illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[norsehorse23]

Radiohead did it the way that should happen in the future... have an internet only release first, then put the hardcopy on the shelves after a few weeks or a month. Of course, they weren't under the contract of a record company. As for illegal downloaders, like someone else said, to each his own, but don't complain when the legal system goes after you for doing something that is legally wrong. I agree that the record industry is really greedy and some of these artists are being really self-righteous (like Lars from Metallica over Napster), but it comes down to the fact that for every Metallica, there are dozens of struggling artists that can't survive without their actual record sales or legal downloads. I know that concert gigs are the real cash cows for artists, but if they are under contract with a record company, who cover the cost of releasing and recording an album, if they don't sell anything, then they are left on the street to fend for themselves. A compromise should be met here, but let's face it, and leave ethical and moral arguments outside of it, if you do download things illegally, it's still illegal. I'd love for music to be free for the listener, and if I were a recording artist that had some financial security, I wouldn't really care so long as my music was reaching new audiences. I first need that financial security before I wouldn't care. CD prices have gotten too expensive, and this is what it's really all about... Itunes and the like are relatively fair in terms of price compared to what it costs on the shelves. Also, there is the reality that things do get more expensive over time, it's called a basic cost of living increase, and that applies to everything we buy or thing we need. Same with recording and releasing costs.

In terms of a solution, like I said, let's have a compromise. How about live bootlegs made readily available for free... that way artists that do need the financial backing for recording and whatnot still get their real sales, and yet gain an additional following for their ability to play live. It would also fill the craving that we U2 fans or Radiohead fans want for concert recordings that aren't easy to get without going through back channels.

 

[hiphop]

radiohead doing what they did was a symbol and a middle finger to globalisation

apparently you think rejecting the 6 million $ advance of their record company (because they wanted more advance and more rights) was a symbol against globalisation?

lol. wake up. why did they even talk to EMI then?

at a point they were just getting tired of negotiations and pulled out by doing the second best thing, releasing it this way and getting enormous publicity.

btw, they didn´t tell the CD would be in stores too.

"Fans who downloaded the label-bypassing seventh studio album by the British stars quickly learned that there were a few caveats to the donation-based download. First, the sound quality is not necessarily optimum, encoded at a bit rate of 160 kbps (kilobits per second), lower than Radiohead's earlier albums (though higher than a standard iTunes track download). (...)

Second, Radiohead's management also confirmed that a physical CD of In Rainbows will hit shelves sometime in January, possibly with extra songs.

In an interview last week with British trade magazine Music Week, Radiohead's longtime managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, acknowledged that the download offer was a piece of a larger puzzle to generate more publicity for the CD release. "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said."

Here´s the article:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-10-15-radiohead-download_N.htm

 

[BVS]

Just because I can afford something or think it is "reasonable" doesn't mean it is fairly priced.
Prices *should* be a function of cost, not a function of seeing how much people will pay.

This is ridiculous. We're not talking about a shovel here. Yes if we were talking about a physical object, one that has a limited life your theory of cost would mean something, but we are still talking about art here.

 

[BVS]

So why are people defending this kind of garbage U2 or anyone else out there knows that if someone is a fan they will buy it and if they aren't they won't..

But this isn't true. What are you basing this on? There are many fans in here that I may not admit it, but I can guarantee you haven't bought all the U2 music they have in their iPods.

So as much as some of these people make you sick because they are "defending the corporations", what you're defending is just as despicable because eventually it screws over the artist.

 

[xaviMF22]

(because they wanted more advance

apparently not

all they wanted is more rights to their catalog which EMI wouldn't allow

 

[xaviMF22]

Second, Radiohead's management also confirmed that a physical CD of In Rainbows will hit shelves sometime in January, possibly with extra songs.

of course that didn't happen

 

[Copy]

Also, there is the reality that things do get more expensive over time, it's called a basic cost of living increase, and that applies to everything we buy or thing we need. Same with recording and releasing costs.

Since you aren't talking about inflation here, your assertion is false.

The vast majority of things get less expensive over time, seeing as production costs go down with the invention of new technology. Same goes for music, which is why it is absolutely despicable that you have to pay almost the same, if not more, for 12 songs encoded with a shitty bit-rate on itunes than you do for a lossless physical cd. the distribution costs in the former case is practically zero.

If itunes-songs were reasonable priced and encoded with a proper-bitrate, I don't think people would bother trying to obtain their music illegally.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

just out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable bitrate to justify $0.99 a track?

 

[BVS]

Since you aren't talking about inflation here, your assertion is false.

The vast majority of things get less expensive over time, seeing as production costs go down with the invention of new technology. Same goes for music, which is why it is absolutely despicable that you have to pay almost the same, if not more, for 12 songs encoded with a shitty bit-rate on itunes than you do for a lossless physical cd. the distribution costs in the former case is practically zero.

If itunes-songs were reasonable priced and encoded with a proper-bitrate, I don't think people would bother trying to obtain their music illegally.

I'm baffled where some of you are coming up with your theories.

So if the proper -bitrate was there they wouldn't take the free one... Suuuuuurrre.

And the poster is right art and entertainment always rise with the cost of living, doesn't matter how much easier it is to distribute.

 

[Copy]

So if the proper -bitrate was there they wouldn't take the free one... Suuuuuurrre.

Now you're the one making up theories. When you obtain it illegally you have no idea of how many times it has been re-encoded. You can't be sure of the quality. Itunes or other legal sellers have a huge advantage here. Sadly, they don't take advantage of it but do they exact opposite by offering the music encoded in hilarious bit-rates.

And the poster is right art and entertainment always rise with the cost of living, doesn't matter how much easier it is to distribute.

But the cost of living is declining.

 

[BVS]

Now you're the one making up theories. When you obtain it illegally you have no idea of how many times it has been re-encoded. You can't be sure of the quality. Itunes or other legal sellers have a huge advantage here. Sadly, they don't take advantage of it but do they exact opposite by offering the music encoded in hilarious bit-rates.

But most won't care about bit-rates, especially if they are just listening to it on their Mp3 players.

But the cost of living is declining.

Where do you live? You pay less for a movie than you did 3 years ago? You pay less for rent than you did 3 years ago? I want to move there.

 

[Copy]

Where do you live? You pay less for a movie than you did 3 years ago? You pay less for rent than you did 3 years ago? I want to move there.

How much computer power do you get today for $1000 compared to 10 years ago? or just last year?

 

[Copy]

But most won't care about bit-rates.

Of course they will, if they're genuinely interested in music.

 

[phanan]

Where do you live? You pay less for a movie than you did 3 years ago? You pay less for rent than you did 3 years ago? I want to move there.

I think a better comparison is with technology. DVDs cost less than they did when they first came out. Blank media costs less than it did when it first came out. Hardware and software cost less than they did when they first came out.

Why do CDs cost more then?

 

[BVS]

How much computer power do you get today for $1000 compared to 10 years ago? or just last year?

How much more computer do you buy today compared to 10 years ago?

That's not considered cost of living.

 

[BVS]

I think a better comparison is with technology. DVDs cost less than they did when they first came out. Blank media costs less than it did when it first came out. Hardware and software cost less than they did when they first came out.

Why do CDs cost more then?

First of all, you shouldn't even be considering blank media. You aren't buying the plastic disc.

Secondly, I haven't seen any rise in CD costs. I bought my first CD back in 1989, it was probably 15 dollars. What are you paying for CDs today?

 

[MrBrau1]

wow. People really think it's their "right" to steal music.

 

[No spoken words]

radiohead doing what they did was a symbol and a middle finger to globalisation which in the end will result in art being destroyed all together if we don't watch it..

You really believe that??? Good lord.

 

[thelaj]

If I believed I was paying 99c or 79p for ART, maybe it would be "worth" that price. We aren't though are we? We are paying a much smaller amount for the ART component and a much larger amount for promotion and music industry bloat.

On its own maybe I could deal with that, but when the pricing for digital tracks seems entirely arbitrary I don't see why I should think it is okay. If someone can demonstrate that 99c is a fair reflection of costs to create and distribute a digital track AND pay the label and artist then I will acquiesce.

 

[phanan]

First of all, you shouldn't even be considering blank media. You aren't buying the plastic disc.

Secondly, I haven't seen any rise in CD costs. I bought my first CD back in 1989, it was probably 15 dollars. What are you paying for CDs today?

I'm not sure I understand your meaning regarding blank media. Please explain.

And I will agree that for the most part, the prices of CDs haven't changed too much, although I think the prices in mall stores like fye are a few dollars higher than when they originally came out in the 80's. I worked at Strawberries in the early 90's, and the regular prices of CDs were never the list price, generally around $18.99 or so. More like $14.99. Yet a lot of music stores sell them higher now.

But even if they haven't gone up, they certainly haven't gone down, while DVDs have. I worked at Circuit City in the late 90's when DVDs first came onto the scene, and the typical price for a basic DVD was $29.99. They are, for the most part, $10 cheaper now. Yet CDs haven't gone down at all. Why?

 

[BVS]

If I believed I was paying 99c or 79p for ART, maybe it would be "worth" that price. We aren't though are we? We are paying a much smaller amount for the ART component and a much larger amount for promotion and music industry bloat.

On its own maybe I could deal with that, but when the pricing for digital tracks seems entirely arbitrary I don't see why I should think it is okay. If someone can demonstrate that 99c is a fair reflection of costs to create and distribute a digital track AND pay the label and artist then I will acquiesce.

So because of the bloat, the artist should get nothing?

This is the kind of justification I don't get. We like to hear about new music and artists like to get their music heard, so essentially we like promotion... yet we don't want to pay for it.

All I hear is, I like my music, I just don't want to pay for it.

Wow, wouldn't it be nice if every aspect of life was like that? I don't like the bloat of federal government, so I won't pay my taxes. I don't like the money that goes to oil lobbies, so give me my fucking car for free.

 

[phanan]

nm

 

[the tourist]

If I believed I was paying 99c or 79p for ART, maybe it would be "worth" that price. We aren't though are we? We are paying a much smaller amount for the ART component and a much larger amount for promotion and music industry bloat.

On its own maybe I could deal with that, but when the pricing for digital tracks seems entirely arbitrary I don't see why I should think it is okay. If someone can demonstrate that 99c is a fair reflection of costs to create and distribute a digital track AND pay the label and artist then I will acquiesce.

Exactly. And out of that 99 cents, how much does the artist actually see? 10 cents maybe?

 

[BVS]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning regarding blank media. Please explain.

Just because the actual price of that plastic disc went down, doesn't mean CD prices should go down. You aren't buying the piece of plastic. So none of that should factor in your thinking.

And I will agree that for the most part, the prices of CDs haven't changed too much, although I think the prices in mall stores like fye are a few dollars higher than when they originally came out in the 80's.

But even if they haven't gone up, they certainly haven't gone down, while DVDs have. I worked at Circuit City in the late 90's when DVDs first came onto the scene, and the typical price for a basic DVD was $29.99. They are, for the most part, $10 cheaper now. Yet CDs haven't gone down at all. Why?

And I guarantee you DVD prices will stay where they are for a long time, unless new technology comes in. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to make, you are buying the movie, not the plastic.

 

[phanan]

I guarantee you DVD prices will stay where they are for a long time, unless new technology comes in. It has nothing to do with how much it costs to make, you are buying the movie, not the plastic.

But why, since their inception, have they dropped in price while CDs haven't?

 

[Zoomerang96]

what i find hilarious is the notion that some people think it's terrible that we download for free when i'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us at LEAST do it on a somewhat regular basis.

and it probably hasn't been within the last seven years or so that i've bought an album without first downloading some songs "illegally" (shock horror).

it might not be my right, but i'll do it anyway. and if you download anything without going out and purchasing it later, then you have no right to criticize.

 

[BVS]

But why, since their inception, have they dropped in price while CDs haven't?

They made one jump since their inception, that's it. CDs the same way the first year they were out cost more than now. All mediums do that, the make one drop and then stay there until they are obsolete.

 

[BVS]

what i find hilarious is the notion that some people think it's terrible that we download for free when i'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us at LEAST do it on a somewhat regular basis.

I guess you can count me as one of the ten.

 

[Zoomerang96]

then wow are you missing out on a shitload of good music.

 

[BVS]

then wow are you missing out on a shitload of good music.

How?

I go to websites and preview, I take friends recomendations and then I go out and buy the music, novel idea, I know.

How is this missing out?