Death to Record Labels

Where Music is Heading...

2006-12-07T14:21:00.000-08:00

Based on a comment on an earlier post, I'd like to make a couple of observations and state where I believe music is headed. Someone said that music piracy has always been going on (before the mp3 it was the mix tape) and that every 10 years or so a new technology comes out that gets the RIAA spooked and they once again make the claim that the artists are the ones suffering. I think that people are more informed now and they can see that artists aren't really suffering from people sharing their music. If you really like the artist, you will go check out their show, buy their merchandise and even their album because you are a fan. Without the crucial act of sharing that music, you likely wouldn't even know about that artist and definitely wouldn't be willing to shell out 15 bucks to buy their album and find out.

The problem lies in the media's coverage of new music. There's a formula, where the labels go to the major radio stations and buy tons of air time for artists they plug and voila: you have the next Britney Spears or Pussycat Dolls. What people are realizing is that we're being spoon fed this crap and we don't get to choose to what we listen to. People are turning to the Internet with it's infinite possibilities and are discovering the new music in social networks and online music stores. This results in new talent being discovered and artists "making it" so the question I ask is, "Are we really hurting artists by sharing their music?" With the ability to purchase music online, companies like iTunes Music Store and Amazon are realizing the benefits of the Long Tail business model. With music simply equating to a few megs on a server, the rules of the music stores do not apply as their is no such thing as virtual shelf space. So what does this mean for the online music stores? Well they can start to make a profit off of less known bands that only sell maybe 100 units, because there are so many of them. Look at the following diagram to see how the monolothic "pop" music (the tower at the left) could actually be overcome by the seemingly endless span of the long tail.

Terry McBride, of Nettwerk Music is looking to reinvent the music industry, including legalizing file-sharing and giving artists ownership of their intellectual property, something very unusual in traditional record contracts. He even wants to go as far as to put the Pro Tools files up on MySpace for the fans to download and create new mixes of their own. This is just unheard of in today's music business. This is similar to Jay Z releasing the Black Album as an a cappella version for DJs to mix. This has resulted in many remixes and even a construction set that includes nine different variations on the Black Album, over 1200 clip art images, and a couple hundred megs of classic samples and breaks. I think when it comes down to it though, there will always be people that prefer to purchase the original album because they get a sense of authenticity, ownership and the original album artwork. Jason at mycassettes.blogspot.com posts, "There will be no worn edges, no scratches no muffled sounds or cracked cases in the digital world, and thats a good thing, the thing we all like. Still, there is something nice in picking up an old album or tape and 'feeling' the age inherent through the physicality of the object. Whats that all about anyway?"

Resources:

Wired 14.09: No Suits Required
Wired 12.10: The Long Tail
My Cassettes

Mashups and copyrights

2006-12-06T14:59:00.000-08:00

This is a video we saw in class by paperphoenix. He does a really good job laying out the issues surrounding copyright with the mashup. I agree with his views, especially when he talks about the fact that combining two completely different genres of music can't hurt each respectively. I believe that music is essentially an emotion eliciting entity, and by combining multiple streams of music, you're able to play with emotions in a completely different way. It's as if the combination of two or three songs has not only the emotions elicited from those songs individually, but also new emotion(s) from the actual mix. The mix becomes a track of it's own and the choices made by the mashup artist are just as important as the original recordings. But the problem we run into is that even if an artist that is signed onto a record label under the RIAA is into the mashup movement, they can't allow artists to include their work in a mashup because usually they don't own it.

DJ Panzah Zandahz and Easy Star All-Stars: Copyright Infringers or Trendsetters?

2006-12-05T12:02:00.000-08:00

With all the talk about mashups the past couple weeks in class, I started to think about how mashups relate to copyright issues and the RIAA. First I will start off by describing my first mashup experience. The first mashup I heard was DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, which as most of us know mixes Jay Z’s Black Album with The Beatles’ White Album. I thought the whole concept of the album was really unique. It sounded so unbelievable that the two completely different forms of music were able to mesh so well together. When Danger Mouse sent out the demos of the Grey Album, he received cease and desist orders from EMI and Sony. That didn't stop over 170 sites from joining together in protest and hosting the album, though. Now the album is available for download and still in circulation today. I think that as mashups catch on we will be seeing more and more of the record labels trying to step in and censor artists from using copyrighted material. Currently mashups are underground bootlegs and mashup artists (and the original creators of the songs they mashup) are not making any money. I believe that as this trend continues to grow, this will change and the music industry will have a whole new fight on their hands–trying to decide how they're going to take the majority of the profits from these sales. The first mainstream mashup is The Beatles' Love, which was created by the original producer and his son . This is an actual record available on Apple Records. In this case it's all mixes of the same artist, but I wonder what will happen when mainstream mashups are released with different artists being mashed up? How will the profits be split, and will the mashup artist see any? In reality they are simply mashing up content, not creating any original content of their own.

This also got me thinking about a dub group Easy Star All-Stars who released two albums: Radiodread and Dub Side of the Moon. These albums are entire remakes of Radiohead's OK Computer and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Now these aren't mashups because they are covers of the original songs done in a reggae fashion. I understand artists do cover songs all the time, and the artists pay royalties to the creator of the piece and away they go. Artists might choose to do a cover song because it's a common song that could result in exposure for them, but first and foremost the artist needs to be able to apply their own style and make it different. But these are entire albums redone, and what's amazing is that in each track you can hear something unique and fresh. Here's a clip (Unfortunately I couldn't find a clip that really captured the experience of the live performance, but they have a live DVD coming out this month and a few tracks to listen to at their site.

Another album that I found in my search for Radiohead remixes, dubs and mashups was DJ Panzah Zandahz' Me & This Army: Radiohead Remixes. This mashup album is an answer to Amnesiac's "You and whose army?" It's a cross between a club remix and a mashup, bringing in at times multiple Radiohead songs (for example combining the intro of high and dry and I will, and then bringing in De La Soul.) Panzah Zandahz mashes up Radiohead beats with rap vocals from De La Soul, MF Doom, Sev Statik, and Kool Keith to name a few. Here is a blog that has the entire album linked.

the RIAA crusade...

2006-11-23T01:30:00.000-08:00

So here we have the righteous crusade of the RIAA to protect its members, who are NOT the artists these members represent, and they’re going after the fans. Here’s a short video clip of a segment on The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos. He interviews Terry McBride from Nettwerk Music and talks about a 13 year-old girl in Texas who is being sued for over $9000. Terry says “Music is ubiquitous; it's a utility like "water," it's not a pair of pants and as such we need to stop treating music like a product that needs to be controlled.” (McBride, 2006) Terry sees something wrong with suing the fans. When a teenager is downloading music she is sharing it, not selling it. Terry has opted to defend the girl and her family, and should they lose the case he’s willing to pay the full amount of $9000. More on this story here.

So why are the consumers of pirated music being targeted? Why doesn’t the RIAA go after the people distributing the music and stop the so-called problem at the root? Well with the increased amount of law suits against people, the RIAA has simply scared a lot of people into using methods that are untraceable. The downloading hasn’t stopped, people are simply using BitTorrent and instant messaging services to send files to one another. And since tracking illegal downloading of music is becoming harder to track, the RIAA are taking it to the streets! Yes, that’s right. They are going after your friendly neighbourhood entrepreneur at the local flea markets and bus stops. One news source reports that the RIAA and MPAA are targeting 11 states and Puerto Rico, including: California, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and New York. They’re calling it the “anti-piracy blitz” and they're taking to the streets and flea markets looking for illegal copies of CDs and DVDs to seize. This campaign will take place from November to January and authorities are teaming up with the RIAA in hopes to surpass their record last year which was 1.3 million seized CDs / DVDs. Apparently their focus this year is on pre-releases, or albums that get posted on the Internet before its release date.

The RIAA are painting the picture that piracy is theft, plain and simple. We’ve all seen the anti-piracy ad at the beginning of every single DVD that has come out recently. You wouldn’t steal a car, or a purse, and downloading is no different. Well the Supreme Court has ruled that "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use." And as the RIAA are on their bloodthirsty crusade to bring down piracy (or at least fatten their wallets) they make it seem like they are doing so to protect the artists and the industry. But Cary Sherman (President of the RIAA) has stated that none of the lawsuit money will go to the artists. So how are we supposed to feel like criminals and get the idea that we are hurting the artists that we love when the RIAA are the real criminals?

Here's a remix of the Pepsi/Apple ad from Brian Flemming in which four children who were actually sued by the RIAA appear to promote legal downloading. This remix is very interesting and brings several key facts to light.

Resources:

Brian Flemming's Blog

Save The Music Fan

RIAA and MPAA kick off anti-piracy holiday blitz

File Sharers aren't stealing, But the RIAA is...

enter the RIAA

2006-11-22T14:52:00.000-08:00

So, here’s a little background information on the Recording Industry [Ass]ociation of America (RIAA). The members create and distribute approximately 90% of all recorded music in the United States. You could say they are somewhat of a monopoly. Their mission is “to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes [their] members' creative and financial vitality” (RIAA, 2006) Just in case this is unclear, by members they aren’t referring to the artists but the recording labels that manage them. So when they vow to protect the financial interests of their members, you know they don’t give a shit about the artists that are making them all this money. Even after all expenses are recuperated, the artists get an average of $1-2 per album sold. "It's as if you received a loan for a house," says Ed Robertson, of the Barenaked Ladies. "But when you finish paying off that loan, the label says thank you and keeps the house." (Robinson, 2006).

Since mid-2000 record sales have dropped 31% in the US and the RIAA directly relates this to the Napster craze we all remember. They see this as fuel for fire as they go after American families accused of downloading pirated music. There are many other factors to this decrease in record sales (and don’t forget that’s not MUSIC sales) such as competition from mobile phones and console games. The record sales are also suffering from other methods of music distribution, such as ringtones, DVDs, concerts and merchandise. In reality the artist benefits much more from concert sales and merchandise than from the buck or two they get from selling a CD. So what is the RIAA planning to do to recuperate the loss in sales? Well, go after the fans of course. Next time, we'll talk about a specific law suit and how the intervention of one of the biggest players in the game might have huge repercussions on the future of anti-piracy.

Resources:

Terry McBride of Nettwerk music discusses the idiocy of suing music fans.

Info About the RIAA

Wired Magazine article about the future of music management

RIAA Decries Drop in CD Sales. Is it all because of piracy?