If the stupid label companies would make CD's 5 bucks, who in their right mind WOULDN'T buy music.... using copyright protection is just gonna drive the price... seriously, for 5 bucks (download or disc) everyone would buy into it... they need some new people brainstorming for them...
Comments
Originally posted by ipodandimac
If the stupid label companies would make CD's 5 bucks, who in their right mind WOULDN'T buy music....
I probably wouldn't.
By which I mean: the fact that it'd cost me 5 bucks wouldn't change my purchasing behaviour (== a sporadic purchase if I cannot get past how good I find a pirated album).
I pay 4-7 dollars for CD's at this store in town, many of which have that great "For promotional use only" label on the front.
Making music you legally bought available to others on-line is ILLEGAL !!!!
Just because you can't afford to buy it legally doesn't make stealing OK !!!
So, if someone thinks the G5 mac is too expensive, it should be OK for them to walk into an Apple store and steal the display model ???
They'll still make their millions and have their houses on the Pacific coast and their spa memberships mind you, but we'll also finally get a fair shake from the industry. Compromise is a beautiful thing; one day they'll figure that out.
This would at least justify e high prices.
Lokk at APPLE, the computers are expensive. but at least they throw in some free software. Soften e pain a little.
If nobody listens, the artists will all go to indie lables and the stuff will get published cheaper.
...but it's so much easier to just steal the stuff ... then even the artists who actually create the art don't get thier cut.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
...but it's so much easier to just steal the stuff ... then even the artists who actually create the art don't get thier cut.
Exactly! Glad we understand each other. Now if only more people would stop buying and start stealing.
Holy crap! I really can change the world for the bettter!!!!
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
If nobody listens, the artists will all go to indie lables and the stuff will get published cheaper.
Actually, the whole reason this is going on is to limit the ability of artists to go independent. The big 5 need to control digital distribution and marketing, and they've started with p2p.
...but it's so much easier to just steal the stuff ... then even the artists who actually create the art don't get thier cut.
You know what? I think it's disgusting when people spout off false and uninformed concern for musicians in this way. The artists don't get their cut either way. Only the record labels really get hurt when you steal music. When you buy a major label CD, all you are doing is allowing the majors to circumvent the necessary changes the industry needs to make in order to adapt to the new distribution landscape. It creates an environment where competition is stifled through aggressive legislation by a business equivalent of an aristocracy. As a result, you are actually hurting artists in the long run by paying for any CD from one of the majors.
All this "Think about the artists!" is so patronizing to the people that actually care about making music.
That said, artists also need to adjust. For one, more pop-oriented musicians (rock, hip-hop, young electronica) need to get rid of this childish fantasy of being 'stars' and become more realistic about the changes in distribution that are causing changes in consumption.
originally posted by giant
You know what? I think it's disgusting when people spout off false and uninformed concern for musicians in this way. The artists
don't get their cut either way. Only the record labels really get hurt when you steal music. When you buy a major label CD, all you
are doing is allowing the majors to circumvent the necessary changes the industry needs to make in order to adapt to the new
distribution landscape. It creates an environment where competition is stifled through aggressive legislation by a business
equivalent of an aristocracy. As a result, you are actually hurting artists in the long run by paying for any CD from one of the
majors.
All this "Think about the artists!" is so patronizing to the people that actually care about making music.
That said, artists also need to adjust. For one, more pop-oriented musicians (rock, hip-hop, young electronica) need to get rid of
this childish fantasy of being 'stars' and become more realistic about the changes in distribution that are causing changes in
consumption.
First thing you've said I can agree with. Go to shows financed by the artists. Buy used and independently distributed music. There is a website that allows you to pay to the artists (the labels don't see a dime) for the music you download p2p, use that if your conscience is bothering you. Through this service the artist is getting a greater share.
F**K RIAA!!!
the business model for record companies is pretty much designed to keep artists from making any real money.
a real good example is TLC, they declared bankruptcy after their largest selling c.d., in fact i think it was the #1 c.d. for the year it came out.
most of the time, money from promotion comes out of future royalties, they pay you an advance to make your record, they promote it but the artist pays for it from future royalties, you make a video, the costs come out of future royalties etc. so when you do hit the jackpot as TLC did, they go where's our loot? and the record company says we've already paid you, here look.
gee maybe we shouldn't have spent a million dollars making that video.
artists are to blame as well but most record companies give them more than enough rope to hang themselves.
if an artist is smart, it gets above the advance on royalties scheme, pays for all costs of recording themselves, owns their own masters, and goes to the record company and says "if you want to release our record pay us this much we'll split promotion cost and if it doesn't sell well too bad for you. we keep our advance and don't owe you squat. also it's only for five years, after which we can take our catalog shop it around and you can shove off."
but not everyone is the rolling stones, or aerosmith, or paul mccartney, or u2.
the problem with the online model is it would put all artists in the rolling stones category, and record companies don't want to lose the control.
i think david bowie said (whose new c.d. is due out tuesday) said (i'm paraphrasing at best) "the toothpaste is out of the tube, i think musicians are going to have to find another way to make money other than record companies or selling records." he was fully anticipating selling his last album (heathen) online only until sony came up and dumped a butt-load of cash in his lap.
Originally posted by tonton
No, but if we like the painting in the gallery, we can go take a photo of it, print out a poster, hang it on our wall and look at it every day.
You had to pay to get into the gallery (usually), and the artist is getting paid to have their work IN the gallery (usually).
For the exceptions, I would say its the same thing as an indie artist giving away free Mp3s on their website.
The iTunes Music Store is sort of like the gallery. You pay 99 cents to "see" the song. Then you can (and should) be able to do anything YOU want with it. That means playing it anytime you want, where you want. But that doesn't mean being able to give it away.
I think the whole DRM thing is stupid. You pay for a song, you should make as many freakin copies as you want. But allowing other people to have those copies for free...well thats not really fair is it?
I mean you can't really be proposing that all art should be totally free? How would artists ever survive? I'm not being
sarcastic. I'm seriously asking how could that work because I don't know.
i don't think art galleries (place where you can go and actually buy art)
would be too keen on snapshots.
Originally posted by Willoughby
The iTunes Music Store is sort of like the gallery. You pay 99 cents to "see" the song. Then you can (and should) be able to do anything YOU want with it. That means playing it anytime you want, where you want. But that doesn't mean being able to give it away.
If you buy a CD it's perfectly within your legal rights to make a copy to tape and give it to a friend.
Originally posted by bunge
If you buy a CD it's perfectly within your legal rights to make a copy to tape and give it to a friend.
Not only that, but it's also good for the artist.
Printing color inserts and design work accounts for something here.
Musicians won't ever be confused with Mathmeticians. Hence the need for a "supporting staff". As always if you think it's easier to go it alone. Try it. No ones stopping you.
Originally posted by hmurchison
CD's shouldn't be 5. $7.99-8.99 for popular hits is more like it.
No, the big cost is promotion, so while you are right that that costs money, it's really just a vicious circle.
Printing color inserts and design work accounts for something here.
Musicians don't pay graphic designers much if at all.
Musicians won't ever be confused with Mathmeticians. Hence the need for a "supporting staff". As always if you think it's easier to go it alone. Try it. No ones stopping you.
I'm getting the feeling you are limiting your thinking about this subject to the biggest pop acts, which account for a very small percentage of adult musicians. Most musicians do basically 'go it alone.' It's basically a freelance industry.
Then we have to ask what type of music professional are you referring to. Songwriter? Performer? Engineer?
The last time I checked, the average salary of a musician was below $30,000 a year.
According to ascap figures, $80,000 is what a songwriter can expect to make off of sales of 1,000,000 copies. Think about that for a second.
Very few musicians can afford a 'supporting staff.' The big costs are studio recording, marketing and distribution. And it is increasingly difficult to raise visibility in a world dominated by musical starbuckses. This is something the internet could help eliviate, and this is why the RIAA wants to control it. The majors get their revenue through control of visibility and distribution channels. They've recognized that if they don't gain control of the internet, they will be out of business, not because people are 'illegally swapping' music, but because their racket will have been undermined by the free market.
The music industry has the great potential of becoming decentralized. With computers, recording has dropped in price dramatically and disribution is becoming dirt cheap. Musicians won't lose money; there's no money to lose. If anything, it opens more opportunities for musicians to get exposure and distribution, and potentially could make money for more individuals.
I don't think we can worry about labels in general disappearing. But the majors and anyone conducted business in the antiquated way should be forced to adapt to the new market or go out of business.
Originally posted by bunge
If you buy a CD it's perfectly within your legal rights to make a copy to tape and give it to a friend.
Really? A tape but not a CD? Why is that?
What ARE my rights when I buy a CD? Is this clearly noted somewhere that I can look up and isn't the DMCA changing all that?
Wow that was a lot of questions for one post.
Originally posted by Willoughby
Really? A tape but not a CD? Why is that?
What ARE my rights when I buy a CD? Is this clearly noted somewhere that I can look up and isn't the DMCA changing all that?
Wow that was a lot of questions for one post.
i'm not 100% sure, but a few years ago, blank tape (video and audio) manufacturers began paying a royalty to labels and movies studios for revenues lost from taping, i believe this arrangement still exists but doesn't extend to digitally copied devices and blank discs and such.