Music sharing doesn't kill CD sales, study says (1 Viewer)

[LanceJ]

Image obsessed public?

Not to start an argument, but maybe it's the music labels that are partly responsible for this obsession, especially among younger viewers that don't know any better. Ever watched VH1 lately? Holy crap, it seems like every show is about Britney Spears, Christina Aguliera, J-Lo, or some other pop star bimbo. They ram the same junk down the viewer's throat non-stop. And if I see that video from Jet one more time I'm gonna puke (the song is good but sheesh!).

You know that VH1 (and MTV) have thousands of great tunes in video form in their vaults but all we get to see is about .001% of them, over and over and over and over...............

LJ

 

[Marc Colella]

Never said high prices was justification for stealing.
I buy my CDs used anyways, so the labels can go suck a lemon. They aren't getting a dime from me, and I'm not even stealing. If the labels keep up with their stupidity (in many many areas) there won't be a music industry to protect. I'm ok, it's not my job that's at stake.

 

[Benjamin Ricci]

Your math is rediculous. $200,00 is low-balling it for a major release if you count recording costs and ad costs. I feel we're getting off topic, though. Even if costs were zero per disc, that still does not excuse theft, that's the ultimate point I'm trying to make. Using the "CDs are too expensive" routine to justify what you're doing (not you, specifically, I don't know you're downloading habits, I'm talking about the downloading public here) is jut plain inexcusable.

EDIT: Marc, that's US Dollars

 

[Benjamin Ricci]

Yes, image obsessed public. If people weren't watching it, then crap like that wouldn't get made.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

If there were no Internet people would still be swapping CD's with friends.

If there were no computers people would still be making copies off of the radio.

No, stealing is wrong, but it is a lame excuse, IMO.

Glenn

 

[Marc Colella]

I understand that... but $16.99-$18.99 CAD is too expensive. I'm not looking at the price of CDs in the US as a comparison - using the exchange rate. I'm comparing what else I can get for the same price in Canada, and the value one gets when purchasing the CD. Still overpriced.

Also note, we have many CDs selling at $25-$27 - which is unbelievably overpriced.

The customer is always right. If they think the price is too high - then it's too high. We're not obligated to purchase anything.

 

[dpippel]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you about the retail cost of CDs Marc, but the 30th Anniversary release of DSOTM is a bad example to use. This disc is a dual-layer hybrid SACD, and as such there certainly were production costs involved in mastering the new stereo and multichannel high resolution elements.

That said I'm in agreement that the music industry has brought this whole situation down on themselves. CD prices *are* too high, and I purchase most of my stuff used as well because I'm comfortable with the costs. I don't feel that stealing music by downloading illegally is at all justified. I also think that the RIAA and the industry in general are spending a lot of their financial resources fighting a boogieman that in the end won't amount to a hill of beans. Pirating isn't the real problem - it's a symptom. They're tilting at windmills.

 

[Luc D]

Each time this debate comes up I can't help but think of "honor among thieves". You steal from me, I steal from you. Sounds about right.

Please, everyone continue.

 

[David_Stein]

if anyone believes that someone other than the companies themselves are responsible for the "HUGE COSTS" associated with making the shit that is put out today they are sorely mistaken. [edit, i probably should expand on this point, but i dont have time right now. ill come back later. needless to say i think half of the costs they spend are unnecessary and could easily be cut out]

i had an ece professor tell us that he thought the answer to this question was just going to be "maybe artists just arent going to be as rich anymore". and to be honest with you i believe him. there are reasons that independent labels are THRIVING, they keep the value high and the costs down. if they sell 10000 records its a smash hit, and between records sales, touring, and merch sales on tour the artists are making a living. artists dont mind downloading b ecause that means people are hearing their shit (instead of hundreds of thousands of advertising dollars spent to get clear channel to play their songs on the radio: BULLSHIT). thats the future, and i personally look forward to the day when the major labels start declaring bankruptcy. ill throw a party.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The White Stripes can make a hit album for a few grand.

 

[Marc Colella]

I'll be there with you David. I'll bring the champagne.

 

[Thomas Newton]

Copying, even illegal copying, is not stealing. Illegal copying is a different offense, called infringement. It can be civil infringement or criminal infringement -- it can be anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony -- but in all cases, the offense is infringement, not theft.

To paraphrase Jefferson, property is a social invention, whose purpose is to eliminate constant fighting over the possession of inherently scarce items. Once you define the public purpose/basis of property, it follows pretty much by definition that theft must be outlawed. The only question is how harshly to punish it.

By contrast, there is no inherent reason why any form of copying must be illegal. U.S. copyright is not given as recognition of any natural property rights in works; the basis for copyright is "we'll scratch the authors' backs; in exchange, we expect them to scratch ours". It's within our rights to make Congress change the terms of the bargain to be more favorable to the public, to turn "infringement" into "non-infringement".

And that's a significant difference between the two bodies of law.

 

[Brian Perry]

But isn't that why the concept of "intellectual" property was created? That ideas, music, art, etc. should be given similar protection so that the creator has a financial incentive to keep on creating? Semantically speaking, downloaders are not stealing a physical item, but they are stealing a piece of the artist's ability to make a living. (Assuming they are not just sampling and buying later.) In that sense, I think it makes no practical difference whether one calls it stealing or infringement.

 

[Keith Paynter]

What is really killing music sales?

DVD.

Besides, I already have all the back catalogue I care to buy, and some other greatest hits packages are enough for me. I don't really like spending $15-30 for one song.

BTW, a new Canadian ruling has just made file sharing legal north of the 49th, uploading and downloading. The music industry's gonna lo-o-o-ve that...

 

[Marc Colella]

I heard that today.

Well there ya go... my government says it's perfectly legal - then it's alright. The law is the law afterall.

 

[David_Stein]

financial incentive seems like the worst possible motivation for "creating" ANYTHING. in fact, id be willing to say that EVERTYHING created for the sake of financial reasons sucks.

i could very well be proved wrong very quickly, but i am going to make this a hypothesis and see if anyone can find a good documented invention/piece of art that doesnt suck that was motivated solely by money.

 

[Thomas Newton]

During the copyright period, you have a point about illegal downloading possibly reducing the value of the copyright incentive. This harm to the incentive, and the indirect harm to the public goal for which the incentive was offered, is the reason why there is an offense called copyright infringement.

For items in public domain, free market rules apply, so a downloader no more "steals a piece of the artist's ability to make a living" than a Ford buyer "steals a piece of the GM dealership's ability to make a living".

 

[RobertW]

i thought i made it pretty clear that i was talking about the actual dollar amount the label would end up spending out of their own pocket. most recording contracts have recording costs and advertising charged back against the band's royalties. so while the label might initially front a lot more money, they end up recouping that back from the band's share of royalties. which is mainly the reason that bands can still owe money to the label despite selling many copies of their album. almost all the costs of producing an album are borne by the band, and come out of their share of the sales, noit the label's.

yes, $200,000 might be a low number. it was just an example after all. but the truth in the end is that the labels get a lot in return for a substantially minor investment.

 

[Jim Rakowiecki]

I just have to weigh in on this. I have been buying CD's for the past 20 years and prices on the whole have come down. I have more than one $20.00 CD (don't ask what they are, I would be ashamed to divulge some of my youthful indiscretions) which I bought when record store racks where filled primarily with vinyl and cassettes. I recently purchased two CDs for $11.00 each (Aerosmith and Clapton) and certainily many CD's are now selling for around $10.00. I don't think that is an outrageous price to pay for something that I will have and listen to for the next twenty or more years. Anyone who is paying more than $12.00 U.S. today needs to get out of the mall.
Sharing music is stealing music. People are able to make near perfect copies of songs and have the potential to effortlessly disribute them to thousands of people around the world and perfect or near perfect copies are burned to CD's for pennies. The artist who wrote and recorded the music gets nothing, the record company who has spent money to record, master, produce and distibute this record gets nothing.
Comparing file sharing to the copying that went on twenty five years ago is a bogus anology IMO. If you wanted to copy something then you had to have physical possesion of the album and you had to sit around and wait while you made one real time copy at a time. You also had to flip the damn record and figure out how many songs you could get on a side of a tape. If you wanted a "mix" tape you could spend and afternoon to get 90 minutes of music on a tape. Anyone who has done that knows it is a pain in the butt and there is no way that you were going to do that 50 or 60 times. I quit making tapes for people and stopped loaning out records years ago. It simply wasn't worth the headache.
Please forgive my rambling