"If the assholes would just realize the problem is them charging $20 for a CD that 20 years ago they promised would eventually be cheaper than cassettes and vinyl ever were."
Do you have a citation for this promise? The only place I've ever heard it is on Slashdot.
Anyway:
Typical price for a CD in 1985: $18.99. That's $33.70 in 2005 dollars.
Average price of a new CD today in the USA: around $13.
Typical price of an LP in 1985: about $8.00. That's about $14.20 in 2005 dollars. I was often paying $9 or $10 in 1985, and as much as $11.99 for some releases, but I'll use $8.00 as a concession.
CD prices are in freefall. It looks like it's been years since they learned that $20 isn't a good price for new releases. Music is cheaper now than it's ever been. Your advice for them would have been timely about five or ten years ago.
Maybe the piracy is being committed by the people who have been afraid to go to a record store in 5 or 10 years and still think that new releases are twenty bucks?
"Apple doesn't make much money (directly) from the iTunes Music Store--Steve Jobs himself has said this."
To clarify... Steve said that more than a year ago, when the iTMS was in startup mode. Analysts state that it's making money now.
"Oh, sure, people can use Hymn, but Joe User isn't that sophisticated."
Spot on. The GP used the "everybody is like Slashdotters" fallacy. I'm fairly non-technical. I could use Hymn or buy-burn-rip to get content from iTMS to my Creative player, but it's not worth the hassle of learning new software, or the effort. So, my next player will be an Apple. If interoperatability were legislated where I live, I would buy a Creative player, not an Apple player, next time. Simple as that.
Thanks for the insight! For what it's worth, I emailed a few people I know who live in France, and they hadn't even heard of it. I will take you at your word that the vast majority of French citizens know about, and support this bill, and chalk it up to bad sampling on my part. However, I don't think your statement that SACEM is "much like the RIAA" is correct. SACEM -- like our ASCAP and BMI -- represents artists and performers (including visual artists and poets), while our RIAA represents record companies. These are two different groups of people, and they're usually at odds with each other.
For what it's worth, here in the US, most businesses must get a license just to play the radio in public (although I believe taxi drivers are exempt), and we, too, have public TV and radio that's paid for, in part, by taxes. The government also collects a tax on audio CD-Rs, MiniDiscs and DATs, but not DVD-Rs or data CD-Rs.
So, the US and France are perhaps more alike than you think, but we don't have the universal hatred of artists that the French apparently do. Here in the US, songwriters, composers, poets, etc. are among the lowest-paid professions, so (Slashdotters notwithstanding) we tend to pity them, not hate them. Here, their worst enemy isn't Slashdotters (we're only the 2nd worst) but the record companies.
You did this successfully once before -- maybe this time, the people before the (digital) guillotine won't be the aristocracy, of those greedy performers, composers and songwriters. Perhaps it's time to get your revenge... good luck!
"This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians."
I've read a few articles on this, but none have supported the claim that this was supported by the "vast majority" of civilians.
As a sanity check, I most certainly would not want a socialized music system in the US. I don't want to pay a tax for something I wouldn't use. Of the people who are within 50 feet of me at this moment, some might like the idea, some might hate it, but most of them couldn't care less. When I expand this circle to include everybody in my family, the "couldn't care less" ratio increases dramatically.
Is it really the case that the French are different, and the "vast majority" of them want a socialized music system?
My guess is that the writer has made the assumption that because all of his friends happen to be file sharing fans (which is plausible, if he's in high school or college, and/or his friends all happen to be nerds as well), then this mindset is shared by everybody.
Sadly, I can anticipate the answer to your question about the little guy. It goes something like this:
"If musicians are so worried about making money, then they're businesspeople, not musicians. They should be in the business just for the love of creating. If they want money, they can play live concerts, or give away their music for free and beg for donations. And remember that Beethoven didn't care about money; he did it for the love of music.(*)"
But seriously, Canada and (to a lesser degree) the US have taxes and tarrifs that are distributed to performers, musicians and composers. The reality is that the distribution is very selective. In Canada, you must be a Canadian musician to see any money, and in both countries, only the top 40 artists see a significant amount.
The top downloads on the iTMS tend to match up with the Billboard top tens, so there's some support to the theory that music is pirated in the same proportion that it's bought in physical form. But my iTunes purchases are nothing like the Billboard top ten. If the USA were to adopt a socialized music system where I'd pay $10 a month for all I could eat, I think that most of my money would go to the Top 40 artists, and the musicians whose work I actually downloaded and enjoyed would not see any of it.
(*) Not true in the least, but nonetheless a commonly held opinion among file sharing fans.
You're correct that the CRIA is a collective of record labels -- Canada's version of the RIAA -- but they're not the ones who get the money first. It's the CPCC that gets it first. They're not a record company or association of record companies.
The CPCC distributes it to three groups: songwriters/music publishers (that is, people who write the words and music), performing artists (the people who sing and play the words and music), and record companies (the people who make and distribute recordings of the words and music).
If you want to think of it as a pyramid, with the CPCC at the top dispensing money (or not), the record labels are on the same level as the artists and performers. This is important to understand, as there's a lot of misinformation going around about the record companies keeping the tariff money from the artists. It's two separate streams.
That's an awful analogy. Smart people -- that includes you, me, and everybody reading this -- know exactly what Apple means when they state "don't steal music." Likewise, smart people know the difference between chicken and tuna.
In an effort to help promote the/. Newspeak, as the GP put it, you're being highly disingenuous.
That's precisely the GP's point. "stolen kisses," "stolen thunder," and all the other examples given don't make sense when you apply a literal analysis. The English language is like that. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" milked this for humor value from time to time when the amusing android character, Data, did not understand the figurative meaning of a word or phrase.
Good thing that Slashdotters don't control how we use the English language. It would be a very boring language indeed.
And "theft of service," "stealing your thunder" and "stolen kisses."
Are slashdotters smart enough to understand metaphors and the complexities of language? Sure. But the fundamental goal is to sanitize the act of copyright infringement. That's half of the job. The other job is to instill the notion that it's a victimless crime, or that the victims deserve what's coming to them. Of course, nobody likes the notion of a struggling songwriter losing money due to copyright infringement; thus the Slashdot-perpetuated myth that people who try to make a living off of their ideas are all greedy millionaires.
This is propaganda 101. They're techniques that have been used countless time. Nobody's to blame here -- it's human nature. In the 19th century it gave us tautologies like "manifest destiny." Killing Indians simply because they're in your way? Bad. Eradicating the Indian problem because they're disease-infested savages who get drunk on whiskey and rape and scalp your settlers? Good. Start up the propoganda, boys.
"I don't have hard evidence at the moment, but I've been told repeatedly that no Canadian artist has ever seen a dime of that levy money."
I've heard the same thing. The money is apparently tied up in paperwork and is very rarely disbursed. And when it it is, it doesn't amount to much for most working singers and songwriters, as it's distributed in proportion to sales. Name the top five Canadian performers and songwriters (I sure can't) and that's your list of who's getting most of the tariff.
When many people read "Canadian artists don't see the money" they falsely assume that it's because the record companies get to keep it. The record companies are out of the loop on this one. The evilness of the Canadian record companies has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
"Unless you count some round-a-bout reasoning that the levy money lets the music industry produce more musicians."
That doesn't even make sense. The money doesn't go to the record companies, either.
"If they bring the levy back, means I've paid my levy for the copyrights of my downloaded songs. That means I can give up my iTunes account in favour of a torrent account and get my music that way. Why not? I've paid the "levy", so I no longer in "violation" of fair use - I've paid for the copyright."
I think you're confusing your music industry and your health care industry. Canada has lots of socialized programs in which 100% of the operating costs are paid for by taxes (many more so than the US), but the existence of the tariff doesn't mean that Canada's music industry has been socialized. The performers, lyricists and songwriters (the recipients of the tariff) can't survive on the tariff alone -- it's a drop in the bucket. If you like a performer's work, buy their stuff.
"I do not understand. Since when you buy a blank media, does this mean that you can legally leech some mp3s and stick them onto this CD, since you already paid for the content?"
Nope. Many non-Canadians assume that the tariff means that Canada has a socialized music industry, in which the performers and artists are compensated only through the tariff. That's not the case... the tarrif is seen by its supporters as a way of supplementing performers and artists for presumed non-compensated copying of their work, but it's a drop in the bucket.
Similarly, here in the US, we pay taxes to keep the police departments running, but this doesn't give us the right to commit crimes.
"When it's reinstated and they're making millions upon millions of dollars per year on a product that isn't even theirs, they'll still insist that the recording industry is dying and it's all because of you downloading/burning scum! "Never mind the fact that we're making a profit on that too"."
I don't follow. The money goes to the performers and the songwriters... their work is most definitely "theirs." They took the time to think up the words and music. Perhaps being a successful performer or songwriter is harder than you think.
Most singers and songwriters do not make "millions upon millions of dollars." Songwriting, in particular, is typically one of the lowest income professions, right down there with authors and poets. To claim otherwise is, frankly, out of line.
Lastly, I've rarely, if ever, heard an artist complain about how the recording industry is dying. That sounds more like the standard line of the record labels... but they're not the ones who get the tariff money.
Wow, that makes me feel really, really old! I just barely remember getting a then-current Beatles album as a present as a small child -- Magical Mystery Tour, I think it was. Now, we have Slashdotters who don't even know that the Beatles were British.
"Note that six of the top ten are iPods. (The others are lower-price, and probably lower-profit, items.)"
There's an interesting dichotomy here on Slashdot. I imagine we all stand up for ourselves in real life, but when discussing (a) record companies or (b) potential iPod competitors, the consensus is "go ahead and curl up and die already." Would we tolerate such wimpy behavior from our friends, our loved ones, our children?
"You, of all people, know that people want iPods. And you're more than happy to sell them to them. Lots and lots and lots of them."
Wal-Mart has noticed that lots of their customers pay with credit cards. They could try to strike deals with credit card companies, but instead, they're taking advantage of newly loosened banking laws so they can start their own bank.
"But if you asked, I bet they'd be willing to help you set up some sweet bundles of iPods and high-ticket iTunes Music Store cards, with a nice margin built in for you. After all, you move a lot of kit for them."
Apple generally has the upper hand with the retailers here. With many products and vendors, the big retailers can shove them around, but when it comes to iPods, when Apple says "frog," the retailers jump. I don't think Amazon will be able to leverage the "we're going to launch our own player" card to get price breaks on product. Apple would likely play the "okay, we're not going to sell you ipods k thx bye" card. I've been on the receiving end of Apple's retail tactics, and I work with Amazon a lot. I can fully understand why Amazon is considering this. They would rather not be the frog any more.
"And maybe Steve and Bono would even let you be on stage with them sometime. Wouldn't that be neat?"
For what it's worth, I was next to Jeff at the Microsoft CES party at Ice last year. We were both up front and center for the Jewel concert. Jeff kept taking photos of her, and the bouncer kept trying to tell him to stop. Jeff wasn't having it. He does not strike me as a "curl up and get used to being Apple's frog" kind of guy.
"We say that because that's what RIAA is talking about. Yeah, discount places and independent retailers do better, but the AVERAGE PRICE PAID by the AVERAGE CONSUMER still amounts to $18 per."
I take it you're talking about the UK, converted into US $? Here in the USA, prices have been freefalling, and the average price of a new CD was sub-$14 in 2003 and continued to drop in 2004. I haven't seen the 2005 data, but I believe the price is now sub-$13. Living in the USA may suck in many ways, but at least we pay less for music than folks in a lot of countries.
"Regardless, I hardly think charging $13-$15 for a $.50 piece of plastic and a $2.00 package is "affordable" or "reasonable" in cost to expect me to rebuy. If you look at the amounts that 1) the artist makes on each sale and 2) the retailer makes on each sale, it still doesn't approach $13."
It doesn't cost the record company $0.50 to make that CD -- not hardly. The CD/jewel case/booklet is about $1.25, and royalties are $2 - $3. Then, there's the overhead, such as the salaries of the people who helped make the CD happen, but who are not compensated through royalties (just as folks who work at your place of business expect to be paid, such is the case at most record companies). There's also the not insignificant costs of advertising and promotion, and allowances for retailer returns (either damaged or unsold inventory), shipping, price protection, and the squillion other things that make the delta between net and gross a real bitch. As a result, net margins to the record companies on CDs are typically in the 10% - 20% range. That's on the low end of things, as consumer goods go. For example, the last hard drive, keyboard, mouse and monitor you bought likely netted a lot more for the manufacturer than the last CD you bought. And let's not even discuss prepared foods, hygiene products and apparel...
"Guess what? The middleman is ripping you off if you pay more than $10."
Sell-in from disti is about $10, I think. So, if you believe that a retailer should make a single-digit margin, then your statement is correct, but remember that retailers have overhead, too. Not even Amazon is able to get new releases down to $10, because that's typically lower than sell-in. For what it's worth, Amazon has a typical markup of 15%, although that might vary from category to category.
I do agree with you, however, that the "just re-buy it" solution for a damaged CD is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.
"Lasty, copyright definitely increases economic inequality. 95%+ of copyright royalties are collected by people earning over $100,000/year, mostly because of celebrities and corporations, and because copyright is similar to hitting the lottery for the case of copyrights held by people of more modest means - it's worthless most of the time."
You've touched on that point a few times in your post. Are there any studies that back it up?
In my lifetime I've met dozens, or even hundreds, of people who make their living off of their creative endeavors. Aside from the occasional celebrity encounter here and there, they were folks of, as you put it, modest means. I've met musicians, songwriters, novelists, poets, and software developers.
Likewise, in my lifetime I've met dozens, even hundreds, of people in various industries near and dear to Slashdotter's hearts: computer peripherals, software development, IT, and the like. Most were of modest means, but a few were millionaires. I've also met lots of actors, and a few farmers. But the pattern is always the same: compensation is a pyramid. A few people at the top get lots of money; most people do OK. You put it very well with your lottery analogy. You can hit the lottery in any industry through a combination of talent, hard work, and/or luck.
Yet I would not classify any of these industries as increasing economic inequality.
So, I'm curious whether you have any citations to studies that show that this is the case for the publishing industry, the music industry, the software industry or any other industry where money is earned through copyrights.
"If the students are *really* taught what copyrights are, how they were originally intended to work in the Constitution and the concepts of fair use, then the students will know when and how full of crap any 'anti-piracy' group might be. An educated group of consumers."
Correct, the history of copyright law and how it has changed innumerable times to reflect new technology would be most useful. Technology, and its use to disseminate information, has advanced in ways that the framers of the constitution likely never dreamed of.
This is just one of many ways that the concepts set forth in the constitution need to be reconciled with changing laws, and changes in our society. We're quick to invoke the constitution in an effort to curtail the rights of our friends who make their living through their creative works, yet we're not likely to tell our black friends that they don't get to vote on where the gang's going to eat lunch because the constitution states that they are 3/5 of a person.
"How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun."
This confused me for a second, but I believe it's the same reason why getting music via BitTorrent vs. buying the CD actually helps the artist:
"Pirating
[ ] CDs [ ] MacOS
actually
[ ] helps the artist [ ] is money in Apple's pocket
because
[ ] I might go to one of their concerts, assuming they're one of those artists who tours and might play in my area. [ ] I might buy some Apple hardware down the road, or convince my friend to.
Besides,
[ ] Since it's freely available via P2P, I wouldn't have bought it anyway,
and
[ ] The record company [ ] Steve Jobs
already has enough money. Additionally, I just know in my heart that
[ ] the artist being abused by the record company [ ] the MacOS design team abused by Apple -- I mean, just *try* finding something good at the BJ's Brewhouse across the street from Infinite Loop --
would want me to have it for free. After all, toiling for free was good enough for
[ ] Beethoven(*) [ ] Computer scientists in the 1970's, until Bill Gates had to be a dickweed and send that open letter to the Homebrew Computer Club
"That's a different animal. RIAA and it's subsidiary companies are a monopoly because they own the distribution chain, the adveritising chian, and the creation of music."
The RIAA is a trade group... the record companies aren't subsidiaries. Think record companies::RIAA as doctors::AMA. The RIAA has somewhere on the order of 800 members. There are also smaller trade groups that represent indie labels that don't want to belong to the RIAA.
Not sure that I follow on ownership of the disti chain. While there are some record company-owned retailers, the distis and retailers are independent entities who are NOT the record companies' friends... Wal-Mart and Best Buy pretty much made Univeral their bitch a few years back with the anti-trust ruling when they were giving MAPs to some smaller retailers. However, you have a point on advertising/promotion... a lot of the media conglomerates have a record company arm.
"It's a monopoly on English Music. And you can tell it's a monopoly because of the inelasticity."
Lack of elasticity isn't a primary indicator of a monopoly; there are lots of industries where there's low elasticity within segments. The record industry seems to think there's elasticity -- CD prices have been in free fall over the past few years as they've tried to fight piracy.
"If this lawsuit isn't struck down, there's going to be a lot of discontents. Me, for example."
"The RIAA has a monopoly in the mainstream music industry."
This is similar to writing "The AMA has a monopoly on the medical industry."
You are, however, correct that most mainstream music is sold by a dozen or so record companies. A similar situation exists in many other industries, but few sane people claim that GM/Ford/Daimler-Chrysler/VW/Toyota have a monopoly on the auto industry.
Copyright law grants a temporary monopoly on a work. If the Click Five write a song and have signed a recording contract with a record company, the record company has a monopoly on the recording, and the Click Five have a monopoly on the words and music. But this isn't a right only enjoyed by the big record companies or the popular acts... if you were to sign with a tiny, three-person record company, you and the record companies would enjoy the same monopolies.
"A proxy for the RIAA sues Apple for being a monopoly and getting in the way of the RIAA's monopoly."
Has it been established that the consumer starting the class action is working on behalf of the RIAA? I am not sure what the benefit would be to the RIAA here. The iTMS has sold nearly a billion songs. Forcing iTMS to work with other players might sell more players (or shift player sales to other models), but the RIAA wouldn't get any direct benefit from that. iTMS sales might go up, and the RIAA would benefit from that -- do you think that's their motivation?
"Apparently the RIAA even makes money on blank cassette tapes... and if you ever buy the 'music' CDRs, notice that they are more expensive. This added expense is an extortion charge from or big brother Gido at the RIAA."
Most of the tariff on "music" CD-Rs goes to the artists: musicians, composers, session musicians and background singers, and so on. The ratio is codified in law.
"It will if the RIAA has any say in the matter. The last thing they want is Internet radio. Consider that they pay broadcast radio to play songs but demand to be paid for the same songs going over the Internet."
I am not sure I follow your logic.
With terrestrial radio, licenses are paid only to the societies run by and for the composers and songwriters -- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the like -- that is, the representatives of the copyright holders of the words and music. The record companies see none of ths money.
With Internet radio, the RIAA successfully pushed for the owners of the copyright on the recording (that is, the record companies) to get paid, as well.
Here is how the RIAA puts it on their own site:
Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?
The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.
However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ("DPRA"). In doing so, Congress "grandfathered" the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.
In short: with Internet broadcasting, the record companies get a cut of the royalties. With traditional radio, they do not. My guess is that they do not want Internet radio stations to go away any time soon.
This gives Slasdotters three groups of people to hate:
The composers and songwriters, for being greedy and demanding to be paid for radio broadcasts. Popular consensus seems to be that they should be happy just playing coffee houses.
The broadcast conglomerates (Clear Channel), for being greedy. Oh, and for playing sucky music.
The RIAA, for being greedy.
Greedy programmers, coders, and IT people who could get by on $50,000 a year, yet who take $70K/year salaries because that's what the job market will bear. (Kidding! Don't worry... that's not greed at all... it's just looking out for your best interests. If you wanted to scrape by on the bare minimum to live on, you would have become a musician or something.)
Slashdot Mirror
"If the assholes would just realize the problem is them charging $20 for a CD that 20 years ago they promised would eventually be cheaper than cassettes and vinyl ever were."
Do you have a citation for this promise? The only place I've ever heard it is on Slashdot.
Anyway:
Typical price for a CD in 1985: $18.99. That's $33.70 in 2005 dollars.
Average price of a new CD today in the USA: around $13.
Typical price of an LP in 1985: about $8.00. That's about $14.20 in 2005 dollars. I was often paying $9 or $10 in 1985, and as much as $11.99 for some releases, but I'll use $8.00 as a concession.
CD prices are in freefall. It looks like it's been years since they learned that $20 isn't a good price for new releases. Music is cheaper now than it's ever been. Your advice for them would have been timely about five or ten years ago.
Maybe the piracy is being committed by the people who have been afraid to go to a record store in 5 or 10 years and still think that new releases are twenty bucks?
"Apple doesn't make much money (directly) from the iTunes Music Store--Steve Jobs himself has said this."
To clarify... Steve said that more than a year ago, when the iTMS was in startup mode. Analysts state that it's making money now.
"Oh, sure, people can use Hymn, but Joe User isn't that sophisticated."
Spot on. The GP used the "everybody is like Slashdotters" fallacy. I'm fairly non-technical. I could use Hymn or buy-burn-rip to get content from iTMS to my Creative player, but it's not worth the hassle of learning new software, or the effort. So, my next player will be an Apple. If interoperatability were legislated where I live, I would buy a Creative player, not an Apple player, next time. Simple as that.
Thanks for the insight! For what it's worth, I emailed a few people I know who live in France, and they hadn't even heard of it. I will take you at your word that the vast majority of French citizens know about, and support this bill, and chalk it up to bad sampling on my part. However, I don't think your statement that SACEM is "much like the RIAA" is correct. SACEM -- like our ASCAP and BMI -- represents artists and performers (including visual artists and poets), while our RIAA represents record companies. These are two different groups of people, and they're usually at odds with each other.
For what it's worth, here in the US, most businesses must get a license just to play the radio in public (although I believe taxi drivers are exempt), and we, too, have public TV and radio that's paid for, in part, by taxes. The government also collects a tax on audio CD-Rs, MiniDiscs and DATs, but not DVD-Rs or data CD-Rs.
So, the US and France are perhaps more alike than you think, but we don't have the universal hatred of artists that the French apparently do. Here in the US, songwriters, composers, poets, etc. are among the lowest-paid professions, so (Slashdotters notwithstanding) we tend to pity them, not hate them. Here, their worst enemy isn't Slashdotters (we're only the 2nd worst) but the record companies.
You did this successfully once before -- maybe this time, the people before the (digital) guillotine won't be the aristocracy, of those greedy performers, composers and songwriters. Perhaps it's time to get your revenge... good luck!
"This announcement caused outrage from the music and movie groups, but excitement from the vast majority of civilians."
I've read a few articles on this, but none have supported the claim that this was supported by the "vast majority" of civilians.
As a sanity check, I most certainly would not want a socialized music system in the US. I don't want to pay a tax for something I wouldn't use. Of the people who are within 50 feet of me at this moment, some might like the idea, some might hate it, but most of them couldn't care less. When I expand this circle to include everybody in my family, the "couldn't care less" ratio increases dramatically.
Is it really the case that the French are different, and the "vast majority" of them want a socialized music system?
My guess is that the writer has made the assumption that because all of his friends happen to be file sharing fans (which is plausible, if he's in high school or college, and/or his friends all happen to be nerds as well), then this mindset is shared by everybody.
Sadly, I can anticipate the answer to your question about the little guy. It goes something like this:
"If musicians are so worried about making money, then they're businesspeople, not musicians. They should be in the business just for the love of creating. If they want money, they can play live concerts, or give away their music for free and beg for donations. And remember that Beethoven didn't care about money; he did it for the love of music.(*)"
But seriously, Canada and (to a lesser degree) the US have taxes and tarrifs that are distributed to performers, musicians and composers. The reality is that the distribution is very selective. In Canada, you must be a Canadian musician to see any money, and in both countries, only the top 40 artists see a significant amount.
The top downloads on the iTMS tend to match up with the Billboard top tens, so there's some support to the theory that music is pirated in the same proportion that it's bought in physical form. But my iTunes purchases are nothing like the Billboard top ten. If the USA were to adopt a socialized music system where I'd pay $10 a month for all I could eat, I think that most of my money would go to the Top 40 artists, and the musicians whose work I actually downloaded and enjoyed would not see any of it.
(*) Not true in the least, but nonetheless a commonly held opinion among file sharing fans.
You're correct that the CRIA is a collective of record labels -- Canada's version of the RIAA -- but they're not the ones who get the money first. It's the CPCC that gets it first. They're not a record company or association of record companies.
The CPCC distributes it to three groups: songwriters/music publishers (that is, people who write the words and music), performing artists (the people who sing and play the words and music), and record companies (the people who make and distribute recordings of the words and music).
If you want to think of it as a pyramid, with the CPCC at the top dispensing money (or not), the record labels are on the same level as the artists and performers. This is important to understand, as there's a lot of misinformation going around about the record companies keeping the tariff money from the artists. It's two separate streams.
This page has more info. I hope this helps.
That's an awful analogy. Smart people -- that includes you, me, and everybody reading this -- know exactly what Apple means when they state "don't steal music." Likewise, smart people know the difference between chicken and tuna.
In an effort to help promote the /. Newspeak, as the GP put it, you're being highly disingenuous.
The journalspace fast media finder is yet another example. Start typing in the box, and watch what happens.
That's precisely the GP's point. "stolen kisses," "stolen thunder," and all the other examples given don't make sense when you apply a literal analysis. The English language is like that. "Star Trek: The Next Generation" milked this for humor value from time to time when the amusing android character, Data, did not understand the figurative meaning of a word or phrase.
Good thing that Slashdotters don't control how we use the English language. It would be a very boring language indeed.
And "theft of service," "stealing your thunder" and "stolen kisses."
Are slashdotters smart enough to understand metaphors and the complexities of language? Sure. But the fundamental goal is to sanitize the act of copyright infringement. That's half of the job. The other job is to instill the notion that it's a victimless crime, or that the victims deserve what's coming to them. Of course, nobody likes the notion of a struggling songwriter losing money due to copyright infringement; thus the Slashdot-perpetuated myth that people who try to make a living off of their ideas are all greedy millionaires.
This is propaganda 101. They're techniques that have been used countless time. Nobody's to blame here -- it's human nature. In the 19th century it gave us tautologies like "manifest destiny." Killing Indians simply because they're in your way? Bad. Eradicating the Indian problem because they're disease-infested savages who get drunk on whiskey and rape and scalp your settlers? Good. Start up the propoganda, boys.
Eek -- I'd better correct myself. Turns out that 15% of the tariff does indeed go to the record companies!
Let's at least hope that the same paperwork hassles are preventing them from getting their share in a timely manner, too!
"I don't have hard evidence at the moment, but I've been told repeatedly that no Canadian artist has ever seen a dime of that levy money."
I've heard the same thing. The money is apparently tied up in paperwork and is very rarely disbursed. And when it it is, it doesn't amount to much for most working singers and songwriters, as it's distributed in proportion to sales. Name the top five Canadian performers and songwriters (I sure can't) and that's your list of who's getting most of the tariff.
When many people read "Canadian artists don't see the money" they falsely assume that it's because the record companies get to keep it. The record companies are out of the loop on this one. The evilness of the Canadian record companies has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.
"Unless you count some round-a-bout reasoning that the levy money lets the music industry produce more musicians."
That doesn't even make sense. The money doesn't go to the record companies, either.
"If they bring the levy back, means I've paid my levy for the copyrights of my downloaded songs. That means I can give up my iTunes account in favour of a torrent account and get my music that way. Why not? I've paid the "levy", so I no longer in "violation" of fair use - I've paid for the copyright."
I think you're confusing your music industry and your health care industry. Canada has lots of socialized programs in which 100% of the operating costs are paid for by taxes (many more so than the US), but the existence of the tariff doesn't mean that Canada's music industry has been socialized. The performers, lyricists and songwriters (the recipients of the tariff) can't survive on the tariff alone -- it's a drop in the bucket. If you like a performer's work, buy their stuff.
"I do not understand. Since when you buy a blank media, does this mean that you can legally leech some mp3s and stick them onto this CD, since you already paid for the content?"
Nope. Many non-Canadians assume that the tariff means that Canada has a socialized music industry, in which the performers and artists are compensated only through the tariff. That's not the case... the tarrif is seen by its supporters as a way of supplementing performers and artists for presumed non-compensated copying of their work, but it's a drop in the bucket.
Similarly, here in the US, we pay taxes to keep the police departments running, but this doesn't give us the right to commit crimes.
"When it's reinstated and they're making millions upon millions of dollars per year on a product that isn't even theirs, they'll still insist that the recording industry is dying and it's all because of you downloading/burning scum! "Never mind the fact that we're making a profit on that too"."
I don't follow. The money goes to the performers and the songwriters... their work is most definitely "theirs." They took the time to think up the words and music. Perhaps being a successful performer or songwriter is harder than you think.
Most singers and songwriters do not make "millions upon millions of dollars." Songwriting, in particular, is typically one of the lowest income professions, right down there with authors and poets. To claim otherwise is, frankly, out of line.
Lastly, I've rarely, if ever, heard an artist complain about how the recording industry is dying. That sounds more like the standard line of the record labels... but they're not the ones who get the tariff money.
Wow, that makes me feel really, really old! I just barely remember getting a then-current Beatles album as a present as a small child -- Magical Mystery Tour, I think it was. Now, we have Slashdotters who don't even know that the Beatles were British.
That generation gap is a devil bitch, eh?
"Note that six of the top ten are iPods. (The others are lower-price, and probably lower-profit, items.)"
There's an interesting dichotomy here on Slashdot. I imagine we all stand up for ourselves in real life, but when discussing (a) record companies or (b) potential iPod competitors, the consensus is "go ahead and curl up and die already." Would we tolerate such wimpy behavior from our friends, our loved ones, our children?
"You, of all people, know that people want iPods. And you're more than happy to sell them to them. Lots and lots and lots of them."
Wal-Mart has noticed that lots of their customers pay with credit cards. They could try to strike deals with credit card companies, but instead, they're taking advantage of newly loosened banking laws so they can start their own bank.
"But if you asked, I bet they'd be willing to help you set up some sweet bundles of iPods and high-ticket iTunes Music Store cards, with a nice margin built in for you. After all, you move a lot of kit for them."
Apple generally has the upper hand with the retailers here. With many products and vendors, the big retailers can shove them around, but when it comes to iPods, when Apple says "frog," the retailers jump. I don't think Amazon will be able to leverage the "we're going to launch our own player" card to get price breaks on product. Apple would likely play the "okay, we're not going to sell you ipods k thx bye" card. I've been on the receiving end of Apple's retail tactics, and I work with Amazon a lot. I can fully understand why Amazon is considering this. They would rather not be the frog any more.
"And maybe Steve and Bono would even let you be on stage with them sometime. Wouldn't that be neat?"
For what it's worth, I was next to Jeff at the Microsoft CES party at Ice last year. We were both up front and center for the Jewel concert. Jeff kept taking photos of her, and the bouncer kept trying to tell him to stop. Jeff wasn't having it. He does not strike me as a "curl up and get used to being Apple's frog" kind of guy.
"We say that because that's what RIAA is talking about. Yeah, discount places and independent retailers do better, but the AVERAGE PRICE PAID by the AVERAGE CONSUMER still amounts to $18 per."
I take it you're talking about the UK, converted into US $? Here in the USA, prices have been freefalling, and the average price of a new CD was sub-$14 in 2003 and continued to drop in 2004. I haven't seen the 2005 data, but I believe the price is now sub-$13. Living in the USA may suck in many ways, but at least we pay less for music than folks in a lot of countries.
"Regardless, I hardly think charging $13-$15 for a $.50 piece of plastic and a $2.00 package is "affordable" or "reasonable" in cost to expect me to rebuy. If you look at the amounts that 1) the artist makes on each sale and 2) the retailer makes on each sale, it still doesn't approach $13."
It doesn't cost the record company $0.50 to make that CD -- not hardly. The CD/jewel case/booklet is about $1.25, and royalties are $2 - $3. Then, there's the overhead, such as the salaries of the people who helped make the CD happen, but who are not compensated through royalties (just as folks who work at your place of business expect to be paid, such is the case at most record companies). There's also the not insignificant costs of advertising and promotion, and allowances for retailer returns (either damaged or unsold inventory), shipping, price protection, and the squillion other things that make the delta between net and gross a real bitch. As a result, net margins to the record companies on CDs are typically in the 10% - 20% range. That's on the low end of things, as consumer goods go. For example, the last hard drive, keyboard, mouse and monitor you bought likely netted a lot more for the manufacturer than the last CD you bought. And let's not even discuss prepared foods, hygiene products and apparel...
"Guess what? The middleman is ripping you off if you pay more than $10."
Sell-in from disti is about $10, I think. So, if you believe that a retailer should make a single-digit margin, then your statement is correct, but remember that retailers have overhead, too. Not even Amazon is able to get new releases down to $10, because that's typically lower than sell-in. For what it's worth, Amazon has a typical markup of 15%, although that might vary from category to category.
I do agree with you, however, that the "just re-buy it" solution for a damaged CD is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen.
"Lasty, copyright definitely increases economic inequality. 95%+ of copyright royalties are collected by people earning over $100,000/year, mostly because of celebrities and corporations, and because copyright is similar to hitting the lottery for the case of copyrights held by people of more modest means - it's worthless most of the time."
You've touched on that point a few times in your post. Are there any studies that back it up?
In my lifetime I've met dozens, or even hundreds, of people who make their living off of their creative endeavors. Aside from the occasional celebrity encounter here and there, they were folks of, as you put it, modest means. I've met musicians, songwriters, novelists, poets, and software developers.
Likewise, in my lifetime I've met dozens, even hundreds, of people in various industries near and dear to Slashdotter's hearts: computer peripherals, software development, IT, and the like. Most were of modest means, but a few were millionaires. I've also met lots of actors, and a few farmers. But the pattern is always the same: compensation is a pyramid. A few people at the top get lots of money; most people do OK. You put it very well with your lottery analogy. You can hit the lottery in any industry through a combination of talent, hard work, and/or luck.
Yet I would not classify any of these industries as increasing economic inequality.
So, I'm curious whether you have any citations to studies that show that this is the case for the publishing industry, the music industry, the software industry or any other industry where money is earned through copyrights.
"If the students are *really* taught what copyrights are, how they were originally intended to work in the Constitution and the concepts of fair use, then the students will know when and how full of crap any 'anti-piracy' group might be. An educated group of consumers."
Correct, the history of copyright law and how it has changed innumerable times to reflect new technology would be most useful. Technology, and its use to disseminate information, has advanced in ways that the framers of the constitution likely never dreamed of.
This is just one of many ways that the concepts set forth in the constitution need to be reconciled with changing laws, and changes in our society. We're quick to invoke the constitution in an effort to curtail the rights of our friends who make their living through their creative works, yet we're not likely to tell our black friends that they don't get to vote on where the gang's going to eat lunch because the constitution states that they are 3/5 of a person.
"How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun."
This confused me for a second, but I believe it's the same reason why getting music via BitTorrent vs. buying the CD actually helps the artist:
"Pirating
[ ] CDs
[ ] MacOS
actually
[ ] helps the artist
[ ] is money in Apple's pocket
because
[ ] I might go to one of their concerts, assuming they're one of those artists who tours and might play in my area.
[ ] I might buy some Apple hardware down the road, or convince my friend to.
Besides,
[ ] Since it's freely available via P2P, I wouldn't have bought it anyway,
and
[ ] The record company
[ ] Steve Jobs
already has enough money. Additionally, I just know in my heart that
[ ] the artist being abused by the record company
[ ] the MacOS design team abused by Apple -- I mean, just *try* finding something good at the BJ's Brewhouse across the street from Infinite Loop --
would want me to have it for free. After all, toiling for free was good enough for
[ ] Beethoven(*)
[ ] Computer scientists in the 1970's, until Bill Gates had to be a dickweed and send that open letter to the Homebrew Computer Club
and
[ ] entertainment
[ ] information
[ ] love
just wants to be free."
I hope this helps.
* Note: Beethoven did not actually toil for free.
"That's a different animal. RIAA and it's subsidiary companies are a monopoly because they own the distribution chain, the adveritising chian, and the creation of music."
The RIAA is a trade group... the record companies aren't subsidiaries. Think record companies::RIAA as doctors::AMA. The RIAA has somewhere on the order of 800 members. There are also smaller trade groups that represent indie labels that don't want to belong to the RIAA.
Not sure that I follow on ownership of the disti chain. While there are some record company-owned retailers, the distis and retailers are independent entities who are NOT the record companies' friends... Wal-Mart and Best Buy pretty much made Univeral their bitch a few years back with the anti-trust ruling when they were giving MAPs to some smaller retailers. However, you have a point on advertising/promotion... a lot of the media conglomerates have a record company arm.
"It's a monopoly on English Music. And you can tell it's a monopoly because of the inelasticity."
Lack of elasticity isn't a primary indicator of a monopoly; there are lots of industries where there's low elasticity within segments. The record industry seems to think there's elasticity -- CD prices have been in free fall over the past few years as they've tried to fight piracy.
"If this lawsuit isn't struck down, there's going to be a lot of discontents. Me, for example."
Me, too!
"The RIAA has a monopoly in the mainstream music industry."
This is similar to writing "The AMA has a monopoly on the medical industry."
You are, however, correct that most mainstream music is sold by a dozen or so record companies. A similar situation exists in many other industries, but few sane people claim that GM/Ford/Daimler-Chrysler/VW/Toyota have a monopoly on the auto industry.
Copyright law grants a temporary monopoly on a work. If the Click Five write a song and have signed a recording contract with a record company, the record company has a monopoly on the recording, and the Click Five have a monopoly on the words and music. But this isn't a right only enjoyed by the big record companies or the popular acts... if you were to sign with a tiny, three-person record company, you and the record companies would enjoy the same monopolies.
"A proxy for the RIAA sues Apple for being a monopoly and getting in the way of the RIAA's monopoly."
Has it been established that the consumer starting the class action is working on behalf of the RIAA? I am not sure what the benefit would be to the RIAA here. The iTMS has sold nearly a billion songs. Forcing iTMS to work with other players might sell more players (or shift player sales to other models), but the RIAA wouldn't get any direct benefit from that. iTMS sales might go up, and the RIAA would benefit from that -- do you think that's their motivation?
"Apparently the RIAA even makes money on blank cassette tapes... and if you ever buy the 'music' CDRs, notice that they are more expensive. This added expense is an extortion charge from or big brother Gido at the RIAA."
Most of the tariff on "music" CD-Rs goes to the artists: musicians, composers, session musicians and background singers, and so on. The ratio is codified in law.
"It will if the RIAA has any say in the matter. The last thing they want is Internet radio. Consider that they pay broadcast radio to play songs but demand to be paid for the same songs going over the Internet."
I am not sure I follow your logic.
With terrestrial radio, licenses are paid only to the societies run by and for the composers and songwriters -- ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the like -- that is, the representatives of the copyright holders of the words and music. The record companies see none of ths money.
With Internet radio, the RIAA successfully pushed for the owners of the copyright on the recording (that is, the record companies) to get paid, as well.
Here is how the RIAA puts it on their own site:
Terrestrial radio stations don't pay sound recording copyright owners. Why should webcasters be treated any differently?
The lack of a broad sound recording performance right that applies to US terrestrial broadcasts is an historical accident. In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use of the sound recordings upon which their business is based. For decades, the US recording industry fought unsuccessfully to change this anomaly while broadcasters built very profitable businesses on the creative works of artists and record companies. The broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill.
However, with the birth of digital transmission technology, Congress understood the importance of establishing a sound recording performance right for digital transmissions, and did so in 1995 with the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act ("DPRA"). In doing so, Congress "grandfathered" the old world of terrestrial broadcasting, but required everyone (including broadcasters) operating in the new world of digital transmissions to pay their fair share for using copyrighted sound recordings in their business.
In short: with Internet broadcasting, the record companies get a cut of the royalties. With traditional radio, they do not. My guess is that they do not want Internet radio stations to go away any time soon.
This gives Slasdotters three groups of people to hate: