CDs Want To Be Free

NOT FREE..... by tiwason · 2002-05-23 06:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

ugg.. I hate advertising...

If I have to pay $4.95 for shipping and you are making $2.64 "profit" from that $4.95, how the hell is the $4.95 "for shipping"..??

$4.95 != Free

Re:NOT FREE..... by elmegil · 2002-05-23 06:53 · Score: 2

On the other hand, $2.64 for a full length CD, physically present in my hands with a jewelcase and artwork and everything really puts the lie to the "necessity" of paying $18 apiece at joe's CD shack.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:NOT FREE..... by Jobe_br · 2002-05-23 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative

No, it doesn't. The recording labels out there aren't saying that it costs $18 to duplicate a CD (en masse), print jewel-case inserts and stuff everything into a package and shrink-wrap it so that you can't get into it.
Now, repeat after me: That's not what costs $18 per CD! What costs $18 per CD is the audio engineer that was paid to mix the tracks in the studio where the music was recorded; the rental time for that studio space and hi quality recording, mixing and sampling equipment; the designer that was paid to create the artwork you see on the jewel-case inserts and on the CD face; the copywriter that came up with what should be written on the inside sleeves of the jewel-case inserts; the production monkey that laid out the text + images in Quark for the jewel-case inserts. OK, so that all costs some money, right? Well, that's NOTHING compared with the cost of food, travel, housing that many recording labels provide their artists while they are recording. Some artists have VERY high demands for this ... caviar, first class plane tickets, 5 star hotels, the works. That costs money. The promotion work that is done when the artist goes on tour - that costs money: TV spots, banner ads, Ticketmaster kick-backs, deposits for venues, etc., etc. The promotion work that is done when a new CD launches: getting the artist on talk shows, on MTV - speaking of MTV, getting the new video shot for MTV, VH1, etc., etc.
Guess what, folks?!? That ALL costs money, and lots of it. So much, in fact, that if a particular artist doesn't make it BIG most record labels lose their pants. Ever heard of a record label that doesn't have a big name artist signed? No? I'm not surprised ... until a big artist is "discovered" a record label is nothing because it has NO MONEY.
There's a significant cost involved in promoting new music ... now, should you have to pay for lots of bad artists to be able to release their music?!? Maybe not, but that's the breaks. You can't really weed out the good from the mediocre before you incur all those costs ...
I'm quite tired of all these misinformed people thinking that they're paying an outrageous amount of money for a plastic disc with binary information encoded on it. WAKE UP! There's a lot more that goes on behind the scenes with the money that you're paying.
Re:NOT FREE..... by User+956 · 2002-05-23 07:26 · Score: 5, Informative

OK, so that all costs some money, right? Well, that's NOTHING compared with the cost of food, travel, housing that many recording labels provide their artists while they are recording.

You know jack shit about the music industry, my friend. All those things are what are called RECOUPABLE EXPENSES.

When a record label advances money to an artist, or spends money in certain areas, to make, market or promote a record, the artist must pay back that money before the label begins to split the profits with the artist. Paying back that money out of record sales is called "recouping." If the record stiffs, even at the fault of the label, the artist of course owes nothing. But if the record sells some units, and the label decides to put out another record, the debt is NOT wiped clean if the artist is unrecouped. This nasty little fact is called "cross collateralization" and what that means is that if the artist makes Record Number Two for the label, but hasn't recouped from Record Number One yet, the back owed funds come out of the sales from the new record before the artist ever sees a dime from the new record. So you can see how difficult it is to get ahead...which is how a label (meaning Def Jam) would explain why Slick Rick is unrecouped after all these years and 5 albums later.

As an example, let's say the artist has an unrecouped balance of $200,000 on the day his record drops (his advance and recording budget were $150,000 and $100,000 was spent on the video for the first single, half of which is recoupable--that's $200,000). Let's say the label did its job properly and had a good four month set up on the album (set up is the amount of work that goes into a project to build awareness prior to its release), and the artist has a strong buzz in the marketplace. So pre-orders are looking good (the amount of records the retail stores ask for, based on the anticipation of sales for the release) and the label decides to ship 300,000 units initially. If the label is in the Universal family, for example, and offers a sales discount because it's a new artist, a $16.98 anticipated retail price will position this CD at $10.78 wholesale. So the label can anticipate an income initially of $3,234,000 (300,000 x $10.78). And by the way, the label feels as though it has already lost $189,000, because the full retail selling price of $17.98 would have brought the label $3,423,000 (300,000 x $11.41) and since they discounted the record one dollar, they're already losing money. Here's the ugly side of label accounting and recouping: the artist's contract stipulates that the artist's share of the back end is 12 points, which really means 12% of the retail price (less a whole bunch of stupid provisions for breakage, free goods, return reserves, and container charges, producer royalties, etc) which leaves the artist about $1 a record. That means that the artist's share of the income from one record sold at $16.98 is roughly $1. Recouping means that the artist has to pay back the money spent out of his share (which is $1 a record sold). So in order to pay back that $200,000 spent prior to the record even coming out, 200,000 units must sell.

After the initial order is shipped, the artist incurs promotional costs which the label advances to him. The independent radio promoters, video promoters, tour support, remixes, etc, are all shared expenses that come out of the artist's money. So you can see how easy it is for an artist to remain unrecouped. If he finishes his project two or three singles deep, it's easy to come into the next project already at a high negative balance. The artist is artificially unrecouped, however, because the label has made back the money it spent off the top. Let's look at our above example. Let's say the label gets paid (meaning every retail store sells every copy with no returns) for every copy of the initial 300,000 units it shipped at $10.78 a copy. And let's also assume they did not spend any additional money to sell those records (also highly unlikely). The label has made $3,234,000. The label has also recouped $200,000 from the artist for the expenses, so that $3,234,000 is almost pure profit (except for the unrecouped costs of running their business and the overhead of running their business). Meanwhile, the artist has made only $100,000 (less the artist's overhead costs). According to my calculator, that's only 3% of the share.

And the massive screwjob doesn't stop there, not by far. Labels pay royalties on 90% of sales which assumes 10% breakage, a holdover from the vinyl days. From that amount is deducted the advances and recoupable expenses such as studio time, engineers, producer, etc. However, a distributer is often given 15-30% of his albums free on which there is no royalty. Overseas sales and sales to military stores are at a greatly reduced royalty. Some Talent may be more popular overseas than in America which means they see very little royalties. If albums are returned and then sold at discount, Talent receives virtually no royalty on those sales.

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Re:NOT FREE..... by discstickers · 2002-05-23 07:40 · Score: 2

Right, I would have no problem paying $18 for a CD if the artist got their fair share. Unfortunately, they are not. The label pays them the lowest ammount possible.

Want a really good example of the record industries' evil tatics? Weezer self-produced and self-recorded their last album. Paid for everything out of their own pockets. Then they put the tracks on their website and sent sampler CDs to radio stations. The songs started doing pretty good. "Dope Nose" made it into the top 20 of modern rock tracks without a single cent from the record company. When the single started doing even better, the label noticed and told Weezer to take down the page where the fans could download the tracks. And Rivers (the frontman) had to write a letter to each of the radio stations that he sent to sampler to asking them to stop playing the songs. Then the label wouldn't let Weezer release the CD until they handed over the masters to the label! Now, the label is getting money for a recording they didn't pay for.

--
I have a shitty sig!
Re:NOT FREE..... by JHromadka · 2002-05-23 07:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now, repeat after me: That's not what costs $18 per CD! What costs $18 per CD is the audio engineer that was paid to mix the tracks in the studio where the music was recorded; the rental time for that studio space and hi quality recording, mixing and sampling equipment; the designer that was paid to create the artwork you see on the jewel-case inserts and on the CD face; ...
Um, then why do tapes cost half as much. All the mumbo jumbo you mentioned is in the prep costs. CDs cost less than $1 each to make; tapes cost more than that. Now if tapes cost $20 when CDs cost $18, then your theory would make sense.

--
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Re:NOT FREE..... by PK_ERTW · 2002-05-23 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Here's a clue. Most of the CD's on this site have been mastered in a studio as well. Maybe not quite the state of the art place down at WhateverMajorLabel, but still a pretty nice place with people who make a living off it doing the mixing.
They do that with their own money. If they choose to distibute it themselves, they make the labels and other stuff with their own money. It is not cheap, but it is also something that any band that is remotely close to making it big manages to get the money to pay for and produce their 1000 CD run.
The demands for cavier and 5 star hotels for your hoochies don't come into play until you are big anyway. Tours, they generally pay for themselves. Yes, there is the odd flop, on both the large and small scale, but in general, they make a lot of money off tours.
So, when you look at a major label and talk about their costs, which as someone else mentioned, they make "Recoupable" costs, it doesn't look all that big anymore.
And of course, what happens to any label that has someone big? That someone is bought out by a major label. If that someone can't be bought, the whole label is bought. If that can't happen, clearchannel does what it can to keep it from being played until they decide to sell. The labels demand control of the industry. They don't do it in nice fair ways, they do it by screwing whoever they can and taking every penny they can possibly get their hands own. They don't have a good image anyway, and they aren't even bothering to try and make one. How do they sleep at night? On a bed made of money.
PK

--
Engineers arn't boring people, we just get excited about boring things.
Re:NOT FREE..... by Pxtl · 2002-05-23 07:51 · Score: 2

And then a large sum of money that they pay to the radio stations to get their music played. Radio stations that are already 40% advertisement jingles anyways.

And people wonder why the industry killed streaming audio? 'Cause it would hurt their racket, maybe actually getting some independants some air time (god forbid people get to hear music they want).
Re:NOT FREE..... by Fizzlewhiff · 2002-05-23 07:53 · Score: 2

Read the article. You get the CD and a slimline colored case. No art, no booklet, no lyrics.

--

'Same speed C but faster'
Re:NOT FREE..... by ergo98 · 2002-05-23 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

But of course most music retailers bleed money, and at best make tiny profits in the end. Retailing is a very expensive game, and for Joe to be able to walk in and pick up a copy of Depeche Mode Speak and Spell means that the store has to stock thousands of dollars in merchandise that doesn't move. That's why a place like Walmart, that stocks only the sure hits, can sell at lower prices.

Of course this could just be a lesson that the traditional retail market just doesn't work for something like CDs. It would be rather neat if you could go into a store and go to a machine and punch in the CD you want and it spits out the insert, a CD, etc from a giant database.
Re:NOT FREE..... by elmegil · 2002-05-23 08:03 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm a musician, and I have friends who are not only musicians, but nationally distributed and known musicians (though not "stars"). I know those things go into the cost of a CD. Guess what? Most artists don't spend ($18 - $2.64) * # of cd's sold on all those things, or even close. The $18 is there because every middleman who touches the little plastic disk wants his cut. But the fact of the matter is, there is no need to have so many middlemen that it drives up the cost 500%!
So you either have:
1) way to damn many middlemen--in which case you need to improve your efficiency so that you can compete on price, or
2)a few people who are excessively greedy (and potentially fixing prices with the other labels, since everyone seems to have the same range of hyperinflated pricing).
Think hard: do the artists at fightcloud have no costs to record and engineer their music? Is it really likely that the costs of a good amateur production studio are so infinitesimally smaller than a professional studio? Do they have no gigging costs? No artwork costs? Keep in mind, the "professional" releases can spread their costs over millions of CDs whereas the amateurs are lucky to spread them over thousands--you'd expect the amateur productions to have those costs make up a BIGGER percentage of the per CD cost, even if the total costs are less.
Finally, you need to go re-read Courtney Love's essay about who bears the production costs with the majors--it comes out of the artist's royalties, which are a small fraction of that $18. That's true for big artists and small on the major labels; it's not like the label is paying that artist extra specially to stick around in most cases.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:NOT FREE..... by Binky+The+Oracle · 2002-05-23 08:05 · Score: 2

While you are technically correct, I'd say that making $1.32 per CD (the other $1.32 goes to the artist) isn't exactly reaming the consumer.
It's actually not a bad model: the artist takes on the responsiblity of creating the content, the consumer takes a partial risk on an unknow artist, although it's less of a risk in many cases than major label releases:
You will almost never hear more than a 30 second clip of any song from a major label release (at CDNow.com for example) and thus can't get a good idea if that new album you want is chock full of interesting tunes or a "one hit with filler" coaster. And since none of the major retailers will allow you to return an opened CD except to exchange due to defect, you're taking a pretty big risk, especially since there are very few albums where more than 20% of the songs are more than just "ok."
So in the big picture, this company is making less per CD than a major, but with very little overhead, the artist makes more per CD and is free from overbearing contractual obligations, but with more up-front responsibilities and costs, and the consumer pays less per CD, but doesn't get Britney, Christina, or Celine. Not a horrible tradeoff unless you're a 14 year-old media zombie or a baby-boomer with disposable cash and VH1.
I think the cost is reasonable (if they didn't make some money, they wouldn't be in business after all), and that the "free" angle, while not completely accurate, isn't any worse than advertising a price in big, bold letters with "price after rebate" in 6 point type, or much different from "free email," "free web hosting," or "free car wash with 10 gal. minimum purchase."

--
Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.
Re:NOT FREE..... by Chris+Johnson · 2002-05-23 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Oh, come on. The engineering may be covered by the label in the recording budget that's set- that may or may not come out of the artist's share (see 'recoupable'). Same with the graphics. Offset printing almost certainly is paid for by the label. Goodies FOR THE ARTIST come out of the ARTIST'S share, are you kidding? Promotion, including paying off independent promoters in an auction-like payola scheme to get tunes played on radio and stocked in Wal-Mart, does in fact get paid for by the label.
I'm indie: see URL above. I worked with Ampcast to help them set up their CD program and I have a pretty good idea of how much CDs really cost physically. Mine go for $12: that is with a color four-panel two-sided insert, a color but one-sided tray liner, Red Book uncompressed CD master from high-resolution originals: in other words, very very near to major-label technical quality, and in some ways (sound quality) substantially better than the average major label release. And that is why I set my price so a couple bucks go to the artist, rather than setting it so that I get nothing.
It'll cost you about 8$ to 10$ per CD to run a business that sustains itself producing CDs that are like major label releases. If you're good with having no artwork, or God forbid 'CDs' burned off mp3s and the like, you should be able to bring them in for much cheaper than that.
Note, however, that the RIAA releases tend to be mass production- even 1000 is in its way mass production- and it sure as hell costs them less than $8 to cover everything involved. There's a lot of people gobbling caviar and Chateau Lafite in that business. Many are label people. Some are artists. For the artists, it means they will never see a royalty check so long as they live- but so long as they're allowed, they'll live high as if they were going to get paid. It's relatively cheap to give an artist a limo ride rather than pay them what you REALLY owe them, and if you own the limo company, hey- even cheaper. The whole industry is a big con.
Re:NOT FREE..... by gvonk · 2002-05-23 08:15 · Score: 2

Weezer link

Here's what you're talking about...

--

El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Re:NOT FREE..... by zsmooth · 2002-05-23 08:24 · Score: 2

You're contradicting yourself:

If the record stiffs, even at the fault of the label, the artist of course owes nothing.

and

If the album tanks, guess what? The artist STILL HAS TO PAY BACK THE MONEY, even if they have to work at Burger King to do it.

So which is it? I'm genuinely curious...
Re:NOT FREE..... by subgeek · 2002-05-23 08:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

The promotion work that is done when the artist goes on tour - that costs money: TV spots, banner ads, Ticketmaster kick-backs, deposits for venues, etc., etc.

Don't forget that concert tickets cover a lot of this expense. even after ticketmaster takes their cut, the remaining amount is more than the price of a new cd for most big-name artists. touring is great promotion because it usually makes money and encourages cd sales.

There's a significant cost involved in promoting new music ... now, should you have to pay for lots of bad artists to be able to release their music?!? Maybe not, but that's the breaks. You can't really weed out the good from the mediocre before you incur all those costs ...

promotional costs are the reason why some cds that bring in tens of millions of dollars still don't turn a profit. when the promotional budget is in the tens of millions of dollars, chances are this is more than the production costs.

now, about mediocre artists. why can't these costs be avoided? shouldn't the recording industry be spending a little more money trying to figure out if a band sucks or not? it is my opinion that they spend more time considering whether they have a *chance* at marketing it successfully. they excuse away an artist's shortcomings by arguing it doesn't matter because if they throw enough money into marketing people will buy it anyway. (often they are correct) even if the labels are gambling, i think they would do much better for themselves trying to get a little more quality. initial costs probably wouldn't increase if marketing budgets were reduced accordingly (followin a theory that it costs less to sell something people are more likely to want than it does to convince people it's what they want and then convince them to shell money out for it).

as someone else pointed out, tapes cost less than cds. people don't want them as much, so if they cost more, people wouldn't buy them. the costs get bundled onto what people will buy.

my complaint isn't that cds only cost .30 or .40 to press. my complaint is that the model for deciding how to spend money that causes a cd to cost 18.00 instead of about 10.00 is flawed. the only costs that are not one-time expenses are manufacturing and royalties. everything else is pay once. all of the expenses you mentioned could be covered if the hype machine were a little more efficient in deciding what and how to promote things.

we'd all end up with cheaper cds of higher quality.

--
you probably shouldn't have read this.
Re:NOT FREE..... by zbuffered · 2002-05-23 08:43 · Score: 2

This is an interesting thread. Please respond to zsmooth, I too want to know. I wish I had mod points.
How'd you get to +0?

--
Synergy is your friend
Re:NOT FREE..... by Don+Negro · 2002-05-23 08:44 · Score: 2

Chris,

Is that $8-$10 figure for burned or glass-mastered discs?

--
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Re:NOT FREE..... by zbuffered · 2002-05-23 09:06 · Score: 2

more of the production costs integrated into the price of the CD (because people will pay it)

But people *won't* pay it. A lot of them anyway. If they would, people wouldn't go out of their way, spend hours finding and downloading mp3s over their modem, versus going to the store and getting reference quality, guaranteed. That's the issue. Drop the price of the CD, and a lot of the people that don't feel like paying so much and spend their time downloading MP3s will decide that their time is worth more than the money. When the cost of downloading MP3s is greater than the cost of buying CDs, people will buy CDs. But in the meanwhile, CDs are too expensive. Maybe more people were willing to buy CDs before the advent of the MP3, or maybe they're just getting more music now than they were before and buying about the same amount(on balance, that is -- the economy kinda sucks and I'm sure that's cutting into the number of CDs sold).
In the end, there will always be people who will pay for music, and there will always be people who will not. The trick is finding the right price to get lots of people to pay for music without giving it to them too cheap, thereby maximizing profits. Economics 101.

--
Synergy is your friend
Re:NOT FREE..... by Silverhammer · 2002-05-23 09:29 · Score: 2

You have to send out promo copies to radio stations, DJs, reviewers, and stores. You have to invest in advertising and butter up radio station programmers.

That used to be true, but not any more. The vast majority of FM stations across the country have been bought out by a handful of mega-networks (e.g., Clear Channel) and switched over to a single, centrally controlled "Top 40" format.
Re:NOT FREE..... by swillden · 2002-05-23 10:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

And the massive screwjob doesn't stop there, not by far. Labels pay royalties on 90% of sales which assumes 10% breakage, a holdover from the vinyl days.
Actually breakage is a holdover from *shellac* days. A very long time ago, before vinyl was invented, records were made on shellac, which was very fragile. In the process of shipping a box of these shellac records to a retailer, inevitably a few would break. Since the record label didn't know how many would break, they just arbitrarily assumed that it would be around 10%. The record label gets paid for all of them, but they only pay the artist for 90% of them.
This deduction for breakage continued even when vinyl records, which are much more durable, were introduced, continued with 8 tracks, cassettes and now continues to be applied on CDs.
How many CDs do you think get broken in shipment?
It's a crock. OTOH, the labels will just say, "Well, yeah, but what really matters at the end of the day is that our books have to balance. If we didn't deduct all those things from the royalties, we'd just have to lower the artist's royalty percentage."
Whatever. It's an industry that is so rife with dishonesty and manipulation that they figure all of the lies wash out and leave them clean.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:NOT FREE..... by zsmooth · 2002-05-23 10:47 · Score: 2

In your first post you said that the artist didn't have to pay back anything if the record tanked (let's assume they're not doing another record). In the second post you said they'd have to work at Burger King to pay off their debt. Which one is it?

On second thought, don't bother answering, as you're obviously an imbecile.
Re:NOT FREE..... by zsmooth · 2002-05-23 11:55 · Score: 2

I tried in my first post in this thread, however, after his "f'n rude" reply, all class went out the window.
Re:NOT FREE..... by Lemmy+Caution · 2002-05-23 12:44 · Score: 2

But people *won't* pay it. A lot of them anyway. If they would, people wouldn't go out of their way, spend hours finding and downloading mp3s over their modem, versus going to the store and getting reference quality, guaranteed. That's the issue. Drop the price of the CD, and a lot of the people that don't feel like paying so much and spend their time downloading MP3s will decide that their time is worth more than the money.
Take the number of people willing to spend 16 dollars on a CD. Multiply that by the number of CDs they will buy. Multiply that number by 16. Add the cost of being a copyright bully. Let that number equal X. Take the number of people willing to buy a CD for 5 dollars. Multiply that by the number of CD's they will buy. Multiply that by 5. Let that number equal Y.
If X is greater than Y, the status quo sticks around. And I bet it is.
Re:NOT FREE..... by Chris+Johnson · 2002-05-24 05:56 · Score: 2

That's for burn-to-order CDR-based discs. Glass mastered discs can't be pressed to order- they must be mass produced- but once they are, they very rapidly drop in cost, so long as the distribution mechanism is there to sell them.
Printing up one of something, even with modern computerised order fulfilment, isn't the same as firing up the presses and making 1000 of them.
It'll cost you around $1200 to get 1000 CDs replicated with 4/4 four-panel booklets, or about a buck and a quarter for all raw materials. You can do it for $850 if you can accept a slow turnaround and order 5000.
A sample bid for duplication at LOW volumes (in this case, 10) is $4.90 plus .20 for duplication plus $1.80 for that 4/4 four-panel booklet plus .35 for the jewel box: seven dollars and twenty-five cents.
Re:NOT FREE..... by User+956 · 2002-05-24 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm defensive about nothing.

And it's "you're", not "your", genius. Maybe you need some grammar classes?

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

Re:I guess the question to ask is.... by Moonshadow · 2002-05-23 06:55 · Score: 2

I'm guessing they try to kill it.

If this thing gets big enough, the record companies will have to adjust. I don't know about you, but I just bought 2 CDs, not so much because I care about the music, but because I a) want to see this model succeed, and b) want to see artists realize they don't have to get screwed over by the RIAA.

The RIAA is not the end-all be-all. There are alternatives. But the success of those alternatives depends on people who are willing to buy through them.

If nothing else, it'll piss the RIAA off, which always brightens my day.

Hypocritcal.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-05-23 06:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hear me out here, I think I have a valid point. Lots of people here are programmers. Lots of people think CD's are overpriced. Well a CD is about 15 bucks give or take a few. How much is a video game these days? 40 or 50 bucks, a DRASTICALLY different number than 15. But guess what? You get a game , it comes on a CD. You get an album, it comes on a CD. What can we conclude from this? You're not paying for the CD at all, you're paying for what's on it! So why should we tolerate 50 dollar games without batting an eye, but a 15 dollar music collection is "way too much"?? I don't see the difference. Programmers put in tons of effort to create a game. Musicians put in tons of effort to create a CD. The time schedules are roughly similiar, no artist is cranking out CD's weekly or anything. So is there any reason we complain about music being too much, while games we don't? I think its because most people here are programmers, and think that because video games involve programming, they are inherently worth more.

Re:Hypocritcal.... by Peyna · 2002-05-23 07:08 · Score: 2

I get a lot more repeat enjoyment out of a video game than a music cd. How many people listen to the same music cd for 8 hours a day for a whole month?

--
What?
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Patman · 2002-05-23 07:15 · Score: 2

And how many games are you still playing on any regular basis five or ten years after they come out?

I have every CD I've ever purchased, and still listen to them on a fairly regular basis. I don't regularly play Need for Speed 4, and I just got that a couple of years ago.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Quietust · 2002-05-23 07:16 · Score: 2

That's because a lot of games these days come on multiple CDs.
:)

--
* Q
P.S. If you don't get this note, let me know and I'll write you another.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by jd142 · 2002-05-23 07:30 · Score: 2

You are absolutely right, the artists' time is worth something.

But. Cassettes sell for far less than a cd, even though they aren't that much different in price. I don't know the exact numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a cd actually costs less to produce than a cassette tape.

How many people here are old enough to remember when it was "18.99 cd/12.99 cassette" for all of those time-life or rhino music compilations. This means that you pay a premium for getting the same "thing" on cd. And as either the article or another poster pointed out, when cd's first came out, the record companies said that the price would drop over time as people bought more of them.

I'm curious to know what percentage of a computer game sale goes to the people who actually produced the game: programmers, artists, musicians, etc.

And who pays 50 bucks for a computer game? I wait 2 years and let the price drop to 10-15 bucks. If I'm lucky, I have a new computer and the game plays really nicely. Imagine the frame rates you'd get playing the original Doom or Duke Nukem on your PIV 2.2 gig with 512 megs of memory and a 65 meg video card.

Shoot, I'm old enough to remember when you had to get software to slow your clock speed down when playing the older games. But now I'm starting to get OT.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by ip_vjl · 2002-05-23 07:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're not paying for the CD at all, you're paying for what's on it!

I would agree ... but there is one problem with that. Why is there a difference in price between casette and CD? They've already paid everyone involved in making the master recording, so that's not it ... and I know full well that you can actually duplicate CDs for less than you can duplicate tape, so its definitely not a material cost.

The difference is that CDs are priced by what they think the market will bear. I have no problem paying to support artists (and all the other people necessary to produce them). I'm happy to pay a little to a store that gives me the benefit of immediate access (as opposed to online/shipping, etc.) - but if they want to run the "you're paying for the content" argument, then the cost should be the same regardless of the media.

I remember back in the days when software first started coming out on CD-ROMs. You had to pay extra to get floppy sets. That made sense because the media cost more. But in music, you purchase on a less expensive (to produce) media and pay more. Curious.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by autechre · 2002-05-23 07:34 · Score: 2

That's not really a fair comparison.

A band is generally somewhere between 3 and 5 people. If they're not machine-stamp created by a major label, they've probably spent months or years writing their songs, playing them in bad bars with leaky ceilings, etc., and putting out a CD might not change this very much. But the _cost_ of recording that CD is not too much these days. There are just oodles of bands recording their stuff for not very much money at all. Nirvana recorded "Bleach" for something like $400. Yes, indie bands still give away bunches of CDs to college radio stations (like mine), but when I go to Soundgarden (a music store, not the band), I can get their CDs for less than $10.

The reason major label CDs cost so much is because they spend millions on advertising, pyrotechnics, etc. Cynics (like me) say that they have to do this because the music made by major label artists just isn't that good, and without the commercialism, they are nothing. There are, as always, exceptions (Radiohead and Tool are doing great with everyone...but they started small, moving from college radio to mainstream. This is the way things are "supposed" to be, IMHO.)

However, where is the huge market for "indie" games? Why don't we see lots of little companies making cool games for the consoles? The cost is much higher. While someone can make a great record with just a few people in the band and a recording/mixing/mastering engineer, it simply takes a lot more manpower to take a game idea and make it reality. Good luck doing it on cheap hardware, too. And then, if you want to be on a console, you need to pay the console makers, code your game for different platforms, etc.

The entry barriers for PC games are a bit lower, but still, you're going to need a team of people working for a very long time. If you don't want to spend lots of time in the studio -- which is the part that costs money -- you don't have to do so. Bands can play shows for a year and get their songs down to the point where they can record just about everything in one take (and believe me, it's a lot more fun to record bands like this). Sure, if you're a perfectionist like Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine, you might spend all day placing a microphone, but then you probably have your own studio and are doing the sound yourself, so again, the costs go down.

There's also the fact that it probably doesn't take as long to learn how to play bass for a punk band as it does to learn C++ and OpenGL (or Python/SDL, or whatever). And coming up with either good games or good songs requires creativity.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by aardvarkjoe · 2002-05-23 07:46 · Score: 2

A similar price reduction is usually not seen with most CDs. This is indicative of a monopoly.

I don't see why. The value of the content on a CD doesn't drop over time; however, since the game industry is fueled by games with the most advanced graphics (iow, whatever's flashiest), their value does drop as time passes. The price drop (or lack of it) has to do with the nature of the content, not of the industry.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Hypocritcal.... by AlaskanUnderachiever · 2002-05-23 07:53 · Score: 2

cassette tape - .75 to 1.98 depending on tape composition/packaging. cd - .10 to 1.15 depending on composition/packaging. BUT most of the production run CD's I've seen around aroun a quarter each. (remember kiddies your initial expense at making the master goes down and down with every identical one you stamp out with it)

--
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
Re:Hypocritcal.... by MoneyT · 2002-05-23 07:53 · Score: 2

Hell of a good post. The bonehead mooches in this place who expect to get something for nothing are just a bunch of knuckleheaded whiners.

Most of us just want cheaper, not free. And if you don't want something for nothing, why are you posting as an AC instead of as a registered slshdot user?

'Course, maybe if they didn't blow their meager salaries (from burger flipping no doubt) on Klingon-to-English dictionaries they would have money to buy a CD or two.

This comming from the guy that's spending his time (most likely when he could be out earning money) insulting the people on slashdot.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Erasmus+Darwin · 2002-05-23 07:57 · Score: 2

"Why is there a difference in price between casette and CD? They've already paid everyone involved in making the master recording, so that's not it ..."
If I were a company involved in a business that involved a large, fixed cost in order to produce two products, I'd assign a larger portion of that cost to the higher priced/more desireable product (while sticking within the constraints of what the market will bear). It'd be the same if the fixed cost were a $500,000 factory necessary for producing both cheap and premium widgets as it is for a $500,000 intangible recording/production session cost necessary for producing both tapes and CDs.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by MoneyT · 2002-05-23 08:01 · Score: 2

How many people here are old enough to remember when it was "18.99 cd/12.99 cassette" for all of those time-life or rhino music compilations.

For some of them, it's stil those prices. Prices really haven't come down at all. And seeing as how most music is now digitaly recorded, I wouldn't suprise me if tapes did cost more to produce, but the marketing they're relying on is the same thing that sells iMacs and 2.2 gig intels the "OOH NEW SHINY THING" mentality that a lot of people have.

Most of the time you don't even have to wait 2 years to get a game cheap. After 6 months, it usualy drops in price and then you pick up the cheap resales on ebay.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Hypocritcal.... by EnderWiggnz · 2002-05-23 08:03 · Score: 2

>There's also the fact that it probably doesn't
>take as long to learn how to play bass for a
>punk band as it does to learn C++ and OpenGL (or
>Python/SDL, or whatever).

hate to break it to ya, but any decent musician has been playing for YEARS and YEARS before they manage to put out a cd and are discovered.

picking up a new programming language is a couple weeks at worst.

(though - learning the obscene black magic needed to optimize game graphics routines takes forever)

--
... hi bingo ...
Re:Hypocritcal.... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · 2002-05-23 08:10 · Score: 2

Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.

Good quality game = 50 guys, 50 computers, 50 specialized software packages (at least, probably more than one per user).

Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.

Time to make a good game : Blizzard's team has been working on Warcraft3 for well over a year now.

Doesn't matter if you include the producers, engineers, etc, there's no way you're getting a year of work from 50 guys to create a CD.

--
Last post!
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Washizu · 2002-05-23 08:11 · Score: 2

Good point, but there is a difference.

1. New PC games cost $50. As time goes on, their retail price drops significantly. CDs keep their value (not resale value, but re-releases) for a much longer period time, somewhere settling around the $13.00 range even for CDs that are 20+ years old. In that sense, the record company can continue making revenue from them for years, whereas games stop selling completely after a short window of opportunity.

2. The average mainstream PC game costs much more to make then an album (I'm basing this off years of observing game development houses closing down all the time, and a relatively few number of bands/artists/record companies that have ever filed for bankruptcy). A bad game can put a company out of business. Artists at least have other revenue streams (live appearences, merchandising) so they aren't dependant on a single method of earning income. This is one reason why people feel worse about stealing video games than they do music.

3. If you visit many game forums and websites, you'll see plenty of complaints about the $50 price on most new games.

--
OddManIn: A Game of guns and game theory.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by MoneyT · 2002-05-23 08:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

For one, the value of the game is much higher than that of music because consumers get a better utility out of the game than out of the music. A game has huge reuse value as compared to a music CD. And there isn't just a demand for lower priced music, there's one for games too. Ever see those warez sites? Same thing. The major difference is that the gaming industry isn't trying to have burners and copies eliminated completely (yes there is copy protection, but it's more to discourage casual piracy rather than complete blockage). The RIAA want's burners to not work period. If the gaming industry did that, we would be up in arms just the same.

Also a game will go down in price over time, music does not.

--
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Re:Hypocritcal.... by tshak · 2002-05-23 08:51 · Score: 2

It's really not about the media. For example, to produce a Movie, and all of the extras that they put on (some) DVD's, I really don't mind the $18-$20 per movie price. Games and Movies last a lot longer (generally) then a CD does, so it would make sense that they cost more. Also, as someone who has produced a short-run album, I understand how much it costs to make a CD. However, in just one film shooting on a small film project (that has yet to see light, unfortunately) I can blow just as much money as a month (or more) worth of studio recording. A CD does not cost that much to make in contrast to a videogame and movie. $50 I'll spend on a really good game. $18 I'll spend on a decent movie, and $8-10 I'll spend on a decent or good CD.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:Hypocritcal.... by recursiv · 2002-05-23 08:53 · Score: 2

Imagine the frame rates you'd get playing the original Doom or Duke Nukem on your PIV 2.2 gig with 512 megs of memory and a 65 meg video card.

Doom would be about the same
FYI Doom had a hard coded frame rate limit of 35fps.

PS Good luck finding a 65 meg video card. (They're usually in powers of 2)

--
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Re:Hypocritcal.... by hawk · 2002-05-23 10:03 · Score: 2

>And who pays 50 bucks for a computer game? I wait
>2 years and let the price drop to 10-15 bucks.

Good heavens, why the rush?

I still haven't gotten to all the ones I found in a dollar store that had gone there to die--$1 for jewelboxes, $2 for packages--and then I bought a few more for $4 to $5 . . .

Of course, I need to find a set of win3.1 and dos 6 install disks, as the installation cd has flipped some bits, and some don't run under dark side 98 (no sound in Master of Orion!).

Shoot, I'm old enough to remember when you had to get software to slow your clock speed
down when playing the older games.

Are you *trying* to make me feel old??? :)

If you need to lower your clock speed, you solder in a slower crystal . . . or put in a socket for your crystals . . .

hawk
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Raunchola · 2002-05-23 10:09 · Score: 2

Good quality CD = 5 guys, 1 computer, 1 good recording device, 1 good sound software package.

Sure, that would work...if you were a GARAGE BAND.

First of all, most recording and mixing is still done in analog fashion (tape), and everything still goes through a mixing board (and those aren't cheap by any long stretch). And if computers are used, I can tell you from first-hand experience, more than just one paltry computer is used. Let's not forget about microphones either. You need mics for each sound source...every instrument, every voice. Some quality uni-directional mics (for recording vocals) can cost up to $20,000. And how about the costs of studio rental? You think everyone records their music in their basement? Get real!

And of course, there's the support people. You gotta pay for a producer (the better they are, the more expensive they come), an engineer, a mixer, the guitar and drum techs, and of course, who can forget the lawyer and accountants? Don't tell me they aren't necessary, because I'll bet my bottom dollar that companies like Blizzard have someone to work the books, and someone to handle the legalese.

While we're at it, how about instruments? A Fender Stratocaster and a Marshall stack will set you back about $5000 at least. You think a group like the Eagles (or any other big-name act) will settle for some practice amps and cheap Stratocaster knock-offs? Hell, they'd laugh at you if you suggested that to them.

Time to make good quality CD (if done right and the musicians know their stuff) : Say a week of recording, full time. And even this is quite long. Add on a week of mixing, full time, for only one guy.

Again, sure, if you're a GARAGE BAND. Nirvana's "Nevermind" album took two months for actual song recording, and an additional month for mixing. Sure, it could take a week, "if done right and the musicians know their stuff." And maybe we'd have world peace, "if people would stop killing each other." Be realistic, it can take up to two months for studio recording, and then an extra month or two for mixing. Unless, of course, that's if you don't mind if your final product sounds like shit.

You say it takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality video game. That's true. It also takes a lot of people and time to put out a quality music CD. You obviously fail to see that.

--

--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Saint+Nobody · 2002-05-23 10:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

ask yourself -- why is the price where it is? record companies, when explaining the price of cd's explain that much of the price of cd's is because of the budget required to promote albums. so why do you have to pay fifteen to twenty dollars for a CD that has no promotion? when you pay $20 for a cd by an actually talented musician, you're paying for the record companies to promote britney spears and n'sync. the drive to make a select few records into "hits" drives the promotions budget skywards.

meanwhile, joe consumer decides he doesn't like britney spears. he decides to shell out $18 for an old david bowie album instead.* this is one less britney spears cd sold, and so the record companies get annoyed that people aren't buying what they're supposed to be brainwashed into liking. and so they increase the promotions budget, and take it out of those david bowies cd's.

* did anybody else notice that three years ago, rykodisc charged, like $8 for bowie's back catalog? then virgin bought it. they cut the bonus tracks and more than doubled the price. there's no way any production costs warrant that kind of abuse of the consumer.

--
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);} F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Asparfame · 2002-05-23 10:29 · Score: 2

I agree that both musicians and programmers deserve to be paid for their efforts. With music CDs, however, the amount of money that goes to the artist per CD is 10 to 50 cents, as stated in the Salon article. The rest, minus miniscule production costs, goes to the big friendly mega music companies we all know and hate. With a game, at least a higher percentage of the price is going to the actual creators.

If more of the cost of a CD were to go to the artist, I wouldn't complain. If the price of CDs was reduced, I wouldn't complain. If both, I would be happy.

Regarding the price difference between music and software, the reason is obvious - you need way more programmers for a game then musicians for an album. In the end, the amount of money per software CD per programmer is also around 10 cents (I'm guessing).

--
There's no reason for a sig here.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Sabotage · 2002-05-23 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't think that inherently the value of a game is greater than the value of a CD. I'm sure I have several CDs, specifically the ones currently in my car, that I've listened to WAY more than I've played any video game that I've bought, and I consider myself a pretty addicted gamer.

I might agree with your argument if you changed CD to DVD, because I know for a fact that I've only watched some of the DVDs I own once or twice, as compared to most music CDs that tend to get many, many plays. My DVDs are mostly for when friends come over and want to watch something, rather than when I want to watch something.

And music prices do go down, just go to Best Buy and find some old or unknown artist's CD that's been on shelves for a long time. I'm sure you can find things that have been marked down to move. I'm fairly confident I've seen lower prices on older stuff.
Re:Hypocritcal.... by Arandir · 2002-05-23 18:06 · Score: 2

I have to seriously disagree. There are a few games out there that have longevity, but most get old after a few months.

Questions: how many music CDs that you bought five years ago do you still listen to? How many games that you bought five years ago do you still play? To answer my own questions: I still listen to 99% of the music I have ever purchased. I don't play any games I purchased more than five years ago. (Okay, I might still play CivI and CivII if I could find them.

--
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned

Hey, c'mon... by vkg · 2002-05-23 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

although calling something free and charging five bucks for it is kinda scummy, at least these folks are punching a hole through the perception that there's something expensive about producing a CD.

15 bucks is NOT reasonable, and was the price point initially agreed upon to finance the cost to convert to the new format (i.e. from vinyl). CDs were supposed to cost about eight bucks in stores.

--
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,

Re:Hey, c'mon... by madmancarman · 2002-05-23 09:16 · Score: 2

15 bucks is NOT reasonable, and was the price point initially agreed upon to finance the cost to convert to the new format (i.e. from vinyl). CDs were supposed to cost about eight bucks in stores.
CD's came out in 1983, according to this page on the history of the CD. If you adjust for inflation, a CD that cost US$8.00 in 1983 ended up costing US$14.09 in 2001. Taking inflation alone into account (and ignoring improvements in technology, etc.), 15 bucks actually ends up being somewhat reasonable. Of course, we all know there's a lot more involved, but I just thought I should point out the effect of inflation alone.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

--
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi

price floors already pending... by sixSecondsOfDefeat · 2002-05-23 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a good idea, but the state of Nevada for instance has already made progress towards placing price floors on any "mainstream music distributions". Because of pointless legislation such as this, projects like these will never succeed.

Re:price floors already pending... by grytpype · 2002-05-23 07:04 · Score: 2

Explain?

--
- Have a picture

This probably won't make a difference by kvn299 · 2002-05-23 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative

If anything, this site might be merely a proof-of-concept, but I doubt if it's a model that will become widespread. People have been conditioned to pay $18+ for CDs and as long as the only way they can get their Britney fix is through those who have the monopoly, they'll continue paying it.

Since all the artists on the site are unknown, they'll never be able to reach much of an audience because the radio stations are the pretty much beholden to the recording industry will never play their music.

I really haven't followed up with Prince's attempts in directly selling to the consumer, but I don't recall hearing much from him lately. He might still be selling records, but who thinks he'd be as well-known as he is without generating lots of dollars for the recording industry first.

It's a cynical view, but it's hard to not to have it. I do applaud attempts to go it alone, but I can't help but think these guys will be gone this time next year.

Re:This probably won't make a difference by Erasmus+Darwin · 2002-05-23 08:19 · Score: 2

"Since all the artists on the site are unknown, they'll never be able to reach much of an audience because the radio stations are the pretty much beholden to the recording industry will never play their music."
If you read the (much more interesting) interview instead of the Salon article, you get a better picture of what everyone in the game is doing:
Artists -- They're all trying to get signed by labels. FightCloud is a means of moving toward their goals of becoming rich and/or famous, but it's not how they're finally going to get there.
FightCloud -- They want to be the step between obscurity and signing with a major record label. They even mention that they'll be a lot more attractive to artists once one of their current batch gets signed. Their business seems to be one step up from the guy in his basement burning CDs of the local garage bands. They're set up in such a way that failure only means they're own some time and effort.
So they'll never have the same sized audience as the labels, but since that's not their goal, they might just be okay.

wheres my $20 going? by ejaw5 · 2002-05-23 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

In 2000, the average suggested list price of a CD was $14.02, according to the Recording Industry Association of American (RIAA). The CD itself costs about 32 cents in a large production run, according to Michael Pardo, V.P. of sales for CD duplicator Greenwood Solutions. Add packaging and the price goes to 54 cents. Add the cut for a new artist, somewhere between 10 and 50 cents,

CD+ Packaging + artist cut == $1.36
$20 - $1.36 == 18.64 RIAA

--

$cat /dev/random > Sig

Re:wheres my $20 going? by Carbonite · 2002-05-23 07:19 · Score: 2

You'd have more money left if you stopped paying $20 for $14 CDs.

I see the $20 CD figure thrown around a lot on Slashdot. Does anyone actually pay $20 for their CDs? I don't mean a double CD set or an export, there's a reason those are more expensive. And I don't mean a $16.99 CD that you've decided to round up to $20. It usually doesn't matter what the exact price is, but when you use the mythical $20 value to determine the RIAA's profit, that's just faulty math.

--
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Re:wheres my $20 going? by DragonMagic · 2002-05-23 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Incorrect assumption.

Don't forget that CDs never get from the production company to the retail store directly through magic.

Count in distributor, wholesaler, and chain, then the shipping/trucking costs between, and you'll see that the RIAA does not get what's left after packaging, CD cost and cut to artist.

--

Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Re:wheres my $20 going? by Monkeyman334 · 2002-05-23 11:04 · Score: 2

Live's "V" album at 3 different stores had the price at $18.99. At one it was marked down from $19.99. Even at online stores it's about $19. It's not an import, and it's only 13 songs. So yes, $20 is very reasonable for the average price. Unless you want to count singles or something.

Marketing, warehousing... by jfengel · 2002-05-23 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

A CD really does cost money to produce. The reason you (well, not you necessarily, but somebody) want the Mariah Carey CD is that somebody brought it to your attention. "Attention", as everybody on the Internet knows, costs money.

Physical stores cost money: clerks, rent, utilities, inventory overhead. Some of what Fightcloud is doing just matches the Amazon model of using the Internet to reduce many of those costs. Good for them; I applaud it.

Now comes the real question: will they have any CDs worth buying? And if they do, how will you know? Most CDs are crap. Even in a general area that you like, most CDs aren't worth the plastic they're printed on, at least to you. It's the job of marketing to match you with that CD, and that's expensive to do. We'll see if $4.95 gradually becomes $9.95. Still a better price than the RIAA wants you to pay, of course.

Re:Marketing, warehousing... by Sanity · 2002-05-23 07:32 · Score: 2

"Attention", as everybody on the Internet knows, costs money.
Only if what you are promoting wouldn't have attracted attention in the first place. For example, how much money did it cost to generate the attention surrounding projects like Linux or Gnome in the early days? Obviously the answer is $0.00, those projects received attention because people were interested, not because they were hammered with adverts on television.
The record industry spends large amounts of money on promotion because it is expensive to get people to buy stuff that they otherwise wouldn't want.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by pubjames · 2002-05-23 07:45 · Score: 2

"Attention", as everybody on the Internet knows, costs money.

Now I'm so confused!

I wanted php on my web site, so I went to www.php.net and downloaded it, for free! And then I did the same for MySQL! I then I found some people had written some create scripts for dynamic web sites, and I downloaded them for free too!

Those people got my attention, which you say costs them money, and I didn't pay them anything. Now I feel bad! They must have spent millions of dollars on marketing, because virtually all web developers know about them. I must be robbing them. Although they didn't ask me for money, which is odd...

Or perhaps something else is happening here? Perhaps in the age of the internet, if you've got something really good, it practically promotes itself, at no cost? Of course this would make the record companies redunant. I guess they don't like that idea.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by pubjames · 2002-05-23 08:06 · Score: 2

Hey, get off your high horse...

I was making a point, using sarcasm.

The Zend people and the MySQL AB people have got an increadible level of global recognition - and they really haven't had to spend much money to get it. I'm sure you really don't believe that they have the recognition they have because they have spent millions on marketing them. They have the level of recognition they have because:

1) their products are great.
2) the internet.

Yes, if I download something from one of their web sites, it costs them a few cents in bandwidth fees. But that's it. A few cents. And it's a fantastic way for them to promote their products.

I think I do see the big picture, and the big picture is that it is no longer justifiable to charge $20 for a few music tracks. The internet is changing things. That was the point I was making.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-05-23 08:18 · Score: 2

One reason that that can happen is because there are VERY few SQL engines out there. It's pretty easy to show up on the radar. There are millions of bands and CDs. It takes a LOT of money to stand out. Even if the music is the greatest ever heard. How will anyone hear it against the backdrop of a billion other songs? That's right, promotion, and good promotion costs money... LOTS OF MONEY.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by Sanity · 2002-05-23 08:41 · Score: 2

So, by that logic, if it isn't "brought to your attention" then it isn't something you want.
The point is that massive amounts of marketing isn't the only way to bring things to people's attention. If something is desirable, then people will learn about it (through forums like Slashdot).
If you are justifying the record company's existance on the basis that we wouldn't be able to find the music they like unless the record industry was marketing it, then projects like Linux, or bands like the Grateful Dead would never have been brought to people's attention.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by jfengel · 2002-05-23 09:16 · Score: 2

Without a doubt, breaking the connection between the large music distributors and the radio stations will be a boon. We'll hear a lot more music. It won't necessarily be better music, but at least it won't be the same thing.

Unfortunately, that's still not great marketing for the smaller companies. Hearing a song once on the radio isn't going to get you a big following. It might get you a small one, and it might actually get people to the web site to hear those sample tracks in the first place.

The sample tracks alone aren't enough. There are thousands of sample tracks, and most people simply won't listen to any of them. You get your first glimpse of a band in a club, or over the air, or in a poster in a music store. Getting that first play or that poster in the music store is the tricky part.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by rhavyn · 2002-05-23 10:29 · Score: 2

PHP and Mysql were both extremely well known before Zend and MySQL AB existed. As were Linux, Gnome, KDE, Apache, Bind, Sendmail, etc, etc, get the point yet, etc.

Not only are you cynical, but apparently, your big picture is rather small in the grand scheme of things.
Re:Marketing, warehousing... by rhavyn · 2002-05-23 10:31 · Score: 2

And yet oddly enough, some of the biggest bands ever came from word of mouth. Bands like the Greatful Dead and Phish all became extremely famous and they did it with next to no advertising. Phish was filling $7500 seat arenas before they had the money to do more then put up a flyer in their dorm room.

I just don't get it by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · 2002-05-23 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm a twenty-something programmer/analyst. I have a DSL line. I don't pirate movies or music or pc games or video games. I, like most people, like to pay for things, including the things I could get for free. For better or worse, we are all consumers and just because we can download things for free doesn't mean we do.

Why bother with the copy protection crap? If I want to pirate a game protected by safe disc, I will, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it since I am just one person out of millions.

Why not save the money? Honestly, the only thing I have pirated in the last year was Windows XP - I paid for Windows 98 and I just consider it an upgrade to a working copy. That and paying for it would have meant registering. I may just buy it and stick the shrink wrapped copy on the shelf.

I would rather see the money spent on more content than some stupid scheme to stop me from ripping a cd that doesn't even work. It doesn't stop the poor pirates and it doesn't stop the rich pirates. It doesn't stop me from making legit backups when I want. So why bother?

--
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.

Re:I just don't get it by CaffeineAddict2001 · 2002-05-23 07:28 · Score: 2

Honestly, the only thing I have pirated in the last year was Windows XP - I paid for Windows 98 and I just consider it an upgrade to a working copy.
Too bad my car dealer doesn't follow this logic. =(

FightCloud.com by maniac11 · 2002-05-23 07:05 · Score: 2

It's a good idea... we all know that CDs are overpriced. I try to buy music direct from the artist... they generally get a much higher cut and the prices are generally much better.

It's too bad that FightCloud doesn't have a better selection...

--
Guvegrra?

Best Value? by giantsfan89 · 2002-05-23 07:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

"If you compare the CD to other entertainment, it's one of the best values out there."

Hmm lets say we use an entertainment piece 100 times...

DVDs $ 20/100 = $ .20 CDs $ 15/100 = $ .15 Computer $1500/100 = $15.00 MP3s $ /100 = $ .00 (AKA KaZaA) Slashdot $.50/100 = $ .005 (half a cent)

Hmmm so looks like Slashdot's $5/1000 deal isn't too bad for non-banner ad pages!

--
Don't ping my cheese with your bandwidth!

Born Free (plus shipping) by donnacha · 2002-05-23 07:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

From the Salon article:

Scalfani sells CDs for free. That is, if you don't count the $4.95 "shipping" charge

So, if I turn up at their offices in person, with a box, these CDs really will be free. As in free.

If I were the word free, I'd be feeling pretty raw and abused these days.

Re:Born Free (plus shipping) by flathead_iv · 2002-05-23 08:23 · Score: 2, Funny

From the Salon article:
Scalfani sells CDs for free. That is, if you don't count the $4.95 "shipping" charge
So, if I turn up at their offices in person, with a box, these CDs really will be free. As in free.
If I were the word free, I'd be feeling pretty raw and abused these days.
You forgot about the handling. Unless the CDs are handled right...loved and nourished...played with...they just aren't worth it.
You can't put a price on love...well maybe $4.95
Flathead

Bitching and moaning about the price of CD's by squarooticus · 2002-05-23 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I do it too. Every time I go to Newbury Comics, it seems those bastards have upped the price of CD's.

But bitching about it doesn't really do anything. The CD producers can charge whatever price they think the market will bear. Some people actually buy CD's at stores like Sam Greedy and Record Frown, both of which seem to sell everything at MSRP (about $19 now), so it's obvious people are willing to pay.

My answer? I simply buy fewer CD's: at $10 I'll buy almost anything, at $13 I'll buy most stuff, but at $15+ I'll only buy what I really want. The rest of it just isn't worth that price.

However, just because I think they can charge whatever they want doesn't also mean they get to dictate terms. If they want a limited-time monopoly on distributing their recordings, they have to fulfill their side of the copyright bargain, which IMO means that they have to make it easy for me to exercise my fair use rights. It isn't enough simply not to prosecute me for attempting to exercise those rights, such as space-shifting (ripping to .ogg, making a copy for the car, etc.) and time-shifting (taping stuff off the radio to play later); they should not even be able to make it difficult to perform such tasks. This means that copyright should not apply to recordings with fair use interference measures/anti-free trade measures (collectively and inaccurately known as "copy protection").

Go sign the Digital Consumer Bill of Rights and stand up for preservation of your fair use rights. Call your Congressmen. Donate to Rick Boucher and let him know why. Join the EFF. (And if all else fails, join the NRA, buy a handgun, and get ready to defend your liberties with force.) Stop simply complaining, and do something about it.

--
[ home ]

bizness 101... by L.+VeGas · 2002-05-23 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

...tells you to sell the product at the price at which you will make the most money. Let's assume $4 per unit production cost. If one million people are willing to buy your product at $14 each, you make 10 million dollars. If only twice that many people are willing to buy it at $8 each, you only make 8 million. I'd be an idiot not to price my product at $14.

--
Best Windows Freeware

Re:bizness 101... by Peyna · 2002-05-23 07:11 · Score: 2

Good point, but your math is flawed. If 2 million people buy my product at $8 that's 16 million, which is more than 10 million. I doubt sales would double, but yes, many people are willing to pay $15-20 for a music cd. Same thing with gas prices, we are willing to pay whatever it takes to drive our car, even if it means we're being screwed. Why? Because we see being able to drive our car at all more important than the fact that we're being totally screwed by major corporations. Selfishness is the problem here.

--
What?
Re:bizness 101... by Restil · 2002-05-23 07:19 · Score: 2

You didn't do the math correctly.

Its $16 million in revenue, true. But at the $4 production cost he quoted per CD, at 2 million cd's, thats $8 million, so you end up with $8 profit.

Granted, it probably doesn't cost $4 per CD to produce it, but for the purposes of the problem stated, it fits.

Now, the obvious solution here would be to reduce the per unit cost of each CD. Cutting out the middlemen would help significantly.

-Restil

--
Play with my webcams and lights here
Re:bizness 101... by puppetman · 2002-05-23 08:39 · Score: 2

You need to go back to economics class (quick, stop reading Slashdot).

The law of diminishing returns states that, for non-essentials, as the price goes up, sales go down. So you might sell 2 million at $4, but price it to $14, and you might only sell 50,000. The idea is to find the optimum point where you maximize your return. Competition obviously isn't factored into that, but the less competition you have, the more closely you can follow the rule.

Electronic? by version5 · 2002-05-23 07:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Whenever I see music retailers ignore electronic music, I conclude that they must be horribly out of touch.

But the good news is that they are championing the oft-overlooked Christmas music genre. In May, for some reason.

--

"It's Dot Com!"

Got a problem with non-free music? by fugue · 2002-05-23 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

In music, just as in software, you can't complain that other people are trying to make money off what they do. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay for music, go and make some music! Distribute it for free. Put it under the EFF OAL or something. Whatever works.

There's certainly a place for professionals in music (questions about how well the current payment system works aside), but music should also be an amateur (look it up) endeavour. If you have a day job, then share what you create!

Finding my recording of the Brahms Requiem is left as an exercise for the reader.

--
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

Re:"Free"? by viking099 · 2002-05-23 07:16 · Score: 2

The $1.26 is the "shipping" part.
The rest is "handling"
This part includes the recording, burning, packing, and getting it in the mail.

Not a bad deal if you like the music you buy...:-)

Re:"Free"? by OwnedByTwoCats · 2002-05-23 07:17 · Score: 4, Informative

The blank CD-R, the case, and the mailing label. Paying someone to put the blank in the burner, take the blank out (and label it?), putting it into a jewel case, putting the jewel case into an envelope, and putting a label on it.

Capital costs on the CD burner and the Hard Drive to store the master on. Paying someone to "upload" the tracks onto the server.

I'm impressed. The artists get more per disk than with a major label. Customers get more music per dollar. If they can keep their costs down and remain an ongoing, growing concern, we're all better off.

Bad marketing choice by proxima · 2002-05-23 07:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

People hate hearing "free" when it means $4.95 shipping for something that's cheap to make and ship.

Instead, they should've said that the CDs were $4.95 with free shipping. Then we wouldn't feel like we're being lured in by "free", it'd just be a good deal.

It's just wording, I know, but it makes or breaks this company's "image".

--
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan

Re:"Free"? by Tazzy531 · 2002-05-23 07:21 · Score: 2

If you read the article, you'd read that $2.64 is profit. So "free" is rather $2.64. They do this a lot on TV products.

--

_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."

all publishers are greedy! by primus_sucks · 2002-05-23 07:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

As a former game programmer I can tell you that it's very similar to the record industry. Normally in video game development you have a publisher, a development studio, and programmers/artists that work for the game studio. The publisher gets most of the money, then the game studio, then the programmers/artists get crap. In my experience game programmers make much less and work longer hours than people in other industries. Though game programming is much more challenging and fun!

Re:all publishers are greedy! by doubtless · 2002-05-23 12:49 · Score: 2

I totally agree with your point. Also, there are many artists that get famous and rich (alot of others get screwed though), but how often do you hear Joe the programmer who led the production of Quake 3 just made $5 million bucks?

Think about it.

--
geek page at KY speaks

Math by nuggz · 2002-05-23 07:25 · Score: 2

($14 sale price - $4 cost) * 1 million sales = $10 million profit.

($8 sale price - $4 cost) * 2 millon sales = $8 million profit

His math isn't flawed. you forgot to subtract the cost.
I'd like to add
($20 sale price - $4 cost) * 0.5 millon sales = $8 million profit

The idea is at a certain point, you get maximum total profit. I think CD prices are pretty close to it. People buy lots of CD's at their current price. If they raised the price significantly I think there would be a substantial drop in sales. If they lowered their price somewhat (representing a larger decrease in net profit) their sales would not increase all that much, I know I wouldn't run out and buy most of the crap out there at any price.

Re:Finally someone gets it by Junks+Jerzey · 2002-05-23 07:31 · Score: 2

Now, if only the artists would break away totally from the record labels, everything would be great.

Great. And then most of the bands you love you would never have even heard of.

Apples and oranges by smallpaul · 2002-05-23 07:32 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't want to defend the RIAA but comparing these guys to a label is apples and oranges. Presumably in most or at least many cases, the label pays the studio costs and marketing costs. Think of how many $2.64 CDs an artist will have to sell to make the cost of the studio time, any hired musicians, marketing materials etc. The artists cannot even be breaking even unless they record in their homes using SoundBlasters.

Re:Apples and oranges by autechre · 2002-05-23 07:45 · Score: 3, Informative

The linear notes for Nirvana's "Bleach" say that it was recorded for $400. Personally, it sounds pretty good to me; you can do a lot with a little equipment and a lot of knowledge and time. Many recording majors I know (at UMBC) use their studio project time to record their band. That means it cost them _nothing_, and they got to use some damn nice equipment. Plus, if they ever go back and decide the sound could use improvement, they've got the masters, and can go for it.

The Mountain Goat's "All Hail West Texas" is one singer/guitarist recorded on a _defective_ Marantz, which produces an interesting effect. The album is amazing, and it probably cost nothing to record; the value is in the songs.

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Re:Apples and oranges by ferat · 2002-05-23 09:15 · Score: 2, Informative

This isn't entirely true. Sure, the label pays the studio costs and marketing costs up front, but they bill the artist for it all.

From fightcloud, the artist gets $1 (or whatever) for selling the CD, and from that they pay for the studio and marketing and hopefully make a profit some day.

From the "normal" labels, the artist gets $.10 to $.50 per cd sold (from the article), and from that gets to pay the label back for cd production, studio costs, and marketing.

So, basically, here the artist gets twice as much, and has to pay for 2 of the 3 costs of production (studio/marketing), with the labels, they get less money and have to pay for everything. Read Courtney Love's article sometime. She claims that unless many, many cds are sold, the artist ends up owing the label a lot of money.
Re:Apples and oranges by linuxpng · 2002-05-23 11:49 · Score: 2

The funny part is that their follow-up album, Nevermind, was the one that actually made money and cost a reported $60,000 in studio time. The old addage is true, you need to spend money to make money.

Here's a completely unpopular viewpoint, do you want other members of /. deciding what you think you should make? Don't most people strive to make the most that the market will give them? Why should anyone on slashdot say what artists/labels/musicians should make on music? If you feel it's too much money, do what a potential employer would do to a high price would-be employee... move along and don't put the money in the product. Simple.

RIAA and Advertisers. by teamhasnoi · 2002-05-23 07:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's the beautiful thing.

The RIAA finds some girl w/ boobies. Some dude in Nashville writes her a song. Some guy in NYC comes up with a marketing campaign. Someone in Chicago stocks the shelves. Some dumb-ass pays $15+ for a manufactured image. THE MUSIC IS INCIDENTAL! This 'artist' doesn't write her own music. Doesn't come up with her own dance moves. Does not even dress herself. And people buy this. Alot of this. And I'm supposed to let advertisers interfere with my abillity to skip commercials when it's _this_ obvious that advertising and marketing works?

Lowest common denominator entertainment.

I wish the Lone Gunmen were here. *sniff*

Re:RIAA and Advertisers. by SomeoneYouDontKnow · 2002-05-23 10:54 · Score: 2

Amen!

I wonder how long it'll be before CG technology gets good enough that some record label will decide to have an entirely artificial "artist" or "band". Imagine the savings. No studio time, no royalties, no contract disputes, just the cost of someone to manipulate the images and sounds. Just plug in the lyrics, and off you go. I realize that these costs will be high at first, but as the technology advances, I'm sure it will come down.

It's true that these artificial creations won't be able to give truly live concerts, but the record company could get by with using a giant projection screen in a venue. All they'd have to do is vary the programming a little for each show in order to customize it.

I can't wait to see this happen. Can you imagine all the stupid little teenage groupies rushing out to buy the latest album from...um...let's see...The DigiBoyz?

--
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Re:RIAA and Advertisers. by linuxpng · 2002-05-23 11:52 · Score: 2

It's simple supply and demand really. If you don't demand (or someone didn't) they wouldn't supply it. The music doesn't need to be to your taste to sell it. Seems /. is on a crusade to change society's views. It's going to take something better than bitching on a web site to get people interested in music, as in, the art form.
Re:RIAA and Advertisers. by teamhasnoi · 2002-05-24 04:27 · Score: 2

I think that the job of marketeers is to reverse supply and demand. They supply a 'product', then talk you into demanding it. Who exactly was demanding Tablet PCs three years ago? If you look around, there are many examples of hype and the poor sap who falls for it every time.

Re:Hey, credit where it is due! by Erasmus+Darwin · 2002-05-23 07:34 · Score: 2

"at least these folks are punching a hole through the perception that there's something expensive about producing a CD."

That depends on what you mean by "producing a CD". We've established that the company can cheaply produce physical CDs, but anyone with a CD burner knows how cheap that is.

As far as producing the contents of the CDs goes, this company doesn't seem to be involved in that. In the interview, they explain that they aren't a label (and have no contractual hold over the arists), but that they're instead a "promotional distribution company". So it sounds like the reason it's not expensive is because the artists are covering the music production expenses in exchange for exposure and royalties. That also means the artists would be carrying the risk, without the record label acting as something like a cut-throat venture capitalist.

Furthermore, different levels of music production require different degrees of expense. A single folk singer with a guitar recording on borrowed equipment will cost less than a full band in a regular studio. If most people are just as happy with the less expensive alternatives, then indie music wins. If not, then the idea of mainstream music continues.

Anyway, I think they're doing something nifty and I'm all for legal music distribution methods outside the RIAA's domain, but I don't think it's the amazing proof of RIAA's over-inflated pricing that you're making it out to be.

Re:Finally someone gets it by thesolo · 2002-05-23 07:35 · Score: 2

Great. And then most of the bands you love you would never have even heard of.

Apparently you're under the assumption that all of us need the labels to hear about new music we are interested in!

For me personally, not a single band that I listen to gets radio play around here (or in general!), and yet they have quite a fanbase, and several CDs. I find out about bands by going to concerts/shows and by borrowing CDs from friends. Labels are totally unnecessary in this equation; at least one quarter of the bands I listen to are self-produced and unsigned anyway.

Time to raise the price to fight /. by Sabalon · 2002-05-23 07:38 · Score: 2

Well...their bandwidth and servers aren't free, and looks like they'll need more:

modules/ui/mmui.mv: Line 4120: MvDO: Runtime Error: Error opening '/Merchant2/footer.htm': Too many open files in system

Re:"Free"? by cecil36 · 2002-05-23 07:38 · Score: 2

Sounds like their business model will be very stable should the idea catch on. When all the popular artists start losing money because the general public who normally listens to their music on the radio or on personally owned media switch, they will be begging the RIAA to be released from their contracts. Otherwise, they will perform and spend the rest of their lives on the streets somewhere.

Re:I guess the question to ask is.... by Binky+The+Oracle · 2002-05-23 07:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Assimilation would be the better of the two choices, although I don't think they'll do that either.

The majors have become less and less interested in artist development, and more and more interested in risk management. You need someone to wade through all the crap, and believe me, there's a whole lot of crap out there.

Labels are banks that loan money at really high interest rates. The benefit to the artist is that if you default on the loan (walk away from the deal or get dropped) there's not really any financial penalty - the label has taken all of the financial risk. You probably won't ever get another deal on any major, but you don't owe anybody any money. They've given you money in return for you signing away your copyrights, name, likeness, etc. For some people this is a good deal.

Unless you've been groomed by the Disney machine for stardom, you can't really even get a foot in the door unless you've already self-released at least one or two CDs, have an established fan base, and are more or less self-sufficient. An independent artist who has achieved this doesn't really need a label deal anymore unless they want a more widespread audience/fame and are willing to take a paycut (for 90% of them anyway) to get it.

So if there's a company willing to wade through the crap and can provide the labels with some hard numbers on sales, it makes the label's job that much easier and less risky. It also provides talented independents with a potentially good source of exposure and distribution which is, after the creation of quality works, probably the hardest part of any artist's job.

Remember that the majors no longer as interested in long-term sales as in increasing quarterly profits - they have stockholders and parent companies to keep happy, and let's face it - the majority of the top selling music today is disposable. There are a few standout tracks that might be popular 10 years from now, but those are getting fewer and farther between.

Assuming that this company can stay afloat, I think the majors will treat it as a semi-weeded flower bed. I know for a fact that mp3.com is surfed by several major A&R reps - think how happy they'll be if they can deal with a company that actually has some quality control going on.

--

Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

Not Free as in . . . anything . . . by stienman · 2002-05-23 07:51 · Score: 2

These CDs are not free, nor is the music free. You can market them as free, but those taglines fall quickly on their face when you see that you can't download the music without charge (or even with a charge, for that matter).

Essentially this is a distribution company, and they charge huge rates to send you a 'free' CD. I can get better shipping rates through any major (or minor) carrier, and even most couriers.

Here's their business plan:

Make no useful product
Obtain 'free' product from elsewhere
Advertise shipping service for 'free' product
Outsource shipping

This doesn't punch a hole in anything, much less the RIAA's theory about the CD price fixing being necessary. All this shows is that someone can set up a virtual company giving product away and making money on the shipping - which all too many internet companies failed at a year or two ago.

Here's the bottom line - you can give away garbage, and you can sell wanted products, but you can't sell garbage and expect to survive off it. If they think that they are going to make enough money on this gimmick to grow their business and become a heavyweight player, well, best of luck. But remember MP3.com isn't so hot these days, their artists aren't so hot, and they're giving away their music with the added benefit of instant gratification.

FightCloud - if you really want to appeal to people, don't call a donkey a horse. We are intelligent consumers. If we're given an reasonable choice, we'll make a reasonable decision. The RIAA markets their products to the stupid and weak. We have to eat it because that's all there is for many good groups (who can't or won't free themselves of the RIAA's lies). Tell us that your CDs cost $2.50 each and that S&H is $2.50 for the first CD and $0.50 for each additional CD in each shipment.

But then, your business would fail, wouldn't it?

-Adam

The point of by Asprin · 2002-05-23 07:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is an absolutely, completely, totally ---[R0XX0RZ]--- Salon article. Why - because of outstanding analysis and information therein about RIAA price gouging? No. Because even though *we* are all aware of the problems with the RIAA's anti-p2p, pro-DRM positions, my wife isn't.

This article explains to HER that:

&gt $16 of the $18 she's spends on a CD is record company profit.

Prices on CDs should be going down, not up.

A $5 CD sold direct to the consumer makes almost double the profit for the artist.

The positions of the RIAA on P2P and DRM are likely motivated by greed, not survival.
In my view, it's a LOT more important *where* this article is than *what* it actually says.

I'd love to see a big name (Madonna, U2, N'Sync, etc.) use the net to direct-market a low cost original CD just to confirm for everyone that the RIAA is obsolete. Likely, however, it'll go the other way - one of these 'unknowns' is going to hit it big and promote the hell out of this approach.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie

Re:The point of by linuxpng · 2002-05-23 11:54 · Score: 2

Ok, so why are most of the BIG guys not doing it? Because they make exceptional money. I don't understand why anyone would change a system that is still making them money. It's commonly acknowledged on /. that the RIAA/labels are making more and more money. Why in God's name would they change?
Re:The point of by Asprin · 2002-05-23 13:41 · Score: 2

Ok, so why are most of the BIG guys not doing it? Because they make exceptional money....

Oh, you're absolutely right - none of these people are going to make a move before they have to. At the very least, their agents will see to that. If I were U2, however, I'd have to wonder if getting $2 per CD (I expect their royalty is higher than average) is better than the $5 per CD i could make selling them from a web site for $10. At the very least, I'd run the numbers and try it out - maybe on a special release EP or throwaway "greatest hits live" to see what happens.

I mean, if it didn't work, they could tell everyone it sucked and go right back to selling CDs the old way, right?

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Re:The point of by Asprin · 2002-05-23 13:46 · Score: 2

Ok, Ok, you got me. Touche'.

/. needs a 'nitpick' filter (like the repetitive garbage character filter) to block out embarrasing ommissions such as this before they get out of hand.

--
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie

The industry makes me so mad because I want to be by dinotrac · 2002-05-23 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

The thing, I think, that makes me maddest about the record industry is that I want to be sympathetic. I really do.

I understand that hiring the best engineers and studio musicians cost money
Honest, I understand that.

I understand that promoting new acts entails risk and that established acts help to buffer that.

I understand that marketing and distribution cost money.

I don't begrudge somebody turning an honest dollar doing all this stuff. Not one bit.

But $18.99 per CD?
Can you say exploitation?

$18.99 per CD then trying to make it so that I can't play it on my pc?
Can you say outrage?

$18.99 per CD to help you lobby to take away my rights with a little help from your friends Hollings and Feinstein?
Can you say I don't need your stinkin' CDs?

When you want to make an honest dollar, I may stop back by the store.

don't forget shipping ,marketing and sales by shawnmelliott · 2002-05-23 08:10 · Score: 2

I'm not sure what the cost is ( and I don't really think it's alot ) but the equation is better stated as this

CD+ Packaging + artist cut + marketing + shipping == ????

Follow the Money by bedessen · 2002-05-23 08:12 · Score: 2, Informative

There is an article on Electronic Musician called Follow the Money: Who's Really Making the Dough? that breaks down exactly where that $18 goes and how the system works. (In case anyone's interested in facts and not speculation.)

Re:Follow the Money by bedessen · 2002-05-23 11:19 · Score: 2

Excuse the skepticism, but $1 to $2.25 a CD, just to press it!?

The link listed that figure for the total cost to press the CD and ship it to the stores. Sure the raw materials and actual pressing are cheap, but you have to factor in some money to also print the liner notes, assemble the product in the case, shrinkwrap, box, inventory, and warehouse it, then ship it to the stores. I would say a buck or two sounds about right to do all that.

Re:Crap by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-05-23 08:13 · Score: 2

It's true and it has nothing to do with "Enron accounting" forward or reverse. A lot of money is put into each CD. But the truth is NO ONE knowns WHICH cd will make tons of money and which ones will tank! (Well there are odds, but billion $ cds come out of nowhere all the time and frequently Sure bvets fail miserably) So they have to market them all so that 1 in 10 actually ends up selling.

Music companies are in the buisness to make money off of music. Why is that so hard to understand or accept? Music is only slightly less of a gamble than... well gambling!

If you are actually interested, then go read a bit more about it. Buy a book on how the music industry actually works. Then come back and make an informed post.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Jack Scalfani is an idiot by puppetman · 2002-05-23 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

On the Web Log (lot 49), he said, "Here is the biggest mistake of them all: two good songs on a CD. How many times do we have that? Remember that girl who sang "Where Have All the Cowboys Gone"? Vaguely. She was a kind of folksy singer. That was the only good song on that CD."

That was Paula Cole, and for that albumn she got nominations for Best New Artist, Best Album of the Year, Best Pop Albumn, Record of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, and Producer of the Year.

If this guy didn't know that, how would you feel about his business acumen? And if his musical taste is that bad (Paula Cole's This Fire is one of my top 10 CDs of all time), then I don't want to listen to what ever else he's selling (Kid Rock ripoffs?).

Re:Jack Scalfani is an idiot by puppetman · 2002-05-23 08:31 · Score: 2

I wish I could spell "album" consistently.

That was Grammy nominations, not nominations by the fat guy named Ned who lives down the block (though both are of dubious value, I believe).
Re:Jack Scalfani is an idiot by puppetman · 2002-05-24 07:46 · Score: 2

My point wasn't about taste in music (that was an aside). My point was that she had more than one hit, her album sold very well, and she got great critical aclaim for an album where she wrote all the songs, and produced it.

If you're starting a company that will sell CDs to consumers, you need to know the going-ons of the music business, and this guy doesn't.

And I'm not a big Paula Cole fan - I don't like her two other CDs.

Having looked at the site... by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-05-23 08:29 · Score: 2

It does not appear that they actually manufacture the CDs for the artists. It looks like the artists have to ship them the CDs to sell. So the artist makes $1 and some change on the CDs that FightCloud sells, meanwhile the making of the CDs costs roughly twice that for small run "Professional packages". Not to mention the money the artist has to spend on their own promotion.

Doesn't sound like anyone is making any money other than fight cloud. Yet again. The artist is always the last to make any money at all!

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Re:The industry makes me so mad because I want to by puppetman · 2002-05-23 08:35 · Score: 2

Dennis Miller said,

"Considering how badly you get fucked every time you go into a record store, I have to assume Richard Branson was trying to be ironic when he named the place Virgin."

No contest by Wraithlyn · 2002-05-23 08:38 · Score: 2

Give me a break. Producing a moden video game is waaaaay more complicated and difficult than recording an hour of audio.

Most games have a complete soundtrack as one small part of the entire game.

I could go bury myself in my room for a week (probably less), and come out with an audio CD of original music. Yeah, it would probably be crap, but the point is I could do it.

I could not write a modern computer game in that time period, not even a crappy one like, say, Daikatana. Not even close. Nobody could. Quality computer games these days take dozens of extremely high skilled people working for years. You get exceptions like Tetris, but those are increasingly rare these days. The days of Pac Man and Space Invaders are long gone.

Some legendary music albums have been written and cut in the space of a few weeks. Producing music isn't all that time consuming. Inspiration is the hard part.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson

Re:$18/CD? A Big Whoop De Doo by Hoi+Polloi · 2002-05-23 08:39 · Score: 2

They must be the same people paying $200+ to see concerts.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning

Read the full interview! by bughunter · 2002-05-23 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Didn't anyone read the full interview on Lot 49? It appears to me no one has. I don't know why the whole thing isn't on Salon, it's great stuff.

Scalfani makes some excellent observations, predictions, and explains his business model fully. He carefully selects the artists he features on Fightcloud.

I expected this to generate some insightful, intelligent commentary here on Slashdot, but all I found was kneejerk whining about shipping and handling and the number of artists on the site.

Damn, I'm really disappointed in you all. Go read the full interview.

--
I can see the fnords!

The Big Difference by irix · 2002-05-23 08:46 · Score: 5, Informative

You can charge whatever the market will bear. So, game producers charge $50 (at least for a few months) for a new game.

How is that different from CDs? Well, the game producers didn't have to settle with the FTC because they were conspiring to inflate the price of CDs. Retailers wanted to sell them cheaper, but the middle-men wouldn't let them!

Even with the antitrust allegations settled, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of crap still goes on. The RIAA members are effectively a monopoly on the music industry. As a result, the market isn't dictating what price a CD will go for, they are.

--

Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.

Re:"Free"? by Tazzy531 · 2002-05-23 08:47 · Score: 2

It's all about "marketing"...

--

_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."

Price=Willingness to pay by VEGx · 2002-05-23 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. Price != Cost

1.1. Price != Variable Cost

1.2. Price != Fixed Cost

2. Price != Value

PRICE = WILLINGNESS TO PAY

It's WHO you're paying that is the problem... by telstar · 2002-05-23 08:54 · Score: 3

Musicians put in tons of effort to create a CD.

Yup ... and what do they get for it? Maybe 50 cents of that $15.00.

Why do we want pop stars who dress themselves? by PsiPsiStar · 2002-05-23 08:59 · Score: 2

Hell, the less they dress themselves, the better I say.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.

Thomas Pynchon's _Crying of Lot 49_ by scubacuda · 2002-05-23 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Lot49.com is an interesting tribute to Thomas Pynchon's Crying of Lot 49 , an intersting exploration of life in CA. (My favorite part is the name of one of the bands--Sick Dick and the Volkwagens)

For those interesting in a real headtrip, try to plow your way through Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow.

Pynchon is an interesting hermit. He didn't accept his award for Gravity's Rainbow.

Instead, he sent Irwin Corey.

(BTW, You'll enjoy GR a lot more if you read it with a companion.)

The high cost of cds by Hoi+Polloi · 2002-05-23 09:03 · Score: 2

Here is what the cost of cd's has done to me:

1. Listening to my collection a lot more
2. Put off indefinitely buying anything new
3. If I do buy anything I am VERY picky, it is never an impulse buy

If they keep upping the price of cds they'll have to start marketing them like cars.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning

Done Already, but they're copy-protected by WillSeattle · 2002-05-23 09:19 · Score: 2

Your examples of BMG and Columbia ignore the fact that BMG is selling defective non-CDs (since they can't carry the CD logo) which only play in my home music devices (aka an iMac and my DVD/CD/CD-R/CD-RW player) when I use the Magic Green Sharpie on the data track.

That's not free.

--
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?

Just a data point on recording expenses.. by richieb · 2002-05-23 09:19 · Score: 2

I recently read the book "Kind of Blue" which is about the recording sessions for the Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" album (this album is a modern jazz classis, still selling after 40 plus years).

Anyways, the album was recorded in two three hour sessions at a NY studio. Each cut on the album is the first complete take (i.e. one without stupid mistakes).

How much does six hours in a recording studio cost?

--
...richie - It is a good day to code.

Re:Just a data point on recording expenses.. by jedrek · 2002-05-24 00:40 · Score: 2

How muc does genius that allows you to record an album in 2 three hours sessions?

Next thing you know, somebody will be bitching that Picasso's pencils only cost a couple cents a pop.

look a little harder. by gimpboy · 2002-05-23 09:33 · Score: 2

i would say it is a little different. i dont believe artists have to use fightclout exclusively. so just because they sell them on fightcloud they can also sell them elsewhere. fightcloud provides alot of the technical services associated with selling stuff on the web. this way an artist can point people to fightcloud when they ask about more info on buying their stuff at shows.

the most important difference, i believe, is that the artists retain the rights to their works. with a normal label artists sign those over so they no longer own their creations.

i'm just as cynical as the next guy, but i think you're selling this one short.

--
-- john

i just tried to buy a cd... by gimpboy · 2002-05-23 09:41 · Score: 2

and it pushed me to two forms. the first was my name address etc. the second had shipping options and a payment type selection both in pulldown boxes. the first box was $4 whatever but the pulldown box for payment type was empty. i tried pressing continue, but it pushed me to a formless page. it appears that the page is broken. i'll email them, but i was wondering if there was anyone else with similar expirences?

--
-- john

BULL CRAP, by Archfeld · 2002-05-23 09:55 · Score: 2

so why does a tape cost half the friggen price ???
Give me a break there is NO WAY to justify the additional cost of a CD vs tape BUT gross profiteering. Stop trying to make lame excuses for greedy ass record execs unless you are one then I could at least understand, all the while hating your leech like existence. Pls heed your own advice and smell the coffee, do some research and then spout...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Re:CDs are a good value! ROFL by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-05-23 10:31 · Score: 2

(As long as we are armchair philosophizing)

And, movies are "used" once or twice whereas cds are generally "used" dozens of times. Therefore the "usefulness" of the CD is probably much higher. It should cost several times what a DVD costs!

Isn't rationalization great! You can say anything in the total absence of facts! :)

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

Re:Finally someone gets it by Junks+Jerzey · 2002-05-23 10:36 · Score: 2

Labels are totally unnecessary in this equation; at least one quarter of the bands I listen to are self-produced and unsigned anyway.

Which means that 3/4 of them are not. Selling music by yourself is a tough gig. If a band can get financial support from a label, then that lets them devote time to touring and recording. It's much better than having to do it on the side while holding down a full-time job. You make very little money selling your own music and playing local venues.

Re:Having read the interview... by TheAwfulTruth · 2002-05-23 10:37 · Score: 2

Ah, that wasn't apparent from looking at the site. Course I could burn my own cds of my music and sell them for free and $4.95 shipping cost and I don't have to split the cost with anyone! All this while using one or more of the free or almost free OMD sites. And I'd love to see a sample of the work. I've been involved with other OMDs with CD sales and for about 5-6 bucks a pop you can get a piece of quality work. But what they must be shipping out for the 50 cents or so they're spending on CD creation, it's going to be pretty sad.

And the funny thing is that will only take on professional grade work. Well for those people that are professionals there are many many more options. This would be better suited to the garage band types.

--
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!

what I like about this concept by happyclam · 2002-05-23 10:46 · Score: 2

What I like about the fightcloud concept (that really is a terrible name) is that they look like they'll be rotating their artists and offerings fairly often.

All their pages say "limited time" on them. If they do it right, they'll act as an extremely good initial promotional vehicle for low-profile artists, and they'll offer the public an editorially filtered view into the "morass" of new artists.

This way, they'll always have fresh material, and not much to browse through. That's a site I would check regularly and would patronize often, if they had stuff I liked to listen to.

--
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."

Useful tool for calculating a musicians "payout" by the_Upsetter · 2002-05-23 10:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The Royalty Calculator ...

An amazing look at the way the recording industry stiffs its artists.

--
the most mysterious thing you'll see today

It's a sales tax scam by JoeBuck · 2002-05-23 11:00 · Score: 2

By calling the 4.95 "shipping and handling" they don't have to pay sales tax.

Re:Finally someone gets it by Fat+Casper · 2002-05-23 11:01 · Score: 2

Great. And then most of the bands you love you would never have even heard of.

Neither would any of the bands I hate. That's a s/n ratio I'll happily lose some good bands for. I'll probably end up hearing the good ones anyway, plus a lot of other really good ones that aren't getting heard by anyone right now.

--
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.

Re:The industry makes me so mad because I want to by Alsee · 2002-05-23 11:20 · Score: 2

You know, you can walk right back out of that record store empty handed if the price is too high...

Each person that walks out because they decide the product is overpriced just adds to their "proof" that the internet is killing them.

They oughtta triple the price of CD's - about $49.95.

RIAA claims piracy losses of $300 million per year. Tripling the cost of CD's would triple those losses to $1.2 billion. Current US Music industry is $6 billion. Tripling prices would raise that to $18 billion. The resulting 93% drop in sales would leave $1.2 billion in revenues and imply $16.8 billion in piracy. $1.2 billion + $16.8 billion = $18 billion in piracy. That should be enough to justify passing the CBDTPA in order to wipe out rampant piracy.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

Re:Explain Me This: by forkboy · 2002-05-23 11:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because it's been said 6.02x10^23 times before....copyright violation is not stealing. If you pirate a CD, it doesn't mean the publisher/artist does not have it anymore. If you walk into someone's house and take the CD from their player and leave, THAT is stealing.

Copyright violation is not a criminal offense, it is a civil offense. Do you understand the difference?

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.

thanks by streetlawyer · 2002-05-23 18:45 · Score: 2

Thanks. You seem to be remarkably well-informed about the music industry, so perhaps you can help me with this question:

If the record companies have such incredibly favourable deals with the producers of their product, why don't they actually make all that much money?

--

-- the most controversial site on the Web

Re:thanks by jaoswald · 2002-05-28 04:48 · Score: 2

streetlawyer chose not to respond, but a few minutes with Google yielded the following information about EMI Recorded Music's 2001 results:

EMI Recorded Music: 2001

Sales 2282 million UKP
Operating Profit: 227.5 million UKP
I.e. 10% operating margin

That doesn't seem outstanding to me.

Unfortunately, I can't find my previous slashdot posts indicating Microsoft's operating margin for comparison, but it is much higher.

Re:Explain Me This: by tdye · 2002-05-24 03:34 · Score: 2

First, copyright doesn't grant you the ability to prevent people from sharing your work... it only grants you a remedy if somebody is making money (or causing you to lose money) from your work. It's not illegal to make a tape of a CD. It's not illegal to give that tape to your friend. It's only illegal if you make 100,000 tapes and sell them. You only get to stop someone from making more copies if you can show (like the RIAA managed to do with Napster) that the only reason for the copying system's existance is to make illegal copies and profit from them. That's why your dual-cassette deck isn't illegal, and why VCR's aren't illegal. If Napster's lawyers had been able to demonstrate 'substantial non-infringing uses' then they could have kept on exactly as they were.

As I've said before, the problem with copyright, and the reason this is such a contentious issue, is that nobody ever imagined in the 70's (the last time the copyright laws were revisited by Congress) that you could make unlimited copies of music and simultaneously share those copies with unlmited numbers of people, all without charging anything. Congress assumed that anybody making large numbers of copies would have to charge for them (which is a violation), just to recoup their expenses. The Fair Use clause of the copyright law allows you to do things like time-shift and space-shift a work, it allows you to quote a work, it allows you to share that work with others, but it does NOT allow you to make money off the work. It also doesn't speak to scale of sharing, or number of time/space shifted copies. Nothing in the copyright law expressly prevents me from burning a CD to my hard drive, making a copy of the MP3 for my portable player, then loaning out the player to my friend. The owner of the work would have to prove in court that my actions had financially harmed him in order for me to pay penalties for violation of his copyright. Likewise, nothing in the law expressly prevents me from burning a CD and sharing the MP3 with a friend via some P2P software, or sharing it with more than one friend, or with a million friends. The thing is, of course, nothing in the law expressly says it's OK to do that either, so we're left with legal arguments about financial harm and potential losses and such.

Copyright violations are not theft: theft is the taking of an object you don't own. It implies that the owner no longer has the object. There is a direct harm, and it's a criminal act. Duplicating a copyrighted work is not always (in fact, it's practically never) illegal. Taking something not owned by you is always illegal.

Do you see the difference?

Your example of cloning an object is ridiculous. Of course it wouldn't be stealing to replicate an object, assuming it was possible... theft implies that you have a: taken something without permission or payment, and b: caused the owner harm by depriving the owner of the object as a result of your action. While the company who makes your replication machine might be in serious trouble for violation of a giant stack of other people's patents, the actual replication isn't theft.

Finally: Copyright is based on scarcity. It relies on the concept that if I share a book with you, I don't have the book anymore. It's not designed to deal with digital media, and there really isn't any way to fix it. It is an idea which is practically useless. Regardless of the harm it might cause, it's going to be impossible to enforce without draconian laws like the one mentioned today about 'closing the analog hole' and the one Sen. Hollings is proposing. Even those systems will be cracked eventually.

Any law that protects owners will severely restrict users. Any law that provides good Fair Use will be too weak to prevent violations. You can no longer get a good balance. Copyright is based on scarcity, and, whatever the consequences, people must realize: If you make your money selling water in the desert, and it starts raining... what can you do?
Shouting defiance at the sky certainly isn't going to help.

--
Whatever happened to JonKatz?

Re:I guess the question to ask is.... by Binky+The+Oracle · 2002-05-24 05:30 · Score: 2

I'm assuming you meant the part about "a company willing to wade throught the crap and provide some hard numbers on sales" comment.

An initial caveat: I don't know specifics of fightclouds model or practices, so I'm making some assumptions.

The numbers you get from an "unregulated" source like MP3.com are suspect. The number one songs are normally there because it's a self-perpetuating system. A song somehow gets to number one, then stays there because everybody downloads it to see why it's number one.

It can serve to weed out some of the obviously unworkable stuff, but A&R still has to do a lot of work, especially given the huge number of artists with tracks on MP3.com.

A company like fightcloud.com, on the other hand, probably has a slightly more selective system. I'm assuming that they do some review and don't take just any CD (although their standards are probably fairly loose because they're trying to build brand). So lets assume we've already had one round of weeding amounting to around 30% of the content on MP3.com: the absolute dregs put together by someone who can't sing and used a soundblaster to record their out of tune guitar and friend who plays kazoo.

Now, we come to one of the big differences. On MP3.com, I have to download a track in some form to see if I like it, and that download counts toward the track's chart position. With fightcloud, track auditions don't equal sales. I have to like something enough to go through the hassle of ordering it in order to get it. There's round 2 of the weeding and let's call that another 30% of MP3.com: stuff that's not that bad, but not compelling enough for me to order it. Definitely not worth a label's time.

So continuing with my assumptions, let's say that fightcloud maintains sales records and is willing to provide those to A&R (which I'm sure they are, because a major label success would prove the fightcloud model and they'd get even more submissions). An A&R person is normally looking for something fairly specific (not always, but normally) that's not too risky and will result in big sales at minimum cost. This is why we get 18 boy bands and 15 Britneys in a 3 year period - it's a safe bet.

So the A&R dude(tte) asks fightcloud for the top 5 sellers in the pop/dance genre. They've now got very narrow selection that's got a proven sales history, something that independent artists selling CDs at gigs don't necessarily have. The A&R rep (whose job is riding on the success of the artists he/she brings in) has hard numbers to show the suits, and some confidence that the groups have an established fan base.

Additionally, fightcloud can provide numbers like sales rates, performance over time, etc. that may give a rep a more accurate picture of an album/artist's true performance potential.

My final assumption would be that fightcloud will have some sort of feedback system so that purchasers can rate albums they've purchased. This would be an additional data point - sort of a guerrilla focus group.

These aren't things that I know fightcloud is doing or can do, but the general model lends itself nicely to this type of research assistance for the labels, and most importantly, doesn't really cost the majors anything... Anything that reduces costs will probably increase profit, and that's what the majors are all about.

--

Slashdot comments... splitting hairs since 1997.

Re:Jack Scalfani is more right than you think... by puppetman · 2002-05-24 07:41 · Score: 2

I've seen her live, and her voice is great.

But more importantly, she writes her own music, and produces her own music. Britney doesn't write or produce, and Metallica doesn't produce.

149 of 364 comments (clear)