Debate Devil's Advocate: The RIAA

If you think about it from the right frame of mind, the RIAA isn't really being all that bad. People downloading music threaten their only 'real' revenue stream: album sales. With the number of one-hit-wonder bands that the RIAA is churning out, it makes sense that when you can download that one hit, you won't bother to buy the album. And while the majority of RIAA bands are indeed crap, every once in a while a good one does appear. With people shifting from 'like music - buy cd' to 'like music - download from kazaa', how is the RIAA supposed to maintain it's ability to remain profitable, rather than merely churning out music for people to steal, yet never buy.

Think about it before you reply.

- Ark

 

I would like to note that even after i download the music i still want to buy the cd, and if it wheren't for programs such as Kazaa i never would have been exposed to some of my favorite music such as Rammstien, Godsmack, and Nickelback. The first because i had never heard of them, the second due to Parental Advisory.

 

That seems to be the case with only a small minority of people though. How many people are willing to buy something that they can get, without repercussions, for free? If you walked into a 7-11, and they had a giant stack of cases of coke, labelled 'Take all you want for free', would you still buy coke?

- Ark

 

Basically i dont like wasting money. If im gonna buy an album i want to make sure that it is worthy of my money. I always buy albums that i like and am proud to say everything in my Winamp playlist is ripped from CD's in my CD cabinet. Also, i would gladly pay the money if i knew it was actually going to the artist instead of some money hungry company.

Im hoping the day will arrise when the artist will actually get there fair share of money from the people who buy the albums.

Also, i love artwork in albums, and also the fact of having something tangible is enough for me to buy it if it is good.

 

Let's See...

Jewel Case: $ 0.10
CD: $ 0.30
Cover: $ 0.20
Plastic Wrap: $ 0.02

and lets say 500 CDs goes into one box and shipping is about 5 dollars give or take so... it takes about (estimated guess) 36 dollars to ship one box of Music CDs to a store, then if the store sells all 500 CDs, that a profit of $7464, let alone a profit of 14.38 minus the shipping if they sell one CD (Constant sale price of CD=$15)

So what do I have to say about the music company:
**** YOU ALL YOU MONEY HUNGRY SONS OF A MOTHER ****ING LEECH SUCKING WORST THEN THE ****ING SCUM ON THE BOTTOM OF A ****ING TOXIC WASTE POLLUTED INDUSTRIAL WASTE PARK LOCATED *****!

Of course the prices I gave aren't exactly justifiable, but no ****ing music CD is worth ****ing 10-15 Dollars!

 

How much do you pay the artists? The studio production costs? The tour organizations? Rental fees on concert halls? Keep in mind that even the most prolific artists don't put out more than 2 or 3 albums a year, and that's pushing it.

- Ark

 

Hmmm, the only thing I think is kinda silly about the hole idea is that no matter how they try to avoid programs that allow you to download music on line for free, there is always going to be ways to get around it. If a product is available to the public then there are ways to use it, and get around rules and regulations restricting it. The only thing I dont understand about the whole ordeal is if they truely want us to stop getting our music for free, then why did they bother putting cd burners on the market? Food for thought.

 

well CD burners are needed, data backup and other computer tasks. I for one couldnt live without my CD burner.

Another thing is how can an american company put pressure on people in other countries. Isnt it out of there reach to prosecute people who are not in America.

 

EXACTLY. the music industry has ruined itself by it's own devices.
i have no problems with falking $30 for a cd, if the profit is going to the band. but that simply doesn't happen. There is one band i know that has started it's own recording, producing etc companies to beat this. and they get every cent of the sale. i know i could probably get these cd's downloaded from somewhere, but i buy these and support them.

i'm hoping eventually the price of the coke's will have to drop, or the record companies will 'bite the dust'.

 

Lets look at it like this;

Im not exactly rich, I CANNOT afford to buy my CDs or my music, its just impossible. So I have to download music, I don't sell it on to other people or make profits on it, I just download it and listen to it.

Is that reason enough to sue me? Well I'm hardly bankrupting the artist and I wasnt going to be able to buy the CD anyway, so wheres the harm?

 

And what about the rich kids down the road? Why should they have to pay for something that you don't? Just because you don't have the money doesn't entitle you to have it for free does it? Otherwise, I want my BMW

- Ark

 

some additional people downloading music is not lost revenue, if they werent going to buy it in the first place

also when napster was at the height of popularity, record sales went WAY up, proof enough i reckon...

 

I'd like to actually SEE the statistics for the height of napster and record sales, I've heard it both ways. The RIAA claims that sales went down, and p2p advocates claim that they went up. So which was it?

- Ark

 

I agree with Rammstein. Most people like me wouldn't buy music if we couldn't/wouldn't download it. If I don't buy a CD, the artist doesn't make money. If I don't buy a CD but I download songs, the artist STILL doesn't make money. And so that makes you ask, when am I gonna buy a CD? I only buy CD's that have songs which are actually hard to find downloadable versions of. For example, Asian music is hard to find in P2P programs. The Korean star Boa, although she's super popular, won't turn up a single song of hers in Blubster. (I put her name into its search and I get hundreds of songs that aren't from her.) Similar problems occur with other Asian groups/singers whose names don't give good results in searches. Then, finally, I go and order the CD.

As for buying CD's of American Top 40 hits, what for? Radio stations these days over-play all those songs for half to a whole year at a time. When it comes to EITHER downloading or buying music, I only look at non-American-mainstream music. My friends have a similar view: if it's a popular group, download it only, but if they're underground, support em by buying their CD.

 

My opinion is: Do what benefits the most people.

Taking this into account, we have to set up some rules:

a) musical groups need BIG incentives to make music (otherwise the production will fall)
b) People (that means ALL) need a cheap way to get music without kissing their savings goodbye
c) The money should go to the ppl making the music, not just a fat b****rd getting rich on musicians' time (remember the TLC group going bankrupt?)
d) Musicians need a cheap way to get to the masses

OK. The traditional way to solve a) was by having big companies do all the job, and charging the musicians for the expenses.

But now making and distributing music has become really cheap. So groups can distribute their own music.

The big problem is d) (mixed w/ a). Get to the masses. Obviously radio stations and music tv channels (mtv and such) need to promote the young groups to give them their creations. If we solve this problem, big companies will fall on their on weight.

UNTIL that happens, i support the "help underground bands" motion.

 

I think Kazaa(lite) is a handy tool. I use it to download songs from bands I want to check out that I haven't heard before. If I like the band, I'll buy their CD, as long as it's not a rip off(I am not paying €20 for a slayer CD). I also use it to download stuff I can't possibly get, like j-music and rare stuff like that. I don't like the RIAA though, not nearly enough of the money gets to the artists most of the time.