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.