Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Compared to Movie Industry
tgibson writes "The Denver Post has an article comparing the missteps of the recording industry to the movie industry's success with DVDs: 'The best-selling "Chicago" movie soundtrack is available on CD starting at $13.86. The actual movie, with the soundtrack songs included, of course, plus additional goodies ranging from deleted musical numbers to the director's interview and a "making-of" feature, can be had for precisely $2.12 more...'"
They're nickel-and-dime-ing the consumer to death, and no one will do anything about it. What, do they think we're made of money? The surcharges and the "Artist" tax for all CDR related equipment has to stop. When will people take notice? (fp)
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Simply put, in my sole estimation, DVDs are worth my money--music CDs aren't.
On the other hand, not everybody (*gasp*, I know!) has a DVD player, and moreover I'm not even sure how easy it is to rip music from a DVD. Never mind the fact that it's probably evil...
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Even if CD's were priced at $3, it would be much easier to download them instead of buying them.
RIAA: Evil group of people with no morals, who are currently hated by 99% of /.
MPAA: Not the RIAA.
I think that says something.
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
Why waste your money when you can watch it for free on broadcast TV a few years later?
its a little different market though, as most films have already made a profit before the dvd has been released and every cent made afterwards is just gravy. If only the record industry could somehow get people to pay 5 bucks to sit in a room and listen to a recording of some crap, then they would be golden.
Yes its only 2 dollars more, but you cant really play it in the car now can u?
I however, do see the point. Why buy a cd when you can get a dvd with everything the cd has for nearly the same price?
I myself, honestly, collect dvds. I Just enjoy having the movies and special features sitting there available to me.
Cds? I just dont use them enough i guese... mp3 cds can do the same but many times better... Why not use them?
less money to be made i guese:-p
Is that the "initial presentation" is still worth something. I want to see some movies at the theater because they have a much bigger screen than I'll likely ever own. Although music does have concerts, the recording industry doesn't cut the same sort of cut.
Seriously. A DVD might have 3 hours of content on it while a CD might have 1 hour of content, but I can bet you 99.9% of the time, the CD is going to be listened to way more than the movie is watched, and therefore is the better value.
I can't watch a movie walking down the street or on my commute to and from work (or at work for that matter), but I can sure listen to music. These arguments are pretty stupid, IMO.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The artists who make movies get paid reasonable sums of money for their work.
I still go to see movies. I no longer buy CDs from major labels.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okI hate the RIAA more than ever.. I mean yea I have about 12000mp3's on my hd and only 30-40 divx's (because downloading movies takes forever.. and I can't exactly burn it on a 25 cent disc and watch it on my tv), but anyways.. lets see how they keep their cool when I CAN download a movie in 10 seconds, put it on a 25cent media and watch it on my home theater/give it away
bite my glorious golden ass.
People feel they are getting more for their dollar when buying a dvd.HEll thats why I have 250 dvds and almost no cds...I mean aroound 14 to 20 dollars and ya get a nifty features on a movie.....14 to 20 on a cd and ya just get songs
instead people spend 30 on going to hear the music. Its called a gig.
I still won't buy CDs. I do not buy DVDs either, as I have never seen a movie good enough to watch over and over.
No way. Ripped movies often come in acceptable quality for a one time or so viewing, while music are mostly ripped and distributed by idiots who think Xing 128kbit/s in fast-mode is the epitome of encoder quality... and the release groups use MP3 instead of Vorbis.
No, if you want good encodes of music you'll need to do them yourself.
Also, a good encode might be 100MB. A movie actually isn't that much more.
That is why people pirate music all the time. The industry rips us off by charging us so much.
As for Chicago, how would the music alone cost $12? and the DVD with 1 1/2 hour video + making + music be $15? (Also you have to consider the costs of the media it's on... DVD is more expensive than CDR media).
Comes down to corporate greed and basic capitalism.
one decent justin timberlake song
uh huh right and I'll find that along with element 118, cold fusion and bigfoot, and non-buggy M$ products.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
Doesn't that mean that the soundtrack CD's should be cheaper if you use the same logic, though?
--
Tomas
The music industry makes its money by stealing from the artist, stealing from the consumer and then trying to destroy nascent technologies. The music industry has an accounting system where albums and singles never actually show a profit I am certain they feel at $13.00 a cd chicago is losing money and they all will go to the poor house for it.
I've been saying this for a while! Why buy a CD for $13-15 when you can get a DVD for 15-20. DVDs have way more entertainment value than a CD. With DVD players in cars to occupy your passangers, music CDs realm of entertainment is also being displaced. Somethings you cant watch a DVD to but you could listen to a CD (work for example). Like its been said, bring CD prices to $9.99 and its a far better value.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Wow. That whole article read just like your average /. rant. The Denver Post... fair and balanced? You decide.
-a
Buy CDs used. They're a more reasonably price, even if still over priced.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
You are wrong. If cds are priced at even 5 bucks, it's worth it to buy, rather than leaving kazaa to download tracks of dubious quality (Ugh 128kbps). 5 bucks for a cd is perfectly reasonable. Any more than 8 bucks, in my estimation, is daylight robbery.
I was given to understand that a handful of blockbsters aside, most movies have not gotten into the black before they release the DVD. They very much rely on video and TV rights sales to make the big bucks. Increasingly, movies are the trailers for the video sale.
The article's ending is wrong. The big five record labels have pissed everyone off.
Buy from unsigned artists. Buy from independent labels which are not members of the RIAA. It isn't good enough for the RIAA to lose. Their competition has to do well.
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Even if CD's were priced at $3, it would be much easier to download them instead of buying them.
To be quite honest, I would rather have cds of my entire music collection. When I purchase cds, I listen to them much more intently, I hear music the way it was intended in an album sense.
I have no idea what songs I have are on what album. I couldn't name you 1/4th my collection on a good day, but I can name you almost every cd I own.
When I burn a cd, it just doesn't feel the same.
If you priced cds at 5 bucks a pop, I would never download another song (aside from learning about a band to subsequently buy.)
I walk into a music store, and I WANT to buy thier music. I do. I refuse to because of the prices (except for punk/emo/techno comps that are reasonably priced.)
I can purchase a video game with the latest graphics, or two cds.
It has EVERYTHING to do about the money, and not about the ease. I hate walking into music stores because I want to buy their albums.
I really do.
http://use.perl.org
Although I agree with the author on most topics. Heck, my household doesn't buy music anymore on principle, but we still buy DVDs. The price point is right.
Buy one factor is not considered. A CD of music is more readily conveted to mp3s and shared over the internet than a DVD. The shear size of a movie (800-1600+ MB) make them more resistant to on-line sharing than music (for the moment).
I do have to applaud the movie industry for trying to make the DVD format more attractive with special content: the making of, choice of widescreen or scaled, alternate endings, etc.
If they further lowered their prices, people would buy more dvds as a matter of convenience. Everyone likes a nice box and cover art instead of two cdrs and a handwriten index card in the case where someone downloaded a movie.
The article has a nice junxtaposition bewteen the music and movie industry.
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/estate/dh69/
The problem is psychological. People simply do not compare the prices of CDs and DVDs. It is not how we think. In America, everything is $15 instead. Exchange rates do not matter--it is the number that is significant.
P.S. Why does slashdot strip the pound symbol?
Escort? isnt it closer to extort.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
On the other hand, if I like only one song, I'll download and burn it instead of buying the CD for $13. However, as the price drops, it will be more convenient for me to buy the CD instead of downloading the song. At $10, I'm willing to experiment with musicians I don't know. At $5 (in used CD stores), I'm willing to buy a CD where I like a single song.
As a low-key worker, I value my time at $20/hour. By my estimates, it takes 15 minutes or more for me to crank up Kazaa, find a song, download it, test to see whether it's of acceptable quality and burn it onto a CD. Thus, $5 is the break-even rate for me. For $3 per CD, I'd buy all that's available.
(I just spent roughly $4 of my time writing this response.)
Nothing will change the minds of these people now.
They see things in a certain way now, and that is the way that they will continue to think.
The only thing that can make a large change in the way the RIAA is doing business is a complete change in management.
In the past year I've bought over 52 DVDs that works out to at least one a week. In that same time period I bought exactly NO CDs. Why is this? The DVDs are a much better value, many cast as little as $10, few are more than $19, they typically include making of featurettes, director's commentary, music videos, actor interviews, a good story PLUS the movie itself.
I would say that I love listening to music, but at the prices CDs are going for I find that my money is MUCH better spent on DVDs. For the same or less than the price of a CD I can buy a movie with all sorts of extras. The DVD has audio on it and a picture, the CD just has audio and no extras, why should it cost the same? The answer is it shouldn't.
I also have a lot of problems with the way the RIAA is trying to keep hold of their antiquated distribution methods and huge markups. Why should I support thier lawsuits with my money? Granted, the MPAA has not been the best player all along wither (they fought the introduction of the VCR for example) of course they have learned their lesson as the sales of movies in VHS form have made them a bundle of money. The RIAA refuses to see the future of music, not even doing a good job of promoting legal online distribution methods or interested in lowering prices.
I'll continue to add to my DVD collection, but until prices are MUCH more reasonable for a CD (say under $5 for ANY title I'm interested in) I won't be buying very many, if any. If the price and distribution method are right I think the record companies can get people to buy music again. Of course, this assumes the music is worth listening to, but that's another story.
Today I decided to try to find some music. I visited no less than 5 different stores. I listened to maybe 35-40 different albums using the in-store headphones (yuck!) but I was less than impressed. Album after album sucked, with at best 2 good songs per album.
While I'm complaining here, I have to say that I really don't like the extra material on CDs, and I really can't stand CDExtra. The material slows down my computer, makes it crash some times, and generally is pretty lame. It often autoruns too, which drives me crazy. In short, I am inclined to avoid the new-and-improved CDs even if I think I'll like the band. How do you feel about this?
Earlier today, I was thinking (contemplating really) about how I buy music on eBay or used on Amazon or trade on Trodo. I decided that I like that approach much better than buying from a store. eBay is at least 1/2 price off and often you can even get new CDs for a low price. On Amazon, you can often get a music preview, so there is no advantage to visiting a brick and mortar (do people still say that?) music store. And, to top it all off, I can find music I like faster on the web. I can find recommended music, related music in the right genres, and more. It is easier and cheaper. So, can anyone explain wny I should actually visit a store? (My only answer is instant gratification -- I can buy and listen immediately.)
How to Download YouTube Videos
This is ofcourse totally subjective but, it seems to me the general quality of music has decreased with time while movies have improved.
I feel contempt when I watch MTV while I actually pay attention to movie trailers.
I feel used by ("new") musicians while moviemakers entertain me.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
I say that buying the DVD is definietly worth it. You'll probably only watch the movie a couple times, but you'll listen to the music a lot. Last time I checked, Blockbuster charged about $3-4 per rental. The DVD costs $5 more than the CD. So, if you buy the DVD and only watch the movie twice, it's still cheaper than buying the CD and renting the movie twice... correct me if i'm wrong, plz
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
The more people that say this, the greater chance the music industry will start paying attention to their customers' wants again.
as previously reported cd prices are being lowered. I don't know if it will make a difference, but as I was browsing the best buy weekly ad, I noticed the new releases were going for as low as $6.99. That's fairly amazing, given that one can regularly find $18.99 cds on the shelves.
while this probably won't bring the price in line with DVDs, its nice to see that prices are as low (and even lower) than when CDs first were released.
Most record companies are owned by a company that also owns a movie studio. Warner music / Warner Bros. / AOL Time Warner. Sony Pictures / Sony music. Universal music / Universal (studios) / Vivendi Universal. They even tie in CD releases to movie releases and book releases. They're competing against themselves.
Are you saying that if I own the DVD then I automatically have rights to the songs? I can LEGALLY make MP3's out of them per fair use? Can I? Really? Can I make a CD out of them and then play them in my CD player in my car? Can I? Really?
Don't think so, michael. I don't think so. Apples... meet Oranges...
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
I accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, admit, allow, concede, concur, consent, engage, grant, recognize, and subscribe absolutely, positively and without equivocation that whatever has been proposed above is the appropriate course to continue on forthwith, at once, instantly, quickly, straightaway, without delay and without averseness, dawdling, delay, delaying, demurral, doubt, dubiety, equivocation, faltering fumbling, fluctuation, hesitancy, indecision, indecisiveness, indisposition, irresolution, misgiving, mistrust, oscillation, pause, procrastination, qualm, reluctance, scruple, skepticism, stammering, stumbling, stuttering, uncertainty, unwillingness, vacillation or wavering .
Nurse, some more of that tasty medication please.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I can name several films in the past two or three years alone that I consider classic films, that I would watch over and over and are well worth the 20 bucks tops to get on DVD: Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Pixar movies, etc.
Out of all the music released in the past three years, I honestly cannot name a single CD I can say the same for. Seriously. The music these days is pure chewing gum. Single songs, maybe. A big maybe. But whole albums? None.
I don't think I'm alone in recognizing this total pure crap ola level of quality in the music biz.
heh, I work for them. :-)
(IT of course)
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
After all, they are behind the reason that the excellent Commercial Skip feature has been removed from new ReplayTVs (5500 series DVRs), also the ability to share video between RPTVs on the internet. They also tried to force Sonic Blue to spy on their customers (thankfully, a judge overruled that one). I think it's a shame that companies are allowed to trample over my rights to purchase equipment that I want to buy.
The MPAA, however, does get props from me for their attempts to educate the public via PSAs at the beginnings of movies about piracy, vs. the RIAA's heavy handed sue-everybody approach.
I remember buying a VHS of Pink Floyd's The Wall so I could record the songs to an audio cassette for my Walkman because the double CD was just too expensive. I couldn't figure it out at the time but a few years later the band I was in decided to get out of a deal with an Indie label (Beggars Banquet) and onto a major. Within weeks of dealing with major label A&R, PR, Marketing and assorted assistants I realized the music industry was a lost cause. It really wasn't about making great, innovative music (as I used to believe) but merely about making as much cash as possible. OK, call me naive but I was a musician who really likes music and thought, just maybe, that the industry was geared to help me make more great music. Nope. We made several demo reels, paid for by several majors (each one costing thousands to make) and on every occasion had to listen to some clueless A&R rep tell us the sound was "wrong". After several months of this we decided to call it a day. No more music from me or my band (The Bolshoi). That was the mid 80's and the slope has been getting slippier for the music industry ever since. And, yes, I wish we'd just stayed with that little old indie!!
We wouldn't have had VCR's at all, and there would be no movie rental/purchase industry today. They were legally forced into allowing this industry to develop, which today they earn 60% of their revenue from. If they had had their way, the only way you could see a movie would be in the theater or on TV (and you couldn't record it as you'd have no VCR).
The music industry can follow suit. Embrace file sharing, don't try to stop casual non-commercial copying, and sell CD's for $3.99 each. They'd make a fortune.
The problem in both situations is that, when confronted with technology that seems potentially threatening, suing it until it goes away seems less risky and more economical than embracing it and trying to develop a new business model around its existence. Fortunately for both us and the MPAA, they lost. Now they make a fortune in the video industry. Unfortunately for both us and the RIAA, they have not yet lost (better lobbying) and are suing themselves into oblivion, while hurting end-consumers as well. Especially the 12 year old ones.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Can I recommend DVD Price Check and also CD/DVD sites like play.com and CD WOW! to get your music at under 10 quid? Shop on the Net...you'll find it about 1/3rd cheaper than the UK high street...
The point is that the DVD COMES with the soundtrack on it (obviously, Chicago is a musical, the whole movie *is* the soundtrack). And because it's all just digital an dyou bought the DVD you can LEGALLY record the soundtrack right off the DVD for your listening pleasure with any decent Hi-Fi setup.
An example of how available DVD is becoming: I got a Panasonic DVD player for 80 bucks, and it does practically everything (well, besides play divx and ogg files...). It plays mp3 cds, audio cds, VCDS, SVCDS, DVDS...All for 80 bucks. Now, this is a very nice deal, and I would not be surprised if in a few years DVD players become as common as VHS players. DVDs are superior to other formats, and I have no problem with everything going over to DVD. If I can get the Soundtrack along with the movie on DVD, that's one hell of a value buy!
What bugs me is that on a typical music CD, even very recent releases, there is no track titling put on the disc to identify track names.
It would cost nothing to put on there, would be of (some) value to people with more recent CD players. As it stands the copied CDs where I put track titling on them are of more use as I don't have to find the jewel box to see what the track title is, as most burning software is intelligent enough to look it up and put it there.
If we can't get basic value added items on our music discs, what hope is there of competing with DVDs where there is more "bonus features" (subtitles, translations, extra scenes)? (rhetorical)
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
The record labels, not satisfied with infuriating a younger generation with high prices and legal threats, is now enraging clueless middle-aged parents forced to pay $3,000 to $15,000 settlements over individual downloading lawsuits. Record companies pursued an act of Congress for the right to invade the privacy of Internet companies and customers in search of burners' personal information. For good measure, the labels forced a New York 12-year-old to pay a $2,000 fine, taking customer relations to a new level.
Suing 12-year-olds. Brilliant.. just brilliant, RIAA. What's next? Attempt at suing people who download public domain music? Or how about people who download MIDI files too? Let's go for the gusto.. JPGs! I wonder how much more alienation must go on until the record companies realize their ailment is terminal?
Most of all, spend less on lawyers and more on creative thinkers. You can't subpoena success.
They can't since the RIAA appears to be made up of mostly lawyers. (Probably why all the music we see out there is junk anyways.)
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
Why don't the RIAA members start distributing their music on DVD's then? They could put the music videos lyrics and artist interviews on there. Then the albums might start to be worth the prices their asking (Britney Spears & co. excepted).
To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:
On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.
It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.
To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:
Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.
Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.
The wording of the Copyright Act gives rise to some very odd situations. In the 6 examples below, "commercial CD" means a commercially pressed CD that you would normally buy at a retail store.
2 1337 4 u!
Why does no one make the logical comparison between the music and movie industry with the porn industry. They all have a product that is heavily pirated (when was the last time you bought a porn DVD vs when the last time you just downloaded free smut?). In the end the porn industry does nothing to discourage piracy and they still cash in at the end of each day.
Over the last 80 years the movie studios have had their business models dramatically disrupted on numerous occasions. In the 40's the movie studios lost anti-trust suits which forced them out of the exhibition business leaving them only control over movie production and distribution. Revenue and profits plummeted within the span of a single year and started the end of the "studio system" of stamping out movies on a weekly basis. Additional jarring changes came in the 50's with the advent of television, the rise of independent studios and actor/producers in the 60's, purchases by multinational conglomerates in the 70's, and then the introduction of the VCR in the 80's. While it is natural to resist change to the status quo, the movie studios have repeatedly demonstrated an amazing adaptability to change when left no other recourse. Learning to cope with disruptive change may be one reason the industry has been able to turn movie video/DVD sales into greater revenue than the actual exhibition of movies.
Only time will tell if the recording industry can demonstrate similar adaptability to challenges of their traditional business model or go the way of the Dodo.
Maybe so, but I really do think that enough people would be willing to pay a reasonable per-title download price that it just wouldn't be worth the cost of going after the ones who'd continue to steal.
If that were the case, why would the studios be so reluctant to do it? Is it because they are really inflating costs and themselves stealing from the artists?computerlady - a brand new Slash-daughter - alone, but no longer invisible, in the
If the movie was any good it would have made a reasonable profit in theatres and the DVD should be able to be released at $3.00 a copy 18 months later. Anything else is a rip off. At least CDs have a production cost to recoup. DVDs have recouped by the time they are released.
but the problem is, how many times do you usually watch films?
ok, I know you've seen the matrix 7 times, but I mean an average film? 2,4?
and how many times do you listen to your cds? even if the dvd includes the soundtrack, would you go to your living room (or where's your dvd player) and just sit there and listen to it, or would you play it on your pc/car/discman/ when you're doing something?
Josie and the Pussycats DVD: 17.99 pounds ($29)
Josie and the Pussycats soundtrack CD: 19.99 pounds ($32)
Same retailer, same movie, two pounds ($3) less for the DVD than the soundtrack CD ! It's ironic really, because the movie is only OK, but the soundtrack is utterly fantastic - I have it on auto-repeat at the moment...
Well, it's kind of like bundling. You get a bunch of software in a package that's cheaper than if you had bought each piece on by one.
It sort of reminds me of when Warcraft III came out, the Collector's Boxed Set was like $10 cheaper than just the regular game and I'm pretty sure that it still is cheaper. Odd ain't it?
A music CD, on the other hand, I could easily listen to the music on it hundreds of times, if the songs are good.
So even for the same price, music vs. DVD, the music gives me more entertainment value. However, I am refraining from buying either, partly due to economic reasons, and partly due to the fact that I hate the RIAA and the MPAA.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I buy DVDs instead of going to the theater. Why? Because it's cheaper to buy it than take someone with me to the theater. Also, I like lending a "find" to a friend and borrowing something from someone else. Do I watch them over again. Yes, but maybe one old movie a month.
I buy a DVD about once a month, and like building up my collection. Not too much overlap with my VHS collection, because a lot of my DVDs are of movies that have come out in the last 10 years. I like the extras, especially when the extra scenes are inserted into the movie, like in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
On the other hand, I rarely listen to the Top40 music stuff in the last couple years. My station is almost stuck on the classic rock and light rock stations.
I completed my classic rock CD collection about 3-4 years ago, and haven't bought a music CD in the last 2 years -- more out of disgust against the RIAA. Haven't borrowed a CD from anyone in a couple years. And now that I ripped all my CDs to my PC, I prefer listening to my own mixes of favorites rather than a store-bought.
Not sure if the RIAA wan't my business anymore. Not sure if I care.
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
Yeah I know this was rated a troll.. but I'll manage something intelligible.
Don't think that the prices are high because of the fileswapping. These high prices was artifically set YEARS before the Internet became commercial. This fileswapping only caught their "attention" less than a few years ago.
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
When you listen to a CD you generally forget it right after you listen to it. You need to keep listening to it to get any real value. It's just sugar.
A movie on the other hand is like a book. You read it and it sticks with you. It's far more filling. I don't need to watch Adaptation a thousand times. You watch it once and you learn something profound. You can then enjoy it again every once in awhile.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
All I want is a place to buy music that is _specifically_ not endorsed/associated/sold out to/etc the RIAA.
Does such a place exist?
How can I tell when I walk into, say, Circuit City/etc if an ablum is associated with the RIAA?
well...can you listen to the music on the dvd if you were in your car?
Does this mean the music industry wants to require we buy their popcorn and candy when listening at home.
And the music industry is lowering prices, as the movie industry did, after first fighting copying and fair use in the courts.
So really, this is deja vu all over again, and the sad part is that the music industry learned nothing from the imbroglios of the movie industry.
The movie industry can be excused for miscalculating, since it was reacting to something new. The music industry can only be excused for being culturally and legally unread.
And I'll never forgive the music industry for standing in the way of more Monk/Coltrane records.
High prices didn't lead to people downloading music. The pure convenience of being able to download songs en masse online couppled with fairly high prices brought many people to download music. Which in turn lead to higher prices. Which lead to more pirating again because of its ease.
But you forgot to point out that people do it because it's more convenient. It's not just about high prices. It's about how people do what's easier.
Sock puppets stole my sig.
Can't afford to price CDs any less, or they'd have to fire some of the lawyers.
Yeah, cause clearly DVDs currently have no problem of the sort cough and the difference between read-only and read/write takes a mind of staggering genius to understand. Fluff.
I don't know how many of you remember this, but back in the day the RIAA was suing people for posting lyrics on their websites.. I'm sure they still are.
On the surface it sounds wrong that CD's and DVD's differ in price but only a few dollars. But understand DVD sales, while important, aren't the ONLY source of revenue for movie makers. Each movie makes money by selling tickets in theaters, selling ads before (and sometimes during) movies, product tie-ins, etc. So that CD, which should cost $30, only ends up costing $15 because it's subsidized by all of the other ways Movie makers make money.
Music writers & singers have no such options. There is no advertsiing capability on a Justin Timberlake CD. There are no Justin Timberlake action figures.
The price of CDs at $15 is not a mis-step, it's the reality of the costs and lack of other ways to make money off of CDs.
There's a simple reason why Slashdot cuts the MPAA slack and not the RIAA.
Slashdotters are quite reluctant to advocate the dismantling of the movie industry like they are so ready to do for the recording industry. Why? Because they know damn well that doing so would put an end to big-budget blockbuster movies. Nobody would ever spend $150 million to make a movie again, because once the ability to copy and view movies freely becomes ubiquitous, profit models wouldn't support it.
And let's face it, we couldn't bear to give up the Matrix trilogy or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Such movies could be done for less, sure---but not for a lot less. Not for 90% less.
Slashdotters advocate boycotting the record industry in one breath, and purchase tickets to the Two Towers in another breath. It's somewhat like a PETA fanatic buying leather pants.
the greatest hit collections from The Ramones and Beach Boys for a total of $30 instead of the newest CDs from The Vines and The Strokes for a total of around $45. I like the new music just fine, but it is not worth that much money for a few good songs that I'll probably play only a few times. The record company could easily make double their money if they reduced CD prices to around $8.
Remember that the MPAA was implicitly complicit in purchasing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act from Congress. I hear they got it for a song.
;))
They brought in Celin "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaai will alwaaaaaaaaaaaaaais luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv juuuuuuuuuuuu" Dion and got it for not singing a song. (Pardons to any fans out there. You have my sympathies
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I have to say, I love this article selection for SlashDot. In a sea of articles that complain but offer no solutions, this article clearly shows a path to financial success. In other words, instead of poo-pooing the music industry for all their mistakes, this gives some pretty interesting evidence that taking another route leads to profit.
Believe me, as a business owner (and a techie who feels both sides of the equation), complaining alone gets a lot less of my attention than something with a solution.
Sunny
Be my Friend
Why buy a CD for $13-15 when you can get a DVD for 15-20. DVDs have way more entertainment value than a CD.
No they don't. You'll watch a even a good DVD just once or twice, maybe 10 times or so if it's really cool. I have CDs that I've easily listened to 100 times. Because a CD is audio only it's easy enough to put it on while doing other things, but a DVD requests your full attention. As much as I liked "Fellowship," I just haven't had the time to watch the full DVD more than once, no matter how entertaining it was.
A CD, a great CD, is a never-ending source of entertainment.
As for the people who keep talking like a movie soundtrack CD is just the movie minus visuals, and hence less value, of course that's not true. The actual soundtrack to a movie doesn't usually have the full songs or compositions, and what it does have is usually interrupted by the dialogue. That soundtrack is in no way comparable to the musical sountrack you can buy separately in CD format.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Some of what is going on here is because DVD's are new. People tend to spend more when starting their collections and then maybe taper off. Music CD's are huring in part because people are shifting spending from CD's to DVD's.
An album, at least one from any reasonable artist, is a work in it's entirety.
The DVD equivalent would be complaining that you only want the exciting car chase scene and don't want to have to buy the rest of it.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
to the wrong theater.
Several nearby charge $9. A few less than $6 on Tuesdays (or before 6:00 PM other days). Don't buy food or drink from the theater, and there you are, one wide-screen, surround sound movie viewing for less than the first week of release DVD price, even if you bring a friend. Three or four friends, and you probably should wait for the DVD release.
you sir are the dumbest
If the RIAA halves the price of CD's, will they have to sell twice as many before the bands (artists) start seeing a profit, if the ever do at all?
Well, I burn VCD fansubs that I make myself. (As opposed to leeching someone else's video or subtitles) Sure, the resolution's not that hot (352x240), and it's MPEG-1 encoding. About 70 minutes of video will fit on a CD-R. That's 10 MB/minute. And my DVD player groks them no problem (prolly can't say the same for SVCDs).
:( which takes longer.
Now if only I could encode directly from xvid...as tmpgenc and bbmpeg both choke on it...I have to transcode it to Indeo first
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Someone made a comment earlier about mp3 cds...they really are far better than regular cds. I'd buy an mp3 cd with 75 songs (at, say near cd quality 256 bitrate) for 15 dollars. Maybe they should start selling them, like collections or something. Which reminds me, I've always wondered why nobody ever shares 700 MB files on file sharing to burn onto a cd. Or 20 GB archives with lots of music presorted to burn on an iPod.
DVD's in Japan typically come out months later than in the USA and cost about 2x as much. As for wanting to copy DVD's etc, if a DVD is really packed with content it just isn't worth the time. It's not as easy or fast to copy DVD's as it is to copy CDs. It takes 4 hours+ to rip a DVD plus DVD costs. Why do it if you can get commercial dvd's, save time and get pretty packaging for $15 bucks. Also XVID, DIVX are not the same as MPEG2 in quality.
Hmm, if downloading (and even sharing!) of music is expressivley legal in Canada then where all those URLs that I can download music in Canada? I am pretty new in this country, but I have enough free space on my harddisks to fill it out by MP3 if it's really legal.
Less is more !
1987, Oswego, NY. $4.50 admission; $2.50 for seniors, children and matinee times. Two screens of which one had stadium seating. (Later, five of which two.)
The only thing new is that the price has doubled, and IMHO, it's a fucking rip-off. $4.50 I can handle, but it's like $8.50 to go to the fucking Regal Cinemas in Niagara Falls to watch some movie and it's just not something I can do as often as I could back then.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
OK, I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing people complain about how there is "no good music" that has been released in the past couple of years. This is the most ludicrous statement I have ever heard. When you say "no good music has been released in the past couple of years" you really mean "the music that is marketed to me by my local ClearChannel radio station and my Viacom Cable TV music networks is not satisfying me" -- that's like saying "the era of good sports cars is over" and using only Kias as a point of reference.
:-)
So, for your information, I am going to list brilliant albums of the past ten years (even half-brilliant ones), and categorize them by genre. Please try one of these out -- you're not guaranteed to love each one, but I do. If you hate all of these, then you don't have good taste in music to begin with...
Rock/Alternative/Folk/etc
Badly Drawn Boy - The Hour of Bewilderbeast
a-ha - Minor Earth Major Sky
Grandaddy - The Sophtware Slump
Radiohead - OK Computer
Beck - Sea Change
Beck - Mutations
Clinic - Internal Wrangler
Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head
Elliot Smith - XO
Yo La Tengo - And Then Nothing Turned Itself Inside Out
The Hives - Veni Vidi Vicious
The Flaming Lips - The Soft Bulletin
The Flaming Lips - Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots
Hey Mercedes - Every Night Fireworks
Brand New - Deja Entendu
At The Drive In - Relationship of Command
Hot Water Music - No Division
Sting - Brand New Day
Counting Crows - Hard Candy
Ben Folds - Rockin The Suburbs
Ben Folds Five - Whatever and Ever Amen
Thrice - Illusion of Safety
John Mayer - Room For Squares
Jazz/Blues/Classical/etc
Don Byron - A Fine Line: Arias and Lieder
Soulive - Turn It Out
Kronos Quartet - Nuevo
Clint Mansell and Kronos Quartet - Requiem for a Dream OST
Christian McBride - Vertical Vision
Pat Martino - Live at Yoshi's
Pat Metheny - Speaking of Now
Greyboy Allstars - A Town Called Earth
Tan Dun - Hero OST
Electronic/Techno/Ambient
Air - Moon Safari
DJ Shadow - The Private Press
DJ Shadow - Endtroducing...
Goldfrapp - Felt Mountain
Royksopp - Melody A.M.
Crystal Method - Vegas
Sigur Ros - Agaetis Byrjun
UNKLE - Psyence Fiction
Turin Brakes - The Optimist
Hip-Hop/Rap/R&B/Urban
Breakestra - Live Mix Part I & II
D'Angelo - Voodoo
Greyboy - Mastered the Art
Mos Def and Talib Kweli - Black Star
The Roots - Things Fall Apart
Quannum - Solesides Greatest Bumps
The Coup - Steal This
Cannibal Ox - The Cold Vein
Deltron 3030 - Deltron 3030
Mr. Lif - I Phantom
RZA - Ghost Dog OST
Jurassic 5 - EP
Again, you're not guaranteed to love each and every single on these -- but it's a good start. More info on any of these: AMG: All Music Guide
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Having RIAA and the music industry trying to prevent people from copying music digitally is like trying to have a law that keeps people from using tractors on a farm to save the plowmans' job.
Technology has advanced where we do not need a recording industry to capture and distribute music, any more than we need to have farmers plowing fields by hand.
The DMCA should be argued against as the act of corporate welfare that it is.
Goodyear didn't get gov't breaks against the onslaught of radial tires which lasted longer. Horse and buggy makers didn't get breaks against car engine makers. Propeller plane makers didn't get breaks against the Jet engine makers. Neither too should the recording industry get breaks against the new computing industry.
Imposing artificial restrictions and charges in the music world completely goes against the grain of technological progress and truly free markets.
This is my sig.
And if yes, can Canadians download music only from Canada? And if no - why can't Canadians buy music from Apple store?
Less is more !
I chalk this up to an even more basic concept. You don't need to compare music to movies... it's even more simple than that:
The market changes. You either embrace these changes or you die.
The problem is our global economy (due mainly to legislation like the 1996 Telcom Act) has ended up with less competition and larger players, and when they can't quickly adapt to meet the needs of the new marketplace, they try to scare (RIAA), Mislead (AT&T) or coerce (Network Solutions) consumers into continuing to do business with them.
We saw Microsoft try to do the same thing when they initially ignored the Internet, but eventually MS had to embrace this new medium. History is full of new market dynamics that the established entities claim is unfair and will put them out of business (mail, telephone, radio, television, VCR, CDR, fax, modems, cellular, satellite, cable, digital photography, etc.) It's a never ending cycle.
Some companies try to legislate the maintaining of the status quo, like the RIAA is doing now, but it will never work, just like SCO can't stop the open source community by suing IBM. These are the companies that don't want to adapt and lose their spot at the feeding trough and have to start over. Unfortunately that's the nature of things. You adapt or you die. Organizations like the RIAA and SCO are either unable, or unwilling to fairly compete using the new market dynamics, so they resort to feeble bullying tactics that don't work.
Maybe if CDs were more like DVDs more people would buy them. For example:
Slap some extra tracks, out-takes, alternate versions, remixes on the cd.
Stick some multimedia content on 'em: music videos, band interviews, behind the scenes making of, tour videos, live video.
Stick some "trailers" as the first track of every cd: some sample songs from other artists on the same label with releases coming out soon.
I don't think any of this content would jack up the price to make a cd in the least.
If I could buy an artist's entire output on one CD in mp3 format for 15 I'd do the same.
A redbook CD is about 650 megs (usually less) of uncompressed audio. With audio compression techniques, (MP3, Ogg etc.) the CD becomes about 100megs (at a compression rate that doesn't *completely* mangle the music.) and each track comes out to about 5 megs or so. A CDR can be had for much less than a dollar. The last CDRs I bought were FREE after discounts and rebates.
So, to copy the Original CDR at "full quality" Redbook audio costs nearly nothing and when compressed to MP3, eats 100 megs on my drive.
DVDs are already compressed, and if the movie is over 2 hours, they are often VERY compressed. The DVD eats (usually) about 4.2 GIGs of space on my drive.
Now, until very recently hard drives weren;'t all that cheap. The first one I could afford of consequence was in 1994 when I bought a 1 gig drive for $580 and I got a damn good deal on it. DVDs didn't exist, but even if they did, my computer didn't have a large enough drive to store a movie, unless I wanted to experience it at 180x240 at 15ips and compressed beyond all human imagining. Also, the computers were so slow, that to rip that much data would have taken....a reeeally long time, given I was running a 48 mHz machine...
So, music was the first to get digitised due to its file size. the rest follows, really.
When the $400 desktop computer I pick up at best buy has a 4 terabyte drive, and processes data in the multiteraflop range, and has 7.1 audio built right in, and the video card has a gigabyte of VRAM, Hollywood will be making the same kinds of noises that the RIAA are right now.
Compressed audio sounds lousy, but no more lousy than DVDs presently look. Once the file size for DVDs relative to the hard drives and CPU speeds isn't such a big deal, people will cheerfully rip DVDs and burn them for their friends, and their will be precious little Hollywood can do about it.
When will the bandwidth to my house via (whatever succeeds DSL / cable modems) in 10 years be? No idea, but I kind of doubt that it will be able to move movies around with the rate of speed I can move a title of MP3 / Ogg choonz.
therefore, the bandwidth for trading movies over the internet at a reasonable quality will lag far enough behind that Hollywood won't give a rats ass about it for quite a while.
However, as we all know, the bandwidth for trading music, even entire CD Titles, has been around for quite a while, and hence, the RIAA get their knickers in a twist.
Therefore: Hollywood comes off looking better than the RIAA, because they know that I might have 1000 CDs of music on my 120 gig drive at a quality not very different from the original, but there is no way I'lll have a 1000 movies on my 120 gig drive at the same relative level of quality. Consequently, they toss out DVD movie titles for not that much more money than the MSRP CD title prices...
Now, when I have a 60 terabyte drive in my machine loaded to the gunnels with movies, and the bandwidth is there and affordable for me to P2P a full length MPEG2 movie in 7.1 audio in less than a half hour, and I'm just sitting back and burning DVDRs for friends and fambly, Hollywood WILL hunt my ass down, just like the RIAA hunted down the Kazaalings.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
They've already been paid as a part of the movie. IF the music is orignal, the composers and preformers were paid directly as part of the deal with the studio as a work for hire. If it is preexisting music, royalties were paid, often millions of dollars for a 30 second clip if the song is popular.
This would of course beg the question as to why a movie soundtrack would be so expensive, given that it was already paid for in the context of the movie. This gives rise to another intersting question: The music industry wants to pretend like when you buy music, you are buying a liscence to listen to it, not the actual good itself. In that case, do you have a right to the movie soundtrack through owning the movie (of which the soundtrack is a part)?
Really. I think the main problem that these people (record labels and such) just don't care about music at all. A decade or so ago the recording industry transmformed itself into "industry of the cool" but because the music is what a lot of regular people still care about the record companies are having problems right now.
I think it all happened in the beginning of 90's with rap invading a mainstream and an unexpected breaktrhough from Seatle. It all was raw, real and it was for sure cool. However gangsta rap was really difficult to package in the beginning while Seatle bands just did not want to sell out on the industry terms. So the recording industry took a lesson and started to manufacture all that stuff. And we all eded up with a lot of overproduced shit performed by people we do not care about.
I think recording industry have been hearing for whom the bell tolls (for them that is) for quite some time. You could see that on those so called "music channels" all the way through the 90s. When they constantly were trying to get in bed with fashion industry, movie industry etc. They just forgot about the music in the process.
Instead they are trying to fuel the public's interest by all that other shit such as rivalaries between rap artists, who is screwing with whom, extreme sports, lame models that cannot put to words together without spraining their brain and so on.
Lately they started to produce really wierd shit. Such as punk band that never went on tour but got a major record label (Good Charlotte) or a "garage band" that went straight on MTV awards (White Stripes, I mean they are pretty good, but nothing special. Really).
Of course all that "manufacturing of cool" requires a huge overhead. So music becomes even more fogotten.
As for movie industry. They are the same greedy bastards as RIAA. The only thing that they do differently is ... let me see... They still make and sell movies...
- Back off man. I am a scientist
Now I agree the soundtrack should be cheaper than the DVD, but if you liked the music to any film, you owe it to yourself get the CD. That way you can hear the music without all the explosions.
Perhaps someday DVDs will include a "soundtrack-only" alternate audio track. The only thing I've seen come close is "The Matrix" in which composer Don Davis has the entire track to himself. One of the best alternate audio tracks out there (in a sea of crappy ones where the actors describe what flavor of coffee they had that day when shooting).
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
CDs first came out around when I started college in 1984. You could only buy them new, and they cost at least $13. All of the news articles claimed that the high price (about twice an album cost) was because there were only a few factories in the world making the things, but the price would go down soon. I bought an average of one CD a week.
In 1989, the prices still hadn't come down, but I started seeing widespread sales of used CDs. I bought everything used. Aside from a new CD I bought in 1999, the labels haven't seen a penny direct from me since 1989.
In 1999, the prices of CDs still hadn't caught down, but I started downloading music, making MP3s, ripping my friends CDs, and doing direct hard-drive exchanges of MP3s.
It's 2003 -- 19 years since I started college -- and the price of CDs is about the same as it ever was. Two months ago, I finally bought a CD burner of my own -- a 52X -- so I can make my own CDs. I got it for ten dollars after the rebate.
If they can't get those damned facories built by now to significantly lower the price of CDs, they deserve to go out of business.
I cannot see that cd prices go down, in a way I dont want cd prices to go down in a way I do. I come from a third world country and imports prices are really bloated especially if you only make 300 $ a month. You have to be really rich to buy even a few cd's a month. Why are people complaining about cd prices when you can buy second hand cd's for half the price or even 1/4 of the price I have seen cd lots going on ebay for 70 $. It is plain and simple people are too lazy to go out and look for bargains, comes down to clothes and everything that you can buy at Thrift stores or other cheaper outlets. Why do people pay these bloated prices for everything when you can buy second hand? Cd are not going to ave a second hand value if prices go down too much, how much are you going to pay second hand for a cd you payed 5 bucks for?
Dvd is a total waste of cash if you ask me, why pay 20-24 $ for a disk your only going to watch once or twice. DVD special or extra's arent really that special to me. There are cheaper places you can rent dvd's, like netflix or even your nearest blockbuster. You may have the argument I want to watch it over and over or more then once;
20 $ dvd price
Rent 1 $ = 20 times hired from blockbuster = 20 $
Music CDs cost WAAAAY less to produce than movies. A professionally produced disc is probably looking at no more than $50,000-$100,000 for the recording and production fees (we are not talking about advertising here, that is seperate for both). Now even a cheapie inde film like Pi can cost that much. A more flush indie film like Boondock Saints will run a few million. A major professional hollywood flic will be $50-300 million.
Thus, it's not as hard to mentally justify the money.
That was Whitney Houston ;-)
let's not naively go around thinking that the movie industry are a bunch of saints here. The only reason that they haven't pulled out the RIAA tactics is that no one has the patience/disk space/bandwidth to download/store full resolution movies all the time... Ask them in 2 years, and they'll have the same bunch of lawyers working for them.
Comparing CD to DVD is kind of pointless at this point. DVDs (or movies) are not being pirated that much. Very few people have the bandwidth to download a full DVD, whereas most people can download MP3s. Keep in mind that the largest segment of downloaders are on low bandwdith connections (to verify, just check Kazaa or any other service and see how many people are downloading at slow rates).
On top of this, the structure of the movie industry is different. Movie THEATERS generate most of the money--not DVD sales (although DVDs are gaining significance). In contrast, most music revenue comes from CD sales (rather than concerts or radio play).
Lastly, the movie audience is FAR MORE diverse than the music audience. Most music listeners are young people whereas you can't really say that youngsters generate the money for movies. All the major (movie) blockbusters are watched by older people, etc. In contrast, the top music sales are all very specific (often under 25 yr old segment).
I think you can only compare MPAA to RIAA when movies are being pirated at the same rate as music...and the industry structure are similar...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
I thought you said Marky Mark
I think this just confirms that age-old adage: embrace new technology or die.
... in fact, quite similar to the DVD vs video situation today.
/. a few days ago, obscurity is often far worse for the artist/author/whatever than copy-right infringment. However, for the company publishing (in the broad sense) the oeuvres of the artist that is not necessarily true: what you lose on the swings you might think that you can win on the round-abouts: if one of your artists fade into obscurity or just never makes it, so what? You have other ones. Maybe their records will sell instead. This is obviously not at all the same for the artist: the artist doesn't have any other artists on which to fall back (well, at least not if the artist isn't Andy Warhol and he is dead): a piece of art falling in a forest where nobody hears it might still make a noise, but it might as well not have. In other words, word of mouth, or in these techno-times p2p, might benefit the artist (gain notoriety) but hurt the publishing company (missed-out copy-right payment): their interests do not coincide: the moment a majority of artists realize that will be a day of reckoning for the music industry.
In 18th England 'manual' textile producers smashed up machines that were stealing 'their' work. Did that stop industrialization of the textile industry? Of society in general? Did it stop the almost total eradication of non-machine produced textiles? No, no and no.
It would appear that as soon as you have new technology that is showing some promising signs of becoming popular (for after all not all new technology 'takes off'; think laser discs -- or at least that's what I think they were called: those vinyl looking things that were supposed to supersede videos -- for instance) you'd better jump onto that bandwagon quicksmart and figure out a way to turn it into a cashcow working for your advantage. Which the movie industry has. And which I think that the music industry did once upon a time: when CDs were introduced on the market you often got lots of 'extras' that weren't on the vinyl-version: demos, single B-sides; remixes etc
I think that the music industry is fighting a rear guard action in a losing battle. And I think that that battle is lost for many reasons. For instance (in no particular order):
1. The interests of the music industry do not necessarily coincide with the interest of the artists: as pointed out in the article by O'Reilly referred to here on
2. P2P is here and it's easy to use and persuading people to just forget about something you think that the world would be better without is really tricky stuff( cf. atom bombs).
3. Going after 12-year-olds is just really dumb from a PR point-of-view and should be avoided at all costs.
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Some choice quotations:
And
And
The liver is evil and must be punished.
http://techcentralstation.com/081803C.html
From chatting with friends, the gist is that it's illegal to upload music to a public ftp server but it's perfectly legal to have file sharing turned on in your computer.
It's also perfectly legal to download.
I haven't bought a new CD in 6 or 7 years, but I've got CDs with hidden tracks, CDs with two versions of the same song (radio mix and uncut, usually) and CDs with data tracks.
The CDs with data tracks piss me off actually, because they confuse my elderly CD jukebox.
Clear, Dark Skies
I can kind on understand the cost of a DVD, what with how much it costs to make movies, actor's fees, and all that other Hollywood crap. But The White Stripes recorded at least one full album for under $8,000. Given the cost of the plastic, paper, and ink, plus that 8,000 bucks (divided of course by the estimated number of consumers), plus a bunch of money for everyone who made the thing, I'd say I can understand a price of $3 to $5 for that CD, retail.
Esoteric reference.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
This is monopolistic pricing clean and simple. They are charging what you are willing to pay rather than basing the cost to you on their costs plus profit. Considering that a movie costs 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more to make than a CD and the actual medium costs about the same, CDs should be a lot cheaper. If there was any real competition between the record labels prices would drop dramatically but they're all in on this together so you pay through your noise for something that should be very cheap.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
As someone who lives outside the US (but also happens to be a citizen), one thing I've noticed is that Americans -really- like to whine about things, but rarely -do- anything about it. In other countries, people can and -do- make a difference, but all I seem to see in the US are people who are resigned to what is being handed down to them. Whatever happened to the American spirit - for the people, -by- the people. Has the populace lost all control to the government?
It's no wonder things are going the way they are.
And yes, I'm sorry to say that.
Its times like these that makes me hope the RIAA reads Slashdot comments
There is no replacement for displacement.
Over a year ago!
- In hell, treason is the work of angels.
Whitney Dione, Celine Houston, who can tell them apart? And the Backstreet Boys vs NSync... is NSync the band where the tough one wears the bandana, or is it that sensitive angsty one? Personally I spend my money on cds from the pop amalgem sensation Boy George Michael Jackson Browne Vs Board Of Education, he rocks!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Listen to music, not the advertising.
What on earth is he talking about with that line? One's burn once, and the other's rewriteable. No reason for confusion, or to fight since all CD/DVD burners will do both. CD-RW is probably more expensive just because there are fewer sold and a small premium for more features. Now DVD-R and DVD+R is another story, maybe the author was confused about different media. Having just bought a burner, I went with DVD-R simply because the media's a little cheaper. Probably in 2 years all the DVD burners will do both formats.
with the advent of 40 gig hardrive mp3 players and laptops it is easy to share files without using the internet. I usually have my laptop with me when I go to friends houses and anytime I see a cd i want I just load it in. The flip side of this is that I always have 40 gigs of music that I can dump into their computers or players. Who needs Kazaa?
the recording industry every night will just fall asleep, just, right on top of me. absolutley no regard to what i might want or need.
Are you kidding. I bought a boxed set of 3 cd's for my wife. She likes Neil Diamond. To keep it from getting damaged, I put it on a CDR to play in her car. I got 2 1/2 cd's on one CDR. The originals were only about 35 minutes each so most of the 3 CD set fit on an 80 minute CDR. Don't get me started about the lack of value in pre-recorded CD's. Kinda reminded me of the half full inkjet cartridges. Fortunately the half full ones aren't the same price as the full ones. (ink jet, not pre-recorded CD's)
The truth shall set you free!
By contrast, the last Tool CD was almost 70 minutes. This leaves very little room for extras. Not everyone puts out 30 minute CDs. Also, some of the extras mentioned were videos and such. (Wouldn't that be great? Get the videos along with the music) Those take up a good deal more room than even uncompressed audio.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
This whole argument makes no sense. Chicago made who knows how many millions in the theaters at it's first run, and second run even, they've already broken even on the movie. An album doesn't get a chance to make it's money back BEFORE it hits the consumer format.
-aaron
Beyond the fact I have no taste in music, you kind of miss the point.
If I am not aware of it, no good music exists. If I don't want to go through the hassle of P2P (is it a file, or is it a virus?), all that is left to me is radio, the oddball recommendation of friends, chumping down $20 on the hopes of a new CD, or filtering through loads of less-than-appealing MP3s. In short, communication breakdown.
Radio use to promote new bands or trends. It was very much like a filter to separate chaff from the wheat. Yes, it was marketing, but the market was diverse. And if it wasn't diverse enough, college/pirate (aarrgh!) filled out the gaps.
It is now more monochromatic. Even web radio has caught hell from this juggernaut that is the recording industry. For every gripe you make about how people don't know about great bands, you have vindicated the recording industry's attempts to maintain control.
And yes, new music genres do manage to expand against the RIAA, but as anyone who has established the groundwork will tell you, it is a HUGE pain in the ass. It is hard enough just to get the word out. It is another thing entirely when a monolith stands in your way.
And has the recording industry exerts more control, everyone's worldview gets a little bit smaller; the mundane ever closer to hyped superstardom.
If the media is stale or boring, assure yourself someone wants it that way. Should I be a sheep and listen to your recommendations as to what makes good music? The RIAA's? Proclaiming to see the light without seeing the darkness is still blind.
Where is my Lotus Elise?
My comfort level for a cd price (as I've mentioned on /. before) is about 7 bucks a cd. At that price,(less than a movie ticket) the convenience of getting a cd is easier than finding the download, and if there are 8 crappy songs on the cd, I don't care. 14 bucks to me is overpriced.
I don't think this is extortion because I don't literally make demands on buying a cd. I don't pirate over the web either. I just do without. Just like I do without a BMW. I think I've bought maybe 2 cds in the past 4 years.
I've noticed a similar situation happening with print media. I used to subscribe to several news magazines and the newspaper. Until I realized, a lot of magazine websites offer the same content for free online. In addition, I also realized I didn't read any magazine cover to cover. I would usually only read a handful of articles anyways. So I've cancelled all my magazine subscriptions, and the newspaper, and now I read everything online if at all. I hear print magazines / newspaper subscriptions are going down. Gee, I wonder why.
Prices will have to fall eventually because as it stands, I'd rather go see a movie in the theater or buy a DVD than a new cd. Eventually I trust the free market will sort it out. And that is not extortion. That's technology undermining an established business that refuses to change with the times.
That, not piracy, is the RIAA's problem. Overall sales of prerecorded entertainment are way up since DVDs came in. The RIAA's share is way down. And the industry's management is still denying the problem.
A big problem with the music industry is that the music industry is, well, dumb. If you've had any involvement with film production, you've met many smart, competent people, from actors to set designers to grips. Some of them have big egos, but they're not incompetent. Film production is a tough job - a huge number of things have to be done right, done fast, done the first time, and done under difficult conditions to get a film in the can. People who reach management from that background tend to be quite competent.
Backstage at a rock concert, though, you find a lot of dim bulbs and a bully mentality. Some of them grow up to be record executives, which doesn't make them any brighter.
That's really it. The music industry has a product line problem (rock is mined out, and nothing else has broad appeal), a competition problem (Hollywood puts more value on a disk than they do), and a channel problem (three companies own most of the radio stations). They don't have a clue how to deal with any of these problems. So they attack downloaders, which, being bullies, they can figure out how to do. Like most bullies, they're ineffective but annoying.
This is an industry so dumb that they can't even figure out Internet commerce.
Ever liked a band, but didn't want your friends to know about it? (Certain pop rappers, for instance?) Have you lost a CD that none of your friends have? What if (gasp) your friends all have the same CDs you do? Then it helps having millions of willing sharers to give you a hand.
The world can be wrong today for once.
The theatre I go to has a picture out front of a pirate and talks about no pirates allowed. So a friend and I (while inebriated) dressed up as pirates and tried to get in. While using every pirate phrase we could ("Ahoy there bonnie lass, give us some tickets for the 9 o'clock showing or you'll not live to see another day") we got our way in and were able to see a movie! We asked a guy why pirates weren't allowed, that we felt it was disciminatory, and the guy just shook his head and said "No, the other kind of pirate." I still have no idea what he means by that.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
I just don't get it. I am not even sure anymore if I can record songs off the radio to listen to later. I have this Music Choice thing on Directv that plays music 24 hours a day. Can I record those songs to listen to later? Seems that the whole issue is just too confusing for me. I guess I will just crawl back under my rock.
The best project I did in the past year was rip my whole CD collection as you did, into mp3 and it's on the computer. I then turned around and sold a whole bunch of CDs used (all the ones with only 1-2 good songs on 'em) and pocketed a bunch of extra cash. I really don't care if I don't have the physical cds for those albums anymore. The rest are all in storage.
I think at this point, I really don't see any reason to buy anymore cds. Right now I've got the equivalent of a radio station with a playlist that will take a week to churn through if I left it on shuffle for days straight.
At this point, I'm through with record stores and CDs. I won't be buying any more music until I can download 'em for a reasonable price.
If that was "the point" then it was drowned out by his conceited boasting about how he hadn't "allowed himself to be marketed to by the major labels". I say he was and he's simply too naive to realise it.
I stopped purchasing cds when I started hearing of 'copyright protection measures' that would prevent me from playing the cds on the computer, on the dvd player, etc etc.
Where is the a-spoon-full-of-sugar-helps-the-medicine-go-down neato feature of these new cds?
Who in their right mind wants to purchase something that is the exact same as the older product but is more of a hassle to use than the older product ever was?
Still, I think a lot of the packaging of the CD set was deceptive. I got a 3 CD set whose contents will fit on a CD and a half. Why did they bother to put it on 3 CD's except for deceptive marketing? They didn't do it because making another CD was horribly expensive.
I certanly felt ripped off. The implication was there was enough material there to fill the 3 CD's, not the 95 minutes it contained.
The truth shall set you free!
You can stick a DVD onto 2 CDs with the 5.1 audio, and the loss of quality is very small with most movies... the exception being very dark movies, which MPEG-4 doesn't do well.
I put my DVDs on DivX and watch em like that cause I don't want to worry bout my kid trashing a $20 DVD, but I won't freak out if they trash 35c worth of CD-Rs once in a while.
Tying up the machine for 8 hrs to crunch a DVD sure is a pain in the ass though...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I don't wish to defend either the MPAA or the RIAA, but I think I'm like most people when I say I can listen to a CD many hundreds of times, but only watch a DVD perhaps twice a year. There's something about movies - either their length, immersivity, or the fact you can't watch them and do much else at the same time - that makes them "stale" more quickly. OK, movies cost a hell of a lot more to produce than audio recordings, but since when have costs of production had anything to do with street prices?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Through a combination of intelligent design, lucky accident and the good sense to follow the consumer's lead, movie companies settled on the VHS video format for 25 years before gently introducing a DVD alternative.
Try lucky accident. Jack Valenti of the MPAA is the guy who said that home taping would kill the movie industry when he was trying to get Congress to stop it. If they'd had their way, there would have been no VHS.
The main difference between the MPAA and RIAA is that the MPAA companies had sense enough to pick a lower price point and add extra content over and above the movie.
Why is the MPAA fighting alongside the RIAA to kill filesharing?
P2P pirating of movies simply isn't economically significant. The bandwidth to the home just isn't there yet and isn't going to be as ubiquitous as the TV for years and years.
So what's the problem?
Same as the RIAA, it's about control. When those broadband pipes to the home are in place, it'll be possible for the next Steven Spielberg to make a movie on his desktop with capabilities better than the best high-end Hollywood has to offer now, rendering and special effects courtesy of a closet full of PCs loaded with high-end programmable video cards... and consumers will be able to download it.
Where is Hollywood in this picture?
For them, that's the problem.
So they're willing to go along with the RIAA on proposals that'll turn the Net into a controlled domain where the only audio/video entertainment content available for public distribution will be "blessed" by Hollywood.
Why is the RIAA out there all by itself suing 12 year olds?
It seems that the RIAA is being the "bad guy" to the MPAA "good guy", and this makes no sense. Gangs of scumbuckets don't make sacrifies for each other unless there's benefit in store for them.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Or better, no one say it. I believe that the music industry has become so completely broken that the major labels could not possibly turn around and become worthwhile. Better the more and more money goes into the RIAA until they realize it's too late and the Indy labes have actually gotten a foothold acting as contractors to musicians rather than the other way around.
'the Internet is right.'
>Through a combination of intelligent design, lucky accident and the good sense to follow the consumer's lead, movie companies settled on the VHS video format for 25 years
Sure, after fighting tooth and nail all the way up to the Supremes to have VCRs banned. If the author is unaware or incapable of acknowledging that well known piece of history, what chance they can predict the future?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Excellent Article - Read It
This article is the standard line of tripe you read everwhere. Very short on relevant facts or any insight; while being big on moral superiority, blame, and uninformed armchair market analysis.
If the music industry's problems were due to a traditional business issue such as quality or consumer convenience, another more agile and creative company could take the market. There are LOTs of smaller labels competing in the current market place and there is no artificial or unfair force holding them back.
The instant consumers get cheap, convenient, easily available access to goods for free, the money-driven economy around such goods will crumble. And it really doesn't matter how great the quality of the goods is, or how "nice" the industry is, or how much the public likes them, or what's fair and not fair.
Technology has allowed copyright-infringing techniques to become mainstream. This is clearly unfair by classical economics but as the saying goes: "all is fair in love and war". The writing on the wall is clear; this technology will ultimately make the existing music promotion and distribution business unviable.
Private enterprise (RIAA) knows this. They aren't blind. The enterprise is simply making every rational move it can to prolong its profit source and business model as long as it can. This is exactly what is expected in the capitalistic society that we live in.
I just bought 7 DVDs; I now have about 50.
I own 3 music CDs - total.
I have music on cassette taped off radio, VHS taped off MTV, and MP3s downloaded off the net and loaded onto 2 hard drives, dozens of CD-rw, and a portable MP3 player.
Even HMV can actually be reasonable value when it tries - the Josie soundtrack CD was actually in a 3 for 20 pounds offer until about a week ago and so I did actually buy it from HMV at that price (which beats even play.com). Also, if you buy CD singles in the first week, HMV often has them at 2.99 pounds - that's the sort of price no-one can beat online.
Yes, you're right - the HMV Web site is mainly only good for checking their sales listings (e.g. that recent 3 for 20 pounds offer included any mix of CDs or DVDs - there were over 800 DVDs to pick from and I could browse the online list to decide which one(s) I wanted before, yes, going to the bricks'n'mortar store and buying them there).
I'd argue the same is true of amazon.co.uk too - like HMV, it's a great search site for CDs and DVDs because of the massive stock, but the prices are uncompetitive compared to other online stores and I usually wait until another cheaper site has the item before I buy it online.
As for the prices being ironic - the point was that the main article said "you get more [and better] content on the DVD than the CD and it barely costs any more", whereas with Josie, you get less content on the CD, but it costs more and is better...hence it being an ironic twist of the main article's point.
A local artist was selling his CD by producing it on
CD-R, at the price of a CD...
Wow... I was amazed. I expected a cheaper price since it was obviously much cheaper to produce (and the thing was very home-produced indeed).
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
One of the big things the RIAA doesn't like about P2P is not just piracy, but that you can listen to music other than what they want to sell you. Is there that big of a risk with Hollywood? We're not at a point yet where the everyday Joe is cranking out Hollywood blockbusters. I suspect we'll have a problem when he can do that though. It will most likely be about the same time HD space and bandwidth increase enough to make pirating DVDs more feasible.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
You don't have kids do you? I have a couple grandkids. I've lost count of how many times I've watched Monsters Inc. Too bad stuff on TV has gotton so bad that it's almost never on. most of it is not suitable for kids except some stuff on PBS and FOX. I remember when all broadcast TV was suitable for all ages. (except the cig adverts.)
The truth shall set you free!
Perhaps for the next disc standard they will ask for region encoding and also genre encoding (i.e. some disc players to only play country discs, others to only play boy-band discs etc.) to really boost their egos and piss off consumers. It's standard practice in other industries:
Remember that Nintendo Europe is attacking retailers who import games like "Advance Wars 2" from the USA, since that would complicate their internal business reports, and the music industry executives must want to follow the same lead...
It is if it sits on the shelf unsold. There is competition for the disposable income. You may think it's worth $15 - $20, but it's hard to make your costs if you only sell 10K of them. How about selling them for $3 - $5 and selling 100K of them?
Duplication is the inexpensive part of production. Don't try to convince me otherwise. Hire some of the overseas pirates. They will do the duplication cheap including the cover art for a good price. Ask for bids. I hate to say compete with pirates, but they know what price points the product sells quanity. Maybe they don't want to sell quanity a-la De Beers.
The truth shall set you free!
Vivendi/Universal is also the Paris sewerage/water company (Companie generale des eaux). Ever wonder why so many bottled water companies are French? Taste the tap water in Paris and you'll know the answer. They also run train services in the UK (Connex) that are so bad, even the British have had enough and stripped them of the franchise. So there is a lot of synergy there.
First, I'd want the soundtrack (the actual one, not two songs from the movie + 13 stupid crap groups that someone wants to promote) included with the DVD. Preferably in DTS so it sounds good (DTS beats CD-quality after all). I'm not willing to spend $10-$20 on a soundtrack after all.
Second, why isn't music distributed mainly in a high quality format on DVDs with tons of extra goodies (videos of the recording, bios, make up tips, 10,000 things you didn't know about braindead popstar of choice, etc). With today's horribly mixed, massproduced, music I don't get anything better if I buy a CD than if I download mp3s... Companies who build crap cars die, why shouldn't music companies with crap music do the same?
As regards the retailer's income - that one is easy, the lower the price the more they will sell. They get their turnover by volume.
See my journal, I write things there
I've spent plenty of money on Radiohead, ...
;-).
Well there's your first mistake
If you ask anyone, at any point in history, they will tell you that things were better "before". Music in the 70s was not all great. Neither was music in the 60s or 80s.
A coworker and I recently agreed that the 1980s had the best pop music ever, while the 1970s had the best rock. Not so sure about the 1960s, but the kind of pop music you had back then makes for great children's music today.
We weren't able to come to an opinion on what the 1990s gave us, musically speaking. Perhaps the best country. Grunge is ineligible, since it's not the best of anything.
Oddly enough, this Friday, September 19, is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Sounds like you and your friend should be celebrating.
Yes
I'll compare the movie and music industry for you:
They both peddle mostly crap for rip-off prices. They are like drug dealers mixing their product with as much rat poision and random crap as they can so they can sell more. But unlike drug dealers they think that their product should have such high prices because its so hard to sell and smuggle into those record stores.
They both sell products on little disks that cost next to nothing to make. Ive seen CD unit costs for small runs and they cost less than a $, for larger runs - less than half a $. Scale that figure up to a record company who will press thousends and thousends of CDs and whos had 20 years to create the infrastructure - their CDs flow like water, take the price down and people will buy them, people will by more, people like me who have never bought a CD in their life will even start buying them! - you can start to apply that to DVDs aswell now.
Now they dont have to bring the price down, its their choice, but if they suddenly slashed CD prices right down to maybe $1-3 the general CD buying public would go into a state of shock, the shops would have to start turning people away from over crowding!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
And of course the RIAA, who missed the boat by refusing to give people what they wanted, tackles the problem by refusing to give people what the want.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
The target market for CDs and DVDs is "people who don't care what it costs."
If DVD buyers cared how much they spent, they wouldn't buy new releases. In fact, the average DVD buyer has money in his pocket burning a hole in it, and doesn't much care how much he gets for the money. CDs and DVDs are just the default "soaking up" of spare money.
Of course, many of us have different attitutes, and we're the ones complaining, but the prices are set in the market by the actions of the hole-in-the-pocket brigade.
If you cared about value for money, why would you buy one of this year's DVD releases when films from a few years ago are half the price? Have you really got every film you'd like to see from the 1990s? Have you so little self control that you can't say "Oh, that looks an interesting movie, I'll see it in a few years when the price drops"
Waiting for a special offer on a CD or DVD is as automatic for me as waiting for the paperback edition of a book. I saw quite a good film last night that I got on DVD for GBP6.99 -- less than half the price of most new releases. I can't see any reason why it would have been worth an extra GBP10 to see it two years sooner, unless I couldn't think of anything else to spend the money on.
The film? You've probably heard of it, it was called "The Matrix".
I've never had much interest in owning movies. Once I watched a movie I'm done with it. Netflix works great for me, and if I do want to watch a movie repeatedly, I'm allowed to hold onto the DVD as long as I want.
Couldn't the music industry make something like Netflix work for them?
-Rich
Canadian World Domination
Beware...
White Christmas or does Mr. Burns still own that?
It's true-- DVDs have lots of extras, etc.-- i.e. incentives -- to make you want to buy them. There's pretty much no real incentive right now to plunk down so much money for a shoddy RIAA-approved product, when you can get better stuff for free or used. Especially when so much of the cost goes toward supporting an entrenched, bloated, and backwards-thinking dinosaur of an industry.
oh, joy!
I wonder if the movie and music industries both base their prices on the price of performance tickets. $2 for the added movie content and $13 or so for a CD are roughly the same fraction of a movie ticket and a concert ticket respectively.
Anyway, who care about a movie featuring an operating system that is bloated, crashes often, and NO LONGER SUPPORTED?! If you want to watch movies about some OS, try Woody, with upcoming sneak preview of Sarge. Hey, even classics like Hamm, Slink, and Potato are better than Whistler and Longhorn combined!
Now if we can just get people to realize you can't legislate wealth we'll be doing well.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Many of those industries/companies *did* get government protection. The salient point is that it did little, if anything to stave off the inevitable.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.