I had a lot of things to do tonight; I'm way behind in my dvdxcopy-testing. I had to can all that - you see.... I'm kind of angry. I saw something tonight that really bugged me, and if you haven't seen it yourselves already, I wanted to share it with Lasse (cd-rw.org), all music artists @ mp3lizard, and the general AfterDawn community. Do you remember the pop/folk-artist 'Janis Ian'? She pretty much began her career, I believe, in the early 1970's. I remember listening to her music as a young, pubescent Klingon chasing after all the girls. Last year (May 2002), she wrote an article for the publication, "Performing Songwriter Magazine". This article, the link to which I'm enclosing below, has [bold]blown the f-----g doors[/bold] off the precious, self-smug sanctity of the corrupt RIAA as well as another organization called 'NARAS' -- although I don't know exactly who they are, I see them described as the "Home Of The Grammy Awards". The one-time President of the NARAS, Michael Greene, I am not at all surprised to see, [bold]Resigned[/bold] after this article came out. After you read the article, you will, perhaps, see why. Michael Greene has, of course, been calling all of us 'blatant thieives', especially Live-On-Air during the Grammy Awards. Ms. Ian has given her permission for anyone to provide a link to her article as long as they give credit Which She Fully Deserves! to her WebSite at: http://www.janisian.com and I gratefully do so here. She is a singer/musician/songwriter who puts her money where her mouth is, and provides no less than 21 free mp3 downloads of her songs !!! Do you want to laugh, or cry, or rejoice, or wonder what this world is coming to, or rebel, or just plain [bold]puke?[/bold] If so, please see this: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html The article is called The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View. Just to get you thinking, here are a few quotes: * It's sheer stupidity to rejoice at the Napster decision. Short-sighted, and ignorant. * From personal experience: In 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've NEVER once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed THEM money. * There is zero evidence that material available for free online downloading is financially harming anyone. In fact, most of the hard evidence is to the contrary. * We'll turn into Microsoft if we're not careful, folks, insisting that any household wanting an extra copy for the car, the kids, or the portable player, has to go out and "license" multiple copies. As I mentioned, NARAS President, Michael Greene resigned as President of NARAS shortly after this article came out. Why? Well, you be the judge: NARAS quietly paid out at least $650,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit against him ... He's paid two million dollars a year, along with "perks" like his million-dollar country club membership and Mercedes. Sounds like a [bold]prick[/bold] to me. (OK, I won't keep you), but after you've cried a bit, see Janis's followup article: http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html Best Regards To All, -- Klingy --
I quickly browsed through the Ian's text and it look good. I actually wrote a university seminar thesis about digital audio distribution a couple years ago and made some very similar conclusions (like the micropayment for MP3s). One of the basic theories of economics, found in many basic level university school books, is that a black market is usually likely to emerge if the supply doesn't meet the demand. Computers, MP3, Internet, Napster, WinAmp, MP3 hardware players, MP3 supporting DVD players, MP3 playing mobile phones, etc, etc...many people have this stuff! The technology has created a huge demand. But the problem is that there is no commercial supply. Only few sites offer MP3s, often in too high of a price (you could just buy the CD) and/or low quality. So the demand is there, the technology is there - the supply isn't. The result - a black market. Only differnce is that in this market everything is free, unlike the real world black markets.
I have just read the articles and only wish there could be a present day higher profile artist that had the guts to back Janis in this. Todays artistes seem to be pre-occupied with their fame and not how their wonderful lifestyles are paid for. When I was in the R&R side of the business, it was in the days when tours did not look to make massive profits, but to use the tour to promote either the band or new album. I am extremely selective in what I go to see these days as for £30 I expect something very special. I have still not found anyone in the Record companies who can give me a good answer to the question: If Pink Floyd's album "Dark side of the moon" covered all its costs and made a handsome profit on its first pressing, why is it still selling at full price? Anyone know?
I guess it's like Lasse says, thargor. Supply and demand. There's little supply (mostly just P2P), so the record companies can get away with it. (Thanks for responding, guys). I know the articles were long, but I couldn't help noticing how [bold]utterly controlled[/bold] musicians' lives become if they DO manage to sign on. They become puppets. Their professional lives are forfeit, and their ongoing careers are totally dependant on the whim of the recording company. The more I read, the more it just shocked me. (I would loved to have seen your thesis, Lasse). Has much really changed since then? It's only gotten worse, right? Politics, Staggering Profits, and Corporate Corruption. (Someone should write a novel!) -- Mike --
Klingon, I think you totatally reversed my point: Technology has created a huge demand +There is very little commercial supply =The demand is filled with P2P, piracy, etc. Naah, the thesis wasn't much - some 30 pages or so. It was basically just an exercise for writing a real thesis.
Reversed your point? (Sorry): You: 'There is very little commercial supply'. Me : 'There's little supply'. (We're talking about music supply, right?) You: 'The demand is filled with P2P...' Me : '(Mosly just P2P)'. Oh, I think we're in pretty good sync, Lasse. The demand (market) was *always* there; technology (P2P) has just made that demand more obvious. The record companies just aren't paying attention. (They're either too stupid or greedy, or paranoid, or else just don't want to pay attention.) Thank you for taking the time to read part 2('The Fallout') from Janis Ian. What do you think of her proposal to the music companies? 'A Modest Proposal For An Experiment That Might Lead To A Solution' Her suggestion re. download cost: "I mean something in the order of a quarter per song." Your (thesis) suggestion on same: " made some very similar conclusions (like the micropayment for MP3s)." I think you and Janis are in pretty good sync too!!! I'm an old guy (but still quite handsome). 49. I will be 50 in June. There are a *truckload* of music albums I grew up with, (while going to school, etc), that you couldn't buy today for Love [bold]nor [/bold]money. [bold]Out Of Print [/bold] Sometimes, when visiting friends, either in their attics or basements, they have old, scratched, dog-eared, moldy copies of vinyl records that other old Klingons like myself would waste no time in downloading for .25c a pop if only the music companies would drag the damned things out of their dormant, non-paying vaults, and put 'em up for sale. Like Janis said the (old) Napster had once predicted -- if they had only charged [bold]just .05c![/bold] per download, they'd be scooping up $1/2 million US dollars per day, 365 days a year, just for old, "dead" music catalogs now sitting wasting away in their vaults, earning $0.00 per day. (At just .25c per download, that would mean Two And One-Half Million Dollars Per Day). Instead, all they do is just sit on their corporate asses and Piss everyone off. (Etc. etc......] -- Mike --
