I’ve gotten a lot of email berating me for supporting the Boycott the RIAA movement and being so outspoken about the issue (and also about the new requirement of registration to comment – sorry folks, until I get rid of the spammers, that one is here to stay). The main point of each email is that stealing music is wrong and hurts the artists. I agree that stealing a boatload of music and never buying any is wrong, and that some people do that. It gives everyone else a bad name. But it is more wrong to punish everyone for the transgressions of a few cheapskates who wouldn’t have bought your record/cd/cassetee/8-Track/mp3 anyway.
The fact is that the internet is changing how we market things and how we shop. Where before we would have made our friends a mix tape or CD to share new music with them, now we might send them a file. According to the RIAA that is stealing. The fact is that without my friends sending me music to listen to I would not have spent the beaucoups bucks on music that I have this year because radio-ready music sucks donkey balls, plain and simple. Even if it didn’t suck, it isn’t to my taste, so I don’t listen to it. Friends are how I find new music. Here’s an example: a friend I know sent me a song by a group called The Be Good Tanyas. I played it, I loved it, and I bought their whole album online, including the song I already had gotten for free. I then posted that song that had grabbed my attention to an internet group with my recommendation to buy the album. I know at least two people who did buy the album, and TBGT‘s second album also.
This past year, I have purchased over 30 full albums and countless individual songs online from iTunes and eMusic, all stemming from recommendations from friends via email or online where they said “Hey, listen to this song! Isn’t it great!” and sent or posted the file. That is viral marketing in action, and the music industry needs to embrace it or they may perish in this age where any savvy band can be their own PR rep, producer, mixer, concert booker (just look at the phenomenal success Prince has found since leaving a major label and marketing himself for an example of how this can be done, or groups like the Barenaked Ladies and NIN who are also embracing the new music era). If that still doesn’t convince you that viral marketing of music can be good for everyone in spite of the few bad apples that haven’t bought music on or offline and wouldn’t anyway even without file sharing, maybe something else will.
The fight against the RIAA is about more than file sharing. It is about how they approach their industry and the people who pay their way (the fans). In an age when mainstream radio does not address the needs of people who like music other than the 40 songs currently approved by ClearChannel in any given genre, online radio stations have stepped up to the plate to fill that gap. Whereas ClearChannel does not have to pay to play the approved playlists, internet radio does. The RIAA has extended their campaign against music lovers and music by increasing the costs of playing music online to a level that the average internet radio station can not afford – as much as 150% of what little income they make (most internet radio stations are run by donations from their listeners, with only a few running any ads). Why? Why would you spit in the face of people who buy music by keeping them from hearing new music and making purchase decisions? It makes no sense. None of their tactics make sense – suing dead people? Kids? The elderly? People who don’t even own a computer? Getting an entire college to back their extortion tactics? Why are we letting them do this to us?
Still not convinced the RIAA is more like a mob enforcer than a legitimate legal organization? Maybe this will help. Everyone has been buzzing about the rise of free Wi-Fi networks in many cities and various locations like airports and the like. We’re excited about it because it allows us to work and play even when we are on the road. The cities and locations like it because it draws us, and our money, to their location to work, shop, and otherwise support their local economy – a win-win. Well, not if the RIAA has anything to say about it! That’s right, they are going after open Wi-Fi, trying to hold the owner accountable for what the user does, which would make open Wi-Fi too potentially expensive to maintain. Way to look out for your own best interests, RIAA! Just another straw on this camel’s back, as far as I’m concerned.
Hat tip to Pippa for the internet radio link.
Updated March 10, 2007 with yet another reason: Patent Office tries to declare file sharing a threat to Homeland Security. Yah, right.
Now Listening: The Specials Ghost Town
Tags: internet radio open wi-fi
Technorati Tags: internet radio open wi-fi
I’m personally responsible for convincing friends to buy about 500 dollars worth of Beulah merchandise (including the stuff I’ve purchased) all because a friend shared their music with me, and I’ve shared it with others. Sharing works.
Yes it does.
sharing is the only reason I know / have OTHER music outside my taste. (bought or shared)
You make the perfect point, when you said, back in the 80′s we’d make a “mixed” tapes for our friends. Now that tech is different, we still make “mixed” tapes, but just differently.
I would have never been exposed to certain music if other people didnt introduce it to me.
I have bought whole CDS because someone sent me ONE song from that particular artist.