JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques General Technical Forum One of the worst ideas EVER from the major labels and government!

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has to travel a scant 60 miles to buy music. When I was growing up it was either a 130 mile ride North, or a 220 mile East to get mine. I did not have the option of stealing the music before buying. You can rest assured that I did my reseach. Further more I just got through driving 600 miles (back home) just to see 2 groups that I had never heard any of their music. One was The Susan Gibson Band (she wrote "Wide Open Spaces" made popular by the Dixie Chicks) the other was Carolyn Wonderland and the Imerial Monkeys (very powerful music there). You may ask why in the world would I do that! The simple answer is...curiosity! I'd much rather spend my time and money on something that I have not expereinced, than on some overproduced "artist" that keeps on making the same od tired music, just for the money. You can bet that I bought their CDs, after all, with the great experiance, the music now has special value. When I look for music on the web, I go to great extreems to find the most obscure music I can. I find some real treats. I go to their web sites and listen to their music, and buy it if at all possible, if I can't buy it I try to find out where I can see them live. Music is my mission!!!!!!!!!

Again you do not see what I am pointing out. I go and I BUY EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE DOWNLOADED. NO ARITST IS LOSING ROYALTIES BECAUSE OF ME OR ANY WRITER. IN FACT A HELL OF A LOT OF ARTIST AND WRITERS ARE GETTING ROYALTIES BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO LOOK THEN GO AND BUY. I LOSE MONEY WHEN I BUY SOMETHING I HATE AND CAN NOT TAKE BACK. I CAN TAKE BACK A SHORT A GUN A BOW. YOU ALSO MISSED THAT I WENT AND BROUGHT THE RISING BY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN THE VERY DAY IT WAS RELEASED. I WAS THERE AT TEN AM SOON. AS IT WAS OPEN TO BUY. SOME ARTISTS I WANT THEIR WORK SOON AS IT IS THERE AND WILL NOT WAIT FOR IT TO ARRIVE BY ORDERING ONLINE

DUHHHHHH I HAVE TRIED TO GET TICKETS TO BRUCE SPRINGSTEENS CONCERTS ALL OVER THE EAST COAST. I KNOW 68 81 ETC. I WAS NOT ABLE TO. I DOWNLOADED SONGS THAT I HAD ALREADY PAID FOR. I WOULD HAVE PAID THE PRICE FOR TICKETS. THE SONGS I DOWNLOADED I WANTED TO HEAR IN CONCERT. FOR YOUR INFORMATION THEIR IS A GREAT ARTIST WHO DOES THE TYPE OF SONGS I ENJOY. HIS NAME IS JOE GRUSHECKY. HE IS FROM PITTSBURGH, PA. I HAVE SEEN HIM PLAY ATLOT OF TIMES. I HAVE SEEN BRUCE PERFORM WITH HIM AT VARIOUS TIMES. BRUCE HAS ALSO COWROTE OR WROTE SONGS FOR HIM. I HARDLY BUY YOUR COMMENT ON THE DRIVING 130 MILES OR MORE. GO ONLINE TO A MAP LOOK WHERE OAKLAND, MARYLAND IS. LOOK AT THE DISTANCE FOR LAVALE MARYLAND FOR MORGANTOWN WV FOR UNIONTOWN PA. THAT IS WHERE I DRIVE TO WHEN I WANT SOMETHING RIGHT AWAY AND DO NOT WANT TO WAIT FOR IT TO BE SHIPPED. HIGHWAY ROBBERY IS WHAT THE PRICE OF CDS ARE. EVEN WORSE ROBBERY WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING ONLY TO LIKE ONE SONG AT MOST. EVEN MORE ROBBERY WHEN YOU PUT OUT A CD CALLED TRACKS. A FEW MONTHS LATER PUT OUT ANOTHER CALLED 18 TRACKS. MORE ROBBERY WHEN 18 TRACKS ONLY HAS TWO NEW SONGS THAT WAS NOT ON THE ORIGIONAL TRACKS. SO IF THE RECORD COMPANIES ETC WOULD REALLY PAY ATTENTION IT IS THE FILE SHARING THAT IS DRIVING PEOPLE TO GO AND BUY THE WORKS THAT BANDS PUT OUT. ALL THE STUDIES SHOW THIS. DO NOT TELL ME YOU FALL FOR THE MYTH THAT IT IS DOWNLOADING THAT IS KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY? PERHAPS BRIAN SHOULD HAVE POSTED THE ARTICLES IN THE USA TODAY PAPER AND OTHERS THAT HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY KILLING THE MUSIC INDUSTRY WHICH IS NOT THE PEOPLE DOWNLOADING.

I am not a country music fan. I have listened to some of the country songs in the lyric forums that have mp3s. I would pay for them and for alot of songs here.

I offered a way I think that would work for artist and writers to be paid for their work by those who download and do not go n get the offical release. Something that would also work is being able to hear a whole group of songs by an artist. After a certain amount of days the song would no longer work unless you purchased it. Now if you purchase it you should be able to take it anywhere with you not just be tied to the computer as some of these paysites want. I would pay for downloading Johnny Cash songs Bob Dylan John Fogerty. I buy what these people put out right away. Though I just got the release of of Bob's yesterday at Lavale Maryland from last year but I never downloaded. What I downloaded was what was on the Live In NYC DVD and cd plus about a few more songs that gave me everything that was performed in concert on the last tour of Bruce's. Really about four or five songs. Songs that allowed me to hear what I did not get to in concert. Bruce had the cameras there taping for those shows in New York does he not know his fans would have been happy with one complete concert not the way the cd n dvd came out? When I download a song by a artist and I buy the cd the songs that were downloaded are delted.
In my opinon the future of the music industry is the direction that the artist who was knowen as Prince is doing.

"Piracy issues have limited (legal) consumer offerings online," says RIAA head Hilary Rosen.

Storeowners don't buy that argument, saying music companies have limited their offerings. "Retailers could have been competing with Napster for some time" with their own online pay sites if music companies would license them the tunes, says Horovitz.
hmmmmmmmm

Music-industry paranoia

When the combined legal might of the music industry squashed online music-trading pigmy Napster last year, the industry said it was only protecting the just profits of artists and recording companies. If music could be downloaded for free, the recording industry argued, the practice would cut the amount of music sold.

But new research undermines the assumption. By doing so, it raises questions about the knee-jerk basis on which old industries attempt to quash new technologies.

When technology-research firm Jupiter Research analyzed the reported music habits of 3,319 Internet users, it discovered that the people who regularly use Napster and similar services most were more likely to increase their music purchases.

But it puts another chink in the industry's already hopelessly self-serving argument that people shouldn't be able to freely exchange music now in the same way they exchanged tapes and records in the pre-digital era. If there's no profit involved, of course sharing is appropriate. The industry, not the public, should be forced to adjust.

The music industry's skittishness in adapting to new technology isn't much of a surprise. Most old industries see their demise in changing technology rather than in new opportunities to grow and profit.

For the music industry, the tradition dates back to a 1908 Supreme Court fight intended to squelch the profit-destroying power of player pianos. In recent years, the battles have focused on digital tapes and portable digital players.

The same is true elsewhere. Movie theaters thought television would ruin them. Later, they feared the VCR. If Spiderman 's $114-million weekend is any measure, both predictions were off.

ReplayTV is the latest innovation to draw a fight. A horde of broadcast television networks and movie studios is trying to stop this digital descendant of the VCR because of two key features.

It lets consumers zap past commercials instantly instead of waiting for cumbersome fast forward. And it allows owners to send a limited number of taped shows to friends who own their own device.

A compliant Congress that is well fed with campaign contributions has altered copyright law in ways that could aid the industry's case.

But even without a court decision, the losers are clear: music, movie and TV titans who'd rather fight the future than evolve.

June 5, 2002

Any way you spin it; the music biz is in trouble
Fans, artists and industry: Nobody's rockin'
By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY

Discussion Questions

Why are today's recording stars failing to get fan loyalty that sustains over a longer period of time like the Beatles, Elvis and Sinatra achieved?


Is there a difference in music quality between now and 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago? What do you see as the difference? Is it a quality difference or just a change in taste?

How is burning a CD any different from copying a music cassette? Why didn't the industry see an economic downturn when consumers were copying cassette tapes?

What type of radio stations do you listen to most frequently? Do they provide a wide genre of music? Why do radio stations hesitate in exposing new artists?

No wonder pop fans are singing the blues. Radio sounds like a broken record. CD prices are heading off the charts. Labels are out of tune with the digital age. New acts fail to strike a chord with listeners.

It's time to face the music. The $14 billion recording industry, struggling through its first sales slump in a decade, faces challenges on several fronts, not the least of which is a tarnished image in the eyes and ears of fans who feel ripped off by greedy, tone-deaf bean counters.

In 2001, album sales dropped 2.8% compared with 2000, the first dip since SoundScan began tracking sales in 1991.

The gap widened in this year's first quarter, when sales fell 8.3% from the same period in 2001, far steeper than the 1.2% drop from 2000 to 2001.

Eminem's return with his third album, The Eminem Show, generated some excitement, selling nearly 300,000 copies in its first two days in stores and, it is estimated, up to 1 million more this week.

But industry observers see few other sure bets in the near future. Even the once-robust current-hits CD franchise, Now That's What I Call Music, is slipping, presumably because of a declining inventory of radio smashes.

While the tsunamis of hip-hop, grunge, rap-rock and boy bands drove sales in the past decade, no strong trend is galvanizing the masses. Billboard's top 10, formerly an exclusive club for albums selling 100,000-plus copies a week, now accommodates acts selling half that.

Illicit downloading continues to chisel away at label profits, prompting lawsuits and generally ineffective countermeasures.

As for today's music offerings, well, fresh bands grow stale overnight while The Beatles continue to sell quite steadily. In this singles-minded era, fans forge only feeble bonds with momentary artists.

"Rock bands have hits, but nobody knows who they are," says Alan Light, a former Spin editor preparing to launch a music magazine.

"It's the Nickelback question. They have the most-played song in modern-rock radio history (How You Remind Me), and you can't pick them out of a police lineup. There's no story, and it's part of an enormous problem at the heart of the music industry. Artists are being prematurely dismissed or not signed in the first place.

"Part of me understands that," Light says. "The obligation of a multimedia corporation is to generate money for stockholders, not to make the best records, and it's naive to pretend otherwise."

A frenzy of mergers radically changed the recording industry from a diverse collection of scrappy and independent operations to a monolithic corporate machine dominated by the five "majors": Bertelsmann, Sony, EMI, Warner Bros. and Universal.

Embittered consumers and embattled corporations seem to be at loggerheads over blame and solutions.

Here's an overview of the sour notes that stand in the way of harmony:

A burning issue: Music piracy and downloads

Popular music has been upended by every technological advance from electricity and the phonograph to cassette tapes and recordable CDs. The switch from analog to digital accelerated the pace of illicit duplication and distribution, sounding the loudest alarm yet.

With Napster in bankruptcy, other sites from Gnutella to KaZaa are filling the void. Last month, labels and music publishers sued Audiogalaxy, a booming file-swapping network that lured 3.5 million users in March.

* The complaint: The Recording Industry Association of America, on behalf of labels, is vigorously seeking to stamp out proliferating Web sites that permit free downloads of music. Users argue that peer-to-peer file-sharing, even more prevalent now than in Napster's heyday, is a legitimate means of sampling and trading music and that the industry's substitute sites are clunky, incomplete and too rigidly priced.

Anti-copying devices -- such as the implanted software on the European version of Celine Dion's A New Day Has Come that can freeze or crash computers when users attempt to make copies -- prevent a CD buyer from transferring music to a mix tape or spare copy.

The industry helped orchestrate the download crisis by failing to deliver effective alternatives.

"Their only answer is, 'Don't do this because it's illegal,' and the only other option is spending $18 for a CD," Light says.

Downloading may not be taking a significant bite out of record profits, says SoundScan CEO Mike Shalett, noting, "CD sales were actually up last year. We had a tremendous loss in cassette sales, partly because we don't make as many."

In 2001, consumers bought 1.2 billion blank CDs. Album sales were down a relatively meager 22 million units from the year before (to 762.8 million), suggesting that most blank CDs are used for personal copies. Only top 10 albums suffered a drop; sales of all other titles stayed flat, indicating that only the most hotly demanded albums trigger a CD-burning frenzy.

* The defense: The livelihood of musicians and labels is imperiled by piracy worldwide. Free downloads threaten the very infrastructure that pays royalties, publishing fees, recording and marketing/promotion costs. The effect is not minuscule, as avid users suggest.

"The fact that technology allows consumers to burn a rather decent copy of music, whether by borrowing a friend's CD or grabbing it off a file-sharing service, does seem to have a dampening effect on some types of music," says Geoff Mayfield, Billboard's director of charts.

Last year, sales of certain rock albums fell off dramatically after the first day of sales, "and those records ended up limping home with smaller opening-week numbers than were projected," Mayfield says. "That threat hasn't gone away. It's a serious challenge because it's more insidious than the home-taping practice that the entertainment industry worried about 16 years ago. You can copy music faster and get a better copy."

* The outlook: Illegal downloading "definitely has the opportunity to become a bigger problem as more households have CD burners," Shalett says.

The beleaguered industry "can't do a whole lot to combat downloading until legislation lets them close down sites like Napster," says music consultant Tom Vickers. "The genie is out of the bottle. Just as U.S. corporations go offshore to avoid taxes, these file-sharing sites are in locations like Holland or the West Indies, where U.S. law doesn't apply. As a result, it's not going to change."

The industry is counterattacking in court, a slow process, and with anti-copying devices, which consumers resent and tech heads will no doubt override. Labels have yet to tackle pirates head-on with superior Web sites, attractive subscription deals and enough free downloads to stimulate purchases. Enhancements, such as the bonus DVD attached to the first 2 million copies of Eminem's widely bootlegged new album, are one tack that may lure the cyber set back to stores.

"Labels are adding extras, whether it's a visual component like the 3-D Spider-Man cover art or DVD add-ons with interviews or performances," Vickers says. "As more labels recognize that downloading isn't going away, they'll combat it with enhancements you can't get anywhere else."

Hey, Mr. DJ, open the request line

Radio remains one of the most powerful marketing tools available to the recording industry, despite skyrocketing costs of gaining access to the airwaves via independent promoters. While word-of-mouth, video and Internet brush fires occasionally catapult unknowns to stardom, radio remains the most reliable and efficient means of enticing listeners to record stores. Yet many fans surfing the airwaves are far from satisfied.

* The complaint: Consolidation has made radio even more cookie-cutter bland, with narrow, unimaginative playlists. Demographic targeting and audience testing eliminate variety, stifle regionalism and foist the least objectionable music on the public.

Failing to recognize that an individual's tastes are broader than a narrow format, stations avoid adventurous artists and diversity. Music's presence is being eroded by gabby DJs and juvenile morning shows.

Underscoring the gap between programmers and listeners is a roster of records that sold well without radio support: the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack and debuts by Josh Groban and Norah Jones.

"More and more, radio is programmed literally by machine, hurting the limitless potential that makes radio special," Light says. "All the great things about radio, including identity and community, are being devalued. In places that kind of station still exits, people hold onto it with religious fervor."

* The defense: As quirky outposts merged into titanic corporations, radio became a big business beholden to Wall Street's profit standards.

"The stakes are higher," Light says. "One genre is now bigger than the whole industry used to be. It's absurd to think that corporations are going to value artistic merit and innovation. That's not what the game is."

Listenership levels are still high, pointing to a content silent majority, and surveys show that most people prefer the tight, predictable playlists that repeat their favorite hits over and over.

"There's never been any conspiracy to ignore the records people want to hear," says Sean Ross, editor of Airplay Monitor. "Compared to 10 years ago, there's a wider variety of music being exposed."

Specialization has led to stations that play only hip-hop or dance music, yet scattered outlets continue to aim for a mix.

Ross says that although radio stations find it challenging to present widely differing styles of music, "you do have top 40 stations that can accommodate Michelle Branch, Eminem and Linkin Park."

As for records that weren't set in motion by radio, stations eventually came aboard.

"In the end, Man of Constant Sorrow (from O Brother) was a (fair-sized) country hit," Ross says. "There are stations looking at Norah Jones and Josh Groban."

* The outlook: Such satellite services as XM and Sirius promise more choices and minimal filler, but will people pay in a marketplace rife with cost-free transmissions? (Yes, according to companies that sell cable TV and bottled water.) Online radio offers more variety but lacks portability.

Commercial radio, which has withstood all technological threats, likely will survive, though listening levels could erode as ears turn to cyberspace and other diversions.

"It's hard to know what to make of Internet and satellite radio," Light says. "I'm not sure cutting the pie into smaller and smaller pieces is a good idea, even if the fragments are getting bigger and bigger. Hip-hop is a self-contained economy."

Little may be gained in splintering. An alt-country satellite station, Light reasons, will preach to the choir and be ignored by the uninitiated, hindering exposure.

"Judging by initial responses to satellite radio, it's not the non-issue that broadcasters were hoping for," Ross says. "On the other hand, its effect is perhaps too diffuse to really force any one radio station to react."

Radio's urgent challenge is recapturing baby boomers. The 45-and-up demographic has gradually increased its marketplace clout since 1990, accounting for 23.7% of record sales in 2001, says the RIAA.

"As it does a better job of acknowledging younger listeners, radio does a worse job of acknowledging anyone over 35," Ross says. "There are no commercial classical stations in Detroit, Philadelphia or Miami anymore. The labels have learned in the past five or 10 years to reach the 35-year-old who wants to buy a Bee Gees record even if it's not on the radio. (Labels that) find a way to market to 45-year-olds who grew up on rock 'n' roll will have an advantage."

Money for nothing

Until recently, the ceiling on list prices of CDs hovered at $18.98. Then Universal hiked the sticker price of Ja Rule's Pain Is Love and The Scorpion King soundtrack to $19.98. The upside of the pricing game is that some rising acts, including N.E.R.D. and Andrew W.K., are entering the playing field sporting a lower price tag. Other albums, such as recent No. 1's by Ashanti, Musiq and P. Diddy, are being offered at lower prices or with rebates to stimulate first-week sales. Still, fans are seething about CD sticker shock.

* The complaint: Shelling out $16 to $18 is too much for a record with maybe two hits and lots of padding. Downloading specific tracks is a more attractive proposition, especially if it's free. CD manufacturing costs are way down, so why do labels continue to gouge fans?

Retailers pressuring labels to reduce wholesale costs contend that selling an album under the "the magical price point" of $10 would discourage CD burning, according to Billboard.

* The defense: The price structure offsets not only manufacturing but recording, marketing and promoting costs. And those expenses cover not just the hits, but also the stiffs. Of 7,000 new titles released each year by major labels, fewer than 10% are profitable, according to the RIAA. (Consider the industry joke: How do you make $1 million in jazz? Start with $2 million.)

Releasing an album with major distribution entails at minimum of $1 million, says Billboard's Mayfield.

"I suspect that if we looked into the raw costs of milk or shoes, the retail price might end up looking high, too," he says. "You have to factor in the ever-increasing cost of artist development. It's more expensive than ever, and there's such a high failure rate."

CDs remain cheaper here than in most countries, except where piracy is prevalent, and most new releases are discounted, while prices of new entertainment hardware aren't cut until initial demand wanes, Mayfield says.

The RIAA reports that the average CD price fell by 40% between 1983 and 1996, while the Consumer Price Index rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had climbed at that rate, a CD in 1996 would have cost $33.86 instead of $12.75.

Besides, says Shalett, "we don't have enough evidence that price was an issue in slowing down business last year. The loss of sales was in the top 10 records, and those are normally discounted heavily."

* The outlook: Labels can streamline their operations, tighten budgets and adopt a more flexible approach to pricing, especially in the download realm, where an invitation to cherry-pick singles rather than gamble on whole albums might better suit cyber-savvy consumers.

Some labels recently introduced rebates in addition to discounts, which many speculate may have contributed to Ashanti's whopping opening tally of 503,000 copies for her self-titled debut.

"Labels and distributors are more open-minded than ever on pricing strategies," Mayfield says. "An increasing number of developing artists are being introduced at significantly lower prices.

"And there's been some experimenting with mini-albums (smaller than a traditional album, bigger than an EP) that have a lower overhead."

The thrill is gone

Perhaps the most nebulous whine in fandom concerns a perceived dearth of good music. Roughly 27,000 titles are dumped into the marketplace annually, yet many consumers, particularly casual or older fans less prone to rooting out new sounds, grumble about a shortage and pine for the days of plenty.

* The complaint: Record labels sign only what they hope will sell, jumping on the latest bandwagon and flooding the market with sound-alikes. Everything radio and MTV plays sounds as if it fell off the same assembly line. Record companies focus on radio-friendly and videogenic acts to the exclusion of worthy mavericks or experimentalists. They spend huge amounts on videos and radio promotion campaigns in hopes of an immediate hit. Acts that don't strike instantly are dumped.

Gone are the days of such slow-building talents as R.E.M. or Neil Young, who were nurtured and developed to allow for gradual growth of a following.

"These days, you live and die by the hit single," Light says. "Artists are not given an opportunity to develop. If you look at the careers of superstars like Bruce Springsteen and U2, it was three or four albums before they clicked. Now that labels are owned by multinational conglomerates that measure success in quarterly statements, bands need a hit the first time out."

In the mid-'90s, following a SoundScan report that album sales were only half of 1% ahead of the previous year, trade association NARM and RIAA joined forces in a consumer research project. The consensus from record buyers: Too many albums contain only one or two quality songs.

"Compound that with technology that allows consumers to be song-selective, whether it's surfing the Net or burning your friend's CD, and this is a serious issue of concern," Mayfield says.

* The defense: Stockholders demand results, so labels are pressured to keep the hits coming and to winnow flat-liners from the roster. To assure exposure, they cater to the programming needs of radio and video channels rather than risk an expensive promotional campaign for an artist who falls outside the parameters. Nonetheless, labels continue to foster fringe acts and retain modest-selling veterans (such as Joni Mitchell, Randy Newman).

And contrary to the widespread grievance, good music is widely available, if not immediately visible (or audible).

"There is good music out there," Light contends. "You have to find it yourself. Look at O Brother. The power of word-of-mouth is not diminished. Nobody in the business was smart enough to start that ball rolling. It happened on its own momentum. People know they don't want what's in front of them, but they will find a Norah Jones if they're willing to turn over some rocks and dig around."

* The outlook: Labels have been long aware that radio promotion is corrupt and wasteful, but now there's some initiative toward change. There's a drive to devise alternate means of promoting artists through grass-roots efforts, a la O Brother, that circumvent radio and MTV. But the demands for quarterly profitability will keep labels hunting the short-term hit at the expense of long-term artist development.

"Something has to give at the distribution level," Light says. "You need new machinery to get music out there, maybe the emergence of something not tied to the major labels. We'll see a shift when someone cracks that end of it."

Shalett says: "We need to reach beyond the traditional avenues of exposure. Fewer titles are exposed on radio. MTV is about less rotation of videos and more specialized programming. A bigger onus is on the record companies and retailers to break the mold of the marketing cycle."

Radio's menu of choices

Commercial radio stations in the USA listed by format: Number of stations: Percentage of stations:
Country 2,140 20.2%
News/Talk/Sports 1,547 14.6%
Pop/rock/oldies 1,444 13.6%
Adult contemporary 1,147 10.8%
Religion 1,052 9.9%
Top 40 863 8.1%
Standards 556 5.3%
Spanish 554 5.3%
Rock 524 4.9%
Rhythm & blues 388 3.7%
Miscellaneous 187 1.8%
Jazz 83 .8%
Classical 32 .3%

Source: M Street Format Monitor

The price of music, yesterday and today

These are typical list prices for albums or CDs at each decade's midpoint, and the prices in 2002 dollars.

Decade Cost 2002 Value
'60s $4.98 $27.22
'70s $7.98 $19.47
'80s $12.98 $20.97
'90s $15.98 $18.04
Today $18.98 $18.98

Rights issue rocks the music world

By Edna Gundersen, USA TODAY

Record companies see it as mutiny. Musicians call it an overdue rebellion. Either way, the artists' rights movement has set the stage for combat that could revolutionize the music industry.

Elton John is a member of the Recording Artists' Coalition.
By Kin Cheung, Reuters

What started as a classic David-and-Goliath skirmish over contractual terms could be tilting toward a level battlefield as opposition on a wide range of issues swells against an industry mired in a sales slump.

"The record business is in rough enough shape that something might actually change," says Craig Marks, editor of Blender magazine. "If things weren't so uncertain, so bleak and in such disarray, the industry would be immovable, even with a gun to its head. If there was ever a set of circumstances that could lead to artists making inroads, it's now."

Clinging to the status quo are the world's five major record conglomerates: Universal, Sony, Time Warner, EMI/Virgin and Bertelsmann, represented by a powerful trade group, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They face challenges from increasingly vocal performers supporting the Recording Artists' Coalition (RAC), whose diverse roster of 150 members includes Bruce Springsteen, Sting, R.E.M., Bonnie Raitt, Madonna, Eric Clapton, Dave Matthews, Billy Joel, Elton John, Linkin Park, Aimee Mann, No Doubt, Puddle of Mudd, Staind and Static-X.

Key concerns from the broad range of byzantine conflicts:

Caps on contract lengths. Most major-label agreements require a commitment of six to eight albums, an obligation that can entail an indefinite term of indentured servitude. California state Sen. Kevin Murray, a Democrat, wrote a bill to repeal an amendment that exempts recording artists from a state law limiting contracts to seven years.
After RAC and the RIAA failed to reach a compromise, the bill was pulled Aug. 15. Murray plans to resubmit it next year as part of a larger package also addressing accounting practices, pension plans and health benefits.

Accounting practices. Audits routinely detect unpaid royalties. Music industry lawyer Don Engel, who estimates that labels misreport and underpay artist royalties by 10% to 40%, says industry accounting practices are "intentionally fraudulent." Music writer Dave Marsh describes the process as "an entrenched system whose prowess and conniving makes Enron look like amateur hour." Royalties, based on complex and antiquated formulas that favor labels, are disbursed only after artists pay back advances, recording costs and other expenses.
Greg Hessinger, director of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), a union representing 80,000 actors, musicians and other entertainment workers, says this recoupment method "is so replete with ambiguity, complexity and subjectivity that the only true long-term solution is a complete overhaul. Until we can bury the recoupment system, changes must be implemented that provide for greater transparency and a fuller duty to account so that artists can at least be certain that they are being paid correctly."

Producer Steve Albini, trashing label practices in The Baffler magazine, outlines a hypothetical but typical record deal that bestows a $250,000 advance on a young band. The album sells 250,000 copies, earning $710,000 for the label. The band, after repaying expenses ranging from recording fees and video budgets to catering, wardrobe and tour bus costs, is left $14,000 in the hole on royalties.

A California Senate hearing on accounting practices is set for Sept. 24 in Los Angeles.

Health and pension benefits. Soul legend Sam Moore and other artists are suing record companies and the AFTRA Health and Retirement Funds (a separate entity from the union) for pension benefits. Atlantic, which has sold Moore's music since 1967, never deposited a nickel into his pension because of convoluted formulas tied to royalties. Not surprisingly, labels are balking at paying roughly 20,000 artists up to 30 years of back pension and health benefits. The union, negotiating with labels since May, hopes to secure increased access to health insurance and improvements in pension participation when talks resume in October. Among 200 artists who signed a letter supporting the union's proposal are Steve Earle, John Hiatt, Johnny Cash, Marilyn Horne, Carole King, Billy Bob Thornton and Coolio.
Copyright and ownership. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, once stated that the record business is the only industry in which the bank still owns the house after the mortgage is paid. Artists are demanding copyright reform and a reasonable means of reacquiring their master recordings.
Payola reforms. Labels sidestep payola laws by hiring independent promoters to lobby and compensate radio stations for playing certain records. Opponents say this quasi-legal system stifles creativity and limits diversity.
The drumbeat of war has been building in recent years as artists wrestle for self-empowerment and vow to amend a system that let soul greats Otis Blackwell, Jackie Wilson and Mary Wells die destitute. Before she died, Peggy Lee was part of a class-action settlement that won unpaid royalties. Courtney Love filed suit to break her Geffen contract. Prince fled the corporate structure and pitched camp on the Internet, where he sells directly to fans. Tom Petty's upcoming album, The Last D.J., slams industry greed.

Point: 'Corporations don't have feelings'

"The record companies are like cartels, like countries, for God's sake," singer/songwriter Tom Waits says. "It's a nightmare to be trapped in one. I'm on a good label (Epitaph) now that's not part of the plantation system. But all the old records I did for Island have been swallowed up and spit out in whatever form they choose. These corporations don't have feelings, and they don't see themselves as the stewards of the work. They are making shoes, and then they want to go to the Bahamas and get a suntan."

He advises new artists to "get a good lawyer and don't ever sign away your publishing rights. Most people are so anxious to record, they'll sign anything. It's like going across the river on the back of an alligator."

Waits joined the artists' coalition in hopes of exposing the industry's shadowy business practices.

"Artists really do need to communicate and organize," he says. "Don Henley is willing to get a haircut and go to Washington. I'm all for that."

Rock veteran Henley, an RAC founder, is confident the movement will lead to significant change, despite reluctance by some artists to get involved.

"Newer artists don't want to rock the boat," he says. "They're still starry-eyed idealists and haven't been around long enough to be mistreated. Other artists simply don't understand the issues or are too self-absorbed."

A new artist's limited avenues fuel apprehension, says Marks, noting that such midlevel acts as Aimee Mann and Ani DiFranco are content to toil outside the empire, but "most artists want to hear their song on the radio, see their big-budget video on MTV and be on stage in front of 50,000 people. The major labels have access to radio and TV. If push comes to shove, you're being shoved off a fairly steep cliff."

Michael Jackson's recent high-profile leap onto the bandwagon was met with skepticism. In rallying support for his financial grievances against Sony Music, he asserted, "If you fight for me, you're fighting for all black people."

Industry observers dismissed his sudden allegiance as an opportunistic tactic in a heated feud with Sony chief Tommy Mottola, whom Jackson branded a racist and devil. After Jackson joined activist Al Sharpton in condemning unfair contract and royalty practices, MTV.com reported that "the summit came off more like a vehicle for damage control than a constructive outlet for record industry reform."

Even with many artists on the sidelines, "there are enough of us, older and new, who know what's going on," Henley says. "We're going up against labels that have a powerful presence in Washington and have been politically active for 60 years. And yet we're making strides. We're getting help from managers, lawyers and politicians to get the fair treatment we deserve. The pendulum is swinging to our side."

The artists' coalition, which is financed in part by benefit concerts, plans to staff offices in Washington and Los Angeles before Murray's bill resurfaces next year. Though reform efforts in the '50s led by the likes of Frank Sinatra and Stan Kenton fell short, Henley says music's empowered boomer generation, the fuel for the industry's expansion in the '60s and '70s, is better informed and more willing to speak out.

"Like all other corporations, the music industry has gotten greedier," Henley says. "It's about profit, profit and more profit that always comes at a cost of principles. The predicament the record industry finds itself in is of its own making. They've alienated consumers and artists, and whether the rights movement succeeds, the house will fall under its own weight."

RAC detractors argue that contracts are fair and that drastic revisions could undermine the industry. The newly formed California Music Coalition, comprising independent labels, manufacturers and merchandisers, opposes Murray's bill, fearing it will place California at an economic disadvantage and reduce investment in fresh talent.

Miles Copeland, chairman of Ark 21 Records, predicts that passage could significantly harm "the entire music business because of the very visible complaining by a few successful recording artists. If the mega artists succeed with this effort, I feel strongly that it would be at the expense of those artists who have not made it yet."

The CMC, supported by such independent labels as Priority, Hollywood, Restless and Triloka, contends that, because very few records prove profitable, labels need the cushion of long-term contracts to recoup investments and justify risk.

Counterpoint: For every hit, a $6.3 million loss

Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit. The RIAA also found that only one of 244 contracts signed from 1994-96 was negotiated without the artist's legal counsel and that virtually all contracts renegotiated after a hit album added terms favoring the artist.

"While the record company could keep an artist under the old contract, they never do," RIAA chief Hilary Rosen says. "And these renegotiated deals don't tend to tack on a lot of extra albums or dramatically increase the artist's obligation."

She says the industry is eager to craft a fair settlement. In negotiations with the artists' coalition over the seven-year rule, RIAA offered concessions to limit damages a record company would be entitled to for undelivered albums if an artist leaves a label after seven years. Rosen says the guidelines would greatly clarify California's vague statute. But no compromise was reached, despite "good faith on both sides."

She hopes RIAA's talks with AFTRA "will make comprehensive health care a cornerstone of that labor agreement."

Though accused of conniving tactics behind the scenes, Rosen publicly extends an olive branch to detractors. "I'm glad the artists are organizing," she says. "It's good for the industry. We want to resolve our disagreements and move on to other critical matters, especially piracy. We're on the same side in 99% of the issues.

"One or two artists can make great headlines by attacking record companies," Rosen adds, "but in the overwhelming majority of cases, artists and labels have a good relationship. Artists know record companies are giving blood, sweat and millions of dollars to help them realize their dreams."

Henley dismisses conciliatory gestures as disingenuous rhetoric and industry claims of dramatic concessions as arrogant and misleading. As for label fears of financial ruin, Henley fires back, "When the record companies make $5 for every $1 the artist makes, I don't see where they get off making those remarks. It's another spin tactic."

Nor does Henley buy into claims that the artists are kicking the industry when it's down. "They certainly won't listen to us when times are good," he says. "The problem stems from people at the top of global media conglomerates who have little or no knowledge of the record industry and no communication with artists. Even the midlevel people who love music have to march in lockstep with corporate policy."

Change is inevitable, says Simon Renshaw, RAC board member and manager of the Dixie Chicks, who recently resolved a year-long feud with Sony. (After the country trio refused to record, the label sued, prompting a countersuit charging "systematic thievery" to cheat them out of royalties.)

"Once people have a true understanding of what's involved, the labels will be forced to reform," he says. "The RIAA has positioned this as a bunch of rich old rock stars seeking revenge and better deals. The truth is, this system would not be suffered in any other business. You have record companies bought and sold on the strength of copyrights created by artists who sign away all rights in perpetuity to a faceless corporation.

"In the past 20 years, an industry that was led by visionaries and music lovers has become dominated by accountants, financial analysts and people who can't think ahead more than 90 days."

Wayne Kramer, founder of punk's seminal MC5, felt some empathy for embattled record execs after he established his label, MuscleTone, last year.

"I have a new respect for how hard it is to run a label, and I know record companies lose money on most bands," Kramer says. "But artists know the score. Since the business started, record companies have been getting away with murder. Almost none of the musicians I know have health insurance. Every record executive I know has health insurance, a nice house in the hills and a golden parachute."

The artist-rights movement "is an unglamorous, unfun, unsexy part of this business that the public won't find fascinating," Kramer adds. "But you can't write it off as rich rock stars bellyaching. There's a systematic unfairness that has to be addressed."

At least one rich rock star says he's bellyaching on behalf of music itself, not just the artists who make it.

"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."

Christian, country music on upswing

By Brian Mansfield, Special for USA TODAY

Country and Christian music are seeing growth while the rest of the music industry is in the tank. What are they doing right? For both formats, a confluence of factors has contributed to their success. Gospel's growth can be attributed in part to its increased presence on the radio dial. "We're seeing the accumulative effect of several stations signing on and playing Christian music full time in major markets like Atlanta, Orange County and Chicago," says Gospel Music Association president Frank Breeden.

Read more below

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audio Give Us Clean Hands by MercyMe
No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problems by Kenny Chesney


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nashville's sales revival Country, gospel music sales keep Nashville humming
Christian, country music on upswing
Good sales pitch: Chesney, MercyMe


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"We track SoundScan by region, and we have software that shows (radio) spins and (retail) scans. There's a direct correlation between the two."

Gospel has seen sales increases both from Christian retailers, which sell the lion's share of the format's music, and from mainstream outlets such as Wal-Mart and Target. "The mainstream has pulled ahead in its market share, but it hasn't stolen market share from the Christian retailers, which shows that we're expanding our core audience," Breeden notes.

The country's mood may also be relevant. "The whole concept of faith-based entertainment has become one of the coins of the realm," says Breeden, "as we are allowing people to integrate their faith in lots of areas of their lives besides that one day of worship."

The cultural climate has probably almost certainly aided country as well. "One of the things we found people get from listening to country music are those core values of authenticity and believability," says Ed Benson, executive director of the Country Music Association. "In today's world, when almost every day there's another story that shakes our belief in our cultural institutions, it's a time when our music gives people solace and encouragement, allows them to place their feelings."

Alan Jackson's Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning), written after Sept. 11, most obviously exemplifies that reaction. Jackson's Drive is one of two country albums to debut in the top spot of the Billboard album charts. The other was Kenny Chesney's No Shoes, No Shirt, No Problems.

"For Kenny to debut at No. 1 — that's important," says RCA Label Group chairman Joe Galante. "That signals the first real breakthrough artist we've had in a while."

Gospel and country may not be as susceptible to file sharing, cited by the Recording Industry Association of America as a major contributor to plummeting sales.

"Most recording executives I talk to don't feel like country has been hurt as much as other genres of music by file sharing and downloading," says Radio & Records country editor Lon Helton. Helton suggests that file sharing may be more prevalent among a demographic that's younger than country's core buyers.

"When we have songs that appeal to younger crowds, those may be lost sales that we don't even feel. Those have been gravy in the past, (but) there's concern there may not be as much gravy in the future."

As for Christian music, says Breeden, "We've had problems with infringement in the church-music world since the printing press was invented.

"It's easy to blame the illegal activity, but it's not the only cause. I think we're an industry that's doing a better job of making a connection with our audience."

"I call it good news within an overall bad-news scenario," Benson says. "It's great to be part of two formats that are up. It's not great to be part of an industry that clearly has problems of technology, consumer attitudes and imagery. There's a lot of work to be done here."

12/28/2001 - Updated 10:28 AM ET



Analysts: Net music services spur CD price cuts

NEW YORK (Reuters) — U.S. shoppers may think they have seen enough bargains this holiday season, but CDs at $9.99 may soon be a standard offer at music stores as retailers slash prices in a bid to battle the scourge of online music piracy.

Tech Extras

Sign up for Tech’s free e-mail newsletter
Search USA TODAY for earlier stories on this subject



So for studios, artists and retailers alike, 2001 is closing out as a year of few sweet notes as the industry is also being hit by a lack of blockbuster pop music releases.

"It looks like it will be another year of flat CD sales and I think to some degree that's got to be attributed to the fact that there's so much music available online," Tom Adams, president of entertainment industry research and consulting firm Adams Media Research, said.

"I also think (the price cutting) is also as much to do with the fact that the economy is terrible and holiday sales were off overall," he told Reuters.

Alternative media such as the increasingly popular DVDs also successfully won consumer interest, dampening sales of other entertainment products, analysts said on Thursday.

Adams said the music industry may not know the full extent of the piracy impact on CD sales since many music-swapping services have opted to discard single servers, which allowed better monitoring of online traffic in the days of Napster.

Although the once popular music copying service Napster has been idle since July, analysts say Internet song-swapping has just kept evolving, pushing retailers and recording companies into the cold.

Blowout price cuts

Just to show how edgy the retailers have become, popular music retailer HMV already has a sale offer on its Web site dubbed the '02 Blowout Sale,' while rival Virgin — part of Richard Branson's Virgin Entertainment Group — calls its markdown blitz, the Red Sale.

Virgin, which has a megastore in New York's Times Square, is offering CDs priced as low as $3.99, with more other popular hits priced at $9.99.

Discounts of up to 80% is a far cry from the average prices of newly released CDs of $17.99 to $14.99, a step which analysts said is bound to stifle profits for both retailers and recording companies.

"The record company is going to make their profit one way or another on a per CD basis, but they need to reevaluate their business model on the whole because it's clear that these free online services have eviscerated a large part of their market," said Kenneth Freundlich, an entertainment attorney in Los Angeles.

Basically, if a CD sells for $13, a record company takes in about $8, of which it deducts artist, publishing royalties and manufacturing, promotional and marketing costs.

The artist generally makes between 50 cents and 75 cents per CD, while the record company clears between $3 and $4 per CD. The artist further has to pay back advances made by the record firm, which further cuts the artists' royalty, often dwindling to nothing, according to music industry insiders.

Standard price at $9.99

"(We) believe music software CD prices may soon permanently decline to $9.99 given weak sell-through of new artists and continued Internet piracy that appears unstoppable," Peter Caruso, a retail analyst at Merrill Lynch said.

"This should force a shakeout in the music retail business," he added in a research note.

Adams, at Adams Media Research, said the music industry was also not being helped by its slow transition into full subscription online music services.

"I think we are in for a slow transition to a very different model for the audio distribution business where a lot more happens online through legitimate services like those being launched now," said Adams.

"I think that will be a growth business which ends up generating revenues for rights holders and probably to some extent at the expense of CD sales," he added.

Among the recently launched legitimate online music services is Pressplay, an online music joint venture between Sony and Vivendi Universal.

Pressplay's debut on Dec. 19 came on the back of a test launch for a similar service called MusicNet, backed by big record labels, including AOL Time Warner's Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann AG's BMG Entertainment, and EMI, along with Internet media delivery service RealNetworks.

EMI owns a 43% stake in British books and music retailer HMV Media Group.

Report: Flexibility key for online music

By Leonard Fischer, Gannett News Service

The recording industry should make it easier for consumers to buy music on the Internet — rather than blaming online file swappers — if it wants to jumpstart declining music sales. That's the conclusion of a recent report from Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass.


The report, which surveyed 1,000 Americans who use the Internet, found that 31% regularly download music from the Net and burn it onto CDs or transfer it to portable players. However, this group, which is described as music "lovers," also buys 36% of all CDs sold.

"The music industry needs to make money by using downloads, not trying to stop them," said Josh Bernoff, a senior analyst with Forrester.

Forrester's research shows that by 2005 consumers will be willing to spend $2 billion per year for online music if they have flexible options to pay for and use it.

"The music industry has to move quickly," Bernoff said. "It has to make services that are a whole lot easier to use, with more flexible options for payments. And it has to let customers copy and burn files."

At least one pay-for-play music service, Pressplay, says it's moving to address the demands of consumers.

"Pressplay 2.0, which was announced recently, moves our service forward in a very significant way in terms of freedoms that it gives our members to access music and their ability to use the music in virtually any way they want, including unlimited streaming and downloading and portable options," said company vice president Seth Oster.

Pressplay members can download an unlimited number of tunes and transfer as many as 10 to CDs for $17.95 per month. Pressplay, which was formed by Sony and Universal, hasn't said how many subscribers have signed up to use its service, which launched in January.

Economic and competitive factors — not music sharing through online services such as Kazaa and Morpheus — are mostly responsible for the falloff in music sales, which declined 6% in 2001, Bernoff said.

The weak economy has cut into consumer spending, and CDs face competition on store shelves from increasingly popular DVD movies and console and computer video games, he added.

08/01/2002 - Updated 08:00 AM ET













Music labels make significant online concessions

LOS ANGELES (APOnline) — Sony Music Entertainment and Vivendi's Universal Music Group will launch an upgraded online music subscription service Thursday, a move that could represent the greatest concession yet by the recording industry to consumers hungry for downloadable music. Pressplay, the companies' 7-month-old joint online venture, will begin offering paying subscribers the ability to burn major label songs on blank CDs and to transfer the music to a variety of portable devices. "This is the most significant announcement in the last two years from the music industry," said P.J. McNeally, an analyst with the research firm GartnerG2 in San Jose.


Pressplay and MusicNet — a similar service from AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann, EMI Group and RealNetworks launched last December — have been criticized for failing to offer users a viable alternative to the free, music swapping networks like Morpheus and Kazaa.

Both Pressplay and MusicNet stream music files, but have not given users portability or the ability to keep any songs when they unsubscribe. Pressplay has limited the number of tunes that can be burned to a small amount, while MusicNet still doesn't let users burn songs.

Pressplay's upgraded service offers unlimited streaming and unlimited downloading for about $10 a month. For about $18 a month, users will be able to transfer 10 songs a month to various brands of portable devices that use Microsoft software. Additional portable downloads can be bought for an added cost.

"This is a significant stride forward and a significant leap for the industry," said Michael Bebel, chief executive of Pressplay.

"Our listeners are going to be able to listen to as much music as they want, when they want," he said.

Unlike peer to peer music swapping networks, however, Pressplay and MusicNet only offer songs from their own respective labels.

In Pressplay's case, that amounts to about 100,000 songs.

Listen.com, another music subscription service that is partially owned by the five major record companies, does include music from all the majors. But the company has not offered users the chance to transfer its content to portable music devices.

Pressplay expects to have a deal in place to offer music from Warner Music and Bertelsmann within six months, Bebel said. The joint venture already offers some music from EMI.

Separately, Listen.com will launch partnerships Thursday with two broadband Internet service providers.

Both Roadrunner, the broadband arm of AOL Time Warner, and Hughes' DirecTV Broadband service will offer their subscribers access to Listen.com's Rhapsody music service for an additional fee.

Heck yea say you have to use the worlds biggest fraud Microsteal software. can only listen where u download. where do you listen to your music at the most. i sure do not carry my laptop with me everywhere.

Subscription music sites a tough sell

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Online subscription music sites have finally arrived. But there's been little fanfare, and almost no one is buying. Free music-swapping services continue to attract millions of new users despite the recording industry's legal efforts to shutter them, and few consumers are even aware of the handful of pay sites that have emerged over the last year.


Fee-for-music sites have signed up fewer than 100,000 customers.
By Paul Sakuma, AP

That's unlikely to change — unless the new sites begin to offer compelling, innovative features that set them apart from the free networks, consumers and analysts say.

Sean Withrow, a music lover and Silicon Valley executive, said he would consider using a subscription service if it could improve his shopping experience and offer more than WinMX, the site on which he spends about two hours a week sampling and downloading music for free.

"I'm music-savvy, but stores can be overwhelming. You can get frustrated," said the 33-year-old Withrow. "It's really not about the money."

None of the leading pay sites, which include Listen.com, pressplay, MusicNet and FullAudio, has done much to employ clever technologies to spice up the experience of discovering and purchasing music. Instead, they offer limited downloads that actually expire when a customer ends a subscription.

"Every day they are not offering widely compelling music across the board, money is going out the window," said P.J. McNealy, research director at GartnerG2 in San Jose.

Analysts estimate that less than 100,000 people have bought pay subscriptions.

The major labels themselves won't release the data, saying it's too early to start measuring success. They say they are still experimenting with their sites' look and feel, studying payment schemes and negotiating online royalty rates with hundreds of artists, labels and publishers.

The logistics of building pay sites are indeed enormous, especially compared to the simplicity of the free services that are the stepchildren of Napster and rely on "peer-to-peer networking" that allows users to share with others the downloaded music on their hard drives.

"With every month that goes by, our services will improve, and simultaneously it's likely the (free) sites will degrade," said Alan McGlade, chief executive of MusicNet, a joint venture of the software firm RealNetworks and three of the five major recording companies: AOL Time Warner, Bertelsmann and EMI Group.

Both MusicNet and pressplay — a joint venture of the two other major recording companies, Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group — say they are close to agreements that would give their customers access to most of the music from all five major recording companies. Currently, each company has signed deals only with its parent company as well as with various independent labels.

MusicNet and pressplay officials said they will begin aggressively marketing their sites once they have more complete libraries. Pressplay, meanwhile, has won a place in Microsoft's test version of its latest Windows Media Player, being launched Wednesday.

But exhaustive offerings are just one ingredient of what many would consider a successful online music venture.

Withrow would like to see pay services with software that makes recommendations based on user taste.

Ideally, if he wanted some music for a group of friends coming over, he might type the words "dinner party" and "mellow" and the service would find him selections.

"They should try to solve the frustrations a customer gets going into a store," he said.

"Consumer attitudes can't get much worse," said Michael Goodman, an analyst with the Yankee Group research firm in Boston.

Analysts say the subscription sites are going to have to outperform existing sites including KaZaa, Grokster and Morpheus. According to the market research firm Ipsos-Reid, some 40 million Americans, or 19% of the population age 12 and over, use such services.

That's a tough proposition as long as pay sites continue to place restrictions on how much content consumers can access and where they can transfer it.

The entertainment industry is also winning few fans among consumers with its backing of federal legislation that would allow it to use invasive electronic techniques against file-swapping services and their users.

Chris Beatty, a 27-year-old enthusiast in San Francisco, said he's downloaded about 100 CDs from the free sites and can't even name a single subscription site.

The $10 monthly fees that most subscription sites charge for basic access — usually involving unlimited streaming and some restricted downloads — is far above the $3 Beatty said he'd be willing to pay.

The whole appeal of getting music online is to get it more cheaply than in a store, he said.

Beatty said he still buys CDs. In June, he bought a reggae CD. But he paid $5 for it at a second-hand retailer.

Analyst McNealy says people are willing to pay for convenience, and the industry should address what consumers really want.

"The demand is there. There's a huge chunk of people waiting for legitimate services," he said.

New York-based Jupiter Research forecasts that consumers will spend $27 million on digital subscription services like pressplay and MusicNet this year, just a sliver compared with the roughly $13.7 billion in sales the recording industry posted in 2001.

But by 2005, online subscribers will spend $495 million, rising to nearly $1.2 billion in 2007, Jupiter said.

"The bulk of consumers are not purposely stealing," said Stacey Herron, Jupiter's media and entertainment analyst.

There is enough data with what I have copied and pasted in this forum to prove my case. It is an industry that has resisted new technology that is at fault. I rest my case for nothing nobody can prove what I have been saying is wrong.

Thunder, I can see you are a person who is passionate about your beliefs. I agree that the record companies are run by control freaks who want things to stay the same as they've always been. And I agree that free downloads are a great way to preview the music before you buy it. I can see how a true fan of, say, Springsteen would want to have every rare, live track they could get their hands on.
But...
I also think that artists should be able to decide which recordings of their performances to make available and which to keep unreleased. I think artists should be able to decide which tracks can be sampled for free before purchase.
I think I believe in moderation. Yes, make a cassette copy of a CD for your best friend to turn him on to a new artist. It's perfectly fine and legal, too. But don't post mp3 files of all your Nirvana collection on the web for 6 million people to share. Do download all the free music from independent artists you can and discover some outstanding talent. Don't make KaZaA and Morpheus your second home, focusing only on the artists that everyone has heard of.
And we also respect those who exercise moderation in posting to message boards.



------------------
Later,

Pat

Patrick I am passionate. Brian was making a point what I posted was all published that shows what really is wrong with the music industry. That it is not the downloading that has it in a slump. What I posted also shows that downloaders go and buy. Myself I am mainly interested in live music by Bruce Springsteen when I downloaded. It was like i said about five songs to make a full concert. A real live in NYC dvd by Bruce and a cd would have been wonderful. I tried like hell to get tickets everywhere from Washington DC to Pitt, Pa To Cinn., Ohio. I did what for me would give me a better feel of a concert experience. I do listen to more than Bruce. I have several Muddy Waters tapes.
I guess what I am saying is pressplay and the legimate downloading places are not what most of the public wants yet. I pay to use I sure do not want to just listen on my puter. You cancel your subscription and you lose the songs you have downloaded.
I posted the articles so that people could really see what is going on what they may not have read. I put them there to educate people with what is happening. Really I put that it is the industry that is not meeting the consumers needs that they go to downloading. How that what the industry is now offering by downloading is not what the consumers want but it is a step closer to what they want. Brain said stealing but is that not what the corporations do by not paying full scale but rather lower down the royalties? How about a person with running a Mac os or Linux? They do not have Microsoft so they can not download from these pay downloading sites the industry is putting out. Are they not trying to dictate to people what type of software to use now? Everyone knows Microsoft is one of the biggest con outfits going. My point is also that you have Sony pushing their products that will play mps. So that sony has a fight going on within it's company by saying not to download but then pushing products that will play the mp3s. I think Keith Richard said it best at the end of the one article.
Am I stealing cuz I took the songs from the vcr that was recored on the Today show when Bruce performed and ran them into my computer and burned to cd? Was I stealing when I taped Bruce On Dave Letterman and ran into my laptop to burn to cd? When Bruce and the E Street Band are on SNL in Oct and I record on the vcr than burn to cd is that stealing?
I would argue that anyone who uses a vcr is stealing when they record TV shows based on comments by most on this topic. Nobdy watches the commericals. When you record a TV show or a sporting event that you can not watch you are taping something you did not pay for to view at a later time. Now anyone here tell me they have not recorded anything at one time or antoher with their vcr. Come on I want to hear you say you are thives because you never paid for it just as others have not paid for songs they are downloading though in my opinion if you go and buy the legimate release it is not.
Ps. Brian I really do like this site you have put up and spent alot of time and effort on.
I have a challenge for anyone here to take up. Bruce did a song called Sandy that Air Supply covered that is on the same album that Just AS I AM is on. I collect other peoples recordings of Bruce songs. I have been searching for this album by Air Supply. This album is out of print. I have looked everywhere for it. I would be willing to pay for it and shipping use paypal if anyone could find it. This is a case where with the masters that a song I wanted I could download but since it is not offered anymore I am having a hard time to find.

[This message has been edited by thunder_road_2051 (edited 09-18-2002).]

Thunder,

First of all, I didn't read all your posts (and I doubt highly many others did.) Making an argument to steal based on issues not directly to that specific theft is a waste of everyone's time.

It is circular logic to say "Someone else is a dirtbag.. someone else steals.. someone is a bad person.. record labels are evil" and then try to make that justify your OWN actions which are wrong. That is the bottom line.

If I record a song, I should be forced to allow you to download it free. Let's say you really DO buy every single song you download. Great. Are you really making the point that everyone else does the same? For each examply you can give me of an honest follow up purchase, I can provide 10's of thousands of examples of people who never bought anything.

And even IF you bought every song you ever downloaded (which we both know you haven't), you are STILL wrong. What legal or moral right do you have to take an item from a store, even if you plan to pay for it later down the road. A great analogy:

I am Bruce Springsteen. I do shows all over the world. People love my work. As an artist, I decide to make an album showing my art in the exact way I wish to produce it. The right sound quality. The right liner notes. The right track order. I am making a statement with my art in the way I want to make it. I don't want that live performance at a particular show on the album because I want to present MY MUSIC in the way that I choose. Is it fair to think I (Bruce Springsteen in this analogy) have the right to do so since I created that music? Is your right (Thunder) greater than mine to control which of MY music is released to the public?

Take it another step. Would it also be okay for you, Thunder, to go to the warehouse where those new CD's are sitting waiting for release (let's say 10 days before the street date of the CD release) and take a copy and then pay me the day it was released (a perfect analogy of your suggestion.) Why is it YOU have some type of moral right to decide what is best for MY (Bruce Springsteens) music, and why do YOU get to decide what I will be forced to do with it?

It all comes down to a very very very simple idea. If you create something, you should have the right to hide it in your closet til you die and never show it to anyone, or release it to the world in the exact way you wish. Someone else, no matter what they intentions are, should not be able to FORCE me, as the creator, to do otherwise. All the rest of your argument is off topic. It is 100% irrelevant to that single fact. It doesn't matter if releasing it to millions to download for free will create more money or fame. Who says I want that? More importantly, why do YOU get to make that decision for me? The answer.. you don't, unless you violate the law, and break an artistic moral code that says that the creator of the music should be the one to make the decisions on what happens. If I choose to sell my rights to a record label, that is up to me. That doesn't mean that YOU then get to steal from them. It's still stealing. All the arguments you can make will NEVER change it. More sales don't matter. More fans don't matter. More fame doesn't matter. What YOU think is best for me as the creator of the work (even if you are 100% correct) doesn't matter a single iota. It is MY music. I must be free to do with it what I want, and that INCLUDES neither sharing it with you, selling it to you or ever allowing you to hear it.

If you can't deal with that fact, the only person with a problem is you. Not the evil labels or the evil publishers or the evil industry. No matter how evil they may be, it has nothing to do with YOUR actions of theft. 1 evil does not make another okay, especially when it isn't YOUR property in the first place. ONLY YOU have that problem. One day you'll realize it.

We don't force people to do what is good for them. We let people eat bad food... do unhealthy things... make bad decisions... waste their money on silly things that make them happy... it's called freedom. But you only have freedom over what you create, not what someone ELSE creates. That is THEIR freedom.. and you are infringing on it every time you download and trade an unauthorized music file that they did NOT want to give away.

Brian

Unfortunately, you are the exception, and not the rule. I do not agree with what the RIAA is attempting to do, but I understand the reasons they are doing it. IMHO, if things do not change, they will probably get there way.

Just my 2¢
Walter Farmer

There is a pretty big difference: one is against the law (downloading) and the other isn't.

Thunder,
If you will notice, I said I go to the musicians site and listen to their music, wether it be their personal site or mp3.com ect. Going to file sharing sites to listen to your music causes more problems than just theft. Take me for example, the site where my music is tells me who is downloading my music, and where. As it turns out, the people of France think highly of my music. If I had the money and the guts, I'd move to France, and have a go of it. Without such info an artist is blind. When YOU go to the file sharing sites, you are blinding the artist as to your existance. Although you claim to buy a majority of the stuff you stole first, the act of using this method condones such activity and eggs on the folks that are just going there to rip off the music.

Read the April 2002 issue of Ice. Go to the letters to the editors section. Read what a reader wrote and what the editor of Ice found out. Sade and Mary J Blige released albums last year. Some had different cover art. Others had more songs on them in Blige's case. As much as four songs different. There were different songs on Blige's for Best Buy and 3 other outlets. You got nothing special from buying online. So that comes up to a total of 16 different songs. Now that fan did not like it that he had to go and buy at all the various outlets to have every song on the same album. He chose to download. Who is stealing here? My opinion the record companies and Mary J, Blige by not making it a double cd and forcing her fan base to buy 3 albums at different outlets.I read this issue in Sam Goddys at the old Morgantown Mall at about 4 this afternoon.

For you Brian the next time you are in the DC/Baltimore area drive up to Hagerstown, Maryland and I will bring my laptop and I will bring my music collection. What you will see is I have every song that I have downloaded but four. Those four songs are what are missing from the live in NYC DVD and cd.

Again Brain you missed what I said about the paysites that the record companies have out. You pay them a fee each month for songs. In return on place lets you burn ten songs other than that you are stuck with them on ur computer and are forced to use Microsoft software. Now Sony is selling all these devices that play mp3s yet saying you can only burn 10 or be able to take 10 off your computer to listen to? Where do you listen to most of your music at? I sure do not on the computer.
Again you never said what is right with how if a person really hates a album how they can not return it and get their money back. The very first day I signed up for this forum I saw a person who has been here awhile complaining about the Bruce cd he brought based on the Reviews he saw of it. His post was in lyric forum two. But was about songwriting comparing someone lyrics. Anyhow this person in my opinion should have every right to take The Rising back and get a refund. So the record company stole from him because he will not listen to that cd. Fact is the record companies have always been slow to adapt to technology as the one article I posted pointed out. I think the record companies are on the right track with the pay download sites they have but they should not say you can only listen on your computer on to burn 10 songs a month. That if you cancel your subscription you no longer have the songs.
Numerous fans on various Springsteen have been saying that they would Love Bruce to do what the who is now doing on their current tour by allowing fans to buy the concerts.
Why did I download the Bruce songs? I wanted to see him in concert. I could not get tickets anywhere. I have purchased everything the man has put out. I have brought things sold on tours of his at www.backstreets.com . Things I wish I could have purchased at a concert. I have never seen Bruce with the E Street Band just with Joe Grushecky. The other songs I do download and then I go and buy the cd and remove them from my hard drive.

For the record I will not be downloading any live perfomances of Bruce on tour for The Rising. A dream of mine has came true. I have tickets in section E 13 at Mellon Arena IN Pittsbugh, Pa for Dec, 4. I will be happy with that. That was the only reason I got the songs of Bruce's as mp3s. When I purchase anything of Bruce's the first thing I read are the words the credits before listening.

When the pay download sites make some more adjustments to allow for burning and for not removing the songs you have downloaded through them from to your computer if you cancel your subscription I will purchases individual songs through them. Till they do the fee is not worth it to me.

I am not sure how writers and artist royalties are being handled by these pay download sites that record companies have set up. Perhaps Brian can explain more on that or someone else.



[This message has been edited by thunder_road_2051 (edited 09-18-2002).]

Sorry Brian. I did not mean to offend you or anyone here if I did. I really do appreciate all the work that you have put into this site and the things you have done and are doing. Maybe the next time there is a JPF meeting near where I am I will be able to make it. Unless somehow a meeting ends up here at Timberland across the county line in WV which has the best sking for the price and slopes on east coast besides NE area.

"He chose to download. Who is stealing here?"

Same, simple question. Same simple answer: the person doing the illegal downloading. This is not hard to understand, but you continue in your attempts to obfuscate that fact.

No one has to buy a CD of songs they don't like. Amazon and the artist's site both have partial or complete songs on mp3 so you can know what you'll be buying.

Hardly any consumer likes record company marketing tactics. If you don't the way they market them, well then, just don't buy the CD. No one forced your hand into your wallet to buy 3 CDs and no one is forcing you to push your mouse button to download (except some egocentric goal of having "all" the songs). It's your choice and you chose to steal - you know it's wrong and yet you continue to justify it with "supporting articles" that are based purely on opinions or on someone's interpretation of the cause of some statistics. I'm sure counter-opinions and differing interpretations can also be found.

The truth is that you are a thief whether you want to admit it or not. You can try to rationalize with article after article all you want, it doesn't change that FACT.

One of the common traits of ALL career criminals is that they have stopped considering the rights of others. You have taken your first step. Obviously, YOUR needs are greater (in your opinion) than the person who's music you admire.

As the saying goes..."with friends like that..."

You will probably post 24 more articles in the next 24 hours as you appear to have a LOT of time on your hands. I won't be responding again but may read a CONCISE reply if you have it.



------------------
Larry
www.audibleresponse.com

Not it is an artist stealing from an individual by placing an album with different songs in various chains. That person happens to big a big fan of hers if you read the whole letter. That person would have spent $96.00 on a particular album to have all the cuts. That is called stealing by taking advantage of your loyal fans. I used $16.00 as the price of a cd could be more or a little less. Most artist will have one song that anyone will like two tops. Again that is stealing from the consumer. They are paying the price for a full cd not what they would for the one or two songs. Again I downloaded 4 songs of Ben Kweller because I read a review of his latest in Accoustic Guitar. NOw if I had went and brought that cd of his and absolutely hated it who stole from me? Him and his record company because I hated it. In this case I went and I ordered his cd online.

A thief is what the music industry generally is because people only like one or two songs tops unless they happen to be a loyal fan of a band or artist.

Now For your information I have everything Bruce has put out legal. I downloaded four songs that was not on the live In NYC cd Or DVD so I would have a complete concert experience. Songs that could have easily been for a whole concert experience for those like me who have never been able to get tickets to see their favorite artist in concert. I should also point out that I had the legal versions of these songs I downloaded on various cds of his. NOw I could have easily made my own "Concert" by putting those songs in there. I do not go and buy bootlegs of Bruce Springsteen. Though the Backstreet fan magazine gives a rating for various bootlegs.

All the other songs I have downloaded I either delted after listening and not liking or brought the cd after liking. All the songs. I do not have every song that Bruce has wrote recorded because I do not buy the bootlegs.

Now the truth is and proven by the articles that the record companies are really the thives. They have not adapted with technology which has been the case with this industry from the start which is proven in the articles. If the record companies had adpated to technology sooner instead of resisting it things would have went better. The current pressplay and other pay downloading sites is Thivery. They are saying if you stop your subscription you lose the songs. They say you have to be using Microsoft software. Thivery hmmmm forced to have Microsoft. Now lets see thivery SONY sells devices that play mp3s. Now they say with the paysite that an individual subscribes to that they can not take the songs off the puter but must listen to it on there.

The articles backed up what I had been saying. It took all of ten mins to do the research on it. Unlike some who do not look at the cause of downloading. Who do not see that those who do download are usally going and buying the cds. Who will not accept that the music industry is stealing from the fans
.
Pressplay and other pay downloading sites of mp3s would work fine if they do not say listen at your computer only but allow you to take the music where you listen mostly.
I do not go and buy a cd to like one song or two. When Pressplay and some of the pay mp3s sites allow for me to take from my laptop to listen to I will subscribe and buy the one or two songs by artists and bands that I would not have brought on cd.
I do think those who go and download songs and do not go and support them by buying their cds are stealing.

Now let's try a different way. In my area there is a rock station that plays all the new releases of major artists from start to finish and some newer bands. If I go and run the cables into the line in on my puter and record is that not the same as what people did with blank cassettes. It is but I do not listen that way. Now I also could sit and wait and hit record on a tape deck for a song by someone who is not a favorite of mine and have it. I do not do that either.
So really with the new technology the record industry did not at first look at it as a way to make money only to try and block. Instead of looking at why people were downloading and than offering a solution they had no vision to try and make it work. Again the articles point out why people were. There was also an article where the RIAA and some other group did a joint study and found that sells were down because of only one or two songs people liked with the rest being fluff.
Hope you will get to listen to The Last DJ cd by Tom Petty it will be out on October 8, 2002. Now you know where I will be at 10 am at one of the record stores sixty some miles from where I live to buy it. I am a fan of his.

Again I noticed that you did not say anything either about Sony selling devices that sell mp3 but yet at the same time complained of people downloading.

One thing I would like to know is how much is going to the artist and the songwriter on the pay download sites of mp3s that the record industry is putting out.

[This message has been edited by thunder_road_2051 (edited 09-19-2002).]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The artists and record companies may be cheating you by not giving you complete quality in a cd, but they did not take your money without your permission. If you download one of my (or anyone else's) songs using filesharing, and do not have my permission, that is theft.

I can put stuff on my porch with a sign that says "free stuff, come and get it" and it's ok. If the sign isn't there...it's theft.

Your logic here is the same type of thinking that has spawned terrorism. "They won't let me play the game the way I want to, so I'll break the rules." The problem is...it's their game. The artists and the record companies own the rights to the music.

They are if you pay for an album based on reviews you made and purchased only Unlike anything else you can not take back for a refund. That is not Terrorism thinking. You were probally one of those who thought Born In The USA was Patriotic song when it was released when it was about how a country treated vets. After the Born IN The USA Tour Bruce till last year did not do a band version but accoustic. Taking the song back from those who thought it was Patriotic and done closer in vein to the Nebraska album he released which Born In The USA was made when he was writing and recording those songs.

Mike this country was founded on terrorism because of people being taxed without representaion.
That was the lowest blow you could say about anyone in this country to imply that they are a terrorist. No doubt you would have found a reason to notify the police based on how those 4 medical students looked on their way to Miami.

This thread is getting even farther off topic.
Let's please be respectful of each other, even if we think "they started it".
Let's not keep rehashing the same arguments over and over, let's agree to disagree, or I'll lock this thread. Thanks.


------------------
Later,

Pat

Thunder,

Let me apologize, I did not say you were a terrorist, nor did I intend anyone to think you were a terrorist or were in any way acting like one.

Also, let me apologize to the board in general. I used a poor and intemperate analogy.

I'm sorry also.