The RIAA has been ripping you off

Twenty years ago, at the outset of retail CDs, the RIAA claimed it needed to charge double the album cost for the "new technology" CDs. I daresay they've recouped their R&D costs by now. I might even go so far as to complain that I've been Over Charged during the last decade.

We need to scrutinize the tiers of pricing: LP, Cassette, CD, and now pay-per-download MP3 all ascend in cost, but decrease in cost of production. You could even argue that they decrease in fidelity, too (yes, good old fashioned natural-sounding vinyl is still the audiophile's choice). If anything, they should charge more for an LP because it costs more to press. The last vinyl album I purchased was Perl Jam's Yield, for $7.99; at the same time the CD was $15.99. So why do they still charge twice as much for a CD than they do for the vinyl counterpart? And where does that extra money go?

It appears as though the increase in retail price is proportional to the ease of duplication and the longevity of the media. Hence, I believe that due to the difference in cost for the digital media, what the consumer is really purchasing is a ONE_USER_LICENSE to the music, and we should be able to back that data up to the best of our abilities. When I buy an new CD I immediately copy it to an extra CD, and carefully stow away the original. Should I have to pay another $15.95 when the .10¢ CD eventually gets a scratch? No. I didn't buy a plastic disc, I bought someone's music, and I should be able to listen to that music for the rest of my life - in my car, on my computer, or while I'm jogging with my iPod.

The record companies have stifled creativity and originality, forming alliances with MTV and Clear Channel to give the people one choice only. Because it isn't financially viable to create a variety of artists, the big 4 record companies rely on megastars for their profits, but ironically these artists cost a fortune to promote. Santana's Supernatural cost $750,000 to record, and $1,500,000 to promote. Radio today has been reduced exclusively to the stable of songs for which there already exists a music video. This one simple statement has broad implications to the industry and to me, the consumer.

The last few years have spawned a new generation of quick-to-rise artists who owe their rapid success to the internet radio, mailing lists, and mp3 file sharing. In retaliation to the RIAA's jackbooted methods and wasteful marketing business model, many artists are foregoing the labels. Janis Ian was the first that I'm aware of. Mega-superstars Radiohead just released a new album, on the honor system. That means you pay what you think it's worth. Even if you only give the band $5 for their newest music, that's still more than they'd have gotten from the record company. No copyright b.s., no DRM, no headaches for me or for the band.

There is no way to resist the new paradigm of internet spawned music artists. History recalls equal industry resistance to the VCR and the cassette tape, but home video sales lead the movie industry in revenues last year. If a record company can afford to sell an artist's music for $7.99 on a vinyl LP with massive material costs, there must be a business model that can allow for REASONABLY priced downloadable music. Allow for profitable diversification is the only answer, and it's clear to me that spreading the works of the struggling artists can bring real sales without large capital investments.

I think if the recording industry continues to push this new strategy of not allowing music owners to transfer their CDs to MP3s, then they must be forced to justify the difference in price of the various media that the music is available as.

Back To Top

David Byrne's Survival Strategies for Emerging Artists — and Megastars

Wired News

Sun Dec 30

0