|
I really do find this all very amusing.
The RIAA represents the stereotypical, technophobic attitude so prevelent in bodies of authority. By their logic, the internet is inhabitted by porn freaks, child molesters, computer hackers and Linux users (.... never mind  ). If they had even the tiniest amount of intelligence, they would be noticing a few things.
Firstly the mp3 format is here to stay. No amount of law suits are going to stop people downloading music. All law suits serve to do are to inconvenience people for a couple of months while a new P2P system is adopted and the entire thing begins again, and/or to create a public relations rift between the major record companies and the music fans. The reputation that the RIAA and the major record labels have earned as the result of this debacle is clear: they are aleinating the people who listen to their music, and what kind of a policy is that? Any marketing type will tell you the importance of public image in determining how well a company fares, and by acting in a such a draconian fashion, the RIAA and the "big 5" record companies are shooting themselves in the foot. Whatever profits they salvage from the suppression of mp3s (if any) will be entirely outweighed by the profits lost when people begin to rebel against them and refuse to buy their merchandise. It's clear that this is the way it's heading.
Secondly, when you buy a CD - while I forget the exact figures now - the record company earns 2-3 times as much as the artist does from each CD. So if a CD sells for $30, if we assume $5 goes to the artist (probably an overestimate) then $10-$15 is going straight back to the record company. It should be noticed, that in the case of bigger name stars especially, the amount of money they make from CD sales is completely shadowed by the amount of money they receive from the contracts the companies give them. What does an artist care about CD sales if the majority of profits are going to the record company and they're going to earn a lot of money from their contract regardless? For the Record Companies to say that mp3 downloads hurt artists is completely misguided: if they are so concerned about the well-being of their stars, perhaps the record companies could find it in their hearts to trim down their own profits a bit.
Next, their logic implies, essentially, that any time someone downloads an mp3 a CD sale is lost. That is, if someone downloads a particular song, it negates the need for a purchase that would otherwise be made. But this is specious logic: with the majority of downloads (I'm thinking 95% +) mp3s are not used as a way to eschew the purchase of a CD at all. Just because someone downloads an mp3, it in no way indicates that they would otherwise be likely to buy the CD. Perhaps they were just curious, or too indifferent towards the song to buy it outright. People don't hear a song on a radio think "oooo, I like the sound of that, I'm going to go home onto my illegal mp3 software and download it so I don't have to pay the $10! Mwahahaha!". Most people, if they like the sound of a song, are compelled to buy it. The majority of people who listen to the music purveyed by the major record companies - i.e. pop music - are unlikely to be mp3 gurus. Fourteen year old girls do not horde mp3s downloaded from Napster, they go out and buy the CD. I may or may not own a Brittney Spears mp3 or two (*ahem*  ) but, at the same time, I wouldn't have bought her CD's whether I had the mp3 or not. Therefore, for the RIAA to suggest that the download of an mp3 automatically translates into a shrinkage of profit margin is entirely specious and, above all, false.
Finally, if they had any marketing people who were any better than completely shitty hacks, they'd realise that given the fact that mp3s are here to stay, and that there is a great public demand for them, that there may, just may, be a money making opportunity here. Think about it: if I could pay a reasonable price for a service that could guarantee me the music I wanted in a downloadable mp3 format, I would baulk at the opportunity, and I suspect that many others here would as well. I think the only attempt at "pay-per-download" mp3s, had each song charged at like $US 2.50 for every one you downloaded. Now that is just plain stupidity. Offer a reasonable service at a reasonable price, and you're laughing. Think about it: how much does the average person spend per year on singles? $100 maximum? If you charge people $100/year ($8.33 / month) for a service that allows them to download any CD single track they wish, then they are immediately guaranteed the money they'd be getting anyway if the music was only available of CD single format, plus there'd be greater exposure for all their artists meaning, if you do the sums, a greater chance of album sales (which, as Webmeister said, is where they make the bulk of their profit anyway). Steady CD single sales + greater album sales = cha-ching.
So why don't they look into something like this? Because they're naive dickheads, trained in a business rationale that doesn't allow for creativity or risk-taking. If they are losing profits (which they aren't by the way) then it's through their own ignorance and lack of ingenuity. The hope of seeing the big five fall down is motivation enough for me to download illegal copyrighted material like a madman.
So, in brief, fuck off RIAA, fuck off the big five. You're fighting a battle that you're going to lose unless you change your mind set very quickly. Be warned.
|
