| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2008 07:21:12 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by L2:
They give listens away for free over the radio ... |
The radio stations have to pay royalties to play that music over the air -- their playlists are monitored/audited by the performing rights organizations which represent the publishers: ASCAP, BMI, etc. The same is true of music played in elevators, music clubs, and any other venue where the music is played to the public. These royalites go to the composer(s) and publisher(s), not (necessarily) the record label. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:25:20 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by L2:
They give listens away for free over the radio ... |
The radio stations have to pay royalties to play that music over the air -- their playlists are monitored/audited by the performing rights organizations which represent the publishers: ASCAP, BMI, etc. The same is true of music played in elevators, music clubs, and any other venue where the music is played to the public. These royalites go to the composer(s) and publisher(s), not (necessarily) the record label. |
That's true, but I still don't care. :) Let's think of it like the $ I paid for the CD are my royalty fees for whenever I hear the song. They don't sell you a CD and try to tell you can only listen to it in the car, or for 100 times, or that you have to be a dark room each time with no more than 2 other people present, do they? |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 07:27:19 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by L2:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by L2:
They give listens away for free over the radio ... |
The radio stations have to pay royalties to play that music over the air -- their playlists are monitored/audited by the performing rights organizations which represent the publishers: ASCAP, BMI, etc. The same is true of music played in elevators, music clubs, and any other venue where the music is played to the public. These royalites go to the composer(s) and publisher(s), not (necessarily) the record label. |
That's true, but I still don't care. :) Let's think of it like the $ I paid for the CD are my royalty fees for whenever I hear the song. They don't sell you a CD and try to tell you can only listen to it in the car, or for 100 times, or that you have to be a dark room each time with no more than 2 other people present, do they? |
It's called format shifting. Moving your product between formats. It's never been declared legal (or illegal) because the RIAA has been smart enough to not bring it up for a ruling. Time shifting, as in recording a television show to watch it later, has been declared legal. So hopefully it will come before a judge and get the official nod as well. |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 08:45:48 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by L2:
They don't sell you a CD and try to tell you can only listen to it in the car, or for 100 times, or that you have to be a dark room each time with no more than 2 other people present, do they? |
Shhh.... don't give them any ideas! |
|
|
|
01/04/2008 09:04:03 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
i guess it really comes down to the fact that this is the world we live in now. Music is easily pirated along with movies, tv shows, etc... There is no way to stop it completely. Metallica tried to take on Napster and they looked like complete assholes and alienated many fans. There are bands that embrace the internet music scene. Im sure they don't like people not buying the album, but they know they can't fight it so they use it to their advantage. These bands become fan favorites and in the end they do make lots of money. Music industry is evolving and this is part of that. Maybe this will put bands back on tour instead of putting out an album doing a few gigs to promote it and going back into the studio to repeat the process. Whatever happened to bands that play 5 nights a week all year?
The BMW example holds a bit of water, but bands don't make music only to promote sales such as an auto manufacturer. The bands that make it do it because they love to play and they love persuing their instrument. Eric Clapton said he would quit the day he figured out all there is to know on the guitar.
I guess some can embrace it and make it work and others will complain and bitch about people stealing their tunes. I never once bought a Phish album, I copied my friends and downloaded all of them. I also have been to over 50 shows and 5 festivals. 50 shows x $30=$1500 + 5 festivals x $150= $2250 total... not to mention merchandise I bought at shows and festivals. Because I got turned on to the band from downloads and sharing I spent $2250 on tickets. I am pretty sure the band would rather that than the $15 x 10albums = $150. Phish made themselves famous by sharing music. |
I bet Eric Clapton didn't offer to return all the money he got through album sales did he? If no one ever bought any of his albums when he was starting out, but instead simply stole them, he'd have quit long ago and been an insurance salesman or the like.
Simply because someone is driven to create, they don't deserve to get paid for their work because they'll do it anyway? I'm sorry, but that's just F'ed up in a huge way.
You admit that you stole from one of your favorite bands, but it's OK because you spent money on other stuff that they made money by selling. That's like going to the grocery store and stealing a bag of chips, and justifying that by paying for the dip. |
Just to play devil's advocate did you ever tape songs on cassette from the radio growing up? If so is that any different than downloading songs off the internet today? |
No and no.
I didn't, partly because they almost never played any of the bands I liked on the radio, partly because I'd rather have the LP and artwork that goes with it and partly because I'd rather go see them play live. If I did hear a band and want the album, the guys at the local record store would gladly scour the planet for albums from the most obscure Norweigan Punk band or whatever I was looking for.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2008 07:42:11 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
It's called format shifting. Moving your product between formats. It's never been declared legal (or illegal) because the RIAA has been smart enough to not bring it up for a ruling. Time shifting, as in recording a television show to watch it later, has been declared legal. So hopefully it will come before a judge and get the official nod as well. |
I agree that the legality of format shifting is deliberately untested. Technically, I think that there is a good argument that format shifting is unlawful. However, I think that it will end up being a change of commercial policy or consumer practice rather than a change in the law.
iTunes and legal download services are revolutionising the music industry's business models. If market forces are allowed to operate I think it only a matter of time before prices drop through the floor (think one or two cents a track) as people demand high volume, low price models to fill their terabyte iPods...
Alternatively, increased availability of broadband connectivity (fixed and mobile) may mean that unlimited subscription type services become the norm. Why clog up your home hard drives with data when you could rely on a central database and have any album ever recorded streamed remotely to your home or mobile broadband connection for the cost of, say, a CD or two a month?
|
|
|
|
01/06/2008 04:23:15 AM · #57 |
| There just doing this cause the music industry isnt ready for MP3 players yet, they are still stuck cd player land watching the pretty colors that are formed when it goes round and round. |
|
|
|
01/06/2008 04:52:24 AM · #58 |
| According to this blog article, the original Washington Post article pretty much misrepresented the RIAA's argument -- indeed what they were objecting to was the sharing (or potential/attempted sharing) of the songs, not merely the format-shift to one's computer. Not that this makes them any less evil or demagogic, just not completely idiotic. |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 08:49:41 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by rex:
to your hard drive for your own personal use? |
The key words being "personal use". Have created many "best of" compliations from the days of reel to reel, cassette, and now CD. Copying select songs from albums, 8 track, cassette or CD onto another media format to be used in another media player (typically mobile) has been an activity without prosecution for decades. One of my early stereo units specifically had the ability to copy songs onto cassette from albums, CD's and other cassettes. Selling these compilations for profit would violate the copyright laws, imo. Making a copy for friends, without charge would technically violate the intent of copyright, without violating the spirit - imo. I would liken it to one of my photographs. Technically once I sell it, no one should be able to make a copy without my permission. In actuallity, any customer can scan and print another copy for their personal use and I likely would not 1. know or 2. sue even if I did know. On the other hand, if they were selling those scanned/copied prints, then I would be quite a bit more upset. An example is old family photographs. The image is the property of the original photographer, however 1) I don't know who it was, 2) even if I did know who it was, they are likely deceased, 3) I simply want a copy as an heirloom memory, not as a mechanism for profiteering from the original photographers work. Technically a copyright infringement, but hardly a matter worth the courts time - imo.
Thus, copying music from one media to another media "FOR ONE'S PERSONAL USE" should not be a sueable matter - imo - based on past history (read prior precedent). |
|
|
|
01/07/2008 01:02:13 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Downloads are people listening which lead to more people listening which leads to sales. |
So, you think people are going to steal an album and buy the next one? |
I'd have to agree with Justin a little here. I've had friends give me a cd with some different band's songs on. After I listened to a few of their songs I went and bought the whole album because I liked their specific genre or to have more than the couple of songs off of the 'ripped' cd. Hearing a couple of ripped songs encouraged me to buy the complete edition.
To keep this thread on topic with the OP:
I do rip music from CDs that I buy. I bought the cd now I want to put the music on my iPhone and/or iPod.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2008 02:42:15 PM · #61 |
has anyone ever checked out 1 cent CDs from ebay? This is a great source of music and its essentially free as well and legal. Most of it is from music stores that closed (probably due to no one buying CDs anymore, the irony is crazy) and are moving old inventory. Ive found some real gems here as well as some crap, but for .01 who cares?
|
|
|
|
01/10/2008 04:33:12 PM · #62 |
| Sales report for Radiohead's new album: over 120,000 CDs/vinyl sold in the first week ... not too shabby for somethng they've been letting people download for three months, for whatever people wanted to pay (and apparently many did pay voluntarily). |
|
|
|
01/10/2008 08:42:28 PM · #63 |
Many new artists on the Internet have tried this similar method of distribution; this 'pay what you want' model.
From what I understand, they typically get MORE per track than if they sold it on, say, iTunes for $1 each.
Times they are a'changin. |
|
|
|
01/11/2008 04:25:04 PM · #64 |
An interesting stat about music sales....
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album is sitting at #6 on the Billboard Top 200 Pop Catalogue. It has been there for just shy of 1600 weeks. That is every week since its release date. It also has sold 14+ million copies and is certified Diamond by the RIAA. If you do the math, thats 8,750 albums/week as an average.
I find that amazing, that album is timeless and I wonder how long it can stay a top seller. |
|
|
|
01/16/2008 09:22:55 AM · #65 |
anyone read about Comcast and the FCC? it is relevant to this discussion.
//www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9845889-7.html |
|
|
|
01/17/2008 02:26:58 PM · #66 |
Yes, I do.
I have an external HDD that has contains all of my music, ripped at CD quality or better. Some purchased online, some downloaded from P2P, the majority were ripped from CDs. Many are no longer in print and I found them in one of those "used record/CD" stores (just try to find The Offsping's earlier releases in a place that doesn't sell used stuff. Won't happen).
I have the full discography of quite a number of artists/bands (that can add up for the more prolific artists, or that have been around for a while).
Ripping to my HD and then putting the CD on the shelf/in a box, takes up much less space and makes finding songs/albums/artists MUCH easier than having my eyes glaze over while staring at a shelf of CDs :)
On the issue of P2P - so many times, I have gone out and bought a CD only to find that the song I heard on the radio is the ONLY song I like. If I like the album, I go out and I buy it, then rip it to my drive.
Trent Reznor and Radiohead have figured out how internet marketing works, I must say. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/07/2025 08:41:09 AM EDT.
