RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

[STING2]

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[adrball]

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.

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.

 

[hughfan_1]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Chris Martin]

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.

 

[U2Man]

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!

 

[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

 

[Laura M]

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.

 

[U2Man]

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]

http://www.gloriousnoise.com/features/2004/just_a_fan-04-04.php

 

[toscano]

I don't like the price of gas, they're making too much profit, it must be ok to steal gas......

 

[U2Kitten]

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.

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.

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!

 

[Laura M]

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.

 

[gump]

http://www.gloriousnoise.com/features/2004/just_a_fan-04-04.php

Nice article, U2Man. Who should we give money once we get a leak of the next U2 album?

 

[adrball]

Anyone know what the trend was for sales CDs in say the 3 years before internet sharing became feasible?

 

[gump]

http://news.com.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

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!

 

[trevster2k]

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.

 

[Angela Harlem]

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.

 

[STING2]

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]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

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.

 

[Laura M]

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.

 

[Angela Harlem]

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.

 

[STING2]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.