Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 03-21-2008, 02:28 AM

So it's no longer yesterday evening (clearly), but I did say that I'd offer my thoughts for any who care to hear them. Here we go.

First of all, since we're not in Tilted Music, I think a breakdown of the players in this little drama is necessary. First and foremost we have the RIAA.

The RIAA was formed back in the fifties, with the original stated goal of overseeing something called the RIAA eqaualization curve. The details of this get a bit technical, but the short version is that vinyl records record some frequencies better than others and a bunch of industry leaders got together to create a recording standard that helped address this; the RIAA was the body set up to govern that standard. One would think, then, that since the use of vinyl has declined drastically the RIAA would have outlived it's stated purpose, but as we all know that isn't the case. It almost did happen that way, but cassette recorders in the 80's gave the RIAA a new reason for being. Suddenly consumers had the power, in their homes, to create copies of the music they purchased. The big players in the recording industry (then collectively known as the "Big Six;" Sony, EMI, Polygram, Warner, BMG and Universal) were very upset at this new development, as those around for those days may recall. The argument they trotted out then and have ever since like a tired pony is that piracy takes away from their ability to promote and nurture new artists, leading to stagnation in the music scene. Anyone who can compare the music of the eighties to today's offerings, however, knows this is patently untrue.

And here we find two other players in our little act. The first is the labels. They make a big deal about representing the artist's best interests, but this is generally a lot of noise. In fact, it's been found that in something like 95% of the cases where the books have been audited, the labels haven't paid the artists all of the royalties owed. I think I've ranted and raved on this subject in the past, so suffice to say for now that the labels don't represent the artists; they represent the labels, and the artists have formed an uneasy partnership with them out of necessity.

So! Onto the two cases presented above. First there's the RIAA vs Ms. Anderson. The background here is that the RIAA sued a Ms. Tanya Anderson for filesharing and attempted to hold her liable for something like 1500 songs to the tune of $750 per song. Needless to say this adds up to a lot of dough, but it usually does. The RIAA's legal strategy is generally to file a suit for an exorbitant amount of money and then offer a much lower out-of-court settlement, The defendant, looking at paying $1m or more if they lose the case, usually takes the settlement. Ms. Anderson however, did not and further it became clear as the case developed that she had no interest in filesharing, nor the technical ability to do so. The RIAA dropped the case, but really by then it was too late. Tanya Anderson filed a countersuit and that pretty much brings us up to speed.

I for one have no sympathy for the RIAA on this. They've been running this campaign of intimidation for years now, and Ms. Anderson isn't the first to suspect that they've been using illegal methods to do it. It was more or less inevitable that they would be called to task on it sooner or later, particularly when a significant portion of their victims claim innocence of filesharing to this day. They've been relying on the fact that a $1.5-$2 million lawsuit is enough to cow most average citizens into taking the settlement of several thousand and thus avoiding the case ever going to trial. The larger implications of this are very difficult to predict until we know exactly what the RIAA has been up to and for how long, but it's certain not to turn out well for them.

The second case is interesting, because it highlights the problems that artists have when dealing with the Big Four. The problem is that in the artist/label relationship the label has traditionally held all the cards,but this is changing and quite swiftly at that. Something like 25% of all music sales last year were independent artists and that number is on the rise still.

So big changes in the music industry, highlighted by these two major cases. Labels either directly or through their pitbull of the RIAA are alienating consumers on one side of the equation and artists on the other; this is their way of dealing with the fact that they're pretty much redundant in today's music industry. Artists are able to produce independently and provide the results directly to consumers, meaning that the Big Four have become pretty much unnecessary. I don't pretend to know what's going to come next, but I have an idea that it's going to work out better for everyone than the current business model.

03-21-2008, 02:28 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	So it's no longer yesterday evening (clearly), but I did say that I'd offer my thoughts for any who care to hear them. Here we go. First of all, since we're not in Tilted Music, I think a breakdown of the players in this little drama is necessary. First and foremost we have the RIAA. The RIAA was formed back in the fifties, with the original stated goal of overseeing something called the RIAA eqaualization curve. The details of this get a bit technical, but the short version is that vinyl records record some frequencies better than others and a bunch of industry leaders got together to create a recording standard that helped address this; the RIAA was the body set up to govern that standard. One would think, then, that since the use of vinyl has declined drastically the RIAA would have outlived it's stated purpose, but as we all know that isn't the case. It almost did happen that way, but cassette recorders in the 80's gave the RIAA a new reason for being. Suddenly consumers had the power, in their homes, to create copies of the music they purchased. The big players in the recording industry (then collectively known as the "Big Six;" Sony, EMI, Polygram, Warner, BMG and Universal) were very upset at this new development, as those around for those days may recall. The argument they trotted out then and have ever since like a tired pony is that piracy takes away from their ability to promote and nurture new artists, leading to stagnation in the music scene. Anyone who can compare the music of the eighties to today's offerings, however, knows this is patently untrue. And here we find two other players in our little act. The first is the labels. They make a big deal about representing the artist's best interests, but this is generally a lot of noise. In fact, it's been found that in something like 95% of the cases where the books have been audited, the labels haven't paid the artists all of the royalties owed. I think I've ranted and raved on this subject in the past, so suffice to say for now that the labels don't represent the artists; they represent the labels, and the artists have formed an uneasy partnership with them out of necessity. So! Onto the two cases presented above. First there's the RIAA vs Ms. Anderson. The background here is that the RIAA sued a Ms. Tanya Anderson for filesharing and attempted to hold her liable for something like 1500 songs to the tune of $750 per song. Needless to say this adds up to a lot of dough, but it usually does. The RIAA's legal strategy is generally to file a suit for an exorbitant amount of money and then offer a much lower out-of-court settlement, The defendant, looking at paying $1m or more if they lose the case, usually takes the settlement. Ms. Anderson however, did not and further it became clear as the case developed that she had no interest in filesharing, nor the technical ability to do so. The RIAA dropped the case, but really by then it was too late. Tanya Anderson filed a countersuit and that pretty much brings us up to speed. I for one have no sympathy for the RIAA on this. They've been running this campaign of intimidation for years now, and Ms. Anderson isn't the first to suspect that they've been using illegal methods to do it. It was more or less inevitable that they would be called to task on it sooner or later, particularly when a significant portion of their victims claim innocence of filesharing to this day. They've been relying on the fact that a $1.5-$2 million lawsuit is enough to cow most average citizens into taking the settlement of several thousand and thus avoiding the case ever going to trial. The larger implications of this are very difficult to predict until we know exactly what the RIAA has been up to and for how long, but it's certain not to turn out well for them. The second case is interesting, because it highlights the problems that artists have when dealing with the Big Four. The problem is that in the artist/label relationship the label has traditionally held all the cards,but this is changing and quite swiftly at that. Something like 25% of all music sales last year were independent artists and that number is on the rise still. So big changes in the music industry, highlighted by these two major cases. Labels either directly or through their pitbull of the RIAA are alienating consumers on one side of the equation and artists on the other; this is their way of dealing with the fact that they're pretty much redundant in today's music industry. Artists are able to produce independently and provide the results directly to consumers, meaning that the Big Four have become pretty much unnecessary. I don't pretend to know what's going to come next, but I have an idea that it's going to work out better for everyone than the current business model. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame Last edited by Martian; 03-21-2008 at 02:32 AM..