Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Apple makes their money from selling feature-deprived iPods...

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

I agree wholeheartedly that artists should get a bigger percentage of "the cut" however I'm having a difficult time with most other aspects of this thread.

1. Companies can charge whatever they want for their product. If it only costs $0.00000000001 to make and they can sell it for $1,000,000.00 who are we to say they're charging to much? If we think they're charging too much, we don't buy it. Period. We as consumers should not be dictating what something is priced at but just decide whether it's worth the money or not.

Certain things that can only be derrived from 1 main source (ie. electricity, water, sewer, etc.) are regulated under monopoly and anti-trust regulations and so are not included in the above. But let's face it folks, there is more than 1 company to purchase personal music players and to buy downloadable software.

Apple made the iPod that only works with iTunes and IIRC you can only get the music from their site. They (the iPod) cost more to boot. Why do people buy them? I don't know and actually the reason is irrelevant to this arguement. Regardless, people do buy them because they think they're worth the money. Actually, that's the only reason people buy anything that is a 'discretionary' purchase.

So my point is that using a 'what it costs' arguement to justify 'what is the price' IMO is totally irrelevant and a waste of good thought processes.

2. The artists get ripped off by the production companies.

Hey, don't sign the contract then. Put up your own money to promote, market, master, produce, etc. your own album / single / mp3 / whatever. Develop your own independent label. Definitely not easy and not cheap to do those things. I think a lot of people forget that the production companies take *all* the risk so IMO should get all the reward. Nobody twists anybody's arm (anymore anyways) to sign a recording contract.

The fact of the matter is that record producers make money on a very small percentage of recording artists they sign. A few they make a lot of money from but they are very few. Many of the big ones have their own label so maybe you ought to start putting some of this arguement onto the artists themselves. When was the last time a group with their own label lowered thier prices?

These points have nothing to do with the piracy issue but all to do with some misconceptions about big business.

Big biz always is out to screw the little guy. I don't believe that 'cause there is always 'little guys' out there crying "foul". Just like a car race when the winner's car get's torn down to pieces to see if he's cheating. They never care about the last place car only the first place car.

Bottom line is that we all have a choice in these matters. We can choose *not* to purchase those things we think are unfair / overpriced / socially irresponsible / etc. Apparently too many people have not chosen that option.

(I do not work nor have any affiliations with any recording industry companies whatsoever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Just IMO...

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Supply and demand would argue that consumers play a large part in dictating the price of a product... Anyways, why do you think there is so much "piracy" (which isn't piracy because you aren't raiding any ships to steal cargo for plundering/selling... but I digress) going on? Overpricing is a contributing factor...

You can enable a setting on the iPod to make it act as an external hard drive.

Any CD can be ripped to iPod compatible format.

Well if they would stop trying to shove so much calculated music down everyone's throats, they wouldn't have so many ****ty, money-sucking "artists" to pay for...

Except for the millions that do not buy music from the big labels anymore, and instead swap it online illegally...

(I do not work nor have any affiliations with any recording industry companies whatsoever. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif )

Just IMO...

[/quote]

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

You're missing a point here. Money should go from the publisher to the developer, period.

If Asimov and Joe D. Writer both write for an honest publisher, they both get checks. Asimovs' is bigger, and that's the only difference. And it's bigger because he sold more books. Sure, some writers get more per word. But none of them get nothing.

And artists have been complaining about getting nothing. That is not honest.

You say the publisher takes all the risk. You do realise that the band likely had to quit their jobs, some of which were probably well-paying, to play, and play and play - To go out on the road and play in all sorts of places, many of which you probably wouldn't go in if you didn't have to.

Art takes work. Work takes time. Time is money, in many ways.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

I hear there is a way now to circomvent the Apple IPOD music code.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

There was a way a few months after it was released... DRM is not a protection of content, just an infringement on just fair use laws.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Fyron, I think you missed my point. It was not about whether piracy was wrong or right - it is wrong, no questions asked. My point was about how folks are trying to tell companies what they should charge "because they make too much money".

If these same folks took a little peak into the real business world, they would find that things aren't greener on the other side at all and are *never* that 'cut and dried'.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

And Narf, the publishers do absolutely take the risk. They are the ones that develop the cover art, send promotional stuff to radio stations and the like, pay for studio time, etc. Yes, band members may quit their jobs but that is not necessary to do any studio work - only when the band goes on the road and the producers don't get much from that.

Oh, but what about the folks that do their own? That is the point. There are independant labels out there but are they charging less for their music. I say "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" They are charging the same as any other record labels. People will pay for it if they think it has value. If not, why in the world would someone wait 3 years to pay $400,000 for a Ferrari when they can buy a Neon this weekend for less than $10,000.

The point is is that folks need to look at the real world and what things *really* cost to produce to do before they make judgements. Stop spending so much time arguing the merits and do some *real* research - not just browse the National Enquirer or other tabloid and make judgements based on that. If not, I'm afraid some folks have a bitter outlook ahead of themselves and I do feel sorry for them.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

All of my opinions on RIAA and music are based directly on "real world research," as are most peoples, even if indirectly. Please do not attempt to dismiss valid arguments with ad hominem attacks. Thanks.

The outlook is indeed bleak... RIAA complained about piracy driving profits down in 2000/2001, when the truth was that raw sales were down because they produced thousands fewer albums in those years by choice. Net profits were in fact up over previous years due to the reductions in production costs...

They produce thousands of talentless "artists" that give them more of the same tripe every year. Maybe if they started employing some quality standards and stopped trying to milk money off of every copycat of even mildly successful music trends each year, they wouldn't lose so much money on utter failures of "bands." But if they want to keep digging their collective graves, that's their problem.

The only difference between boycotting a media/software company over price gouging and other companies is that less scrupulous people can still acquire the "product" (how art can be denegrated to a "product" is beyond me, but I digress) while not purchasing it.

Your example of a Ferrari vs. Neon is irrelevant. There is no "budget" or "luxury" music... An interesting "real world fact" is that it is a lot cheaper to manufacture a CD than a cassette tape, yet CDs still cost more. Digital music downloads are even cheaper (bandwidth for a single quality-degraded album is trivial; SEnet could spend 0.19 cents per song at a generous size of 10 MB per song), yet a digital album costs the same as a physical CD, and they want to charge even more...

I (and many others) don't care so much how much money they make. I care that they are producing a very tiny amount of music amidst a deluge of filth and charging an insane rate for it, even for low cost digital downloads. I care that they are constantly attributing a decline in the indrustry to "piracy" (which it is most certainly not) when profits are at an all time high. Being blatantly lied to is not what I consider conducive to getting my money. I care that they are constantly trying to destroy my fair use rights to use legally purchased music however I want (non-commercially) and trying to prevent me from encoding music however I like so that I am not stuck with unusable formats in 5 or 10 years time (thank you DRM!). et cetra...

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Bands have also complained that the only money they make is going on the road - Nothing from the publisher.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

It's clearly all the band's fault.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Actually, I think it is quite relevant. They are both cars yet sell for drastically different amounts. Ferrari's do not cost 1/3 as much to build as they sell for whereas Neon's have a very small markup / margin - probably less than 5%. From my standpoint it was relevant to the point I was trying to make. My point was the selling price really has very little to do with manufacturing costs but rather what people will pay for it.

Another supporting arguement. Yes it is crap - I totally agree. Yet it sells and makes someone money - sometimes a lot of money. And that crap does not cost much to make vs. what it sells for. Again price has very little to do with cost.

Of that, I am in total agreement.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

rdouglass writes: "...however I'm having a difficult time with most other aspects of this thread."

Except as a consumer, I don't know much about the recording industry (or the whole entertainment business, in fact). However, I have to agree with rdouglass here just on general principles. AFAIK nobody's being forced at gunpoint to record, distribute, or buy music. Since "greed" and "unfairness" are extremely subjective concepts, I'm reluctant to base any regulatory action on someone's interpretation of these terms.

I do know that advancing technology provides more choices for everyone concerned, and that's a Good Thing. I certainly prefer choice to "fair" regulation of the entertainment industry or--God forbid!--the Internet.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

I don't want to regulate the RIAA, I just want to point out the complaints of unfairness have basis.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Just some quick comments:

You got things backwards with iPod and iTunes. The iPod will work with any AAC (with or without DRM), MP3, WAV, or Apple Lossless audio file. So, any source which you can get those files, will get you music for iPod. So, iPod will work with other services as long as you can get one of those formats. The iTunes Music Store, however, has only DRM'd AAC audio files, which will only work with iPods unless you break the DRM. So, you have it backwards; iPods can work with lots of different sources, iTunes works only with iPods (unless you circumvent the DRM in some way... like, say, burning a CD then ripping the music back off in another format).

Independant labels actually DO charge less for CDs. Maybe you're just looking at the wrong ones, but I get sub-10$ CDs from independant labels fairly often. You almost never see that from one of the major labels, and when you do, it's when they're trying to dump excess stock. The standard price range for a new release is between 16$ and 20$ for a major label, and it usually drops to around 12$ to 16$ after it's been out for a while.

Songs ARE (marginally) cheaper from downloading on iTunes compared to getting the actual CD. Quick check on prices: new Foo Fighters CD (19.98 list, 17.99 iTunes, 14.99+shipping Amazon), new Gorillaz CD (19.98 list, 12.99 iTunes, 13.29+shipping Amazon), Miles Davis' 'Kind of Blue' (11.98 list, 9.99 iTunes, 9.99+shipping Amazon), Postal Service CD (13.98 list, 9.90 iTunes, 11.99+shipping Amazon), Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' (34.98 list, 25.74 iTunes, 27.99 Amazon). There are a few titles from Amazon that would be cheaper, until you factor in the shipping, or buying enough stuff to get you free shipping.

And finally, the major labels do rip off a lot of the people they sign, mainly because they have a lot of lawyers who know how to make a 'favorable' contract, and the musicians often have little to no legal representation in the process. All the people who sign see is that there's a nice big bonus up front for signing. What they don't see are clauses in the contract that require payment for studio time (taken out of the bonus), pays tiny percentages of CD PROFITS, and locks the people in with that label for a certain amount of time, to prevent any dealings with other labels or attempts at an independant release. So, a contract might look like:
You get 500,000$ up front for signing. Congratulations, you're halfway to being a millionaire! Now, you need to record in this studio. That will be 30,000$ per hour, please. Three months later, you have spent 450,000$ on studio time, doing recording, mixing, and picking out the bits that sound the best. If you want to tour to promote the album, you have whatever is left of the 50,000$ not spent on living for three months. If there are 1,000 copies sold in stores, you get nothing, but the label will sell you a few copies of your own album so you can make a dollar or so for each one you sell personally. After a few months of this, you have none of the initial "bonus", you're lucky to get a few thousand in royalties unless you've hit it big, the money you get from ticket sales almost covers transportation and living costs, and the only thing that lets you have more money than you started with is what you get off selling merchindise. Then, at the end of the year, you have a nice big number for the IRS to look at and tax you on.

The difference with the smaller independant labels is, the musicians get a better cut of REVENUE (not profit), the studio costs are a lot smaller, and are usually in-house, and there are lots of other musicians to tour with to help offset the costs associated with that.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Who said anything about regulatory action?

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Imperator Fyron writes: "Who said anything about regulatory action?"

1. Atrocities: "We should outlaw greed and regulate the Recording industry. Any proofit over X amount would go to the Federal coffers to help pay for computers in every house hold." I suspect he was only semi-serious (outlaw greed?), but there it is.

2. Baron Munchausen: "I'd support a mandatory percentage of the profits being given to the artists before I'd support some sort of 'windfall profits tax' on the music industry." Response to Atrocities.

3. Imperator Fyron: "Which is precisely why downloaded songs should have an upper cap of 50 cents...". Vague, could be interpreted as a voluntary cap (though that might be illegal price fixing), but could also be interpreted as regulatory.

4. Imperator Fyron: "Who said anything about regulatory action ?" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

5. Hunpecked: In the post Fyron replied to. Historically, regulation always starts with complaints, and this isn't the only place I've seen complaints like these. I just thought it was worth pointing out that some remedies can be worse than what they're intended to "fix".

With that in mind, let's get back to the griping. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

Wrong topic.

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

I figured AT was being sarcastic. BM, yeah, guess he did mention it, though apparently I forgot about it. I wasn't talking about government regulation of any sort, just better pricing schemes from the industry itself.

Voluntary reformating of business models tends to start with griping as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Will, while physical CDs might be a few dollars more expensive than downloaded albums today, the labels want to change this and make them cost the same, as they did 2 years ago. Hopefully Apple can keep the lower prices with at least one label...

Re: OT: Recording Industry Ripoff
 

With regard to volluntary reform, one can always hope. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif