There are somethings i dont understand about this bussiness...
Record Labels say that they are dropping sales and things like this...so basically they are not making as much money as they would like (in the millions) so thats why they want to have this battle with the famouse MP3 thing...and we all know it started with napster...
here's my thing tho...I dont understand why musicians or labels are so into the money now...i remember the time where musicians and labels all togeather would just wanna party their asses off and just chill with the groopies...
Yes, humans have matured in many way's...but now most of the people in that bussiness only wanna make a quick buck...for example. the sold out bands that just play really really @!#$ty music and dress like schmucks...i dont get it.
If i was a musician and people would be "stealing" my music, i would say OK then...use it, abuse it, love it, hate it...music was ment to be free...and how would i get the money to live out of music....well...? simple...I would do concerts all the time! the audience cant steal the good rock shows...they cant steal the inspiration they get when they see everybody jumping for their songs and the audience screaming for more!
the copyright laws uses this...in my words tho..."As long as you dont sell, distribute or reproduce the material then you can use it" well if thats the case then why dont they put in jail the musicians themselves...specially cuz they have ipods, mp3 players and stuff?
why dont labels stop the companies that make ipods and stuff like that...? they promote these things and then they turn around and say that its bad to have mp3 in your computer? doesnt that seem like a contradiction by itself?
"use this product, but if you have mp3 on your computer then you are going to jail..or have a fine of 250,000 dollars" WTF????
doesnt really make sence to me...so maybe you can explain it to me....
So where's the loop hole? I guess it would be that when you get a a fine for this crap I would mention the "research, personal" use...because if its research for something its legal...and OR for personal use, you are not selling it...you just happened to get it from another person...that SHARED the same file with many others...
when did sharing become illegal?
"I'm gonna put a curse on you and all your kids will be born completely naked."
Quote:
the copyright laws uses this...in my words tho..."As long as you dont sell, distribute or reproduce the material then you can use it" well if thats the case then why dont they put in jail the musicians themselves...specially cuz they have ipods, mp3 players and stuff?
Ummmm well once you put an MP3 on the internet they it becomes Distributed since it has been illegally distributed thats where the issues are.
The recording industry likes ipods because they get a portion from the sales on ITunes. There are legal ways to buy songs from legal websites. The issue is still the price. It still averages around $15-$20 a CD.
As far as why musicians want to make millions it is because people are lazy and greedy.
Those parties that you are talking about cost money. Hell I mean to be honest the voices that we hear on the radio and TV have all been tuned if we were to buy an unenginereed CD I bet most of us would probably quit liking our favorite bands. The musicians know this so that is where money goes as well. As I said people are lazy so thats why they dont just tour all of the time. Not to mention with the media obscessed people in this country its just not the same anymore.
First off, you need to understand how the record industry works...
Wholesalers (or Distribution companies) buy a number of CD's and they set their own prices for what retaillers will pay.
The wholesalers buy CD's typically at a set price from a recording company or label (or production company). The Label gets 100% of the funds that come from the distributor, and from there breaks it up usually in a point system. They either keep a certain percentage, and then allocate how many points are in the price of a record, or give themselves a set number of points.
If you figure the label gets $13 per CD, and each cd is 100 points, and $0.13 per point:
- The label will take between 33%-50% of the available points.
- The session artists combined will get 4-5 points per unit,
- The sound engineer and Studio will get between 5-10 points or a flat fee paid.
- The Artists' management will get between 4-8 points per unit,
- The producer will typically get 10 points or a flat fee paid
- The Artist will get the remainder, depending on if there has been an advance paid out.
These counts are just rough mind you... It's different for every artist and every label.
The Artist has a small stake in the equation, but they really make more when they tour. usually after the first 3-5 tour dates, they've paid out the overhead. The Label (or the RIAA concerned people) has the most to lose.
Originally when MP3's first became a real force to be reckoned with (in about 1996), the RIAA was pretty lax about it, because, Fraunhoffer/Steinberg originally owned all the rights to MP3 technology... when they released their SDK of the MP3 Producer, that's when the ish hit the fan. Basically, they knew what was happening, but couldn't do anything about it except hope that deep pockets and suit after suit after suit would force a capitulation... it didn't.
Anyhow in 1995, record sales were slumped... they hadn't gone up appreciably since 1991 (IIRC, it was 14 billion dollars annual revenues). Record sales were really hit in 1996, profits plummeted to just over
15 billion dollars annually. If you're scratching your head, it's cool... I did the same thing... profits were negatively affected to the tune of over -$1 billion. Profits went UP. When along came Gnutella, Napster, Kazaa and others, year-over-year increases were roughly $1-2 billion. At this point, the Record Industry ASSociates of America have nothing to bitch about. It wasn't a new artist that spawned a bevy of imitators, nor new production techniques or a new music genre... MP3 technology has revolutionised the industry because it allows the people to preview the music. The biggest hitch is that there were hither-to very few options to play MP3's in their car or on a portable device, but when Diamond media created the Rio MP3 player, that all changed... now 40-60gb MP3 players are common.
The thing that's really injected a LOT of money into the mix is legal MP3 programs have the great advantage of:
- Very little overhead
- Regular retail prices.
This allows a Label to totally side-step the distributors, and gain the profits thusly. iTunes, Napster (legalised) and other MP3 sales places like Bonfire are charging a small amount per song or per album to the label, and have distribution and digital rights management agreements with most labels, the Labels are starting to feel their oats now that they're making a TON more money, and hopefully, the RIAA will pipe down for a while.
The MPAA is the next big problem.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
It's not that mp3's are illiegal, it's how you obtain them. If I own a NSync CD and I d/l the mp3's or convert the CD to mp3, then that's legal because I already paid for the music. If I download Ashlee Simpson's CD however and I don't already own it, then that's illegal since I haven't paid for the music yet.
Companies don't stop the mp3 player manufacturers since the player itself isn't illegal, it's the songs itself are. It's like weed, you see stores in the mall selling bongs and stuff but they don't sell the actual weed. Besides, the manufacturer can always say they don't condone stealing mp3's, only buying from them for a low price of $1.99/song or something like that.
And I think bands and labels have always been into the money. You just haven't heard about it before since mp3's didn't exist. Of course, you could always copy a tape, but copying a tape isn't as easy as downloading a mp3 since you need to find an original tape first.
______________________________________________________________
ToBoGgAn wrote:we are gonna take it in the ass and like it, cause thats what america does.
Slo2pt2 (Projekt Unknown?) wrote:One my SON is ADHD N.O.S and Autistic Spectrum Disorder. I will nto medicate him he will battle throught this himself and learn to control it.
Downloading of music will never affect bands until it starts affecting their supply of anonymous pussy.
Actually, MP3's ARE in fact legal, the programs to make them etc, are 100% legal. If you decide to make a copy of your music as a back-up or for personal use, that's covered under your license to personally use or reproduce the music. If you DL music for free, or buy it from a company, it's still covered under personal use, and you have rights to it, and that is because in the MP3 file itself is embedded a Digital Rights Management code that identifies YOUR mp3's to YOUR computer or player. This is also the reason why you should ALWAYS back up your DRM Licenses to a CD or something in case you lose a HDD.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
If you DL music for free, or buy it from a company, it's still covered under personal use, and you have rights to it, and that is because in the MP3 file itself is embedded a Digital Rights Management code that identifies YOUR mp3's to YOUR computer or player. This is also the reason why you should ALWAYS back up your DRM Licenses to a CD or something in case you lose a HDD.
HUH? I am lost here. If you download the music on Limewire or something like that your sayign you have rights to it? What license are you talking about here I am kind of confused. I am sure there will be others that are just as confused.
no no... if you buy it from iTunes, Bonfire, or Napster, or you DL a Free one from those services, you have personal use rights.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Ok thats what I was thinking lol just wanted to make sure LOL
yea
I should say, that only applies if you live in the US.. if you're in Canada, you're allowed to DL Copyrighted materials for evaluation.
You can even enter a movie theatre with a video camera, but if you're caught making a recording of the movie, they can confiscate the camera's tape or recording media.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The problem with copyrights is that they can be transferred...they shouldn't be. The rights should be to the original artists, and shouldn't legally be able to be signed over.
This raises osme intresting questions about how the RIAA is doing this. For one, A lot of my GWAR mp3's were avaliable from GWAR.net for free by them. If the RIAA was to sue me, would they take all of those into consideration? Further, of all my illegal stuff, the RIAA doesn't own the copyright--the band (artist) does. As such, if i were ever to get caught, per se, i would pay the offending artists $2/song and call it good. that's maybe $50 out of my pocket, they get compensated, and the RIAA can't do crap.
But then again, my music is esoteric.
The issue is this: the "artists" (i use that term loosely) that are affected by this are the media-giant cash cows that are the ones in it for the cash, and tailor make their "music, or have their music tailor-made to sell records, not because it's an artistic endeavor. the RIAA makes money off this, and as such, they are the ones to lose.
Plus, most smart artists, write, perform, produce, master and finalize their own music, and just have a distributor make copies and sell. Further, most of these artists offer 1 or 2 mp3's for free because they realize the huge marketing potential of having 1 or two songs released into the public domain and getting around to placwes they couldn't market before.
Now, when it comes to MP3's, i'm more of an idealist. I would never download an entire album unless i was trying to stick it to a group that deserved it (Metallica comes to mind, but it would have to be an older album, where they actually kicked ass IMHO). for the most part, i'd d/l a song or two, and if i liked, hell, i'd buy the album to try and support the band, usually from th artists website. That's how i got into Hanzel Und Gretyl
And some artists know this...This year, and 2003, i orded some CD's from HevyDevy Records ("Canada's official apology for Celine Dion and Brian Adams"), which is all of Devin Townsend's music. Both years, he sent out signed postcards for the holidays to everyone that ordered from him...
Now, do you think for a minute that bands with 1/100th the talent and 10x the popularity (a la Fred Durst) would ever conceive of doing that?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Well, technically, the band licenses their works to the label (and what ever distributor and person who wishes to purchase a recording of their music) in exchange for money, and so on and so forth.
The GWAR music is copyrighted... basically, it's their protection from some Tom, Dick or Harry from DLing it, and reselling it as their own work. HOWEVER, they are making it available for your personal use without charge. The RIAA has no grounds to do anything about that because it doesn't fall under their perview as an association... GWAR as it's own entity is distributing their music as they see fit.
If, however, you DL'ed a copy of their newest album from a pirate site, then you're violating the "unauthorised reproduction" segment of the copyright act. Technically, you can't re-sell your CD's either, but it isn't enforced rigidly because you no longer have access to the discs.
As far it goes, most bands don't do most of their own work... mainly because developing bands don't have that kind of cash to set up a studio and hire a sound engineer. They usually pay for the recording costs either out of pocket, or, out of any advances they get from their record company, and that is counted as money that doesn't have to be repaid depending on how the contract is worded.
Quote:
Now, when it comes to MP3's, i'm more of an idealist. I would never download an entire album unless i was trying to stick it to a group that deserved it (Metallica comes to mind, but it would have to be an older album, where they actually kicked ass IMHO). for the most part, i'd d/l a song or two, and if i liked, hell, i'd buy the album to try and support the band, usually from th artists website. That's how i got into Hanzel Und Gretyl
I DL full albums as an auditioning method. If I don't like an album, I delete and move on... if I do like, I buy it, but usually not from the artist because of logistics... I want my music now
Quote:
And some artists know this...This year, and 2003, i orded some CD's from HevyDevy Records ("Canada's official apology for Celine Dion and Brian Adams"), which is all of Devin Townsend's music. Both years, he sent out signed postcards for the holidays to everyone that ordered from him...
That, is very cool... damned decent of the fellow.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The pricing is the biggest issue for most people. The problem with a CD is as a general rule most people end up only really liking one or two songs off of a CD. Nobody wants to spend $20 on a CD for a song or two and that is where the illegal sites become so popular. Yes I know there are legal ways to do the same thing but it goes back to pricing. What would happen if you were listening to AOL or Yahoo Radio and recording from there? What about people that used to tape record a song that was on the radio? I mean in theory they are doing the same thing making a copy of a song from an artist. The RIAA never did anything back then that i can remember. Sure the internet has made it that much easier for us to share which has added a lot of fans to some groups. I dont know how much will change until the pricing issue is solved.
Actually, the RIAA did lobby congress to pass a law that imposed a $.50 hidden tax on all recordable media (from 4 track tapes to professional DAT tapes, to CD-R's). It's been in force since about 1994-5 IIRC.
Now though, it's a lot easier to get access to cd-quality (as laughable as that is now) rips.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
