Mixtape Conundrum Exposes How The RIAA Is Protecting Bad Business Decisions, Not Artists
from the figuring-this-one-out dept
Following yesterday's story about the RIAA using a local SWAT team to shut down and arrest a well known DJ for his mixtapes, it seems that it's kicked off an interesting debate in the major media. As many people have been pointing out for years, there are ways to embrace unauthorized copying, by recognizing that the content has promotional value. That's not surprising to many folks around here, of course, but you almost never hear that admitted by the media, who seem to have bought the RIAA's line that any unauthorized copies are "piracy" or "theft" (when, in truth, it's neither). However, following that arrest, we're starting to see stories pointing out how these mixtapes have played a huge role in promoting various hiphop stars, and many of those whose content is used this way are absolutely thrilled about it. The only ones who aren't happy about it, apparently, are the RIAA, whose quote for the article was: "A sound recording is either copyrighted or it's not," which actually totally misses the point. First of all, a sound recording is automatically copyrighted, so he's not even correct in what he's saying. However, the real point is that whether or not it's copyrighted doesn't matter here. The discussion is about whether or not the use of mixtapes is actually helping or harming the music business.What this is really about is the fact that the record labels that make up the RIAA wrote bad contracts. They wrote contracts based only on making money on selling CDs, not on selling music or the musical experience. Yet, the musicians themselves have recognized that there are plenty of ways to make money if your music is popular enough -- so they're thrilled to get any publicity that they can then turn into money (without most of it going to the RIAA). That is, via concerts, merchandise, sponsorships and plenty of other opportunities, and since none of that money is shared with the record labels, the musicians make out great. The real issue isn't about "protecting the artist" or "protecting the music," it's about the RIAA's bad business decision making. Of course, when other businesses make bad business decisions, they don't get to use the SWAT team to help them remedy the situation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a silver lining
Everyone else in the equation is operating according to classic capitalist economic principles as a Baysian utility maximiser (looking out for number one), except for one party who is creating the whole mess, and it isn't the RIAA.
The audience have their need for search, added value through selection and aggregation. They're prepared to pay a modest sum for music they like. The DJ has his service of selection and promotion from which he obtains the reward of notoriety/reputation and a platform from which to perform and earn a modest fee. The RIAA have their protection racket and operate in classic criminal style demanding money by menace on behest of the record companies they represent. Economically the odd man out is the record company, who has been replaced by the DJ, or at least competes with him. The record companies still try to operate in the field signing artists and taking a cut for promotion and distribution. But both of those services are available for better value elsewhere (through the DJ/mixtape network, netlables etc)
So if you're looking for someone to blame then oddly it's the artist. It's the artist who made the bad choice. In 2007, signing a deal with a record company is simply the worst thing an artist can do. There is no advantage, no gain or value to obtained by using a "recording company". They are obsolete relics of a bygone era.
Everyone else in the equation is prepared to work for a much smaller cut. It is the greed, or naivity of the artist who signs a record deal expecting big returns that ultimately underpins the entire feculent pile of poo. But the poor artist is lied to. They don't realise that the record companies are paid huge subsidies to *not* promote them, but to moderate/control them. By doing so they maintain artificial scarcity and a narrowly focused market under their control.
So, it's not that the RIAA wrote bad contracts. The RIAA don't write contracts, they protect the interests of people who do. The artists signed bad contracts. They cut their own throats in terms of promotion selling a realistic modest return down the river for the empty promise of a fortune.
Since the DJs have the greatest power, as brokers between the audience and the artists, the best outcome is that DJs become scared of using RIAA protected material. If they realise that they should only mix artists on Creative Commons licences that will close the final pipe that supplies oxygen to the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a silver lining
I usually agree and look forward to your posts, but I have a problem with something you said:
I think the statement is a bit naive in that it doesn't address the true state of the music industry. Most of the music outlets in the US are clearly under the control of RIAA companies, who definately represent the true brokers between artists and audience. Companies like Clearchannel control the radio stations, RIAA companies take up a huge section of the recorded media market, and 99.9% of the "undebateably" legal download sites are laiden with RIAA company stuff. I'm not saying it's right, but let's not delude ourselves into the notion that some guy selling mix tapes out the trunk of his car has anywhere near the influence of any of the big music companies.
As I read the comments I keep reminding myself (and perhaps techDirt folks need to as well) that we are a self selected group that probably isn't representative of the larger public that still uses MTV and their local Clearchannel station as their primary means of selecting what music to listen to. Again, I'm not sying it's a good system, but it's naive to assume a bunch of multi-billion dollar companies will quietly die off or that they will not use every trick in the arsenal. We aren't seeing the end of the RIAA conglomerate monopoly, just the start of the fight and I'm not sure they've even started using the really big artillery yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a silver lining
I hope that in the coming years ahead the A&R rosters at major labels start to thin out, then become downright anemic as new talent realizes that a "major label" deal will probably not make them any money, and indeed, injure their fan base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumbest mistake EVER
Without the mixtape (which has been around since the 80s), there are artists whom we would have never heard of. Soem of the most memorable/important verses in hip-hop were spit on mixtapes and not on actual artists' albums (Ether and The Takeover spring to mind).
Mixtapes are the only medium where hip-hop artists can be real. They don't have to format a mixtape to sell to a broad audience (i.e. white kids who are looking for pop more than true hip-hop). The mixtape is for the streets and is the only thing lately that THE STREETS aren't complaining about. Albums are watered down to the point where no one is buying them. But mistape sales are at an all-time high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumbest mistake EVER
And the RIAA is making their money. Cause they reporting back to their board of directors, with reports that they are doing something. That is how they get paid. And we have to remember, eventhough the board of directors are members of the record labels, these indivduals are very elite of them. They don't know shit, especially how their own label works and operates.
But anyway, everyone should check out this website, I checked it out, very interesting. www.HipHopAgainstTheRIAA.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOH!!
Either way, some smart creative genius is going to come up with an effective, reliable distribution and marketing model for world class artists via the Internet and the recording labels are going to go the way of the do do bird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DOH!!
Either way, some smart creative genius is going to come up with an effective, reliable distribution and marketing model for world class artists via the Internet and the recording labels are going to go the way of the do do bird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beat me to the punch
I agree with you completely. I'm a (very amateur) musician myself, and record songs on my computer with very inexpensive hardware and software. I occasionally submit songs to songfight.org which is a fun community of players that compete with songs based on a different title each week. Submission range from drunken and rough-hewn to glossy and professional. It's always a hoot - but it's also made me realize just how outmoded the recording industry is. (To call it 'the recording industry' is kind of inaccurate - it's more like the 'hype industry').
If a half-talented twit like myself can build websites and record my own music, what's stopping bands from doing the same? Why do they choose to sign away their profit and creative license?
It's because of the glamor of the entertainment industry. They're in the very big business of packaging, marketing, creating an amazing illusion, which influences all aspects of our culture: economy, politics, and religion. For most people (myself included at one time) Music and Movies are the high Art forms of our age, and effect us on a personal level.
Everyone wants to strike it rich on a beautiful vision and a guitar, gain artistic credibility, and be famous. You don't have to wear a suit (unless you're Robert Palmer) and the chicks are free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce Springsteen made more from five concerts than he did from all his music sales going back to the first release (records, tapes and CD's put together).
CD's fund the RIAA, stop buying CD's and starting buying directly from the artists themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ScytheNoire
Artists may not make much money from CD sales, but the CD sales fund future albums, promotions, hype, tv advertising, radio advertising... The recording industry puts the CD's in thousands of stores. If the CD does not sell well, then they will not promote future CD's and the artist will virtually disappear. Generally speaking.
"Artists don't make their money from the sales of CD's, they make it from their concerts and other products that they themselves own and control. Quote I heard a while ago:
Bruce Springsteen made more from five concerts than he did from all his music sales going back to the first release (records, tapes and CD's put together).
CD's fund the RIAA, stop buying CD's and starting buying directly from the artists themselves."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Precisely why the MAFIAA wish to stomp on them. By "real" you mean political/social speech. That is anathema to todays media companies.
Hans gruber: "If a half-talented twit like myself can build websites and record my own music,.."
Hans, imho you already display the qualities required for a modestly successful place in the new entertainments world. Good luck finding your path.
ScytheNoire: "starting buying directly from the artists themselves."
Mod parent up +5 insightful
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This looks like a shot in the foot.
"Radio Station Shut down for copyright infringement!" most bands get recognition from the fact that "some one heard them somewhere" this creates a an interest, thus generates the bands rise. I keep looking at the Grateful Dead who sanctioned recording and trading of music. I honestly believe this contributed to the bands commercial success. Of course they shunned the recording industry and started their own label.
On another note:
Does any one out there know of a list of that had current law suits and the artists that are represented? If not that should be a starting place. Boycott any one who is bringing these frivolous things to court. I think we have much better thigs to do with recourses we have at hand. to name a few homelessness hunger ... this list is endless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This looks like a shot in the foot.
www.boycottriaa.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummm yeah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thing to note, artists that are signed with labels never lose money on CD's sales. The vast majority of CD's that are released lose money. The financial risk is taken by the record label not the artist.
As was pointed out earlier, if an artist doesn't like the RIAA, then don't sign a record contract.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
riaa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing that is starting to annoy me is repeatedly listing merchandise sales as one of the areas that musicians can make money on. While it's true that do make some money off of merchandise sales at concerts, for the most part the merchandise contracts are just as slanted and unfair to the artist as the recording contracts.
Acts that are small enough to handle the sales of merchandise themselves can make some money off the effort (assuming they actually have a following). Once they get enough traction that they have to outsource merchandise sales, then they usually get screwed.
I agree that there are many ways to make money in the music business other than selling CDs. However, please keep in mind that merchandise sales are just as rigged "toward the house" as CD sales are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]