Are these guys daft?

**Xelios** · 03-14-08, 09:42 AM

I don't start a lot of threads, but I'm interested to see what people here think about intellectual property rights on the internet. I've been following the debate about IP rights on the internet for a while now, and it's really getting out of hand. The latest suggestion from the music industry is to force every person with internet access to pay $5 a month to the RIAA to "compensate artists".

If this works then I suppose the MPAA will want $5 a month too. And the Business Software Alliance will also want $5 a month. Publishers of Encyclopedias. Game developers. Book publishers. The list goes on.

What's your opinion on intellectual property? Should an artist be paid for the next 90 years for 3 months of work he did on an album one summer? Should citizens have to subsidise an industry that can't adapt itself to changing technology?

It's worth keeping in mind that even with all the downloading the MPAA made record box office earnings last year.

**mikenostic** · 03-14-08, 09:50 AM

No. Musicians and artists are already a bunch of crybabies as it is. They should be told that if they need money from every little nook and cranny that they need to find a different, higher paying job. The already current strict-enough copywright laws should be good enough for them.
They should also consider their fans when they start whining and crying like this. Lars Ulrich from Metallica concerning the Napster deal is a prime example....whether or not he was completely right in his greivances is irrelevant. In the end, he wound up alienating a lot of Metallica's fans because of that. Sure they won the lawsuit, but at what cost?

**Syzygys** · 03-14-08, 09:58 AM

Trant Reznor just made $1.6 million by releasing his album online, cutting out the middleman. Just shows that there is a way to get paid for GOOD music.
Most money in music is made by touring by the way. Certain mediaproducers have to discover new ways to make money, because the old ways don't work anymore. Adapt or die....

**clusteringflux** · 03-14-08, 10:07 AM

The focus of artists will have to be turned back to touring and the live experience that can never be reproduced. Well, until they invent the virtual concert hall, that is.
Of course, they will have to find other people than the record companies to fund the events.

**whitewolf** · 03-14-08, 10:20 AM

I think artists should get paid for their works, yes. However, the price has gotten too high, most people can't afford to buy everything they want to see and hear. If downloading would be prohibited and gone completely, the music, film, publishing, and software industries would not make more money than they do now (rough estimate).

**Xelios** · 03-14-08, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Syzygys

Adapt or die....

I agree, unfortunately it's looking more like they'll be adapting the country's laws to keep themselves alive. They've been talking to ISP's about setting up mandatory bandwidth caps for everyone, to the tune of "If you download more than 50 GB a month, and you do it for 3 months, we'll revoke your internet access". Of course, if the MPAA ever sets up a movie streaming site (that you pay for, naturally) that site will be conveniently exempt from this rule, goodbye net neutrality.

Originally Posted by whitewolf

I think artists should get paid for their works, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I think they should get paid too, I just don't think they should be getting royalties for the next 90 years for work they did in 3 months. They should be paid one time for an album, and after that the album should be considered advertisement for the band's live shows. As long as they do live shows they keep getting paid, if they stop they stop getting paid. That's how it works in almost every other career.

**whitewolf** · 03-14-08, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Xelios

Don't get me wrong, I think they should get paid too, I just don't think they should be getting royalties for the next 90 years for work they did in 3 months. They should be paid one time for an album, and after that the album should be considered advertisement for the band's live shows. As long as they do live shows they keep getting paid, if they stop they stop getting paid. That's how it works in almost every other career.

And where will the money go from the sales of CDs years after?

**~~phlogistician~~** · 03-14-08, 10:43 AM

Screw the music industry, they are slow to react to market forces, and attempt to dictate to their customers far to much (Sony rootkit fiasco, anyone?).

Anyway, there's no way I'm going to pay a tax on my net connection, because I don't download illegal music, and assuming I do is slander, and I won't let them get away with making that assertion.

If the music industry weren't lazy, focussing on commodities, and instead focussed on the experience of music, and got their acts out there touring, they wouldn't have such a problem. Anyone can copy an album, but you were either at a concert, or you weren't, and a bootleg doesn't change that.

As has been said, bands can do quite well without the record labels these days, so I think it's time to retire the suits, and let the internet, and free market economics take over.

**Xelios** · 03-14-08, 10:49 AM

After, say, 3 years they would be free, or just enough to cover the cost of manufacturing the CD, so $1.

**whitewolf** · 03-14-08, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Xelios

After, say, 3 years they would be free, or just enough to cover the cost of manufacturing the CD, so $1.

Ye? How about covering the cost of delivering it to trade and selling it? Also, consider that to stay in business, places that manufacture, distribute and sell need to make a profit, not merely cover costs.

**cosmictraveler** · 03-14-08, 11:05 AM

I really don't hear that much music today that I would want to download so why should I pay anything?

I can put on a radio and hook it up directly to a recording device and record everything I want for free anytime now.

I can go to a library and check out books for free as well as videos and records, CD's and DVD,s now and the people who wrote or played that stuff don't get paid anything more when thousands of people can read or listen to their works for free so why pay a fee to hear other recorded music?

**whitewolf** · 03-14-08, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

I can go to a library and check out books for free as well as videos and records, CD's and DVD,s now and the people who wrote or played that stuff don't get paid anything more when thousands of people can read or listen to their works for free....

...and copy it. But shhhhhh!

**Avatar** · 03-14-08, 11:21 AM

I like the magnatune business model. I've bought two albums from them.
http://magnatune.com/

Pay your chosen amout starting from 5$, get cd quality download, share it with others, half of the money paid goes to the artist. Can buy cd's too.

**Xelios** · 03-14-08, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by whitewolf

Ye? How about covering the cost of delivering it to trade and selling it? Also, consider that to stay in business, places that manufacture, distribute and sell need to make a profit, not merely cover costs.

Which is why, for the first 3 years, they would be priced high enough to cover those costs. The biggest chunk of profit from a CD these days is profit for labels and advertising costs. Advertising is free on the internet, and labels are becoming obselete for the same reason. Eliminate those two things and you can price a CD at $5 and still ensure everyone involved makes a profit from them. Especially if you take it one step further and eliminate stores in favour of online retailers, like Amazon, or just straight downloading which brings distribution costs down to 0.

It'll be a major change no doubt, but it could work out very well for all involved. The record labels of course won't be involved anymore, which is why they're up in arms about this. It's not about artists being ripped off by downloading, it's about record labels becoming obselete.

**whitewolf** · 03-14-08, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Xelios

Which is why, for the first 3 years, they would be priced high enough to cover those costs. The biggest chunk of profit from a CD these days is profit for labels and advertising costs. Advertising is free on the internet, and labels are becoming obselete for the same reason. Eliminate those two things and you can price a CD at $5 and still ensure everyone involved makes a profit from them. Especially if you take it one step further and eliminate stores in favour of online retailers, like Amazon, or just straight downloading which brings distribution costs down to 0.

It'll be a major change no doubt, but it could work out very well for all involved. The record labels of course won't be involved anymore, which is why they're up in arms about this. It's not about artists being ripped off by downloading, it's about record labels becoming obselete.

Okay, even places like Amazon need to make a profit, because it's still a business; and distribution cost is not eliminated.

Record labels record music. You can't eliminate them unless you require artists to record their own stuff -- professionally, which means cost of huge equipment and rent for studios -- which amounts to artists demanding more money. But okay. So, everyone makes money off of the artists' products for years and years except the artists themselves? How's that fair?

**kmguru** · 03-14-08, 01:00 PM

When they charged for the cassettes and cd music blanks, who got the money. Since that charge is still in effect, who gets the money now?

**Xelios** · 03-14-08, 01:36 PM

Record labels record music. You can't eliminate them unless you require artists to record their own stuff -- professionally, which means cost of huge equipment and rent for studios -- which amounts to artists demanding more money. But okay. So, everyone makes money off of the artists' products for years and years except the artists themselves? How's that fair?

Time in a recording studio is expensive, but not *that* expensive. What's really expensive is paying a recording studio to make up for an artist's lack of talent. Even indie bands who are just starting out find the money to record albums.

Bands would make their money back on tour, selling concert tickets and, most of all, merchendise like t-shirts, posters, autographed CD's and so on. The recorded albums would be promotion for these concerts, feel free to pass them around on the internet, copy them for your friends and so on. The Arctic Monkeys is a band that became big on the internet long before they were signed to a major label, strictly through word of mouth and people sharing their music.

Right now the recorded music is the product, all I'm suggesting is it should be advertisement for the real product, which is live shows. That's something you can't download, and makes a band far more money than album sales anyway.

When they charged for the cassettes and cd music blanks, who got the money. Since that charge is still in effect, who gets the money now?

Good question. In Canada almost half the cost of a blank CD is royalties that go directly to the CRIA, I guess that's not enough for them because they're still campaigning against 'piracy'.

**kmguru** · 03-14-08, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Xelios

Good question. In Canada almost half the cost of a blank CD is royalties that go directly to the CRIA, I guess that's not enough for them because they're still campaigning against 'piracy'.

Since a large number of people use the CD to record their music, even after downloading from internet, we should have been covered by now.