Stop the RIAA

[Nikolas]

Darth how many mp3s have you got?

Cause I know paople with thousands of mp3s... x 0.01$ it does make 10+$... It's not a tiny tiny tiny ammount.

For the whole wheel to turn for a CD, you need lots of stuff, apart from the band, the instruments, the studio, the producer, the marketeer, the graphic designer, the factory with the CDs, teh presses, the advertising team, the marketing team, the people who transfer the CD, the people who sell the CD, rent for offices, warehouses, studios, electricity and so on... (the list could go on)... oh btw, the songwriters, and the lyrics writers as well...

I mean it might as well be 30+ people who are into 1 particular CD. How much money should everyone get? And how much time will everyone devote to that? A composer may very well spent half a year working on an album. How much money should he get from that?

I'm not saying that it is fair, as I think that the companies are indeed taking the largest share and the distribution is not fair at all, but still even if the CDs prices droped to 12$ (max), nothing would change I think. Who is crazy enough to abandon free, for paying stuff? Nobody! 

[Traveler]

I'm not saying that it is fair, as I think that the companies are indeed taking the largest share and the distribution is not fair at all, but still even if the CDs prices droped to 12$ (max), nothing would change I think. Who is crazy enough to abandon free, for paying stuff? Nobody! 

I'd be glad to buy CDs again. When I hear good music, I still buy them, but it happens ever more rarely. I bought the last few CDs from directly the artists at festivals.

I have lots of mp3-s (I converted all my CDs to mp3 so that the disc itself is not used and doesn't get scratched) and I prefer listening to music on the computer. But I also prefer having the CD. (I could also download movies, but I don't, because I like having the DVD if the movie is otherwise good.)

I don't mind paying for something good, but it must be good. Most CDs have at most 1 or 2 songs that are anywhere near good, the rest are trash. There are exceptions, rarely.

I don't think there is anything wrong paying for music - the artist will only make other good pieces, if (s)he has something to eat. What RIAA, Sony, BMG and the rest of the maffia (Microsoft, Apple, Adobe included) does is highway robbery. I think it's outrageous that no one went to jail for the Sony virus. 

[ManicMatt]

I don't mind paying for something good, but it must be good. Most CDs have at most 1 or 2 songs that are anywhere near good, the rest are trash. There are exceptions, rarely.

Lets just clarify, as most people who say that fall into this assumption. Did you hear their singles loads of times, and then heard the album songs only a few times? What I'm getting at is, did you let them grow on you? If you tried and indeed they were still rubbish, I am going to conclude it's the kind of artists you buy that are different to the majority of the stuff I purchase.

[Darth Mandarb]

So even if the musician actually does make money, you say it's okay to steal it because it costs to much? Thats ridiculous. Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.

Wha ... ??

First off ... I never said it was okay to "steal".  I said I don't agree with the unncessarily high costs of CDs and am not going to buy them because of that.

Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

Darth how many mp3s have you got?

I have a lot.

Here's the way I look at it:

All of the people involved in making the CD aside, the CD is nothing without the artist(s).  Yet the artists get dick from the sales of their CDs.  This is, basically, what I'm fundemantly opposed to.  This is why I pay big bucks and go to as many concerts as I can (I'm told that touring is where artists make their money).  So I do support the artists I care about.

Furthermore:

If an artist that I'm interested in listening to starts whining about mp3 downloads because last year they only made 10 million instead of 11 million dollars.  They are no longer an artist I care about anymore.  Ever since Metallica went on their "whining" campaign I've not listened to their music.  If all you're making music for is money then you aren't an artist I admire anymore.  I understand that a person needs to make money ... but I make a lot less than a million dollars a year and I live a VERY nice life-style.

[skyfire2]

First off ... I never said it was okay to "steal".  I said I don't agree with the unncessarily high costs of CDs and am not going to buy them because of that.

So you admit that you  "wrongly" steal music because you don't like to pay for them. Just trying to clarify.

Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html

The link may be dated but it's still common sense.

[Gregjazz]

Hmmm, actually I've read articles that say that people who download MP3 actually buy just as many CDs as the next person. It'd be like saying that people who download movies illegally don't go to movie theaters any more.

It's also interesting that many college libraries have a large CD collection (or at least mine does, it has a very extensive collection of many genres. They've got your Coltrane, your Jamiroquai, your Grateful Dead, your Flecktones, you name it). Why aren't people complaining about these libraries stealing CD sales?

Sometimes if it's just a single song I'm interested in, I'll download that, but if I like the whole CD, I'll buy the whole CD. (I'm a sucker for the liner notes, etc.) Many people I've talked to have similar opinions and habits.

I can back up what Darth said regarding the money the band actually makes. CDs for bands commonly are just advertisements for their live concerts. However, there are some musicians who attempt to make money purely through CD sales, which is a tough route to go.

[Janik]

I remember back when the Sony rootkit story came out, I immediately went and download one of the 'protected' CDs just to prove a point.

I am definitely never going to buy any CD that has that kind of protection. Never. I don't care if it the RIAA wins, and all file sharers are rounded up and executed, and all CDs come with a million layers of security and fingerprint identification so you have the priviledge of listening to the product you bought. I'll just live without music, and the RIAA will live without my money.

[EagerMind]

I have to agree with Darth on this one. Just to be sure, I did some reading (here and here, but there's a lot more out there if you do a google search). Let's break it down:

It looks like artists get two sources of income from record deals: royalties and publishing rights.

Royalties from a major labels are about 10-15% (9-12% for indies). But this is based off standard retail price (SRP), so sales at less than SRP are at a lower royalty rate, as are any foreign sales. On top of this are a bunch of other deductions, so in the end an artist can expect royalties of about $1.00 off a full-priced album (the article uses $17).

It gets better: artists also owe the record label "recoupment." Basically, the label gives the artist a bunch of money to go make the album. All of this money is paid back out of the royalties before the artist sees anything. So if a label spends $250,000 to make an album, the artist must make $250,000 in royalties before they get any money, which means the album needs to sell 250,000 copies. Approximately 80% of albums never do this well (other sources say only 1-in-10 albums are profitable), which means most artists never get any money from royalties.

Now for publishing rights. The U.S Copyright Royalty Rate says the artist gets 9.1 cents for every physical reproduction of one of their songs. Normally these rights are signed over to the label for either a lump-sum or a percentage (typically 50%). This means the label assumes responsibility for enforcing the copyright (i.e. suing everybody) and also leads to those situations where artists can't use their name (remember Prince?) or perform their old songs when they leave the label.

So for a 12-song album, the artist gets 12 x 9.1 cents x 50% = 55 cents out of $17.
Of course, if it sells over 250,000 copies, the artist gets a whopping $1.55!

I'm all for supporting musicians, but DRM isn't about artists' rights, it's about exploitative labels' bottom line. It doesn't stop piracy, it only prevents well-intentioned consumers from exercising fair-use of the content that they've spent money for (making back-ups, or copying it over to their portable media players, etc.). I don't mind paying money for music, but not when record labels install illicit software on my equipment when I try to play it and sue me for making copies for my own personal use.

Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4150747.stm
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051229-5864.html

[Darth Mandarb]

So you admit that you  "wrongly" steal music because you don't like to pay for them. Just trying to clarify.

To clarify, it sounds more like you think I'm "wrongly stealing" music.  What I consider "wrong" is $15 for a CD.  A point I made abundantly clear and didn't try to hide.  Also, I didn't say "I don't like paying for them".  You're taking what I did say and putting into another context to prove a very weak point you're attempting to make.

Every time you download music illegally the price goes up to make up for the music you stole. It may not be that much but it does add up.

Your argument was that my downloading music causes the price of CDs to rise ... I asked for your source, you provided the following:

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html

Now ... I read it quickly, but I do believe that nowhere in that article does it say "downloading mp3 is raising the price of CDs to cover the cost".

Quick Google searches are never a good idea.

[Traveler]

Lets just clarify, as most people who say that fall into this assumption. Did you hear their singles loads of times, and then heard the album songs only a few times? What I'm getting at is, did you let them grow on you? If you tried and indeed they were still rubbish, I am going to conclude it's the kind of artists you buy that are different to the majority of the stuff I purchase.

Maybe you're right. I used to try albums at stores, but randomly looking for music this way is very tiring and time consuming. I tried listening to radios, but (at least here in the states) they're mostly up for ads and sometimes there is music in-between. (I don't like pay stations - I'm cheap and I really don't care about radio.    )

After living in the US for a few years now, it appears to me that most music stores carry only the completely generic 'American Idol' type of music - 'music' from generic, untalented 'bands' created by marketing morons. I even tried their recommendation system (if you like this, try this and this... - well, that was pure, 100% miss for every single recommendation.    )

I'm actually quite desperate to find good music: I'm either completely missing the good stores where it's easy to find quality or it's just easier in Europe. I honestly don't know. Every once in a while I see something good on public television, those I try to get. (Last week there was a superb concert on air from Celtic Women - that's a CD I'm going to buy.) The end result is that nowadays I'm listening to movie soundtracks and to my old music. Unfortunately - as much as I like them - this gets boring after a while.

[Gregjazz]

Actually it's interesting, most of the CDs I buy these days are from the band/musician itself at concerts. I wonder if that makes any difference, though? Depends on whether the musician is signed or not, I guess.

[DGMacphee]

Second ... I've been downloading mp3 for 10 years and the costs of CDs has stayed pretty much the same since then (if anything the cost has come down a bit).

Not sure where you got your "facts" but your argument seems a tad ... band-wagon-ish

http://news.com.com/2100-1027-996205.html

Hey Skyfire, why don't you find an article that's less than 3 years old as your evidence. Maybe something from, oh I don't know... 2006?

[skyfire2]

Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

quote from cnet
The study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Previous studies have been released showing that file sharing had both positive and negative effects on music sales.


There's your answer Mr McPee.

[Nikolas]

I'm not into the type of black and white arguments of the type: "A thief is a thief is a thief" (that was in a post directed at me in a different forum...)

But we are aware that downloading mp3s is in fact illegal, right? The only reason I'm mentioning this is that if anyone comes asking for 2000$, there should be no complaints... I mean there is a risk (however stupid and small and fair), but it is there.

You know... for some bands (not all), writing the music and lyrics seems like... and easy job. Meaning that one grabs a guitar (Oasis anyone?) plays some chords and has an amazing talent (true) for great melodies, and he can have a song in 2-3 hours. The rest is not a job of the songwritter (and lyrics writter as well), but for the rest of the band, or mostly the producer/arranger. Same with film music (especially film music). I've heard that John Williams is coming up with around 5 minutes of music daily. BUT he comes up with certain shortcut codes and the rest are job of an army behind him who orchestrate, notate and so on.

I am all for artists and all that, but why exactly should Britney be paid for? She is working her arse for what she does (because it is a tough job), but still why? The major job comes from the songwriters and so on, who again might not be working that hard. The producers are people who do get money, but not royalties.

The whole that one wants to back up artists, is not exactly valid in the music industry (it's not unreasonable either, it's quite fair, but just to say some things...). In the whole process to make a CD and bring it out, it is quite possible that the less job is done from the song writers. And of course without them there would be no album. Well without the producers the album would definately suck, without the graphic designers there would be no CD sleeve and so on.

Ever wonder why the bands go on tours? Exactly for what Greg says: To make money and pay off the companies. But note something: IF all bands have "tons" of time (cause let's face it, going on tours takes time, doesn't it), then they must not have a "steady job". song writing is not a full-time job, it's not even part-time by some measures...



Just some extra ideas, but let me repeat that I understand what Darth is talking about.

[Gregjazz]

On the other hand, personally I believe that all these label and RIAA issues aren't going to be as prominent in the future, which hopefully, with the globalization in music of the internet, will make self-publication and marketing of albums a lot easier. I mean, already we are seeing websites that'll burn your CDs, print the album art and liner notes, and assemble it all into a professional product. (the same goes for publishing your books, making your t-shirts and other merchandise, etc.) Not to mention in our post-Fordist world the prices for this manufacturing is becoming less expensive. Now we are seeing the ability to essentially POD your products rather than having to keep boxes of hundreds of CDs, which makes the idea self-producing albums even more tempting. I guess the main issue then is not the manufacturing of professional CDs, but the actual marketing. I'm certain that there is a way to make a name for yourself over the internet, and get an amount of CD sales.

So I say, let's keep selling tangible CDs, but there's a way to bypass the music industry and still create great products.

I've engineered bands before, and I really don't think it takes a billion-dollar studio to produce a great album. But then again, I'm against this whole concentration on product rather than process, and dislike all these over-produced and frankly sterile, lifeless albums we're hearing these days. (not to say there aren't any good albums coming from major labels, of course)

[Nikolas]

BTW, Greg, How is the Appretince deluxe soundtrack doing? I would love to get my hands on it (buy it I mean... :p)

Yes internet is showing the way for artists to shape their own careers and their own marketing. 

Production is not a bad thing on it's own, but it can "hide" momentarily bullshit songs...

[DGMacphee]

Btw Skyfire, you may want to take a look at these:
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

quote from cnet
The study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Previous studies have been released showing that file sharing had both positive and negative effects on music sales.


There's your answer Mr McPee.

Wow, what an answer. Let me just smell it for a second. Sniff, sniff, yep, smells like bullcrap. Why don't you actually post something more recent, like a 2006 University of Chicago study that shows "people who regularly download music online are more likely to buy music" despite "peer-to-peer usage reduces the probability of buying music by 30 percent"? Because a study like that shows some balance as well as being current. Posting ONE link to a 2003 CNet article proves two things in this discussion: jack and shit.

[RickJ]

Hi Nikolas,

I'm sorry that you initially thought that I was advocating that people not respect copyrighted works.  Here are the things I object to:

• I object to being charged an extra fee for each blank VHS tape I purchase to compensate Hollywood for any money they may have lostjust in case someone made a  copy of their stuff.   After they pressured (bribed) the US congress into making this the law of the land they started raking in massive amounts of dough, they hadn't counted on, from the movie rental and retail purchases. 
  
  
• I object to not having had the opportunity to purchase DAT (digital audio tape) machines because the US congress prevented that type of machine from being sold in the US.
  
  
• I object to attempts at restricting my fair use rights.   I shouldn't have to buy a new copy of content  I have already purchased so that I can consume  it on another device.   
  
  
• I object to being required to install and run software on my computer to reasure someone else that I am not violating their copyright with out being reimbursed for the computer time and other resources said program consumes.   
  
  
• I object to not being able to watch DVD's on my linux computer.   It's possible but it's not legal in the US.
  
  
• I object to my DVD's being restricted from playing on the family DVD player in Bolivia.  Why shouldn't it? 
  
  
• I object to the RIAA using the US legal system to extort money from innocent people.   And yes they have sue and continue sue people they know to be completely innocent.   They apparently sued one guy who wasn't actually the guy who they said he was.   Imagine for example the sheriff showed up at Nikolas' door one day and served him with a court summons  notifying him that he was being sued.  He hires a lawyer and learns that some guy named RickJ allegedy did something for which he deserves to be sued.   Nikolas and his lawyer explain that Nikolas is Nikolas and not RickJ.  However this makes no difference and the lawsiut continues.  Nikolas and his lawyer then goto court, perhaps more than once, and then after having spent his childrens future on attorney fees, the judge finally throws  out the case. 
  
  I suppose it would have better to have put "Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation" in the subject line.   However, the purpose of the post was to ask anyone who is interested to give their support to the EFF so that they (we) will have a voice in the congress when this comes up again.   The EFF seems to me to be an honorable organization.  I gave them money once when they were defending a Russian graduate student/researcher pro bono (that means free for those who are Latinly challenged) who was arrested for giving lecture about his research and how he wrote a program that  did text-to-speech conversion on DRM'd e-books for the blind.   In any case the EFF is comprised of laywers and so are considered to be officers of the court they and therefore not permitted to advocate lawbreaking.
  
  

  
  But we are aware that downloading mp3s is in fact illegal, right?
  

  AFAIK it is in the US since copyright was updated by the DMCA a few years ago.  Prior to that I am not so sure this is true in all cases nor should it be, IMHO.   What you say?    Suppose someone has a music collection and they want to listen to some of it on their MP3 palyer or computer or at some remote location.  Now suppose that person downloaded music which he previously purchased and is now in his collection.  Why should this be considered theft,  immoral, or a copyright violation?
  
  Having said this, let me be clear that I don't condone or advocate anyone violating a copyright.  It's just plain wrong, just don't do it. 
  
  ==========================
  
  Ok, one more thing I'd like to address is the "How will the artists get paid if downloading is allowed?" argument.   IMHO, this whole RIAA thing isn't about artists making a living or copyrights at all.  The RIAA doesn't represent recording artists, they represnt the companies that promote, manufacture, and distribute little plastic cositas (CDs).   In a digital world CDs and the companies that produce them are unnecessary, inefficent, expensive, and wasteful of resources.   The only function not obsoleteis promotion.   
  
  The RIAA's real concern is that artists will come to realize that they don't need a monster company to promote their work and that they just need a good agent/publishist.  In a world where manufacturing and distribution are virtually free of cost there isn't much left for a big record company to do.
  
  In a digital world artists, the really good ones, will make as much or likely much more that they would have in the old world.   Not only that there will be greater variety and it will be easier form artists to get started.  The winners and losers will be determined by us, the people, instead of a few of pin heads in the seats of power. 
  
  That's the kind of world I'd like to live in, how about you?
  
  [edit]
  Dag gummit Geoffkhan!!
  
  Hehehe  ,  not only did your beat me to the punch but you said it in a lot less words too.   
  
  Well said Greg..

[ManicMatt]

Heh, did I ever tell you lot I get put off buying some DVDs because of the annoying anti-piracy adverts? Angel series 5, I bought that, and everytime I load it up, The annoying anti-piracy campaign kicks in, "DO NOT COPY THIS, YOU BASTARD!!!" Well okay it doesn't say that, but it feels like it! After having watched an episode a day, and therefore had the anti-piracy advert come on about 22 times, once a day, I wished I'd got a pirate copy instead. They wouldn't have this shit!

Bands get profits from selling T-shirts too! I remember one band was desperate to sell them when they went on tour, to cover expenses!

[Helm]

RickJ, great post. Though aspects of it don't apply in my situation, as I am in Greece, on the whole very well put. Seconded.