From Slashdot and elsewhere:
A conversation about the RIAA
****************************************
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:13:44 -0700
To: David Farber <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: The Music Piracy Myth
Dave, I thought your readers might enjoy the following rant from George
Ziemann, who's been doing analysis of the RIAA members' own statistics to
argue that the decline in sales is related to their reduced title output and
higher prices, not to file sharing.
For the articles to which he refers, see
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html and
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/techno...30213_9095_tc0
78.htm
--
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: George Ziemann <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:47:19 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: The Music Piracy Myth
Currently, if you do a google search on RIAA statistics, I'm number one
and two; you are three and four, and your article refers to me, so I
know you know who I am.
The article to which you referred was published in December. Since that
time, a lot has happened, as I'm sure you are aware, not the least of
which being the RIAA's recent lawsuits against college students.
First of all, I am a musician. The only reason I even started
researching what the RIAA has to say is because of the problems I had
selling my own work at eBay, which were entirely due to RIAA accusations
of copyright infringement (it was my own CD).
After looking at the 2002 RIAA data, I also realized that over the last
5 years, the recording industry has shipped out more than 2 billion
physical units of product, adding up to a retail value of more than $20
billion. You'd think that they would embrace a free marketing and
promotion opportunity like mp3s. Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior
copy. I consider mp3s to be an ad for my actual recording.
My current consternation comes in the form of a letter from my
congressional representative, who states that "In 2001, record sales
were down 10 percent because of unauthorized music downloads..."
Yes, sales were down. Other than that obvious fact, there is no
empirical data to suggest that downloading is the cause of the problem.
I've asked the RIAA. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have
relentlessly taunted them in hopes of a reasonable explanation. They
offer none.
So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and
has been verified by SoundScan via BusinessWeek.com), the record labels
began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When
they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary
Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.
Because it was engineered.
Here's another interesting point. I can go to www.discmakers.com and
order CDs for $1.89 each. Not "replicated" but created from a glass
master. As I understand it, the current wholesale price for a CD is
about $12.
So how can EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (2001 -- at Hoovers Online) be 71%
of their income? BMG's 2001 annual report blames industry shortcomings
"long obscured by market success" and Vivendi told its stockholders that
an "anticipated lighter release schedule" had something to do with it.
BMG is the only one that even mentions file sharing -- as a
justification in investing in Napster.
Why does "sales are down 10%" overrule any other explanation for
declining sales?
A bigger question is -- Why won't anyone in the media even discuss this?
Recently I spoke to the FCC at a public hearing in Tempe (Phoenix area).
Next month, I'm going to speak at the DMCA hearings at UCLA Law School.
Additionally, I'm hearing from college kids all over (Duke, Auburn,
UCSD, Univ. of North Carolina, Yale Law School, Univ. of Wyoming).
They're reading my site and they're using it as background for
dissertations and reports. They ask questions. They do not accept vague
answers.
Why does the government accept the "sales are down" without any
consideration of other, equally plausible explanations? And why does the
press?
When the majority of the public is guilty by default, then something is
terribly wrong.
I'm not sure why I'm even writing to you, except that you seem to be
about the fifth person in the country that has applied some logic to
this issue.
I've written to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Commerce
Committee and Small Business Committee. I've written to Jay Berman,
Hilary Rosen and the Recording Artists Coalition. With the lone
exception of Janis Ian, absolutely everyone has totally ignored me.
What can we do?
------ End of Forwarded Message
------ End of Forwarded Message
A conversation about the RIAA
****************************************
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Tim O'Reilly" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:13:44 -0700
To: David Farber <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: The Music Piracy Myth
Dave, I thought your readers might enjoy the following rant from George
Ziemann, who's been doing analysis of the RIAA members' own statistics to
argue that the decline in sales is related to their reduced title output and
higher prices, not to file sharing.
For the articles to which he refers, see
http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html and
http://yahoo.businessweek.com/techno...30213_9095_tc0
78.htm
--
Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA 95472
1-707-829-0515 http://www.oreilly.com, http://tim.oreilly.com
------ Forwarded Message
From: George Ziemann <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:47:19 -0700
To: [email protected]
Subject: The Music Piracy Myth
Currently, if you do a google search on RIAA statistics, I'm number one
and two; you are three and four, and your article refers to me, so I
know you know who I am.
The article to which you referred was published in December. Since that
time, a lot has happened, as I'm sure you are aware, not the least of
which being the RIAA's recent lawsuits against college students.
First of all, I am a musician. The only reason I even started
researching what the RIAA has to say is because of the problems I had
selling my own work at eBay, which were entirely due to RIAA accusations
of copyright infringement (it was my own CD).
After looking at the 2002 RIAA data, I also realized that over the last
5 years, the recording industry has shipped out more than 2 billion
physical units of product, adding up to a retail value of more than $20
billion. You'd think that they would embrace a free marketing and
promotion opportunity like mp3s. Let's face it, an mp3 is an inferior
copy. I consider mp3s to be an ad for my actual recording.
My current consternation comes in the form of a letter from my
congressional representative, who states that "In 2001, record sales
were down 10 percent because of unauthorized music downloads..."
Yes, sales were down. Other than that obvious fact, there is no
empirical data to suggest that downloading is the cause of the problem.
I've asked the RIAA. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have
relentlessly taunted them in hopes of a reasonable explanation. They
offer none.
So think about this. As the original research I conducted indicates (and
has been verified by SoundScan via BusinessWeek.com), the record labels
began to reduce the number of releases BEFORE the Napster hearings. When
they went in front of Congress to complain about downloading, Hilary
Rosen could confidently state that sales were going to suffer.
Because it was engineered.
Here's another interesting point. I can go to www.discmakers.com and
order CDs for $1.89 each. Not "replicated" but created from a glass
master. As I understand it, the current wholesale price for a CD is
about $12.
So how can EMI's Cost of Goods Sold (2001 -- at Hoovers Online) be 71%
of their income? BMG's 2001 annual report blames industry shortcomings
"long obscured by market success" and Vivendi told its stockholders that
an "anticipated lighter release schedule" had something to do with it.
BMG is the only one that even mentions file sharing -- as a
justification in investing in Napster.
Why does "sales are down 10%" overrule any other explanation for
declining sales?
A bigger question is -- Why won't anyone in the media even discuss this?
Recently I spoke to the FCC at a public hearing in Tempe (Phoenix area).
Next month, I'm going to speak at the DMCA hearings at UCLA Law School.
Additionally, I'm hearing from college kids all over (Duke, Auburn,
UCSD, Univ. of North Carolina, Yale Law School, Univ. of Wyoming).
They're reading my site and they're using it as background for
dissertations and reports. They ask questions. They do not accept vague
answers.
Why does the government accept the "sales are down" without any
consideration of other, equally plausible explanations? And why does the
press?
When the majority of the public is guilty by default, then something is
terribly wrong.
I'm not sure why I'm even writing to you, except that you seem to be
about the fifth person in the country that has applied some logic to
this issue.
I've written to every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Commerce
Committee and Small Business Committee. I've written to Jay Berman,
Hilary Rosen and the Recording Artists Coalition. With the lone
exception of Janis Ian, absolutely everyone has totally ignored me.
What can we do?
------ End of Forwarded Message
------ End of Forwarded Message
Comment