Slashdot Mirror
States Sue Record Companies For Price Fixing
Logic Bomb writes: "Twenty-eight states filed a federal lawsuit today against the five largest record labels alleging price fixing on compact discs. The Federal Trade Commission has dealt with this before, through an out-of-court settlement that was supposed to fix the problem. A Reuters article provided by Yahoo gives good details."
there are people on slashdot who don't speak/read/write english as their native language so you can't expect perfect english from everybody.
on the otherhand, if your complaint was that you couldn't understand his post, you should go and learn english yourself.
This used to be true. Everything was recorded and edited analog. Analog editing equipment is EXPENSIVE. Studio time cost hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour. Nowadays, it's all digital. You can set do most of the editing on a PC. Recording costs have plumeted. Seen any decrease in the price of music? Similar thing with magazine publishing. Laying out a magazine with a lightboard and a razor blade is a LOT of work. Doing the same layout with a decent DTP program is trivial.
They've settled before, they'll settle again - they know they're screwing the consumer.
I can build a car for 1/2 million bucks. or I can build on for 12,000. now I'm sure I can put options on the 1/2 million dollar one that make it way neeto, but both will go through the drive thru at BurgerKing the same way. as for all this promotions bs. I've never seen a free poster for any band. I've never know anybody to get a free demo cd. Just where do these promonitonal fees go ?
Ramones Ramones.
6 grand or something. Best album ever made.
Cowboy Junkies The Trinity Sessions
Cost a couple hundred bucks. One microphone in an abandoned church.
Nirvana Bleach
$800 IIRC
Sorry I can't come up with more recent examples but music today sucks ass. Pet Sounds by the beach boys was recorded on equipment that you can get today for a few hundred bucks. I don't disagree with the argument that it costs $100000 to record an album today - just remember, thats $5000 for recording and $95000 for cocaine and blow jobs.
http://new s.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2464013.html?tag=st.ne. 1002.thed.ni
There were days when a Pentium 133 cost hundreds of dollars - but today pricewatch.com reports that you can get a Pentium 133 for $17. I'm sure that Intel would love to continue charging hundreds of dollars for this part, but it's value has depreciated, and they would be laughed out of the market if they tried.
It seems to me that Processors and CDs have a similar structure to the cost of production - a large up-front cost, and a much smaller recurring cost in producing new batches of product.
Unlike processors, music cds do not have a substantial market depreciation cycle. Perhaps this depreciation should be addressed by law.
Record companies continue to charge large dollar amounts for works by artists who are dead. They also charge the same amounts for works by artists who have signed away all rights to their works.
Perhaps copywright law should require a depreciation schedule for product pricing, and should require works produced by deceased artists to enter the public domain.
Or, then again, maybe we could just declare Napster legal and have done with the whole batch of crooks. I think I like this way.
Well good - once they raise the price to $28/disk and artists realize they are still only making a quarter per sale, maybe they'll be much more willing to try out online distribution.
I will not cry for the RIAA any more than I did for the dinosaurs - their time is up.
In related news, AOL Time Warner is suing MP3Board.com for a service that is very similar to one offered by AOL. The full story is available at http://www.upside.com/News/398f5056 0_yahoo.html . Michael Roberston of MP3.com had some very insightful things to say in the article about AOL's Winamp service, calling it possibly the most aggressive in promoting what Time Warner considers piracy. For instance, unlike Napster which just acts as a directory service, AOL's service provides actual storage for songs you find.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Funny, you must be missing part of your reality simulator - the medical profession recommends you have two a day FOR YOUR HEALTH.
In MODERATION it's GOOD for you. But it's more fun to simplify and demonize. Let me guess, someone in your family is an alcholic?
Or are you just a free-lance do-gooder?
The revolution will NOT be televised.
No, he gave it a 2. It hasn't been moderated yet.
Don't worry. It will be. It will be....
--
Pearl Jam recorded the "Last Kiss" single for a little under $1000 bucks, and did 0 promotion. that sold pretty well
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
The state goverment want thier piece of the action. The RIAA are making money at the public expense. Now they are going pay take about revenge
>> A professional album costs upwards of $100,000 to record.
>You've been taken in by the studio hype.
It's not atypical for the *cover art* to be a very
significant chunk of this, something independent
bands don't think much about. (I haven't been
involved in production since the vinyl days, but
the cost of printing the sleeves and the cost of
pressing the records was about 50/50).
It was nearly $10,000 to make 2500 copies of a garage album in '85, all told. Selling them is
another story. It's interesting to discover more
than a decade later, that the record is perceived as "rare" in Holland, and shows up in collector catalogs
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You just have to love the line:
"If they RIAA members are found guilty of using their copyrights in an anti-competative way, they lose the ability to enforce the copyrights."
While many lawyers will fight for their paychecks before that ever happens. That would be a blessing for the artists who could then sue the RIAA for losing the copyright and require that the RIAA pay damages. This would force the RIAA to publish the information showing that the artists never get paid anything anyways.
In the end of course the only people making any money at all will be the lawyers
:-(
Geez...about time this happened....
The Divx business model wasn't geared exclusively to the "sales" of the disc. It was geared to the reuse and unlocking of discs. Ultimately this would cost the consumer more, and would require fewer resources. As a business model, that was a sound concept, in practice, consumers were not willing to buy a more expensive player to play regular DVD's, they didn't want to hook up the phone to the player, and other businesses that could distribute the Divx discs wouldn't because the profit margine of being the middle man was so low.
The cost to produce a Divx disc I'm sure was over $1.00, but they hoped to reclaim that in recycled dics and "upgrades".
Time flies like an arrow;
Time flies like an arrow;
Fruit flies like a bananna
if what this suit claims is true, this is much more serious that just price fixing. It's extortion to small businesses. Here is the first slashdot article about the FTC case.
---
I post links to stuff here
Many years ago, I worked in a building that was shared with HMV/EMI record publishing. They owned the labels through to the retail outlets.
I can confidently say that the $14.99 markup that was being made was being spent wisely on the cool dudes working there and launch parties. Since then, other overheads have emereged, such as paying music show producers for 'needle-time' and, shock-horror, the groups of kiddies who went into shops being sampled for the Top-50 statistics.
Also, you should remember the cost of all that coke (the powder, not the liquid)!
In St. Petersburg, Russia where illegal copies sell for $2, you can get real CDs for about $10-$15. If the record industry is profitable there, why not in the US and Western-Europe?
I couldn't resist, as that is your name, apparently...
1 - The users guide only costs them $1.50 or so to print and bind, since they're doing so many.
2 - So they're charging me and millions of users for a service which they never have to fulfill? Maybe I, and everyone else who bought their distro without asknig for support, should start a class action suit to get that money back. I didn't want to pay for thier tech support, since i didn't plan to use it, but they offered me no choice of just letting me but the CD, Manual, and box for $6.00 (the cost of materials + 100%)...
Come on... that $50 is so rarely spent on tech support... in most cases it's just extra profit... Yet no one complains about that, selling somehting that is free for them to get for $50.00 on upwards...
Actually, the record companies set the minimum prices in order to protect the smaller record stores... Think about it, they can't buy nearly as much, and hence get the same price breaks as the larger companies. Department stores and electronics stores could start selling CD's as loss leaders in order to sell CD player and even unrelated things like washers and dryers...
To reiterate, if there was no minimum price set, then the only plaec you'd be able to acquire music offline would be walmart, pretty much...
I only wish the movie industry would set the same sort of policy in order to prevent blockbuster fom driving out every other smaller video store for the sheer reason that they have more money and can get things for cheaper than basically anyone else...
No, not really...
There aren't really as many costs involved with a book, as you just have an author and agent and printer to pay, rather than all the ancillary work that goes into creating music...
DVD's and VHS' normally come out some time after a movie is released in the theatres... If the studios didn't have the theatres, the costs of tapes and discs would climb quite a ways upwards, i'd bet...
And through your arguments, I'd like to ask why you overlook the fact that DVD's are much more expensive than VHS tapes even though they're again, cheaper to produce?
And how much was gas in 1987? Or a 286 processor? Or the oft-quoted loaf of bread?
If you actually look at it, the price of music has stayed even, it's just that the value of the dollar has fallen...
Yes, there is price-fixing going on, but not to the tune that you like to imagine... even if the case is a knockout win a la microsoft, don't expect the price of cd's to drop more than 3 or 4 dollars... anymore than that would just be incredibly unreasonable...
I just bought Shellac's new record yesterday... for $12.98, you could get the CD. Or, for $12.98 you could get the record, which includes the CD as a bonus...
cool band you say? Too bad the other ones aren't nearly as considerate and just strive to make it big on one of the major labels... That's their choice. Respect them for that, rather than saying "I'm going to steal their music since they signed with a label and they're only going to get a couple dollars anyways"...
If the music sucks, blame the bands, not the labels... If your taste sucks, again, blame yourself, not the labels...
I rarely buy a CD from a small music store. Why? They are generally a big ripoff, why pay $3-$5 more for a CD? I buy my CD's online now or used. The only small music stores I go to are ones which sell used CDs or ones which sell bootlegs. I have not bought a new CD from a music store in 10+ years. Why pay more for the same thing?
Q.
So you hold which high ranking, policy making position in which record label/RIAA?
Oh wait, nevermind, that was just speculation.
--Xantho
I have published a book, so I can give you some idea of the cost. For 5,000 copies of a 250 page 6 inch x 9 inch book with full color cover, the printing costs were aroung $7,500. That's only printing, no marketing, etc. But that is about a $1.50 a book.
:)
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
I've just been wondering, if CDs cost this $18 to make, sell, whatever, then how the heck can BMG give me 12 free cds for buying one, (the only cost I have is $2.50 shipping & handling.)
:)
Now I ask you, doesn't $2.50 s & h for one CD a little high?
Do you think it might cover the manufacturing costs?
So, 12 cds for the price of one. One costs $16.95 from BMG, shipping is $2.50 each, for a total of $46.95, which is exactly $3.91 a CD. So they must MAKE MONEY, and bmg must make LOTS OF MONEY, at only $3.91 a CD.
For the bored, the link is BMG
.sig
Fellowship 9/11
>For instance, a Redhat Linux CD costs $50 from Redhat.
So don't buy it from RedHat. http://www.cheapbytes.com - RH62 ~ $5.00 + shipping
OK?
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
$100,000 is alot, I agree. But lets consider how much a major movie costs. On average, it cost around $35 million to make a major motion picture for wide release (and that's not including advertising, which can triple that amount). But, at the most we only spend $9 dollers when we go to watch one! On top of that, not all of the $9 goes to the studios either; part of it goes to the theater. So, your argument does not hold up very well when comparied to other related markets.
-slams
-slams
According to all of the artists that I've seen discuss this, production and promotion costs get deducted out of the artist's royalties, so shouldn't factor into the CD price.
This article at MP3.com details exactly what hoops an up and coming band has to go through to get on with a major label.
You would think some established bands that are now successful but were screwed over early on would come out against the record companies.
------
IanO
------
Objects in Mirror are Losing!
This is just another example of them "looking after us" like when they sued the tabacco companies. Do you think they really cared about children?
Hell, no!. They're just a bunch of damned greedy bastards themselves, jumping on every bandwagon they can find to sue private industries.
Where do you think the money from these lawsuits will go? Back to us? Yea, friggin' right!
I have no sympathy for the music industry, but this doesn't make my any happier...
"Teachers leave us kids alone
yea, it sucks...
"Teachers leave us kids alone
Also, on many games, including D2, most of the development staff get royalties: producers, programmers, designers, artists, musicians.
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
You have to justify the price you want for something when federally-imposed regulations inflate that price artificially. Copyright laws claim to protect artists and provide income for creative arts, but that is blatant bullshit. Copyright laws simply prop up IP organizations and enable obscene profits for a modicum of creative effort.
Read your Constitution. I'll even give you a pointer: Article I, Section 8. Compare with the US Copyright Act of 1976, then come back and tell us all about justification.
If prices were high because of natural supply-and-demand, I'd agree with you: I've got no right to complain. After all, it's a market phenomenon, totally justified. But the government has engaged in its tinkering, grossly disrupting the market balance of producer/consumer with regard to creative works.
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me *that* doesn't need to be justified.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Microsoft, in an effort to raise cash to prop up their falling stock price, today sold off large portions of their wholly-owned subsidiary EvilButStupidLawyers Corp. The RIAA has made an offer, explaining "High priced monopolies are the backbone of American innovation. Microsoft did so well in their trial that we thought it would be smart to use their legal tactics as well as their business ones."
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
It was also the first CD to sell a million copies :)
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
I agree that the CD prices are a tad high, even taking into account recording costs and promotion. Has anyone considered that in the U.S. we are still paying less for CDs than people pay in other countries? I thought it was bad here until I was in London and the entire bin--not just those from the U.S., but those from the U.K., Europe, and the rest of the world--was "17.99" Can we say ouch???
If this lawsuit is successful, will there be any ramifications for prices on the other side of the pond?
Come to think of it, I'd bet that an even bigger price fixing suit could follow. What about plain old collusion instead? Why are all CDs ridiculously expensive? That's a good question for the FCC and the states to ask....
sphere
--
"Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare,
Deep in the ocean are treasures beyond compare; but if you seek safety, it is on the shore.
Less than the cup does. ;)
Adam
Actually, yes, I have.
A big store who can afford to print big color ads in the newspaper can also afford to sell CDs as loss-leaders. If they want, they don't have to advertise price. "Call for price!" "So low, we can't print it!" Wow, problem solved.
I think the MAP levels the playing field a bit. But I'm a staunch supporter of my local independent record store -- it's worth paying a bit extra for a knowledgeable guy who knows my name, knows what I like, and can even tell me about artists that I might not have discovered otherwise.
darius
Maybe you should visit A&B sound then... I only buy CDs from there period. You can buy a new release for like $12.79... Depending of course, but considering the exchange rate thats $8.47 for a cd. Well I guess some places in the US sell CDS for $7.99 (or is this wrong?) we're doing about the same or slighly better than thine US ppl.
Personally I don't see why CDs must cost so much, I'm not really interested in the promotion of tunes, I just want the tunes.
Money is so evil sometimes.
This is such flaimbait I shouldn't even reply...
Well then move to europe where EVERYTHING is controlled by the government.
No you come to Europe and see for yourself. Free market, entrepreneurship and independent/critical thought are flourishing despite those "damn" socialist and their irresistible drive to provide social wellfare etc. (I'm talking about western Europe here, maybe you meant the former Eastern block, but since you just said Europe I wouldn't know).
You sound like a communist saying how the government should break up businesses.
The US sentences people people to death for their crimes. Why not do the same to companies?
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
I'd assume that the average /. reader is more likely to buy a disc from a local record store that will stock interesting things from smaller labels than your average brittany spears fare you might find at wal mart.
this practice was put into place to stop the giant megoplies like wal mart and their ilk from crushing the local record stores by keeping them from selling cd's at a price less than the LOCAL and INDEPENDANT record store in your town could purchase them.
you might save a few bucks, but that's what the giant corporations are always going to sell people on, yes? what did you give up for those dollars?
You know what I love? The fact that they claim that producing them takes so much of the budget that they have to charge > $15 per disk. However, producing a DiVX (DVD) disk and selling them for under $1.00 is possible (I frequently see them at 99 cents).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
The $50 for the RedHat CD also gets you a copy of the user's guide as well as telephone support and priority FTP logins for updates.
I think in the software business they call them "Value Adds".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't record companies get a cut of blank cd sales? so you have to take that cut away to get the percentage markup just to have music on it.
______
______
everyone was born right-handed, only the greatest overcome it.
http://leftorium.net
"Forgive him, Caesar: he is a barbarian and believes the customs of his tribe are laws of nature."
(time for some good old fashioned flip flopping)
But what if every housepainter and landscaper in town suddenly banded together and set a minimum price for their services? That defeats the purpose of competition, when companies decide to set uniform prices across the industry. It's happened in the airline business, it's happened in the telephone business, and now it's happening in the recording business.
Mandating that you must charge X dollars for a CD, or you won't be able to sell any more of their CD's, is flatly anti-competitive. It means that all stores have to charge more, and that consumers always lose. We have laws against that, you know.
For more information, click here.
(raises flame shield)
Far be it from me to voice an opinion that doesn't boil down to "RECORD COMPANIES SUCK!" but have you considered the price change in real dollars? Considering the inflation rate, as well as the fact that the U.S. economy is very strong, CD prices have gone up roughly at the rate of inflation. While I still believe they're high, they haven't been _rising_ all that much.
For more information, click here.
Not sure, but I would doubt it. I think it
is interesting that the stores they mention
are all stores which normally have high
prices for CD's. Who would shop at a musicland anyway? Often smaller independent
stores (or even smaller chains like NC)
have lower prices.
Actually, there are a lot MORE costs associated with producing a book than with creating music.
Of course both the artist and writer get paid for their work - let move on to the ancillary costs:
- While the artist has to pay for recording time the writer has to pay for a editor/proofer to make sure the work is coherent and has no spelling and gramatical errors.
- While the artist is paying someone to develope some nice CD insert artwork etc, the writer is paying to have someone design the cover for their book - usually 2 designs because the hardcover version is different than the softcover print run.
- While the artist pays for post-production work, the writer/publisher has to pay for prepress work - that means getting color proofs done and creating plates to put on the presses. I'm not sure about the major publishing house presses, but your typical metal plate can only have 8 pages and needs to be replaced every 100-200K impressions - all at the low, low price of $40 per plate. Multiply by 4 if in full color. BTW, anyone know how much a gold master costs to produce and how many CD's can be stamped out by it?
- Materials cost for a CD are easily under $.25 in those volumes. Paper cost for volume printing runs around $.005 per sheet for plain Jane white paper. For a 200 page book, you're talking $.50 in material cost alone - and you haven't even run it through the press yet.
I won't even touch the finishing aspects of production but book binding is considerably more difficult and expensive than assembling a jewel case and sticking the CD and insert inside.
I can only imagine that distribution costs for books are considerably higher than CDs factoring the weight and volume disparity.
But yet I can get a paperback book from the local store for $5 vs. $12 for a CD.
I'll let you work the math.
The Doctor is Out... (Getting his Diablo II fix)
Must be, if I can pay $3-5 + 2.50 S/H (hmmm, that's a little fishy) from BMG... I only buy when it's one of those buy 1 at 1/2 price, get 2 'free' (S/H only). Works out to about $13 for 3 CDs... not a bad deal.
Of course, they don't carry half of what I want, but hey... most of that you can get elsewhere.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I figure you could get that 'extra few dollars' for each CD... even at only $5/CD - $3750 is nothing to sneeze at.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
John Tesh..... eeeehhhhh [shudder]
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
So the states are suing, so what? I'll never get to see the money.
http://www.theonion.com/onion 3627/infograph_3627.html
-Chris
If 2% of wholesale is all they're taking, where's the rest of the money going? I'm not being argumentative...this just sounds fishy.
This is true. The difference in price between the two types is strictly artificial and has no technical merit.
This is encouraging news for those who bought audio CD-R decks, but when you can find data CD-R spindles at local retailers for about $0.25 each (seen recently at PC Club in Las Vegas), you're still paying too much for audio CD-Rs. (Hell, you can get CD-RWs for less than the $1.13 you mentioned...while passing through Tempe a while back, I saw a 5-pack of CD-RWs at Fry's for $5.)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Only of the CD-Rs sold for use in audio CD burners (of the type that plug into your stereo, not the type that plug into your computer). Those burners are rigged to only burn to the special CD-Rs that cost considerably more than the normal variety. They get nothing from those 25-cent-per-disk spindles you pick up in computer stores. If you're interested in not lining the pockets of the RIAA, do all your CD burning from your computer. (The equipment is cheaper anyway, and if you're only working with digital sources, there's no difference in sound quality.)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (remove Voyager's hull # to send mail)
\_^_/
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
I don't think the RIAA would have to listen to the FCC in this case. The F *T* C, perhaps :-)
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
This is very damaging to the record companies pr campaign, the NAPSTER PR MACHINE (TM) Should exploit this into making the RIAA as horrible people, and as a way as dragging their feet into the digital marketplace, and protecting their intellectual property
AFAIK indie costs are generally higher. They don't produce CDs in the same numbers as the big 5, so it costs them more per disc. They don't have their own distribution set up so they need to piggyback on another record company or do it themselves (which is more expensive). The staff to artist ratio is generally a lot higher (more salaries, supplies, offices, etc) which makes for more overhead. The indie labels don't all have their own recording studios. etc... etc...
That's all I can think of right now. Anyone else want to add?
I agree that the rise of Napster and its ilk was a big fat wake-up call for the RIAA. So they go down. (Or do they?) What is going to happen to the artists? While I'd like to be able to buy more CDs at lower prices, ultimately I fear that the musicians are going to be fscked more than before. Digital piracy is not going away. IMO, artists who embrace the web and make the record companies work for them instead of the other way around will have it good....
But how easy is that going to be after the dust settles?
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
??? This doesn't make sense. This "proof" means nothing unless you can show a link between Napster usage and CD sales. I'm not saying there isn't one (however indirect a link it might be). I'm just saying that going out and buying more CDs isn't going to prove anything to anybody.
Anyway, yes, please think about the artists...
I apologize, because I usually hate it when people post silly little comments in the middle of discussions, but:
"Johnny Welfare Garage Band" is a REALLY good name for a band.
Sorry again.
If I want to listen to Band X's music. Name on alternative I have.
:)
I have none.
If I want to buy a microwave. I look at one company's microwave. It's too expensive. So I vote with my dollars.
I have alternatives.
Other companies, other models, other options. etc.
The music industry has the market right where it wants us, you have to buy from the one source of Band X's music, or you are SOL. There are no options, no other companies, no other avenues.
People were sick of it, and voted with their Napsters.
And I quote:
"How would you achieve this? without being caught and hated that is? and without government protection... "
Same way the robber barons did in the 1920's. Which is why we have the anti-trust laws today. Standard Oil would start selling their products at a huge loss. But because of their available capital, they could do it. And once their incredibly low prices drove everyone else out of business, they raised prices and gouged everyone on their monopoly.
Same way the steamboat companies of the Mississippi did business. One company, the name slips my mind at the moment, would run their lines at such a low rate to drive everyone else out of business, unless the other lines paid them money to not run in their areas. It got to such an extreme, that this company had an income in the millions without ever running a boat.
Business does not have the consumer's interests in mind, no matter what the libertarians will tell you.
The government gets involved because these type of business practices discourage competition, which is one of the fundamentals that capitalism operates on. Without the government involvement, the basis for a self regulating economy breaks down.
This isn't invasive government, this is the government doing what they are supposed to. Protect the people.
I regularly get everything I could possibly be looking for at Newbury Comics for $11 or $12 brand-spanking-new, as compared to the horrific prices at Tower Records or the like. I'd be interested in hearing a few more of the specifics.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
They were selling for significantly below $18! And these weren't the record companies doing the selling. If I recall, they were selling around $10-12, below the cost the record companies charged them.
The cake is a pie
Look at Britney, N*Sync, Backstree Boys, etc. A free market would have never allowed these performers to sell, let alone be sensations.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how much of the "Oops I did it Again" price goes to The Rolling Stones?
Note: I have a 10 year old daughter, hence my knowledge of B.S.'s CDs. She did a remake of "Satisfaction". When I heard it, my first comment was, "Mick Jagger, she ain't!"
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
CD prices have not been lowered much, which is needed, obviously. :)
There are two ways of fighting piracy...
1: Fight them with the law (doesn't work)
2: Fight them with prices, making the product "buyable"
The "loss leader" was allegedly the reason why they did what they did. Best Buy would advertise their CDs for $7.99 or $9.99 with the idea that once in the store, they'd have a better chance of selling things like CD players, discmans, TVs, etc.
So they enacted the "You must sell them for no less than $18" so that the exclusively music types of stores could fairly compete.
I think that's the correct logic...
-Vel
That would be accurate if all you were getting just a blank cd. /.) would be:
A more accurate estimate of value (based on things I'e heard here on
CD: $.50
Songs: %.50x10 (assume 10 decent songs on a CD)
Total base: $5.50
So, $16 would be +150% markup?
On the other hand, lets take this to the other extreme that occasionally happens: one really good song and the rest of the CD is filled with utter crap, aka "filler tracks."
CD: $.50
Song: $.50 - $1 (hey, its a really good song)
Base: $1 - $1.50
Now, we're looking at a markup of about +1500-1700%, right?
Either way, Ms. Love's statement pretty much covers the fact that too much of it is going to the publisher.
-Vel
The five labels are:
Also named as defendants were three retailers:
- MusicLand Stores Corp.
- Tower Records
- Trans World Entertainment Corp.
I hope they burn just like any other organization breaking antitrust laws.In the beginning, or early 1990's, the companies claimed that they charged more for CD's because of the increased price of manufacturin.g And no one cared, because it was a new technology. but with the advent of cheap players, and the digital generation, people could afford the CD's and put up with the price because of the increased quality over Cassettes. Now, it cost 1 dollar for them to make a CD. Then they pay the artist $ 0.55 for each CD sold.
I'd be perfectly happy paying the same price if the artist got a better share. Then again, I have a local record shop that I can buy new CD's for 12.99 a disc.
Does anyone purchase cassettes anymore anyway?
Everyone who bought a CD at artifically inflated prices should get a refund. Furthermore, the RIAA should collect and handle the refund money. Give them something constructive to do for a change.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005- 200-2198482.html
One of Napster's defense attorneys (the former microsoft antitrust prosecutor) mentioned it as a possible defense strategy. What timing ;-)
This has been posted over and over again in RIAA/Napster stories. It is pure propaganda. It should be moderated troll, redundant, flamebait, or overrated.
PROPAGANDA - TROLL ALERT!
PROPAGANDA - TROLL ALERT!
PROPAGANDA - TROLL ALERT!
PROPAGANDA - TROLL ALERT!
fuck the MPAA! fuck the RIAA!
No comment at this time
The big-time stores were selling their CDs at a loss in order to get people in the store to buy their other more profitable products. The small-time record stores often don't have other products.
-----
If our government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong what do you think is going to happen when they win and take "hundreds of millions of dollars" from the record labels? That money was originally intended, by the public, to go to the artist, NOT the stores selling the CDs. If these starving artists have to deal with a pay cut, and I'm sure our greedy labels wound love to push some of this cost onto them, shouldn't this money go the people who worked to create the content on the CDs originally instead of greedy stores or labels?
If only I owned a linux record company. I'd give everything away. -Caleb
The natural idea is that ideas should be free, since by copying them I have taken nothing from you. You still have the idea in a complete and undiminished form. What is worth paying for are the *services* and *items* that add value to the idea.
Fine, look at the music as a service then. The artists have recorded it as a service. You are free to pay for it or not. Your choice.
It is not logical that the author of an idea should get anything other than what people feel that idea is worth. If they think your music should be free, then you are entitled to nothing.
That's such a ridiculous argument. There's a difference between what someone says they think it's worth and what it's actually worth. On the one hand you have a bunch of kiddies who think music should be free but then you have a whole bunch of other people who think the music is worth what they charge for it and are willing to pay that. That's the reason the record industry is not out of business right now: the fact that people are willing to pay for it - obviously that means they think it's worth it, right?
If that causes you to stop making music, fine. There will be plenty of others who will fill your shoes. Either that, or fewer and fewer people will produce music. But if people really want to hear music, they will probably start paying artists they like in order to ensure they keep making music.
People are already doing that. People do pay for music. That has nothing to do with the people who steal the music. Your entire argument boils down to saying that the fact that because stealing music is so easy relative to paying for it that a significant people choose to steal it means prices are inflated. I'm not saying prices are not overinflated - the fact that people are stealing it not proof, though.
Mmmm.. Donuts
"Remember, any tool can be the right tool." -- Red Green
This *has* happened before, and yet my CDs are still $15 or $16 dollars. Blank CDs are what, 30 or 40 cents if you buy them on a spindle? Granted, the record label and artists need their cut, but a 3000% markup?! Seems a little much...
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
But that same book costs $90 if you put the simple word 'Text' in front of it. You can't tell me that a college textbook, that goes through minor revisions every few years, costs that much to make. Further, they only give you *half* the money back for returning it?
A hardcover novel only costs around $20 (and are a much better read!). Now imagine if you were charged $10 to borrow it from a library...
Record labels aren't the only industry that needs a reality check...
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
Don't expect this to be the last lawsuit either - you know that once people smell an easy target, those things multiply
hahahaha how true, god i love america, i'm going to sue the RIAA myself actually
but seriously, nobody really gives a flying fuck about the RIAA, and that's going to be one bloody lawsuit
12 bucks for a new big-label CD..... I always buy my new stuff there.... It's still way too high for something that's made so cheaply, but hey.... For older stuff I'll pay 5 or 6 bucks per at BMG online. That's a good deal...... Yeah they're greedy bastards and they'll get what the deserve, but until that time just go to Best Buy.
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
I say damn... you aren't on Napster, aren't you? What kind of connection do you have? :-)
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
Not that I like pop-crap groups like those listed, but I fail to see your reasoning. There's a void that teenagers create. They need role models and people to look up to. Whether it's good or bad, these boy-girl bands fill this void. They want someone to droll over, and so they spend their money on the Backhole Boys. Teenagers have different rules when it comes to their shopping habits. The music industry is not just for your taste in music.
the problem is that ALL the CD's are one price.
I don't see this either. If I go into Tower Records, I see a variety of new CDs for anywhere from $15.99 to $18.99. That's a %15-18 percent price difference. If I go into Best Buy, I see the same thing, except the price range is $10.99 to $12.99. Exactly how are these prices the same?
Buses stop at a bus station
Trains stop at a train station
On my desk there's a workstation....
Despite your figures about the Spice Girls, anybody who actually believe that the Spice Girls (or Virgin) made $130,000,000 minus $17,000,000 off of the Spice Girls has fallen hook, line, and sinker for the 'Britney Spears Accounting Myth'.
Although artists like the Spice Girls sell an obscene amount of copies (above 10,000,000) they are quite literally a 1 in 10,000 occurrence. Of the 30,000 albums produced by the major labels each year only 2 or 3 sell that many copies. In fact, 90% of albums released end up losing money. So for the one successful Spice Girls album, there were approximately 9,000 OTHER records each which had similar production costs to the Spice Girls album, which lost money.
To properly do accounting, you need to look at the cost of all of the records, and the sales of all all titles, not just the select few who sell a few, because the best selling artists are in an extreme minority, and are an exception in the record indstry. They are the only artists most people end up hearing about, though, so everybody assumes that everything works out that way.
CDs are already the greatest price-gouging scam in the history of the world: what other industry found a way to dramatically reduce their costs (plastic vs. vinyl) and increase prices by 50-100% at the same time. Since then, every year or two they ratchet up the wholesale price by another buck for no particular reason.
This is incorrect. The real price of CD's has decreased by 50% in the last 15 years.
so... i have around 400 cds. by my calculations, the riaa owes me $1200.
You are extremely confused. If you buy CD's, you are not a customer of the RIAA; you are a customer of the record companies. The only customers of the RIAA are the record companies themselves.
That's right! They need advertising money to bribe the music retailers with! Uh... I mean... nevermind.
Not that we use payola, mind you, no sir. We just write them polite letters. Yeah, lots of polite letters.
In related news, the prices of cell phones, mono VCRs, and Atari game systems also dropped by more than 40% in the same time frame. See what a good deal you consumers get? At least, until we figure out how to charge you per listen.Here in BC we are reputed to have the lowest prices for legal CDs in the WORLD. Even so I wince at having to pay $20Cdn a pop for a mainstream album. And generally the less popular items (singles, small release solo projects etc.)don't get the great deals as far as I see.
[some band] has 5 or so members, plus a few people who help the recording and mixing and what have you.
Diablo II...well, look in the manual at all the credits - all the people who worked full and part time on the game. And for how many years?
I think that's a good measure - let's say 20 people work on an album for two weeks. Ok, let's say a month - no, make that two months. That's still less than 4 man-years.
Now how many people worked on Diablo II? Think about the music alone! Let's say 20 people for about 2 years. That's 40 man-years. 10-1 ratio, yet the game doesn't cost anywhere near 10 times as much. Even if you up the time and number of people for the record, the cost of the game per man-year is still quite a lot cheaper. And I've specifically (tried to) err on the high side for the music, and on the low side for the game.
Now I'll bring up another point. 15 years ago CDs were around $12 US, and records were around $7. The record companies claimed that going digital was expensive, and CD plants were few. They claimed prices would come down when more people bought CDs and more facilities were available, because it would actually be easier for them. It didn't happen.
I'm not saying the games aren't over priced, but it's nothing like other industries, especially the recording industry. The motion picture industry is worse. Here they've made back all thier money while the movie was in theaters, and still charge $20.00 to buy a copy.
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Apparently you've never tried to resell audio CDs from major labels.
I used to work for an Internet broadcasting company (*cough* NetRadio *cough*). They streamed tracks off CDs as well as sold them. Not only did they have to pay royalties to ASCAP, BMI, and others just to stream the CDs, the lower bounds on the prices we could charge for CDs were fixed by the record companies themselves.
That's right. We could decide to charge more for a CD, but never less. Not even if we had a special promotion or wanted to use a product as a loss-leader; we could not drop that CD for less than the mandated lower bound. And that was for every CD.
I used to have an average opinion of the record companies. Then I worked for NetRadio. Now my opinion of the record companies is much lower.
One of the recent Forbes magazines had the Virgin CEO wrapped up in the American Flag looking patriotic. Yeah, he's living the American dream, but patriotic? What a crock.
My my, second post on the same article. A record for me.
I've had discussions with a college professor of mine who wrote the book that we used for a class (VLSI Digital Signal Processing Systems: Design and Implementation, by K.K. Parhi). It's a graduate-level textbook, and it cost me $101.30. I remarked to him one day that it was the first book that cost me over $100 (thank goodness I'm in engineering and not an art student, rumor has it those color plates in those books go for upwards of $500); his remark to me that to set the process up for printing, binding, proofing, revisions, etc. was pretty high. And, since it was a graduate textbook, the distribution was pretty low.. leading to the $101.30 price tag on it.
If you want to complain about book price, explain to me why in the past few years the price of popular paperbacks has risen so much. I used to be able to get paperbacks for $4. About a week ago I bought the last book by Robin Cook; it cost me $8 for the same number of pages. Go figure.
Remember, alcohol is a narcotic, it's highly addictive. Millions of people WANT to stop drinking, but they can't just stop. What the liquor companies do to their alcohol [prices] has a high impact on this number of people, plus it is more lethal.
This also affects people who take in alcohol second hand, don't forget that. Hundreds of thousands of people die from second hand drinking/driving.
Liquor companies certainly are not innocent here. They are morally, and legally partly responsible for this.
I say we just legalize them all.
-Jon
this is my sig.
The whole part about the majority of the cost of a CD being recovering marketing costs and putting out videos and getting radio airplay is a bunch of crap spewed by the RIAA. If that were true, my Slipknot CD would cost a lot less than the current Britney Spears CD. The only place I have seen a Slipknot video is channel 15 in Austin TX, which is a like an indie version of MTV (and plays much better content, esp considering its a challeng to even tune to MTV and actually watch a video. Too much pointless programming), not to mention an artist like Britney Spears has a lot more money spent on radio airplay and getting her face on my Taco Bell Cup, then i ask the RIAA, why do those two CD's cost the same???
More to the point why are CD's from labels like Discord, K Records, Kill Rock Stars, Thrill Jockey, and Touch and Go so much cheaper???
In part because the people working at these labels - from the owners on down - make a lot less money and work a lot more hours. And somehow they still manage to give their artists better contracts (usually ~50% of profits). Small is beautiful - support your local record store, & support small labels. Of course when it comes down to it most Napster fans really just want their corporate crap music by numbers...
The weird thing is that the major labels were actually doing a *good* thing in this case. Protecting small mom and pop record stores from the Best Buys of the world is a good thing - at least if you're a customer that values diverse and eclectic selections of music and knowledgeable salepeople.
they are able to price fix because they have a monopoly(yes monopoly) on any artist who's music they sell. metallica's label has a monopoly on the music of metallica. nobody else sells metallica's music except metallica's label(or people selling second hand but that doesn't really count). people think that because there's more than oen label they don't singularly control the market but it isn't true. any given label 100% market share on any band they promote(with probably a few eceptions). it goes beyond having the monopoly, they ABUSE this monopoly. if 50 different companies were selling metallica albums do you think they would all still cost $20 each? no. they're be trying to undercut the others and it would drive the price down. thats the big problem that needs to be fought against. consumers are too lazy to organize anything themselves(especially if they don't really realize a problem exists), so the government has decided to step in and take care of it themselves.
as soon as a possible competitor comes up on their radar(there aren't any so far that scare them except napster), they will use their still much larger size to crush them, same as microsoft.
Notice that what the quoted text said was ``below cost'' -- in other words, the retailers were selling the CDs for less than they paid for them... Why? To get people to flock to the stores; most people will not go in and just buy the one CD they're selling for $7.99, they'll pick up a few other ones while they're in there, and that's where the profit comes from.
Bookstores have been doing this for quite a while; often the markup is around 45% or so on hardcovers, so when you see the new bestseller for 50% off, chances are they're not making, but losing, money on it...
-pf
Make affiliate bucks
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
And where exactly are you seeing these DiVX disks? Methinks Sherman is letting friends play with the Wayback Machine...
You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
Looks like someone woke up and started trolling from the wrong side of bed afternoon...
Are there any studies that show production cost for CD's vs. Tapes? I heard recently that it actually costs more to produce the tapes, but that, due to the fact that the consumer got used to the idea of paying $15+ when Cd's first came out (due to limited availability, costs incurred by a new product, etc...) that the production companies and retailers simply inflated the prices based on what the market would bear, not on their costs. This, of course, is perfectly legal, however collusion to do so is not.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
Japan's amazing economic success? Is this the same Japan that plunged into deep recession last year? Of course, they say that Netscape is a success, so go figure...
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
if this case drops the price of cd's that will be fantastic. I try to buy cd's from artists i really like but often can not afford all the ones i want, so in turn i download mp3s. If the prices of the cd's drop i can now buy more of the cds i wanted, HOWEVER, what about all the cd's i already own? I own about 150 music cds, now if i was charged 6 extra dollars for each one that's 150 * 6 which equals 900. i was swindled out of nine HUNDRED dollars . Will i ever see a cent of that back, probably not. I'm glad i may not lose another nine hundred, but what about what i've already lost.
I agree with you on the aspect that looks are more important than content lately, however, some bands do have some pretty kewl videos...the problem is finding them. I love some of my NIN videos I have, as well as my Skinny Puppy, and the few (very few) Frontline Assymbly videos.
Ok, so maybe these bands (listed above) aren't relying on sex appeal and such, but the imagery and creativity behind some of their videos does kick ass
Okay at first I was really excited that someone is *finally* doing something about the inflated prices of CD's, after thinking about it though it's still a bad deal. Granted we all know that they [the record industry] is shafting consumers and will continue to do so, but this multistate lawsuit isn't helping *me* any. Unless the state is going back and research just how many CD's I've purchased since I've been able to purchase them, and return $x for each CD, who cares. (and to be honest, if they have that data that extensive on my purchases we have some serious privacy issues to work out :) One might say that this legal action would prevent them from inflating their prices in the future but this will happen (imho) without the help of the US govt. People are already furious now that they know about the actions of the record industry. Petitions are being signed and boycotts are being organized. The communication power of the internet has allowed the idea that the record industry is a group of greedy bastards (an idea that i happen to agree with) to spread across the country at viral speeds.
good argument, except for one thing. Remember all those advances and such that come out of the sales? guess what happens if the sales of the CD are not high enuff to cover it? Does the recording lable lose money? they may, but only after taking everything the artist has. The lable does not just forgive the debet, they try to colect every penny from the artist. If the lable said 'it didn't sell like we hoped, lets just forget about the money we gave you' rather then 'We gave you $xxx,xxx... and your sales didn't cover it. we want our money' then perhaps I would beleave that they have to charge more to cover the ones that don't sell well and I would be willing to pay the higher price.
Question reality.
Unfortunately it will be of little to no use for the consumer. Even if they are found guilty they will simply rename the program and change the rules a little bit, but CD's will still be priced at highly artificial rates. But at least it will cause some aggravation for the pin heads who have been backing the RIAA. [Too bad their site is actually up and running again, but then again who knows how long that will last] with their stupid harassment of everyone and everything.
all persons, living and dead, are purely coincidental. - Kurt Vonnegut
DAMN!!!! that was fucking awesome man! good job
----(o)----
"To be honest, we need to revitalize the age-old practice of corporate death sentences (government mandated dissolution of corporations)"
Well then move to europe where EVERYTHING is controlled by the government. The government can't even manage itself let alone a billion dollar entertainment industry. You sound like a communist saying how the government should break up businesses. How would you feel if you started a small movie studio in your garage that grew into something major, and then the government comes along and says "you're too sucessful, break it up." Would you still have the same opinion. So far stealing music hasn't made it any cheaper.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Why is everybody heralding Napster as the good guys? How was/is Napster looking out for artists? How are they looking out for anybody?
:-)
I've got as much issues with the big labels as the next guy, but I don't think we should run off cheering for another company just because that company is bad for the labels. I'm holding out for a company that I think honestly has everyone's best interests at heart... or I'm going to keep trying to push Napster towards launching the kind of services that are going to be good for artists as well as fans (ie. ways for artists to get involved).
Obviously the old music industry is going down. We've all got an opportunity to help mold the new one. Can we PLEASE try to keep artists in mind before we get too caught up in how great "free stuff" is!!!
If a pickpocket meets the Buddha, all he will see is the Buddha's pockets.
Finally, many states are fighting against record companies for overpriced plastic discs. We need to go back to the roots of DIY labels offereing 7 dollar CDs like www.asianmanrecords.com !!!
Well, I was offered a job that pays real money this year, but at the bequest of several individuals, stuck with my current job (though I am not next year). It's 2 hours wages for me, and 1/2 hours wages at the job I was offered... and still not worth the price. $20 is wayy too much for a CD. If the artist were getting all of that money, and it sold 1 million copies, they would get getting 20 MILLION dollars for 1 CD, which is kind of outrageous, since that doesn't include the money for touring and videos and merchandise. Since the record company keeps most of it. It's more like 15 MILLION to some dude who doesn't even play music. And 5 to the band.
I agree with you on this one, pretty weak.
But I'm still not sexist.
Eh...
Sorry about that, you rock.
Eh...
You miss the point of a loss leader. If every CD retailer was selling for $18, they would certainly be making money. However, lets assume you are a major appliance chain making large profits off of TV's, Stereo's and dishwashers. Lets also assume you have placed a large CD selection in you store. You are paying approx $11.18 for each CD. You then decide to sell those CD's at $11.88. Considering your store rent, wages, etc... the 70 cent markup is certainly a loss on those CD's. however, considering the extra appliances you sell, you simply write that department off.
Now imagine you do not sell appliances, but instead have to simply depend on CD's to generate your profits. A 70 cent markup will quickly lead you into bankruptcy.
Several regional retail music chains went entirely out of business or closed a majority of their stores in the early nineties due to loss leading tactics. Kemp Mill in the DC area and Rose Records in Chicago are prime examples
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Yes, but are their subtle changes to the book EVERY YEAR to force all the students to buy the current version?
I will start out paying CDs once fairtunes.com (or whoever else) impliment a good system,
Could you elaborate a bit? What improvements would you like to see?
John Cormie
Co-founder
fairtunes.com
The RIAA argument is that propping up the retail price is altruistic, since the wholesale price-- their take-- is fixed.
Bogus.
If retailers competed on price, they would immediately pressure for wholesale discounts to make a profit. How long would those "fixed wholesale prices" last if Wal-Mart said, "Label A: Give us $1/CD off and we'll give you more shelf space than Label B"?
And the average hit record costs a *lot* in marketing costs and payola to radio. The label breaks even and starts raking it in well before the artist ever does.
With all the money states are winning in lawsuits, I want to know when the tax cuts begin.
Don't be stupid. The software is free. The $40 for the Official version pays for the printed manuals and a very valuable service, telephone tech support. Running a call center with skilled techs is very expensive (running a call center with bad unskilled techs is only slightly less expensive :). If you spend an hour on the phone with tech support, they've lost money on your sale.
The problem isn't that the record companies are overcharging for CDs, it's that they've aligned with each other and are both gouging people on the price of CDs as well as cutting off competition. The government virtually never just goes and regulates business for no reason -- being a huge company is fine, so long as you "play fair". When you get together with a select few other big companies and prevent any smaller companies from entering the marketplace, you need governmental intereference. Sounds weird, but in order to keep an open market, sometimes the government has to meddle.
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
correct... IF they are not a monopoly. the rules are different for monopoly's because they'res no competitor to undercut their prices
---
The response of the artists in the past has been to create their own labels. That way they get the cash and the power to promote other artists. But you have to already be rich to make your own label, generally, if you want it to be a successful one.
hmm.. no rob malda on that list. Interesting, no?
It's pretty hard for me to get worked up about this. If you don't like the prices of CDs, don't buy them! Nobody is forcing you to. You can live perfectly well with out them. Most of the highest priced CDs are the new releases and other 'POP' titles which suck anyway and are played on the radio and MTV over and over again. Go to mp3.com and find some obscure artist and buy from them. It'll cost you less and most of the money goes to the artist. I don't feel too sorry for the artist that are ripped off by the record companies either. Some have already taken charge of their own production/promotion/distribution and are doing fine. The rest need to lay off the blunts for a little while and get their act together.
Sure, I'd like to see this rule struck down so that Wal-Mart and Best Buy can sell CD's at prices so low that my COOL, AWESOME, local record stores can't compete and are forced out of business because they can't afford to sell CD's for $11 like Wal-Mart.
God, if there's one thing I hate, it's rules designed to allow independant businesses to compete. I would much rather have WAL-MART be the only #@$#$ place in town where I can buy a freakin' CD.
I like Wal-Mart because they won't sell CD's with objectionable content... I certainly don't trust my own feeble mind to decide what's appropriate to listen to and what isn't.
Seriously guys, this rule actually gives smaller chains and independant stores a CHANCE to compete against lame places like Wal-Mart. I totally agree that CD prices are too high, but I don't think this rule is the problem.
I don't have a problem with a minimum sellable price being set for each CD. The MSP's are too high, but I don't think their existance is a bad thing. Unless you want to buy all your music at Wal-Mart....
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Better thought - Buy CD's from bands that are unafilliated with the RIAA, and download music that was produced specifically to be released on MP3 (meaning stuff that's legal to distribute) like indy bands and whatnot. Or, just abolish music until this is sorted out, if you're just lazy.
But what happens if your favorite artists don't have small labels, and you really don't want to get into the whole philosophical Napster usage debate? If my little cousin wants to buy the latest Britney CD, she's got no choice. The Small Labels plea is best kept for the artists, not the consumers. (And for some reason I just can't see Britney reading /. )
But, most people are too stupid to realize this, and the government has to take action to protect them.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Actually, it's more like they're scared shitless about what might happen to them, and so they're backpeddling as fast as they possibly can in the hope that those passing judgement will believe that they've changed and won't be quite as harsh. As I recall, Phillip Morris attempted to suggest that they shouldn't have as big a settlement against them because they had "reformed." You'll also notice that Phillip Morris is diversifying like mad; they know that tobacco isn't going to be profitable much longer, so they're getting themselves into other markets.
Their motives aside, I rather like the fact that Big Tabacco is dying and that they seem to know it.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
On a related note, anti-trust law also has a small provision that if you abuse your monopoly power by doing something like price fixing, you loose your copyright. Thus the Record Label's Copywrited work (they own not the artist) will enter the public domain.
Does this mean that if Microsoft is shown to have fixed their prices (which, given some of their pricing & licensing practices, wouldn't be a far shot), that all of their software will enter the public domain?
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Big Music would love to get rid of CDs because they're unencrypted and are easily copied. We can't have that, can we?
But I digress. I haven't found a better form of distribution yet, so could you elaborate? MP3 doesn't cut it yet because 128kbps is the standard and because of the popularity of overhyped shit software like AudioCatalyst - if I'm buying an MP3, I expect at least 256kbps CBR using LAME and nothing less. Besides, MP3 is a lot more transient than CD. I like to have something I can hold.
Betamax, memory stick, minidisc... they all fall in the same line of proprietary Sony tech. Last I heard, CDs were an open standard that anyone can implement.
If you're thinking minidiscs again, you're right.
CDs aren't as fragile as you make them out to be. None of my CDs have ever started skipping out of the blue on me. They provide the uncompressed sound in a format with a noise floor lower than the sound of a typical air current in a room. What's wrong with that?
The levy on non-audio blank CDs here in Canada is currently 5.2 cents per CD, but this story states that there is a proposal from the Canadian Private Copy Collective to raise the levy to 50 cents per CD. Hopefully this dies a horrible flaming death.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, centers on a policy called ``minimum advertised pricing'' (MAP), under which the labels subsidized advertising for retailers that agreed not to sell CD's below a minimum price determined by the labels.
To me, that quote says they're alledging that certain labels gave special treatment to retailers that agreed to their terms? How exactly is this wrong? As for prices being 'too high', as defined by whom? How does one correctly price an item? Is 10% profit too much? 200%? 1000%? Perhaps we need legislation dictating just what percentage of profit is acceptable to society!
Isn't this effectively like Coke paying a movie theatre to sell coke, but only if they charge $3 per cup, and in exchange, the theatre is provided money for advertising? I don't see something like that as evil, but mayhaps I'm missing the point!
--------
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
The RIAA believes they have the legal upper hand in the Napster cases etc. Napster and the gazillion fans downloading feel they have a legal right, or some of them do anyway. Fact is, Napster is helping "thieves" to commit their "crimes" but what about the RIAA? These record companies have made it possible to, through whatever seedy acts/deals, to commit their own crimes. If the RIAA is pissed about all the (pseudo)criminals out there, they need to look at the point of origin, which just happens to be the reflection in the mirror staring them in face. If all this craziness is to stop, the prices must not only be regulated, but be ethically regulated.
my econ class taught me that the market sets the prices....
... in a perfect world, where market-entry and exit costs are negligible, competition is perfect, people have 100% access to markets, and there is infinite demand for products... I know I should be able to name more... but I haven't taken an economics course in a year.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Nevertheless, if it did actually come to court, in front of a jury of ordinary folks who're also the consumers ripped off by the miserable cartel the RIAA is, there is a possibility that the RIAA could be hammered half way to hell and back
:) but I wonder if it would really harm the RIAA. It's not like big tobacco trials, where you can wheel in some old, hacking, Emphazyma-ridden geezer, who between 15 minute coughing fits tells you how he didn't know what smoking would do to him.
Anything can happen in a jury trial (Law and Order told me so
Who's the victim in an RIAA trial? Some 26 year old programmer sitting on a witness stand, telling the court how his life sucks because he had to pay $18 for PearlJam/10 back in 1995? A 12 year old girl who think's her life won't be complete until she has the latest In-Sync album? Hard to sell a person who can't afford a luxury item like a CD as a victim of anything but poor budget management.
Don't get me wrong, price fixing CD's sucks and needs to be stopped, but a trial of any kind isn't the way to fix things. I know it, the states know it, the RIAA knows it. That's why this whole lawsuit thing is just for the 10:00 news sound-bite potential.
It's been a lot more than a year...
This is also the country where people take out 100-year mortgages so they can get a tiny condo.
If CDs are cheaper to manufacture than casettes, why are CDs priced higher? Shouldn't they be cheaper?
Awwww... Is poor widdwe AC jeawous?
;^}
the record labels are getting what people will pay... NO ONE NEEDS MUSIC! If you dont like the price dont pay it and if enough people do that, the price goes down... aren't economics beautiful?
I steal all my music right now cause I am having too much fun spending my money on beer... um... and i think the record companies suck... but it is a "god given" right to ask what you want for your shit.. no one HAS to pay it...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Who is being abused? I am saying that if people buy it, the price isn't "too high". There are alternatives to buying CD's, those that find them viable alternatives use it. Those that don't, don't (and spend $100 on the next britney CD). It doesn't take any organizing. It's not a government matter, it's economic.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I believe the community has a right to react, not the government. If it was brought to a public vote... sure.. but the government should just leave business alone. I dont want to discourage business, making a profit is what drives new "toys" and great new "things".. I dont want to be "protected"... except maybe from bombs and tanks... If you dont like the price of CD's you can buy something else, it's called "voting with dollars". If you really want a CD and will pay $20 for it.. then I guess the price isnt too high right?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
But because of their available capital, they could do it.
Sure.. and if a company wants to sell products at a loss.. that is their right... as is charging high prices.. In todays global economy this is much harder and there is almost always an alternative. I still dont see why the government needs to get involved.
Business does not have the consumer's interests in mind, no matter what the libertarians will tell you.
they have their own interests in mind.. which is fine... it's called "the ivisible hand" principle.. adam smith... ya know?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Unless the monopolist arranges matters so that people have great difficulty in finding or knowing about such alternatives, or by using their own resources to prevent any alternatives from being implemented.
How would you achieve this? without being caught and hated that is? and without government protection... which takes us to...
Of course, if you TRULY got the government out of the way, then there would be no such thing as "intellectual property", so no company would be able to hold onto a government-sponsored monopoly on such information.
Is there any other way? mmmmmm... nope...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
do you really believe that all copyright should be abolished?
Yes! we need something new.. something that can provide more protection to creative people in a digital world and still allow fair use. I dont know what exactly... And it would be wonderful to take it OUT of the US government's hands...
That's pretty shortsighted.
yes, copyright is VERY shortsighted.
Do you want to nationalize industry while you're at it?
what does that have to do with the price of apples? I dont want to end private property!
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Any where there is profit there is oportunity.. If you are making money you can discourage competition, but you can't elliminate it.
the basis for a self regulating economy breaks down.
the only thing that can do this is government!
This isn't invasive government, this is the government doing what they are supposed to. Protect the people.
I call it baby sitting.. but I guess some people need "protecting"...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I know of no case filed by the RIAA that has touched on patent issues.
:)
What is it that 'SOMEONE' will come up with that will take market share away from the current record company behemoths and FORCE a reaction?
of course not.. sorry... finger slipped or something
mp3 -> Napster/gnutella/freenet etc... what if there was no copyright? what if mp6 is 2x cd quality and 1/2 the size? Digital recording equipment has drop dramatically in the last few years... and marketing on the internet is pretty cheap.. cable television... the only thing keeping digital music from taking over is government right?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
.. um... what, exactly do you think copyright is?
A bad attempt at a good idea.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
they created copyright... and continue to issue them.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
The FTC successfully sued the RIAA companies and basically gave them a slight slap on the wrist for ripping us off to the tune of half a billion dollars. Now the states are suing, but to what end? If there's really going to be some justice here - and I cringe very much to say this - what needs to happen is a class action lawsuit representing music buyers whereby the record labels would be forced to pay us, the music-buying public, the usual treble damages.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Heck, yeah! Lets sue them so we can all get $0.01 of the award money!
Of course, my point is that any money awared in class action lawsuits should go to a handful of good causes, not to 50 million people who aren't going to give half a shit if they get a miniscule portion of the money or not.
Has anyone else heard the rumour that Microsofts anti-trust suit was file because Microsoft repeatedly refused to "donate" to certain political parties during their run for presidency.
It seems strange to me that this "MAP" deal has been comnmon-knowledge among the general public and millions of retailers for so many years; and yet 28 states finally realized it's illegal yesterday.
Has Big-Brother gotten soft in its fuck-the-little-guy policies? Are they finally going after the large, out-of-control corporations?
I doubt it. How many electronics companies should have there business license revoked for pollution and unsafe working conditions, when instead they pay huge fines year after year that amount to a fraction of a percent of their yearly sales.
I would love to see the music industry fold with no hope of recovery, as well as Microsoft -- but don't let these cases win your favour with the government. The government works for itself.
Ace
Go Napster, Go Napster, its you birthday, Go Napster, Records suck, oh ya, in your face, Go Napster (heh, sorry, I got silly)
-Its like Deja Vu all over again!-
That's the same as saying, if the phone companies all got together and decided that all phone calls will cost $1/min local or long distance
Phone service is an essential service. Emergency systems rely on it as well as almost everyone who is included in our society. Gas is pretty close to essential too, so those two examples are quite different from entertainment and CD pricing.
not to side with the record companies at all, but don't you think it should be up to them to set the prices of things they sell? if you are stupid enough to pay that much for a cd, i think its your own fault. nobody is making you buy it. its not an essential commodity or anything.
i just don't like it when the government steps in and tries to regulate things too much.
He's absolutely right. What the RIAA has been doing is like a Pimp telling a Dealer that he's evil. The RIAA has consistantly driven up prices, then they got upset about when people don't want to pay it anymore. It's ridiculas.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
What has happened is that government regulates stuff, and that breaks things. Then the broken stuff provides an excuse for more government regulations. Or, more specifically... The government provides copyright protection to the record companies, or the artists, ostensibly to foster greater innovation and artistry. Copyright simply means that anyone else making a copy for sell is smacked with fines and possibly jail terms. It's this protection (read: government regulation) that allows the companies to fix prices. Otherwise, people would just buy from someone else who made a copy. Finally (I wish) the government steps in to stop them from taking "unfair" advantage of the monopoly position that the government granted.
I aim to misbehave.
Ok, I'm not an American so i don't know what the policy is, but who really wins here? 28 States sue the record companies... they get US$480+ million... where does that go? Who get's it? Are they gonna distribute it to all the CD buyers? What about overseas buyers? What about online sales? Do people who bought many CDs get more? How will they tell? ("Hey, I've got 100 CDs, so I get 100 times the $0.01/CD, kewl") This seems to me like a ploy to get lots of money, make a stance, slap some hands, and carry on as normal. The record companies will probably just increase the price of CDs to pay the fines anyway :P
My NZ$0.02 (which becomes less & less every day...)
Macros
I suppose upcoming artists are grateful to be signed on to a label, and won't dare bitch about their cut. When they do become popular, they're probably making assloads of money and couldn't care about making any more. Besides, if a popular artist demanded more money, his public image would go down the toliet.
It's too bad musicians can't get into the same situations professional athletes are in, in that if they're very talented they can get absurd sums of money right off the bat.
---------------
Big record labels are some of the most consistently unpleasant entities of the artistic world. Their entire role is to take the music with the widest appeal, sterilize it, and make cookie-cutter bands that "perform" it until the public gets tired of it. Every once in a while, someone gifted with some semblance of songwriting or musical ability may "make it", but it then becomes a constant struggle for them to continue to grow and improve as an artist, because the label just wants consisten, predictable, top-40 hits. To top it all off, since most record labels own or control basically every stage of the music production and distribution process, you can't get into popular markets without bending over for them.
However, there's hope on the horizon. I don't know how many of you actually pay attention to PHB-speak, but there's a lot of talk around business circles these days about the sudden loss of all the advantages that historically have come from "vertical integration" -- basically, controlling every step in the lifecycle of your product. Today's record companies are dinosaurs from an age when owning the distribution, promotion, production, and development of popular music (or any other consumer good) was once the only competitive way to get the products to market. However, we now have this wonderful thing called the Internet, which makes them unneccesary. I can record an album, mix it, publish CD's, market my group, contact fans, broadcast live or studio performances, make business contacts, etc., all from the comfort of my own home.
Unless the big labels start loosening up the tight lines between their major operational areas, there's no way they'll be able to keep up with the pace of innovation. Hence, pointless price fixing, which is going to get them nailed to the floor and walked all over.
It's not just in Canada. There are plenty of retailers selling the _latest_ cd's for $10 to $12. I always have to laugh at the morons going into the Mall record stores where the new releases are $16.95 or higher.
Don't get me wrong though, the Record Co's are definitely guilty of price fixing, that is pretty damn clear.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
When they use the phrase "at cost" they are referring to the amount that the individual store spent to purchase that CD from the distributors. For an $18 CD, this will be about $11-$13 dollars. So when you buy the new Eminem or Celine Dion or whatever for $9 dollars, the store is losing money just to get people in the store. This has nothing to do with the record companies other than that this is what they force the shop owners to do.
Every consumer who purchased a CD at an inflated price was abused. The economy of the entire world was abused. If people didn't have to shell out that extra $5 for Britney, then maybe they could've spent that money on other goods from other businesses. I agree that we're talking about somewhat of a luxury item here. Obviously, jacking the prices of CDs isn't in the same boat as price gouging at the gas station during a natural disaster...BUT, where do we draw the line. Your argument is two-fold. First, you seem to be saying that it isn't the governments job to regulate the economy. Second, you're saying that price gouging and racketeering(sp?) are OK when the service in question is not a survival good. Like it or not, the US government does have a duty to call corporations or organizations when they conspire to cheat our economy. AND, like it or not, although we don't need music to survive, people who want to buy music should have the right to be protected from such fiascos.
don't believe the hype
Your ideals are utopian. We don't live in a world where we can trust businesses to 'do the right thing'. Nor do we live in a society where people are very good at organizing themselves to protest the actions of abusive businesses. Perhaps the reason for this is because the business community has a stranglehold on our means of communication. Don't expect the government to stop watchdogging anytime soon.
don't believe the hype
BTW, if CD's are supose to be reasonably priced, why are cassetes which are printed on a smaller scale cheaper(I know they suck but still).
Hopefully some good comes out of all of this.
Well, I agree with you there, my point was that anything we do to the record companies is not going to occur in a vaccum. While I'd like to see the companies get smacked down, we've got to consider what this would do to the employees, the artists, and the everyday people who buy music. These people will all be affected, probably more so than the 'suits.' If they get fined for price-fixing, I doubt the consumers will see the cost of CD's go up to cover this (though wouldn't that be ironic?), but it's entirely possible that a lot of jobs could vanish overnight. The artists themselves will surely find it much harder to profit while under the thumb of the Big Bad Record Companies...
Unless you break the company completely, I really doubt that the guys on top will really notice much of a difference at all. Even though they're the most culpable of all
-Space for rent
Sure, the record companies are evil, staffed with hordes of demons straight from the pits of hell, so let's make em all suffer!
Believe it or not, this makes me think of war... The old generals sit in the plush chairs and send the little people off to die. In this case, it's the record company execs and the lawyers (the mercenaries of the modern world) who make all the money at the expense of the others. What about the record company employees? I'm sure very few are actually getting rich off of this, just as only a handfull of bands actually "make it" into self-sufficiency.
Things like these lawsuits flying back and forth aren't doing much to solve the actual problem. Modern day capitalism at work....
-Space for rent
Plus advertisements, plus distribution, plus the amount of money the industry "eats" for all the bands that don't sell
That is also a point in favour of Napster/this Lawsuit etc. Because the RIAA has been artificially maintaining these systems for no 'good' reason except to maintain revenue and their control on the industry. The internet has completely liberated musicians from the necessity of these things. Absolutely obsolescing the RIAAs members. Maintaining a system that only serves to allow you to gouge people*** and propagate your oligopoly is anti-competitive. Crap, the fact that the RIAA acts so competently together and even admits that the MAP exists proves collusion. You cant ask for a better textbook case. Horary for the American people. I hope the RIAA gets sued into oblivion. This will only help to expedite the inevitable - the Music Cartel is usless and doomed... next is the movie industry. True independent vibrant Art will once again become available to the people. To the RIAA: "Be afraid".
***Not consumers - i refuse to call a person a 'consumer' like their sole function is to buy crap from corporatists.
I have set up a petition against the RIAA, please sign it if you don't want stuff like price fixing to go on in the future... (and no, I don't make any money off the site). Thanks!
-colin
-Colin
This is by far a better way to get the CD prices to come down and to hurt the RIAA and the greedy music companies than just grabbing music off of Napster.
I had a friend who's mother owned a music store and she had said she hated having to charge so much for the cd's but that the price was required in order to keep getting the music. I did not understand at the time but now I do.
Mass produced cds of music should not cost $18 they should cost $4 or $5, cause after all when you buy and burn several million cds you are not going to be paying $.5 to $1 to buy each cd like at Best Buy.
Rich
100k is reasonable when a label is trying to break a band. 99% of almost all pop music actually written by the songwriter is made listenable/marketable by the producer and/or studio engineer (this is excluding music written by ghost writers because the label is just selling a talentless face, aka britney, ricky, etc...) The cost of hiring a producer to transmute a 2-chord-bomb into a lead-off single is enormous. (Blink 182, Alanis, Jewel, Smashmouth... nothing without tons of $$$ in post-production work... Smashmouth even admitted it in a really funny interview.) Even boner local studios charge 100 beans an hour to use dusty 1" 16 track and an HP-CDR.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Now, if the record companies could be shown to thumbing their noses at the feds (e.g. by having avoided taxes), that might be another matter entirely, as it could be seen as being an attack on the state (rather than being an attack on the public who elect the state to supposedly represent them) ...
Slightly o/t, it reminds me of a story I may have read here (or somewhere else) re. the Microsoft trial. Somebody made the point that when other corporations are dragged to court by the feds, they immediately hire lobbyists to go to Washington to "sort it out" via a series of meetings and well-placed donations. What really pissed the Justice Dept. off about Microsoft was that MS refused to play the game, and said f-you to the JD. (Well, Gates is wealthier than most governments on the surface of the planet, so I guess he can act like one too). It was Gates'/MS's refusal to play the game as much as anything else which eventually brought them to trial.
The record companies will probably play it differently. As one of the parents of these threads pointed out, this legal move could very well fizzle out, after a number of meetings, lavish expense-account lunches, and donations to the right parties, into an out-of-court slap on the wrist for the record companies.
Oh god, I'm rambling. It's been a long day ...
-fff-
If the only right I happened to have while living in a hypothetical totalitarian regime was the right to fuck a goat twice a day, you bet that goat's asshole would be bleeding all day long.
At least you could pick a female goat! Ya' know, our holy Grand Poobah allows that . . .
Live to be Moderated
ah the ironies in life. Go napster! :P
"HA HA" :]
Ironically, it actually costs more to make a cassette tape than it does a CD, yet tapes cost half as much...
why are we still buying cd's when better forms of music distribution already exist? this boggles my mind and my only explanation is that the RIAA and major labels have too much power and won't allow cd's to be replaced.
CD'S SUCK!!. i bought a brand spankin new cd ONE MONTH AGO (after listening to the band on napster, thank you), i take EXCELLENT care of my cd's, and it already skips! and i payed $16 for that?!?!
1. cd's skip if the player shakes
2. cd's scratch way too easily
3. cd's are not (easily) recordable-- my experience with cdr's is that they stink also.
recordable mini discs correct ALL of the flaws of a cd. why haven't those replaced cd's? now mp3's also overcome these flaws but i still like to have a hard copy of the artist's work (visual art and lyrics included). 8-tracks, records, and tapes all have become things of the past. to me it is inevitable that cd's will follow the same path. The fact that superior technologies exist yet don't become mainstream only proves that someone has too much control-- the RIAA? record labels? cd player manufacturers? of course, this rant comes at a time when an inferior OS runs 90% of the world's desktop computers. another example of too much power in the wrong hands.
Best Slashdot comment I've seen this month. Thanks.
I do not have a signature
All the more reason to support napster and boycott all record labels.
The way I see it, one cannot justify one's own illegal acts (napster use infringe on copyrights) because one thinks something else (the record companies) are wrong. Much better to expose the illicit affairs of the music industry big wheels through legal channels than music piracy.
I moved 6 months ago to a small town (50-70k its a college town) and the price for a cd here is 18-20 $. When I lived in a larger city that has a much higher cost of living I paid 12$ for a disc, so the area and or distributor may have something to do with it.
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
Many artists are owned by record lables. Record lables buy them everything they could ever dream, then take them to court if they start to complain. Artists have nothing to worry about, so long as they keep churning out the same crap "music" that got them popular in the first place.
Free as in speech, free as in beer, or free as in lunch?
Here is the story on CNN.
Doesn't this play into the hands of the Napster defense? If they RIAA members are found guilty of using their copyrights in an anti-competative way, they lose the ability to enforce the copyrights.
So would that make Metalica public domain??
Viv
-----------
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Price fixing is not the end of the world. Sure, it might mean higher prices for consumers, but it doesn't mean that there's some huge Illuminati-like conspiracy out there trying to "get" consumers. So you have to pay more for a crappy CD. Who cares? Price fixing happens -- get over it!
Just one question (well more of a statement actually), I assume that all the time these cd's were being sold that tax was being paid on them, I am Irish so I'm not sure what your tax rates are but here tax runs at 21% on luxury items. So the government got bout 20% = $3.60 in tax for each $18 cd (assuming 20% tax).
Now they sue the record companies for price fixing for several dollars per cd which is prolly 5 or 6 dollars, money that I don't doubt goes to the government and not to the consumer, after all what will they do?, order everyone with proof of purchace for one cd to be given a free one (would seem the fair solution but I'm sure it's painfully obvious why it won't a) work or b) be done, so I won't go into it).
So the government end up with $3.60 tax + $6 fine = $9.60 per $18 cd which makes this a very sweet deal for them. After all while I'm sure the states in question are thinking only of their constituents (taste that sarcasm), the thought of all those extra (hundreds of) millions rolling into their coffers must make this seem like a win-win situation for them - Make a fortune on what was (originally) taxpayers money and make the same taxpayers love you for looking out for their interests at the same time.
Hooray for the States in question!
Decado
'There is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason' - T.S. Eliot
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
>Since when should you have to justify the price you want for something. You price it.. people either say "X is worth $Y" and buy it, or >people say "X is not worth $Y" and don't buy it.
>Next thing you will be complaining that some companies have too high of profit margins.
That's right. You can go out and set the price artificially high if you want. But then 20 million people find the artificially high price patently absurd and decide they are going to get the music for free from napster. Gee whiz that's an awful big black market. The music industry ignores this backlash at their own peril.
- Dave
>Agreed. However, I find people who say "Something costs too much so I'm going to steal it" to be on somewhat shaky ethical grounds.
I didn't say it was ethical. I was merely pointing out that artificially high prices tend to increase the probability that a black market will arise.
- Dave
-It is not neccesary to follow the link in question. Just skim it, and post something amusing enough related to it, while bashing Microsoft.
Yeah, the article could have said something useful but it is really flaimbait.
-If it has screenshots, mirror them. Doesn't matter if they are downloading fine, someone somewhere will have a problem downloading them and your mirror will be better, and wham, instant Score 5.
Get the pics here. I mirrored them because the site was slashdotted in the first minute.
-Take a strong stand, say whatever it is sucks really really bad because , or say this is the best thing since sliced bread, you are so exited this came to be, you are practically pissing in your pants due to the joy it has caused you.
This guy knows what he's taking about. Definately the smartest and best post since sliced bread.
-Flame John Katz, if he didnt post it, flame him anyways.
John Katz is the biggest dumbass. He's so stupid he couldn't even post how to get a five on Slashdot!
-If you do follow the link and read any part of it, cut and paste the entire article, and put it in italics, then make fun of every paragraph. Insert a few "Microsoft Sucks" references here and there.
If you don't get the joke, then just stop reading.
-Say something else is much better and you dont know what all the fuss is about regarding . Mention it's bloated and whine about wanting everything to be text. Post a link, that will might get you an "Informative or insightful".
Ah screw it, anything would be better than this. Especially if it had been in ALL TEXT instead of this "H-T-M-L" phenomenon!
-Post a link of the same story that is another website, this should at least get you a "Informative or Insightful".
Go here for more information.
-Have a funny .sig
See below.
I hope this helps.
Hell ya it did dude!
---
Dilbert to Unix Hacker: "You must be one of those condescending Unix users."
--------
Pi Are Squared.
yeah, yeah, but it was funny anyway. Even sounded Onion-esque...
"They think its sexist"
"They think its sexist"
"Well, whats wrong with being sexy?"
and they cry about napster!!!!!!
The gun is good - Zardoz
"Also named as defendants were three retailers: MusicLand Stores Corp. (NYSE:MLG - news), Tower Records, and Trans World Entertainment Corp. (NasdaqNM:TWMC
- news)."
Among the retailers mentioned I cannot see the so called monsters mentioned by RIAA , "The Walmart" and the Best-Buy. Can somebosy enlighten me if they were even a part of the network. For MAP was designed not to save the mom-and-pop retailers but to fund the big retailers in their advertising. I haven't seen a single advertisement of the CD shop at the cornet of my street or any other CD shop except for the chain retailers. Mom-and-pop retaielrs don't need it.
This is again the case of a bing conglomerate giving logic for the sake of logic.
What the RIAA should have done is gone into business with Naptser. Allow downloads of songs (only from bands who agree to the service) for a small charge per song. If it's $18/CD, and let's say the average CD has 15 tracks, that's just over a buck a song. This way, everybody wins: RIAA is not "losing their income", bands get their royalties for each song, fans get just the songs they want without the other crap songs on CD. It just makes sense. Of course there would be "underground" servers (such as the Hotline protocol) offering every MP3 known to man, but the general, clueless internet user wouldn't know where to begin to find them.
The MP3 format is an incredible advance in the music world, and if the RIAA would have embraced it and worked with it, everyone would have stood to benefit.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
I actually think DVDs are more expensive because you get more content, more value, more goods than you do on a VHS; multiple audio tracks, multiple languages, subtitling, extras, interviews, etc. So you pay for those goodies, where on a VHS you have nothing other than the movie, some ads, and a few trailers.
The value exists for the higher prices on DVDs, I think. I am willing to pay for that!
With a nick like mine, I guess moderators have a hard time judging me fairly.
GPL Deconstructed
Who cares. Doesn't our government have anything better to do than to chase around things like this? Music/CDs are luxury items, not necessary for your general existance. We're not talking about price fixing on something like food and attempting to starve people to make a buck.
Don't like to spend $15+ on a CD? Then don't. But obviously enough people ARE happy enough to spend that much, and they do. If that's too much money, then we have no one to blame but the people who PAID that much. If you don't like how expensive CDs are, then spend your money somewhere else. If enough people agree with you, the record companies will get the idea and will lower prices. If they don't... well, you've got no reason to whine about it.
I don't understand how this lawsuit equates to "Rah Rah go Napster!". I guess those who are stealing music through Napster/Gnutella/etc. are looking for a way to ease their conscience.... and this lawsuit gives them a way to justify their Robin Hood complex.
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Or are we?
Sign the riaaboycott petition!
nuff said. :)
Gee, I remember when I used to just tape songs of the radio onto cassettes...(just don't tell the Record Industry!!!)
Nowadays, literary works are protected for something like 50 years beyond the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR. What the hell is that all about? Go ahead, tell me *that* doesn't need to be justified.
Now on this I agree. I am all for IP protection within reason. I am all for copyrights, within reason. The Constitution specifically adds this protection and I see no reason to change that. What needs to be changed is how long the protection lasts. Protection for 50 years beyond author death is absurd. Protection of Windows source code copyright for as long as it is protected is absurd. It shouldn't cover the lifetime of the creator, let alone continue after his/her death. The children of the creator should produce their own work rather than live off the fat of their father's/mother's success and talent.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Um, the whole RIAA/Napster/Courtney Love controversy wasn't around when Our Dumb Century was pulished...
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
It sure as hell can be justified when you consider this is a monopolistic market. The RIAA (four corporations in name, one in deed) controls all the methods of promotion, MTV, radio play, etc., which for the last few decades has been the only way for musicians to gain the (inter-)national exposure it takes sell cd's. Do you think musicians would be crawling over each other to sign on a major label otherwise? In a competitive market, you don't complain that X company has a ridiculously high profit margin, you keep quiet and enter the market yourself to get a piece of that. Prices fall, you make money, everyone's happy. But mainstream music is not a competitive market. If there were some competing record label that could muster even a fraction of the promotional clout of any of the big four, the artists would go there immediately, cause they're just as fed up with this shit as any of us. Sure, you can listen to any old band you listen to, but if you still turn to the same tv/radio channels as everyone else to find new bands your choices are already confined to RIAA pawns and a few pawn-wannabees. Which makes the big 4 so confident that you'll "choose" to keep buying their artists' music that they charge $18 for a cd that's already gone platinum. But on the bright side, the potential of the internet as a cheap promotional tool may be what it takes to break the music monopoly. If we take sites like mp3.com seriously, and are wiling to actually spend money on mp3's from bands we've never heard of offline, some musicians may be able to make a living promoting themselves. And if that happens, the floodgates are open for musicians to cut out the middle-men.
I find it ironic that the Feds took the record labels to task for this practice a few months ago. Does the federal government not do the same thing to states when the state refuses to pass some legislation that the federal government deems necessary? I can't think of how many times my state has been threatened with the witholding of federal highway funds if our legilature fails to fall in line with what the feds want? This seems very similar to what the records labels have been doing to the discount retailers. "Sell it for our price or you don't get our money". I guess the difference is that "price fixing" is illegal but the feds sticking their nose into a state's business is not.
CDs are already the greatest price-gouging scam in the history of the world: what other industry found a way to dramatically reduce their costs (plastic vs. vinyl) and increase prices by 50-100% at the same time. Since then, every year or two they ratchet up the wholesale price by another buck for no particular reason.
I'm glad that the states are suing the record industry for price-fixing, but in fact the industry is getting a pass on a much bigger scam.
Shit, no wonder this was marked as a troll. It was pretty content-free.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Think of it this way. A bunch of fat, greedy bastards are suing a bunch of other fat, greedy bastards. We've already been screwed out of our cash. We aren't getting it back. But it's nice to see the people who screwed us over getting screwed out of the money they stole from us. Isn't this a sad, sad state of affairs?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Your write: It's not atypical for the *cover art* to be a very significant chunk of this.
... Take one box of crayons and one notepad, and start drawing. Everybody has enough creativity for that, and there's no shortage of examples if you need some.
Er
For goodness sake, disentangle yourself from the standard production machine! If you're using a cover artist to create your cover art, and a recording technician to do your recording, and backing singers/musicians to do your backing, and a mastering outfit to do the mastering, and a producer to produce the whole kaboodle, then it's not really your album at all!
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
This is the result of an FTC action, and those alone take forever. The RIAA practice started in Feb 1995. The FTC settled in May 2000. This has nothing to do with attention brought by Napster.
:-)
Still serves 'em right
--
Infuriate left and right
Regardless of how bogus their argument is, this IS part of their argument, that promotion costs money. Promotion isn't just advertising on MTV or magazines or TV, it includes advertising, whether directly or in cosponsored stuff like this.
--
Infuriate left and right
Do you really think Wal_Mart and everybody was upset that the RIAA "forced" them to charge more money? How much arm twisting did it really take?
--
Infuriate left and right
Folks,
I think you all need to read a good textbook on microeconomics.
The reason why the states are suing the RIAA and the rapid rise in the popularity of Napster is simple: the RIAA and its member companies are engaging in cartel-like price fixing.
I mean, right now go to your local Tower Records, Sam Goody, or Virgin Megastore and look up the average price of a non-discounted album-length audio Compact Disc. Is it averaging US$17 to US$18? Now go look up an online CD retailer like CDNow, Borders and Buy.com; their average price is about US$14.
Both of these prices are bordering on exorbitant, and if you know how cartels work there is now massive incentive to get around this cartel. This is why Napster have become so popular, because people are tired of shelling out such high amounts of money for album-length CD's.
This is why I think the RIAA member companies should not charge more than US$9.00 per album-length CD. By lowering the price of the average CD to this price point the incentive to do piracy drops to very low levels, since more people can afford to buy the CD in the first place.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
This is the real issue in all of the Napster debates. The gouging of the consumer is what is really driving the online sharing of music, I think. It's pretty apparent that most of the industry claims that the higher prices are due to promotion costs are bogus.
Anyway! if the riaa thinks that they actually have a chance to walk out of this mp3 ordeal that THEY have created alive, lowering the wholesale price of cds would be the way to go.
think about it... if all the latest albums were priced to own at $7-$12 for a single cd album, what would stop someone from actually buying the disc, instead of using any of the peer-to-peer file transfer programs to find the albums they want. On top of that thr riaa could walk out of this as the hero *if they play thier cards right* and use napster et al. to thier benifit. Use it the same way they use radio promotions (sometimes before a major or semi-major album is released, the first single is released to radio stations to try to generate a buzz about the album... and what does a buzz lead to? record sales.)
Ugh!
Consumers like music, but they like free music even better! They like free MP3s better than $20 CDs even though (most) MP3s sound worse than CD audio. The RIAA is outraged that consumers would rather use Napster than drive down to Tower Records. I think consumers would welcome a competitive alternative between $0 music and $20 music. If the records companies were not fixing prices, there be $5 CDs (that didn't suck :-)
cpeterso
I used to buy cds at the Air Force base by my house.. The BX there charges cost/near cost for their stuff. All the cds were $10.49, which I imagine is either their cost or really close. Much better than $15-19 that most places are charging.
Yeah, that funny since most "independent" record labels charge the same about for CDs (the only exception I can think of is Dischord...)
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Agreed. However, I find people who say "Something costs too much so I'm going to steal it" to be on somewhat shaky ethical grounds.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
You're absolutely correct. This happened a few years ago with Blockbuster.
The movie studios were giving Blockbuster huge price breaks, since they bought so many copies of each movie. Slowly and surely, the smaller, independent movie stores went out of business, unable to compete with the goliath that is Blockbuster.
Then one day Blockbuster mgmt told the movie studio that they thought that the price on a given film was too high. (it was some 2 star B flick, which the studios were asking $60/copy. standard price at that time for a popular title was ~$90/copy.) The studio disagreed, and kept the price the same. Blockbuster decided to just not carry the film. WHAM! Instant major dent in the studio's revenues, since they were then stuck with 60,000 extra copies of a movie nobody was really dying to watch anyhow.
Now Blockbuster is on the rack themselves and fighting bankruptcy. It's funny how quickly the tide can turn sometimes.
--
--
E_NOSIG
US Senator Hatch warned the RIAA this was comming if they didn't fix the problems they where having. If this is what the RIAA needs to get with the times, so be it.
Though, I think that the whole situation of everyone suing everyone in the US is a joke. Govt. or not. *Sigh*.. maybe no other choice than to play by the rules of the sandbox.
--------------------
This sounds like a nice thing.. except ask yourself this question: are you going to see one red cent of these collected 'damages' awarded? You, after all, are the 'victim' of these increased prices.
hrm... ~$4/cd * ~800 CDs.. I have the money spent already!
(HA!)
-'fester
This is parallel to the FTC's action, which was settled by an agreement not to engage further in these price fixing methods. The state lawsuit goes beyond that and seeks monetary damages.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
One of my best friends is the manager of a local AMC Theater. The theater gets zero revenue from the price of the tickets. The theaters get 100% of their revenue from concession sales. That's the major reason for the high price in concessions, b/c the theaters raise them to make higher profit margins from their only source of revenue. AFAIK and as far as he knows (AFAHK I guess) all theaters in the country operate this way. Just thought you'd like to know.
---------
---------
There is no try at jedinite.com
I'd also argue that the $1 a CD wouldn't be reasonable. But if CDs were $8 each, wouldn't you be more likely to spend approx. $30 a month then? More likely to find four CDs a month that you want to have
---------
---------
There is no try at jedinite.com
they created copyright... and continue to issue them.
do you really believe that all copyright should be abolished? That's pretty shortsighted. Do you want to nationalize industry while you're at it?
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The typical assignment of the copyright to the publisher, not the artist, is a problem. But the government is not causing it, or perpetuating it.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
> do you really believe that all copyright should be abolished?
Yes!
[...]
I dont want to end private property!
... um... what, exactly do you think copyright is? And how would you define "fair use?" "Fair" as in "free for me?" Or what?
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
That's the part that frightens me.
Y'know how your phone bill has lots of "charges" from the FCC? When the FCC charges the phone companies a few gazillion for Al Gore's latest "wire up the poor" tax^H^H^Hinitiative, the phone companies pass it on to us, washing their hands of it with the line "well, we have to charge you, the consumer, in order to recoup the lost revenue from the FCC's decision".
Just imagine RIAA's response to losing the class action suit. "What? We owe the gummint $500M? Damn, we'd better slap an 'FTC-mandated $2.49 MAP-restitution fee' onto every CD we sell!"
Yeah, I know, I'm just being paranoid and talking off the top of my head.
But if I were a slug^H^H^H^HRIAA executive, and lost the case, it's what I'd do. (And yeah, apologies to all the slugs I just insulted.)
>being part of the issue? For instance, a Redhat
>Linux CD costs $50 from Redhat. That's a helluva
>a lot more markup than ever occurs with a single
>mass produced music CD...
Your comparison does not hold.
When you buy that $50 Redhat CD (or the $70 version, or the $120 version, etc), you're NOT paying for the Linux operating system. You are paying for the SUPPORT contract that comes with that level of the Redhat distro.
If you don't want the support, got to:
http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html
... and go at it.
Ditto for SuSE, Mandrake, xBSD, etc.
As for the windoze and office packages being outrageously overpriced for the festering piles of crap that they are, I agree entirely. That's why I use either Appleworks (came free with the computer) on my Mac, or StarOffice (came free with the distro) on my SuSE box.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Imagine all the people...
I read Love's speech and I don't find it at all convincing, sure whoever wrote it made some interesting points, but I'm skeptical about rock stars talking about backend code and VC's. Love also bitches about digital music, not just MP3s, yet only a couple of Hole releases are available on vinyl.
Hole is a mainstream alterna-girl band, backed by a big record company and is marketed as being "rebellious." Its their job to keep stirring the pot. To keep teenagers paying $18 a cd to listen music that does its best to diss the "man", while very obviously and ironically lining the the pockets of big business.
I'm sure anyone in the music industry has critical opinions about the way things are running, but its one thing to express your opinion and another to have an insincere, carefully worded speech perfectly suited for internet distribution to keep the kiddies convinced that though Love's been in many mainstream movies and a media gatabout, she's still queen of the subculture.
Well, I have to agree with most of the posts around here about how ironic this is etc. etc. It makes me smile.
But, let's think what might happen in the long run. We all agree that paying for CDs is like bending over and getting it with no vasaline. And somehow, at the same time, the actual artists are mostly getting screwed. So if this suit goes through (final verdict expected around 2007?) then do you think the artists will get screwed even more? Or, hopefully, will then realize the RIAA isn't that vital, and finally get around to cutting out the fat middle man and producing more themselves? This could be yet another big push, after easy CD burners and Napster, etc., for the artists to go independent. Where do you'all see this possibly going?
Jason
Alcohol is not addictive, my friend.
My name is Jon C too..interesting.
No, I'm sorry, it's really not.
Do some research, "fool." Alcoholics Anonymous was started to help people suffering from alcoholism. Alcoholism is not addiction to alcohol.
Fucking twit, read once in a while before you fucking yell at people. I'm in a bad mood, and you're fucking wrong.
I suggest you try selling a home and see just how little control you have over the price :)
Sure I can set the price of my house at any arbitrary value I choose. However, if no one buys it, I have no choice but to lower the price or take it off the market. The price is dictated by what the buyer is willing to pay. If they don't want to pay my price, they can buy from someone who is selling at a cheaper price. The only way I can dictate the price is to collude with my fellow home sellers and fix the prices of all homes being sold at some arbitrary value, thereby giving the consumer no other option but to pay the price I've set. This happens to be highly illegal.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
My question is, why were they doing this? Why would juggernauts like Sony and Warner Brothers do a damn thing to help out small stores at the expense of huge business partners like Wal-Mart? What was in it for them?
This is my question exactly. Everyone is screaming about this, but what exactly did the RIAA have to gain from this, except helping the smaller stores? The big chains were still buying CDs from them, and buying them at the same price as the mom and pop stores, so it definitely wasn't money they were looking for. Could it be they were trying to keep the small stores open because they offer more of a variety than the big chains?
The huge chains won't buy anything that isn't a huge hit (quick is what everyone is always complainign about, that they can't find anything except the big bands), but the smaller stores stock a wide variety of CDs. The record companies didn't gain anything from MAP policy, but the small stores did. SO why is everyone screaming about it, when the RIAA was trying to get some of the small musicians out there? I don't want to have to go to WalMart for all my CDs, because most anything I would buy wouldn't be available at WalMart.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Unless the monopolist arranges matters so that people have great difficulty in finding or knowing about such alternatives, or by using their own resources to prevent any alternatives from being implemented.
Of course, if you TRULY got the government out of the way, then there would be no such thing as "intellectual property", so no company would be able to hold onto a government-sponsored monopoly on such information.
Argh - get a cluestick why don't you! Sure, if a company wants to sell products at a loss - it's their right - up until the point where they're hurting the society, then it's the right of the SOCIETY to use an agent (the government) to slap the greedy bastards back into primordial ooze.
The so-called RIGHT of a small group of people (the owners of a company, for instance) to make money does NOT trump the right of a society to take care of themselves!
Heh - your response almost provides a blatant example of why society SHOULD slap down greedy bastards.
Try and make your examples fit the argument. If I had the only access to water in town, and 20,000 other people are going to die if they don't get access to that water, but I don't want to sell them the water unless they hand over all their property, is it in the best interests of the town to pay up? Hell no - they're going to shoot me, then take the water anyway! I'd be an idiot to think I could make the outcome any different.
Similarly, only an idiot would think that a company has some kind of fundamental right to "property". The society defines what "property" is - NOT any company.
But they CAN take care of themselves - by destroying the company which is blocking them from the resources they want. The company only exists, and is profitable, at the whim of the society - and any organization that forgets that is just ASKING to be destroyed.
I don't even know why you're so defensive of companies - they don't even exist as real people, just legal entities! If you want to talk individual vs. societal rights, then talk about that - don't pretend that a "legal entity" has any kind of rights equivalent to a real human being.
You seem to have a permanent case of individuals-are-more-important-than-society, and a strong unwillingness to even think about any other viewpoint.
Let's bring this down to primal force. There is no such thing in nature as a "right". Nature lets you keep what you have the power to defend. If someone or something more powerful than you comes along and wants your stuff, they'll take it from you. That's the only kind of "right" that nature gives you.
In a SOCIETY, you've got a bunch of people cooperating with each other who have decided that they'll help each other keep their own stuff. If someone tries to take their stuff away from one member of society, then the other members of the society will help that person keep their stuff.
You only get the "right of personal property" because the society has agreed to help you keep your stuff. If the society DIDN'T agree to help you keep your stuff, then nature says the first person who came along who was stronger than you could take it away from, and your "right" would be worth diddly-squat.
Bullshit. Who has the power determines who gets what. You or your company only gets to keep what has gained because the SOCIETY as a whole has decided that it's good to allow people or companies to keep what they have gained. You don't have any "right" except what the society chooses to grant you. The only reason behind this is because the society-as-a-whole is stronger than you, and can kick your butt.
The government is SUPPOSED to be an agent of the society as a whole, and has those "rights" which the society grants it. If the society decides that it doesn't want the government to have those rights, then the government won't have them.
Of course, this breaks down if the government ceases to be an agent of the WHOLE society, and instead becomes an agent of a small group of people IN the society.
Well DUH - if you provide a service to the society, then the society will reward you for that service. There's no such thing as a "right" to run a business or make a profit though. If you do something that severely hurts the society, then its going to use its collective might (possibly operating through its agent the government) to kick your ass. And all your whining about "rights" will be treated like the fertilizer that it is.
MP3.com should have stuck to distributing music from indie artists rather than screwing around with that stupid my.mp3.com crap. Now they're going to have to take it up the ass from the RIAA, just like everyone else.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Diablo][ ~=$50usd.
SpiceGirls 1st. Album(New) ~=16 Cost to produce/record Album ~=$500,000 (I have the stats I will find it later)
Amount to promote ~= $17,000,000
Amount received concertsales/albumsales ca. 1996-1999 ~= 130,000,000.
Where's your 35000% now? I don't know how much it cost to make Diablo][, but they have a MUCH higher markup than an album does, as they do not have as much real world expenses. Lawyers are more expensive than programmers.
Interesting idea. I've taken a quick glance through much of my music and believe that a large majority of it have artists that either don't have many music videos, or none.
What would an 808 State music video look like?
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
Don't forget about legal costs.
Seriously, these corporations are legal machines. Microsoft's legal team has more money than most small countries. And because of this, they get away with too much.
One thing you forget, is that the royalties artists collect in CD sales are percentages of cents,... and many times artists themselves are supposed to pay for recordings out of their own pocket.
Am I the ONLY person who sees this as a reason why music piracy is NOT a bad thing? And am I the ONLY person who is disgusted that these companies have not learned their lesson?
They did it before, and we settled out of court. Thanks a fucking lot Uncle Sam. I mean, I'm not surprised in the least bit that the music industry has weazled out of the agreement. To be honest, we need to revitalize the age-old practice of corporate death sentences (government mandated dissolution of corporations).
Has anyone else seen the Phillip Morris commercials? They're very gutsy! They seem to agree with the government's actions against the cigarette industry. But at the end they say "We thought you should know". Phillip Morris and friends have destroyed lives, the SAME way that the music industry is destroying culture.
The music industry takes our culture, packages it, copyrights it, and makes it a product.
We're seeing more and more anti-trust suits being pushed through. Mostly resulting from the sucesses of the Microsoft prosecution. THIS ISN'T A BAD THING. Government exists to protect the people, and I honestly believe they are doing just that.
True, and left alone the monopoly does everything in it's power to squash those alternatives. Some competitor or inventor might survive, but hardly on merits alone.
In a "free" economy, nothing stops people and corporations from acting in their own self interest. A good thing, you might say, but a society of people, each acting in his or her best interest, can go catastrophically wrong.
It is the classical "prisoners dilemma" on a greater scale. I'll give you a typical example:
Too much use of antibiotics leads to a faster evolvement of resistant strains of bacteria. It is clearly in everyones interest that the stronger kinds of antibiotics are reserved as a last resort, or the day will come when we have large outbreaks of incurable pneumonia, for example. However, if I'm ill it is in *my* best interest to get back on my feet as quickly as possible, and a stronger antibiotic will do that for me. The sum of rational people becomes an irrational society.
The role of a government is to avoid such situations while interfering as little as possible
The best thing a govenment can do in a free economy is to serve as a guarantee that everyone must play by the rules. (including the government itself, of course) There are anti-trust laws, since monopolies live by those rational-individual-irrational-society mechanisms. They have been around for decades. That makes price-fixing a calculated risk and trust busting a fair action.
Regarding the goverments own monopolies we can have a discusion about them too, but this rant is getting too long already.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
The CNN article on this mentions that the RIAA made a settlement with the FCC in May, and teh effect was that MAP could not be used for the next 7 years. (MAP is the price fixing schema that the RIAA came up with). What is interesting is that since May, cd prices have INCREASED, which is part of the impetus for the states lawsuit.
I dont buy CD's anymore frm stores or major labels. I make GOOD money, but I cant afford 18 bucks a cd. I dont use napster. I buy music online from mp3.com, where artists are offering their works for sale. I cannot condone or conscience putting another penny into the RIAA's pocket. And what make me feel bad about that is that I happen to really like some artists that are signed to major labels.. but I have decided thats THEIR problem, not mine.
And everyone talks about $$ figures of cd's sold in the US. I would be interested to see a comparison of unit #'s of cd's sold. It seems that with all the price jacking it would be fewer # of units sold.
Okay, I'm rambling now.. I'm outta here.
(yes, I do read replies)
Check out Magic Firesheep!
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Maybe the record industry should learn from radio - play the music for free, make your money on advertising. Charge a minimal fee for the CDs (like $3-5), and cover them with superlame ads, which can be ripped off after purchase. They could still offer the pricey $15 CDs without any ads on them, for those who don't want to risk mucking up their precious CD inserts (or whatever they're called - the thingies with the lyrics and band pictures and all that in the inside of the jewel case) by tearing off the ads. Just a thought.
"And there was much rejoicing".
--
I don't follow the pack, but I'll follow a really cute girl.
Think of the possibilities here -
I own (roughly) 750 CDs. At the average cost of $18 that's a total investment of $13,500. If the states find that each CD should have only cost (generously) $1.50, does that mean I can sue the RIAA member companies for $12,375?
Don't even get me started on the pain and suffering inflicted when I had to hand over 80% of my salary (read: allowance) per week during my early teens for a single CD/Cassette/Album.
The Midnight Watch - All the news that's fit to ridicule:
How long has CDs been much cheaper to produce than cassettes? And how long have they costed around 3 times as much as cassettes?
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
But sometimes they do. That's one of the basics of law in the USA. If you don't like some aspect of the law, break it. You MUST be prepared to pay the price, however. Then you get your day in court, and hopefully get the law overturned, by the judicial process. These are often done by 'test cases' that are selected because they highlight some aspect of the law that is wrong, and that there is a decent chance of getting real change as a result.
At the same time, don't make yourself into a test case if you aren't solid. Your loss makes it more difficult for the next case.
How this relates to RIAA/Napster is a different issue. The two wrongs are not precisely aligned against each other.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So who is getting the goodies?
Answer : the lawyers.
Let's say the state wins the case. Are we going to see lower taxes? No. Are we going to get a refund? No. Are we going to see lowered CD prices? Maybe.
In fact, if the state wins, the record industry now has a valid reason to raise prices : because the state sued!
When the state hire private lawyers to sue the industry (aka the tobacco case), the lawyers get most of the cash. The consumers see nothing.
So cheer while you can. But don't expect things to change much. After all, it's the consumers who willingly pay high prices for those CDs.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Question: What does this extra cost of video clips and music videos and advertisements and such non-such get us?
Answer: A raise in the price.
Problem: CD's cost too much
Solution: Could it be to stop the money wasting uselessness of a music video...
of course we know that this would never happen...think about it, most bands today (I am including everything from rap to boy bands to jail bait to alot of the rock trash on the airwaves today) would not sell if it wasn't for looks, because basically, their music is horrible. the reason I don't buy much music recorded recently is there is only one or two good tracks on the album, and that one track, is over played on the radio and I get really really tired of it, to the point that I stop listenening to that radio station for a while in order to not hear that song.
In the 70's (I am 17, I didn't live then) alot of bands who played really really good music wouldn't be popular today. Thin about it, the WHO, Yes, Loggins and Messina, Simon and Garfunkel, America, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, and the list goes on and on...by today's standards for pop music, these people and groups didn't have the looks to survive even though their music is really good. Now on the other hand..n'sync, the BBBoys, britany spears...evidently they are what popular people are supposed to look like, and will sell based on looks not on musical ability.
Which I guess brings me to my long awaited point. If we could possibly get mainsream america to understand what music has musical value and what doesn't, prices would go down, video clips videos and ads would become less effective...but then that would be impossible because corporate america has most youths not thinking for themselves, they have a horde of zombies at their command.
maybe the wisdom of /. could come up with a more feasable solution to the problem of perfect people
the government has to take action to protect them.
... WHY?! Why do stupid people get baby sitters that the rest of us have to play along with? It's not fair to those of us who can make a decision about whether or not to buy a damn CD. If someone is soooooooo dumb that they will buy a $100 Britney Spears CD.. then SO BE IT!
Arrrgggghh
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Left alone people find alternatives to monopoly services and goods. Thats the way the economy works.. either some new competiter comes in and forces the price down (if they can) or someone invents something better or just different to replace the monopolized good. eventually businesses would get the idea that treating your customers well and keeping them happy is a better investment than trying to fight the market price of the good/service. The only reason we have so many problems with monopolies these days is because of poor government regulations in the first place... the government its self is the worst of them all: they have a legal monopoly on violence (which is given to them in the constitution), BUT! we also have a USPS which is been trying to die for decades but ADVERTISING and government regulations keep it alive, lotteries! the poor mans tax IS ADVERTISED!, the military IS ADVERTISED! census IS ADVERTISED.. its just rediculous.. the government is out trust busting when it should be privatizing all these outdated services. What we need is a free economy not a government with free reign OVER the economy.
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I believe the community has a right to react, not the government. If it was brought to a public vote... sure.. but the government should just leave business alone. I dont want to discourage business, making a profit is what drives new "toys" and great new "things".. I dont want to be "protected"... except maybe from bombs and tanks... If you dont like the price of CD's you can buy something else, it's called "voting with dollars". If you really want a CD and will pay $20 for it.. then I guess the price isnt too high right?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
why does metalica only let "their label" sell the music? you think artists like this deal? its the copyrights that the music industry forces the artists to sign over thats the problem!! it the government CAUSING this.. they are not the solution... they already made the problem.. its part of the never ending government ploy to create problems so they can later "fix" them with MORE regulation...
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
Argh - get a cluestick why don't you!
Why? you need to borrow it?
Sure, if a company wants to sell products at a loss - it's their right - up until the point where they're hurting the society, then it's the right of the SOCIETY to use an agent (the government) to slap the greedy bastards back into primordial ooze.
If what ever it is that's being sold belongs to the company... then I dont care if millions die because they can't afford it... what the hell.. just because you have a bottle of water and I'm dying of thirst does NOT put you under ANY obligation to give me a drink. And in the case of companies.. we can live without what they are selling.
The so-called RIGHT of a small group of people (the owners of a company, for instance) to make money does NOT trump the right of a society to take care of themselves!
If a society can't take care of it's self because a company charges high prices... that society should probably die off... give me a break!
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
I don't want to sell them the water unless they hand over all their property
If your going to make demands like that.. sure you may need to fend some people off... But if it is YOUR water, and that's the price your asking.. so be it.
by destroying the company which is blocking them from the resources they want.
That's THE problem with our society.. people believe they are entitled to what other people have.. rediculous! You have NO RIGHT to anything my company has or myself for that mater!
don't pretend that a "legal entity" has any kind of rights equivalent to a real human being.
Companies are created and owned by people.. the government is a "legal entity" and it has ALL the rights it wants.
What's the point of running a business if society has the "right" to destroy what you build and TAKE your property? Why bother?
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
The last line of the Yahoo article says it all:
"Industry executives say CD prices have risen since the May settlement."
I'm skeptical that their cost per CD has risen accordingly...
Okay, so a lot of the bands you mentioned DO need a lot of the post-production work, but I take exception to the use of Blink 182 and Smashmouth who both put on good live shows (NOT sung to DAT) and are solid artists. Britney Spears, BS Boys, NSync those guys just suck without their studio gear.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
I take second place to no one in my animosity to the record companies and their Gestapo, the RIAA, but I'm wondering if this is another example of the plague of "let's get the unpopular" lawsuits sweeping the nation. First tobacco, then guns, now ... record companies? The federal and state governments have become such whores for revenue that they need little incentive anymore to go after any industry that looks like it might cough up some dough and that is sufficiently unpopular (or can be made so with the right degree of demonization). If that's the case here, and I'm not saying it is until I see more facts on what's alleged, then I say leave them alone, else no industry will be safe from the jackals. Of course, if they've really done something wrong, a slow roast on a spit will be just fine with me ...
Although your point is valid, the same could be said of any commoditized good. When an industry conspires to raise the price of such commodity well beyond a reasonable rate, the community and government do have a right to react. Whether or not this reaction is a boycott of these goods is really not for one individual to decide. People don't need music, but we do want music. Need is a little subjective, eh?
don't believe the hype
Interesting. RIAA is being charged with pricefixing using MAP.
If the plaintifs win this one, I would imagine that this could be a springboard for a similar case against the MPAA and it's region-coding pricefixing scheme.
The only difference is that region-coding is (at the moment) not dividing up countries, and in particular, doesn't rip of the US quite so spectacularly as, for example, the UK.
A decent DVD usually costs a bit under £20, often with a number of features missing from other regions.
Quite apart from the fact that encrypting a product and only allowing you to use it under 'controlled conditions' or a 'secure box' is quite unethical. If I buy something, I can do whatever the hell I like with it.
OpenDVD has a fair amount on this subject.
You mean someone's actually doing something about the fact that I have to pay $16 for a CD? How about doing something about the fact that the artist gets jack from my purchase. It's all about the middlemen getting fat. Why haven't the artists done something about this before? Both for themselves and their fans? Shows how we really rate in their opinions. Or spineless they are.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Nevertheless, if it did actually come to court, in front of a jury of ordinary folks who're also the consumers ripped off by the miserable cartel the RIAA is, there is a possibility that the RIAA could be hammered half way to hell and back. Maybe not as much as the tobacco industries, but it would be the same kind of judgement, which boils down to "You lied to us and ripped us off, now it's payback time."
But, as you say, the RIAA have probably spread around a fair amount of cash to ensure that things do not get to that point.
-fff-
Can the consumers ( we ) organize a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA? If so, then I'm willing to fill out all the arbitrary forms the lawyers send out to you in the mail, and the RIAA can be fighting on three fronts instead of just 2.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I thought the FCC settlement was supposed to bring prices down. Why haven't the record companies complied with that legal action? Ironically, (if I recall correcly) the original price hikes were supposed to "help" consumers by preventing mega-stores like BestBuy from driving small record stores out of business - yeah right. It's obviously greedy and disingenuous actions like this by the major record labels that give creedence to Napster fans.
credo quia absurdum
Several people cry out that they use Napster as some sort of protest against the record companies for overcharging. That's bullshit, you're using it because it gives you for free something you would otherwise have had to pay for.
Some people cry out "boycott RIAA!" This is pointless. It's not going to convince them to let up on Napster, and even if you succeed in driving down sales of CDs, they'd probaly just raise prices to compensate.
Now the states are going to tear a big chunk out of their money. It feels good, doesn't it? When I first read it, I thought "Yeah! Take that you greedy bastards!"
But it won't help. Well, maybe the states will use the money for something good, but don't expect the record companies to improve. As it was, they would charge the stores $10 and demand that the stores charge $16 or so. Now, they'll just charge the stores $12. The stores will be forced to charge $16 or more in order to keep afloat, and the record companies will use that extra $2 to recoup their losses from the states' suit.
At least, that's the way I see it...
Industry executives say CD prices have risen since the May settlement.
Perhaps that could say: CD Prices have risen as sales have decreased.
or how 'bout: CD Prices haves risen as sales have increased
or maybe: CD prices have risen due to the fact that we have to pay for the massive promotion costs of that last boy/girl group we signed 'cuz that music won't sell itself, even though if your buying this CD you wouldn't be caught dead listening, let alone buying, the CD of that boy/girl group but we're gonna make you pay for it anyway...
or maybe: CD prices have risen as we felt we needed a raise, after all you can never be making too much
"When a star appeared it was a sign to raise CD prices, when the rains came it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at midnight was born a two headed cow it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at noon was born a perfectly normal cow with no complications what-so-ever it was a sign to raise CD prices" (apologies to Mr. Adams)
-GreenHell (I'm not bitter, really)
"I won't mod you down - I feel the need to call you a twit explicitly, rather than by implication."
Do these analogies hold water?
Books vs CDs
How much does it take to print/distribute/market a book? Let's assume that there are similarities in the way they need to be distributed, published, etc. There are even the categories; classic, pop, alternative, etc. There is also the argument of crap artists etc.
Is it more expensive to actually print a book than a CD? I don't know, but I do know that a book can be bought for $7 where a CD costs $15.
VHS Movies vs CDs
There are a similar set of circumstances...
VHS can cost $15 vs a CD's $15. Does this sound right?
DVD Movies vs CDs
Even more similarities, I think, than VHS, since this is digital!
Offline DVDs cost $30. Online I can get DVDs for $20. Pioneer is repricing older DVDs for $10. CDs cost $15 *everywhere*, more or less. Older CDs don't cost less, and online distribution doesn't seem to be saving us that much money.
I'm not making much arguments here, just throwing out a few thoughts.
With a nick like mine, I guess moderators have a hard time judging me fairly.
GPL Deconstructed
Who gets the money if the States win?
The States have done the same thing with the Tobacco Industry and Microsoft, yet as a Windows using smoker, I have yet to hear where I'll be able to pick up my check when the dust settles.
Do we care if the States or the Record companies have the money? Sure, on some childish, spiteful level we want to see the Record companies punished, and yes, it could lower future CD prices, but what the States are suing for is OUR money. The States use the money for whatever pet programs that they want. In a way, this is like an indirect form of TAXATION.
Find this at http://www.riaa.org/MD-US-7.cfm
It's a small bit different (haven't run it through diff yet), but it's interesting that nowhere on the page does it mention anything about the Justice Dept. It sounded to me like something cooked up by the RIAA's spin-lawyers. Notice they didn't mention the "contract math" listed in Coutney Love's manifesto, that promotion costs, tour costs, etc. are recoupable from the band's royalties (which are relatively small). Not that I can vouch for the truth of that manifesto, haveing not done much research on the issue yet.
A professional album costs upwards of $100,000 to record.
You've been taken in by the studio hype.
A $100K production package is entirely unnecessary. Quality writers, vocalists and musicians have been creating top quality music at near zero cost for millenia, and they haven't suddenly lost that ability now that 1000-track, billion-dollar digital studios are available. This applies even in totally electronic genres --- the keyboard/MIDI scene is so incredibly buoyant and rapidly churning that the kind of equipment that would have set you back dozens of thousands of pounds just 5 years ago is available at near-student prices now, and that's not just your instruments but the whole production outfit.
Your argument is basically back to front. The industry has created an expensive production and hype machine and uses this as an excuse for keeping prices high, as if using that environment were some sort of precondition for creating music. It isn't. If you buy into that standard MO then all you're doing is feeding the already-overfed beast.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Spitzer said at a press conference the states were still calculating the exact amount of the damages, but said they amounted to ``hundreds of millions of dollars'' or ``several dollars per CD.''
so... i have around 400 cds. by my calculations, the riaa owes me $1200. empeg, here i come!
but joking aside... what will happen to the cash that the courts make the riaa cough up? as a major purchaser of cds, i'd sure like to be refunded for some of the cost of my music.
--
DiabloII, as well as many other networkable games of today, provide people who bought (or pirated) the game with the ability to play the game online. Those servers do not cost the end-user anything, but they do cost a lot of money to maintain.
You can argue that the users have already paid for those servers, even if they don't use them, since they've paid the steep mark-up for the game. You'd be right, that's where the money comes from. But, this is the same sort of reasoning that the RIAA and MPAA use all the time. Money not made is not money that's lost. Money that's spent on the game alone is the same amount as that spent on a game you intend to network. The person who networks DiabloII is getting more bang for their buck. Simple.
Now, where's the extra bang for the buck with a CD? As another poster on this thread suggested, a CD is no more expensive to produce then a book, yet a book tends to sell more cheaply (unless you're in college, in which case you're the victim of extorsion, but that's another topic entirely).
There isn't anything really special about a CD. No, not anything more special than a DVD - both are the 'cool thing' in our culture. We provide the suppliers with a ready market. They set the maximum price that most people are willing to, begrudgingly, pay.
If prices dropped, record sales would undoubtedly rise; but not in proportion. Even if they sold the CDs at a buck a piece, I would not buy the same dollar-amount as I do now. There are not 30 albums per month that I would want to acquire.
Now for the cost of production - and here we get to see the actual price-fixing at work: Say an album costs the aforementioned $100k to record, another $100k to distribute and yet another $100k to promote (though most promotion is in radio play - paid for by advertisers, and in performance tours which are paid for at the gate). So, we have $300,000 in investment. Let's add $200k for the artists and another WHOPPING $500k for all others involved.
Now, we've got a cool Million to work with (funny how that worked out). Say an album sells a million copies... That's a dollar per copy. We pay what?? $20 a piece?
Even if an album sells (ONLY) 100,000 copies (pitiful), that's still $10 a pop to break even - remember the bills are paid now. Where's that extra money going? Britney Spears next boob-job? New 'Stangs for NSYNC? Bail for Snoop Doggy Dog?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Well, not for those making money on it, but still.. In a greater, moral sense, Napster has served it's purpose.
It was in the wrong, and we all know it - but by allowing individuals to rip off the Record Companies, it has prompted the bears to charge. They're now out of the cave, and everyone knows they're a bunch of greedy hypocrites.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but apparently, doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons will sometimes bring to light another wrong, which has been swept under the rug in the hope that no one notices. It's about damn time.
But, I just hope that this is not a sign of things to come. The FTC/DOJ/Fed seem encouraged by their 'victory' over Micro$oft. Are they now starting to chase down other monopolists? In the case of the RIAA, it may not be a bad thing. But I hope that it doesn't turn into another witch-hunt. We've seen over-zealous government agents cause a lot of harm in the name of doing good.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I have seen this quote in nearly every article I've read about this situation, "The labels say they started the MAP policy in an effort to help smaller music retailers compete with chains such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc. They say smaller retailers do not have the option of offsetting losses from cut-price CD sales with sales of other products." It makes you say to yourself, "Awww..those nice big record companies were just trying to help out little record stores, that's sweet."
My question is, why were they doing this? Why would juggernauts like Sony and Warner Brothers do a damn thing to help out small stores at the expense of huge business partners like Wal-Mart? What was in it for them?
Question 2: What kind of damages would they have to pay and to whom? The only case like this that I remember is when Nintendo was found to be price fixing (way back in the day). In the Nintendo case, they sent coupons to everyone that had bought games that were good towards the purchase of new games. What sucks about that system was that the company that was price fixing (Nintendo here) ends up making more money by mailing out coupons good for less than the profit margin of the product. Also, while you're at the store with a coupon, you are quite likely to pick up another game/CD at full price. Someone with some info, please chime in.
-B
This just cannot be justified
Since when should you have to justify the price you want for something. You price it.. people either say "X is worth $Y" and buy it, or people say "X is not worth $Y" and don't buy it.
Next thing you will be complaining that some companies have too high of profit margins.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I'm not a real big record company apologist, but:
At that time, large department stores and consumer electronics retailers began selling CD's below cost as a "loss leader," in an effort to get people into the stores to buy big-ticket items, labels said.
The labels say they started the MAP policy in an effort to help smaller music retailers compete with chains such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc. They say smaller retailers do not have the option of offsetting losses from cut-price CD sales with sales of other products.
Granted, those guys have a way of lying through their teeth, but that sure makes sense to me. If I were running a small music store which only sells CDs, I can't afford to lose money on CDs. A Best Buy can pick up the slack by selling impulse items like CD cases and, ehrm, refrigerators.
The labels say they received no financial gain from the MAP policy. "The wholesale price we charged retailers was the same whether or not they participated in MAP," one label executive said.
But the states claim in their complaint that if a retailer advertized a price below the agreed-upon minimum, the retailer risked "the loss of all promotional funds available from that (label) for a period of 60 to 90 days...(and) would jeopardize promotional funds for an entire chain."
Why exactly is this price-fixing? The instrument industry does the same thing -- they sell instruments at a wholesale $X. They don't allow you to advertise below a certain MSRP in-print, but you can sell it for any price you want, hence the haggling which is an unalienable part of the experience of buying an instrument.
Doesn't the blame lie on the retailers?
darius
The three words that scare the crap out of the RIAA?: Northern Mariana Islands. That's right, we're not just talking about the full sovereign force of twenty-four states plus Puerto Rico. This action has been joined in full by the Northern Mariana Islands. Don't you see? The Northern fucking Mariana Islands!
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
.. from the book "Our Dumb Century", which is essentially a set of newspaper parodies from the year 1900 to 2000 (starting with the assassination of President McKinley and ending with the ascension of the Christian Right to heaven.) The headlines marking the beginning of World War I looked something like this:
WAR DECLARED BY ALL
States Sue RIAA Sues Napster Sues Metallica Sues Courtney Love Sues Orthodox Jews Sue Barney the Dinosaur Sues Dr. Dre Sues Puff the Magic Dragon
TIME-WARNER ALMOST SUES ITSELF
Companies Struggle to Remember Allies
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I'm glad they're going after the companies, and I hope that when the states win the class action suit against the companies that will follow can get each of us a couple of bucks for each CD we bought. We've all known that 17 bucks was way too much for something whose production costs so little, and things like Napster are mostly the result of the absurd cost of CDs.
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
Since the RIAA takes its cut, and the major labels take their cut, and the distributors take a cut, the cost of raw materials takes a cut, and finally the artists get .003 cents for the sale, then you can see where the money goes. Note that the cut the RIAA takes does not go to the artists, they get to keep 99% of the collected artists royalties for overhead. Cut out the RIAA, and force the labels to use straight forward accounting practices for royalty distribution. Then the artists will see the money they deserve. A system like that would allow many more artists to make a living doing what they love, rather than have all the money get lost on the way to them.
CD prices are even more outrageous here in Europe, with even less money going to the artists. I'd expect the EU to follow up with a similar investigation now that the US has shown the way.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
That would be all good and great, if the price of a CD was reflective of the record company's effort for that particular artist, but I bet it's not.
Way more promo effort (i.e. money) has gone into Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys than say, Pitchshifter or Fear Factory. But their disc prices are just about the same, even when each was first released.
Now, that kinda tells me that the money I spent on my latest Pitchshifter disc didn't all necessarily go to efforts solely directed at selling Pitchshifter and their disc to the public. Am I helping fund the latest boy band's promotion?
If my $18 (after compensation, manufacturing, etc.) were going totally into efforts (or reimbursement of efforts) to promote the band I just bought, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem.
But I don't think that it is. It's going into promotion of a small handful of record-company-constructed "musicians", who, as a result of this promo machine, will make back exponentially more for the record company than they put into it. Honestly, the strategy makes sense to suits who don't care about the art. But what about a band who, if promoted properly and paid fairly, would make a decent profit that, though not on a Christina Aguilera-scale, would be decent enough to satisfy and support that band? Well, the RIAA companies don't really care, for the most part. Sure, the smaller RIAA labels do, but they're usually not rolling in cash, either. They're just owned by the big RIAA companies so that when the small labels find the 'right' band, the parent RIAA company can be ready to exploit.
And that's why I hate the RIAA.
-JimTheta
---
My stupid web site
The problem with this suit is that it doesn't really help consumers. Why? Well, basically all MAP pricing has done is to keep Walmart, and Circuit City and the ilk from closing down smaller stores. These types of retailers sell the CD's under cost. It's a marketing tool to get people into the store to but high buck items.
The record companies sell CD's to Walmart for the Same price they sell to Mucisland or some other smaller chain.
While MAP pricing stinks I think it's really the small part of the puzzle of price fixing. Really, it's icing on the cake. And keeping companies liek Walmart in check isn't that bad of a thing.
The real point is a effort to keep the industry wholesale prices inflated. In order for this case to work out there has to be proof that the music companies have acted together to that ends.
Here is the wired article
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
Why do the CDs of old stuff still cost the same as the ones keeping the marketing staff busy?
Your argument has holes in it.
Oh yeah: "Doom I,II,III, Descent I,II, Diablo I" All $4.95 in the clearance bin. That's 90% off the original sale price for software a few years old. Where's the 90% off an all 80 music?
10 Repeat after me: They're gouging us. Goto 10
I have serious doubts about the artistic effort being among the most significant chunks of the cost of a CD. Typically artists get only a very tiny fraction of what each CD sells for. I'd love to see some real numbers on this. The industry made $15 billion in profit last year. Doesn't sound like they're having a tough time of it to me. There's no way in hell I'm going to take their word for it. I want the full investigation done. They aren't telling us everything, you'd be a fool to believe they are.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Nice choice of years. Now try this one, taken from RIAA's own U.S. market data report: between 1990 and 1999 the average cost of a CD rose by 13%. And yet, sales volume continues to grow by 10% annually. Isn't it a shame that piracy is destroying the CD market?
At that time, large department stores and consumer electronics retailers began
selling CD's below cost as a ``loss leader,'' in an effort to get people into the
stores to buy big-ticket items, labels said.
Someone's got to have a really inefficient distribution system if they can't make money off a $18 CD.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
...sued Microsoft? What is it with these 28 states? Did all the Attorneys General go to the same law school or something? I don't get it, why would only 28 states sue? Do record and softare companies only operate in these 28 states? If anyone has any enlightenment to spread, I'd much appreciate it...
The government is supposed to protect citizens from force and fraud. Price-fixing is not good capitalism, it is a type of both force and fraud. Price-fixing distorts the market, preventing people from being able to freely negotiate price. Therefore it is a legitimate function of government to prevent price fixing -- along with other acts of collusion and conspiracy -- from happening.
---- ----
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
The companies shined attention on themselves by going after Napster, and I rather imagine they aren't enjoying the results now.
Don't expect this to be the last lawsuit either - you know that once people smell an easy target, those things multiply.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
An essay describing the history of CD manufacturing and price-gouging can be found at:
http://www.negativland.com/minidis.html
Lots of other information on the record industry, copyright, and intellectual property issues is available on their site.
This comment is quoted verbatim from an RIAA website. The original page can be found here.
;)
Frankly, this is a big load of shit, and doesn't deserve a +2 insightful
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
A careful consideration of the facts in the case, as well as the legal precedents set forth beforehand can lead to only one reasonable reaction to this decision by the states:
BWAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!
You fucking greedy bastards! We knew it all the time! You have absolutely no moral authority to tell Napster users what to do when you're criminals in your own right! Take a long walk off a short cliff, you RIAA scum!
Wow, that was totally juvenile. But I feel SO much better.
- Rev.As far as this case goes I am glad to see it happen. I think that the whole Napster ordeal should have been a clue to the RIAA that they need to lower their prices but it wasn't. Though the record companies might not see it this way, this case is going to help them. If the prices are lower people might not feel the need to pirate. And if you sell more product, even at a lower cost, you can still make more money.
Besides this issue has been huge, Napster versus RIAA is huge. The government has already been made involved by the RIAA and thier actions against Napster, if they don't do something that could stop the madness, then they will have to put up with Napster cases until the end of time. Just be thankful that they are doing something that helps us instead of something that hurts us... like shutting down anything with the name MP3 in it.