RIAA's Cary Sherman says lawsuits were the only option
Shawn Fanning's Napster unleashed a file-sharing frenzy that only lawsuits could quell, says RIAA
(Credit: CBSnews.com)Cary Sherman offers no apologies and won't for a second concede that filing lawsuits against people who pilfered digital music from artists was ineffective. On the contrary, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America makes a case that chasing file sharers into court was the only option in 2003, one of the darkest periods in the music industry's history.
"If you can go back to that time in your mind and remember that file sharing was growing at logarithmic pace," Sherman said referring to 2003, not long after file-sharing service Napster had triggered a music-swapping frenzy. "It was unbelievable how much infringement was going on and there was no sense that it was illegal. There were no legal cases or precedent, nothing to discourage people from this kind of behavior."
Sherman spoke to CNET News hours after The Wall Street Journal published a story on Friday about the RIAA's decision to end its five-year-long legal campaign against individuals who the group accused of pirating music. According to the Journal story, the RIAA opened legal proceedings against 35,000 people during that time. Those accused of stealing from the music industry include college students, businessmen, and single mothers. From now on, the group will rely on Internet service providers to help discourage people from sharing music illegally.
The top music labels are also trying to make music more easily accessible and cheaper to the public than ever with the help of ad-supported sites such as YouTube, iMeem, and MySpace Music. Apple's iTunes is now the biggest music retailer online and off.
But back in 2003, the RIAA was tasked with educating people about the illegality of downloading pirated music. The strategy was to create deterrents and remind people of the possibility that pirating music could land them in court.
"At that time we didn't have any parents engaged in deterring piracy," Sherman recalled. "We didn't have any digital marketplace to speak of. We had lost the Grokster case in the Circuit Court of Appeals. We appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and won. At that time, the ISPs were making money from piracy. They were almost advertising it 'Download what you want,' was the reason to buy broadband. And so doing nothing was basically agreeing to watch your industry get totally decimated. It was a hard decision to make but it was one where there was no alternative if we were going to establish the rules for digital music on the Web."
Sherman suggests that the stats vindicate the strategy.
In 2004, 19 percent of Net users were downloading music files from peer-to-peer sites, according to research group NPD. In 2007, NPD found the same percentage of users downloading songs. The RIAA acknowledges that even if that 19 percent of users has remained constant, that group of users is now downloading far more songs.
To support his argument that lawsuits were effective, Sherman also points to the meteoric growth in legal sales since the RIAA began taking file sharers to court. In 2004, digital music sales were $183.4 million or a little over 1 percent of the $12.3 billion in total music sales. For 2008, digital music sales are projected to be $3 billion or 30 percent of total music sales. The music industry couldn't have accomplished that had piracy been allowed to grow unchecked, Sherman said.
Representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Internet-rights advocacy group, disagree.
"The announcement (about the end of the lawsuits) is long overdue," said Gwen Hinze, EFF's International policy director. "Our position is the recording industry hasn't achieved its goal of thwarting file sharing with litigation. We would like to see a better way to move forward and would rather see voluntary collective licensing."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
The big record labels could never be accused of looking out for the best interest of the artists, and they overcharged for years. But encouraging fans to record live shows like the dead and other bands is not the equivalent of dowloading studio material for free. Those recordings are usually traded amongst fans and have little monetary value.
As for just packing up and going on tour...not as easy as it sounds.Bands can not tour often enough to make good money unless they have the backing of a music label. They could be the next led zepplin and have a huge underground following but if their "fans" arent paying for the music they wont tour much, and when they do it usually is as an opening band. It all adds up to great musicians falling through the cracks.
Having to work a full time job not playing music to pay bills means less time to practice, tour, record and on and on. There will always be pop stars and top 40 "entertainers" and raking in money from poster sales and stadium tours sponsored by coke. Real musicians will have to be content with smoky clubs and 5 figure salaries if they want to make a career of it.
What's wrong?
These guys have made lots of money that they didn't earn, though I by no means advocate downloading music illegally.
Now that the RIAA has dropped their draconian legal maneuvers and we're STARTING to see some music being sold that is DRM-free, I might actually start to buy again. Prior to this, I vowed not to purchase anymore music and to just live off my legally purchased collection until they stopped this stupidity, and I've stuck to it.
That is BS.
In the heyday of punk, bands that were on small labels just as Dead Kennedys, Butthole Surfers, Black Flag, Bad Religion, Circle Jerks, etc, lived on the road and in fact came home with more money in their pockets that many of people on major labels.
Even to this day small bands who are on independent labels or self-publish make a good living touring.
The bands on major labels have to tour because they make next to nothing from album sales because the RIAA members are a pack of thieves.
Individuals can now, for a relatively low cost in software and hardware (exclusive of instruments), self-produce and distribute their music without the bloated and greedy infrastructure the recording industry currently uses. And the real money for talented musicians has always been live performances, rather than selling records.
They say, "We didn't have any digital marketplace to speak of...." So the fools should have built it instead of fighting against it's creation! It doesn't take that long to set up a website with a shopping cart on it now does it? iTunes does it. Amazon does it, but their excuse is that it didn't exist! That's their complaint? That it doesn't exist! The greatest thing that could ever happen to any salesman is to discover a need for something that doesn't exist! That positions you to be first in the market and they can't figure that out? That shows their business sense right there and it shows they're losing money not because of piracy, but because they don't know how to sell! Plain and simple.
See, now we see why the RIAA is such a failure. They weren't concerned with doing what they needed to do to make money honestly. The only thing they're concerned with IS HAVING CONTROL. HAVING THE POWER! Just like I always said. It didn't matter to them they may be able to make money SOME OTHER WAY. They weren't happy with that. They only want to make money THEIR WAY. Well, business doesn't work like that. You sell the customer what the customer wants or you become obsolete fool!
He meant exponential. Logarithmic curves rise quickly, but very briefly and then level out. Though they continue to grow it is by infinitely SMALL units. So logarithmic growth would be what they want. barely any growth after an initial period of adoption, versus exponential which gets out of hand very quickly.
The actual growth curve of copyright infringement with P2P software is much closer to logarithmic than they would want you to know.
The only reasons for piracy was:
#1 The price of songs were too much to afford for the average person.
#2 Buying an Album or CD gave you three songs you liked and ten that you didn't like, so you felt ripped off paying for the ten songs you didn't like.
#3 The quality of music has gone down as they use computer enhancements to turn talentless singers and musicians into something that sounds better, but not good enough to buy.
#4 Piracy actually helps some musicians as Metallica learned. It made them more popular after their MP3s were shared on Napster and other file sharing networks, so that they released more "best of" and new songs to a new generation of fans. Metallica's CD sales went up when they stopped suing their fans for file sharing.
#5 Whatever DRM method you come up with some hacker/pirate will find a way around it in a month or two. Even if it means lossless to lossless recording via some software program to reduce the quality.
#6 MP3s don't have the music quality of CDs anymore, and pirates reduce the quality when copying, so if pirates like the song they will buy the CD anyway to get a better quality version.
What the RIAA/MPAA needs to do is stop being the MAFIAA and stop suing fans and start learning for ways to make money off the piracy making music more popular. Instead of suing fans, offer them pirate amnesty to delete their MP3s and buy the songs in volume at a discounted rate. Have a program that searches the hard drive for MP3s of songs, and then offer discounts on the real CDs and real songs and if the user agrees then delete the MP3s and sell the music over the Internet legally.
I have never met an intelligent businessman, not one.
Download Forever!
Just being optimistic today.
Back in the early days of phonograph records, audio enthusiasts had a large collection of turntable needles and a preamp with a large knob of equalization selections in order to play the records put out by the various labels -- records recorded to different technical standards. The RIAA started out as an industry standards-setting body, conceived to rein in the madness. Its goal was to have the industry agree on on a particular cutting geometry, and a single equalization curve. It succeeded. Without the RIAA, your cassette desk would be festooned with controls, likewise your CD player. How about having to have a unique codec for each version of MP3? The list goes on.
The RIAA continued to be the meeting place to establish uniform method as new media cropped up. Like so many other standards bodies, the RIAA contributed to making your use of media players of all kinds simpler and easier.
Where the RIAA went wrong was to also be an industry cartel dealing with the theft of intellectual property in the music business. A standards-setting body is not the right vehicle for such a cartel. The RIAA stepped out of the bounds of a standards-setting body, tarnishing the good name the RIAA had by the legal actions that the RIAA has embraced for the past five years.
The RIAA needs to go back to its roots, being a standard-setting body. You and I, as well as the recording industry, still need that function.
Concerning the article, Mr. Sherman's revision of history is a little skewed. Physical music sales (CDs) reached and maintained its peak throughout the Napster era and took a nosedive immediately after they had it shut down. They know Napster was the best and cheapest promotional vehicle they couldn't have dreamed of. It is the lack of control which they have always enjoyed that prompted them to hastily shut down Napster and they have been paying the price ever since.
Face the facts that technology is going to continue to give people the ability to share, collaborate, and do for themselves what they depended on corporations and government to do before. Instead of accepting this and gracefully finding their place amongst the commoners- they choose to hinder the natural progress of humanity to protect their position of power. Not just file sharing, but they are actively stifling all aspects of empowering technology - especially personal manufacturing.
We were frankly surprised when their reaction was basically, "Screw that! We're not changing our business model. We'll just put a stop to anyone who tries to share music online!" Thus it was revealed (to me, at least) that these people aren't free-market capitalists, they're corporate authoritarians whose only desire is to control the marketplace and to maintain the status quo. Change is their enemy and they'll go to any lengths to stop it, including paying government (OUR government) to pass draconian laws that protect their established business models, stifle entrepreneurship and technical innovation - anything that might challenge their dominance.
For me, the music industry has become a symbol of our times - established corporate oligopolies masquerading as free-market capitalists fighting tooth-and-nail to resist the natural changes in the marketplace that real capitalism would encourage, some of which changes human civilization desperately needs.
And so it goes.
- by iamrta December 20, 2008 8:01 AM PST
- Firstly, I listen to the good, old sh*t on Sirius-XM. If I hear something I like I buy it. That aside...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (43 Comments)Who cares what Sherman thinks? Def not the 12 year old blasting whatever garbage thru his ipod nano. It's the same thing with video games. Some suit adds up all the estimated illegally downloaded files, multiplies them by the sales cost and makes a big chart with red arrows pointing down and says "golly g! look how much revenue we're loosing!" and takes another bite of his jelly donut.
What those tards NEVER seem to get thru their this a$$ skull is that these kids would have NEVER purchased the music otherwise. They aren't loosing anything. I've talked to folks that download for a hobby...I know it's hard to grasp this concept...but they would never listen/play it if they didn't dload it. On the flip side if the files weren't available they wouldn't go to the store (online or otherwise) to purchase it. I would guess that most folks download because they never had the money in the first place.
Go after the countries that make a living off of illegal software/movies/music/meds/weapons/etc/etc and just leave the measly ISP's alone here in the States. What a waste of time and money all THIS is. Nothing is going to change...blah...blah...blah...the sharing will continue. Even if they limit bandwidth there will be ways to share. I mean ya could just walk up and hand someone a Blue-Ray disc with all the music you own on it...