RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading - Page 6 - 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, 12:52 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


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.
I just don't see how such big falls in people buying cds can't hurt an artist. Not all of them are rich like Bono and Beyonce. Not lashing out, just don't understand how someone would not be losing out somewhere.
__________________

__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 01:26 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,927
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Man
http://www.gloriousnoise.com/feature..._fan-04-04.php
Nice article, U2Man. Who should we give money once we get a leak of the next U2 album?
__________________

__________________
gump is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 01:35 PM   #78
Refugee
 
adrball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nightclub in Tripoli
Posts: 1,733
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Anyone know what the trend was for sales CDs in say the 3 years before internet sharing became feasible?
__________________
adrball is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 02:17 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
gump's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 7,927
Local Time: 05:05 AM
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

Quote:


Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says
By John Borland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: March 29, 2004, 3:58 PM PST

A study of file-sharing's effects on music sales says online music trading appears to have had little part in the recent slide in CD sales.

For the study, released Monday, researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina tracked music downloads over 17 weeks in 2002, matching data on file transfers with actual market performance of the songs and albums being downloaded. Even high levels of file-swapping seemed to translate into an effect on album sales that was "statistically indistinguishable from zero," they wrote.

"We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," the study's authors wrote. "While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing."

The study, the most detailed economic modeling survey to use data obtained directly from file-sharing networks, is sure to rekindle debates over the effects of widely used software such as Kazaa or Morpheus on an ailing record business.

Big record labels have seen their sales slide precipitously in the past several years, and have blamed the falling revenue in large part on rampant free music downloads online. Others have pointed to additional factors, such as lower household spending during the recession, and increased competition from other entertainment forms such as DVDs and video games, each of which have grown over the same time period.

Executives at file-sharing companies welcomed the survey, saying it should help persuade reluctant record company executives to use peer-to-peer networks as distribution channels for music

"We welcome sound research into the developing peer-to-peer industry, and this study appears to have covered some interesting ground," said Nikki Hemming, chief executive officer of Kazaa parent Sharman Networks. "Consider the possibilities if the record industry actually cooperated with companies like us instead of fighting."

The study, performed by Harvard Business School associate professor Felix Oberholzer and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill associate professor Koleman Strumpf, used logs from two OpenNap servers in late 2002 to observe about 1.75 million downloads over their 17 week sample period.

That sample revealed interesting behavioral, as well as economic, data. Researchers found that the average user logged in only twice during that period, downloading about 17 songs. Some people vastly overshot that average, however--one user apparently logged in 71 times, downloading more than 5,000 songs.

The two professors narrowed their sample base by choosing a random sample of 500 albums from the sales charts of various music genres, and then compared the sales of these albums to the number of associated downloads.

Even in the most pessimistic version of their model, they found that it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD, the authors wrote. Despite the huge scale of downloading worldwide, that would be only a tiny contribution to the overall slide in album sales over the past several years, they said.

Moreover, their data seemed to show that downloads could even have a slight positive effect on the sales of the top albums, the researchers said.

The study is unlikely to be the last word on the issue. Previous studies have been released showing that file sharing had both positive and negative effects on music sales.

The Recording Industry Association of America was quick to dismiss the results as inconsistent with earlier findings.

"Countless well-respected groups and analysts, including Edison Research, Forrester, and the University of Texas, among others, have all determined that illegal file sharing has adversely impacted the sales of CDs," RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss said in a statement. "Our own surveys show that those who are downloading more are buying less."

I wonder if their "own surveys" have the same credibility as those of big tobacco companies showing that nicotine is harmless!
__________________
gump is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 04:23 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 06:35 AM
What is the reasonable expected number of cd purchases per year by a single person? 12, 24, 30? I ask this because if the RIAA thinks that 52 cds per person per year is reasonable, they are crazy. Even at my peak of buying music in the 80's, I would only buy one 2 records a month, at most. Mainly cause I didn't have the money. I also adapted a 3 song minimum rule if I wasn't familiar with the artist. After buying so many records based on a hit single and realizing the rest of the songs were junk, I only buy music from my favourite artists. The others only get my money if they have 3 good songs on their cd otherwise no sale. I have passed this suggestion on to younger people like many of my age group after being burned too often.

Does RIAA account for digital music sales, independent labels and/or sales directly from artists? If the RIAA and their distribution method were the only game in town, this attempt to dissuade file sharing might be effective but they have no leverage anymore. If anything, it could lead to a further decline in sales. I haven't bought a Metallica product since Lars started whining years ago.

I have downloaded lots of music, and promptly erased lots of it too cause it sucked. I bought about 25 cds last year but I am in my thirties and live in an isolated community with only two radio stations, one of which is CBC so my exposure to music is limited. I also prefer independently produced music. So this probably affects my purchase decisions. Also, I only purchase my cds via the web as our local stores is this small community sell cds starting at $21. Hmm, I wonder who is getting that profit, hardly the artists, I have never bought a cd locally.

Another aspect which has changed over the years is the medium itself. No one buys cd players anymore, so why buy a cd. Plus with all this DRM protection on a cd preventing the transfer of music to a digital mp3 player, it a huge turnoff for someone to buy the cd. If they want people to buy more cds, they have to make cds special. Albums used to have a unexplainable quality which made collectors cherish the actual album. You had to be careful with it, baby it so you didn't scratch it and the artwork was big and impressive. It was a culture of being an audiophile and people took pride in their album collections. Cds don't have this aura about them unless they add extras like autographed cds, a chance to win a free ticket to a concert, bonus concert dvds, and so on. Get innovative or die.

Even if they are successful in preventing the filesharing of music files which I doubt will ever be possible. I think there are too many factors affecting the slide in sales of the traditional recording industry. If they are not willing to address and adapt to the changing economic climate in which there are a multitude of new competitors for the consumer's entertainment dollar, they will never turn it around. DVDs, digital cameras, ipods, laptops, videogames and cellphones have all drawn revenue away from the music industry. Music used to the main technology for young people to spend in past years, actually it was practically the only thing. Now walk into a Best Buy and it is only a small part of the store, just a tiny piece of the entertainment puzzle as opposed to being the dominant piece.

It also appears that it is now cool or the "in thing" to show disdain for the big business of music. Thanks to the internet and technology, artists can record at home, market themselves via the web and the video medium is practically dead anyway so they don't necessarily need a heavily funded video either. Will artists who take this road have 10 million sales in a single record, probably not. But in today's world, I doubt there will be very many of these any more. The days of writing that one big hit record and sitting on your ass living off royalties are disappearing. Being a successful artist seems to be heading in the direction of a traditional job where one has to continually work all the time to earn a living. Attention spans of the public are very short now and if you leave the scene for too long, you may lose or outgrow your audience. The diversity of music is greater now then it has ever been. No single type of music dominates society anymore. Musicians have also begun to realize how the traditional contract with record companies work and figured why should others make more money from their talents then themselves. The recent payola scandal involving major record labels paying to promote certain artists doesn't help their image either. Music has changed in more ways than just file sharing.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:32 PM   #81
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:05 PM
I don't understand the lack of acknowledging the 2 definite sides to this issue. Support of one argument need not void the opposing view. I reckon there's definite truth in both.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 07:54 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 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.
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:01 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball


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.



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.
I'm talking about the largest market for music on the planet, which is the United States. Students have been paying University fees in the United States for over a century.

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.

Sure, people will naturally spend their money on other products and services when they can now obtain a certain product or service for FREE!!!!!

There are few business's on this planet that could successfully adapt to a sudden 50% decrease in sales in only a few years. The fact is, there is still no way to stop people from obtaining music for free, so the market continues to decline. The only thing the record industry can do in response is continue to protect the business which means stores and employees have to be cut, and attempt to find ways to stop people from obtaining the product for free.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:04 PM   #84
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by adrball
Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.

That's like judging the cost of a picasso by the cost of the canvas.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:15 PM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten


THAT is piracy, and that's who they should be going after, not those who keep it for their own use.



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.



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!
In 2001, the whole file sharing, CD burning and downloading issue was in its early stages. At the Hall Of Fame in 2005, Bono explained that U2 would have been dropped after their first or second album in todays music climate. Record companies are no longer making enough money to support and help artist develop in the industry over a number of years. You could continue to support artist for a number of years with little or no return on the investment because money was still being made in other area's, but today that is no longer the case, and new artist are struggling to make it in the industry.

U2 struggled in the industry back when there was more money available to support bands for 3 to 4 albums, even if the return on that investment was small. As I said before, U2 barely made it back to Ireland after the October tour and were completely broke once they did make it back. Edge's wedding at the end of the War Tour was payed by his father in law. All of this back when the record industry was healthy. The point is, the vast majority of artist, and virtually all new artist are NOT SWIMMING IN MONEY!

The ability to obtain new artist music for free deny's that new artist money that could be used to support the bands further development in the industry. New artist who are not selling are dependent on the support from money made from the sales of top artist. If top artist are selling less, than new artist that are not selling simply get dropped, which is what would have happened to U2 if they had come out today rather than in 1980.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:34 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


In 2001, the whole file sharing, CD burning and downloading issue was in its early stages. At the Hall Of Fame in 2005, Bono explained that U2 would have been dropped after their first or second album in todays music climate.
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.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:40 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
Laura M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 18,932
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten

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.
I agree with you. There isn't really a difference, it's just the more modern way of doing it.

I assume the problem is that people now download a lot, lot more than people ever taped from the radio. It only takes a few minutes to download an entire album and they're all readily available.
__________________
Laura M is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:40 PM   #88
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That's like judging the cost of a picasso by the cost of the canvas.
it's not really, as the price of cds remains relatively (or comparitively) steady whereas art prices depend on the quality of the work in determining value.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 08:50 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by gump
http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html



I wonder if their "own surveys" have the same credibility as those of big tobacco companies showing that nicotine is harmless!
1. The study in the article was done in 2002, 5 YEARS AGO, and long before the numbers of file sharing, CD burning and other free ways of obtaining music had reached the current level.

2. Their sample was far from being large enough to accurately predict or estimate the impact of multiple ways of obtaining music for free.

3. Here is a comparison of album sales for chart positions between ever 10 places on the chart from #1 to #200. The first chart positions are from a week in March 2002 while the second chart positions are from a week in January 2007! The difference in sales is rather obvious.



The first number is the albums chart position that week on the chart, followed by the name of the artist, then the title of the album, and then the number copies of the album that were sold during that week:



Week Ending 03/24/02

1 * VARIOUS ARTISTS|NOW 419284
10 PINK|MISSUNDAZTOOD 71269
20 BLIGE*MARY J.|NO MORE DRAMA 54226
30 * FAT JOE|JEALOUS ONES STILL ENV 38928
40 RESIDENT EVIL|SOUNDTRACK 30434
50 DESTINY'S CHILD|THIS IS THE RE 25587
60 INCUBUS|MORNING VIEW 21453
70 * COYOTE UGLY|SOUNDTRACK 18867
80 * MAXWELL|NOW 16726
90 WYATT*KEKE|SOUL SISTA 15150
100 LOPEZ*JENNIFER|J. LO 13483
110 STONE*ANGIE|MAHOGANY SOUL 12036
120 * GRATEFUL DEAD|POSTCARDS OF THE 11435
130 NELLY|COUNTRY GRAMMAR 10807
140 RODRIGUEZ*DANIE|SPIRIT OF AMER 9579
150 BOCELLI*ANDREA|CIELI DI TOSCAN 8672
160 MORE FAST & THE|SOUNDTRACK 8241
170 PHANTOM PLANET|GUEST, THE 7580
180 MCCLURKIN*DONNI|LIVE IN LONDON 7149
190 FONSI*LUIS|AMOR SECRETO 6636
200 THOMSON*CYNDI|MY WORLD 6327





Week Ending 01/27/07

1 DREAMGIRLS SOUNDTRACK 60,064
10 NICKELBACK ALL THE RIGHT REASONS 35,423
20 CIARA EVOLUTION 28,825
30 SNOOP DOGG BLUE CARPET TREATMENT 23,202
40 30 SECONDS TO MARS BEAUTIFUL LIE 17,419
50 SNOW PATROL EYES OPEN 14,872
60 TRICK DADDY BACK BY THUG DEMAND 12,815
70 SPEKTOR*REGINA BEGIN TO HOPE 10,825
80 WOW HITS WOW HITS 2007 8,993
90 SHINY TOY GUNS WE ARE PILOTS 8,172
100 TUPAC PAC'S LIFE 7,621
110 GNARLS BARKLEY ST. ELSEWHERE 6,985
120 CRUNK HITS CRUNK HITS VOL. 3 6,400
130 BREAKING BENJAMIN PHOBIA 5,941
140 RIHANNA GIRL LIKE ME 5,534
150 RACONTEURS BROKEN BOY SOLDIERS 5,130
160 ROCKY BALBOA: BEST OF ROCKY 4,924
170 MANILOW*BARRY GREATEST SONGS OF THE SIXTIES 4,648
180 BOCELLI*ANDREA AMORE 4,253
190 OK GO OH NO 4,021
200 VARIOUS 15 YEARS ON DEATH ROW 3,743



As one can see from comparing these two charts roughly five years apart, sales have declined at ever level by around 40% to 50% from 2002. If a comparison had been done with a week in early 2000, the drop would be 50% to 60%!

In 2007, the US economy has unemployment near record lows, wage increases, relatively low inflation, and strong GDP growth. The economy is in fantastic shape, only a couple of years in the 1990s were better. In fact, in 2002 the economy was still trying to recover from a recession, the effects of 9/11 and unemployment levels that were more than 50% higher than they are today. Despite a weaker economic environment, album sales were double of what they are today.

Finally, the record buying population is the largest that it has ever been in the history of the United States. Given the fact the economy is nearly as strong as it has ever been, how could album sales be down by nearly 50% in five years?!?!?

The only logical answer is that people have found ways to obtain music quickly for free and they simply do not have to buy the music that they want anymore.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 03-11-2007, 09:08 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 04:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


it's not really, as the price of cds remains relatively (or comparitively) steady whereas art prices depend on the quality of the work in determining value.
Ok true. But my point is that you aren't buying the piece of plastic, you're buying the music.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 05:05 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