RIAA Creative Accounting

[tcsenter]

I still want to know what is considered a "retail location". Does Amazon or what was "cdnow.com" count in that?

I would call those "etail" locations. I highly doubt that mail order and online record sales are barcoded and scanned for Soundscan purposes.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
...the guy who couldn't figure out what IFPI meant just after he wrote IFPI's full name - says RIAA said. And as I've proven, the guy couldn't find an accurate statement with two hands and a flashlight.

um, I believe he's saying their website doesn't readily tell readers what they stand for, (obviously you might be reserved in telling everyone you're the league of pornographers)... NOT that he himself couldn't figure out who IFPI are

 

[vi edit]

I guess to summarize things....

1) I do believe that there are at least *some* sales losses to illegal sources
2) I don't think that the RIAA paints a very honest picture and only shows you the numbers it wants to show you and ignores other factors such as overall economic slow downs, sales to "etailers", used music sales, legitimate MP3 purchases, and lost sales because of satellite subscribers
3) ????
4) RIAA isn't as profitable as they once were

But, other than oil companies there haven't been *a lot* of companies that made as much money the last couple years as they had during 1998-2000 give or take a year each direction.

I'm really not taking a stance on the article. I'm just trying to dig into the factors behind the numbers for entire years from the RIAA's own info.

 

[tcsenter]

um, I believe he's saying their website doesn't readily tell readers what they stand for, (obviously you might be reserved in telling everyone you're the league of pornographers)... NOT that he himself couldn't figure out who IFPI are

Err, no, read it again. He uses the word anachronism when the correct term is ACRONYM. IOW, he can't figure out what the letters IFPI means because it is not readily explained on the federation's website. Or maybe he is just so concerned that others who visit the website may be traumatized if they have to look further than the index page to find out what the letters stand for?

Either way, I'm betting this guy needs assistance wiping his arse.

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

um, I believe he's saying their website doesn't readily tell readers what they stand for, (obviously you might be reserved in telling everyone you're the league of pornographers)... NOT that he himself couldn't figure out who IFPI are

Err, no, read it again. He uses the word anachronism when the correct term is ACRONYM. IOW, he can't figure out what the letters IFPI means because it is not readily explained on the federation's website. Or maybe he is just so concerned that others who visit the website may be traumatized if they have to look further than the index page to find out what the letters stand for?

Either way, I'm betting this guy needs assistance wiping his arse.

lol "pornographers" its true you read what you want
anyways, "phonographer" is sorta anachronistic, but i agree, its correctly acronym

 

[Cerb]

We know.

<- recently bought a used RIAA album, and a new indie label album
The sad part is that the indie one was actually mastered worse

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: tcsenter

As far as I can tell, that pdf you linked to from the RIAA does not take into account online music purchases from legitimate sites like Itunes and the new Napster. I know that iTunes alone acounts for *at a mininum* of $1,000,000 worth of retail sales, almost every penny of which goes to the RIAA. I would assume that a large percentage of all of the other comparable vendors would be the same way.

And all irrelevant, since Napster wasn't operating during the 2002 ~ 2003 period of issue and iTunes for Mac had been operating only since April 2003. The Windows version of iTunes wasn't rolled-out until almost December.

This issue isn't what RIAA says, but what our Brain Trust (Moses Avalon) - the guy who couldn't figure out what IFPI meant just after he wrote IFPI's full name - says RIAA said. And as I've proven, the guy couldn't find an accurate statement with two hands and a flashlight.

I still want to know what is considered a "retail location". Does Amazon or what was "cdnow.com" count in that?

Probably not, because they actually give you a good selection, and often nice prices (very good prices if you buy a lot, as the expensive ones get evened out by a ton of $10 & $11 ones, or even cheaper from the 'marketplace' dealers).

 

[Cerb]

Can anyone confirm or disprove the info here:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16310
?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Cerb
Can anyone confirm or disprove the info here:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16310

I read an essay about a year ago from that website, "the costs of a CD" or something like that.

The author had accounted for all the costs of 'making a CD' except...well...all of those things that make a CD so expensive - producing the content, distribution, transportation, risk sharing, retailing costs, and a dozen other costs, all left out of his estimate.

He literally calculated only the manufacturing costs of a blank CD with packaging: something like $1.13 and concluded the rest was all profit. I doubt anything else on the website is any more credible or valid.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Cerb
Can anyone confirm or disprove the info here:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16310

I read an essay about a year ago from that website, "the costs of a CD" or something like that.

The author had accounted for all the costs of 'making a CD' except...well...all of those things that make a CD so expensive - producing the content, distribution, transportation, risk sharing, retailing costs, and a dozen other costs, all left out of his estimate.

He literally calculated only the manufacturing costs of a blank CD with packaging: something like $1.13 and concluded the rest was all profit. I doubt anything else on the website is any more credible or valid.

You could just stop arguing and keep paying out of your ass for 20 dollars a CD.

Have fun though.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Cerb
Can anyone confirm or disprove the info here:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/16310

I read an essay about a year ago from that website, "the costs of a CD" or something like that.

The author had accounted for all the costs of 'making a CD' except...well...all of those things that make a CD so expensive - producing the content, distribution, transportation, risk sharing, retailing costs, and a dozen other costs, all left out of his estimate.

He literally calculated only the manufacturing costs of a blank CD with packaging: something like $1.13 and concluded the rest was all profit. I doubt anything else on the website is any more credible or valid.

And that has exactly what relation ship to:
1. Units shipped vs. units sold.
2. Quality of mastering, which ahs gone DOWN as prices have gone UP.
3. Actual costs of the CD, including that only producers typically get any royalties, the rest get a few thousand bucks for the whole gig.
4. That indie labels have no problems selling $10-$15 CDs.

 

[tcsenter]

You could just stop arguing and keep paying out of your ass for 20 dollars a CD.

I could, but then I've never paid $20 for a CD. I don't believe I've ever paid more than $16 for a CD, unless it was a double album or boxed set.

Of course, the reason may be because I've never set foot in any of the 'trendy' record stores commonly located in trendy shopping malls, where the price on everything is 25% ~ 50% higher. If you patron outlets that carry a premium, expect to pay a premium price.

I am a consumer of music no differently than computer hardware. I don't go to Best Buy and purchase a Radeon 9200SE for $79.99 or GF 6600GT for $249.99. I purchase the Radeon 9200SE for $39.99 (or less) and the 6600GT for $189.99 (or less) at Newegg (actual prices at Best Buy and Newegg).

And when I want an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, I shop around for the best price and say "it will be a cold day in hell before I pay that much for a motherboard", then I wait two years and pay half as much for the same features.

All of these consumer choices can be applied just as well to music. If the music I want is selling at prices I don't want to pay, I either wait until the price comes down or I find other music that is within my budget. And its not that I can't afford the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe. I could purchase 20 of them right now using my Debit Card (drawn off my checking account). Its that I won't afford it because I do not feel any motherboard is worth $180 of my money. I'll buy KT600 or NFORCE2 for $60.

Above all, I don't particularly give a sh-t if record companies want to charge $40 for a CD. Its their product, they can charge whatever they want. If I think its too much, I'll find something else to do with my money and time. There is no "right" to have a product at a price I think is reasonable.

And that has exactly what relation ship to:

It has to do exactly with the quoted text to which it was in response. Learn how to follow a discussion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You could just stop arguing and keep paying out of your ass for 20 dollars a CD.

I could, but then I've never paid $20 for a CD. I don't believe I've ever paid more than $16 for a CD, unless it was a double album or boxed set.

Of course, the reason may be because I've never set foot in any of the 'trendy' record stores commonly located in trendy shopping malls, where the price on everything is 25% ~ 50% higher. If you patron outlets that carry a premium, expect to pay a premium price.

I am a consumer of music no differently than computer hardware. I don't go to Best Buy and purchase a Radeon 9200SE for $79.99 or GF 6600GT for $249.99. I purchase the Radeon 9200SE for $39.99 (or less) and the 6600GT for $189.99 (or less) at Newegg (actual prices at Best Buy and Newegg).

And when I want an ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe, I shop around for the best price and say "it will be a cold day in hell before I pay that much for a motherboard", then I wait two years and pay half as much for the same features.

All of these consumer choices can be applied just as well to music. If the music I want is selling at prices I don't want to pay, I either wait until the price comes down or I find other music that is within my budget. And its not that I can't afford the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe. I could purchase 20 of them right now using my Debit Card (drawn off my checking account). Its that I won't afford it because I do not feel any motherboard is worth $180 of my money. I'll buy KT600 or NFORCE2 for $60.

Above all, I don't particularly give a sh-t if record companies want to charge $40 for a CD. Its their product, they can charge whatever they want. If I think its too much, I'll find something else to do with my money and time. There is no "right" to have a product at a price I think is reasonable.

And that has exactly what relation ship to:

It has to do exactly with the quoted text to which it was in response. Learn how to follow a discussion.

What a bunch of Bullsh!t. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Got a Bridge half off Sale for ya too

 

[tcsenter]

What a bunch of Bullsh!t. Got a Bridge half off Sale for ya too/

Oh yeah? Well, you're a bunch of bull-cockey poo-poo. And your mom is fat.

Intellectually stimulating as always, Dave. I'm going to bed now, my brain hurts after reading your well reasoned and articulate rebuttal...like usual.

 

[0roo0roo]

i wonder how creative they get with the numbers when making up those X dollars lost to piracy statements they put out from time to time.

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i wonder how creative they get with the numbers when making up those X dollars lost to piracy statements they put out from time to time.

Bob has a copy of album X on his bittorrent server. Everyone in the world could download it and probably did, which means they aren't going to buy it. We make $5 per CD, so multiply that by 6 billion people minus the people who actually bought it, and we lost $300 billion on that CD alone ! This piracy business is costing us trillions !

 

[0roo0roo]

yea no kidding. sometimes people download out of curiosity..dredging up cr@p on the off chance there may be something worth buying. deleting the junk that would never be worth a meg of hd space.. essentially using it like one of those music store listening station. it would be counted as piracy loss

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
essentially using it like one of those music store listening station. it would be counted as piracy loss

This is something the RIAA is either ignoring or just refusing to admit. If, theoretically, I were to download a mp3 from some artist, listen to and like it, I'd buy it. If I didn't like, I'd delete it. It's not even worth wasting money on a blank cd to burn it. Now IF, in this case, I didn't have the ability to download it online, I'd most likely not give it the time of day(Which I don't anymore). So in this case, they're more likely to GAIN a customer then to lose one if they allowed 'piracy' to continue.

Granted, there will always be fvcktards who download anything and everything they can get their hands on. But guess what? Most of these people don't have the money to buy the $hit in the first place. So again, they're 'losing' customers they didn't have in the first place.

Personally, I don't even bother buying or downloading music anymore (No interest in going to jail or paying 'fines' because I download some crappy artists song). The music industry pretty much lost me during the mid-late 90s with their retarded behavior and crappy music.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe they need to produce better music????

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i wonder how creative they get with the numbers when making up those X dollars lost to piracy statements they put out from time to time.

Since they would need interview a lot of people over several years to get even reasonably accurate numbers...not creative at all. Just some nice sounding number.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i wonder how creative they get with the numbers when making up those X dollars lost to piracy statements they put out from time to time.

Bob has a copy of album X on his bittorrent server. Everyone in the world could download it and probably did, which means they aren't going to buy it. We make $5 per CD, so multiply that by 6 billion people minus the people who actually bought it, and we lost $300 billion on that CD alone ! This piracy business is costing us trillions !

i had read that they consider each download to be a "lost sale" as though every person who downloads a single song was going to go out and buy that album if they couldnt find the song online.
its worth acknowledging that the instant gratitude nature of our society (usually more intense in youth) probably didn't really feel like song ownership was a need but simply a passing whim.
obviously, thats not science. but to claim that every download is a lost sale seems equally as spurious.