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.
Paying 5 Cents Per Song?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
RugoseCone said:
Maybe not for car thieves, but we do pay a "tax" here in the US for mandated safety devices that are questionable.
Keep in mind that as the computer/mp3 market matures even more, this will be come a more common distribution method (via the internet). What needs to be looked at is that any tax is unfair to someone. But in the end can be a benefit for the group as a whole. Such a tax as talked about would free our courts from being clogged with the likes of the RIAA.
The key point that I think some are missing is that we all benefit when the price of a product hits a point that there is mass market appeal. Not so sure five cents is the right price (maybe something like ten to twenty cents a song).
Might as well start charging a tax on living. Hell, the human brain is an electronic device capable of storing copyrighted information such as music.
If I remember a song and sing it to myself, that's copyright violation. Sure, it's not the same as the original, but then technically neither is a 128bit MP3. If you read the DMCA, an MP3 sampled at 2bits is technically illegal... and it would sound like ****... about the same quality of what I could output from the data in my brain. If I sang a song I heard at a concert to my friend and then he sang it to his girlfriend... that's P2P and very illegal (although the end result would barely sound like the original).
Oh well, I guess the RIAA won't be happy until they get paid every time a song is even thought about.
If I remember a song and sing it to myself, that's copyright violation. Sure, it's not the same as the original, but then technically neither is a 128bit MP3. If you read the DMCA, an MP3 sampled at 2bits is technically illegal... and it would sound like ****... about the same quality of what I could output from the data in my brain. If I sang a song I heard at a concert to my friend and then he sang it to his girlfriend... that's P2P and very illegal (although the end result would barely sound like the original).
Oh well, I guess the RIAA won't be happy until they get paid every time a song is even thought about.
Folks, let's try to avoid political remarks on this topic - we have a whole forum dedicated to politics if you want to debate that kind of thing.
Thanks
Thanks
Durendal said:
no it will not go to the RIAA, think before you talk. $20 extra from the purchase of each computer will go to the record companies to make up for the 95 cents they dont get because the prices are cut.
for music purchasers, its a different way to pay for it ($20 every few years, + 5cents per song),
for illegal downloaders, its that cheap, easy alternative theyve been waiting for,
and for cd buyers or non music listeners, its $20 extra to have their newspapers freed from contant headlines about RIAA and music piracy lawsuits
sure some companies and schools will never download music from their computers, but $4 (dell) to $30 (g5) extra on each machine wont kill anybody's business. they usually overspend that much on OEM ram anyway
aswitcher said:
No, that isn't a valid tax at all. I don't illegally download music. There is no reason I should double pay with a tax on portable music devices. This is just as dumb as a tax on computers or on CD-R's. I use a lot of CD-R's, but I use them to store _MY_ data that _I_ have created (archival backups) so it has nothing to do with illegal downloads of music.
The system should be left just as it is. Private companies charge what they can for legal downloads to people who want to legally download. People who want to buy on CD-ROM buy that way. People who want to steal music will still do it just as it has been done since the day of 8-track tapes. Getting government involved and taxing everyone for the profit of the record companies is _NOT_ a valid solution.
Are Songs Being Downloaded By The Millions
It would be interesting if someone could come up with real numbers of how many times a particular song has been illegally downloaded. You would think from the way the record industry wails about it that songs are being downloaded millions of times. Therefore if a song got downloaded one million times and the artist was given half of that nickle a song they would be earning about $25,000. Are songs being illegally downloaded by the millions of times per song?
deanbo said:
It would be interesting if someone could come up with real numbers of how many times a particular song has been illegally downloaded. You would think from the way the record industry wails about it that songs are being downloaded millions of times. Therefore if a song got downloaded one million times and the artist was given half of that nickle a song they would be earning about $25,000. Are songs being illegally downloaded by the millions of times per song?
GmailGuy said:
people, youre not getting the point. musicians cant survive on 5c a song. were not asking them to. this isnt a 95c price drop. the other 94c still get distributed through the record industry to the artists and everything , only they come from the 1% sales tax on computers instead of from the music purchase.
You could make the songs $.005 each, but no matter what, there's always going to be people who don't want to pay a cent (or fraction thereof) and will always illegally download for free. That being said, a low price like this definitely would entice a lot more people to purchase music - I just don't think this would be feasible.
Lacero said:
That's an excellent point. A lot of people posting here seem to not know that only the mega-million selling acts like Madonna, U2, Britney Spears, etc., make a ton of money from the record companies directly. Even fewer get a direct piece of the action from the sales of their CDs. The vast majority of artists get paid a set amount from their record company and the record company proceeds to try and sell as many of their CDs as possible, because nearly ALL of that money goes to and stay with the corporation.
So how do those lower-to-middle-tier selling artists make money? Like you said, touring. That's where the bulk of their income comes from.
Of course, there's the finer points of, well, less people would come to the shows if the CDs weren't getting promoted by the record companies. That's true, but I for one would rather see my favorite bands in a 500-person club than a 20,000 seat arena anyway. Bring on the downfall of the gigantic record companies, and let the indies rule. We'd all benefit in the long run. And maybe there wouldn't be any more Britney Spears or Backstreet Boys, acts that would be nothing without heavy over-promotion.
Nice Idea
That sounds great. I hope that the itunes Canada store starts expanding their library. The US one has way more
That sounds great. I hope that the itunes Canada store starts expanding their library. The US one has way more
Five cent downloads are not going to stop people from pirating, but it makes it easier to abide by the laws. And most people would rather take the safe route than face possible RIAA action.
5 cent downloads and continued RIAA lawsuits will make illegal downloads to a bare minimum.
5 cent downloads and continued RIAA lawsuits will make illegal downloads to a bare minimum.
Unfortunately, we're only going to see the 2nd of those conditions met. The RIAA will never, ever, ever, give up the 50 cents per song profit they're currently making. They're already trying to get MORE per song, not less.Lacero said:
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/3d9b6fee-892d-11d9-b7ed-00000e2511c8.html
So we can end all the pipe dreams right here and now. If you want .05 downloads, find allofmp3.com
soniquev8 said:
Outstanding!!
One of the funniest analogies I've read lately.
It's sad that you are about right.
tveric said:
This is moot since:
1) All the good music was already done.
2) Fight the RIAA and big studios by supporting the Indie music. People who publish their own music make more of the money and have more control. Support self-publishing. The internet is giving more power to those who are doing it without the major labels. eMusic and iTunes are both ways of fighting the RIAA and supporting independant artists and groups as well as simply buying direct from the artists either via download or CD.
[RANT]
What a load of @#%&. That is a lame rationalization and mostly false. Many recording acts lose money on touring in support of a CD. Big money merchandising and $75 stadium tickets apply only to the biggest acts. The mid-level band playing for $10 -$20 ticket in your local club or hockey arena counts on $200 worth of T-Shirt sales to pay the gas to get to the next gig tomorrow night 200 miles away. Touring is expensive, hard, soul-destroying and family-breaking work, and only seldom profitable. Ask almost any recording musician and they will tell you they would choose writing and recording over touring any day.
The only reason record companies pay advances, do marketing, and produce CDs and other music products (including legal downloads) is that they have an expectation of making back their investement, with profit, from the product. In the case of iTunes this is the approx 40 cents per song Apple pays to the owners of the recording.
The artists (performers, songwriters, musicians and producers) sign contracts that have several ways to split that income.
Get this: It is the artist's choice and to the artist's benefit to have the record company take the risk and receive the income.
The artist in return gets the security of whatever deal they made. The artists sells some of their rights to the record company in exchange for the company taking on the risk. The record companies lose money on roughly 9 out of 10 recordings, and make up for it on the big hits. You can argue that the recoupability built into the recording contracts means that the artist is ultimately stuck with the bills, but that goes right back to the central truth: "avoid" paying the record company their legally-entitled roylaties, and you hurt the artist.
The artists who do not want to enter into a contract with the record company don't, simple as that. They have the option of going the indie route, as many have, or self-publishing and running their own company, the best example being Ani DeFranco. But that is a hell of a lot of work and risk, and 99 pecent of artists do not have the financial capital, the knowledge, or the time to market their product nationwide.
So don't kid yourselves that cheap, free or pirated tunes strike a blow for artists independence or knocking down the hegemony of the big record companies. The record companies are there because the artists need them, and choose to partner with them.
The more piracy goes on, the less money there is for the artists, and there are fewer recording contracts that get offered - this is well documented. You want a world where there is only surefire, middle of the trend, manufactured pop? Then keep on with what you are doing because the only remaining acts that will get financed are the ones with the 100% guaranteed profit, widest radio play and mechandising tie-ins with movies, Mattel and McDonalds.
And quit with the "all that money goes to the RIAA" &[]//$#!^. The RIAA is an industry lobby group, just like any other trade association. It does NOT collect royalties on songs. It does not sign deals for record companies. It DOES lobby for political advantage for its member companies and take legal action on behalf of its members, like any other advocacy group. You may as well say "I'm not going to pay my doctor's bill because it all goes to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (in the USA, the AMA) anyway, and none of it goes to the person who gave me the service." Balderdash.
Yes. Did you really think otherwise? Based on surveys, there are an estimated 23 million people in the USA alone who say they are currently downloading (source, CNN:Money article), another 17 million say they used to but don't anymore. The aggregate total is in the tens of billions of downloaded songs.
[/RANT]
Bottom line and back to topic: Dropping the royalty rate from 40 cents to 0 - 5 cents per song is equivalent to telling the artist they have to work for $1 an hour. ChipNoVa says that the price should fall to where there is mass market appeal. Yeah, we have seen this with consumer goods already. Which is why there are no jobs manufacturing running shoes or computers in North America, they are all made where workers will take (or have no choice but to take) $1 an hour or less. You want this for your music too? Welcome to the new world; "now for our next tune, this hot new dance number was designed in California and performed for MassProduction records by People's Heavy Song Industries in Guangzhau, whose dedicated assembly line workers have produced this version in your language..."
tveric said:
Lacero said:
What a load of @#%&. That is a lame rationalization and mostly false. Many recording acts lose money on touring in support of a CD. Big money merchandising and $75 stadium tickets apply only to the biggest acts. The mid-level band playing for $10 -$20 ticket in your local club or hockey arena counts on $200 worth of T-Shirt sales to pay the gas to get to the next gig tomorrow night 200 miles away. Touring is expensive, hard, soul-destroying and family-breaking work, and only seldom profitable. Ask almost any recording musician and they will tell you they would choose writing and recording over touring any day.
The only reason record companies pay advances, do marketing, and produce CDs and other music products (including legal downloads) is that they have an expectation of making back their investement, with profit, from the product. In the case of iTunes this is the approx 40 cents per song Apple pays to the owners of the recording.
The artists (performers, songwriters, musicians and producers) sign contracts that have several ways to split that income.
tveric said:
Get this: It is the artist's choice and to the artist's benefit to have the record company take the risk and receive the income.
The artist in return gets the security of whatever deal they made. The artists sells some of their rights to the record company in exchange for the company taking on the risk. The record companies lose money on roughly 9 out of 10 recordings, and make up for it on the big hits. You can argue that the recoupability built into the recording contracts means that the artist is ultimately stuck with the bills, but that goes right back to the central truth: "avoid" paying the record company their legally-entitled roylaties, and you hurt the artist.
The artists who do not want to enter into a contract with the record company don't, simple as that. They have the option of going the indie route, as many have, or self-publishing and running their own company, the best example being Ani DeFranco. But that is a hell of a lot of work and risk, and 99 pecent of artists do not have the financial capital, the knowledge, or the time to market their product nationwide.
So don't kid yourselves that cheap, free or pirated tunes strike a blow for artists independence or knocking down the hegemony of the big record companies. The record companies are there because the artists need them, and choose to partner with them.
The more piracy goes on, the less money there is for the artists, and there are fewer recording contracts that get offered - this is well documented. You want a world where there is only surefire, middle of the trend, manufactured pop? Then keep on with what you are doing because the only remaining acts that will get financed are the ones with the 100% guaranteed profit, widest radio play and mechandising tie-ins with movies, Mattel and McDonalds.
And quit with the "all that money goes to the RIAA" &[]//$#!^. The RIAA is an industry lobby group, just like any other trade association. It does NOT collect royalties on songs. It does not sign deals for record companies. It DOES lobby for political advantage for its member companies and take legal action on behalf of its members, like any other advocacy group. You may as well say "I'm not going to pay my doctor's bill because it all goes to the College of Physicians and Surgeons (in the USA, the AMA) anyway, and none of it goes to the person who gave me the service." Balderdash.
GMail guy said:
Yes. Did you really think otherwise? Based on surveys, there are an estimated 23 million people in the USA alone who say they are currently downloading (source, CNN:Money article), another 17 million say they used to but don't anymore. The aggregate total is in the tens of billions of downloaded songs.
[/RANT]
Bottom line and back to topic: Dropping the royalty rate from 40 cents to 0 - 5 cents per song is equivalent to telling the artist they have to work for $1 an hour. ChipNoVa says that the price should fall to where there is mass market appeal. Yeah, we have seen this with consumer goods already. Which is why there are no jobs manufacturing running shoes or computers in North America, they are all made where workers will take (or have no choice but to take) $1 an hour or less. You want this for your music too? Welcome to the new world; "now for our next tune, this hot new dance number was designed in California and performed for MassProduction records by People's Heavy Song Industries in Guangzhau, whose dedicated assembly line workers have produced this version in your language..."
~Shard~ said:
I agree.
This kind of reminds me of when I was 16. I started collecting Commodore 64 programs. Downloaded them from BBS at 2400 baud and copied them at swap meets. I ended up with well over 25k programs. All acquired illegally.
The funny thing was I really didn't use any of them it was more about having them than actually using them.
~loserman~ said:
This is a good point as well - many people "collect" things nowadays that they normally would never collect, but they do it simply because they can and because it's free (and illegal!) Look at the P2P sites and how many people have things like the complete 14 Seasons (or whatever we're up to now) of The Simpsons, or every single Star Trek episode ever made, etc. The majority of the people just collect these things because they can, and they want the complete collection - I would venture to guess that many people like this don't even watch every episode they download, but again, they have it "just cuz" and because they can.
I would ask people to look at their HD contents with respect to (illegally) downloaded material, and assess how much of it they would have if it wasn't for the fact that they could acquire for free and so easily. All of a sudden there would be a lot of people no longer needing those +200 GBs of storage space...
CanadaRAM said:
Yeah, right. So if a record company offers a band $50,000 and says, "Okay we'll release your record but we're keeping all the money in case your CD is the 1 in 10 that hits huge" (which is basically what happens) and the artist says, no way, it's my choice to take no money up front but I want a piece of the back end (CD sales), the record company will say "okay!" THAT'S the load of @#%& - the artist has NO choice in that matter. Their only choice is to sign away those monies from CD sales and try to tour to make some money, OR go the indie route. Which still means the RIAA and the companies it represents are evil.
In the early-to-mid 90s, the really really big record company consolidation started, long before Napster was around, and you saw artists getting dropped literally by the dozens from the record companies. Piracy had nothing to do with that and it still doesn't. BMG doesn't base how many artists to sign on how many CDs they're selling at the time from other artists - you're naive if you believe that. They want to keep as many dollars for themselves as possible.
That's fine too, we're capitalists, after all, but you get to the problem area when record company consolidation approaches near-monopoly levels. That's what we had when mp3s appeared. People saw record companies charging $17 for a CD that costs .10 in material costs, and they said, you know what? I don't need the CD for $17, I'll download it for FREE. The companies will never stamp out piracy with their current attitude, which is gimmie more, more, more money. I can certainly do without the millions of dollars they spend to hype Christina Aguilera. If they stop spending money on hype, GOOD. Indies will continue to exist, bands will continue to sell CDs at their shows, and the more that happens, the better it is for music. So artists won't be millionaires anymore for making their music, and neither will record company execs. Too bad!
tveric said:
And the follow-up question to this is, should those people be millionaires? Absolutely not. Nor should sports athletes, actors, etc. For what they do, they do no deserve that much money - I can think of other professions which actually contribute to society and our advancement who deserve it more than these types of people.