Why I don't feel sorry for the music industry-

soulsinging

Saturnal wrote:

Again, it all goes back to the argument that it's ok to steal. You call it "downloading" or "sharing" or whatever else, but it's stealing. If we were talking about pills instead of music, we wouldn't say "some kid downloaded some oxee from the pharmacy and shared it with his friends....nothing wrong with that! these drug companies have been fucking people for years. fuck em."

if you tape a song off the radio is it stealing? are the mixes we did in our cd swap on here contributing to theft?

Blackeyedangel

drew0 wrote:

Not to mention that record companies keep promoting such shitty artists as Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, etc. and then wonder why their record sales are down. Yes, sales are down due to file sharing. They're also down because you're only promoting shitty artists who all sound the same.

I love how you pick two bands that are completely different to use as an example for your argument.

transplant

soulsinging wrote:

if you tape a song off the radio is it stealing? are the mixes we did in our cd swap on here contributing to theft?

of course it is, however can you see the difference between trading a CD amongst 20 people and putting a CD on the internet to share with 2 billion?

I mean honestly, if you were a record label and you gave (insert band here) 40,000 to record, tour and promote their CD, don't you think they deserve to make that money back?

Is there anybody out there who really thinks Metallica makes the same amount of money per CD as Fall Out Boy?

soulsinging

transplant wrote:

of course it is, however can you see the difference between trading a CD amongst 20 people and putting a CD on the internet to share with 2 billion?

I mean honestly, if you were a record label and you gave (insert band here) 40,000 to record, tour and promote their CD, don't you think they deserve to make that money back?

Is there anybody out there who really thinks Metallica makes the same amount of money per CD as Fall Out Boy?

they would make that money back if they charged a reasonable price for the cd. but they have priced themselves out of their own market. and now they're whining about it. charge $10 a cd you'd sell 3 times as many and make plenty of money. but you charge $19 for a 10 cent disc and you can't be surprised when people look elsewhere.

transplant

soulsinging wrote:

they would make that money back if they charged a reasonable price for the cd. but they have priced themselves out of their own market. and now they're whining about it. charge $10 a cd you'd sell 3 times as many and make plenty of money. but you charge $19 for a 10 cent disc and you can't be surprised when people look elsewhere.

come on now, who the hell pays 19 bucks for a Cd? I pay less per CD now then I did in 1987. I can't remember the last time I paid more than 13. Best Buy sells plenty of CD's for under 10.00

soulsinging

transplant wrote:

come on now, who the hell pays 19 bucks for a Cd? I pay less per CD now then I did in 1987. I can't remember the last time I paid more than 13. Best Buy sells plenty of CD's for under 10.00

go to any cd retailer... virgin, fye, etc. best buy sells cheaper, but most are still 15 base price, and their selection is limited becos the music industry puts all their eggs into the most middling basket. they focus on the middle 50%, milk a fad until it's done, and then wonder why all their artists are so disposable.

i have no sympathy and i do not see downloading as theft. i think it's time the record companies wise up and change before they die. plenty of labels make money.

transplant

soulsinging wrote:

go to any cd retailer... virgin, fye, etc. best buy sells cheaper, but most are still 15 base price, and their selection is limited becos the music industry puts all their eggs into the most middling basket. they focus on the middle 50%, milk a fad until it's done, and then wonder why all their artists are so disposable.

i have no sympathy and i do not see downloading as theft. i think it's time the record companies wise up and change before they die. plenty of labels make money.

So if CD's were all priced at 9.99, I am going to assume you would not only stop downloading illegally, you would also consider it theft.

Bushleaguer28

drew0 wrote:

Not to mention that record companies keep promoting such shitty artists as Nickelback, Fall Out Boy, etc. and then wonder why their record sales are down. Yes, sales are down due to file sharing. They're also down because you're only promoting shitty artists who all sound the same.

Bingo - bands nowadays make "singles" rather then albums - they make songs that they can make a cheesy video for that can be run 100 times a day on mtv for a month, and then they move on to the next single. People dont buy albums because they can just download individual songs because the majority of the album is crap (actually i feel almost every new band makes 100 percent crap but thats another story) - and yes, so many of these bands sound the same its a joke.

PearlJamaholic

i see downloading as stealing. argue it how you like, but you are taking something that does have a value. just cause you dont like the price doesnt make stealing right.

i think sony is charging too much for a ps3, i should just take it, make sure i like it first. and if i do ill buy one, if not ill just keep it anyways. if its a good system ill buy the games anyways (ie see concerts, buy shirts)

pj tickets are going up too, i should start sneaking into shows. vedder messes up too many lyrics and wants more money, screw that. show me first that the show was worth it. when i leave the venue ill pay what i think the show was worth.

with that said record labels are just sitting by. obviously there are people that will steal songs if cds cost 50 cents. and these are some of the same people that call record companies greedy yet they dont seem to want to part with their money.

the whole itunes is also a joke. .99 a song doesnt work for me. for two reasons. one is its lossy. and second and this effects the first, im paying more per song as a whole with less quality. cds are what 21, 22k what ever and mp3s are like 16k. im not going into the lossy debate but i can buy a cd with 17 songs for $12 with art and all. a real physical object. downloading it i get a digital file i can make from the cd with no art or packaging for $17??? something is wrong with that. plus when i buy the cd i can make my own lossy versions. if i want to hear music through a tin can.

i think the solution would be to charge for songs based in length. get a band like tool or floyd and get a 9 minute song at the same price as a pixies tune thats 2 minutes??? i think like 5-10 cents per minute is the way to go. maybe 7 cents. let them figure it out. but make it worth it. and do specials if you get the whole album get like a 5% discount. that way if people arent willing to spend $4.50 for a digital cd they are just cheap. end of story. you dont deserve music if you wont pay for it.

youre paying less than half of a hardcopy cd cause you are getting less than half when it comes to package (packaging costs), art work (i really like reading the lyrics and looking at the pictures the artist felt were important) and sound quality (lossy). i dont really know what it costs to make cds so i cant say if $12-13 is fair to me. there is more than just production costs in there. they paid for studio time (sometimes), promotion, lawyers to set up contracts with the artist, etc. its more than blank cds and printer ink and paper.

and i think anyone that complains about record labels (like'em or hate'em) lawsuits at this point should be sued for being an idiot.

soulsinging

transplant wrote:

So if CD's were all priced at 9.99, I am going to assume you would not only stop downloading illegally, you would also consider it theft.

i still buy cd's. if i download, it's only to see if i like it. i listen for a week, delete, then either buy or move on. if record companies werent ILLEGALLY paying radio stations to only play their blockbuster babies, i wouldnt have to do this. if i like, i buy. but i buy from a used cd shop... which means the record company sees no money from the sale. am i stealing then?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

if you tape a song off the radio is it stealing? are the mixes we did in our cd swap on here contributing to theft?

Technically, yeah that's theft. Anytime you assume ownership of something that's licensed-based, it's theft. That's why software companies have to develop or buy really secure licensing apps to secure their shit. Otherwise, people just end up stealing it by downloading it from someone else who has a single licensed copy.

I understand that record companies illegally pay radio to play certain songs and do all kinds of shitty things, but that's how it is. It doesn't change the fact that you're stealing when you download. No one is entitled to hear any music they want....you (and others) talk about this like it's your civil right to hear/see any art you want. It's not.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

i still buy cd's. if i download, it's only to see if i like it. i listen for a week, delete, then either buy or move on. if record companies werent ILLEGALLY paying radio stations to only play their blockbuster babies, i wouldnt have to do this. if i like, i buy. but i buy from a used cd shop... which means the record company sees no money from the sale. am i stealing then?

LOL every band nowadays has a website and/or myspace page where they let you preview their work. No one is forcing you to download anything.

soulsinging

Saturnal wrote:

LOL every band nowadays has a website and/or myspace page where they let you preview their work. No one is forcing you to download anything.

i dont have a myspace. but when i can check stuff out on their website, i do.

soulsinging

Saturnal wrote:

Technically, yeah that's theft. Anytime you assume ownership of something that's licensed-based, it's theft. That's why software companies have to develop or buy really secure licensing apps to secure their shit. Otherwise, people just end up stealing it by downloading it from someone else who has a single licensed copy.

I understand that record companies illegally pay radio to play certain songs and do all kinds of shitty things, but that's how it is. It doesn't change the fact that you're stealing when you download. No one is entitled to hear any music they want....you (and others) talk about this like it's your civil right to hear/see any art you want. It's not.

see, i dont buy that for a second. the way i understand it, you can record anything you want, as long as you dont use it to personal profit without permission. thus, you can tape a tv show or a song, you just cant turn around and sell the copy to a friend. i was under the impression it was the distribution, not the possession, that was criminal.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

i dont have a myspace

hahaha jesus christ dude. you don't need a myspace page to see band pages unless they set them as private which none of them do as far as I know.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

see, i dont buy that for a second. the way i understand it, you can record anything you want, as long as you dont use it to personal profit without permission. thus, you can tape a tv show or a song, you just cant turn around and sell the copy to a friend. i was under the impression it was the distribution, not the possession, that was criminal.

It's theft if you assume ownership and then distribute it out to other people. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you make $0 in profit or $100 from that distribution. The fact that you're distributing it out to others is technically theft.

I don't think the examples you gave are bad either. Everyone shares stuff with a few friends now and then, so I don't consider people doing a small cd share thieves. But it's on such a large scale with the internet, so it becomes a different story. Not all examples can be compared in black and white, right or wrong like this. There are degrees of theft, which is why we have that accounted for in law.

soulsinging

Saturnal wrote:

It's theft if you assume ownership and then distribute it out to other people. That's the point. It doesn't matter if you make $0 in profit or $100 from that distribution. The fact that you're distributing it out to others is technically theft.

I don't think the examples you gave are bad either. Everyone shares stuff with a few friends now and then, so I don't consider people doing a small cd share thieves. But it's on such a large scale with the internet, so it becomes a different story. Not all examples can be compared in black and white, right or wrong like this. There are degrees of theft, which is why we have that accounted for in law.

which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.

regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.

regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?

haha so since you're stealing from people who you consider bigger thieves, that somehow cancels out what you're doing and makes it ok. That's a bullshit argument like I said from the beginning. It always boils down to that.

If some guy kills my entire family, does it make it sensible for me to go rape his sister and say "hey, I only raped his sister...he killed my entire family. So his whining about the rape doesn't really phase me. Which crime should we be worried about here???"? No, it's not sensible. And we should be worried about both crimes.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

soulsinging wrote:

which is why i dont distribute... i set uploads to zero internet law is a tricky field, they're still figuring it all out.

regardless, downloading hurts only record companies. the artists benefit from the exposure for the most part. unless you're metallica, you don't see a cent from album sales. so even if you wanna classify it as stealing, the record companies whining about stealing doesn't really phase me, given that they have been breaking the law in many many ways for years. it's like stealing a car and then complaining to the cops when someone takes your cell phone out of it... which crime should we be worried about here?

Also, I forgot to say that I do agree that artists can benefit from exposure due to file sharing. Again, that's why I wouldn't call people doing a cd swap thieves. We all share music, most of us in hopes that the artists will benefit from it, and the people we share it with will go out and support the artists if they like them enough.

It's just a different story when it comes to the much larger scale of people making torrentz of entire discographies that people are downloading, sharing, and keeping, and not buying cds. That's really what the record companies are complaining about, and they are right to complain (no matter how many shitty business practices they have).

And overall, I still think it hurts the artists. Most of them do not embrace file sharing at all, but very few speak out about it like I said before. They're kind of stuck in hard place.

ashtrayrock

The whole price fixing scandal, then suing the fans, and then Sony putting those hidden trackers on their cds...what a mess.

I can certainly see why there is a backlash amongst the fans. I get mad when I have to pay over $11 for a new release. It just isn't right. Lower the price of the cds and then justification to buy them will come back, because they are cheap.