No, he's right. With the recording industry as it is in America (one word: unbalanced,) being the producer is far more profitable than being the band. They may not make as much money as the Record Company Execs, but they see a hell of a lot more money than most bands ever do.

And so what if the band/artist makes the music. Again, with the recording industry as it is in America, that means shit since usually all artists have to sign off the copyrights to the label. So while they may make the music, it never truely becomes theirs, and they don't even see the money for it, to boot.

If you want to make money in the music industry, be a producer. If you just want to do it for the music, just stay independent.

Over-valued? Over-priced? It ends up coming out to about the same thing IMO. That said, I still think in this case they will keep losing profits either way. If they were smart they would sell them cheaper and make less profits than they want, but more than they are or will by keep on gouging/inflating the cost to the consumer. This isn't a piracy issue, it's "the consumer doesn't want to pay X amount for a CD" issue...

Overall, it might be economics 101, but if more and more people stop buying CDs because of the current pricing how's that going to keep making the most profits. The only way that will work is if they start charging even more, $30 a disc? That would just get more people to not even buy the stuff even more than they are already skipping doing so and finding another hobby or entertainment choice for their dollar.

Perhaps, but I still think you assume too much as well. Piracy isn't nearly the issue the entertainment industry and others claim it is, the numbers in more than one study have proven so. So, it's time to move on to find a way to get those that do pirate to move over to the legit item, another is to price the the legitimate item accordingly. It's doesn't have to be free or even even cheap, but to out price the item isn't smart either...

I can't argue with that, but from everything I hear the industry isn't hurting. So, they should stop crying and find a way to prevent piracy that doesn't screw over me, the legitimate consumer. That's all I am asking for! Maybe that's a pipe dream, but at this rate the industry won't have any consumers left within several years to decades if they don't at least work with people to find a compromise. All they want is the for us to have the "bend over and take it" mentality and buy their BS...

I guess that is big business for you, but, no thanks! :D

I think this cements the image of you not even understanding Economics 101.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect (if this were so, the prices would be lowered).

Absolutely incorrect.

Again, the answer to people breaking the law willingly is not to change policy, it is to punish the lawbreakers. They are not breaking the law for any compelling reason other than to get cheap music, which is not akin to, say, sitting at the front of the bus as a black woman in the 60s.

Are you screwed over because you can't purchase other luxury items? If you work minimum wage and can't afford a new car, does that mean you are screwed over by the car companies for pricing their product accordingly?

You haven't indicated a single way in which you are "screwed over" other than things cost more than you value them at.

I find that highly unlikely. "Because some people steal from us now, all people will steal from us in the future. If you don't bring people breaking the law back into the fold, then everyone will break the law. And it will all be the record companies' faults for not changing their policy to accommodate law breakers."




I mean, really, you don't seem to have any idea what the hell you are talking about. I think someone who even disagrees with me would think you are completely wrong.

Isn't hurting my ass. It's to the point where virtually all new acts have to fork over nearly a third of their touring revenue if they sign to a major label because revenue from CD sales has declined so much.

Sheesh, you are all making me feel like an idiot for bothering to post to begin with! Oh well, let me try to explain my thoughts. As naive as they may be... :D

I don't know, but making billions in profits seems pretty much like not hurting to me. If the artists signs the contract and they don't get enough of that money, well, that's their fault for signing a bad contract along with those who were greedy enough to not give them a better deal to begin with. That said, I am not sure I understand the issue that you mean here. What, that they could make more? Well, everyone could make more money, but there's no way to prove that they lost X amount when their own numbers typically don't match those done by surveyors outside the industry. If anything, the numbers I have seen touted online show piracy has little effect if at all, but to piss them off for making billions less than the billions they already do. Not that I blame them, mind you. But, not everyone thinks making more is necessarily a good indicator because how can you say that Pirate A would have bought it and Pirate B wouldn't have? You can't, even though they try to put out numbers that make it appear that way. But, what do I know, I am naive and who knows whether either side is worth believing the numbers they spew forth. I am just saying there's contradictions all over the place on just how bad they have it.

As for economics 101, I never took that class, always thought it meant what's best for business, so to speak. I guess I am wrong, and am big enough to say so. Sorry!

I guess I figured, that if selling for less could (I'd assume) realistically earn more profits from having people who wouldn't have purchased otherwise do so (which it possibly could in today's marketplace, piracy or no piracy) well, how is that not good for the industry and all involved? Hell, the whole pay-to-download services could be utilized much better. Though, it seems they are against change, whether it's from piracy (which I am not even really taking into account to be honest) or just changing the medium to one that people would consider buying more than they currently do with CDs. Really, I don't get it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Maybe I am giving people too much credit to think they too would buy the music if the price was at the price point the industry said they would sell for or even slightly higher.

Either way, this is all opinion based from what I have read and having talked with other people over the years. I'll be the first to admit I am not fully aware of all the facts, but I do get tired of facts thrown around here and elsewhere just as blindly by both sides. Sorry if I came across as thinking I knew better than the rest, didn't mean it that way. Overall, there has already been links earlier that show some of what I was trying to get at, I guess some just can't get past the piracy issue. Since I am not even using that as my basis for my point and most seem to be, I might as well keep quite.

Oh and BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I do think we "are" so-called, screwed over, by copy-protection and the other areas that the industry uses that make lawfully backing-up people's legitimately purchased CDs impossible. I don't buy protected discs, but many seem to have tried at least in the past to hide the fact if they have such protections. So, I think I and others have good reason to feel that way, the Sony Rootkit anyone?

Regardless though, I don't care if it's a luxury item or not, when I pay the manufacturer for their item, on sale or not, there should be no extra hassles to come along with it in my view. I bought it legitimately, that should be the only thing that matters. Some might disagree I guess, but money spent is still money spent. Basically, there's no need to alienate those who are the reason you make the money you do. Oh well, take that as you well...

You're suggesting that the secret to success is to sell at a loss. Products don't actually become cheaper until they've achieved sufficient economies of scale, and producing music isn't exactly as simple as producing a widget.

Well, obviously.

On a side note, we should be there day #1 if he ever opens a store.

"Come on in neighbors! I bought all this stuff and I'm selling it back to you for cheaper than I paid! Yeeeeeeehaw, open Sundays."

That's not what I am saying, well, it's not what I meant at least!

I understand what you all are saying, but still, assuming people would buy more CDs if they were at a cheaper price, how's that taking a loss if you have way more sales? That's all I am asking and no one seems to want to answer that. Oh well, no point in continuing since I think selling at $10-13 would be fine and you don't.

Cost to produce a single item: $4

Price --- Buyers --- Total Profit
$4.50 --- 25,000 --- $12,500
$5 --- 24,000 --- $24,000
$6 --- 20,000 --- $40,000
$7 --- 15,000 --- $45,000
$8 --- 8,000 --- $24,000

It's called the law of diminishing returns.

You'd have to sell proportionally so many more CDs to reach that same margin of profit.

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for the info. I am generally interested in this topic and from everything I am told elsewhere, they seem to think differently. Regardless, I'll take your word for it...

Here's hoping a way can be found to bring prices down, yet not hurt anyone in the process! :)

Dude, there was no excuse for this whatsoever. Don't practice necromancy.