What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

iPod and Limewire...

  • #21
Yeah, you'r probably right.

the GS was just an example lol. I don't know what she has.
 
  • #22
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Nicholas_Bostaph @ Nov. 28 2006,6:27)]Put another way, Britney can afford a private jet because she deserves it.  If she didn't do something of enough value to deserve it then demand would be less, pricing would need to be reduced, and she would receive a smaller compensation.
Are you totally sure about that? I can see where you're coming from, but that conjecture is as much theory as the success of communism. Did Southern Pacific deserve to run hundreds of thousands of farms into the ground just because they held a monopoly on shipping lines? Should I be able to sell dirt-filled gelcaps as a cure for cancer?
There's a lot more to the record industry than net sales, and simply because an artist appears on the Top 40, it doesn't mean that they did any work to get there. Ever notice how a lot of pop singers nowadays are totally awful live? It's because a vast portion of them simply can't sing - their albums sound good because recording technicians go in with audio mastering tools and tweak the vocals so that they're on beat and in the proper key.
So, if I had any interest in stealing the music of Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys, I really wouldn't feel any remorse whatsoever, because most of those types haven't even taken the basic steps it takes to become a musician. If you ask me, they're just packaging for whatever spew the record companies think will sell this quarter.
~Joe
 
  • #23
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]Should I be able to sell dirt-filled gelcaps as a cure for cancer?
Provided you provide details of the ingredients and honest scientific assessments of the efficacy, yes.  I would have absolutely no problem with that.  People have the right to buy them if they so choose.  Maybe they will use them for something else; maybe they will serve some sort of religious purpose; maybe some new medical breakthrough will show that they really work and why.  It's not my place to judge that.

Of course, you can already do this now without my aforementioned requirements; just call it 'alternative medicine'. ;)



[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]Are you totally sure about that? I can see where you're coming from, but that conjecture is as much theory as the success of communism.
Well, morality, and to some degree ethics, is all based upon a subjective philosophical viewpoint.  There is no objective way for me to prove that I am any more right than you on what is morally or ethically justified.  However, the economic and social success rate of communism vs capitalism do speak to which may be preferable, regardless of underlying ethics.  That was where I was coming from, though you are right that my comments are only valid in one specific moral paradigm.



[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ Nov. 28 2006,3:51)]So, if I had any interest in stealing the music of Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys, I really wouldn't feel any remorse whatsoever, because most of those types haven't even taken the basic steps it takes to become a musician. If you ask me, they're just packaging for whatever spew the record companies think will sell this quarter.
I guess that's my point.  The stuff DOES sell.  If it was not providing more value to the customers than that same money spent elsewhere it would not be selling.  Whether you, as a privileged elite, feel that an artist 'deserves' income due to their skill, experience, age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, personal hygiene, religious affiliation, eye color, choice of friends, family history, physical characteristics, or any of the other hundred things you could arbitrarily decide makes them worthy, you cannot change the fact that they have provided value to consumers.

I understand where you're coming from; I really do.  I have very little in my music collection from bands like the ones you mentioned.  Heck, for a while I wouldn't even listen to music unless both the lyrics were written by the lead singer and the lead singer actually played an instrument.  However, using your debate tactic that any consumer can decide who is worthy of their money and who can be stolen from I can easily rationalize the theft of just about anything on some subjective basis.  I know some of the items I listed in the first paragraph sound facetious, but I've had the displeasure of knowing real people who would feel the theft of Britney's music is morally justified because 'she's just a woman'.  I am very sorry, but although your reasoning sounds better I cannot objectively see any difference between "I am justified in theft because the item owner has not met the requisite skill levels I think they should have" and "I am justified in theft because the item owner is a Protestant/Mexican/Blonde/etc".

The job of Britney Spears is not to record high difficulty vocal tracks with unmatched grace and skill, it is simply to entertain.  Actually, not even that is correct, most simply her job is the same as everyone else’s: to provide something of value to society.  The fact that the CD produces adequate value for consumers to purchase it is proof that the production company deserves the income for that record.  The fact that Britney was able to enter into a contract with the company has given her the right to her share of that income.  None of this would happen if both sides weren't providing adequate value to the other; how could it?  That she and the record label do not deserve your money because of her skill level is a viewpoint I can respect, and you can show them your dissatisfaction by not purchasing their product and encouraging others to do the same.

Out of curiosity, would you feel justified in stealing the music I have written (assuming I didn't make it available free)?  I composed all the tracks but have my computer's midi synthesizer play them.  I have spent my time honing my skill in composition, but am as unskilled as the artists you mentioned above in playing most of the instruments in my songs.  Regardless of how they are written, if you enjoy them and gain value from them why would I be unjustified in asking for something of value in return?



Just to clarify, in case you didn't notice, I take this stance grudgingly; not because I think the current situation is optimal, but because I truly believe the downloading of music illegally is immoral.  Perhaps I am wrong, and I will change my viewpoint if presented with a valid argument I had not considered, but I don't feel most of those presented so far are justified.  Note I didn't debate your earlier post; I agree with your reasoning there in a way.

I did suggest earlier to download the music to sample it and send the artist a small donation directly if you like it and simply delete it if you don't.  It costs the consumer less and the artist that actually worked to produce the music receives as much payment as they may have otherwise.  This works to push the middle man (or men) out of the equation leveling the playing field for all artists to compete using only their own skill.  Centralizing access through an online store that allows all artists to submit music and set their own pricing would also improve the entire situation greatly in my opinion.

So as you can see I'm not taking a completely hard set position here.
 
  • #24
Well, I'm not trying to justify theft... I don't personally think that music piracy is theft, because it causes no real loss. You're only losing potential profits - it's not like pirates are taking the money directly out of these people's pockets. The only loss is in potential sales, and in many cases people pirating music aren't in a position to purchase albums to begin with, so in these cases the artists literally aren't losing anything.
Besides that, privately distributing copies of copywritten material is legal in the US as long as it's restricted to personal acquaintances and not-for-profit; the audio industry lobbied that law into action back in the 80's to sell cassette recorders. They've only changed their minds now that consumers are no longer willing to pay their inflated rates for albums. I'm making a practical, economical argument here; there is no loss of holdings, and you can't really quantify the loss in profits because there are undisputably legal channels for freely distributing music, so is it really theft? Of intellectual property, maybe, but I think we both know that intellectual property law is a very slippery slope, both economically and morally.
Additionally, there's a bit of a double-standard at work. If I were to go and freely distribute recordings of a small local band, I could easily get away with it. Pirate recordings of a name on a big label would be much, much harder to do, because they have a lot of money to throw around and make things go their way.
As for stealing music from you - if it were just the composition, I don't think I would feel too immoral to do that, although it would be out of character for me, personally. Like I alluded to above, I don't believe in intellectual property is an enforcable (or philosophically sound) concept. I would draw the line at calling the music my own, distributing it for profit, and possibly copying recordings of your performances. The fact of the matter is that it's entirely possible for me to compose exactly the same song as you without ever knowing you or that song had existed before; what happens then? I have an exceptional memory for things I've heard and sheet music, so when I don't have a music player around and I run through tracks of Pink Floyd in my head, am I illegally pirating music because I don't own all of the albums I know by heart? Or what about when I go to play guitar at a bar or a party, and I play music that I memorized and deciphered from hearing it on the radio or reading it back in middle-school band; people pay me to play guitar, so is that theft? Legally speaking, I don't think it is - it certainly isn't enforcable. In the real world, things happen whether they seem fair or not. Laws are meant to maintain order and safety, but I think it's beyond the domain and purpose of law to decide what is and isn't fair compensation for items like intellectual property, which are not quantifiable.
My objection is perhaps the opposite of yours; I would like to see artists credited for their work, but in that case, it's the recording technicians and ad agents who should be recieving millions in dues from the sales of Britney Spears' albums - not Britney, and certainly not the recording executives - because the techs make that music sellable, and the agents bust their butts marketing it. Intellectual copyright law is unpragmatic; it's costly and time-consuming to enforce, and no matter what you do, there will always be new ways of circumventing not only the means of protection, but the very legal notion of copyrights. I simply don't see it as a matter which can be resolved by law. And, since no law will fix this supposed problem, I'm willing to bet that the problem is in the laws themselves.
I agree that one should patronize artists if they're appreciated. Paying for recordings is a relatively recent development in the history of music and I think it is an unneccessary feature of the musical system. Record labels really don't offer anything that makes music better; they're merely middlemen who happen to have enough economic and political sway to force people to give exorbitant amounts of money for things that were once almost entirely free. I think music as a whole would benefit from the dismantling of the recording industry, and that's why I believe music piracy is a negligible offense at best.
~Joe

PS - Here's a relevant personal anecdote. Roughly 90% of my parents' music collections are dub tapes made for them by friends. This is far, far more 'pirated' music than I have in my possession. So are things really getting any worse for record labels? I know that mine is just one instance, but it really seems to me as though not much has changed.
 
  • #25
The problem with this younger generation doing its downloads for free is that we dont know if, as they mature, they will become a $ spending portion f society on music albums. A much higher precentage of older people do it than younger, and what will we do when they die off? there is no evedence that people who mostly get their stolen-err, i mean free music off the internet wll ever go buy albums at the rate they listen to music. Is album costs jigher because it has to change f=hands from the maker, distributer, and retailer? they all need to make a profit off of it, so that doesnt mean its 'inflated', as internet music doesnt go through those stages
 
  • #26
The previous generation was pirating music while we were still in diapers. The recording industry just wasn't in a position to track the activity and level multi-million-dollar lawsuits against offenders.
Your argument also assumes that we need people like distributors, marketers and retailers, but 5000+ years of musical history says we don't. In addition, I am absolutely positive that at at least one of those points in the distribution chain, people handling the albums are charging more than supply and operating costs, and that is indeed inflation. Take a look at this explanation of recording costs (by the RIAA) and tell me that every step mentioned in that process is necessary to producting and disemenating good music. Then take a look at studio costs quoted by actual bands. There is an enormous disparity. Also consider the fact that much of the recording and editing can now be done on home computers, for a one-time setup cost of about $12000 at most. See here (can't believe I'm referencing USA Today, shudder.)
When a business begins lying to me in order to justify taking excessive amounts of my money, that's about when I lose interest in patronizing them. And my disenchantment extends to the bands that sign on to these labels, because they're the ones who have given the RIAA the power to do this.
~Joe

PS - Er, that second link isn't quite what I was looking for, let me dig around a bit more... Also, there's a fairly apt analysis of losses associated with recent developments in music piracy here.
 
  • #27
How do you know it isnt? for very few of the 5000 years of music has it been able to be recorded and distrubuted en mass, so your argument means moot. If all those go into making a CD, how are we to say how much it should cost?
 
  • #28
I'm not trying to say how much a CD should cost, although I am looking to see how much a CD actually does cost. The point I'm trying to make is that music did fine without record labels, agents and retailers - all of those jobs are just elaborations, and they don't seem to do anything but raise the cost of listening to music.
~Joe
 
  • #29
Actually, this is  a little odd, but Copying/ burning CD's, there’s a parallel in the plant industry to that. If you can propagate certain cultivars, you are free to do so and distribute them, no strings attached. Only recently has there been a move to copy write cultivars. What makes propagating someone else’s cultivar and someone else’s song so different, anyway?

Back on topic, if they are so uneeded, why havnt they been done away with? in industry there is a strong force to shed uneeded services.
 
  • #30
Take a look at the rates of these studios that I found on Google:
Bob Jones University
Indian Trail Recording Studio
Sound Path Recording & Production
Basic recording costs run about $4000-$7000, for a generous 80-hour recording session. (My understanding is that the typical album takes about 40.) Give another 30 hours for mixing and the price goes up by about $1500, although many studios offer package deals that include free time mixing when you pay for recording. A master DAT or glass CD costs $500 tops. Total production cost for an album that takes way longer than it should, then, is probably at most $9000. You can buy 10,000 pressings for about $3200, for an overall cost of $12,200/10,000 = $1.22 per disc. Graphic design for a cover would cost about $500 from a design firm or independent artist, and the inserts for 10,000 discs could probably be printed for less than $1000 (here I'm guessing on the printing cost, but it seems pretty lavish.) So that's an additional 15¢ per disc, for a total of $1.37. If you have a five-person band and one audio tech, and you pay them all at the generous rate of $15 an hour (that's a lot for the average musician but probably not as much for the mixer,) then the personnel cost is $6,450, about 65¢ per disc. So, if you had nothing to do with the band or studio and just wanted to have a batch of 10,000 CDs made according to your specifications, it would run a little less than $20,200, or $2.02 per disc, at most. This is a higher cost than normal, because typically the band isn't paid for their studio time - their pay comes from profits on album sales. This estimate is a very liberal one; many recording studios include the mixing and mastering with the recording session, and many CD printers include the labels with batch orders. (A low-end estimate would then be $7,700 for 10,000 discs, 77¢ a disc.) Also consider that as units go up beyond our 10,000 disc mark, production costs become exponentially smaller. The overall cost is even more negligible for record labels, because they already are affiliated with studios and manufacturers (or they own such facilities outright) so all they really pay is operating costs.
~Joe

PS - They haven't been eliminated because they have enough money to make a niche for themselves. The notion that economic systems shed unnecessary features is an outdated concept which has been shown faulty again and again. Just look at the QWERTY keyboard.
 
  • #31
I want a glass cd....

I can buy a stack of blanks for 10 cents a pop! cha-cha-cha!
 
  • #32
Ok seedjar you win, at this point, even if I found something to disagree with, I don’t know enough about the music industry to formulate a effective reply to your last post. However, about the QWERTY, there is actually the point that because the costs incurred by using the supposedly inefficient layout are much less than those of retraining typists to use other types, so the retaining of QWERTY is actually a result of not wanting to go through the unnecessary costs of retraining a typist. Thus QWERTY is superior all related aspects in the cost/benefit ratio for individuals changing to the new standard, but not the LOGICAL one. That the QWERTY is unnecessary is a logical assumption, but economically this proves not to be true. Changing it would involve several steps performed in sequence which would produce less efficient systems in the interim, thus making the cost prohibitive.
 
  • #33
I've heard claims contrary to that - that the DVORAK keyboard doesn't require retraining to get the same words per minute out of a typist who learned on a QWERTY rig. But you may be right. Nonetheless, the QWERTY situation just goes to show that you can't simply take one factor (such as peak efficiency) to be the end-all decider of which solution is more economically sound. Even though we don't need a keyboard intentionally designed to slow typists down, it's still there because factors of industry have made it easier to continue with a less efficient solution than to transition to an optimal solution.
This type of situation has been documented in a lot of different economic situations. The 'tragedy of the commons,' a scenario in which the most economic solution for an individual is also the least economic solution for the entire system, is one of them. Evolutionary ecology provides many other examples, such as the backwards configuration of the vertebrate eye.
The record industry is like the oil industry. Most people can understand, when presented with the evidence, that the benefits of fossil fuels do not exceed the costs of gathering oil, processing it, and repairing environmental damage incurred. But fossil fuels still have a foothold, largely because the businesses involved have enough control over the market to prevent transitions to other energy sources. Likewise, there's a strong push to eliminate logging in many places, and even though we could replace timber with better, more economical building materials, the timber industry employs too many people to simply shut down and make way for a new paradigm. In the same way, enough capital and job specialization has been sunk into the recording industry that it won't simply yeild when a better method of distributing music and compensating artists comes around.
~Joe
 
  • #34
But we don’t know if those prices charged by those said companies are unnecessary price gouging, or if those money are used to buy higher level equipment, more qualified persons, etc.. I think you should refrain from such accusations that such high prices between certain studios- your argument assumes the same quality to be uniform thought companies.


With internet downloads, it iswhatever you want was free (whenever you want it). The Internet is music consumerism run amok

“You've lost your basic business model -- what you sell has become as free as oxygen.”

High prices of certain studios in and of themselves are not evedence that the record label are charging exhorbitant prices.
 
  • #35
You bring up a good point, Finch!

I should buy the atmosphere and charge a premium for breathing
laugh.gif
 
  • #36
This breakdown of the cost of a typical major-label release by the independent market-research firm Almighty Institute of Music Retail shows where the money goes for a new album with a list price of $15.99.

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

Reduce the retail overhead price- 12.1$
minus distribution and packaging/manufacturing: 10.4 $

Cost per song on a 12-track cd at 10.4= .89 cents. SO minus everything BUT the record industry, lable, publishing royaltys, etc, its CHEPER to buy a cd per song than from the internet. See buying music from the internet RETAINS all the record industry stuff. So Dont blame the recording industry
 
  • #37
if you guys want to download music just use Mute, its anonymous
 
  • #38
Almighty Institute doesn't appear to be that independent... they're a marketing firm that works for record labels. From the first line of their web page:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Almighty Institute of Music Retail provides data and services to help record labels and music retailers promote and sell more music.
I'm not confident that their breakdown is without bias, and even if you accept it at face value, look at all the unnecessary expenses on there. We've been able to electronically disemenate music for decades now via radio and other methods - at least half of those items associated with distribution and production are totally unnecessary to actually making music and getting it to people. A lot of things on there, such as publishing royalties, are only available for the taking because labels control the cost of recording and make it too expensive for small bands to have successful runs without the captial backing of a large business.
Also - and I'll admit this a flimsy, subjective argument - how many tracks on the average CD do you actually listen to? A lot of albums I see out there have one to three good songs, and ten to fifteen ones that aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. What kind of value is that?
I'll agree with you that most popular means of internet distribution are no more economical or fair, but that fact only demonstrates the degree of manipulation and overinflation that labels perpetrate on the industry. I feel comfortable blaming the industry because they're still the ones responsible for adding all these extra costs to music, whether I buy it on the internet or not.
~Joe
 
  • #39
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]totally unnecessary
Serously? I dont work in the music biz, and neither do you, so what do we know what actually  is necessary and unecessary. You cant see a whole catigory and chirp its totally unessesary to getting music out. I thinkk you are convinced that the process is simpiler than it actually is. I did ask some upperclassmen who were majoring in music marketing, including my roomate, and they said even with their knowledge, most were needed. And they know far more about the subject than i do

And if their support isnt enough, here is what Professor James Shearer of New Mexico State University has to say about it, found Here
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]“New CDs (or cassette tapes) aren’t cheap. In fact, as of this writing, some new releases are going for as much as $17.95. There is a common line that goes something like “Boy are the record companies ripping me off, ‘cause I know it costs less than a buck to make this thing.” While it is true that it doesn’t cost much to physically produce a CD or tape, the things that lead up to that final production can be VERY expensive. For all music recorded, royalties must be paid to both the songwriter(s) and all of the contracted musicians. Typical studio time can run anywhere from $75 to $200 per hour depending on where you are and how state-of-the-art the recording facility is. The big name studios in New York, Nashville, and LA can be even more expensive. In addition, you must pay a photographer to shoot photos and hire a graphic artist (or a full art studio) to create the packaging. Next, there has to be a marketing strategy, complete with print ads, complimentary copies to radio stations, and product placement. In particular, you may not realize that the product placement in a record store COSTS the record label money. When you go walking through some major record chain like Tower Records, Virgin Records, Hastings, Camelot, or Sam Goody’s, it costs money to have your record placed at the end of a store aisle or included at one of those cool listening stations. Finally, you should also realize that the wholesale cost of a record is somewhere between $3.00 and $7.00. Then a distribution company takes its cut and, of course, the record store makes a profit as well. Now don’t get me wrong, the record industry does make money, but they don’t make $16.95 on a CD for which you paid $17.95.”
 
  • #40
Having gone to a school where professional musicians directed our music program, and being responsible for having set up a recording studio in the A/V department, I feel like I have a decent grasp on the costs of such endeavors. This quote here doesn't quantify any of these additional expenses that we're debating the merits of, but it does mention that production costs are less than half to a sixth of sticker price on many albums, and I'm still not confident that those figures aren't biased. They certainly don't seem correct for larger (100,000+ units) runs, and fail to account for the savings that labels derive from having in-house recording and marketing departments. Even if high-profile studios charge $200 an hour, why can other recording studios afford to let time go for $35 an hour? Does it really make a difference to the listener whether their album was recorded in New York or Vancouver, BC? I doubt it.
Also, I must object to the notion that record stores aren't part of the industry. I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Sony or Virgin owned many of these chains, and at the very least they're probably in bed together, as their businesses are so tightly intertwined.
Still, most of what's mentioned in that article are negligible expenses. Promotional copies to radio stations? They don't even distribute those as hard copies any more - they're transmitted via the internet or other data lines - and even if they did, for a popular album to be distributed to every radio conglomerate with a station of the appropriate format, that's probably no more than 3000 copies (admittedly, that's just a guess.) The cost of such promotions are shared by all albums on a label of a certain format; labels distribute just a couple of promotions at a time as compilations of the (projected) most popular songs of various artists. I don't think it's ever the entire album - by my understanding those promotions tend to go out before the albums are even finished. Costs like photographers and artists don't have to be that high - I can tell you that much from doing advertising jobs through my high school internships - and they are largely unnecessary (plenty of albums sell very well with minimal packaging and simple adornment.)
If I decide to grow all the plants in my nursery in solid-gold pots with a live orchestra playing 24/7 to encourage their growth, should you really pay my extra overhead just because I chose the most expensive way imaginable to produce my product? You have the option to make all of these expenditures mentioned above when making an album, but still, I'm not convinced it's really necessary to music. (As you can probably tell, I'm quite confident that it's not.) Selling records, maybe, but if you're talking about the costs of marketing records, then we're arguing two totally different topics. I'm not saying that you can outsell an efficiently produced record next to a flashy one - I'm trying to say that the marketing process is vestigial and unnecessary to the essence of music, and that music would probably be better without it. I think that albums should sell on the merit of the music they contain, and not because people feel compelled to listen to anything that the Top 40 tells them to.
Ultimately, my point is that music piracy only hurts when artists stop concentrating on their music and try to make money selling their image. And it doesn't even seem to hurt the artists much - it's the labels themselves that are really threatened by the possibility. Music piracy seems to benefit small bands more than it hurts; the internet basically becomes free advertising for them.
~Joe
 
Back
Top