RIAA demanding college students pay $3000 because of downloading

[Chris Martin]

Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

Now she's never going to go out and pay for this album that she NEVER would have even heard of has I not given it to her for free!!! What will the world do?

This is another point I tried to bring up. Most of what is downloaded would most likely never have been bought, anyway. Most people cannot afford to buy every single CD they want, and the ones they really want they're going to buy anyway. But it's fun to listen to stuff, as you would listen to it on the radio or borrow it from your friends, and send it to a friend like 'hey, check this out!' It's outrageous for the RIAA, or some of you here, to think that every single thing that's downloaded is 'stolen' from the pockets of some rich rock star or businessman. The vast majority of what is being listened to online is something that people would not have actually paid for anyway!

 

[U2Kitten]

If the price of CDs, in stores or at Itunes, had ever been just slightly reasonable, this wouldn't be a problem at all.

This is another thing. The RIAA is complaining that record stores are going out of business and blaming downloading. Some chains, like Tower, have suffered lately but you know what hurts them more than downloading? Circuit City and Best Buy selling CDs for 12 bucks when they want 18! Now who, even if they CAN afford it, is going to pay that much more when they don't have to? Because those stores sell other stuff, more expensive stuff, they can afford to cut prices on CDs where record stores can't, because that's all they sell! Of course you're not going to get the selection at those electronics warehouses that you would at a record store, but those looking for more rare or obscure stuff usually turn to used record stores (how long before the RIAA shuts down Plan 9?), the internet, or ebay. THAT is what hurt those overpriced record stores, not downloading, though they like to blame it!

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.

BINGO! Like I said, most downloading is done by people who wouldn't/couldn't afford to buy the record anyway, so the companies haven't lost anything!

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]

As a college student who HAS downloaded music, I need to say that the RIAA would do much better embracing the future instead of punishing it. Just look at what the iTunes music store and Napster have done. THAT is the way the industry is headed, but better or worse, and the recording industry is only going to start recovering when the big whigs pull their collective heads out of their asses and get with the program.

II do not think you understand. I think that are trying to get with the program. RIAA loves iTunes and the legal Napster. People who use these services pay for the music they download. What they don't like, are the people who download the music for free from illegal sources. Here are some other words that can describe what the RIAA does not like, “stealing” and “piracy”. We all know that the recording industry RIAA dropped the ball when it came to digital music, that they underestimated the technology...but that is not the point.

If you own an ipod, or download songs to your computer, take a look at the number of songs you have loaded on it. If you have 3,000 songs on your ipod, that translates to $3,000 worth of merchandise. You cannot argue that, music is valuable and 3,000 songs is worth $3000. Look at your ipod, what percentage of those songs were downloaded illegally?

I do not think it is crazy to try to get people to pay for music. Music is not “free”, it is not an entitlement. How would you feel if you made a really great album and half the people who want to listen to it, stole it. I think you would have a different perspective on things.

 

[hughfan_1]

I don't think they really are. When I was a teenager, before you had all the music on computers, we'd still share our songs by making each other tapes. We'd tape off of the radio. What downloading is really is nothing more than friends sharing with each other on a larger scale. I don't see any rock stars going around broke, people still buy CD's, they want the lyrics sheet and liner notes and cases. Most of the time when someone downloads, it's something they likely wouldn't have bought anyway. Let's face it, no one but rich people can afford to buy EVERY CD you want, so people have always shared songs and taped from the radio. It's no more stealing than taping a movie when it comes on TV. As long as you don't sell it what's the problem?

The old days and old ways are gone. You can't stop file sharing, so as Lancemc said, they should be capitalizing on it instead of hanging onto an archaic system that is no longer going to work.

I don't think anyone who downloads should be a criminal. I mean, hardly anyone robs a bank or shoots a person, maybe less than 5% of the population, yet I'd say 90% or more of college kids are downloading. You can't fight a tidal wave by tossing a couple of sandbags at a few in defiance.

Further proof that you can't stop downloading is that even AFTER the massive witch hunt and sueing and shutting down of NAPSTER, downloading returned, and more popular than ever.

90% of people do it? That does not meet it is the right thing to do. Copying your friends cds is not stealing. That is ok, it is on the mass level that is a problem. Do your friends have every cd you want? Walking into your friends house, is not like walking into a cd store. These illegal downloading sites are like a cd store. I agree downloading music is the future. I think the RIAA has come to this conclusion. However, downloading music for free will change the business as we know it forever. If Muscians need to work full-time just to support their family, the world will miss out on a lot of great music. These people deserve to get paid for their art. Period, end of discussion.

 

[adrball]

Copying your friends cds is not stealing.

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.

 

[U2Kitten]

Correct...but it is unlawful distribution.

So is sharing with friends ok or not? And what about copying a CD you already own onto an extra to take in the car, because you don't want your good, storebought one ruined in the car? And what about if you put your own storebought CDs onto the ipod? (I don't even have an ipod, just wondering)

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.

THIS is the main point that the industry really doesn't get. They're not losing something they never would have had anyway. So if they add up 3000 songs they think they 'lost', they didn't, because the person wasn't going to buy them anyway. Also no one (that I know of) burns CDs to sell. If they did, that WOULD be illegal piracy. But that's not the same as just listening in your own home while you do your homework, which is what most of the downloads are.

 

[toscano]

Charging £15 for something that costs less that 50p to produce has always made me bitter.

I'd love to know how you cam eup with 50p (about 80c).

My son's band just recorded their first demo of 4 songs.

$300 for the studio time+producer (4 hours).

I got blank CDs at Frys at a rate of 9c each

My wife did the artwork on the PC

Color copies at Staples, 39c each

Slimline jewel cases, 5c each at Fry's

My time to burn copies, priceless.

Seriously, we're looking at 55c of just raw materials

No publicist, no distribution, no art designers to pay, no adertising, no hundreds of hours of studio time, mastering costs, technicians, publishing royalties, delivery costs, lawyers %, managers %, etc. How DO you come up with 50p/CD ???

I download, a LOT. If I like something, I buy it, typically used or through discounted chain like Best Buy or Amazon. I'd love to have always used Tower, but they were just too expensive.

 

[Chris Martin]

What kind of music is your son's band playing?

 

[U2Kitten]

If Muscians need to work full-time just to support their family, the world will miss out on a lot of great music.

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.

 

[Muminki]

THIS is the main point that the industry really doesn't get. They're not losing something they never would have had anyway. So if they add up 3000 songs they think they 'lost', they didn't, because the person wasn't going to buy them anyway. Also no one (that I know of) burns CDs to sell. If they did, that WOULD be illegal piracy. But that's not the same as just listening in your own home while you do your homework, which is what most of the downloads are.

so it would be okay for me to go into a shop and steal a few cartons of milk every day if i didn't intend buying it. thy are not losing it anyway, are they? using your logic people should be entitled to steal everything in sight if they weren't going to buy it so the shop isn't losing out. i don't follow what your argument is. you can't defend theft.

 

[Canadiens1131]

So is sharing with friends ok or not? And what about copying a CD you already own onto an extra to take in the car, because you don't want your good, storebought one ruined in the car? And what about if you put your own storebought CDs onto the ipod? (I don't even have an ipod, just wondering)

Making a backup copy of a CD, or using purchased music in a home video for personal viewing is considered fair use and is legal, for sure.

 

[U2Kitten]

Making a backup copy of a CD, or using purchased music in a home video for personal viewing is considered fair use and is legal, for sure.

I'd think so too!

And to the previous poster, that's a real stretch. Come on. Really, how is recording a song from online any different than waiting for a song to come on the radio and taping it, like I did when I was a kid? Did I 'steal' it that way? I taped songs off the radio instead of buying them!

 

[onebloodonelife]

Yes, I download. Yes, I know that it's illegal. Think about this: college students in the U.S. are paying thousands of dollars a year to go to school and don't have money to buy CDs, especially at $15-$20 a pop. When I do buy CDs, it's at a used record shop in my hometown because I can't afford to buy a regular priced CD, so the artist isn't getting any money from my purchase either.

Also, I don't buy from iTunes often because their download quality is shit. I believe the songs are 128kb/s, which is not a good quality bitrate at all. I'm not going to pay $1 per song for something that is not the best quality out there. I can go onto a torrent site and get songs encoded at 192kb/s at the least, and going all the way up to 320kb/s. Now, really, which one am I going to choose?

Downloading has introduced me to so many bands that I would not have heard otherwise. I never would have picked up a Flaming Lips CD at a store and bought it without downloading it first. However, now that I do have some of their music, when their next CD is released, I'm much more likely to go out and purchase the CD.

 

[trevster2k]

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.

 

[Chris Martin]

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.

 

[beau2ifulday]

I don't see anything wrong with what the RIAA are doing. Nothing at all. I can make up any number of excuses to justify why I have downloaded songs illegally, but they're just that, really... excuses.

 

[toscano]

What kind of music is your son's band playing?

unfortunately, death metal. But he listens to a lot of other stuff, his first "real" concert was U2, I don't think he'll be doing that much longer. The other kids are hardcore maetal fans and ONLY listen to metal, he listens to a lot of other stuff and is actually serious about his playing - fingers crossed, as long as his grades remain good I'll keep paying.....

 

[toscano]

Theft of a milk carton doesn't hurt the milk producer, only the retailer. It's an analogy only to shoplifting.

Illegal downloading is stealing from multiple people. The retailer doesn't get a sale, the artist doesn't get paid, etc. Having said that, I'm as guilty as the next person. One can make the argument that the artist is getting more exposure, more likely to sell concert tickets, etc. But it's still illegal. Used to be Records/CD's were where money was made, and touring was to sell the records. Nowadays touring is where the money because they don't sell many CD's. Something to think about next time you gripe about ticket prices while downloading music you have no intention of paying for.

 

[Irishteen]

Some people need to realise that downloading a song from something like Limewire is a lot different from someone making a tape and sending it to you. If you're on MSN/AIM etc. and someone says "you've got to hear this song" and sends you a MP3, that is comparable to getting a tape, but unless the person who gave you the tapes, also gave tapes to thousands of others as well, then it is not the same.

I hear people tell me, their downloading doesn't affect the music industry, but it's not just them doing it, it's millions of people, it adds up because as someone pointed out a lot of people aren't just looking for a song they heard on the radio that was okay, they are trying to download entire albums and NEVER plan on buying them.

Oh and could people stop thinking the artists are rich enough, it's just jealousy , come on if you could make 2 million, 1 million, 10 thousand or nothing off something you done, which would you prefer? If you could sell 10 million albums, sell out 60,000 capacity stadiums wouldn't you want to? Or would you be thinking "No, I'm making enough money, no one should pay me for it"? eh no you wouldn't

 

[adrball]

So is sharing with friends ok or not? And what about copying a CD you already own onto an extra to take in the car, because you don't want your good, storebought one ruined in the car? And what about if you put your own storebought CDs onto the ipod? (I don't even have an ipod, just wondering)

THIS is the main point that the industry really doesn't get. They're not losing something they never would have had anyway. So if they add up 3000 songs they think they 'lost', they didn't, because the person wasn't going to buy them anyway. Also no one (that I know of) burns CDs to sell. If they did, that WOULD be illegal piracy. But that's not the same as just listening in your own home while you do your homework, which is what most of the downloads are.

Originally posted by adrball
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.

Same point.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by toscana
I'd love to know how you came up with 50p (about 80c).

I hardly think that a mass producer of CDs will go down to their local Staples for blanks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by toscana

Theft of a milk carton doesn't hurt the milk producer, only the retailer. It's an analogy only to shoplifting.

A poor argument. Theft of milk prevents another person from obtaining it. Copying of music increases the amount out there for consumption and does not prevent another person from buying the music.

Sales of CDs have reduced at the same time that illegal downloading has increased. There may well be a very strong correlation between the two, but I seriously doubt that this is cause and effect to quite the degree the industry would like us to believe.



In the interest of clarity...I do not agree with illegal distribution/sharing. The RIAA have a just cause for prosecuting those that take part in unlawful activities. But I don't think that industry losses are that significant

 

[toscano]

I hardly think that a mass producer of CDs will go down to their local Staples for blanks.

How did you come up with 50p ????

no, they won't get their blanks at Staples (neither di dI), nor did I hire expensive graphic artists to make th ecover, spend hundreds of thusands on studio time, publicity, advertising, printing, lawyers, managers, travel, etc.

Nor am I paying royalties to anyone.

So, where did you come up with 50p ??? It's a nice soundbite argument, but sorely lacking in any facts to back up.

Theft of milk prevents another person from obtaining it. Copying of music increases the amount out there for consumption and does not prevent another person from buying the music.

theft of milk deprives only the retailer, unless there's a milk rationing program in effect. It does not take money from the milk producer. Ilelgal download takes money out of EVERYONE in the CD food chain, from artist on down to retailers.

 

[Lancemc]

Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I don't download a ton of stuff. But my friends and I share a lot of music we discover individually, and the REALLY good stuff, I will buy legitimately. It's NO different from copying cassettes, which I bet nobody here had a problem with back in the 80's/90's.

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.

And listen, I spend WAY too much money on music. I spend way more than I can really afford on music. Because music is my passion, my life, and my career. So yeah, I have a lot of stuff I didn't pay for, but I still poured a shit load of money into the industry, probably more than most of you have done during the past year. And as a matter of fact, when I do get a free album from my friend, it's usually from an artist I've never heard of (so that I can discover them, and be like, Hey, yeah, these guys rock, now I'll go buy the rest of their albums and see them live and buy their overpriced merchandice at the show), or something like Radiohead's Com Lag EP, that you'd have to be a fucking moron to spend $40 on.

 

[adrball]

How did you come up with 50p ????

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/26/cd.price/index.html

theft of milk deprives only the retailer,

if the retailer can't sell the milk, then they won't buy it from the supplier...etc etc...and all the way back up the chain.

download takes money out of EVERYONE in the CD food chain, from artist on down to retailers.

Only if I was going to buy it in the first place.

 

[Irishteen]

Just to clarify where I'm coming from, I don't download a ton of stuff. But my friends and I share a lot of music we discover individually, and the REALLY good stuff, I will buy legitimately. It's NO different from copying cassettes, which I bet nobody here had a problem with back in the 80's/90's.

I don't really think of this as a problem, what affects the music industry is not friends sharing amongst themselves but people sharing with millions of others on file-sharing sites, and you're right it is comparable to copying tapes.

 

[Muminki]

maybe my answer was not make sense ,

i meant say that i do not understand why people defending this industry. it is not supposed to be done. even if we hate that fact it is the truth and we can't skirt round the issue.

 

[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
I'm quite sure these are the people the RIAA would be most interested in in catching
and I do reckoned they go about it in a hal arsed way to catch these people, but I guess they've got to start something

I know most of us here use downloads as a way to discover more music to buy, but there's no denying the music business is in dire straits so someone somewhere must have less noble intentions

 

[STING2]

There is absolutely a reduction in sound quality. If someone listens to music on anything more than laptop speakers, there is an obvious sound quality issue between music encoded at different bitrates. A 128kb/s MP3 file sounds like shit compared to a variable bit rate encoded file or even a 192kb/s encoded mp3.

Right clicking and copying an Mp3? Sure, there is no reduction in sound quality. But when a friend burns you a CD of music, and you rip that copied music to your PC or another CD, the compressed files on there are being compressed again and lose a substantial amount of quality. It's the exact same thing as dubbing a casette tape to another in a cassette deck

There is a technical reduction in sound quality, but not one that is noticed by most people. It is not the noticable reduction in sound quality you got with cassette taping.

 

[STING2]

Fair enough, but the people who are downloading tens of thousands of songs are not the people the RIAA is going after. People are being sued over just a couple of songs.




Well, it's not. Ever. The RIAA seems to be completely unable or unwilling to accept that. They've been suing people for almost a decade now, and yet every single year the incidence of music downloading keeps going up.

If I've been trying to stop something for nearly 10 years and it keeps increasing despite what I'm doing, I'd take a clue and realize that what I'm doing isn't working.

Maybe that's too much logic for record industry execs, though.

Well, if someone was stealing the product or service you were selling, what would you do?

 

[STING2]

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.

Most artist are not "major artist" that can make large sums or money on the road. Most new artist will struggle to make enough money to stay on the road. After the October tour, U2 made it back to Ireland with Paul McGuinness's credit card, which he had taken from him because he could not pay the bill. The decline in record company profits hits new artist in both album sales and their ability to tour.