NationStates Jolt Archive

I have an idea. Let's stop stealing artists' work! ~ Michael.

I have an idea, how about not charging 15 bucks for an album that costs two dollars to produce? How about not stopping all over MY rights?

yeah I might do $5

Ill pay for it if its worth it, so, if its a band with one good song, id comtemplate downlaoding it, or buy it for cheap, but if its a good band, someone whos CD i could listne in its fullness, id go out and buy it, it hink betweenn 10 and 18 dollars is fair

I have an idea, how about not charging 15 bucks for an album that costs two dollars to produce? How about not stopping all over MY rights?But you don't have an absolute right to someone else's music. Only the musician(s) has the right to enter into a contract.

$15 bucks, I wish (I assume you're talking USD). The music I tend to buy runs around $21 and up.

I've paid up to $50.00 each for rare used CDs on eBay. Then I copy the music and artwork, and re-sell the items on eBay again. It'd the only way I can afford to hear such rare music.

I've paid up to $50.00 each for rare used CDs on eBay. Then I copy the music and artwork, and re-sell the items on eBay again. It'd the only way I can afford to hear such rare music.

50 bucks is rare? Ive seen CDs from 97 for around $500.

I generally refuse to pay more than ten bucks for a cd, but part of the reason for that is because I generally only buy old blues cds that have been remastered and the artists are long dead. I figure, why should I pay a ton of money for music when the artist isn't going to see a penny of it?

The only time I tend to pay more than ten bucks for a cd is when I buy local music at live performances--those bands see every penny of that and I feel right about spending it that way.

I tend to pay NZ$25, max for a cd unless it's a double or rare. I think that on the whole, music companies are going completely the wrong way in trying to stop people from illegally copying music.

I generally refuse to pay more than ten bucks for a cd, but part of the reason for that is because I generally only buy old blues cds that have been remastered and the artists are long dead. I figure, why should I pay a ton of money for music when the artist isn't going to see a penny of it?The artists' families may be receiving royalties. Artists' rights are inheritable. I believe copyright expires 75 years after an artist's death. Or it might be 95 years now. ~ Michael.

I generally refuse to pay more than ten bucks for a cd, but part of the reason for that is because I generally only buy old blues cds that have been remastered and the artists are long dead. I figure, why should I pay a ton of money for music when the artist isn't going to see a penny of it?The artists' families may be receiving royalties. Artists' rights are inheritable. I believe copyright expires 75 years after an artist's death. Or it might be 95 years now. ~ Michael.You're talking about law--I'm talking about how I feel about the matter. Artist's kids didn't make the music I want to buy, and neither did record execs--but record execs can determine to a limited extent whether or not that music is available, so I'm willing to toss them a limited amount of money in exchange for it. But I'm not going to make them stupid rich for the privilege--I have a limited price I'm willing to pay.

I wish the musicians themselves actually got a fair share of the album profits.

I wish the musicians themselves actually got a fair share of the album profits.That's precisely why I buy from artist's websites or at performances.

I generally refuse to pay more than ten bucks for a cd, but part of the reason for that is because I generally only buy old blues cds that have been remastered and the artists are long dead. I figure, why should I pay a ton of money for music when the artist isn't going to see a penny of it?The artists' families may be receiving royalties. Artists' rights are inheritable. I believe copyright expires 75 years after an artist's death. Or it might be 95 years now. ~ Michael.You're talking about law--I'm talking about how I feel about the matter. Artist's kids didn't make the music I want to buy, and neither did record execs--but record execs can determine to a limited extent whether or not that music is available, so I'm willing to toss them a limited amount of money in exchange for it. But I'm not going to make them stupid rich for the privilege--I have a limited price I'm willing to pay.I believe in property and contract rights. Artists enter into stupid contracts, it's true, and many artists and their contractual agents are opportunistic, money-grubbing, capitalist pigs. But still ... they have the right to their work. You don't. ~ Michael.

I wish the musicians themselves actually got a fair share of the album profits.That's precisely why I buy from artist's websites or at performances.How do you know how the profits are divvied up on these sales? ~ Michael.

I believe in property and contract rights. Artists enter into stupid contracts, it's true, and many artists and their contractual agents are opportunistic, money-grubbing, capitalist pigs. But still ... they have the right to their work. You don't. ~ Michael.I agree--if I don't want to pay for the record companies' price, I don't buy it. I might find a friend who has it and copy the work, as allowed under the fair use provision of the DMCA, but that's the extent. More often, I just go without.

I have an idea, how about not charging 15 bucks for an album that costs two dollars to produce? How about not stopping all over MY rights?But you don't have an absolute right to someone else's music. Only the musician(s) has the right to enter into a contract.

Exactly. I didn't enter into any contract. So I clearly don't have any responsibility for their product. Basically someone offers me a free mp3 to put on my computer. Either you're saying I don't have the right to use my computer, or you're saying I don't have the right to accept something free. INtellectual property rights are wholly absurd, especially as they exist today.

Basically it's my computer. I'm not stealing anything, because nothing is gone. No one has lost any music. It can't possibly be considered theft.

I wish the musicians themselves actually got a fair share of the album profits.That's precisely why I buy from artist's websites or at performances.How do you know how the profits are divvied up on these sales? ~ Michael.I've talked to enough musicians at their performances to know. I'm not generally talking about large acts here--I'm talking about locals or groups that maybe have had a hit or two and are touring on the club circuit. They get a much larger cut because they get the product at or around cost and then set their own price--no middleman.

I believe in property and contract rights. Artists enter into stupid contracts, it's true, and many artists and their contractual agents are opportunistic, money-grubbing, capitalist pigs. But still ... they have the right to their work. You don't. ~ Michael.I agree--if I don't want to pay for the record companies' price, I don't buy it. I might find a friend who has it and copy the work, as allowed under the fair use provision of the DMCA, but that's the extent. More often, I just go without.I thought "fair use" only covered academic and review uses, not copying the entire album between friends. I'd like to check out that provision if you have info on it. ~ Michael.

I believe in property and contract rights. Artists enter into stupid contracts, it's true, and many artists and their contractual agents are opportunistic, money-grubbing, capitalist pigs. But still ... they have the right to their work. You don't. ~ Michael.I agree--if I don't want to pay for the record companies' price, I don't buy it. I might find a friend who has it and copy the work, as allowed under the fair use provision of the DMCA, but that's the extent. More often, I just go without.I thought "fair use" only covered academic and review uses, not copying the entire album between friends. I'd like to check out that provision if you have info on it. ~ Michael.You are allowed, dating back to the inception of cassette tapes, to make copies for friends for personal use, as long as there is no commercial purpose. That's part of the reason Napster went astray--they wanted to go commercial.

I generally buy the cd's I want, but wait until I can find them in the used bin. I must say, however, that I copy music like mad because I am both poor and unemployed.

I believe in property and contract rights. Artists enter into stupid contracts, it's true, and many artists and their contractual agents are opportunistic, money-grubbing, capitalist pigs. But still ... they have the right to their work. You don't. ~ Michael.I agree--if I don't want to pay for the record companies' price, I don't buy it. I might find a friend who has it and copy the work, as allowed under the fair use provision of the DMCA, but that's the extent. More often, I just go without.I thought "fair use" only covered academic and review uses, not copying the entire album between friends. I'd like to check out that provision if you have info on it. ~ Michael.You are allowed, dating back to the inception of cassette tapes, to make copies for friends for personal use, as long as there is no commercial purpose. That's part of the reason Napster went astray--they wanted to go commercial.But if this is the case, then what commercial purpose did Napster have? to sell advertising? It was not selling the music. And if the law, which I have heard this interpretation before, but not verified myself yet, if the law allows "friends," then wasn't Napster stretching the definition of a friend to the most ridiculous of limits? ~ Michael.

Napster was stretching the definition of friend to ridiculous limits and that was the primary problem. The judge in the case also said there was a problem with the fact that napster was using centralized servers to aid the process. It's been a while since I read about the case, so I'm hazy, but I do remember that the case didn't invalidate the fair use statute so much as redefined it a bit.

I have an idea, how about not charging 15 bucks for an album that costs two dollars to produce? How about not stopping all over MY rights?
It might cost $2 to stamp out a copy of the album and package it, but it costs much more than that to produce the content.

The lyrics have to be written. Does the author deserve to be paid for the time spent creating them? How much 'thought time' is required? (For some, lyrics come immediately upon seeing/experiencing something. But what previous information was combined to make this 'sudden' stimulous meaningful enough to incite creativity?)

The music has to be written. Does the composer not deserve compensation for the time and creativity required?

The music and lyrics have to be coordinated, taught to the band, practiced, and perfected. Does the band not deserve compensation for the effort involved, even if no one within the group is the lyricist or composer?

The work has to be recorded. The studio has to be paid for recording time (use of equipment, etc.) and the studio technicians paid for their expertise. Without the techs, you have the equivalent of a cassette recorded in the basement on a recorder with a built in mike. It might be good music, it might have a certain raw energy, but it is no where near the quality of sound possible.

The album has to be editted, song by song. Coverwork done for the label and wrapper. Advertising produced and implemented (how many unadvertised albums do you think go platinum?)

$15 covers all of that, plus purchase by the reseller who makes it available to you. If the reseller got it for $8 and did not have to have a warehouse of some sort to keep it in until you bought it, had no employees (which are much more expensive than their hourly rate implies), skipped over insuring his stock agains disaster, did not have to somehow make you aware he has product for sale, etc. then he might sell it to you for $10.

But if the reseller has to maintain a warehouse/store, has even one employee, insures his stock, advertises, etc. his costs are substantially higher and selling you an album at $15 might allow him to make the $2 profit of the first example.

If you want to listen to free music, turn on the radio.


To answer the question posed by the thread, I am willing to pay whatever the quality of the music indicates is fair to me. I wouldn't pay a nickle for some albums, and have paid $120 for others. I never downloaded a single song from napster, but have downloaded dozens from iTunes. I have bought albums at yard sales, where the artist makes no money from the sale, but those are albums I cannot locate from the original sources.

For the record, if anyone is unaware, there are many recording artists who post free copies of one or two songs on their sites, to interest people in purchasing their albums. Warner Bros. has many cuts available, as do others. Also, Baen Books has a site where the authors have posted some of their books to be read free. This technique interests people in the groups or writers and enables them to sell more work. That is what Napster did for unknown bands, the problem there being works posted by people who weren't authorised to distribute them.

If you want free music, there are options given by the artists, as well as radio, etc. Somewhere in my previous posts is a link to a couple of places that do provide free music, one to Warner, one to a site that hunts down the artists/studios that post free music so you don't have to. Also, as I said Baen.com has a good sized library of books available to read free.

It might cost $2 to stamp out a copy of the album and package it, but it costs much more than that to produce the content.



Not significantly when considering the number of CDs sold. Production can be done quite cheaply and effectively (a few thousand dollars).

The lyrics have to be written. Does the author deserve to be paid for the time spent creating them? How much 'thought time' is required? (For some, lyrics come immediately upon seeing/experiencing something. But what previous information was combined to make this 'sudden' stimulous meaningful enough to incite creativity?)
-snip for size-

the author only deserves to be paid if the market shows he should be; in other words, he should be paid what people are willing to pay him. which is not very much. On the other hand, most bands, regardless of creativity, never make any money. If the band wants money, they should tout, and continue to produce CDs- regardless of mp3 availability, people (such as myself) still buy CDs, overpriced as they are, prodigously. I've purchased about 20 cds in the last 12 months and approximately 100 records (used), despite the fact I can get the music for free. I've also atended around a dozen shows. i don't owe artists anything.
In the end, however, the question is 'Does anyone have the right to create artifical monopolies against the will of consumers, thereby removing their rights over their own properties?'. The bottom line is that no one has a right to say what I can do with my own capital and labor, generally speaking.

I've paid up to $50.00 each for rare used CDs on eBay. Then I copy the music and artwork, and re-sell the items on eBay again. It'd the only way I can afford to hear such rare music.

50 bucks is rare? Ive seen CDs from 97 for around $500.

Well, apparently not the most rare possible, but considering most North Americans won't spend any more than $20 on a new CD then yes $50 for a used one makes it comparatively rare. I'm guessing a disc that would sell for $500 would mean it was a specialty item with only a very few copies originally made.

I dload whatever I want to hear. On rare occasions I rent an album from the library and then copy it.

I dload whatever I want to hear. On rare occasions I rent an album from the library and then copy it.

I dload whatever I want to hear. On rare occasions I rent an album from the library and then copy it.