NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that if file sharing does harm artists (which i think could well be a load of propaganda to get ppl to buy cds) then it actually helps the music industry

Put it this way, a decent band can make a living from live performances which you cant download, crap bands can only make money from singles and if they;re lucky an album or 2.

Some, examples, I went to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers in hype park last summer, with 100,000 people there at £40 a ticket thats 4million from 1 gig alone, they did 5 gigs in the uk that year so £20,000,000, I'm not sure what cut the band gets but lets say 10% at a very low estimate, so between them they're up two million quid for a few months work. Less successful but still good artists can certainly make a good living from live shows. At the other end of the spectrum you have the manufactured TV bands, anyone remember pop stars the rivals?, that worthless TV program for the brain dead masses produced a boy band and a girl band. They were supposed to do a UK tour together but it was canceled because they sold less than half the tickets. The girl band have done ok, a couple of singles, an album but lets face it we'll never hear from them again ... the boy band went no where. As opposed to the Chilis who were massivly popular 10 years ago and still will be 10 years from now. Who knows they might be the next led zepelin.

The point is that file sharing sifts the shit out of the music industry sending all those wannbe pop singers, copycat rappers, and rnb bollox right back where they belong, the gutter

There was music before the music industry and there will be music after the music industry.

I think that if file sharing does harm artists (which i think could well be a load of propaganda to get ppl to buy cds) then it actually helps the music industry

Put it this way, a decent band can make a living from live performances which you cant download, crap bands can only make money from singles and if they;re lucky an album or 2.

Some, examples, I went to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers in hype park last summer, with 100,000 people there at £40 a ticket thats 4million from 1 gig alone, they did 5 gigs in the uk that year so £20,000,000, I'm not sure what cut the band gets but lets say 10% at a very low estimate, so between them they're up two million quid for a few months work. Less successful but still good artists can certainly make a good living from live shows. At the other end of the spectrum you have the manufactured TV bands, anyone remember pop stars the rivals?, that worthless TV program for the brain dead masses produced a boy band and a girl band. They were supposed to do a UK tour together but it was canceled because they sold less than half the tickets. The girl band have done ok, a couple of singles, an album but lets face it we'll never hear from them again ... the boy band went no where. As opposed to the Chilis who were massivly popular 10 years ago and still will be 10 years from now. Who knows they might be the next led zepelin.

The point is that file sharing sifts the shit out of the music industry sending all those wannbe pop singers, copycat rappers, and rnb bollox right back where they belong, the gutterbut the real money is in the record/cd sales. Live concerts don't really pull in that much money... not when you factor in the expenses... Record sales is where the stable money comes in giving the artists time to write, record, and improve on songs.

I have not bought a CD in more than five years.

I think that if file sharing does harm artists (which i think could well be a load of propaganda to get ppl to buy cds) then it actually helps the music industry

Put it this way, a decent band can make a living from live performances which you cant download, crap bands can only make money from singles and if they;re lucky an album or 2.

Some, examples, I went to see The Red Hot Chili Peppers in hype park last summer, with 100,000 people there at £40 a ticket thats 4million from 1 gig alone, they did 5 gigs in the uk that year so £20,000,000, I'm not sure what cut the band gets but lets say 10% at a very low estimate, so between them they're up two million quid for a few months work. Less successful but still good artists can certainly make a good living from live shows. At the other end of the spectrum you have the manufactured TV bands, anyone remember pop stars the rivals?, that worthless TV program for the brain dead masses produced a boy band and a girl band. They were supposed to do a UK tour together but it was canceled because they sold less than half the tickets. The girl band have done ok, a couple of singles, an album but lets face it we'll never hear from them again ... the boy band went no where. As opposed to the Chilis who were massivly popular 10 years ago and still will be 10 years from now. Who knows they might be the next led zepelin.

The point is that file sharing sifts the shit out of the music industry sending all those wannbe pop singers, copycat rappers, and rnb bollox right back where they belong, the gutter

While that has some merit for increasing the quality of the music produced, it does not help the music industry in anyway. The Music industry would be happy selling you the worst shit you can imagine (cough, Britney Spears) so long as you shell up the cash for it. P2P cuts down on record sales. It hurts the cash flow and hurts the music industry.

IMO the music industry deserves it for producing all this swill constantly with the sole purpose of making more money. I download music, and if it's something I like I usually buy the album. Other times it's only a single song that I want on a whole CD.

I'd like to see a system where you could download all music at a reasonable price (w/o all the costs of producing the CD), which I think would really benifit lesser known artists by allowing them to compete on the same terms as the syndicated groups.

Oh, and copy protection on CD's is pure evil. All it does is hinder me from playing albums on my PC (which I often do at work) while doing nothing to stop the hardcore hackers who figure out how to get around the protection anyway. for me copy protection = do not buy.

IMO the music industry deserves it for producing all this swill constantly with the sole purpose of making more money. I download music, and if it's something I like I usually buy the album. Other times it's only a single song that I want on a whole CD.

Do you walk into a store and steal only half a twix and leave the other half in the wrapper? Open up a bag of M&Ms and only take the blues because you don't like the other colors?

It is theft, pure and simple. At least own up to your actions instead of trying to dismiss them.

I'd like to see a system where you could download all music at a reasonable price (w/o all the costs of producing the CD), which I think would really benifit lesser known artists by allowing them to compete on the same terms as the syndicated groups.

www.apple.com/itunes
www.napster.com

Oh and uh, the cost of producing a CD makes up a very small portion of the cost of the music.

Oh and uh, the cost of producing a CD makes up a very small portion of the cost of the music.

I believe that the cost of producing a blank CD costs only 0.5% of the price of an average UK album (say 12GBP).

My dad worked for one of the many companies producing blank CDs for the music industry, and he is sworn to secrecy about the cost...needless to say he doesn't buy many cds...

Do you walk into a store and steal only half a twix and leave the other half in the wrapper? Open up a bag of M&Ms and only take the blues because you don't like the other colors?

It is theft, pure and simple. At least own up to your actions instead of trying to dismiss them.

www.apple.com/itunes
www.napster.com

Oh and uh, the cost of producing a CD makes up a very small portion of the cost of the music.

You're comparing consumer products with digital information, and that just doesn't work. When you eat candy like in your silly analogy, it's gone, but when you download a music file, nothing disappears. In fact, you create more of it, allowing others who have never heard the song in question to sample it, possibly enjoy, and perhaps buy it.

Music CDs today are ridiculously overpriced, and the music industry is now just reaping the consequences of that fact.

I believe that the cost of producing a blank CD costs only 0.5% of the price of an average UK album (say 12GBP).

My dad worked for one of the many companies producing blank CDs for the music industry, and he is sworn to secrecy about the cost...needless to say he doesn't buy many cds...

It's not just the CD itself. It's packaging design/production, distribution, and, most importantly, marketing.

It's not just the CD itself. It's packaging design/production, distribution, and, most importantly, marketing.

I can get a blank CD and case for 50p, printing costs cant top £2.
What marketing is going to cost £5 PER CD.

If it is good it will be played. If not I don't want to hear it no matter how much someone is paid to play it.

I am currently trying to avoid two really bad records that are on the main radio playlists.

Interesting analysis:

http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2177244

Specifically:

In the end, says Moby, an influential musician, the record industry will have to throw out its current business model. It will no longer be able to make huge profit margins on CDs that cost next to nothing to manufacture. To compensate for lower prices, he says, the industry needs to cut its marketing for artists by as much as four-fifths. Once the record companies have less marketing clout, and with internet distribution, says Moby, artists will be in a powerful position. “Why”, he asks, “is a record company any more qualified to send an MP3 to iTunes than I am?”

I wouldn't have got into music originally if I hadn't discovered bands like the Dead Kennedys over MP3.

I never heard anything good on the radio or MTV type shows, (and still don't) so I simply wasn't interested in music. Then over the internet, I discovered several bands (eg. RATM, the aforementioned DK's) and went and bought their CD's. There is simply no good music on the radio- so how else am I supposed to hear these bands? Even wildly popular bands such as Nirvana and Led Zep only have two or three singles, their most famous but not necessarily their best, circulated on radio (over here, at least). I wouldn't have got into them if I hadn't had the internet to hear their other work.

In the past 12 months, i've spent several hundred on CD's already. And i've spent about $2000 on my guitar, which I never would have taken up had online music not been around.

Even now, I rely almost solely on the internet for discovering new bands.

So yes, MP3's are good for the music industry. They made me a consumer. But they're bad, so don't download them, mmmkay?

(As a curious aside, most "classic" albums by popular 60's and 70's artists cost about $10 here. Most new and 90's albums cost $20-$30. Obscure and import albums can cost up to $40. So clearly, they *can* make a profit out of a $10 CD, else they wouldn't be on sale. As it stands, I buy most of my albums second-hand now. I save a heap.)

I can get a blank CD and case for 50p, printing costs cant top £2.
What marketing is going to cost £5 PER CD.


I'm not sure if it is still possible, but I find the story fairly funny.

Factory Record actually lost money on their best selling single, Blue Monday by New Order. Tony Wilson explained that the inlay card design was quite complicated so once all the costs were factered in Factory realised that they would loose 0.5p per issue sold. The went ahead with it anyway since they didn't think it would sell well and it became the highest selling single ever.

Though I think the price for a single has gone up (I have no idea what the price for single were in the early to mid 80s)

The actual cost of producing a CD is pretty miniscule, you can buy a burn a cd at home for about £0.1 and the art work (based on my father's small studio productions) costs at the most £1 including paper and inj jet ink for short runs, for long runs he just too a copy of the art work to a printers and got it for about 25-50p per cd cover.
Take that to an industrial scale with mass duplicators and hi speed low cost printers you coudl easily be looking at 30p tops per cd...
Digital printing is the biggest advance to have reduced the cost.
Of the total cost of a CD in the UK 17.5% is VAT and 10-20% goes to the shop, the rest goes directly to the record company to distribute to the artist and production staff.

I wouldnt have a CD collection if i couldnt download a few songs first from a CD to see what theyre like - i cant afford to go and buy an album on the off chance that its good, so the music industry gets more money from me because i can download songs for free

Do you walk into a store and steal only half a twix and leave the other half in the wrapper? Open up a bag of M&Ms and only take the blues because you don't like the other colors?

It is theft, pure and simple. At least own up to your actions instead of trying to dismiss them.



www.apple.com/itunes
www.napster.com

Oh and uh, the cost of producing a CD makes up a very small portion of the cost of the music.
Yep, it is theft, I admit that. But if I like the album, I generally go out and buy it, if I can find it for a reasonable price. If I don't I delete it. I upload music as well - that's what the music companies are trying to stop - but it's not my responsibility what other people do with the music they get from me.

Also - record companies complain that p2p has led to the death of the single, and has caused massive downturns in their revenue. Really? In 2004, single sales fell by around 10% in the UK. Album sales rose by around 8%. Their biggest profit margin is on albums. So their revenue fell? What accountants are they using?
And the single market has been dying for over 20 years. They can't blame that on p2p. Maybe home-taping really did kill music :p

just to clear something up, the real cost of a CD or DVD movie comes from the consumer buying the rights to view the material. If you damage one of your DVD movies and can prove you bought it, most companies (such as Universal Pictures and Disney) will replace the disk for a fraction (like, 1/8th the cost) of the retail price, simply because you own the rights to playing that movie in your own home.

just to clear something up, the real cost of a CD or DVD movie comes from the consumer buying the rights to view the material. If you damage one of your DVD movies and can prove you bought it, most companies (such as Universal Pictures and Disney) will replace the disk for a fraction (like, 1/8th the cost) of the retail price, simply because you own the rights to playing that movie in your own home.

This seems suspect to me, not that I don't believe you, but the proof required will probably be quite stringent and while therefore disqualify most people that don't keep receipts for very long.

Of course this is all supposition on my part.

You're comparing consumer products with digital information, and that just doesn't work. When you eat candy like in your silly analogy, it's gone, but when you download a music file, nothing disappears. In fact, you create more of it, allowing others who have never heard the song in question to sample it, possibly enjoy, and perhaps buy it.

Music CDs today are ridiculously overpriced, and the music industry is now just reaping the consequences of that fact.

I study economics, basically what you're talking about is whats called a non-rival good. If you have a cup and I take the cup I have the cup but you dont anymore. With a non rival good like digital music you have the music, I copy it only my hard drive so I have it, but I havent taken it from you, you still get the same benefit from it, its just so do I. Thats why I believe that music sharing is not only not theft but morally right, sharing is what society is based on. Capitalism is simply a wild animal thats chained and forced to work for society, if it got out it would fuck us all over.