http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1168/Itemid,85/nsub,/
I'm not going to do a highlights of the article.
I just find it strange that: when P2P sharing (or even MP3 technology) became an issue, the RIAA/CRIA reported profits going down by over -$1 Billion dollars! (that's an increase if you don't get the sarcasm)
I'm not going to get into the legality of P2P because I want to stimulate a bit of discussion here, but I think that finally a recording industry group is getting that while it isn't legal, it's not hurting them. I mean, indie bands have figured that out, and FCOL the Grateful Dead knew about it in the 80's when they started setting up a recording area for fans (Pearl Jam and a few other bands have caught on and started doing this as well) provided they don't sell the recordings for a profit.
Maybe, just MAYBE, does anyone think that this will be the dawn of rational and maybe even fair pricing for CD's?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
20$ for a plastic disk is quite crazy.
i think ten should be fair.
-Borsty
unfortunately, even common sense and straight facts showing that theyre still going UP with profits as the p2p sharing continues, they will never back down. big douche bags like that will stick to their guns no matter what facts are working against them
On the other hand....you have other fingers.
i had lots of toys when i was young.slinky,etc.but once i found my penis,that was all she wrote
What can they really sue us for then? I mean if were not cauing a loss in profits, then what basis do they have to sue anyone
^^^ Well, they argue that their profits would be even higher if it wasn't for p2p software. I would feel bad about downloading the music for free if they weren't such pricks. They rip off the artists by charging a ridiculous amount for cds and giving the artist so little of the profits just to increases their profit margins, I will spend my money on concerts instead. Investors ruin everything, they often increase profit margins while reducing customer satisfaction. If they had it their way everything would have commercials and would cost the most that people would be willing to pay.
The interesting thing is that the way the US courts look at the issue: evertime someone DL's an RIAA controlled album, the RIAA loses money because that is not a sale, yet they don't keep statistics on 2nd hand sale CD's... apparently no-one clued them into the fact that it's about 14 billion dollars yearly. No, they want their initial sales.. WTFever.
BigJ: the RIAA and other such industry groups make a common practise of grabbing cash at both ends:
-Figure 1 in 10 bands signed makes it to being a decent paying act. (mega bands: figure 1 in 50)
- Each band signed to a developmental contract usually gets advanced enough to cut an EP in a professional studio, but that advance is taken out of the album sales (usually in the form of points off each CD sale).
- The Band usually gets 8-12 of the 58 points assigned to each wholesale album sale. (12 points is a big payoff)
- The Distributor (atlantic, CBS, Warner) assigns the amount that the CD is worth (typically $13.00 wholesale) within the contract with the Record Company/Label, but isn't obligated to price it at that amount to Music shops, they usually set the MSRP to about $18.00. The Music shop, in turn, has to set the price to $20 in order to make money.
- You pay $20 for the newest music because you don't have an alternative.
MP3 was supposed to be the answer, but now that DRM has kicked into stupid mode (look at the Blu-ray/HD-DVD DRM BS) you're basically back to paying what they say you oughtta pay, and you don't get a say in it, except to either listen to the radio, or just not pay for it.
Personally, I love MP3, and if there were a sane pricing scheme where the music could get out, and everyone makes a bit of money, I don't think that there will be a problem. Until bands and consumers start asserting their rights ($20 is price gouging, seriously), the RIAA and their confederates will keep making money hand over fist, and giving you the middle-finger.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
if anyone is really against the RIAA, and really wants to help out with the war against them, check out
http://www.downhillbattle.org.
lots of good information.
with the advent of thumbdrives, MP3 support on practically everything from car stereos to cell phones, and ever smaller storage devices (like compact flash, transflash, etc.), music piracy is never going to end. however, a lot of people do still enjoy owning the original CD, not just downloading it from somewhere. I have to agree with GAM in that the bands and consumers need to get together on this.
Desert Tuners
“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”
I'd love to be able to own all the CD's from my mp3 collection, but @ $20 a pop I'd be spending about $50,000 buying them all up, and that's if I can actually FIND them all (and not I'm not exaggerating).
Until the entire catalogue that a record company makes is fully available for me to own, I'm going to use MP3 to get that selection of music I want.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
I work at a concert industry trade magazine. I've been to many industry conferences and shook hands with 100's of promoters, agents, bookers, and record label execs. Let me tell you, most of them do get it.
But those that make the decisions don't. A record label can put the kabash on a Grateful Dead recording area. They put the kabash on CD's of the concert you just went to being cut live for your purchase afterwards.
The RIAA's biggest folie and dishonesty is equating every download with a dollar figure. Further, they aren't capitalizing on people discovering new artists via the P2P networkds.
Look, we've all downloaded stuff we wouldn't have bought in a store. So, for example, me d/l'ing Led Zep didn't lose them squat, because
I never would of bought it.
HOWEVER,
Now I've heard what this legendary band was all about. Man, I love it. Loved all of it. I'd buy a SACD or DVD-Audio copy of the entire collection, or pay to download 24-bit master-replicas. MP3's suck, acoustically.
So, to summarize, while they DIDN'T LOSE A DIME on my initial d/l, they are losing many dimes by not making some superior quality product available to me now.
---
Actually, the record labels can't Agustin... At least not with Pearl Jam or The Grateful Dead or under other bands most standard agreements. The band doesn't sell the songs in and of themselves to the record company, only the license to distribute the recording (as I understand it).
PJ & Grateful Dead run their own tours independantly of their record labels. PJ in particular has a deal with Sony IIRC that they have exclusive rights to the sale of their concert recordings (they release a CD recording for every concert). Grateful Dead has been doing their recording areas for years (since the 80's last I read), and their philosophy is that when they're done with the performance, they don't need it anymore, so let whomever wants it, have it. Either way, the artists choose to not protect the copyright of their performances, provided those that bootleg the performances don't sell the recordings in order to make profit.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Actually, the record labels can't Agustin... At least not with Pearl Jam or The Grateful Dead or under other bands most standard agreements. The band doesn't sell the songs in and of themselves to the record company, only the license to distribute the recording (as I understand it).
PJ & Grateful Dead run their own tours independantly of their record labels. PJ in particular has a deal with Sony IIRC that they have exclusive rights to the sale of their concert recordings (they release a CD recording for every concert). Grateful Dead has been doing their recording areas for years (since the 80's last I read), and their philosophy is that when they're done with the performance, they don't need it anymore, so let whomever wants it, have it. Either way, the artists choose to not protect the copyright of their performances, provided those that bootleg the performances don't sell the recordings in order to make profit.
Artists traditionally have deals with the label where they are not allowed to release music under ANY other format. That's the deal. You get an avenue to release music, the record label gets to be your music's exclusive provider.
The Grateful Dead and Phish are two jam bands that have always made their money from tours. Their albums have always been nothing more than a promotion for a concert. Truth is, you might not "get" what Grateful Dead is all about until you've been to their concert.
All that being said... the in the last 4-5 years things have started to change. As contracts are expiring, bands are getting new deals that are more in their favor. This is largely due to the fact that artists make FAR more touring than in CD sales. Medium to big acts even get guaranteed money. So why wouldn't an artist take a rather small hit on the record co side of his earnings if he can make so much more at his next 30 tour dates?
---
AGuSTiN wrote:Artists traditionally have deals with the label where they are not allowed to release music under ANY other format. That's the deal. You get an avenue to release music, the record label gets to be your music's exclusive provider.
That's one of the reasons Billy Corgan and Prince have had problems with Warner and ended up in messy court battles
MP3 has only just begun to rock the music boat. I hope it continues.
Quote:
The Grateful Dead and Phish are two jam bands that have always made their money from tours. Their albums have always been nothing more than a promotion for a concert. Truth is, you might not "get" what Grateful Dead is all about until you've been to their concert.
Phish? I'll take your word on it, I was referring to Pearl Jam, but the same idea holds.
And I've been to a GD concert...
It was cool to see 40+ and -20 flower children wannabes rocking out.
Quote:
All that being said... the in the last 4-5 years things have started to change. As contracts are expiring, bands are getting new deals that are more in their favor. This is largely due to the fact that artists make FAR more touring than in CD sales. Medium to big acts even get guaranteed money. So why wouldn't an artist take a rather small hit on the record co side of his earnings if he can make so much more at his next 30 tour dates?
True, but the thing is that CD sales aren't falling, and the profit margins (for the record company/distributor at least) are gigantic.
I hope new media won't get bogged down with all this DRM crap. It's starting to get annoying.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
DRM - if it it can be read and played then can be copied. End of story.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
It just depends on how much of a PITA it is to play it.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
iTunes has 99 cent per song downloads.
Ringtones are a HUGE source of revenue for record companies.
Record execs are driving BMW's, we have j-bodies.
Need I say more?
And let's not forget the Napster arguement: If you download a song and like it, you are more likely to buy the band's CD.
I don't feel bad for Metallica and other monster bands, I've seen their houses on MTV cribs. Snoop Dog only looks like he's hungry. Eminem will live a posh lifestyle the rest of his days without my $20.
And new bands need the exposure, so I don't feel bad for them either. For example, Google "Beatallica" and buy their CD. It's a metallica sound to beatles songs, including a 7 minute "Hey dude" sung to "Hey Jude". Friggin hilarious!
Don't worry about the protected blue dvd whatever format. Just like everything else, they make it fool proof, we get better fools. There will be some kid somewhere who writes a 4k script that will over ride any locks.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
I've always been perplexed by people paying for ringtones. I just upload music to my phone via a $30 bluetooth adapter from my computer, and dowload any pics I took. Why pay?
---
My phone doesn't have Ringtones enabled.
It beeps or vibrates when it rings.
My phone is OOOOOOOLD. And I like it like that... No bluetooth (or any other kind of tooth), GSM not GPS, and I can tell it to code/time-hop when I want it to if I'm in an area that has no GSM.
I also have a newer samsung A650 for work, but I never use it (it's still in my duty locker), and I don't have to have matching wallpapers.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
