Music Copyright (No Spam)

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Tybaltus
Hmmm....probably 3 or 4 years now.

Prices haven't really increased in 4 years, in fact they started to increase early nineties, if anything prices have levelled off now...too high at that and as I keep saying, the quality has gone down.

Yes, that is true...if I actually thought I was giving money to the original artist when I buy CD's I would probably feel even better about paying for my own CD's but when I buy them, I like having the CD case, cover etc. It all looks better, you know what Im talking about?

It's like the arguement about cheap labour in Taiwan etc, if we didn't buy those products at all they wouldn't see a single cent where as Nike do provide them with some wages which they just wouldn't have had without it. So the artists might get a pound for your 12.99 CD but at least they are getting that pound.

I know what you mean yes, not the only reason I buy production CDs but it is one

What happens to the money? Well what money? The money that you pay for CD's? It goes to the record company. And thats that. Or thats what I think....

Some goes to producers and the equipment they use isn't cheap, then there is PR as well, the music industry is more than just the companies, however a great deal does go to offshore accounts, that I am sure of

Right...but what percentage of people who buy mp3's do download stuff off the net? By my knowledge, a heck of a lot of people.

That knowledge is probably fostered to some degree by the music industry itself, I used to be on a forum for MP3 owners and most of the people there bought their CDs and converted them to MP3.

[T'lainya]

Good topic Sleep
With the price of cds being anywhere from 11.99-17.99 for a single cd here (excluding double or import cds) I hesitate to buy any cd on the basis of one or two songs that I like. There are a few artists that have proven to be relialable (i.e. I haven't been disapppointed in their cds after I bought them). For the most part though, I scour CDNows listings for sample clips and hit up all the music sites (Launch, Rolling Stone, PeopleSound etc. all legal sites) for a preview before I buy. There's been too many times i bought a cd and was disappointed by the quality of of the whole thing.
Luckily I don't listen to much popular music. I like lots of bands on small labels who often have mp3s available for downloading. I often go to download one song and take a listen to other artists on those labels while I'm there. I've found some good music that way and I end up buying more music. For me mp3's have been a direct incentive to purchase more music. I agree with Sleep that record companies lose money because they put out garbage. If they put out something I like I'll buy it regardless of the availability of mp3's.
I prefer to have the cd with the art/lyrics/liner notes to look at. There's also the stability issue, who wants to download a song and have their hard drive crash on them? That's one of the problems I see with the record company sponsored music sites(that want buyers to pay per month and then restrict number of downloads or burning the files to cd).

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by T'lainya
There's also the stability issue, who wants to download a song and have their hard drive crash on them? That's one of the problems I see with the record company sponsored music sites(that want buyers to pay per month and then restrict number of downloads or burning the files to cd).

A very good point, the virtual world is so very fickle and a hard drive crash can happen for any reason and at any time, for most users that is that (those without RAID ) all their files are gone.

There is also the issue of most MP3's being of debatable quality depending on where you get them from, I have never had a production CD not work, it isn't always the same with downloads from the net, legitimate or not.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I was watching something on TV about a year ago and someone was saying that artists really don't make a lot of money off of CD sales.

Back in the late 1970s, when I was managing a record store and CDs were first coming in, the powerful Polydor record corporation held a series of international seminars for other record producers. The subject? Pricing up the new medium. Polydor argued that since compact disks were new, sturdier, easier to store and use and held more material, they could be sold for a lot more even though they cost a lot less to manufacture.

The figures speak for themselves. LPs sold, new, for anywhere from $5.98 to 9.98. Budget LPs sold for $3.98. Vinyl costs consumed 40% of the overhead. Overall, CD costs are less than 50% of the cost of LPs. You do the math.

There were isolated voices raised in protest. I remember the owner of Titanic Records (a little Boston company that turns out high quality classical CDs of the baroque period) scoffing at the whole idea of gipping the public. Wish I could say that others followed his path, but few did.

[seraphshattered]

mp3 downloading vs. cd purchasing. it's quite an interesting discussion...too many people don't understand all that goes on behind the scenes ( - not that i do entirely - ) so they're very edgy about it.

i don't really think the fact that one can download something off the internet is really contributing significantly to any sort of downhill slide on the music industry's part. from what i've read (i'm part of several mailing lists on smaller labels, etc) for the most part, it's actually helping the industry. at least the smaller labels. the only people that it actually hurts (that i'm aware of) are those that produce their own music completely, like metallica.

the major problem - exactly what is the "music industry"?

unfortunately, it comes down to 3 major companies, none of which i'll mention the name of. these 3 basically try to monopolize on *all* music, regardless of where it comes from. and they can't control the internet, so they're quite unhappy about that. and, as mentioned in previous posts, they don't really care about the kind of music, or quality, just as long as they get their money...that's what its all about. ..and that's the biggest problem.

i think the best way to help out, rather than looking at the downloading issue, would actually to buy primarily from the smaller labels. (heck, they're the ones that put out the good stuff anyway.)

i dunno. maybe i created more questions than answers..ahwell. for us avid (read: 'insane') cd-collectors, it matters not anyway, we *have* to buy 'em. mp3's don't count.

just my two cents. or 1.5, with the brain i currently have.

[HighLordDave]

Another thing that the record companies fail to understand is that the file sharing genie is out of the bottle and there's no putting it back. They have simply refused to accept this.

The Napster peer-to-peer source code isn't hard for smart programmers to figure out (after all, it was developed by a college student to begin with) and I think someone released it on the internet about a year ago. Record companies can sue people until they're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that for every site that they shut down or drive into bankruptcy, four of five pop up to take its place. This will never stop.

One day, someone is going to go to a country that is out of the reach of US courts and setup up a server with a redistributed version of the Napster code with a new paint job and it will be file-sharing heaven for music pirates all over the world.

If they were smart, the record companies would figure out how to use P2P networking to their advantage (read: profit) instead of trying to stiffle the technology, which isn't going away.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by seraphshattered
for us avid (read: 'insane') cd-collectors, it matters not anyway, we *have* to buy 'em. mp3's don't count.

Your right there, for all the ethical posturing I have done it doesn't change that I just love collecting CDs

[Rob-hin]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
If they were smart, the record companies would figure out how to use P2P networking to their advantage (read: profit) instead of trying to stiffle the technology, which isn't going away.

Agreed, but instead they chose to boobytrap their cd's.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Rob-hin
Agreed, but instead they chose to boobytrap their cd's.

. . . which technically-savy hackers can get around using a felt-tipped marker.

[Rob-hin]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
. . . which technically-savy hackers can get around using a felt-tipped marker.

Yeah, I heard.
Kind of silly isn't it?

Still, it is stupid that if you play a cd on your pc it's almost impossible to get it out.
Not even after resetting.
At least, that's what I heard about the Celine Dion (barf) cd.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I was watching something on TV about a year ago and someone was saying that artists really don't make a lot of money off of CD sales. This person, I forget who it was but they were a minor recording artist at the time, said that of the $16 retail price for a CD, the artist might see between $1 and $1.50, and that was the entire act, so for a band like Aerosmith or Bon Jovi, that would be divied up four or five ways. It was only a handful of name-level acts that made a lot of money off album sales (ie-Aerosmith, Prince, Madonna, etc.) because they had guaranteed contracts.

This person was saying that albums were a great way to showcase their music but most of an artist's money is made through touring and merchandise sales.

If this is indeed the case, it's not artists who are losing tremendous amounts of money on .mp3 file sharing, but record companies.

@HLD: You are correct The "standard" record contract is 4-6% royalties after recoup.The label makes all of the up front investment though..and there is a tremendous recoup..The label usually owns those mansions and cars etc. and "leases themm to the artist..at least untill the artist reaches franchise status.

[Bloodstalker]

My own opinion is that music is becoming stale and unimaginative....at least the music that is forced on us by record companies. I know a lot of people don't like some of my types of music *hair bands* but when it gets to a point that you can't tell who is on the radio just by listening to them it is out off hand....even in the exess of the 80's, you could tell RATT or poison when you heard them.

Which leads to another pet gripe of mine....the state of radio today. It is almost impossible for a band or artist who doesn't sound like anyone else to even get any airplay, simply because the radio stations think it is too ricky and someone might change the channel. All that hits the air for the most part is the carbon copy sounds of bands immitating the newest trend and only wind up killing it due to flooding the market.

As far as CD prices go, yes, they are inflated, but it's worse than that. I have bought CD's that I wanted, only to play them and find out I had just shelled out 15-20 bucks on a disc that has 2 good tunes on it and is filled out with music that is just there to take up space. The artists need to realiaze that, yeah, a good song or 2 will sell a CD the first time, but you are not likely to get any repeat buyers if your first disc is filled with fluff.

MP3's I don't think can be responsible for record sales being low. If I listen to something, and like it, I am gonna buy it. But if I listen to most songs from an albulm and don't like most of it, well, I ain't paying all that cash out for a crappy CD, I'll get the single instead. In that way, maybe it is causeing the market to lose sales. But that isn't anyones fault but the artsist who put the CD's out. A lot of times, I think it's more the fact that the band doesn't want you to find out that most of their CD is trash rather than any copywrite concerns that make them nervous. They are afraid that they won't be able to sucker anyone in in that case.

The point is, if Zepplin was a new band, and Zepplin 4 came out for 20 bucks, would I buy it? Yes, npo hesitation about it. Put out a good CD that is worth the money, and it will sell. But as it is, most people I know are a little nervous about buying new music because you can't be sure you will get your money's worth

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
Which leads to another pet gripe of mine....the state of radio today. It is almost impossible for a band or artist who doesn't sound like anyone else to even get any airplay, simply because the radio stations think it is too ricky and someone might change the channel. All that hits the air for the most part is the carbon copy sounds of bands immitating the newest trend and only wind up killing it due to flooding the market.

It's also due to the fact that there are a very few number of independent radio stations left in the country. If you go to most major markets, you might find a dozen different radio stations, but if you dig into the ownership, you'll find that there are maybe two or three conglomorates that own those same dozen radio stations, and regulate their programming based on the format of the station. This homogeniety in radio programming leads to formulaic music.

[The Z]

Just to add to the price thing....CD's where I'm at cost $16-$20 dollars (Canadian) which is quite a bit for people who don't/can't work. Not to say having an illegal CD is good though. Some people would just rather pay $2 for a blank CD and copy rather then actually pay. IMO, they're missing out on the quality of the true CD.

Secondly, I'm into lots of the new music simply because I was born later then most and don't remember the 80's (All I know is that it was supposedly a very creative era). I think it's just because kids are brought up to break rules.

[ThorinOakensfield]

Most CDs cost $15-17. Thats a ridiculous price to pay for CDs, so I don't buy CDs too often. It just comes down to getting those CDs I really want. Ofcourse when I want to listen to Led Zepplin and older bands, I can usually get them from my dad's collection.

[Sojourner]

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
Which leads to another pet gripe of mine....the state of radio today. It is almost impossible for a band or artist who doesn't sound like anyone else to even get any airplay, simply because the radio stations think it is too ricky and someone might change the channel. All that hits the air for the most part is the carbon copy sounds of bands immitating the newest trend and only wind up killing it due to flooding the market.

Precisely why I've been tuning radio out.