boycott-riaa.com - Article: Brenda@Partie Sound

Brenda@Partie Sound

Posted by on June 19, 2007 at 11:09 PM (printer friendly)

Source from Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline?source=music_news_rssfeed

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


cryforlife	Date: June 20, 2007 @ 5:28 PM Hold on while I play the worlds smallest violin.... I've never sold more then four cd's since I started recording music (granted I'm a lo-fi artist), but any of these big name artists has the potential to go indie and produce and sell albums on their own and if they're thrifty with their spending could make themselves a foutune on a tenth of the sales they're seeing now.

independentm...	Date: June 21, 2007 @ 1:32 AM And that's exactly the wonderful happy day the RIAA rightfully fears cryforlife!

independentm...	Date: June 21, 2007 @ 3:46 AM The Rolling Stone article gets a few things wrong... (but, then again, it is biased in favor of the "poor pitiful" RIAA) Example: "In the face of widespread piracy, consumers' growing preference for low-profit-margin digital singles over albums, and other woes, the record business has plunged into a historic decline." Actually p2p "piracy" only helps promote the RIAA tunes. (So, don't do it folks!) and... Those digital singles have a MUCH higher profit margin than physical CD sales. (Just think about it. No packaging and material costs!) The REASON the RIAA sales are in decline is because the music (for the most part) sucks and the RIAA is being boycotted by the increasingly aware youth. (Pat yourselves on the back Boycotter's! We are going to win this war!) :)

brenthannah	Date: June 21, 2007 @ 10:23 AM "many in the industry see the last seven years as a series of botched opportunities. And among the biggest, they say, was the labels' failure to address online piracy at the beginning by making peace with the first file-sharing service, Napster. "They left billions and billions of dollars on the table by suing Napster -- that was the moment that the labels killed themselves," says Jeff Kwatinetz, CEO of management company the Firm." This is the most telling statement in this article. And here we are 7 years later AND THEY ARE STILL TRYING TO SUE THEIR WAY OUT OF THIS! Are they f*kin stupid or what?

byteme	Date: June 21, 2007 @ 10:35 AM While song downloads may have a higher percentage of profit due to low costs, they still don�t bring in as much money overall. Two or three songs sold at a profit of, say 50 cents each, doesn�t bring in as much as a single album purchase at $18.99. I think it�s true that, at one time, the effect of p2p was insignificant (and possibly slightly beneficial), but I don�t believe that is still the case. However, rather than p2p causing folks to abandon purchases, I believe that the actions of the record companies, from lawsuits to DRM to high prices, have forced their own customers to say, �Screw this, I�m going to download for free!� The big thing that is killing them is the greed of the bigwigs. Thanks to decades of having a stranglehold over recorded music, they have become accustomed to ripping off both the customers and the artists to such a degree that they feel entitled to obscene profits. If they accepted the fact that this will no longer fly and adjusted the industry from the top down, they could survive and even thrive. If they simply said, �Okay, we�ve had a great ride, but let�s be realistic now and accept the fact that we have no choice but to start treating everyone more fairly and live on only a six figure salary instead of seven,� they could pull out of the nosedive they are currently in. It won�t happen. Actually, I don�t believe that the record industry will completely die�it will simply change owners, by hostile takeover. Hopefully, the industry will be taken over by all of the smaller labels that are run by people who: do what they do because they love music; haven�t spent the last few decades growing accustomed to big music�s bad habits; and have at least a lick of sense. Because they won�t have the immense power enjoyed by the industry of old, we can only hope these new players will act more sensibly and with less greed. If that happens, music quality will increase, prices will drop, new artists will be able to sign on for a FAIR share of profits and innovation will become a big part of the business plan. Music lovers will get great music at a fair price (with no DRM) while the artists and labels can all enjoy reasonable profits and live very well. Everyone wins!!! Music Utopia!!! (Well, at least I can dream, can�t I?)

independentm...	Date: June 21, 2007 @ 6:12 PM Dream on byteme! (After all, that's why we are here isn't it?) :)

gdZiemann	Date: June 23, 2007 @ 10:14 PM May 19, 2000 (article 2528 on this site) No, not Metallica. This time it is Dr. Dre who is leading the charge against Napster. On Wednesday, Dre E-mailed Napster with names of over 239,612 users charged with infringing on Dre's copyrights by downloading his songs for free. Unlike Metallica, Dre's attorney Howard King, has requested that Napster delete his client's work from their directory rather than blocking users from using the service as a whole. In response to the attorney's request, Napster has said that they cannot block files, only users. But that doesn't matter too much, because it is speculated that Metallica too, will ask Napster to have their music files be deleted from the service. May 21, 2000 (article 2532) Metallica may not be suing every person who has sent "counter notifications" contesting their blockage on Napster, but the band refuses to go away quietly. On Thursday of this week, Metallica lawyers sent Napster Inc. another batch of names that illegally are infringing on the groups copyrights. Metallica sent the 332,293 names, monitored over a one-week period, to Napster with no hyped media conference or press release. June 2007 -- "The record business is over," says music attorney Peter Paterno, who represents Metallica and Dr. Dre. What goes around... ------ "Actually, I don�t believe that the record industry will completely die�it will simply change owners, by hostile takeover." Anyone stupid enough to want to buy it will, by necessity, be most motivated by greed -- the stockholders will demand it. The only solution is for musicians to stop signing contracts with them. According to this article, 2/3 of them have already been set free or walked away.

independentm...	Date: June 23, 2007 @ 10:23 PM I sent in an article last night about the Donnas dropping Atlantic to join Redeye Distribution (an indie label from NC - same label that has the Gourds and a few other notables) but leflaw must have missed it this morning when he was doing approvals. Artists walking away from the RIAA is becomming a trend. (It's a sign we are winning!)

byteme	Date: June 25, 2007 @ 9:37 AM Actually, I didn't mean the current big 4 would be literally "bought out" so much as they would eventually become irrelevant and the smaller labels would simply step up to fill the void. To some degree this is already starting to happen. I guess hostile takeover was the wrong way to put it, but I was just trying to sound fancy. ;-)

INeedAlover	Date: June 26, 2007 @ 11:17 AM "So who killed the record industry as we knew it? "The record companies have created this situation themselves," says Simon Wright, CEO of Virgin Entertainment Group, which operates Virgin Megastores. " Funny how none of their explanations of 'who killed the record industry' pointed out the GREED of the music industry to kill the single and try to make everyone pay for an overpriced CD product with one good song and 10-15 others that sucked. They did do this to themselves. Over their own greed. No one should feel sorry about them collapsing now.

pessimist	Date: June 27, 2007 @ 5:35 AM Agreed!