RIAA site hacked - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-14-2003, 11:33 AM   #46
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 03:32 PM
STING2, the Artists are going to continue to make music and they'll continue to make money one way or another, even as file sharing proliferates. The market is evolving.

Are you concerned that recorded music is going to disappear from the face of the Earth?

The folks at the RIAA simply haven't pulled their heads out of the arses yet and instead of trying to figure out how to adapt to the changing market they're making their last gasp attempt to stop the evolution. Ain't gonna happen.









------------------------------------
Stamp out "silliness"
__________________

__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:38 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
I'll state it to you again, people are downloading and then burning CDs instead of going to the store to purchase the product.

There have been some interesting examples that File Sharing has helped to promote a band and I'm sure that is true in a few cases currently. What I'm talking about is what will the NET effect be in 10 or 20 years time? The number of people with High speed internet access, CD burners, and file sharing software will grow significantly more than it is today.

If one can then throught that process get undegraded music, there will be no reason for them to go and purchase it at the store. If it is slightly degraded but in general sounds the same, the effect could still be the same.

When home taping came out, I never heard of anyone declaring they would never desire to buy records or tapes in the stores. Today with CD burning and File Sharing, there are loads of people who have stated to me that they have largely stopped buying compact disk. A trickle today, can well be a flood in this direction tomorrow.

Bonoman,

I can't explain why Compact Disk are so much cheaper in Canada than the USA except that it looks like the music business like to equate the US dollar to the Canadian dollar in terms of pricing. 14-18 dollars Canadian is about what the # price would be in the USA. Problem is the Canadian Dollar is not worth as much. This same thing has happened with U2 concert tickets in Canada. Their not priced correctly in comparison to American prices. Their either the same or lower when they should be higher because the Canadian dollar is weaker.

The lower price might stem from the fact that doing any type of business in Canada including promotion and distribution, and renting out Arena's and Stadiums, is also cheaper in Canada. When you overhead cost are cheaper at every level, then the price at the check out counter will be lower. Some of it has to also do with Demand in Canada for Compact Disk. Similar pricing to the USA adjusted for the currency rate may have been a failure in the past. Those that work in the USA but live in Canada have it made!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:45 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Pub Crawler,

Not that it would disappear completely but the effect would be to ruin the industry to a degree that many artist never ever become known to the public or decide to not pursue a career because the chances of succeeding dramatically decline because the ability to make a profit has been damaged.

By the way its not historically true that Artist only made money when they tour. Tours are expensive and back in the early 80s the average price of a ticket was only around 10 dollars. Most world tour would lose money. Again only the top artist would make serious money from touring, just like only the top artist get the high royalty rates.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:54 AM   #49
War Child
 
Cow of the Seas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Njosnavelin
Posts: 834
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie
Fiel-sharing DOES lead to many people buying more music. I wouldn't have 90% of the cds I own if I hadn't been able to download a copy first. Most of the music I listen to is foreign, and the albums are released six to twelve months later in the US, if at all. Instead of paying $25+ to order it from overseas, I download it and burn it to CD. Then I buy it when it's finally released in the US. Why do I buy the CDs at all? Because I like liner notes, and because I like the bands enough to contribute to their album sales in the US. I love music, and it's aesthetic to own a real CD, just as a lot of music fans also buy releases on vinyl.

I also would not have gone to ANY of the dozens of concerts I went to last year and spent hundreds of dollars on merchandise if it hadn't been for file-sharing.
YES! exactly. i would NEVER have gotten into these bands if it werent for mp3s.

1. radiohead
2. pink floyd
3. sigur ros
4. beck

ok thats just four i could think of, but i also bought doves and coldplay and pretty much all the music i buy is from what ive downloaded first.

i will download mp3's till the cows come home. im going to load my computer with albums and albums worth of material, i dont give two shits about the recording industry. if they stopped with the shit they push theyd learn their approach is wrong.
__________________
those evil natured robots
theyre programed to destroy us
she gotta be strong to fight them
so shes taking lots of vitamins
cause she knows that
it be tragic
if those evil robots win
Cow of the Seas is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 05:33 PM   #50
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Sting -- your argument about CD prices is a waste of time so stop using it. In 1987, I'm sure Joshua Tree cost $15. But a CD player at the time cost $500. Its not only inflation, its also supply and demand and the adoption of new technology. If you want to compare prices, compare the price of an $8 tape in 1987 to the price of a CD now. That's a 60% increase in price in 15 years. If economic inflation was at 60% over 15 years, we would have SERIOUS economic problems.

You can buy CDs for $10. Go to Disc-o-rama, the best record store in NYC where new CDs are only $10. And they are legit, liner notes and all. Its possible.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 06:23 PM   #51
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:32 PM
i totally agree sharky...a record store could offer a lower price same with the MI. They might not be making as much money but thats what happens in the real world...why should they be exemt.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 06:28 PM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
You bring up a good point with Supply and Demand. Certainly, the price has matched demand for past decade or so. Its only the last two years that CD sales have fallen. Some say its the lack of quality, others like me believe that the proliferation of file sharing and CD burners is a major contributing factor. The ability to get music for free has certainly reduced the demand for any music that one has to pay for, just as it would with any product or service.

Compact Disk have never been the same price as cassettes. Cassettes by 1991 were on average 11 dollars. I don't know about 1987, but I can assure you that I got a multiple disk changer Compact Disk for less than 200 dollars back in 1988 and a friend got a Compact Disk Walkman for less than 100 dollars.


Your assertion that 60% inflation would mean that we would be in trouble is false. I did caculate the cost of Joshua Tree Stadium tickets in 1987 and did the inflation math with each years annual inflation from 1987 to 2002. The result was a U2 Joshua Tree ticket at 19.50 in 1987 was a little over 30 dollars in 2002. That means that inflation from 1987 to 2002 is in general a little over 50%. Ok, not as high as 60%, but close enough.

But, your caculation of a 60% increase for an 8 dollar tape is wrong. If you were to equate the 8 dollar tape in 1987 with the 20 dollar Compact Disk in 2002, that is actually a 150% increase in price. I actually don't have cassette prices for 1987, but know they were 11 dollars by 1991.

Compact Disk are cheaper today than they were 15 years ago. I'd argue that their cheaper than they were 10 years ago when records were gone and cassettes were being pushed to the back. I have not done a caculation yet that would exactly show the difference in prices between 1992 and 2002 yet.

At best, you might be able to make an arguement that Compact Disk are overpriced by 4 or 5 dollars if you want to make them the equal of cassettes. I don't make that equation and think that at most Compact Disk are overpriced by about 1 or 2 dollars if at all.

If you can really get an album like ATYCLB for only 10 dollars(in the first 2 years of release) without it being a special sale or anything, realize the retailer is making little if any money selling it. U2 currently takes in 25% of the suggested retail price, in the USA for ATYCLB, of around 20 dollars. The 5 "corporate" members of U2 get about a buck each off the top. Then comes the charges for producers, engineers, record company, and anyone else that gets a cut before the album makes it to your local retailer.

After an album has been out for more than two years, many artist in the past gave their albums to record clubs at a reduced rate, with the artist recieving a reduced royalty rate as well. This gives retailers and others a better chance making good profit from and album that continues to sell well beyond its initial promotion or 2 year period of release. This would definite help explain some of the low prices at some retail outlets with slightly older or old product. At 10 dollars for a new U2 album, I'd estimate the retailer is making pennies if anything at all.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 07:07 PM   #53
Refugee
 
bonoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Edmonton, Canada- Charlestown, Ireland
Posts: 1,398
Local Time: 03:32 PM
well for the fact that cds are much cheaper to make then cassetes it should be cheaper.

U2 take 25% of the suggested sales price...well simple lower the SSP. Listen all this is about is bottom line and the fact is that ppl in the MI are overpayed and if they were to have to take a pay cut then thats something they must accpet. We make say 50000 a year (if we are lucky) they make 10 million. Well i'm sorry but maybe the demand used to be there but it isnt anymore and for them to just jump up and down crying isnt going to do anything. Pay cuts happen and if you ask me within the next few years we will all see entertainers (music, TV, movies) and athletes taking pay cuts. The NFl allready has a cap, NHL looks to be going that way and maybe they should introduce that in the entertainment bus.
__________________
bonoman is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 07:50 PM   #54
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Sting,

I agree that the $11 tape in '87 is the same as the $17 CD in '03, *but* you cannot tell me that the cost of making a tape is the same as the cost of making a CD. It takes a few cents to make a compact disk these days, especially when they are being produced in such prolific quantities. The record companies are wasting huge amounts of money on senseless marketing and promotion and then pass that cost on to the consumers. So I should pay for Britney Spears', J Lo' s, Aguilera's, and boy bands' marketing?? No way.

And if all that money is not going to marketing, you are going to tell me that it costs that much to sell a CD for a decent profit?? Someone is surely getting rich off of the current prices. Whether it is the artist, record executive, or middle-man, the consumer is being charged too much and the advent of online music is showing that people are less likely to buy a CD with crap music on it and are demading better value.

Think about it this way: why do movies on DVD and audio CD's cost the same amount of money? Are you going to tell me that studio time costs as much as a full scale movie production? Yet the retail price is about the same. Why is that? Yes, I have already considered that they charged for the $8 movie ticket. Regardless of how much a movie makes, though, the DVD prices are relatively constant.

Could it be that the music business is keeping more of the profit than they really need to? Sounds likely to me.


AJ
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 07:55 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
This is a business remember. U2 has every right to decide how much they want to be payed for its albums and concert tickets just as I have every right to charge what ever I feel is appropriate for products or services I produce myself. Its the option of the consumer of course to not purchase my product. It should not be the option of the consumer to duplicate and distribute my product for free if it damages my business.

Remember this is business and there is no such thing as being overpayed. The market in general decides how much people will make. If the proliferation of free product damages the Music business to a certain degree in the future, then we will be less likely to get to know talented artist or the next U2. Such artist or the next U2 will be less likely to pursue a music career and more likely to keep it as hobby that only their friends and maybe a few people in their local area will know about.

If the pie of money thats available shrinks its the up and coming acts that will suffer the most. The record companies will cling to their veterans who continue to sell. They will have less money to risk on the next U2. In fact, if such a situation had existed 25 years ago, I doubt any record companies would be going to Dublin to sign a new band. Few did it back then, and with less money there is no way any would of considered it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 08:14 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Hawk269,

This is business and who are you or I to decide what is "needed". How would you like it if someone came in and cut your salary in half and told you it was because you did not need it. The Market decides the value of the product.

Is it wrong for U2 to ask 4 to 5 dollars per album sold? Do you have any Idea how much promotion cost in a hundred different countries around the planet? If you think its to expensive don't buy it. But who are you or anyone to decide how much someone sells their product for? Who are we to decide how much an artist charges for their product? Did you ever think about artist who only sell a few thousand copies of an album?

Again we live in a free market economy where the market determines the price of anything. I don't think you would like the planned economy of the Soviet Union where prices were "fixed" and people rather than a market attempted to determine what people should make.

Don't hold artist to a standard that you don't hold yourself or anyone else that owns their own business or sales their own products. If I decide to sell anything I own, I'll sell it for what ever amount of money I think the market can bare. Thats business.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 09:07 PM   #57
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Sting,

I am just describing the reality of the situation here. People want better prices or a better value for their money. You are defending the right of the people to determine these prices and, as a result, the fate of the record industry. Of course they have that right. I agree with that completely. Yet it will be the consumers who refuse to pay $20 for a CD with only one good song on it when they can download it instead.

So, when the record companies cry foul, maybe they should look in the mirror instead of blaming Napster and Kazaa. Maybe it is time to find some real talent - diverse artists with several good songs, who can tour and play well live. Maybe it is time to stop promoting bands like O-Town and N'Sync. The market is not willing to pay for one-hit wonders as much anymore and there is not a damn thing record companies can do about it.

As far as holding anyone to a standard, I will let the market determine the fate of these greedy bastards. They will get theirs when people stop buying their crap and it will signal the end of a corporate controlled oligopoly, which is today's music business. There's no need for price fixing when our market is perfectly capable of spoiling their party.

I don't want a planned economy. I look at online music as total freedom of choice in music. The challenge is for the industry to add more value to their current offering to justify the current prices.

Last, since when does art have to be a big business? Whether U2 would be around today if they did not have the incentive of being rich is pure conjecture on your part. I think they loved to play music, right from the start. The money was the gravy.

AJ
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:06 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
U2 may be around today, but its the record business that you have to thank for a big part of knowing who they are. There are a lot of people in the business that worked very hard against the odds to help U2 break worldwide. Besides incentive there are often financial obstacles and other promotion task that are to difficult for a garage band to overcome without record company support.

As the reason why there have been negative Compact Disk sales the past two years, I think the proliferation of file sharing and CD Burning is playing a huge role. I could make the same questions about the overall quality of music 5 years ago, yet 5 years ago the music business was booming.

I think that when people can get a desired product for free, its going to have a damaging impact on that business that is trying to sell the product no matter what the circumstances are.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:11 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
How would you like it if someone came in and cut your salary in half and told you it was because you did not need it.
Now this brings me back to the 1980s...



Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-14-2003, 11:18 PM   #60
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Hope it wasn't a personal experience.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 05:32 PM.


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