WASHINGTON (AP) -- The music industry has won at least 871 federal subpoenas against computer users suspected of illegally sharing music files on the Internet, with roughly 75 new subpoenas being approved each day, U.S. court officials said Friday.

The effort represents early steps in the music industry's contentious plan to file civil lawsuits aimed at crippling online piracy.

Link to the full story (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/07/21/downloading.music.ap/index.html)

This just irritates me. I understand the argument for this, the copywrite laws, etc. I just wish the internet fell under the same fair use as recording movies off TV (or other video's)

If the internet made you pay and provide proof of legal permissions for posting an artists work then it would fall under the same rules as TV and radio. The problem with copyrights and the internet is not in the private user downloading music for private use but in the user uploading the music for distribution to others.

In p2p, there is no uploading.

Nor can any one country regulate the internet. Watch as the world laughs at the silly RIAA...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Watch as the world laughs at the silly RIAA...[/quote]

uch of the world signed the Berne Convention (the Western nations at least). The Berne Convention is the underlying basis for the copyright laws in most countries, and requires its signatories to respect the copyrights given in all other signatory countries.

Anyone who lives in a BC signatory nation better not be laughing too hard... if RIAA gets its way in this here, it won't be long before they are (sucessfully) going after people in those nations as well.

I cannot stop laughing at the hypocrisy of the music industry and us alike.
Before the internet who didn't record a friend's record onto tape for themselves? Create music tapes of all our favourite songs, recorded the same song 15 times on a tape to listen to it over and over and over again...? WHO HASN'T? Or nowadays pass those songs onto a CD?
Why weren't tapes banned back in the day?
Why do they say "The internet is to blame here" when everyone has been doing it since time immemorial?
Yes, the sheer numbers doing it now and the ease is astounding, and I can believe it makes a dent in the music industry, but this industry has also been ripping us off and making the artists filthy rich at our expense, when making music is like one of the most useless things you can do today. It is just entertainment. We have doctors, who try to save our lives on a daily basis, fighting day in day out for donations to be able to research more into the diseases which kill us, yet we prefer to buy a stupid CD instead of giving that money to some good cause. What a waste. Then we complain that the doctors which should have saved our loved ones lives don't have enough means at their disposal. Get a damn clue.
It should be doctors and researchers who are the super-stars of today, not some damn drug addict, needle using, crack smoking, coke sniffing, alcoholic loser....

We have all our priorities messed up big time. Me included.

I don't think the problem is that people are making copies of music. I think the problem is that using the Internet, there are now literally millions, if not billions of people doing it. I think there are more people making even more copies than was possible for the average person before. There is an amazing number of people that have access to the Internet now.

I think the scale of the copying is just incredibly larger than it was in the past.

I also think that if you set up an office, made copies of albums, and started just handing them out to millions of people, the music industry would have something to say.

Yes the music industry has been ripping people off forever...and so has just about every other business in existence. Do you really think $8-$12/ticket is needed to make a profit off of movie tickets? Do you really think they need to charge $3 for a soda to make a profit? Does it really cost $50/pair of jeans for that company to make a profit?

No, of course not. People were making a huge deal about this, and trying to justify it saying that they had been ripping us off for so long. That doesn't justify anything. You are still stealing. According to the law, stealing is stealing. If you are starving and steal a loaf of bread, you can still be brought up on charges of shoplifting.

At any rate, most of the protestors of the lawsuits I have met, are the biggest pirates. You want me to not believe them, because they have a vested interest. You have interest for your point of view too, so what's the difference?

Yes well, companies have also been exaggerating the effects of copyright infringement for decades too. They boil it down to the idea that every "stolen" copy means a lost sale for the company. This is faulty logic... in fact 90-95% of people who have downloaded an MP3 they dont own, if they were given no other option but to pay full price for it, simply wouldnt buy it at all. There is no huge amount of "lost sales" from the practice of sharing music, in fact the actual sales numbers support the opposite, that people hear the one or two songs and wind up going out and buying the album. That's the entire theory behind broadcast radio in the first place!

Just because someone pirates something doesnt mean they would have bought the thing instead. 90% of the time they simply would do without.

Anyway, it's not like people werent recording off the radio and sharing those tapes many decades ago, and yet the record companies continue to post rediculous profits.

Tia

"This is faulty logic"

Exactly.

Because it is the artist, builder, musician, inventor, writer, who should be the beneficiary of copyrights, not the suits.

Copyright was written into the Constitution of the United States as a way to protect the intellectual property of those who originate art, music, books. Not those who sell it.

--Just because someone pirates something doesnt mean they would have bought the thing instead. 90% of the time they simply would do without.--

90% where does that come from? I'd say more like 50/50.

--Anyway, it's not like people werent recording off the radio and sharing those tapes many decades ago, and yet the record companies continue to post rediculous profits.--

There's a huge difference between getting 1-3 songs out of 10 from a radio station, that may or may not have good clarity, and digitally downloading the entire album. Not just one album, but as many as you want.

--Because it is the artist, builder, musician, inventor, writer, who should be the beneficiary of copyrights, not the suits.--

If the artists don't benefit from the suits, then why are they personally sueing people? Not all artists are producers.

--Copyright was written into the Constitution of the United States as a way to protect the intellectual property of those who originate art, music, books. Not those who sell it.--

Sounds more like trademark than copyright.

However things were originally written, today they say what they say. Basically they say, if you are not authorized, and you do this, then you pay. A lot of unauthorized people doing it, so why shouldn't they pay?

Nobody is saying that albums aren't overpriced. Their being overpriced, and anything else you can throw out there, will never justify the fact that people are stealing. That's the bottom line, there are laws, these people broke them, and now they are being called upon to pay. I don't see any room for argument in it. That's the only logic involved, you do the crime, you do the time. I have yet to see a valid argument, that makes the stealing of music ok, right, just, honorable, or anything but stealing.

You really can't say that there are no huge lost sales, because there's no way to know whether there is or not...other than the companies that put out reports tell you. Nobody sounds like they would believe Christ himself if he came down and said, 'Yes, they really are taking huge losses.'

oving past the big guys...what about the artists that had their music distributed for free, that only made about $30,000/yr to begin with? At first it might seem good because they get recognition. Now they are recognized, but nobody is buying their albums, because the people that know about them are getting them for free on the Internet.

Everything else aside, do you really think that these companies that you are saying post ridiculous profits, would bother with this lawsuit if they didn't really believe they lost something? Don't you think they would say their time is better spent finding the next big thing, because the profits from this lawsuit that you say 90% of the time has no bearing on whether people would buy the album or not, will be small change compaired to the next Brittney, Mariah, Jennifer?

When a music artist makes 50 cents for every $18.00 CD sold, something is definately amiss. And we all now know how much it costs to burn a CD, don't we?; hell, the jewel cases cost more than the blank CDs these days.

If I want to listen to music, I have no problems paying the artists, and those that helped make the actual music. They SHOULD get paid.

But I don't want to pay anyone from the record company CEO down to the person selling cappacinos at the local Borders. That is ALL overhead.

And that overhead is fat that should be sliced away with chainsaws.

I just saw an anti-piracy ad tonight, and I don't give a flying rat's ass about paying for some clerks eyeglasses. Find another job. I want to pay the artist, not pay for your fuggin eyeglasses; I got my own glasses to buy.

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"


That has nothing to do with trademarks per se.

Trademarks are owning and the rights respective of names(brand names for example).

They are connected, but the clause that I was referring to and quoted, expressly states that the artist or author or inventor should be able to make money off his or her work.

And like I mentioned above, it has nothing to do with paying for a Border's Books clerk's eyeglasses. That is fugging insane and an friggen insult to anyone with a brain.

memory.loc.gov/const/const.html (http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html)

Like I said, nobody is arguing that stuff is overpriced.

What I am arguing is that everyone is trying to justify theft by saying the other guy did it first. No matter how you try to word it, it's still stealing, and it's still wrong.

What they did may not be right, but it doesn't make what the people that are stealing, any less wrong.

You don't care about the clerk needing new glasses? I haven't even seen what you're talking about. I'm sure the commercial was stupid.

If it wasn't for the companies, the artists wouldn't make crap. Not everyone can do it all. That means there has to be someone there to do advertising, production, ground pounding and such. You know why they make so much money? Because everyone knows that the big named artists are going to get rich, and these guys are the ones that do/make happen all the crap that the artists can't. They do charge too much for albums, but guess what...all these greedy artists out there are just as much to blame.

Guess who else is to blame...THIEVES! You take a CD off a shelf and walk off without paying, that costs the store money. Stores lose money, they raise their prices. Same thing, you don't buy it from a store, then they raise their prices because they aren't cutting the same profits.

All that pretty art that they put on albums isn't free either. You have to have designers, layout people, artist/photographer/graphic artist/silk screeners/inkers/printers and probably some other stuffs. Yes they are rich, and charge way too much. Why do you expect people to believe that your side is absolutely right, and the the opposing side is wrong? Talk about anyone with a brain...anyone with a brain can see that there is no reason to trust one side over the other.

"I'm sure the commercial was stupid."

It was VERY well produced, not some silly 'The Truth' PSA; had tons of big time Hollywood peoples in it.

Samwise Gamgee..../shrug. (what we need are some potatoes, Mr. Frodo.)

Lucy Liu... /duck. (Hubba Hubba)

Johnny Depp... /Aarrg.

James Cameron.../he absolutely WILL not stop!
(or alternately "Well that's great, that's just ****in' great man, now what the @#%$ are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty @#%$ now man... That's it man, game over man, game over, man! Game over! What the @#%$ are we gonna do now?").

Let me see if I can find it.

www.moviecitynews.com/not...6_thu.html (http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2003/030306_thu.html)

www.freewebs.com/wraithso...emay03.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/wraithsonwings/seanarchivemay03.htm)

www.hollywood.com/news/de...le/1709376 (http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/article/1709376)

www.blackflix.com/newslet...ffice.html (http://www.blackflix.com/newsletter/archive/03_04/box_office.html)

"All that pretty art that they put on albums isn't free either"

Why should I buy the album art when I want the music?

Sure I love H.R. Giger's biomechanical woman on the cover of E L & P's album. But I bought his artwork irrespective of the music, he got paid; I paid him.

<img src="http://images.allposters.com/images/38/028_3532.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

If I want to buy the artwork, I will. If I want to by the music, I will.

I do not want to put money into the 401K plan of some Suit who has not a single creative bone in his or her body.

I should be able to buy 'fair use' rights to a medium, and then use it fairly.

And saying that the artists are GREEDY is just absurd. They are making only a fraction of the money spent on <em>their</em> music and CDs these days. Hell, even a pimp lets his ho's keep more of her money than those 3 piece vultures do.

I buy ALL my stuff.
CDs, DVDs, etc.
It makes a big dent in my pocket, don't you think it doesn't, but there is nothing like having the "real thing" and not some vulgar copy.
But don't get sidetracked by the sheer numbers of people on the internet, the main numbers of the piracy come from people at home, who buy the album, then use it to make 50 copies an hour with those 10 CD Burners they have connected to their system.
Yes, this is stealing, and I am dead against it, but that doesn't make the entertainment industry right about ripping me off. We are all Robin Hoods...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Do you really think $8-$12/ticket is needed to make a profit off of movie tickets? Do you really think they need to charge $3 for a soda to make a profit?[/quote]

On the issue of the $3 soda the answer, surprisingly, is yes they really do need to charge that much.

Having previously been a Movie Theater manager (for 7 years), I am in a position to know a bit about theater finances.

That $8 ticket provides ~$0.80 (10%)to the theater. The other $7.20 gets sent to the movie distribution company (Universal, Fox, Dreamworks, etc...) for them to take their cut, pay the production company, etc. There are a few exceptions :
On 'art' films where the total audience is expected to be quite low, the theater's take can rise to as much as 20-30%. It is an incentive to get them to take the movie in the first place. And with the exception of independant theaters it is almost always a package deal with a BIG movie - if you don't take Random_Art_Film_03, we won't let you play Expected_Blockbuster_37.
On the Expected Blockbusters, the deal is generally 90% to the movie company with a guaranteed minimum per screen. If the 'blockbuster' ends up being a flop (rare, but it does happen - see:Last Action Hero), the theater company ends up losing money on the box office - the <em>total</em> take is less than the guarantee, so they have to shell out from their own pocket.


The average concession stand sales per customer are somewhere around $2.75 (I called up a friend who currently manages a 10 screen and asked what they are getting, and she had access to company wide data for the national chain she works for) - most people don't buy anything. If you subtract out the price the theater pays for the popcorn/soda/candy, it is probably around $2.50 per person.

That means the theater is getting around $3.30 ($3.70 in the case of a $12 admission) per customer to pay taxes, wages, electricity (3-5 kW/hour per screen <em>just for the projector</em>), rent on the location (stand-alone theaters tend to be on company owned property, the ones in malls tend to have substantial rents), etc.

--Why should I buy the album art when I want the music?--

Because that's how they come. Do you walk in to Wal Mart and tell them to take wrapper off the Fig Newtons and charge you 30 cents less for the package? No, that would be ridiculous, it's simply how they come.

--We are all Robin Hoods--

Robin Hood stole from rich oppressing people, that deprived the commoners of basic necessities in life. Music is not necessary. The only things that are necessary in life are air, water, and food. Life would suck without a lot of other stuff, like other people, clothes, shelter; but, it is possible to survive with none of that. So there again...you say you're against it, but you're still trying to justify it.

"Because that's how they come."

Does not have to be.

QED.



I don't want it. If record executives said that every CD now has to come packaged with 5 mini-shields, or fishing lures, or dreidels, or whatever, and increased the cost by a couple bucks, would you still buy them? Just because that's how they come.

Or would you say to yourself, there has got to be a better way?

No I wouldn't buy them. I buy very few albums now as it is.

If you think it is that crazy, then just don't buy it. That's it, that's your protest. Then you can write a well mannered and worded letter per week to every record company in the world, and start petitions. Once you get some signatures on your paper, you send copies of that in to all the companies too.

That's how it's supposed to work, not stealing.

It seems like many of you are operating on the assumption that musicians make money from the sales of CDs, this is both true and misleading. Most mucisians make the bulk of their money from touring, ticket sales, and t-shirt (merchandizing) sales. Their per-CD profit cut is along the lines of one or two cents - add that up, a platinum record with a million in sales would mean a net profit of $10k. The bulk of the $10-18 you pay for a CD is going to production, marketting, media, and yes, the record company fat cats.

If you want to know how it really works, read a little bit (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html).

"The bulk of the $10-18 you pay for a CD is going to production, marketting, media, and yes, the record company fat cats."

Exactly.

And there is nothing in the constitution(thus the intent of patents and copyright) that says any of that should be protected.

And Gam, petitions and letters are all fine and good(aside from being pointless and ineffective).

But a good old fashioned lawsuit is soooo much better.

Just need some savvy hungry constitutional lawyer come out and run it up to the Supreme Court. Remember that clause I quoted comes before any of the amendments. Your right to free speech and religion and due process and to bear arms comes AFTER that clause.

But even in the amendments I do not see a right to have people buy my eyeglasses or put in money into my 401K.

Hell, if some retarded out of work doctor can cause saying the 'Pledge of Allegience' illegal, then who's to say...? I would buy tickets to that event, in any regard.

Gamilenka said:
--We are all Robin Hoods--

Robin Hood stole from rich oppressing people, that deprived the commoners of basic necessities in life. Music is not necessary. The only things that are necessary in life are air, water, and food. Life would suck without a lot of other stuff, like other people, clothes, shelter; but, it is possible to survive with none of that. So there again...you say you're against it, but you're still trying to justify it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I was being sarcastic.
Being Robin Hood or not is a matter of persepective or opinion. Myth tends to get overblown, much the same way the figures of the losses the music industry show us is overblown.
We are all Robin Hoods in the meaning we all fight against our oppressors, be them right or wrong.
I said in my post I am against stealing and that I buy all my albums, and I don't DL music or films off the internet, then why would I try and justify myself by saying I am Robin Hood? Makes no sense.

As I once read in some comic:
We steal from the wretch and give to the peer.

A lawsuit would be better? That's what started all this, was people whining about the big bully record companies trying to sue poor, innocent, thieving Johnny. If you sue, you're doing the same thing that is part of the original complaint. Petitions are worthless, if you let them be. Petitions backed with media attention, are not worthless.

Whether the artists are making most of their money from the albums or not, makes no difference. Whether or not they are making money doesn't effect the fact that their work is protected.

You do have the right to have people buy stuff for you, that doesn't mean they HAVE to buy it for you. You also have the right to try to kill people, but that doesn't mean they have to let you kill them. After you kill someone, everyone else has the right to pursue you and put you in jail after a trial too. The way you're talking, you're saying screw the employees of the company, I want cheap music. How would you feel if you lost your insurance from work because the company wanted to lower costs? I have been checking in to insurance lately for myself. I already have car insurance through a company that also offers health insurance. To get a $500 deductable, I would have to pay over $100 a month on top of what I pay for my car insurance. You think Sony is paying their janitors that much? A lot of companies pay their execs way too much. They do it because if they don't, someone else will. It is crazy, I agree. If you think petitions are worthless, then your only recourse is to not buy, and spread the word.

BTW, a lot of the radio, tv, movie, music, and other entertainment and news companies are owned by a single company. I forget the name. They own Sony, VIACOM, probably clearchannel and some others.

--Hell, if some retarded out of work doctor can cause saying the 'Pledge of Allegience' illegal, then who's to say...? I would buy tickets to that event, in any regard.--

And the type of thinking that got us to that point is the same thinking that's going on here. Someone doesn't like something so they make demands and whine until the world reshapes to suit them. It's so ridiculous now, that there isn't even a Christmas break anymore, it's Winter Break. People in San Diego were complaining about crosses that were on state land. They weren't saying the state is going with this or that religion, the things had just been there forever. They were historical landmarks that were missing the official label that would protect them. One of them is on a hilly area, and the roads are so windy there. If you don't really know your way around, the one cross on that hill is the only way you know where you're at. People cried forever trying to get those crosses down. They weren't hurting anything, but people still wanted to get rid of them.

Frivilous crap like this keeps going on. It's just stupid. If you don't like the way a company does business, then don't do business with the company.

I agree, it doesn't make sense.

I just subscribed to a premium Internet music service. I was shocked that they charge almost $1.00 per track you download! WTF! That's as much or more than buying a CD!
Anyway, I won't be downloading any tracks, I'll just use their radio services, which seems worth the 4.95 a month.

That is why I included the clause from the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have power...To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"



One can obviously see that what "It" says and what the notions and laws today are vastly remote.

The Supreme Court is the only form of government that can decide if laws are Constitutional or not, and the only why the Supreme Court gets to hear about anything is for someone to sue someone else.

This is the website that belongs to the organization which made that PSA, I mentioned. www.respectcopyrights.com/ (http://www.respectcopyrights.com/) Interestingly, it has that very clause posted, there.

But I am not a Constitutional lawyer, so who am I to say?

Well and then again...useful can be fact, or a matter of opinion. So you could just say get rid of copyrights on music, painting of certain types, certain types of pottery, and 'new age' arts. If the Supreme Court decides that music isn't useful, then it would legally be a free for all.

$1 per track is only more expensive if you're trying to download the entire CD. If you know you won't like all the songs, or think you won't, then you can download the 1-2 songs on it you do like, and save the extra money. That's actually a good deal.

I don't see why Napster didn't just set this up for themselves. Would have saved all this controversy and such. They could have made money, the people that are responsible for the music's existence would have gotten their money, everyone could download music relativly cheaply (not to mention not haveing to deal with malls since they usually seem to have the best music stores now), and none of this would exist. It's fair, everyone gets what they say they want, nobody gets left behind or in the cold. DUH! Why hasn't someone been doing this all along? I actually saw a commercial for this, or something like it, yesterday. I think it's a good idea. Of course some people still won't be happy. Security is always a concern too. You could sell the songs for 1 cent each and someone would still complain.

I just don't see any justification for the thought process that produces things like, milk is $3/gallon, that's outrageous so I'm going to steal it and it's ok for me to do it. It is outrageous, but that doesn't make shoplifting any less wrong.

Gamilenka says: $1 per track is only more expensive if you're trying to download the entire CD. That's actually a good deal.

Yeah theoretically, however the track you get for that $1 is a) lower quality than the original and b) filled with all that copyright encryption crap that seems to serve no other purpose than frustrating lawful owners. It'll be in a cold day in Hell when I give money to support that garbage.

I'm personally hoping the RIAA sues itself to death and the entire bloated useless music "industry" falls away. I don't support stealing copyright material, but copyrights have turned the industry into a farce that has little to do with producing good music. And personally, I think the RIAA's tactics are far more despicable than those of the music thieves.

I think they're about the same really. One side rips everyone off, so another side rips the others off and justifies it by saying 'but mom he hit me first'. They're both just as guilty.

As far as junk music goes, I blame on MTV and teenage girls.

I'd have to agree with Araxx's first statement. Over the past 40 years the world has become a little backward in that we worship those that entertain us more than those that save our lives.

But surveys have shown (even one done by Sony) that internet sharing actually increases record sales, but it did lower the sales of singles.

If the info about the breakup of CD money is true, why would an artist care if their songs were being distributed on a free medium, if anything they would almost rely on it (eg. Radio for the last century). Artist don't get known if they don't get air-time, with PnP sharing their songs now spread globally. And the one thing that the internet cannot replace is the feeling and atmosphere of going to a live concert.

As much as I love movies and I know they are on the net somewhere I will always go to the movies to see it becuase of the atmosphere and the crowd (something you just can't get at home). And Zyphyr I'm one of those people who actually spends more money of food than I did on the movie ticket.


I'm not saying that stealing is right, by no means. But you can't really say the record companies are pleading poverty, so is this a sign of greed.

<em>I don't support stealing copyright material, but copyrights have turned the industry into a farce that has little to do with producing good music.</em>

I agree.

But I have a concern about when you have already purchased the material, and the artist has gotten paid, and I then download an mp3 version.

Does copyright law actually protect the artist, for the work they have done, when it is available in a different format?

Say, I bought an LP back in 1985, then I bought the CD version in 1995, and the recording is now out of print. I have paid the artist twice already for the music. And say my car got broken into and the CD was stolen; and I want to listen to the songs again, I paid for them, right(twice already)? They are available on someone's shared harddrive.

I see your point fyyre. Knowing that there is no way they could track that you bought a cd almost 20 years ago, I have to say you are just being ridiculous now though. If you payed for it with a credit card or check, MAYBE there's still a record somewhere. If they can't verify it, then why would they just go along with it. If they did, then everyone would just start lieing, and you end up in the same place we are now.

Actually it is hardly ridiculous, it happened to be true.


In all fairness, when I have hunted p2p stuff, it is almost for stuff that no one would buy anyways. I have a track of Barry Gordy's son singing a cover of Kate Bush's song about a woman having a baby; who would pay <em>anything</em> for that?

And I know there is a 'nfs' CD of the lead singers from Concrete Blonde and Four Non Blondes singing duets out there somewhere. Almost(tried to) bought it, but the store did not take checks.

FyrrLuStorm says: But I have a concern about when you have already purchased the material, and the artist has gotten paid, and I then download an mp3 version.

That's really a rare situation. If your CDs are getting stolen often you should exercise your fair use rights and make a backup copy of the media or move to a better neighborhood. You're also within your rights to convert the format to MP3 and store it as a backup, so long as you don't share it with anyone.

I paid for them, right(twice already)? They are available on someone's shared harddrive.

That other person isn't allowed to share it though, because it's outside the scope of their license. You may also be dealing with different copyright holders, as songs are remixed and rereleased all the time.

In all fairness, when I have hunted p2p stuff, it is almost for stuff that no one would buy anyways.

The very fact that you spend the time looking for it shows that you assign some value to it, which means someone else might pay for it. Besides, how do you think it got to the P2P network? Someone, somewhere, sometime, acquired the original rights to that recording.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The bulk of the $10-18 you pay for a CD is going to production, marketting, media, and yes, the record company fat cats."
[/quote]HAH! Then how come these stupid online services are charging $1 a track? The cd folks are charging just about that. Greed, greed, I tell you!

Hey, I like Kate Bush!

I think that if the music hits about .25 a track, then I'll start being interested. ATM it's just outrageous.

.25 cents a track wouldn't even be enough to cover the electric bill it took to get a whole recording session done in CA right now.

Don't you think it's greedy to try to horde all the music you want with no cost to you? Even at no extra cost? The most greedy people don't even realize they are, they just horde everything without a thought.

If you want the whole album go buy it in the store, if you just want a couple of songs, download them and save $8. That way you can download 6 other songs.

Oh and as far as regulating the Internet...it can be regulated, but you're right that it can't by a single nation. A single nation can enforce it's laws within it's own borders though. They could always make an international task force too.

Panamah says: HAH! Then how come these stupid online services are charging $1 a track? The cd folks are charging just about that.

Because they have to buy the license from the "cd folks". The cost of the actual media, the box, and the artwork is negligible, the real expense is the license. In fact, Apple's music store can't afford to put some titles for sale for $1 because of the cost of the license.

gamilenka says: .25 cents a track wouldn't even be enough to cover the electric bill it took to get a whole recording session done in CA right now.

A successful album sells millions of copies. Even at $0.25 per track they could make a million or two on a single track. Electricity is expensive out here, but it's only like $200 per month for an average home. I can't imagine a studio would use a million dollars' worth of power on a recording session that lasts a few hours.

The funny thing is, if the artist distributed the song directly, they could probably sell it for a dime a track and still make enough money for themselves, with the useless middlemen out of the way.

$.25 a track is less than what the artists get paid, by your statement, that would mean that the artists are penniless, but we all know that's not the case. It's just a question of profit margins. Record companies are making about a 80% margin of profit, assuming generic levels of marketing and "decent" sales. Now if a record tanks, yeah, they're going to make *less* money - by no means will they be losing money unless they sunk a ton into a media blitz - but that hardly ever happens (just think back - when was the last time you saw an ad for a new CD other than in store newspaper ads?). We're talking funneling multiple millions into paper, radio and tv ads - something that doesn't happen (with the exception of "As seen on tv" products - but they advertise during "cheap hours" to save costs). If a record sucks in sales, the one that's going to feel it is the artist, not the record company.

Assuming that a band takes a solid three months to record a record, staying up 24 hours a day, using full halogen lights, and 1000 watt amps in 45 degree A/C, they *might* run up the electricity bill to several thousand dollars - we're talking maybe $5-10k. The Joe-Schmoe cleaning the vomit from the bathrooms is making more. The guy twiddling with all the knobs and buttons in the dark grey suit saying, "Make it sound more real!" is the guy sucking up all the money.

CDs cost less than a penny to mass produce. Small production runs cost about three cents each. The box with the little paper insert will cost ten times more than the CD itself. Recording and editing will run you a few thousand dollars. A snazzy video can cost more than a million, but most likely will cost around a hundred thousand unless you're someone like Mariah Carey. That dude in the suit talking on the cell phone is probably making at least two-thirds of a million or more and eating up a good 10% of the gross sales just by himself.

Why do artists always seem to start their own record label after they get famous? It's two-fold, one - they want to keep more/most of their money, and two - they want the chance to screw some new guy and take their money.

It could be the licensing is that outrageous too, but look at the additional things you have to pay for if you buy music in the traditional form from retail:

Retailer marks it up for the consumer.
Retailer has to maintain a public facility and storage.
Distribution to the retailer.
anufacturing.

Generally a retailer is making 3-4x what they paid for something. So I have to believe the music industry is ripping off the electronic distributors for music or else they're ripping off the end user. You usually pay about 8-12 dollars for a CD with about 12 songs on it. That means the retailer is probably paying about 3-4 dollars per CD.

Gam be calm. I pay for music I listen to. Right now I'm subscribed to a online radio service, but I have done the E-music thing which was pretty reasonable. 15.00 a month to download all you want, unfortunately it was mostly stuff you'd never heard of before, which wasn't entirely a bad thing.

At first I was kind of believing the bit about the poor Music industry getting horribly ripped off, but I think I'm changing my mind about that.

"Cost" for a normal music CD is around $3-6, it jumps up significantly if they've got some sort of gimmicky insert, like an extra DVD or booklet - many times those inserts can make the "cost" jump to around $8-10, but those CDs normally cost around $14+ too.

DVDs are actually cheaper - they're about $4-6 total, even with "bonus materials". Guess movie licensing is cheaper than music.

Software is actually pretty close in some cases, games actually "cost" around 70-80% of the retail cost - so a $49 game costs a place like Best Buy $25-30 to put on the shelf. That's why it goes on sale for $10 cheaper, but never goes under that until the sales go flat. Stuff like OS's, graphics, etc have a lower "cost" per item, but they usually have a higher overhead that they need to make back - so a OS may "cost" Best Buy $80, cost $189 to the consumer, but the software manufacturer put in several millions in R&D to make it, compared to maybe two million for a game.

Finally people are starting to realize some things. It's not just one side that is doing everything. You can count on your local retailers getting their fair share on things too.

It's all going off track though, and has been for a bit now.

People are breaking the law, and mad because they might have to pay the price. Sure there are some technicalities, like 'well it doesn't EXACTLY say this or that. If you're downloading the music, and nobody is being paid, why would you even think that it's ok, or not illegal, or nobody will ever say anything? It's really not far off from software piracy. To me it's no different than shoplifting. People can bring up all the little bs technicalities, but that just makes me think even more that they know what they are doing is illegal. Someone always has a story to try and wiggle their way out of trouble when they know they were wrong.

Legal != Morale
Immoral != Illegal

Panamah says: Generally a retailer is making 3-4x what they paid for something.

The only mass retailers I know of that have 300% markups (i.e., retail price = 3 x cost) are jewelers. In many cases the retail markup is more like 100%, and in some industries like computer hardware the markup is tiny.

I don't know about music retailers, but I'd be surprised if the markup were really 300-400%.

My sister used to be a manufacturer's sales rep. There are industries where the markup is a lot less, but 3-4x is normal for a lot of 'em.

I'm sure that the folks that do huge volume whack off a lot of markup counting on the volume, like Walmart, but smaller stores really do count on that markup to make ends meet.