That's a valid question. Although legitimate copies of said film have been available in Asia for quite a while, the copy she gave me was one of many that she bought for a buck apiece in Beijing.
Most of the films that she bought were ones that I would not have seen in the theatre. However, about five of them were, so I can honestly say that her actions saved me money that I otherwise would have spent at the movie theatre. I don't pirate very often, but when I do, at least I acknowledge that I do it to save money, rather than taking the approach that many Slashdotters do of flying the "information wants to be free" banner and trying to elevate it to a social protest that's akin to the Montgomery Freedom March.
"This is why so few people use it, because so few people really know what it is."
Please don't assume that all geeks share the same moral compass.
I have no interest in using it because if I am going to purchase music, I want the artist to be paid. Even if they get only $0.15 of the buck I spend on iTunes, that's $0.15 more than they'd get from a pirate site. If a hundred people like me do the same, that's the artist's water bill for the month, and if a thousand people do, that's groceries for the month and a tank of gas.
Even if the record company gets $0.50, at least that $0.50 is largely going to pay people's salaries, and covering the expenses the record company incurred to allow the artist to get their music recorded, engineered, produced and promoted so that I'd know about it in the first place. The recording industry is a high-overhead one, but so are the industries that produce 90% of the things I consume. For instance, the folks who designed, engineered and built my car did not see anywhere near 15% of my purchase price.
And, I have no interest in giving money to the Russian mafia, or anybody in Russia who didn't have a hand in making the music a reality. And, no, ripping the file does not count.
"Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies."
It applies if you live in Russia. Otherwise, it's a bit like importing -- the laws of your locality are what count.
To use an unpleasant example, Russian laws regarding pornography are also lax, and there are several Russian "Lolita" sites that effectively sell child pornography -- literally, naked photos of under-age children. They barely skirt the Russian laws, and they are legal to access if you live in Russia.
To be clear, the two issues are worlds apart, so there's no use trying to straw-man me into saying that music piracy is akin to child pornography. But the legal lesson is the same: use AllofMP3 if you like the value, and you don't particularly care if the artists get paid. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it gives you any legal protection beyond that which you get from downloading from a P2P site.
" AllofMP3 may not pay the artists, but the record companies actually take more money out of mosts artists' pockets than they put in."
Recording contracts typically require that the record company gets its costs recouped before the artist makes any profit.
This means that if the record is a success, the record label makes back its investment, and the artist eventually makes some money.
If the record is a failure, the artist doesn't make any money, and the record company is out of the dough. In this case (which happens most of the time), the record company does not ask the artist to help cover the losses. The record company takes all the risk. This is why it's so difficult to get a recording contract.
The exception is smaller labels like Magnatune, which don't front money for production costs and ask artists to provide their own masters. But, Magnatune pays their artists immediately after sale and gives the artists a bigger chunk of the sale price (since Magnatune isn't burdened with all the expenses of the big record labels).
By comparison, AllofMP3 will never pay the artists, no matter how many songs you buy from them.
"Movie piracy does not cost the companies anything. The people who are pirating movies wouldn't pay for them if they were a penny a piece. Claiming this as a loss is just creative bookkeeping (fraud) on the part of the movie companies."
About six months back my girlfriend gave me a Chinese bootleg copy of "Kung Fu Hustle." I thought it was hilarious. I threw a screening party and about ten of my friends came over to watch it. This was around the time that the film was opening in the theatres. My friends are all avid-movie goers, and many of them would have gone to see it in the theatre if I hadn't procured the bootleg copy.
This is why I laugh when I see blanket statements like "The people who are pirating movies wouldn't pay for them if they were a penny a piece." I'm sure several people will tell me that I am the only exception in the world and that no other person on the planet has used piracy as a way to save money, but I don't believe it.
"Funny thing... You are wrong. I decided to be nice and take you up on your challenge, and every CD I checked was marked as copyrights being owned by the record label. Though on a few it wasn't easy to find."
The GP is correct; he just wasn't very clear.
You're correct that the copyright notice on the outside of a CD refers to the copyright that the record label holds -- that is, on the recording. The songwriters and composers hold the copyright on the words and the music. This is often referred to as the publishing rights. Check the liner notes... if lyrics are printed, you'll often see that below the lyrics you'll see a statement similar to what he wrote: "Copyright yadda-yadda publishing company." This "company" is often just one person, or a writing partnership (I don't have one handy, but I believe Lennon and McCartney went by something like "Northern Songs"), or it can be a larger publishing outfit that handles the publishing rights for the composer and the songwriter.
"Of course, if you've paid any attention to the bitching artists have been doing for years over how the labels treat their music you wouldn't have these dilusions that most signed bands still own the copyrights to their music, because it simply isn't so."
Both of you are correct. You are correct that record labels typically own the copyright to the recording. He is correct that composers and songwriters typically own the copyright on the words and the music.
Owning the publishing rights is important because it allows the artist to make money on things like radio airplay, jukeboxes, and use in movies and shows. It also lets them do things like perform the song live without getting permission from the record company, or to give permission to let somebody else cover the song (although I believe these are often handled through mechanicals -- but the point is that the composer and songwriter get paid, not the record company, when you cover somebody else's song), or even re-record the song for another record label, once your contract has expired with your current one.
Of course, I'm aware that many Slashdotters think that the record companies hold all the copyrights. However, this isn't true. There are many thing that every Slashdotter "knows" but which are not correct.
"If it's anything like real life there are many different groups they represent - not just the major labels, but also hundreds if not thousands of independant labels and artists."
The list is here. Note that it's made up of organizations that represent creators and artists -- the revenue stream from the levy bypasses record labels.
I wasn't able to find out how they divy up the money. Likely, Copyswede simply hands over the relevant money to groups like SAMI and they decide how to distribute it to their members. An educated guess is that SAMI weighs their distribution based on music sales, similar to how Canada does it -- using the theory that music is copied in the same proportion that it is sold. This method is, of course, highly likely to be inaccurate, but it's probably the best one they can think of.
"Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong."
I think you're putting words in the mouth of artists and composers. While you've written a pretty good description of the record industry, keep in mind that the levy goes directly to the composers, songwriters and performers. Most people I've met in that profession are decent people, and are far more worried about paying the rent, rather than how to spend their money to "buy" laws.
"It is under the guise that it is meant to compensate an industry that MANUFACTURES NUMBERS to make it seem like piracy is their single loss of revenue, and that is more than questionable."
My experience has been that most of the number-manufacturing has been from the record companies. The levy goes directly to the composers, songwriters and performers, who are generally seen as "the good guys."
"Last I heard it went to the big recording studios NOT the artists. And then only the Big studios. So it still goes to funding evil, even if its not the RIAA."
This is one of those instances where clicking on the links in the summary can answer your questions. This page on the Copyswede site lists the members -- notice that they're organizations representing artists and creators. That page should clear up your misunderstanding. The revenue stream from the money collected by Copyswede bypasses record companies.
In case you were wondering, we have similar artists' rights societies here in the US (although they are not directly involved in collecting the tarrif on music CD-Rs -- that's another discussion). The license money paid by radio stations, bars, clubs, etc. to play music goes directly to the composers and songwriters, and, as with the Copyswede collection, is not filtered through the record company. The record company makes money on the selling of the recording (upon which they have the copyright), while the composers and songwriters retain the copyright on the words and music, and earn money on other uses of their music, such as playing it on radio stations and jukeboxes or using it in movies or TV shows.
You're not the only person to be surprised by this. If you have any other questions, just ask.
" WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do."
You're partially correct. Here in the US, the record company typically owns the copyright on the recording, while the artist retains the copyright on the words and music -- also known as the "publishing rights." Here in the US we have a couple of non-profit societies, ASCAP and BMI, that make sure the artists get paid for radio airplay, jukebox airplay, and pretty much everything else unrelated to actually selling the CD. As an aside, ASCAP and BMI aren't directly related to the collecting of the levy on music CD-Rs in the US, so they're not the direct equivalent of Copyswede.
Copyswede, the organization referenced and linked to in the summary, represents the creative folks -- including organizations like "The Association of Swedish Illustrators," "The Swedish Playwrights' Union," and so on. The relevant ones here are SAMI (a link in English which will give you some good background) -- the Swedish Artists' and Musicians' Interest Organization -- and the Swedish Federation of Professional Musicians (which does not have an English site that I can find).
I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, just ask. Your assertations that Copyswede gives money to record companies, and that I am incorrect, are interesting. Please let me know if you have any citations to back this up.
"What I don't understand is how they can fail to make money at $1 a track."
Your understanding is correct. The GP stated that record companies aren't making money at a buck a song, but that doesn't make it true.
Of the $0.60 - $0.70 or so that the record companies gross per iTMS sale in the US, you're correct that a significant amount of goes to marketing. The same can be said for the iPod itself, as well as most product Apple makes, as well as most products made by most computer peripheral companies. The difference between gross margin and net margin is a killer.
"Yeah, right. I doubt there is a single P2P company out there that has near the amount of money to spend that the RIAA will demand for compensation."
As previously mentioned, the RIAA settled with another company for $4MM and the agreement to move to permission-based distribution. When the courts froze Kazaa's assets they had about $30MM cash in the bank (I don't recall if this is US or Australian money; either way, it's a lot). I'm sure the RIAA will demand all of it.
"Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong."
Copyswede collects money for artists and perfomers. None goes to record companies. Your take on this is refreshing -- it's usually the record companies that are the bad guys. Slashdotters typically see the artists themselves as generally decent folks. Looks like the tide may be turning.
"Look, if these crazy governments (US included) would stop butting in, the record labels that hold on to their current business models would go out of business, but some other, more creative model would come into being. Hell, one of the big record companies themselves might even be the innovator."
Very insigntful, but the record companies don't come in to play here. Copyswede collects and distributes money to artists and performers, not record companies. My guess is that the record companies could not care less if Copyswede is sending a few checks to ABBA here and there. It's a money stream that completely bypasses them.
" At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!"
Know thine enemy. Like similar national copyright collectives, Copyswede collects money on behalf of authors and performers. None goes to the RIAA, not even as an intermediary.
This is vitally important for everybody to understand if they subscribe to the general philosophy that artists are the good guys while record companies are the bad guys.
"Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present,"
You're half right. CDs were about $18 in the mid-80s. If CD prices had stayed the same, that $18 CD you bought in 1983 would cost about $35 today. Instead, CD prices have been freefalling -- they were down to $13.29 in 2004.
"despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max."
Hmmm... the free market disagrees with you. I don't dispute for one second that you and all of your friends think that CDs are worth about $9, but the free market has deemed that CDs are worth about $13.29 and online tracks are worth about $0.99. Whether they'd sell more at $9 to make up for the lost margin is one of those classical supply/demand curve analysis issues (and you can bet that the record industry has hired smart people to do that analysis) but keep in mind that the record industry nets about 20% on physical CD sales (although I suspect it's much higher on downloads). There's not much more to shave off.
"LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982)."
Also correct -- I was buying LPs around then as well. $9 in 1985 dollars is about $17 today. While unfortunately it's not the case with gas or property, at least we pay less for music today than we did in the 80's. This is not due to the kindness of the record executive's hearts, but because it's a much more competitive market today Record companies need to compete with all other sorts of entertainment -- and they need to compete with piracy, too. Record companies are slaves to the laws of supply and demand just as everybody else is.
"Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so."
As mentioned above, the average price of new CDs is down to about $13 and change. Some CDs may be more (two-disc sets, audiophile versions, and so on), but that's because the record industry gets to reap the same benefits of supply and demand that other industries do. Logitech could sell that mouse for $20, but they sell it for $50 because they know people will pay for it. It might cost Kenneth Cole $10 to make a shirt, but they'll charge $100 because they people will want it at that price. And so it goes, in virtually any industry you can name. So if a record company thinks they can create an audiophile special edition version of a CD and sell it for $16, and people buy it because they think it's worth the few extra bucks, then God bless 'em.
Bringing supply and demand home, if you've made the efforts to get the education and training that allows you to compete for jobs (say, as an IT manager or a development lead) that pay $80K - $100K, but your cost of living is such that you could scrape by on $40K, you'll still gladly take that $80K job if somebody's willing to pay you. There's nothing illegal or even immoral about that.
"Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice."
Eh, mechanicals alone can run up more than $0.70. Royalties typically run $1 - $2 per CD. Not sure where you got your figures on video plays, either.
"Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at
...and notice that I didn't take you to task for it, as I understand that people often make little mistakes and it's no reflection on their intelligence.
Right you are -- I realized this shortly after I posted it. I was using the formulae for adding margin, rather than the formulae for subtracting it (as I do both in my profession). To my defense it was 7:45 AM and I was pre-caffeinated.
"Contrary to what the general public things, it is *NOT* cool to me mathematically illiterate."
Uncalled for. Another disconnect between Slashdotters and normal society is that Slashdotters think that your sort of retort is cool. It was a simple fucking mistake and I'm sure you've made them as well.
"So what's the per-chip cost WITH all of the overhead?"
No need to ask. We can deduce this using some basic Internet research skills and some junior high-level math.
If they amortize overhead equally across all products, you can guesstimate it this way (we'll use a part that costs $600 at retail for an example):
Take the price you pay at retail and subtract the margin the retailer makes. For example, if Fry's makes 20%, multiply $600 by 0.8 to get $480.
Then, subtract the margin made by the distributor (assuming Intel uses two-tier distribution for chips). Distis typically take 5%, so multiply that $480 by 0.95 to get $456.
Intel's profit margin last year was 22.45%. For each product they sold, they made an average of 22.45%. Again, assuming that Intel amortizes overhead equally across all products, multiplying $456 by 0.7755 = $353.62.
So, for that $600 part you buy:
Intel makes (nets) $102.
The distributor makes $24 (gross -- before similar overhead has been applied).
"Which, given that a product's true cost includes not only the per-widget cost to make the item, but also the amoritize costs of slaries & benefits, facilities used in production, third party contracts, marketing and advertising and probably a lot more that I'm too tired to think of right now, makes this number pretty useless, no?"
Depends on the industry. In the high tech industries, yeah, it's useless; there's a hell of a difference between gross and net.
If it's the record industry, however, if a Slashdotter is armed with the fact that a CD costs only a few bucks to produce, trying to explain to them the difference between gross and net is much like trying to explain the principals of combinatorics to a three-toed sloth. Believe me, I've tried (the attempted gross vs. net explanation, not the combinatorics).
Re:hmmm, how should we interpret his statement?
on
Bill Gates Speaks Out
·
· Score: 3, Informative
"The remainder of the exercise is left to the readers."
Sorry that you went to all that trouble. Looks like Slashdot and its famous misleading summaries has punked several hapless readers yet again. The summary was written to imply that he was referring to the "do no evil" slogan and you and a few others fell for it.
If you have a moment, read the article and you'll see that Bill references the actual slogan earlier in the interview.
Precisely. That is exactly why I described your answer as "correct but irrelevant." That is... your answer was correct in the context in which it was asked, but it is not germaine to the subject at hand.
" If they're well-connected, HR managers can bring in an extreme amount of talent."
Correct but irrelevant. The submitter deliberately quoted Tom Burt out of context and thus the summary is hugely misleading. RTFA for the rest of the quote, and for the background on why Mr. Burt ironically referred to Mr. Lee as a "HR manager."
"What is the strategic importance of an HR manager to a company like Google? I'm not dissing HR managers, I just don't really understand how they fit into the picture, and what one can do for a company."
Two mistakes here:
Not RTFA (I know, that's a given)
The quote was out of context.
Here's the entire quote from Tom Burt:
"Dr. Lee is going to be the highest-paid HR manager ever. He can't tell them what to do, he can't direct them, he can't manage them."
In other words, Dr. Lee isn't really being hired as an HR manager. Tom Burt was being ironic. He was making a funny. His was a wry comment on the ruling that Dr. Lee can't use his expertise when working at Google -- in other words, all he can do is hire them, but not talk to them. Tom Burt was using humor and analogies to point out that if Dr. Lee were to comply with the ruling (which, as somebody pointed out, is unenforcable) then he'd effectively be working as a mere HR manager. Amazingly, even Microsoft employees can sometimes engage in wit and humor.
Again, Dr. Lee's title isn't HR Manager. It was a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a valid question. Although legitimate copies of said film have been available in Asia for quite a while, the copy she gave me was one of many that she bought for a buck apiece in Beijing.
Most of the films that she bought were ones that I would not have seen in the theatre. However, about five of them were, so I can honestly say that her actions saved me money that I otherwise would have spent at the movie theatre. I don't pirate very often, but when I do, at least I acknowledge that I do it to save money, rather than taking the approach that many Slashdotters do of flying the "information wants to be free" banner and trying to elevate it to a social protest that's akin to the Montgomery Freedom March.
"This is why so few people use it, because so few people really know what it is."
Please don't assume that all geeks share the same moral compass.
I have no interest in using it because if I am going to purchase music, I want the artist to be paid. Even if they get only $0.15 of the buck I spend on iTunes, that's $0.15 more than they'd get from a pirate site. If a hundred people like me do the same, that's the artist's water bill for the month, and if a thousand people do, that's groceries for the month and a tank of gas.
Even if the record company gets $0.50, at least that $0.50 is largely going to pay people's salaries, and covering the expenses the record company incurred to allow the artist to get their music recorded, engineered, produced and promoted so that I'd know about it in the first place. The recording industry is a high-overhead one, but so are the industries that produce 90% of the things I consume. For instance, the folks who designed, engineered and built my car did not see anywhere near 15% of my purchase price.
And, I have no interest in giving money to the Russian mafia, or anybody in Russia who didn't have a hand in making the music a reality. And, no, ripping the file does not count.
"Since the site operates out of Russia, Russian copyright applies."
It applies if you live in Russia. Otherwise, it's a bit like importing -- the laws of your locality are what count.
To use an unpleasant example, Russian laws regarding pornography are also lax, and there are several Russian "Lolita" sites that effectively sell child pornography -- literally, naked photos of under-age children. They barely skirt the Russian laws, and they are legal to access if you live in Russia.
To be clear, the two issues are worlds apart, so there's no use trying to straw-man me into saying that music piracy is akin to child pornography. But the legal lesson is the same: use AllofMP3 if you like the value, and you don't particularly care if the artists get paid. But don't make the mistake of thinking that it gives you any legal protection beyond that which you get from downloading from a P2P site.
" AllofMP3 may not pay the artists, but the record companies actually take more money out of mosts artists' pockets than they put in."
Recording contracts typically require that the record company gets its costs recouped before the artist makes any profit.
This means that if the record is a success, the record label makes back its investment, and the artist eventually makes some money.
If the record is a failure, the artist doesn't make any money, and the record company is out of the dough. In this case (which happens most of the time), the record company does not ask the artist to help cover the losses. The record company takes all the risk. This is why it's so difficult to get a recording contract.
The exception is smaller labels like Magnatune, which don't front money for production costs and ask artists to provide their own masters. But, Magnatune pays their artists immediately after sale and gives the artists a bigger chunk of the sale price (since Magnatune isn't burdened with all the expenses of the big record labels).
By comparison, AllofMP3 will never pay the artists, no matter how many songs you buy from them.
"Movie piracy does not cost the companies anything. The people who are pirating movies wouldn't pay for them if they were a penny a piece. Claiming this as a loss is just creative bookkeeping (fraud) on the part of the movie companies."
About six months back my girlfriend gave me a Chinese bootleg copy of "Kung Fu Hustle." I thought it was hilarious. I threw a screening party and about ten of my friends came over to watch it. This was around the time that the film was opening in the theatres. My friends are all avid-movie goers, and many of them would have gone to see it in the theatre if I hadn't procured the bootleg copy.
This is why I laugh when I see blanket statements like "The people who are pirating movies wouldn't pay for them if they were a penny a piece." I'm sure several people will tell me that I am the only exception in the world and that no other person on the planet has used piracy as a way to save money, but I don't believe it.
"Funny thing... You are wrong. I decided to be nice and take you up on your challenge, and every CD I checked was marked as copyrights being owned by the record label. Though on a few it wasn't easy to find."
The GP is correct; he just wasn't very clear.
You're correct that the copyright notice on the outside of a CD refers to the copyright that the record label holds -- that is, on the recording. The songwriters and composers hold the copyright on the words and the music. This is often referred to as the publishing rights. Check the liner notes... if lyrics are printed, you'll often see that below the lyrics you'll see a statement similar to what he wrote: "Copyright yadda-yadda publishing company." This "company" is often just one person, or a writing partnership (I don't have one handy, but I believe Lennon and McCartney went by something like "Northern Songs"), or it can be a larger publishing outfit that handles the publishing rights for the composer and the songwriter.
"Of course, if you've paid any attention to the bitching artists have been doing for years over how the labels treat their music you wouldn't have these dilusions that most signed bands still own the copyrights to their music, because it simply isn't so."
Both of you are correct. You are correct that record labels typically own the copyright to the recording. He is correct that composers and songwriters typically own the copyright on the words and the music.
Owning the publishing rights is important because it allows the artist to make money on things like radio airplay, jukeboxes, and use in movies and shows. It also lets them do things like perform the song live without getting permission from the record company, or to give permission to let somebody else cover the song (although I believe these are often handled through mechanicals -- but the point is that the composer and songwriter get paid, not the record company, when you cover somebody else's song), or even re-record the song for another record label, once your contract has expired with your current one.
Of course, I'm aware that many Slashdotters think that the record companies hold all the copyrights. However, this isn't true. There are many thing that every Slashdotter "knows" but which are not correct.
"If it's anything like real life there are many different groups they represent - not just the major labels, but also hundreds if not thousands of independant labels and artists."
The list is here. Note that it's made up of organizations that represent creators and artists -- the revenue stream from the levy bypasses record labels.
I wasn't able to find out how they divy up the money. Likely, Copyswede simply hands over the relevant money to groups like SAMI and they decide how to distribute it to their members. An educated guess is that SAMI weighs their distribution based on music sales, similar to how Canada does it -- using the theory that music is copied in the same proportion that it is sold. This method is, of course, highly likely to be inaccurate, but it's probably the best one they can think of.
"Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong."
I think you're putting words in the mouth of artists and composers. While you've written a pretty good description of the record industry, keep in mind that the levy goes directly to the composers, songwriters and performers. Most people I've met in that profession are decent people, and are far more worried about paying the rent, rather than how to spend their money to "buy" laws.
"It is under the guise that it is meant to compensate an industry that MANUFACTURES NUMBERS to make it seem like piracy is their single loss of revenue, and that is more than questionable."
My experience has been that most of the number-manufacturing has been from the record companies. The levy goes directly to the composers, songwriters and performers, who are generally seen as "the good guys."
"Last I heard it went to the big recording studios NOT the artists. And then only the Big studios. So it still goes to funding evil, even if its not the RIAA."
This is one of those instances where clicking on the links in the summary can answer your questions. This page on the Copyswede site lists the members -- notice that they're organizations representing artists and creators. That page should clear up your misunderstanding. The revenue stream from the money collected by Copyswede bypasses record companies.
In case you were wondering, we have similar artists' rights societies here in the US (although they are not directly involved in collecting the tarrif on music CD-Rs -- that's another discussion). The license money paid by radio stations, bars, clubs, etc. to play music goes directly to the composers and songwriters, and, as with the Copyswede collection, is not filtered through the record company. The record company makes money on the selling of the recording (upon which they have the copyright), while the composers and songwriters retain the copyright on the words and music, and earn money on other uses of their music, such as playing it on radio stations and jukeboxes or using it in movies or TV shows.
You're not the only person to be surprised by this. If you have any other questions, just ask.
" WRONG. The money goes to copyright holders. Most artist do not own their own copyrights. Their record companies do."
You're partially correct. Here in the US, the record company typically owns the copyright on the recording, while the artist retains the copyright on the words and music -- also known as the "publishing rights." Here in the US we have a couple of non-profit societies, ASCAP and BMI, that make sure the artists get paid for radio airplay, jukebox airplay, and pretty much everything else unrelated to actually selling the CD. As an aside, ASCAP and BMI aren't directly related to the collecting of the levy on music CD-Rs in the US, so they're not the direct equivalent of Copyswede.
Copyswede, the organization referenced and linked to in the summary, represents the creative folks -- including organizations like "The Association of Swedish Illustrators," "The Swedish Playwrights' Union," and so on. The relevant ones here are SAMI (a link in English which will give you some good background) -- the Swedish Artists' and Musicians' Interest Organization -- and the Swedish Federation of Professional Musicians (which does not have an English site that I can find).
I hope this helps. If you have any other questions, just ask. Your assertations that Copyswede gives money to record companies, and that I am incorrect, are interesting. Please let me know if you have any citations to back this up.
"What I don't understand is how they can fail to make money at $1 a track."
Your understanding is correct. The GP stated that record companies aren't making money at a buck a song, but that doesn't make it true.
Of the $0.60 - $0.70 or so that the record companies gross per iTMS sale in the US, you're correct that a significant amount of goes to marketing. The same can be said for the iPod itself, as well as most product Apple makes, as well as most products made by most computer peripheral companies. The difference between gross margin and net margin is a killer.
"Yeah, right. I doubt there is a single P2P company out there that has near the amount of money to spend that the RIAA will demand for compensation."
As previously mentioned, the RIAA settled with another company for $4MM and the agreement to move to permission-based distribution. When the courts froze Kazaa's assets they had about $30MM cash in the bank (I don't recall if this is US or Australian money; either way, it's a lot). I'm sure the RIAA will demand all of it.
"Imagine that - not wanting to pay money to a corrupt industry that wants payment from everybody both innocent and guilty, just in case thery do something wrong."
Copyswede collects money for artists and perfomers. None goes to record companies. Your take on this is refreshing -- it's usually the record companies that are the bad guys. Slashdotters typically see the artists themselves as generally decent folks. Looks like the tide may be turning.
"Look, if these crazy governments (US included) would stop butting in, the record labels that hold on to their current business models would go out of business, but some other, more creative model would come into being. Hell, one of the big record companies themselves might even be the innovator."
Very insigntful, but the record companies don't come in to play here. Copyswede collects and distributes money to artists and performers, not record companies. My guess is that the record companies could not care less if Copyswede is sending a few checks to ABBA here and there. It's a money stream that completely bypasses them.
" At last, one real-world company that fights back to the MPAA/RIAA/Copyright mongers!"
Know thine enemy. Like similar national copyright collectives, Copyswede collects money on behalf of authors and performers. None goes to the RIAA, not even as an intermediary.
This is vitally important for everybody to understand if they subscribe to the general philosophy that artists are the good guys while record companies are the bad guys.
"Ensuring that CD's remained in a $17 - $22 price range from [literally, no joke] 1983 to the present,"
You're half right. CDs were about $18 in the mid-80s. If CD prices had stayed the same, that $18 CD you bought in 1983 would cost about $35 today. Instead, CD prices have been freefalling -- they were down to $13.29 in 2004.
"despite the fact that literally anyone will tell you that the reasonable retail price for a CD should more likely be around $9, max."
Hmmm... the free market disagrees with you. I don't dispute for one second that you and all of your friends think that CDs are worth about $9, but the free market has deemed that CDs are worth about $13.29 and online tracks are worth about $0.99. Whether they'd sell more at $9 to make up for the lost margin is one of those classical supply/demand curve analysis issues (and you can bet that the record industry has hired smart people to do that analysis) but keep in mind that the record industry nets about 20% on physical CD sales (although I suspect it's much higher on downloads). There's not much more to shave off.
"LP's and Cassettes were priced around the $7-$9 range range when CD's were introduced (1982)."
Also correct -- I was buying LPs around then as well. $9 in 1985 dollars is about $17 today. While unfortunately it's not the case with gas or property, at least we pay less for music today than we did in the 80's. This is not due to the kindness of the record executive's hearts, but because it's a much more competitive market today Record companies need to compete with all other sorts of entertainment -- and they need to compete with piracy, too. Record companies are slaves to the laws of supply and demand just as everybody else is.
"Even with inflation there is literally ZERO reason for a CD to be "on sale" at $16 or so."
As mentioned above, the average price of new CDs is down to about $13 and change. Some CDs may be more (two-disc sets, audiophile versions, and so on), but that's because the record industry gets to reap the same benefits of supply and demand that other industries do. Logitech could sell that mouse for $20, but they sell it for $50 because they know people will pay for it. It might cost Kenneth Cole $10 to make a shirt, but they'll charge $100 because they people will want it at that price. And so it goes, in virtually any industry you can name. So if a record company thinks they can create an audiophile special edition version of a CD and sell it for $16, and people buy it because they think it's worth the few extra bucks, then God bless 'em.
Bringing supply and demand home, if you've made the efforts to get the education and training that allows you to compete for jobs (say, as an IT manager or a development lead) that pay $80K - $100K, but your cost of living is such that you could scrape by on $40K, you'll still gladly take that $80K job if somebody's willing to pay you. There's nothing illegal or even immoral about that.
"Ensuring that their artists - even the ones who pull in the lion's share of profits for a label - only earn a maximum of $0.70 per cd sold (and not returned), yet making sure that that same artist is the one responsible for paying for the $100,000+ video they just made which will be played precisely one (1) time on your alleged music video station of choice."
Eh, mechanicals alone can run up more than $0.70. Royalties typically run $1 - $2 per CD. Not sure where you got your figures on video plays, either.
"Failing to offer any consumer, anywhere, any sort of online alternative that actually makes financial sense. People know that digital files to not require things like packaging or shipping costs. Yet a song on iTunes = $1. That is flatly ridiculous. I don't get artwork, liner notes or anything else - I get the song. It's also not a high-quality version of the recording. My guess, that's worth $0.50 at
...and notice that I didn't take you to task for it, as I understand that people often make little mistakes and it's no reflection on their intelligence.
Right you are -- I realized this shortly after I posted it. I was using the formulae for adding margin, rather than the formulae for subtracting it (as I do both in my profession). To my defense it was 7:45 AM and I was pre-caffeinated.
"Contrary to what the general public things, it is *NOT* cool to me mathematically illiterate."
Uncalled for. Another disconnect between Slashdotters and normal society is that Slashdotters think that your sort of retort is cool. It was a simple fucking mistake and I'm sure you've made them as well.
"So what's the per-chip cost WITH all of the overhead?"
No need to ask. We can deduce this using some basic Internet research skills and some junior high-level math.
If they amortize overhead equally across all products, you can guesstimate it this way (we'll use a part that costs $600 at retail for an example):
So, for that $600 part you buy:
"Which, given that a product's true cost includes not only the per-widget cost to make the item, but also the amoritize costs of slaries & benefits, facilities used in production, third party contracts, marketing and advertising and probably a lot more that I'm too tired to think of right now, makes this number pretty useless, no?"
Depends on the industry. In the high tech industries, yeah, it's useless; there's a hell of a difference between gross and net.
If it's the record industry, however, if a Slashdotter is armed with the fact that a CD costs only a few bucks to produce, trying to explain to them the difference between gross and net is much like trying to explain the principals of combinatorics to a three-toed sloth. Believe me, I've tried (the attempted gross vs. net explanation, not the combinatorics).
"The remainder of the exercise is left to the readers."
Sorry that you went to all that trouble. Looks like Slashdot and its famous misleading summaries has punked several hapless readers yet again. The summary was written to imply that he was referring to the "do no evil" slogan and you and a few others fell for it.
If you have a moment, read the article and you'll see that Bill references the actual slogan earlier in the interview.
"The article had nothing to do with my comment."
Precisely. That is exactly why I described your answer as "correct but irrelevant." That is... your answer was correct in the context in which it was asked, but it is not germaine to the subject at hand.
" If they're well-connected, HR managers can bring in an extreme amount of talent."
Correct but irrelevant. The submitter deliberately quoted Tom Burt out of context and thus the summary is hugely misleading. RTFA for the rest of the quote, and for the background on why Mr. Burt ironically referred to Mr. Lee as a "HR manager."
"What is the strategic importance of an HR manager to a company like Google? I'm not dissing HR managers, I just don't really understand how they fit into the picture, and what one can do for a company."
Two mistakes here:
Here's the entire quote from Tom Burt:
In other words, Dr. Lee isn't really being hired as an HR manager. Tom Burt was being ironic. He was making a funny. His was a wry comment on the ruling that Dr. Lee can't use his expertise when working at Google -- in other words, all he can do is hire them, but not talk to them. Tom Burt was using humor and analogies to point out that if Dr. Lee were to comply with the ruling (which, as somebody pointed out, is unenforcable) then he'd effectively be working as a mere HR manager. Amazingly, even Microsoft employees can sometimes engage in wit and humor.
Again, Dr. Lee's title isn't HR Manager. It was a joke.