Comments on: Forget DRM. It's the music

Studios remain shell-shocked by Napsterization, but CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says the real solution isn't attacking pirates.

[aqvarivs]

manufacturing bands

I don't believe it's the music per se though much of it to my ear is static formula. Such as reading series novels like Executioner or for the girls, Harlequin Romance.
I buy cd's. I tried the mp3 thing but I'm too much of the audiophile and would rather pay the $2.00 per song on the cd for the digital quality.
I've often wondered since the Internet why musicians didn't float their own web store for their music and bypass the record Companies. Sites could be like WWW.fithythent.com and you could sample and purchase uncompressed digital files direct from the artist on line?

[wOoOzZy]

asdfl

Many bands to use online stores to sell their CDs. The main problem with that though is the manufacturing costs of producing those CDs plus packaging. Ontop of that, many bands still want to be on a label because you can't get that kind of marketing anywhere else. And once you sign to a label, they own the masters of anything you make.

[pounce]

not a well considered article

to make one point of clarification, studio's aren't making music
and shoving it down anyone's throat. they aren't choosing the
easy way out. studios are only the place where bands and
musicians of any sort go to record and mix their songs. no
more, no less. they aren't the bands, they aren't the labels, they
aren't the distribution chain. studios are only for hire shops
where music is recorded and mixed, and most studios don't
have an affiliation with a specific band or label. this is not meant
to be a pedantic or semantic point hashing over minutae, it's
pointing out that the article isn't even correct in it's concept or
terminology. it's clearly written by a consumer who is misusing
terms related to the industry. more research so as to get the
correct terms for things, and an understanding of the industry
are expected in journalism about the industry. this subject is not
helped by additional unifomed opinion.

that said, as someone who works in the industry, i would prefer
to not see drm on audio files. itunes distributing standard aac or
mp3 files without drm is the idea solution.

i have many complaints about the industry that would require a
larger space and different subject. that said, critical comments
about the industry are often true. however, it does not logically
follow that p2p stealing is not also to blame. perhaps the
combination of the industries own mistakes, the industries
insistance on drm (from the 4 major labels), and the publics ill
informed opinions on stealing and whether p2p is being used
legally or not.

let me offer up this thought, folks who continue to use p2p
software to steal music are adding to the problem and are
providing fuel to the fire. it is both wrong and illegal, and that is
OBVIOUS. also, folks stealing music are no more fans of music
than carjackers are auto enthusiasts. if you are a fan, then buy
the music in whatever format you prefer. i have a large cd
collection and use itunes to get other music i want now.

it continues to be my hope that having more legal downloads
available via itunes or other suppliers will mean that the public
can perhaps return to being consumers instead of copyright
looters like they currently are. i implore all technology
publications to take the correct and unwavering stance that
stealing software and music and movies is wrong. i moderate on
a web forum for audio professionals and we have a zero
tolerance for piracy policy. i prefer that policy, and i wish cnet
would adopt it. ill informed reporters on sites like this often
seem to condone piracy and that is a huge mistake.

remembering that music industry mistakes, drm, and consumer
violation of copyright are three related but totally different
complicated topics. don't confuse them. remember that
criticisms of drm or the industry dont' logically follow with any
allowance of folks using p2p to steal copywritten materials.

[paulej]

The author did not condone piracy!

You seem to suggest that the author condoned piracy. I did not see that in his words. He did make statements which said that teenagers are the more likely group to pirate, though. That does not mean he agreed or disagreed with it.

Further to the author's defense, he didn't claim to be an expert in the business. I do not know the correct business lingo, either. Do not worry about that. I am sure that I can confuse you with terminology from my industry and a genetic physicist could confuse us both with lots of new words.

However, I do think it is interesting to understand why music sales have declined. I assert that piracy has little to do with it and there are two independent research efforts that have concluded the same.

Here is my list of reasons:
1) Quality of music has declined (supported by posters in this forum)
2) Frustration with buying music on-line (need click, buy, download)
3) DRM concerns (new computer, music is potentially lost forever)
4) Average person is paying less for music (e.g., $15 for 15 songs, rather than $30 for 2 CDs)
5) Inability for the music industry to offer teens a way to buy music without a credit card (need the idea of a pre-paid on-line music card sold at Wal-Mart)

[grtgrfx]

That's not so...

Not to bump your chain, but many, if not most, of the high-
selling artists don't bother going into studios any more. Moby?
Nope. Stones? Nope. Dre? Nope. Many artists these days record
in their bedrooms, or garages, or dens, or home studios or
whatever, because the cost of studio-quality equipment has
dropped from $1.5 million to under $12,000. This is why world-
famous studios, such as Electric Lady in New York or Hit Factory
in Los Angeles have closed their doors. I think the use of the
term studio in the article has more to do with generalizing the
media industries by including both music and movie industries
(which do actually do their own production work).

But artists don't sign contracts just for studio time. The MAIN
reason bands sign with a label is to get advertising money and a
better slot in Wal-Mart. Labels don't actually pay musicians
anyway, they generally keep mid-level artists in debt from
marketing and promotion advances; and musicians have to get
most of their revenue back from touring and non-music sales.

Without getting into the "music is worse than before" argument,
the label's primary problem is that fewer artists are promoted
that actually have something to say, and the non-top 40
audience realizes it.

As for downloading songs, movies, or other material, I've often
bought the movie DVD or CD of a band I heard from occasional
downloading, and many of these artists are so obscure
(Cinematic Orchestra, anyone?) that my purchases could actually
make a difference in their contract renewals.

[bradyme]

True

Your right on the music. Once one new style of music is released, it's exploited to the point of boredom by being rehashed by the same producer.

So it ends up not being individually different but the work of the producer. Like he's the composer of a symphony, instead of the niche the band themselves has been known to be.

I use to listen to originals from some of these bands which they produced on there own, then listen to their new releases on a major label and hear nothing different from them then what was released prior on the same label in that music style.

It is annoying to know that bands have for several years get molded, not to what could of happened, but to the cloche's of what hot at the moment. Such a career killer for many of those bands that only get seen as riding the coat tales of another band's success and end up disappearing before having a chance to enjoy what they love.

[mikeolivo]

Make me an Album worth Paying for!

The last CD I purchased was "Shaman" by Santana. I could have downloaded it, but there were many great songs on that album. If there were more than one song and a bunch of filler on new artist's albums maybe people would buy them. Also, no one cares to hear great songs by the likes of Don Henley, Bryan Adams, and Journey, redone to dance beats. Heres a clue to new artists: WRITE YOUR OWN MUSIC! If you want to do covers, do them in concert or with taste!

[TheStereoField]

yeah this is wrong

These exact same arguments could be made about the movie or game industry too, and id have to say it's not a lack in quality at all. If i can get something for free without consequences, im going to do it, straight up.

Is it because i have no morals? maybe, but the bigger problem is that i have better things to spend my money on. you know, stuff that i can't download. and this isnt because im not a hardcore music fan, which i am. i play in an "indie" band, yet i really see no future for us, besides revenue from shows.

in a nustshell, media companies are completely screwed. musicians and filmmakers are in trouble, and removing DRM is not going to make the huge impact people are saying it will. we're looking towards hard times for the industry, and i can't see any light at the end of the tunnel.

[6-3-2]

It's The Hassle and More

I have absolutely not problem spending money on music, but it is a hassle. I counted once at a Barnes and Noble and they didn't have 12 records I was fully willing to buy. Then I looked into purchasing things online, and iTunes wasn't an option because I don't own an iPod and eMusic didn't have what I wanted, so that leaves me with ordering the record off Amazon or another store, or pirating. Lots of popular music isn't up to snuff either: I've been complaining about rap music for the past few years, and I've heard rap sales dropped 20% last year.

In the end, record companies aren't giving people what they want. It's not that easy to get not to popular records legally, and popular music is so safe right now, that it's no surprise people stopped buying.

[minimalist]

Music should be treated like bottled water

Blaming music quality is a red herring. Bland mainstream pop
is nothing new. There have always been bands that are more of
a "product" for the record companies and there has always been
an audience willing to buy it. Just because we only remember
the high points of music's past does not mean there weren't also
lots of low points. There is some really good music out there
right now. You just have to know where to look for it.

I think its still the DRM. People aren't downloading music for
free because its low quality (why bother to download something
that is bad?). Its simply because they are not being given what
they want... flexibility and a reasonable price.

I spend hundreds of dollars a year at eMusic because the price is
right and the music is DRM-free. Because of this I actually
spend more and am willing to try out all sorts of new bands than
I did when I was just buying cds. And if I really want record not
available on eMusic I just buy a used cd and rip it myself. If
iTunes would get rid of DRM I would GLADLY pay 9.99 (or more).
DRM is clearly the barrier here.

"...people didn't stop buying books or maps when the Xerox
machine hit. Customers will pay for worthwhile products, even if
they can get free lower-quality copies."

Absolutely correct. And the bottled water industry is doing
pretty well even though water is virtually available for free
through the tap. That's because they give the consumer
flexibilty and quality for a reasonable price. Would anybody buy
bottled water if they were told where and when they could
consume it? Of course not. So why do record companies think
this kind of straightjacket is acceptable with music? Treat your
customers with fairness and respect and they will usually
respond with fairness and respect. Treat them like criminals and
they will repay you with exactly what you expect.

min.

[i_am_still_wade]

RIAA: it CAN'T be our fault.

The typical response by big media is it can't be our fault. Therefore, since it isn't our fault, who is to blame. Piracy. They start with the solution they want and then try to support it. That is backwards reasoning and it is logically flawed.

In any other business, when you treat the consumer and the workers the way the RIAA does, you would be out of business quickly. The only ones who lose in piracy are established artists, which don't exist anymore because the RIAA makes them insignificant by the time they get big enough to make money on albums, and the record studios.

[mglish]

We should pay for the music we acquire

If grocery stores put groceries outside the store with the shopping carts with a sign that said: "Please pay for what you take", a certain percentage of milk, bread, etc. would be taken without paying for it. If my local Honda dealer left the new cars in the parking lot with keys in the ignition and a sign that said: "After your test drive, if you want a car please come in and we'll work out payment terms", a certain percentage would be driven off the lot without any payment terms. If something is easy to steal, a certain percentage of that something will get stolen.

People steal music because they can. It's easy to steal for two reasons: 1) it's easy to go to Limewire and steal it and 2) there are no faces to look into. Most people wouldn't steal the bread or the car if someone was watching - even if it were only other customers - because no one wants to be seen as a thief.

People still bought books after Xerox machines came out because 1) a stack of paper copies isn't as nice as a real book and 2) it takes time (and in some cases money) to make the copies. The price of a real book had more value than the result of copying it on a Xerox machine. That doesn't apply to copying music because it takes almost no time to download or even rip a CD and the resulting product is equivalent to the original (yes, I know there are differences between MP3 or other lossy copies and the original, but let's don't quibble).

I don't know squat about the music business. But I'll bet the following statement is true: musicians have bills to pay and they like to buy the same creature comforts most of us like to buy. For that, they need an income. I need an income for the same reason (and I'm not a musician). I doubt that most people would begrudge teachers or doctors or baristas or other people from getting paid for the work that they do. Why should musicians be any different? They get paid by charging money for their music, whether it is live or recorded.

Music is a business. It takes a lot of different kinds of occupations to put on a concert, arrange a series of concerts, produce and record a CD, manufacture a CD, and distribute a CD. The people who do those jobs need salaries too.

In the "old days", if I had a vinyl record and a friend wanted to hear it, I loaned it to him. I bought it first, however. If my friend liked the record, he either kept it (and maybe I'd forget he had it) or he gave it back and went out and bought his own copy. What was so bad with that system? If the artist was good, he/she/they would sell a lot of records. If my friend listened and didn't like it, he wouldn't buy it. What's so wrong with that model?

Maybe the price of albums wasn't fair, maybe the producers and distributors got too much money -- I don't know. But at the end of the day if I wanted something I didn't create and someone said I could have it if I paid some money, then I'd make a mental calculation about it the same way I did mental calculations about eating meals in restaurants or going to movies or whatever else. If I liked it and the price was right and I had the money -- I bought it. Somehow money flowed to the people who created, produced, and distributed it. That seems fair. And if what they created/produced/distributed was really good, they (on average) got more money for their efforts than if it wasn't good. That seems fair too.

When someone steals music, the money doesn't flow back to the creators/producers/distributors. Is that fair? It's not. And if someone puts a DRM "lock" on the music so that it has to be paid for and can't be made available to others for free, then tell me why that's so bad? I subscribe to the Zune Marketplace. I can download anything I want and listen to it easily on my Zune. The DRM doesn't get in the way. I guess it would if I wanted to put the music on CDs, but personally I don't want to do that because my Zune is infinitely easier to carry around and to find songs on than if I had a crate of CDs I was lugging around.

I don't know why in the world Steve Jobs wants to do away with DRM unless maybe the profit margins are so thin for iTunes that he'd rather get out of the business and simply sell iPods and make his money that way. I'll bet if you gave most people truth serum and then asked them why they don't like DRM, they would say "because it makes it harder for me to get the music I want for free".

I think if people want to listen to music, they a) should pay to acquire it for personal use, b) subscribe to a music service like Sirius, or c) listen to commercial radio and be subjected to ads. If there is another way to monetize music, then let's try it. But it should be monetized or in time we'll get less new music because the musicians will have to make a living doing something else.

[minimalist]

not a valid analogy

"People still bought books after Xerox machines came out
because 1) a stack of paper copies isn't as nice as a real book
and 2) it takes time (and in some cases money) to make the
copies. The price of a real book had more value than the result
of copying it on a Xerox machine."

Have you USED Limewire or other such software lately? I
certainly don't have time to mess around with all the hassles of
P2P networks these days. Gone are the clean simple downloads
of early napster where files downloaded in seconds. Now you
have viruses, spyware, empty or partial files, intentionally or
unintentionally mis-labeled files, and badly encoded files to deal
with. To get a complete album can takes days of trial and error.
I am not going to devote the time and energy to managing such
a hornets nest if I can get it reasonably priced and properly
encoded with album art. I know a lot of people who have given
up on P2P because it just isn't worth it.

But unlike the book scenario, the music alternative to P2P is not
very compelling because of one thing: DRM. Do book
manufacterers control when and where the book can be read?
Do they try to make it impossible for you to loan it to a friend so
you can spread the word about an author? If they did I'd be
willing to bet people might just start xeroxing a bit more. DRM
is an artificially applied barrier that does nothing to stop pirates
and everything to hinder people's acceptance of online music
distribution.

"I don't know why in the world Steve Jobs wants to do away with
DRM unless maybe the profit margins are so thin for iTunes that
he'd rather get out of the business and simply sell iPods and
make his money that way. I'll bet if you gave most people truth
serum and then asked them why they don't like DRM, they would
say "because it makes it harder for me to get the music I want
for free"."

This is silly. Steve Jobs stands to sell MORE music without DRM
because he has the brand cache and the dominant digital music
store. Pirates don't bother stripping the DRM off of iTunes or
Windows Media tracks. They get the music from un-DRM'ed cds
and release them to the world. DRM isn't stopping anybody
who wants to steal music. They are already doing it and
probably will continue to do it until they are caught. The only
thing DRM is doing is hindering honest people from the using
the music they legally purchased music on the devices they want
which means they will buy less of it that way. I have purchased
over a thousand dollars worth of music from iTunes and I am the
first to say the system is BROKEN. These days I do anything I
can to avoid buying from iTunes... used cds, un-DRM'd music
services like eMusic. But I don't STEAL music and it is wrong to
assume that anybody who opposes DRM is some sort of a "thief-
to-be". We just want to pay a fair price for a quality product
without the hobbling of DRM.

[wmclover]

pay more to get less

Nowadays, the less you pay for music, the more you get. Why should we be surprised that anyone downloads free MP3 music, when it is clearly the best format out there to fully enable personal use of the song? Why should the technological progress we have achieved result in a lessoning of our ability to enjoy a product? Technological progress should make things better, not worse.

Forty or more years ago, it was accepted that if you purchased a record, you could tape it to play on your car radio or boom box. You did not have to buy a record player for every room in the house where you wanted to hear music. You could back up your record on a tape to use in the event your record became scratched or worn. No one attempted to criminalize your conduct if you gave or loaned your book, magazine, record or recorded tape to your friends or relatives. If you bought a record from one company, you did not have to buy a tape recorder from the same company to make a copy.

Does the music industry honestly believe its sales are down solely because of free music downloads. Do they take into account the probability that a 16 year old kid who downloads 10,000 songs off the Internet would not spend $10,000 or any significant sum if he was required to pay for the same music.
There is too much free music out there and they do not have the money.

The radio still works and possibly the primary source to listen to music for most people. Satellite and Cable have wonderful offerings of music in all genres to those using that connection for TV. Internet radio is excellent and widely available.

Similarly, not all good music is new music. Most older CD collections were virtually unusable before the Internet due the difficulty involved in recalling what CDs you had or locating them from storage. However, once all one's old CDs are downloaded to your hard drive, these old albums are readily accessible. Plus you can make your own playlists to select songs from different artists and mix them to play as you wish.

If the industry wants to remain a viable entity why don't they promote better music on a disc that provides more songs of better sound quality, informative tags, and background info regarding the artists.

[jgalietto]

Where in the RIAA blabber is an accounting for media replacement sales

While I agree with Coop on the quality of many current music release; I think that is only a minor portion of the sales decline. In all of these discussions there is little analysis of inflation of sales numbers by the change in recorded media over the last three decades plus. How many units have been bought by the same person on vinyl, 8 track; cassette. and finally CD. While I never had an 8 track I have bought the same music on vinyl and CD.

The RIAA never acknowledges how this replacement buying and media stability for 23 years has diminished this media change replacement sales.

J.

[fcekuahd]

They're also not going to acknowledge

That DRM is really a scam to keep getting you to buy the same music over and over again in different formats.

[jtpinhead]

piracy's not the cause

DVD sales have been going lots in the past years. This is probably where the music money is lost. people who pirate music wouldn't buy the stuff. Hip hop is dead. Pac and Biggie died. Noone wants to buy lean wit it. Album quality has gone down. No albums been amazing since get rich or die trying

[stephenmeyer]

THE CIRCLE GAME

" The economics of the business are over for good and aren't ever going to be the way they were before." -- Greg Scholl, CEO of independent music label The Orchard, at the Digital Music Forum East conference in New York.

With that one sentence, Greg Scholl has summed up the state of the industry today.

I hope RIAA Chairman Mitch Bainwol read Mr. Scholl's comments. Perhaps he should have even considered attending the Digital Music Forum East. From the article about the conference ('Music Executives Judge Jobs, Lament Losses'): " CD sales fell 23 percent worldwide between 2000 and 2006. Legal sales of digital songs aren't making up the difference either. Last year saw a 131 percent jump in digital sales, but overall the industry still saw about a 4 percent decline in revenue. "

But what was the RIAA doing this week instead of listening to people who are trying to create solutions for the future? The RIAA decided to saddle up their stable of white horses and ride on out to rope in some more illegal downloaders on college campuses.

" We'd rather not be doing these lawsuits ? but the fact remains that the college environment is one that has rampant piracy," said Chairman Bainwol. Gee, really Mitch? What else has the RIAA been doing except filing lawsuits? (And by that, I mean what else has the organization been doing to REALLY help the industry it allegedly serves)

Bainwol is probably right. The college campus environment is probably rampant with piracy. But the RIAA's efforts will do nothing to stop downloading or file-sharing on or off campus anywhere. (Note to Chairman Bainwol: Do a Google on the words "darknets" and "intranet" and then realize why your efforts are meaningless )

More important, Josh Bernoff, with Forrester Research, said that threatening a lawsuit wouldn't solve the campus piracy problem: "As long as every CD that ships is filled with unprotected music, there's not much they can do about it," he said. ( Source: http://tinyurl.com/ytaxze )

Chairman Bainwol's latest action will now result in more piracy than ever as more and more students create their own networks on and offline to trade files. No matter how much policing the RIAA attempts to do, the results will be as effective as the Nazis trying to stop the French Underground in WW II. Like that Underground, the students will simply "fly under the radar" and accomplish what they want.

It's incredibly hard to believe that with all the critical issues facing the industry as it moves to digital sales models (and those that aren't are going to be left in the dust of old hard drives), the RIAA is still trying to round-up bad guys and rope them in with fines. That's just not going to do anything to help solve the problems at hand.

Why the RIAA isn't seeking help from students on college campuses is beyond me. Many in various media and music programs could probably offer great ideas to the organization if given the chance.

But for now, the RIAA rides again. In circles I'm afraid.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Oh, I dew love that Mammy Mammy Mammy song!

Yeah, it's the music. The industry must think we have a limitless appetite for repetition.

[ozidigga]

Music industry targets tennagers/kids

who would much rather spend their pocket money on something else when they are able to get it for free off the net.

[jkelley76]

What Music????

I call it McMusic. Fast, no nourishement for the soul. It's all show and No Go. Today's "Music" is a shambles, Take any girl group or boy group and if you turn off the video and listen, I cannot tell you who is singing. The beat and sound and voice is usually usual, just with a different face and "body", and it's the music industries fault. If I want to see great bodies I look at sports illustrated calendar edition. If I want to hear great music, I listen to Poppa Chubby, Allman Bros, The Road Dawgz. Now that is music I am willing to pay for.
Get real Music industry, give us something to pay for.

[cyberblatt]

Music? Those with ears call it noise, audio pollution=garbage

Thanks God there is still some good music to be found if you dig hard, but unfortunately it is becoming very rare nowadays. The rap-crap and similar narrated audio garbage was meant to target the economically suppressed and uneducated crowd in order to milk the buck out of them. Since most of their jobs are outsourced, it is one of the reasons they are not buying much. For some folks it is maybe cool to hear some narrated garbage from time to time, for others it is less worth than a fart in G major.

[the1kingarthur]

The day that music died

I believe there may be a new birth of enlightenment and we as a society can no longer ignore the fact that Don Mc Clean may have been right and the day has come and gone when music has died. This article, and its posts surely re-enforces this concept. As further proof read The Associated Press Article ?Sales of Rap Albums Take Stunning Nosedive? Thursday, March 01, 2007

Reading many of the posts here has nearly brought me to tears, and I can honestly say I am very proud of their writers, and give them my eternal gratitude.

Now this is no promotion of one form of music over another. The fact is what most have called music is simply loud sounds being recorded and passed off as music. Fads, trends, and over powering greed have controlled the music industry for too long.

Country music as it was pioneered has died. Listen to the song ?Murder on music roll." lyrics by George Strait. There is no longer a distinction between country, and rock. Motown has lost it's soul due to Barry Gordy squeezing out every penny he could and then ripped it from it's home in Detroit and moved her to LA. And if that was not bad enough, Mr. Gordy sold Motown to the worst element possible, the huge heartless corporate music world. A company that has no relation to the heart and soul of Motown.

Where is the folk sound of years ago? The heart wrenching tear jerking Broadway musical? The beautiful and awe inspiring instrumental sounds of greats like John and Mason Williams? Would Louie Armstrong not burst into tears if he was alive today and heard the silencing of the horns that echoed through Chicago, and New Orleans?

It is not that one form or gentry of music that has died. It?s all music. Today it?s pasteurized, homogenized, mass produced noise. Maybe that?s why we see a generation that has not dared to dream, or why the poets have grown silent. Where has romance and adventure gone? Let?s just skip the dating and marriage routine and get straight to the sex. So what if there is a mountain over there, why should I climb it?

Many times when I hear the music of long ago, I shed a tear, show a smile, or burst into uncontrollable laughter. Music not only brings back many lovely memories, and pictures. It has given life, courage, and desire. Loved ones are never gone as long as we have music. And come on now, can anyone really deny they don?t get a little choked up when they hear Amazing Grace on Bag Pipes?

Maybe this article demonstrates there is a glimmer of hope for society, and we will see a new awakening of the inner sprit and soul will once more become an intricate part of music again.

[the1kingarthur]

Thank you Mr. Cooper, and long live CNet

Just wanted to add all I can say is thank you Mr. Cooper, and CNet may go down in history as one of the greatest promoters of truth, honesty, and true journalism

[tghounsell]

Right Idea - Wrong Arguments

I agree totally with the gist of your editorial, but the arguments you use are really weak. The reason books never faced the piracy issues faced by music is that Xeroxing a book takes a long time. Similarly, downloading a movie is a process that takes patience. But downloading music is fast and simple.

I agree that DRM is frustrating customers and limiting music sales. But I think what the music business needs to do is give away the music and then find value-add sales. More concerts with the concert pressed for you on your way out of the hall, etc. Live, web-based shows. Concerts simil-casted into movie theaters, etc. I think that musicians will now have to earn their money from shows rather than recordings.

[TV James]

Well, you're sort of right, but...

Actually, the artists make most of their money from the shows, not the published music. The deals are usually structured so that the studio makes most of the money on sold recordings. In order to make any money, the artists must tour. They capture a much larger percentage of the take on the ticket sales and much more than that on the memorabilia.