Don't kid yourself -- the RIAA doesn't care about the artists
Every few years, a different organization makes some progress in the tech industry and for one reason or another, the vast majority of the people following the business simply don't like it.
And while some people's distaste for organizations isn't warranted, the RIAA is not one of them. In fact, I would venture to say that distaste for this organization is not only warranted, it's probably the most sound response anyone can have.
Why you ask? It's simple. Under the veil of "holding the artists' best interests in mind", the RIAA has single-handedly destroyed the music industry and created an environment where the artists are left out in the cold.
Let's examine a bit further.
In a report filed yesterday, the RIAA and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) squared off in front of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) to decide just how much the artists should be getting paid for their hard work.
According to the report, the RIAA and digital media companies (DiMA) believe the 9 cents they currently pay for each physical copy sold or digital media file that's downloaded is much too high. And as the music industry loses revenue, the RIAA and DiMA believe the artists should "accept less money in order to keep the whole industry alive."
On the other side of things, the NMPA's chief, David Israelite, believes artists should make more per downloaded copy because digital media costs far less than CDs and there's more profit to be shared.
Israelite went so far as to call the current hearing "the most important rate hearing in the history of the music industry."
So just how different are these two theories? According to ArsTechnica, the NMPA wants 15 cents per track for the songwriters. On the other hand, the RIAA only wants to pay 5 cents or 6 cents per track, which is substantially lower than the current rate of 13 cents.
"For streaming music, the NMPA suggests that 12.5 percent of total revenue would be a fair payment, while the RIAA thinks that 0.58 percent would be appropriate."
Am I missing something here? If nothing else, this is downright disgusting. Not only is the RIAA and DiMA trying to destroy any opportunity for the artists to make money, the organizations are single-handedly destroying the recording industry.
Why would any artist want to sign up with a major record label knowing they would make just 0.58 percent on digital media download revenue and 5 cents on downloaded tracks? Even if they sell 1 million songs, they should only expect $50,000? Please.
The RIAA is one of the worst organizations in the world. Whether it tries to force young children into a deposition, says college students have yet to reach "full development" or flat-out takes food out of an artists mouth, what's to like here?
The RIAA couldn't care less about the artists. If it did, it would fight for increased royalties and stop pandering to the record labels that have created this monster.
But if anyone actually believes this organization actually has the best interests of the artists in mind, I'd like to hear that rationale. How? The way I see it, the RIAA is simply trying to line the pockets of its masters to ensure its longevity without any regard for those people that make this business work -- the artists.
This sets a dangerous precedent. And if the CRB accepts the RIAA's argument when it makes its decision in October, I will guarantee the immediate downfall of the recording industry.
Enough is enough. The RIAA is a terrible organization that seemingly wants to make the fat cats fatter and the actual talent starve. What kind of organization does that to its own people?
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
And saying the RIAA should "stop pandering to the record labels" is rather silly. The RIAA is not a regulatory agency or a governing body, it is a trade organization funded by the record labels. If the labels don't fund it -- and they are in no sense required to do so -- it will cease to exist.
The RIAA's job is to represent what its label members perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be their interests, and that's exactly what it's doing. Its function is to represent labels, not artists. It would be nice if there were some overlap, but obviously that's not always the case.
Artists have their own representation and can make their own case before the CRB. If their reps are not as effective as the RIAA's, that's not the labels' problem.
I might also point out that no artist is required to sign with an RIAA label, or, indeed, sign with a label at all. Nor is any label required to belong to the RIAA.
Wow you sound like an RIAA spokesperson. You speak with authority, clarity, and sound knowledgeable. The reality of the matter is that the consumers have been lead to believe that the RIAA represents the artists, the record lablels, AND their OWN intrests.
The RIAA may have been created with good intentions, but it has become a anti-consumer company that is surviving because of its ability to effectively sue consumers. It has lied to pass legislation in its own favor, and has been suing everyone from all walks of life who have no substantial way of fighting back.
Let's be fair, that's exactly what is happening, you can't play innocent here.
Thanks for the backhanded compliment, but, first, I don't, and never have, worked for the RIAA. The industry I'm in finds itself in opposition to the RIAA pretty often, actually.
I agree, of course, that the RIAA has and does claim to be working in the interests of artists. But my point is that, when its member labels' interests are, or appear to be, in opposition to those of artists -- or those of consumers, for that matter -- the labels are always going to win.
And there's no question of "playing innocent" on my part. The RIAA is obviously suing consumers on a massive scale. But it isn't surviving on its ability to do that, it's surviving because the four major label groups continue to fund it. And they do that because it's doing exactly what it gets paid to do. (I have very limited sympathy for file-traders who get nailed by RIAA lawsuits, I might say, though I imagine we'd agree that the RIAA has uniformly behaved disgustingly in the too many cases when it has sued people in error.)
And I'm not sure there's anybody left who thinks the RIAA represents consumer interests, if indeed there ever were such people.
My primary concern is the inability of both the recording industry and consumers to concieve of the music industry as anything different than its current incarnation. This inability to consider alternatives leads one to consider any damage to the current regime as the "death" of the music industry.
The current marketing plan for music labels is to produce an album of 10-14 or so songs and sell it for $15-20. This means that a marketing effort based off just a few songs can generate $15-20 at purchase. With songs available individually, that same marketing effort only generates $1 per song at purchase. While that purchase may have a higher profit margin production-wise, overall cost-wise it is definately a lower profit margin.
What this means is that while the production costs have decreased, the cost to the label has increased, but only if they keep the same marketing strategy. Its the record labels' inability to adapt to a new marketplace that is causing their issues. With the strong barriers to entry to the market for new firms, we consumers are stuck with an antiquated industry that still has enough clout to prevent us from having options.
The outcome of the decision will be quite important, but unless the major labels in the recording industry are able to stem the quick destruction of their own companies, then the outcome is inevitable. Eventually the companies will not be able to afford their clout. If they do, in fact, get the royalty they desire, they will enable smaller companies to better provide a comparable compensation to artists. If they do not get their way, then its just a matter of time before the market shrinks enough to encourage artists to find other ways to promote and sell their products.
Technological innovation has revolutionized many markets (newspapers for instance) and there will always be insitutions that attempt to perpetuate the current market structure. However, as history shows us, unless they are able to adapt to new market condititions they will become marginalized and those companies, current or future, that are able adapt will prevail.
When CD's were first produced, there were many promises made that the consumers would benefit in the form of reduced prices because of the claimed lower production costs of CD's. I have NOT yet seen any such savings. Instead, I have seen prices increase steadily. and no one in the music industry even addresses the 'lower production cost' issue. In parallel with this, an individual who was employed by one of the larger Record Producers at the time, let slip about how thousands of LP's were buried in a landfill so that their corresponding CD versions could sell at the higher market price for CD's. Those cost savings had to have ended up somewhere, and I'm betting that they ended up in the Record Label Executives' pockets, becaue I sure never saw any.
So now, when the RIAA and the Music Industry Executives cry 'poor'. I have very little sympathy for them because they forgot the golden rule of sales - Never screw over your customers, because it will eventually come back to bite you in the butt.
Money for production, printing, shipping, promotion etc etc etc. ALL the costs of producing and distributing music COMES OUT OF THE ARTIST'S SHARE!.
The Labels pay NOTHING!
That .0056% that goes to the artist...is expected to pay for ALL the overhead. In the end, the Artist would be making more money working at a 7/11...
Part time...
Amen! Overpriced CRAP at that...
The worse it gets, the bigger the backlash, the faster this whole monopoly gets torn down. Labels want to keep the RIAA alive and sue the world by proxy, GOOD! Let'm. You know damn well that in the end, the labels are dead, the RIAA is dead, but there will always be art and consumers.
All they are doing is precipitating their downfall.
Couldn't happen to a better bunch of lying lowlife bags of excrements.
Alternative solution, somebody has to come up with a publishing system that allows the artist to produce (at least digital) copy, allow download via web and payment - let's say - PayPal. A while ago I proposed to set up a website similar to American Idol (suggested was Icon, but that name was held by an antique dealer. Artists upload their work, allow judgment by peers, and get paid from downloaders.
Any ideas?
-
by back_water_tech
February 17, 2008 9:20 AM PST
- It is funny how things turn out, isn't it?
-
Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)In the late 70's when things like RIAA were created (or planed at least) the socio-economics of this country were much like they are today.
New media formats were being built like clockwork. This country, and much of the free world, was in a recession.
And the record labels and movie studios were "loosing" their hard earned dollars. This was due part in the fact that Americans were broke and chose to buy food and pay for fuel rather than buy LP's or go to the movies, and the record labels were pushing whatever crap that came their way down the line. The same was true for the movie industry.
In the late 70's, the cassette tape and beta tape VCR?s appeared. And we had the same song and dance as we have today with mp3 audio and mp4/avi video. People could copy the music from their LP's and movies from the air or cable stations. Now we do that with computers.
Keep in mind; it is our right, as consumers, to make copies of our movies and music for archive purposes. This is in case the master gets damaged. (I listen /watch the copies and put the masters away)
Now distribution of said copies is illegal. Period. But it happens. Said distribution (at least in the 80's) actually increased record sales and movie sales. I can remember several CD's that I purchased because a friend gave me a copy on tape, and I liked what I heard, so I bought a copy. I was not an isolated indecent, either. I knew several people that bought music that way. Its not like the radio plays much of the CD's other than the singles they were given.
I have a suggestion for RIAA: Go back to doing what you were intended for. Counterfeiters and rouge CD shops need your attention much more than the end consumer.
I also have a suggestion for the music industry: You want those sales back up to pre-mp3 levels? Two things:
1. STOP WITH THE COPY COPY COPY MUSIC. You way too many bands now that are complete crap and sound like regurgitated 80?s and 70's music. Try funding stuff that doesn't sound like all the rest.
2. Use your lobbying power to convince Congress that $3 for gallon of gas is hurting the economy and thus your profits. You have the pull that America needs to get those cats in Congress to listen. (Its not like the voters haven't been saying that since 1999) If fuel was dropped to, say, $2 per gallon, people would be less distracted by the $20 price tag on your CD's.