Ripping CDs now NOT illegal???

**mj4cy** · 12-11-2007, 03:23 PM

So by their logic, we shouldn't record things on TV to watch later?

**keepngoal** · 12-11-2007, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by mjones34

So by their logic, we shouldn't record things on TV to watch later?

that will be coming sooner rather than later...

-keep

**Stumpy** · 12-11-2007, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by mjones34

So by their logic, we shouldn't record things on TV to watch later?

Well when VCRs first came out this was actually a very large cause of debate. When mp3 players and music download systems first became popular there were lots of comparisons drawn to earlier video tech.

**CYdTracked** · 12-11-2007, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Stumpy

Wal-Mart Wants $10 CDs : Rolling Stone

This Rolling Stone story is based around the debate of Wal-Mart selling $10 CDs. At the very bottom is a pricing breakdown of where the money goes from a $15.99 CD sale, according to the Almighty Institute of Music Retail.

$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead

Good find! So lets say that the average CD has 15 tracks, that means the artist is really only getting about 11 cents a song on a $15.99 I've seen varying articles out there, 1 even said only $1 of the CD sale goes to the artist but the bottom line is when you buy a CD the artist is getting maybe 10% of that so the piracy thing isn't affecting the artist but everyone else that has their hands in on the sales from it. This is probably why it's not surprising to see artists starting up their own record labels and such so they can cut out some of the BS that goes along with producing a CD.

Some of these artists are even doing things like offering free downloads of a new single for a limited time on their websites (like a 1 day thing) to help promote their music which I'm sure gets the RIAA all riled up how they are just "giving away" a song like that.

**Clone96** · 12-11-2007, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by mjones34

So by their logic, we shouldn't record things on TV to watch later?

Nope, that case was settled a long time ago (1984- US Supreme Court Sony v Universal)

**Stumpy** · 12-11-2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by travman23

Some of these artists are even doing things like offering free downloads of a new single for a limited time on their websites (like a 1 day thing) to help promote their music which I'm sure gets the RIAA all riled up how they are just "giving away" a song like that.

And obviously this is why the Radiohead pick-a-price digital downloads raised such a commotion. Yes, people only paid an average of $2.62 for the album but that is still over a dollar more per album than they could expect from traditional sales. And with a million downloads of the album that adds up to a hefty sum.

Now I'm not convinced that the strategy is sustainable. It may only be effective now because it is getting so much free media attention and thus eliminates marketing costs. However, as long as a band has a large fanbase or enough word-of-mouth attention, this method appears to be the best option for both artists and consumers. It's fast, easy, flexible and far less expensive for listeners while it appears to have the potential to be more profitable for musicians. You could also imagine that free or cheap downloads can give an artist more exposure to marginal fans that otherwise wouldn't spend the cash to take a chance on an unfamiliar artist; meaning a larger fanbase in the long-run.

**cmoore_23** · 12-11-2007, 04:11 PM

not like anyone will listen anyway..

**Angie** · 12-11-2007, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stumpy

And obviously this is why the Radiohead pick-a-price digital downloads raised such a commotion. Yes, people only paid an average of $2.62 for the album but that is still over a dollar more per album than they could expect from traditional sales. And with a million downloads of the album that adds up to a hefty sum.

Now I'm not convinced that the strategy is sustainable. It may only be effective now because it is getting so much free media attention and thus eliminates marketing costs. However, as long as a band has a large fanbase or enough word-of-mouth attention, this method appears to be the best option for both artists and consumers. It's fast, easy, flexible and far less expensive for listeners while it appears to have the potential to be more profitable for musicians. You could also imagine that free or cheap downloads can give an artist more exposure to marginal fans that otherwise wouldn't spend the cash to take a chance on an unfamiliar artist; meaning a larger fanbase in the long-run.

I loved that they did that. I ended up paying 10 pounds for it (I can't find the little curly "L" icon), which is probably the same as I would have paid for it in the store. I thought it was genius, though - you're right, only a band that huge could be the first to do it, kind of like when Stephen King released that book straight-to-internet.

**Wesley** · 12-11-2007, 05:45 PM

RIAA is related to NCAA. Scrooge is in their middle name.

I quit buying CDa because I never played them -I listened to talk radio most of the time.

Too many people living off recording gravy - too much overhead for non value added.

**Iastfan112** · 12-12-2007, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by phyteguru

I went to prison after being raided by the feds for "Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." - Yep, went to prison for music piracy. WTF!

I do rip CDs for my own use at home and keep them on my computer, but no longer share music with anyone else. It's a long story but I have it written here.

prisonreallysucks.blogspot.com

-Bruce
prisonsucks@gmail.com
-AIM/AOL: phyteguru

Wow some crazy stuff there. So I'm assuming your out now? Was it actually 30 days or did it turn out to be 6 months. Hope things are going well.

Cyclone42 · 12-12-2007, 06:30 AM

[QUOTE=phyteguru;280668]I went to prison after being raided by the feds for "Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." - Yep, went to prison for music piracy. WTF!

IMO, you deserve prison for putting white text on a black background. Tried reading that blog early in the morning, after getting up, and gave up. A guy should sue for eye damage.

Also, learn more about a typographic invention called the paragraph. Makes long diatribes much easier to follow.

**brianhos** · 12-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by phyteguru

I went to prison after being raided by the feds for "Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." - Yep, went to prison for music piracy. WTF!

I do rip CDs for my own use at home and keep them on my computer, but no longer share music with anyone else. It's a long story but I have it written here.

prisonreallysucks.blogspot.com

-Bruce
prisonsucks@gmail.com
-AIM/AOL: phyteguru

Your blog has no text....

**cyclonejd** · 12-12-2007, 11:12 AM

[quote=Cyclone42;281225]

Originally Posted by phyteguru

I went to prison after being raided by the feds for "Conspiracy to commit copyright infringement." - Yep, went to prison for music piracy. WTF!

IMO, you deserve prison for putting white text on a black background. Tried reading that blog early in the morning, after getting up, and gave up. A guy should sue for eye damage.

Also, learn more about a typographic invention called the paragraph. Makes long diatribes much easier to follow.

Wow, go easy on the guy would ya. That was pretty harsh. The dude was a first time poster and you come out with guns a blazin. I don't think he was attempting to write an article for a journal to publish but more of a personal blog. If your eyes hurt come back over to C.F. and read about Jon Miller turning into a Clone or something constructive. No need to tell a guy who had to spend time in prison that he should go back for his blog thats a low blow.(IMO)