Gus Ammar wrote: > It is true that MP3z may be hurting the artists, and they have an even > greater potential of hurting the record industry than home taping once > did. Cassette dubbing renders a copy that is of a serious decline in > quality, while MP3z render an almost perfect digital copy (the > differences are in the frequencies that most untrained ears will never > pick up). Well I think that's just great. To quote one American band > "Home taping is killing the record industry, but killing ain't always > wrong". CDs are one of those products that have remained the same price > since they were first introduced. To be paying fifteen to seventeen > dollars for some albums I think is absolutely ridiculous. Props to the > indie labels that keep their prices down to around eleven dollars. I > think its rather amazing that these labels are producing less product > than their major competitors, yet somehow keep the prices low. > I understand that for the artist, it must be frustrating to see your > work "stolen", and its very easy for the non-artist to say "well, you > should be glad that your work is getting more exposure, albeit without > payment"...But should the artists belong to a system that overcharges > the fan/consumer? > The fact is I'd much rather own an album than have it sitting as a file > on my computer, I love the artwork, I love being able to read the > credits...Most of the time I end up buying the CD that I onced had > ripped as MP3, like some people here have done...Still, I have no guilt > in my mind for having that one song by an artist I like or an entire > album that I'm not willing to put down a good chunk of change for on my > computer... > Well here's to capitalism...and the little things we can all do to spit > in its face... > > -=gus=- > > *******Join AllAdvantage.com and get paid to surf the Web! Please use my > ID (ejy-043) when asked if someone referred you. Thanks! > http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=ejy043 > > Ah, the mp3 debate... i'd just like to clarify a point that is often > misunderstood by the record/cd buying public. here's the typical > breakdown of an "overpriced" cd: major label record company sell cd's to > retailers for about 10 us dollars. the retailer then turns around and > sells it for say $17.98. after recouping costs of recording; after > divvying up percentage points to producers and publishing, costs of > marketing, etc.; the artist will get about 1% or about a dollar or so > (if their lucky) to split three - four - five ways. that's not very much > pay for a hard day's (or year long's) work. the real problem with overpriced cd's is the fact that the brick & mortor retailers need to make their profit for selling cd's. obviously web retailers don't have the overhead that their b & m counterparts do, so it's much easier to undercut them and more power to them if they're able to do it without ripping off the artist. i don't exactly know how the price could possibly go down. the costs of making a record certainly haven't gone down. the least pricey item in all of this is the cost of the cd itself - about 60 cents. but that such a trivial amount it's hardly worth factoring in all of this. that said, i would never charge anything for an mp3. i think it's a great promotional tool and needs to be thought of as such. now that i've bored you all to tears, i think i'll sign off before i start rambling again... -chris ______________________________________________ Faster, stronger and able to send millions of emails in one click: the new Topica site! http://www.topica.com/t/14
