AshenSugar
02-04-2007, 09:07 AM
The cost of a CD should be exponentially higher, according to the RIAA
03:45 PM EST on Friday, February 2, 2007
The Recording Industry Association of America hasn't been making too many friends these days. I guess I should say that the organization does have many friends inside the music industry, because that's who makes up the the RIAA.
I'm not here to argue whether it's right or wrong to download free music where it's available, or whether it's OK to listen to your friend's "Beach Boys Greatest Hits Album." I'm just here to point out what the RIAA wants you to believe about the cost of music and CDs.
If you visit the Key Stats/Facts page on the RIAA website, you'll notice a justification for pricing CDs. The biggest argument appears to be the fact that the Consumer Price Index rose nearly 60 percent between 1983 and 1996, even though the price of a CD actually went down. While this might be a true statement, this is virtually worthless in determining how much a CD should cost.
Let's examine this statement, directly from the website:If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
I know that the CPI has risen, but these numbers don't seem to translate properly. So I visited the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data site u>, which contains a CPI Inflation Calculator. Unfortunately, I needed the initial value (of a CD in 1983), instead of the theoretical value in 1996. Since I didn't have that, I just guessed until I came up with $33.86 in 1996. I finally found that value: $21.50.
This means that the RIAA is claiming that the average cost of a CD in 1983 was $21.50. How many CDs have you purchased for more than $20?
True, the CD was new technology at the time, and it's quite possible that the price, in some places, was more than $20. Where the RIAA deviates from basic technology knowledge, however, is that more often than not, the cost of producing something like a CD almost always goes down over time.
What better example of electronics getting cheaper than taking a look at the history of the calculator. From the website listed above, Texas Instruments came out with a calculator in 1972 (TI-2500) that cost $119.95 (actually, the suggested retail price was $149.99). If we take a look at the CPI inflation calculator, using the calculator cost and a 13-year span, from 1972 to 1985 (the same time length the RIAA used), we see that the calculator should have cost about $308.77 in 1985.
Maybe this isn't fair, considering the time periods are different. So I'll try $119.95 in 1983, and the value in 1996 is $188.96.
How much do you think a calculator that could do only basic math functions (add, subtract, divide, multiply) was worth in 1996? By 1981, Texas Instruments had already developed a model that included more functionality for $19.99. Granted, the technology involving calculators and CDs are vastly different. My point is that when you are in the technology world, most of your products, with the same level of functionality, do not get more expensive.
The CPI is useful for looking at the prices of raw material, grocery items, etc. Sorry RIAA, but buying a CD isn't like buying a bushel of Korn.
http://www.whas11.com/news/woods/stories/WHAS11_OUTOFTHEWOODS_020207b.44a095ba.html
and another artical
February 03, 2007
Artists Aren't Starving Because of Piracy
By Marion Jensen
In the age of digital media, piracy runs rampant. It is now as easy to share music or a movie as it is to share an idea. With the press of a button, you can share your digital content with 3, 300, or 3 billion people. It's just that easy.
So in recent years, we've been fed all sorts of (dis)information about copyright laws. “Think of the artists” we're told. If you download music, somewhere there is a poor, struggling artist who can't feed his kids.
It's all hogwash, and we'll use the Socratic method to show why.
Who makes the laws?
a) Congress
b) The President
c) The Tidy Bowl Man
d) Earl
If you guessed A, pat yourself on the back. Congress writes laws. Congress passes laws, and nobody can stop them except for the President (and he can be overruled), or judges (many of whom you know wear leotards under their robes).
Where does Congress come up with laws?
a) They're smart people, they come up with ideas on their own
b) They listen to the people who elected them, weigh the benefits and consequences carefully, and then write up laws
c) They ask the Tidy Bowl Man
d) They write whatever they are told, assuming the person doing the telling has lots and lots of money
I know you didn't guess D, because you were too busy snorting milk out your nose after reading answers A and B. You couldn't see through the tears of hilarity to see that the proper answer is in fact D. But, D it is. And no, that is not just cynicism, I spent 6 months in DC, and you better believe this is exactly how it works.
Who has more money and is better organized?
a) Artists
b) The record/movie/book publishing companies
c) The Tidy Bowl Man
Artists don't have any money, and if the Tidy Bowl Man did, do you think he'd be living in the crapper? Publishers/Recording Artists/Movie Producers are better organized and do better lobbying. Plus they have all the money they've made off the backs of the artists. They are the ones who get members of congress to write the laws. Don't believe me? Look up the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Then look at who lived in Sony Bono's district.
Who do these producers really care about?
a) Artists
b) Teenagers who like to listen to/watch/ read media
c) No one but themselves
Let's think of how many millions of artists never really make it because they've signed away just about anything they have created, or will create, to get a shot at 'making it'. Let's think of the thousands of customers the RIAA has attempted to sue out of existence. That leaves us with C.
There is an entire industry that leeches off the creative talent of legions of artists. The artists, almost without exception, never make it big. Oh sure, there are the Steven Kings, J. K. Rowlings, Beatles, and more who do manage to make it, and make it big. But do you think that these folks build the industry? They are nothing more than the icing on the cake. It is the thousands of authors and musicians who never make it big, who are the bread and butter of the producers. The ones nobody hears about, and so nobody cares about. They write a few songs, write a few books, and 90-95 percent of the earning ends up in the pocket of the publishers. The artists go back to their day jobs, most of the time with no 'intellectual property' to show for it. The producers own the copyright and distribution rights.
Intellectual Property laws do nothing for the artists. It is the industry behind them, the ones who wrote the law to begin with, who are making all the money, and keeping mountains of content, culture, and enjoyment from the masses.
These suits are the 'anti-spock'. The greeds of the few outweigh the enjoyment of the many.
http://www.computers.net/2007/02/artists_arent_s.html
03:45 PM EST on Friday, February 2, 2007
The Recording Industry Association of America hasn't been making too many friends these days. I guess I should say that the organization does have many friends inside the music industry, because that's who makes up the the RIAA.
I'm not here to argue whether it's right or wrong to download free music where it's available, or whether it's OK to listen to your friend's "Beach Boys Greatest Hits Album." I'm just here to point out what the RIAA wants you to believe about the cost of music and CDs.
If you visit the Key Stats/Facts page on the RIAA website, you'll notice a justification for pricing CDs. The biggest argument appears to be the fact that the Consumer Price Index rose nearly 60 percent between 1983 and 1996, even though the price of a CD actually went down. While this might be a true statement, this is virtually worthless in determining how much a CD should cost.
Let's examine this statement, directly from the website:If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75.
I know that the CPI has risen, but these numbers don't seem to translate properly. So I visited the Bureau of Labor Statistics Data site u>, which contains a CPI Inflation Calculator. Unfortunately, I needed the initial value (of a CD in 1983), instead of the theoretical value in 1996. Since I didn't have that, I just guessed until I came up with $33.86 in 1996. I finally found that value: $21.50.
This means that the RIAA is claiming that the average cost of a CD in 1983 was $21.50. How many CDs have you purchased for more than $20?
True, the CD was new technology at the time, and it's quite possible that the price, in some places, was more than $20. Where the RIAA deviates from basic technology knowledge, however, is that more often than not, the cost of producing something like a CD almost always goes down over time.
What better example of electronics getting cheaper than taking a look at the history of the calculator. From the website listed above, Texas Instruments came out with a calculator in 1972 (TI-2500) that cost $119.95 (actually, the suggested retail price was $149.99). If we take a look at the CPI inflation calculator, using the calculator cost and a 13-year span, from 1972 to 1985 (the same time length the RIAA used), we see that the calculator should have cost about $308.77 in 1985.
Maybe this isn't fair, considering the time periods are different. So I'll try $119.95 in 1983, and the value in 1996 is $188.96.
How much do you think a calculator that could do only basic math functions (add, subtract, divide, multiply) was worth in 1996? By 1981, Texas Instruments had already developed a model that included more functionality for $19.99. Granted, the technology involving calculators and CDs are vastly different. My point is that when you are in the technology world, most of your products, with the same level of functionality, do not get more expensive.
The CPI is useful for looking at the prices of raw material, grocery items, etc. Sorry RIAA, but buying a CD isn't like buying a bushel of Korn.
http://www.whas11.com/news/woods/stories/WHAS11_OUTOFTHEWOODS_020207b.44a095ba.html
and another artical
February 03, 2007
Artists Aren't Starving Because of Piracy
By Marion Jensen
In the age of digital media, piracy runs rampant. It is now as easy to share music or a movie as it is to share an idea. With the press of a button, you can share your digital content with 3, 300, or 3 billion people. It's just that easy.
So in recent years, we've been fed all sorts of (dis)information about copyright laws. “Think of the artists” we're told. If you download music, somewhere there is a poor, struggling artist who can't feed his kids.
It's all hogwash, and we'll use the Socratic method to show why.
Who makes the laws?
a) Congress
b) The President
c) The Tidy Bowl Man
d) Earl
If you guessed A, pat yourself on the back. Congress writes laws. Congress passes laws, and nobody can stop them except for the President (and he can be overruled), or judges (many of whom you know wear leotards under their robes).
Where does Congress come up with laws?
a) They're smart people, they come up with ideas on their own
b) They listen to the people who elected them, weigh the benefits and consequences carefully, and then write up laws
c) They ask the Tidy Bowl Man
d) They write whatever they are told, assuming the person doing the telling has lots and lots of money
I know you didn't guess D, because you were too busy snorting milk out your nose after reading answers A and B. You couldn't see through the tears of hilarity to see that the proper answer is in fact D. But, D it is. And no, that is not just cynicism, I spent 6 months in DC, and you better believe this is exactly how it works.
Who has more money and is better organized?
a) Artists
b) The record/movie/book publishing companies
c) The Tidy Bowl Man
Artists don't have any money, and if the Tidy Bowl Man did, do you think he'd be living in the crapper? Publishers/Recording Artists/Movie Producers are better organized and do better lobbying. Plus they have all the money they've made off the backs of the artists. They are the ones who get members of congress to write the laws. Don't believe me? Look up the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. Then look at who lived in Sony Bono's district.
Who do these producers really care about?
a) Artists
b) Teenagers who like to listen to/watch/ read media
c) No one but themselves
Let's think of how many millions of artists never really make it because they've signed away just about anything they have created, or will create, to get a shot at 'making it'. Let's think of the thousands of customers the RIAA has attempted to sue out of existence. That leaves us with C.
There is an entire industry that leeches off the creative talent of legions of artists. The artists, almost without exception, never make it big. Oh sure, there are the Steven Kings, J. K. Rowlings, Beatles, and more who do manage to make it, and make it big. But do you think that these folks build the industry? They are nothing more than the icing on the cake. It is the thousands of authors and musicians who never make it big, who are the bread and butter of the producers. The ones nobody hears about, and so nobody cares about. They write a few songs, write a few books, and 90-95 percent of the earning ends up in the pocket of the publishers. The artists go back to their day jobs, most of the time with no 'intellectual property' to show for it. The producers own the copyright and distribution rights.
Intellectual Property laws do nothing for the artists. It is the industry behind them, the ones who wrote the law to begin with, who are making all the money, and keeping mountains of content, culture, and enjoyment from the masses.
These suits are the 'anti-spock'. The greeds of the few outweigh the enjoyment of the many.
http://www.computers.net/2007/02/artists_arent_s.html