I read the other day that the beloved Pandora will have to close soon also.

What is happening is that the royalty hike for internet radio has taken over 70% of their previous earnings and with SoundExchange proposing even higher rates in the future internet radio will disappear. Oddly enough, anyone could probably predict that virtually none of this money is actually going to the artists. Go figure!

Not to sound like a fuddy-duddy, but, this whole talk of "music sharing freedoms" is kinda cuckoo. Record companies invested money to make those recordings and, whether you want to agree with it or not, deserve to have final say about their investment.

We're living in the information age. Information, data, and all other kinds of intellectual property are this time's version of the proverbial widget. If you associate property with physical items, you're probably just as backward and outmoded as the record industry, just in a different way.

Bleh. Music didn't start out as being something that we all had to pay for. Music is one of the building blocks of our culture and society, starting from well... the beginning. I think the whole idea behind the music industry and selling music has gotten way skewed from what it should be. I get all the record label arguments and the money spent arguments, I just don't think it should be that way. That's all. Time for change!
IGshr*e

Although I had/ve a Muxtape, I think The Grim is correct here. I don't like RIAA's tactics of suing their customers and you can point to all the studies you want about how P2P filesharing increases t-shirt sales or how Lil Wayne gave away a lot of music through mixtapes over the past few years and still sold a milli(on) copies of Tha Carter III in its first week or whatever, but they still have a right to protect their intellectual property.

Does anyone remember this article from The Atlantic Monthly back in 2000? Apparently, there is a history of copyright holders suing to prevent piracy of sheet music - and Gilbert and Sullivan were the most aggressive. For sheet music! From The Atlantic:

ULRICH, it seemed clear, regarded the widespread dissemination of contraband music as a dangerous new thing, another anxiety-provoking novelty from the electronic age. In fact unauthorized music has been around as long as the music industry itself. Ulrich was not even the first musician to sue a business that he regarded as a cover for intellectual piracy. That honor may belong to Sir Arthur Sullivan, of Gilbert and Sullivan. Indeed, Sullivan's problems were, if anything, worse than Metallica's.

Like the members of Metallica, who are unusually independent of their record label, Sullivan was a careful businessman who forced the music industry to accede to his demands. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, when Sullivan composed his operas, the phonograph was in its infancy and radio broadcasts did not exist; the chief sources of music were churches, theaters, music halls, and the pianos that were prominently featured in most middle-class parlors. All these had to be fed large quantities of sheet music. In consequence the music industry was dominated by a group of big sheet-music companies. Sheet music was immensely popular -- hit pieces sold hundreds of thousands of copies. And the industry would have been even more profitable, its leaders believed, if it had not faced rampant international piracy. Bootleg Brahms and Beethoven were openly hawked on the streets of every city in Europe and the Americas. As one of Britain's most popular composers, Sullivan was a favorite target for bootleggers; he and his manager spent years fighting copyright infringement in court.

Yea yea yea, I get it. I still don't think that's the way it should be though. Call me crazy...
IGshr*e

I'll agree they have the right to their music, but I don't think it's smart to resist technology rather than embracing it. Back in the 80's movie studios were convinced that the VCR would severely hurt the movie industry. Why would people go to theaters when they can just buy the movie on tape? Turns out it wasn't as bad as they thought it would be.

I'm mostly disappointed when stuff like this happens because usually all the benefits go to the label and not the artist. Yes, the label should be able to make money from their investment, but a label should also be helping the artist that they invested in, not fighting against websites that are mostly helping their artists reach new audiences.

I suppose this argument applies more to smaller independent artists than it does larger ones. I mean how many people are actually discovering Coldplay or Kanye West through Pandora?

I suppose for me the issue isn't whether or not the RIAA has the right to do this kind of thing, but whether or not it's smart for them to do so. I mean in the end they could conceivably make more money by getting their bands music to more people's ears.

yeah, it comes down to the larger point (beyond the hypocritical Ulrich, who wouldn't have his millions if he hadn't encouraged people to pass along bootlegs of the band in the 80's) that the RIAA is just cutting off its own nose to spite its face. if you want to charge royalties, then you'd better not charge such a high amount that the entities giving the artists the exposure go out of business. suing the entities out of business rarely works well, either. that's the wonderful combination of bad publicity and no future money.

The RIAA thing is sad in the fact I'm a music blogger and I'm fearful of posting anything that hasn't been directly given to me by an artist or label. What breaks my heart is the last six months I've been listening and discovering classic rock bands, bands whose music is owned by huge labels. I'd love to share songs by these artists so that others like myself can learn about 'em, but I fear financially I'll take a hit even if I just want to share a song.

I think it's funny they're cracking down on MUXTAPE and Pandora which stream, even though there are thousands of blogs sharing full-length, CD-quality albums daily.

The RIAA is and always will be one step behind a tech-savvy culture. It's just a matter of claiming defeat and adapting after doing so.

@ Shrie - Yeah, I can get your point, but if we're going to go on the "things that need to be free" list, housing, heat/water, food, health care and education come in way, way, way, way, way before a luxury like music. Fact of the matter is, until workers of the world unite, yadda yadda yadda, we're stuck in this whole reality of paying for stuff. That includes music.

@ Jon -

The RIAA is and always will be one step behind a tech-savvy culture.

I diasgree. As I said in my first post, we're in the information age, and people need to realize intellectual property IS a type of property. It's the consumer's mentality that's outmoded as much as the RIAA's resistance to change, which, I'll grant, is sadly outmoded, too.