RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

[STING2]

What he meant by that was that they seek out stuff that sells mainstream like boybands and copycat groups and divas. I don't believe the sad fact that record companies don't allow artists to hang around and build a career is due to the downloading. Bono also said that 'crap music' was the main reason for the decline in the industry!

Since you seem to be the expert here, would you please, please answer my question about what makes what the kids today are doing different from when I used to make my tapes off the radio when I was growing up? Nobody said a word or called it 'stealing.' No artist or record company were hurting for money.

As I said in my post above, there were ways of getting the songs you wanted by recording them onto homemade tapes. I thought of another one. One record station would play new release albums on Tuesdays at midnight. You could tape the whole thing! I bought what I could afford, War, Synchronicity, even Scandal with Patty Smythe, but I was a kid who didn't have much money so I made a lot of compilations on tape. I really don't see a difference in that and what the kids do now with computers. Can you please explain to me why that's a crime and radio taping wasn't in the old days? Thank you.

BONO did not say that in 2005 at the Hall Of Fame awards. The industry is selling less albums, which means they are making less money and have less money to spend on new artist. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

1. Cassette taping did not impact music industry sales back in the 1980s. Sales continued to grow and grow and grow. The reason seems to be is that with cassette taping there was always a noticable decrease in the quality of the copy made. With todays technology, there is still a "technical" decrease in quality, but not a noticable decrease in quality for the average listener.

2. In the 1980s, copying a new album or any album meant you had to know someone with a physical copy of that album and either give them a blank cassette or bring their album home and do the copying yourself. You had to play the whole album unless you did not mind having an even more quallity reduced copy of the album you were recording.

Today, one can download an entire album of material in just a few minutes to their computer without ever talking or asking anyone for a physical copy of the album, leaving their home, or spending the time needed to make the copy.

Today, a person can obtain a record collection in one weekend for FREE that would have taken someone in the 1980s many years and over a thousand dollars.

The speed of obtaining quality FREE copied music, that does not require the person to even leave their home, is light years in difference from slow reduced quality cassette taping of the 1980s that required you to usually leave your house to obtain what you needed to make the copy.


In the 1980s, Kids, teens, adults would only spend money on albums they really liked, and would then perhaps record some stuff on cassette from friends that they thought was ok or were uncertain about. If they really liked what they heard, they would go out and buy the album because the cassette was at a noticable reduced quality level.

Today, there is no noticable quality difference in the quality of the copied music. People are not spending money to buy albums for their favorite artist because they can now obtain perfect quality CD's for FREE. I know multiple U2 fans, hardcore U2 fans, who no longer buy U2 CD's. Ever since All That You Can't Leave Behind, they have been obtaining the albums for FREE! That really doesn't hurt U2, but it is forcing new artist to find a different career as they get rapidly dropped from the label or don't even get signed.

A generation of music fans is now out there that believes music should be free period. They have only purchased a couple of albums and have downloaded the other 100 or 200 for free. That was not the case in the 1980s. Music sales continued to grow throughout that decade with the economy and population.

 

[trevster2k]

Regarding the pricing of cds. When cds first appeared in the 80's and we still had records, the price difference between cds and records were enormous in my hometown of St. John's, Newfoundland which is a modern city of over 150,000 people.

I could buy the brand new release record for $7.99 while the CD cost $24.99 for the same music. The argument back then was that the cost of producing the CD was higher. Seemed reasonable since it was a new technology and cd players like all new technology like blu-ray today had high sticker prices. But yet here we are, 20 years later and the damn things still cost over $20 bucks in some places especially older catalogue products while the cd players, hell, even a dvd player can be purchased for $50. I can buy 50 blank cds at a retail price for $20 bucks so I am bitter of paying a jacked up "production" price all these years. Hence, my caution in purchasing a cd from an artist I have never heard of based on a single song.

I along with most people would have no problem paying that price if the artist received a significant amount of the profit but they don't. New artists have no leverage going into a negotiation with a record company. They receive a minute amount after all the deductions by the record company for marketing, video production, studio time, etc. At the end of the day, they might have a number one selling album if they are lucky. If not, they are probably in the hole thanks to their point sharing profit system. Great system....for the record companies.

I remember some efforts to curb hometaping in the 80s. There were even some little PSAs inserted in the liners of some cassette tapes. I recall the phrase "Hometaping is killing music" or something to that effect but surprise, the music survived that horror.

 

[trevster2k]

I don't believe the sad fact that record companies don't allow artists to hang around and build a career is due to the downloading.

No, they are all trying to hit the bullseye on the first dart. Hence the paying off of radio stations to play preferred artists by record companies. Which in effect, lowers the opportunity for other artists to get air play. Although I sure that these execs are quite happy to see young unsigned bands build up a following via the internet without having to invest a penny in them.

TV execs are the same way today, new tv shows get 3-4 weeks or less to grab an audience or they get pulled. Seinfeld would never have been around if it debuted today with the viewership it initially had during it's first season. It would have been cancelled within weeks.

Regardless what happens, music will continue to be produced my musicians and we will all be able to hear it. Most musicians make shit money, most don't get record deals and most don't become millionaires. Record companies like Sony and BMG might disappear but oh well.

 

[STING2]

Regarding the pricing of cds. When cds first appeared in the 80's and we still had records, the price difference between cds and records were enormous in my hometown of St. John's, Newfoundland which is a modern city of over 150,000 people.

I could buy the brand new release record for $7.99 while the CD cost $24.99 for the same music. The argument back then was that the cost of producing the CD was higher. Seemed reasonable since it was a new technology and cd players like all new technology like blu-ray today had high sticker prices. But yet here we are, 20 years later and the damn things still cost over $20 bucks in some places especially older catalogue products while the cd players, hell, even a dvd player can be purchased for $50. I can buy 50 blank cds at a retail price for $20 bucks so I am bitter of paying a jacked up "production" price all these years. Hence, my caution in purchasing a cd from an artist I have never heard of based on a single song.

I along with most people would have no problem paying that price if the artist received a significant amount of the profit but they don't. New artists have no leverage going into a negotiation with a record company. They receive a minute amount after all the deductions by the record company for marketing, video production, studio time, etc. At the end of the day, they might have a number one selling album if they are lucky. If not, they are probably in the hole thanks to their point sharing profit system. Great system....for the record companies.

I remember some efforts to curb hometaping in the 80s. There were even some little PSAs inserted in the liners of some cassette tapes. I recall the phrase "Hometaping is killing music" or something to that effect but surprise, the music survived that horror.

"Hometaping" is not even remotely comparable to the way people obtain free same quality music today.

New artist may not get much money in the begining, but at least the record company had enough money to support artist for 3 or 4 albums, even if the albums were not selling. Today, those artist get dropped if the first album does not sell because the record company no longer has the money to support and develop artist in the way they did 20 years, hence Bono's statement at the hall of fame awards that U2 would have been dropped after their first or second album in todays environment.

As for the price of CD's, a CD that cost 24.99 in 1987 would in todays dollars in 2007 cost $44.29. If your purchasing that CD at $20 dollars today, your paying less than half of what it used to cost in 1987. Its still a little more expensive than the record which today would cost $14.16 , but is far from being the comparison you made. Plus, the price of anything is really based on market supply and demand.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Trev

fair point, bvs.

 

[STING2]

Most musicians make shit money, most don't get record deals and most don't become millionaires. Record companies like Sony and BMG might disappear but oh well.

....and most will never be heard because they were unable to obtain the funds and distribution needed to start a career in the business on a national or interational level. Some may scrape by in the local market or on some corner on the internet, but the general public will be unlikely to ever hear them.

 

[gump]

The price of any product or service is based on the demand for that product or service, NOT what it cost to produce the actual physical copy. Your not thinking about the cost of recording, producing and putting up the funds for multiple artist to tour. U2 did not actually make any money in the industry until 1984! All of this 20 years ago when record companies were still making healthy profits that could be used to help develop more artist.

Yes, but any economist can tell you that profits tend to converge to zero in a free market.

 

[adrball]

The internet, file sharing, CD burning, and other ways of obtaining music for free became widely available around the same time that music sales started to decline.

My £15/50p argument was a bit extreme. Of course there is value in the softer side of the product. However there was still a lot of people within the industry that we making far too much money for doing sod all. Setting minimum pricing is market manipulation at the expense of the consumer.

This just leaves me with no trust of the industry. Okay...file sharing is increasing just at the same time that CD sales are declining, but I would hazard a guess and say that CD sales started to fall a long time before Internet became widely used. I just don't believe the industry when they say that half of the business has gone PURELY down to illegal sharing.

I have no sympathy for the industry. I wholeheartedly believe that sharing with others is morally wrong - whether family, friends or some random IP address. It's just good to see that the 'consumer' has gained a voice in recent years and is able to fight back.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

New artist may not get much money in the begining, but at least the record company had enough money to support artist for 3 or 4 albums, even if the albums were not selling. Today, those artist get dropped if the first album does not sell because the record company no longer has the money to support and develop artist in the way they did 20 years, hence Bono's statement at the hall of fame awards that U2 would have been dropped after their first or second album in todays environment.

You've repeated this a few times and I thought it should be mentioned that U2 were signed to Island, which while not an indie label, was not one of the mega majors. If they had been signed to EMI or CBS or somesuch, it would have been quite likely they would have been dropped in the 80s. Island was peculiar in that it, and Chris Blackwell, kept supporting them.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Setting minimum pricing is market manipulation at the expense of the consumer.

This just leaves me with no trust of the industry. Okay...file sharing is increasing just at the same time that CD sales are declining, but I would hazard a guess and say that CD sales started to fall a long time before Internet became widely used. I just don't believe the industry when they say that half of the business has gone PURELY down to illegal sharing.

Setting prices is supposed to be illegal because it is a form of monopoly. That is exactly what the record industry is, a monopoly.

I believe that the big companies are upset because their "star" artists aren't being bought because their music is crap.

The large record companies are the ones who are upset with college students and are pushing the RIAA to sue. I haven't heard an indie label that is condeming students from downloading...I would venture a guess that it's because indie labels are doing much better because of downloading. Their artists are being discovered because one kid downloads the album and tells their friends about it. And so, the band gains several fans.

 

[STING2]

My £15/50p argument was a bit extreme. Of course there is value in the softer side of the product. However there was still a lot of people within the industry that we making far too much money for doing sod all. Setting minimum pricing is market manipulation at the expense of the consumer.

This just leaves me with no trust of the industry. Okay...file sharing is increasing just at the same time that CD sales are declining, but I would hazard a guess and say that CD sales started to fall a long time before Internet became widely used. I just don't believe the industry when they say that half of the business has gone PURELY down to illegal sharing.

I have no sympathy for the industry. I wholeheartedly believe that sharing with others is morally wrong - whether family, friends or some random IP address. It's just good to see that the 'consumer' has gained a voice in recent years and is able to fight back.

CD/album sales continued to increase year after year throughout the 1990s and peaked in the year 2000.

Top 10 selling albums in the United States 2006, 2000, and 1996!



2006:

1. High School Musical: 3.72 million
2. Rascal Flatts/Me and My Gang: 3.48 million
3. Carrie Underwood/Some Hearts: 3.02 million
4. Nickelback/All the Right Reasons: 2.69 million
5. Justin Timberlake/Futuresex/Lovesounds: 2.38 million
6. James Blunt/Back to Bedlam: 2.14 million
7. Beyonce/B'day: 2.01 million
8. Hannah Montana: 1.99 million
9. Dixie Chicks/Taking the Long Way: 1.86 million
10. Hinder/Extreme Behavior: 1.82 million



2000:

1. N Sync- No Strings Attached- 9.936.104
2. Eminem- The Marshall Mathers LP- 7.921.107
3. Britney Spears- Oops!...I Did it Again- 7.893.544
4. Creed- Human Clay- 6.587.834
5. Santana- Supernatural- 5.857.824
6. The Beatles- 1- 5.068.300
7. Nelly- Country Grammar- 5.067.529
8. Backstreet Boys- Black and Blue- 4.289.865
9. Dr Dre- 2001- 3.992.311
10. Destiny's Child- The Writing's on the Wall- 3.802.165



1996

1. Jagged Little Pill Alanis Morissette: 7,400,000
2. Falling Into You Celine Dion: 6,000,000
3. The Score The Fugees: 4,500,000
4. Tragic Kingdom No Doubt: 4,400,000
5. Daydream Mariah Carey: 3,000,000
6. All Eyez On Me 2Pac: 3,000,000
7. Load Metallica: 3,000,000
8. Secrets Toni Braxton: 2,900,000
9. The Woman In Me Shania Twain: 2,800,000
10. What’s The Story Morning Glory? Oasis: 2,600,000

 

[STING2]

You've repeated this a few times and I thought it should be mentioned that U2 were signed to Island, which while not an indie label, was not one of the mega majors. If they had been signed to EMI or CBS or somesuch, it would have been quite likely they would have been dropped in the 80s. Island was peculiar in that it, and Chris Blackwell, kept supporting them.

Well, can you provide an example of a "mega major" record company dropping an artist after only one or two albums in the early 1980s?

Island records was Bob Marley's record company, the idea that it was not a big record company is simply false. It may not have been in the top 5, but it was still a big record company and could outsell the artist of any other record company provided it had the right artist with good music.

Island records was a bigger record company than CBS in the early 1980s, at least in the United States. Island records has more gold and platinum records in the United States than CBS from that time period. By the end of the 1980s, Island records had sold more albums in the United States than EMI records had.

Epic records was a huge record company, but they NEVER dropped the Clash despite the fact that the Clash were not able to get even a GOLD record(500,000 sold) in the United States until their 5th album.

 

[STING2]

Setting prices is supposed to be illegal because it is a form of monopoly. That is exactly what the record industry is, a monopoly.

I believe that the big companies are upset because their "star" artists aren't being bought because their music is crap.

The large record companies are the ones who are upset with college students and are pushing the RIAA to sue. I haven't heard an indie label that is condeming students from downloading...I would venture a guess that it's because indie labels are doing much better because of downloading. Their artists are being discovered because one kid downloads the album and tells their friends about it. And so, the band gains several fans.

Well, how would indie labels be able to make money if people are simply downloading their artist for FREE? Most indie artist are not able to stay in the industry. Those that stay on the indie circuit often have to struggle to make ends meet. Most indie artist and indie label people would prefer it if you went to the store and bought the album instead of simply burning their CD from a friend. The Indie scene is a very small part of the market, and fans dedicated to that scene often do go out a buy their favorite artist music to simply keep them afloat. The indie scene represents less than 10% of the industry and is not something the general public gets involved in.

 

[gump]

So, STING2, how would you go about enforcing a download-ban without violating my right to privacy?

 

[trevster2k]

I just don't believe the industry when they say that half of the business has gone PURELY down to illegal sharing.

I agree 100%. Is file sharing having an effect, certainly, but not to the degree the companies are arguing.

There are many factors affecting the industry which they fail to consider. Like most issues, there are many variables involved. Simply blaming only filesharing is laziness by an industry which refuses to change its' business model and adapt to new technology and stop ripping off artists. If this is the best they got as a solution to stop shrinking sales, they will fail.

Society has changed along with people's desire for music. MTV and Muchmusic originally were music video networks but that market has disappeared. Music videos on those channels are a novelty now. This all happened before Youtube. Why? Who knows? Did people suddenly not want to watch music videos? Did they not like music anymore? Or did they find something better to do with leisure time? Giant home stereos with massive speaker towers used to be the luxury item in a person's house. Not any more, it's the home theatre system with a screen as big as a wall. Consumer demands shift from time to time. There is no magic bullet to explain consumer behaviour hence the challenges facing companies year after year.

 

[Angela Harlem]

STING for God's sake, please write Artists. It's not singular. You're causing me an injury!

 

[U2Kitten]

Now YouTube is being targeted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_hi_te/viacom_youtube_lawsuit

I SO saw this coming a 100 miles away. I'm surprised it took so long. It was just too cool. But again, people watch way more stuff on there than they'd ever buy or be able to buy, so it's not like every single view is 'stealing.' Most of that stuff can't even be obtained in a store, and if you can, it's over 30 bucks. Most people realistically aren't going to buy hundreds of videos to see one little clip, and the ones who do buy are going to regardless. This really sucks. (not that my computer can even play videos without freezing up but it sucks for everbody.) I am sure this will mean the end of everything but homemade videos. And what about people doing their own videos to real songs in the background? Will they be sued too?

 

[Liesje]

The real sign of this policy's impotence: Who here is going to stop downloading because of this article? My guess---no one.

Right on.

I've been issued a pretty harsh Cease and Desist by the RIAA before and I still d/l music and torrent movies. Downloading capabilities have not really changed my buying habits. I still buy the albums I really like, and before I was into downloading, I would burn copies of friend's CDs if there was only a song or two I cared for.

 

[Diemen]

Now YouTube is being targeted.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_hi_te/viacom_youtube_lawsuit

I SO saw this coming a 100 miles away. I'm surprised it took so long. It was just too cool. But again, people watch way more stuff on there than they'd ever buy or be able to buy, so it's not like every single view is 'stealing.' Most of that stuff can't even be obtained in a store, and if you can, it's over 30 bucks. Most people realistically aren't going to buy hundreds of videos to see one little clip, and the ones who do buy are going to regardless. This really sucks. (not that my computer can even play videos without freezing up but it sucks for everbody.) I am sure this will mean the end of everything but homemade videos. And what about people doing their own videos to real songs in the background? Will they be sued too?

This is where the pro-RIAA stance falls apart in regards to copies of equal/lesser quality. If there was no problem with taping off the radio, then there should be no problem posting on YouTube, because the video quality on YouTube is mediocre at best.

 

[anitram]

This has gotten so out of control because the record companies were completely unwilling to deal with market reality when downloading started. They buried their heads in the sand and patently refused to adjust to the impact of digital music. Had they been more savvy, had they come up with something like iTunes and charged 20 cents a song rather than $1 back then, or offered cheap monthly unlimited subscription services, maybe everything would have been different. But because they elected to stay dinosaurs, they will now never be able to curtail their losses.

They have lost this battle and lost this war. There is nothing to be done - you cannot seriously sue this many individuals, it would be not only cost ineffective, but a perversion of the justice system. You could tighten IP laws, but our courts these days are recognizing the individual's right to privacy far more than in the past, and the judicial climate is not such that will permit intrusive measures in order to identify illegal downloaders. As well they shouldn't, if you ask me.