*DAMN R6 Forum

There are basically two standpoints when it comes to the mp3 debate, and i've seen both on these forums. I read two seperate testimonials testimonials that went hand in hand on the subject. This is basically how they went:

#1: Sharing of copyrighted music is depriving the artist or artists who created it of their hard earned money, and will only get worse for artists as time goes on, eventually making the music industry a virtually inprofitable industry for artists.

#2: Sharing of copyrighted music is unharmful to artists due to the proven fact that non-commercial distribution will increase the commercial sales. (This author takes reference to other industries like the film industry or software companys that are unharmed by pirating, and do not oppose it)

As for me, i have to agree with #2, due to my personal experience: about a year ago, i stumbled across a band site (www.fingereleven.com) and noticed that they were offering a free download of their single. I downloaded it, listened to it, and bought the album, as well as their previous album. I don't use Kazaa (PC WOOT) to pirate music as much as i do sample it, before buying.

Please post your opinions.
(PS if anyone can guess where i read the two testimonials, you get.....stuff..)

Well, people are started to say something about pirating music...the RIAA for example and some of Hollywoods celebrities.  The cd sales are in.
2001 cd sales:about 730million
2002 cd sales:about 615million

Its dropping...slowly but surely

And record buisnesses are starting to bring suit on groups of students who download a lot of music from kazaa...but it won't affect us macs. :)

on a side note,
Kazaa can't be shut down just with the pull of a cord, like napster was...the main owner of Kazaa is situated on an island somewhere in the Pacific, and they don't have one centralized "server" or "location" where you can shut it down...so it sucks for the feds

I've said my spiel before, and I think it is absolutely necessary to the record buying process. Obviously some people can't handle it though, however I don't care how can they ever crack down on OpenNap and Gnutella and stuff like that? They are starting to crack down on some individual users to incite fear in everyone else and hope sharing drops rapidly. However, there is no way in hell they could ever afford to prosecute everyone who shares so if you want to keep sharing alive, keep doing it no matter what. Don't bow down to the RIAAs draconian scare tactics. Frankly I don't care what the RIAA says, because almost all of the music I listen to is independent label and the RIAA only represents the major labels, the ones who put out shitty music anyway.

Just because the RIAA sucks donkey balls doesn't mean that stealing is right. Unless the band is giving away the mp3 or you buy the album, pirating the song from a p2p is wrong. I mean, it's not that difficult to understand. Theft is theft.

I don't know if pirating of music is responsible for the decrease in music sales. Personally I think the overall quality of music has decreased in recent years. Lots of it just sucks.

And there are the overall economic factors that influence all industries. If the economy is down, people don't buy as many luxuries. The economy is down. Music is a luxury. Seems logical to me.

Also, we could be seeing the end of the "rebuying" of music from the tape to cd changeover. In which case the number of cds sold was artificially inflated anyway.

One thing is for certain the number of cds sold is sure to drop this year and every year after this. Particularly once the iTunes Music Store hits the windows world. ;D

Apparently the RIAA is now doing some really dirty things such as basically making fake music files that are actually viruses of some sort to sabatoge the computers of those who download music.  To me this sounds much more illegal than music sharing.  I think the RIAA just needs to stop bitching and trying to fight it, but rather try to figure out how to adapt to the new climate to make money...one way is the iTunes store style.  The RIAA is seeing the result of drastically overcharging for music for too long.

One question, back in the analog days, who else taped songs off of the radio to listen to?  I taped many more then than I download now.  And you can bet I wasn't buying as many CDs then.

I think the bigger issue is the price of CD music.  Why on earth do the record companies get so much money for a piece of plastic?

From what I've heard, an artist receives less than a dollar from a $20 CD.  As we all know, since we can easily burn and label our own CDs, the production costs are very cheap - $5 at most.

So, why then does the record company get more than 15 times as much from each CD sale than the artist does?  Promotion shouldn't be that valuable - especially if the only benefit goes to the promoter.  I still find it hard to understand that such price inflation has been going on for so long.  How can the performers tolerate it??

I for one won't buy more CDs until the cost is something reasonable.  Incidentally Bondo, they are just tracks of random noise, not viruses of any sort.

I know 95% of you are going to flame the hell out of me for saying this, but here goes...
The difference between now and the analog days is that you couldn't tape entire albums off the radio. You could only tape the singles that the artist releases. Now, you can download whole albums. I'm guilty of this, but I've also been buying the albums I burned after a few weeks of having them. Of course, there are many people who DON'T buy the albums after they download it, which is bad. No matter how much you hate a record label, or how rediculous the cost of an album is, there's no justification for not paying an artist and their label the money they should have earned. It's as simple as that. While a few people will buy an album after downloading it, the majority of people will not. Why put out 15 bucks for a little better quality and an album cover (which you can now download as well)? I don't think anyone will be able to stop music from being downloaded. While it isn't morally right, it's definately not going away anytime soon. I do agree about the quality of music now-a-days effecting record sales, but you can't possibly think that pirating music helps an artist. Sure, it spreads their music around, but only a small margin of the people who download that artist's music are going to go out and pay for the CD.

Hey, its a new millenium and the age of moral relativism -- if it's stealing from the obscenely rich and giving to the me, I can become convinced that its alright.

    I agree with Mr Mellow on this subject, many of the people who use p2p to download music will not go and spend the money to buy the CD of an artist. Sure "sharing" music gets the artist heard and might lead an occasional concert ticket, but that's about it.
    An artist offering a selection or two from their album for free download on their website is completely different than someone who's not authorized to distribute those songs, offering them for download through p2p.
    As for the price of a CD, yeah they are outrageous. However, you have to take a little into acount of the money required to produce that CD. There's Studio time for the recording, this includes renting the space and paying for the engineer. There's the creation of the original red book CD master. There's the duplication of the CD's and distribution. There's promotional cost's and @100 other non-essential cost's involved. Becuase I'm not in the record industry, I don't know all of the cost, but the duplication costs between $.80 and $5 a disk depending on quantity per order.
   As long as the technology is there, p2p will never stop, but that doesn't mean that it's not wrong.

I have heard not that long ago, that Apple has created a new program/database that is similar to napster exept, first you find the song, then you get about a 30 second sample of the song you found, then, you will have an option of buying the song. I think they said that it is only about $1 per song, that is a pretty good deal, but, it does have the possibilty of shutting down CD stores at malls, etc. Because they can get a the music for about half the price. But, I think it is a good idea... Although, teenagers, young adults, etc. who get music can just get the music they want for free off of limewire, etc. So, they might not want the new Apple music database (I dont know the name), but, we'll see..

It's called the new iTunes store for OSX. They let you preview songs then purchase them. It has been out for a little while.

Whatever you say Robin Hood  ;D

I was at the t.A.T.u. site today and they actually are trying to enlist people to spread the word about their music and tell people to distribute songs.  Makes me feel better about getting two of the songs...and then I went and bought the CD so now they have my money as well.  *cough* to whore myself as they've asked me to, I think their music is really good...a mix of electronic and pop (two genres that I like).  

I spect the biggest bit of publicity they'll get was when Bill O'Reilly said it was trashy because the two girls kiss in a video (the song is about homosexuality so...it fits).  When O'Reilly condemns it I figure it is a good sign to look into it.  Really though, if you listen to the music and try to understand it it isn't just shameless promotion.

Anyway, enough whoring with semi-off-topic comments.  It is irritating that the stores and producers get rich while musicians make less when they are the ones bringing the talent (we hope).  If they cut the price in half I'd probably buy three or four times more CDs (or at least buy them new rather than used as I often do).

tatu makes me feel all funny inside (http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~damnr6/yabbse/YaBBImages/icon_bluh.gif). they sexy.

i wouldn't be caught dead buying their cds though, and i also deleted the mp3s i downloaded by them, as not to have my sexual preference questioned by my peers (im not gay)

Well, it is too late for my sexual preference not to be questioned by my peers, and for good reason...but I though lesbians was a very in topic for straight guys?

yes bondo, you havn't lost touch with your manly side yet. but here in my modern hillbilly town, men listening to women sing is flagrantly gay.

Snipey, this post right here is most definately spam...I expect it and my post to be deleted and it would be right for them to do so.  If you have a problem with the moderation, please post in the Suggestions, Opinions, Criticisms forum.

I'm leaving this as a message to Snipey.  Your previous post was spam - you need to learn to recognize your own errors.  I'm not sure what you mean about recent deletions - I for one have let you get away with a lot.  But unless you missed that whole controversy a little while ago, I think you ought to work on your postings.  Remember your promise to be a reformed spammer?  Be careful - you are close to eroding all the support you have on this board.

I don't download or buy CDs much at all, so I feel like a bystander.  I guess I wonder why the musical acts themselves bother going with the major labels.  It'd be so much simpler to produce their music themselves or with a local company -- it's not like it's that difficult to distribute or to produce in the first place.  CDs could sell for half the cost at greater profit to the artist!  Sadly, much of who the world calls musicians today doesn't seem to be in line with the geniuses of the past. . .

Yeah. Luckily, a few musicians whom I like own their own labels, so it's all good. Also, Snipey, if you're buying a song for $1 each from Apple, you'll end up paying more, or at least the same, as you would buying the CD.
Most albums typically have around 15 tracks. That's $15 there. Add another dollar for the CD you burn it onto, so that's $16. Around here, depending where you shop, you can get a CD from anywhere around 12-15 bucks, unless you buy a CD at the mall, then it's around $18-$20. It might cause CD stores to lower their prices a bit, but I don't think it'll hurt them too much either way.

Mellow, if you buy a complete CD it costs $10 at the iTunes store.  Sort of an economies of scale thing.  You buy them individually they cost more then if you buy by bulk.

That's not economies of scale. That's when you produce a lot of a certain good and can thus produce it for a lower per-unit price. The $10/album deal is just to encourage you to buy a whole album by offering a lower price than what individual songs would cost.

That is a bit of a semantics argument.

Not really, it is just a bit of me being right. Economies of scale is a basic term for economics with a clear meaning.

Well, if you really want to argue semantics, you could say that producing a lot of digital recordings is less expensive per unit than producing only a few.  If you record an album, it costs you less in total that it would cost you to produce 15 singles, and you can therefore offer it for a lower cost.

Either way, it's not the best use of the term, but it's not completely wrong either.

Middle road triumphs agan  :D

Ace, go look at my post again..."Sort of an economies of scale thing."

I said sort of, not it is.  So it is not at all a matter of you being right and me being wrong.

Consumers are just as much a part of the economy as producers, and any economic activity that lowers the per-unit cost is an economy of scale, whether production side or consumer side.  So economically speaking, it is sort of an economies of scale thing.