When Pigs Fly - A Brief History of Record Industry Suicide

[MCSmarties]

Read the blog here and please help spread the word!!

[Cigar Jockey]

At this point I'd would rather pay on an artist's website for the d/l of an album as I have a wall of cd's which just collect dust.
Imo this would cut back the time a cd hits the market, and the money would hopefully go straight to the artist.

[muziq]

This is a thoughtful blog that covers many viewpoints, but still fails in its privileging of the consumer-as-revolutionary perspective; the underlying premise is that consumers have an entitlement to music--more of it now than at any time in the past. Also out of balance in the blog is the positioning of art ownership--again, the perspective of the consumer is given primacy over the artist or the label. As much as I share the opinion that a label shouldn't own (i.e. be the lead agent in recovering $$ for all exchanges of musical art) music at the expense of the artist, I also don't by the blogger's line that Radiohead should be faulted or otherwise lambasted for offering lower-quality digital downloads in advance of the physical album release as a means of maintaining control over the distribution of their art. The artist--as creator of the music--should have the right to do whatever they choose with their art, in my opinion, and should be the ones to control price, distribution, format, etc. Consumers are just that--consumers--and if they're not willing to pay the prices set by the market, then that's just tough. Sure, major record labels are disintegrating under the pressure of technology innovations that are destroying their control mechanism (i.e. the combined manufacturing/press/distribution network), but is anyone surprised that in a capitalist society a business entity would do anything--and everything--in its power to maintain its fiscal health and well being? No, we shouldnt' be. Just like we shouldn't be surprised by the mother who, when her child is threatened by another human, may lash out with deadly force and vengance to protect that child which she views as her possession.

I'm all for consumer rights and shifting the balance of power away from corporations, but the consumers are hardly the martyrs in the music world. Instead, the new breed is more like addicts, going to desperate and illegal lengths to get what they need. I have a physical music collection of thousands of releases, and I've paid for each and every one of them. I don't feel like I have a right to anything I haven't paid for, regardless of how cool it might be, or however much I might want it.

[muziq]

OiNKers rejoice: http://waffles.fm/

I'm not advocating it, though...

[gvarsity]

Originally Posted by muziq

This is a thoughtful blog that covers many viewpoints, but still fails in its privileging of the consumer-as-revolutionary perspective; the underlying premise is that consumers have an entitlement to music--more of it now than at any time in the past. Also out of balance in the blog is the positioning of art ownership--again, the perspective of the consumer is given primacy over the artist or the label. As much as I share the opinion that a label shouldn't own (i.e. be the lead agent in recovering $$ for all exchanges of musical art) music at the expense of the artist, I also don't by the blogger's line that Radiohead should be faulted or otherwise lambasted for offering lower-quality digital downloads in advance of the physical album release as a means of maintaining control over the distribution of their art. The artist--as creator of the music--should have the right to do whatever they choose with their art, in my opinion, and should be the ones to control price, distribution, format, etc. Consumers are just that--consumers--and if they're not willing to pay the prices set by the market, then that's just tough. Sure, major record labels are disintegrating under the pressure of technology innovations that are destroying their control mechanism (i.e. the combined manufacturing/press/distribution network), but is anyone surprised that in a capitalist society a business entity would do anything--and everything--in its power to maintain its fiscal health and well being? No, we shouldnt' be. Just like we shouldn't be surprised by the mother who, when her child is threatened by another human, may lash out with deadly force and vengance to protect that child which she views as her possession.

I'm all for consumer rights and shifting the balance of power away from corporations, but the consumers are hardly the martyrs in the music world. Instead, the new breed is more like addicts, going to desperate and illegal lengths to get what they need. I have a physical music collection of thousands of releases, and I've paid for each and every one of them. I don't feel like I have a right to anything I haven't paid for, regardless of how cool it might be, or however much I might want it.

I have to disagree on a couple of points. This would largely apply if the large music distributors were trading in good faith. It is pretty clear that the four major labors have illegally conspired to keep the cost of popular music artificially elevated since the late 70's. Just because it hasn't been proven in a court of law does not make it untrue. Consider the fact that the cost of production declined when technology moved from tapes to compact discs. It was quoted many times by the industry in that period that music/album prices would go up temporarily months to a couple of years until the cost of the new pressing facilities was recovered and then cost would decrease. CD prices have remained the same or even gone up over the intervening 30 years. That can only happen if the four major labels agreed to not lower the price of new releases. Thus the implied collusion. The music industry is not only trying just to survive or to protect it's content but also trying to stifle innovation by using the courts and lobbyists to get legislation passed to attempt to legally institutionalize an illegal monopoly. For all of the free marketeers out there this is clearly an issue of a closed market. The market is clearly saying that the music is overpriced and demanding a more efficient delivery system yet rather than responding to those market forces they are trying to as I said earlier sue and /or legislate them away. I agree that the moral righteousness of downloaders is misplaced but as was stated in the blog had the music industry innovated instead of attacked it's customers they could have probably increased profits over the long term rather than effectively destroyed their own industry. In his main thesis the author was correct. The genie is out of the bottle. As the telephone came in the telegram companies had to evolve and find other products and services to survive. The arrogance and hubris of the music industry led them down another path. They tried to dictate to the market and were spurned. IMHO.

[muziq]

Gvarsity--I think we're largely on the same page: I don't condone the majors collusion to keep prices high, and I agree that they've made the bed they're burning in right now. That, however, is no justification for the consumer mindset of taking music without paying for it (my opinion). That's what I'm reacting to. But even if we don't see eye to eye on that point, I agree that the labels are screwing themselves.

At any rate, The Dark One recently weighed in on this: http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment..._williams.html

Interesting excerpt:

What do you think about OiNK being shut down?
Trent: I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it — they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want.