Boy, but it sure took the RIAA •years• to figure out that suing fans (aka “customers”) wasn’t the greatest idea…
Yeah, now they use Spotify to rip off their artists and their customers even harder.
Embrace, extend, extinguish!
Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
61–66 of 66 posts
Re: Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would say that the music industry has only recovered in the last two decades. Do you have revenue numbers? (I don't.) > Internet piracy famously cut the legs out from physical album sales in the early 2000's No way. The Internet destroyed physical album sales. Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for piracy, people would still be buying CDs? The Internet also destroyed print newpapers, software sales on CD, local…
People online say piracy isn't a big deal because "the artist/band makes their money from live shows and merch anyway". But that wasn't always true. Before internet piracy, selling music actually was a viable business. Only when anything and everything became downloadable all at once did the bottom fall out of music sales as a viable way to make money. If piracy hadn't beat legitimate distribution to the punch, physi…
> If piracy hadn't beat legitimate distribution to the punch, physical album sales would still be a niche thing but a musician could live on digital sales.
How would current economics be any different? Would Spotify increase artist payout - why would they stop squeezing artists for every dime?
Re: Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
#63Boy, but it sure took the RIAA •years• to figure out that suing fans (aka “customers”) wasn’t the greatest idea…
How was it not a great idea for the RIAA? I understand how many fans / customers didn't like it, but I think people kept buying the music and the RIAA's terms and definitions like 'piracy' became mainstream (I think that was from the RIAA?).
https://www.theregister.com/2005/05/13/otto_rosen/
(Hillary Rosen) presented the notion of lawsuits against consumers that her successor Mitch Bainwol would turn into a course of action. Who among us hasn't wanted to slit the tendons of thieves and watch as they hemorrhage justice back to The Man?
Rosen, however, led a fruitless crusade that in the long-term was more of an attack against capitalism's progress than the defense of intellectual property rights.
Re: Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
#64Boy, but it sure took the RIAA •years• to figure out that suing fans (aka “customers”) wasn’t the greatest idea…
It was an absolutely successful strategy for them. It was traditional terrorism: they went after a few extremely sympathetic, small-time victims to show that they definitely wouldn't have any problem going after you. It worked, and was reasonably cheap.
Billboard had to recalculate its charts because so many of us stopped paying for what is essentially extortion (Jammie Thomas, statutory damages of $1.92 million ($80,000 per song, within the allowed range of $750 to $150,000).
Streaming didn’t kill sales, and yes it was cheap…and not in dollars…
Re: Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taylor Swift has demonstrated her genius as a businesswoman within the industry by simply re-recording her back catalogue as "Taylor's Versions" which the record company had no rights to -- also a badass example of a woman taking back control of her creative output from an industry dedicated to exploiting the likes of her. (Talk to a female musician if you know one. Women have few options but to let themselves be exp…
> Prince could have done the same, but AFAICT he never did. Wonder why? He might not have had the same rights to the music, publishing, etc. that Swift has. Also, his music relied quite a bit on production (not an insult; it's just the way he made music); maybe he felt he couldn't reproduce the originals or didn't want versions other than the ones he believed in.
[deleted]
Re: Telling Lies: Bowie and Online Music Distribution in 1996
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taylor Swift has demonstrated her genius as a businesswoman within the industry by simply re-recording her back catalogue as "Taylor's Versions" which the record company had no rights to -- also a badass example of a woman taking back control of her creative output from an industry dedicated to exploiting the likes of her. (Talk to a female musician if you know one. Women have few options but to let themselves be exp…
> Prince could have done the same, but AFAICT he never did. Wonder why? He might not have had the same rights to the music, publishing, etc. that Swift has. Also, his music relied quite a bit on production (not an insult; it's just the way he made music); maybe he felt he couldn't reproduce the originals or didn't want versions other than the ones he believed in.
Princes famous conflict with the label was because they has the final say over what material to release, and they allowed fewer releases than Prince wanted. So re-recording would not change anything.