Comments on: Why the RIAA Fails at Life, The Universe, and (especially) the Internet http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet/ Real Life for College Students Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:13:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3643 By: Nick Bernard http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet/#comment-451 Nick Bernard Sun, 09 Mar 2008 03:34:56 +0000 http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet#comment-451 Chris: Valid points, but I don't think it's entirely true. For one, many people feel obligated to pay the creator for something even if they don't have to--witness the success of the One World Cafe in Salt Lake City, where there are no set prices or menus but they've managed to become an institution. Also, part of the issue is that it doesn't really matter to the artist if profits to a degree. With the old system, the record label takes the vast majority of profits from album sales--the artist gets anywhere from a few cents to a dollar per album, depending on how successful they are. Most of what actually goes into an artist's pocket comes from merchandise and ticket sales to shows. The new model allows artists to cut out the record company. Let's say that, with marketing, shipping, manufacturing, etc. each CD costs approximately $3-5 to make. Now, a record company would sell that CD for about $15-18, and give a dollar or less to the artist. All that is required with a download system is the data and the marketing, plus server hosting; that cuts out probably 50% of the cost of production (75% for smaller artists), thus bringing the cost of each album distributed to $1-3. Therefore, even if the average cost paid for a digitally distributed album (either for a download code or from donations) drops to, say, $6, the artist still makes more money from album sales than they would have under the old model. The real difference is that distribution and packaging is now as simple as good upload speeds and a hyperlink to a server. Artists and consumers both benefit from the changes; the only people who lose are the record companies, who for years have been controlling creative content solely by virtue of their abilities of production and distribution. Shanna makes a good point as well; iTunes has managed to cut the cost of most albums by a few bucks, even while paying the record labels royalties, by switching to a digital distribution model. Chris: Valid points, but I don’t think it’s entirely true. For one, many people feel obligated to pay the creator for something even if they don’t have to–witness the success of the One World Cafe in Salt Lake City, where there are no set prices or menus but they’ve managed to become an institution. Also, part of the issue is that it doesn’t really matter to the artist if profits to a degree. With the old system, the record label takes the vast majority of profits from album sales–the artist gets anywhere from a few cents to a dollar per album, depending on how successful they are. Most of what actually goes into an artist’s pocket comes from merchandise and ticket sales to shows. The new model allows artists to cut out the record company. Let’s say that, with marketing, shipping, manufacturing, etc. each CD costs approximately $3-5 to make. Now, a record company would sell that CD for about $15-18, and give a dollar or less to the artist. All that is required with a download system is the data and the marketing, plus server hosting; that cuts out probably 50% of the cost of production (75% for smaller artists), thus bringing the cost of each album distributed to $1-3. Therefore, even if the average cost paid for a digitally distributed album (either for a download code or from donations) drops to, say, $6, the artist still makes more money from album sales than they would have under the old model. The real difference is that distribution and packaging is now as simple as good upload speeds and a hyperlink to a server. Artists and consumers both benefit from the changes; the only people who lose are the record companies, who for years have been controlling creative content solely by virtue of their abilities of production and distribution. Shanna makes a good point as well; iTunes has managed to cut the cost of most albums by a few bucks, even while paying the record labels royalties, by switching to a digital distribution model.

]]> By: Shanna http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet/#comment-450 Shanna Sun, 09 Mar 2008 01:53:23 +0000 http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet#comment-450 i think it's important to note Itunes' major success at rising so high in the media purchase industry as well. All it shows is how unimportant a packaged item is to people these days. Although they're still willing to pay money, instant gratification of media on your computer to use and share as you please is just too convenient to not succeed. i think it’s important to note Itunes’ major success at rising so high in the media purchase industry as well. All it shows is how unimportant a packaged item is to people these days. Although they’re still willing to pay money, instant gratification of media on your computer to use and share as you please is just too convenient to not succeed.

]]> By: Chris Mendes http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet/#comment-449 Chris Mendes Sat, 08 Mar 2008 02:06:40 +0000 http://www.collegebeing.com/why-the-riaa-fails-at-life-the-universe-and-especially-the-internet#comment-449 As always Nick, a wonderful and thoughtful article! My favorite line is "No-talent ass clowns like Ashlee Simpson or Nickelback will see an end to their corporate-sponsored careers"--which is so true. I love it! A few counterpoints however: I feel like the successes of the most recent Radiohead and NIN albums have been mostly due to their previous success completely funded by those corporate executives. Also, these two bands have gained a great deal of their money from people who are "donating" to them because of the change they are creating. The problem is that if everybody starts doing this, profits will fall dramatically. I'm not fortune teller, but my guess is that the only chance many bands have of making money is through these old means and annoying the hell out of us with the RIAA (who knows how effective that is anyways). As always Nick, a wonderful and thoughtful article! My favorite line is “No-talent ass clowns like Ashlee Simpson or Nickelback will see an end to their corporate-sponsored careers”–which is so true. I love it!

A few counterpoints however:
I feel like the successes of the most recent Radiohead and NIN albums have been mostly due to their previous success completely funded by those corporate executives. Also, these two bands have gained a great deal of their money from people who are “donating” to them because of the change they are creating. The problem is that if everybody starts doing this, profits will fall dramatically. I’m not fortune teller, but my guess is that the only chance many bands have of making money is through these old means and annoying the hell out of us with the RIAA (who knows how effective that is anyways).

]]>