I’ll give you my take on it.
I’m a collector. If hear a burned CD that I like, I want to own it. A home-made copy isn’t good enough. I need the the cover, the artwork, the liner notes etc…
As for other uses for CDs:
I use them to send photo collections from my digital camera to my folks in the US.
I use them to keep backups of said photos at home.
I make use of a lot of free software (really free, as in both beer and freedom, you know the GPL) and I put downloaded stuff onto CDs.
I also use them to carry large files back and forth from work to the office to show the guys at work.
I also use a few when I make recordings of my wife’s church choir.
Plenty of uses that have nothing to do with illegal copying of music.
I still have to pay a special tax on the blank CDs here in Germany because the government assumes that I’m making copies of music CDs with them. And the gov. still gives you hell about copying CDs and from what I’ve been reading the Germans are more into audio CD copy protection than just about anyone.
spooje, I know what you’re saying; I’m the same. I get offered burnt copies of CDs all the time, and while I think it’s wrong to take them, I don’t even have to consider the moral aspect because I just don’t want them, I like the real thing. But the sad fact is that we’re in the minority. I truly can’t give credit to the idea that people with upwards of 100 gigabytes of music shared on various programs have also bought the CD, and that everyone who downloads it will similarly do so. It simply isn’t true.
And Mort, I agree with you that Germany’s measures are presumptuous and counterproductive. It damages an entire industry to redress a problem with a minority use of recordable media. I won’t argue with anyone saying that many (probably most) of the measures thus far taken against copying are at best asinine and at worst have serious implications for privacy and fair use, etc. But this doesn’t change the fact that it’s not right to take something that someone is trying to sell without their permission. This is why I’m applauding the action taken in the news article posted in the OP; it attacks the people who are breaking the law, without hurting people like Mort, who presumably aren’t. It’s exactly the right thing to do.
I’m not assuming that at all. But I find it very hard to believe that the huge increase in blank CD sales is all due to data backup. I would hope that you would agree that a large percentage (not all) are being used to illegally copy music files.
It is not illegal to tape a tv show. It is illegal to download an MP3 without permission from the copyright holder. Where did you get the idea that when you download an MP3, the artist was “paid once”. No they weren’t and you are taking revenue away.
Haven’t you ever heard the “This game is copyrighted and may not be copied, sold, or distributed without the express written consent of the NBA” spiel? You are allowed to make the copy for yourself but once you give it to your friend, you are technically distributing it illegally. When they copy it, they are breaking the law as well. And even though you are not at the game, you are presumably watching commercials during the game, which is how they are getting paid. If you edit those commercials out of the tape you are giving your friend, then he isn’t seeing them and the sponsors products aren’t being represented. That could be considered lost revenue as well.
I suppose that’s arguable, but it’s not illegal that I’ve ever heard.
Cardinal,
I agree. I admit that copyrights as they pertain to TV shows aren’t anything that I have any experience in at all. I probably should have stated such. That part of the post was pure speculation.
Comment from a (struggling) musician.
I can see both sides of this. As a musician I love file sharing - anything to get heard.
I have been approached by a couple of record labels. When you read the fine print…I would rather give it away than line the pockets of these bastards. Recording via any of them is likely to leave you in debt. They give you a pittance, and then charge expenses against it. No thanks. Worse, they own the copyright - not me.
Still, I don’t hold with the wholesale d/loading I see either.
I do not pretend to offer any solutions here, but please, record companies have no right to claim artist copyright protection. they have no interest in artists at all.
Well, I’ve heard that, too. I’ve heard of some really crummy record contracts. I don’t know that NONE of them have any interest in the artists at all. They certainly do have an interest in making a profit on their investment.
I know it’s difficult to get what you want as an artist or a cartoonist. The only contracts you’re likely to be offered include stipulations that you’ll choke on, but it’s usually that or nothing. I don’t know what to tell you. Sign short deals so that if you become big you can get better terms next time?
Well, I’ve heard that, too. I’ve heard of some really crummy record contracts. I don’t know that NONE of them have any interest in the artists at all. They certainly do have an interest in making a profit on their investment.
I know it’s difficult to get what you want as an artist or a cartoonist. The only contracts you’re likely to be offered include stipulations that you’ll choke on, but it’s usually that or nothing. I don’t know what to tell you. Sign short deals so that if you become big you can get better terms next time?
This is off-topic but it might be of interest to UnwrittenNocturne and others in his position.
One of the best ways to get a better contract from a record company is through bargaining power. This can be hard for someone with no track record but not insurmountable. Here is one way that it can be accomplished.
Produce and market your own CD. Sell as many as you can and keep track of your sales. If you can show a record company that you have sold a respectable number of units on your own, they will take notice. A record companies biggest concern is that they are not going to get a return on their investment. They lose money more often than not. But if you walk into a negotiation showing that you have sold, say, 5,000 units on your own, you are showing them that there is indeed a market for your music. Show them that you have sold 20K units and you have that much more bargaining power. I know a band that put out there own CD, sold 40K units though their gigs and online, and as a result had numerous offers from labels. They were able to choose the best one and it was actually a pretty good deal compared to what most bands are offered.
There is a reason it is called the music business and if you approach it as such, you stand a much better chance of getting a realistic contract. Too many up and coming artists don’t realize this. They think that all they have to do is write a couple of great songs and they will be rich. It’s a very naive way of thinking and all too common.
Another piece of advice to up and coming musicians: ALWAYS have a music attorney look over any contract before you sign.
Good luck with your music UnwrittenNocturne 
I don’t think that can be repeated enough. I think it was MXPX who found out what they’d gotten into after Atlantic came calling based on their sales in the Christian market. Despite their success, they were locked into a long-term deal that gave them very little. They had gone along with it based on the idea that they had security in getting their albums released, but I don’t think anyone explained the flip side to them.
I suspect most of the increase is due to CD-R being the new standard for removable media. Floppy drives are being phased out, and CD burners are being phased in.
As CD-R media becomes cheaper, and CD burners more widespread, people who want to transfer any kind of data are going to use CD-R instead of floppy disks and Zip disks. Blank CDs cost about half as much as floppies and hold almost 500 times as much. A CD holds 7 times as much as a Zip disk for about 1/50 the cost.
It would be interesting to see how the increase in CD-R sales compares to any decrease in other media.
Cardinal:
If I had a lemonade stand one whole summer, and sold 500 cups of lemonade, then the next year only had the lemonade stand up for one day and sold 15 cups, I would consider it lying to say “Hey! My sales decreased! Someone must be stealing my lemonade!”
If you think it is perfectly fine to completely leave out the fact that releases decreased much more than sales, then you are indeed a perfect fit for the RIAA.
Your point is disproven by the fact that indie labels are seeing INCREASING sales. File sharing makes good fringe bands MORE profitable.
So why are releases decreasing? Many reasons. First, the record companies want a decrease in sales, in order to continue on their ridiculous anti-file-sharing campaign. The only way to ensure a decrease in sales, is to actually create less things to sell.
Also, more and more bands are realizing the depths of depravity that the record companies are capable of, and are simply avoiding them. Hence, the possible talent pool that the record companies can draw from is decreased. Many good bands are going to indie labels instead, where they see increased sales.
And finally, as recording becomes far, far cheaper, and as file-sharing allows bands a way to be heard despite the RIAA’s fond wish that nobody but their puppets be heard, bands no longer need the record companies as much as they once did.
sigh Have you looked at the figures? Now, I can’t prove that file sharing increases sales, although I would be hard pressed to come up with another reason for why indie labels are seeing increasing sales despite their bands never being on the radio. But as in my lemonade stand example, it is ridiculous to decrease production by an extraordinary amount, and then blame something else when overall sales decrease at a fraction of the decrease in releases. If good bands were not avoiding the record companies, and releases were what they once were, there is absolutely NO doubt that sales would still be increasing. None at all. I doubt even the RIAA would be able to deny this, though I have underestimated their stupidity before.
musicguy:
I download live and unreleased tracks because I can’t get them anywhere else. I download album tracks to decide if I should buy the album.
And I must say, I am very happy to hear you talking about hearing anything you want, but not being able to download it. Because, yes, that would be enough for me to decide if I should buy it.
So… just point me in the direction of the site where I can do that, please. I’m waiting.
20K units at say $10 a pop is $200,000 and 40K units at the same $10 is $400,00. I say if you can do that on your own, you don’t need the label you’ve already created the market and the awareness and will wind up with less profit with a label deal since the pie will have to be cut up into more pieces.
I do sympathize with this. There are many downloadable tracks out there that you just can’t buy. I’m on the fence in this regard because there are things that I want to hear as a musician, rare tracks by artists I love that are not available anywhere else. I hate the idea of music being out there that I don’t have the ability to hear. I wish all the music that was ever created was available to me. But there is a big difference between finding an obscure jazz recording from the 40’s that is not released and downloading and burning a disc of Eminems newest release.
I think that changes need to be made to the current way of doing things. I think the industry needs to keep up with and embrace the technology far more than it has. We are in agreement there. I hope they get their heads out of their ass just as much as the next guy. BUT (and it’s a big “but”), I cannot see this as a justifaction for saying “All music should be for free”, “Artists should treat their craft like a hobby and not expect to be paid”, and “Who cares what the artists rights are”.
I wish the site you were looking for existed and I hope it does soon. I just think that there can be a middle ground somewhere where the songwriter is afforded adequate protection and the ability to make a living, while still allowing people to use technology to make better decisions as to what they wish to purchase.
I’ve tried to be reasonable, but it’s obvious some people just don’t want to try to see my point. I’m confident that others have, but I don’t have the care-ingness to push through to someone who continues to make illogical and unprovable assertions every time.
Cardinal wrote
Your error was attempting to reason with the unreasonable. Some people when faced with owning something nice without having to pay for it will rationalize their stealing it in every possible way, including convincing themselves that they are doing their victim a favor. The human mind is a wonderous and magical thing.
Nightime wrote
HAHAHAHA. Lemme get this straight: The record companies, who make their living selling records are intentionally losing money for some sort of martyr image? That is almost - and I mean just a hair below - as silly, nonsensical and just plain stupid as the notion that not paying for a recording will put more money in the pockets of song owners that was proposed earlier by one of your fellow theives.
Well, which is it? Are the big record companies giving away business intentionally, or are they fighting for business and losing it? You can’t make both claims simultaneously.
This statement is just beyond silliness. Just so far from rationality. Let me be sure I understand. All the bands out there that were working their asses off to get a record contract are now joyously taking an alternate path, going straight to mp3 because their primary goal is to give away their hard work for free? You didn’t really say that, did you?
To put that last another way: If what you say is true, why would existing RIAA artists continue to be “their puppets”, when they can just release their work for free into the black market? Why isn’t Musicguy excited to do as you claim others are excited to do, cease selling his property, and instead give it away?
The sad part of all this isn’t that you’re stealing one dollar per song (approximate value per average song when you buy a CD) from someone who you claim to enjoy. The sad part is that you are able to convince yourself that you’ve done the world a favor, that this is on par to something Rosa Parks did, that you’re some sort of moral warrior, fighting against the evil government and their evil laws and those evil record companies, and even those evil artists who you claim to support.
musicguy:
I agree. And I am glad there is at least one reasonable person on the other side of this debate. You understand that it is a good thing to be able to hear music you otherwise wouldn’t hear. It isn’t just obscure 40’s jazz though… Tim Buckley classics like Blue Afternoon and Starsailor, hardly obscure albums, are nonetheless impossible to buy. (Although I have bought compilations that have some songs from those albums.) And I agree that it is wrong to download and burn an Eminem cd without buying it.
I don’t agree with people who say “all music should be free” either, although I think that posistion is usually used as a strawman. I also can’t resist pointing out that “who cares what the artists rights are” is an opinion the RIAA is famous for. Honestly, having a law changed after voting so that artists are merely works for hire is so despicable that it becomes impossible to keep a straight face when the RIAA says someone else is hurting the artists. Especially when their claims are belied by increasing sales at indie labels and the fact that they slashed their releases by a far greater amount than the decrease in sales.
Cardinal:
You mentioned a cite that showed overall decreasing sales. I informed you that that cite was so incomplete as to constitute a lie of omission, and I provided multiple cites proving my point.
If I cut my hours at work by 50%, it would absolutely be a lie if I then said “my earnings are going down! Someone must be stealing my paycheck!”
My point is that a cite that is so imcomplete as to be a lie does not prove your point. That’s all. I am amazed you are unwilling to admit this, as I would not even expect the RIAA to argue this point, which is why they took the trouble to keep the numbers quiet.
Bill H:
Cardinal is afflicted with a knee jerk reaction to everything regarding file sharing, such that they are immune to reason on this topic. You seem to share that same affliction. In any case, I do not keep mp3s if I decide not to buy the album, assuming there is an album that contains the song. And I think that it is wrong to do so. It is just that due to my “wonderous and magical” mind I am able to realize that there are more ways to think of this situation than “mp3s bad! No listen before buy! Pay $20 then see if like!” The difference between people like you and Cardinal, and someone like musicguy, is that musicguy likes music, and sees the value in learning about new bands through file sharing. He just has valid concerns about the issue. You, on the other hand, can hardly be said to have thought past the “mp3s bad!” stage.
Get a grip. I said they were decreasing releases, which is a fact. This does have the result that overall sales are decreased, but at the same time it also means that they are spending less, and they can downsize so there are less people to share the profits. Again, you are not understanding that overall sales statistics are meaningless by themselves.
There are multiple reasons for the decrease in releases. One of them is that some bands are going to or staying at indie labels instead. Some bands are even creating their own labels.
No, I didn’t. I said that advances in technology are changing the recording industry, so that a major label is no longer as important. Lots of people even have home studios now. In the past, people who were desperate to record an album might have gone to a record company and actually ended up owing them money. That is less likely now, but still happens a lot.
Aww, now you’re just joking around. You know I never said that. Incidentally though, a lot of artists would make more money selling their music themselves rather than going through a major label and ending up owing money. Also, indie labels are very viable now. And finally, many artists would like to gain recognition by having people hear their music, but this is not allowed by the RIAA, and the artists are still under very bad contracts. I can guarantee you that many of them wish they had not signed their contracts.
As I said, I don’t keep mp3s if I am not going to buy the cd. I have spent several thousand dollars on cds in the past few years, most on cds that I would not have bought if I had not been able to hear how good it was first. That doesn’t make me a moral warrior, just a music lover and an artist supporter. However, I do agree with you that the record companies are certainly evil. They have done things that astonish even me, and I can be pretty cynical.