I'm not trying to start a debate or anything here, I just wanted to pass this info onto as many people as possible: <blockquote><a href="http://www.anti-dmca.com/cgi-bin/enews.cgi">NATIONAL CD BOYCOTT WEEK - JUNE 23 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2002</a> LET US BE HEARD After learning about the lawsuit launched on May 28th against the free music file sharing service Audiogalaxy.com, it became all too clear, big business owns music, or does it? If you are like me then you are tired of paying $18 for a music CD that costs at the most $1 to make. Record labels try to justify their anger over file sharing by saying it's stealing from the hard working-artists pockets. By working for a record label for a period of time I know first hand that artist only recieves at most 8% of sales (sold from the labels to distributors for $8 a cd) thats .64 cents. And the artists only receives their royalty check AFTER they pay the record label back ALL of the money it fronted for production. Not only do record labels recoup the costs of the fancy artwork inside and on the cd itself, but it also makes damn sure the artists pay back for any little item, including MEALS. Needless to say, most artists do not see a royalty check at all. The artist makes the bulk of their multi-millions by touring......so you see we arent stealing from the hard working artist, we are sending a strong message to money hungry corporate record labels. The impact of a lost week of record sales will send a strong message to record industry yuppies. Let them know we are tired of being taken advantage of. We can help change the system, if we make sure our voice is heard. Send this to everyone you know. I will also forward this to every major and minor media outlet in the country. I will fax press releases to all 5 major record labels non-stop. I encourage you to do the same. </blockquote>
That's illegal...unsolicited faxes are bad enough (if not illegal themselves), but jamming someone with faxes like that is. Not a good way to get any boycott to succeed. No it won't - 1 week is 1/52nd of a year's profits. Not to mention that the majority of people are not even going to hear about this, yet alone want to take part in it, and the big 5 record companies are going to pay it no attention. That's how things are...and it's all a part of supply and demand. Whether or not you are supporting the artists or the record companies, downloading music off of those filesharing services is illegal. Most of us probably do it, but that doesn't change the leaglity of it all. Artists get their share and while it probably should be increased...only those that allow themselves to get ripped off are hurting.
No it won't - 1 week is 1/52nd of a year's profits. Not to mention that the majority of people are not even going to hear about this, yet alone want to take part in it, and the big 5 record companies are going to pay it no attention. Not only that, but if someone wants a CD and doesn't buy it this week, they'll just buy it next week. People aren't going to just never buy whatever CDs they would have gotten this week.
I rarely pay more than 10 bucks for a CD, new or used. There seems to be a lot of cheap CDs out there nowadays. Target always has about 10-15 brand new CDs for sale for $6.99-$9.99. If I am even remotely interested in something, if they're only charging $6.99, chances are I'll get it. To me it's a way of rewarding a band/label for charging a lower price. The only time I will pay more than 10-12 bucks for a new CD is if I think it's a sure thing, and/or it's an artist I am loyal to. BMG is a big source for me, and online used sites are HUGE. I have close to 800 CDs.
And what I realized a little while ago after I made my post - the people organizing the boycott are probably the ones who wouldn't buy any CDs anyway, preferring to download entire albums off of the Internet. If that's the case, such a boycott would have even less of an impact on the record companies than I figured. Supply and demand....companies sell something at a price the majority of people will pay for it to maximize profits. There's 5 major record companies...usually a monopoly consists of one sole company dominating the field. While everything may not be fair, especially for the independent labels, there's not necessarily much illegal about it.
Vengeance On a mildly unrelated note...I got the DMB concert CD's in the mail today!!! woo hoo!! can't wait to listen on the way home.. can't thank you enough...i'm definitely buying you a beer sometime...we just need to find a good time... thanks again!!!
<a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1023-244195.html?tag=mainstry">Sure, there's nothing illegal about price fixing</a> . . . On other, related notes . . . <a href="http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html">Here's an excellent essay describing the history of CDs and Price Gouging</a> . . . Hey, glad you enjoyed them MadMax!! Check out that Live in Chicago video -- Tim Reynolds is a GOD!!! Let's hope the RIAA doesn't pass its <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/08/23/1825233&mode=thread&tid=141">CDR taxes</a>, or this FREE, LEGITIMATE, 100% LEGAL hobby may get to be too expensive for me . . .
I never said there was nothing illegal with price fixing. They just can't prove there is any price fixing - and as long as people still buy CDs, the prices will likely remain high. Even with that - many CDs have begun to be sold for around $10 - and I've never seen CDs for $18 like some claim; typically, CDs are around $10-$14.
Most retail outlets like Walmart or Best Buy will always have cd's 10 - 14 bucks. However, check out a sam goody, or hastings, and other "specialty" music stores (that typically don't have a substantially better selection than best buy or circuit city) and anything that is not a new release is typically $16.99 or $17.99, even more, perhaps. Even the new releases are usually around $14 or $15. That's ridiculous. I always buy cd's at the cheaper retail stores, unless i absolutely can't find something, and it's available at one of those expensive places. Then again, i'd just as likely buy it off amazon or cdnow, too.
So they can't prove that there is any price fixing but as soon as 28 states filed suit the record companies changed their price fixing agreements? Hmmm... And what does people still buying CDs have to do with price fixing? It doesn't mean no one can afford the price, just means they're conspiring to set a price instead of allowing market competition to set that price. They're crooks, they're not stupid.
*smile* Actually, I've read a lot on this recently and I'm convinced of three things: 1. The RIAA is horrible. I've known that for a while, but it is even more apparent now. They don't give a crap about their artists or their customers. They are gouging both the consumer and the employee. They need to go down. 2. Napster was just another big business trying to get your cash. Services can argue they want to change the biz (and they are), but eventually, they'll be the bad guys too. When you start your business on the basis of allowing file trading you KNOW is going to land you in a lawsuit, your business plan can't be all that sound. I don't blame the traders as much as I do the facilitators. 3. Musicians are either lazy, stupid or both. Musicians and artists have the chance to hold the labels by the balls and demand better pay and better distribution. Yet, instead of taking responsibility for the very art that nourishes and pays them, they do nothing. Idiots. I think that, ultimately, there will be simply pay for download services that will bridge the gap, but until we have a re-birth of legitimate competition in the industry and more artists willing to go it independantly AND form groups to fight for better contracts, we will all be stuck with crappy CD prices. Remember that the industry is in the best position because their target demographic is 14-22 year olds. That is the #1 market for CD buying world over. Most consumer groups that boycott industries are made up of well-organized adults, not teens with disposable income from mom and dad or a part time job. For change to be legitimate and long-standing, it will have to come either from a dramatic change in technology, a complete reversal of capitalistic ideals with respect to the RIAA in America or artists who demand better for themselves, their fellow musicians and their fans. Given that I don't think any technology is going to quickly change anything (that happens slowly at the behest of companies like Sony - oops, they own record labels too) and that no one in America is going to demand that corporate entities like the RIAA change their policies (they'll BARELY do it for the energy industry and only because thousands got screwed out of jobs and money), it has to come from the artists and musicians. They have to have the collective balls to stand up to the RIAA or nothing is going to change. The courts won't do it. The government won't do it. The fans won't do it. Consumer groups won't do it. Only the artists have enough power to make real and lasting changes. That's just the sad reality.
I agree, but I think that with today's popular musical climate, the artists don't hold the upper hand. The artists who do make the big bucks for record labels are not the ones who are really musicians -- these are people who owe their careers to the RIAA. It's not like N'Sync came together and formed a "band", then were signed by the RIAA -- they were created by the RIAA. Same with almost all of the popular artists out there. Look at Britney Spears -- sure, she's hot, but she's a no one without the the record company promoting her. What's becoming apparent is that it's not quality of music that matters, but its marketing. Most people will listen to whatever is fed to them through the radio -- the same people who run the RIAA run the radio stations. And the current musical feed is pop. People don't usually start up boy bands in their garages -- they are scouted, and found by talent agencies, brought together, given publicly appealing attitudes, taught how to walk, talk, dress, etc. Then they are mass marketed and they saturate the radio. There is no way an independent group can do that. Not only do they not have the access to the radio stations (not RIAA), but they also don't have the giant marketing force behind them. The other large staple of current musical throughput is rap. I've always liked rap for many reasons, but I'm particularly intrigued by its local scope -- the rap music and artists people like in Texas are different from the ones who are popular in NYC. But most of the local rap artists are in a semi-niche market. You really need to follow rap music closely to know who they are sometimes, because you won't always hear them on the radio. I've never been compelled enough to seek out smaller rap groups, but my last year in college I lived with a guy who was into rap music like I'm into Dave Matthews Band (which doesn't just border on obsession, it's way past that!). I heard all kinds of unsigned artists, and stuff before it became popular. But now that we aren't rooming together, I don't really keep up with the non-commercial rap artists as much. It's too time consuming, and too much work. This is the thing though -- that musical climate will eventually change to something else. More than likely the RIAA will have quite a corner on it as well. BUT, in the past few years, independent, and otherwise unknown musical artists have become much more popular -- I believe it's a product of the internet. What is needed is for a few large artists to come out against the RIAA, and start on their own. But there is another small problem with that -- tour venues. Many large, big name artists tour. Some do it fairly extensively. But if they come out against the RIAA, they'll have a difficult time getting tour venues. Why? They're run by, you guessed it, the same people who run the radio stations, who are the same people who own the record labels!!! BUT, if a few well-known groups (who can stand on their own musical merits) were to break away, they could really create some noise. Although, they work on contracts, then they can't break that contract. Oh, and once they record an album, all of those songs are now owned by the record companies. I'm not an expert on this, but I think they would then need the record companies' approval to play them. The record companies' greed runs much deeper than any of us realized back when Napster was first being sued.
I don't think that is entirely true. I read an interview last year with a promoter/produer/RIAA guy who said that the industry is still dominated by a few very marketable stars. Eighty percent of their profits are generated by a handful of artists and many of those are long-term artists, not one-hit wonders. Pop music has been dominated by pop stars since the 60's. Even in the 70's, You Light Up My Life was the biggest selling song. Madonna and Michael Jackson dominated the 80's. Even in the 60's, people like Paul Anka and Fabian had as much chart success as any other artist with maybe the exception of the Beatles. The movement by artists and musicians has to start with the big names. They have to take responsibility for preserving the industry that so richly rewarded them. Plus, I think that it is very important that the long-time artists with some artistic clout are the one's doing the talking. Putting Sheryl Crow up in front of a panel might be ok for star power, but it can't have the impact Joni Mitchell or Eric Clapton would. They need not only the big stars like Madonna or Prince or Elton John or Sting or Paul McCartney. They need the celebrated artists as well like Bob Dylan or Lou Reed or Carlos Santana. And, I'm speaking only really about the rock/pop industry. Country is, was and always will be corporate. It is the nature of the business. It is like a factory where songs and artists are built and sold. Rap and R&B are entirely different animals. Both are built, first, on sales and promotion and second on artisty. That isn't to say they don't have artistry, just that they are fairly transparent about what they want. I mean, you don't name your label Cash Money Records for nothing. Also, this isn't about any of the other fringe markets - jazz, blues, classical. As cool as they are, they have no pull whatsoever. This is about the industry that everyone aspires to be financially and pokes fun at artistically: pop.
One other note: don't blame the labels for the success of Britney or N'Sync. They aren't the one's buying the records. Nobody put a gun to the heads of the millions who bought those records. Not to mention the fact that there is innovation in those recordings. Some of that stuff is not easy to do from a production standpoint. It's not Miles Davis, by any means, but it isn't Louie Louie either. Remember that I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Please, Please Me were two of the Beatles' biggest singles. They weren't exactly Rocket science. People like simple, catch hooks or jazz would be more popular. There is no stopping that.
This quote from Vengeance's article is priceless "Warner Music Group believes the suit lacks any merit," Warner Music spokesman Will Tanous said in a statement. "We continue to believe that (the minimum price policy) served a valid business purpose and benefited consumers by substantially furthering retail competition, and that it was an appropriate and lawful practice." To put it in context, Warner is saying that the RIAA instituted a minimum price policy to stop discount chains like KMART, Bestbuy and selling CDs at $10, substantailly undercutting your mom & pop record stores. The purpose of this is to keep mom & pop in business and, heres the killer "substantailly further retail competition" Last time I checked, the fundamental idea of cometition was to reduce prices. Here is RIAA artificially increasing prices in the name of promoting competition. I would never have beleived it if I hadn't read it myself. I think downloading music for free off the internet is wrong. I am also not naiive enough to think that price fixing and profit maximization does not occur throughout a capitalist society wherever people think they can get away with it. However, I do have a problem with the RIAA taking the high ground in a situation like this.
