The RIAA is at it again-sueing college and 3rd graders

[mahasandi]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

What's funny is that all this money is being spent on lawyers to sue college kids, and on computer programmers to come up with new (and useless) copy-protection schemes, when they should be using their resources to attempt to fix their business model. Their current method of operation is so bloated and ridiculous that they actually feel the need to sue children to make up for their own business inadequacies.

Is piracy wrong? Well, yes. Of course. But lawsuits like this are not the answer, and make for extremely bad PR. Every time I buy a CD in one of the big retailers nowadays, I cringe because I know the band is getting hosed, and all the ******bag suits are taking most of my cash. Meanwhile the studio that it was recorded in is barely able to keep their doors open.

Fix your ****ing industry, and maybe people will respect your product a little more and start paying for it again. It's clear that suing 20 year olds didn't get the job done 5 years ago, and it's not going to do it now.

hahaha well said.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

( I have a couple of Polyfusion accessories that may be of use to you if you want to give me a buz )

Lester

Now you are talking!

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

The obvious point is that with sales in the tanker, the people you speak of are not honest enough to go and buy the albums.

And the obvious counterpoint is that they are spending their money elsewhere (like mobile phones or trainers or any number of "essentials" they are suckered into spending their money on...)
There is only so much money to go round. Especially for younger kids. If you offer them an attractive product, they may buy it but believe me, they know the score with record labels and prices..
DVD sales are pretty healthy (finding nemo sold 18 million, pirates of the caribean 13 million, the lion king 8 million etc)
Why?
They are cheaper and come packed with bonus's. I know they are cheaper because the costs are mainly recouped at the box office, but that changes nothing when it comes to you sepnding your money.
The fact is that if you have x dollars in your pocket and you have to choose between a recharge for your mobile, a new game for your playstation, a new DVD, a new pair of trainers or a new CD, it's a little bit of a tougher marketplace out there than it was in 1977 when we all bought albums. I mean in those days you had music, clothes and drugs! That was it and the most expensive thing was the music!
So I stand by my point. Labels like us to believe it is all these thieving teens that are costing them millions, but actually, their product just isn't as competitive as others...

[Beermaster]

Originally Posted by jindrich

What to me is unbelieavable is that an organization thinks it's NOT a crime to sell a product for €20 or more, of which the creator, the artist without whom there would be NOTHING to sell, will get €1 if he's lucky, or maybe even nothing.



I hope Myspace and *artist-sells-direct-from-the-net* free music and artists for good.

Well here's where the usual lack of understanding comes into play: Do you have even the slightest understanding of how that figure of $20 gets divided down and where it goes ? For example did you know that the person who makes THE MOST out of that figure is the retailer ! - One third goes straight to him.. then the next ten percent goes to the Wholesaler. .. then the next Ten Percent goes to the Distributer.. .. then ... On and On - Its not just the record company taking that money.

Biggest of all point here is How else do you get your album out to the world without the backing of money and experience of Investment, Advertising, Promotion, Plugging, Pressing, Accounting, Legal, etc etc ? All the things that are essential to getting the message and music out to a world wide audience ?

Putting it up on SOund click or My Space Isn't gonna do a thing nor is putting it on a P2P - I'm talking about the type of push that gets an album into the charts - This is not something one person can just do by uploading his master to a little website. - This takes HUGE investment and HUGE gamble - For every act you hear about in the charts a hundreds of other acts were invested in and failed - Its a gamble, many more fail than make it.

Now I ask you, If you were investing the kind of money we're talking about here to get an album out there and taking all the risk of it failing and you losing the millions invested wouldn't you deserve a decent cut of the proffits from your making it happen ? -

[dropblacksky]

Originally Posted by GearBit

Try this. It might help you understand what you are talking about
Get a major label deal.
Hold onto your publishing!<---important!
Watch in amazement as the big bad label spends well over a million dollars advancing you money to buy gear recording, promoting, mastering etc... your album.
Then laugh all the way to the bank when approximately HALF of the profit from every record sold goes directly to YOU.
But then it's not really that funny when you find out that most people downloaded it.
Not to worry though. You aready got the advance and money from the copies that did sell.
The major label still wants to see the other 990,000.00

I've never heard of a major label deal that even remotely resembled this...unless maybe you're in the Madonna, Michael Jackson level. A new band on a major label is not getting anywhere near 50% of record sales...and to my understanding they generally get a percentage of PROFITS....so the label has to recoup the advance first....which is why most new bands get dropped after one album and the members have no money to show for it.

I don't agree with stealing music...but I also think it's only one of many factors bringing down the music industry. The industry needs to go back to the days of creating music with more long term value instead of just what will sell a lot over a short period of time. Most people I know don't steal music from independent bands, and if they do download it, they either end up buying the cd anyway, or purhaps going to shows and purchasing merch as a way to support the artist.

People are wiling to pay for things that they value....when you make music that is designed to be consumed and discarded over a short period of time, how much value are we going to give it?

Originally Posted by dlmorley

And the obvious counterpoint is that they are spending their money elsewhere (like mobile phones or trainers or any number of "essentials" they are suckered into spending their money on...)
There is only so much money to go round. Especially for younger kids. If you offer them an attractive product, they may buy it but believe me, they know the score with record labels and prices..
DVD sales are pretty healthy (finding nemo sold 18 million, pirates of the caribean 13 million, the lion king 8 million etc)
Why?
They are cheaper and come packed with bonus's. I know they are cheaper because the costs are mainly recouped at the box office, but that changes nothing when it comes to you sepnding your money.
The fact is that if you have x dollars in your pocket and you have to choose between a recharge for your mobile, a new game for your playstation, a new DVD, a new pair of trainers or a new CD, it's a little bit of a tougher marketplace out there than it was in 1977 when we all bought albums. I mean in those days you had music, clothes and drugs! That was it and the most expensive thing was the music!
So I stand by my point. Labels like us to believe it is all these thieving teens that are costing them millions, but actually, their product just isn't as competitive as others...

Man o' man when will you see that it's hard to compete with FREE. DVD sales are healthy for now because it takes a bit longer to download a movie.

I would support your theory if kids were buying other products and avoiding music. That would be a concious choice.

Instead, they are buying other things and STEALING the music. It's not about being competitive. When choosing what to spend on, it's a bit easier to spend for B because I can get A for free.

Duh? You're tryin to blame theft on competing products.

There's no basis here.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Man o' man when will you see that it's hard to compete with FREE. DVD sales are healthy for now because it takes a bit longer to download a movie.

I would support your theory if kids were buying other products and avoiding music. That would be a concious choice.

Instead, they are buying other things and STEALING the music. It's not about being competitive. When choosing what to spend on, it's a bit easier to spend for B because I can get A for free.

Duh? You're tryin to blame theft on competing products.

There's no basis here.

?
I'm not at all.
What I am saying is that when you have a certain budget, you choose what you want and you do not buy the other. END OF STORY.
I have no clue how you came to the conclusion that I said people are stealing because of this.
I'm blaming the reason record labels whinge about sales being down is because their product isn't as competitive as other products. They blame it on everyone else except themselves and their CRAP way of doing business. Sure, illegal downloads is one issue (and probably not half as important as the fact that when you actually do buy a CD it has a high chance of being counterfeit) but price is another as is peoples perception of not getting good value for money.

I'll add a small simplistic summing up for them that like to read things into others comments.

STEALING IS BAD AND I DO NOT CONDONE IT

[Josht]

Originally Posted by Beermaster

Well here's where the usual lack of understanding comes into play: Do you have even the slightest understanding of how that figure of $20 gets divided down and where it goes ? For example did you know that the person who makes THE MOST out of that figure is the retailer ! - One third goes straight to him.. then the next ten percent goes to the Wholesaler. .. then the next Ten Percent goes to the Distributer.. .. then ... On and On - Its not just the record company taking that money.

Biggest of all point here is How else do you get your album out to the world without the backing of money and experience of Investment, Advertising, Promotion, Plugging, Pressing, Accounting, Legal, etc etc ? All the things that are essential to getting the message and music out to a world wide audience ?

Putting it up on SOund click or My Space Isn't gonna do a thing nor is putting it on a P2P - I'm talking about the type of push that gets an album into the charts - This is not something one person can just do by uploading his master to a little website. - This takes HUGE investment and HUGE gamble - For every act you hear about in the charts a hundreds of other acts were invested in and failed - Its a gamble, many more fail than make it.

Now I ask you, If you were investing the kind of money we're talking about here to get an album out there and taking all the risk of it failing and you losing the millions invested wouldn't you deserve a decent cut of the proffits from your making it happen ? -

Ok, well, this is the first time I've jumped in to one of these discussions despite being one of the target groups, and actually having researched and written papers on the issue. I think the above perfectly sums up the misunderstanding on your side of the debate. Since when has getting on the charts necessarily made the artist money? It makes the record label money, thats for sure, it probably even makes the large LA studio and engineer and producer money as well. But it sure as hell doesn't guarantee the artist making money.

The fact of the matter is (and I forgot where I heard this from, but it perfectly sums the issue up for me) the record industry is one of the first to ever go from a cottage industry, to a major, centralized, conglomerated industry, then (is heading) back to a cottage industry. The classic record label business model built through the 1970s and 80s is never going to be the same. It is based on old technology and consumer habits.

Instead of going into a long and drawn out theoretical discussion, let me give you an example of where the industry is headed: the band Spoon. Spoon, for those not familiar with it, is a highly critically acclaimed indie rock band that is signed to Merge. They have released a fair number of albums, the best of which has probably sold 75,000-100,000 copies. But, because they make excellent music, they have continued to attract a larger audience. This is in part because of the use of their music in TV and film, first very prominently in the OC, and most recently as making up almost the entire score of the movie Stranger than Fiction. This has probably made them a lot of money (as anyone who has had a song placed on a prominent soundtrack can attest) and has also attracted a ton of new fans. Furthermore, they are an excellent live band, and tour regularly.

Personally, I first found out about Spoon the beginning of my freshman year of college (I'm just finishing my junior right now) from a friend of mine in the dorm, and I used the dorm network (most colleges have a way to access the files of the other people on one's network, although Apple kept trying to close the ability to use itunes in ours) to download the entire Spoon catalog. I think a moment of great musical discovery like this (Spoon has gone on to prob be one of my favorite bands) should be fostered, especially in college, the years in which people's musical tastes are the most adventurous.

Disclaimer, I don't use my college's (which is refusing to give the RIAA ip address info, good job) ever since I started DJ at the college radio station, now I just burn promo CDs, which I personally believe is well within the fair use practice of a promo CD, which is sent out to promote a band by allowing DJs to play it on the air, however I only play music that I have listened to more than once, which means I fectively need to have a copy of it on my ipod before I will play it.

Originally Posted by dlmorley

?
I'm not at all.
What I am saying is that when you have a certain budget, you choose what you want and you do not buy the other. END OF STORY.
I have no clue how you came to the conclusion that I said people are stealing because of this.
I'm blaming the reason record labels whinge about sales being down is because their product isn't as competitive as other products. They blame it on everyone else except themselves and their CRAP way of doing business. Sure, illegal downloads is one issue (and probably not half as important as the fact that when you actually do buy a CD it has a high chance of being counterfeit) but price is another as is peoples perception of not getting good value for money.

I'll add a small simplistic summing up for them that like to read things into others comments.

STEALING IS BAD AND I DO NOT CONDONE IT

But you are arriving at your conclusion by overlooking the important fact that people are stealing music. Your self imposed "END OF STORY". is a false ending.

It should read when you have a certain budget and one of the alternatives can be obtained for FREE, there is no choice to make.

How can you view this issue by ignoring the obvious? You ignore the fact that music can be obtained for free as if it has a minor bearing on the outcome.
Forgive me for being blunt,but
This is silly. You are conducting an analysis of factors without consindering the weights of the factors. If music can be obtained for FREE, I'd say that's a pretty important factor.

[KingDaddyO]

Like cockroaches, evidence of a 'few' kids illegally downloading songs is probably indicative of a whole lot more. And in a similar context, heavy-handed tactics like suing only those who are young & naive enough to cave at the first sign of intimidation, is probably indicative of a small yet powerful group at the very top ... desperately trying to keep an idiotic, outdated, clueless, and totally undeserving business model from collapsing in on itself. The colleges certainly aren't taking any responsibility for their lack of systems administration due diligence (by allowing this traffic to traverse their networks), and the artists aren't receiving a direct cut of industry booty, recovered from this litigation. So what is the real goal of these tactics, but to make an example of a few caught up in the net?

I think many people would (be honest now) admit to taking a few liberties in the area of downloading or file sharing music. But what does anyone expect, after YEARS of being subjected to the release of so much overpriced filler, many which had maybe a few songs actually worth paying for? It takes time to reverse any trend, good or bad. The point is that eventually, most people will come around, develop a conscience, and realize that they need to purchase whatever it is that they want to consume. And whether the industry will admit it or not, they get a lot of customers as a result of file sharing ... but it takes a while and it isn't easily quantified (especially if the gatekeepers themselves aren't honest with their own statistics or highly revisionist description of their benevolent business practices).

Leaving the moral issue out of this for now (of course it's wrong, Duh!), what business model is it that advises one to treat it's future consumer's as criminals? Sure, many kids are guilty of file sharing, and some much more so than most. But where is the responsibility/guilt in providing a system, that encourages this behavior in the first place, and then adds such laughable motivation to use that system? Perhaps if these college educated brainiacs who run the industry, would use a little common sense, they might understand what they are dealing with. But NOooooo ... I guess that they figure to simply, kill ... every ... cockroach, or at the very least, to make an example out of a few poor bastards, so that they can continue with their leaking boat of a business model. Well, good luck with that. Sadly, even if they did a complete about face, it might not even matter, as the industry is well along the road to becoming a 'dead man walking'. It is my belief that in the years to come, is when the real 'we are screwed' version of the music industry's marketing woes, will bear rotten fruit - as a direct result of these tactics, and their inability to compete based on providing a high value, quality product.

Regarding the lack of sufficient paying consumers for their product, I can only reference my personal experience, as a previous major consumer of music back in the day (vinyl). I still buy a few releases (a very select few), and I pay for everything that I use. But I feel no sympathy for this industry as it dies. I do feel for anyone who practices integrity when conducting business, and is attempting to earn an honest living but is caught up in this transitionary period. But the artists are the really smart ones in this story (along with Steve Jobs): many artists and performers have figured out (just like a lot of American workers) that there are no guarantees in life. They must provide for themselves if they are to have any assurance of a sustaining future.

I watched as the industry converted from vinyl to CD's ... yet kept their profit margins inflated ... all the while promising that the costs would eventually come down (HA! good one that). All during this time, many artists continued to be disenfranchised, and victimized by the industries questionable accounting practices. And then there were the ever encroaching business practices from Ticket Masters, the one-size-fits-all conversion to a Clear Channel station nation, the progressively downgraded value of their 'product', and the disingenuous lobbying tactics from the RIAA's Hillary Rosen, and on and on. So I simply stopped paying attention to the industry and it's releases. Armed with my 5000+ collection of vinyl, in addition to countless tapes of other material, and hundreds of hours of my own material to sort through, I really didn't need their product any longer. Even if I did however, one good look at the general shape of the radio, concert, and other related industries, shows that not much has improved in the intervening years. The bright spots though, are pretty easy to see: a surge in the presence of local talent, independants, artists web sites, an increasing number of national acts who are very creative, and anyone who is working at developing a different distribution model, other than the Empire's 'death star'.

But for most of the smashed to death, inflated pricing, marketing tied-in, root-kit installing DRM product that is shovelled into the distribution pipeline, the question as I see it is, Why? would anyone want to support an industry, that sat on their collective asses for a decade+, as this problem s-l-o-w-l-y developed, ignoring all sound advice to do something? Steve Jobs is one of the few that does get it and lets all be thankful for iTunes. But is it really necessary to shed a tear for a business and distribution model that deserves to be buried. Time to move on.

Go after and prosecute those who allow the traffic to easily propagate (and I don't the people who write software that can be abused), and the major distributors. Also prosecute industry executives who falsify accounting records, and hold them accountable for questionable legal tactics. But leave the small fish alone, they will eventually figure it out. And don't forget to upgrade the value of your product's, a lot.

One could even look at it as an investment in the future. Something that the music industry (once upon a time) used to do for their artists.

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by KingDaddyO

I watched as the industry converted from vinyl to CD's ... yet kept their profit margins inflated ... all the while promising that the costs would eventually come down (HA! good one that).

one might argue that CD's hold moe music than vinyl except that when Cd's and cassetes were released for the same product the cassettes were CHEAPER than CD's even though they have tape,rollers.screws,plastic shells, etc etc

the music industy BLOWS ..there is no such thing as artist development and A&R [the BIGGEST JOKE OF ALL TODAY..unless you are talking about a handful of AARP member A&R people]

i always loved how you'd be right outside a label in NYC and almost NEXT TO their doors were people selling pirate cassettes of the labels product..hmmmm

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by DeathMonkey

1. While record companies bitch that "CD sales are down", actual music sales profits are soaring. Add legal downloads and ringtones to the $$ equation and you can see just how full of sh*t these whinging millionaires are.

2. They target kids because they know kids will pay the settlement. Kids don't have access to good legal counsel, or the funds to get good representation. Holy crap... "OK, so all you have is that my name was logged into a school network during the time these songs were downloaded? Go ahead and prove that it was ME at the computer at the time. Gosh, I just checked my email and forgot to log out. It was a one armed man. Prove that it wasn't." It's all strong arm and intimidation.

3. Where do these $3000 settlements go? To the RIAA? To the lawyers? To the artists? Not f*cking likely, that one.

The fact is that with radio crammed with the ten songs Clear Channel has been paid to play, and that's about it, "illegal downloads" are the best thing most bands can hope for - because they lead directly to other revenue streams - merchandise, concert tickets, the aforementioned ringtones etc - and this short-sighted harassment of small scared fish is far more detrimental to the RIAA and the labels than downloading ever will be.

interesting thoughts.

except the last one (3) in the article states that the RIAA will give the profits to help emerging technologies.... still havent but will .. so will see.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by GearGeek

It IS hurting Christina and all the other pop artists! When was the last time you heard someone going diamond? Just because they still make money doesn't mean it doesn't affect them. They should be making a lot more money and they deserve it!

So I guess it's ok to break into a rich guy's house and steal his TV. What does he care, he can buy another one. If you're looking for someone to blame, don't blame the record industry or blank media industry. Blame the person commiting the crime! I guess if someone gets killed with a gun, you'll blame the gun manufacturer and not the killer. This is what America has become.

for the 1st part of the statment is dabateble. i think they are doing really good. their musicians, like the keyuboard player, well, not so good. but that becuase the asshole at the labels wanna pay (insert your Diva here) a lot of moeny to make her happy so they can sell more , or should i say.. push albums to the comsumer so they can later spend the money on other msucians/bands acts that suck but where chosen by an 21 year A&R at universal which his father know the vice president (not makeing this one up) and later he gets fired thus al his rooster goes out the window without recouping or -forgivable debt- as the labels call it.

justin timbaerlake was the only source of profit for warner in in 2004. how bad is it that a company that size with so many "products" only sells one. thats just bad business.

as for the second part of your coment. I really didnt mean it that way. I still think with all my haert that stealling is bad and wrong and by all means poeple should not do it to big name artist or to little bands not to anyone.
All im saying is that the recod business is changing and very late in the game thus making them loose money (and also bad business practices) and they are recurring to sueing kids which even thoguh its wrong for them to steal music, the labels should wake up and try things diferently.

this post is more inteneded for open discussion and to see others views.
maybe you read my post and others and wont agree with all of it but later maybe you will read on the news something pertaining to this type of posts and say.. hmm maybe the labels suck for real.. or maybe not.
could be that im wrong and that iligal download will be the doom of recorded /cd music and maybe all these stuff is leading to a brighter future for msucians like having your songs be parts of something else like videogames, comercials, film TV etc and we start to not really care about being a star and its all about me and become a product like timberlake (or whom ever)
if you hate comercialism well, maybe kids downloading your stuff for free will led to bigger sales at concerts. you knows im not saying end your career as amusicians and do comercials and live miserable, just that things are changing and it kinda sucks that a computer company is now dictating what hapens to us (ipod generation) while we just wait inactive.
well just me rambling.

[GearGeek]

Since when are 20 year olds "kids"? You can drive a car, vote for the next president, buy a gun, join the military, smoke cigarettes, etc. but you don't know that you shouldn't steal?

Someone else said it perfectly. It comes down to a question of CHARACTER. 99% of these "kids" would never walk into a record store and steal a cd. They'd be afraid of getting caught. But in cyberspace they feel they can get away with it, so they do it.

Oh poor young people, they don't have money for music. Well its a good lesson in life. If you don't have the money, then you can't buy it! Stealing is never the answer. Music is a LUXURY people, not a necessity. If you work hard in life, then you'll be able to afford the things you want.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by Protools Guy

I don't mind giving away my music for free if everyone else in the world is going to give me their products and services for free.

how about more kids going to your concerts and buying the merchandise?

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by jindrich

The RIAA has a business (distributing content) based on a model that is completely obsolete and no longer works anymore. It all started the day music was converted into ones and zeroes, and therefore perfect clones of the final product could be, for the first time, distributed by electrons by anyone to anyone who knew how to. It was not easy 20 years ago, but nowadays any kid or even a trained monkey is capable of it.

The RIAA (and any similar corporation in the world) doesn't have a purpose anymore, because the business model doesn't exist anymore. Period.

Exactly the same happened with the ICE industry when the fridge was invented. Learn from the past.



Who says it is a crime to hear or copy a song someone created? Musicians have the chance (as it's been for centuries) to PERFORM their works to make money. In the XX century a technology appeared that allowed music to be recorded and put into some physical media, so it could be sold in the millions to anyone with ears. In the XXI, a new technology emerged that destroyed media, so the business dissapeared. Let's move on.


What to me is unbelieavable is that an organization thinks it's NOT a crime to sell a product for €20 or more, of which the creator, the artist without whom there would be NOTHING to sell, will get €1 if he's lucky, or maybe even nothing.



I hope Myspace and *artist-sells-direct-from-the-net* free music and artists for good.

I agree with you. if a band is good then they can sell of their site or itunes (hopefullt itunes will have a more coplete catalog in the future.
)
and poeple will buy it and go to their concerts and have fans. and take out the middle man. or another middle man will come in instead. but now we dont know its still premature. the myspace thing kinda sucks for me as i dont like a lot but its something i have to embrace.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

But you are arriving at your conclusion by overlooking the important fact that people are stealing music. Your self imposed "END OF STORY". is a false ending.

It should read when you have a certain budget and one of the alternatives can be obtained for FREE, there is no choice to make.

How can you view this issue by ignoring the obvious? You ignore the fact that music can be obtained for free as if it has a minor bearing on the outcome.
Forgive me for being blunt,but
This is silly. You are conducting an analysis of factors without consindering the weights of the factors. If music can be obtained for FREE, I'd say that's a pretty important factor.

Ok.
As for being free. Yes, it is if you steal it. Same as selling something on ebay and not sending it. That's easy too.

I agree it is a factor though. And a big one, BUT I do believe the labels are their own worst enemy when it comes to this issue.
They throw money at the larger artists as if it is going out of fashion (which is usually what the artists they throw money at are doing) instead of nurturing new bands by giving them more than the 1 shot they give them these days.
How about they try giving 2 million to 50 bands to make an album or 2 and a couple of videos instead of 100 mill to mariah or robbie? Maybe you will find the next Beatles or whatever.

Then each CD is in effect a double album. The quantity of music they are getting from their artists has risen WAY over what the artist is getting as a percentage. nearly twice the product for the same price. Leads to a load of CD's full of filler tracks.

They don't mind keeping large percentages of the artists share for that "CD Packaging" surcharge etc...or "new format charge" or whatever they throw into their contracts.
If you read about how they have to account to their artists it's a joke. You can audit them and there are no consequences except they have to pay you what they owe you if you discover that the accounting was wrong. Guess what. It's ALWAYS wrong. They know that only a few people will bother auditing and when they are found out, they say "ok, here's your money"
So, that's the labels big freebie there..
They steal from you but if anyone steals from THEM...god forbid...
I am meant to get statements from a major every 6 months as they bought out a label I was on. I don't get any. You ask and get "oh, gee sorry...they'll be in the post" and when they arrive, it's bull. In my case it's all peanuts, so no matter, but they are legally obliged to account to me.
They bought the label for the back catalogue. They release and license tracks all over the place (I think I have 6 or 7 CD's with tracks of mine which I have never been accounted for) but to be honest it really wouldn't be worth the aggro. They know this, so they do it.
It's all peanuts of course and will make no difference to my existence, but the principle sucks. And they are doing this all over the board... a penny here a penny there, but it adds up to big bucks.
They screw the small guy to pay the big guy.

Then they blame downloading for stealing the bread from their artists mouths
I am certain that illegal downloads would decrease if the labels had a better business system for the modern world.

That is my issue and I probably had too much coffee today, so sorry to everyone for being snappy

Originally Posted by dlmorley

Ok.
As for being free. Yes, it is if you steal it. Same as selling something on ebay and not sending it. That's easy too.

I agree it is a factor though. And a big one, BUT I do believe the labels are their own worst enemy when it comes to this issue.
They throw money at the larger artists as if it is going out of fashion (which is usually what the artists they throw money at are doing) instead of nurturing new bands by giving them more than the 1 shot they give them these days.
How about they try giving 2 million to 50 bands to make an album or 2 and a couple of videos instead of 100 mill to mariah or robbie? Maybe you will find the next Beatles or whatever.

Then each CD is in effect a double album. The quantity of music they are getting from their artists has risen WAY over what the artist is getting as a percentage. nearly twice the product for the same price. Leads to a load of CD's full of filler tracks.

They don't mind keeping large percentages of the artists share for that "CD Packaging" surcharge etc...or "new format charge" or whatever they throw into their contracts.
If you read about how they have to account to their artists it's a joke. You can audit them and there are no consequences except they have to pay you what they owe you if you discover that the accounting was wrong. Guess what. It's ALWAYS wrong. They know that only a few people will bother auditing and when they are found out, they say "ok, here's your money"
So, that's the labels big freebie there..
They steal from you but if anyone steals from THEM...god forbid...
I am meant to get statements from a major every 6 months as they bought out a label I was on. I don't get any. You ask and get "oh, gee sorry...they'll be in the post" and when they arrive, it's bull. In my case it's all peanuts, so no matter, but they are legally obliged to account to me.
They bought the label for the back catalogue. They release and license tracks all over the place (I think I have 6 or 7 CD's with tracks of mine which I have never been accounted for) but to be honest it really wouldn't be worth the aggro. They know this, so they do it.
It's all peanuts of course and will make no difference to my existence, but the principle sucks. And they are doing this all over the board... a penny here a penny there, but it adds up to big bucks.
They screw the small guy to pay the big guy.

Then they blame downloading for stealing the bread from their artists mouths
I am certain that illegal downloads would decrease if the labels had a better business system for the modern world.

That is my issue and I probably had too much coffee today, so sorry to everyone for being snappy

What about label business practices causes illegal downloading? You are in effect blaming Labels for their products being stolen. My friend alot of your problems with labels are legitimate, but I'm afraid you take them too far.

IF sales were down because folks were not buying and they were content with not having the music that labels put out, you'd have a point.

But Sales are down because people are getting the content for free. This cannot be ignored and you can't blame the labels for it. People steal music because they can. Because there are not barriers to this theft and no consequences. IF food was free do you think people would spend money at the supermarket?
Would you reason that people take the free food instead of spending money at the supermarket, because the supermarket under pays workers? Or because the fruit isn't fresh? Would people be eating free meat/chicken because the fruit in supermarkets wasn't fresh? or would it simply be because they had accesss to free food?

I'm with the guy who said All music should be free as long as all other goods and services are free as well.

[KingDaddyO]

Apology unneccessary dl ... I think you are making some interesting & valid points.

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by dlmorley

And the obvious counterpoint is that they are spending their money elsewhere (like mobile phones or trainers or any number of "essentials" they are suckered into spending their money on...)
There is only so much money to go round. Especially for younger kids. If you offer them an attractive product, they may buy it but believe me, they know the score with record labels and prices..
DVD sales are pretty healthy (finding nemo sold 18 million, pirates of the caribean 13 million, the lion king 8 million etc)
Why?
They are cheaper and come packed with bonus's. I know they are cheaper because the costs are mainly recouped at the box office, but that changes nothing when it comes to you sepnding your money.
The fact is that if you have x dollars in your pocket and you have to choose between a recharge for your mobile, a new game for your playstation, a new DVD, a new pair of trainers or a new CD, it's a little bit of a tougher marketplace out there than it was in 1977 when we all bought albums. I mean in those days you had music, clothes and drugs! That was it and the most expensive thing was the music!
So I stand by my point. Labels like us to believe it is all these thieving teens that are costing them millions, but actually, their product just isn't as competitive as others...

you hit a very intersting point. there are more things to buy in regard to enetertainemtn. bofre there where VHS and albums, later video games, now acomputer, gadgets of all kinds. thus another reason why labels are loosing money. they basically still selling stereo pieaces of plastic like in the 80's (remeber the big laser discs)

so now that tech sucks and there are DVDs of really expensive movies with special features (that have music, wink wink another revenue source for us) , free tV is HDvideo and surround, PSPs, handheld video games, cell phones with software to buy., so those kids are buying all that stuff instead of the msuic they (we) fond off. I was in college and i saw how poeple downloaded in napster, most of the time was to listen one time cause the conversation at the time was going into metallicas bass players old band... oh there we go , flotsam and jetsam , hmm 3 min to download, lets see... oh boy it sucks put your Molotov CD and pass the beer.. and other stuff. now that guy who downloaded the song has that song and 500 others he doesnt even listen to it.
now wioth itunes you can at lest hear 30 seconds. so its cool and viable.

but now itunes and the ipod jusr like cell phones and other handheld gadgets.. are more controlable and not allow iligalities.

point being.. the labels are loosing moeny becuase
A) there are tons more competetion for the same mmoney than a few years ago.
B) the bang for the buck is really low thus, making mp3 appear as free in value in comparison.
C) RIAA is figting little guys instead of turning around and figting the bigger guys like its own companies like Sony, philips, Panasonic that make portable and playable media without any control of whom or what is being played, recorded etc.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

link for the article

Music piracy crackdown nets college kids - Tech News & Reviews - MSNBC.com


Im sorry to say this but even though its wrong to download music or software without paying I still think its the Record Industry own damn fault for being bad at the business they do and slow on turning into new technology. they had a lot of chance to change and create new way to make money out of music. but they didnt want to change and still dont want to change thier old habits and now they are recurring to sueing stupid kids. its such a bad image, i just can imagine one of those web cartoon running a few years back where lars ulrich is screeming to little kids while being all strung out in his mansion.

so what u think, is it a good idea to sue college kids and even 3rd grades for downloading music in P2P ?

there is a guy in this forum giving and doing some great stuff. like linking the .zip file to a paypal account (as i understood it, sorry if im wrong) and even getting sponsors so the download is "free".
thats some cool and inovating thinking. the record industry still wants us to buy pieaces of plastic that has being obsolete about 10 years ago. still at 44.1khz 16bit STEREO. 12-14 songs for 15bucks!!! its like, "wake up" RIAA, movies companies are sellig $300 million budget movies at $18 bucks a DVD and gives surrounds hi def video and audio, plus feuturetes and artwork. Give us more and better music or find a weay of making money another way and help artist make money with thier music in any other way.

i guess this was ment for the mone zone

but, am i wrong to think and get mad this way at the music industry?

watcha guys think?

Barg couldn't imagine anyone expected her to pay $3,000 — $7.87 per song — for some 1980s ballads and Spice Girls tunes she downloaded for laughs in her dorm room. Besides, the 20-year-old had friends who had downloaded thousands of songs without repercussion.

"Obviously I knew it was illegal, but no one got in trouble for it," Barg said.

I knew it was illegal, but no one got in trouble for it..

Well now you're in trouble, sweetheart.

And what is this about 3rd graders? I have a 3rd grader, she wouldn't have a clue how to rip off songs, without someone's help..

Waaaah. I say lock em' up!

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

What about label business practices causes illegal downloading? You are in effect blaming Labels for their products being stolen. My friend alot of your problems with labels are legitimate, but I'm afraid you take them too far.

IF sales were down because folks were not buying and they were content with not having the music that labels put out, you'd have a point.

But how do we judge that point.
Perhaps a high percentage of that music that is downloaded would not have been bought anyway. Maybe you don't mind having the new aerosmith album on your hard disk to listen to once, but would never have bought it. Perhaps it actually makes you more interested in getting their stuff.
Again, I'm condoning anything here, just pointing out the reality of it.
I'm not saying downloading is not having a large effect on music, but the labels would have you believe that it is the ONLY reason.

And I'm not blaming the labels for having their music stolen at all. I'm just saying perhaps it is time they embraced the new world rather than trying to fight it.

Surely it is about facing up to the reality that with the internet and MP3's, sharing is easy. It won't go away and they can press charges against as many schoolkids as they want, it still won't go away.

I'm just being a realist. In an ideal world crime wouldn't exist, but it does.
Doesn't make crime "right" but to solve it, you have to accept it and fight the causes.

Originally Posted by dlmorley

But how do we judge that point.
Perhaps a high percentage of that music that is downloaded would not have been bought anyway. Maybe you don't mind having the new aerosmith album on your hard disk to listen to once, but would never have bought it. Perhaps it actually makes you more interested in getting their stuff.
Again, I'm condoning anything here, just pointing out the reality of it.
I'm not saying downloading is not having a large effect on music, but the labels would have you believe that it is the ONLY reason.

And I'm not blaming the labels for having their music stolen at all. I'm just saying perhaps it is time they embraced the new world rather than trying to fight it.

Surely it is about facing up to the reality that with the internet and MP3's, sharing is easy. It won't go away and they can press charges against as many schoolkids as they want, it still won't go away.

I'm just being a realist. In an ideal world crime wouldn't exist, but it does.
Doesn't make crime "right" but to solve it, you have to accept it and fight the causes.

There's no cause for this crime other than people can do so with no consequence. And they can do it easily.

Beyond that the rest doesn't matter. Perhaps they are stealing things they wouldn't buy. We'll never know. Every possibility is outweighed by the fact that music can be obtained for free and there is no deterrence of stealing music.

What else really matters in the grand scheme of things? Do you think if the industry dropped its prices to 5 per album with 10 songs and all of them were previously unreleased co authorships recorded by Marvin Gaye, Luther V, Sam Cooke, and Ray Charles, it would make people buy it instead of downloading?

[dlmorley]

And one more point

Hi Fi is virtually non existant anymore. Sales of components dropped by 25% in 2001 I think and has kept falling.
The quality of playback systems is so bad these days that there is no culture of quality.
How can you tell people that a CD sounds better when they listen to it on something called a sound system that has a frequency curve like this U

Then the battle for level. Oversquished, no dynamics...
Itunes sell the files at 128k. damn....

It all leads to a product which is no longer a quality item and selling crap is hard.

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

What else really matters in the grand scheme of things? Do you think if the industry dropped its prices to 5 per album with 10 songs and all of them were previously unreleased co authorships recorded by Marvin Gaye, Luther V, Sam Cooke, and Ray Charles, it would make people buy it instead of downloading?

I don't know, but 50 cent still sold 21 million

Why? I don't know
How many downloaded it illegaly? I don't know
Is that a lot of money coming in? Yes
Why didn't everyone just download it as it's free on the internet?

Originally Posted by dlmorley

And one more point

Hi Fi is virtually non existant anymore. Sales of components dropped by 25% in 2001 I think and has kept falling.
The quality of playback systems is so bad these days that there is no culture of quality.
How can you tell people that a CD sounds better when they listen to it on something called a sound system that has a frequency curve like this U

Then the battle for level. Oversquished, no dynamics...
Itunes sell the files at 128k. damn....

It all leads to a product which is no longer a quality item and selling crap is hard.

NO selling crap that can be obtained for free without leaving home that is also availabel on street corners of every major city for 3 albums for $5 is hard.

Give it 3 years and your stance on DVDs will be a failed one. Boxoffice numbers are bound to suffer and it won't be because of the quaity of movies or the cleanliness of theaters. It will be because the guy who works at the post office spreads around a list of DVDs for coworkers to place their orders.
Same for the School board, City Hall, Police Station, Bars, Resteraunts.

Going to the movies will soon be a thing of the past. Especially as the bootleg quality improves (I saw a spiderman disk a month before it was released that looked great).

[dlmorley]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

NO selling crap that can be obtained for free without leaving home that is also availabel on street corners of every major city for 3 albums for $5 is hard.

Give it 3 years and your stance on DVDs will be a failed one. Boxoffice numbers are bound to suffer and it won't be because of the quaity of movies or the cleanliness of theaters. It will be because the guy who works at the post office spreads around a list of DVDs for coworkers to place their orders.
Same for the School board, City Hall, Police Station, Bars, Resteraunts.

Going to the movies will soon be a thing of the past. Especially as the bootleg quality improves (I saw a spiderman disk a month before it was released that looked great).

Spiderman 3 took $375 million in it's first week.
Maybe that illegal copy made people WANT to see it

I'm outta here. I have my views on it and you yours. I think they cross somewhere, but I'm not entirely sure
David

[gsilbers]

Originally Posted by no ssl yet

Going to the movies will soon be a thing of the past. Especially as the bootleg quality improves (I saw a spiderman disk a month before it was released that looked great).

thats what people said when the VHS came out!

Originally Posted by gsilbers

thats what people said when the VHS came out!

VHS tapes werent sold on street corners and mass distributed. It's a matter of time. Movie theaters will be closing. Their numbers will eventually decline.

[Protools Guy]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

how about more kids going to your concerts and buying the merchandise?

Yeah, they BUY and ticket and they BUY a t-shirt. That helps pay for the bus, the gas, the crew, the hotels, etc.

Stealing the music doesn't help pay for the studio time, the engineer, the producer, the manufacturing costs, the players, etc.


Not everyone wants to make a living out on the road. Some of us would like to hang on to a career as a recording artist.

I'm glad that the RIAA is at least making people think twice.