Yeah archangel, I know I don't have the moral highground on this one. I just like ripping off the RIAA. I'm kind of an asshole.
I agree about this. I do not care whan sharing music with friends about the Music Industry. The indusry steals money from the artists. It would not bother me to pay today's prices for music if the artist got most of the profits. Michael B.
Well, Where does the caring begin and end? The point here is not whether you care or not, it is whether you are upholding the golden rule, which IMHO, every human being should live by - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In this case, ask yourself this question: If you were a mucisian, or one of the business owners that distributed the music, would you want others to violate the license agreement that is stamped on all intellectual property? You see, this goes deeper than you or me not caring. Because 99% of us are morons and all we want to do is consume, it makes no difference to _us_ what happens to other people - the 1% in this planet who are responsible for _creating_ the works of art, or the advanced technologies, or the new medicines, or the other _INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY_ that _defines_ our modern economy. The problems being faced by the music industry is apparant to us because it comes face to face with our mundane everyday life. But it is rocking the very core of what made this country great - innovation and intellectual rights to those innovations. Take away the incentive, and you take away innovation. Every human being should care what happens to others intellectual property. One by one, we must all share a common moral code, based on the golden rule. This will take care of 99% of us, and the law will take care of the other 1% that uses this rule, but are masochists and do not share our other moral codes. Ok, so you are a rugged individualist you say and some Ayn Rand pop-philosophy groupie idiot. Fine, then just follow the law. There _are_ times when it is actually _moral_ to break the law, but it must always be done with a heavy heart and a lot of premeditating. For example, when the laws are clearly abusive. That usually leads to revolutions though, and are rarely done by one or two human beings (not always though, think of Gandhi, or Schindler, or Joan of Arc, etc etc.) For example, IMHO the current situation with some people "breaking the law" by getting medicines from Canada is a _morally_correct_choice_. The health situation in this country is spiralling out of control and is abusive (for the other side of this arguement though, take a look at the Dec 15 '03 issue of Newsweek with the cover "Lawsuit Hell" - I wish I could provide a link to it...http://prn.newscom.com/cgi-bin/pub/...g=PRN-prnphotos-36064&redir=detail&tr=1&row=1) Therefore, with that in mind, there is _one_ possible reason that one may grant those people a possible moral ground that are ripping the music industry off - it is very possible that the music industry is ripping _us_ off. The evidence is mounting that this may be the case. In particular, it is cited that it costs an order of magnitude (10 times) or more to make a movie than a music CD. DVDs that are sold with that movie on them, in comparison to music CD prices, are _not_ ten times more expensive than music CDs. The question arises then - why are music CDs so expensive in relation to the close cousins DVDs? I have not made a deep study of the arguments by both sides, but this DVD price vs CD price is a sticking point with me. nitro
The answer is obvious if you think about what goes on the CDs and what goes on the DVDs - The CDs are the primary distribution channel and revenue source for those producing the music. On the other hand, the DVDs are a secondary (sop up the gravy) distribution channel to which the movies are routed and sold AFTER they've already pulled in the dough from their primary global theater distribution. If DVD sales were the sole distribution channel and revenue source, you'd have to pay a whole lot more for them.
An interesting rationalization since the "artists" aren't taking the financial risks involved with cutting, publishing, distributing, and advertising the product. If an "artist" produces a total crap album that no one buys, the "artist" isn't out a dime - the production company is.
I have thought about this side of the "argument" before. For example, rock stars can go on tour and make ten/hundred times what their CD cost to make/produce. Movies don't go on tour. What about the revenue streams from playing the song on the radio for tens of years? Or being used by car manufacturers as their "theme song?" Maybe the artists should GIVE AWAY THE MUSIC as a loss leader? In fact, they are doing just that by voluntarily uploading their music online for free download. It is the _publishing_houses_ that don't have anything to gain from this. But now the issue is not one of intellectual property anymore...Or is it? It is not a simple question. nitro
just an fyi on some of the background of music biz... first, some of the reason for the unusual costs of cd's is because the label is, in effect, subsidizing some of their losers with winners. if an artist sells 20k of an album on a major label, they (the label) take a bath if they've done *any* sort of advance payment on it (note i say payment, NOT promotion). most of the promotion costs - that is, paying off radio ppl, buying ads in trades, dealing with the buyers at music chains, making the phone calls, having meet and greets, obscene promotional parties, etc. - come out of the artist's *advance*. and is not recoupable until they sell a certain amount of money. the best way for an artist to make money is to sell huge numbers of albums on their last contractual obligation album, and then become a 'free agent'. the second best way is to get a huge advance, give nothing up in promotional fees, sell almost nothing of your album, and get dropped immediately after its release (or even better - before!). one of the terrible hidden ways artists are still getting ripped off is the columbia house / bmg music club scam. the way this works - when you (customer) sign up, you get something like 4 for free, buy 1, get 3 more for free. you pay shipping and 'handling' *cough*, and from bmg, if you unsubscribe, it costs roughly $40 for the 8 cds. if you do the columbia house one, it works out to buying about 4 getting 9 (?) free, at a total cost of about $90-100. however...the artists ONLY get money on the disc you 'buy'. the others are considered promotional cds, and they get nada - ZERO - from them. the labels do real nice on this deal, because they only have to pay royalties on one CD...and on the rest, make a profit of roughly 50c on each CD. (for more information, read dannen's _hit men_, and donald passman's book about the music business.)
Thanks for some of the specifics....very informative post. Your right the scenaro below is obscene..... the labels do real nice on this deal, because they only have to pay royalties on one CD...and on the rest, make a profit of roughly 50c on each CD.