Janis Ian Is Not A Fool
Published August 12, 2002
You rightfully skewer these people, but while they are the loudest, they are by no means completely representative.
What actually bothers many people are some of the complaints listed as question that you failed to address. Why do many DVDs cost less than many CDs? Take a movie that cost 60 times as much to film as it takes most CDs to produce, before you even begin to count promotion costs and so on. I can buy it on DVD at Wal-Mart for less than $10. Or maybe $15. Some newer titles are more expensive, sure, but after a while, they slide down the cost scale.
Albums cost far less to produce, CDs cost far less to manufacture, and most are not promoted nearly as heavily as the average Hollywood movie, yet they cost more from day one, and they never seem to drop in price unless you buy them used. Does this make sense?
It isn't really my business to tell an industry that they are doing a poor job running things, but since the RIAA doesn't sell can't-live-without items, and there are alternative ways of getting the CDs (like used CD stores for the honest or dreadully inadequate file-sharing programs for the less scrupulous), I don't have to patronize them, either.
In fact, I believe that it is the advent of DVDs and their increasingly popularity that helped people finally see how badly we are being ripped off. After all, various investigations by politicians into the RIAA had already declared that they were acting like thieves, and people shrugged it off. Then everybody started to see how cheaply DVDs could be produced, Napster happened along at the right time, and there is no putting Humpty Dumpty together again.
I mention this, Greg, not to defend piracy, but to remind you of the reasons that many people are upset at the RIAA.
Your specific question had to do with services such as Rhapsody and Pressplay. Why aren't they good enough? Because they miss the distinction between what people are saying and what people are doing.
People might say that they're using downloading just like the use the radio, but that's not usually the case. For that matter, I haven't actually heard anybody say that, so I'm tempted to dismiss it as a straw man argument of your own invention, but I'll address it anyway. Like most people, I listen to the radio while I'm driving. Can I listen to Rhapsody while I'm driving? No. I listen to the radio on my home stereo. Can I listen to Rhapsody on my home stereo? No. Only on my computer, and only if I have a relatively speedy unrestricted internet connection.
- Janis Ian Is Not A Fool
- Published: August 12, 2002
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Culture
- Writer: Phillip Winn
- Phillip Winn's BC Writer page
- Phillip Winn's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Chuck, so far Movable Type is the only TrackBack-capable blog out of the box, although various other tools are being implemented for Blogger, Radio, and so on.
Anyway, I appreciate the defense, though following the trackback above and then the trackback within that will eventually get you to a follow-up article I wrote after spending some time emailing with Greg offline.
Bottom line: Greg has found something that works for him, and while it doesn't work for many people, it has managed to sneak in under the radar, so people should check it out. And I'm sorry I was so mean to Greg. <grin>
"Why do many DVDs cost less than many CDs? Take a movie that cost 60 times as much to film as it takes most CDs to produce, before you even begin to count promotion costs and so on. I can buy it on DVD at Wal-Mart for less than $10. Or maybe $15. Some newer titles are more expensive, sure, but after a while, they slide down the cost scale."
Because CDs are the only way to recapitalize on the costs of production of an album.
Your blockbuster film can recoup much of its cost during it's domestic theatrical run, then export the movie to foreign theaters to recoup even more money. They can then get broadcast and cable TV networds to pay -- sometimes exhorbant fees for first broadcast rights, after the movie comes out of Pay Per View. And they can charge liscence fees for movies available at rental stores.
And then factor in how much more difficult it is to pirate DVD releases with current technology -- and, as importantly, current copyright protection measures -- and you can see how the costs of selling a movie on DVD could possibly, just possibly, be lower than that of an album on CD.
Er, CDs are by no means the only way to earn money from a musician. Many artists will tell you that they consider albums as marketing materials for their tours. Considering albums as promotional materials that often pay for themselves (like logo t-shirts) puts a slightly different spin on things, doesn't it?
Of course, it's by no means that simple, but it's certainly not as simple as you make it out to be either. Granted, there are more revenue opportunities involved with movies, but the scales are much larger as well. A movie might make back 95% of its total budget during the worldwide theatrical run and still have to earn far more than an album in sales and rentals.
Of course, it's hard to compare apples and apples, since the music industry is generally difficult to get information from, while the movie industry is more open about some things, but doesn't tend to include some of the costs that the music industry does, and so on.
Still, I think that it's an apt comparison, obviously.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10)
Heh. LiveJournal, as near as I can tell, is NOT a TrackBack-capable blog.
Either that, or I'm just clueless. :)
Anyway, see http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=drchuck&itemid=10023 and enjoy and stuff.
Bottom line: Phillip's right, G. Beato is wrong, but it's hella nice to track down G. Beato anyway. :)