You Go RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flatfinger]

Don't be transfering the tunes FROM THE CD"S YOU BOUGHT to your computer !!!!

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html

[rasputin1963]

But here's the $64 question: the people with 1000's of mp3's on their computers... Who is "catching" them... and using what exact technology??????

 

THAT'S the more worrisome issue here, IMHO....

[elsongs]

Funny, where was the RIAA years ago when I was copying my vinyl albums to C90 chrome tape so I can hear them in the car?

[Dean Roddey]

Geez, these things just never die. This is a bogus story, I guess picked up by other people who didn't bother to check whether the original one was bogus. This has already been discussed thoroughly in another thread. The RIAA indicates on its web site that it's not a problem to transfer from your CDs you legally own to your computer.

[HKSblade1]

Most ironic part is the ones complaining about the RIAA bogus story are usually all the ones that fit the story having ripped off 1000's of artist and media files they got free. :poke:

[HKSblade1]

 

Funny, where was the RIAA years ago when I was copying my vinyl albums to C90 chrome tape so I can hear them in the car?

 

 

 

Exactly! If you purchased an album and copied to a different medium they were not enforcing it. Their position suggests they are not going after anyone who burned a legal copy. The story was fiction.

Problem today is, nobody is buying.

 

If the industry or label invests in an artist, they want a return from that artist works. Nothing wrong with that. That's how business works. That's how tours and videos and studio productions are paid for. Problem being, their investment goes belly up due to all the piracy. A here today gone tomorrow investment is a total loss. Now you find the labels not doing as much investing, and more enforcement to protect their investments.

[elsongs]

 

Exactly! If you purchased an album and copied to a different medium they were not enforcing it. Their position suggests they are not going after anyone who burned a legal copy. The story was fiction. Problem today is, nobody is buying. If the industry or label invests in an artist, they want a return from that artist works. Nothing wrong with that. That's how business works. That's how tours and videos and studio productions are paid for. Problem being, their investment goes belly up due to all the piracy. A here today gone tomorrow investment is a total loss. Now you find the labels not doing as much investing, and more enforcement to protect their investments.

 

 

What is the fundamental difference between yesterday and today? That the ripping process is quicker? It's not necessarily audio quality, since copying an LP to cassette involved some degradation in sound quality, and likewise ripping a CD to MP3 degrades its audio quality as well.

 

Back in the day I used to copy friends' albums and cassettes (and copy mine for friends), yet I'd still buy my own albums and cassettes at the record store. I know I wasn't the only one. Would things have been different if CDs had not been sold for over $10?

[MikeRivers]

 

But here's the $64 question: the people with 1000's of mp3's on their computers... Who is "catching" them... and using what exact technology??????

 

Old news, throughly discussed a few weeks back. The people who are getting caught are those who have their MP3 files in a folder that's set up as a shared folder in a peer-to-peer file sharing network. They're available for anyone who has the right tools and knows how to grab them, including hired agents for the RIAA.

 

The thing I never learned was how they are able to determine the physical location of the computer or its owner so they know where to send the summons. But I'm sure that people who know networks and laws (and have the proper court order to the ISP) can find that out.

 

So the process is simple. You pick a song, you go out on the network, find it on someone's computer, download it (that makes the one who had it on his computer a "distributor") and then you send the summons.

[MikeRivers]

 

Geez, these things just never die. This is a bogus story,

The story is real, it's a lawyer's interpretation that's bogus. But one of the things that lawyers do is make up stuff that sounds real so that people will believe that what they say is true.

 

Lawyers: Worse than drummers . . . until you really need one.

[Dean Roddey]

The Sony lawyer later said that she misspoke. The statement was during questioning, not a formal writing. She thought that the context was that of ripping to a shared folder, not ripping in general. And people, who are always looking for another reason to believe that the music industry is evil, just ran with it without checking.

[HKSblade1]

 

What is the fundamental difference between yesterday and today? That the ripping process is quicker? It's not necessarily audio quality, since copying an LP to cassette involved some degradation in sound quality, and likewise ripping a CD to MP3 degrades its audio quality as well. Back in the day I used to copy friends' albums and cassettes (and copy mine for friends), yet I'd still buy my own albums and cassettes at the record store. I know I wasn't the only one. Would things have been different if CDs had not been sold for over $10?

 

 

No but there's a difference between $0 and $10. If it's available for free not but a few are buying. It wouldn't matter if cd's were $7. No cost is no cost. It's that freebie idea that hurts the artist no matter what way its spun.

 

It's the industry's fault for not handling the pirateers when it all started. Stiff penalties and stern fines could have prevented most of it. There would still be risk takers.

[elsongs]

 

No but there's a difference between $0 and $10. If it's available for free not but a few are buying. It wouldn't matter if cd's were $7. No cost is no cost. It's that freebie idea that hurts the artist no matter what way its spun. It's the industry's fault for not handling the pirateers when it all started. Stiff penalties and stern fines could have prevented most of it. There would still be risk takers.

 

 

But wasn't one of the fundamental problems was that the cost to manufacture CD vs LP was MUCH lower, yet the retail price was much higher?

[Dean Roddey]

This is not true. I need to create a FAQ I can just point people to, to avoid having to type this over and over. The cost was initially higer just like everything is higher initially for a new technology, because they are trying to recoup the large investment in the switchover to the new technology. But the price has remained about the same in real dollars while inflation has gone up about 2.5 times since then. So the real price of CDs is at leats 2.5 times lower now, and if you look at online prices (where almost everyone who still buys probably does most of their buying), it's more like probably almost 4 times lower than initially. So the price of a CD is quite low in adjusted dollars. The problem is that most people don't understand basic economics, so they still complain that the price is still the same as it was.

[flatfinger]

 

Everyone came out a winner. "The record companies minted money," one major-label exec told me. "We made huge margins off CDs. We'll never have those margins again."

approximatley paragraph 15

 

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_morris?currentPage=all

 

 

 

The majors sold at high volume and high margins for awhile , Indie stuff or a disc bought directly from the band at a show is cheaper because there is no middle man cut. The majors can't lower the price cause they are addicted and glued to their trough and can't lower there overhead. Basic Economics are way to basic to cover some of the changes that have gone down in the last 25 years. Lots of stuff can be had WAY cheaper then it used to be because of mechanization or cheap labor .

 

I'm not defending theft or pirating , I want musicians to be able to make a living. More of them hopefully will when this all gets sorted. let's hope so .

[oldman2]

I could be wrong but it seems like a long time ago that the companies making recorders had to pay a fee because anyone was able to make copies of their favorite music. The fee raised the price of the gear but did not stop sales of such. I am sure that somebody not much smarter than me can come up with a way to stop the thieft. Then again ..... woh's that War on drugs thing going?

oldman2

[Dean Roddey]

 

The majors can't lower the price cause they are addicted and glued to their trough and can't lower there overhead.

 

 

Did you read my response just above your post? They HAVE lowered the price, by not raising it to match inflation. What other products do you know of that have done that? Most of them are technology products in which the huge cost of development of each new generation has to be recouped then it drops rapidly. But few products stay the same literal dollar amount over 20 years. CDs have been one of them.

[Netvalar]

The case in question is still regarding filesharing. The RIAA's current stance is that at this time they are not going after people who copy from a legally bought cd over to their computer. However just to be fair it is not only lawyers but also Executives who are being caught making statements regarding the copying of music from your legally bought cd over to your computer is illegal.

 

Now that is how you jump in and agree with everyone at the same time. Basically the RIAA and Major labels are having problems figuring out what to do because they didn't jump into the digital side of business soon enough to control it the same way they control the physical side. By the time they were willing to seriously look at the business side of Digital instead of shutting down companies like MP3.com and Napster it was companies like Real Networks and I-Tunes (Apple) who were in control.

 

You can see what is happening now that labels are seeing Amazon willing to let the labels control things like selling price etc. they are all trying to leave I-Tunes. I think the best bet now is to watch companies like Sellaband.com and Magnatune to see the potential of the future music industry.

[MikeRivers]

 

Did you read my response just above your post? They HAVE lowered the price, by not raising it to match inflation. What other products do you know of that have done that?

Where do we start? How about the computer that you used to post that message? The first (10 MB) hard drive I bought cost $400 in 1988. Last year I was buying 160 GB hard drives for $30. Bottom end laptop computers have sold for about $500 for several years now. Each year they become a better bargain both because of the constant price in the wake of inflation, and because you get more horsepower for your dollar.

 

The reason why CDs are more expensive than LPs is that they have more songs on them, and each song, whether good or bad, whether the buyer wants it or not, adds the same amount to the cost to the record company.

 

We used to have the "single" so that people could buy just the hit (or what the record company wanted to make into the hit) from the album, and that was often followed by the purchase of the whole album. But you could buy the single (which has essentially the same manufacturing cost, less the jacket, of the LP) and only pay royalties on two songs, not 10, 12, or the 16-20 on a CD.

 

The downloaded song is today's replacement for the single, but the record companies jumped on to the bandwagon too late. People were already accustomed to getting that for free. Hence the current problem.

[FireWithin]

 

But here's the $64 question: the people with 1000's of mp3's on their computers... Who is "catching" them... and using what exact technology?????? THAT'S the more worrisome issue here, IMHO....

 

 

+$64!

[flatfinger]

What is the cost of the raw materials to provide the product??? $.05?? They sock it to the bands and make them eat the recording cost most of the time!Did you read the quote??

 

"The record companies minted money," one major-label exec told me. "We made huge margins off CDs. We'll never have those margins again."

 

Are you telling me to thank my lucky stars that they did'nt raise the price on something that was loaded with profit for them right from the start ????

 

I always bought my CD's from Record Clubs like Columbia House during that period and never paid more than $10. They did'nt go out of buisness selling allot of those through that channel of distribution , did they ??

They sold the $20 one to people who just had to have the latest thing or just picked it up of an end cap .

 

The excesses of the labels are well documented .

 

see

EMI's $400,000 Coke And Hookers Budget

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/01/emis-400000-coke-and-hookers-budget.html

 

There now you see , By only paying what the price should be ($10) I did'nt finance the illegal activities like coke and hookers!!

[Dean Roddey]

 

Where do we start? How about the computer that you used to post that message? The first (10 MB) hard drive I bought cost $400 in 1988. Last year I was buying 160 GB hard drives for $30. Bottom end laptop computers have sold for about $500 for several years now. Each year they become a better bargain both because of the constant price in the wake of inflation, and because you get more horsepower for your dollar.

 

 

Yes, it is true, technology related products are of that sort. I thought I mentioned that in my post, but perhaps that was a similar post on another thread. But the bottom line is, the vast, vast percentage of products out there have gone up with inflation, while CDs have not, so they are in fact much less expensive. But people just continue to say that they are ridiculously expensive, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

[Dean Roddey]

 

always bought my CD's from Record Clubs like Columbia House during that period and never paid more than $10. They did'nt go out of buisness selling allot of those through that channel of distribution , did they ?? They sold the $20 one to people who just had to have the latest thing or just picked it up of an end cap . The excesses of the labels are well documented .

 

 

Again, don't people ever look into these things. This has been dicussed many times. The labels get a few dollars of that price. If a CD is $20, it has *absolutely nothing to do* with the labels. It's the B&M store that's making the cost that high. If you want to complain about the high price, you are whining about the wrong people. That's why Amazon can sell them for half of that price, because they are giving up the margins that B&M stores charge, not because the labels are selling them the CDs for half as much.

[flatfinger]

Now your telling us that there are fat margins in retailing??? I suppose thats why wall mart has been allocating less and less space for CD's , because ther is so much profit for them when selling them! When the volume of CD sales went down , Tower Records could of stayed in buisness if the margins were so fat! Anyone whos ever worked in retailing knows that you never get ultra high margins on anything except a few , select specialty items .

It's quite obvious that you will never stop being an apologist for the record companies , no matter what . Do you work for them ????

[Dean Roddey]

No, I do not work for them. I run my own software business. But it's well known what the distribution of the profits on CDs are, and the labels get just a few bucks per CD. The bulk of the profit is at the retail end. I'm not making this up, it's well known information. The reason Tower went out of business is because they do have such high markup, while Amazon and other online businesses don't.

 

You are confusing margins on the product sold, with profits. The B&M store can make more per CD than the labels, and still make fairly small profits per CD, because their overhead is still to high to make it a viable business. And when online stores came along, that was pretty much the end for them.

 

Even if you don't believe the numbers as reported, just the facts on the ground should make it obvious. Amazon pays just as much for the CDs as Tower did, but sells them for $5 to $8 or more less. How exactly could they do that if there wasn't more than $5 to $8 differential in the price between what they pay the labels for the CDs and what B&M stores sell them for? It's pretty basic math there, dude.

 

Someone posted a pie chart with the distribution of money from the sales of CDs, and it shows where it all gets apportioned. And that leaves aside of course the money that the label has to pay to the artist. If an artist is doing well, and has covered his expenses and is now getting his cut of the CD sales, and it's a dollar a CD, say, then that's another dollar of what the label gets that they don't get to keep. And any sales up to the point where the artist's expenses are covered isn't profit for them either, it's just recouping.

 

My only interest here is in counter-balancing the incorrect information that gets thrown around here. If I was on some site where it was a bunch of industry people bashing other people, I'd be on the other people's side. But here, the misinformation is always against the studios, so that's what I'm fighting against. If people don't even bother to figure out what the real deal is before posting, then I'm going to call them on it. I don't care who they are talking about, even themselves.

[flatfinger]

O.K , I got it ;

The labels get $2 out of the $20 that the Item sells for . Who'd a thunk it!

 

They can provide cooked books that " document" that I'm sure . Does'nt make it so.

 

Really , you might be a car salesman!! Show me that invoice and tell me I'm getting the car at cost! Deny you'll get a kickback or deeper discount on your next purchase when it's time to re-fill the lot with more new chevy's.