$20: Why I No Longer Feel Remorse For Copying Major Label Music

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]I seriously doubt that Metallica's wealth is threatened by MP3s. Those bitch sessions Lars "testified" at were kinda like Kenny Lays wife crying on TV, on how she didn't know how they were gonna make it. [/quote]It is hard to feel sympathy for artists when they are superstars and rolling in dough...but there are also a much greater pool of artists who are struggling, or slightly past their prime and really DO depend on very meager royalty fees for their work. It is just my opinion that right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of whether the victim is a rich superstar, or a struggling artist. There was an interview with a very well-known superstar of "yesteryear" in which he pointed out how much money he actually does make, and how loss of royalty fees does affect his income. His income was appallingly low, even though he was a household name. Maybe it was Mason Williams, Jose Feliciano, or Freddy Fender, or someone of about that level of name recognition. I can't remember. Anyway, his songs are still regularly played on radio, and CD's are still on the shelves...yet he is doing local gigs at the same bars that you or I might play at, and he sees very little from his "famous" songs. Note that this doesn't even address the who issue of "sampling", etc.

[surfjunkie]

[quote]Originally posted by Mr. Downchild: [b]This seems to be similar to the same controversy that flared up in the late 70's/early 80's over the VCR. The film and television industry eventually found a way to incorporate the (then) new technology into padding their accounts. [/b][/quote]and that was by passing a law that gives them a percentage of sales of decks & blank tapes, right? same as consumer cd recorders. how will they do that with mp3? will ascap/bmi get a percentage of the next computer i buy, based on hard drive size? i keep lots of mp3s on data cd's, will they get a piece of that? man, this is a complicated issue to say the least. i'd have to say that i agree with everyone here so far. that might include a contradiction, but that's because mp3 sharing is good [i]and [/i] bad.

[Mats Olsson.]

The competition for our money is very different nowadays: cell phones, computers, fashion, playstation, music, home theater, cable TV, internet, travel and what have you... mp3 and/or home copying is not the only culprit, but one that is easily identifiable. All sorts of consumer goods, services and entertainment compete with music now. /Mats

[KenElevenShadows]

I purchase CDs from US$12.99 to US$15.99 from independent stores (Rhino Records, Amoeba, both in Los Angeles). I very frequently purchase used CDs, which are even cheaper. I very rarely purchase anything at Best Buys, The Wherehouse, Sam Goody's, Fry's, or other chains. Huge chains like this tend to limit the choice available. I'd rather have more options available to me by supporting an independent store that caters to independent releases by artists. I also purchase things on line at http://www.Aquariusrecords.org What I've done in the past is make compilations for friends. I'm talking maybe 2-4 copies of compilations. They'll have all sorts of things, and bear in mind that the stuff I listen to is not stuff that you're likely to hear on the radio anywhere. It's usually obscure experimental, weird stuff, or international music (typically, field recordings that sell only 2000-5000 copies) -- frequently, things that are not easily available in most stores (except for maybe Amoeba or other independents). I'll put one or two songs from each CD on the compilation, with full credits and the whole bit, and I've found that often my friends will go out and purchase the whole CD. This is about as far as I will go in copying something for someone else. It's more like a little sampler so someone can hear something that they ordinarily would never be able to hear on their own. In this line of thinking, copying something by Dave Matthews Band would be ludicrous since you can't avoid his songs. I'm probably crossing the line at "stealing" anyway, and if someone were to accuse me of "stealing", I'd probably have to shrug my shoulders and say, "Yes, I am." I suppose the only difference is that ordinarily, the recipients of my compilations ordinarily would never hear that, and now they are able to go and pick up the CD (which, again, is often the case with my friends). I don't listen to MP3s unless it is to determine whether I want to buy a CD or not. I don't like how they sound, so I'm not going to download MP3s and burn CDs of them. I think that if someone wants to do something -- say, copy whole CDs, or even one or two songs from a CD and create compilations like I do -- they'll justify it. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it somewhere in between? I don't know. I try and think about whether my actions will directly result in taking money from the artist's pocket, and proceed from there. In the case of the compilations I create for 2-4 friends, I suspect that I am, if anything, creating extra revenue for the artists since my friends would not hear them otherwise. I also write reviews of some of my favorite things on my web site. Again, someone could probably make a successful argument that legally, I am stealing. They'd be right.

[Mr. Downchild]

Thanks for clarifying, Dwarf. My point was to illustrate how infractions of copyright laws go on all the time with no attention or fallout stemming from it. If it's true what you say about the clubs having to shell out royalties on copyrighted material being performed, then House Of Blues, Hard Rock Cafe, et al, might have been breaking the law left, right and center. I just think that we, as musicians and artists tend to see things strictly from a 'copyrights' point-of-view, whereas, if you spend any time with music fans, (especially non-musicians) you might realize that you may have forgotten about an equally important right - consumers rights. This right is no-less valid than the rights of the artist. When the fat cats in the middle get involved, then that's when the shit hits the fan. And guess what? When the fan stops buying the shit, the artist suffers. Remember that artists and supporters are [i]co-dependent[/i] in this regard. We, as artists should really take widen our scope from strictly 'our rights' to our relationship with the man/woman on the street, or at a computer desk for that matter. If we turn our supporters into adversaries, then our 'copyrights' will not mean a damn thing! This is what the recording industry needs to realise as well. Mr Dylan said "The times they are a changing", and we'd better be hip to it, because if we get into a war with the consumers, WE- not they - will lose. BTW I will be sure to send Mr Dylan a quarter for quoting him. ;)

[D_dup3]

Well, we all knew (at least some of us) that the move from vinyl to CDs was really about selling new technology & equipment more than improved sound quality; some (in the know) even saw the eventual attempt to control duplication of digitally encoded info. Let us not forget that the actual production costs of CDs still hover at about the one-time cost of pressing a vinyl disc---that is less than $1.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Blues Disciple: [b] I go to Sam Goody or some other place that sells used CD's and stack up If CD's hit $ 20.00 for one then I will use these four options exclusively and will avoid the CD store totally. [/b][/quote]A) - Sam Goody where you're at sells used cd's???? B) They already *are* $20 a cd in my town...

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Botch: [b]This surprises me, I bought "Busted" for $11 at the local Target (where I now get ALL the "big" releases). And the last Memorial Day the local Circuit City had ALL CDs on sale all weekend for $9, I really stocked up then.[/b][/quote]I didn't look at Target. It wouldn't surprise me, though. It's probably like everything else in Amerika these days, where the price break is given to the gigantic warehouse stores in under the table deals and everyone else has to go about business as if they're somehow participating in capitalism...

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Michael Erwin: [b]Guys, Can I ask a stupid question here? Why aren't all of you buying your CD and records from your local independent record stores? [/b][/quote]A friend of mine ran the last one in town. Note the past tense....

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [b]Gee...Stealing things because the price got too expensive. That is not a "reason" that is a "motive"...all criminals have them.[/b][/quote]POWEEE! Zing!

[alphajerk]

[quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [QB] [quote]...in fact its like free advert for the artist.[/quote]The point is that it is the artist's property, and it is the artist's right to decide how to distribute it and if he wants to use it for advertising, that is his choice...not your excuse for theft. QB][/quote]actually its rare its the property of the artist, especially when signed to a major. its usualy property of the labels and the artist has little say in how its distributed or even used... at least for the recording itself [which is what is traded] i dont think its theft to download mp3s. nothing you can say will make me change my view on it, its a weak argument. i still buy CD's and always will.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b]pictures, 24 bit audio, etc. for $15 yet most single 16bit CDs cost the same price or higher.[/b][/quote]Anyone remember a post I made about a year ago (2 years ago...?) about pushing a higher-bit rate format to supplant 16/44 so that mp3's would be considered too "inferior", as well as making it difficult to download the "standard" due to greater bandwidth requirements? *Maybe* they're actually trying to kill off the cd market. Hear me out... They slowly make the cd market "impossible". In the meantime, they trickle DVD costs down to the $15 mark - [i]the cd price point[/i]. In the meantime, certain artists happen to come out with DVD releases simultaneously... [i]Note that the afforementioned DMB cd *originally came with a DVD....*[/i] You then wait until the "smart" consumers start saying things like "man, I just buy DVD's now, *they're cheaper*.." They create a new market by default. In the process they stave off MP3 by making it an inferior option to being able to buy both the music AND "extras" - video, etc... AND they make the standard a higher grade, which makes it harder for the smaller players (re: the independent label) to mass produce. That *HAS* to be what they're thinking. It wouldn't surprise me if the 5.1 push was a premptive aborted move to try to set this up in a "quiet" manner, having a number of major artists release 5.1 DVD while smaller artists are caught out cold, or unable to financially cope initially with developing a 5.1 product. Yeah, it's obvious: they're clandestinely killing off the cd format.

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by tazzola: [b]What's really obscene to me is the industry's (particularly thr RIAA) reaction to Internet radio in the U.S. The new CARP fees are effectively killing stations, most of which are run independently (meaning out of someone's house, at their own expense). I can't see why Internet radio can't be viewed as a great promotional tool by the record industry in general (which it is IMHO). It's much better in variety than terrestrial (over the air, analog) radio. Most of the CD's I get are due to things I hear on Internet radio, not traditional radio. I have purchased some online, too. (I got Dream Theater's latest double album from Amazon for $17.99. That's $6 to $8 USD off the regular stroe price, and that's not even a sale price, last time I checked!)[/b][/quote]Do you know if these internet radio stations pay performance royalties to the writer/publisher, just like real radio stations are supposed to? [quote]to me thats dead wrong. For a bunch of kids (which is the primary downloaders) to get MP3's (remember the format folks said was shit quality?) of their fave bands is harmless, in fact its like free advert for the artist.[/quote]There goes that free advert for the artist thing again. Just to be clear, I am not against file sharing or internet radio. I just think that some kind of system of payment to the writer of the song has to be implemented. That's what traditional radio does. The artist gets promoted via airplay, and the writer/publisher gets paid a performance royalty. What is wrong with that system? The major labels suck we all know that. Most of the music the major labels sell blows, we all know that. Yet some kind of system has to prevail that will pay the traditional performance royalty to the writer. Most of us are music makers here. It takes money to make music, you can't keep giving it away and expect to stay in business. It's like the guy who buy's widgets for $1.00 apiece, and then sells them for 99 cents figuring he will make it up in volume. Bad business model.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Parisongs: [b] So, at $20.00 a pop, you're getting ripped. That blows. :( [/b][/quote]Am I? What are the prices of cd's at Fye's in other locations? *Not* online...? They wanted $20 for STP's Shangri-La-di-Da, which has been out for awhile... I looked at some other things. Their DVD's were not much more expensive. Walmart? I just looked on their web page - it says the "List Price" is $18.98, online they're selling it for $14. Not in the store... "List price" for cd's are now $18.98......???? They're killing off cd's I think.

[Chip McDonald]

FOR THE RECORD (pun intended): I bought _Busted Stuff_ online from CDNOW with the DVD for $14. Also bought Allan Holdsworth's _Road Games_ from Audiophile Imports online for $18.98; can't find it elsewhere. Just came out on cd, buying it just to hear "Tokyo Dream" without the sound of vinyl record noise..... LeiDeLe: up yer nostrils with a dozen Sumerian fossils.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]That's what traditional radio does. The artist gets promoted via airplay, and the writer/publisher gets paid a performance royalty. What is wrong with that system?[/quote]I know the point you're trying to make and it's a good one. BUT for the record...the system hasn't worked for a long time...I know of several writers who never got credit for radio plays...who got their money? Madonna, Guns N Roses, Eric Clapton, Mariah Carey. :rolleyes The system should be fair but never has been.

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b]pictures, 24 bit audio, etc. for $15 yet most single 16bit CDs cost the same price or higher.[/b][/quote]Anyone remember a post I made about a year ago (2 years ago...?) about pushing a higher-bit rate format to supplant 16/44 so that mp3's would be considered too "inferior", as well as making it difficult to download the "standard" due to greater bandwidth requirements? *Maybe* they're actually trying to kill off the cd market. Hear me out... They slowly make the cd market "impossible". In the meantime, they trickle DVD costs down to the $15 mark - [i]the cd price point[/i]. In the meantime, certain artists happen to come out with DVD releases simultaneously... [i]Note that the afforementioned DMB cd *originally came with a DVD....*[/i] You then wait until the "smart" consumers start saying things like "man, I just buy DVD's now, *they're cheaper*.." They create a new market by default. In the process they stave off MP3 by making it an inferior option to being able to buy both the music AND "extras" - video, etc... AND they make the standard a higher grade, which makes it harder for the smaller players (re: the independent label) to mass produce. That *HAS* to be what they're thinking. It wouldn't surprise me if the 5.1 push was a premptive aborted move to try to set this up in a "quiet" manner, having a number of major artists release 5.1 DVD while smaller artists are caught out cold, or unable to financially cope initially with developing a 5.1 product. Yeah, it's obvious: they're clandestinely killing off the cd format.[/b][/quote]heh..yeah definitly...it's fun to call the 'big boys' idiots and say they're shooting themselves in the foot, etc...some are...a lot of people will lose their jobs...that's business. But there are obviously very smart people in the music biz too...I've met them...they be smart...they know what they're doing. :) It may or may not be DVDs, it might be something else...only thing I know for certain is a big chunk of it will be controlled. Don't get me wrong I'm an optimist...I have to be for my son's sake but I'm also a realist...well most of the time anyway;)

[StoneKnife]

[quote] your local independent record stores? [/quote]Like what one would that be! There aren't ANY independant record stores here, (a city of nearly 3/4 of a million people) of which I'm aware. The chain outfits' stock and selection are so poor as to not even warrant the gas expense to get there! USELESS! Never mind the insane prices. If it weren't for online stores like CDNOW.COM I'd be up poop creek. So screw those stores anyway, and yes all CD's are overpriced, yada, yada... but you can minimize the gouge by using good online retailers. What about pawn shops and other used CD resellers? When pawn shops resell a CD, the artists get [b]nothing[/b] don't they? Where's the big hue and cry about that? That's even worse, morally, than giving away a free copy of some album you bought, IMO. At least in the free copy instance, the artist got paid once by the giver, and the spirit of the act is sharing instead of making a profit. Why aren't the Self-Righteous Brothers moral police in on that scene? :confused:

[Jotown]

[quote] [b]I know the point you're trying to make and it's a good one. BUT for the record...the system hasn't worked for a long time...I know of several writers who never got credit for radio plays...who got their money? Madonna, Guns N Roses, Eric Clapton, Mariah Carey. :rolleyes The system should be fair but never has been.[/b] [/quote]I am one of those writers, in fact I am currently in a class action lawsuit against BMI and ASCAP to collect proven earned royalties based on proven radio plays that I have never gotten paid for. The reason for this problem is just like in hip-hop, it's called "sampling". Even in these days of computers and the internet, BMI and ASCAP sample less than 10% of radio stations and then calculate that over the 100% of all radio stations. If you are belng played in smaller regional markets, or non popular formats, or if you arent on a major label, the odds are you arent getting all of (or any) your cash. But, downloaded music happens on a computer so logging downloads is automatic,(which radio stations are supposed to be in the next couple of years) so there will be no reason to not have 100% accurate reporting of downloads. BMI and ASCAP are not real excited about it because it will mean more work for them. The bottom line is that I think most people would gladly pay a dime a download, (I would) which would give the writer/publisher their .06 cents and leave 4 cents to go towards administrating such a system. I have submitted a proposal to the RIAA, and to my rep in congress during last years hearings on this matter. I guess it's just too simple a plan.

[LeiDeLi]

[quote]nothing you can say will make me change my view on it, its a weak argument.[/quote]But doesn't that summarize everyone's opinion here ? Why did anyone feel the necessity to try and justify their actions in the first place ? .....guilty conscience ? ...hmmmmm ? :)

[Xspringe]

http://www.forrester.com/ER/Research/Report/Summary/0,1338,14854,FF.html In short: lower CD sales not due to mp3 sharing. Labels will have to start working with the new technology or they are f*****.

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] BUT for the record...the system hasn't worked for a long time...I know of several writers who never got credit for radio plays...who got their money? Madonna, Guns N Roses, Eric Clapton, Mariah Carey. :rolleyes The system should be fair but never has been.[/b][/quote]Yeah, same thing with cover bands... venues are required to pay an agreed-upon lump sum to ASCAP and BMI based on their size and how often they feature bands. This is supposed to cover songwriting royalties for bands who do cover songs, and for the play of CD's during breaks. But of course, nobody can keep track of every cover song played by every bar band. So the money is supposedly distributed to composers based on RECORD SALES... therefore even MORE money is funneled into the hands of the people who sell the most. So if my band does obscure 60's covers (which we often do), the venue is paying performance royalties on our behalf but there's no WAY the composers of the actual songs are getting the money - Madonna, et al are. This is also how the taxes on blank CDR's are divvied up - although actually several people have tried to investigate this now and no one can determine where the money is actually going. In any case, even if it did go to artists it would be based on record sales, again. So the irony is that "the little guy" (independent artist) would be having to pay a tax to distribute their own CD's, just to make sure Madonna and her label are compensated for all those sales they lose to the indie artist. :rolleyes: The whole system is fucked and unmanageable, and needs to be re-thought.

[strat0124]

Another point, from the folks I've talked to and reviews I've read these artists are making their cash performing, not from CD sales. Everytime you see someone going on tour, they always say the same thing "goin to make some money". Not that they are not making money from their recordings, but its obvious that the lions share is going to the record companies. So who is getting hurt, artists or suits?

[Groovepusher Sly]

[quote]Originally posted by gtrmac: [b]I would agree that they are digging they're own grave at this point unless they have some secret plan in the works (yeah, sure!)[/b][/quote]Secret Plan #1 - Back Catalog, Rhino Records Style. [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]That why I said a while back JUST SAY NO! The price of a product is determined by what the market will bear. [b]If enough people just stop buying the price WILL fall.[/b] It's a very simple economic FACT. [b]JUST SAY NO TO HIGH PRICES[/b][/b][/quote]I agree totally. I [b]rarely[/b] buy CD’s. [quote]Originally posted by LeiDeLi: [b]Once you have purchased an original, you have the right to copy it on to other media for personal use. That is completely different than downloading or exchanging copied recordings.[/b][/quote]I was at rehersal Sunday, the drummer made about 4 or 5 CD copies of three tunes off two separate CD’s. One song I will get ofline if can find it cause, it’s out of print. Piracy is the issue not personal use. Downloading is similar to taping off the radio. If record companies could have stopped that, they would have, (they actually tried). Greed is the issue not downloading. [quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b]There's something very wrong with the fact that you can buy a two DVD copy of "Lord of the Rings" with wonderful packaging and all kinds of notes and pictures, 24 bit audio, etc. for $15 yet most single 16bit CDs cost the same price or higher.[/b][/quote]Proof that record company execs ain’t paying attention, and they’re gonna milk that cow until it’s dead. [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b][QUOTE]The bottom line is that I think most people would gladly pay a dime a download, (I would) which would give the writer/publisher their .06 cents and leave 4 cents to go towards administrating such a system. I have submitted a proposal to the RIAA, and to my rep in congress during last years hearings on this matter. I guess it's just too simple a plan.[/b][/quote]The problem is, that it’s a [BGOOD IDEA[/B]. Sly :cool:

[lwilliam]

"If it's true what you say about the clubs having to shell out royalties on copyrighted material being performed, then House Of Blues, Hard Rock Cafe, et al, might have been breaking the law left, right and center." How so? They pay annual licensing fees to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC specifically to cover this.

[Henchman]

It's funny, because with todays technology, it would be quite easy to log every radioplay and cover tune played in a bar. Real easy. But it seems that the ASCAP etc., seem to not want to do it that way. I don't know if most peole realise that they don't pay out exact. They have a couple of times a year where they "sample" the stations, and according to that list, radio roaylties are payed out. What a complete load of bull. Stations keep playlists, and it would be easy to create an online database daily from each station, of what's being paid. And then the artists woudl get payed accordingly. But no. That would mean that they would actually have to do some real work.

[LeiDeLi]

I think the music companies should just start encrypting horrible viruses into downloadable mp3 files ! That would stop the whole problem ! :)

[David R.]

I just came across this: [url=http://gareth.membrane.com/leflawnet/cdpricefixing.html#5]"CD-PRICE FIXING" ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION [/url] I make no claim to veracity, but it speaks to what this thread is about.

[David R.]

Ohmygod! You mean this is the year 2002?! Man, I just went to the store for a pack of smokes and there was this guy with a bottle of burbon and... Goofing around. Yes, Posterchild, I know it is from yesteryear, but I do not think it has been resolved. It is still fairly on-point.

[Roto]

[quote]Originally posted by Dwarf: [b] If I buy a used Garth Brooks CD at least Garth doesn't have to come to my house to clean the CD :) -- Rob[/b][/quote]Yeah Garth would probably come to your house to confiscate it though. Before the whole Napster thing he went on a ridiculous crusade against stores selling used cd's because the artist doesn't get royalties from used cd's. I'm glad he doesn't work in the auto industry :p My personal favorite place for cd's has been [url=http://www.djangos.com.]www.djangos.com.[/url] Lot's of used stuff between $5 and $10 and I think they still have free shipping for any orders over $50 worth of used cd's and dvd's. Speaking of dvd's, for $20 I'd rather buy a concert dvd than a cd.