ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I'm not suggesting banning libraries. They buy copies of the books, and they loan them out - they don't let people make photocopies for their friends. (Not on the premises, anyway.) Sure, I'd rather people bought the book than checked it out of the library, but there it is. The citizens own the library, the library owns the book, and I got paid for that one copy just like all the others out there.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but to me all the arguments for piracy seem to boil down to "we don't want to pay what they're asking, plus they have old business models and bad practices so to hell with them". I get the latter, but the former makes no sense to me.

If I create something, I get to choose what to charge for it. You can think I'm overcharging, you can disagree with how I choose to sell it, and you can express your displeasure by choosing not to give me any money - but you don't get to decide that since my lemonade is too pricey you're just going to take it. That's just not right. That's not capitalism in some advanced new Web-savvy sense. That's just you ripping me off.

The fact that with digital media I still have the same product to sell as before is beside the point. When you buy a book, you're mostly buying the words - the ink, paper, and cloth are just carriers for the real product. (Kind of like the relationship between milk and a carton.) When I'm selling music that's available in a digital format, it's not the ones and zeros that you're buying. I could send you a stream of random bytes the same size as an album and you would justly consider yourself ripped off if you'd been expecting music. The fact that it's easy to copy, occupies no physical space, and can be copied and played virtually indefinitely with no loss of quality is irrelevant. You're paying for the artists' work, not the format it comes in - the message, not the medium.

I really don't get it. Yes, record companies need to adapt to the digital age. Yes, they have some awful business practices and aren't doing themselves any publicity favors. You still only get two real choices: pay what they're asking or accept that you don't get your own copy.

 Beaker wrote: 


EXACTLY!

 Beaker wrote: 

Yep, yep that is exactly what I was saying. What is that cheesy corporate BS? "obstacles are only vaguely disguised opportunities". Ooooooh, I am going to have to take a shower now for saying that corporate crap tag line!

 Beaker wrote: 
Great post, but I got news for you - most of the items listed (those were items listed, not businesses) are owned by companies who have their hands in the smartphone till. Think about it: Palm (pdas), Apple (ipod), Samsung & about a million others (mp3/cd/dvd players), etc. 

And let's face it some of the items on that list weren't long for this world anyway... flip video cameras? I mean seriously — those were/are are just another channel of products made by the camera and electronics industry to fill a hole in the industry that wasn't being filled at the time. They sell those sorts of things until the industry dies off then create another item OR better sell their technology to the industries that want them... i.e. the smartphone industry. GPS is a prime example - I guarantee you none of those phone manufacturers created their OWN gps technology. They're buying it for resale from the pioneers in the industry. Same for hand held video games — those weren't planned to be around forever, they knew another niche would fill the hole eventually - so the technology is purchased and placed.

Watches however, I have to agree - I would imagine they actually ARE on the down swing. I personally haven't really owned one in years....mainly because I have a current in my body that zaps out the battery (I have about 10 in my jewelry box that I can't wear), so my cell phone has been a saving grace for me over the years. But, that's been going on for at least 15+ years. Nothing new on this front. 

I'm just saying that your original comment about the changes in the record industry are true - bands are finding new ways to promote themselves and make more percentage of the dollar than before, but ultimately the folks who still hold the popularity purse strings, at THIS point in time, are still the record execs. as for that goofy article about businesses being destroyed because of the smartphone? Pscchaa, whatever.  

I posted the original entry mainly to pinpoint the excessive overhead in an antiquated business model. Execs expensing cocaine? Being bonused $1m in a year — these kinds of things definitely effect artists. It's the trickle down syndrome. How in the world can most artists (especially those excited to sign their first record deal) get a fair shake? They can't. Because often times that first contract is attached to a 2-10 record deal. So, who's making the best of it, EVEN in these days of piracy? The execs. It's a top-heavy industry that truly needs a crash to Phoenix from it's own ashes. Involving new theft deterrents or even creating an entirely new digital format that cannot be copied unless paid for (a key sorta like the software industry) is definitely the direction they need to head, I think. How do you think Adobe holds so tight to their rights? But honestly, the record companies can't do anything while standing in the middle of the fire and shouting that they're ON fire. They started the problem and ultimately they're the ones who will have to repair it. 

 private_di wrote: 
Which is about what they would get if they'd put it on iTunes for you!

 sirdroseph wrote: 
When I first heard "Zumurud" by Mich Gerber here on RP, I said "Wow, I've got to purchase this song!"  I spent a good half a day trying to find someplace to purchase the MP3 with no luck, I even decided that I would purchase the whole darned CD ("The Endless String") just to get that one song if I could only find it...I finally found some international music site that was selling the MP3, so I filled out all the info, gave my credit card, and clicked "checkout"...was greeted by a message stating that I am forbidden from purchasing the song because I am in the U.S.   !?!?!?!   Maybe today that's changed and you can download it from someplace like Amazon, but I don't want it anymore, it was an impulse purchase I was willing to make and that music company blew the chance to make money on my impulse. 

Just my $0.02.

 kurtster wrote: 

• The deal Epstein signed on behalf of the Beatles was pathetic and George Martin was later to describe it as 'pretty awful'. There were no advance payments and they would receive only one penny per single-and half that on overseas sales. A 12-track album would only be counted as six cuts. There were three one-year options with an increase of a quarter of a penny at the end of the first year and an increase of a halfpenny at the end of the second year (link)

Bands weren't generally in a position to negotiate airplay royalties. Perhaps at the peak of their career the Beatles *might* have been able to dictate terms, but I'm sure they did not. Certainly at the beginning, money for airplay was expected to flow the other direction. (See: Payola)
 
Early Beatles recordings were a lot of covers; these got little airplay in the US, if any at all.

Slippery slope and I see both points. I can simplify it though, the digital age and P2P capability has in effect put the products completely out of commercial control. It is tantamount to retailers laying their inventory on the sidewalk or your street with no price tags, whether you think it is immoral to take something does not change the fact that everything will be taken. I respect those that hold completely to their virtue and do not download anything through principle, good on ya for that! Bottom line though is that artists that wish to make a living through their art, had better alter their distribution and maketing methods to survive and even thrive in this digital age. Their are many artists that hire geek squads to infiltrate P2P networks with bad and even virus affected files. Also has someone has mentioned before, some view the digital age as an opportunity to reach the masses like never before for previously unknown artists, creating a buzz that will increase ticket revenue for live shows and possibly even get them signed to a label. Bottom line, ship has sailed on whether they can or should stop illegal downloading, the artists time would be better spent using it to their advantage.

Most people think piracy is ok. Until it's their work that's being pirated.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Hmmm.  In the beginning, half of their stuff were covers of other peoples songs.  The penny per play deal was long before they started doing only their own material.

Grey area, needs further investigation.

 kurtster wrote: 
As performers? I don't think so. But they got paid for airplay as composers.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I remember that the Beatles negotiated a penny per airplay here in the States.  Perhaps some old dj's around here could weigh in on that. 

 winter wrote: 
There are some pretty grey areas. That is why I object so much to using theft to describe copyright infringement, and the claim that all peer to peer is bad.

Sometimes there are perks to seeking out the rarities rather than just downloading:

 

Some cool  liner notes in these, and Sideshow was an Australian CD, that I got as a Japanese import - the plastic sleeve has all kinds of Kanji and other interesting bits on it.  Sometimes those things wind up being really valuable too. I've had a couple that I wound up selling on ebay because the values got so high.

 winter wrote: 
Yes, and in turn, theoretically, the composers. But there are (currently) no performance royalties from terrestrial radio play, so if you're in a band and record a cover song and it's a smash hit on the radio but no one buys it, you're still broke. But the record industry has traditionally viewed airplay as promotion... that is, get the people to fall in love with a song and they'll buy it. But for everyone who bought "You Light Up My Life," millions more heard it, maybe even tuned into a particular station to hear it, maybe hung out with friends who played it... and still never bought the record. Is that lost revenue?
 
I'm not wanting to get into the justify bootlegging devil's advocate thing here but there are some points to be made. In the case of books, though, well would you ban public libraries? Nah. Your biggest problem with a bootlegged copy of your book is that it's your only revenue stream, whereas a band can at least go sing for their supper. Sure a lot of music is strictly studio craftsmanship or something that is impossible to re-create onstage, but the vast majority of what we listen to, we can go see live. But if you're not a Disney brand pop star, you're going to need the bootlegged music to make the rounds or no one's going to know to come see you.

 Umberdog wrote: 
splains everything, eh ?

and thanks for reading my earlier post.

 kurtster wrote: 
It was the best of times... it was the worst of times... and so on.

 islander wrote: 
Dickens was paid by the word ...