AfterDawn: Tech news

IFPI: 'Ten inconvenient truths about the music industry today'

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 31 May 2007 10:43 User comments (49)

IFPI: 'Ten inconvenient truths about the music industry today' The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has published today an article, titled, "Ten inconvenient truths about the music industry today". It is simply a list of 10 "truths" related to music piracy internationally with some familiar names. The title of the report is no doubt aimed at grabbing media attention, but a bad attempt at putting the damage of music piracy on the same level as the other topic "inconvenient truth" is associated with, Climate Change (if that was the aim of the IFPI).
So what are these ten truths?....
  1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
  2. Allofmp3.com, the well-known Russian website, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
  3. Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
  4. Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
  5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
  6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
  7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
  8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.
  9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
  10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
It's not at all surprising that the Pirate Bay and AllofMP3 made the top 2. However, there is a real "inconvenient truth" here to deal with; both sites are still online. The reason for this is that neither service is considered illegal in either country (Sweden and Russia) and both claim that no laws are broken.

The truth that terrorist organizations are profiting from counterfeit CD sales is true, as do they profit from all kinds of criminal activity and the worst are state funded. However, considering the list is dominated by piracy on the Internet, it has to be mentioned that a kid at home downloading songs from a P2P network for personal use doesn't fund terrorism.

The IFPI seems to have taken a stab at Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for advertising about music while allowing P2P traffic on their networks. With iTunes, Napster and the countless other "authorized" music download sources now available, it should be considered a good thing that ISPs would advertise music availability as part of high speed connections. As for P2P traffic, it's important to note that most P2P software and networks are entirely "legal". ISPs do sometimes block or limit P2P traffic, but mostly just due to bandwidth concerns and have come under fire recently for this practice as it blocks some "authorized" video services from operating.

The 8th truth argues that piracy is not caused by poverty and cites research in China. You have to remember that in China and many other countries in the world, the markets at which counterfeit products can be found are part of consumers' daily lives and their culture. It's has also been going on so long now that most consumers in these countries don't even stop to think about whether the product is counterfeit or not, its not the same frame of thought as in the West where these pirate markets aren't so dominant.

Even in the West, many Internet pirates, or consumers buy products because they feel they are overpriced for what they are. Many file sharers are children who don't work, which the RIAA has discovered by filing thousands of lawsuits. Look at the UK and Ireland as an example, where consumers are vocal about living in a "rip off" society. In Ireland, CDs are priced often over 20 ($26) at retail, when many have about 12 songs, in which only half might be considered worth buying.

The 9th truth cites a report by the Australian Recording Industry Association's Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) showing that most people know that it's "wrong" to share music but "won't stop till the law makes them". While it is true that many people acknowledge it may be illegal to download music or buy pirated CDs, they have continued even when the law has been altered to make these acts illegal. It comes back to the point that many users simply don't see it is "a big deal" in the grand scheme of things.

Reading around these popular piracy resorts online, you often see discussion of how piracy effects artists but very little care for how it effects the record companies. This can be considered a self inflicted wound as these companies have labeled file sharers as thieves regardless of how much music they have bought in their lives, have filed lawsuits often against children for sharing music, have tried to get technology that can be used for legitimate purposes declared illegal, have included anti-fair use DRM measures on legitimate products, often dangerous to computer security (see XCP and MediaMax) and seem determined to keep a hold on the global market for music at all costs.

And finally, the 10th truth says that, "P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently." Of course, popular music is the most pirated, there is no doubting that. However, denying that a sudden availability to free music over a long period of time can spur a greater love for music would be inaccurate. The RIAA accuses people it sues of sharing thousands of MP3s, whereas those would most likely never have been purchased and are simply consumed because they are free.

A wider appreciation for music amongst P2P users, many of which are children, can affect sales of merchandise or concert tickets. In the case of children, they may also spur future sales of CDs simply because the kid became fond of a band after discovering them years ago on P2P networks (either in someone's shared folders or because a user associated more popular music with this particular band's material.)

I'd like to close by saying that there is nothing that the IFPI has said that can be proved wrong and piracy does, undoubtedly, show its impact in revenues of entertainment companies. I also admit that my debating points for some of these published "truths" cannot really be considered journalism but I think they reflect views of the majority of consumers.

It is however, frustrating that every press release from the IFPI groups P2P together as "illegal file sharing" or "illegal P2P networks" while in most territories, P2P networks and software are completely legal and that this industry demands respect and compliance from a large amount of people, many of whom feel that no real effort was made on the industry's part to work with newer technologies but instead, jumped the gun to lawsuits which have affected poorer families and students terribly.

Internet piracy also does not get credit for building confidence in digital music formats. Would iTunes have been so successful if it had launched and Napster never existed for people to be introduced to digital music in the first place? Also, let's not forget the market that MP3 files helped build, millions and millions of MP3 playing hardware devices sold and the market can only get bigger.

Once again, piracy is a problem and does, to a degree, affect real creative artists. But has the music industry taken the correct path in fighting piracy these days and can a little more truth about how piracy can be beneficial in cases and less false information (like saying P2P networks are illegal) really hurt?

Previous Next  

49 user comments

131.5.2007 11:05

Quote:
Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
The NEW axis of evil:

Iran
North Korea
Myanmar
maVensupplier

231.5.2007 12:37

Fix'd FTW!

I revamped it a bit and reposted it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 31 May 2007 @ 16:14

331.5.2007 13:34

to the above comment, i wish it wasnt so. sadly when you are in a nation washed to listen and believe "the man" things never change and it only continues to happen. we need a revolution but people cant take a risk in their life to change things.

431.5.2007 13:36

point 3 is an interesting admission....

Quote:
Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
this may well be true so if they really do believe it, why don't they target those gangs on the street who are making money by selling pirated copies...that is totally different from p2p sharing online, they rant and rave about online sites and then say the real problem is totally outside that field on the street so why the hell don't they concentrate on that ? these groups don't bother with p2p downloads, they take one original copy and duplicate it thousands of times to sell using multi burner machines that are sold by compaies like sony and philips...that's where the real money is. i don't know any p2p users who sell their HDD files on the street.

531.5.2007 13:47

Originally posted by anubis66:
to the above comment, i wish it wasnt so. sadly when you are in a nation washed to listen and believe "the man" things never change and it only continues to happen. we need a revolution but people cant take a risk in their life to change things.
The "man" never changes and forces the world to change to fit his needs.

Consumers are normally to busy with everyday lives to see what the "man" is doign to them and only then on things like gas and war they sniffle and whine but do nothing about it.

631.5.2007 13:51

Quote:
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.

lmao, this is how we maintian our middle or higher income status. If we blindly paid full price for all that crap we would soon fall into poverty! duh!
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 31 May 2007 @ 13:53

731.5.2007 14:48

Quote:
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
thats funny because its been my experience that having an "anti-copyright" political view usualy comes from knowing too much about the commercial world, not from knowing little.

831.5.2007 15:08

Quote:
[quote]7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
thats funny because its been my experience that having an "anti-copyright" political view usualy comes from knowing too much about the commercial world, not from knowing little.[/quote]from my poor understanding of it all the current Copyright establishment wants full control over all profitable IP/CP so they can force them to stay int eh market longer than they need to to gain more money of them ,stagnating growth, creativity and price.

931.5.2007 15:57

Don't blame itunes or other websites for charging $1+ for songs, THANK THEM!

If it wasn't for itunes, you'd be paying $5 a track vs $1 or $2. I myself see it as a value to only have to pay $1.50 or so for DRM free music from websites such as Beatport.com etc etc.

Music can't be 100% free as much as we'd like it to be, the producers / bands can't buy their gear if they don't make ANY money from it.

I agree the RIAA totally is beyond control and is wrong, but please don't blame the artist or labels wanting to make a profit, wouldn't you like to pay your rent if you spent 40-80 hours making something from scratch?

1031.5.2007 16:04

djgizmo
Itunes is making headway in the fight to lower prices however a CD is still roughly 14+

when songs drop to 50 cents a pop and artists get 15 cents of that I will stop bitching :P

remember with the current scheme in place artists only get a few pennies a song and not even a buck off cds.

1131.5.2007 16:14


1. The RIAA forces a unfair pricing scheme on the public and the artist, gaining more than 70% in profit while raising prices and suing 13yrd's.

2. Itunes and other sites like it (thos they pay a heavy cut to the RIAA) charge 1$ or more per song , in order for the RIAA to make its 5X profits and give the artists a 1/8th of 1X cut of it.

3. Organized corporate conglomerates team up to keep prices high and wedge out competition threw lawsuits or refusing to back newer technologies and thinking.

4. Illicit corporations don't care weather the artist is being paid they do not care if the consumer has doubts about their 5X profits all they can do is protect the schemes in place and raise prices till the whole industry collapses.

5. By claiming "lost revenues" they can stagnate the market further by ignoring real talent and letting the current set of idols wash out before they replacing them with other market friendly trash that can be lead and replaced easily.

6. DRM prevents you from playing the digital music you bought on your MP3 player forcing you to buy new hardware in order to gain the "privilege" to play the music you bought, with the RIAA following behind to gain more profits from approving the DRM.

7. The stagnate "anti talent" marketing scheme the media industry has in place does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people(Suits&CEOs) pontificating on a digital commercial world about which they know little.

8. Piracy is caused by dissatisfaction with the current system between not respecting artists dismissing the consumer as lamb to be used to make obese profits from, "piracy" is simply not buying from the man but trading, buying used and shearing what can be shared.

9. Most corporations know its wrong to overcharge the consumer and steal from the company they work for, until the law reminds them what racketing is.

10. New music stations are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular(marketing wise) music that is spammed out most frequently,the threat of free p2p is that artists them selfs can market and promote their music by passes the antiquated and obsolete families of the recording mafiaa.

1231.5.2007 17:11
Donuts
Inactive

My thoughts:

Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
-Lol, the terrorist card. This speaks for itself.

Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
-...and your point is?

Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
-Of course, they even call them "bankers". Little girls who have rich daddy to buy them lots of rubbish will spend more money on crap. They have no other expense, American Idol is the centre of their lives; of course they will get daddy to buy them everything. The average battler who listens to real music has better things to spend his money on.

The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
-It tranfers resources where they be most efficiently used. This is the concept of the "Invisible Hand", defined by the famous 1700s British econmist Adam Smith. Money spent on CDs can be more effieciently used elsewhere, people realise this and download music. (Legal And Pirate) This is how a free market works, free markets are good; Soviet Russia is the alternative. HHmmm IFPI, who know more about more about commerce now?!

Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.
-Lower class Chinese citizens are more concerned with how they will feed their family today than what they will listen to on their tape decks. The Chinese lower class have a much lower standard of living than say Australian lower class; who cares about media when you're starving??

Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
-When was the last time you took a survey, poll..etc??? In Australia, the federal pre-election polls are usually in favour of the Labour Party. However, come election day the Liberal Party ALWAYS wins; they have been in office for 3 terms. So Australian poll are a load of crap. Living in Australia, I don't know anybody who take part in these surveys.


P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
-I wholly disagree. I'm sure many people can relate that they have discovered new music through P2P.

1331.5.2007 19:08

Quote:
Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
So naturally they go about tackling this terrorist revenue by bringing common twelve year old grade schoolers to court and coercing them. Way to go! I feel safer already.

If this is a way of funding terrorism, wouldn't it be prudent to cease the production of all commercial sales to help squeeze terrorists out? The RIAA admit terrorists are using their products to support their cause yet they won't take the necessary steps to help put a stop to it.

Using this logic, which is the same logic the IFPI uses, the RIAA are in league with terrorists.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

1431.5.2007 21:31

After reading this long and length article it does not surprise me if what they came up with. Yes it was a catchy name so they can get the media attention. that fact of the matter is that some of these points are true their are innocent users using this software for their own benefits no one else's so this is where i say fight and stop the Axis's of evil as you guys put it but leave the average user alone.

1531.5.2007 21:47

Okay, I just have to dissect each one of these because they are are all soooo juicy.

Quote:
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.

And the library claims to let people borrow books for free, while receiving thousands of dollars in grants!
Quote:
2. Allofmp3.com, the well-known Russian website, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.

They obeyed Russian law and actually sold customers music without a leash.
Quote:
3. Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.

Mr. IFPI apparently doesn't know how to spell "organized". Yes, I agree, some criminals do make money off music. Perhaps the labels should stop selling it to them.
Quote:
4. Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.

How horrible! Those smelly, independent labels don't deserve anywhere near as much special treatment as a rich, major label!
Quote:
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.

You won't invest in small artists no matter what your revenues are.
Quote:
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.

Car manufacturers often advertise their cars ability to accelerate quickly, but people speeding in those cars cause thousands of accidents each year. Car manufacturers need to get with the program!
Quote:
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.

Yes, we are all peasants who know nothing about how the world works. Here's what I know - artists write music, not labels. Why do the labels make more money off the music than the artists, especially in an age when technology has made distribution quicker, easier and cheaper than ever?
Quote:
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.

What kind of logic is this? Impoverished people aren't go to buy much of anything - pirated or not.
Quote:
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.

Correction: Most people know it is illegal to file-share copyright infringing material. Most people also know it's illegal to speed and jaywalk, but I bet you've done it.
Quote:
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.

Your first statement is a lie and you act as though your second somehow enforces it.

The IFPI is a perfect example of just how crazy too much power can make people. It's obvious that they have no grasp of reality and are so intoxicated with greed that they can't even see clearly enough to keep from biting the hand that feeds them.

1631.5.2007 22:02

the cartels are just so desperate to keep control of the music - its funny, because now consumers are taking control of the music away from the cartels and deciding what we like ie myspace etc, instead of being spoonfed all the time


"Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars."

haha didn't stop them banking massively in the 90's when piracy was way less mainstream - britney christina,

171.6.2007 2:08

Man the RIAA are totally nuts. i support the artists but what i dont support are the fat-cats sitting at their desks who didnt sing a note and are still claiming they have rights to the money made on a song or cd, u refuse to pay all that money for a song or cd. its rediculous. do you all remember the days a dvd was 20, i was a mug then and didnt know better.

things have changed and and keep do, we are causing a movement and we need to keep up the good work, there is no music industry without us so its about time we get what we want and stop being taken for fools.

181.6.2007 2:09

Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:

1. The RIAA forces a unfair pricing scheme on the public and the artist, gaining more than 70% in profit while raising prices and suing 13yrd's.


First of all, well said from 1-10 but I must correct you on number 1, I am pretty sure the youngest was 12yrs and don't forget a recent case where a 10yr old (alleged offence when aged 7) is I think still being harassed by the RIAA.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong but by using "inconvenient truth" in a title and in this context, could it be an infringement on another's IP? Probably not, just thought i'd mention it anyways.

Anyways the media mafia groups can cry and bullshit all they like, the need to use labels is coming to an end and the market is truly starting to open up to all creative individuals.
The industry will be thankful these greedy imbeciles are no longer running the show.

191.6.2007 13:25

Quote:
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
Quote:
3.Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.


Bull$**t!!! Everybody knows it's DRUGS what they use

Quote:
4.Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Equal opportunity offenders...

Quote:
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
No more Idol, GREAT!!! I'm starting right now.

Quote:
6.ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Crybabies.

Quote:
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.


Since you know too much about the comercial world, explain to me the CD Price Fixing Scandal of 1997

Quote:
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.


There's a little bit of both.

Quote:
9. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.


You are so wrong. It's for discovering PORN.

201.6.2007 13:26

Quote:
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
Quote:
3.Organised criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.


Bull$**t!!! Everybody knows it's DRUGS what they use

Quote:
4.Illegal file-sharers dont care whether the copyright infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
Equal opportunity offenders...

Quote:
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
No more Idol, GREAT!!! I'm starting right now.

Quote:
6.ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
Crybabies.

Quote:
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.


Since you know too much about the comercial world, explain to me the CD Price Fixing Scandal of 1997

Quote:
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle or higher income earners.


There's a little bit of both.

Quote:
9. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.


You are so wrong. It's for discovering PORN.

218.6.2007 10:27

Lol. So basically this was a long way of saying "Don't forget, piracy causes armageddon!" Honestly, nobody extra will care from this than from any other IFPI political broadcast. What a waste.

It is also another way of associating P2P with illegality, which I'm sick and tired of. The number of perfectly legitimate applications etc. that get spread over P2P is still vast, so demonising Peer to peer applications specifically just isn't going to work.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jun 2007 @ 10:29

228.6.2007 11:52

Quote:
Originally posted by ZIppyDSM:

1. The RIAA forces a unfair pricing scheme on the public and the artist, gaining more than 70% in profit while raising prices and suing 13yrd's.


First of all, well said from 1-10 but I must correct you on number 1, I am pretty sure the youngest was 12yrs and don't forget a recent case where a 10yr old (alleged offence when aged 7) is I think still being harassed by the RIAA.

Maybe I've got it completely wrong but by using "inconvenient truth" in a title and in this context, could it be an infringement on another's IP? Probably not, just thought i'd mention it anyways.

Anyways the media mafia groups can cry and bullshit all they like, the need to use labels is coming to an end and the market is truly starting to open up to all creative individuals.
The industry will be thankful these greedy imbeciles are no longer running the show.

======================================================================

13yolds is the norm tho ,and I thought they went after a 9yo :X
LOL

The "inconvenient truth" is more about the lies and greed of the media mafiaa than it is about the "damage" pirates do,even thos that sale copies do not do as much damage because its cost V need if the price is cheap anyone will by it if its exurbanite not many will fool with it why do you think they are forced to sale cheap version of thier stuff in poorer countries.

238.6.2007 13:55

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has stated that
"Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money."

I find the statement about terrorism sort of suspect. The Hollywood types have been telling us for the last few years that there is no such thing as terrorism. It is just a bumper sticker slogan. That terrorism is an invention of Bush, Chaney, and Roe. Many of the Hollywood elitists have even stated that the World Trade Center was an act of undercover USA operatives. Must we forget Micheal Moore, Rosy O'Donnell, Carl and Rob Riener..These mountains of trust and virtue should not be shoved aside for the all mighty dollar.

The studio idiots can't have it both ways. Accusing non-existent terrorists for laundering money for non-existent terrorist acts. This is almost sacrilegious

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Jun 2007 @ 13:56

248.6.2007 13:57

dufas
I thought the suits that "own" hollywood were hardcore corporate types 0_o

258.6.2007 14:23

Not all hardcore corporate types of the type you suspect. Many have a socialist even communistic bent. It is their ego and elitism that make them think that they are above the government. Carl Riener has come out and said he is for communism. When asked if he doesn't fear that he would be ran over along with everyone else, his reply was that he is too important of a person to be controlled by any government's political edicts.. Rob, his son, has paraphrased his father's comments. Both of these people are heavily involved in the entertainment industry and none of the other 'suits' have ever rebutted their statements. Danny Glover just went to south America and collected $80,000,000.00 to make an anti-American movie. He did this right after going to Cuba to give his condolences to Castro. There are many wealthy people, corporate heads, and entertainers that would like to see America turn socialist. Hillary Clinton spent most of her college years studying Karl Marx. She admires his thought processes. If you noticed, every agenda that she has tried was another social program that would be government run and tax payer paid for.....

So if you live in the USA, watch your backside, unless you are for socialism...then I would say that you are winning, slowly winning..

268.6.2007 14:43

Originally posted by dufas:
Not all hardcore corporate types of the type you suspect. Many have a socialist even communistic bent. It is their ego and elitism that make them think that they are above the government. Carl Riener has come out and said he is for communism. When asked if he doesn't fear that he would be ran over along with everyone else, his reply was that he is too important of a person to be controlled by any government's political edicts.. Rob, his son, has paraphrased his father's comments. Both of these people are heavily involved in the entertainment industry and none of the other 'suits' have ever rebutted their statements. Danny Glover just went to south America and collected $80,000,000.00 to make an anti-American movie. He did this right after going to Cuba to give his condolences to Castro. There are many wealthy people, corporate heads, and entertainers that would like to see America turn socialist. Hillary Clinton spent most of her college years studying Karl Marx. She admires his thought processes. If you noticed, every agenda that she has tried was another social program that would be government run and tax payer paid for.....

So if you live in the USA, watch your backside, unless you are for socialism...then I would say that you are winning, slowly winning..
Sadly its either capitalisim that hates the poor to the point of ignoring them or "bi polar" socilisim thats pretty much the only choice you have anymore at least thats how I see the the "divide",Bush showed that any candidate can go insane in office and and dredge the party line and stick with it while the party panders for votes and look good against what the White house is for.

Our system is so broken sometimes its not even funny I will not vote for Comrade Hillery not with the attack she did on video games,I would not mind a stable and sane Rep but most are meat puppets on a stick and on the other side the dems have mindless elites....I like Obomba,Ron Paul and Thompson yes I can stand a couple reps but if they start pandering they are gone from my list..I am a hairs thread from goign 3rd party permanent for life.

this is goign to slide off topic if you want to rant/btch/jaw further PM me ^_~

278.6.2007 15:15
ericg8
Inactive

Here is my top 10 about the music and film industry.

1) They got a fee from every blank audio and vidio tape sold in America by using the same enless whining as this.

2) They were opposed to the advent of VHS, the CD and the DVD as "the death of their industry"

3) The music industry illegally fixed prices on commercial CDs for 20 years, resulting in prices artificially double what they would have been. When caught, no one went to jail, and the industry paid an insignificant fine.

4) The music industry illegally paid radio stations to force thier crappy music down our throats.

5) The music industy continues with payola, but they are more sofisticated now so as to avoid going to jail.

6) The music and film industries refuse to accept the ways that legitimate users want to use content.

7) The music industy has a history of using and abusing artists. Just ask Price or John Fogerty.

8) The music and film industry inconvenience us with thier crappy schemes.

9)The music industry markets poor lifestyle imagery to children.

10) Britany Spears.

288.6.2007 21:05

If the music industry returns the money to people who had bought albums with no music value,it would be celebration all over the world.And I have always wondered why are the prices so high as we all know that an insignificant portion of the money goes to the artist or the band that makes the music.The problem with the original audio CD is that for 2 or 3 good songs you are obliged yo byu the whole album,which ,I think it is not fair,even if you call to the market laws of any country.That's why most people download music from internet,and if they see a chance to do it free,they take it.They don't care if the artist profits of that just like the artist doesn't care if a man gives his last money for his album and if he is not pleased with it.

298.6.2007 21:53

Quote:
It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Hmmm... Lemme see if I'm unnerstanning this: you're trying to tell me that the POPULAR stuff is what MOST people are after? I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that the expensive stuff costs more, or that loud things make more noise.

How stupid do they think we are?


So, MR. IFPI;
Bottom-line this whole situation for me, since I'm so dumb. What's your current profit margin, and what was it 10 years ago?

308.6.2007 23:32

The music (and video) industry cashes in a copyright fee for each piece of music sold
=> Why can I not exchange my old vinyl plates for a CD, or my old CD for an audio DVD, from just the production costs of the support, since I already paid for the copyight ? THIS IS REAL PIRACY

The price of music does not decrease with the sales number

=> Whatever the sales number, 100 or 100,000,000 CDs, the price is always the same for a CD; CD sales would be much stronger if price would be more accessible, especially for CDs which sell in very large number, not making music stars less but eventually rather more, rich, due to increasing sales numbers.


Read "the market function of piracy" here:
http://mises.org/story/2590

319.6.2007 0:06

Quote:
I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that the expensive stuff costs more, or that loud things make more noise.

How stupid do they think we are?


Lol that's superb. Of course P2P networks help discover new music, but that's not going to add up to the sum of people who hear a song on the radio, download it using Kazaa (heaven forbid) and keep their pc safe from the viruses using Norton Antivirus because the guy in PC world told them to buy it. That's a pretty substantial userbase, and a pretty closed minded one as well, so while what the IFPI said was retarded, it was true, of course it was.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Jun 2007 @ 0:07

329.6.2007 0:49

Quote:
[quote]It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Hmmm... Lemme see if I'm unnerstanning this: you're trying to tell me that the POPULAR stuff is what MOST people are after? I suppose the next thing you'll tell me is that the expensive stuff costs more, or that loud things make more noise.

How stupid do they think we are?


So, MR. IFPI;
Bottom-line this whole situation for me, since I'm so dumb. What's your current profit margin, and what was it 10 years ago?[/quote]
===================================================================

===================================================================

or whatver costs the most is the best because it costs more...
....
...
LOL

339.6.2007 3:10
snige
Inactive

Labels do not loose money from piracy. people who download films or music or whatever, wouldn't buy the real product anyway so any money figures that get banded about are complete crap. It's just money that the fat cat b****rds are not pocketing.

349.6.2007 15:36

Just because I am a pedant, the English spelling of the word 'organised' IS 'organised. Americans spell it with a 'z', which doesn't make it right or wrong, just different. :)

359.6.2007 17:41

Originally posted by waynebaal:
Just because I am a pedant, the English spelling of the word 'organised' IS 'organised. Americans spell it with a 'z', which doesn't make it right or wrong, just different. :)
Well, thank you Shakespeare for enlightening us with such a deep knowledge of the English language. You don't how many sleepless nights I've spent pondering the difference between the two.

369.6.2007 17:58

Gee whiz. I feel so bad for these poooooor performers. Concert today; soup line tomorrow. What a tear-jerker

With all of the major otrocities going on around the world today. Who friggin cares about the current state of P2P

Average soldier's salary in Iraq - $45,000 per YEAR

How much popular performers make per concert. From Variety Magazine, Polster and Timesjlt:
Madonna $4.6 million per concert
McCartney averages $2.2 million per concert
U2 $2.0 million
John/Joel $2.3 million
Eagles $1 million
Bon Jovi: $560,000 a night
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band; $1.13 million
The Who; $984,005
George Strait; $846,344
Neil Diamond; $823,202;
Cher; $789,976
Aerosmith; $754,756
Shakira; $689,520
Creed; $422,793
Rush; $414,560
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers; $381,872
Alan Jackson; $339,611
No Doubt; $325,276
Tony Hawks Boom Boom HuckJam; $319,270
Lord Of The Dance; $307,955
Nelly; $301,116
Enrique Iglesias; $296,982
Toby Keith; $296,212
Korn; $279,524

379.6.2007 18:13

Originally posted by ChiefBrdy:
Gee whiz. I feel so bad for these poooooor performers. Concert today; soup line tomorrow. What a tear-jerker

With all of the major otrocities going on around the world today. Who friggin cares about the current state of P2P

Average soldier's salary in Iraq - $45,000 per YEAR

How much popular performers make per concert. From Variety Magazine, Polster and Timesjlt:
Madonna $4.6 million per concert
McCartney averages $2.2 million per concert
U2 $2.0 million
John/Joel $2.3 million
Eagles $1 million
Bon Jovi: $560,000 a night
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band; $1.13 million
The Who; $984,005
George Strait; $846,344
Neil Diamond; $823,202;
Cher; $789,976
Aerosmith; $754,756
Shakira; $689,520
Creed; $422,793
Rush; $414,560
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers; $381,872
Alan Jackson; $339,611
No Doubt; $325,276
Tony Hawks Boom Boom HuckJam; $319,270
Lord Of The Dance; $307,955
Nelly; $301,116
Enrique Iglesias; $296,982
Toby Keith; $296,212
Korn; $279,524
well you also have to remember from that they pay saliers and insurance on wokers and equipment thats 10-50G+ it can vary more then add the cost of gas buses and insurance theres another 50G+ in any case they make that money back but thos on the lower rungs have a hell of a time doing it and the media mafiaa makes sure that they have to be beholdant to them in order to get to where you are making a good living.

also touring can be a pain in the ass.

I dont really blame the artists they get screwed from every angel and only a few make enough moeny to live realtivly well from.

3810.6.2007 3:08

Some people get rich, being a music artist is one of the more popular avenues to it, we're not really moaning about how much the artists get here, if anything it's how much they don't get paid, and how much the labels get.

3910.6.2007 3:29

Quote:
Originally posted by waynebaal:
Just because I am a pedant, the English spelling of the word 'organised' IS 'organised. Americans spell it with a 'z', which doesn't make it right or wrong, just different. :)
Well, thank you Shakespeare for enlightening us with such a deep knowledge of the English language. You don't how many sleepless nights I've spent pondering the difference between the two.
Hmmm....my name isn't Shakespeare, numpty-head. I was just responding in a light-hearted way to the criticism of someone further up the post regarding the inability to spell 'organized' correctly. Sorry if this upset you, Einstein. Ooops....you're not Einstein. My bad. :)

4010.6.2007 3:54

"The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years. These settlements will eliminate these policies and should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market, consisting of $15 billion in annual sales. Today's news should be sweet music to the ears of all CD purchasers".

Read more:

May 10, 2000

Record Companies Settle FTC Charges of Restraining Competition in CD Music Market

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 10 Jun 2007 @ 3:57

4110.6.2007 3:58

Let's hear it for the FTC...
and as for waynebaal and hermes, take it elsewhere, nobody's interested.

4210.6.2007 5:27

Quotes:

Just because I am a pedant, the English spelling of the word 'organised' IS 'organised. Americans spell it with a 'z', which doesn't make it right or wrong, just different. :)
_____________________________________________________________________
Well, thank you Shakespeare for enlightening us with such a deep knowledge of the English language. You don't how many sleepless nights I've spent pondering the difference between the two.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hmmm....my name isn't Shakespeare, numpty-head. I was just responding in a light-hearted way to the criticism of someone further up the post regarding the inability to spell 'organized' correctly. Sorry if this upset you, Einstein. Ooops....you're not Einstein. My bad. :)
_____________________________________________________________________


Kan wee evar git thrue WON thred withoutt sum self importtant repressd A-WHOLE throweing out yet an other englich lesan!!!

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 12 Jun 2007 @ 16:52

4310.6.2007 5:48

Okay, now let's keep this on-topic, hey.

4410.6.2007 6:38

Indeed, and Chiefbrdy edit your post to correct the quote.

4510.6.2007 8:33

Quote:
Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists
This is a pisstake right? It looks like it was written by someones trainee or something. The music industry have for decades made billions sellin overpriced media, and only a small percentage goes to the artists anyway. The music scene has never been so vibrant, accesible and varied. The labels have to accept their time is up. Also *bleep* I-tunes
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 08 Oct 2009 @ 14:21

4610.6.2007 10:47

Originally posted by waynebaal:
Just because I am a pedant
Merriam-Webster definition of "Pendant"

a : one who makes a show of knowledge
b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

In other words you are kind of a jerk and the other guy was right. LOL.

4710.6.2007 11:33

They were both right.
whatname: That's the one that had me in fits and giggles. Who do they expect to believe that?

4810.6.2007 21:51

Quote:
Originally posted by waynebaal:
Just because I am a pedant
Merriam-Webster definition of "Pendant"

a : one who makes a show of knowledge
b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

In other words you are kind of a jerk and the other guy was right. LOL.
I thought a 'pendant' was an item of jewellery?

4912.6.2007 13:15

pendant could also laughingly be thought of as "a hanged man" with just a little bit of imagination. (-ant +u)[fr]

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive