Welcome | Sign In
LinuxInsider.com
Tech Buzz

Big Music's Ambitions

Print Version
E-Mail Article
Reprints
Big Music's Ambitions

Jane and John Doe would gladly pay any reasonable amount for online music they could play on their mobiles or in their cars. But the labels are interested in marketing only heavily compressed, low-fidelity MP3 copies of original CD tracks. These are worth only a few cents, not the $1 per download being charged.


Last Thursday the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) boasted it had launched another 717 lawsuits against people who share music online, bringing the total number of those victimized to a shocking 8,423. By the weekend, however, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) had indexed a only a handful of links on the story, which didn't even rate a headline on the main news page.

Is it that no one cares that Big Music is raging through America in a hopeless effort to sue people into buying "product," as it correctly tags the formulaic tunes it churns out by the millions?

The RIAA is wholly owned by the Big Four record labels, who controlled what the world heard and bought -- until the Net came along, bringing freedom of choice and reintroducing the archaic notion that the customer Learn how SugarCRM will improve your business. Free Trial. Click here. is always right.

Big Music Bullies

The cartel is nailing university students, school kids, moms, pops and grandparents in America, but of the big four labels only Warner is American. The others are from Japan and Germany (Sony BMG), France (UMG) and Britain (EMI).

Big Music tries to claim that a download equals a lost sale and that file sharing is theft. But MP3s aren't exchanged for money, and it's never been vaguely demonstrated, let alone proven, that a download represents one or 10 or 1,000 lost sales.

Britain's The Economist has lambasted the music industry for failing to acknowledge the new, digital era in which the old business models based on physical sales don't work. Academic studies in the U.S. and Canada have made it plain that Big Music's "sue 'em all" campaign just isn't happening.

Of the 8,423 file sharers pilloried so far, not one has been proven guilty of anything. Nor has it been shown in a court of law that sharing music online is a crime. That's because those held up by the music industry as hardened criminals are in fact ordinary people who can't afford to stand up to the industry's teams of highly paid lawyers.

The labels always make its victims an offer: Settle out of court and we'll go away. And the victims always settle. They can't do otherwise, and this suits the labels. The RIAA can imply it's successfully sued close to 8,500 people for the crime of violating copyrights.

In fact, it's not a crime. "Infringe," not "violate," is the accurate term, and "infringe" doesn't convey the sense of criminality.

Jane and John Doe would gladly pay any reasonable amount for online music they could play on their mobiles or in their cars. But the labels are interested in marketing only heavily compressed, low-fidelity MP3 copies of original CD tracks. These are worth only a few cents, not the $1 per download being charged.

The record labels were once in complete control. But not anymore.

P2P is here to stay. The sooner the people who run the companies accept that, the better for them, the better for their shareholders and the better for consumers, who will return to the fold as soon as the cartel acts on the reality that this is the digital 21st century and not the physical 1970s.

Plenty of Power

They'll have lost the control they once had, but given their enormous political and financial resources, they'll still be at the top of the corporate ant hill.

They've succeeded in turning a substantial number of American universities into sales and marketing divisions with senior staff acting as willing and unpaid assistants.

Police forces and other law enforcement agencies around the world now routinely put aside matters of national importance to look after Big Music's interests.

Politicians accept money to act for it. School teachers are scammed into "educating" even the youngest children according to the labels' desires.

Surely that's enough?


Jon Newton, a TechNewsWorld columnist, founded and runs p2pnet.net, a daily peer-to-peer and digital media news site focused on issues surrounding file sharing, the entertainment industry and distributed computing. P2pnet is based in Canada, where sharing music online is legal.


Print Version E-Mail Article Reprints More by Jon Newton


Related News Alerts

Google Activate Alert | Search Archives

More by Jon Newton

Canadian Music Creators Speak Out Against File Sharing Lawsuits
April 26, 2006
"Canadian artists are deeply concerned, not only about autonomy and financial security, but also about creating, preserving and spreading Canada's unique cultural heritage," the Canadian Music Creators Coalition stated. "Laws that help to cede control over the Canadian music industry to foreign labels do not address these concerns."
Big-Four Fight Gaining Ground, Slowly but Surely
April 18, 2006
It's a given that the law acts for people with money. Ordinary people have to look after themselves as best they can, something Sony BMG, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Warner Music count on.
Foiled in France: Apple's New Tub of Hot Water
March 28, 2006
The French decision must be doubly galling to Steve Jobs because it may also stymie his efforts to introduce a hard-core marketing scheme that he's been highly successful with in the U.S., in France. Under it, Apple gets into major teaching institutions with Apple iPods and iTunes, which are presented as important teaching aids.
Don't miss a story -- sign up for our FREE e-mail newsletters and view the latest headlines at a glance.
Tech News Flash [ View Sample ]
E-Commerce Minute [ View Sample ]
ECT News Network Weekly Newsletter [ View Sample ]
Shortcuts
ECT News Network Information
Reader Services
Corporate
ECT News Network