Forums | MacLife

iThinkIam wrote:

You remeber cassete tapes and tape decks?  They had blanket royalties on blank audio tapes and they do now on CD-Rs marketed for audio as well iirc.

Don't know about tape deck the hardware.

Do I have to mention that your record player did not record or duplicate albums and that your analogy is bunk?

I don't think that you do recall correctly. Did I mention that if your theory was anywhere based in reality then the RIAA should be trying to get royalties on computers, not the iPod. The iPod can't illegally download music. To follow  your theory to its logical conclusion then the manufacturer of my car stereo, Tivo, cell phone, treadmill, etc. should all be paying royalties because it is POSSIBLE that someone could play an illegal song on them???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Do you see the ridiculousness of this yet?

And the frigging decline in music sales and the escalation of stolen music is more the RIAA's fault than it will ever be Apple's fault. Perhaps if they had a half a brain among them to share they might have realized that it was IDIOTIC to simply stop selling singles when they went to the CD. Did they really think that their customers were going to be like, "Oh, okay, I guess we have to buy the whole album if we want to listen to that one song."

There is no cause and effect between buying an iPod and downloading illegal music. If you think it is okay to download illegal music you are going to do it whether you buy an iPod or not. And as I said above, you don't even need a portable device to listen to illegal music. So your theory is that Apple should have to pay because they sell the most MP3 players???

I really don't care how many friends you have in corporate music. Instead of crying about the iPod perhaps they should focus on how they can best serve their customers. If they stopped just once and thought of their customers first as customers instead of thieves they might be able to fix their damn problems. I have no sympathy for people in sales that have no idea how to sell something.

Frank

Honestly a bigger chunk of any supposed losses is the crap they put out. I'm far more likely to buy the latest JPOP CD than I am a majority of the domestic artists. In fact the next domestic album I'm likely to buy is a Jimmy Buffett album (not unlike the last one). I, like many "pirates" (as they seem to call all customers whether or not they are), would rather not waste time, bandwidth, & drive space on the crap.

On top of that I've doubts on the accuracy of their claims of lost profits when after they've made them it turns out they've had record breaking profits or the units sold is up when they've claimed it's down (which they did when retailers switched from a accept a ton of stock to a order as needed system).

In the case of why the RIAA's sales are down may I present exhibit number 1:

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSt … p;s=143441

Quite frankly (no slight intended ), I think the *AA won't be satisfied until they get an enjoyment tax based upon the number of ears and eyeballs in your household and upon the presumed "enjoyment" that your household would get should you even accidentally encounter one of their products. This would be easier than having everyone have to pay a toll upon each encouter: "OK, everyone in this car heard 14 seconds of Paris Hilton's latest 'hit,' so please add 2.3 cents to your RIAA fee. My apologies for turning on the radio."

Isn't america's education dropping like a rock when compared to other countries. Aren't we ranked like 58th in the world or something. I don't know.

I do know that if they aren't being well educated now, shouldn't we be focused on teaching them real knowledge rather than propaganda?

iThinkIam wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Quite frankly (no slight intended ), I think the *AA won't be satisfied until they get an enjoyment tax based upon the number of ears and eyeballs in your household and upon the presumed "enjoyment" that your household would get should you even accidentally encounter one of their products. This would be easier than having everyone have to pay a toll upon each encouter: "OK, everyone in this car heard 14 seconds of Paris Hilton's latest 'hit,' so please add 2.3 cents to your RIAA fee. My apologies for turning on the radio."

It really is not an issue if your music is paid for or not.  The point remains that MOST people have illegal downloads in their collection.

And that is why your comments are dismissed out of hand because of silly, illogical, not well thought out statements like that. Apple has sold 100,000,000 iPods. I guarantee you that the clear majority of the people that own them barely know how to get their legal music onto the iPod, let alone know how to steal music. You are as much of an idiot as the RIAA is you seriously think that MOST people have illegal downloads in their collection.

iThinkIam wrote:

And your notion is wrong, the RIAA would be collecting a royalty based on the REVENUE generated by the content.  ie, from a subscription service or from advertising that artists creative content is helping to promote.

The revenue of an iPod is NOT generated by music content. It is generated by the device. Period. You can own an iPod and not even have any music on it at all. Also, I know your demented mind can't comprehend this but MOST iPods have music on them that has ALREADY been paid for. I love how you think people should pay for you and your friend's product multiple times. Screw all of you if that's what you think. Once I buy my copy of Microsoft Office I don't have to pony up and pay Microsoft again every time I want to create a Word document. Perhaps you should send them money since you feel that is the fair way to go.

iThinkIam wrote:

Unless you can tell me why Radiohead should be okay with a for profit radio station playing their music to help sell car insurance and what not.

That is completely different and if you don't know that then there is no point continuing this conversation.

iThinkIam wrote:

I like the idea of the blanket royalty because it support all artists, and not just the corporate labels.

FWIW, Radiohead is making its new album available online and people can pay whatever they want.  They nare o longer or on a major label.  Just how many bands can make a living doing that, exactly?  Maybe 5% of the already known and established artists?

How about ANY of them. That is the beauty of digital music sales. There are ways for ANY artist to get their music out to the public without having a record company press the CDs for them. Do some research. And you can spread the word about your band by playing gigs in small clubs until you get known. I'm sorry if you want to take the shortcut I shouldn't have to pay for your easy ride to the top.

iThinkIam wrote:

I really don't care what you, Frank, or anyone else thinks about the issue, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions, as wrongheaded as they are imho.

As a former member of band, now a hobbyist musician, and a good friend of an established and *upcoming* new artist, I know that quietly most people on the creative side of the industry do not what to stifle their fans - but are getting very frustrated when they see their royalty checks these days.

The only artists that *support* illegal downloads and are critical of the RIAA are typically already established artists are actually just miffed that the corporate labels make money off of them.  Perhaps those nimrods should have thought of that before they signed the contracts with the devil and sold out to the corporate media in the first place.  Crybabies if you ask me.

I think everyone is whining like spoiled brats about this issue.  And to answer your odd posts Frank, I think a blanket royalty should be paid for using iTunes, not for owning a computer.

Do the math, how would the artists and labels be doing if there was a 2% royalty on the hardware and say $.10 per iTunes license agreement?

That is beyond ridiculous. Again, you think it is okay to force people to pay twice for your product. Tough smurf. We don't agree. Get over yourself.

Maybe you and your friends should make better music. Then you might see those bigger royalty checks you are looking for.

iThinkIam wrote:

frankly wrote:

The revenue of an iPod is NOT generated by music content.

Ah, so the iPod is not for playing music content then?  And you call me an idiot?

Man, you are a frigging idiot. The fact that a device can play music is not the same as it's existence dependent on YOUR music.

1) I can make my own music and store it on the iPod. You want a cut of the iPod for that too?

2) I can play music on it that I ALREADY OWN. You want a cut of that too?

3) I can use it to play podcasts. You want money for my use of those too?

4) I can play music on it that I purchase from the iTunes store specifically to play on my iPod. You want me to pay AGAIN for that, right?

GET IT????????

Hello, McFly? Anyone home in there???

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Also the presumption that CD sales have declined solely or even largely due to piracy is unwarranted.

orly?  So 14 year old kids are not downloading music instead of getting Mom to buy them that new CD they just must have?

You sure about that?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

You might pass this info onto your friends in corporate media--not that they will listen, but at least you gave them a chance to reform their ways.

The RIAA is not the corporate media.  The RIAA is the artists union and there job is to protect and develop the artists royalty revenue streams.

Most recording artists enjoy criticizing the RIAA publically while fully supporting them behind closed doors.  I know this for a fact, but you can think whatever you want about it.

The point about corporate labels relationship is entirely different from the idea of the blanket royalty as I already stated.  Clearly, like most people, you really don't have a full grasp of this issue.

Frankly, most people don't even understand what buying copywritten music even means.

When someone can make a rational argument that a 2% blanket royalty on a profit of 2 to 3 billion dollars is not fair to recording artists, let me know.

frankly wrote:

1) I can make my own music and store it on the iPod. You want a cut of the iPod for that too?

2) I can play music on it that I ALREADY OWN. You want a cut of that too?

3) I can use it to play podcasts. You want money for my use of those too?

4) I can play music on it that I purchase from the iTunes store specifically to play on my iPod. You want me to pay AGAIN for that, right?

No need to be nasty.

and you forgot other things like audiobooks, video podcasts, pictures, etc.

Since you guys don't seem to get it, let me tell you how your "arguments" read to me.

Uniformed Whiner wrote:

Since I own the vinyl album, I should get the cassette version for free!  If my friend has the cassette version, and can record it for me onto a blank audio instead of me having to buy the album, I have the legal right to screw the artists and the music label out the money and therefore the artist and the label should not be able to obtain a partial royalty from my theft because everyone hates the corporate media anyways!!!

Most corporate music sucks anyways, you suck, and you are an idiot!

Also, since I own the book, I get the audiotape for free.  Screw the authors!  Screw the corporate book manufacturers!  They all suck and you're an idiot anyways!

Just because I like BSG and I then bought a $400 dollar iPod that will last me about 3 years to play it on does not mean that NBC Universal had anything to do with me buying that iPod or Apple making money from it.

Most TV sucks anyways, you suck, and you are idiot.

Screw NBC-UNIVERSAL!  They'll get the $.10 per legal download and like it!

Last edited by iThinkIam (2007-10-03 1:57 pm)

ScifiterX wrote:

frankly wrote:

1) I can make my own music and store it on the iPod. You want a cut of the iPod for that too?

2) I can play music on it that I ALREADY OWN. You want a cut of that too?

3) I can use it to play podcasts. You want money for my use of those too?

4) I can play music on it that I purchase from the iTunes store specifically to play on my iPod. You want me to pay AGAIN for that, right?

No need to be nasty.

and you forgot other things like audiobooks, video podcasts, pictures, etc.

I really was trying to be rational when I first replied but I am tired today and his posts are so off the deep end that it brought out the worst in me. I apologize for the name calling but I stand by all of my assertions as to why his statements are completely absurd.

iThinkIam wrote:

Since you guys don't seem to get it, let me tell you how your "arguments" read to me.

Uniformed Whiner wrote:

Since I own the vinyl album, I should get the cassette version for free!  If my friend has the cassette version, and can record it for me onto a blank audio instead of me having to buy the album, I have the legal right to screw the artists and the music label out the money and therefore the artist and the label should not be able to obtain a partial royalty from my theft because everyone hates the corporate media anyways!!!

Most corporate music sucks anyways, you suck, and you are an idiot!

Also, since I own the book, I get the audiotape for free.  Screw the authors!  Screw the corporate book manufacturers!  They all suck and you're an idiot anyways!

Just because I like BSG and I then bought a $400 dollar iPod that will last me about 3 years to play it on does not mean that NBC Universal had anything to do with me buying that iPod or Apple making money from it.

Most TV sucks anyways, you suck, and you are idiot.

Screw NBC-UNIVERSAL!  They'll get the $.10 per legal download and like it!

Well, considering that not one person in here has said anything even close to that it seems that the problem lies squarely with you. We aren't talking about giving copies to friends or getting another hard copy form of something because we purchased one form of it. We are talking about using the iPod as a PLAYER for the music that we bought. When you can explain to me how playing a song I purchased on CD via my CD Player is different from me playing that same song on my iPod and why that should justify paying the artist more money we can talk. Until then it is simply because you think they deserve the extra money and that isn't going to cut it.