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

[Geoff Grace]

Today's CDs cost what yesterday's LPs used to cost when adjusted for inflation. In 1975, an LP cost $4.99. That's $19.71 in today's dollars. (Source)

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Dean Roddey]

It's more like 3, 4, 5 (depending on the artist and how hot they are I assume), but yes, that's what they get. And it's got nothing to do with them cooking the books. There are many companies involved with the overall process of getting CDs made and into the stores. All these companies are not colluding to hide the price that the labels get for the CDs.

 

You can just sit there and choose not to confirm this yourself if you choose, but it's the case. Maybe it's too shocking for you to believe that the evil empire is not as evil as you thought, but nonetheless that is what they get.

 

And this is not at all unusual. There are a lot of hands out between the manufacturer of any product and the customer who buys the product in a store. Most companies that are selling fairly commodity products clear similar or lower percentages on their products. So I'm not sure why you feel that this is somehow a huge conspiracy on the part of the record labels.

 

What's funny is that a company like Apple, the great purveyer of computers for the people against the evil of IBM/MS back in the day, were making like 60% and 70% on their computers, which is almost unheard of.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Today's CDs cost what yesterday's LPs used to cost when adjusted for inflation. In 1975, an LP cost $4.99. That's $19.71 in today's dollars. (Source)

 

 

Only if you buy at a high overhead B&M store. People keep saying that CDs cost that much, when almost no one pays that for a CD. The reason B&M record stores are dropping like flies is because very few people buy their CDs at such stores anymore, and they are therefore not paying those prices. They are paying Amazon like prices, which are close to half of that.

[flatfinger]

 

Today's CDs cost what yesterday's LPs used to cost when adjusted for inflation. In 1975, an LP cost $4.99. That's $19.71 in today's dollars. ( Source ) Best, Geoff

 

 

Wages and buying power have not kept pace with inflation.

[flatfinger]

 

You can just sit there and choose not to confirm this yourself if you choose, but it's the case. Maybe it's too shocking for you to believe that the evil empire is not as evil as you thought, but nonetheless that is what they get.

 

 

I'm sorry you feel it neccesary to start putting beliefs in my head!! I can believe that there is probably a mixture of companies out there and that some of them could be "evil" . Most are probably doing an honest buisness , why do you start to attribute and asssign simple value judgment that I have never made ??

 

 

 

So I'm not sure why you feel that this is somehow a huge conspiracy on the part of the record labels.

 

 

 

Never said the " C " word . There doesn't have to be any of that going on for a company to make outrages profits , it just what the market will bear.

 

 

What's funny is that a company like Apple, the great purveyer of computers for the people against the evil of IBM/MS back in the day, were making like 60% and 70% on their computers, which is almost unheard of.

 

 

Good for apple !!

I've never owned one , probably never will , Snazzy commercials though!!:poke:

[flatfinger]

 

The Washington Post story is wrong," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As numerous commentators have since discovered after taking the time to read our brief, the record companies did not allege that ripping a lawfully acquired CD to a computer or transferring a copy to an MP3 player is infringement. This case is about the illegal distribution of copyrighted songs on a peer-to-peer network, not making copies of legally acquired music for personal use."

 

 

 

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839170-7.html?tag=newsmap

[Dean Roddey]

 

Never said the " C " word . There doesn't have to be any of that going on for a company to make outrages profits , it just what the market will bear.

 

 

The labels have never made anything like outrageous profits. This is what flips me out when people keep saying this. A few years back, the top five major labels (I think I'm remembering the right number) had GROSS revenues of something like $5B. GE, in that same year, had like four point something billion in PROFIT.

 

So 'splain to me why if $5B in gross revenues, not profit, is a cause for outrage and proof of evil, why aren't people out buring crosses on the lawn of GE corporate headquarters, because they must certainly be the spawn of Satan? They profited more than the labels brought in before expenses and losses. Why aren't people just going nuts about GE and advocating the theft of GE property and whatnot?

[Cry Logic]

"....Why aren't people just going nuts about GE and advocating the theft of GE property and whatnot?...."

 

Because you can't download a fridge or a washing machine?

[Dean Roddey]

Exactly. That's my point. They can steal music, so despite the fact that the labels are not even remotely an example of massive corporate profits, that mythology is wide spread because it's another rationalization for theft of their product. But it has absolutely nothing to really do with any sort of real movement against excessive corporate profits.

[Billster]

why aren't people out buring crosses on the lawn of GE corporate headquarters, because they must certainly be the spawn of Satan? They profited more than the labels brought in before expenses and losses. Why aren't people just going nuts about GE and advocating the theft of GE property and whatnot?

 

You think those war protesters don't know GE is a major military contractor?

 

Oops, wrong forum.

[flatfinger]

The labels have never made anything like outrageous profits. This is what flips me out when people keep saying this. A few years back, the top five major labels (I think I'm remembering the right number) had GROSS revenues of something like $5B. GE, in that same year, had like four point something billion in PROFIT. So 'splain to me why if $5B in gross revenues, not profit, is a cause for outrage and proof of evil, why aren't people out buring crosses on the lawn of GE corporate headquarters, because they must certainly be the spawn of Satan? They profited more than the labels brought in before expenses and losses. Why aren't people just going nuts about GE and advocating the theft of GE property and whatnot?

 

 

 

Well, if the american flock should be up in arms about anything , it should be the oil companies and the record profiting quarters there reporting.

They like to blame more consumption in china and whatnot, but the chineese don't have cars in every backwater county like we do, but I digress.

 

 

As far as the corporations being " evil" , you seem to be happily fomenting the class warfare stuff yourself whenever you whip out the jingoistic "people think they are devil" minuate. It's disapointing that you resort to that stuff; getting to the last pages of the playbook??

 

I said it before , companies can make as much profit as they are able , within the constraints of the laws. They owe it to there stockholders. I used the word outrages when refering to the labels in the context of the labels shady practices

not as a capitalism VS whatever value judgement.

 

 

The labels controlled all the means of production and distribution , due too new technology, thats changed for the better! People are pissed at them because of their track record and the make an example out a little fish type antics, not there being amoral. Though they

definatley have presented many a musician with amoral contracts. Which, by the way they should'nt have signed without counsel!

(The artist is more informed these days and one of the reasons the lables a lashing out in desperation is they have to actually negotiate more equitable contracts now.)

 

When the public observes artist like Amii Mann, Roger McGuinn, Foghat, Joni Mitchell,and the beatles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4535330.stm

having to constantly battle the labels tooth and nail for royalties, they figure there must be fire where there is smoke, and the labels are'nt without sin ( sorry , you made me do it!!!)

 

Now since your recent penchant for sloganeering leaves us with no choice but to fight fire with fire, I will wish you the best of luck, Dean Roddey , with your self-appointed crusade in defense of the All holy , sacred and divine Record labels !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HKSblade1]

No wonder companies leave the USA. Citizens get pissed when any company earning are good. You have the ills of some companies but many companies have to invest their profits into new sources of revenue.

 

If you could invest would want a product of company host that sucked?? wtf?

 

American Auto co's have to compete for your $$ too. How many own US made cars is a whole other story. It bids the same thing. People want a product both reliable and economical. So do investors. No record label will shell out capital for some fly by night crap artist that caters to an underground audience. At least not today. Megastars were built in the underground market that later expanded those artists to the SS status.

 

Nobody was complaining when oil co's did not profit either. They will be the next energy producing resource for future products too. That requires investment and if something else comes along better than gasoline, oil co's can either join the pack or eat it.

[flatfinger]

I totally agree that the class warfare B.S. should have no place in the discussion!! Companies sholud'nt have any restraints on the profits they can earn . It's only the illegal, exploitative or monopolistic practices that should be questioned.

 

There is no better system than what we have here and we should appreciate the heck out of it ............. Wait , let me check out those statements with my lawyer .............. O.K., were good to go !!

 

I appreciate any contrary views to the RIAA debate as it would'nt be much fun without them!!:poke: I'm not for eliminating the labels , just reforming them.(send them to juvey hall ???)

[Dean Roddey]

 

The labels controlled all the means of production and distribution , due too new technology, thats changed for the better! People are pissed at them because of their track record and the make an example out a little fish type antics, not there being amoral.

 

 

They never controlled any such thing. They built up a large production and distirbution system, and therefore they were able to offer artists a shot at the big time that had some reasonable chance of actually working. But anyone was free at any time to do it some other way if they wanted to. The fact that no one ever figured out any other way to do it better, that should say something.

 

 

Though they definatley have presented many a musician with amoral contracts. Which, by the way they should'nt have signed without counsel!

 

 

That's their fault. It's the responsbility of someone signing a contract to understand the contract. If you sign without understanding, who else could you possibly blame?

 

 

(The artist is more informed these days and one of the reasons the lables a lashing out in desperation is they have to actually negotiate more equitable contracts now.)

 

 

Do you have any real evidence of this? I don't see anyone out there who didn't get famous on a label who is reaching anything like the level of recognition that label artists have. Some of those artists who made their name at the labels are going out on their own, but only because they are able to leverage their existing notariety. Without that existing visibility, they'd just be another small drop in a huge ocean.

[flatfinger]

That's their fault. It's the responsbility of someone signing a contract to understand the contract. If you sign without understanding, who else could you possibly blame?

is there an echo in here??

 

You sure are a funny kid , Dean Roddey . But I like you

[Billster]

That's their fault. It's the responsbility of someone signing a contract to understand the contract. If you sign without understanding, who else could you possibly blame? Do you have any real evidence of this? I don't see anyone out there who didn't get famous on a label who is reaching anything like the level of recognition that label artists have. Some of those artists who made their name at the labels are going out on their own, but only because they are able to leverage their existing notariety. Without that existing visibility, they'd just be another small drop in a huge ocean.

 

I think what he's saying is that new artists are less starry-eyed about the record company contract and are demanding something better, such as retaining publishing rights so and so forth. - i.e. reading the contract before they sign it.

[Dean Roddey]

 

Ya, like someone in the sixties could get a home studio like now , right . They could make an LP just as you can now burn a CD. You juxta-position and/or ignore the technological differences whenever you think it serves your argument, weak.

 

 

Who said anything about the 60s? Time didn't stop in the 60s. You are complaining about things that would have been the same up until the mid-90s. Also, did the labels control every studio in the world? Of course not. You didn't have to get the label's permission to rent a studio and record your stuff.

 

And finally and most importantly, if they controlled everything, how did Sub-Pop become enormous in the 90's? That couldn't have happened if the major labels controlled everything. It happened because anybody can create a label if they have the guts and the content to back it up.

[slight-return]

 

Who said anything about the 60s? Time didn't stop in the 60s.

 

 

 

acually it did due to a cold-war military experiment. It started back up again though

 

richard feynman called the military on their obviously flawed claim "it only stopped for a couple of minutes" and they had him offed.

[chu2]

 

You people are arguing about something that's been around for eternity. Some people go buy things at whatever cost, others buy thriftily and used saving major $$, others who don't want to buy steal.

 

It's that way with cars, guitars, laptops, and anything else you can think of, music included.

 

I don't approve of the RIAA's tactics of hunting down the small time guys that burn a CD for friends, just like people copied mix tapes a decade ago, when there are definitely bigger fish to fry. I know they have little if any legal jurisdiction in other countries, but the bootleg market in China and the Middle East is thriving like none other.

 

If people can find a way to steal something with reasonably little risk of getting caught, they're going to do it. Obviously, making examples of the little guys isn't working to change this idea.

 

Go after the big time distributors, those guys that upload 1000's of songs onto Limewire. Is it harder to catch them? Of course! But don't bankrupt me because I made a mix tape.

[Billster]

I don't approve of the RIAA's tactics of hunting down the small time guys that burn a CD for friends, just like people copied mix tapes a decade ago, when there are definitely bigger fish to fry. I know they have little if any legal jurisdiction in other countries, but the bootleg market in China and the Middle East is thriving like none other.

 

That's really the issue. Home users who make a few discs for friends, or stupidly put their collection in a shared Kazaa folder are often really only enhancing the market by getting people interested in music they might otherwise have never heard.

 

But the guys who bootleg the biggest pop hits, manufacture knock-offs and sell them for $2.99 (pure profit for them) are a real problem. And it's been going on for ages - I knew a guy at Berklee in 1984 who had lived in Indonesia and had tapes of all kinds of stuff that he bought from street vendors in Jakarta. I think I even still have a cassette dub of Road Games sitting alongside the rest of my (legitimately purchased) Holdsworth collection.

[Dean Roddey]

You guys keep missing the issue that it's NOT the professional pirates in Indonesia who is the long term ultimate threat. Think about it. Yeh, it's been going on forever. Did it ever threaten or change the business fundamentally? No, it didn't. It's something that, through unfortunate, is attackable by traditional LE means, and it wasn't something that was big in the western countries where the biggest legitimate markets were.

 

It's the guy who is uploading his collection to the shared folder who is the danger, because even pirates cannot compete with that. And it those people who are turning what was once a semi-law abiding legitimate western market into something worse than China in the long term. And as more people get online in the east, the pirates will have less and less of a market also.

 

It's those people who have created the fundamental change in the market that we are all complaining about, so how can you possibly argue that something that was going on forever and had only incremental effect is the problem while the thing that is destroying the market for music is really good?

 

It defies the most obvious facts on the ground.

[ShakaCthulu]

 

It's that way with cars, guitars, laptops, and anything else you can think of, music included.

 

 

Uh, no it's not. There's risk involved in stealing a car, laptop, etc. Compare that to the negligible risk of stealing music via push-button plunder, which will be zero risk once somebody develops a torrent/P2P that masks IP addresses (somebody is working on it).

[headstash]

 

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.

 

 

Dude, you got it all wrong. It wasn't the record companies not dealing with "pirates" that created the problem, it was the record industry's unwillingness to change their cash cow model of selling us cd's when technology dictated that there was a better way to listen to (and purchase) music. I think after 4 BILLION songs sold on iTunes, it shows that people aren't opposed to paying for music music - they are opposed to buying CD's.

[chu2]

 

Dude, you got it all wrong. It wasn't the record companies not dealing with "pirates" that created the problem, it was the record industry's unwillingness to change their cash cow model of selling us cd's when technology dictated that there was a better way to listen to (and purchase) music. I think after 4 BILLION songs sold on iTunes, it shows that people aren't opposed to paying for music music - they are opposed to buying CD's.

 

 

Personally, I'd rather have a physical product of a recording (a CD, for instance) than a file downloaded, any day. You basically pay the same amount (the money of course goes to different places in this case, I won't go into that) for a 15 track cd as for 15 downloads on itunes. I just buy cd's on ebay. Works for me.

 

But yeah, I can see where you could use your argument too. And it works. What is really the issue here is that the industry is changing. Not for good, or for bad (I really don't want to argue this through, either. There isn't a definite answer if this is for better or worse) but simply changing.

[chu2]

 

Uh, no it's not. There's risk involved in stealing a car, laptop, etc. Compare that to the negligible risk of stealing music via push-button plunder, which will be zero risk once somebody develops a torrent/P2P that masks IP addresses (somebody is working on it).

 

 

What I'm getting at is that if there WAS risk involved, people wouldn't do it. However, it's really hard to make an example of something when everyone is doing it. Take slavery in the early Americas. Bad comparison, I know. But it worked the same way-if everyone is doing it, it doesn't matter if it's wrong or right. If it's easier, people will do it. Slavery was free labor for plantation owners, Limewire is free music for people. In both cases, people save money they'd rather not spend, at the expense of a group of people.

 

But here's another thing. . .

Can the average musician on an independent label or self-produced really complain? There are a lot of people who make wages that low and survive. Let's face it...you can't live comfortably as a musician, or a journalist, or a writer or painter, these days. You don't do these things for the money. You do it for the art, for the love of the craft. When you start thinking about music only as profits and expenses, you lose the meaning of it all.

 

And in closing, I post a link to this thread:http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?p=25970279#post25970279

And especially to the post by Active Reasoner. To paraphrase, We all are well aware of the problems, now lets make solutions.