple haters get all frothy about how the iPod+iTunes ties you in. Frankly, you don't have to buy a single song from the iTunes Music Store and download all your songs via BitTorrent and it'll be all the same whether you use the iPod+iTunes or some other music player.
As for trying to be "insightful" by pointing out the Norway issue, give me a break. You just missed the big freaking clue - it's not Apple that's preventing FairPlay music from being played on other player - it's the music labels! Give yourself a big dunce hat for missing the obvious and falling for the music labels' feint of trying to cast the attention away from themselves. I can just hear them laughing about how people are blaming Apple for FairPlay when they know that they won't let Apple sell music without it.
It's like Apple becomes the first company that makes legal downloaded music practical and worthwhile, and is taking serious steps to topple the music DRM idiocy, and yet the Apple haters somehow end up fretting about the fact that iPod remains dominant instead of focusing on the big picture. As if a dominant Microsoft would make DRM go away or support WMP on the Mac (somehow we're to believe we'll get more "choice" by being forced to switch to Windows simply to listen to our music)
RIAA is run by idiots. But the mindless "hate Apple because it's successful" school of thinking is pretty pathetic, too, since there are plenty of choices outside of iTunes+iPod. It's not insightful, its what the RIAA wants people to think to deflect attention away from themselves.
The end goal is the destruction of the RIAA as it operates today, and if Apple is the only company that can bring it about, more power to them.
On 2007-04-13 16:46:20, John said, "r: Stealing is Stealing"
Shame on you LA Artist, for wanting to make a living off the product of your intellect. Please review Steve's cogent post -- if you weren't so damn greedy, we would all be a little closer to the Very Desirable State of True Communism. How can it possibly be stealing -- he's just copying a few electrons...it's not like it's your music is real, like a car or something. You still have your song, right? Just because a few million other people got it for free is no reason to start whining...