Always two there are... a master... and an apprentice.

Thank you JR - Needed that laugh....

The question I have is since my 10 year old step-daughter trashes (to the point of unusable) every CD/DVD we let her get her hands on, is the RIAA/MPAA gonna send me new copies every month or so of every disc I have?

Birdcat: No they won't. You'd better keep her away from the car too, for the very same reason.

pmasters: Has anything EVER been accomplished by threads like this? Do we really need one a week? Have you ever seen a new point of view pop up?

I'm just really tired of every little computer geek thinking we have to be informed about every little copyright/piracy thing that goes on. Especially since the initial post is ALWAYS anti-copyright, as if the only copyright holders are big rich companies, and as if copyright holders (or those who believe in enforcing copyrights) are inherently evil. It costs a lot of money to deal with piracy; do you really think companies would bother if it wasn't affecting them? "Hey, let's waste a ton of money and make enemies of our customers! The stockholders will love that!"

No one here wants their work stolen, so why do so many people not want other people have that same right, or belittle their efforts? What? DRM is an inconvenience? Boo hoo. So is taking money out of the pockets of artists.

Is the RIAA perfect? No, but guess what: There IS NO perfect way to deal with it. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who CAUSE the RIAA to act, not the RIAA for responding. If you or anyone else has a better way of protecting inellectual copyrights, the RIAA and MPAA (and other such organizations) would be more than happy to hear from you. But I've never seen anything even remotely feasible mentioned in any of these threads. </rant>

haha... I got a junker for sale hse could use. :)

I started taking all my CD's & ripping to mp3 for that reason! One of my son's Veggitales CD's got smashed in the car by accident once, luckly I ripped it to mp3 (or ogg, i forget) amonth before. Now I just make my own mixes for the car.

"I'm just really tired of every little computer geek thinking we have to be informed about every little copyright/piracy thing that goes on."

One would think that if these types of threads annoy you, that perhaps you would not contribute to them nor read them in order to avoid any sort fo annoyance from us "computer geeks" who could stand to learn a lot from the "joe cool" crowd like yourself. :)

"Especially since the initial post is ALWAYS anti-copyright, as if the only copyright holders are big rich companies, and as if copyright holders (or those who believe in enforcing copyrights) are inherently evil. It costs a lot of money to deal with piracy; do you really think companies would bother if it wasn't affecting them?"

Well, I havent seen a press release from ABC independent speaking on behalf of the industry, only the big rich company claiming to be the authority on music copyrights (and not just the companies/artists they represent.) So when idiot companies sue dead people for infringement or people that dont even own a computer, they deserve all the crap they get.

"No one here wants their work stolen, so why do so many people not want other people have that same right, or belittle their efforts? What? DRM is an inconvenience? Boo hoo. So is taking money out of the pockets of artists."

Dude, no one ever said stealing was ok nor encouraged. However, users who pay for a license should be able to enjoy their license anywhere regardless of media/medium. Thats whats pissing people off. Furthermore, I havent seen too many artists suffering. If anyone is stealing money from the artists, one needs to look to those that the artist works for. Many times it has been said that artists make a mere pittance of each cd sale.


"Is the RIAA perfect? No, but guess what: There IS NO perfect way to deal with it. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who CAUSE the RIAA to act, not the RIAA for responding. If you or anyone else has a better way of protecting inellectual copyrights, the RIAA and MPAA (and other such organizations) would be more than happy to hear from you. But I've never seen anything even remotely feasible mentioned in any of these threads."

Really? I have seen MANY options that the major studios/labels could use to help combat piracy. Does it really cost the company $1.00 per song or $10.00 per album for an online sale? Oh thats right, most labels still dont offer their product in a feasible digital medium online.

The point of this thread isnt about people complaining about not being allowed to pirate but being told by the biggest asshole organization that has its hands in its customers pockets and then feels they have the right to tell their customers what they can or cant do with their purchase licensed.

Again, as has been posted NUMEROUS amount of times here, DRM does NOTHING but hurt the paying....I say again.. PAYING customers while the pirates always find their copies without protection. So while I do my part in paying, I get a bunch of rules that says where and when and what I can listen/view my purchased content on and the pirates get total freedom and reign to enjoy content that I have paid for wherever they wish. Oh yeah, add to it that I also get to pay increased prices to cover failed attmepts to secure/protect the products I buy only to have that protection cracked and then I get to buy some ne stuff and pay for a new DRM mechanism.

Heres a better question with regards to a better way. Has all the money they put into DRM, CSS, etc... helped stop piracy? No. If you listen to these so called companies they claim piracy is continuing its ramapant increase yearly. But ou of all of their hair brained schemes, has it ever once crossed their minds to try a lower pricing model? Of course not, cause that might work and they will have decreased profits.

Please take a moment and address my example earlier. Sony, a member of the RIAA, produces the PSP and develops software to rip CDs and convert to audio for playback on the PSP. Now, the RIAA says that it is illegal to copy music this way. One can interpret this as to say Sony is enabling users the opportunity to commit a crime by doing something that the RIAA says is illegal. Meanwhile, the RIAA receives royalties from EACH portable device sold knowing damn well that these devices enable users to do exactly what it claims is illegal.

In closing, just because some have given up and accepted the actions of the RIAA doesnt mean the rest of us who havent should conform and be quiet. While DRM may be acceptable to someone who rarely uses their content on one device only, there are many more it impacts. Why should I have have multiple licenses listen to the same CD I purchased? I asked this last year to a pro-drm advocate at a conference and said "This isnt fair to the paying customer" and the guy said "Lifes not fair." So screw the labels. Lifes not fair. Their words, not mine.

if "life's not fair" why do they whine when people pirate their stuff? "Life's not fair!" so they loose out on money they say they've earned. :)

pmasters: Here's the thing-- This is a forum for users of Vegas seeking to give and get support for that software. (And you often give help, I'm very aware of that.) Yes, there are occasional off topic posts. I don't mind them. What I mind are troll bait threads like this which serve no purpose at all other than to piss some people off. An off topic thread like "what's a good hard drive" is at least inoffensive and helpful to many people. Hate the RIAA on another forum if you like, but don't bring it here. If someone wants to know the latest crazy thing that the RIAA has done, Google is ready and waiting to help.

As for whether the anti-piracy practices are working or not, who says they're not? Is there still piracy? Hell yes! But how much more would there be without the various methods of combatting it? I don't know, but neither do you. I have seen though that it IS working. It's stopping some people, casual pirates. Not all of them, but it's stopping more of them than doing nothing would. And remember, it's a lot harder to protect things that were released before DRM's existed so of course there's a ton of stuff out there on the internet. But we'll see how it is ten years down the road. I suspect DRM will put a big dent in piracy. I hope it does, or we'll be seeing an awful lot less product, because it won't be financially feasible to produce anything. I know that's the situation _I'M_ in.

As for thinking it's greedy for a company to charge $1 per song for a download, you think that's excessive??? Are you insane??? After everyone gets their share (Apple, distributor, artists, etc.) that's a really tiny amount. An artist would have to have hundreds of thousands of downloads before they'd see any decent money, but without advertising no one would know about them so they wouldn't get that many downloads. And advertising costs money that also needs to be recouped out of that $1.

I know there's nothing I can possibly say to change your mind, and that's fine, I guess. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But come on, can't we all just leave it at that and not drag it up again on a VIDEO EDITING SOFTWARE FORUM every week? After all, for everyone who complains about how evil the RIAA is, there are people who claim that software piracy is a lie as well. Meanwhile cracks of Vegas are out there and ARE taking money away from its development.

As for the RIAA suing dead people or people with no computers, they're at the mercy of the ISP's and the info they're given. There's bound to be some wrong information floating around. Mistakes similar to that happen all the time-- I'm sure we've all seen stories on the news about dogs getting credit card applications or bills, etc. I'd be more surprised if the RIAA *didn't* get one or two false leads.

One last thing, just to be clear: I do NOT think that every pirated copy of something (music, movies, software, etc.) represents a missed sale. In other words, I don't think that every person who is using a crack of Vegas would have bought it if they couldn't get the crack. But if even a small percentage of illegal users paid instead of pirated it would have an enormously beneficial effect on the people who created that product.

You don't leave your house unlocked just because you know that thieves can pick or break locks, do you?

Sorry to post again right after that last post, but there was a big question that I left unanswered, and that is why I bother reading these threads if they bother me so much. The answer is quite simple: they're not harmless. They are usually "let's gang up on the RIAA (or MPAA, etc.)" and I, as someone who actually has more than one project that's out there so I can earn money but has been pirated, can give an opposing view on.

It's just too easy to see the RIAA's stance as evil, and I'm definitely NOT saying they're saints, but it IS necessary to try to do something about piracy, and if casual piracy is all that can be curtailed (notice I'm not saying "stopped"), then that's at least something. Along the way there will be inconveniences to honest people, and I read these threads to point out that honest people are inconvenienced all the time because of what a few bad apples have done. For example (and I've used this one before), we're forced to have specific types of identification to get at *our own money* at the bank. And we're forced to prove who we are whenever we wanto reenter the country after a fun weekend in Tijuana.

So to sum up (sorry I never seem to be brief even when I want to be), I read and post to these threads because I feel that with no one defending copyright protection more and more people will side with the "cat's out of the bag so it's too late" crowd, and that will hurt all artists. Remember, piracy hurts the artists more than the big studios, so the "ha! I'm sticking it to Sony!" attitude is completely wrong. Sony (or whatever distributor) is still making money. It's the little folks like us (or me in particular) who lose out. Distributors get their share first, so if the pie is smaller it's the people down the line who get hurt. The "RIAA SUCKS!" rants don't understand that so I wade in to point it out. But I still wish we wouldn't have to rehash it here every few days just because someone wants another opportunity to take a jab at the RIAA or MPAA.

Fred

Fred,

I do see your point, I really do. Without being long and drawn out, Ill touch on a couple points.

First, I just see the ironies in companies that ARE members of the RIAA capitalizing and benefitting from the sales of portable devices that's main purpose is media consumption. Not jumping on Sony at all, dont you find it a bit ironic that a member of the RIAA sells PSP and software to do just what the RIAA is claiming is illegal?

The other point is $1.00 is enough to charge for an online sale and for some artists, even too much. Sure, after everyone gets their "cut" its minimal for the artists. But lets not act like that online sales is the only media available. Marketing? Dont they do that with CDs already? Production costs? Recording? Still, done with CD sales in mind. Its costs exactly NOTHING to produce a digital version for sale online. I have a stack of CDs right by my computer that I ripped to my PSP. What costs do I have other than time and electricity? And the sales had already happened when I bought the CDs.

Heres my problem with the piracy slant. I do agree DRM does contrbute to curbing piracy. However, all it takes is one smart guy and then its out there for the masses. Once the media/software has been cracked/unprotected, what purpose does DRM further serve other than hindering paying customers? Let give you an example. 2 years ago, I bought some movies from Cinemanow that uses DRM. Several times, I went to watch the movie I had paid for but the DRM server was down. So much for watching it whenever I wanted. But I have seen this exact same movie from Cinemanow has been unprotected and has been on the net since last year. So while I paid my cash, I have to go through the process of authorization to view my film (when the server is working) while the pirates get to enjoy the same film unmolested and for free.

Personally, thats why I am hoping HD DVD wins the war as they support managed copy. Still DRM but at least it doesnt tie me to one system or player. Freedom of choice and enjoyment is what consumption of content is all about. If its a pain in the ass to use something you paid for, then why even bother in the first place as user enjoyment will decrease.

Fridge says "oooo - I'd love to go there..... MUST...... FIGHT....... URGESSS............ ahhhhhhhh

nope - not goin there"

Exactly what i was going to say!!

"Its costs exactly NOTHING to produce a digital version for sale online."

This is very untrue. It can cost an enormous amount to get the recording produced. Any copies sold online reduce the number of sales through more traditional media, therefore marketing online should absorb some of this cost.

In addition, selling online requires a website to be created and maintained, it requires time to convert the recordings into downloadable format, it requires time to update the catalog, it requires servers to run on, electricity, wear and tear on equipment, bandwidth costs, server maintenance, advertising, accounting, credit card fees, taxes, salaries of those who run the website ... and probably many other costs as well. All that considered makes $1 seem like a bargain price.

"This is very untrue. It can cost an enormous amount to get the recording produced. Any copies sold online reduce the number of sales through more traditional media, therefore marketing online should absorb some of this cost."

Wait a sec. If the RIAA expects you to pay for a second license for use on a portable device, then how does it reduce traditional media sales?

"In addition, selling online requires a website to be created and maintained, it requires time to convert the recordings into downloadable format, it requires time to update the catalog, it requires servers to run on, electricity, wear and tear on equipment, bandwidth costs, server maintenance, advertising, accounting, credit card fees, taxes, salaries of those who run the website ... and probably many other costs as well. All that considered makes $1 seem like a bargain price."

How many times do they have to digitally create the digital file for sale? Once. Website roles (server, maitenence, etc...) is no more expensive then the crappy web sites the labels already use. Add to it that not long ago, the RIAA and the labels voiced their displeasure about the sales for $.99 and wanted a price increase. We are talking about a file transfer approximately 3-5MB. Not like they are transferring 25 GB HD films or even uncompressed audio files. The reason Apple isnt making a mint with Itunes is because the labels get the major majority of the fees while Apple is handling all of the website costs and payment services. Thats Apples own fault for not negotiating better.

No matter how they spin it, digital sales costs less to produce and deliver than traditional media. Why hasnt the labels moved to this business model? Simple. Becuase once they did, they could no longer charge the outrageous prices for traditional media. So as long as the labels continue to ignore it, people will continue to pirate. Its a sad fact but true nonetheless.

I have to jump back in on this one... regarding the price for downloadable music. I agree $1.00 per song is to exepensive. This may only apply to me... but here is my perspective. I like buying the album at the store...you get the CD, the case art work, the lyrics, etc. The price will of course vary.

If we want to itemize the cost of distirbuting that song digitally for the industry... then we must also itemize the process for the consumer. I bought the song, I pay for my computer, I pay for internet service, I pay for electric bill, I pay for the CD to burn it to....some could very easily argue that it costs more to obtain the same album on-line by downloading it.

Also... plane business sense here when comparing it to the traditional retail market. One large server facility (I know... they have back up systems).... services the entire nation or world, compare that to one local Walmart servicing just a tiny percentage of the population.

I'm old fashion so until the CD really because as scarce as the cassatee tape at the store, I imagine I will continue to shop at retail outlets for my music.

Dach, $1 per song may be too expensive for you, but if it cost any less (and indeed even at $1) artists would have to quit and get better paying jobs... such as at McDonald's. Remember, when you buy a CD there's a lot more money to be split, so the artist might get as much as $1 or $2 per sale. But with online sales, if people just like one or two songs, then there's only a fraction of the money to split. In other words, an artist makes a lot more money off of 10% of $15 than they do from 10% of $2. (10% being my totally hypothetical royalty estimate.)

Unless a LOT of people buy the song(s), the artist will not come close to breaking even. Remember, it costs money to make a song or album. Just as you point out how much it costs you (paying for computer, electric bill, etc.), it costs that much plus much more to create the music.

An artist will be lucky to get 25 cents per download; if they've spent $10,000 to create an album (and that's for dirt cheap home recording) they'll have to sell 40,000 downloads just to break even. But to get that many downloads they'll need to do some kind of advertising, which will cost money, so now they'll need to recoup the $10,000 plus maybe another $5000 (bare minimum) for advertising, so they'll need 60,000 downloads. And that's just to break even. If they hope to survive (pay rent, eat, etc.) they'll need to recoup that $15,000 plus earn another $35,000 (at least, and that's still very low income). So they've really got to earn $50,000, or 200,000 downloads. And that would mean it would pretty much need to be a top 10 song.

And by the way, the figures and calculations above are assuming that the entire album and all advertising is created by ONE PERSON. If it's a band, then multiply almost everything by how many members there are. So three members would mean there would have to be almost 600,000 downloads (even the advertising amount would have to increase because you'd need to attract even more people).

Would you create a wedding video, or whatever it is that you do with Vegas, and sell it for $1 per copy-- or LESS, since you think that $1 is too much for music?

So it doesn't matter that the manufacturing cost would go way down (stick it on a server as opposed to literally having to press hundreds of thousands of CD's), because the cash flow also goes way down and that makes up for the manufacturing savings. You get the product to people at a cheaper cost to you, but you also make significantly less off of each sale.

Personally, I'll be sad when CD's or other physical media disappear. I'm old fashioned too, and I like having something physical for my money. :-)

pmasters:

How many people who purchase downloadable music also purchase the physical CD? I wouldn't waste my money on the CD if i can download the songs cheaper. I would think that most people wouldn't bother buying the CD if they get downloadable versions. Downloading dramatically reduces traditional media sales.

Multiply that 3-5MB transfer by a million per day and the server and bandwidth costs are enormous. "The reason Apple isnt making a mint with Itunes is because the labels get the major majority of the fees while Apple is handling all of the website costs and payment services." You are invalidating your own argument with this statement. In fact, your last paragraph shows that $1 per download is too cheap.

Dach:

Very few people will buy a computer specifically and only for downloading music and burning CDs. Most people use a PC already purchased for other reasons. To distribute the cost of the PC over the downloads is unfair and unrealistic. For that matter, many downloaders never burn their music to a CD. Most of them play the downloaded files from the computer's hard drive or from other solid state player devices. However, even if you do factor in the cost of the CD, you can download an album from iTunes for an average of $9.99 and a blank CD costs $0.25. Most CDs at Wal*Mart are in the $12.97 to $19.97 range. Even with electricity, cases, and Sharpie™ makers added in there is no way that downloading and burning a CD is as expensive as buying the album at a store.

Okay, let's put some of these cost considerations into perspective...

Some folks here are saying that $.99 for a single downloaded song is too much. Depending on your budget, that may be true. But it is unreasonable? I don't think so. Why?

Back in the 60s, when I was in high school and buying music, it was distributed in two forms: 45s (they would spin on the turn table at 45 rpm)and LPs ("long play") commonly called albums. They were made of vinyl. The 45s came, more often than not, in a paper sleeve. The LPs came in a heavy, card stock slip case which had art work, notes, etc., on the front and back.

Now, the 45s contained two songs on each "platter," one on side A (usually the "hit") and one on side B (usually not a hit). That one 45 in the mid-60s cost $.99 (plus tax). If we were to figure in the current inflation from 1965 to 2005, today that same 45 would cost $5.90!

If we were to take these things into consideration, then paying $.99 today for a single song is not the least bit outrageous.

Like Kelly said, it's not merely an issue of take a single CD, ripping a song and posting it on web site. No, it's far more complicated than that.

The unfortunate truth is the Internet and the ease with which certain items can be had has created an "entitlement" mentality in an entire generation. They think they are "owed" something. They think stuff should be free or nearly so. Living in the world ain't free, boys and girls. There is a price to pay, so get used to it.

Now, having said that, on the other side of that same coin, I do agree that most, if not all, major organizations, like the RIAA are greedy blood-suckers, plan and simple. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, but I do not condone theft, either.

If you're really against what the RIAA is doing, then pour as much money as you can afford into iTunes or Napster or whatever legal aveune is open for buying music. Stop buying CDs, unless you have no choice, but where there is a choice, exercise your choice. It's a form of voting. Force these greedy idiots to see what the new business model is and refuse to allow the tail to wag the dog.

I don't want come across as wishy washy from my previous comments and still feel that some of what I have said has warrant. I agree that a $1.00 is very inexpensive to download a song, especially when we compare it to a 79 cent candy bard. Hands down your absolutely right and yes the artist should make money.

Perhaps I get caught up in my own expectations. This is a hypothetical scenario... I go to BestBuy and buy a CD for $12.99. I see it... I get to touch it, I personally like that experience and get the sense that your getting "more" for you money.

Something that I have been impressed with by some bands are the ones who are selling their album with a DVD full of videos. Its building more value into the product being sold. Take Red Hot Chili Peppers greatest hits album... $21.99. The CD chuck full of songs.... DVD full of video... that creates more value.

Chieworks: I agree that a home computer has mutliple uses all I wanted to point out is that I'm sure a server will also host more than one downloadable song perhaps more than one album.

Just my two cents here then I will rest in peace... downloading music or video has one bright future.... use the internet and immediately get your product. This is a huge plus for the music industry. The traditional retailers may never succeed on the internet because of shipping expenses.

Thanks

"Remember, when you buy a CD there's a lot more money to be split, so the artist might get as much as $1 or $2 per sale."

LOL

If you think that the RIAA represents the artists or that the artists get a "piece of the action" from CD or online sales, then you have bought the myth that the RIAA would like you to believe.

If an artist is under contract to a label, then the artist receives a fixed amount of money for the duration of the contract while the label may do anything they want with the music. The RIAA is an association of labels and equipment manufacturers. It's their profits that the RIAA protects, not the artists.

I have absolutely no problem of supporting the artists, but I have little sympathy for the labels.

Steve