Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Music Prices Going Up?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
off topic, but...
Just trying to figure out some things about the RIAA-it is an association of which labels, besides the big five? They list their members at http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Does anybody know if these are all just divisions of the big five, or are any of these recognizable indie labels? It looks like a heck of a lot....
Just trying to figure out some things about the RIAA-it is an association of which labels, besides the big five? They list their members at http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
Does anybody know if these are all just divisions of the big five, or are any of these recognizable indie labels? It looks like a heck of a lot....
DGFan said:
If you are coming from the U.S., you are violating law by using AllOfMp3.
While it may be legal where they are based (who knows, really?), causing a complete copy of a protected work to be created and sent to you over the wire that you have no license for is illegal.
Trust me, the actual copyright owners (usually the music labels themselves, not some russian organization or what not) have not given any permission to AllOfMP3 to redistribute their material, and since the copyright owner is the only one who matters in the U.S. copyright law sense, you are violating the law by using their service.
DGFan said:
Perhaps your are right. Maybe I am blurring the lines between ethical and legal. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean it is right. Most people I know who don't use P2P elect not to do so because they know that no money goes to the artists, not because they are worried about the legality or being caught by the RIAA. If you think the artists get anything from allofmp3 you are kidding yourself. And that is what I think most people want to believe. They do have just legal reasoning from their perspective, but that does not mean that this service the a gift from God and totally clean. Maybe those of your downloading are not committing crimes, but someone in Russia surely is...
greg75 said:
No FUD, only my opinions.
Surely I know that allofmp3 has not been convicted or anything, but I think it would be hard for anyone to say that they are running an entirely legal enterprise, especially since dozens of artists do not permit their music to be sold online....yet allofmp3 is able to sell it to you.
I fully understand that it is completely legal for end user to download of allofmp3, and it seems that is all some people need to download away. Just know that legal in this case certainly does not mean legal in the way the iTMS is. Something is most definitely wrong, but you can choose to ignore that if all you are concerned about is your legality.
The artists still get nothing. Good luck to you all.
travishill said:
I don't get what it is with people and debating the legality of ALLOFMP3. Maybe there's a loophole, and it's legal, maybe there isn't, and it's illegal. Should that make the difference between your using it or not? The only reasons to use or not to use are morals, and, if illegal, are you going to get caught. If you tried to prove to me that legality does matter, the only basis you could fall back on is that obeying the law is moral. Not only is the argument for that quite weak, but in this case it's kind of irrelevant- is it any more moral to exploit a loophole in the law, than it is to do something illegal? No. Further, I really don't think that what has been decided as law or not has any effect on morality. The question at hand is, is geting music from such a site moral, or not? To answer that, I'd first ask how if there's any difference, morally, with this than p2p (yeah, you're spending money, but doesn't look like anybody who's earned it is getting it, least of all the artists). If there isn't a difference, than I refer you to all the p2p debates on this thread.
So now, I think we can all give up debating and talking about copyright law, until somebody can prove that obeying the law is moraly neccessary, and strongly enough that loopholes in the law are unimportant-it's not the spirit, but the letter that counts.
dontmatter said:
Well I have not seen a dime from any sales at this point. I may never.
When you have a "deal" you get a up front "loan" if you will.
Most get whats called a points deal to pay off. MOST never pay it off.
The big 5 set it up that way. With a REAL good deal an artist can get up to a dollor per CD sold. That's a dollor to pay off some of that "loan". I don't have a REAL good deal.
Like I said before, My feel good is to get sound scan points.
Will not disclose what artist I am to avoid bad blood with the powers that be. I just dissed them.
Compulsory licensing.Freg3000 said:
How can Allofmp3 legally offer Beatles and Metallica music?
As for morality, when people on these forums claim that iTMS screws the artists as well, the common response is "If the artists didn't like the contract, they didn't have to enter into it". Well, if the artists don't like the royalties they're (not) getting from ROMS, they didn't have to publish their work on this planet.
greg75 said:
hahahahah.
so true
i just can't tell if you're for real, or if you're pretending to be....
Devil's advocate. I was pointing out the stupidity of the "Using iTMS is moral because the artists themselves entered into contracts that allows them to be screwed" argument.jelloshotsrule said:
If people want to use iTMS, that's fine. Just don't pretend that you're not screwing artists. You are, just less than others.
Well I head some rummor months back that apple was lowering the price to
$.79 per song. That never happened, just goes to show you. I would wait until you hear something direct from apple.
edit: I"m stupid and didn't read the whole post
$.79 per song. That never happened, just goes to show you. I would wait until you hear something direct from apple.
edit: I"m stupid and didn't read the whole post
itsa said:Well I have not seen a dime from any sales at this point. I may never.
When you have a "deal" you get a up front "loan" if you will.
Most get whats called a points deal to pay off. MOST never pay it off.
The big 5 set it up that way. With a REAL good deal an artist can get up to a dollor per CD sold. That's a dollor to pay off some of that "loan". I don't have a REAL good deal.
Like I said before, My feal good is to get sound scan points.
Will not disclose what artist I am to avoid bad blood with the powers that be. I just dissed them.
heh. rediculous the things one must do not to get in trouble.
DGFan said:
It matters a lot if you are using it FROM the United States.
In no way does using AllOfMP3.com grant you a license from the copyright owner to their material. Because of this, it is copyright infringement, whereever the source.
Apple Computer has flatly denied a report that the computer maker was planning to raise prices for songs bought on its popular iTunes online music store. "These rumours aren't true," said Apple spokeswoman Natalie Sequeira. "We have multiyear agreements with the labels and our prices remain 99 cents a track." Apple's statement came after the New York Post reported on Friday, citing one unnamed source, that music fans may have to start paying more for some songs on Apple's music store following contract renegotiations with the record labels ahead of the one-year anniversary of the store.
Since the launch of the music store last April, which works with Apple's popular iPod digital music player, the company has sold more than 70 million songs. That figure was less than Apple's goal of 100 million, but more than anyone else. The store now has more than 700,000 tracks for sale. Apple needed to renegotiate the contracts with the five major record labels, because they were initially one-year contracts and were signed ahead of the launch of the online music store last April. Some of the terms of the contracts did change. The number of times an iTunes user can create a CD with the same playlist has been cut to seven from 10, Sequeira said.
Source
Since the launch of the music store last April, which works with Apple's popular iPod digital music player, the company has sold more than 70 million songs. That figure was less than Apple's goal of 100 million, but more than anyone else. The store now has more than 700,000 tracks for sale. Apple needed to renegotiate the contracts with the five major record labels, because they were initially one-year contracts and were signed ahead of the launch of the online music store last April. Some of the terms of the contracts did change. The number of times an iTunes user can create a CD with the same playlist has been cut to seven from 10, Sequeira said.
Source
greg75 said:
When you go buy a song or a movie, you aren't just purchasing an instance of that copywritten work. You are purchasing a license to use that work.
You must be granted a license to legally use a given piece of copywritten material. A foreign company that has no such licenses to the work cannot possibly transfer you such a license.
travishill said:
Not true. Pull out a music CD. There is no license agreement in there (at least there aren't in any that I could find). It's true that some music stores are including license agreements. However, there is nothing in US law that requires a license agreement when purchasing music.
What is true is that if I am not the copyright owner of a particular work I cannot distribute it without permission from the copyright owner. I also cannot use it commercially (which would generally entail distribution) without permission from the copyright owner.
However, unless and until the US changes its laws, it is patently false that I must be granted permission from the copyright owner to privately use a piece of copyrighted material.
Please stop spreading FUD about copyrights. It's not helping the discussion.
DGFan said:
Legalities and Morality Aside!
I think that AllofMP3s.com demostrates what can be done if all of these RIAA imposed restrictions are lifted. (And I am not talking about getting rid of copyrights either)
If Apple was allowed to strike a deal in which song were bought at around 1 cent per Meg, and also allowed custom encoding without DRM. That would be the ultimate in Music Stores. The selection alone at AllofMP3s is enough to make me want to buy something.
Seriously, they have a good model and it's a shame that it can't be followed over here.
What I find pathetic is that as soon as people hear a RUMOR that songs are going up to $1.25, everyone says "well I'm not going to buy from iTunes anymore." It's still damn $.99, quit complaining. Half of you complain and don't even buy from them because it's not the quality. In reality most of you will complain and still buy from Apple because it's apple.
Gas prices are $1.83 in Florida for regular... $2.03 for premium. Yet I'm sure your parents aren't running out to sell their SUVs or BMWs. Meanwhile profits at MobilExxon are up 30%.
Newsflash: Price gouging is everywhere. You won't get away from it.
Gas prices are $1.83 in Florida for regular... $2.03 for premium. Yet I'm sure your parents aren't running out to sell their SUVs or BMWs. Meanwhile profits at MobilExxon are up 30%.
Newsflash: Price gouging is everywhere. You won't get away from it.
i think the big5 are scared about their business model of selling one good song in an album - which is usually the truth, but luckily not always - and therefore trying to charge 15 dollars for one hit while giving 9 filler songs and artwork for free. that's what they have done with cd sales, as the one hit will effectively cost the price of an album if the other songs are never listened to.
that's why they wish their hit songs would sell for more than the regular **** that just fills cd:s but touches nobody's soul; i'm perfectly ok with it - hell, i'd even pay two dollars for the hit single if i can buy it without the rest of the album i don't listen to anyway - AS LONG AS THE WHOLE ALBUM PRICE DOESN'T RISE OVER TEN DOLLARS. if i can get a cd for 15 dollars, i will simply not pay more than ten dollars for the lossy-compressed files that lack the artwork and have restrictive drm.
in my opinion the 10 dollars per album and 1 dollar per song is magnificent pricing structure, but if the rest of the songs would remain as it is, i'd be willing to pay double for the hit singles. after all, i decide what i buy, and if record labels name a regular song as a hit asking for double price, i will just not buy it.
after all, two dollars for one hit is far less than 15 dollars for the cd. if the rest of the album are filler songs, that two dollar hit is a bargain
---
i wonder what the euro prices will be. currently one euro equals 1.20+ dollars so if i'm right about pricing the album for 15 euros and a song for 1.5 euros, that would mean we are paying the double price (compared to you americans) anyway... so please, don't say 1.25 dollars is too much. try paying 4000 euros (5k us dollars) for a powerbook and complain about that.
that's why they wish their hit songs would sell for more than the regular **** that just fills cd:s but touches nobody's soul; i'm perfectly ok with it - hell, i'd even pay two dollars for the hit single if i can buy it without the rest of the album i don't listen to anyway - AS LONG AS THE WHOLE ALBUM PRICE DOESN'T RISE OVER TEN DOLLARS. if i can get a cd for 15 dollars, i will simply not pay more than ten dollars for the lossy-compressed files that lack the artwork and have restrictive drm.
in my opinion the 10 dollars per album and 1 dollar per song is magnificent pricing structure, but if the rest of the songs would remain as it is, i'd be willing to pay double for the hit singles. after all, i decide what i buy, and if record labels name a regular song as a hit asking for double price, i will just not buy it.
after all, two dollars for one hit is far less than 15 dollars for the cd. if the rest of the album are filler songs, that two dollar hit is a bargain
---
i wonder what the euro prices will be. currently one euro equals 1.20+ dollars so if i'm right about pricing the album for 15 euros and a song for 1.5 euros, that would mean we are paying the double price (compared to you americans) anyway... so please, don't say 1.25 dollars is too much. try paying 4000 euros (5k us dollars) for a powerbook and complain about that.
DGFan said:
The license does not have to be explicitly stated. By purchasing the CD, the copyright owner is granting you the right to use that material yourself.
If the copyright owner does not grant you permission, you cannot have someone (from any location) make you a copy and send it to you. You are committing copyright infringement have no rights granted from the copyright owner for that copy whatsoever, and as such it is illegal.
If what you were saying was true, it would legal for anyone to download anything online whether it was a movie, book, song, tv show, video game, etc.- only the people sending it would be liable. This simply isn't the case in the United States. Now Canada, on the other hand....
greg75 said:
Here you go. All material in quotes comes directly from the cited portions of the United States Code. The owner of copyright under title 17 has the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords. 17 U.S.C. sec. 106(1). Phonorecords are material objects in which sounds...are fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the sounds can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 U.S.C. sec. 101. To reproduce a phonorecord means to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated... 17 U.S.C. sec. 101.
Applying these definitions, it is clear that regardless of any licensing issues, downloading from Allofmp3.com is illegal because an American, who is subject to American law, is creating an unauthorized copy of a phonorecord as that term is defined above. When a United States citizen downloads an mp3 file from Russia, he has reproduced a phonorecord by causing sounds to be transcribed and fixed in a material object (the hard drive), which sounds can be perceived with the aid of a machine (his computer, iPod, etc).
Notice that the copyright violation comes from the reproduction of the phonorecord, not the lack of any license to listen to or use the work. Think about it: when you purchase a song from the iTunes music store, you are NOT purchasing a license to listen, what you have actually been granted is a license to make a copy of that phonorecord on your hard drive and on the hard drives of any other computers for which the song is authorized. It truly does not matter whether the folks in Russia have or even need a license to distribute the music, because U.S. copyright is very clear that YOU need a license to make a copy to your hard drive.