RSS
Add to Chrome
HBO Making RIAA “Self-Destruction” Film

HBO Making RIAA “Self-Destruction” Film

Adaptation of the book “Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age” by music journalist Steve Knopper will chronicle the rise and fall of the US music industry.

Many are well aware of the music industry’s long history of ignoring music fans and now it seems that HBO Films has decided to produce a movie that chronicles its shortcomings.

According to the Hollywood Reporter it will be based on the book “Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age” by music journalist Steve Knopper.

The book covers some 30yrs of the music industry’s missteps beginning with the disco craze back in the late 1970s, through the CD craze of the late 1980s and 1990s, its battle with Shawn Fanning’s Napster in the late 1990s and other P2P applications since then, to the rise of digital downloads replacing physical CD sales.

It should be a good movie to watch if for no other reason than to see precisely how short-sighted and ignorant the music industry really is. Every time a consumer seems to want a product or service its response is automatically no and only has a change of heart when declining sales force its hand.

It was true of digital downloads, streaming music, and DRM.

Add to that the fact that all along the way, to this very day, suing file-sharing customers has been an essential component of its overall business strategy.

Demanding thousands of dollars for a few hundred dollars or less worth of illegally downloaded music has only served to turn off music fans, and encouraged them to look for alternative ways to support artists without putting money in the pockets of the record label that targeted them.

Instead of targeting the real pirates in the world who siphon profits from the music industry with physical bootleg CDs it decided to target mainly college students whose intent is not to make money, but only to share and enjoy music.

If only the music industry could tell the difference and stop telling everyone there isn’t.

Stay tuned.

[email protected]

Jared Moya
I've been interested in P2P since the early, high-flying days of Napster and KaZaA. I believe that analog copyright laws are ill-suited to the digital age, and that art and culture shouldn't be subject to the whims of international entertainment industry conglomerates. Twitter | Google Plus
Wilson
Wilson

SoulXTC, Come on guys. Nothing is free. Call filesharing what it is...stealing. Don't try to dress up a duck in a brown paper bag and call it Coco Chanel. Precisely, it's amazing how these thieving broke a#$, geek idiots, don't seem to realize that they are hurting the very companies that are producing the very material they feel worthy of stealing in the first dam place; music, video's whatever. BROKE LOSERS. So stop making making excuses and pretend there is nothing wrong with the "hey dude, whats the problem?" dum sh$t. Its the pretty simple, Unplug you thieving f#$ks, go get a job, maybe a girlfriend, and learn to pay for the material you spend your days stealing, instead of getting laid or actually learing how to run a company. Period. And f$%k your capitalistic, anti-establishment stand, no one cares. Your a thief and a loser pure and simple and should be dealt with severely when caught. But since your broke, and there is no money to be had from catching your sorry asses in your parents basement, a stiff jail sentence and your butt being stretched wider than a DVD by your cell mates should do the trick.

D.AN
D.AN

“[...] ideologically motivated free software activists … ” Which ideology that? I suppose you don’t even know. “… people that use DRM as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway, which is download the product wihtout paying for it” You obviously don’t know DRM and are just making up garbage. “Both Apple and Amazon are without DRM on their songs, and the tide hasn’t shifted any.” Using DRM would be detrimental to a business, but this does not go the other way around.

D.AN
D.AN

"[...] ideologically motivated free software activists ... " Which ideology that? I suppose you don't even know. "... people that use DRM as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway, which is download the product wihtout paying for it" You obviously don't know DRM and are just making up garbage. "Both Apple and Amazon are without DRM on their songs, and the tide hasn't shifted any." Using DRM would be detrimental to a business, but this does not go the other way around.

Jordan
Jordan

I would love to see this movie. I hope it is neutral and balanced though, I would hate to see another propaganda piece but at the same time I would love to see the music industry's POV. LOL @ no comments on here even mentioning the movie

streamOG
streamOG

SoulXTC, Come on guys. Nothing is free. Call filesharing what it is...stealing. Don't try to dress up a duck in a brown paper bag and call it Coco Chanel. It's clear the music business has much bigger issues than DRM. Obviously iTunes killed the value of music. Video on the other hand has not run from the few vocal minority that think DRM is out to hurt them or prevent them from exercising rights they have. That's why there have been zero consumer lawsuits on file-level DRM for audio and video. The law is clear. I agree that users should have the ability to enjoy purchased music where they like and DRM is not going to be the save all for that industry. But let's be clear, DRM doesn't make someone steal.

p2p
p2p

I would rather use www.emule-project.net & get my stuff free. I do support the music business though because I listen to the radio when I am driving in my car. Most of the time I only hear ads mostly though so i switch channels & every once in a while I will hear something worth listening too. Most of the time I don't mostly ads/talk.

joe brooks
joe brooks

@streamOG....it goes BOTH WAYS buddy! If you think for a moment that it is right to put DRM on something like DRM'd audio and then when a site goes down, the people that bought those subscriptions are out of luck...you had better think again! If you stupidly call that fair, I don't know what planet you live on, but on earth it would be be called an UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICE! I am NOT talking about itunes, I am taking about the other DRM'd sites that were glad enough to take peoples money, until they decided they did not want to host the files anymore and POOF...... the content people purchased was gone! If you think that kind of DRM is fine, then you also have to say that people are stupid and ignorant and can only believe what is fed to them! I do not think that is so, but you apparently do. The reason p2p was in exsistance in the first place was NOT about what you call stealing! It was about people coming together to enjoy great music. But then again, you have already been tied in to a site that loves DRM so what else can we expect from you besides trash talk?

D.AN
D.AN

It seems that you are indeed making your arguments purely out of commercial interest.

D.AN
D.AN

Given that your comment name links to a site called buydrm, it is hard to believe that you are making rather feeble arguments not out of commercial interest. "... they didn't have to do anything." But they did anyway. "... and look for the business reasons why or why not a company would do something." There may be other reasons leading to the business decision not even apparent to the company itself, whether those reasons are relevant to the company or not.

streamOG
streamOG

SoulXTC, Actually DRM is about content owners doing what they can to enforce their copyrights as much as they can. For the 100M consumers that bought encrypted video from iTunes, they didn't feel forgotten. They also didn't go and steal the content as a first attempt at acquiring it either. We can agree to disagree on how and why DRM is in play but let's not go down the slippery slope of saying if we don't like something as a consumer, it's ok to break the law in return right?

streamOG
streamOG

Jared, Apple only did that so they could extend their customer base out beyond the iPod. It had absolutely zero to do with their perception about their offering. Given they were totally dominating the music space, they didn't have to do anything. Consumers were not avoiding iTunes because of DRM. And to support that point, since there is zero competition for portable video beyond the iPod, Apple will continue to use DRM on the hundreds of millions of videos they sell just like Microsoft XBox Live Marketplace, and NetFlix Stream Now and Sony Video Store etc. You have to look beyond the emotional headlines and look for the business reasons why or why not a company would do something.

streamOG
streamOG

Jared, DRM didn't kill the music industry any more than it made the movie/video industry. You can't say consumers didn't want DRM while iTunes sells 500M TV Shows and Movies per year with DRM.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

Strange, the most expletive argument comes from the supposed mature, well rounded, informed individual. Would you care to elaborate on how filesharing has harmed the industry when independent studies are showing the contrary. People have a budgeted entertainment budget, that money is still the same, and some studies show it growing. CD sales are down, but the overall music industry was found to be growing in revenue, the money has simply shifted to concert revenue. The movie industry has posted record sales for the last decade. What is this loss you speak of, and who are these broke losers. Off the top of my head I know of two studies that showed the heaviest file sharers were the biggest content purchasers, this was done for the Canadian government. Those filesharers must be cheap to be the biggest purchasing demographic. Grow up, educate yourself, and learn the reality of the industry. If you want to talk smack, back it up with logic, and not some preschool cry fest.

D.AN
D.AN

You are the most retarded random commenter that has appeared in ages here.

D.AN
D.AN

This was to you malgre.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_pro... Guess you didn't follow the Sony rootkit fiasco. Mind you they were sued for other reasons behind the drm but that is beyond the point. DRM in its essence destroys competition, and limits consumer choice. Consumers get frustrated by it, and you have no guarantee that your files will always work. The more system that come out and collapse the more consumers will get sick and tired of DRM. Its also infective at preventing piracy, since I can tell you now that it will always be possible to create an analogue copy of the file. In fact I already know how to bypass any current and future DRM. So what exactly is the value in locking in consumers?

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

The people that complain about DRM are from two grousp, the first consists of ideologically motivated free software activists, and the second are people that use DRM as an excuse to do what they were going to do anyway, which is download the product wihtout paying for it. Both Apple and Amazon are without DRM on their songs, and the tide hasn't shifted any.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

DRM for the most part is the ire of consumers, and most would be much happier not having their content locked down. It eliminates interoperability, forces you into one companies hardware, and should the verification servers collapse, destroys your purchase. SOUNDS LIKE A BRILLIANT IDEA! Lets take digital content distribution, which could eliminate the format wars and create from it a format wars! I would go so far as to say that it should be illegal for anti competition rules, since it monopolizes markets. As it stands, if DRM continues to propagate the way it is, it will unfairly disadvantage Linux as a viable computing platform, for no other reason that to attempt to protect something that is impossible to lock down indefinitely. No matter how you build hardware, I can always tap video at the exit point to the lcd, can tap into a speaker at the electrical connector to the speaker itself, anything that can be seen or heard can be copied. DRM is just a needless hurdle for consumers, imposed on them by marketing fools.

soulxtc
soulxtc

Exactly. It has everything to do with copyright holders and nothing to do with consumers. "enforcing it as much as they can" is precisely why the music industry has "self-destructed." It doesnt care about giving consumers what they want.

soulxtc
soulxtc

? If you're trying to lure customers away from a system like P2P where content is free and copyright holders dont see a dime, why would you try and convince them to pay for an inferior product? DRM is all about control, and consumers are rightly angry that they are being asked to pay for a product that they never truly own, not to mention the fact that they are also being told when and how they can play purchased music. Its indefensible, especially when again, you're trying to convince people to acquire music legally. Why would they want all the hassle?

soulxtc
soulxtc

No single thing has killed the music industry. DRM is simply part of its pattern of ignoring consumers. Also, DRM for TV shows and movies is not even part of the conversation here, but that too is why people turn to illegal file-sharing for content.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

What is so ideological about free software, it is a legitimate business that generates significant income. Red Hat sold 174 million $ over the last quarter, yet it is free software. Firefox also generates millions of dollars in search contract revenue with google, and that is only one of what I'm sure are many revenue streams. Even Microsoft uses "free" software in their operating system. From what I gather you are just an ultra capitalist that believes everything should come at a price, and that free products are the scourge of the universe. But the reality is that it isn't, and many people can generate profits while giving products away for free, and even prefer to do so. I'd go even so far as to say that the profits generated from these models reflects more the general work / compensation curve that would be expected from society. Copyright and patent laws have simply created a culture where people expect huge profits for minimal work, and feel entitled to those profits. Well I'm against runaway profits generated on the backs of society being protected by politicians being paid off to pass laws that enable it. Not only because it leads to large wage gaps between the classes, but it also destabilizes economies, and comes at a price to society.

D.AN
D.AN

Time and time again, you are using both irrelevant as well as false arguments right after stating the obvious, malgre.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

Nice, but you didn't refute my point that free software is not an ideology, its a reality. You just completely side stepped what I was arguing. You have also yet to point out how me pirating software I wouldn't have purchased at the asking price is harming the industries. Did they loose money from my actions? How is this taking away their livelihood?

malcolm hume
malcolm hume

Red hat is not free software, but parts of it are open source. Red hat has nothing to do with free software or copyleft. Profiting by giving away some things for free might work for some people. It is their option to explore. It is not youre right to make that decision for them. Copyright laws and patent laws have created a creative class on whose back you profit. You should realize that they own the fruits of their labor. If you don't want to pay, don;t take the product they are selling. Only rich booshies, crooked capitalists, and spoiled children have the attitiude of entitlement where they think they did something to deserve what they have and rationalize what they steal from others.



VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely