RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-11-2007, 06:20 AM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
One unusual aspect of the "theft" of a song vs the theft of milk or a soft drink is that the song is still there. It wasn't stolen, it was copied. If one stole a carton of milk, it would have to be replaced by another carton.

What the RIAA fails to grasp is that we live in the 21st century. Consumers are more aware of the workings of the recording industry and the profit sharing with musicians. Consumers have more options on which to spend their disposable income compared to 1989 with things like cellphones, computers, videogames, pay per views, dvds and so on. When I was a teenager, music was it, no internet, no dvds, no computers, videogames were crappy but owning an album was exciting. Their market share has definitely seen a reduction just from this change alone. Real estate is the single highest expenditure for people now so that affects disposable income. Education costs are significantly higher today than in the past too.

Combined with the fact that radio stations are monolithic drones playing the same mix cds day after day until the new Beyonce single makes you want to pull out your teeth isn't helping. The internet with places like myspace are the only way for people to find new and interesting music. And then as mentioned, if you want to find that particular cd, you can't since no one sells the damn thing.

History repeats itself as the entertainment industry condemned the sales of recording devices called betamax and VHS. It was the loss of revenue, stealing programming, blah, blah, blah. Well, guess what, 30 years later, the very recording technology they tried to shut down has led to bigger and greater profits, not less. DVD sales sometimes account for more money than the box office for some films. TV series reproduction on DVD is now a popular product among consumers. These studios have embraced what they once abhorred.

Many services provided by record companies like recording, distribution, marketing and funding are being rendered irrelevant by technology. This is why they are dying. Many of today's independent artists don't need the big conglomerates to make a living. The recording industry is a dinosaur which doesn't know it's about to go extinct. Successful bands like Arcade Fire and the Stars and so on don't even get played on mainstream radio. Independent artists are why music is interesting today not Nickelback or Beyonce. I don't even download that garbage nor would I purchase it.

One last point, I remember when Napster was this subtle thing on the internet which some people knew about and used. Average person had no clue but then the RIAA started bitching about it to the mainstream media. What happened next? It went from 10 million to 60 million users almost overnight and then kept growing. They were one of the catalysts for it's growth, not the people downloading. Downloading of music has had some effect on sales but it is hardly the single reason for the decline.

End of rant.
Well, if you could make a copy of a can of soda or a carton of Milk and take it away for free, few people would continue to buy soda or milk. Why would anyone buy something that they can obtain for free? Its just that simple.

Arcade Fire may be indie favorites, but their hardly successful yet, based on industry standards for sales. They have benefited from being the given the indie crown, but for every Arcade Fire, there are several hundred bands that did not get noticed and have moved on to other things.

The numbers tell the truth, and album sales are down by nearly 50% in just 6 years. Thats not happened in any of the other entertainment area's you have sited, or in the music industry before either.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 06:35 AM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball


But I don't think that industry losses are that significant
Well, you would certainly find it significant if you suddenly could only sell your house for 50% of what it was worth, or the company you worked for had a 50% decline in sales resulting in the lay off of much of the workforce including your own job.

The reductions in sales since 2000 are massive. I can post a soundscan album chart from a week in 2002 vs. a week in 2007 to demonstrate. It has the exact number of copies sold per chart position for that week from #1 to #200. The music industry has never experienced a sustained reduction in sales to this degree. All this at a time when unemployment is at historic lows, average wages are rising, and GDP growth is strong.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 06:36 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,927
Local Time: 05:17 AM
1. The music industry is an oligopoly of 4-5 big companies that actually engage in setting a minimum price to be charged for CDs. If downloading music is illegal, this type of behavior by the industry is also illegal by most coutries' competition law standards. As the CNN article posted by someone shows, if they charge more than 15 times the cost the prince of actually producing, advertising and distributing CDs, there is certainly something very wrong about that market. There would be an obvious advantage there for competition if only that existed in this industry.

2. There are several privacy issues related to monitoring what users are or aren't doing on the Internet. Who gives the government the discretionary power to monitor the data coming in and out of my computer? Granted, there are clear areas where the government should have that power - like fighting children pornography - but where does one draw the line? Even if download is morally and legally illegal (and I only agree with the latter case), there is still the practical problem of how to stop it without disrespecting individual privacy rights, which I don't think is feasible.
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:03 AM   #64
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Well, you would certainly find it significant if you suddenly could only sell your house for 50% of what it was worth, or the company you worked for had a 50% decline in sales resulting in the lay off of much of the workforce including your own job.
My house would only be worth what I can sell it for. If you're saying that it was worth double that in the past, then fine, but that just means that I've made a bad investment. The companies that end up laying off workers are those that don't adapt to change, stick their heads in the sand and try to live in the past.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The reductions in sales since 2000 are massive. I can post a soundscan album chart from a week in 2002 vs. a week in 2007 to demonstrate. It has the exact number of copies sold per chart position for that week from #1 to #200. The music industry has never experienced a sustained reduction in sales to this degree. All this at a time when unemployment is at historic lows, average wages are rising, and GDP growth is strong.
I see the correlation but not the cause and effect. I think people are just chosing to spend their money on other things. UK students in 2000 didn't have to pay university fees but they do now. One of many reasons for the decline I suspect.
__________________
adrball is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:43 AM   #65
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Martin


ding, ding. We have a winner.

If the price of CDs, in stores or at Itunes, had ever been just slightly reasonable, this wouldn't be a problem at all. After all, who wouldn't want to be sure that the record they get is in the best possible quality? You never know for sure when you download on the net, not even if it's a flac you download.

Then some of you might say, but if you think a Mercedes is overpriced - do you steal it?

No - but there's a difference. If you steal a Mercedes you are immediately depriving some other person of his/her property.
The same thing can hardly be said when a 14-year-old downloads an album from the current "cool" indie band that everyone is talking about at school. An album that he couldn't afford with his pocket money.

There's absolutely no way the record industry can stop the illegal distribution of music that's happening on the internet. So the RIAA is fighting a war that they cannot win anyway. So yes, they HAVE to accept the new rules of the game.

I think most major artists today have realized that touring is where the money is.
__________________
hughfan_1 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:52 AM   #66
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball


Correct...but it is unlawful distribution.

But where the industry get it wrong is where they think they are losing out. Most people (I guess) do not copy/download to avoid buying - they're simply getting access to some music that they would never have bought in the first place.
I would disagree. I am not sure of this, but I think that historically the biggest cd buying group were teenagers or early adults. The teenagers and young adults that I know, (my nieces and nephews) think it is insane to pay for music. Why should they, when they can download it for FREE. I am very very sad about that, that they think music is an entittlement, that they think it is OK to steal it. I am so so sad for the artists out there and I am frightened about the future of recorded music as I know it. Music, IMO, is one of the most valuable things I own.
__________________
hughfan_1 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:57 AM   #67
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 40
Local Time: 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


The day I see Bono or Beyonce flipping burgers down at my McDonald's is the day I'll believe downloading harms stars. They're all still millionaires with plenty of 'bling' and sickeningly overpriced homes, cars, jewelry and clothes.

As far as I am concerned, this people deserve it. Bono and his band, has provided the world with such great music. His band has sold 150 million records. They have earned a billion dollars in tour money alone. They are stinking rich. Does that mean you should steal what they make? Not in my book. GE has sold millions of dishwashers. Does that mean from this point on all dishwashers should be free?
__________________
hughfan_1 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:05 AM   #68
The Fly
 
Chris Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 105
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gump
1. The music industry is an oligopoly of 4-5 big companies that actually engage in setting a minimum price to be charged for CDs. If downloading music is illegal, this type of behavior by the industry is also illegal by most coutries' competition law standards. As the CNN article posted by someone shows, if they charge more than 15 times the cost the prince of actually producing, advertising and distributing CDs, there is certainly something very wrong about that market. There would be an obvious advantage there for competition if only that existed in this industry.

2. There are several privacy issues related to monitoring what users are or aren't doing on the Internet. Who gives the government the discretionary power to monitor the data coming in and out of my computer? Granted, there are clear areas where the government should have that power - like fighting children pornography - but where does one draw the line? Even if download is morally and legally illegal (and I only agree with the latter case), there is still the practical problem of how to stop it without disrespecting individual privacy rights, which I don't think is feasible.


Hey, STING2. You need to reply to this.
__________________
Chris Martin is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:14 AM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gump
1. The music industry is an oligopoly of 4-5 big companies that actually engage in setting a minimum price to be charged for CDs. If downloading music is illegal, this type of behavior by the industry is also illegal by most coutries' competition law standards. As the CNN article posted by someone shows, if they charge more than 15 times the cost the prince of actually producing, advertising and distributing CDs, there is certainly something very wrong about that market. There would be an obvious advantage there for competition if only that existed in this industry.
Ouch!
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:51 AM   #70
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 11:17 AM
personally I feel that the record companies should clean up their act, but the facts are that it hasn't been proven that these record companies are involved in illegal activities, while illegal downloading isn't called 'illegal' for nothing

record companies do need to change their complete structure drastically, but artists need to be protected until this has happened

we can't pretend that the people only d/l-ing music for free instead of buying an artist's work doesn't hurt the artist

it's 2 different discussions
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 10:41 AM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 11:17 AM

Quote:
The day I see Bono or Beyonce flipping burgers down at my McDonald's is the day I'll believe downloading harms stars. They're all still millionaires with plenty of 'bling' and sickeningly overpriced homes, cars, jewelry and clothes.
You're talking about Bono and Beyonce. Big names. Stars who have a huge fan base and have spent years making their money. I'm really trying to see what Bono being rich has to do with college students having to fork out $3000 though for illegally taking music.

There are a lot of bands and artists who aren't rich or have plenty of bling. You really need to get over this idea that all these people are rich. Yes some of them are loaded, others aren't. It's like actors, you'll have some who are really loded and others who are struggling to make it and have no money. You have a choice whether or not to throw money into the music industry or go to a concert to support this band. Nobody is forcing you to do it if it sickens you so much but it doesn't mean you can defend STEALING music with this argument that they're rich anyway. Not all musicians are rolling around in cash like Bono, it's really not that hard to understand. An artist I went to see a few weeks ago had remortgaged her house to make her second album. Plus, if all new artists released albums and people just downloaded them for free and never bought them, how isn't that going to hurt them? Seriously.

It's obviously going to hurt someone if everyone starts doing it.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 10:44 AM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
personally I feel that the record companies should clean up their act, but the facts are that it hasn't been proven that these record companies are involved in illegal activities, while illegal downloading isn't called 'illegal' for nothing

record companies do need to change their complete structure drastically, but artists need to be protected until this has happened

we can't pretend that the people only d/l-ing music for free instead of buying an artist's work doesn't hurt the artist

it's 2 different discussions
not really, considering the prices of CDs have a great influence on people's decision whether to buy or download.

its one bunch of crooks cheating the other bunch of crooks that has been cheating the former for decades already.
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 11:18 AM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: at pavel's
Posts: 11,603
Local Time: 11:17 AM
http://www.gloriousnoise.com/feature..._fan-04-04.php
__________________
U2Man is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 11:40 AM   #74
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 03:17 AM
I don't like the price of gas, they're making too much profit, it must be ok to steal gas......
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 12:43 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 05:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
have none of you ever encountered a person who - no matter what exactly you're looking or - is able to deliver any cd with artwork and all for a couple of euro, because this person downloads songs for free, downloads artwork or free and sells the entire package or very little?

cause I've met several people like that
THAT is piracy, and that's who they should be going after, not those who keep it for their own use.

Quote:
Originally posted by Lancemc
And I never, NEVER said the RIAA was wrong in trying to stop illegal activity, I just said the way they're doing it sucks, and that if they ever want to get a real result, they're going to have to fully adapt and push the industry in the right direction, which is obviously digital distribution.
Me too, I wasn't saying nothing should ever be done, only that the witch hunts and sporatic targeting of a few kids here and there, and a few grandparents at random, is medieval and Spanish Inquistion-esque in a way to intimidate everyone in the world by making awful examples of a few. It's the methods, not the purpose.

Quote:
Originally posted by LaraMullen
Nobody is forcing you to do it if it sickens you so much but it doesn't mean you can defend STEALING music with this argument that they're rich anyway.
You have missed the boat again and lashed out without even understanding my original intent. If you go back and look at the post that drew that response, it was someone saying artists were suffering because of downloading. I just said that I don't seem to see any artists suffering, and if I did, I might believe it. I never said it was okay to "steal" from a rich person. Once again my words are twisted and a rant unnecessary.



Like I said in the beginning, I am not even a download activist, I do not download and don't even know how to do it. I do know some high school and college age kids who do (including many posters here) and I really don't see the difference in what's so terrible and 'stealing' about it compared to just taping off the radio like we did when I was a kid. If some kids want to download a song and listen to it while they are online, I don't see that's any worse than when I used to tape off the radio when I was growing up. If someone downloads from another person, how is that much different than friends making each other tapes? I know it's on a larger scale, but it's basically the same thing in the end.That is the point I was trying to make all along!

There is the argument that the stuff online is like a record store and your friend doesn't have everything you want. It's true that the internet has a wider variety, but I knew a guy with 300 albums who would make you a copy for only the cost of a tape when I was in high school. Was he the same as a 'pirate?' There were no witch hunts back then, and no artists suffered. Artists don't lose as much as the industry thinks, because as has been pointed out numerous times here, most of what they listen to they never would have bought anyway so it's not taking money out of anyone's pocket.

And some may say you couldn't find just the right song to record off the radio like you can on the internet.There were ways! Besides always having a tape ready to push as soon as you heard the opening notes (I had lots of tapes with the first couple notes of songs cut off) you could also make requests to the DJ (a lot easier to do then than now when everything is computer programmed ahead of time). There were also "A to Z Weekends" and "Soundtrack of Your Life" specials, where all you had to do was wait for the correct aphabetical or chronological order of the song you wanted to nab it on your hot little tape. I had dozens of homemade tapes compiled this way, and I can't see how the internet stuff that's happening now is such a heinous crime if that wasn't

And BTW, I saw a TV interview with BONO in 2001 where he said basically what I did, that if home taping didn't destroy the industry Napster wouldn't either. I bet he made quite a few homemade tapes and shared with Guggi and Gavin when he was growing up too!
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com