Quoting:
I desperately want this shirt.

Don't look if you're offended by vulgar words. :P

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a251
End Quote

Looks familiar. ::)

Quoting:
I think filesharing is no different than when people used to record songs off the radio. End Quote

Thats true.

I remember when I was younger in the 80s I would set my cassette player on Record and just let it run until the tape ran out.

Funny thing is, I could still do that today, and its fine.  But how is that different than getting off the internet?  I don't know.  Greed is playing a huge part in all these "crackdowns" by the RIAA.

Quoting:I also  don't think we are in any danger of losing "music artists."  End Quote

Thats true.

Have you watched the MTV show "Cribs" lately?  When I see the rap singers or any musicians $10,000,000 mansions on there, I think I want to puke when I think about how much they are whining because of online file-swapping. ::)




What gets me, is that every piece of electronics have dropped in price over time, whether it be CD players, VCR's, TV's, DVD players, etc.  Yet CD's have remained the same price for almost 15 years.  I remember buying my first CD in the early 90's (Wayne's World soundtrack), and it cost me $15.99 then.  Based on the trend of pricing of similar products, CD's should be much lower than they are now.  But as long as the RIAA is in control, they will continue to cost what they do. >:(

heck, I can go to Walmart and buy a pack of blank CD's and they are only $.40 each, yet the RIAA expects us to pay $15-$20 for a CD?

Quoting:
I am trying to track down an old David Bowie song (and no, i'm not going to spend $24 a disk trying to find it  >:() and noticed that on KaZaA, if you do an audio search for David Bowie, a hundred songs are listed.  But if you look at the far right side of the screen at the name of the file, the ones with "reality" in the name are the same song regardless of the title.  
End Quote

Actually that tactic of "flooding" the swapping sites has been made publically known by the RIAA that some musicians/bands have put songs on those sites that are basically decoys.  Madonna is one I can think off the top of my head that has done this.

I tried to get a song a while back and after 3 attempts from numerous users, all I got was a bunch of static noise.

Quoting:
I think filesharing is no different than when people used to record songs off the radio.
End Quote

Actually, there is a big difference.

When a song is played on the radio, the station actually pays royalties!  In fact, that has been one of the problems with Internet Radio.

Now I do NOT think that Internet Radio stations should have to pay royalties, as long as they are an "amateur project".  That is, if it is me, you, or somebody small trying to do it.  But if it is a large attempt to make money, then I do think the RIAA and it's artists are due their fair share of royalties.

The royalties stations pay are dependent on their listeners.  This is one reason Arbitron ratings are so important.  The more listeners, the more they pay.  The money is collected by the RIAA, then forwarded on to the performer's pension and royalty plan.  A similar system works for the MPIHPP (Motion Picture Industry Health & Pension Plan) for TV and Movie performers and crew.

And when you record, you also get the lesser quality of radio, in addition to the commercials and station breaks.  And that is actually factored into the cost for the radio stations.

Quoting:
I also  don't think we are in any danger of losing "music artists."  They already debated this issue when the blank audio cassette came out. I believe they ended up adding a built in tax or percentage goes to the industry.This whole thing is retarded. They are just mad cuz its a better quality of recording.
End Quote

As for the tax, that is not true.  The industry TRIED to get that, and in the US it failed.  They have tried the same thing for blank CDs.  It failed also in the US.

I have heard that Canada and some countries in Europe do that (a surtax for blank media), can somebody tell me if I am right or werong, and how much this tax is please?

And as for "loosing artists", that IS happening!

When the industry looses money due to the HUGE number of illegal copies, they trim their "stable" of artists, sticking with the big money makers, and trimming off the lesser paid artists.  This reduces variety in music available.  I can name several artists I know of in LA that had their contracts dropped in the last 2 years.  They were all big in the LA area, but not known outside of the area.

And there is another big difference...  when you made a copy of a friend's album or CD, you had to meet up, and take the time to make the copy, 30-60 minutes for an entire CD.  Now with MP3 you can transfer an entire CD to hundreds of people in less then an hour.  Look at the amount of data that flows through KAZAA.  In addition to being a haven for hackers and virus writers, they cost the industry billions of dollars.

As I said, I am *NOT* a hack for the RIAA.  I actually have a great many issues with them and their techniques.  I also have no problem with some copying.  But when you see the vast amount that happens now, it is a problem.  The "I want something for free" mentality is what is causing the current problem I feel.

If you are copying some old song that is not available any other way, I say go for it.  If you are trading some obscure track that is fine.  If you are downloading the latest songs from the top 10 chart, then for heaven's sake, GO OUT AND BUY IT!

Here is a simply question to ask yourselves:  How many CDs have you bought in the last year?  How many did you buy in a year 5 years ago?  Odds are, you make more money now then you did then, and the cost of a CD has largely stayed the same.  If the amount you have bought has decreased sharply, then imagine the impact that has on the recording companies.

And you can STILL have your MP3, and be legal.  You are allowed to make MP3s for private use.  And you can download single songs for around $1 per song at Napster and other similar services.

You can also buy used CDs.  Or even borrow them from a friend.  But when millions of people exchange tens of millions of songs they do not pay for, it is stealing.  It is morally wrong.  Just like it would be to go to a store and shoplift it.

Quoting:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth

Another link that I think may have been posted a long time ago, under a different website...

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html (warning: language -by producer of Nirvana's "In Utero")
End Quote

I have seen similar stats before.  And to be honest, you may be partially right.

For one, although I have never heard from a reliable source the fact about a surcharge on Music media, it may be true.  This may be why music CDs cost more then data CDs.  But the truth is, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!  Just buy the data CDs, they are the same thing as a music CD, they just cost more.

As for the surcharge on CDR units, I have never heard of that either, at least in the US.  $2 may indeed be charged, but with most of them being made out of the US then imported in, I don't really see how they can do that.  We buy most of ours from Taiwan, and we do not pay the company $2 per unit, and we do not pay anybody else $2 per unit.

As for the money collected in the lawsuit, I can understand why the RIAA did not pay the artists.  After all, how do you assess how much each atrist would make?  How can you determine how many times Artist A and Atrist B were copied, so how much each would get?  Remember, a lot of that was punitive damages, not direct damage.  This is a way to punish a person or company so they (and hopefully nobody else) will do it again, not a reflection of actual loss or damage.

As I said before, I have issues with the RIAA also.  I think they are greedy anti-technology scum.  I think that if they had talked to and listened to Napster when they originally went on-line, most of this would never have happened.  Remember, Napster originally wanted to CHARGE for it's use, but the RIAA shot them down, that is when they went free.

To me, it is largely a moral question.  Stealing is wrong.  I do not care if it is Microsoft, BMG, Sony, 7-11, or Joe's Corner Convience Store, stealing is wrong.  And when you download commercial music without paying for it, you ARE stealing.

I do not care for the agruments, the "justifications", or the piousness of people that claim it is "ok" to do, it is wrong.  If you published a book and sold it for $10, I imagine you would be pissed if somebody started to pass out free copies.  If you painted a picture, I am sure you would be pissed if somebody gave away copies without giving you roaylties.  This is the same thing.

As a side not to the claim on one of those sites that RIAA never gave out money collected: they are still in litigation as to who gets what money from internet play.  In the same way that AFTRA and SAG went on strike over who collects royalties from internet play of movies, tv shows and commercials.  The internet is a brand new media, it will take a few years for all of the artists, unions, guilds, and organizations to decide how to spread the money collected from it.  This is not dissimilar from TV shows filmed before syndication rights were standard.  FYI: None of the cast of shows like "Gilligan's Island" have been paid since the show was originally shot, because there were no syndication rights in their contracts.

To sum it up, the RIAA is bad, they charge to much, they eat babies for lunch.  But stealing is stealing, and is wrong.  I do not care what the justification is, wrong is wrong.

Quoting:
As for the tax, that is not true.  The industry TRIED to get that, and in the US it failed.  They have tried the same thing for blank CDs.  It failed also in the US.

I have heard that Canada and some countries in Europe do that (a surtax for blank media), can somebody tell me if I am right or werong, and how much this tax is please?
End Quote

Sadly, it's true.  All blank media.. tape, CD, CDR-W, DVD-R's, etc..   >:(

http://www.canada.com/news/business/story.asp?id=0C305B8D-FC36-49A9-9840-C1E9F1B8E9F1

And something extra:
http://news.com.com/2008-1028-5097180.html

Quoting:
My opinion is on the whole thing if you want to find one single song then its ok to download it. End Quote

but isn't that what the majority of music-downloaders do anyway?

I mean think about it, when you buy a CD, I don't know about you, but there's usually only maybe 1 or maybe 2 songs on the whole album that are any good.  The rest are crap.


Often times theres a song I hear, and I want it.  But I don't want to spend $15-$20 for that one song knowing that the rest of the songs on the album are going to suck.

Quoting:


but isn't that what the majority of music-downloaders do anyway?

I mean think about it, when you buy a CD, I don't know about you, but there's usually only maybe 1 or maybe 2 songs on the whole album that are any good.  The rest are crap.


Often times theres a song I hear, and I want it.  But I don't want to spend $15-$20 for that one song knowing that the rest of the songs on the album are going to suck.
End Quote

Well there are web sites that offer songs for 99 cents each.

Quoting:
Okay, I have a question.  Why does the RIAA approve of buying used CDs at a used CD store?  Isn't buying a CD that no one wanted anymore and gave away the same as borrowing a CD from someone who's going to keep it and making a copy of it?  Either way, two new CDs aren't being sold, just one is.
End Quote

Because since the song was bought new at one time, the royalties have been paid for that copy.  This concept is actually easy to understand if you compare it to a computer program.

When you buy Windows, you are actually buying a "site license" to use one copy of the program.  As long as you use only ONE copy, you are OK.  You can even sell it, as long as you stop useing that copy when you sell it.  It is when you use more then one copy, or sell it and continue to use it that you get in trouble.

With music, you are allowed to make "archival" copies.  But if you ever sell the original copy, you are supposed to sell the copies as well.  When I lived in Hollywood, I used to clean up old records then convert them to CD.  We would also sell them sometimes as MP3 files on a CD, depending on what the customer wanted.

The difference is, we sold them the copy, and a copy of the original album.  In fact, I would often scrounge through the used record isles to get popular albums, then sell them "new" CDs that were copies.  Actually, this is a very legal loophole.

Quoting:
I've argued here enough in the past about the legitimacy of music downloads. But on a related note, I read in an industry publication yesterday that the world's two largest record companies, Sony and BMG are amalgamating their recorded music divisions. This will now give them a 24% share of the market. Most of the rest is divided between EMI, Warners and Universal. Warners, however, look like being swallowed up by one of the other two in the near future. So much for Internet theft stifling their business...
End Quote

When times get hard, it is not uncommon for former enemies to cooperate or to even take each other over.  This is how it has been for many years, and why cartels form.  If an industry feels threatened, they tend to circle the wagons.

And the overall looser of this is the consumer.  When companies like this merge, it stifles variety.  After all, why dump money into artists that give a 1% return on the investment, when you can dump twice as much in an artist that returns 4% on investment?

THe best times in the US for music is when we had hundreds of little labels competing for the market.  That gave you little companies like Sun, who took a risk on this white kid that sounded black.  It also let companies invest a little money in this up and comming urban music called "Hip Hop".

Profit is a good thing.  I am sure that most of us seek to make a profit.  And when a good company makes profits, it reinvests them into the business.  This lets them diversify and look into new things, or take advantage of new technology.

But when a company feels threatened, it most often "circles the wagons".  It becomes more conservative, and stops with the investments, concentrating on things it knows works.

This worked for the auto industry.  In fact, even after the 1973 oil embargo, the "Big 3" continued to make these big gas-guzzler cars.  It was not until "Japan Inc." took over a huge part of the business away that they were forced to change their models.  And the fallout of this are still being felt.  Chrysler as we knew it is gone now, living on in name only.  AMC is gone.  IH is gone.  A lot of others are gone also, or have gone into partnership with other companies to stay alive (GMC & Toyota, Ford & Jaguar & Audi & Subaru, Chrysler & Benz).  In fact, at one time CHrysler had a very lucrative boat industry.  When they ran into money problems with their car company, they closed out a lot of their bot company for capitol.

So no, I am not surprised at the consolidation and shrinking of the companies.  That is standard for a threatened industry, and things are not looking good for the music industry.

But to me, it is still not the main reason I am against this major copying problem going on.  To me, it boils down to this simple fact, it is wrong.

Quoting:
The RIAA are scum, IMO.
End Quote

Amen to that.


On a related note:  The season premier of South Park dealt with this.

A few of the boys tried to download a song, and as soon as they pressed Enter, the FBI came rushing in and arrested them.  It was hilarious.  Then they took a trip (like in "A Christmas Carol") to see how the artists are "suffering" because of the "evil" music swappers.  For example, Lars from Matallica had to wait an extra week for his gold plated shark-tank pool bar to be delivered, Master P had to buy his son a smaller private island than he wanted, and poor Britney Spears had to "settle" for a smaller private jet than the one she could have got if it weren't for the "evil" file swapping.  It was great. :D

Quoting:
On a related note:  The season premier of South Park dealt with this.

A few of the boys tried to download a song, and as soon as they pressed Enter, the FBI came rushing in and arrested them.  It was hilarious.  Then they took a trip (like in "A Christmas Carol") to see how the artists are "suffering" because of the "evil" music swappers.  For example, Lars from Matallica had to wait an extra week for his gold plated shark-tank pool bar to be delivered, Master P had to buy his son a smaller private island than he wanted, and poor Britney Spears had to "settle" for a smaller private jet than the one she could have got if it weren't for the "evil" file swapping.  It was great. :DEnd Quote

That sounds hilarious. South Park rocks.

As for feeling sorry for corporate hogs and their creations, the platinum "repeat" artists,...  

...I think I'll go throw-up now :P. They make me that sick.

Quoting:


So no, I am not surprised at the consolidation and shrinking of the companies.  That is standard for a threatened industry, and things are not looking good for the music industry.

But to me, it is still not the main reason I am against this major copying problem going on.  To me, it boils down to this simple fact, it is wrong.
End Quote

It's wrong to charge grossly inflated prices for your product, too.  It's wrong to cheat artists and their heirs (i.e., Buddy Holly), out of the profits earned from their artistry.  It's wrong for a few companies to so control an industry that they block, crush and destroy small and innovative competitors.
If the music industry is threatened, and I'm not convinced they are, they have only themselves to blame.  MP3 technology will probably prove to be the greatest thing to happen in the music industry in 100 years.  
Personally, I think ninety-nine cents for a downloaded song is way too much.  The product, even at 320kbs, is too degraded.  Why so high?  There are a couple of conclusions you can draw if people are downloading in the tremendous volumes the RIAA claim.  One, there's an appetite for the product.  Two, people are willing to forgo a physical media- compact disk, vinyl album, whatever.  They seem more than willing to store it on their computer or mp3 player.
 You can sell your music without the overhead cost of production, storage, inventory control, etc.  So, you have high volume sales and drastically reduced costs.  Why not offer it at a lower price and sell more?  What more would it cost Company A to sell 100 downloads as opposed to 1,000?

Quoting:
It's wrong to charge grossly inflated prices for your product, too.  It's wrong to cheat artists and their heirs (i.e., Buddy Holly), out of the profits earned from their artistry.  


Well, when Buddy Holly, Chuck Barris, and a lot of the early pioneers of Rock & Roll started, that was how the standard music contract was.  In fact, Mr. Holly got a much higher then standard contract for the time.  And back in the 1950's, nobody had any idea that the popularity of such artists would continue to grow.  And don't forget, at the time he was recording, he worked for several small companies, that have since then been absorbed into larger companies.  For many of these small companies, they had a single artist (Like Sun and Elvis) who was 90% of their income.  They worked hard to farm out and get others started, hopefully to let them expand in the event of a disaster (like Elvis getting drafted).

Quoting:
It's wrong for a few companies to so control an industry that they block, crush and destroy small and innovative competitors.
End Quote

Actually, they can do nothing of the sort.  I know of several small publishing companies that are doing business with no pressure from the RIAA at all.  In fact, the Napster lawsuit was a class action, with a lot of small companies joining the RIAA.  But the RIAA was the largest complaintant, so they got the most money and the most blame.

And remember, we live in a free market economy.  If a company fails or succeeds, it is 90% on it's own merit.  There are always exceptions who fail through such pressure (Tucker Automotive).  But for every such story, there are others (like Delorean, Dusenberg, Yugo, etc) that failed for other reasons, normally internal to the company involved.


Personally, I think ninety-nine cents for a downloaded song is way too much.  The product, even at 320kbs, is too degraded.  Why so high?  There are a couple of conclusions you can draw if people are downloading in the tremendous volumes the RIAA claim.  One, there's an appetite for the product.  Two, people are willing to forgo a physical media- compact disk, vinyl album, whatever.  They seem more than willing to store it on their computer or mp3 player.
End Quote

Well, obviously you have never administered a large web site.  YOu may not realixe this, but things like servers, multiple T-1 lines and the like cost MONEY.  A lot of money in fact.  And bandwith is very expensive.  THat is why the free servers do not allow MP3 files, even if it the band itself that is ginv away the MP3.  It is not just an issue of copyright, it is an issue of how much bandwith such files take when hundreds of people download them.

Quoting:
 You can sell your music without the overhead cost of production, storage, inventory control, etc.  So, you have high volume sales and drastically reduced costs.  Why not offer it at a lower price and sell more?  What more would it cost Company A to sell 100 downloads as opposed to 1,000?
End Quote

OK, you just told me you actually know almost NOTHING of the music industry.  What, you think the band (or singer) just pops into a studio, records the song, and that is it?

OK, even to make a simple single, you have normally 1-3 recording engineers, 1-4 "gophers" who set up the studio, arrange the insterments, and do things for the engineers.  And yes, they ARE needed, not just wasted people.  Imagine a surgeon working on a patient all by himself, without supporting nurses, anesteseologists, and the like.

You also have several lawyers working in the background, making sure that the song written does not step on any other artist's copyright (remember Geroge Harrison being sued over "My Sweet Lord"?).

You also have the band, 4-10 musicians, and quite often in a studio you have other musicians.  They may be "Studio Musicians" that are very skilled in what they do (Dweezel Zappa jumps immediately to mind) or they may be others brought in to expand the sound of the band (like the orchestra brought in for the "Use Your Illusion" albums).

And let's not forget the post-production people, that refine the sound even more.  And of course the musicians are not going to leave the studio, so catered meals are the norm during recording.  And let's not forget that it is often another person's song in the first place they are recording, not even their own.

OK, now we will throw in the other employees of the company.  The publicists, the secretaries, the janitorial staff, the rest of the legal team, the road people, the bodyguards for the big stars, the cost of publicity, and the like.  Plus the cost for a musician to make a tour.

Add in the cost of the buildings, the cost of the utilities (phone, electricity, etc), and the cost of the equipment.  Right before I left LA, I helped one of the small recording companies set up a new sound studio.  It cost them over $80,000 for equipment, for one small studio.  In fact, my roommate in LA was a retired sound engineer, that did voice overs in his house for extra income.  We installed over $5,000 in one year to his studio, mostly for 2 new computers and a replacement mixer board (his old one died).

Overhead is very expensive for almost any business, as a small business owner about it.  I work for a small computer store now, the staff is the owner, his daughter-in-law (our receptionist - sales clerk) and myself.  Even at the near poverty pay of Alabama, he does not make a profit.  We do good sales, but the overhead takes almost all the money.  There is electricity, phone bill (including a high speed business class DSL line), equipment to buy (we probably have almost $40,000 in inventory), and other such costs.

If you want to know why it costs more to allow 1,000 downloads as opposed to 100 downloads for the same money, it is overhead.  Overhead to pay the staff, and overhead once again to pay for the bandwith of the downloads.  And with a web site, you now get to add even more overhead.

Web site authors, network people to keep it running, hardware technicians to keep the multiple servers (and their backups) up and running.  Accounting people to track and make sure they get their money.  Also there is the cost of the equipment itself, and the bandwith used.  That is all overhead.  Unless you are volunttering to do it all for free, it costs money.  And remember, you get what you pay for.

Quoting:
OK, you just told me you actually know almost NOTHING of the music industry.  What, you think the band (or singer) just pops into a studio, records the song, and that is it?End Quote

I wasn't aware I was trying to prove knowledge of the industry, or understand why I'd want to impress you with that knowledge.  
In fact, I think you missed my point completely.  
Of course there's cost involved with creating music.  There are costs involved with creating anything.  After an album, let's take Bruce Springsteen's Nebraska as an example, it becomes a Widget.  MP3s have created a new way of delivering that Widget to the consumer.
What I'm talking about is how do you deliver Nebraska to the consumer AFTER Springsteen paid for the studio time, and the back-up musicians, and the lawyers and the janitors.

Quoting:If you want to know why it costs more to allow 1,000 downloads as opposed to 100 downloads for the same money, it is overhead.  Overhead to pay the staff, and overhead once again to pay for the bandwith of the downloads.  And with a web site, you now get to add even more overhead.End Quote

Well, if you're offering a limited number of songs the costs of course will be prohibitive.  But there's a cross-over point where it becomes more profitable to pay all the attendent costs of a web-site and dump the costs associated with an old technology.  
Since we're being anecdotal here, consider this: the son of a co-worker of mine downloads music.  Dave told me he was playing "A Horse With No Name" over and over for three days straight.  It's highly unlikely he'd ever have heard the song if not for Kazaa.  So suddenly you have a customer for music by America.
I don't think all of their music is still in print.  If not, he can request an album, but publishers don't reprint until they get enough requests.  So he may have to wait months to get their music.  He may never get it.  
So the Widget maker loses a customer because they're unable to deliver the product in a convenient manner at a reasonable cost.  The customer downloads music by America on a p2p network and he's stigmatized by the umbrella organization of the company that failed him in the first place.

Web sites and band widths may be expensive, but only until you've reached that crossover point.  Warehousing and shipping compact discs is expensive, too.  

Quoting:
And the overall looser of this is the consumer.  When companies like this merge, it stifles variety.  After all, why dump money into artists that give a 1% return on the investment, when you can dump twice as much in an artist that returns 4% on investment?
End Quote

I haven't seen much variety in music in the last 7 or 8 years - and that was before downloading became a problem to record companies.