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 $2.12 more...'"
They're nickel-and-dime-ing the consumer to death, and no one will do anything about it. What, do they think we're made of money? The surcharges and the "Artist" tax for all CDR related equipment has to stop. When will people take notice? (fp)
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Simply put, in my sole estimation, DVDs are worth my money--music CDs aren't.
one decent justin timberlake song
uh huh right and I'll find that along with element 118, cold fusion and bigfoot, and non-buggy M$ products.
read my blog
musings on politics and technol
MPAA: Not the RIAA
that's nonsense. Wait until the day we have gigabit ethernet in every home and we can copy an entire DVD in
They've just have less enemies cause there's less easy ways to steal/copy. That's all.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Buy CDs used. They're a more reasonably price, even if still over priced.
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.
"Two beers or not two beers. That's the question." -- Shakesbeer
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
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?
How absurd to see the MPAA cast as the "good guy" on here: Wasn't this the same MPAA that was cast as Satan-in-the-flesh when the whole DeCSS fiasco took place? Indeed, the only reason why the MPAA isn't more on the Slashdot hippocrisy-hitlist is due to bandwidth constraints making it a tad onerous to download DVDs (and compressing a 9GB movie down to a CD or two makes for a vast quality difference, quite unlike CD rips where a CD rip that's perceived as the same quality is an easy download). Soon enough, as bandwidth increases, these same jokers will be yipping about how the movie business model is broken, and they should put out movies for free and make money on toys, or some such moral justification.
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.
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.
The more people that say this, the greater chance the music industry will start paying attention to their customers' wants again.
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.
.... Half the time music is something to listen to en route to actually doing something. Music is not in itself usually an activity. A DVD, or movies in general are much more entertaining.
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.
Because when I'm about with a group of friends, I say, Hey... Wanna listen to my cd collection?
Also, music takes less money to make than a movie. I.E. I will pay more for a movie.
http://use.perl.org
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.
The problem with CDs is that you usually pay for one song you want to and 15 others you're not interested in. With movie DVD, you just pay for what you want.
Maybe, but there's still a common misconception that CDs are dramatically overpriced because of this.
If a CD which costs $15 has 15 tracks, 5 of which are good, 5 of which are average, and 5 of which are bad, then it's inappropriate to say that the songs are worth $1 each. Maybe the good songs are worth $2, the average songs are worth $1, and the bad songs are worth nothing.
On the other hand, if you claim to like bands that produce CDs with only 1 good song, then my conclusion is that you obviously have bad taste in music.
-a
No, the MPAA is just as bad as the RIAA, and the only thing keeping them from an RIAA-style attack on the customer base is that current broadband technology doesn't permit easy sharing of movies. Remember that the MPAA was implicitly complicit in purchasing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act from Congress. I hear they got it for a song.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
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!
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'"
And the most ironic thing about this post is that Josie and the Pussycats movie is all about super-mega-corps brainwashing the public into thinking they need to buy into the latest pop music fads.
But why is the rum gone?
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.
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
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)?
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.
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