A site run by j_cabana where people rant rants about sports race sex girls news events health relationships politics philosophy music movies etc
Obsidian Potency 3.0

Obsidian Members-Only Area

Entry Calendar

««Jul 2008»»
SMTWTFS
   12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031

Search Obsidian Entries

 

Obsidian Mailing List

Civil Netizen


***ATTENTION***

Dave's company and product have officially launched!  Try out Civil Netizen and discover a new, zero-hassle way to send files from one computer user to another.   While you're at it, make sure you read about his company's philosophy. 


Next on the RIAA hit list: Cover bands.

posted Monday, 9 July 2007

My last post has been trumped by this article, I suppose.  It's the next step in the RIAA's attempt to get profits back to the obscenely high levels they became accustomed to over the decades.  

To me, this shows that the RIAA has practically admitted defeat at the hands of file-sharing and digital media companies.  Since file-sharing and online stores have left the public unwilling to buy artificially-overpriced CDs -- and since record labels seem unwilling/unable to accept less money for what continues to be an extremely exploitative, oligopolist system -- they'll force musicians and venues to pay whenever artists use their hands and fingers to play a song you didn't write.  Can anyone imagine a government in another country allowing this to happen?  And could you imagine the damage if the trend becomes widespread? 

At this point, the only logical steps left for the RIAA are hidden cameras in houses, mp3-sniffing dogs, and undercover informants.  I can see it now: I'll be playing the bassline to "Seven Nation Army" for a friend in my room, and RIAA commandos will bust in demanding payment.  How absurd.

I again return to the Law of Unintended Consequences.  Mark my words: the RIAA is biting the millions of hands that feed them...and there will be a backlash.  They won't make back the money that they've lost, and their profits will continue to plummet as they choke off all the avenues they've taken for granted all these years that have led to the growth of their industry. 

You would think it was obvious: it's very easy to sell an artistic, re-consumable commodity such as music if you let people sample it for free.  It's a lot harder when you force every single person to pay for something they aren't even sure want (or like) yet.  Would an amateur artist ask people to buy a painting without allowing the buyers to look at the painting first?  Artists all over the country are putting pictures of their work online in pictures to stimulate sales.  Musicians trying to make a name for themselves are making songs and/or even whole albums available to download for free.  Meanwhile, the record companies are doing the opposite.       

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit