So Much For YouTube...

[Panzer Division Marduk]

Exactly.

I don't recall the outcry from the music industry when the "dual cassette deck" was introduced many moons ago. I have 500 or 600 hundred cassettes and at least 25% of those are copies.

You never got the whole "Home taping is killing music" thing?

Even though as a result of the "evil" tape trading scene I discovered tons of new bands and bought their albums.

[joebabyny]

Great points.

When Napster was in its heyday I would grab tracks that I only had on cassette. Mostly Aussie music that you couldn't buy on CD here in the States.

I was getting music in digital form for albums I already owned but according to the music execs I was some kind of freeloader.

I would say you were an extreme minority. If most people already owned the content, they would just rip it on their computer and have a very clean mp3 and not the crap shoot of quality that napster was.

As for wanting your outdated media in digital form, times change and products are upgraded, and sadly most companies make you pay for your upgrades. Try getting a free upgrade to vista from windows 95 from msft.

BTW, it isn't very hard to rip your old analog music to mp3's.

[Jet Moses]

Man I just realized, I've contributed absolutely nothing relevant to this thread. I better go eat something.

[RSJ]

I know, it is difficult to figure out a solution with all the ill will the industry has created and the ease of pirating, but they need to technically come up with a way to distribute content that will not be pirated, itunes has done the best so far. The public also really needs to be educated as to why they can't pirate content, and some examples need to be made so people can see the consequences.

The reason cd's are priced higher is actually because of piracy. In the days of tapes sound quality is much lower, this is not an opinion it is a technical fact. And every time a tape is dubbed the quality of the music is degraded greatly, so if you wanted to buy music that did not sound like mud, you had to really buy an original tape. With cd's, that changed, the quality of the cd is higher and there is much less generational loss from copy to copy if done properly. This means lost revenue, so the labels build that into the cost of the cds. Now, with the high def media, the movie industry is flipping out. On one hand it is a new way to package and sell media, but on the other hand, they are now releasing media that is AS HIGH QUALITY as their original masters. So if bootlegged correctly, counterfeiters can sell media that is pretty much original master quality. This is why all the new high def formats use hdmi digital connections, not because they technically have to to pass the signal, but because an analog component out could be hooked up to record the movie. The hdmi connections use HDCP(high-Bandwith Digital Content Protection) which protects the media in its highest rez form from being recorded.

Nice post but CD's have been higher priced yet cheaper to create since inception. I think the music industry is so pissed off because they stand to lose money on so many fronts.

1) They can't come out with some new device that is even cheaper to create that they can charge more for and also make people replace their entire music collection on the device.

2) I Tunes and other such avenues are allowing not so main stream bands hit it big without going through their non sense. Soon this will be what it comes to imo. The industry will be cut out of the equation.

To be 100% honest with you I'm a lot like Gainzo. If it is a new song I will go to I Tunes and buy it. But if it is some song I have on a tape sitting next to me I will use alternative means to get it.

[joebabyny]

Well what if I already bought the CD and it broke because it is a piece of s.h.i.t.?

That is just trying to find a loophole in the sound argument i am making. Products come with warrenties of various lengths depending on the manufacturer, cd's are no different. I personally never had a cd that just broke without user abuse or neglect. I have had some that skipped, but i brought them back.

No product has an infinite lifespan, that includes the hard drive in your computer, your car's tires, and a 16.00 piece of plastic disc that has some music on it. Just because it breaks does not validate stealing a replacement. My lawnmower broke the other day, i can't go jack sears for a new one.

[Panzer Division Marduk]

Any more word on what the RIAA are planning on doing with second hand music stores? I remember them announcing they were going to go after them as their artists weren't getting any money from the resales.

[joebabyny]

Sorry Gainzo if your tape or record is outdated or broken you are out of luck according to the record industry.

Hey, none of the current doftware supports windows 95, msft sucks!!

wait, lol, they really do suck.(also, i would never own a microsoft os, lol)

[Gainzo]

You never got the whole "Home taping is killing music" thing?

Even though as a result of the "evil" tape trading scene I discovered tons of new bands and bought their albums.

I never heard about the "Home taping is killing music" thing. All I know is that when my family moved to the States in 1986 my Aussie friends would send me tapes from Aussie radio and also copies of albums that I would share with my American friends.

One of my Aussie friends sent me Beds are Burning by Midnight Oil about 6 or 8 months before it was released in the US. They all loved it and went out and bought the album when it hit the shelves in the US.

[RSJ]

I would say you were an extreme minority. If most people already owned the content, they would just rip it on their computer and have a very clean mp3 and not the crap shoot of quality that napster was.

As for wanting your outdated media in digital form, times change and products are upgraded, and sadly most companies make you pay for your upgrades. Try getting a free upgrade to vista from windows 95 from msft.

BTW, it isn't very hard to rip your old analog music to mp3's.

I have done it and it is a pain in the ass. Especially that much music. You are not getting an upgrade in most peoples eyes though and there lies the problem. To some it is a big difference but not everyone. me personally I could never really tell the difference.

[Jetheelz]

I'm surprised the music industry has not cracked down on myspace...there are lots of music tracks online that people can get and download from there.

[joebabyny]

Exactly.

I don't recall the outcry from the music industry when the "dual cassette deck" was introduced many moons ago. I have 500 or 600 hundred cassettes and at least 25% of those are copies.

Like I said, every dub of a cassette introduces a lot of generational loss. And even if it didn't, it would take you days of nonstop recording to make meaningful amounts of pirated copies, and you wouldn't be inclined to walk around handing out free copies. With the internet any one person can cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses near instantaniously at no cost to them while sitting on their computer in their underwear. Think about it. You buy a hot new cd the day it is out for 17.00. You take it home and rip it in under 20 minutes to mp3's, then post them on limewire and bittorrent or whatever. In 8 hours how many times has it been downloaded and how many of those people seed that file to others who download it, and how many people burn it as a cd and hand it to friends. It is nothing like tape decks in the 80's.

[RSJ]

Hey, none of the current doftware supports windows 95, msft sucks!!

wait, lol, they really do suck.(also, i would never own a microsoft os, lol)

Yes you won't find a complaint from me on that front either.

Hey artists should be paid well for their great music. But the music industry is nothing more than a bunch of white collar number crunching suits.

[joebabyny]

I'm surprised the music industry has not cracked down on myspace...there are lots of music tracks online that people can get and download from there.

The artists do complain on a case by case basis, but generally myspace is not viewed as a major problem because only some of the content is downloadable, but for the most part it is just a stream to listen to. But eventually after the bigger fish i am sure myspace will get theirs.

[Boozer76]

The reason cd's are priced higher is actually because of piracy.

Joe, I am actually on your side with everything you have said in this thread, but the above is complete and utter nonsense. A mainstream CD has been $15-$18 since 1991, I remember becuase that was the time I was at my peak buying them. the price of a CD has not gone up since then, simply to keep them as a viable option vs stealing. If CD's were the only viable source to buy or get music today they would easily be $25 or more.

Record companies are in a tizzy over this because they are losing money on existing established music, but also for the fact that new music is finding better ways to break free and get noticed. Sites like Myspace and Youtube have vaulted numerous, now famous bands. Furthermore it has spawned the creation of smaller record labels dubbed "indie" labels that give artists far greater choices to market their music, and alot more choice as to how they can freely represent their music. Gone are the days of the big 3 records companies, where if you are not signed by them you have no chance at all. Rest assured, with all the marketing, printing, and costs of making a cd there really isn't a whole lot of profit until that CD starts selling in the hundreds of thousands. Most of the money is spent before the first CD is even pressed. Record companies are fighting the battle in a draconian way, by trying to kill all of the outlets that allow for music to be heard without their control.

[Jetheelz]

The artists do complain on a case by case basis, but generally myspace is not viewed as a major problem because only some of the content is downloadable, but for the most part it is just a stream to listen to. But eventually after the bigger fish i am sure myspace will get theirs.

I think Myspace helps and hurts artists. On one hand they can promote their music and stay in touch with fans..on the other hand people can either download their songs (if available) or decide not to buy their work if they hear it and do not like it. I have done that myself, listening to some tracks on a band's page and then deciding whether or not to purchase their album.

I have also been pretty lucky when it comes to my music..alot of the cd's I buy are in the $9.99-$12.99 range when they are new releases.

[Boozer76]

The artists do complain on a case by case basis, but generally myspace is not viewed as a major problem because only some of the content is downloadable, but for the most part it is just a stream to listen to. But eventually after the bigger fish i am sure myspace will get theirs.

None of the netstream music is any more downloadable than Myspace. Yahoo launchcast, for example, is the same way. Yet the record companies are trying to drive the royalty prices up so high with the explicit knowledge that it will shut those outlets down. Why? So they can have a better control on all music.

[joebabyny]

Nice post but CD's have been higher priced yet cheaper to create since inception. I think the music industry is so pissed off because they stand to lose money on so many fronts.

1) They can't come out with some new device that is even cheaper to create that they can charge more for and also make people replace their entire music collection on the device.

2) I Tunes and other such avenues are allowing not so main stream bands hit it big without going through their non sense. Soon this will be what it comes to imo. The industry will be cut out of the equation.

To be 100% honest with you I'm a lot like Gainzo. If it is a new song I will go to I Tunes and buy it. But if it is some song I have on a tape sitting next to me I will use alternative means to get it.

CD's are not cheaper to create, they are cheaper to REPLICATE. That statement is very different from yours. Music costs the same or more to create and market as it did before cds. While cds do cost lest to press and replicate then tapes, it also leads to much more piracy as I explained earlier. So if you are going to create a product that will have more theft, you need to build that into the price. At least that is the mentalitiy of the record company.

Itunes is great, and really at the forefront of where the industry needs to go, but to be realistic, without the draw and traffic of the major labels, it is nothing, and like i said in an earlier post, if the majors retract from the download market, it will hurt the indies by extension.

[RSJ]

Joe, I am actually on your side with everything you have said in this thread, but the above is complete and utter nonsense. A mainstream CD has been $15-$18 since 1991, I remember becuase that was the time I was at my peak buying them. the price of a CD has not gone up since then, simply to keep them as a viable option vs stealing. If CD's were the only viable source to buy or get music today they would easily be $25 or more.

Record companies are in a tizzy over this because they are losing money on existing established music, but also for the fact that new music is finding better ways to break free and get noticed. Sites like Myspace and Youtube have vaulted numerous, now famous bands. Furthermore it has spawned the creation of smaller record labels dubbed "indie" labels that give artists far greater choices to market their music, and alot more choice as to how they can freely represent their music. Gone are the days of the big 3 records companies, where if you are not signed by them you have no chance at all. Rest assured, with all the marketing, printing, and costs of making a cd there really isn't a whole lot of profit until that CD starts selling in the hundreds of thousands. Most of the money is spent before the first CD is even pressed. Record companies are fighting the battle in a draconian way, by trying to kill all of the outlets that allow for music to be heard without their control.

Great post.

[Thor99]

F*ck the music industry!! They make millions off concerts, mtv videos etc. I never pay for music!!!

That's makes you a thief. Nice role model for your children.

[MasonJet]

The music industry created this problem by charging obsene amounts for a cd. Then if the crappy made CD they sell you scratches do they exchange it for you? No, they don't. There is no justification in charging $15-$17 for a flimsy ass cd with one good song on it. This isn't about musicians this lawsuit is about the music industries bottom line. Just as the creation of CD's was never about giving the consumer a better listening device. It was about getting consumers to go out and spend money on a more flimsy product.

Not to mention when you buy a CD it's not like the artists are really getting any of that money. Especially with the smaller, less popular artists who make money from people buying CD's and merch at their shows. When you're downloading music you really aren't taking any money away from the artists, you're taking it away from record industry whores, which is why they hate it when people download.

[RSJ]

Not to mention when you buy a CD it's not like the artists are really getting any of that money. Especially with the smaller, less popular artists who make money from people buying CD's and merch at their shows. When you're downloading music you really aren't taking any money away from the artists, you're taking it away from record industry whores, which is why they hate it when people download.

Another great post.

[Gainzo]

CD's are not cheaper to create, they are cheaper to REPLICATE. That statement is very different from yours. Music costs the same or more to create and market as it did before cds. While cds do cost lest to press and replicate then tapes, it also leads to much more piracy as I explained earlier. So if you are going to create a product that will have more theft, you need to build that into the price. At least that is the mentalitiy of the record company.

Itunes is great, and really at the forefront of where the industry needs to go, but to be realistic, without the draw and traffic of the major labels, it is nothing, and like i said in an earlier post, if the majors retract from the download market, it will hurt the indies by extension.

I fully support you on the piracy issue.

But........back in the mid '90's when I graduated University and got a real job I worked in Operations for a hardware/software Company.

One of my responsibilities was finding Companies to make diskettes, DAT tapes and CD's of our software.

In those days a CD cost 70 cents (which included a 2 colour cover and jewel case). It probably costs 5 cents nowadays for the same thing.

[Boozer76]

I fully support you on the piracy issue.

But........back in the mid '90's when I graduated University and got a real job I worked in Operations for a hardware/software Company.

One of my responsibilities was finding Companies to make diskettes, DAT tapes and CD's of our software.

In those days a CD cost 70 cents (which included a 2 colour cover and jewel case). It probably costs 5 cents nowadays for the same thing.

It is not the cost of the actual CD. As I mentioned earlier, it is the cost of everything leading up to making the first CD. Here's your basic example of the old days of CD making: Band has fairly good local success and a catchy song. Record labels signs that band with the intent of making a CD. They hire a producer and rent out the studio space. They put together an entire marketing team to begin working on the image of the band and determining the demographics of people who will listen to them. They hire graphic designers and artists to put together the CD cover and album art. They print up about 500 single cd's with one song deemed to be radio friendly. They distribute those CD's, along with a bunch of marketing behind it in commercials, tv outlets, tv shows, and movies. They likely purchase songs that match the genre that they feel your band is or will be, and pay those rights to the songwriters. They use these songs to fill out an album or replace the songs they don't like (remember, record companies OWN the band once they're signed). Alot of times they credit the songwriting to the band's singer or main member, they pay for those rights as well. They finally finish the CD and roll out a large tour to support the CD. Usually mid large venues, 200-700 people per night, along with multiple headline shows where there could be thousands. All of the financing of this tour is paid up front.

Now, if the band is a huge success, they will recoup this money and make a very nice profit. If the band is a flash in the pan, there is alot of money lost. So when they sell a huge hit for a large headliner like Madonna, the profits are not only covering Madonna's costs, but for the costs of many failed bands.

Trust me when I tell you, the cost of a CD has little to do with the physical CD and case itself.

[Gainzo]

It is not the cost of the actual CD. As I mentioned earlier, it is the cost of everything leading up to making the first CD. Here's your basic example of the old days of CD making: Band has fairly good local success and a catchy song. Record labels signs that band with the intent of making a CD. They hire a producer and rent out the studio space. They put together an entire marketing team to begin working on the image of the band and determining the demographics of people who will listen to them. They hire graphic designers and artists to put together the CD cover and album art. They print up about 500 single cd's with one song deemed to be radio friendly. They distribute those CD's, along with a bunch of marketing behind it in commercials, tv outlets, tv shows, and movies. They likely purchase songs that match the genre that they feel your band is or will be, and pay those rights to the songwriters. They use these songs to fill out an album or replace the songs they don't like (remember, record companies OWN the band once they're signed). Alot of times they credit the songwriting to the band's singer or main member, they pay for those rights as well. They finally finish the CD and roll out a large tour to support the CD. Usually mid large venues, 200-700 people per night, along with multiple headline shows where there could be thousands. All of the financing of this tour is paid up front.

Now, if the band is a huge success, they will recoup this money and make a very nice profit. If the band is a flash in the pan, there is alot of money lost. So when they sell a huge hit for a large headliner like Madonna, the profits are not only covering Madonna's costs, but for the costs of many failed bands.

Trust me when I tell you, the cost of a CD has little to do with the physical CD and case itself.

As you know I'm not in the industry so your post opened my eyes. You & SoFlaJets have a lot more expertise in this than I do.

I have never been one to steal music. If I was I wouldn't have purchased Digital Undergrounds Sex Packets CD back in 1990!

[Boozer76]

As you know I'm not in the industry so your post opened my eyes. You & SoFlaJets have a lot more expertise in this than I do.

I have never been one to steal music. If I was I wouldn't have purchased Digital Undergrounds Sex Packets CD back in 1990!

The truth of what's happening right now is there is some very bad things happening on both ends of the spectrum. People stealing music is bad. Jetman is an idiot, so I'll give him a pass. But the major record companies fighting this battle in such ridiculous manner is equally as bad. In the middle are numerous new ways that great bands that otherwise would have no chance are getting heard. Rest assured, that is the biggest fear for record companies. Sure, they're happy that they have full control over what they already own, but they're even happier about regaining control over the industry that they otherwise don't control with the existence of these other outlets such as youtube and myspace.

[joebabyny]

I fully support you on the piracy issue.

But........back in the mid '90's when I graduated University and got a real job I worked in Operations for a hardware/software Company.

One of my responsibilities was finding Companies to make diskettes, DAT tapes and CD's of our software.

In those days a CD cost 70 cents (which included a 2 colour cover and jewel case). It probably costs 5 cents nowadays for the same thing.

That isd not the point, obviously we all know that cds are cheap, we can buy spindles for next to nothing at staples. IT is the cost to produce the cd. Cd's are cheap to replicate, not creat. It is like hiv medicine, yeah that pill costs maybe a buck to make every pill after the first one, but that first pill cost many millions to make.

[joebabyny]

It is not the cost of the actual CD. As I mentioned earlier, it is the cost of everything leading up to making the first CD. Here's your basic example of the old days of CD making: Band has fairly good local success and a catchy song. Record labels signs that band with the intent of making a CD. They hire a producer and rent out the studio space. They put together an entire marketing team to begin working on the image of the band and determining the demographics of people who will listen to them. They hire graphic designers and artists to put together the CD cover and album art. They print up about 500 single cd's with one song deemed to be radio friendly. They distribute those CD's, along with a bunch of marketing behind it in commercials, tv outlets, tv shows, and movies. They likely purchase songs that match the genre that they feel your band is or will be, and pay those rights to the songwriters. They use these songs to fill out an album or replace the songs they don't like (remember, record companies OWN the band once they're signed). Alot of times they credit the songwriting to the band's singer or main member, they pay for those rights as well. They finally finish the CD and roll out a large tour to support the CD. Usually mid large venues, 200-700 people per night, along with multiple headline shows where there could be thousands. All of the financing of this tour is paid up front.

Now, if the band is a huge success, they will recoup this money and make a very nice profit. If the band is a flash in the pan, there is alot of money lost. So when they sell a huge hit for a large headliner like Madonna, the profits are not only covering Madonna's costs, but for the costs of many failed bands.

Trust me when I tell you, the cost of a CD has little to do with the physical CD and case itself.

yup, this is exactly what i tried to explain earlier, even with a madonna reference, lol.

[joebabyny]

Along the lines of what I was saying about most records not making any money and a few supporting the many, here is a snippet from stereophile and a guy who is considered an indie producer.

Print magazines can ponder but the Web can offer answers. Jon Iverson, Stereophile.com's webmaster, ran a poll on our site on March 3 asking readers what they attributed the slump in CD sales to. The results were, er, interesting. Yes, 37% of the respondents agreed with me that "bad music" was to blame. Just 2% named "piracy," and 4% "downloads." But a whopping 41% felt that "high CD prices" was the root cause.

Of course, it could be argued that if someone says that a CD is too expensive, what they're really saying is that the music is not worth the asking price; ie, these are also votes for "bad music." But I suspect that that is not the case; that these respondents really do feel that the list prices of CDs are too high.

I have a problem with this. As the producer of recordings released on a small independent record label

[RSJ]

That isd not the point, obviously we all know that cds are cheap, we can buy spindles for next to nothing at staples. IT is the cost to produce the cd. Cd's are cheap to replicate, not creat. It is like hiv medicine, yeah that pill costs maybe a buck to make every pill after the first one, but that first pill cost many millions to make.

You are bringing up a totally different thing here. Would you like it if they came out with a Nirvana genetic albumn and charged 1/4 the price? Every company that develops something new has capital costs and they inevitably have tons of failures before one success. That doesn't mean they all rip off the consumer.

[crackbackblock]

If I am Google, YouTube, MySpace or some other site where media is posted I would turn around and send the record labels, tv networks, studios a bill for the use of my site. These businesses have no problem promoting an upcoming movie, tv show or new artist video by posting it on YouTube. If i am Google I would file a counter suit for the use of my technology.

[RSJ]

If I am Google, YouTube, MySpace or some other site where media is posted I would turn around and send the record labels, tv networks, studios a bill for the use of my site. These businesses have no problem promoting an upcoming movie, tv show or new artist video by posting it on YouTube. If i am Google I would file a counter suit for the use of my technology.

Not a bad idea.

[Maxman]

If I am Google, YouTube, MySpace or some other site where media is posted I would turn around and send the record labels, tv networks, studios a bill for the use of my site. These businesses have no problem promoting an upcoming movie, tv show or new artist video by posting it on YouTube. If i am Google I would file a counter suit for the use of my technology.

It amazes me when you see a new movie being promoted on myspace. Just astounds me actually.

[Arsis]

That isd not the point, obviously we all know that cds are cheap, we can buy spindles for next to nothing at staples. IT is the cost to produce the cd. Cd's are cheap to replicate, not creat. It is like hiv medicine, yeah that pill costs maybe a buck to make every pill after the first one, but that first pill cost many millions to make.

I think you're wrong about cd's being expensive to create, I know bands that do it all the time on a laptop and the music sounds just as good as the so called professional stuff. I think the greedy record industry is used to doing things a certain way so that people in suits make money and the artists and consumer generally loses out. I have no love for people who inflate production costs just to keep a very greedy and corrupt system going. They could easily make the system more fare to artists and consumers but that would mean less money going around to people who do nothing really to earn it, so that'll never happen.

[Arsis]

Along the lines of what I was saying about most records not making any money and a few supporting the many, here is a snippet from stereophile and a guy who is considered an indie producer.

Print magazines can ponder but the Web can offer answers. Jon Iverson, Stereophile.com's webmaster, ran a poll on our site on March 3 asking readers what they attributed the slump in CD sales to. The results were, er, interesting. Yes, 37% of the respondents agreed with me that "bad music" was to blame. Just 2% named "piracy," and 4% "downloads." But a whopping 41% felt that "high CD prices" was the root cause.

Of course, it could be argued that if someone says that a CD is too expensive, what they're really saying is that the music is not worth the asking price; ie, these are also votes for "bad music." But I suspect that that is not the case; that these respondents really do feel that the list prices of CDs are too high.

I have a problem with this. As the producer of recordings released on a small independent record label

[Sharrow]

I don't consider anything theft/stealing unless you're actually taking something from someone or some group of someones, meaning they will no longer have it themselves. If not then, imo, its just somebody whining because their product isn't good enough for you to spend your hard-earned money on. As long as a person is using whatever they take for their own personal use and not for profit, then I don't have a problem with it.