Another LONG rant about people not paying for music

[Turdus]

My points are that music has gone from a precious commodity to something as cheap and plentiful as fill dirt. And like fill dirt, most people now dig up their own rather than buying it.

The difference is that fill dirt isn't copyrighted.

ah, but did you know that dirt is sometimes protected by law, and city ordinances? I kid you not... I had an areaway dug at the back of my house, and was only granted permission, by the County, to remove so many cubic feet of dirt..... the whole time I was thinking... who's gonna check? lol!

[zenmindbeginner]

The middle class has chosen to be debt slaves and that does not absolve them from being thieves.

This is entirely your opinion and is fodder for at least a ten page argument. There is actual data that can represent the declining incomes of Americans since the 70's. There isn't one shred of empirical evidence that middle class Americans have chosen to become debt slaves. Absolution from thievery? Are you a priest?

The average home size has nearly doubled in 30 years, not only has that made the home more expensive to buy, but also more expensive to heat, air condition and insure.

WTF are you rambling on about? I don't know anyone's home that has increased in size over the years... expanding homes? I live in a house built in the 30's... it hasn't increased one square foot over the years.

Families use to have one TV, one telephone and one car. Now its normal for people to have at least one per person. Vacations use to involve the family going somewhere in their car, often to a relative. Now people fly to Miami to catch a cruise.

I am middle class and have NEVER taken a vacation in my adult life and own one TV. My neighbor is supposed to feel ashamed that he has a TV in his bedroom? WTF?

Our consumption is tenfold, but versus inflation our incomes are flat. It is disingenuous to say we are poor when we live the most lavish lifestyles ever known to man. The middle class has chosen to stretch beyond their means to keep pace with their neighbors, so they are willfully "poor".

Don't blame middle class and poor people for technology advancements that led to improvements in living standards. What, since I am middle class I don't deserve to have a fridge and air conditioning? All of the credit card and mortgage debt that the middle class has accumulated since the 70's has purchased goods that have driven the economy. If the middle class people would have stopped spending money when interest rates started to rise... the economy would grind to a halt.

It is a consumption based economy and the middle class put their asses on the line to build it up to it's current monolithic size...and you have the gall to look down on them and criticize their decisions?

It's just like when the abortion opponents think that women have abortions for fun... when people go into debt, they do so with great sadness and trepidation.

They don't usually have a choice, but you think that people in debt are all buying endless lottery tickets, fancy cars, multiple big screen TVs, defaulting on debt and then racking up more debt and living lavish lifestyles.

I know that it is one of your sick dreams, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

[Studio Custom]

The middle class has chosen to be debt slaves and that does not absolve them from being thieves.

This is entirely your opinion and is fodder for at least a ten page argument. There is actual data that can represent the declining incomes of Americans since the 70's. There isn't one shred of empirical evidence that middle class Americans have chosen to become debt slaves. Absolution from thievery? Are you a priest?

The average home size has nearly doubled in 30 years, not only has that made the home more expensive to buy, but also more expensive to heat, air condition and insure.

WTF are you rambling on about? I don't know anyone's home that has increased in size over the years... expanding homes? I live in a house built in the 30's... it hasn't increased one square foot over the years.

Families use to have one TV, one telephone and one car. Now its normal for people to have at least one per person. Vacations use to involve the family going somewhere in their car, often to a relative. Now people fly to Miami to catch a cruise.

I am middle class and have NEVER taken a vacation in my adult life and own one TV. My neighbor is supposed to feel ashamed that he has a TV in his bedroom? WTF?

Our consumption is tenfold, but versus inflation our incomes are flat. It is disingenuous to say we are poor when we live the most lavish lifestyles ever known to man. The middle class has chosen to stretch beyond their means to keep pace with their neighbors, so they are willfully "poor".

Don't blame middle class and poor people for technology advancements that led to improvements in living standards. What, since I am middle class I don't deserve to have a fridge and air conditioning? All of the credit card and mortgage debt that the middle class has accumulated since the 70's has purchased goods that have driven the economy. If the middle class people would have stopped spending money when interest rates started to rise... the economy would grind to a halt.

It is a consumption based economy and the middle class put their asses on the line to build it up to it's current monolithic size...and you have the gall to look down on them and criticize their decisions?

It's just like when the abortion opponents think that women have abortions for fun... when people go into debt, they do so with great sadness and trepidation.

They don't usually have a choice, but you think that people in debt are all buying endless lottery tickets, fancy cars, multiple big screen TVs, defaulting on debt and then racking up more debt and living lavish lifestyles.

I know that it is one of your sick dreams, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

You are trying to make your case fit the population. We have far more stuff than our parents had, at least most of us do.

When I was kid we had a 1,400 sq ft home, one TV, received three channels over the airwaves, and had one home phone in the kitchen. I have not seen a new home under 2,500 sq ft built in a decade. Almost everyone has cable, we have HBO and internet and that basic package is $120/mo. Two iPhones cost another $80/mo. Two cars, $500/mo.

The reality is we have far more stuff and those items compete for our discretionary income, and reduce our savings. You can deny it all you want, the facts are the facts IMO.

[zenmindbeginner]

Oh right, it's the lavish cable bills that have destroyed our middle class savings. lolz

The people with lavish middle class lifestyles to my estimation, are all upper middle class with family incomes above $100,000. They are not the ones that are in trouble with debt. It s the working class and working poor that have been saddled with the most crippling wealth.

There has been a longstanding policy of shifting wealth from the working class to the wealthy class in the US.

Who do you think benefits from all of this middle class debt? The wealthy class who are the shareholders of the banks which hold their loans and who own the corporations that took their hard earned money in exchange for goods and services.

The rich get RICHER when the middle class is saddled with debt... it's not rocket science.

So... the decline of our wages means record profits from the wealthy class who get higher productivity and less labor cost. We have to borrow more money at interest rates that are too high for simple things like medical emergencies and unforeseen expenses. Who profits off of that? The wealthy class.

Who owns the banks that loan money to low income college students and drags them down with a ridiculous debt that they can't even begin to pay off because the wealthy class doesn't feel like creating any more jobs? The wealthy class

And why would they create more jobs? They have a GRAVY FUCKING TRAIN going right now that funnels all of the income from the poor and most of the incomes from WORKING people straight to the wealthy.

You need to get out more and talk to people who WORK for a living... I mean folks who get dirty and sweat through their work shirts , who have to go to another job after their first one is over, who have to ask to get a bathroom break, who bring their lunch from home because they can't afford to eat out, people who take constant shit from abusive bosses, people who walk to work or take public transportation.

Talk to some of them, they will tell you the same thing I have.

[JohnnyB]

My points are that music has gone from a precious commodity to something as cheap and plentiful as fill dirt. And like fill dirt, most people now dig up their own rather than buying it.

The difference is that fill dirt isn't copyrighted.

ah, but did you know that dirt is sometimes protected by law, and city ordinances? I kid you not... I had an areaway dug at the back of my house, and was only granted permission, by the County, to remove so many cubic feet of dirt..... the whole time I was thinking... who's gonna check? lol!

They won't need to; you'll find out the hard way when your house falls into the hole or slides down the hill.

[Cary]

[

when people go into debt, they do so with great sadness and trepidation.

They don't usually have a choice, but you think that people in debt are all buying endless lottery tickets, fancy cars, multiple big screen TVs, defaulting on debt and then racking up more debt and living lavish lifestyles.

I know that it is one of your sick dreams, but it doesn't bear any resemblance to reality.

Yeah, that's why you see all those people at places like Best Buy and the mall handing over their plastic "with great sadness and trepidation".

[Cary]

The people with lavish middle class lifestyles to my estimation, are all upper middle class with family incomes above $100,000. They are not the ones that are in trouble with debt. It s the working class and working poor that have been saddled with the most crippling wealth.

That's why there are neighborhoods in my town with houses that WERE $500,000, now foreclosed or being offered in short sales for half of that. It's all those working class and lower middle class types who got screwed by "The Man".

Studio Custom, you are absolutely right.

[Thundernotes]

You know, guys.... you can disagree with one another without getting nasty. It's precisely the reason the Crucible went away, and this thread has wandered dangerously close to deletion with accompanying vacation prizes for the participants. We're letting it roll for now because there's a lot of good discussion here, but Jeebus, cool it, will ya?

[earachemyeye]

The crucible went away? Haven't been on there for years. I was wondering why with all the political stuff going on, this thread was still alive in the music area. Anyway.. Johnny B's post was spot on. Maybe if they keep compressing the files ever smaller and the quality keeps getting worse and worse a new market will open up with a different format. I don't know but I've watched almost everything else go this way.

[JohnnyB]

Maybe if they keep compressing the files ever smaller and the quality keeps getting worse and worse a new market will open up with a different format. I don't know but I've watched almost everything else go this way.

It already has:

• HDTracks
  
• itrax
  
• Audiostream HD music directory
  
• More info at Audiostream
  

I've been listening almost exclusively to vinyl for the last 5 years, but I've heard some very good 24/96 and 24/192 HD digital music tracks, enough so that I intend to get a FLAC translator for my MacBook and try a few out 24/96 files for myself.

Digital downloads, the death knell for quality sound reproduction, could also be its salvation. The difference is in the file size and resolution. Everything else is much the same. HDTracks and other such vendors provide a way for high-res enthusiasts to get master-quality audio without a new round of disk formats, standards, and disk players.

[zenmindbeginner]

You know, guys.... you can disagree with one another without getting nasty. It's precisely the reason the Crucible went away, and this thread has wandered dangerously close to deletion with accompanying vacation prizes for the participants.

I am thankful and humbled that I didn't get the vacation prize.

[pirateflynn]

I've been listening almost exclusively to vinyl

Goes well with vinyl, J.B.

[JohnnyB]

I've been listening almost exclusively to vinyl

Goes well with vinyl, J.B.

I'll have to check it out. Lately I've been digging into this (7.5 abv):

[gorch]

I wonder this thread wasn't closed already. Someone may have said this before.

Preferably, I buy CDs and in return receive cases with booklets to look at and include liner notes. Old fashioned, I know, but earning the musician more than a download and giving me more than a download.

[specialk]

I don't own a single song I didn't pay for, and I like having the physical media so I rarely buy from iTunes etc.

[RichRS6]

I'm with Special K and Gorch, I'd rather have a tangible product in my hand than just the file on a hard drive somewhere.

If I want to listen to it on my phone or in the car I make copies for my own use (which is perfectly legal AFAIK) and this way I know the artist is getting their share of the price I pay.

[Cary]

I'm with Special K and Gorch, I'd rather have a tangible product in my hand than just the file on a hard drive somewhere.

If I want to listen to it on my phone or in the car I make copies for my own use (which is perfectly legal AFAIK) and this way I know the artist is getting their share of the price I pay.

This.

I still buy the CD and then rip it to my iPod. I have maybe 3 or 4 albums that I actually downloaded off of iTunes.

The irony is, there are some in the RIAA that argue that ripping your own CDs to your iPod is "stealing".

[Cary]

You know, guys.... you can disagree with one another without getting nasty. It's precisely the reason the Crucible went away, and this thread has wandered dangerously close to deletion with accompanying vacation prizes for the participants.

I am thankful and humbled that I didn't get the vacation prize.

But yesterday you said you hadn't taken a vacation in your adult life... A vacation might have been nice for you...

[Rebeka]

There was a time when I did download some music, but that time is long gone for me. I came to a realization....yes, I could get music for free, but the artist would get 0 benefit from my doing so, and if everyone did it, that artist would have to go find a new job. I came to view that my $ is basically a way to vote. The only way an artist can produce a new album is if the old album sold enough copies. I'll find new music via Pandora, or Youtube, or this board for example...and I ask myself, do I like this enough that really I want them to make another album so I can hear more? If yes, then I'll buy the song or maybe the whole album. That's my way to tell the artist and the record company (or whoever) that I want more from them. I don't think a dollar for something I will listen to over and over is too much to ask. Hell, having a beer after work costs way more than that and doesn't entertain me for nearly as long.

And if they're playing in my area and tickets don't cost an arm and a leg, even better.

[MCChris]

^^^

Very well stated. I've fully embraced digital downloads versus physical copies. I don't need the clutter and my ears are too shot to be super particular about sound quality. With a good pair of headphones, my iPod and iTunes on my PC sound fine to me. Same goes for a good car system. Do I really care about lossless formats with all that ambient noise going on? No.

But I'm old school in the respect that if I like a song, I'll buy the entire album. I can count on one hand the times I've been burned by doing so and there was nothing else of value on the release. That's an argument I don't get. Yes, the CD era all but eliminated singles as a viable purchase, but none of the people complaining about albums not having enough good material to justify a full-price purchase strike me as the type who were stocking up on Bobby Sherman 45s. When Zep or Bad Company came out with an album, you bought the whole thing. Even younger listeners who dug Black Flag and the Melvins bought entire albums, because those bands weren't even releasing singles.

[zenmindbeginner]

Weren't there several very sobering articles in the late 90's about how much artists really make off of record sales? I read several that illustrated just how very little the artist makes in comparison to the distributor and the record label.

This is from a salon article written on JUN 14, 2000 by Courtney Love (don't shoot the messenger):

"The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it’s based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)

So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band’s royalties.

The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.

The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations — the unified broadcast system — are getting paid to play their records.

All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.

Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.

If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.

Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals … zero!

How much does the record company make?

They grossed $11 million.

It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.

The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.

They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That’s mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.

Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.

So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven."

[MCChris]

Weren't there several very sobering articles in the late 90's about how much artists really make off of record sales? I read several that illustrated just how very little the artist makes in comparison to the distributor and the record label.

That's always been the case. Now the artists get nothing.

[Rebeka]

As far as a single song vs. an album goes, it was often a budget thing. A few years back I was still paying off school loans and had just paid a down payment on a house. I didn't have the extra cash for a whole album, but I still wanted to get new music and do something for the artist, so I would buy a song here and there as I could afford it. Now I often buy the cd vs just buying a song. I'm just happy that Amazon/iTunes/etc gives us that choice. Not everyone can afford to buy every new album of every band they really like.

[zenmindbeginner]

Weren't there several very sobering articles in the late 90's about how much artists really make off of record sales? I read several that illustrated just how very little the artist makes in comparison to the distributor and the record label.

That's always been the case. Now the artists get nothing.

They used to get less than nothing back in the day... sort of a way to funnel the wealth of artists up into the suits and corporate overlords. Very clever racket I must say.

So, the $1.29 of iTunes... the artist gets what?

Around 20 cents if they are lucky... you're better off selling a ringtone that nets you 24 cents per download (these are VERY high estimates and real world payouts are much lower).

[SteveB]

The theft of a binary file which wasn't stocked in a store, sitting in a warehouse or in someone's place of business or home is not the same as stealing someone's inventory or personal possessions out of their home

And this statement is EXACTLY why so many people rip off other's intellectual property with no feelings of wrong... because they don't believe they are actually stealing anything.

With all the philosophizing about the free market and the music industry, wouldn't we argue that if a person cannot afford to acquire a product legally, that they shouldn't have the right to enjoy the product? Maybe some people need to go work harder so they can pay for those .99 cent downloads. But there is no incentive too, because hey, it's only electronic data, right?

I'm just gonna repost my response on TGP to a similar thread here even though it doesn't directly refer to any particular message here, same concepts apply:

Many people today just don't value intellectual property, and won't pay for it no matter how easy it might be to do, and even if 100% of the money went directly to the artist. The excuse of not wanting to line the pockets of multinationals is just that, an excuse to give them an out for not paying. Claiming "I'll support the artist directly" is bogus, as because out of hundreds of artists they may have on iPod most people will have bought tickets to shows or merch from a very tiny percentage, the rest get NOTHING for what they have done. Yet the music is still enjoyed. Sure, business models need changed, but the underlying culture that decrees that anything easily shared is free is still a big problem for anyone trying to make a living as an artist.

So, currently the artists are getting shafted by the music industry corporations and the people who listen to their music both. That is not a viable situation.