Recording industry really is loosing money

[Turkey]

It's ironic the record industry is saying they are losing money... they are trying to inform the public that the words "file sharing" hide what's truly going on (stealing), all the while claiming that they are "losing" money when what's truly going on is they are making less. Which, of course, is not the same. Losing implies they had it at one point, but making less refers to the actual dollars that they made. And it's only been this year (maybe last year also?) that they have been making less... back in the Napster days, their profits actually increased. The record companies can pull any quasi-calculated number out of their *** to say they are "losing" money because it's a ficticious quantity. Potentially they could say the following: "By selling a CD, we've licensed one person to listen to the music of our artist a virtually unlimited number of times. As soon as they play the CD in a car with passengers, they've violated that license! Each person should be paying us to listen to that music. We just lost $60 when they play a CD in their car (with three passengers). Of course, if there were 4 passengers, we've just lost $80. And when someone takes a CD to a hi-fi store to demo speakers... oh man, it's like taking the bread RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH!" Technically it's true that they've sold a license to one person, but they haven't lost any money by me playing my CD in my car. They may even be making less money this year, because the people who listened to the CD in my car are going to buy 10 CDs this year instead of 12, but they aren't losing any money.


EDIT: Plus, losing implies they don't know where the money is. According to the industry reps, they know exactly where the money is: in the pockets of the pirates! So basically they are finding billions of dollars annually . We should be thanking them!

 

[bonk102]

i still buy cd's from groups i really like, like eminem, wu tang, outkast, bosstones, N.E.R.D., goldfinger,etc. but i refuse to buy cd's from groups who i've heard 1 song from that i might like and then the rest sucks

 

[apoppin]

They are losing money . . . good. They don't even understand their own business and they deserve to go out of business.

During the days of Napster, music sales were up 4% . . . since Napster is gone it is down by 40%. Doesn't the music industry even comprehend Napster as a "promotional tool" (much as radio is)?

Stupidity shouldn't be rewarded.

 

[skace]

To add to the Napster theory, I havn't found any new music I liked since the Napster days. Back when I had Napster, I met a lot of people through it who would recommend a lot of things they considered their "favorites" and we would get to swapping. I learned about TONS of music this way and also bought tons of CDs this way. Now the only new songs I get are from friends who tell me "You need to hear this". So I am at least 1 case where shutting down Napster killed the advertising of music to a person. Go figure?

Also, Narzy, what I meant earlier was that I learned about a lot of music through p2p and if it didn't exist, I would have never heard of that music and therefor not bought it. How can someone buy music they have never heard of? Before p2p the only music I heard was on local radio stations, basically WAAF - a rock station. p2p broadened my horizons to punk, techno, electronica, new age, pop, rap, etc. I own over 400 music CDs and a lot of them are from these genres that I learned about through file sharing and the internet.

 

[LH]

Uh no, thats total BS, 1999, 2000 were the biggest years in the history of the recording industry. They created a NEW level of sells, they had Spears, Nsync and Backstreet Boys go "diamond", 10million + albums.

The music industry is not hurting. The reason sales were slow last year because it was transition year, mainstream music moving away from pop and going heavily into hip hop and rock. Pop acts just are not selling like they were in the late 90's. Linkin Park sold 6million albums last year, 6million albums was unheard of in a year in the early '90s.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: bonk102
i still buy cd's from groups i really like, like eminem, wu tang, outkast, bosstones, N.E.R.D., goldfinger,etc. but i refuse to buy cd's from groups who i've heard 1 song from that i might like and then the rest sucks

I love how people think they are entitled to the "one" song they like from each album. I'm not knocking anyone here. I'm saying half these posts are excuses like, "I hate buying an album with one good song." Or "I'd buy the album if there were more good songs." Hey, guess what, you don't have to buy it and you don't have to own the song you like. Don't buy it. It's a luxury item. Turn the radio on if you're too cheap to buy the album. You aren't entitled to having that one song for free because you don't like the rest of the stuff. I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, but don't justify it to yourself with these thoughts. At least realize it's stealing.

Again, if people quit buying albums all together, it would force the industry to come up with something new. Stealing everything probably isn't going to produce advances in the system because they have to spend all their time fighting to get back what people steal.

 

[OREOSpeedwagon]

Originally posted by: AUMM
for myself, i was never really into music until i was able to download mp3's and listen to variety of songs easily. so because of mp3s i now go to various performances and if i like an entire cd ill buy it.

Exactly. There are TONS of songs that I've downloaded and then bought the CD. Looking at my playlist, the majority of the songs on my playlist I have on CD too(CDs that I've bought). But I still download music because I don't see a problem with it. Makes me wish there were more bands like Weezer, promoting the downloading of music. You know why they're doing this? Because they realize that people downloading their music raises their music sales.

(BTW, might I suggest that many of you improve your spelling skills so it's easier to read through the thread? )

 

[apoppin]

. . At least realize it's stealing.

Again, if people quit buying albums all together, it would force the industry to come up with something new. Stealing everything probably isn't going to produce advances in the system because they have to spend all their time fighting to get back what people steal.

No it isn't stealing anymore than listening to the radio is. The recording industry is using a 1940s business model to try to force consumers to do things their way. They deserve to lose money, not ask for "protection" from the laws for their own retarded practices.

If they understood the Internet as a "promotional tool" and weren't so damn greedy, everyone would benefit.

 

[royaldank]

Originally posted by: apoppin

. . At least realize it's stealing.

Again, if people quit buying albums all together, it would force the industry to come up with something new. Stealing everything probably isn't going to produce advances in the system because they have to spend all their time fighting to get back what people steal.

No it isn't stealing anymore than listening to the radio is. The recording industry is using a 1940s business model to try to force consumers to do things their way. They deserve to lose money, not ask for "protection" from the laws for their own retarded practices.

If they understood the Internet as a "promotional tool" and weren't so damn greedy, everyone would benefit.

Again, it's a luxury item and you don't have to have it. Listening to the radio requires you to turn the radio on. Your listenership is then complied in a book each quarter and released. The station then sells ad time based on these numbers. Ads keep the station running and the label use the station to promote music.

If you want to tape songs off the radio, go for it. There's no problem there.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: royaldank

Originally posted by: apoppin

. . At least realize it's stealing.

Again, if people quit buying albums all together, it would force the industry to come up with something new. Stealing everything probably isn't going to produce advances in the system because they have to spend all their time fighting to get back what people steal.

No it isn't stealing anymore than listening to the radio is. The recording industry is using a 1940s business model to try to force consumers to do things their way. They deserve to lose money, not ask for "protection" from the laws for their own retarded practices.

If they understood the Internet as a "promotional tool" and weren't so damn greedy, everyone would benefit.

Again, it's a luxury item and you don't have to have it. Listening to the radio requires you to turn the radio on. Your listenership is then complied in a book each quarter and released. The station then sells ad time based on these numbers. Ads keep the station running and the label use the station to promote music.

If you want to tape songs off the radio, go for it. There's no problem there.

As I said, it is a flawed 1940s business model. And what will the record companies do when radio stations broadcast digitally? More PAYOLA to the stations? Broadcast Copy protection?

I'll say it again, the recording industry is greedy, behind the times and doesn't even comprehend the Internet as a promotional tool.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: apoppin
As I said, it is a flawed 1940s business model. And what will the record companies do when radio stations broadcast digitally? More PAYOLA to the stations? Broadcast Copy protection?

I'll say it again, the recording industry is greedy, behind the times and doesn't even comprehend the Internet as a promotional tool.

They will want broadcast copy protection. In fact, there's already a group that is holding secret meetings to develop a content protection standard to prevent people from recording things from a digital TV broadcast onto a VCR for later viewing. Why would anyone think that they wouldn't want to do the same with radio?

 

[PCHO]

Never mind that the Marhsall Mathers LP from Eminem sold 17 million copies...

 

[piku]

Number of CD's I owned before listening to songs with Real Audio/MP3's? 2

Number now? Over 50.

And if it wasn't for listening to those tracks online I would have never owned this many CD's (even though it's not a crazy amount, it's not that bad considering), because I have yet to hear a Chemical Brothers song played on the radio, and they are who got me into electronica.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: narzy

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: narzy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
If I had to buy music I wouldn't get everything that otherwise I do listen to.

agreed but do the artist(s) deserve compensation for their work?

artist sales are an EXTREMELY small portion of their compensation. the majority of the money the bring in comes from tours and merchandise

got proof?

Yup. Give me a day or so to search through my old music-business class notebooks.

 

[JellyBaby]

First off, it's "lose" not "loose". You can't loose money.

From all I've read both the RIAA and MPAA are enjoying record profits. If RIAA member companies profits are down, remember it's not up to Congress to restore their profits, it's up to them!

They dropped the ball regarding Napster. They should not have sued but instead should have bought Napster and kept it running as a promotional tool to increase sales. Even at the time this was suggested and the RIAA ignored the idea.

I don't believe CDs will drop much in price. Retailers, who make a tidy profit on each disc, want to see high prices and I'm sure the RIAA feels much the same way. Besides, it takes a lot of money to convince people to purchase throw away music (MTV videos, etc.). Those costs are on the rise.

They are experimenting with downloable music but they refuse to go all the way. Some force propriety formats/players. That won't work. Some use 128 Kbps encoding. That won't fly either. So by doing it half-assed they ensure failure.

In my perfect world I would buy music directly from the artist/group. I have a choice of CD or open-standards downloads (or both). I can play the music at home, in the car, on foot, etc. Get me there.