Re: Who's Missing & Two's Missing

["Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@yahoo.com>]

>I'm not saying that they should sell the CD for cost.  I'm saying that
with CD producing technology there simply is no excuse for ever
letting a CD go out of print.

Rich:

You make the mistake many make; making 10,000 CDs allows a company to make them for less than $1 per (of course, that's not counting the production costs of the album, and advertising, and the paperwork, and the artist's cut, and the jobber's cut, and the music store's cut, and the cost of having the CDs sit there not selling, and merchandise not moving is ALWAYS a cost for any business...need I say more?). However, making just one costs no one a dollar...not even you making it for yourself, for your time would cost if you were doing it for a living, and wear and tear on your machine or computer...a blank with a box is around 50 cents...and so on...

In short, you're not being fair here.

>The record companies aren't interested in satisfying any demand for
product less than a bazillion units.

Yeah...that's what it costs for them to make a profit. No money, no label, no bands, no nothing for you. On the other hand, the more money the labels make the more chances they'll take with new artists. Don't you find that desirable? I do.

Take The Who for an example. If downloading had been going on for say 5 years or so, do you think they would have been signed? No! The Beatles, MAYBE...if they sounded enough like an already successful band! And if they didn't get signed, many would argue, they would have recorded anyway...the muse is persuasive...but would we have gotten a Quadrophenia? No freaking way!

>My point is that they don't do it because they are greedy.

That's not a point...that's an assumption. You don't have the figures to back you up. REM gets $20 mill per CD...that's just what the band gets, BTW...and when was the last time they had a CD that covered that? Since they made that deal, in fact...so WB eats that loss, but you don't count that, right?

>Further, if any business comes along and tries to negotiate a position
with the artists to be able to serve these smaller markets, the record

Really, that's funny, I get a lot of independent label stuff in my store.

>music without paying for it.  Since they can't get the people who are
doing the copying, their reasoning is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON should
pay them an "artists copyright fee"!  Like I said... bastards, pure
and simple.

Give them a better solution. In the meantime, mass music is dying on the vine. It's one thing to complain, another to offer a solution. They've TRIED to be reasonable, but people keep downloading. But you said it yourself: "music without paying for it." Only a child thinks he/she should get things for free. Downloading is killing music! Every sign points to this!

>For many years now they have done their best to stifle any innovation
or competition in delivering music to customers except for THEIR way,

You're forgetting that they own the music. They have not stifled any innovation or competition that delievers music THEY DON'T OWN. Big difference there, pal. They never did a thing about downloads until the music they own was stolen.

Besides, take away out-of-print CDs (LPs, tapes) and you destroy the entire industry of the collector's market! Damn, talk about scorched earth approach!

>Well, hey Mark!  Welcome back!!  :)

Lela:

My pleasure. This is one messenger they can't kill just because they don't like the message.

>Nah.  She's showing signs of being in for the long haul. 

Her CDs aren't selling in my store anymore. That's all I can tell you.

>Ditto.

Scott:

And to you, sir!

   "To announce that there must be no criticism of the 
      president, or that we are to stand by the president 
       right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, 
         but is morally treasonable to the American public." 
                            Theodore Roosevelt          
               Cheers                 ML
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup