Janis Ian Is Not A Fool
Published August 12, 2002
What do I mean by "unrestricted"? I listen to music all day at work, but if I kept a 128Kbps stream running to my computer all day, I would be chewing up two full channels of a T-1 all day long. My company uses a T1 which allows us to pay based on the amount of bandwidth we use, and just a single Rhapsody stream alone would chew up almost half of the bandwidth we are allotted at our current payment level. Because of this, my company has a pretty strict policy on things like streaming audio or file-sharing software, a policy I helped to write. At work, Rhapsody is not an option for me. In my truck, Rhapsody is not an option for me. At home, Rhapsody is only an option for me sometimes, while I'm near my computer. Fortunately, that is often enough to probably be worth $10 each month (which I currently pay to Emusic), but it doesn't solve my other problems.
What can I do about listening at work, Greg? I can buy CDs, and I do. I own over a thousand, and most of them were bought brand new. For the last few years, though, I've been buying used. I switched to mostly used before Napster came along, though. I switched because I started buying more books and DVDs and I can only afford so much every month. When I buy them, I immediately rip them into MP3 format and then burn them back onto CD, a dozen albums per CD. Now I can listen to them at work, in my truck, or in my living room, anywhere I want.
You're also completely ignoring the request most people have: Let us pay less!
Right now the choice is often between paying nothing and paying $16. Given what people know about the cost of producing the music and the media, what is the RIAA offering for the extra $16? Anything?
Do people need to brun CDs to evaluate whether or not they want a particular album? Probably not. That isn't the only reason that people download music, Greg, or even the main one. Some people might say it (though I've heard it only rarely), but their actions show that isn't it.
Janis Ian's proposal doesn't have anything to do with radio, Greg, and I think you should realize that. She is talking about the other reason people use file-sharing programs. She is talking about the albums that you just can't find at Virgin Megastores or on Amazon. She is talking about albums that the RIAA isn't making any money from even when they are bought at used CD stores.
- 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. :)