Self Important Cow

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by nath
Comeon, lets not get in to an arguement over whether music cd's are over priced. It's patently obvious that they are,

Erm nath this isnt a dig but u have any idea how uber u sound??

Lets not argue over it we ALL know that im right..

sorry man but thats a tad stupid uke:

 

[nath]

But it's so bloody obvious?

 

[Gumbo]

And just to query your language, by Record Industry do you mean Record Companies, because Industry surely incorporates writers and artists, who get a relativly small cut compared to the labels themselves.

 

[Durzel]

Originally posted by Daffeh
is it morally right for the artists to charge outrageous prices?

That argument doesn't really work to be honest.

The prices are moot. Just as Ferrari can charge £130,000 for a car, regardless of the cost of the parts, artists can charge whatever they like. You can't rationalise theft in any way by saying "it should be cheaper". If you can't afford it, you do without - simple.

Piracy is both illegal and morally wrong. But who (including myself) has unflinching morals?

 

[mank!]

I agree with nath pretty much, people make so much money out of CDs it's ridiculous. I'm not disputing the fact that artists deserve the money for their work and that piracy is illegal but prices are out of hand. I've paid £17 for CD albums (not 2cd) before andd it just takes the piss really.

I think P2P with regards to mp3s (as I don't use it for anything else) has been a good thing for me at least, as I've been able to discover bands I probably would never have heard of or bothered to find out more about otherwise. I don't listen to the radio/watch TV much and most of the bands I listen to are unlikely to get any sort of coverage on the radio/TV anyway. I've got a pretty big CD collection and have downloaded a fair few albums but despite having a CD writer if I like the album I'll go out and buy it, I'm an obsessive type who needs to own a copy with all the artwork etc, otherwise I just don't feel right about it.

That said, there's a lot of decent deals around that I've picked up. All of The Smiths albums for £6.66 each isn't bad tbh

 

[Lester]

Originally posted by Wazzerphuk
While software remains so (I know, possibly justified) hugely expensive, in my eyes I have no problem with those who warez appz etc. Games/films/music are a different story really, they're a lot cheaper and actually reasonably priced. The cost of software from the likes of Adobe etc. is an utter joke and how regular users should be expected to pay so much for software is beyond me.

It's a difficult subject really. "Regular" users should pay a proper price, especially if they receive some benefit for it, but as you say, if all you are doing with photoshop is putting Summo's head on a lady for your amusement then it could be seen as acceptable (the use of copied software, not Summo's head).

The justification for music theft is much harder imo. Saying that when someone "samples" a track and then goes on to buy the album is all well and good as far as principal goes but in the real world I would find it hard to believe that it's the norm. This is based on people I know of course not any imperical evidence. Most people will just compile the tracks they want (and most copiers I know just download everything they can in a form of OCD "because it's there") and would never buy NOW 56 or whatever. Radio, TV and the internet provide plenty of opportunity for legal sampling.

Film piracy? Well I have a vested interest there and while some people may argue that it's a victimless crime and "there's so much money being made what I do is a drop in the ocean" at the "coal-face" it has a hell of an effect. Most people watch a film once only and to replace that single watching, which may be a visit to the cinema or a videoshop, with a free(ish) pirate viewing means that revenue is lost forever. To the film studios and actors it is still a small part of their earnings but to people like us it's the difference between solvency and bankruptcy. Film distibutors' long term aim is to have the customer download the film from their website, see it at the cinema or buy it. Every pirate copy made accelerates that process and will deprive most normal people (not net-heads) of the opportunity to watch a film in their home for reasonable money.

 

[~YuckFou~]

Lester in serious post shocker!!

 

[xane]

You need to qualify what you mean by piracy.

Copying music for commerical interests is definitely illegal and considered piracy. This includes the regular bootlegging, or unauthorized rfecording, or using music without permission as background to another commercial venture.

When you buy a CD or other recorded media, the copyright law has a "fair use" policy, by which you can copy the music as long as it is for purely private and non-commercial use. Making backups or a copy for the car, or your own compilation CD, is perfectly permissable and legal.

Passing the copyrighted work to someone else, non-commercially and without gain, is a big grey area. The only time commercial issues come into it is when there is a case where your copy prevented a legal sale.

Copying and swapping for mates, like everyone did back in the days of compact cassettes, was questionable, but the music industry got a tariff on blank media and shut up about it, so technically is was not illegal. Interestingly music sales did not seem to suffer either.

Mass copying with no commercial gain, which is basically what P2P does, is still not strictly piracy, unless you promote a commercial interest through it, i.e. put your website in the MP3 id and then put adverts on it. However it obviously goes beyond the terms of the "fair use" agreement and is clearly illegal.

The "deprive of sales" argument is what music companies try to mix in with "piracy" when clearly they are not one and the same.

 

[Tom]

I'd like to know how nath 'knows' that cds are overpriced. I mean, you have many things to consider. There are the initial recording costs, mastering, duplication, marketing (including artwork, advertising, pop videos, tours), and that doesn't include delivery and retail outlet costs.

So nath, give us some figures please.

 

[nath]

No, I don't have figures. I'm sure that if I put some effort in to it I could come up with a very convincing arguement with figures and lots of evidence to prove my point that CD's are grossly overpriced.

Unfortunately I can't be bothered.


They are stupidly overpriced, though.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

I cant see how u are arguing with this nath as im clearly right.

 

[Will]

Would the fact the EU are investigating the music industry regarding its control of digital music distribution on anti-trust grounds help?

Can't find any links, sorry.

 

[nath]

Might do.. if I could remember what anti-trust was :/

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Will.
Would the fact the EU are investigating the music industry regarding its control of digital music distribution on anti-trust grounds help?

Can't find any links, sorry.

Link to the US one

 

[Will]

Nice one Xane. I got kinda caught up looking for the EU one, but since the results haven't been released yet, I assume information on the proceedings is scarce.

Anti-trust = abusing its dominant market position to kill off competition.

 

[~YuckFou~]

I saw an article recently, can't remember where, maybe ispreview.
BY are stopping P2P uploads, if others follow it will have an effect on this.

 

[nath]

Isn't the only way to stop it to ban a certain port? And if so, can't the P2P software be told to use another port?

 

[~YuckFou~]

Originally posted by nath
Isn't the only way to stop it to ban a certain port? And if so, can't the P2P software be told to use another port?

I dunno, just saying what I read. There was something about not allowing P2P to act as a server.

 

[nath]

I'd be interested to see what they plan to do and how, cos surely by very definition there are no servers in p2p

 

[~YuckFou~]

Here ya go

 

[nath]

Hmmm.. there's bound to be ways around it, but either way a) I'm not on by, and b) I'm a filthy leech who never uploads anyway

 

[pcg79]

hrhr

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Tom[SHOTTEH]
I'd like to know how nath 'knows' that cds are overpriced. I mean, you have many things to consider. There are the initial recording costs, mastering, duplication, marketing (including artwork, advertising, pop videos, tours), and that doesn't include delivery and retail outlet costs.

So nath, give us some figures please.

I'll get some for you.

But firstly, we can all agree that manufacturing costs have plummetted since the introduction of the Compact Disc, which itself cost a fraction of the old vinyl disc. So have CDs gone down in price at all ? No.

Places like Diskmakers can do a private pressing complete with jewel case, artwork, etc for under $1 per disc, I'd say the recording industry can get this right down to a few pennies.

Recording costs are absolute, studio costs and various rock star expenses are unlikely to exceed a tiny fraction of the millions of sales, same goes for all the initial marketing costs like the artwork and conceptual design, the artwork publishing costs are included in the manufacture costs above. Most of this is actually funded by the artist anyway or recouped from their advance or royalties.

Delivery costs are minimal, with digital transfer you can duplicate CDs locally from the original source, I remember Virgin Records in Oxford Street used to make the CDs on the premises, plus any personal customer delivery is paid by the customer.

Artist royalties are way less than 10%, and remember a lot of the costs for promotional use are recouped from this too, at the end the costs to the actual company are negligible, in fact I'll let Ms Love detail that side of things for you.

Pop videos are an element in itself, they sell separately on their own, same "costs" apply.

Tours are down to the artist, the record company might give some support money, but all the expenses are none of their concern, all they do is distribute music, not organise stage shows, thats another business entirely.

Besides, big name tours are entirely financed by sponsership, often getting the artists a fat cheque of the like they will never see from the record company. Artists may often consider CDs a promotional item for their tour, if they were not so stitched up by the record company.

 

[doh_boy]

A good example was the 'You were right' Single from badly Drawn Boy. A bloody good song made better by having a large 'THIS SHOULD NOT COST MORE THAN 99p' sticker on the front

The only problem being something about it not being in the charts for being 'bargain price' dunno anything about that sort of thing though

 

[Tom]

So does anybody know the trade price of a typical top ten album to a major retailer?

That would be a big help.

 

[Lester]

Well an Indie would make about 10-15% on a £11.99 album. With no sale or return tho, which means that any stock not sold is an extra cost. If you do decide to buy a kosher CD try and buy it from an independant. Only chains get free stock, SOR and retrospective discounts and they use these tools to the disadvantage of indedendant dealers.

I don't think in all honesty the Major chains get hugely cheaper prices tho, maybe another 5-10%.

 

[ReActor]

Artist survive on tour revenue, because there's little money to be made in CD sales unless you get a real bestseller. I think this is why most of them are not very bothered about mp3s being shared.

 

[Gef]

http://us.imdb.com/Charts/intltopmovies/

$1.2Bn anyone??

To be honest though, I do see the problems that movie/music piracy can cause. But most of the films/music I download I would never have bought in the first place, its just the fact its free and i'm bored. So its not lost revenue as I would never have paid for it anyway...

 

[lynchet]

There was a cartoon somewhere that kind of summed it up --- one record exec saying something like "piracy has cost us 2 billion pounds this year" to which the other one replies "My God ! Thats nearly a mornings work !"


Most people know really that piracy is stealing and wrong etc and that therefore any "justification" is really just mitigating circumstances ------ but as they view the enormous profits made by the companies they rather feel that they dont care if they are denying an exec his tenth car or fifth house etc.

It is interesting to read the comments of people who work in the business on this board about how they see piracy affecting their work and their very livelihood etc. It does make sense, but again people will always turn back to the moneymakers and say that until they start being more reasonable then no one else will -- ie instead of complaining that a pirate has denied you £500 why doesnt the producer pay you more from hi £500 million profits.
I seem to remember Madonna a while back trying to claim piracy was wrong and saying that as a mother she had to look after her children and pay for them etc ------ Im sorry but showing multi multi multi millionaires telling us piracy is depriving them of money just doesn't get you anywhere.

People just don't trust companies and with good reason. I remember when games came on cassette --- everyone copied them etc and all the companies said that if it wasnt for that they could sell them so much cheaper. Then CD's came in --- I know professional piracy kept going but the mates in the pub/playground etc was effectively stopped overnight for years until writers became affordable ------- so did prices drop ? er no they over trebled ---- some mistake surely ???

 

[Ash!]

The mantra about Piracy resulting in reduced sales is a load of bollox imo. Its because that mainstream music nowadays is godawful. Each to their own tastes of course but some of the shat on Radio must be one of the contributing factors of reduced sales