Right... but what percentage of first releases by major label bands would
you estimate get airplay in enough markets to actually change their short
term fiancial circumstances?

Plus it would take a year to come in. So not much chance.

I still don't think that you'd choose getting signed as a means of meeting
any sort of *short term* economic goals that involved living above the
poverty-line.

It depends on the advance, number of band members/solo act etc. But you are
right getting signed has nothing to do with success or income.

If Beck gets a 100K advance on top of the budget it is much different than sly
and the family stone.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"agent86" wrote in message
. ..

Jeff Liberatore (me) said:

Sure it is... Ask the "artist" if it's not important. I'm sure he/she
will
say, "yeah, I need that $$$ to live"... Especially, if that's all they
do
for a "living"... Key word "living/income"...

But there's no constitutional right to make a living at any particular
occupation. Free enterprise only means that you have a right to TRY to
make a living at whatever you want (within the law, of course). That's
why
I used the illustration on tobacco farmers & blacksmiths. You have to be
able to produce a product that consumers are WILLING to pay for. And you
have to position yourself in the market pricewise, so that you can sell
enough units to cover your expenses and turn some amount of profit. If
you
can't do that, you're in the worng business.

Sure, I agree with that, no doubt... But in any event, regardless if said
artsist could sell 250K units or not, he's still entitled to his $$$. IF
there's any to be had. Pretty much needs airplay to make any real $$$...

Below, you get into the crux of the matter for indie/new artists. At which
point you'll see that I agree with you on some aspects. IOW, when the artist
says it's OK, then, well, go ahead and download.

For the purposes of this discussion, they're all "commodities". I didn't
intend to make a distinction between those I consider to be artistic and
those I don't. "Artist" is just one of those words that has come to be
used to describe things that it's really not descriptive of. I have
similar issues with the popular uses of "Alternative" and Progressive".
Sorry for the confusion.

Gotcha' man... I have similar issues as well. ;-)

But the
REAL dilemma is/are new artsists who may be struggling because they
aren't
getting the sales they MIGHT get without pirating. As far as established
artists are concerned, they TOO deserve to get paid.

Most independent (if that's what you mean by "new") artist I talk to
aren't
worried about downloads taking much income away from them. The internet's
the best tool they have to get their music heard. If people haven't heard
of you, they're not going to buy your CD anyway. And since independents
have to shoulder the cost of production & distribution themselves, the
margin on CD sales is pretty slim to start with.

Right, and this is where the discussion takes a turn... I totally agree and
understand this is the best way for an indie/new (or whatever) can get heard
and maybe even get a buzz started about them. and all that music is just
sitting on some server somewhere just waiting to be downloaded. even music
from The Beatles, Madonna, Dave Matthews, etc... But these guys generally
want people to BUY the CD's... I draw the distinction with "by permission
from the artist/label"... But that's never gonna' happen anytime soon. It's
now in our culture to steal music.

As an example, I have a friend who recorded his major label debut album in
1996, but before it was released, the label was bought by another company
&
his album was shelved. It was finally released in late 1999 on a
subsidiary label. It received a 4-star review in Rolling Stone, but since
there was no label support, he & his wife had to do all the promotional
work themselves. He has since released 3 more CDs on various independent
labels. All are sold from his website at $15, on Amazon at $18.50, & at
his live shows for $15 (he typically does about 10 shows a month up & down
the east coast). His wife told me that the only way they make money on
CDs
is if you buy one at the shows. Overhead eats up all the revenue from
online sales. But what you REALLY get from CD sales is the hope that your
fans will turn their friends on to your music.

Yeah... It's a tough biz! Good luck to your friend. I only hope when/if he
finally pays all his dues and some $$$ is starting to come his way, that he
doesn't have a hit that everyone steals off the internet because it's easy
and no one is policing things well enough to protect what he deserves. I
believe it's his right to demand that his music is on NO server and NOT
available for download, ever...

Jeff

"EggHd" wrote:
Right... but what percentage of first releases by major label bands
would
you estimate get airplay in enough markets to actually change their short
term fiancial circumstances?

Plus it would take a year to come in. So not much chance.

Right.


I still don't think that you'd choose getting signed as a means of
meeting
any sort of *short term* economic goals that involved living above the
poverty-line.

It depends on the advance, number of band members/solo act etc. But you
are
right getting signed has nothing to do with success or income.

If Beck gets a 100K advance on top of the budget it is much different than
sly
and the family stone.

Oh, of course.

But even still, 100K isn't very much money after management takes 20%,
lawyer 15-20%, biz manager 4-5%, pay off outstanding debts incurred while
getting the deal, etc. Before you even get around to dealing w/ taxes, there
could easily be less than $30-40K left, from which you also still have
finance your operating expenses, etc.

Plus, if you're a solo artist, everytime you get on stage or walk into a
recording or rehearsal studio--anything--you have to pay everybody in sight.
Even though the money is split more ways with a band situation, it's
sometimes possible to do more with less money overall because several key
members of the team are all working for really cheap.

-jw

But even still, 100K isn't very much money after management takes 20%,
lawyer 15-20%, biz manager 4-5%, pay off outstanding debts incurred while
getting the deal, etc.

I would hope that the manager was getting 15%, the lawyer fee would be
negotiated into the deal (and 15 to 20%? who's is giving that kinda money
away?) and an act like this should not have a business manager at this point
especially getting that kind of %.

Before you even get around to dealing w/ taxes, there
could easily be less than $30-40K left, from which you also still have
finance your operating expenses, etc.

Those numbers aren't real world, they would be worst case when an act was taken
to the cleaners.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

In article writes:

On the contrary, the artist's responsibility is to the society - to change
it for the better

Oh, horse manure! An artist under contract has responsibility to those
who pay him - is responsibility is to attract enough paying customers
so that he can make his share. I guess you know what Anita O'Day's
contribution to changing society was.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

PRS Geek wrote:

Yeah... It's a tough biz! Good luck to your friend. I only hope when/if he
finally pays all his dues and some $$$ is starting to come his way, that
he doesn't have a hit that everyone steals off the internet because it's
easy and no one is policing things well enough to protect what he
deserves. I believe it's his right to demand that his music is on NO
server and NOT available for download, ever...

I don't know about dues. This particular individual has managed to make a
living as a singer/songwriter since the mid 70s, so that's a pretty decent
accomplishment in itself. Having spent a good many years in Nashville and
having several "near misses", I don't think he has many illusions at this
point. I thought he was a good example of how little most performers
actually lose due to downloading (compared to what the RIAA propaganda
claims). If you happen to find all the songs on his last album on a
download site & download all of them, he makes just as much as if you
bought it from Amazon. But hopefully either way, you'll buy a ticket to
his show the next time he's in your area.

Sure he "owns" his music, and has a right to "demand" that it not be
shared online. But he doesn't have the resources to enforce that demand.
I don't know who has the resources to enforce anything successfully on the
web. When the internet was built by the DOD, one of the design criteria
was that it should be damn near impossible to stop anything from being
transmitted.

John Washburn wrote:

You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

"agent86" wrote:
John Washburn wrote:

You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.


You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge likelyhood
is that you'll wish you hadn't.

John Washburn wrote:

You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money
in the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.


You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge likelyhood
is that you'll wish you hadn't.

Right, that was the significance of the CAPS.

In article writes:

How anybody makes their living is not really relevant.
Oh, it is to them.
Sure it is to them. But it's not necessarily relevent to the argument.

I didn't bring it up.

As an analogy, consider a pawnshop. Traditionally, pawnshops are not
located in the best neighborhoods, so they are easy targets for
shoplifters, burglers & armed robbers. The constitution guarantees any
individual the right to TRY to run a pawnshop, just like anyone can TRY to
be an MTV crotchgrabber. But if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars,
surveilance cameras, better locks, alarms and a security guard, or by
adjusting his prices so that losses are covered), then he needs to find
some other way to make a living.

And this is relevant?

There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
business.

That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell. You can talk
about your very talented people who would never get heard if it wasn't
for the Internet, but that's exactly the problem - they only exposure
they get is to people who aren't accustomed to paying for the music
they hear. There's a solution to that - get a day job, or get a patron.

Problem or no, that's still the way the free enterprise works.

Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.

You can't
force people to buy your product, especially if they can get what they
consider to be a comparable product for less.

True. You can't force me to buy the new Britney Spears CD for $17 when
I can get a Dinah Washington reissue CD for $10. But you also can't
force me to buy the BS CD when I can get a kind of rough MP3 copy for
free and not enjoy it any less than the genuine article.

(NOT for free, since the risk
of getting sued, arrested or going to hell does represent some cost,
however intangible.)

Wrong - it's free until you get caught.

But whatever you think of downloaders, & whatever you think of the
industry, the RIAA has about as much chance of eliminating file sharing as
the DEA has of eliminating marijuana.

This is true. I'm not an RIAA booster. However I think that something
must be done that will make downloading commercially-for-sale music
for free so unpalatable that people will stop doing it. The only
suggestion I have is a powerful, computer-destroying virus planted in
enough music downloads so that people get the idea that the risk is
great enough to quit.

So, the labels have two choices. They can try to determine at what price
point they can sell enough units to maximize their profits & adjust their
pricing & production levels accordingly while they try to develop a new
business model (traditional economic theory). Or they can keep spending
more & more money shooting at a moving target & alienating the customers
they have left.

I think that we have good evidence that lowering prices won't change
freeloaders into paying customers, and if you lower prices, you have
less money. iTunes and other paid download services notwithstanding,
those are just about breaking even.

Let those who aren't yet good enough to get a record contract freely
give away their music. Then see if the majors' business drops because
people are opting for the legal alternatives. Who's gonna be first?

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Those numbers aren't real world, they would be worst case when an act was
taken
to the cleaners.


Sorry, mate, I'd call them best case. Worst case is when you end up oweing them
dough.
Phil Brown

if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars,
surveilance cameras, better locks, alarms and a security guard, or by
adjusting his prices so that losses are covered), then he needs to find
some other way to make a living.

And this is relevant?

Only as a round about way of pointing out that there is theft in every
industry. The businesses that can minimize it & make a profit in spite of
it are the ones that survive. The others don't stay in business.


There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
business.

That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.

That's a pretty broad generalization.


Problem or no, that's still the way the free enterprise works.

Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.

Does this mean that you don't consider a totally unregulated barter economy
to be free enterprise? Funny, they told me in econ 101 that barter was the
earliest foundation of free enterprise. Person A buys CD-A and rips it to
mp3. Person B buys CD-B and rips it to mp3. Then they trade mp3s. Both
invested resources (cost of the original CD plus their time, computer, &
ISP costs). Both received something for their investment (the other mp3).


You can't
force people to buy your product, especially if they can get what they
consider to be a comparable product for less.
(NOT for free, since the risk
of getting sued, arrested or going to hell does represent some cost,
however intangible.)

Wrong - it's free until you get caught.

Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.


I'm not an RIAA booster. However I think that something
must be done that will make downloading commercially-for-sale music
for free so unpalatable that people will stop doing it. The only
suggestion I have is a powerful, computer-destroying virus planted in
enough music downloads so that people get the idea that the risk is
great enough to quit.

But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing right
out of the water.


I think that we have good evidence that lowering prices won't change
freeloaders into paying customers, and if you lower prices, you have
less money.

But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers to
buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
in the future.

The word "Respect" has been bandied about a lot in this thread. I'm not
sure I go for the respect angle, but a lot of people justify ripping off
the record companied based on a belief that the record companies have been
ripping off customers for years. When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95. The record companies
justified the price on the basis of higher production costs. Well, now CDs
cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95 (last time I
checked, I actually buy most of my music at concerts these days). I'm not
going to be the one to accuse anybody of price fixing (which would be a
crime). But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.

"agent86" wrote:
John Washburn wrote:

You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money
in the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money
in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.


You might. But if that's your primary motivation, than the huge
likelyhood
is that you'll wish you hadn't.

Right, that was the significance of the CAPS.

Yeah. I think we got into a semantic problem with the use of the universal
"you".

Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes:

I suspect that there's some truth to that, but there are "soft-core"
downloaders too, people who see something interesting so they grab it,
maybe keep it, maybe not. Still, if you got it for free and it's
something that, in another form, is for sale, you're denying someone
deserved income by your action, and that's a form of theft.


Well, I disagree that they "take whatever they can." Once again, music
is not fungible like money. They take what they *want* for free, and my
suspicion is that most of what is getting stolen is pop, rock, rap etc.


And this makes it OK?

How many times am I going to have to answer that? No, Mike, it doesn't
make it OK. I'm drawing a conclusion from the observable actions of
downloaders. Looks like young people are doing most of the stealing from
pop, rock, and rap/hip hop. It's not OK, but it's happening just the
same. There's folk, religious, classical there for the pirating, but it
doesn't get stolen. I'd launch into my respect routine again, but it's a
pile of warm glue on the floor next to me. Maybe I'll fix the cracks in
the old upright with it...


I know it is somewhat of a stretch, but I see a correlation between the
genre and the liklihood of theft.


I think there's some truth to that, but it still doesn't make it OK on
any level.

See the above.


I sense that certain forms of music engender a sense of
respect between the artist and the consumer, and that respect makes that
consumer less apt to steal from the artist.


I don't think it's so much a matter of respect for the artist, but
rather that it simply doesn't occur to a a person who really likes
classicical music to go out in search for free downloads on the net.
Chances are that person enjoys the music enough to want to have it in
a high quality form that he can listen to in his living room, not an
MP3 file to play on his computer while he's surfing the net.

That's probably it.

Artie


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Sorry, mate, I'd call them best case. Worst case is when you end up oweing
them
dough.

Ok we disagree. All good.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Artie Turner wrote:

My guess is that the hard-core P2P downloaders are not stealing classical,
folk and religious music just because they can.

How can one steal that of which one is totally unaware?

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

writes:

How anybody makes their living is not really relevant.

Oh, it is to them. Which would you rather be doing for a living -
grabbing your crotch on television while lip-synching and putting
$100K in the bank for three minutes work (OK, three hours including
rehearsals) or flipping hamburgers? I know, you're a self-respecting
kind of a guy who'd rather flip hamburgers than be a major label
artist, but me, I'd rather have the money.

For only an additional $75K I will grab my crotch with both hands.

--
ha

agent86 wrote:

John Washburn wrote:

You don't sign a record deal cause you think you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

You MIGHT sign a record deal cause you THINK you'll make better money in
the conceivable future than you could doing something else.

Aaah, the old sucker punch. g

--
ha

"agent86" wrote in message
...

That's a good point.

Yeah, but I usually wear a hat so people won't notice |;-)

Could be worse, you could be one of those round-heads.

I don't hear too many Land of Point references anymore. Good movie...

ryanm

"EggHd" wrote in message
...
Millions of people obviously have so little respect for *some*
artists that they steal their work in the same breath with professing
love for them

Movies aren't far beind.

Movies have been pirated on the internet, through the very same sources
as music, for at least 6 years now. You're not hearing them complain because
DVD sales are up. When DVD sales drop and they need a scapegoat, you will
hear them start to complain about piracy.

ryanm

EggHd wrote:

No just the people who can't see the difference between a shift and theft.
If
people were using this paradigm shift to get into your bank account...... How
far can we be to that happening?



Finally...the perfect analogy. In the age of internet banking a "shift" or
"download" of someone's wealth to another's is quite possible. It's probably
almost as simple technically as a shift of "intellectual property" (music).
When Kazaa or something like it ("benignly") enables finacial "sharing", how
will *you* feel when your bank account has been "shared"?

Brace yourself. "Sharing" may not feel so warm and fuzzy after all...



Ted Spencer, NYC

"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown

In article writes:

if Johnny Pawnshop can't turn a profit in
spite of his circumstances (possibly by investing in window bars

And this is relevant?

Only as a round about way of pointing out that there is theft in every
industry. The businesses that can minimize it & make a profit in spite of
it are the ones that survive. The others don't stay in business.

There's probably more theft at Wal-Mart than at any pawn shop. I think
the bars on the windows are more a statement that "you might find
something valuable in here" than to actually keep burgulars out. Pawn
shops deal more in money than stuff, and its security is well taken care
of.

There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
business.

That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.

That's a pretty broad generalization.

I think that it's even a broader generalization to think that anyone
who tries to write a song or sing, or makes a recording has talent
worth paying for. If that was the case, why do we have a music
industry at all? People could just make their own really great and
wonderful music.

Not really. Free enterprise works because someone makes something and
hopefully sells it for more than it cost to make. If it costs nothing
to make and sells for nothing, then nobody's making money.

Does this mean that you don't consider a totally unregulated barter economy
to be free enterprise? Funny, they told me in econ 101 that barter was the
earliest foundation of free enterprise.

Sorry, you won't get me arguing economic definitions like "free
enterprise" with you. I didn't take Econ 101. Intuitively I would
think that an economy is based on a standard medium of exchange (like
what we call "money" but maybe gold or sharks teeth or muskrat hides)
and not exchanging firewood for a song, or fish for potatoes.

Person A buys CD-A and rips it to
mp3. Person B buys CD-B and rips it to mp3. Then they trade mp3s. Both
invested resources (cost of the original CD plus their time, computer, &
ISP costs). Both received something for their investment (the other mp3).

The problem here is that the person who originally created the CD that
A bought gets nothing from B, who doesn't need to buy the CD because
he can enjoy the benefits without having the tangible, marketable
product. If A bought the CD for $15, sold an MP3 to B for $10, sent $8
to the artist who recorded the CD, and kept $2 for his trouble and
wear-and-tear on his computer, then you'd have something. But that
isn't going to happen.

Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.

Because people are willing to pay it. Why do you think there's so much
crime (like theft, murder, mangling) involved in the drug trade?
Because there are some people who aren't willing to pay it. Suppose
you were to set up a "legitimate business" selling MP3 copies of
commercial CDs and paying royalties to the proper places. Then four
tough guys come to your house, beat you to a pulp, take your computer,
and start selling MP3s for $8 (or $12), tell the original artist that
he's only going to send him $6 per copy. That's "the drug problem."

But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing right
out of the water.

Why is it a more serious crime? If it's properly designed, it will
only infect the computers of those who download and play unlicensed
music. Is that any worse than a security guard who shoots a bank
robber? He doesn't shoot the legitimate customers (though,
unfortunately, the robber does, sometimes).

But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers to
buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
in the future.

That's a very weak "may well." I think that people have as much music
as they want. Those who want free music can listen to the radio. And
those who download almost certainly have computers that are capable of
bringing them very interesting on-line radio broadcast (for which
royalty payment arrangements have been made). Try KEXP, KBCS, WWOZ,
and the hundreds of specialized streaming audio programs such as
Bluegrasscountry.org, steelradio.org, and that one in Ohio that I
can't remember that's all folk music all the time.

When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95.

Right. And Life Savers were still a nickel. I don't think the price of
a CD has doubled in 20 years. Other things have. But I don't steal
candy.

Well, now CDs
cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95

That's the oldest bogus argument in the book. What about all the money
that went into making the music that's on the CD. Is that the free
part? A Windows CD costs $200 or more and that only costs a nickel to
manufacturer, too. And while you can play your music CD in any
legitimate CD player, you can't install a single current version of
Windows on every computer in the house, or your friend's house. Now is
THAT fair?

But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.

You don't buy a lot of airline tickets, do you? That's an industry
where everybody follows the leader. The difference between plane
tickets and CDs is that they can adjust prices much more quickly to
follow demand, and they have many prices for essentially the same
thing. Suppose a CD cost $10 if you buy it three weeks before you
could play it and $20 if you wanted to take it home and play it
immediately?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

There's a whole lot of people who can't make a living in the music
business.

That's for sure, and the reason is that they really aren't talented
enough to find enough buyers for what they have to sell.

That's a pretty broad generalization.

I think that it's even a broader generalization to think that anyone
who tries to write a song or sing, or makes a recording has talent
worth paying for.

I don't think I said that, and I didn't mean to imply it. There are
certainly some very talented people who have found it difficult to
impossible to earn a living at music in the long term. John Fogerty & Mark
Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn near every thing they had
to the business. Fortunately, Fogerty managed to turn things aroung some
years after the "fall". Last I heard, Farner was still in bad shape.

Of course, the music business is not just the record industry. And the
definition of "making a living" may change several times over a person's
lifetime. A 20 year old may be able to support himself playing bar gigs at
night & teaching in the day time. But when he's 40, with a wife & kids
(and maybe one of the kids has cronic health problems), the he NEEDs a job
with health insurance, 401K, paid sick leave, etc. He's no less talented
than he was at 20 (probably more so, since he's had 20 more years of
practice), but he can't live on the same income he could back then.


Sorry, you won't get me arguing economic definitions like "free
enterprise" with you. I didn't take Econ 101. Intuitively I would
think that an economy is based on a standard medium of exchange (like
what we call "money" but maybe gold or sharks teeth or muskrat hides)
and not exchanging firewood for a song, or fish for potatoes.

Fair enough.


The problem here is that the person who originally created the CD that
A bought gets nothing from B, who doesn't need to buy the CD because
he can enjoy the benefits without having the tangible, marketable
product. If A bought the CD for $15, sold an MP3 to B for $10, sent $8
to the artist who recorded the CD, and kept $2 for his trouble and
wear-and-tear on his computer, then you'd have something. But that
isn't going to happen.

I agree it's a problem. But copyrights are actually a relatively recent
concept, and not necessarily a requirement in any economic model. I only
mention that because my point was to describe an barter based economic
system as an example of free enterprise. But, since we've agreed not to
discuss economic theory any more, I'll stop there.


Don't underestimate the value of the RISK of getting caught. Why do you
think there's so much money tird up in the illegal drug trade.

Because people are willing to pay it. Why do you think there's so much
crime (like theft, murder, mangling) involved in the drug trade?

People, generally speaking, are willing to pay other people to take risks
they aren't willing to take themselves. Among those risks are the theft,
murder & mangling you mention. There's also mandatory federal prison time
for production & distribution (as opposed to a fine & probation for first
offense simple possession).


But releasing a virus into the wild is a MUCH more serious crime than
copyright infringement. That would blow the argument about srealing
right out of the water.

Why is it a more serious crime?

Short answer - Because the government says it is. Remember, copyrights
only exist by government mandate as well, so logically, the government
would be the final authority on such matters.


If it's properly designed, it will
only infect the computers of those who download and play unlicensed
music.

Who would you suggest design it? Microsoft? What would the testing cycle
look like to make ABSOLUTELY sure it only infected the targeted machines?

Is that any worse than a security guard who shoots a bank
robber? He doesn't shoot the legitimate customers (though,
unfortunately, the robber does, sometimes).

Even more unfortunately, security guards do sometimes shoot innocent
bystanders. So do cops, who typically have much better training to avoid
such occurrences than does the average security guard. And sometimes,
computer viruses do things their authors never expected.



But lowering prices may very well incite your existing paying customers
to
buy more units. And it MIGHT help prevent them from becoming freeloaders
in the future.

That's a very weak "may well." I think that people have as much music
as they want.

Do you have all the music you want? I don't. I own between 400 & 500 CDs,
& just under 200 LPs. I still buy more when I find music I like. These
days I buy mostly direct from the artists at concerts & festivals, or out
of the bargain bin at Border's. I'm not saying I wouldn't ever pay retail
for a major label release (if something came along that I really liked),
but it hasn't happened lately.


When CDs came out, they cost $15.95 (if
memory serves, anybody who remembers a time before CDs is old enough to
have some memory loss). Vinyl LPs were $7.95.

Right. And Life Savers were still a nickel. I don't think the price of
a CD has doubled in 20 years. Other things have. But I don't steal
candy.

Well, now CDs
cost about a nickel to produce, but the retail price is $17.95

That's the oldest bogus argument in the book. What about all the money
that went into making the music that's on the CD. Is that the free
part?

I'm talking about the DIFFERENCE between the cost of producing CDs as
opposed to LPs. (you snipped that part.) I'm not arguing the cost of
producing the music, but THAT shouldn't be any higher for CDs than for LPs
for a couple of reasons. First, in the case of older records which were
already released on vinyl, much of those costs were already covered from LP
sales. Second, for newer releases, technologies such as MIDI & ProTools
have led to much of the production work being done in smaller, less
expensive studios, or even off site in home project studios. Obviously,
this is not ALWAYS the case, but in any event, content production costs fof
CDs shouldn't be substantially higher than for vinyl, even with inflation.


A Windows CD costs $200 or more and that only costs a nickel to
manufacturer, too. And while you can play your music CD in any
legitimate CD player, you can't install a single current version of
Windows on every computer in the house, or your friend's house. Now is
THAT fair?

No, it's not fair, & it one of the main reasons I don't use Winblows. That
and a general lack of quality & security.


But it's curious that when one label raises prices, the others
usually follow suit pretty soon afterward (wink, wink, nod, nod) It
certainly gives the appearance of a cartel.

You don't buy a lot of airline tickets, do you?

Probably not as many as you do.

That's an industry
where everybody follows the leader.

It's also an industry with a completely different business model, but still
price wars do occur from time to time for selected routes. Aside from
Walmart & Best Buy undercutting everyone at the retail level, I can't ever
recall record companies competing with each other on price.

The difference between plane
tickets and CDs is that they can adjust prices much more quickly to
follow demand, and they have many prices for essentially the same
thing. Suppose a CD cost $10 if you buy it three weeks before you
could play it and $20 if you wanted to take it home and play it
immediately?

Another big difference is that there is a real, tangible value in geting
from Point A to Point B faster than you could drive there. While music has
been an important part of human culture ever since our earliest ancestors
began beating sticks together, there is no real intrinsic value to recorded
music. So, the only way any meaningful actual value can be assigned to it
is in the marketplace. If the market value begins to approach zero for a
large percentage of your targeted customers (for whatever reason), then you
have a serious problem.

ryanm wrote:

"agent86" wrote in message
...

That's a good point.

Yeah, but I usually wear a hat so people won't notice |;-)

Could be worse, you could be one of those round-heads.

I don't hear too many Land of Point references anymore. Good movie...

ryanm


That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?

That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?


I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

You're not hearing them complain because
DVD sales are up.

You are kidding right? They just went through the screenrs issues re Oscars
and one person was arrested for uploading screeners.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

John Fogerty & Mark Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn near
every thing they had
to the business.

Explain who you see what happened.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow,
right?


I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".


Yeah, that's what I thought too. Hence the question.

EggHd wrote:

That's the Harry Nilsson cartoon with the kid Oblio & his dog Arrow, right?

I alwasy thought that was called "The Point".

And here I thought that was Sid Page's mid-'70's band.

--
ha

Explain who you see what happened.

Huh??

Like that wasn't clear? (LOL)

How did they both lose everything from your perspective?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

And here I thought that was Sid Page's mid-'70's band.

Going back a little further Strike It Rich is one of my all time fav records by
Dan Hicks and the Hot Licks.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd wrote:

John Fogerty & Mark Farner are two who spring to mind who lost damn
near every thing they had
to the business.

Explain who you see what happened.

Huh??

That doesn't make sense. If you don't like an artist, why would you like their music?


The problem is that when someone says "I love Wagner", it doesn't mean
that they think Wagner was a great man with all of his Nazi party
associations. They are really saying "I love the way that Wagner
makes me feel about myself". That's the problem with music. The
artist could be a black-child-superstar turned white-woman-wannabe
pedofile (wonder if I'm talking about anyone in particular) which has
been rumored for years, and people will still buy their albums. I
don't respect MJ, but if some old jackson five stuff comes on at a
party after everyone's had a few, people are gonna get down.
Unfortunately it doesn't take respect for a person to have an
apprecation for their work.

I'm in no way advocating piracy. Just trying to shed some light on
the perspective of Joe Listener.

Dan O'Dea

EggHd wrote:

Explain who you see what happened.

Huh??

Like that wasn't clear? (LOL)

How did they both lose everything from your perspective?

I have no firsthand knowledge of either of their situations. If you do,
please enlighten the rest of us.

I would expect that like many musicians, they tended to concentrate mostly
on the music while relying on others with more business knowledge &
experience to give them good business advice and to deal fairly with them.
Whether due to ineptitude, or deceit, or just dumb luck, this apparently
turned out to be a bad assumption.

Whatever the specific reasons were, I'm pretty sure it wasn't lack of
talent that prevented these two gentlemen from making it in the business
longterm, which was what Mike's post seemed to imply (although I'm not sure
that's what he intended).

I have no firsthand knowledge of either of their situations. If you do,
please enlighten the rest of us.

I don't. That's why I was asking you.

I would expect that like many musicians, they tended to concentrate mostly
on the music while relying on others with more business knowledge &
experience to give them good business advice and to deal fairly with them.

Fogetry was a hands on guy. He worte the songs, produced tham all the things
that didn't happen in those days.

I do know he got into a legal battle with the other band mates and he didn't
like Fantasy and didn't make a great deal to get out of the deal. I believe
they also had all or part of his publishing but he keeps the writers income
which should be substantial

In terms of Farner, I have no idea other than how long t bands stay popular?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd wrote:

Fogetry was a hands on guy. He worte the songs, produced tham all the
things that didn't happen in those days.

I do know he got into a legal battle with the other band mates and he
didn't
like Fantasy and didn't make a great deal to get out of the deal. I
believe they also had all or part of his publishing but he keeps the
writers income which should be substantial

Apparently, Fantasy got a pretty big chunk, because he refused to perform
any of the old CCR tunes for a long time. He said something to the effect
of 'I'm not going to help them screw me". (That's a paraphrase, not a
direct quote.)


In terms of Farner, I have no idea other than how long t bands stay
popular?

I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money GF
still owed their label (Capital, I think). At that point, Don & Mel had
signed away their interest to get out of debt. But at that time, Farner
said he would rather file for bankruptcy than give up his rights to his
music. I don't know how it all turned out. I wish him the best, Grand
Funk's music is a big part of my favorite memories of my misspent youth.

I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money GF
still owed their label (Capital, I think).

I wonder what their salkes were after the renegotiated? wasn't there also a
real bad deal with the manager? he took them to the cleaners.

Don & Mel had
signed away their interest to get out of debt.

I wonder who they signed it over to. it's not unsual for older abnds like that
to get bought out by another member.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong.

I don't know what they would own.

Who tours as Grand Funk? That would be the owner of the name.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd wrote:

I saw him on TV a few years ago. He was talking about how much money
GF still owed their label (Capital, I think).

I wonder what their salkes were after the renegotiated? wasn't there also
a
real bad deal with the manager? he took them to the cleaners.

Don & Mel had
signed away their interest to get out of debt.

I wonder who they signed it over to. it's not unsual for older abnds like
that to get bought out by another member.

I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong. Farner's tone didn't
indicate that he had gotten it. He really seemed in such desperate straits
that he probably couldn't have bought them out unless they sold really
cheap. It was really a sad interview to watch.

EggHd wrote:

I assumed to the label, but that may be wrong.

I don't know what they would own.

publishing, possibly?


Who tours as Grand Funk? That would be the owner of the name.

I just looked it up. It's Don & Mel & three other guys (who have
impressive credits, but I don't recognize their names, you might.)

http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/promomap.htm/

Then I looked to see if Mark had a site up. He's apparently finishing up
shome shows in Japan, & has some US shows booked between April & Sept.
Only six shows listed on his website, but it's good to see he's back in
action. I couldn't find any mention of the "Ordeal" on the site.

http://markfarner.com/