Gov't wants easier internet wiretapping

[lxskllr]

All the talk regarding copyright infringement is really just a distraction from the real point of the OP, which is the government wanting a backdoor to spy on internet communications. Screw that. There's no way that can't be exploited, or abused by the government, or other third parties.

[Solarist]

Piracy, while illegal by most nations laws, is not stealing - the laws are completely different. It is copyright infringement and not theft.

While I am all for musicians getting paid for their time, the recordings that are being pirated will not sustain them regardless - the actual money that artists receive from retail sales, if anything, is pretty much chump change. The majority of the price of an album/song goes into some executive's pocket for ?? That is I believe what the question is - what is this service that the record companies are providing that warrents the 97 cents of the 99 cent cost of a song (assuming generously the artist gets 2 cents). Distribution? Piracy demonstrates that distribution is not worth 97 cents - or else piracy wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be "free" (grant you, it isn't, since you still need to pay for internet connection, etc. - but it is only a fraction of a cent).

Back in the "old" days when CD/Tapes were the primary source for music, this mark up made sense - since there were tangible logistic costs. Now the price doesn't really differ even though the bulk of the cost is gone. I would be more than willing to buy music for the amount the artists make (a couple cents) + a very generous "server maintenance" fee of a cent.

To be frank - I just wish that there was a web site where I could just donate to bands directly (like all of them on a single place), then I could feel morally "good" but still not have to support a failed business model driven by a bunch of mobsters.

On the whole "paid to do work" - sure, artists should be paid, but the lack of pay has more to do with the recording industry than the pirates - if anyone is stealing it is the recording industry itself by taking the bulk of the profits off a song sale and pocketing it. I read somewhere that they still take a 15% cut for "shipping damages" on digital distribution... Likewise, I would love it if my job would support myself and my grandchildren for 75 years - but that is ridiculous.

[devilock76]

All the talk regarding copyright infringement is really just a distraction from the real point of the OP, which is the government wanting a backdoor to spy on internet communications. Screw that. There's no way that can't be exploited, or abused by the government, or other third parties.

Agreed again, how did we get on this tangent?

Ken

[lxskllr]

Agreed again, how did we get on this tangent?

Ken

:^D I'm not sure. I guess for my part, this tied in with other anti-technology, anti-consumer legislation, and I ran with it. I'll have to go back and read the thread again to figure out exactly what happened :^D

[NonServiam]

Piracy, while illegal by most nations laws, is not stealing - the laws are completely different. It is copyright infringement and not theft.

While I am all for musicians getting paid for their time, the recordings that are being pirated will not sustain them regardless - the actual money that artists receive from retail sales, if anything, is pretty much chump change. The majority of the price of an album/song goes into some executive's pocket for ?? That is I believe what the question is - what is this service that the record companies are providing that warrents the 97 cents of the 99 cent cost of a song (assuming generously the artist gets 2 cents). Distribution? Piracy demonstrates that distribution is not worth 97 cents - or else piracy wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be "free" (grant you, it isn't, since you still need to pay for internet connection, etc. - but it is only a fraction of a cent).

Back in the "old" days when CD/Tapes were the primary source for music, this mark up made sense - since there were tangible logistic costs. Now the price doesn't really differ even though the bulk of the cost is gone. I would be more than willing to buy music for the amount the artists make (a couple cents) + a very generous "server maintenance" fee of a cent.

To be frank - I just wish that there was a web site where I could just donate to bands directly (like all of them on a single place), then I could feel morally "good" but still not have to support a failed business model driven by a bunch of mobsters.

On the whole "paid to do work" - sure, artists should be paid, but the lack of pay has more to do with the recording industry than the pirates - if anyone is stealing it is the recording industry itself by taking the bulk of the profits off a song sale and pocketing it. I read somewhere that they still take a 15% cut for "shipping damages" on digital distribution... Likewise, I would love it if my job would support myself and my grandchildren for 75 years - but that is ridiculous.

+1

I've heard many bands say that their first couple of albums have to be fairly successful for them to just break even. They really depend on ticket sales and merchandise because the tyrants of the recording industry rape these guys. Some people wonder why bands "sell out" and become more commerical/accessible. It's the simple fact that they are tired of having to work sidejobs just to get by. What once was an enjoyable talent and hobby that they found could earn them some money or was a means to spread a message (political and/or religious) soon becomes like any job and you do what you can to be more successful.

Of course, Metallica never had to go more commercial, they were already a huge success. So I can only assume they wanted even more millions or truly were sincere and just wanted to try playing something different.

Edit: Sorry guys, I know I just encourgaged the tangent here

[devilock76]

:^D I'm not sure. I guess for my part, this tied in with other anti-technology, anti-consumer legislation, and I ran with it. I'll have to go back and read the thread again to figure out exactly what happened :^D

The Tangent Roller Coaster can be a rough ride on the Way Back Machine.

Ken

[sgreger1]

Piracy, while illegal by most nations laws, is not stealing - the laws are completely different. It is copyright infringement and not theft.

While I am all for musicians getting paid for their time, the recordings that are being pirated will not sustain them regardless - the actual money that artists receive from retail sales, if anything, is pretty much chump change. The majority of the price of an album/song goes into some executive's pocket for ?? That is I believe what the question is - what is this service that the record companies are providing that warrents the 97 cents of the 99 cent cost of a song (assuming generously the artist gets 2 cents). Distribution? Piracy demonstrates that distribution is not worth 97 cents - or else piracy wouldn't happen and it wouldn't be "free" (grant you, it isn't, since you still need to pay for internet connection, etc. - but it is only a fraction of a cent).

Back in the "old" days when CD/Tapes were the primary source for music, this mark up made sense - since there were tangible logistic costs. Now the price doesn't really differ even though the bulk of the cost is gone. I would be more than willing to buy music for the amount the artists make (a couple cents) + a very generous "server maintenance" fee of a cent.

To be frank - I just wish that there was a web site where I could just donate to bands directly (like all of them on a single place), then I could feel morally "good" but still not have to support a failed business model driven by a bunch of mobsters.

On the whole "paid to do work" - sure, artists should be paid, but the lack of pay has more to do with the recording industry than the pirates - if anyone is stealing it is the recording industry itself by taking the bulk of the profits off a song sale and pocketing it. I read somewhere that they still take a 15% cut for "shipping damages" on digital distribution... Likewise, I would love it if my job would support myself and my grandchildren for 75 years - but that is ridiculous.

All good points, but I think the main thing the "executives" at the record label do is to promote/advertise content, as well as distribute it. Distribution is easy, but promotion costs millions of dollars in advance. Even a good artist will never make any real cash without a massive marketing campaign. This is why there are so many underground singers that are great but since they don't have a record contract few people hear about them. For a new artist, spending $500,000,000 to advertise your band is not reasonable, which is where the record label comes in. In return for making the artist a star, they get most of the money. It's like this everywhere, the talent doesn't make the big money, the organizers and financiers do> just like a company, the ones who make the product that you are selling get a small wage (these are the people working in cubicles), the chairmen and CEO's are the ones that make big cash because they fronted the money to start the business and then made good business decisions to grow it.

Not defending them, but I think that is what the whole purpose of them is. For example, if no one knew about Kanye West, few people would pirate his music. They are only out getting it because a several million dollar marketing campaign made them aware of his existence.

[sgreger1]

Back to OP: This is just another power grab by government. Just this year's patriot act. Stay tuned for another round of liberty smashing to come next year. This is the new trend and it ain't changing.

[Solarist]

See, even the promotional costs should be decreasing, as the consumers themselves are basically advertising bands via Facebook, YouTube, etc. The bulk of the music I have listened to lately I did not learn about through some advertising campaign but rather by friends and other internet collaboration type sites (heck, even here). While certainly Kanye West has some marketing dollars thrown onto him - I don't believe there is as much of a NEED for traditional advertising campaigns as there used to be, especially as traditional media (TV, Radio, Newspaper) are being replaced by electronic media (which is cheaper, as it is not tangable - it is a lot cheaper to produce and distribute a banner ad than a blip in a newspaper). Or for that matter, I doubt I am the only one who has gone to a concert for a band that I only heard of via piracy - piracy in of itself is advertising for a band. In fact, I'd argue that record songs SHOULD be primary just for advertising purposes to increase concert attendance.

Certainly, my company has a lot of dead weight up top - people who really add little value but take the big bucks due to their titles (most likely came from a line of families who traditionally held C-level jobs - e.g. modern royalty).

See: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2...-file-sharing/

Here is an interesting graph that shows revenue for music, cut into various categories and over time. Key takeaway - assuming piracy is increasing (which according to the RIAA, it is), it seems to be a large WIN for artists. In fact, the only party really losing is the recording industry. So back to the original point - whether the government to enforce the recording industries "core business" - I say no. There is not a loss to those actually creating the music - the exact opposite is true - and adding the total revenue of "Music", it is INCREASING. The only part of the link that is bombing is the recording industry, and their failed business model. LET IT DIE.

And double let it die if it means giving up our liberties and privacy.

[sgreger1]

See, even the promotional costs should be decreasing, as the consumers themselves are basically advertising bands via Facebook, YouTube, etc. The bulk of the music I have listened to lately I did not learn about through some advertising campaign but rather by friends and other internet collaboration type sites (heck, even here). While certainly Kanye West has some marketing dollars thrown onto him - I don't believe there is as much of a NEED for traditional advertising campaigns as there used to be, especially as traditional media (TV, Radio, Newspaper) are being replaced by electronic media (which is cheaper, as it is not tangable - it is a lot cheaper to produce and distribute a banner ad than a blip in a newspaper). Or for that matter, I doubt I am the only one who has gone to a concert for a band that I only heard of via piracy - piracy in of itself is advertising for a band. In fact, I'd argue that record songs SHOULD be primary just for advertising purposes to increase concert attendance.

Certainly, my company has a lot of dead weight up top - people who really add little value but take the big bucks due to their titles (most likely came from a line of families who traditionally held C-level jobs - e.g. modern royalty).

See: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2...-file-sharing/

Here is an interesting graph that shows revenue for music, cut into various categories and over time. Key takeaway - assuming piracy is increasing (which according to the RIAA, it is), it seems to be a large WIN for artists. In fact, the only party really losing is the recording industry. So back to the original point - whether the government to enforce the recording industries "core business" - I say no. There is not a loss to those actually creating the music - the exact opposite is true - and adding the total revenue of "Music", it is INCREASING. The only part of the link that is bombing is the recording industry, and their failed business model. LET IT DIE.

And double let it die if it means giving up our liberties and privacy.

Yah, as I tend to listen to a lot of lesser known bands piracy is the best marketing tool there is. I pirate it, burn it onto a CD, play it at a party or in my car with others in it and eventually my whole group is listening to the band, and next time they release a CD everyone will go buy it. I think it helps advertise for them in a big way.

But AGAIN, it should be their choice. It is not your place to say they can't choose a failing business model. Honestly guys, I see where everyone is coming from and everything everyone is saying is certainly true, but if they decide to choose a failed business model than that is their perogitive. Let them die. Let the market slap them on the wrist and say "NO. Not yours...", just like it already has been doing via piracy. Black markets are a biproduct of prohibition on something lots of people want. So is piracy. I support both a black market and piracy so carry on lol

[spirit72]

Raise your hand if you are American and were surprised by this.



******crickets********

[shikitohno]

I guess I'm the Luddite who still buys CDs and LPs here, huh? Honestly, I have double LPs that I've paid $250 for. The reason why? Because the record label only pressed 500 copies of it, and threw in a crapload of bonus materials. That, and I had to import it from Japan, the land of magically inflated prices. I think a lot of the crap that labels have to deal with could be stopped if they stopped screwing over the customer. I know Inoxia isn't going to reissue the Rainbow boxset of Boris six months later and only charge $60 for it. If I want that material, I have an incentive to pay for it, because there are a very small number of copies available. But when big labels here charge you $40 for a "limited edition" CD with bonus materials, then come out less than a year later releasing the same material again, with more stuff, for $30, you get pissed off. The RIAA needs to stop being so paranoid about their customers, and treat them better if they want to keep them. Also, the $1500000/song that the RIAA tries to get is ridiculous. Personally, I'd love to see someone try to take them to task for the racket they're running.

[deadohsky]

I guess I'm the Luddite who still buys CDs and LPs here, huh? Honestly, I have double LPs that I've paid $250 for. The reason why? Because the record label only pressed 500 copies of it, and threw in a crapload of bonus materials...

Certainly not the only one, although you have me beat, most i've paid is $195 for five picture disc LPs. I have a very hard time finding cds of the majority of music i listen to so i do download most of what i currently have. I support the band through merchandise and live shows, and of course if they are to be found, physical copies of their albums be it CD or LP; i prefer records.

[lxskllr]

I've gotten away from CDs, except for discs I buy at live shows. My computer's my stereo, and I use data discs, or an mp3 player in the car, so physical media doesn't give me much. I have about 300 cds, and slightly fewer records along with a bunch of cassettes, some 45s, and a handful of 8tracks :^D