1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can KaZaA replace the RIAA?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by IamZed, Jan 23, 2003.

  1. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    The RIAA hates KaZaA. To listen to them it is because illegal file trading is the sole reason they cant keep their investors happy. We know that is not the sole reason. The music industry continually attempts to take a factory approach to what is inherently a flighty and unpredictable market. It takes month for them to do what KaZaA can do in a day.
    I recall that 60 minuets interview with Rather and the Dixie Chicks when he informed them they had made the record company over $200.000.000.

    Emily Robison answered, "Hmm. You're depressing me because we see so, so little of that. I haven't done the math because even before we got our deal, everyone always said, 'Don't ever expect to make money with records. Records are a promotional tool that you use to be able to do live shows and make money elsewhere.

    It turned out the record company paid them less than a million apiece and they still owed four more albums. They have made quite a lot of money thru live performances, as the record company said they would.

    The record company provides the publicity and distribution of music. It is an expensive thing made totally obsolete by KaZaA. When a well known band donates their music to the whole world does it endanger the prospects of paying concert fans or increase them? If that is your only source of money, why not give the reason or enticement away.

    The purchase of recorded material on some solid form of media is near its end. That kills the distribution end of the recording industry. Information transfer is all they can control. Basically the carpet has been pulled out and there is no profit left if they cant control the free transfer of copyrighted material.

    So why should an artist copyright material at all? When I open a Rolling Stone magazine and see a best release review of something given free to the web, I will know the RIAA is dead.

    The problem is this: so do they.

    The intense actions they will take to prevent non copy written music to be freely distributed will be the last big chance for them.

    What do you think? Can P2P kill the RIAA? If those we like to listen to make their money from live performances do they need these beasties on their backs?

    Will we see the total death of the recording/distribution industry because it is obsolete?
  2. Stiofan

    Stiofan Master Po

    You have to realize how the music industry works. You're quite correct in that the big money for performers is in the live shows and performances. They share the gross with only the promoters. Recordings go to three entities. The publisher, the songwriter and the performer, with the performer getting the smallest share. This is why when a band releases a new album, you'll see songs written by more than one member of the band. Each wants that larger share of th songwriter royalties. Many bands have broken up over this issue.

    Publishers (the record companies) can keep more of the money from sales buy putting songwriters under contract or buying their entire catalog of songs for a fixed price. They will then own both the publishing rights and the songwriting rights. Another little tidbit is that the artist pays for most of production costs, not the publisher. They could end up with only about 35 cents of each album.

    The contracts most artists sign, except the largest money makers, is very one-sided. It si the price they pay to get their name out there.

    Now if you put all the music on the internet for free, obviously the publisher won't get paid, but how about the songwriters? A new mechanism would have to be developed to pay them. They don't work for free.
  3. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    I erased that one.
  4. eakes

    eakes Registered User

    The RIAA is a "dead man walking" unless they can devise a new business model that includes electronic distribution. Album sales were down again for 2002. The RIAA is having the blood squeezed out of them and their only line of defense is additional copy protection, abuse of civil rights and legal action against a few people caught downloading music files. This is not going to stop the hemoraging. They MUST put a new distribution plan in action if they are going to survive. They remind be of a single farmer standing at the edge of his wheat field trying to beat back the locust with a gunny sack.
  5. valgore

    valgore Veteran Member

    I am a serious collector with over 1000 vinyl albums and cds. there are many reasons why I buy an album, the music is the main consideration of course but I also buy for the album art and liner notes. I'll buy an album becuase it's by a certain artist. ( I still buy everything Paul Mccartney puts out simply because I own everything else he has ever done) I own many duplicate albums because they are on different lablels. I play the newer version and keep the one that is worth money safely stored away.

    now, file sharing has actually caused me to buy more than a few albums that I would not have otherwise and vice versa. The RIAA is not losing sales from me and other serious collectors. they might be losing sales from the casual buyer who buys maybe one or two cds a year but the loss is not as great as they would want you to believe. the casual buyer is not going to buy all those mp3's they download anyway. and lets not forget that for every million albums sold there are probably another half million that gets copied and given to friends which has gone on long before file sharing and the internet.

    the main reason their profits are down is because they are putting out crap! remember mettalica? where are they now? they started this crusade against file sharing and blamed it for decrease in sales but the fact is they started putting out crap and haven't come up with anything decent in a long time.

Share This Page