MPAA vs RIAA

[Jobber of the Week 0]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,3...1626541,00.html

 

The best-selling "Chicago" movie soundtrack is available on CD starting at $13.86.

The actual movie, with the soundtrack songs included, of course, plus additional goodies ranging from deleted musical numbers to the director's interview and a "making-of" feature, can be had for precisely $2.12 more.

 

Therein lies the problem for a critically wounded music recording industry: The "Chicago" CD looks like a rip-off, and the DVD looks like a steal.

 

Nearly everything the record companies have done wrong in the age of downloading has been done right by the movie studios.

 

America's love for movies is stronger than ever, while the nation listens to music with smoldering resentment.

 

While movie companies escort happy customers to newly-installed recliner stadium seats, the music companies escort their biggest fans straight to the courthouse. There is only so much time for entertainment in a busy day, and people will spend their leisure where they meet the path of least resistance.

 

For every slight by the music world, there's a smarter parallel move by the cinema promoters:

 

Not until 20 years after the introduction of the CD in the United States did a record label announce across-the-board price cuts that acknowledged consumer anger at paying $19 for one decent Justin Timberlake song. Universal will now drop prices on many CDs to below $10, a breaking point many buyers seem to accept.

 

In contrast, the movie studios saw the threat from pay-per-view cable and satellite in 1997, when DVDs first arrived here, and slashed prices immediately. DVDs started between $19 and $24; today hundreds of great titles are available in the $10 range. With "Pirates of the Caribbean" still taking in great business in theaters, a two-disc DVD version will arrive before Christmas for $18.

 

People listen to the average CD many more times than they watch a DVD. Yet CDs are languishing in stores and DVDs are flying off the shelves. How to see this other than sheer music industry incompetence?

 

Music companies stood by while one of their primary conduits to the public, radio stations, consolidated and grew numbingly homogenized. The variety of music stations offered to the public shrank drastically. Many listeners in their 30s and 40s gave up on trying new material.

 

In the 1990s, the movie industry increased its product outlets across a wide range of styles. Multiplexes overbuilt to the point of bankruptcy, but the result for the consumer was convenient playing times and a near disappearance of daunting ticket lines.

 

Art houses expanded screens in many cities, providing venues for truly obscure intellectual adventures as well as extended runs for word-of-mouth hits not big enough for the 'plexes. Thus you can still see megahit "Bruce Almighty" for a buck or the acquired taste of "Winged Migration" three months after it opened.

 

Movies operate largely from the same why-fix-if-it-ain't-broke box office.

 

The concert business has Ticketmaster. Enough said.

 

Threatened over the past decade by various forms of piracy, the movie industry chose to go after profiteering international crime rings while letting the local cable companies take on illicit home descramblers with low-key enforcement action.

 

The record labels, not satisfied with infuriating a younger generation with high prices and legal threats, is now enraging clueless middle-aged parents forced to pay $3,000 to $15,000 settlements over individual downloading lawsuits. Record companies pursued an act of Congress for the right to invade the privacy of Internet companies and customers in search of burners' personal information. For good measure, the labels forced a New York 12-year-old to pay a $2,000 fine, taking customer relations to a new level.

 

Through a combination of intelligent design, lucky accident and the good sense to follow the consumer's lead, movie companies settled on the VHS video format for 25 years before gently introducing a DVD alternative. It then let the DVD win out by making it more attractive rather than cynically undercutting VHS. The minor distractions of laser disc and Beta video, which could have irritated consumers if allowed to fester, were dumped.

 

But the music industry instead allowed format changes to drive its business model.

 

The CD format saved the business for 20 years because consumers had little choice but to replace vinyl or tape copies with CDs to keep their libraries relevant. CD makers knew they were borrowing from the future the day the last Bob Seger 8-track gave way to a new CD, but did nothing to expand their market on radio or among new buyers.

 

Even the blank CD formats are mired in confusing infighting over CD-R and CD-RW. Many store-bought CDs can't play in computers or other older components. Mini-disc, anyone?

 

Record label missteps are legion. But solutions are at hand: Let go of whole-disc sales and create a dollar-per-song online service as good as Apple iTunes. Make it universally available, with all the independents signed up.

 

Bring Ticketmaster to heel and make live music accessible and fun again. Allow file sharing for a $50 to $100 annual license. Woo 40-year-old buyers as if they were 16.

 

Most of all, spend less on lawyers and more on creative thinkers. You can't subpoena success.

 

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm talking about when I talk about how the RIAA looks like a group of thugs compared to the MPAA (which is just as big and just as profitable, and has actually seen bigger profits since the 2001 holidays.) How to do business vs How not to do business.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

"While movie companies escort happy customers to newly-installed recliner stadium seats, the music companies escort their biggest fans straight to the courthouse."

 

The problem here, in my opinion, is that a lot of movie chains are losing money even though box-office records are being set seemingly every week -- they even address this point later down in the article.

 

I do agree with most of this article though. One thing I notice about the movie-to-music comparison is that an upcoming DVD release is marketed like a big deal, unlike, it seems to me, most music albums.

 

Didn't Eminem's latest album have some DVD about him included with a CD purchase? And didn't that album sell a LOT of copies? I'm sure a lot of buyers didn't purchase the album JUST for the DVD, but I'm sure that extra gift didn't hurt matters much...

[Guest MikeSC]

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is what I'm talking about when I talk about how the RIAA looks like a group of thugs compared to the MPAA (which is just as big and just as profitable, and has actually seen bigger profits since the 2001 holidays.) How to do business vs How not to do business.

And nobody is stating that the RIAA is doing anything right. They're doing crap business.

 

Stealing music, though, is NOT the answer.

 

Boycott them. Don't buy them. Don't listen to the radio. Show some balls, rather than being a cowardly little thief, using some weak justification for your rather indefensible actions.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

Cowardly little thief? That's just putting your own spin on things.

[Ripper 0]

So people should do without music because the governing body over it is using bad business techniques?

[Dr. Tom 0]

The problem here, in my opinion, is that a lot of movie chains are losing money even though box-office records are being set seemingly every week -- they even address this point later down in the article.

The movie industry has seen their business model change in the face of the DVD explosion. It used to be that a movie HAD to make money at the box office to be a success, since revenues from VHS sales and rentals were limited. Now, a movie can lose money at the box office but have a successful run on DVD and be given a thumbs-up. Look at Terminator 3: it wasn't a runaway box office success, but you know it's going to sell a bajillion copies on DVD, especially since it'll be out in time for the holidays.

[Dr. Tom 0]

Boycott them. Don't buy them. Don't listen to the radio. Show some balls, rather than being a cowardly little thief, using some weak justification for your rather indefensible actions.

I've bought precisely one CD in the past four years. That one was purchased with a gift card, so it's not like *I* was the one paying for it. I've written numerous essays on the internet decrying the RIAA, their refusal to change their business model to embrace the digital age, their virtual slavery of the artists under their umbrella, and their generally shitty business practices. I listen to CDs or talk radio in the car. Yes, I've downloaded music, but I can also count on one hand the number of entire albums I've copped in the four years since I've bought a CD. At least 80% of the music I've downloaded consists of songs I already own in CD or tape format (I have about 1000 combined), and it's my right as a consumer to be able to listen to those songs on my PC if I want to.

 

I've shown my balls. My sack is hanging out there for the world to see.

[Firestarter 0]

That's a lovely image, Tom. Thanks.

[Dr. Tom 0]

I aim to please.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

**kicks**

 

Hey, Mike, actually read what you're saying. People want music. People want new music. People want new GOOD music. So why bother BUYING CDs of shitty artists with 1 or 2 listenable songs when you can download tracks, see if they're any good, and then decide to buy the album?

 

Album sales have gone down because of both the price and the lack of quality in mainstream music. I could go into a long rant about how metal and punk, two styles of music that are/were anything BUT mainstream, have been growing steadily since the boom of P2P servers and file-sharing, and how their respective communities embraced the interent, but no.

[razazteca 0]

This is what the RIAA gets for killing off the singles market. The MPAA is no innocent either, have you seen the commercial they run before the previews with the set builder complaining about piracy even though downloading movies has absolutely nothing with him. The set builder is most likely union and will never ever lose money because T3 is a popular download.

 

RIAA should get a clue and put dvd extra discs on all albums.

[iamsherm 0]

I've written numerous essays on the internet decrying the RIAA, their refusal to change their business model to embrace the digital age

I see this argument listed time and time again everytime this issue is discussed and I wonder what else do music fans want? I look around and it sure looks (to me, at least) like the recording industry is trying to embrace the digital medium. For example, fee-based music services such as itunes and pressplay are much more prevelant now than they were a year ago. Many artists are also providing legal, full-length previews of tracks on upcoming albums, and in some cases full-length previews of albums themselves. To add to that, some labels are slashing retail prices of albums and many are still adding incentives such as bonus DVD's to get you to pay for that album.

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's almost criminal of the record industry to expect you to pay upwards of 20 bucks for a CD only for you to get home and enjoy 2 or 3 tracks, but I think credit needs to be given where credit is due. The record industry is listening to the consumers demands, so I think if anybody has any other suggestions on what else could be done to get you to walk down to your local stores and buy an album or two, then you might as well speak now.

[Guest stardust]

Music companies stood by while one of their primary conduits to the public, radio stations, consolidated and grew numbingly homogenized. The variety of music stations offered to the public shrank drastically. Many listeners in their 30s and 40s gave up on trying new material.

 

Clear Channel reference, anyone? The writer does have a point, though--radio stations have generally trended towards targeting the teen market, and have generally left the college and adult markets behind. In order to hear something other than Justin or Britney or Good Charlotte, you pretty much have to find the low-frequency, non-Clear Channel owned radio station. And finding that station is increasingly difficult to do.

 

Bring Ticketmaster to heel and make live music accessible and fun again. Allow file sharing for a $50 to $100 annual license. Woo 40-year-old buyers as if they were 16.

 

I like these suggestions. Granted, I'm not sure how many college students could afford the annual license, but when you think about it, that really isn't all that bad compared to the fact that $50 would buy you maybe three CDs, whereas $50 for unlimited downloading could get you dozens if not hundreds.

 

As for the Ticketmaster suggestion--YES! Ticketmaster is almost like Clear Channel in the fact that it has a virtual monopoly on the concert ticket business (and did you know that Clear Channel also owns the primary concert production company since it bought out, I do believe, SFX a couple of years ago?). With Ticketmaster being the primary outlet, and Clear Channel being the primary production company, that leads to higher concert ticket prices than most consumers are willing to pay (hey, I did a complete market analysis on this stuff for a business plan a couple of years ago, and I could go much more in depth on how all of this is related, but I'm not gonna bore anyone to tears). At any rate, I'm sure just about everyone here would agree that concert ticket prices are outrageous, and with Ticketmaster's new "auctioning" idea (mentioned in the music folder), things are bound to only get worse.

 

Most of all, spend less on lawyers and more on creative thinkers. You can't subpoena success.

 

I like this idea, too. It seems as though the music industry just keeps doing the wrong thing in an effort to get things back on track. It is bad marketing--very bad marketing. So far it seems as though Universal is the only record label that's actually "getting it" and realizing that something needs to change to attract consumers again, thus they're dropping prices.

 

And whether or not you agree with file sharing and the arguments for or against it, I'm sure just about everyone can agree that the music industry is completely out of touch with consumers and with what consumers want and need. And it's not just record prices--it's the quality of the music, the quantity of new, good music being generated, the price of music, the price of ticket sales, the price of merchandise at concerts, the quality of live shows, the state of the radio market, all of it. And the RIAA certainly isn't making any friends by filing lawsuits against hundreds of people. The general opinion towards the music industry isn't exactly stunning right now, and in order for consumers to start buying CDs again, and start going to concerts again, and start listening to the radio again, the music industry has to start listening to its consumer base and start making some positive changes rather than negative ones that drive consumers away.

 

//rant off

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

No, you steal from the RIAA to make them change in a way that doesn't involve a red scare and suing everyone with mp3 files in America.

 

Seeing that wasn't going to happen, I stopped stealing from the RIAA and started stealing from foreign music groups and video game companies. Like anyone is ever going to sue me for possessing uncopyrighted techno, japanese pop music and SNES rips that aren't even mp3s =P

[Jobber of the Week 0]

The MPAA is no innocent either, have you seen the commercial they run before the previews with the set builder complaining about piracy even though downloading movies has absolutely nothing with him.

That isn't harming anyone though, and yes if there's less movies being made because of lower profits, set painters have less sets to paint.

 

However, seeing that the movie industry has adapted it's method of income to the changing times, that really hasn't been a problem.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I look around and it sure looks (to me, at least) like the recording industry is trying to embrace the digital medium. For example, fee-based music services such as itunes and pressplay are much more prevelant now than they were a year ago.

Those are other companies, not the music industry, trying to make a buck off this thing and maybe put it on the right track.

 

The various RIAA labels give Apple the rights.

[iamsherm 0]

I agree that the music currently being marketed isn't that great, and prices are still pretty steep, but look at it from the RIAA's point of view: If there are still cheaper (read: free), viable options, such as Kazaa, to access music, will consumers still go out and acquire records legally? My personal opinion is the CD's can be $9 or $99, but if it's still available for free on the internet, I'm more inclined to pirate my music. That's why there's a "red scare," and they are well within their legal rights to do so.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

radio stations have generally trended towards targeting the teen market, and have generally left the college and adult markets behind. In order to hear something other than Justin or Britney or Good Charlotte, you pretty much have to find the low-frequency, non-Clear Channel owned radio station.

Yes.

 

And finding that station is increasingly difficult to do.

 

No. Not if you're willing to pay, anyway.

 

XM Satelite Radio

 

Sirius Satelite Radio

 

Both have 24/7 channels filled with artists and genres you don't find on FM anymore. They also have audio-only feeds of CNN and Those Other Guys among many others so I can listen to Crossfire or The Media Whore (but why?) in my car.

[Guest stardust]

And finding that station is increasingly difficult to do.

 

No. Not if you're willing to pay, anyway.

 

XM Satelite Radio

 

Sirius Satelite Radio

 

Both have 24/7 channels filled with artists and genres you don't find on FM anymore. They also have audio-only feeds of CNN and Those Other Guys among many others so I can listen to Crossfire or The Media Whore (but why?) in my car.

True. But not everyone is willing to pay nor can afford satellite radio. Yes, it's definitely an advance in technology, but it's still a shame that people are having to pay for services like that because the variety offered on traditional radio is so crappy. And services like XM Satellite Radio don't do anything about the fact that Clear Channel still has a monopoly on the traditional radio market, which is partially where the problems with the music industry arise in the first place.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I remember reading a while ago that the MPAA and RIAA would probably at some point form a group together to go after music/movie pirates. So you'd be getting sued by both...

[Anakin Flair 0]

I will download a song or two from Kazza to see if I willl like tha band. If I like them, then I buy. I just hate buying a cd for one song, and then finding out the rest of the CD is crap.

There is only one album I've bought recently that I can honestly say I like the entire CD,and that is "Fallen" by Evanescence.

[NoCalMike 0]

The RIAA can go to hell. They aren't doing anything for the artists behalf. Everytime I hear some specially selected artist to speak on their behalf I have to laugh my ass off. Lars Ulrich who was a regular supporter of bootleg material back in the day, suddenly doesn't like it anymore!?!

 

Honestly I can care less what Top 40 bands/artists/vocalists think. They don't make their money from cd sales and they know it. It is right there in the contract they sign.

 

If the RIAA wants to make more money, how about lowering cd prices(which it looks like they are going to do). Also, for someone like me, Non-Top 40 NEEDS TO BE MORE ACCESSIBLE. If there is a song I desperately want, I am not going to order it and wait a month or so to get it when I can download it in a matter of seconds.

 

I don't need the RIAA teamed up with Clear Channel telling me what I am supposed to be listening too. Fuck them both.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

My problem is that most of the stuff I want are either imports (RPG Soundtracks) or stuff that simply isn't available (Entrance Themes that aren't on CD). If something is available on CD, I'll just get that. The prices don't concern me, because there is so little that I want to begin with.

 

I would be willing to pay if the RIAA say bought Kazaa or something similar. I just can't get most of this stuff any other way.

[NoCalMike 0]

The RIAA can lie to us and say it is a money issue, but anyone with half a brain knows the truth. It is about consolidation of what is available to the public. They basically want ONE BRAIN telling everyone what they are supposed to listen to. File-sharing has done a hell of a lot of good for any band that isn't in the Top 40. It has introduced an entire BRAND NEW audience to genres besides hip hop/Country/Classic Rock/Adult Contemporary/Top 40....etc....

 

If music I like isn't played on the radio, where the fuck does the RIAA expect me to get it and/or listen to it. They know damn well it would better for them if I had never discovered file-sharing and just had it implemented into my mind that ADEMA was the new biggest thing in rock, bwahahahaha.

[Steviekick 0]

If the RIAA ran a subscription based downloading service, $100 would be very cost accessible, college user or not. That's barely anything. Anyway, if they were controlling the file sharing service, they could monitor which songs were being downloaded and then be able to take the user registration fees and use them to pay royalties for the songs. It's not that difficult.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't want it run by the RIAA though. No one should have control over what gets downloaded. That is the whole point. If RIAA controls the program, you know ClearChannel will be a part of it, and slowly they will eliminate anything that is not part of their agenda. Just about every artist I listen to and spend money on, openly supports file sharing, so I don't feel bad at all downloading some of their songs, since most of the time if I like what I download I will buy their cd anyway.

[Guest MikeSC]

So people should do without music because the governing body over it is using bad business techniques?

Yup.

 

Blacks in Alabama went without the public bus service when they wished to protest the unfair and unconstitutional treatment they received on the buses. They ran their own buses or simply walked to work every day.

 

They did not ride the Montgomery buses and simply refuse to pay for them.

 

They showed guts. They did it the RIGHT way.

 

Maybe others should try and do the same.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Boycott them. Don't buy them. Don't listen to the radio. Show some balls, rather than being a cowardly little thief, using some weak justification for your rather indefensible actions.

I've bought precisely one CD in the past four years. That one was purchased with a gift card, so it's not like *I* was the one paying for it. I've written numerous essays on the internet decrying the RIAA, their refusal to change their business model to embrace the digital age, their virtual slavery of the artists under their umbrella, and their generally shitty business practices. I listen to CDs or talk radio in the car. Yes, I've downloaded music, but I can also count on one hand the number of entire albums I've copped in the four years since I've bought a CD. At least 80% of the music I've downloaded consists of songs I already own in CD or tape format (I have about 1000 combined), and it's my right as a consumer to be able to listen to those songs on my PC if I want to.

 

I've shown my balls. My sack is hanging out there for the world to see.

"Slavery of the artists"?

 

The "big" groups can, if they WISHED to do so, refuse to play ball with RIAA. They could pressure their labels to not have THEIR work fall under RIAA control whatsoever.

 

They do not do so.

 

Consumers can stop buying the merchandise and stop listening to the stations. They can try filing suits.

 

Stealing the music is NOT the answer.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

**kicks**

 

Hey, Mike, actually read what you're saying. People want music. People want new music. People want new GOOD music. So why bother BUYING CDs of shitty artists with 1 or 2 listenable songs when you can download tracks, see if they're any good, and then decide to buy the album?

 

Album sales have gone down because of both the price and the lack of quality in mainstream music. I could go into a long rant about how metal and punk, two styles of music that are/were anything BUT mainstream, have been growing steadily since the boom of P2P servers and file-sharing, and how their respective communities embraced the interent, but no.

Because once people download the one or two good songs, they have no incentive to BUY the friggin' CD. They already HAVE what they want.

 

Stealing because the quality isn't what you like is not an answer, try as you might to make it so.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And finding that station is increasingly difficult to do.

 

No. Not if you're willing to pay, anyway.

 

XM Satelite Radio

 

Sirius Satelite Radio

 

Both have 24/7 channels filled with artists and genres you don't find on FM anymore. They also have audio-only feeds of CNN and Those Other Guys among many others so I can listen to Crossfire or The Media Whore (but why?) in my car.

True. But not everyone is willing to pay nor can afford satellite radio. Yes, it's definitely an advance in technology, but it's still a shame that people are having to pay for services like that because the variety offered on traditional radio is so crappy. And services like XM Satellite Radio don't do anything about the fact that Clear Channel still has a monopoly on the traditional radio market, which is partially where the problems with the music industry arise in the first place.

Then lawsuits need to be filed. Independent stations need to charge Clear Channel stations with monopolistic practices and have the courts rule.

 

This is an issue for courts --- not dorky little thieves.

-=Mike