OT: Recording Industry Ripoff

[rdouglass]

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. )

Just IMO...

[Fyron]

rdouglass said:
We as consumers should not be dictating what something is priced at but just decide whether it's worth the money or not.

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...

Apple made the iPod that only works with iTunes...

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

...IIRC you can only get the music from their site.

Any CD can be ripped to iPod compatible format.

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...

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...

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.

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. )

Just IMO...

[/quote]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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.

[Atrocities]

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

[Fyron]

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.

[rdouglass]

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'.

[rdouglass]

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.

[Hunpecked]

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.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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

[Will]

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.