Mp3s, RIAA, and royalties, would you pay?, POLL

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: pulse8
I believe the artist actually gets something more along the lines of 5 or 10 cents per CD.

It depends on the artist and the amount of pull they have.

Regardless, the artists know full well how much they are going to recieve in album sales when they sign a contract. If they don't like it, they don't have to sign it.

That may be so, but I can tell you that they probably don't get as much as $1 a CD. I'd be surprised if it got anywhere near that.

 

[mpitts]

Finally someone with an educated opinion.

 

[silverpig]

Is it just me, or are some of these extreme anti-RIAA/MPAA zealots almost as bad as the RIAA/MPAA themselves?

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Is it just me, or are some of these extreme anti-RIAA/MPAA zealots almost as bad as the RIAA/MPAA themselves?

And most of the time, they are completely uninformed and base their opinion on the opinions of others.

These are the same people who hate:

Microsoft
Apple
etc
etc

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Is it just me, or are some of these extreme anti-RIAA/MPAA zealots almost as bad as the RIAA/MPAA themselves?

It's not just you.

And, at least in this case, the reason he's a zealot is because of his ignorance.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Winchester

As far as music laws go anyway, my sister can not listen to my CDs unless she too has the identical CD, and that goes for anyone else. For instance, if you are driving with a friend, you can not play a CD unless they also have the CD. If you do then you are breaking the law. It is illegal to let friends or family borrow your CDs, once again, unless they too have the CD, which would be pointless. It is pretty much like the FBI warning on movies. You are actually not supposed to allow anyone but the person who purchased or rented the movie to watch it, or you are breaking the law, hence the "audience" in the warning. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone would buy a copy for each member of the family. These laws of kind of like the "it is illegal to go barefoot in Texas" law.

.

uhm. you need to re-read the law. or learn it or something.

If you own a CD you can listen to it with 100 friends at a party even if they dont own that cd. Again you can even loan out that CD to all 100 of them if you want.

Same with Rented movies. you can rent it and let a bunch of people watch it. its not one person rent one person see.

the warning is that motion pictures have is so you dont charge people to see the rented movie.


Edit: heh oops regarding the main point of the thread. I i could download the stuff legal and put it to disk i would gladly pay per song. I hate paying $16 per cd for only one or two songs i like.

Apple has that new thing where you can download songs for a buck each. If i had an Ipod i would be all over that!

 

[BD231]

Bands need to start selling their music on their own, personally I've had enough of the RIAA's sh*t. I'm fvcking tired of paying outrageous prices to support corprate people insted of the people bringing me the music. Something should be done but I don't think the artists are pissed off as we are because they get get contracts that get them a fat check for a certain amount of CD's up front.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Copied and pasted from an earlier post I'd made

The RIAA are a bunch of overpaid middlemen and lawyers afraid of losing the power their little cartel has built up. I don't advocate downloading music on Kazaa but I hope the RIAA gets what it deserves.

For example on a $15.99 CD, the artist's royalty is about $.50 to $1.50. The recording label makes about $4-5 while the distributors and retail stores make about $3-4. The rest goes to advertisement, packaging, shipping, media, etc.

If distributed by the internet, you kill the label's profit, reduce the wholesalers' and retail profits (if the artist isn't distributing the music himself). Packaging and shipping is inexistant. They could mail you album art for next to nothing ($1 or so). Sure they have bandwidth costs and internet costs, let's say $1 per CD. Bottom line, distributing by the Internet could easily cut the cost to consumer in half but it would also put a lot of middlemen out of jobs.

So why is the RIAA using scare tactics? Because they have 2 options, scare tactics or losing their jobs, which one would you pick if you were in their shoes? Which is why I give the RIAA the finger and buy as few albums as I can (I listen to internet radio and real radio whenever I can).

Source for figures Richard Campbell's Media and Culture

 

[Atlantean]

Originally posted by: Winchester
I have been researching Mp3s and reading up on the recent actions of the RIAA. I have found that the avg royalty that actually goes to the Band itself is about $1. Which is not much at all from a $16-17 CD.? I personally own over a thousand CDs, which is way more than the amount of songs that I have, seeing that the average amount of tracks on a CD is about 15. 1000x15= 15,000. I have quiet a few mp3s, but not near that amount. Needless to say I have supported the industry very much. However, lately I have been pissed off that the bands don?t get crap for all of their hard work; it all goes to corporate schmucks.

As far as music laws go anyway, my sister can not listen to my CDs unless she too has the identical CD, and that goes for anyone else. For instance, if you are driving with a friend, you can not play a CD unless they also have the CD. If you do then you are breaking the law. It is illegal to let friends or family borrow your CDs, once again, unless they too have the CD, which would be pointless. It is pretty much like the FBI warning on movies. You are actually not supposed to allow anyone but the person who purchased or rented the movie to watch it, or you are breaking the law, hence the "audience" in the warning. Yeah, it would be nice if everyone would buy a copy for each member of the family. These laws of kind of like the "it is illegal to go barefoot in Texas" law.

Anyway, I have been thinking about sending money directly to the bands for the Mp3s or sending money to the RIAA for the Mp3s. Bands make most of their money from concerts anyway, I think Dave Matthews Band is about $100,000+ per concert, I can?t remember the actual amount, but it was not a bad paycheck for a few hours.

My question is, would you send be willing to send $0.50 to each band/group for the Mp3s that you have from their CDs. For instance, 3 songs from 1 CD = $0.50, just give them their royalties for the CD or heck, just divide you Mp3 collection by 12 or 15 and send them XX (x) $0.50 amount, just to say "hey, I paid for it".

Also, if you were to send money to the RIAA, lets say $150, do you think they would come and "get you" or accept the money and go on?

Just a thought.

Thats a stupid set of thoughts... as strongbad would say DELETED!!! Its not illegal to let someone else watch a movie that you own or have rented, it is illegal to charge them to watch it or to make copies of it but not to let them watch it. Same thing with music, where the hell do you live? Oh and in answer to your question no. Why pay for something thats free?