Odd. I haven't had any of those problems. The LP that I bought in 1965 for $4.99 should cost $26 in today's money (adjusted for inflation), yet it is less expensive than that. And the artists whose music I like make CDs that have 10-12 great songs on them. And finally, I have yet to purchase a CD that doesn't play on my stereo and in my computer, and I have yet to purchase a song from iTunes music store that doesn't play on my iPod. I guess it's all perception.
As long as we're on the home of splitting hairs over words like "theft" and "piracy," it might be worthwhile to point out that the RIAA was never "convicted" for overcharging. They settled the case.
Conversely, I have never watched any film more than twice, so I rarely buy DVDs. I have listened to many of my favorite albums hundreds of times, so I continue buying CDs. And $15 is not much money for me to pay for that amount of entertainment.
How did you do your research? How do you know how most artists put their albums together? Over 20,000 albums (mostly in CD format) were released in the US alone last year. How many have you listened to? What percentage of the artists did you speak with to arrive at this conclusion? As a recording artist myself, I can tell you that I (and every other artist I know) put a great deal of thought into the sequence of songs on an album. And I don't make concept albums. It's just important to me that the overall work has a nice pace. How you listen to the work is your business. In other words, the sequence of every album is probably meaningful, but perhaps just not to you.
The iPod is not useless for law-abiding Europeans. I bought one a year and a half before the iTunes music store was around in the US. I took my MP3s (that I had burned from my CD collection into iTunes) and dumped them onto the iPod. I don't see how that is so difficult.
Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for? Thank god your priorities are in the right place. Now if people like you could just run the world we could straighten out the mess we're in pronto.
I don't believe many people would pay. At least not the people I often see posting on this board. Most likely, they would begin complaining that $5.00 is too much. Then they would say, if it were $2.50...maybe.
I'm all for DJs getting their due, but what about the projectionists in movie theatres? They have to operate a complicated machine, their work is enjoyed by hundreds of people at a time, they help inspire a wide range of emotions in the audience. When will they be celebrated? Reviewed? Make more money? Let's stand up for the projectionists!
I'm no RIAA apologist, but some of my favorite musical artists of all time are on RIAA-affiliated labels. But then I assume you don't like or listen to the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, Lucinda Williams, Led Zep, David Bowie, U2, Television, Sex Pistols, Frank Sinatra, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Nirvana, X, New York Dolls, Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, John Mellencamp, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Steely Dan, Al Green, James Brown, The Clash, Van Morrison, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Dwight Yoakam, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, etc. BECAUSE IT'S ALL CRAP.
I think you're right, and it is the logical way for things to go. Soon, most popular music will be corporate sponsored. That way everyone will get what they want. Musicians who want to make a living recording music (or at least music that is aligned with a specific brand's values) will be able to do so, and listeners who were too cheap to pay $1 a song can get a free one with their $1 can of sugar water.
Good analogy. Except (and I assume you are referring to the RIAA or its member companies) they did have a hand in its brewing (they financed it), and they are FAR from the only ones you can buy tea from (major label releases make up just over 50% of worldwide music releases--the rest are truly independent). In other words, I can hear the wind whistling through the holes in your argument from here. And I have my sound off.
What difference would 15 year copyright terms make? Most of the music and films people are downloading are new releases. This is one of the weakest justifications for copyright infringement that appear on this board.
I'm a musician, and I make money from my recordings. That's because I am a songwriter as well. I, like other songwriters, get 8 cents per song per copy sold in mechanical royalties. So, on one of my albums with 10 songs, I get 80 cents per CD sold, just for having written the songs. Record labels do pay the mechanicals to songwriters, and they tend to pay them promptly. And for the record, major labels tend to be--in my experience (and I have experience with both)--quite a bit more reliable in the cutting-a-check department than independent labels. While I'm not an RIAA apologist, it's patently untrue that musicians get nothing from CD sales, unless they are not songwriters, or have signed 100% of their publishing away (which is very rare). But this line of thinking does seem to crop up quite a bit in people's rationalizations for not paying for music.
Who is more greedy? 1.) People who work to produce music, movies, etc., then want to get paid for the time, effort, and money they invested. Or, 2.) People who want to take the fruits of that labor without paying for it. I would argue that group 2 are the greedy ones. And by the way, the work I produce is not begging you to free it. It's asking you to buy it.
Well, first of all, when this decision was handed down, those TV programs were not available for sale. The machines were taping BROADCASTS. Broadcasts (and production) that had been paid for by advertising contained therein. Then, as now, you could tape (or digitally record) a broadcast of say, a radio show, for your own personal use, and not raise the ire of the RIAA. Downloading MP3s from a complete stranger via P2P is a little different. The music is in most cases available for sale, and you are downloading it to avoid paying for it. It's not really double standard. Nor is it as annoying or frustrating as reading posts by people who don't understand why taping a program off a television broadcast is different from downloading an MP3.
This article (and issue) concerns songwriters. Some of whom don't record. Only write. And by the way, writing songs is work. Just as much as writing, say, code. Non-performing songwriters are who really get hurt by non-sanctioned downloading, as royalties from sales, broadcast and licensing are their only forms of income. So while your glib "actually work for a living" comment will probably resonate with many of the people on this board, you are off the mark here.
I agree with everything up to the last paragraph. I think prices will stay around $1 a song. Also, no matter how many pieces fall into place, the guy at home with a studio (Garage Band, whatever) will only have a place at the table, along with bands/artists on major labels--or I predict, sponsored/funded in a more direct way by consumer product brands (this is lamentable, but unavoidable given that so many people don't want to pay for music). Home recording has been around for 25 years, and MP3.com in its heyday offered countless fully independent artists for free download. The problem? Very few takers. Why? Most of the music sucked. Garage Band, no matter how great an application, can do little to change that.
The linked-to article states that CDRs and MP3s are not KILLING CD sales. There is a difference, it seems to me, between not hurting and not killing. As I understand it, sales of recorded music in Australia were down 4.5% for 2003 overall. I'm not certain those type of sales declines can be successfully spun into downloading and burning not hurting sales of recorded music.
As a non-performing songwriter, I am against what you propose. It may or may not benefit recording artists (I believe it wouldn't), but for songwriters, whose only means of income is the sale of media (CDs, MP3s, etc.) and licensing fees, what you propose would be extremely harmful. And I, for one, have no problem with paying $1 for an MP3 of Elvis Presley singing Heartbreak Hotel, even though he and its writer, Mae Boren Axton, are dead. If I like the work, a dollar is a very small sum to part with. Also, nothing is standing in the way of any independent artists releasing their own music (copyright-free if they want to), and posting it to be shared by anyone via P2P as you suggest. In short, copyright can be avoided by those to whom it matters and should have the choice: the creators. If you don't like that content is copyrighted, I urge you to protest. But a great place to start would be by boycotting consumption. Don't buy, download, watch, listen to, or read copyrighted content. That would be a meaningful protest.
I believe Apple is prohibited from going into the music business by an agreement they reached with Apple Records. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, I don't think $1 per song is a high price. An LP that sold for $4.99 in 1965, adjusted for inflation, would cost over $25 today. Back then, a typical LP had only 10 songs. That would be $2.50 per track. And I don't think income (again, adjusted for inflation) is substantially lower today. It's strange to me that people are willing to pay $1 for a can of sugar water that will turn into waste in a matter of hours, but rail against paying a buck for a song that may provide them with more lasting enjoyment. I guess I just value music more than some people.
Wrong. I'm not an RIAA lapdog, and I'm against "sharing." As a songwriter who doesn't record or tour, if you download a song I wrote without paying for it, I don't get paid. I get 8 cents per song I write per CD (or digital copy) SOLD. Sharing is NOT good for me. Just curious, what do you do for a living? And how would you like it (or pay your bills) if your didn't get paid for the work that you do?
Slashdot Mirror
Odd. I haven't had any of those problems. The LP that I bought in 1965 for $4.99 should cost $26 in today's money (adjusted for inflation), yet it is less expensive than that. And the artists whose music I like make CDs that have 10-12 great songs on them. And finally, I have yet to purchase a CD that doesn't play on my stereo and in my computer, and I have yet to purchase a song from iTunes music store that doesn't play on my iPod. I guess it's all perception.
As long as we're on the home of splitting hairs over words like "theft" and "piracy," it might be worthwhile to point out that the RIAA was never "convicted" for overcharging. They settled the case.
Conversely, I have never watched any film more than twice, so I rarely buy DVDs. I have listened to many of my favorite albums hundreds of times, so I continue buying CDs. And $15 is not much money for me to pay for that amount of entertainment.
How did you do your research? How do you know how most artists put their albums together? Over 20,000 albums (mostly in CD format) were released in the US alone last year. How many have you listened to? What percentage of the artists did you speak with to arrive at this conclusion? As a recording artist myself, I can tell you that I (and every other artist I know) put a great deal of thought into the sequence of songs on an album. And I don't make concept albums. It's just important to me that the overall work has a nice pace. How you listen to the work is your business. In other words, the sequence of every album is probably meaningful, but perhaps just not to you.
The iPod is not useless for law-abiding Europeans. I bought one a year and a half before the iTunes music store was around in the US. I took my MP3s (that I had burned from my CD collection into iTunes) and dumped them onto the iPod. I don't see how that is so difficult.
Let me see if I understand this line of thinking correctly: you people want a revolution because you can't download movies and music that you didn't pay for? Thank god your priorities are in the right place. Now if people like you could just run the world we could straighten out the mess we're in pronto.
I don't believe many people would pay. At least not the people I often see posting on this board. Most likely, they would begin complaining that $5.00 is too much. Then they would say, if it were $2.50...maybe.
And your point is?
I'm all for DJs getting their due, but what about the projectionists in movie theatres? They have to operate a complicated machine, their work is enjoyed by hundreds of people at a time, they help inspire a wide range of emotions in the audience. When will they be celebrated? Reviewed? Make more money? Let's stand up for the projectionists!
Define sellout. And then think hard about your own life in the context of that definition. I'd be interested in your findings.
I'm no RIAA apologist, but some of my favorite musical artists of all time are on RIAA-affiliated labels. But then I assume you don't like or listen to the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, Lucinda Williams, Led Zep, David Bowie, U2, Television, Sex Pistols, Frank Sinatra, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Nirvana, X, New York Dolls, Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, John Mellencamp, Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, Steely Dan, Al Green, James Brown, The Clash, Van Morrison, Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, Dwight Yoakam, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, etc. BECAUSE IT'S ALL CRAP.
I think you're right, and it is the logical way for things to go. Soon, most popular music will be corporate sponsored. That way everyone will get what they want. Musicians who want to make a living recording music (or at least music that is aligned with a specific brand's values) will be able to do so, and listeners who were too cheap to pay $1 a song can get a free one with their $1 can of sugar water.
Good analogy. Except (and I assume you are referring to the RIAA or its member companies) they did have a hand in its brewing (they financed it), and they are FAR from the only ones you can buy tea from (major label releases make up just over 50% of worldwide music releases--the rest are truly independent). In other words, I can hear the wind whistling through the holes in your argument from here. And I have my sound off.
What difference would 15 year copyright terms make? Most of the music and films people are downloading are new releases. This is one of the weakest justifications for copyright infringement that appear on this board.
I'm a musician, and I make money from my recordings. That's because I am a songwriter as well. I, like other songwriters, get 8 cents per song per copy sold in mechanical royalties. So, on one of my albums with 10 songs, I get 80 cents per CD sold, just for having written the songs. Record labels do pay the mechanicals to songwriters, and they tend to pay them promptly. And for the record, major labels tend to be--in my experience (and I have experience with both)--quite a bit more reliable in the cutting-a-check department than independent labels. While I'm not an RIAA apologist, it's patently untrue that musicians get nothing from CD sales, unless they are not songwriters, or have signed 100% of their publishing away (which is very rare). But this line of thinking does seem to crop up quite a bit in people's rationalizations for not paying for music.
Who is more greedy? 1.) People who work to produce music, movies, etc., then want to get paid for the time, effort, and money they invested. Or, 2.) People who want to take the fruits of that labor without paying for it. I would argue that group 2 are the greedy ones. And by the way, the work I produce is not begging you to free it. It's asking you to buy it.
Well, first of all, when this decision was handed down, those TV programs were not available for sale. The machines were taping BROADCASTS. Broadcasts (and production) that had been paid for by advertising contained therein. Then, as now, you could tape (or digitally record) a broadcast of say, a radio show, for your own personal use, and not raise the ire of the RIAA. Downloading MP3s from a complete stranger via P2P is a little different. The music is in most cases available for sale, and you are downloading it to avoid paying for it. It's not really double standard. Nor is it as annoying or frustrating as reading posts by people who don't understand why taping a program off a television broadcast is different from downloading an MP3.
This article (and issue) concerns songwriters. Some of whom don't record. Only write. And by the way, writing songs is work. Just as much as writing, say, code. Non-performing songwriters are who really get hurt by non-sanctioned downloading, as royalties from sales, broadcast and licensing are their only forms of income. So while your glib "actually work for a living" comment will probably resonate with many of the people on this board, you are off the mark here.
I agree with everything up to the last paragraph. I think prices will stay around $1 a song. Also, no matter how many pieces fall into place, the guy at home with a studio (Garage Band, whatever) will only have a place at the table, along with bands/artists on major labels--or I predict, sponsored/funded in a more direct way by consumer product brands (this is lamentable, but unavoidable given that so many people don't want to pay for music). Home recording has been around for 25 years, and MP3.com in its heyday offered countless fully independent artists for free download. The problem? Very few takers. Why? Most of the music sucked. Garage Band, no matter how great an application, can do little to change that.
The linked-to article states that CDRs and MP3s are not KILLING CD sales. There is a difference, it seems to me, between not hurting and not killing. As I understand it, sales of recorded music in Australia were down 4.5% for 2003 overall. I'm not certain those type of sales declines can be successfully spun into downloading and burning not hurting sales of recorded music.
As a non-performing songwriter, I am against what you propose. It may or may not benefit recording artists (I believe it wouldn't), but for songwriters, whose only means of income is the sale of media (CDs, MP3s, etc.) and licensing fees, what you propose would be extremely harmful. And I, for one, have no problem with paying $1 for an MP3 of Elvis Presley singing Heartbreak Hotel, even though he and its writer, Mae Boren Axton, are dead. If I like the work, a dollar is a very small sum to part with. Also, nothing is standing in the way of any independent artists releasing their own music (copyright-free if they want to), and posting it to be shared by anyone via P2P as you suggest. In short, copyright can be avoided by those to whom it matters and should have the choice: the creators. If you don't like that content is copyrighted, I urge you to protest. But a great place to start would be by boycotting consumption. Don't buy, download, watch, listen to, or read copyrighted content. That would be a meaningful protest.
I believe Apple is prohibited from going into the music business by an agreement they reached with Apple Records. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, I don't think $1 per song is a high price. An LP that sold for $4.99 in 1965, adjusted for inflation, would cost over $25 today. Back then, a typical LP had only 10 songs. That would be $2.50 per track. And I don't think income (again, adjusted for inflation) is substantially lower today. It's strange to me that people are willing to pay $1 for a can of sugar water that will turn into waste in a matter of hours, but rail against paying a buck for a song that may provide them with more lasting enjoyment. I guess I just value music more than some people.
I'll make recordings of my music available on the Web, people will share them, and I'll get...nothing.
You're an idiot. Sorry, my mistake.
Wrong. I'm not an RIAA lapdog, and I'm against "sharing." As a songwriter who doesn't record or tour, if you download a song I wrote without paying for it, I don't get paid. I get 8 cents per song I write per CD (or digital copy) SOLD. Sharing is NOT good for me. Just curious, what do you do for a living? And how would you like it (or pay your bills) if your didn't get paid for the work that you do?