DescentBB

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:39 am**

But this time they actually come out and say it....

link

Apple charges 99 cents to download songs, but two major record companies are pushing for an increase.

Looks like it's back to illegal downloading. As a matter of principle, not prices.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:43 am**

Wait...they're now selling CDs that limit the amount of copies you can make? What kind of BS is this? God, the music industry absolutely sucks.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:47 am**

You wanna protest? Don't download music illegally, just don't download or buy music at all. And convince everyone you know to stop buying music also, and have them to convince everyone they know to stop buying music.

The record indistry has two customers, first everyone who buys CDs, and second the artists that make the songs, and the record indistry is very good at screwing both over as much as possible. If you want to make a real difference, you have to start a serious orgnized boycott. Everything else is meaningless or stupid.

(By the way, I haven't bought a CD in years...)

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:50 am**

Music executives who support Mr. Jobs say the higher prices could backfire, sending iTunes' customers in search of songs on free, unauthorized file-swapping networks.

Now thats hitting the nail on the head. Americans view anything under $1 as free. I mean, my couch is carrying that kind of dough.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 1:13 pm**

Krom wrote:You wanna protest? Don't download music illegally, just don't download or buy music at all. And convince everyone you know to stop buying music also, and have them to convince everyone they know to stop buying music.
The record industry has two customers, first everyone who buys CDs, and second the artists that make the songs, and the record industry is very good at screwing both over as much as possible. If you want to make a real difference, you have to start a serious organized boycott. Everything else is meaningless or stupid.

...good point!

Krom wrote:(By the way, I haven't bought a CD in years...)

...heheh, neither have I

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 2:07 pm**

Top Gun wrote:Wait...they're now selling CDs that limit the amount of copies you can make? What kind of BS is this? God, the music industry absolutely sucks.

I'd love to see them try. I'll still keep on ripping to my hard drive, no matter what they say. If it can be heard, it can be ripped. I've had no trouble ripping any soundtrack I've come across. Just don't do it "on the fly" and you won't get any jitter errors.

The last CD I bought was the soundtrack to Van Helsing, and that was because I like the artist's work. (Alan Silvestri) That being said, $15 is the absolute most I'll ever spend on a soundtrack. I don't care how good it is.

btw Nitro, the URL tag is your friend.

Code: Select all

[url=long ass link here]link name[/url]

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 2:40 pm**

Heh. I haven't bought a CD in years. Mostly this is because the music available in record stores is complete and utter crap. Also, standard price for a CD here is $39.95, an d double albums are up to $59.95.

Is it any wonder Kiwis downlad a lot of songs?

Most of what I download is out of "print" and simply impossible to buy anyway.

I plan on converting all my vinyl to MP3 over the next few months: RIAA, bite me.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:07 pm**

Pirate for life
<--------

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:58 pm**

Uh... usually I see CDs for $35, not $40 - but the point remains, they are massively overpriced... and imports can be even worse, and usually are.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:05 pm**

I always buy my music off amazon used. I can usually get anything other than the very newest stuff for under $10, including shipping. Most of the time the used CD's on amazon are cheaper than what ebay auctions for the same cd end at. I refuse to pay full price.

Posted: **Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:13 pm**

$35..wow.

Overstock.com has done wonders for me. I won't go over $15, and have found many for $10 or less, including newer releases

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:55 am**

Oh, do note that's New Zealand dollars. The figure in USD would be more like ... I think $22-25.

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:10 am**

Sirius wrote:... and imports can be even worse, and usually are.

Wait a tick... arn't most albums 'imports' there?

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:55 am**

Pirate forever, fun to copy them movies too. I [err know somone]have about 800 so far.....and lots o' friends that like my[err his] copies too....

80 bucks for the sopranos? pfffffft! My friends got it for 16 bucks.

Posted: **Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:03 am**

Richard Cranium wrote:
Sirius wrote:... and imports can be even worse, and usually are.
Wait a tick... arn't most albums 'imports' there?

no... most albums are shite.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:54 am**

You'd think so ... but ... hell knows. Maybe they have local presses or something.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:07 am**

Krom wrote:(By the way, I haven't bought a CD in years...)

x3

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:38 am**

Me nether.

What sickens me is that you can get a DVD cheaper, say 16 bucks, than its sub-50-minute soundtrack that may go for 18 bucks!

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:51 am**

Krom wrote:(By the way, I haven't bought a CD in years...)

Neither have I, and I don't go looking for CDs to pirate either. If someone drops a file or two in my lap I'll take them, but for the most part I listen to game audio tracks and/or my own compositions. Don't like the prices on the music tracks out there today? Make your own and distribute it for free.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:52 am**

You people have endless abilities in rationalizing. 1 dollar a song is cheap... if you really like the song 5 dollars is cheap. The record industry needed to change with technology and it appears they are changing. Itâ??s a bizness, it's about money. They don't force 13 bad songs to get the 1 you like anymore.

And all your little minds came come up with is "Iâ??ll just steal it" and act like you are a rebel. Youâ??re not, you're a thief. People make their livelihoods by way of songwriting and performing.

Quit lying to yourselves.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:15 am**

TheCope wrote:You people have endless abilities in rationalizing. 1 dollar a song is cheap... if you really like the song 5 dollars is cheap. The record industry needed to change with technology and it appears they are changing. Itâ??s a bizness, it's about money. They don't force 13 bad songs to get the 1 you like anymore.

And all your little minds came come up with is "Iâ??ll just steal it" and act like you are a rebel. Youâ??re not, you're a thief. People make their livelihoods by way of songwriting and performing.

Quit lying to yourselves.

Agreed.....

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:21 am**

Ever buy a song and wonder how much of the $1 you paid reaches back to the Artist?

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:32 am**

Depending upon the popularity of the artist (and hence their ability to negotiate royalties) ... roughly $0.10

^^ My guess ... not based on facts.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:44 am**

I believe it's more like $.03 or $.04.

The record companies have a pretty sweet deal going on (the artists definitely get the short end of the stick but it's a lot longer than some would have you think). The record companies provide the recording facilities. The artists record their stuff. The record company owns the recording, presses it to CD, distributes it, and makes money. The artist makes a royalty -- it's pretty low but it's still there.

The artists continue to own the song (i.e. they can play it whenever and wherever they want, for whatever record label they want) but the record company owns the specific recordings on the album. The record company is free to use those recordings as it sees fit (pressing new CD's, "Greatest Hits" collections, etc) unless there are other terms in the contract.

Think about this: a CD goes platinum (1 million copies). At 3 cents per CD, the artist makes $30,000. The record company makes $970,000. But then the artist goes on tour, capitalizing on the popularity of the songs that have been promoted by the record company. This translates into ticket sales and pure profit.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:30 pm**

It totally depends on the contract they signed. If you're a sucker and don't do your homework you will get snowed with legaleaze.

As much as I personally don't like the bizness of music it gets really tiresome hearing the absolute worst case scenario all the time. Itâ??s simply not true all the time.

The artist is paying for a distribution network they couldn't possibly set up themselves. While it may seem totally unfair by looking at numbers a record company can get you mucho exposure with 1 phone call.

And you make your real ching touring anyways.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:39 pm**

DCrazy - that's at a dollar per CD. I think it'd be a bit higher than that in reality.

Posted: **Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:54 pm**

Oops... my bad. More like $30,000 versus $9,970,000 (giving an estimate of $10 per CD for the record company, which I think is reasonable when you factor in production costs and distribution costs). That estimate, of course, does NOT include the millions that go into promoting major releases, so it's probably more in the neighborhood of $7 million.

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2005 1:49 pm**

Gooberman wrote:
Music executives who support Mr. Jobs say the higher prices could backfire, sending iTunes' customers in search of songs on free, unauthorized file-swapping networks.
Now thats hitting the nail on the head. Americans view anything under $1 as free. I mean, my couch is carrying that kind of dough.

tell that to my homey who's wife has bought over 1500 songs through itunes. :p

Posted: **Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:12 pm**

TheCope wrote:They don't force 13 bad songs to get the 1 you like anymore.

Thats debatable.

Posted: **Thu Sep 01, 2005 5:09 pm**

I think he meant that the industry's acceptance of iTunes has eliminated the filler.

Posted: **Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:16 pm**

DCrazy wrote:I think he meant that the industry's acceptance of iTunes has eliminated the filler.

Yes, but it doesn't take into account for personal taste. It may have eliminated the NEED for filler, but not everyone is going to like the majority of the tracks on an album. I bought the "Best of Bob Segar" last semester, and while I like quite a bit of his music, atleast 1/3 of the CD was filler material. Take a look at The Eagle's latest compulation album and you'll find quite a bit of what I consider filler material.

Of course, on the other side of the token, there are certain soundtracks where I wished they had released the ENTIRE score instead of like 60% of it. Shrek2 is the only score soundtrack that has ALL of the used movie score (with the exception of that used in Jennifer Saunder's "Waiting for a Hero"). But thats another rant for another topic.

Posted: **Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:25 pm**

Well, if iTunes became the preferred distribution method (or something similar, imagine walking into Sam Goody, picking the tracks you want, and burning them to a CD in the store) then the need for filler will be eliminated. Thus, the law of supply and demand dictates that the record companies will stop producing it. Unfortunately that would probably result in the production of more crap in general, but at least you don't have to pay for it.

I think the major thing holing the "buy what you want" philospohy back is the lack of polish that burned CDs provide. HP's LightScribe is a step in the right direction -- the laser that's used to burn the disc data also burns a label on the other side of the disc. If (when) they develop a chemical compound that reacts differently to different intensities of light, thus eliminating silkscreening while providing full-color labels, then the difference between the appearance of a commercially-pressed CD and a burned CD will be almost non-existent.

Some albums won't work with this methodology: Dark Side of the Moon and De-Loused in the Comatorium come to mind. But then they can always have a bit set that requires the user to buy the entire album, which is absolutely no different from the way record stores work today. Personally I think that would be the coolest thing ever. I'm pretty sure the major labels own the facilities used to press the CD's so I don't think there'd be much complaining coming from any middle-man CD manufacturers.

And you bought the Best of Bob Seagar not expecting 1/3 filler material? It's Bob Seagar for chrissakes!

And I think the best Eagles compilation is Greatest Hits vol. 2.

DescentBB

Record Industry Wants More Money (no, really?)

Record Industry Wants More Money (no, really?)