Printable View
They RIAA would want more then $20 a month. That wouldnt even cover 2 albums. They exspect everyone to buy atleast 10 albums a month to keep them swimming in cash.
Didnt Napster try that paid service and it didnt work out?
Sorry but I am not familiar with Napster or other P2P software b/c I never used them.
I agree with the RIAA probably claiming more if we paid.
And you're right, Napster did try, but I don't think it is possible to try to make people pay for a network that is not controlled. What I think would work is if a new network would be set up, just like an ISP, and we would actually connect to gateways to use these services. Just a thought.
Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Ok I gotta straighten this all out. Everything I own and buy ROCKS, and everyone elses SUCKS. Mines the best and I want to pay MORE for cds then they already cost. You all SUCK i RULE. There, startin back on the right track again.
edit: I hate soundcards and speakers too:)
That's the spirit!!!
I HATE SOUND!!!I LOVE MICROSOFT!!! BROCCOLI IS MY FAVORITE WITH BRUSSEL SPROUT AND TURNIP SAUCE!!! ABSTINENCE RULES!!! ASEXUAL!!!:confused:
I think I am offended I like Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts but I hate Turnips :D
Quote:
Originally posted by Fig
That's the spirit!!!
I HATE SOUND!!!I LOVE MICROSOFT!!! BROCCOLI IS MY FAVORITE WITH BRUSSEL SPROUT AND TURNIP SAUCE!!! ABSTINENCE RULES!!! ASEXUAL!!!:confused:
I hope everyone realizes that the music industry losing money is just blatant propaganda. Do you know why they're not selling as many albums? WE'RE IN A RECESSION. Everything has become less profitable, especially non-essential items such as music. What's more, before the RIAA accuses people of stealing from them, maybe they should look at the percentages that record labels take from the sales of artists' albums.
Idiot might remember this post, its pretty relevant to this precept that artist are making millions of dollars
Its really narrow minded to make comments like, "All the artist I see on MTV are F'in rich!", How do you know that? You think a label is going to let what they want to be 'The Next Big Thing' roll up onto a TRL stage wearing 6 year old chucks and the same shirt they had on 3 days ago? With powdered sugar all over their mouths cause the donuts in the studio are the only other food that they have had all week other then loser sandwhichs and Top Ramin?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kommismar(sp?)
Here's a reality of the music industry. Let's say you're a member of a four-person band. Your debut record just went Gold (500,000 copies).
Let's say that you're not a songwriter, and that you're on a record label (i.e. you don't sell independently, a la Steve Vai). The list price of your CD was $16.00, therefore your record has earned a total of $8,000,000. We'll say it took you one year to make the record, and you did not tour to support it. Therefore, Mr. Professional Musician, here's your earnings for one year:
These are standard average figures for the industry.
$16.00 - Standard list price of record
- $4.00 - Deducted by record company for packaging costs
---------
=$12.00 - Cost of the record as determined by the record company
x 10% - Net Artist Royalty (minus the producer's take, about 3%)
= $1.00 - Base royalty for each record sold
x500,000- Number of records sold
---------
=$500,000-Base amount due to the artist.
Now follow me here...
500,000 - Number of records sold
-75,000 - 15% deducted for freebies, promos, review copies, etc
=425,000- New base number used to determine gross royalties
$425,000- New base amount due artist (425,000 x $1.00)
---------
$425,000- Royalty base
$148,500- 35% of royalty held by record companies for returns
$276,500- New royalty paid out to artist
---------
$276,500- Royalty base after freebies, returns are deducted
$27,650 - 10% deducted by record company for breakage
$248,850- New royalty base after breakage.
---------
$248,850- Paid to band by record company
$150,000- Expense to record the record: studio time, engineer's time, equipment rental, per diems (this cost may have been covered by record company as an advance; now it gets paid back to record company)
=$98,850- Band's take after expenses
---------
$98,850 - Band's earnings
$19,770 - Manager's 20% of the band's earnings (some take only 15%)
$79,080 - Band's final take
---------
$79,080 - Money earned from sales of 500,000 records รท 4 Number of people in the band
$19,770 - Individual members' final paychecks
This does not include lawyers' fees, the cost of making a video for MTV (which the band will foot at least part of), taxes, social security, and insurance.
Don't spend it all in one place, rich guy!
This is where phrases such as "paying your dues" come from in the music industry. This is also how a huge-selling group like TLC can go bankrupt. Very, very few come out of music rich. They do it because they love it.
Do you honestly think that its NOT common for a band that just picks up a recording contract to get loaned money upfront to "Look the part" of being a sucessful music artist.
I mean...you look at people like, Sean "Puffy" Combs you see the huge house and all those cars, that he "owns". Yeah, now he owns them, but 3 years ago he didnt they were either given to him by his label, or the money for it was loaned to him. Do you think his label really cares? Hell no, what do you think the resale value is on a two year old Bentley or Rolls Royce? Most of the stuff that musicians buy can be sold for more then they are worth even if the artist has long faded out of the musical lime light.
Why do you think that Bands tour for like a year or more between albums? cause the above equation doesnt provide the revenue to make another one. And yes the stuff at concerets is way expensive. But I will gladly throw down $25-$35 for a tee shirt, cause I know they aint seen jack when I buy their CDs.
So I shouldn't have the CD I got for Christmas? :confused: :eek:Quote:
Originally posted by Isezumi
Yes if you just find a CD, you are not entitled to be in possession of the media (the songs). Cause you never payed for that privledge.
There are a million ways to debate this but it doesnt really matter what picture you paint, its still wrong.
The only thing that i can think of that is similar to this is drug possesion. The law doesnt really care whether you bought it, stole it, inherited it from your Dead Grandfather, or someone slipped it in your pocket on the subway. The point is that you have it, and you shouldnt.
I would think that a CD would be the same thing as anything else: you have it, and as long as it's not stolen, people aren't going to question where it came from. This is the same for anything (except things that are registered, e.g. cars). If I were to find a computer sitting on the street, I could keep it (with a slightly blemished conscience). If the CD has already been purchased, why are you not allowed to keep it if you find it? It's not like MP3's where the same copy is being redistributed (like with burned cd's), so the artist isn't really losing money, since the person who originally had the CD will have to buy a new one if they still want it. Saying anything else is like saying that it's wrong to give clothes to your younger siblings: you're done with them, so what's wrong with giving them to someone who wants (sort of) them?
Giving Clothes to your siblings does not really involve licenses or copyright infringement. Finding a computer on the street, CAN be a license free issue (assuming that the computer you find lacks a licensed OS or any licensed Programs). YOu have to understand that its not as simple as having or not having. That is why if you ever bother to read EULA on most on software or ANYTHING that is licensed, they have provisions for a "Transfer of License" which legally allows you to give something that you have a license to, to someone else...the only problem is that you cant use that product anymore cause you have forfiet your license.Quote:
Originally posted by zeppelinfr34k
I would think that a CD would be the same thing as anything else: you have it, and as long as it's not stolen, people aren't going to question where it came from. This is the same for anything (except things that are registered, e.g. cars). If I were to find a computer sitting on the street, I could keep it (with a slightly blemished conscience). If the CD has already been purchased, why are you not allowed to keep it if you find it? It's not like MP3's where the same copy is being redistributed (like with burned cd's), so the artist isn't really losing money, since the person who originally had the CD will have to buy a new one if they still want it. Saying anything else is like saying that it's wrong to give clothes to your younger siblings: you're done with them, so what's wrong with giving them to someone who wants (sort of) them?
Thats also why CDs that you find on the Street arent really yours. The person who bought it can present a proof of Purchase and you just "having the CD" means that you are in violation of HIS License.
But what I mean is, if you could prove that it wasn't stolen (with a witness or something), then they couldn't arrest you just for having it, could they?
If you find a CD on the street and it becomes an item of debate, and the original owner can point to that CD and say "here is my recipt here is my empty jewel case, that mine!" then you are F'ed. I mean odds are you arent going to jail or being fined up the wang(for that), but you will have to give it up...and then any illusion of you having a license is gone. Then they can commence nailing your butt to the wall.Quote:
Originally posted by zeppelinfr34k
But what I mean is, if you could prove that it wasn't stolen (with a witness or something), then they couldn't arrest you just for having it, could they?
Quote:
Originally posted by Isezumi
If you find a CD on the street and it becomes an item of debate, and the original owner can point to that CD and say "here is my recipt here is my empty jewel case, that mine!" then you are F'ed. I mean odds are you arent going to jail or being fined up the wang(for that), but you will have to give it up...and then any illusion of you having a license is gone. Then they can commence nailing your butt to the wall.
Yeah but the likelyhood of finding a CD on the ground, and then taking it home...then someone wanted to claim it is pretty much slim and none. If someone just looses a CD, and then goes back to look for it and it isn't there...there isn't much anyone can do unless you actually saw the person that took it. If you went to the cops, and told them you lost a $15 CD, they will more than likely tell you tough luck.
So if you find a CD on the ground, I wouldn't worry about getting in trouble...even by the RIAA...they aren't going to check if you have a recipt for it. If they do, then my 100 or so CD's, all don't have recipts, and I guess they can jail me for it.:D
If there are 12 tracks on a CD, and the CD costs $18, that's $1.50 a track. If the police would say 'tough luck' if you lost a $15 CD, why can't they say the same thing to the RIAA over $1.50 (less cause of crap quality) mp3's? Besides, the only way they can stop files sharing is to hack everyone's computer for mp3's, and even at that you could claim that you own the CD.
Let's look at this in slightly different manner:Quote:
Originally posted by zeppelinfr34k
If there are 12 tracks on a CD, and the CD costs $18, that's $1.50 a track. If the police would say 'tough luck' if you lost a $15 CD, why can't they say the same thing to the RIAA over $1.50 (less cause of crap quality) mp3's? Besides, the only way they can stop files sharing is to hack everyone's computer for mp3's, and even at that you could claim that you own the CD.
2 GB of MP3's seems on the low side of what most pirates have (many have whole HDD's for MP3's). Figure 8 MB for a halfway decent quality MP3. 2 GB divided by 8 MB = 250 songs. 250 x $1.50 = $375. $375 is a number that might get some more attention. If you look at someone running a 100 GB server, that's $18,750. I think most of us would agree that 18K is enough to worry about.
Also - who cares if the musicians get rich even if they do? You are saying that you have the right to determine what someone else gets for their work. You are saying you should be able to walk up to an electrician with 20 years of experiance and tell him that he should work for free for you, because $30/hr is just greedy. He will laugh and walk away. As he should.
Who cares if they are "greedy". Believe it or not - most people like to make money! I daresay each person who has claimed that musicians are getting too much money would take a raise at work if it was offered.
Not the same. The amount of money earned to hours worked is far different when comparing the working class to the wealthy musicians. Life is a far bigger struggle. I'm assuming most people replying here aren't making a living on their own or fully independent yet so you have yet to realize how precious the money you make really is. Granted, I make good money for the area I live but I also work my a$$ off to earn it. Good for them that they make as much as they do but when we find ways of getting our entertainment cheaper don't *****. It happens all over regardless of the industry you are in. I'm thinking to put an end to the problems the P2P's are going to have to have a form of charging system where some of the profits go to the artists and some go the the P2P for the advertising. I think that would be fair. However this rediculous price of $1.something per song isn't going to work. At that price I stay pro-piracy, it just isn't worth it. You look at it this way. We aren't getting a choice when we buy cd's. I am usually after one maybe two songs at the most on the cd, however i'm required to purchase ALL the music in order to get them. To me that isn't fair. I can say this, there is not one FULL cd on my harddriver right now. I don't download full cd's, I download what I want to listen too, thats it.Quote:
Originally posted by s1203372
Who cares if they are "greedy". Believe it or not - most people like to make money! I daresay each person who has claimed that musicians are getting too much money would take a raise at work if it was offered.
[quote]Also - who cares if the musicians get rich even if they do? You are saying that you have the right to determine what someone else gets for their work. You are saying you should be able to walk up to an electrician with 20 years of experiance and tell him that he should work for free for you, because $30/hr is just greedy. He will laugh and walk away. As he should.[/qoute]
I can tell you that if you a electrician with 20 years under his belt and all he wants is $30/hr!!!! You got yourself a gold mine. I can tell you a electrician with 20 years of experience would be working for around $45/hr and up :)
Actually, I'm an electrical engineer, and I've worked hard to get to where I am. I paid my own way through college as well, with a little (lot) of help from Sallie Mae. I have a very strong appreciation for the money I make. Usual work weeks are 60+ hours, and often weekends to make deadlines happen.Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
Not the same. The amount of money earned to hours worked is far different when comparing the working class to the wealthy musicians. Life is a far bigger struggle. I'm assuming most people replying here aren't making a living on their own or fully independent yet so you have yet to realize how precious the money you make really is. Granted, I make good money for the area I live but I also work my a$$ off to earn it.
I would have no issue with a system like that. I'm sure I would use it too.Quote:
Good for them that they make as much as they do but when we find ways of getting our entertainment cheaper don't *****. It happens all over regardless of the industry you are in. I'm thinking to put an end to the problems the P2P's are going to have to have a form of charging system where some of the profits go to the artists and some go the the P2P for the advertising. I think that would be fair.
Whatever price they decide to set for the music is their business. It is your choice to buy or not to buy at the price they set. It is not your place or mine to say what price they can charge for it. As for buying the whole CD - fair doesn't enter into it. When I buy WinXP, I pay for NetMeeting, even though I will never use it. I realize this, and accept it, because I still need WinXP. When I go to a restaurant and buy a meal that comes with cole slaw, I pay for the cole slaw even though I don't like it, because it's part of the meal price (unless I can swap!). The person selling sets the price. The person buying decides whether or not to buy at that price. There is no other option.Quote:
However this rediculous price of $1.something per song isn't going to work. At that price I stay pro-piracy, it just isn't worth it. You look at it this way. We aren't getting a choice when we buy cd's. I am usually after one maybe two songs at the most on the cd, however i'm required to purchase ALL the music in order to get them. To me that isn't fair. I can say this, there is not one FULL cd on my harddriver right now. I don't download full cd's, I download what I want to listen too, thats it.
I would love to see a system in which we could buy individual songs from the artists websites. Or a service that would let us walk into Best Buy or some other store, pick 13 songs to put on a CD, have it burned, and walk out with it. I would pay 14-16 bucks for that in a heartbeat.
Until these systems come, though, we simply have the option to buy the music or not. Piracy is theft and is unjustifiable in any manner.
You are still using examples that aren't the same. There's linux besides windows and YES you can substitute side orders in most resteraunts but if I want one particular song I have to pay $15 for a cd full of a bunch of other garbage. I think I'll keep downloading. And I did say most in here don't support themselves not all. I wasn't directing it at you I was making a general statement. But you are right, its my choice to buy or not to buy and I think i'll stick with not buying.;)Quote:
Originally posted by s1203372
[B]
Actually, I'm an electrical engineer, and I've worked hard to get to where I am. I paid my own way through college as well, with a little (lot) of help from Sallie Mae. I have a very strong appreciation for the money I make. Usual work weeks are 60+ hours, and often weekends to make deadlines happen.
[B]
I would have no issue with a system like that. I'm sure I would use it too.
Whatever price they decide to set for the music is their business. It is your choice to buy or not to buy at the price they set. It is not your place or mine to say what price they can charge for it. As for buying the whole CD - fair doesn't enter into it. When I buy WinXP, I pay for NetMeeting, even though I will never use it. I realize this, and accept it, because I still need WinXP. When I go to a restaurant and buy a meal that comes with cole slaw, I pay for the cole slaw even though I don't like it, because it's part of the meal price (unless I can swap!). The person selling sets the price. The person buying decides whether or not to buy at that price. There is no other option.
I would love to see a system in which we could buy individual songs from the artists websites. Or a service that would let us walk into Best Buy or some other store, pick 13 songs to put on a CD, have it burned, and walk out with it. I would pay 14-16 bucks for that in a heartbeat.
Until these systems come, though, we simply have the option to buy the music or not. Piracy is theft and is unjustifiable in any manner.
edit: I would also like to add that piracy is no worse than speeding in my book and we all do that. However speeding kills people so which one should REALLY be worse.
Yes, you can use linux instead of windows, but you still have to obtain a valid license for whichever software you use. It just happens that the Linux license is free. Music isn't.Quote:
Originally posted by 1ctabor
You are still using examples that aren't the same. There's linux besides windows and YES you can substitute side orders in most resteraunts but if I want one particular song I have to pay $15 for a cd full of a bunch of other garbage. I think I'll keep downloading. And I did say most in here don't support themselves not all. I wasn't directing it at you I was making a general statement. But you are right, its my choice to buy or not to buy and I think i'll stick with not buying.;)
edit: I would also like to add that piracy is no worse than speeding in my book and we all do that. However speeding kills people so which one should REALLY be worse.
Yes, I have also paid $15 for a one-song CD (case in point, the verve - bittersweet symphony. That song rocks, but everything else on the CD not only bites, but is completely different in style!). I dislike doing so as much as anyone - but if I want the song, that's the only way to get it. So, I decide if that one song is worth $15.
Speeding vs. piracy is not a very good comparison. Speeding is 99% of the time a victimless crime. Piracy takes money from other people 100% of the time. Yes, if you killed someone speeding, it would be horrible, but that's quite rare.
I must say I am enjoying the chance for a nice, well-reasoned debate with no 1337-talking idiots flagrantly demonstrating their mental incompetence to the world. Thanks!:)
Offtopic though, but you are aware that 60% of all accidents on the freeway is caused by speeding?Quote:
Speeding vs. piracy is not a very good comparison. Speeding is 99% of the time a victimless crime. Piracy takes money from other people 100% of the time. Yes, if you killed someone speeding, it would be horrible, but that's quite rare.
Just thought I would share that :)
However I never speed at all. I am a good boy :) (Insert Sarcasms)
I'm going to have to say that the reason some musicians are so anti-piracy (and the RIAA too) is based on greed. You could make a strong case against it, but look at what happened with Napster. The two artists/bands suing Napster were both wealthy enough to provide for themselves and their children (and probably their children's children) for life. I think that a lot of musicians (especially younger ones) consider themselves "non-mainstream" people, and I think (though it's hard to back up) that a lot of bands support piracy (especially punk/metal/whatever the hell Rage Against the Machine was), since it hurts the "establishment". I think the people who are really hurt by piracy are the RIAA. I think the ideal system would be one where musicians could independently record tracks and put them on a centrally based server where people could download them for a certain price. That way, they would no longer have to get screwed over by producers just to get their music out. This would also make internet radio much more effective, since the music would be owned by no one except the artist, and they would allow internet radio stations to play their songs so that they could get the free publicity.
*edit* and if you weren't going to buy the cd anyway (which is the case with a lot of the music I download), then who is losing money because of piracy?
Taxes...City,County, State, Federal (sorry I am speaking merely for the Americans, i know you Brits have the Taxes too but I dont know how they break down). It comes out of your paycheck ever pay period, it comes out of your capitol gains every year.
You pay for Parks that you will never visit, Schools you will never attended, Police Officers that will never pull your over or catch the guy that stole your car. Every paycheck you have, money gets taken out to feed unemployeed people across your City, State and Nation. Your money pays for the health care of Children that arent your own. It puts bullets in guns, used in wars that you dont want to happen.
Every month your hard earned money is spent on things that you think is garbage.
You have the ability to say "Fuc that!" and not pay taxes ever again. And the Gov't has the ability to garnish your wages until all your debits are payed. Guess what, they set the numbers they make them as big or as small as they possibly can...and they really dont care what YOU think. Cause they have 200 million other people to worry about. Now if you had 5 million people behind you ready to throw down votes, then they start to care, because you have power, you have moved your ideals from incesant back porch bi tching to a cause that is supported by the masses. When you get 5 million people behind something, shist happens...Women start to get better pay, Minorities stop getting mistreated; change occurs.
Now you are thinkin "okay W T F does that have to do with anything"
Look at what your arguement is for downloading songs. "I dont wanna pay $15 for a CD with one good song on it.", "Fuk artists there all rich basterz anyway", "The RIAA is Greedy". These are all behavior that are exhibited by people that you elect to REPRESENT you in this republic. Do you think this is going to get better or worse when you move to the business sector? Guess what? Even though its not the Gov't you can still vote, with your wallet. No Elektra records could careless if you stop buying CDs. But if the 4 MILLION people on Kazaa all stopped buying CDs, AND told everyone. Change will happen. If Sony or Time Warner opened up their Mail boxes and 4 Million letters poured out saying "Fix it, now!" they would, real fast.
Do you know why Tienmen Square was THE single biggest victory for human rights in China. Cause the students WERENT shooting at the Red Army. Do you know why Martin Luther King has his own Freakin Holiday, but the Black Panthers usually never muster more then a foot note in history books, because Dr. King was not militant or violent and would have no part in anything that was.
There is a point to a RAGE style "fuk the man", it has a purpose other then personal greed. 90% of your numbers are paper, they are there merely for the good parts and will throw up a white flag at the frist sign of a hard march or a small skirmish. There are people that are really fighting for you. But most of you are to busy hiding behind the cause as opposed to helping fight for it.
You know this is a battle that will not be won by either side?
The pirates will always find a way to justify why they are doing it and the non pirates will complain :)
You will not be able to convince either side which is better.
Greed, dude I am a musician...I am not greedy, and I don't make much money with music...when I do start making money, I don't want people stealing my music...not to say I wont allow a legal download...but when someone steels your entire album, than money will be lost...and more importantly the artist will take the hit, because the record companies have all the money.Quote:
Originally posted by zeppelinfr34k
I'm going to have to say that the reason some musicians are so anti-piracy (and the RIAA too) is based on greed. You could make a strong case against it, but look at what happened with Napster. The two artists/bands suing Napster were both wealthy enough to provide for themselves and their children (and probably their children's children) for life. I think that a lot of musicians (especially younger ones) consider themselves "non-mainstream" people, and I think (though it's hard to back up) that a lot of bands support piracy (especially punk/metal/whatever the hell Rage Against the Machine was), since it hurts the "establishment". I think the people who are really hurt by piracy are the RIAA. I think the ideal system would be one where musicians could independently record tracks and put them on a centrally based server where people could download them for a certain price. That way, they would no longer have to get screwed over by producers just to get their music out. This would also make internet radio much more effective, since the music would be owned by no one except the artist, and they would allow internet radio stations to play their songs so that they could get the free publicity.
*edit* and if you weren't going to buy the cd anyway (which is the case with a lot of the music I download), then who is losing money because of piracy?
Also, your argument about, you weren't going to be buying it anyway is childish... how , do you know you werne't going to buy it? Because, you probably don't buy any music now as you can pirate it...so maybe you would have bought it, if you couldn't just steel it.
Just because you can't pyshcially touch music, doensn't mean it is free... just as you can't physically touch the words in books, doesn't mean it's free.
Since I've spent 100's of hours practicing, and recording music in the studio...let me explain to you something, it's not easy, it's hard work, and it's a passion...if you pour your heart and sould into something in hopes of becoming succesfull you would also realize this.
I wasn't really saying its the same, I was saying its wrong and has its downfalls yet everyone is ok with it when in reality it has much worse consequences then downloading an mp3. I just don't see why so many people can stand in the name of the riaa or musicians yet could give a rats a$$ about "important" stuff that deserves to be a law. When it comes down to it we'll probably all see this as some government thing, you know not getting all that tax money that could be spent on cd's:D :D :DQuote:
Originally posted by s1203372
Speeding vs. piracy is not a very good comparison. Speeding is 99% of the time a victimless crime. Piracy takes money from other people 100% of the time. Yes, if you killed someone speeding, it would be horrible, but that's quite rare.