The RIAA, still hell-bent on finding a legal recourse against music downloads that fills their desire to send music lovers to the iron maiden (the torture device, not the band), has introduced a proposed expansion to the already excessive and antiquated copyright laws presently in place. (Story Here)
In essence, one of the facets of the proposed legislation would potentially cost a defendant upwards of $1 million for downloading a single compilation CD of approximately ten tracks.
And while this is a ridiculous sum on its face, it’s also ridiculous considering that the majority of tracks that show up on compilation albums, soundtracks and the like aren’t worth the physical plastic and paper that they are made of. Hence, the need to digitize this sub-par output in the first place.
What I find particularly disconcerting is the rampant disparity between those in the entertainment industry (including the struggling artists) who actively and vocally support the internet as the most cost effective method of distribution (many of them actually encouraging the pirating of their material in order to expose more people to it), and the RIAA, who want to impose rules and restrictions so impossibly immobilizing that they can only be likened to medieval, monarchical decrees.
Examples of successful artists, networks and studios who have embraced the internet download model for their distribution are rampant. Many networks even offer ways for you to watch their current shows on the networks’ own websites if you miss an episode. Numerous shows are available for reasonable prices through iTunes. And with Netflix offering direct movie downloads, On Demand cable services, and further developments by Blockbuster, Apple and the like, it seems plainly obvious that downloadable content will usher in the next wave of profit and success in the entertainment industry.
It would seem plain then, at least to me, that the RIAA would be foolish to reject such simple and effective methods of distribution.
But perhaps the problem lies in the fact that with internet distribution, the RIAA is going to have to operate by someone else’s rules. Since the advent of the iTunes store, no one is going to pay more than $10 for a full album (with the exception of double albums, of course). This leaves the RIAA without the hefty premium it would love to charge (upwards of $15/album).
What the RIAA seemingly fails to realize, however, is that this lower cost per album is reflective of the lower overhead costs. There are no printing and pressing costs associated with digital distribution. Of course you can still create album art and liner notes, but there won’t need to be nearly the quantity of hard copy, manufactured discs.
Additionally, digital distribution opens the possibility for new revenue streams by virtue of the fact that people are often willing to pay for only a few songs. One reason is because no one listens to albums anymore, but the other reason is that no one makes good albums anymore.
There was a time in the music industry when an artist worked diligently at putting together a complete album, one that you would want to listen to from front to back, one that you were more than willing to get up and turn over during the days of vinyl (see Pink Floyd’s The Wall, Led Zeppelin’s Physical Graffiti, etc.).
Nowadays, though, music fans are lucky to find 4-5 songs (less than 50% of an album) that they actually enjoy, or that they aren’t already tired of hearing due to overexposure (thank you radio and commercial advertising). Having worked in radio for 9 years now, I can’t count the number of songs that I liked tremendously that were ruined by the sheer volume of times I had to listen to it on the air.
Personally, I believe the RIAA is grasping at straws, and would be better served to spend their time, money and efforts on encouraging new business models and developing new revenue streams for their product. Instead, they cling to the old fashioned model, and long for the days when record companies (like Motown, Arista, and the like) could actively exploit and underpay artists for their work, all the while reaping the monetary benefits of successful albums hand over fist.
It would be nice to think that all of their recent legal ramblings are nothing more than the death rattle of the RIAA, and that soon enough they will fade off into the past, as a forward-looking group or body takes their place. The present writer’s strike should give the entire entertainment industry pause enough to realize that the old model isn’t going to work anymore in the 21st century. I won’t claim to be prescient enough to know what that next model will look like, but I know for a fact that what we have now is not working.
The RIAA would be wise to realize this as well.
3 Comments
February 6, 2008 at 10:41 am
Absolutely agree man. I read the other day that David Draiman from Disturbed is lobbying his label hard to get them to go exclusively digital. He said in the interview that the band is putting multiple CD-ROM and DVD features on their next CD because he feels that would be the only incentive in this day and age to buy a CD (as his label wants us to do). Simply put, the RIAA and labels in general would probably be wise to listen to their own artists, but then I suppose their response to that would be “why should we start listening to them now?”
February 6, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I neglected to mention in this post that recent surveys and studies have shown that internet piracy has actually increased the sales of media in some instances, and in other instances had no net effect on sales. The RIAA’s witch hunt continues in spite of contradictory evidence.
February 10, 2008 at 11:19 pm
[...] digital. This is explained in much better prose and detail than I can offer by my friend J.B. here. However, as if their refusal to embrace the future wasn’t enough, they’ve once again [...]