OiNK Raided and Owner Arrested.

[artalliance]

I dunno. Back in the day, you went to your local market and you sampled the produce before you bought. You were very much encouraged to do so. That still works in more civilised parts of the world. Of course, al that was before the onslaught of supermarkets with everything prepackaged and the "you broke it you pay for it" mentality.

Yes, a lot of good stores still do that...free food samples, not the ENTIRE product.

And the equivalent of the free small samples is the 30 sec. preview in itunes, etc...

 

[c.greene914]

When I tried to get online this morning I received a warning from my ISP, stating they got a complaint that a computer with my IP address was being used to distribute copyrighted material and if I was unable to resolve this problem my account would be terminated.

Anyone else get something like this? I can only assume it's a result of OiNK being brought down.

 

[jamesi]

I totally agree. I have zero sympathy for people who engage in this sort of thievery.[/QUOTE

zero sympathy for ppl who download music files and movies? yea i think they will live

 

[NoOneButMe]

So you never spend money on what turns out to be a mediocre movie? Movie tickets go for up to 16 dollars, at least here in LA.

This entire "I am entitled to sample/use before buying" mentality is insane.

I've never seen movie tickets for $16. But if i did, you can be sure i'd refuse to pay for it. Tickets at my house are $8, and with my student ID, i can get em for $1 instead when i'm at college. So i dont have a problem paying for movies. Now if there were discounts on CD's for students that might be different

I know plenty of people who refuse to buy a dvd until they see it on tv. Or a cd without hearing songs on the radio. The only difference is that with this, one can choose when they want to listen to a song instead of being forced to listen at a certain time.

They do, they're called demos. And are not usually for release... if you can name one major release; written, performed, produced, engineered, mixed and mastered, packaged, promoted, contractually watertight, pressed and distributed by one band or artist by themselves... well, it doesn't exist. Talent is paid to do what talent does best; that's why they hire other people to do the things they can't or shouldn't do.

You're not forced to do anything. Don't confuse your wants with needs. Free music isn't a right... besides, I hear plenty of new stuff and new artists from all around the world by streaming radio. But that's not downloading it to effectively steal, is it?

There's no such thing as the legit use of downloading copyrighted material.

And your example of using a mic with line-in on a computer and cleaning it up with Audacity shows how little you know about producing an album...

the only difference between a stream and a download is how the computer reads it - you're downloading data either way

Oh, and iTunes Music Store? Guess what: You download copyrighted material.

How about education? If i wanted to use a song for a project, should i be forced to purchase the rights to do so?

I never claimed i was an expert in producing an album. Merely a computer geek who doesnt understand why it would be difficult for a band to buy a computer + Microphone, record, and clean the audio up.

I imagine some of these people would like to open a bottle of wine at a restaurant, drink a bit, then decide at the end of the meal if they want to buy it. You can't exactly carry on like that indefinitely.

You cant compare a perishable good - something that when it's used up(food, gas, etc) cant be used again - to something that you can use an infinite number of times (Any data on your computer for example). They're completely different idea's.

 

[chucknorris]

You cant compare a perishable good - something that when it's used up(food, gas, etc) cant be used again - to something that you can use an infinite number of times (Any data on your computer for example). They're completely different idea's.

Excellent point. It's strange that people who believe in the market to solve all problems become apoplectic when market forces start threatening their selfish interests. The RIAA is a dinosaur representing even bigger dinosaurs. The reality is that people don't want to pay the prices the majors insist on charging for CDs. In fact, many people (myself included) don't see why something as personally-enriching and essential as music should cost anything if all we want to do is listen to it. After all, it's perfectly free and accepted to Google Picasso and view his art. I have 110 GB of music in my iTunes Library, but I don't own a single thing. Even if I bought a CD I wouldn't own the music, so what's the point anyway? Album art? The joy of consumption?

I really resent the notion brought up several times here that people like me (and almost everyone of my peers) who download quantities music for free that they couldn't afford in a million years are thieves or "cheapskates." I suppose you would rather us not go to college so we could spend thousands of dollars on CDs we don't want (remember: the music is all I'm talking about) or just refrain from listening to anything out of the public domain that isn't played on the radio. Personally, I don't really find anything admirable about suckers who still go to record stores and plunk down $15 per album. There are surely good reasons for doing so (like album art fetishism), but attaching altruism to the exercise is pure self-righteous delusion.

Obviously, artists deserve credit for their work, but only filmmakers and musicians expect compensation from everyone who comes in contact with it. Not coincidentally, these artists are also the only ones trapped in a clunky, outdated studio system. Already, musicians--even small ones--barely need studios for production and distribution. Increasingly, the Big 3 are just overblown PR firms. If they want to continue gouging artists and consumers in exchange for overpriced publicity, record companies will just keep self-destructing.

Nobody feels sorry for ice salesmen who were swiftly and ruthlessly replaced by better technology that provided easy access to free ice, just as nobody should feel sorry for abusive mega-corporations that refuse to adapt.

Were it not for the horrendously destructive political bullying of the RIAA (and its foreign equivalents), the music industry would likely be in much worse shape than it already is. The business model used by major labels is broken. It was always immoral, but now it's economically unsustainable.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Obviously, artists deserve credit for their work, but only filmmakers and musicians expect compensation from everyone who sees it.

That's because both of these activities are expensive activities... and why shouldn't people get paid for their creativity? It's this absurd myth again; that all musicians need is a mic, a Mac and a guitar... that all of them somehow don't have to eat, live, pay rent or bills.

 

[Cromulent]

That's because both of these activities are expensive activities... and why shouldn't people get paid for their creativity? It's this absurd myth again; that all musicians need is a mic, a Mac and a guitar... that all of them somehow don't have to eat, live, pay rent or bills.

There are ways to make money from your music without actually selling it though. Lets face it, there is no way the music industry is going to beat piracy. The only alternative is to make money from the music some other way without actually having to charge someone to listen to it.

 

[Blue Velvet]

There are ways to make money from your music without actually selling it though.

How? Everyone mentions touring; do you know how much that costs to organise? Not everyone is going to have their tracks picked up by TV commercial makers or licensed out for other uses.

Lets face it, there is no way the music industry is going to beat piracy. The only alternative is to make money from the music some other way without actually having to charge someone to listen to it.

I disagree that this is the only alternative... I'd be happy to buy direct downloads from the artists or their own small labels if the audio quality and convenience was there and the cost was reasonable... the DRM-free tracks on iTunes are a sign of a shift of things to come. Millions of people won't bother with torrents if the product is there, easy to get and at the right price.

 

[chucknorris]

That's because both of these activities are expensive activities... and why shouldn't people get paid for their creativity? It's this absurd myth again; that all musicians need is a mic, a Mac and a guitar... that all of them somehow don't have to eat, live, pay rent or bills.

Cromulent is right on, but I thought I'd point out that these activities no longer MUST be expensive. Sure, the most popular movies and albums are still pretty much exclusively big-budget, but the difference in technical quality is basically non-existent. I would argue, as I hinted in my post, that the only strong advantage major label artists have over their indie counterparts is promotion. Artistically, independent artists have been in the lead for a long time, but now they can create albums and movies that look/sound just as crisp and professional as any others.

To reiterate, the only necessarily expensive facet left in the studio system is publicity. The advantage majors hold in this respect is monopolistic--they are part of conglomerates with almost total dominance in media--and could (should) be struck down in court.

 

[Cromulent]

How? Everyone mentions touring; do you know how much that costs to organise? Not everyone is going to have their tracks picked up by TV commercial makers or licensed out for other uses.

Advertising. The same way large websites get money to run via advertising, why not distribute music via the web and just sell advertising space. I doubt it would be that hard to achieve.

I disagree that this is the only alternative... I'd be happy to buy direct downloads from the artists or their own small labels if the audio quality and convenience was there and the cost was reasonable... the DRM-free tracks on iTunes are a sign of a shift of things to come. Millions of people won't bother with torrents if the product is there, easy to get and at the right price.

Well that wouldn't beat piracy now would it? Hence the fact I said the only alternative.

The only way to beat piracy is to make it redundant (i.e offer all music for free). Now imagine a website where you could download any piece of music for free legally and the amount of people who would visit it.

Advertisers would pay through the roof for a spot on it. They already do when it comes to TV. If it works for TV then it should work for music.

I swear the music industry is the least forward looking industry at the moment. Always on the defensive without trying to think of solutions to the problem.

 

[NoOneButMe]

That's because both of these activities are expensive activities... and why shouldn't people get paid for their creativity? It's this absurd myth again; that all musicians need is a mic, a Mac and a guitar... that all of them somehow don't have to eat, live, pay rent or bills.

And painting/sculpting/other forms of art somehow arent expensive? Painters only get paid for the final painting - which can be viewed on google for free. All they need is paint and a canvas. Somehow, they dont have to eat, live, pay rent or bills?

When you get down to the crux of it, the core things that an artist needs to make a cd, you see that they dont need 5 people to do drawings for the album. They dont need 4 different people to mix things up for the song. They need instruments and a way to record it. The recording part is getting cheaper and cheaper as technology progresses

 

[jaydub]

That's because both of these activities are expensive activities... and why shouldn't people get paid for their creativity? It's this absurd myth again; that all musicians need is a mic, a Mac and a guitar... that all of them somehow don't have to eat, live, pay rent or bills.

Take a look at Carly Hennessy.

MCA dumped a lot of money into producing and promoting her album - somewhere around the tune of $2.2M. She sold 378 copies. You want to tell me that it's not a bit overblown that they spent $2.2M on producing a record? I'm sure they recoup this somehow (and I'm sure she's not the only failure of this magnitude)... by passing on exorbitant prices to consumers and wondering why they decide to download illegally.

http://blog.mattgoyer.com/stories/2...StrikeAChordDespiteTheMillionsSpentByMCA.html

I know the link says "blog" but he copied the article from the WSJ. I'm guessing that makes it plagiarism, but hey we're all in great positions to stand in judgment of everything that happens online.

 

[jaydub]

Also, to give an indication of how the breakdown of money goes from CD sales...

The story of MCA and Ms. Hennessy shows the dysfunctional economics of the music industry at work. MCA, one of Universal Music's major labels, initially hooked up with the spunky teenager three years ago because it was trying to get a piece of the great success competitors enjoyed with young pop artists like Britney Spears and 'N Sync. Ms. Hennessy, a native of Dublin, had released her debut musical effort, "Carly's Christmas Album," in Ireland at age 10, after performing all over Europe as Little Cosette in "Les Misérables." At 13, she was named the Irish national spokesmodel for the Denny sausage brand. Soon, she and her family began hoping for much more, and Ms. Hennessy dropped out of high school. "The most beautiful voice you'd ever heard -- and she would have ended up singing in the bath," says her father, Luke Hennessy, a real-estate investor.

Mr. Hennessy flew to Los Angeles in early 1999 and, after several months and a few intermediaries, got a disc of his daughter performing songs by various artists into the hands of established music producer Steve Dorff. He recorded a new demo of Ms. Hennessy singing some songs he had written, and it eventually crossed the desk of MCA's president, Jay Boberg, who says he found Ms. Hennessy's voice "extraordinary."

Although Ms. Hennessy didn't write her own music and hadn't ever performed solo in front of a big crowd, she had charisma, drive and pipes -- three things music executives say are most difficult to find in a single young performer. Mr. Boberg, 43, envisioned starting her off as a teen-oriented pop singer, in the hopes that she could one day develop into a more mature female vocalist along the lines of Celine Dion.

Over a long dinner at Spago with Ms. Hennessy and others in June 1999, Mr. Boberg and MCA's artist-development chief described their plan. Ms. Hennessy didn't object, even though she saw herself more as an edgy rock-and-roll performer. "This was my big chance," she says.

The executives offered her a six-album contract, under which Ms. Hennessy would get a $100,000 advance for her first album, plus $5,000 a month in living expenses while the album was being made. The label would own the recorded music and would front the cost of recording and promotion.

For Ms. Hennessy to make any more money, the label would first have to recoup its advance, its recording costs and half the cost of any music videos, as well as her living expenses -- meaning the album would have to sell between 500,000 and 700,000 copies, MCA says. At that point, Ms. Hennessy could collect royalties amounting to 15% of sales. But she would still owe a cut to a phalanx of producers and managers, as well as other record-company fees -- leaving her with at best about 80 cents to $1 per album, MCA says.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Artistically, independent artists have been in the lead for a long time, but now they can create albums and movies that look/sound just as crisp and professional as any others.

Independent film-making is still an incredibly expensive activity and those doing it, apart from a few mavericks like David Lynch, would love to have a studio's resources and talent to fall back on.

And distribution is still key... promotion can be whipped up by word of mouth and a clever web campaign; Blair Witch, Snakes on a Plane etc... but all those prints still have to be made and get around the world. Downloads and streaming are nowhere near mass market quality or takeup; there are still huge technical hurdles to overcome.

As far as music, there are very few artists and bands that can do everything themselves, specifically because they don't possess the skills to do so. Talent is there for one thing, to create... and it doesn't come out of thin air. Even the Beatles needed George Martin.

To quote Mike Teezie:

If you claim to be an audiophile, with a half decent stereo system, you would know that you can't record an audiophile quality album in anything less the best studios. Hell, my $3k Mac with a $10k ProTools system won't even get me close to producing an amazing sounding album. You need a great room, great mics, talented engineers, and a great sound to begin with.

Advertising. The same way large websites get money to run via advertising, why not distribute music via the web and just sell advertising space. I doubt it would be that hard to achieve.

And that relies on a fixed amount of advertising spend in the market, much of which is moving from print to web, but to sites with a reasonable amount of traffic... and what's more, you see the political clout that advertisers have in television? That would be even worse with music... in fact, the truly good stuff would disappear on that model and we'd be left with advert-friendly music everywhere.

Advertisers would pay through the roof for a spot on it. They already do when it comes to TV. If it works for TV then it should work for music.

Nope, two completely different mediums... one mostly passive, synchronous and mass-market. The other far more fractured.

And painting/sculpting/other forms of art somehow arent expensive? Painters only get paid for the final painting - which can be viewed on google for free. All they need is paint and a canvas. Somehow, they dont have to eat, live, pay rent or bills?

When you get down to the crux of it, the core things that an artist needs to make a cd, you see that they dont need 5 people to do drawings for the album. They dont need 4 different people to mix things up for the song. They need instruments and a way to record it. The recording part is getting cheaper and cheaper as technology progresses

Creating, storing, moving a canvas doesn't compare in any way to the cost of making a film or a mass-market album. Viewing on Google is not the same as demanding a free and perfect reproduction of it hanging on your wall, is it? It's already clearly established that you have no idea about studio production or audio engineering so your arguments are falling on deaf ears.

Take a look at Carly Hennessy.

Good example... and if you read what they did to salvage the situation, pouring cash into a money pit, trying to recoup an investment, then you'll understand how the industry works and also how the film industry works. In that particular case, poor A&R probably lead to the first mistakes.

To quote William Goldman about show business: Nobody knows anything.

In other words, everything in the creative industries is a gamble, a hunch, a stab in the dark. The hits pay for the flops.

 

[chucknorris]

Independent film-making is still an incredibly expensive activity and those doing it, apart from a few mavericks like David Lynch, would love to have a studio's resources and talent to fall back on.

And distribution is still key... promotion can be whipped up by word of mouth and a clever web campaign; Blair Witch, Snakes on a Plane etc... but all those prints still have to be made and get around the world. Downloads and streaming are nowhere near mass market quality or takeup; there are still huge technical hurdles to overcome.

As far as music, there are very few artists and bands that can do everything themselves, specifically because they don't possess the skills to do so. Talent is there for one thing, to create... and it doesn't come out of thin air. Even the Beatles needed George Martin.

To quote Mike Teezie:

I think everybody learned from Blair Witch that you can't just "whip up" promotion. Otherwise, that's what everybody would do. Word of mouth is finicky and completely unpredictable. The majority of people still listen to the radio and watch network TV, so big media remains the best place to advertise.

Also, expensive is a very relative term when it comes to film-making. A million dollars is cheap and you can do quality work for much less than that now. David Lynch gets his financing where he can (including ABC and often France's Studio Canal), but his ethos is completely independent. The only thing Lynch needs from studios is money and there's nothing unique about the money they give (i.e. they are totally replaceable).

Your last point is a little ridiculous if I'm reading it correctly. Are you claiming that there is some sort of meritocracy in the studio system? Like the most talented artists get the biggest contracts? Do I even need to list the counterexamples here?

Maybe studio producers are the most talented in their field, but that isn't so clear either (just look at Steve Albini and his ilk).

 

[synth3tik]

This is a terribly sad day

I can't even guess how many new artists I've discovered through oink. Sadly, at least for me, this will severely impact the number of album purchases I make overall. I buy the music I find that I enjoy. More importantly, I buy lots of merch at their shows, which actually gives money to the artist.

And I surely would never sink so low as to actually purchase an RIAA-backed CD in the stores. It's iTunes Plus, Amazon, or nothing for me now.

Lame.

Many new artist that never got a cent. I do not believe you for a second when you say you buy the music you enjoy. Maybe 1 or 2 albums...

 

[NoOneButMe]

Independent film-making is still an incredibly expensive activity and those doing it, apart from a few mavericks like David Lynch, would love to have a studio's resources and talent to fall back on.

And distribution is still key... promotion can be whipped up by word of mouth and a clever web campaign; Blair Witch, Snakes on a Plane etc... but all those prints still have to be made and get around the world. Downloads and streaming are nowhere near mass market quality or takeup; there are still huge technical hurdles to overcome.

As far as music, there are very few artists and bands that can do everything themselves, specifically because they don't possess the skills to do so. Talent is there for one thing, to create... and it doesn't come out of thin air. Even the Beatles needed George Martin.

To quote Mike Teezie:

I dont know about you, but last time i checked, my FIOS TV or Optimum Online could easily deliver 1080i video's without dropping frames or freezing up. So the technology is there, it just needs to be used. Distribution isn't nearly as big of a problem as you make it out to be. The only hurdle to overcome is convincing closed-minded people like you (And those that run the industry) that the technology is viable.

As for the quote? It might not sound perfect, but it's pretty damn good if you know how to clean music up a bit

 

[Blue Velvet]

Your last point is a little ridiculous if I'm reading it correctly. Are you claiming that there is some sort of meritocracy in the studio system?

I don't think you've read that correctly. I'm just rebuffing previous claims that all bands and artists need is to do everything themselves... I gave examples earlier on of the Arctic Monkeys and even what a small album takes to produce, market, promote and tour in terms of support personnel.

Same goes for film-making... it costs big bucks to even get out of the starting gate compared to painting and some sculpture (excluding the huge Jeff Koon type pieces etc).

As much I love David Lynch, I also recognise that it's not the majority's taste and if I want to see a new Lynch film, I have to accept that it's not going to be running for 6-8 weeks across 300 screens in the country, and that if I didn't follow what was going on, I wouldn't even know about it because it's not advertised everywhere.

If people are willing to accept technical and creative compromises in the creative products they're willing to spend money on, then fine. Pay the people that make and the people that smooth the path for talent a pittance. But there's no evidence that the mass of people want that...

And coming back to piracy, and this applies to software, there's no argument for taking stuff for free. You're not helping anyone except yourselves.

I dont know about you, but last time i checked, my FIOS TV or Optimum Online could easily deliver 1080i video's without dropping frames or freezing up.

And yeah, so everyone has access to one of those... that's not a model for millions of people. And I'm not close-minded, I just happen to know something about what I'm talking about.

What have you personally created that people want to pay money for?

 

[P - Irate]

What would his Steveness (Albini) say?

I think what Mr Albini might say is, that no matter how many records are sold (even if piracy didn't exist), the band is still pretty much screwed:

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Unfortunately the biggest piracy demographic tends to also be responsible for most of the legal consumption:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1168/Itemid,85/nsub,/

and the report referenced:

http://support.crtc.gc.ca/applicant...anadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA)

Both points above also hold for films. On one of those major studio funded films that user Blue Velvet mentioned filmakers were so keen to get involved with, by the time the studio has recouped its various costs (including and gross percentages to principal actors, distribution dees, expenses, cost of production, interest on cost of production) there is very little left for the people who actually made the film, as they are generally pressured into deferring their fees. In this way a film can gross literally hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office but by the time it gets to its makers, the balance sheet reads a negative figure.

Again, the demographic responsible for most of the illegal and very naughty downloading of films, also legally watches, buys and rents the most films.

I guess this is somewhat cobbled together but I think we can be realistic that the entertainment industry does't lose too much sleep as any victory over the pirates is largely pyrrhic: the pirate hoards may cost the industry some money in lost revenue, but they also buy all the tat that it has has to sell. Combined with the fact that advertising and marketing is very very expensive, I wouldn't be too surprised that if you offset the losses caused by piracy against the cost of all the free marketing that it generates, then the industry (and all its shady men in shiny suits etc etc) would be facing a net gain. In other words the pirates are likely to not only be paying their way, but turning a profit for the very people they so terribly wrong.

 

[jaydub]

Good example... and if you read what they did to salvage the situation, pouring cash into a money pit, trying to recoup an investment, then you'll understand how the industry works and also how the film industry works. In that particular case, poor A&R probably lead to the first mistakes.

To quote William Goldman about show business: Nobody knows anything.

In other words, everything in the creative industries is a gamble, a hunch, a stab in the dark. The hits pay for the flops.

I'm not convinced that the hits do pay for the flops though, especially if the artists indeed receive the low amount per CD sold that many speculate they get. I think the customers pay for both, in the form of overpriced CDs and lackluster "artists" who think their contribution to music as an art form is something to be beheld. There's not nearly the amount of artistry involved with making music now as there was 30 years ago.

However, the Hennessy situation isn't so much what I was referencing, as much as I was pointing out the fact that there's a lot of room for bad artists to continue screwing up the equation. If the music industry as a whole continues to support overspending on promoting these types of artists, then they can't really be too confused or dumbfounded when the public doesn't accept it (or when they decide to download it because they've learned that there's far too much crappy music out there, and they won't pay for it).

 

[NoOneButMe]

I don't think you've read that correctly. I'm just rebuffing previous claims that all bands and artists need is to do everything themselves... I gave examples earlier on of the Arctic Monkeys and even what a small album takes to produce, market, promote and tour in terms of support personnel.

Same goes for film-making... it costs big bucks to even get out of the starting gate compared to painting and some sculpture (excluding the huge Jeff Koon type pieces etc).

As much I love David Lynch, I also recognise that it's not the majority's taste and if I want to see a new Lynch film, I have to accept that it's not going to be running for 6-8 weeks across 300 screens in the country, and that if I didn't follow what was going on, I wouldn't even know about it because it's not advertised everywhere.

If people are willing to accept technical and creative compromises in the creative products they're willing to spend money on, then fine. Pay the people that make and the people that smooth the path for talent a pittance. But there's no evidence that the mass of people want that...

And coming back to piracy, and this applies to software, there's no argument for taking stuff for free. You're not helping anyone except yourselves.



And yeah, so everyone has access to one of those... that's not a model for millions of people. And I'm not close-minded, I just happen to know something about what I'm talking about.

What have you personally created that people want to pay money for?

One person's the exception, not the rule.

As for the Artic Monkeys?

After a few performances, they began to record demos and burn them onto CDs to give away at gigs. With a limited number of CDs available, fans began to rip the music back onto their computers and share it amongst themselves. The group did not mind, saying "we never made those demos to make money or anything. We were giving them away free anyway — that was a better way for people to hear them. And it made the gigs better, because people knew the words and came and sang along."

Prime example of what i keep saying - and you brought it up, not me

Cant forget bands like Radiohead, NIN, Prince, etc who gave their music away as well

You dont need access to it. But movie theaters can easily get access to a similar setup if it can be done to a personal residence.

Your posts here seem to be fairly closed-minded and you not knowing what your talking about. You dont want to consider the idea of downloading music being a viable way of promotion. You refuse to think of peer to peer as anything but evil and illegal. Dont mean to insult you, it's just the general state of mind i get from reading your posts.

As for asking what i've done? Ad hominem ftw? Way to needlessly make it personal. Besides, have i ever outright said "I pirate music" ? You inferred i did, for all you know, i'm deaf

 

[SwiftLives]

You dont want to consider the idea of downloading music being a viable way of promotion. You refuse to think of peer to peer as anything but evil and illegal. Dont mean to insult you, it's just the general state of mind i get from reading your posts.

I agree that downloading music is a viable promotional tool, as long as it's done with the consent of the artist. However, the difference here is that when bands are giving their demos out for free at concerts, and encouraging you to rip them to various computers and share them, you actually have their permission to do so. Downloading songs that are available for purchase without the copyright holder or artist's permission can in absolutely no way be considered anything other than flat-out theft.

 

[artalliance]

I've never seen movie tickets for $16. But if i did, you can be sure i'd refuse to pay for it. Tickets at my house are $8, and with my student ID, i can get em for $1 instead when i'm at college. So i dont have a problem paying for movies. Now if there were discounts on CD's for students that might be different

You better not move to LA or New York.
Normal ticket price is $12, a Saturday night movie at the premiere theaters will run you $16.
I know it's crazy!

 

[phungy]

Wow and I thought $10 for adult was expensive here (Florida). It's $7 for students...

 

[NoOneButMe]

You better not move to LA or New York.
Normal ticket price is $12, a Saturday night movie at the premiere theaters will run you $16.
I know it's crazy!

I live just outside of NYC