Perhaps the Best Argument for the Destruction of the Music Companies Ever Made

DymaxionWorldJohn

Cogitamus: The Music Industry's talking points: "Hey, we're obsolete.": via Matt, the RIAA gives consumers holiday advice:

Watch for Compilations that are “Too Good to Be True": Many pirates make “dream compilation” CDs, comprised of songs by numerous artists on different record labels who would not likely appear on the same legitimate album together.

So, if you see an album with all of your favourite artists on it, performing the songs you love, for the love of God don't buy it -- it's probably pirated!

, this is their press release.  And in it, they explicitly state that pirates are putting together products that people want more than the legitimate variety.  This, of course, is why teenagers should be sued in to penury, rather than something as revolutionary as the music industry putting together its own compilations that people want to buy.

Comments

[John Emerson]

The problem is a bit different. Each label is willing to put together mixed compilations of stuff they control, but pirates combine pieces controlled by different label.

For example, there are two Charlie Christian collections out, put out by two different labels. There's no selection or complete collection combining stuff from both of them.

See, private property and IP are the problem.

[Brooks]

John Emerson is correct. This is a matter of violation of IP -- a.k.a., theft. If an industry advising people who don't wish to subsidize criminality on how to spot it is an argument for the destruction of that industry, I'll need a few of the dots connected for me. Sure, the current industry structure and practices may not be conducive to producing one type of product that is in demand, but unless the headline was just meant as tongue-in-cheak, I'll need a much clearer and far more comprehensive argument/rationale to take such a conclusion/position (or the related contention that the music companies are "obsolete") seriously.

[Rob]

Well see there is absolutely nothing stopping those companies from putting out such a compilation and splitting the receipts. That they don't shows they are obsolete and non-responsive.

[Mike]

In fact, there's no need for the music companies to make that compilation; I can do it myself by buying the individual tracks from (e.g.) itunes.

[John Emerson]

I am totally in favor of criminality in this case, as Brooke probably knows. If I believed that the big labels had ever treated musicians fairly, I'd think differently. If they all go bankrupt tomorrow, and if their staffs are all thrown out in the street, and if their owners are reduced to penury and forced to sell their wives and children into slavery, great!

But I'm a realist. Not gonna happen.

[Ginger Yellow]

"The problem is a bit different. Each label is willing to put together mixed compilations of stuff they control, but pirates combine pieces controlled by different label."

And this is supposed to be the consumer's problem why? I'm certainly not advocating piracy, but if you can't see why this is an argument against the structure and practices of the music business, then you're being willfully blind. The whole point of American capitalism, surely, is that consumer choice drives innovation, competition and growth, and that the system maximises choice. Clearly, the music business does not maximise choice, to the extent that if you see a "dream compilation" you can be reasonably sure it's not been put together by the industry.

[Brooks]

ok, to update, John Emerson was correct in pointing out the IP issue, but I disagree with his position. It's not right for people to just decide an industry or company has been unfair to its suppliers -- be it the record companies or Wal-Mart or a car dealership or whatever -- and to therefore take it upon one's self to STEAL from such companies, to advocate doing so, and to actually claim some moral justification (let alone some moral cause). Give me a break. Since Napster and the like emerged years ago, people have been engaged in the most silly and perhaps the most widespread rationalization in history: that somehow their indulgence in the apparently irresistable opportunity to steal boatloads of music with no chance of getting caught was somehow morally justified and not even really stealing at all. Grow up.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I flipped through my son's Rolling Stone today.

I am pretty eclectic in my music tastes, but of the "top 100" albums for 2007, I could hardly stand to listen to more than a few, and then only if someone loaned me the CD.

Country, classical and jazz are doing fine quality wise, but of the three only country sells any mass volume. Hip hop and related are killing the business.

The music sucks.

[Brooks]

Rustbelt,

I agree that much of the top-selling music sucks -- and that has been the case for as long as I can remember (which is all the way back to the 70s). But to say that even lousy top-selling music is "killing the business" seems paradoxical (or is at least unclear to me). Kinda reminds me of something Yogi Berra supposedly said about a restaurant: "Nobody ever goes there. It's always too crowded."

[save_the_rustbelt]

Brooks:

Actually it was the Top 50 albums and the Top 100 songs - not based necessarily on sales, just someone's opinions at the mag I believe. Jr took off with the magazine.

And most of it sucked IMHO. John Fogerty made the list though.

Can anyone name the top 5 rock-and-roll bands? Is there rock-and-roll anymore (excluding the geriatric Stones, Zep and etc.).

[Brooks]

Rust,

While I must confess to not being too up on today's top (non-geriatric) bands (and by the way, U2 is great, but are they in your geriatric category?), I would say that some of the early/mid 90's music (which would have been considered "alternative" in the mid 80s) was darn good. As for today, Radiohead does some good, creative stuff (and coincidentally, or perhaps not, did something creative in the selling of a recent album -- I think it was offering it online and letting people pay whatever price they wanted).