24 Illegal Song Downloads Cost U.S. Woman 220,000 Dollars
- Oct. 4, 2007
The Associated Press reports that a single mother who was accused of illegally downloading tracks from OPETH and GUNS N' ROSES (among other artists) has been ordered to pay $220,000 in damages after a federal jury ruled she shared copyrighted music online
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all. Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse.
In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.
Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.
To report any abusive, obscene, defamatory, racist, homophobic or
threatening comments, or anything that may violate any applicable laws,
please send an e-mail to bmouth@bellatlantic.net
with pertinent details.
Anyone posting such material will be immediately and permanently banned. IP
addresses are recorded to aid us in enforcing these conditions.
"The Associated Press reports that a single mother who was accused of illegally downloading tracks from OPETH and GUNS N' ROSES (among other artists) has been ordered to pay $220,000 in damages after a federal jury ruled she shared copyrighted music online"
Let this be a lesson to you downloaders in the US; share music offline on burned CDs instead.
Seriously, why seek that much in damages if she wasn't making money off 'em? Must be 'cos the labels are too chicken-shit to pursue legislation that would make it difficult for overseas parties to steal and profit from their wares but just so used to railroading people that they had to go after an ordinary citizen for what amounts to a new ivory-handled backscratcher for the CEO and nothing for the artists.
COMMENT | one solution to problem=lower the cost of cds posted by : volumefour 10/4/2007 10:01:07 PM
If record labels, and distributors would work together to bring CDs/music down to a price range of $5.00-$11.00, people would probably buy more music. Downloading, and file sharing would still take place, but lowering costs would help a lot.
I remember in the late 1980's records, cassettes, and CD's were in between $5.99 and $11.99. I remember buying Master Of Puppets on cassette for $7 or $8. My first CD was Mechanical Resonance from Tesla, and that was about $9.99.
Record stores are disappearing because of the cost that labels and distributors are charnging them do buy CDs for resale.
CDs need to go down in price. Then you have stores like FYE that charge $18.99-$19.99 for classic albums like Led Zeppelin II (INSANE). FYE has a decent selection too, and no disrespect to them.
Also, another way of obtaining music without violating copyright laws is to burn CDs off public libraries, friends, and other sources. Sure that hurts sales, but at least the music is not shared over a massive network. Also, libraries buy each album from small distributors so the CD is paid for.
Labels and distributors need to work together to lower the cost of music, especially during these tough economic times!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT | posted by : BALSAC 10/4/2007 10:05:27 PM
iTunes..... .99 cents a song.
That's what she should pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COMMENT | posted by : DESERTPLAINS 10/4/2007 10:12:08 PM
I support this. You cheap fuckers. Buy music. How do you expect new bands to get into music if all their shit will be ripped off?
COMMENT | posted by : dave dillinger 10/4/2007 10:19:09 PM
bands can make money from touring and merch. bands don't make much from record sales anyway unless they're MTV crap because the label gets half.
COMMENT | buy your music! posted by : Kat666 10/4/2007 10:20:18 PM
anyone who thinks that by downloading and sharing music illegaly does not affect the musicians themselves (most working their regular jobs just to survive) is just fooling themselves. How about you start supporting the bands and artists you like, stop making excuses, pay some homage to all this music is giving you in your life and pay for the damn cd.
COMMENT | posted by : beniko 10/4/2007 10:22:57 PM
follow this link, a similar discussion is going on in which you have the ability to vote for the RIAA or for SOULSEEK. It should be interesting to see how metalheads change the ballot, if we all vote!
COMMENT | to dave dillinger posted by : Kat666 10/4/2007 10:22:59 PM
"most goes to label" - sure, someone has to get the revenue to be able to spend promoting the artist so that they can go on the tour in the first place. If you have band A with a label that is making a profit becuase its fans support the band and buy CDs, and band B, who'se label is loosing money because their fans just download and share, guess which band will get to tour in the future?
COMMENT | posted by : george.w.bush 10/4/2007 10:25:40 PM
downloading is not the problem here, over pricing seems to be the issue. although i purchase cds by the truck load i also download hard to find music and stuff ive never heard before so i can keep my ear to the ground, cause mtv and radio dont do it for me.
COMMENT | Hmm posted by : Trash Can Man 10/4/2007 10:32:16 PM
After reading Tom Fischer's autobiography on Celtic Frost it can easily be said that even bands that have record deals and tour internationally still don't make any money and have to work regular jobs to pay the bills. This was even before the internet.
It's the sure fire sellers such as formula pop, that are pretty much guaranteed a return on cd sales.
If you want your favourite band to have a remote chance of survival, buy the CD, go to the show and buy the t shirt. That is assuming they didn't get fucked by their recording contract to begin with.
COMMENT | posted by : tteotd2006 10/4/2007 10:43:19 PM
fuck the music industry the worst they should have done to her was make her pay 24 bucks for the 24 songs its great to see how greedy record label owners are
COMMENT | posted by : beniko 10/4/2007 10:44:14 PM
follow this link, a similar discussion is going on in which you have the ability to vote for the RIAA or for SOULSEEK. It should be interesting to see how metalheads change the ballot, if we all vote!
COMMENT | the music industry has to follow Apple- as it regards music posted by : okayokay 10/4/2007 10:51:19 PM
Apple is exceedingly proprietary as it concerns their software and hardware. Do you think for a milisecond it would allow or encourage Mac users to distribute apple software for free? Yet, they encourage and request no drm for music. Apple does not care about music, it cares about people using its product. The music industry has to reclaim its product and change the technology, so that it cannot be traded for free (in most instances). No profitable computer company would allow you to distribute their software for free (and no computer company would omit using DRM).
COMMENT | posted by : metalmaniac715 10/4/2007 10:53:58 PM
This is stupid! $220,000! I can pretty much guarantee she'll never buy a CD now!
COMMENT | . posted by : Blackenistheyend 10/4/2007 10:55:48 PM
That's pretty fucked up to fine a single mother $222,000 ... especially if she only had 24 songs. I mean, yeah it's wrong and she should have payed for them, but thats an outrageous fine.
The RIAA is just trying to make an example of her to scare other people away from doing it. But really, they can only catch somebody every once in a while due to legal fees and whatnot. It's more of a symbolic thing.... they're probably delighted at how much press this is getting.
COMMENT | why doesn't g grinder cite the "cd market condition" facts posted by : okayokay 10/4/2007 11:01:32 PM
because he is a record company exec- (perhaps riotact66..)'s nom de guerre. No one is that knowledgeable about how oil prices affect cd costs except record exec's (note the respectful tone of the post also).
COMMENT | xfx_1671 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:01:37 PM
"Yeah, that explains why I can get a bundle of 100 CD-Rs for about $10."
They're blank, dipshit.
COMMENT | posted by : GOES211 10/4/2007 11:03:57 PM
...then Lars Ulrich owes $3,746, 982.02 for all the NWOBHM tape-trading he did back in 1981
No shit! Exactly. I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it. There has got to be a better solution to this.
COMMENT | okayokay posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:04:00 PM
I work in financial services, went to college, and earn a professional level of income.
I worked hard to get where I am and get paid to do what I'm good at.
Musicians are no different.
COMMENT | posted by : NetMaster 10/4/2007 11:05:01 PM
I'm guessing if you'd ask the guys from Opeth, they couldn't care less about someone downloading a handful of their songs. Even Axl Rose might not make a big deal out of it. Funny.
Anyway, this whole thing is retarded. Ok, just downloading music and never buying CD's is retarded as well. But I think downloading music to check out a band you've heard of is not, and should not be considered a crime. I myself have about 500 legally bought CD's and about 50 Gb's of music on my hard drive. When someone tells me to check out a certain band, I usually download at least one of their albums (>$100,000 fine), or even their whole discography (if it's available on torrents; >$1,000,000 fine). And if I like what I hear, I'm very likely to have bought several albums from that band just a week later.
Now, if the record companies really want me to stop discovering new bands, they should continue on like this. Hell, thinking back, I think I'd still be listening to Aerosmith/Bon Jovi/Guns 'n Roses if it wasn't for Napster. I would probably never even have discovered Iron Maiden, let alone black/death/doom/prog/etc. And they seem to think offering 30 second samples of songs on band websites solves this problem. Think about it: Dream Theater's Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence: 6 30-second samples to represent more than 100 minutes of music. That's just retarded.
COMMENT | xfx_6171 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:09:21 PM
Also, do a simple cost-benefit analysis with a short experiment.
Compare the cost of the CDR's that come stacked on a spindle to the cost of CDR's that come with jewel cases. You're going to pay $10 for $10 CDR's with cases vs. $10 for the hundred CDR's on the spindle.
If they sold CD's without jewel cases or liner notes, they'd be significantly cheaper.
Simple economics: More material means higher manufacture cost means higher retail price.
Read a book, will ya?
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER- posted by : korpiklaani_rawks 10/4/2007 11:12:21 PM
What does any of that have to do with the unethical treatment of this woman?
Is ruining her financially the solution? It's the music industry equivalent of sending someone to prison for 5 years for having a nickel-bag of weed...
COMMENT | korpiklaani_rawks posted by : NetMaster 10/4/2007 11:14:21 PM
I think both scenarios are very possible in the grand U.S. of A.
God, I'm glad i've emigrated.
COMMENT | down loading is stealing posted by : steveusagi 10/4/2007 11:20:15 PM
I pay for all of my music and that is a lot of money invested for music but what really pisses me off is that people say cd's are too expensive so what if people would start being honest then the prices would go down. And the idiot that mentioned Lars sharing music is dumb. there is nothing wrong with letting your friends listen to new music before buying the album. What the fucking problem is that one person puts a cd from a certain artist then an ungodly number of people could down load it for free. And once again this goes back to the cost of music, which it is ripping the labels, the artist, and the person purchasing the cd. this lady got what she deserved if she was really downloading cd's. plus she should pay more than .99 cents a song because of all the other assholes out there stealing music. I have to agree the music indistry needs to try to come up with something to stop assholes from stealing. But remember if you can't afford it then don't by the fucking cd's
COMMENT | korpiklaani_rawks posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:22:48 PM
"What does any of that have to do with the unethical treatment of this woman?"
Was her theft of other people's art "ethical?"
"Is ruining her financially the solution?"
I'm going to echo "generic's" sentiments when I say there's no sure way for them to collect on the suit unless she has homeowner's insurance or they garnish her wages. She can also protect herself by appealing the decision and dragging the entire thing out.
Somehow, I can't help but wonder if a woman who could afford to pay her lawyer's retainer to take this case is really hurtin' for cash that bad.......
"It's the music industry equivalent of sending someone to prison for 5 years for having a nickel-bag of weed..."
Irrelevant analogy. You're assuming that the same precedent in this case will apply to everyone. They did this to make an example of her. No one in their right mind is going to challenge the suit and they'll settle out of court. The RIAA only did this to recover their legal fees and the revenue they believe they lost as a result of her theft.
Besides, if your buddy got locked away for 5 years for carrying a dime bag, would you even risk getting caught with one?
"Besides, if your buddy got locked away for 5 years for carrying a dime bag, would you even risk getting caught with one?"
And here, according to you anyway, I thought my analogy was irrelevant. Thanks for proving me right.
I suppose that you're saying that if the death penalty was implemented for speeding that you would have no qualms about YOUR buddy going to the gas chamber? Fear of punishment has never been an effective deterrent against crime. Pull your head out of your ledgers for a few and get some fresh air, friend.
COMMENT | Look at this, and reflect. posted by : MatthewLang83 10/4/2007 11:31:35 PM
And just how the hell is one single mother going to pay $220,000?? Answer me that one, anyone. Come on people, this is well beyond absurd, but, this is America and sometimes we Americans ALL suffer because of that fact, right? Sometimes I am EMBARRASSED to call myself an American even though I fought that stupid Iraq war 3 times nearly getting killed twice for my effort, for a President that really hasn't a clue of what he's doing! Off subject, yes, but still fact. Download at your own risk everyone, its the only way to fly.
COMMENT | RautenKroch posted by : korpiklaani_rawks 10/4/2007 11:36:44 PM
What stats? And where are yours, if I'm in the top 5? Just out to insult people are we? What a winner! I aspire to be like you one day!!!
I'm well aware that I have lowered myself to his/her/its level. Don't bother.
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER posted by : 80cycles 10/4/2007 11:42:18 PM
-gODGRINDER wrote" Also, do a simple cost-benefit analysis with a short experiment.
Compare the cost of the CDR's that come stacked on a spindle to the cost of CDR's that come with jewel cases. You're going to pay $10 for $10 CDR's with cases vs. $10 for the hundred CDR's on the spindle.
If they sold CD's without jewel cases or liner notes, they'd be significantly cheaper.
Simple economics: More material means higher manufacture cost means higher retail price.
Read a book, will ya?"
explain to me why ozzy's black rain cd came out with a cardboard case and NO LINER notes, and looked like a cdr. YET still cost the same, i guess it was buying the ozzfest ticket code that jacked the "costs" up? bullshit i tell you.
COMMENT | posted by : scruffman 10/4/2007 11:42:35 PM
serves the chick right!!!!! you steal, you pay!!!! maybe the fine should be 34400$$$$ but she did cost those bands money!!!!
if ya'll think 20 bucks is high!!!! then what should cd's cost?? since it's been 20$$$ for the last 7 to 8 years why complain??? look at milk, that's went up a buck a gallon in the last year, yet cd's are still the same!!! and if 20$$ is too much, then look at concert ticket prices!!!!! you want to bitch!!! bitch about that!!! I saw VH for 14$$ a ticket once and now they wanted 311$$$$$$$ for two tickets!!!! bitch about that, stop stealing music and drink a beer!!!
COMMENT | xfx_6171 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:44:31 PM
The consumer isn't getting fucked by anybody.
One of the basic tenants of a free-market economy is that merchants can set the prices of their goods and services. The buying public will ultimately drive the prices up or down because they make a conscious decision about how much they are willing to pay for a particular item.
People were willing to pay $14 a CD back in 1987. Let's assume for a minute that people were COMPLETELY, blissfully ignorant of the cost of manufacture and that the price of a CD kept pace with inflation just like any other consumer good. Today, 20 years later, a CD still costs $14 when it should cost $20-$22 (at the average 20-year inflation rate).
So you have a product whose retail price has remained static for over 25 years while everything else (including the cost to manufacture said product) has gotten more expensive. Confound this with the fact that this lady and every other dipshit with a KaZaa account is pilfering their product for free and figure out who's getting screwed......
It sure as hell ain't the public! They got the product at no cost!
The artists and the record labels get hit the hardest. And we can go round and round about how these labels shit all over the artists and whaa whaa whaa.
Business is business.
Also, let's go back to cost-benefit analysis for a second. You said the tapes were more expensive to manufacture than CD's but the CD's cost more on the retail side. But consider the longevity of a CD vs. a cassette tape. I had tapes when I was a kid that I played so often that the gears on the spools wore out and the tape itself began to wrinkle and fray from the heat of the player. Think about how long a vinyl record would last if you played it as many times as you played your favorite CD. The product lasts longer and gives you a longer-term benefit than any other medium.
To me, that's well worth the extra cost.
"I went to college too, braniac!"
All that college, yet you can't work a spell-check. Interesting.
COMMENT | @gODGRINDER posted by : Wotan 10/4/2007 11:45:49 PM
Wow, calling people morons kinda backfired on ya huh? Check out the California penal system. There are plenty of people who are in jailt for 5+ years for holding.
This case is ridiculous. If all 26,000 would have gotten pro bono help (which is probably how she 'afforded' the lawyer re: the person who asked) they could have utterly bankrupted the RIAA in legal fees alone. Their corporate lawyers don't work gratis.
People who never buy a CD are a-holes. However, it's the declining quality of music that accounts for lagging record sales (well and legal downloading) They continually repackage crap hoping people will re-buy it to add to their coffers. The huge advances they pay are their own damn fault.
Oh and one more thing, look at the songs they are suing over. You can go to your local library and check out CD's/Vinyl FOR FREE with these songs and head home and make a copy of it without them ever knowing. Why does the library get to hand it out for free? Right, no good excuse. Carry on.
COMMENT | 80cycles posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:53:07 PM
"explain to me why ozzy's black rain cd came out with a cardboard case and NO LINER notes, and looked like a cdr. YET still cost the same, i guess it was buying the ozzfest ticket code that jacked the "costs" up? bullshit i tell you."
I'm guessing you bought "Black Rain" from an unscrupulous retailer who got it as a demo (advance copies of albums often come packaged in this manner). You didn't get fucked by Ozzy or his label. You got fucked by a small-time crook.
If this isn't the case, I can't answer your question. I don't like Ozzy and wouldn't have spent my money on his music anyway.
Sharon wanted a new car? Maybe?
COMMENT | Wotan posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/4/2007 11:55:26 PM
"There are plenty of people who are in jailt for 5+ years for holding."
That was korpiklaani_rawks's analogy, not mine.
Figure out who said what before spouting off.
COMMENT | 80cycles posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 12:07:02 AM
Well, then all I can tell you is that Ozzy needed to recover the cost of his "free Ozzfest."
No one in their right mind believes he was doing that shit out of the goodness of his black ol' heart.
COMMENT | this is the issue i have. posted by : MexxiKill 10/5/2007 12:07:41 AM
i used to not mind paying 18.99 to 20.99 or whatever for a cd but got tired of the cd only having one or two decent songs and the rest of it was shit. i download music to discover new shit. if it's worth it i'll go out and buy it. the record companies aren't interested in developing real talent. they just want that hit single and then dispose of that artist. there is no long term and the consumer is the one that suffers because were the ones wasting our money on subpar shit.
COMMENT | ridiculous posted by : mugsy 10/5/2007 12:11:48 AM
Anyone who says she got what she deserved is a complete moron. Downloading music is the best way to find new bands and start a collection of bands that you would support by going to shows, buying merch., etc. The record companies will take this case and blow it up to show that they own everyone just like any other multi-million dollar corporation. It's ridiculous!!! I refuse to buy a CD that costs 20 goddamn dollars when I don't even know all the songs yet. How stupid do you think I am? Music is supposed to be about music and not money anyways. If you're in it for the money your band most likely has no emotion or desire and is probably some mainstream bullshit that simple-minded people eat up. It's disgusting.
COMMENT | generic evil username 666 posted by : cpopken1 10/5/2007 12:13:49 AM
The article says she replaced her hard drive one month after she got a letter from the RIAA to stop posting the songs. Even after that she still had a lot of songs on her new hard drive.
I don't know what the controversy is, stealing is stealing, no matter how you justify it.
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER posted by : bjs 10/5/2007 12:16:52 AM
I work for one of the "big 3" in the music business in a manufacturing plant. Everything he says about the cost to produce cds is correct. As far as "why ozzy's black rain cd came out with a cardboard case and NO LINER notes, and looked like a cdr. YET still cost the same" - is simple. It costs far more money to manufacture that type of package because it cannot be packaged automatedly. All of your digipack/bi-fold/trifold cardboard packages are assembled by hand by minimum wage making illegal aliens!
COMMENT | exactly xfx posted by : MexxiKill 10/5/2007 12:17:03 AM
its already been shown that the record companies are in a downward spiral because they refuse to bend a little. it's not about the artists or the people that buy the music. it's all about the corporate bigwigs. because of new technology artists can produce and market their own shit and cut out the middle man. i think it's time for an uprising and everyone should boycott the big record labels. down with corporate bullshit!!! bring back the music for the masses!!!!!!
COMMENT | Record Companines have been riping off artist for years!!!!! posted by : shithed 10/5/2007 12:21:12 AM
over half these royalties never make it to the artsist/band anyway not counting the other leeches waiting for a cut of the artist Fuck all major record labels they are not doing this in the interest of the artist
COMMENT | posted by : ToddXEdge 10/5/2007 12:21:24 AM
Now that I know the labels involved in this, whether it's The End or Crash Music I will not be buying anymore music from their labels. Bullying single moms into paying extremely ridiculous fines over a few songs is insane. I DO buy my cd's still, I like owning the real thing. From now on though, I will not buy from greedy bullies.
COMMENT | posted by : ToddXEdge 10/5/2007 12:23:38 AM
With all that being said, I am quite sure the RIAA and the record labels are scanning all your harddrives illegally right now for music files downloaded to your PC.
COMMENT | You smug fucks who think she got what she deserved posted by : Lorn 10/5/2007 12:24:19 AM
can fuck off, you sick fuck fascists. I don't download (though real fans will just go out and buy the stuff they download in the long run if they like it, which just encourages artists to make good music instead of CRAP), but shit like this is just pure insanity. All subjective penalties like this does is bite everyone in the ass in the long run. Like the suits need more fucking cash. In all cases, the punishment should always fit the crime. Not some relative, subjective bullshit price that some asshole's somewhere decide she should pay. Way to go smug little fucks. keep supporting stupid thinking and injustice like this so it can bite everyone in the ass in other policies down the road.
COMMENT | posted by : rubthebuddha 10/5/2007 12:27:47 AM
Major label record companies (sorry Roadrunner I've always liked you) are like bloodsucking leeches, sucking the lifeblood out of the artists that they supposedly care about. Too much overhead, too many "wink and a gun" execs having catered lunches and having company paid drivers shuttle them around all day in private black cars. Their time for extinction is nearing, who better to act as a buffer than the pussies at the RIAA. These execs get paid big bucks while their artists are suffering through working double shifts at the Baskin-Robbins so that they can afford to put food on the table. Record contracts are probably the most overwrought legal document ever created and are virtually 100% in favor of the record company, unless you happen to sell a million copies of your first record. In which case you'd better hope you can follow it up with another smash hit, or after having made a $250,000 bonus for some fatcat exec, you will be back to the double shifts wondering what the fuck happened to all your money. And if you happen not to sell much on your first release because of some company merger and your AR guy got shafted and you got some idiot fresh out of Rutgers that doesn't know shit from shinola, well then you had better sign up for triple shifts because you are even more fucked when the Company comes to collect on the advance they gave you for recording fees. Don King has nothing on these putrid, lowlife, moneygrubbing fucks. Then again, maybe you'll get lucky and have to pay to be on the free Ozzfest, where Sharon will want to take a cut off your merchandising fees, so that she can get more plastic surgery and also hope that a cure for old age can be found so that she doesn't have to roll Ozzy onstage in a wheelchair for the next 20 years to help keep up with her spending habits.
But just take my word, here ya go, Blabbermouthers...
COMMENT | Wow... posted by : eddog56 10/5/2007 12:29:47 AM
Looks like everyone has all the bases covered, but I'll still throw in my two cents. By the way, bravo on what is for the most part a very sensible discussion on Blabbermouth, for once.
To me, downloading evil is neither inherently bad, nor inherently good - it all comes down to the user. Yes, lots and lots of people abuse the practice and have 10,000 songs on their computer without ever so much as buying a single CD (hell, sometimes they don't even know what all they have - they just get whatever they can).
However, there are also those people who actually download music to sample, and I am not using that word merely as a euphemism for stealing. You want to call it stealing? Fine. It's stealing. But for me, that stealing is the only way I am going to go out and ultimately buy most of the CD's that I buy. Someone already mentioned how they'd still be listening to Bon Jovi if it wasn't for Napster. Buddy, I am right there with you. If it wasn't for Napster, Scour, iMesh, Kazaa, etc., my CD collection would be far, far smaller than it is today. By downloading music, I have discovered new artists, and many times I have gone out and bought that artist's CD. Do I always buy what I download? Of course not. A lot of the time the stuff just sucks, so I don't listen to it anymore, whether it be on my computer or on a CD. But overall, I can assure you that as the years have gone by and I've downloaded more and more, I have also bought more and more, seen more and more shows, and bought more and more t-shirts and what have you in hopes that the artist might see a little bit of money.
For those who say they don't buy CD's because the record labels are the only ones profitting, consider this: even though your favorite band may only be seeing a penny of direct cash from a CD sale, if that label is making money, then odds are they are going to be more willing to support that artist more (admittedly, this entire point is arguable), meaning they'll be more willing to fund tours, promote albums, fund studio time and producers, etc. Yes, one could argue that bands should all just go the DYI route anyway, but if you're of that mindset then there's probably no convincing you any otherwise, so I won't bother.
Either way, I'd say that this argument very well could be irrelevant soon, as it does appear that the CD and the album are starting to go the way of the dodo and the MP3 is taking over. Personally, I don't like this, as half the experience for me is getting the whole package - liner notes, album art, casing, etc. I am willing to actually pay to get all that rather than have my buddy burn me a copy of a CD and just slap it on a CD-R. Again, this is just personal, but for me there is nothing that can replace having an actual physical product in your hands that actually has more to it than a CD-R with some Sharpie scribbled on it.
My question is, as someone else brought up, where do used CD's play into all of this? Hell, the majority of the CD's I buy these days are used - not because I think CD's are ridiculously overpriced, but simply because it is cheaper. I realize this pretty much defeats my argument of the record label making money and then hopefully being more supportive of their artist, but really, why hasn't the RIAA cracked down on the sale of used CD's? Is it just a matter of them not wanting their own presses to be copied and people not make money off them that way?
COMMENT | Also... posted by : eddog56 10/5/2007 12:34:29 AM
At least for those of who live in the US, why would of any you pay $20 for a CD? If you don't have Best Buy, Circuit City, or somewhere near you, just go online...unless it is some super rare release, it's your own fault for spending that much...
COMMENT | xfx_1671 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 12:36:43 AM
"Ah yes, the old inflation=higher prices argument. If that's the case, then why is it that plasma and LCD TVs, when they first hit the market, were going for around $10,000...but yet now you can get even more advanced models for around $1500-$200? Same goes for DVD players, digital cameras, etc etc...it's due to higher demand and mass production."
Again, as I said in my earlier post, consumers drive the cost of goods and services because they let the producers of said goods and services know (through their buying habits) how much they are willing to pay for those goods and services.
You should read Sam Walton's autobiography. In the early days of Wal-Mart, he revolutionized the idea of "volume sales." He could buy a pair of socks for $.10, and he could price it at $1.00 and make a killing. But he figured out that if he bought those same socks at $.10 but only charged $.80, he would sell more socks at a lower initial profit but at a higher volume, resulting in a much larger overall profit and a shorter shelf-life for that product.
Same goes for your precious LCD and Plasma TV's. Why sell 200 TV's at $10,000 a pop at a production cost of $300 when you can sell 5,000 TV's at $2000 a pop at the same production cost? Inflation wasn't a factor. The TV manufacturers were testing the waters at $10,000 and the public called bullshit, and not because they knew what it cost to manufacture the product but because they couldn't rationalize the purchase of a $10,000 TV.
There's an important difference and an important similarity in your analogy: You can't go out and get the same quality LCD TV for free from the Internet that you could at your local Best Buy.
If you did, most people would consider it theft. And you could be imprisoned and/or sued.
Additionally, I'll ask you to conduct another little experiment. Check the price of new releases in the next Best Buy circular. Then check the price of those CD's two weeks later. I'm willing to bet that the new releases sold for around $9.99 a copy during the first week of release and were increased to $14.99 in the ensuing weeks. This is because retailers (even the little guys...my local record store does it too) understand the value of volume sales. The fervor around a "new release" will compel people to buy the CD's in greater volume. Once the hype dies down, they'll move fewer copies, thus the increase in price.
Simple math.
"Going by the above examples, CDs should be at least going for the price cassettes did back in the day, around $6-$7! Also, please tell me why certain CDs (Sony Nice Price line) can be at a cheaper price than say the Metallica black album? You can argue that the recordings are older and sold more back in the day, but if the black album which more than likely sold 5 times to amount whatever the Nice Price CD did, then it should be said that the black album be cheaper! Its all BULLSHIT. The Black Album should be the same price as the Alice Cooper Greatest Hits as any other CD out there because they all cost the same to make!"
Again....demand. Cost of manufacture is only a piece of the pie. A Mercedes-Benz ML500 probably costs the same to build as a Chevy Tahoe. Yet Mercedes turns out a better product. Metallica turns out a better product and is a lot more popular than Alice Cooper. In 2007, anyone who buys "The Black Album" is doing so because they're specifically looking for it (for nostalgia reasons or whatever). I'll bet that anyone who buys an Alice Cooper CD at the "nice price" is doing so because they saw it in the bargain bin at Target and figured "why not?"
"Shove that slide rule up your ass, mama's boy."
Slide rule? You're dating yourself, grandpa.
COMMENT | And for the record.... posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 12:46:46 AM
I've downloaded songs for free from the record labels' websites in order to sample the offerings of their artists. 9 times out of 10, I go out and BUY the entire CD based on the quality of the ONE track.
I'm not saying downloading doesn't have a place in the industry. But only to a point.
For those of you who don't want to pay $15 for a CD with only one decent song, at least buy the song you like from iTunes or MSN music for $1.
At least at that point you know you're not stealing and you're not wasting money on what you think is crap.
COMMENT | posted by : cpopken1 10/5/2007 12:58:51 AM
Some older "classic" albums have more filler than any newer music album today. What bands are you listening to that only have one or two good songs on them.
COMMENT | g grinder is a record executive posted by : okayokay 10/5/2007 1:17:48 AM
see how easily the greed flows. He wants to dupe us to buy overpriced socks to pay for his mansion. (That racket was cornered, so he's trying it with music).
COMMENT | posted by : onasiam 10/5/2007 1:19:11 AM
in my opinion, downloading isn't affecting any bands. even smaller ones or underground ones etc. the reason for this is that if they were, bands would be stepping up and suing people. the reason they don't is coz CD sales generate little to no $$ for them regardless. what makes money for bands is touring. and lots of it. labels take most % of the sale of CDs whereas bands take most, if not all % of touring.
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER- posted by : onasiam 10/5/2007 1:25:43 AM
in australia CDs are $25 a pop, which in USA dollars is like $30-$35 each CD sale... and CDs don't cost much to make dude, I know this because I've made several before. The more you make, the less it costs.
A CD is likely to cost you between $2-$3 to make each in Australia, with cover, with print etc etc - are you telling me it's totally ok to have a markup of like 2000%? Coz that's what it is here. If it cost a label $2 a CD to make and the selling price is $25, then you do the math on how much markup there is there.
If the fashion industry only do 100% markup and a lot of industries do (which means if they buy something for $10, then they sell it for $20) then why can't the record industry do the same?
And THEN on top of that you have sale bins. If they can have a sale bin and sell a CD for $5 when it was originally $15 or something, are you telling me that they're LOSING money on that? No way! they're STILL making cash off that.
In my opinion, they're robbing the people and it's an inflation they have kept because they get away with it. With the ever growing amount of downloads, have they thought 'lets lower the prices to support the bands?'...not at all... why? because they don't want to lose out on the cash and would rather be in charge then live in today's world.
Ultimately, they will fail, and unless they change, majority rules in this instance and it'll only get worse. I don't encourage 'stealing', but I don't encourage corporate robbery either.
COMMENT | I didn't mean my post about grinder- posted by : okayokay 10/5/2007 1:30:54 AM
the cd sales as "worthless" and "irrelevant" to a band is always funny
COMMENT | xfx_6171 posted by : onasiam 10/5/2007 1:34:29 AM
dead right! does everyone remember the napster debate with metallica? the reason metallica sued and not the label itself is because the deal they have with their label is so sweet they actually make serious $$ off every sale, which is cahs they don't want to lose out.
if you can honestly tell me a band that gets that kind of deal nowadays in a world where it's all about the 5 minutes of fame and scraping every cent off the floor during that 5 minutes while you wait for the next 5 minutes, then you are sadly mistaken. bands don't get those deals now.
that's why bands like korn sign a touring deal. why? coz tours generate $$ and every band doesn't want to allow any label or corporate sissy to steal that cash coz it's the only cash they get! however when you're korn, you get to say 'ok, we sell out arenas, lets guarantee the $$ on our end and you pay for the tour and well give you some of that $$ in hope that youll put in $$ to sell more tickets' etc etc... why doesn't every band have deals like that? coz smalltime pub bands and bands that play small shows know that whatever ticket sales occur then that's almost the ONLY money theyre making, not from CDs sales
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER- posted by : onasiam 10/5/2007 1:38:26 AM
"It's also funny that even after the government was investigating the "price-gouging," no action was taken after the fact. The government didn't pass any mandate that ordered the record industry to lower its prices. Could it possibly be because they did the math and figured out that no gouging was taking place?"
are you serious?? are you dead set serious? please tell me you're joking. the reason they don't pursue any case is because of this - if you own something, you can ultimatelyu sell it at whatever price you want. that isn't illegal.
what the government does realise is, if labels keep losing money every year because of downloads, then the problem will sort itself out and the record label will give in and HAVE to lower their prices.
do you ever see the government sending cops out to people's home coz it's stealing? hardly and most likely cases of circumstance. why dont they do that? coz eventually, somethings going to give, and it's not worth their time and in their eyes, labels are robbing peopel just as much by the HUGE amount of markup they put on their cds.
Dude, do you work for a label or something?
COMMENT | onasiam posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 1:45:15 AM
You're missing the point of my argument.
I'm not trying to justify the mark-up. In fact, if you read back, you'll notice that I stated that even though the cost to manufacture a CD has risen, CD prices have remained static for the last 20-25 years.
As I've stated before, consumer demand drives the pricing of a given item. The American public unanimously let the recording industry know that it was willing to pay $14 for a CD and did so for years. Now the American public, after setting the price itself through its buying habits, is crying foul and justifying the theft of the product due to the price it said, through its own action and ergo by its own admission, it had been willing to pay for years.
It would have been different if the American public stopped procuring music altogether. If it stood as one and said "We will not purchase your product because it is too expensive," I have a sneaking suspicion that the RIAA would have acquiesced and lowered the price.
Instead, the American public said "Your product is too expensive, so we're going to steal it from you instead," forcing the record companies to hold prices steady in an attempt to recover their lost profits.
Anyone who justifies theft and cries "Viva Revolution" in the same breath has simply been stripped of all common sense and reason (and is more than likely a liberal pussy with no understanding of the basic tenants of capitalism).
COMMENT | onasiam posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 1:47:23 AM
"the reason they don't pursue any case is because of this - if you own something, you can ultimatelyu sell it at whatever price you want. that isn't illegal."
The oil companies own their product but the government was all over them like stink on shit.
Explain that one, smart ass.
COMMENT | Do I work for a label? posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 1:51:51 AM
No. But a lot of my good friends are struggling musicians who keep playing shows and try to get the word out about their art because they know they're meant for more than their shitty day jobs.
I'd be thrilled if they got signed and were able to do what they love for a living.
Downloading 1 track from a band like this doesn't hurt.
Downloading their entire album repeatedly to where they never see a fucking dime and have to keep slaving away at their construction and retail jobs......that just pisses me off.
COMMENT | xfx_6171 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 2:01:39 AM
"I'd still have something you'll never have no matter how many seminars you took for your BFA...and thats INTEGRITY."
You forfeit all claims to "integrity" the minute you try to justify a blatant crime. Theft is a blatant crime. Downloading is theft. Therefore, dowloading is a crime and should be punished accordingly.
"I've dealt with this stuff personally. I know what the labels do and what theyre capable of. I know people that they have and continue to fuck over in the name of their sole profit. So unless you've ever stepped foot on a stage, tried recording something of your own, or personally know national artists that THEMSELVES say they labels are bullshit, then your 'opinions' on this subject arent worth DICK."
I've dealt with this stuff personally as well. In fact, a local band asked me to write a review for their album that would be included in their promo pack. Roadrunner offered them a deal, but they turned it down because they took the time to read the contract and realized that it would compromise their artistic vision.
I can't help but wonder how many of these "national artists" you know actually read the contracts that were shoved under their noses. If they didn't read the fine-fucking-print, that's on them.
You can't sell your soul while only seeing dollar signs and then cry foul after the fact. If you can't read beyond a 5th grade level, and grasp the verbage of the contract, then hire a fucking lawyer.
Not only is ignorance bliss, it's the catch-all excuse for 99% of the lawsuits and sob-stories out there.
COMMENT | xf posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 2:12:58 AM
"Besides, judging by the majority of the posts here you are outnumbered in your views...."
That might be the case. And to that, I can only say this:
What's right is not always popular and what is popular isn't always right.
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER- posted by : onasiam 10/5/2007 2:21:09 AM
"The oil companies own their product but the government was all over them like stink on shit."
Yeah they were, and has anyone been sued? Has anything changed? No, coz once again, it's their product and they can sell it however much they want. In Australia they started kicking up a fuss about it massively like 3 or 4 years ago... has anything changed? no, coz ultimately, the government can't do a single thing about it! As a matter of fact, it's now MORE expensive then it was back then.
Once again, government has given the right to the common man to sell his possession at whatever price he sees fit, the only time a fuss is kicked up is when enough people say 'you can't do that', then they get involved but the circle continues because the seller is doing what he is allowed by his own right. That doesn't make it fair trading though!
"I'd be thrilled if they got signed and were able to do what they love for a living. "
I was supposed to sign my band years back to Roadrunner Australia. Funnily enough, we declined the deal in pursuit to do it on our own based on the fact that no $$ from CD sales was coming our way, except tour money and tour money was all ours. Just coz a band is signed, doesn't mean they can kick back and drink cafe lattes and smoke cigars and watch their bank account rise. As I stated before, bands generally don't get any sort of revenue from CD sales, however what the plus point of being on a label is the fact that labels create awareness for your band, but that's not so youll sell out arena's, thats so youll sell CDs for them!
I'm at work, so the last thing I'm going to say is this, and this is my whole point. -gODGRINDER- I agree that stealing is not right. I don't think because you can get something for free at someone else's expense that it makes it right. I don't encourage music downloads. I agree with you at that point.
I DO however think that record labels are not about support bands, they are about making $$ as any business is. But there's business that supports their employees, and there is business that doesnt. independent labels are great. They support their bands. Corporate massive huge labels are not. They don't care who you are, they just want $$. That's fact. You hear it time and time again from bands themselves saying 'we are going to this label now because they support us and let us do what we want' etc etc.
The problem is this, CD sales themselves, stealing, not stealing, are prices at a huge markup. That, to me, is wrong. And the only reason it is allowed to be priced at that markup is because it has been considered 'normal' for so long that a CD costs that much and is considered 'socially acceptable' that is what you pay for a CD.
However, when sales drop in a business, generally you work out what is wrong and you rectify the problem. When I say rectify, you see how the market is going and work around that. However labels don't budge. They stay put and start suing people. To me, that's wrong.
What's the worst part is this, it's actually part label fault and part seller fault. Labels don't determine markup in stores, but they consistently sell records to stores at a higher price, which causes higher markup. Now, if more music is stolen via download, then record labels don't lower their selling price to stores, instead they say 'we cant change how much they sell music for in stores, but we can change people downloading our music'. So they sue the little man rather than change their product selling price to stores.
No one lashes out at stores about it, it's all about the label, and it is, but to say a label supports a band, they USE a band, not support them, and it's only about how much $$ that band will make and the book closes at that point. Coz if labels where all about getting music out there and the bands, they'd sign every musician because they 'love' music and they just want everyone to be heard. Instead, they don't do that because not everyone is going to maker them $$. It's business, and it's life.
So people steal music coz they don't want to pay for something hugely priced and marked up, and labels sue people because they don't want to lower their prices. How many labels, and how many people in the world? Someone's gotta stop.
i work for masterdisk which is a cd, tape, lp pressing plant, for a standard cd it costs us 5 cents for a single cd incl. artwork and jewel case and up to 9 cents for a double to quad cd set, boxsets cost between 12-25 cents depending on layout, discs, size of box, etc. usually we charge the record companies double the price of manufacturing, so making the discs and shipping is not the cause of the high cd prices.
COMMENT | xfx_6171 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 2:28:20 AM
Uggh.
"..but these charges and the monetary fallout of the judgment is RIDICULOUS! The judgment DEFINITELY does not suit the crime!"
It doesn't suit the crime, I agree. And again, I don't think they'll see a dime of it. Look how long it's taken OJ to pay the Goldman family!
But it does serve as a warning to other theives. Not a single suit from here on out is going to court. They'll all settle because now they know for a fact they won't win. They can't win.
"Dude, you TRULY dont know what you;re talking about here. If you think the labels are snow-white and truthful and follow their contract to the T then youre fucking living in la-la land."
Never said that. But at the same time, the band has the option of revising the contract to include a clause of consequences for breach of said contract. It's fully enforcable if it's in black and white and everyone signs it. The biggest mistake bands make is going into these things blindly because they're caught up in the euphoria of getting signed. They never think about how to hold the label accountable. They're only thinking about their big break.
"The labels would send the people I know these insignificant checks, but yet theyd be moving out units like crazy. When theyd ask for concrete numbers on how many units are being moved as to how much they should be getting paid, the labels would LOWBALL the numbers and LIE!! And there is no way to prove it because only the labels have that info!"
If the labels have all the info and there's no way to prove that they "lowballed" the numbers, how do your friends made any determination that the company is "moving units like crazy?" That doesn't make any sense.
"And you cant really do much because theyre lawyers can beat up your lawyers, and theyll drag it out in court forever until youre too broke to pursue it anymore."
This scenario is unlikely if the band has its own legal team and performs the proper due diligence before signing the contract.
"If you're going to sit here and tell me that you've never taped a song off the radio, burned a CD from a friend, etc then you're full of shit."
I typically burn "mix" CD's of single tracks for friends, and very rarely. They, like me, end up buying the entire CD themselves anyway. Like I said, music-sharing and downloading has its place....TO A DEGREE. There's a fine line, this bitch crossed it, and she got burned. Boo-fucking-hoo.
COMMENT | cuntsuckingcannibal posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 2:31:09 AM
See "bjs's" comments above.
COMMENT | isn't it funny how people only hear what they wanna hear and forget the rest posted by : ss1ib 10/5/2007 3:22:28 AM
Let's get something straight. I own a record label. Have any of you got any idea how much marketing promotion distribution and shipping costs??? I think if any of you did your research PROPERLY you would shit your pants. No to manufacture CD's itself is not expensive but its all the peripheries like artwork design and marketing and promotion is what costs. In my first year my shipping costs alone with just 2 releases cost me over 1250 dollars. In order to do your job to promote properly to do justice to your releases you are looking at having to spend several thousand dollars with no guarantee of sales you take all the risk. So it makes me seriously angry to listen to people talk like the way they do here. Marketing and promotion is a HUGE chunk out of your budget especially the bigger the label and the bigger the release when you start getting into more sophisticted forms of marketing. Just to give you an idea go inquire how much it costs to run a half page ad in say Metal Maniacs in the US, then you start to get some idea of what it really costs to run a Label. I won't go into naming any names but I received an offer for national distribution from a company who charged $4000 a month with a 4 month minimum run for promotion. A Radio PR firm asks for $2600 for their basic minimum CMJ chart promotion for ONE release PR firms ain't fucking cheap and just doin'it on the Internet alone is not sufficient to make a huge amount of sales. Then there's all the hours doing all the leg work in promotion phone calls emails that as an independent trying to make that I don't get paid for. All record labels started the same way and the reason they get big is because people LIKE THE PRODUCT AND BUY IT if you had a business would you also not expect to get rewarded the same way too? And as far as this woman who lost her case what all the whiney sympathizers conveniently forget was that she was offered a way out before going to court but she thought she could beat them and LOST the RIAA had sufficiently enough proof to prove their case she wanted to push it and instead of taking the out of court way she gambled and lost-she got caught stealing pure and simple.
if you invest in spending thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in your product would you not want to protect in the same way? would you not want to be able to have the right to stand up and say just because you think you don't like the price for goods, products or services you can just take it anyway. That is what this is about bottom line. If you think the industry charges too much then don't buy that is your consumer right and choice but then don't have the audacity to then say in the next breath that because you don't like how much somebody charges for a product you're just going to go out and steal it because you can, because you think you have a right to it because you don't agree with its market price. I support your right of choice not to buy if you don't agree but don't then expect to beable just to take it any way.
COMMENT | posted by : Psychobolia.com 10/5/2007 4:23:10 AM
Fuck the RIAA. I still buy CDs but this is ridiculous. People should stay away from Limewire and torrents and Kazaa and eMule, they're great for getting nailed. Private P2P is where it's at, check out www.gigatribe.com, pc to pc exchanges amongst friends, no size limits, and you can exchange entire folders of songs.
COMMENT | People who illegally download............. posted by : reub the rocker 10/5/2007 5:18:01 AM
..............are killing the recording industry and thusly metal!, Im sick of hearing this bullshit that bands dont profit from CDs anyway, thats just not true, whoever says that is just justifying their part in the destruction of the music industry, if people can't make a living from making music they simply wont be able to do it anymore, simply put if you dont pay for an artists release you are not a fan of the said artist, downloaders are tossers!!
COMMENT | bands and musicians dont make money from cd sales! posted by : fixedbroken 10/5/2007 5:33:59 AM
bands profit from people turnin up to there shows and buying merch,
a band will see around about 20 cents for a record, the rest goes to the fat cats in the industry i work in the industry and it is corrupt!
turn up to the bands shows and they will make it.
COMMENT | posted by : Danny-Demon 10/5/2007 6:02:41 AM
She got what she deserved same as anyone who thinks they have the right to illegally download songs without paying for them.
Fuck off go listen 2 Trent from NIN record companies rip us off, charge lower prices and we'll buy the music simple. If i like an album i go out and buy it
COMMENT | Just a thought posted by : BloodredPath 10/5/2007 6:03:29 AM
I just needed to make a comment on all of this. I play in a fairly unknown band that has released CDs since back in 1996, we are on a deacent records label in Europe and I just wanted to comment on some of your posts.
I see alot of posts where you seem to think that liveshows and merch is the only way that the band will not get ripped off by a label. This is not the case, first of all, do you know the conditions for a tour? It´s not that many bands in the buissness that get paid to go on tour. Bands usually have to get toursupport from their Label to make a tour happen. Alot of the bands have to pay to play on festivals or just get the money for travel and nothing more. "Well at least they get to play live and get more fans". Yes thats a good point, and I really love to play live. The only problem is that if you go on a 2 week tour without any more money than for food and sleeping quarters, then you have to return to your "regular life" with a family to support and bills to pay. Almost every band I know has regular jobs to pay their bills and it not always that easy to tell your boss that "I´ll be away for a month to play metal". Not that many can do this without problems.
"Well, you guys can sell merch and get money from that"... Yeah, also a good point but let´s calculate a bit on that.
Lets play with the thought of a 4 weeks tour, playing 20 shows for an average of 400 people/night. That is a total of 8000 People in the crowd for the whole tour. Let say that 1000 Of them buys a t-shirt and a CD for a total price of 25 $, that´s 25000 $. After the bands cost for the products are reduced there might be a total of 15000-20000 $ left for the band. Divide that on 5 people and then try to pay the rent and food for your family. Do the math.
Bands need their label, to pay the studio fees, pay for the production costs of the CD, artwork, promotion etc. Don´t you think that we would do this ourselves if we could afford it? It also takes to much time to release a CD and to much money is needed to give the fans a good production, good sound, nice booklet etc.
The biggest problem with the music industry is as you already mentioned the fact that there are too many bands outthere. You have a chance to change this by showng the labels what bands that you think are worth your money and also what bands you want to see live. Bigger recordsales equals bigger tours and festival and that gives the fans a chance to catch their favourite band live. Bands that cannot sell enough to cover all label costs will eventually get dropped.
The wonders of the Internet is also the problem. Right now we have 1375734734737 million bands on myspace and other places that probably would still be in the cellar of the local factory if it wasn´t for the internet. With so many bands outthere is almost impossible to keep track of what is good. I like the fact that I can listen to a song online and then buy the album, thats the positive side of the net. Some of you also referred to the tapetrading days... sure I was in the game back then but you cant compare sending 20 tapes to your friends in a month with sharing 1000 songs with 1 million people every day.
I buy the CD´s of my favourite bands without bitching too much about it. I want to keep them on the road and delivering good music. If I count on it, there might be something around 5 good new releases per year that are worth my cash and counting in backcatalog purchases it will still not be that expensive.
COMMENT | posted by : dafunkeymonkey 10/5/2007 7:08:08 AM
I don't mind paying $30 for a CD here in Aus as long as it's good. Usually they cost about $25 but those ones are generally manufactured somewhere here, whereas my underground super-heavy-satanic-blasphemous-black metal has to be imported from all over the world. However, when I bust out $30 a CD and it's CRAP then I'm usually pissed off.
Therefore I download a few tracks of a CD I'm interested in purchasing. I then listen to them several times for several weeks in amongst other recently purchased albums etc, and they tend to grow on me. I then go out and buy it. Motherfucker.
COMMENT | posted by : gothicgrin 10/5/2007 7:17:29 AM
Its right what some people are saying about bands not getting promoted because the money is not there and that downloading music is a cause for this, but I do not believe it is the culprit 'completely'. Its like anything, its never that black & white, the record industry wants more & more and makes sure that someone else suffers before them, that being the artists who create the music in the first place. Like government dictates to the public, the tail wags the dog, which is exactly what's happened for too many years with the music industry. The internet has given people the freedom to choose what is popular to some degree & the industry doesn't like this because they lose the control over what sells & what doesn't. Saying that, I believe in paying money for creativity as it helps keep it alive & shows appreciation for it. Yet creativity & money don't mix, as often mass production & creativity on demand doesn't deliver quality it just becomes financial gain for a fat cat. I think we are seeing the implosion of too much greed for too long a time & who always gets the blame.....................the lovely public.
One way to help record sales is to not send your album out for review before it gets dropped, because out o fall the places you send it at least 2 of those people are going to put it on the net and then in turn people are going to download it. and of the people that do download it most people wont go out and buy it.
I'll admit that i've downloaded a cd early, but on the same token if i really dig it i'll go out and buy it the day it comes out. i like to say i'm working to keep the best buy media section afloat. ive been doing this for years now for bands i like, and if its a band ive never heard before i'll download their album and listen and if i really like it i'll go get the cd that day or the next day because cd quality is so much better than mp3 anyways.
COMMENT | Legalize it... posted by : DMIZE 10/5/2007 7:54:43 AM
COMMENT | HOW CAN U SAY THAT THE CD IS EXPENSIVE IN STORES???? posted by : trejo_ 10/5/2007 8:04:51 AM
Are people stupid, dont they know that they can order a cd for 9,60 dollar for example the new Arch Enemy at www.cmdistro.com. sure it is a Cm title, BUT I found job for a cowboy for the same price. etc etc. Or better yet, do some fucking research and go the the bands recordlabels shop. Often they have mailorder.
Try buying a cd in Europe for standard price 20 bucks and the complain.
Also if u guys still say that the cd is expensive and that is why u prefer illegal download, than why dont u just shut up and buy it at Itunes.
Bottom line is, that if you keep doing illegal downloading. Your killing the band.
ASK any metal band, do you think they are happy if u told them that you stoled their album on the net???
COMMENT | someone tell me... posted by : \m/...Baron Von Wasteland...\m/ 10/5/2007 8:16:30 AM
why are 6 record labels suing her for 2 bands worth of music? dosn't it stand to reason that a few of those labels just profitted off of her for bands that aren't even on their label?
are McDonalds and Burger king gonna sue me when I steal a french fry from Wendy's?
COMMENT | posted by : Ace96 10/5/2007 9:06:36 AM
So was it downloading or sharing that got her busted? The article has conflicting info.
The fine was so high because she wasted the courts time lying that she did not do it. She should have just paid the original judgement and been done with it.
The record companies do need to lower the retail price and wholesale price of cds. I can cope with new releases being more money. Back catalogue should be seven bucks max. The old titles have paid for themselves many times over through vinyl and cassette sales.
COMMENT | -gODGRINDER- posted by : RunInFear 10/5/2007 10:02:02 AM
MAYBE YOU SHOULD SAVE SOME OF THAT MONEY AND GET SPELLING LESSONS, TOOLSHED!!
COMMENT | so... posted by : ozzyforprez 10/5/2007 10:18:30 AM
heres my thing with music downloads. yes, i do download songs, but i have some personal rules when i do it. if its an upcoming band who needs to get launched off the ground, i will try my best to buy their cd. the reason why ill download it if i do is if it isnt avialable in any stores near me. now, as for big bands, do they honestly need anymore money? come on. like, for example, i just downloaded the entire iron maiden diskography, and trust me, they dont need any more money. i also agree that cds are way too expensive these days (movies for that matter too). lower the prices a bit, and i think youd see a lot less downloading. i mean, i make seven bucks an hour, so i can in no way buy all the cds i want. so then i resort to downlading becuase i want to hear my favorite band so bad. well, thats my 2 cents.
COMMENT | so... posted by : ozzyforprez 10/5/2007 10:18:49 AM
heres my thing with music downloads. yes, i do download songs, but i have some personal rules when i do it. if its an upcoming band who needs to get launched off the ground, i will try my best to buy their cd. the reason why ill download it if i do is if it isnt avialable in any stores near me. now, as for big bands, do they honestly need anymore money? come on. like, for example, i just downloaded the entire iron maiden diskography, and trust me, they dont need any more money. i also agree that cds are way too expensive these days (movies for that matter too). lower the prices a bit, and i think youd see a lot less downloading. i mean, i make seven bucks an hour, so i can in no way buy all the cds i want. so then i resort to downlading becuase i want to hear my favorite band so bad. well, thats my 2 cents.
COMMENT | so... posted by : ozzyforprez 10/5/2007 10:19:04 AM
heres my thing with music downloads. yes, i do download songs, but i have some personal rules when i do it. if its an upcoming band who needs to get launched off the ground, i will try my best to buy their cd. the reason why ill download it if i do is if it isnt avialable in any stores near me. now, as for big bands, do they honestly need anymore money? come on. like, for example, i just downloaded the entire iron maiden diskography, and trust me, they dont need any more money. i also agree that cds are way too expensive these days (movies for that matter too). lower the prices a bit, and i think youd see a lot less downloading. i mean, i make seven bucks an hour, so i can in no way buy all the cds i want. so then i resort to downlading becuase i want to hear my favorite band so bad. well, thats my 2 cents.
COMMENT | sorry posted by : ozzyforprez 10/5/2007 10:20:16 AM
didnt mean to post it three times computers being a little prick :P
COMMENT | RunInFear posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 10:30:02 AM
What did I misspell?
COMMENT | Morgagne posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 10:32:47 AM
Much simpler han I've been saying it, but HERE, HERE!
COMMENT | posted by : TrippyZippy 10/5/2007 10:33:55 AM
What is so hard to understand? It is illegal to make a copy of anyone's copyrighted work no matter what your reasons might be for doing it. There are plenty of legal places to download songs for 99 cents.... I am sure everyone has heard of Itunes. Believe it or not, some bands do get judged on record sales.
The jury apparently had enough evidence to be convinced she was downloading and distributing the music.
If you are willing to work and not get paid for it, good for you. Go join a charity. Musicians make music to get laid and get paid.
COMMENT | generic evil username 666 posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 11:13:54 AM
Two things about your analogy:
1). If I go on eBay or Amazon or into a used CD store and buy a second-hand copy of an album, I am exchanging money for a product. It's not theft because I have obtained it through moral and legal means. You wouldn't call it stealing if you bought a coffee maker at a garage sale, would you? This bitch got her music at no cost and, as far as I've read, never gave an indication that she intended to purchase an Opeth or G'n'R album at a later date.
2). She was sharing her ill-gotten music over an open network. Millions of people were granted access to these files at no cost. If I buy a second-hand CD, no one else can pull up next to me in traffic and transfer the music to their own stereo. It stops with me and if anyone else wants that music, they can drive their happy-ass over to their local independent music retailer and buy it their damn self (even if it means buying it used).
COMMENT | i bought posted by : MIKE W 10/5/2007 11:15:10 AM
the new behemoth and aeon solely because they were $9.99. great cds but im not paying any more for them.
COMMENT | my two cents posted by : glenecho 10/5/2007 11:22:40 AM
1. As long as the music is in mp3 format it should not be considered a real copy and the court should not have put a one-to-one dollar value relationship on it. 220 grand is ridiculous for what this woman did...and the others did.
2. That said...it is time for people to start paying for music again, no matter what needs to be done to insure it. The current state of the record labels insures that they will now only sign/release bands/music that are as safe and sure-to-hit as possible. Record labels, no matter how they distribute their music, can no longer take any chances on fringe acts or for that matter multi-record deals to develop new bands because they simply KNOW they have no chance of re-couping...now or later.
COMMENT | Justice served, but a bit excessive posted by : P.Trick 10/5/2007 11:35:03 AM
Stealing is stealing. Point blank. I don't agree with illegal downloading and I support the decision that she should be held accountable. However, this is ridiculous in terms of $$ awarded!
COMMENT | CDs too expensive? posted by : glenecho 10/5/2007 11:51:22 AM
I don't know if I can buy into the whole "CDs are too expensive" theory. They are the same price, and in many cases cheaper, as they were when I bought my first CD back in 1987 (which by the way was Yes' Big Generator and it cost 12.98).
One thing I don't understand is why, at least in my area, nobody is ever willing to pay more or expect cost-of-living increases to musician-related activities. In the town I live in, the cover charge is usually 3 dollars to see a band in a club. If you raise it to 4 or 5 dollars, people bitch and walk away. What was the cover charge back in the 80's when I started playing music? You guessed it...3 dollars. Why aren't musicians afforded a cost of living increase like everyone else? People will bitch about having to pay 5 bucks to see a live band of talented musicians, but won't say a word about spending 20+ dollars on a horrible Hollywood piece-o-shlock movie...and that's sad.
It goes beyond stealing because she redistributed the music through the file-sharing network. In effect, she was trafficking stolen intellectual property that should have been paid for by not only her, but anyone else who downloaded it from her hard-drive.
The fact that millions of people had access to this music gives anyone reason to believe that those who downloaded songs from her may have purchased them legitimately if not presented with the opportunity to get them for free. At an average price of $1 per song, it's not unreasonable to assume that, given the number of people who could have downloaded the songs for free, the RIAA is actually going easy on her.
And, again, we can decry the amount of the penalty all we want. I don't think she'll ever pay out. It's been what, ten years, since the Goldman's sued OJ? They've barely seen a dime out of that asshole. The RIAA isn't going to get a dime out of this woman either, but this will certainly keep all of the other suits out of the courts; they'll all settle. That's the ultimate goal of such a stiff penalty.
And, again, as far as pricing goes, CD's are one of the few commodities that have remained at a level price over a span of 20 years. You could make the case for the increase in cost of living, but that argument would have more relevance if the cost of CD's had kept pace with inflation. It hasn't. It's remained static for 20+ years. You can't say that about a lot of other consumer goods out there.
And, again, I'm not against getting a used CD from eBay or wherever. In fact, I do it all the time. I'm not doing anything illegal and it goes a lot easier on my conscience than if I had downloaded it for free.
I'm not going to lie: I work in finance, and that makes me a big fan of capitalism and a free market economy. I think people should pay for what they want and work to earn the money they spend on those things. If that makes me an asshole, well then I guess I'm an asshole.
I will always buy CDs. I love collecting Metal Cds and I have all my Cds cassettes and lps organized. If you truly love a band, buy their cds and support them. Dont download some cheap tin can sounding mp3. I stll go to CD Warehouse and get everything used. I never pay $18.99 for a cd at the mall.
the average amount of cds bought by a person in the UK is around 2-3, I buy hundreds a year and still download lots of music but if the record companies think I owe them anything they can fuck right off.
COMMENT | posted by : prof. wedgie 10/5/2007 3:07:20 PM
why don't you buy a cd, burn it, then return it?
COMMENT | prof. wedgie posted by : -gODGRINDER- 10/5/2007 3:33:15 PM
"why don't you buy a cd, burn it, then return it?"
Most larger retailers won't refund money on opened CD's and/or DVD's for exactly that reason. Best case, they'll let you trade it out for another copy of the same title.
A local store here in town will let you bring back an opened CD at 70% against another purchase in the store. Sometimes it's not even worth the drive.
COMMENT | posted by : Fani Dilth 10/5/2007 7:45:54 PM
What I want to know without reading the numerous posts... How much does Opeth get of that cash award ?
COMMENT | artists posted by : omerta666 10/5/2007 10:22:14 PM
believe me, even when downloading wasn't an issue, only a select few artists really made most of their money from cd sales, pretty much all of the artists that we support make their money from merch and ticket sales, so if you want to support them buy t-shirts and go to shows.
BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information
contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of
authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees.
