PDA

View Full Version : Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use


David G.
Dec 29, 2007, 07:21 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...007122800693.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html)

This is just crazy. According to the RIAA, "If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you're stealing. You're breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages." Now they're actually going out and suing people for this. In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer How did they know the music was on there to begin with? Seems to me they were spying on him in one form or another. My suggestion, stop buying music from record labels under the RIAA.

Please discuss this without getting to political in nature. I'd like to have as many people comment on it as possible(keeping it out of politics subforum). If you feel a need to though, go right on ahead and create a thread on the political aspects of this over there.


P.S. This is the first time I have ever started a thread, it goes to show you how important I think this is.

synth3tik
Dec 29, 2007, 07:26 PM
I think basically the RIAA just picks random people and sues them. Once they file they can get the information they need. I think most people are going to have music on their computers. Sadly the way this is playing out. You are guilty until proven innocent. back ass wards of the way things are supposed to be around these parts.

termina3
Dec 29, 2007, 07:32 PM
While the suit is insane--and may be thrown out before trial--I'd like to know more about the Jasmine suit. Was she tried for illegally downloading? "illegally" copying onto her personal computer? The article doesn't mention the specific allegation against her.

David G.
Dec 29, 2007, 07:42 PM
While the suit is insane--and may be thrown out before trial--I'd like to know more about the Jasmine suit. Was she tried for illegally downloading? "illegally" copying onto her personal computer? The article doesn't mention the specific allegation against her.

It was in the article.
They're not kidding. In October, after a trial in Minnesota -- the first time the industry has made its case before a federal jury -- Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 to the big record companies. That's $9,250 for each of 24 songs she was accused of sharing online.

termina3
Dec 29, 2007, 07:46 PM
It was in the article.

Ooops... missed the "sharing online" bit.

Well, the RIAA is within their rights to persue cases against those who illegally share music or other information. The woman broke the law, and she paid. That's what happens.

WildCowboy
Dec 29, 2007, 07:50 PM
There must be more to the Howell case than is revealed in the article. The RIAA says on their own site (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law):

However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

While they claim there is no specific legal right to copy CDs to your hard drive for personal use, they sure give the impression that they're not going to go after you.

Edit: Further investigation shows that what caused the suit was that MediaSentry, the company the RIAA uses to catch illegal file sharers, was able to download 11 copyrighted music files from Howell's computer via Kazaa.

David G.
Dec 29, 2007, 08:19 PM
Further investigation shows that what caused the suit was that MediaSentry, the company the RIAA uses to catch illegal file sharers, was able to download 11 copyrighted music files from Howell's computer via Kazaa.

Why don't they go after him for sharing the music, instead of just having it on his HDD?

termina3
Dec 29, 2007, 08:23 PM
Why don't they go after him for sharing the music, instead of just having it on his HDD?

I feel a journalist wanting a big story...

WildCowboy
Dec 29, 2007, 08:28 PM
Why don't they go after him for sharing the music, instead of just having it on his HDD?

They are. There's some ambiguous info in the filings about the mere presence of the files, but the vast majority of the complaint revolves around the fact that he was in fact sharing them.

David G.
Dec 29, 2007, 08:58 PM
They are. There's some ambiguous info in the filings about the mere presence of the files, but the vast majority of the complaint revolves around the fact that he was in fact sharing them.

Ok, that makes me feel so much better. The people over on Engadget are furious.:mad:

maestro55
Dec 30, 2007, 12:41 AM
Despite all of these suits, they are not stopping Music and Video piracy and they won't stop it. They can try but they wont succeed. I wonder how many people have been sued by the RIAA and still kept downloading and sharing music online.

zioxide
Dec 30, 2007, 12:59 AM
Why the **** do people still buy CDs?

The RIAA are a bunch of scumbag corporate douchebags. I love how their new business model is to sue people.

I don't understand why people put up with it. Stop buying CDs from them. If enough people do, they will start losing even more money and might realize people are sick of their ****.

cycocelica
Dec 30, 2007, 03:26 AM
Boggles my mind that our legal system makes people pay more (jail time or money) for a song than a DUI.

Tefret
Dec 30, 2007, 03:41 AM
I think that its ok for the RIAA to sue for a large amount of money. They are trying to make a statement, that if you share or download illegal music, you may have to pay very large fines.

If the fines were only a couple hundred dollars, people would go crazy with the downloading and Artists would loose even More money from less Royalties.

Its much easier for people to just go onto itunes and buy music for a couple bucks a song.. So cheap, and your music is legal. I always recommend itunes to download music. Its not a ton of money, and you only get the songs you want.... And very good quality.. Hastle free.

BTW, I do think that that DUI fines should be way higher as well..

R.Youden
Dec 30, 2007, 03:58 AM
Boggles my mind that our legal system makes people pay more (jail time or money) for a song than a DUI.

Very true. I know that this is illegal, but in the grand scheme of things....

I have very little time for people who a DUI, over here in the UK a man was 6-times over the limit and got an 18-month ban.

So, to put it into context:

If you had to commit a crime (hypothetically speaking here) and you had a choice, driving at 6-times the legal alcohol limit of downloading and sharing 24 songs?

Well the ban for driving is 18-month (plus a fine, not sure the exact amount), whilst the fine for the songs is over £100,000!

Hmmm, tough choice there.

This is the problem with modern 'sue' culture, things are loosing their perspective and people need a reality check with this one.

I am not condoning this behaviour, but when the fine for downloading and sharing 24 songs is more severe than being in charge of a deadly weapon (yes a car) when you are 6 times over the limit is wrong.

Rant over!

Xander562
Dec 30, 2007, 03:18 PM
Boggles my mind that our legal system makes people pay more (jail time or money) for a song than a DUI.

But millions of innocent people are killed each year by the sharing copyrighted files! It must be stopped! :rolleyes: :p

Fleetwood Mac
Dec 30, 2007, 03:58 PM
The RIAA is a joke. Since when is ruining potential customers lives in an attempt to scare the others a good sales tactic.. How is this going to help anyone? They need to find alternative proactive methods of fighting piracy, if that's their real goal.

Artists who continually put out good music, play concerts and get out there can still become disturbingly wealthy (if not more than before). Record labels are hurting, but thats because their trying to cram crap like DRM and lawsuits down the public's throats.

Don't get me wrong. I support copyright reform and think everyone should get their fair share here, but its getting ridiculous.

Blue Velvet
Dec 30, 2007, 04:01 PM
Record labels are hurting, but thats because their trying to cram crap like DRM and lawsuits down the public's throats.

There's no evidence for that at all.

zioxide
Dec 30, 2007, 08:27 PM
There's no evidence for that at all.

Aren't CD sales down like 40% or something?

sushi
Dec 30, 2007, 08:35 PM
Record labels are hurting
I believe this to be true.

There's no evidence for that at all.
Just saw an article that stated current CD sales are down 30% from 2001 levels. I would say that a decline in 30% over 6 years is significant.

NAG
Dec 30, 2007, 08:55 PM
Maybe if they stopped mass producing garbage...

sushi
Dec 30, 2007, 10:30 PM
Maybe if they stopped mass producing garbage...
That might have something to do with it! ;)

zioxide
Dec 30, 2007, 10:37 PM
Maybe if they stopped mass producing garbage...

Nah, they probably like producing **** because then they can be like "CD sales are down because people are pirating music.. lets go sue them!"

ZenErik
Dec 30, 2007, 10:55 PM
It's a very rare occurrence that any artist from a major label draws my attention. I guess one of the reasons I haven't been sued for downloading excessive amounts of music at school is because almost nothing I get is from a major label if any label.

sikkinixx
Dec 30, 2007, 11:25 PM
Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system.... the horror....

yg17
Dec 30, 2007, 11:26 PM
I believe this to be true.


Just saw an article that stated current CD sales are down 30% from 2001 levels. I would say that a decline in 30% over 6 years is significant.

Does "CD Sales" include purchases from online stores like the iTMS and Amazon? I kinda doubt it because the RIAA will do anything to twist the numbers in their favor, and I bet if you did include those purchases, the drop would be a lot less than 30%

ZenErik
Dec 30, 2007, 11:36 PM
Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system.... the horror....
Haha, I remember seeing that on South Park just the other day.

synth3tik
Dec 30, 2007, 11:41 PM
I don't like music anymore.

They ruined it for me.

sushi
Dec 30, 2007, 11:50 PM
Does "CD Sales" include purchases from online stores like the iTMS and Amazon? I kinda doubt it because the RIAA will do anything to twist the numbers in their favor, and I bet if you did include those purchases, the drop would be a lot less than 30%
Here's the Forbes Article. (http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/12/28/apple-movie-rental-tech-media-cx_bc_1228apple.html)

From the article:

The result: Sales of CDs fell more than 30% to 614.9 million units last year from a peak of 881.9 million in 2000, according to the Recording Industry Association. Once sprawling chains, such as Tower Records, have shuttered.

They are referring to actual CD sales, and not legally downloaded content.

I think you make a good point in that legal online sales of music has increased considerably in the past few years.

When I purchased CDs in the 80's, I expected to like most songs on the CD. Now it seems that if one can get 2 good songs they are lucky. With iTMS, I can DL only the song that I want and not have to purchase the whole CD. This ability is also affecting CD sales I am sure.

Here is an interesting chart from the RIAA's web site.

2006 U.S. Manufacturers' Unit Shipments and Value Chart (http://76.74.24.142/6BC7251F-5E09-5359-8EBD-948C37FB6AE8.pdf)

It definitely looks like online sales have improved things overall.

ZenErik
Dec 30, 2007, 11:51 PM
If you're looking for decent contemporary music, look anywhere but the radio and television. ;)

Rodimus Prime
Dec 30, 2007, 11:53 PM
Just saw an article that stated current CD sales are down 30% from 2001 levels. I would say that a decline in 30% over 6 years is significant.

well what do they expect. The RIAA does not allow music to grow and evolve they keep putting pretty much the exact same stuff for years. Different words but same music. It is a handful of artist who have the power to be able to play something different and LOW AND BEHOLD they hit the top of the charts.....I wonder why.

Could it be because it something new from everything else. The same stuff that I listen to in HS (97) played next to something new today I could not tell the difference in when it was made. Still sounds like late 90's to me. 10 years later and music has not really changed. That is why sells are down. Nothing new is really coming out so people have no real reason to want to buy it.

I think the reason I still find new stuff is only because my taste have changed and I moved to different types.

RIAA hurts music by refusing to be willing produce any music that is different that what been being made for the past 10 years. That alone is going to kill sells. What is it going to take before they get it though their thick heads that people are tired of hearing the same crap for the past 10+ years.

sushi
Dec 30, 2007, 11:56 PM
well what do they expect. The RIAA does not allow music to grow and evolve they keep putting pretty much the exact same stuff for years.
<snip>
Personally, I am not a fan of the RIAA nor copy protection.

I think copy protection is terrible. I like how they advertise that Macrovision helps improve the quality of the movie. What BS. Anytime you introduce something that can affect picture quality it is not for the good of the consumer.

Blue Velvet
Dec 31, 2007, 04:03 AM
Aren't CD sales down like 40% or something?


You and others missed my point. There's no doubt that the music industry is suffering but to state that it's because of DRM and lawsuits is patently ridiculous.

What's more, the painfully ignorant comments about the RIAA 'putting out crap' or 'not allowing music to evolve' display a woeful lack knowledge of what the RIAA is or which labels belong to it, or even how the industry works, for all artists, not just the Britney Spears of this world...

But it's easier to spit out things you've heard others say before, and to flout them as some form of justification or even a reasoned argument.

The cult of the amateur, indeed.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 31, 2007, 07:42 AM
You and others missed my point. There's no doubt that the music industry is suffering but to state that it's because of DRM and lawsuits is patently ridiculous.

What's more, the painfully ignorant comments about the RIAA 'putting out crap' or 'not allowing music to evolve' display a woeful lack knowledge of what the RIAA is or which labels belong to it, or even how the industry works, for all artists, not just the Britney Spears of this world...

But it's easier to spit out things you've heard others say before, and to flout them as some form of justification or even a reasoned argument.

The cult of the amateur, indeed.

well you have a better reason. Artist will tell you that the RIAA will not let them do what they want to do but more force them to keep doing more of the same. Also look at music 10 years ago and compare it to now. It sounds almost the same.

I really do not think illegal downloads have put that big of a dent in their sells. I personally still buy the same amount of cds a year that I been doing so for over 10 years (which is an average of 1-2 a year) illegal downloads have not really effected what I wanted nor of my friends.

Blue Velvet
Dec 31, 2007, 08:03 AM
Artist will tell you that the RIAA will not let them do what they want to do but more force them to keep doing more of the same.

You don't really know what the RIAA is or what they do, do you?


I personally still buy the same amount of cds a year that I been doing so for over 10 years (which is an average of 1-2 a year) illegal downloads have not really effected what I wanted nor of my friends.

It's not people that buy 1-2 CDs a year they're concerned about, you mean very little to them, and at that rate of music purchasing you're hardly likely to even be looking for the music you like in the right places.

It's those who buy 1-2 a week, maybe more... people like me that represent a core group of consumers that like to support their favourite artists and the infrastructure that sources, invests in, nurtures and produces the talent that all of you profess to support.

ZenErik
Dec 31, 2007, 08:07 AM
I support smaller labels and unsigned bands. Those are the only CDs I buy, for the most part. But I make sure I really like the band first. I will buy CDs at shows or at Newbury Comics after I've given them a good listen first.

Rodimus Prime
Dec 31, 2007, 08:09 AM
You don't really know what the RIAA is or what they do, do you?




It's not people that buy 1-2 CDs a year they're concerned about, you mean very little to them, and at that rate of music purchasing you're hardly likely to even be looking for the music you like in the right places.

It's those who buy 1-2 a week, maybe more... people like me that represent a core group of consumers that like to support their favourite artists and the infrastructure that sources, invests in, nurtures and produces the talent that all of you profess to support.

yet it my argument more explains the drop in total amount of money brought in. When factoring in inflation it almost been about a 6% drop a year. Illegal downloads really can not be having that much effect.

Sun Baked
Dec 31, 2007, 08:36 AM
So the RIAA can go after people now if they turn on file sharing ...

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response.

I bet the lawyers getting paid to do this are.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6694&stc=1

And thinking of buying a new house.

bigandy
Dec 31, 2007, 08:40 AM
So the RIAA can go after people now if they turn on file sharing ...

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response.

I bet the lawyers getting paid to do this are.

http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6694&stc=1

And thinking of buying a new house.

if i was one of their lawyers, i'd be buying a new island, not a new house...

termina3
Dec 31, 2007, 10:31 AM
Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system.... the horror....

I was under the impression that labels get the majority of record profits, but artists get the money at the concerts. Wrong?

MikeTheC
Dec 31, 2007, 11:36 AM
It's amazing how unemployable someone can become, under the right sort of circumstances. ;) :rolleyes: :eek:

I consume extremely little of what the entertainment injusticetry puts out. I don't watch TV. Period. I don't normally buy CDs. I rarely go to the movies. And I'd rather give my money direct to the artist, which is what can be the case in dealing with indie bands.

I'm not sure what you call a boycott that has become a permanent thing, but I am permanently boycotting everything coming from Sony, which in case you haven't been paying attention essentially owns half of Hollywierd.

They can all go to aich ee double hockey stick.

Fleetwood Mac
Dec 31, 2007, 11:36 AM
You and others missed my point. There's no doubt that the music industry is suffering but to state that it's because of DRM and lawsuits is patently ridiculous.
BV, I completely agree with you. It was arrogant of me to make that assumption. I keep up on the latest developments concerning RIAA, DMCA and especially some planned legislation that would be similar in Canada. I don't know if anyone except the industry can tell exactly why or how much trouble they're in right now.

I won't go as far as to edit my previous post, but let it be known that the reasons I avoid purchasing music are the ones I stated before. I've gone from buying lots of music to only a few albums a month. I hear what you're saying about supporting the artists, and the infrastructure that brings them to us. I just feel like that infrastructure is a little broken now. I think it needs some work, and I'll support it full force once I see some change.

MacNut
Dec 31, 2007, 04:44 PM
The way I thought it worked was that the artist works for the label and the label works for the RIAA. All the money gets funneled to the top first then allowed to flow down and it hits the artist last.

Blue Velvet
Dec 31, 2007, 04:47 PM
The way I thought it worked was that the artist works for the label and the label works for the RIAA.


No, the RIAA is just a trade body that represents its members, probably for an annual subscription.

http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=aboutus_become_a_member


In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conducts consumer, industry and technical research; and monitors and reviews state and federal laws, regulations and policies.

MacNut
Dec 31, 2007, 04:50 PM
Isn't the RIAA in charge of record sales, all gold and platinum numbers go through them. All artists that want to get paid have to be a member of the RIAA. Do they chart independent artists.

yg17
Dec 31, 2007, 04:57 PM
Isn't the RIAA in charge of record sales, all gold and platinum numbers go through them. All artists that want to get paid have to be a member of the RIAA. Do they chart independent artists.


You don't need to be a part of the RIAA to get paid. There are some independent labels out there who aren't part of the RIAA. Cuts out the middle man, and the bands probably get paid more per CD than their RIAA-member counterparts

Iscariot
Dec 31, 2007, 05:06 PM
The largest privately owned record label in Canada, Nettwerk, stepped up to the plate in early 2006. When a family in Texas was sued by the RIAA for sharing an Avril Lavign song, the label condemed the act and offered to pay all legal fees and fines of the defendant.

Nettwerk CEO Terry McBride says in response:

"Suing music fans is not the solution, it's the problem. Litigation is not 'artist development.' Litigation is a deterrent to creativity and passion and it is hurting the business I love. The current actions of the RIAA are not in my artists' best interests."

Stampyhead
Dec 31, 2007, 05:41 PM
Because of illegal downloading Britney Spears is not able to keep a Gulfstream IV, so she must replace it with a smaller Gulfstream III, which doesn't have a remote control for its surround sound DVD system.... the horror....

Ha ha, that's one of my favorite episodes

LethalWolfe
Dec 31, 2007, 07:01 PM
I was going to write a longer post but decided to just keep it to just a couple of points.

1. I agree w/BV's posts and people really should do a bit more research before they of voice their vehement hatred of something they apparently don't know very much about.

2. You can't really blame the labels for promoting a lot of repetitive crap when repetitive crap sells so well.


Lethal

NAG
Dec 31, 2007, 07:06 PM
In reference to 2. no it isn't selling so well. If it was I don't think we'd be seeing this decline in profits.

MacBytes
Jan 1, 2008, 01:02 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Download Uproar: Record Industry Goes After Personal Use (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080101020234)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

mrkramer
Jan 1, 2008, 01:10 AM
The RIAA are crazy. Unfortunatly i don't think that they will stop until people completely stop buying their music.

SPUY767
Jan 1, 2008, 01:34 AM
If you have a song on your iPod, and it didn't come from iTMS, you are a fugitive.

shadowfax
Jan 1, 2008, 11:06 AM
Reminds me of an album by the litigious band of the name "Metallica"....


Kill 'Em All

~Shard~
Jan 1, 2008, 11:09 AM
The RIAA must realy hate making money. Looks like they will continue to employ tactics like this until there is no one left willing to pay for their music. Brilliant business strategy. :rolleyes: :cool:

galstaph
Jan 1, 2008, 12:18 PM
Seriously, if they keep agitating everyone soon they will find themselves up the creek without a paddle... don't bite the hand that feeds you seems to be quite appropriate here. Just imagine the fallout if the judge declares copying your own legally purchased material for personal use (mp3) is legal....
Or the filpside, if it is illegal, what is next?, single use (one time play) songs, where you have to pay everytime you want to listen to it?

LethalWolfe
Jan 1, 2008, 12:24 PM
Didn't the RIAA already try this and lose w/the Diamond Rio case nearly 10 years ago?


Lethal

yellow
Jan 1, 2008, 12:26 PM
Well, iTMS will be legal, since that's a sanctioned way to get music on your computer. But CD sales will finally die.

Didn't the RIAA already try this and lose w/the Diamond Rio case nearly 10 years ago

If at first you don't succeed... :)

~Shard~
Jan 1, 2008, 12:33 PM
So is the RIAA also going to attempt to make these overly restrictive types of policies retroactive? If so, there's a plethora of potential "criminals" from the 1980's when everyone had mix tapes... :rolleyes:

:p ;)

ebouwman
Jan 1, 2008, 12:33 PM
I still preffer CD's over iTMS but come one i was absolutely SURE that making one copy for yourself was legal.

The RIAA's legal crusade against its customers is a...

If it's so illegal to rip a CD onto your computer for legitimate personal use, then why don't we all download, because thats illegal to. It's like robbing a store for a back of gum, why not steal the money in the register, you're already committing a crime.

IJ Reilly
Jan 1, 2008, 12:51 PM
If at first you don't succeed... :)

So it seems. The music industry shoots itself in the foot, then reloads.

OhEsTen
Jan 1, 2008, 01:11 PM
Makes me wonder how this will affect legitimate programs that "let" you rip your music onto your computer (i.e. iTunes).

If this argument by the RIAA has legs (which I seriously doubt), then can't you just see them going after Apple when they're done attacking people for ripping music? Really, what's to stop them? They seem to be perfectly happy suing their customers, so why not sue the company that made buying music online fun?

stevehp
Jan 1, 2008, 01:20 PM
That article sums it up well. The RIAA is clinging to an old-school business model that will never, ever, ever work anymore. It's crazy that they still believe going after people is the way scare people off. Same deal with NBC pulling content of iTunes and YouTube...

As Bob Dylan once wrote,

"Power, greed, and corruptible seed Ė seem to be all that there is."

GoodWatch
Jan 1, 2008, 01:45 PM
And yet I find this worrying. The Dutch counterpart of the RIAA has taken it already a step further. Every recordable blank, be it the now defunct cassette or CDRs or DVRs, is taxed with a 5% duty. Mind you, we are one of the very few European countries that do this. The proceeds of this duty hover around 220 million Euro a year. They go to an organisation that distributes the moneys involved to artists. How this is done is unclear to me but they rake-in a big pile of cash without actually having to sell one single song. But this isn’t enough. There’s a law to be passed that takes it a step further. Any recordable medium, from hard drives to MP3 players will be taxed. Even hard drives that go into computers that will never be used for playing back multi-media content. Again, we seem to be alone in this. The proposal was rejected early last year but their powerful lobby is working day and night to convince politicians that this is a step that must be taken.

If they get wind of the RIAA angle on home copying (and I guess those organisations are in contact) we are in for a very rough ride here. I have a collection of almost 400 CDs and a portion of those are converted to MP3. So now I will be branded a criminal? Because that’s the drill; scare tactics and branding the home 'ripper' as a criminal. Who has the deep pockets to keep fighting them in the courts? They have endless resources and generally no politician wants to burn his or her fingers on the subject so the bill will pass eventually. :mad:

gauchogolfer
Jan 1, 2008, 01:51 PM
^^ That is also the case with CD-Rs in the USA as well.

Nickygoat
Jan 1, 2008, 02:34 PM
And yet I find this worrying. The Dutch counterpart of the RIAA has taken it already a step further. Every recordable blank, be it the now defunct cassette or CDRs or DVRs, is taxed with a 5% duty. Mind you, we are one of the very few European countries that do this. The proceeds of this duty hover around 220 million Euro a year. They go to an organisation that distributes the moneys involved to artists. How this is done is unclear to me but they rake-in a big pile of cash without actually having to sell one single song. But this isnít enough. Thereís a law to be passed that takes it a step further. Any recordable medium, from hard drives to MP3 players will be taxed. Even hard drives that go into computers that will never be used for playing back multi-media content. Again, we seem to be alone in this. The proposal was rejected early last year but their powerful lobby is working day and night to convince politicians that this is a step that must be taken.

If they get wind of the RIAA angle on home copying (and I guess those organisations are in contact) we are in for a very rough ride here. I have a collection of almost 400 CDs and a portion of those are converted to MP3. So now I will be branded a criminal? Because thatís the drill; scare tactics and branding the home 'ripper' as a criminal. Who has the deep pockets to keep fighting them in the courts? They have endless resources and generally no politician wants to burn his or her fingers on the subject so the bill will pass eventually. :mad:

Out of interest can't you buy blank DVDRs from somewhere else in Europe to avoid the tax? Free movement of goods and all that?

From somewhere like SVP (http://svp.co.uk/about.php#)?

Dozy RIAA are doing all they can to destroy themselves.

mrkramer
Jan 1, 2008, 02:38 PM
The RIAA must realy hate making money. Looks like they will continue to employ tactics like this until there is no one left willing to pay for their music. Brilliant business strategy. :rolleyes: :cool:

Well they have managed to convince me not to buy any of their music anymore.

GoodWatch
Jan 1, 2008, 02:45 PM
Out of interest can't you buy blank DVDRs from somewhere else in Europe to avoid the tax? Free movement of goods and all that?

From somewhere like SVP (http://svp.co.uk/about.php#)?

Dozy RIAA are doing all they can to destroy themselves.

Yes, we can. And there's a 'grey' market in imported blanks. :D But 'the man in the street' and the casual buyer aren't aware of this. Besides, we're not talking big bucks here, it's the principle involved. And the clever part of EU legislation is that local taxes are exempt from those rules. That's why we pay almost 50% tax on a new car :mad:

gerardrj
Jan 1, 2008, 03:19 PM
According to engadget.com the Washtingon Post article is erroneous. The target of the suit is being charged with illegal downloading/sharing of files.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/30/riaa-not-suing-over-cd-ripping-still-kinda-being-jerks-about-it/

I've not researched it, but my guess is he downloaded songs he has CDs for (maybe the disks got scratched) or he was uploading the rips from a shared folder.

~Shard~
Jan 1, 2008, 03:45 PM
Well they have managed to convince me not to buy any of their music anymore.

Yeah, I think this type of behavior almost encourages people to download music just to spite them... :o ;)

VanNess
Jan 2, 2008, 03:58 AM
I've not researched it, but my guess is he downloaded songs he has CDs for (maybe the disks got scratched) or he was uploading the rips from a shared folder.

I've researched it and engadget is correct: the WaPo article got it totally wrong.

This story is based on a supplemental brief filed by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. I read it. The defendant in this case ripped his personal collection of legally purchased CDs to his computer. No problem there, except that he placed the ripped songs into a shared folder, he was a Kaza user, and he made the shared folder with the songs available on Kaza. The attorney who wrote the brief was quite clear that when the songs were placed into the shared folder for other Kaza users to copy, that was when the songs were no longer legitimate copies for his "personal use" - because the defendant's purpose in putting the songs into his shared folder was to distribute the songs to other Kaza users, which, as it turned out, is exactly what happened. His hard drive wasn't used as media for personal backups, it was used for distribution and the defendant was well aware that was the case.

I'm not fan of the RIAA, but this case isn't a good example of the RIAA going berserk. Plenty of other good examples to cite for that. By the way, the defendant in this lawsuit erased his hard drive the moment he learned that he was going to be sued. Why? Not exactly the behavior you would expect from an innocent soul with nothing to hide, who ripped his own CD collection to his computer only so he could enjoy his legally purchased music while word processing, writing emails and surfing the net...

IJ Reilly
Jan 2, 2008, 10:53 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I guess with can thank the Washington Post for further confusing an already confused issue.

dukebound85
Jan 2, 2008, 04:41 PM
^^ That is also the case with CD-Rs in the USA as well.

really? half the cds i burn are data disks yet the RIAA makes money off that just for the POTENTIAL of songs being on there?

wow thats absurd

Gbeav
Jan 2, 2008, 05:28 PM
It's good to be in Canada.

balamw
Jan 2, 2008, 05:33 PM
really? half the cds i burn are data disks yet the RIAA makes money off that just for the POTENTIAL of songs being on there?

wow thats absurd

Only "Music" CD-Rs are subject to the levy in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

B

PRO Musician
Jan 2, 2008, 07:13 PM
Let me clarify things for you all.

1- The Riaa takes no earnings from ANY record contract. There is NO profit motive because there is no percentage given to them. They are a trade organization for the record industry.

2- The industry and recording artist loss of income from illegal downloading is well established now. This really kills sales of back catalog (older hit records by established artists like Marvin Gaye, Led Zepplin, etc....) owned by old major labels making their current signings more desperate and less adventurous because the pad income has dwindled. As well as people who only made money as songwriters and have seen their small retirement income from some hit they wrote 30 years ago get sucked up in internet thievery.

3- Artists and songwriters make money from record sales and songwriting and the corresponding uses for TV and film placement. Touring is only profitable for mid to big stars with established followings because it is very expensive to tour.

4-You can copy any music you have purchased as much as you want for personal use. That is copyright law.

5- You can NOT take the music that is the blood sweat and tears hard work of a recording artist or songwriter and give it away for free to whomever you want. It is the right of those people to say how it is copied and used. That is why it is called Copyright.

6- Illegal downloading has now stolen more from Recording artists than all record companies in the history of music. The big bad record company has now been outdone. They can not compete with free in selling records.

7- And you thought it was hard before to be a kid who loves music to get his parents to support him pursuing it as a career. Now we can look forward to even greater disdain from parents who know that there is even lower odds that a kid will grow up successful in a music career. And this all sucks. We can directly thank the internet thieves of music world wide for killing the golden goose and hurting music for the foreseeable future. From an old songwriter whose retirement came from records that still sold but are now stolen through the internet, to the younger creators of music whose right to make money from their talent is stilted, internet theft of music hurts everyone who loves it and jeopardizes it's quality and the magic it gives for years to come.

Dmac77
Jan 2, 2008, 07:16 PM
The RIAA needs to get over them selves. That is just stupid, why would someone buy the same music twice?

USC96
Jan 2, 2008, 07:49 PM
Let me clarify things for you all.

1- The Riaa takes no earnings from ANY record contract. There is NO profit motive because there is no percentage given to them. They are a trade organization for the record industry.

2- The industry and recording artist loss of income from illegal downloading is well established now. This really kills sales of back catalog (older hit records by established artists like Marvin Gaye, Led Zepplin, etc....) owned by old major labels making their current signings more desperate and less adventurous because the pad income has dwindled. As well as people who only made money as songwriters and have seen their small retirement income from some hit they wrote 30 years ago get sucked up in internet thievery.

3- Artists and songwriters make money from record sales and songwriting and the corresponding uses for TV and film placement. Touring is only profitable for mid to big stars with established followings because it is very expensive to tour.

4-You can copy any music you have purchased as much as you want for personal use. That is copyright law.

5- You can NOT take the music that is the blood sweat and tears hard work of a recording artist or songwriter and give it away for free to whomever you want. It is the right of those people to say how it is copied and used. That is why it is called Copyright.

6- Illegal downloading has now stolen more from Recording artists than all record companies in the history of music. The big bad record company has now been outdone. They can not compete with free in selling records.

7- And you thought it was hard before to be a kid who loves music to get his parents to support him pursuing it as a career. Now we can look forward to even greater disdain from parents who know that there is even lower odds that a kid will grow up successful in a music career. And this all sucks. We can directly thank the internet thieves of music world wide for killing the golden goose and hurting music for the foreseeable future. From an old songwriter whose retirement came from records that still sold but are now stolen through the internet, to the younger creators of music whose right to make money from their talent is stilted, internet theft of music hurts everyone who loves it and jeopardizes it's quality and the magic it gives for years to come.

Waah, Waah, Cry Me A River. What I don't understand is why voters fall for all the US political candidates who drone on and on about how the rich should pay their "fair" share. Then after they are elected, those same politicos pass legislation to permit the mega wealthy entertainment celebrities and industry fat cats to prosecute the middle class via organizations like the RIAA. It's no longer about making the rich "pay" their fair share, it's about helping the rich "get" their share. All I can think is it must suck to be middle class in America. :confused:

PRO Musician
Jan 2, 2008, 08:00 PM
Waah, Waah, Cry Me A River. What I don't understand is why voters fall for all the US political candidates who drone on and on about how the rich should pay their "fair" share. Then after they are elected, those same politicos pass legislation to permit the mega wealthy entertainment celebrities and industry fat cats to prosecute the middle class via organizations like the RIAA. It's no longer about making the rich "pay" their fair share, it's about helping the rich "get" their share. All I can think is it must suck to be middle class in America. :confused:

You have a VERY common misperception that all professional musicians are rich. Most of us are middle class and getting @%$ed by illegal downloading. It go's all the way down the line. Cry yourself a river for your arrogance/ignorance in this matter! I am the one with 25yrs in this business and not much to show because of the raping we have gotten in the last 10 years. How dare you defend the looting of my beloved art/industry. There IS NO Robin Hood scenario here!

USC96
Jan 2, 2008, 08:18 PM
There IS NO Robin Hood scenario here!

Robin Hood was stealing from the rich to give to the poor. What your group does is use lawyers to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Just because you haven't gotten rich off it doesn't entitle you to compare a 12 year old using napster to the horrible crime of rape. That's just sad. :rolleyes:

balamw
Jan 2, 2008, 08:33 PM
You have a VERY common misperception that all professional musicians are rich. Most of us are middle class and getting @%$ed by illegal downloading.

I really hate to say it, but if you haven't already gotten rich making music, do you really, honestly think you would have done any better without illegal downloading?

What do you think folks are downloading? Mostly the content produced by those who are already rich! If you only sold 50,000 copies of a CD in the first place, how many more people would really have bought it if they couldn't download it free somewhere? Probably not that many since it wouldn't be stocked anywhere, etc. etc.

Music's current CD/Album business model favors the middlemen, not the creators of the music. If you want that to change, the industry as a whole needs to find a new business model for the 21st Century.

B

PRO Musician
Jan 2, 2008, 08:36 PM
Robin Hood was stealing from the rich to give to the poor. What your group does is use lawyers to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Just because you haven't gotten rich off it doesn't entitle you to compare a 12 year old using napster to the horrible crime of rape. That's just sad. :rolleyes:


"raping" is obviously not being used in the context of the sexual crime. And once again you miss the point that most of the musicians that are hurt by illegal downloading are middle class and entitled to the income and the legal protections of copyright that the RIAA enforce. And since when has the amount of income made by an industry equated to the amount of protection it is due by the law?

LethalWolfe
Jan 2, 2008, 08:41 PM
I really hate to say it, but if you haven't already gotten rich making music, do you really, honestly think you would have done any better without illegal downloading?

What do you think folks are downloading? Mostly the content produced by those who are already rich! If you only sold 50,000 copies of a CD in the first place, how many more people would really have bought it if they couldn't download it free somewhere? Probably not that many since it wouldn't be stocked anywhere, etc. etc.

Music's current CD/Album business model favors the middlemen, not the creators of the music. If you want that to change, the industry as a whole needs to find a new business model for the 21st Century.

B
So if people are already rich they don't deserve to make anymore money and if people aren't rich the amount of money they are losing must be insignificant?


Lethal

PRO Musician
Jan 2, 2008, 08:51 PM
I really hate to say it, but if you haven't already gotten rich making music, do you really, honestly think you would have done any better without illegal downloading?

What do you think folks are downloading? Mostly the content produced by those who are already rich! If you only sold 50,000 copies of a CD in the first place, how many more people would really have bought it if they couldn't download it free somewhere? Probably not that many since it wouldn't be stocked anywhere, etc. etc.

Music's current CD/Album business model favors the middlemen, not the creators of the music. If you want that to change, the industry as a whole needs to find a new business model for the 21st Century.

B

I have been involved in projects that had a regional hit that had its record sales gobbled up in downloading before it could go any further. And I have also been involved as a songwriter on other projects that had huge download numbers on Kaza that had very little sales even though it was available everywhere. So it is just not the truth that the already rich artist is the only one effected by illegal downloading. There are so many people involved in the making of records creatively who make mid level money. And they are all hurt by this. You just can not compete with free!

balamw
Jan 3, 2008, 12:09 AM
So if people are already rich they don't deserve to make anymore money and if people aren't rich the amount of money they are losing must be insignificant?


I said nothing about what people deserve (or not). I believe that artists should be compensated for their hard work and this is why I personally buy 3-4 albums a month (on average), not counting individual songs downloaded from iTunes or Amazon.

So it is just not the truth that the already rich artist is the only one effected by illegal downloading.

I just have a big problem with equating an illegal download with a lost sale. You have no way of knowing if the person who downloaded the track would ever have bought it had the free download channel not been available. You also have no measure of how many people bought a track after finding out about in on p2p. You can't even be sure if someone who downloaded a track ever even listened to it, or just deleted it after one play.

There are plenty of reasons why someone will or won't buy music, competition from illegal downloading is just one of them.

You just can not compete with free!

Sure you can, you just need to provide the perception some kind of added value. OpenOffice is just as good as Microsoft Office for most uses, but that doesn't stop Microsoft from selling theirs while OO is available free. Symantec and McAfee continue to sell their Antivirus programs despite the existence of free as in beer alternatives. Tap water is often of better quality than bottled water and it's usually free, so how does Aquafina stay afloat?

The music industry needs to find a new business model (or two or three) rather than trying to keep the one they've got alive. Selling physical albums on CD for $15.99-$18.99 at retail just will not fly in this day and age. Albums on CDs had a great 25 year run, but they are for the most part done. They don't serve the consumer or the creative team well, as a lot of the costs are in distribution of physical media and much of the revenue goes to the middlemen that don't add value.

According to Billboard ~$10/$17 i.e 60% are costs associated with the production distribution and sale of a physical CD http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html

The barrier to entry is too high (not an impulse buy) and the perceived value is low given that a DVD of a major studio film can often be had for less than its soundtrack.

B

PRO Musician
Jan 3, 2008, 01:59 AM
I said nothing about what people deserve (or not). I believe that artists should be compensated for their hard work and this is why I personally buy 3-4 albums a month (on average), not counting individual songs downloaded from iTunes or Amazon.



I just have a big problem with equating an illegal download with a lost sale. You have no way of knowing if the person who downloaded the track would ever have bought it had the free download channel not been available. You also have no measure of how many people bought a track after finding out about in on p2p. You can't even be sure if someone who downloaded a track ever even listened to it, or just deleted it after one play.

There are plenty of reasons why someone will or won't buy music, competition from illegal downloading is just one of them.



Sure you can, you just need to provide the perception some kind of added value. OpenOffice is just as good as Microsoft Office for most uses, but that doesn't stop Microsoft from selling theirs while OO is available free. Symantec and McAfee continue to sell their Antivirus programs despite the existence of free as in beer alternatives. Tap water is often of better quality than bottled water and it's usually free, so how does Aquafina stay afloat?

The music industry needs to find a new business model (or two or three) rather than trying to keep the one they've got alive. Selling physical albums on CD for $15.99-$18.99 at retail just will not fly in this day and age. Albums on CDs had a great 25 year run, but they are for the most part done. They don't serve the consumer or the creative team well, as a lot of the costs are in distribution of physical media and much of the revenue goes to the middlemen that don't add value.

According to Billboard ~$10/$17 i.e 60% are costs associated with the production distribution and sale of a physical CD http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainment/0101/cd.price/frameset.exclude.html

The barrier to entry is too high (not an impulse buy) and the perceived value is low given that a DVD of a major studio film can often be had for less than its soundtrack.

B

There certainly does not have to be a direct loss of sale for every illegal download in order for it to be wrong and fought against. If it was just 10% of total file-shareing of music it would still be a huge loss. in the hundreds of millions of $. And am sure a judge would let a car thief off for stealing a new car by the argument that "he would not have bought it anyway" "and was never going to drive it"(A ridiculous argument obviously)

And music is not some generic product. The artist is the artist wether free or from iTunes. So the brand value that you speak of that sells the software you mention bares no significance to the competition between sources for music. Its brand remains. Why cant we just enforce the law instead of forcing an industry to compete with people who give away our hard work for free. And it is enforceable because we know already that ISP's can filter fileshareing to keep too much bandwidth from being eaten up by it.


And I would like you to tell me why high prices justify a looting of the music business world wide?

balamw
Jan 3, 2008, 09:05 AM
And I would like you to tell me why high prices justify a looting of the music business world wide?

It doesn't. Not compensating the creative team for their work is wrong, legally and morally.

That said, if I were in a business where 60% of the cost to my consumer was in production and distribution and someone else was willing to bear that cost, I'd sure as hell want to figure out to cash in on that instead of cutting off the flow.

And am sure a judge would let a car thief off for stealing a new car by the argument that "he would not have bought it anyway" "and was never going to drive it"(A ridiculous argument obviously)


Ridiculous obviously, because an copying an MP3 is not theft in the same way that stealing a car is. Copyright law may have been broken, but the original owner has not lost anything tangible. Intent is definitely considered in criminal offenses to set the level of punishment, otherwise we would not distinguigh between manslaughter and murder in the first degree.


And music is not some generic product. The artist is the artist wether free or from iTunes. So the brand value that you speak of that sells the software you mention bares no significance to the competition between sources for music. Its brand remains. Why cant we just enforce the law instead of forcing an industry to compete with people who give away our hard work for free. And it is enforceable because we know already that ISP's can filter fileshareing to keep too much bandwidth from being eaten up by it.


We can and should enforce the law, but it is a game a whack a mole. Just as they have done for decades, file sharers will move on to another protocol and means of distribution. Copyright violations were already around back in the days of dial-up modems. Again if there is an unaddressed market for my goods or services, I'd rather figure out a way to make money at it than try to sue the pants off my potential customers.

This is not the kind of value I'm talking about. Aquafina and Dasani are nothing but purified tap water in a bottle, the value they provide over the kind in the tap is portability, i.e. the bottle. What the music industry is doing is akin to Pepsi suing consumers for refilling a bottle of Aquafina with water.

The music industry needs to find a new bottle. $16.98 is not a good value for one good song, and the high price simply means that fewer units can be sold. The high price does not justify violating the copyright, but it does help explain why it likely.

EDIT: Continuing the water analogy. Bottled water has long been available in 5 gallon jugs, delivered by big trucks to your local water cooler. For a long time that was the main way folks got drinking water to their home or office. Should you really expect this business model to continue indefinitely? What happened to the water cooler providers once Coke and Pepsi entered the market with "commodity" vending machine water? Obviously the 5 gal. jug is not always the right answer...

B

termina3
Jan 3, 2008, 06:55 PM
It's no longer about making the rich "pay" their fair share, it's about helping the rich "get" their share. All I can think is it must suck to be middle class in America. :confused:

The "rich" fair share is the same as the "poor" fair share: aprox. 30%. I'm in favor of a flat tax, but realize that it'll never come to be. I'd settle for a consumption tax though.

USC96
Jan 3, 2008, 08:03 PM
The "rich" fair share is the same as the "poor" fair share: aprox. 30%. I'm in favor of a flat tax, but realize that it'll never come to be. I'd settle for a consumption tax though.

I think I agree with you? :confused: You are saying that it doesn't matter what your economic status, you should pay the same percentage. In other words, neither a regressive or progressive tax.

I like the idea of a consumption tax, but would love a flat tax. Maybe $20,000 per family. :)

USC96
Jan 3, 2008, 08:39 PM
This story is on just about every musician site I go to. RIAA and the BMG counsel have done their clients a great disservice with their ridiculous positions here.

Here is another story showing the media (CDs) are dead as dead:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/01/02/were-all-thieves-to-the-riaa.aspx

Cleverboy
Jan 3, 2008, 09:27 PM
I hate this discussion. It never ends. As a creative person, I think people should be compensated appropriately, but I also think theft should be litigated fairly. I'm disgusted by the amount of media fans that mask their contempt for artists that get rich off of their talent. They'd prefer every musician plays on a stage somewhere until their old and gray with no pension and every illustrator entertains at children's birthday party scraping nickels on tips. Even Creative Commons reserves rights, yet people... I have to assume they're talentless parasites... don't believe in copyright. I think the media should be open and accessible and fair use should be much more clearly defined. Ah, but we all want a lot of things, don't we?

This story is on just about every musician site I go to. RIAA and the BMG counsel have done their clients a great disservice with their ridiculous positions here. This story is misquoted and misreported in a lot of places. When I first read it on Engadget, it took me a full 30 seconds to see the part where the defendant stuck his music in his Kazaa folder and allowed people to download it from him. --Then again, I knew what to look for.

~ CB

Cleverboy
Jan 3, 2008, 09:53 PM
The "rich" fair share is the same as the "poor" fair share: aprox. 30%. I'm in favor of a flat tax, but realize that it'll never come to be. I'd settle for a consumption tax though.Yeah. It's about the only thing about Huckabee that interests me. As I say this, I'm booting up TurboTax which I just purchased down at Best Buy.

It doesn't. Not compensating the creative team for their work is wrong, legally and morally.Meh. I don't think you really believe that. Or, if you do, you're not that troubled to square it with your less capitalistic feelings. If you did, you'd just agree.

Better RIAA or ASCAP tracks people down that creators. Let's them be one-step removed from the ugliness of those who'd what something for nothing, while still being able to enjoy the fruit of their labors... --or more accurately, the manic offerings by the cult of popularity and capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVgYW_vTysI

~ CB

balamw
Jan 3, 2008, 10:35 PM
Meh. I don't think you really believe that. Or, if you do, you're not that troubled to square it with your less capitalistic feelings. If you did, you'd just agree.

Agree to what? That the RIAA can do no wrong, and that all is well with the music business except for big bad illegal downloading? That's naive, and plenty capitalistic. The current system favors corporations over the individuals involved.

My less capitalistic feelings are the same ones that want to get the middle men out of the business. I said the creative team should be compensated, I never said that I thought the lawyers and all the other middle men should be. :p

And if the system was working, no one would need to track anyone down except for law enforcement.

B

apsterling
Jan 3, 2008, 10:53 PM
The ideal system, though potentially ineffective if used largely, is that which Radiohead did initially with "In Rainbows". Purchase the environmentally, economically friendly download, at your price- if you're a student, pay $2.50. If you enjoy the artist, pay $10. If you can't afford the album, but want to support them, go free, and tell others. Then 2 or 3 months later, release a hardcopy for Audiophiles/Physical Format Junkies, at a flat rate.

It's ideal, but you do it too much, and many people won't pay. However, Radiohead's numbers (If i'm not mistaken) showed that they got double what they would have off a label.

On a semirelated note, I regret not purchasing "In Rainbows" earlier, when I could have had it for $5 rather than $12 (Still good for a physical CD)

As far as my stance, if music has to be imported at a ridiculous price, I'll go via non-ethical means, however, if it's available through standard means (iTunes, DVD, or Physical CD), at a record store nearby, I'll gladly support the artist. I'd pay up to $19 for Maximum The Hormone's Bu-Ikikaesu, but $40-60 to get a 13-track album is ridiculous.

LethalWolfe
Jan 3, 2008, 11:25 PM
The ideal system, though potentially ineffective if used largely, is that which Radiohead did initially with "In Rainbows". Purchase the environmentally, economically friendly download, at your price- if you're a student, pay $2.50. If you enjoy the artist, pay $10. If you can't afford the album, but want to support them, go free, and tell others. Then 2 or 3 months later, release a hardcopy for Audiophiles/Physical Format Junkies, at a flat rate.

It's ideal, but you do it too much, and many people won't pay. However, Radiohead's numbers (If i'm not mistaken) showed that they got double what they would have off a label.

Although I know of no 100% accurate stats, from what I've read between 33-60% of "In Rainbow" downloaders paid nothing and the average "donation" was 3-4 pounds. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for that distribution model.;) It also skips over the fact that Radiohead is already a very well established, successful band that has enough money in the coffers to be able to experiment financially like this.

IMO, the position of the record labels will be diminished, but not demolished because there will always be people that need money (struggling artists) and people looking to invest their money (labels). The people that really stand to get crunched are the retailers. Brick and Mortar stores are the ones that have really been put to the grinder as more people chose to shop w/their fingers and not their feet.


Lethal

balamw
Jan 3, 2008, 11:35 PM
$40-60 to get a 13-track album is ridiculous.

Exactly the kind of nonsense that I'm referring to. The retailer has to charge a lot because what they are doing in selling you an import is strictly illegal, since the album is not licensed for distribution in the US. This kind of mark up on an album doesn't benefit the artist at all over what they may have received from the original sale. It's worse for titles that are out of print for one reason or another, because they effectively become unavailable, except for huge markups or grey market copies that again do not benefit the artists. Only the middlemen (and the lawyers) stand to benefit.

FWIW Target is selling Radiohead's new album as a physical CD for $7.99 this week. Even though I'm not a fan, I may pick it up just to support their experiment.

B

Naimfan
Jan 4, 2008, 11:54 AM
I thought this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/business/media/04music.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) was an interesting article.

apsterling
Jan 4, 2008, 05:47 PM
The RIAA, Label, and distributors take most of the money, Lethal. The average signed band takes about a dollar from each copy of the album they sell. (Says my drum tutor, who is a studio drummer) And from what I could tell, Radiohead, despite taking 4£ ($2) from each record, is still making double the money. If this were to work on a massive scale, signed or not, it could fix the problems posed by the RIAA.

PRO Musician
Jan 4, 2008, 08:37 PM
The RIAA, Label, and distributors take most of the money, Lethal. The average signed band takes about a dollar from each copy of the album they sell. (Says my drum tutor, who is a studio drummer) And from what I could tell, Radiohead, despite taking 4£ ($2) from each record, is still making double the money. If this were to work on a massive scale, signed or not, it could fix the problems posed by the RIAA.
The RIAA takes no % of a any record contract. And everyone here misses the fundamental reason you want to get a record deal as a musician. Which is the specialized promoting, selling, distributing machine that a record company is. Anyone who has made and tried to sell and promote their own record knows how hard that specialized record company function is to do on their own. The industry term is "creating demand", and it is a bitch to do! Now everyone knows that a lot of record deals can suck , But the average $250,000 that is spent on an artist to record an album try and make them a success is only recouped 1 out of 50 times. So it is just not that cut and dry a story of artist's getting taken advantage of because the only way a record company gets paid back is through sales.

LethalWolfe
Jan 4, 2008, 09:06 PM
The RIAA, Label, and distributors take most of the money, Lethal. The average signed band takes about a dollar from each copy of the album they sell. (Says my drum tutor, who is a studio drummer) And from what I could tell, Radiohead, despite taking 4£ ($2) from each record, is still making double the money. If this were to work on a massive scale, signed or not, it could fix the problems posed by the RIAA.
"If this were to work" is, of course, the major problem. Raidohead could not have done what they did w/"In Rainbows" if they were never signed to a major label and never achieved world wide fame for reasons that PRO Musician mentioned. If you are rich and can pay your own way in regards to recording, promoting, and distributing an album you probably can get by w/o a label. Of course the problem is most people (especially musicians hoping to "make it") are far from rich.

Also, the math you are using is a little flawed. Just for simplicity lets say 100 people downloaded their album. Out of those 100 people 50% paid nothing and the other 50 paid $2. So Radiohead made $100. If Radiohead were signed to a label and sold 100 CDs they'd also make $100. Since Radiohead isn't signed to a label they have more out of pocket costs so the $100 from the downloads will result in less net profit than the $100 they would've made w/a label. Now the real interesting thing is how much money does Radiohead pocket from CD sales now that they are label free and how does that compare to how much they made from the downloads? I'd venture a guess that Radiohead got hosed on the downloads.


Lethal

apsterling
Jan 4, 2008, 11:20 PM
With site like PureVolume and MySpace, though, most unsigned bands can gain exposure. Some bands are getting signed on that alone. If that's the case, an established band on said sites needs only to do a bit of advertising and they'll be set. And if you can't establish yourself on that type of site, you're liable to fail anyways.

It could work, one just nees dedication and an audience.

David G.
Jan 4, 2008, 11:35 PM
Wow, my first thread ever and I got over a hundred comments. Positively brilliant!:)

LethalWolfe
Jan 5, 2008, 12:57 AM
With site like PureVolume and MySpace, though, most unsigned bands can gain exposure. Some bands are getting signed on that alone.
And some people win the lottery but that doesn't make it a viable business plan. For every Chris Crocker ("leave Britney Alone" guy) there are a million other would-be YouTube celebs you'll never hear of.


It could work, one just nees dedication and an audience.
Cold fusion could work too, but the gap between "could work" and "is working" is pretty big. Independents successfully monetizing the internet is pretty much the holy grail right now. TV/Film is more my area and I'm working on an indie documentary right now and trying to find ways to leverage the internet and "new media" to our advantage and there's a lot you can do to try and better your odds, but it still pretty much boils down to a knocking on wood and crossing your fingers. The "possibilities" on the internet are much bigger than the "realities" currently.

Compared to 10 years ago a filmmaker today has a better chance of making an independent movie, but a worse chance of getting into a major film festival. The initial challenge has shifted from "getting it made" to "getting noticed in a sea of your peers". I'm not trying to sound like captain Doom & Gloom but these are just the realities I've dug up over the past year or so of investigating.

Wow, my first thread ever and I got over a hundred comments. Positively brilliant!:)
Beginner's luck. :D


Lethal

GradientMac
Jan 5, 2008, 05:26 AM
It's like they want us to stop listening to music or something. Going after personal use?

I feel like I should just throw out every CD I've ever bought because I could get sued for using the music I buy.

"OH NO HE'S USING A PRODUCT HE LEGALLY BOUGHT! SUE HIM!"

This just makes me not want to buy music, way to go recording industry, you just made yourself lose money.

Seriously, how stupid can you get?

I'm starting to call them the 'Really Insane @$$4013 Associasion.'

LethalWolfe
Jan 5, 2008, 01:42 PM
It's like they want us to stop listening to music or something. Going after personal use?

I feel like I should just throw out every CD I've ever bought because I could get sued for using the music I buy.

"OH NO HE'S USING A PRODUCT HE LEGALLY BOUGHT! SUE HIM!"

This just makes me not want to buy music, way to go recording industry, you just made yourself lose money.

Seriously, how stupid can you get?

I'm starting to call them the 'Really Insane @$$4013 Associasion.'
Did you bother reading at least the first couple of pages of the thread? The original story was inaccurate. The guy is being sued for distributing copyrighted material over P2P, not because he ripped the CDs to his HDD.


Lethal

GradientMac
Jan 5, 2008, 01:51 PM
Did you bother reading at least the first couple of pages of the thread? The original story was inaccurate. The guy is being sued for distributing copyrighted material over P2P, not because he ripped the CDs to his HDD.


Lethal

Thank god. Then I have no problem with it, he should've been sued.

USC96
Jan 5, 2008, 06:32 PM
Did you bother reading at least the first couple of pages of the thread? The original story was inaccurate. The guy is being sued for distributing copyrighted material over P2P, not because he ripped the CDs to his HDD.


Lethal

Where there's smoke there's fire. People wouldn't get this upset about it if there wasn't a history of abuse by this organization. This about it. :rolleyes:

LethalWolfe
Jan 5, 2008, 07:19 PM
Where there's smoke there's fire. People wouldn't get this upset about it if there wasn't a history of abuse by this organization. This about it. :rolleyes:
People wouldn't have got this upset about it if the story was accurately reported in the first place.


Lethal

USC96
Jan 5, 2008, 07:35 PM
People wouldn't have got this upset about it if the story was accurately reported in the first place.


Lethal

So you agree that they have reason to be upset, but submit that they wouldn't have gotten THIS upset. http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/smilies/munch.gif

iTeen
Jan 5, 2008, 07:47 PM
my question is...how the hell do they know you have downloaded music of of, lets say, Limewire? :confused:
these people need to be slapped, or worse.:eek:

termina3
Jan 5, 2008, 10:04 PM
my question is...how the hell do they know you have downloaded music of of, lets say, Limewire? :confused:
these people need to be slapped, or worse.:eek:

As I saw mentioned earlier (I have no personal reference or knowledge), the RIAA employs a tech company that researches those who are sharing.

LethalWolfe
Jan 5, 2008, 10:13 PM
So you agree that they have reason to be upset, but submit that they wouldn't have gotten THIS upset. http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/smilies/munch.gif
Anytime there is an article about the RIAA suing someone it will typically illicit a negative response when discussed on an internet forum. I think the lawsuits are heavy handed but at the same time I don't think it's right for someone to, in effect, mass produce and mass distribute someone else's property w/o permission.

my question is...how the hell do they know you have downloaded music of of, lets say, Limewire? :confused:
these people need to be slapped, or worse.:eek:
AFAIK uploading (i.e. distributing) songs on P2P is what they sue over.


Lethal