Screaming bloody murder; Duh-Bya; Apples & Oranges

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>Because consumers are just plain tired of being gouged.

Phil:

I understand why they feel this way, and also realize that it's a
simplistic, non-business viewpoint since it doesn't take into account the
number of bands the labels lose money on for each one which makes money.
Etc. How much is the rent on their buildings, and their electric/phone
bills, traveling expenses, cost of the machines to create the CDs, and
salaries? Ever consider such obvious things as this...or only that the CD
costs this and sells for that? All this stuff has to be paid for, you know.
And it's still not the answer to: how is ripping off both the label AND the
artist justified by feeling ripped off by the label?

>CDs first came out the labels have been promising that the price would
>come down and it hasn't come down one bit.

You have a point, but as they were $15 when they came out and $18 now,
realistically that's not much of an increase for 18 years...18 years which
saw increases in almost every other price. And there are plenty of "Best
Value" CDs for $10-11 all over the place. Wal-Mart sells them for $13.

>people would rather use napster than shell out $17 for a new CD.  Why
>is this a big surprise?

I understand it, but don't see why anyone can justify it if they really want
new music and bands. In the end, it looks like mere selfishness.

> To me its a blatantly obvious reaction to the years of price gouging.

Please explain the gouging. And remember to take into account each and every
expense the label has to lay out per artist. A simple rattling off of "They
cost less than a dollar to make" is far too superficial.

> The record companies got theirs, now its the consumer's turn.

Selfishness. And what do the artists get, in the meantime? Screwed and not
even kissed.

> They don't see it as "stealing from artists", they
>see it as stealing from the record companies.

How stupid is that, I have to ask? I think they don't want to see it for
what it really is. They just want free music and damn the consequences.
And what about the $14 million a year Napster is making? How does anyone
justify THAT? Let's rip THEM off, how `bout it?

> The artists don't
>interact with the public at all except in the content of their work.

They are doing this to earn a living, and I can't see a reason to deny them
this.

>Would people be so interested in napster now if the record companies
>had passed along the savings from mass production to the consumer so

What savings are you talking about, exactly? Remember to include the factors
mentioned above.

>that a brand new CD cost something like $5 instead of $17?

Who are these people to tell labels how much they're allowed to make? Would
you like someone to decide you are making too much money and have to take a
pay cut? You'd scream bloody murder!

> I'd be pissed if
>someone took an invention of mine and gave it away.....for money or "the
>common good of society" , it doesn't matter.

Kevin:

Extremely well put!

>The sigs are fine, and meant to be funny.  Join in the spirit,

Jill:

Exactly. Thank you for seeing this.

>Bush....ahh, the end of civilization,  with a WHO soundtrack....

I'm still singing It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine).

>gives no source or the context in which they were said?

Dan:

They were taken from the afore-mentioned Doonesbury cartoon, all real Dubya
stupidities. The context doesn't matter; the structure of the sentences
illustrate his intelligence level, and that's my intent.
Today's and yesterday's quotes were from the Sun News, our local paper, and
taken from the GOP convention. Happy now?

>CONSTANTLY do it here?

These sigs are on my EMail, on each I send everywhere. It's not my fault
you're uncomfortable with what your guys say...but I can't say that I blame
you.

<mleaman@sccoast.net> , late of Pablo Fanques Fair wrote:

Kevin:

That's "Scarbourgh Fair." No hoops of fire here, but plenty of
parsley...well, it LOOKS like parsley anyway...

>of difference. No one is going to take away digital technology and
>the Internet just because RIAA would prefer it that way.

No, they'll find a way to make it so difficult few will bother.

>rights based upon them, obsolete. The record companies have been
>taking advantage of a monopoly to earn monopoly profits, but this

It's hardly a monopoly, since anyone can start a label. Most major bands do.
The Who did.

>BTW, 78% of the people who have downloaded Stephen King's latest
>on-line work have paid for it on the honor system.

Of the 13 million people who have downloaded music, only 2 million have paid
for it. Apples and oranges.

>that someone who is intelligent can use the technology to advance
>their careers.

Well, now, I never said Metallica was intelligent...

>either Bush or Gore, but let's face it, Bush ain't the sharpest knife in
the
>drawer.

Jon:

Well put. Unforntunately, this is a race between Beta males. But like any
reasonable individual, I don't want the economy to be screwed by thoughtless
tax cuts and superficial retoric, by a hypocrite who is the champion of a
party which wrongly believes they know what's best for us all.


"In the end, to what end."
           George W. Bush, Presidential candidate


        Cheers                 ML