RIAA Grabs Student's Life's Savings

[StormRider]

The irony of all this is that if any of the talentless people here has created some music that people would actually want, then they would be against other people downloading their music from the net without paying.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
READ MY DAMNED POST!
EDIT: it was approximately 2 hours ago if that helps

I meant: do you have links supporting your claims that prices of CD's have been falling?

it was in my post. i took the link you provided attempting to show rising CD prices from 1991 to 2001 then went and found the federal reserve's average for inflation over that time period (and provided the link to that in my post) and found that the average rate of inflation according to the federal reserve is higher than the nominal price increase in CDs. (which i also concluded in my post)

thats not the post you responded to, so your original was not presented in that context.

Well, my original post was about 200MB avi-file I have on my HD, but I assume that's not the post you are talking about. My second post was about the reasons why sales of CD's have been falling and how RIAA shares some of the blame. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here.

the post that i've been replying to this whole time is what i deem "the original post" since its what started this mess of a tangent is the one that replied to

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

 

[Nemesis77]

Why hasn't the price of CD's come down? I mean, blank CD-R's cost a fraction what they used to. Just about all tech gets cheaper as they mature, why hasn't that happened to music-CD's?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Link 1

Link 2

link 1:

The average price of today's CD's however is up to $19.99.

where the hell is he getting his info from? oh, good, he doesn't supply a link that maybe has some actual statistics. going from personal experience browsing the CD section at best buy i deem hes full of crap.

link 2:

CD prices have continued to rise to a now unbelievable $16.98 list price (soon to be $17.98!)

again, someone that doesn't actually post where their info is from, and again, from personal experience i'll say they're full of crap as well.

And wherre do you get your info from? You keep on saying stuff like "CD's have gone down in price", when fact is that they were expensive when they were introduced, and they remained expensive when they replaced cassettes and LP's.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Why hasn't the price of CD's come down? I mean, blank CD-R's cost a fraction what they used to. Just about all tech gets cheaper as they mature, why hasn't that happened to music-CD's?

because music is not a commodity in an extremely competitive market.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

And wherre do you get your info from? You keep on saying stuff like "CD's have gone down in price", when fact is that they were expensive when they were introduced, and they remained expensive when they replaced cassettes and LP's.

well, with my own perusal of best buy i'm exhibiting just as many data points as the people you linked to are.

as for better information: if you're going to keep beating a horse that i've already shown is dead (using statistics from your own link, mind you) you're welcome to do so.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it was in my post. i took the link you provided attempting to show rising CD prices from 1991 to 2001 then went and found the federal reserve's average for inflation over that time period (and provided the link to that in my post) and found that the average rate of inflation according to the federal reserve is higher than the nominal price increase in CDs. (which i also concluded in my post)

I'm talking about a link that shows that CD's have been getting cheaper.

the post that i've been replying to this whole time is what i deem "the original post" since its what started this mess of a tangent is the one that replied to

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

And my reply to that was (in full)

Few facts:

1. Downloading mp3's from the net is not stealing
2. Record-companies have been found guilty of price-fixing
3. Cost of CD's has gone up faster than inflation
4. CD's are ridiculously overpriced. Hell, soundtrack of movie costs almost as much as the DVD of the movie!
5. There is no real evidence that mp3's or "piracy" is hurting record-sales.

I just love it when RIAA and others whine how "sales of CD's have dropped by 5%! It's those wicked pirates and their mp3's that are to blame!". In reality, more realistic reason would be:

1. Slowdown in the economy. People simply have less money to spend on overpriced CD's
2. There are more products competing for limited amount of money (consoles, DVD's etc.)
3. Lots of people (like myself) are not buying CD's because they are criplled with copy-protection
4. Modern music is simply not worth buying. Crappy generic bands with crappy generic songs.

So coule you PLEASE finally tell me what you are trying to say?

 

[Mr N8]

Originally posted by: aswedc
This guy is looking for donations to help him recover his savings - send him a dollar or two through his web site if you have some change in PayPal.

Will do, while I dl that new Metallica CD.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Why hasn't the price of CD's come down? I mean, blank CD-R's cost a fraction what they used to. Just about all tech gets cheaper as they mature, why hasn't that happened to music-CD's?

because music is not a commodity in an extremely competitive market.

In other words: "Because they are controlled by a cartel that is involved in price-fixing".

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

And wherre do you get your info from? You keep on saying stuff like "CD's have gone down in price", when fact is that they were expensive when they were introduced, and they remained expensive when they replaced cassettes and LP's.

well, with my own perusal of best buy i'm exhibiting just as many data points as the people you linked to are.

as for better information: if you're going to keep beating a horse that i've already shown is dead (using statistics from your own link, mind you) you're welcome to do so.

You have not shown that CD have been getting cheaper. You just showed bunch of statistics from fed. Fact remians that CD's have been going up in price while costs to make CD's have come crashing down.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it was in my post. i took the link you provided attempting to show rising CD prices from 1991 to 2001 then went and found the federal reserve's average for inflation over that time period (and provided the link to that in my post) and found that the average rate of inflation according to the federal reserve is higher than the nominal price increase in CDs. (which i also concluded in my post)

I'm talking about a link that shows that CD's have been getting cheaper.

i don't know how i could possibly do any better than i already have. i took a link which has now been spammed in this thread 4 times showing NOMINAL price trends for CDs (the bricklin link) and then found a link showing the inflation trend for the US from a reputable source (the federal reserve link). i then figured out the average nominal price trend for CDs (by doing some simple math on the bricklin link) and saw that it was LOWER than the nominal price trend for the DOLLAR, which means that in REAL terms the prices of CDs was LOWER in 2001 than in 1991. i don't know i could do any better. sure, the NOMINAL price of a CD was higher in 2001 than in 1991, but NOMINAL doesn't mean sh!t.

the post that i've been replying to this whole time is what i deem "the original post" since its what started this mess of a tangent is the one that replied to

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

And my reply to that was (in full)

Few facts:

1. Downloading mp3's from the net is not stealing
2. Record-companies have been found guilty of price-fixing
3. Cost of CD's has gone up faster than inflation
4. CD's are ridiculously overpriced. Hell, soundtrack of movie costs almost as much as the DVD of the movie!
5. There is no real evidence that mp3's or "piracy" is hurting record-sales.

I just love it when RIAA and others whine how "sales of CD's have dropped by 5%! It's those wicked pirates and their mp3's that are to blame!". In reality, more realistic reason would be:

1. Slowdown in the economy. People simply have less money to spend on overpriced CD's
2. There are more products competing for limited amount of money (consoles, DVD's etc.)
3. Lots of people (like myself) are not buying CD's because they are criplled with copy-protection
4. Modern music is simply not worth buying. Crappy generic bands with crappy generic songs.

So coule you PLEASE finally tell me what you are trying to say?

i was refuting your statements made in the context of the bolded part of syberscott's post.

 

[nakedfrog]

The RIAA themselves have essentially been stealing from artists for... oh, god, I don't know how long. At least that's what I consider it when you think about the fact that out of the total $18 that a CD costs, the artist gets maybe between $0.10 and $0.25, with the rest going to different layers of management, etc.
If you want an example of how the music industry should be working, look at DIY punk... the newest Punk-O-Rama is a double CD, packed full of musical goodness, and costs less than 8 bucks.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Why hasn't the price of CD's come down? I mean, blank CD-R's cost a fraction what they used to. Just about all tech gets cheaper as they mature, why hasn't that happened to music-CD's?

because music is not a commodity in an extremely competitive market.

In other words: "Because they are controlled by a cartel that is involved in price-fixing".

so every product that isn't a commodity in an extremely competive market is price fixed? i'm not going to argue that the music industry has done some pretty unscrupulous things, including price fixing, because they have, but prices don't have to come down.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
You have not shown that CD have been getting cheaper. You just showed bunch of statistics from fed. Fact remians that CD's have been going up in price while costs to make CD's have come crashing down.

jesus christ dude... if the NOMINAL price increase of a product is lower than the NOMINAL price increase of the dollar than the REAL price of the product is falling. and i've shown that. i mean, you might as well argue that gas at $1.25 today is more expensive than gas in 1990 $1.15.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it was in my post. i took the link you provided attempting to show rising CD prices from 1991 to 2001 then went and found the federal reserve's average for inflation over that time period (and provided the link to that in my post) and found that the average rate of inflation according to the federal reserve is higher than the nominal price increase in CDs. (which i also concluded in my post)

I'm talking about a link that shows that CD's have been getting cheaper.

i don't know how i could possibly do any better than i already have. i took a link which has now been spammed in this thread 4 times showing NOMINAL price trends for CDs (the bricklin link) and then found a link showing the inflation trend for the US from a reputable source (the federal reserve link). i then figured out the average nominal price trend for CDs (by doing some simple math on the bricklin link) and saw that it was LOWER than the nominal price trend for the DOLLAR, which means that in REAL terms the prices of CDs was LOWER in 2001 than in 1991. i don't know i could do any better. sure, the NOMINAL price of a CD was higher in 2001 than in 1991, but NOMINAL doesn't mean sh!t.

the post that i've been replying to this whole time is what i deem "the original post" since its what started this mess of a tangent is the one that replied to

Originally posted by: syberscott
The irony is that the RIAA would not be resorting to such tactics if people would just stop stealing music.

And my reply to that was (in full)

Few facts:

1. Downloading mp3's from the net is not stealing
2. Record-companies have been found guilty of price-fixing
3. Cost of CD's has gone up faster than inflation
4. CD's are ridiculously overpriced. Hell, soundtrack of movie costs almost as much as the DVD of the movie!
5. There is no real evidence that mp3's or "piracy" is hurting record-sales.

I just love it when RIAA and others whine how "sales of CD's have dropped by 5%! It's those wicked pirates and their mp3's that are to blame!". In reality, more realistic reason would be:

1. Slowdown in the economy. People simply have less money to spend on overpriced CD's
2. There are more products competing for limited amount of money (consoles, DVD's etc.)
3. Lots of people (like myself) are not buying CD's because they are criplled with copy-protection
4. Modern music is simply not worth buying. Crappy generic bands with crappy generic songs.

So coule you PLEASE finally tell me what you are trying to say?

i was refuting your statements made in the context of the bolded part of syberscott's post.

And my reply was to state the legal fact that downloading music is not stealing. Yes, it's against the law, but it's not stealing

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Why hasn't the price of CD's come down? I mean, blank CD-R's cost a fraction what they used to. Just about all tech gets cheaper as they mature, why hasn't that happened to music-CD's?

because music is not a commodity in an extremely competitive market.

In other words: "Because they are controlled by a cartel that is involved in price-fixing".

so every product that isn't a commodity in an extremely competive market is price fixed? i'm not going to argue that the music industry has done some pretty unscrupulous things, including price fixing, because they have, but prices don't have to come down.

HNo, not every industry is involved in price-fixing, but like you yourself said, music-industry is

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
You have not shown that CD have been getting cheaper. You just showed bunch of statistics from fed. Fact remians that CD's have been going up in price while costs to make CD's have come crashing down.

jesus christ dude... if the NOMINAL price increase of a product is lower than the NOMINAL price increase of the dollar than the REAL price of the product is falling. and i've shown that. i mean, you might as well argue that gas at $1.25 today is more expensive than gas in 1990 $1.15.

True, but the actual price (the sticker-price) of the product has not come down, even though the actual costs to make the product has come crashing down. you can't deny that. I would guess that price of manufacturing CD's has dropped by about 95% since 1985, yet consumers have not seen one dime of that. CD's started out as a hi-end alternative to tapes and LP's. When tapes and LP's were killed and CD's took their place, the price was not adjusted to match the new role of CD, it remained the same, even though the product it was replacing cost about half of what CD's did, and cost to manufacture CD's was lower than cost of manufacturing of LP's or tapes and it was dropping every year.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77
And my reply was to state the legal fact that downloading music is not stealing. Yes, it's against the law, but it's not stealing

only 1 part of your 9 part post, another 4 of which i've also been refuting. the legal fact is its copyright infringement. semantics.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

HNo, not every industry is involved in price-fixing, but like you yourself said, music-industry is

so? like i said, its not perfectly competitve, hell, many of the products aren't even close substitutes to the people who buy them. sure, i might not be able to distinguish between n'sync and the backstreet boys, but someone who is willing to pay for their music certainly can. still doesn't mean that the price of a CD, absent collusion, must come down (though they did between the 1991 and 2001 period)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

True, but the actual price (the sticker-price) of the product has not come down, even though the actual costs to make the product has come crashing down. you can't deny that. I would guess that price of manufacturing CD's has dropped by about 95% since 1985, yet consumers have not seen one dime of that. CD's started out as a hi-end alternative to tapes and LP's. When tapes and LP's were killed and CD's took their place, the price was not adjusted to match the new role of CD, it remained the same, even though the product it was replacing cost about half of what CD's did, and cost to manufacture CD's was lower than cost of manufacturing of LP's or tapes and it was dropping every year.

no, the ACTUAL price is NOT the sticker price, its the REAL price. which DID go down between 1991 and 2001. the STICKER price is the NOMINAL price. arguing nominal price increases is completely absolutely POINTLESS. you CAN'T compare nominal prices of two years with some amount of inflation between the two.

heres another example. i live in the US. we use feet to express our height. i'm about 6 feet tall. if i go to someplace meters are used to express height, i'm about 1.85 meters tall. am i shorter? no! the units i'm using to measure with changed, i didn't! its the same thing comparing dollar values between 1991 and 2001. they're called the same thing, but they are NOT the same units.

no, the price of a CD did not drop by the amount its manufacturing cost did, but theres no law that says that all things must drop in price to match any price drops in cost.

 

[SP33Demon]

Interesting debate here fellas. I might be able to clear through the smoke for you guys... The price of CD's will not go down UNTIL DVD'S (with extras) ARE THE NEXT FORM OF DISTRIBUTION FOR MUSIC. This may never even happen? Only then will CD's drop... look at the cassette tape. The same thing happened, when CD's came out cassettes went from like 10-12 bux apiece down to what, 6 or 7 now?

Another reason CD's have not dropped in price is because you're paying FOR THE MARKETING. Until greedy corporations decide to lower the marketing costs and increase the profit percentage to the artist, CD's WILL NOT DROP IN PRICE. The artist needs the corporation to get his/her exposure, and the corporation needs the artist. It's purely consensual, and maybe this hierarchy needs to change before a revolution in the prices of CD's drop.

One last note: ElFENIX, the price of CD's still is on avg $15-17, I think you're wrong. When u peruse the aisles, you only see the promo stuff like Metallica on sale for say $11.99 because it's popular and they're using the price as a gimmick. For any other CD that's NOT pop rock (this comprises like over 90% of music in the world) it will be $15-17. A good example is HERE. The new John Mellencamp is still $14.99 PLUS SHIPPING!!

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
One last note: ElFENIX, the price of CD's still is on avg $15-17, I think you're wrong. When u peruse the aisles, you only see the promo stuff like Metallica on sale for say $11.99 because it's popular and they're using the price as a gimmick. For any other CD that's NOT pop rock (this comprises like over 90% of music in the world) it will be $15-17. A good example is HERE. The new John Mellencamp is still $14.99 PLUS SHIPPING!!

which is still lower than the $20 that was claimed in the one article and the range is mostly lower than the $16.98 (soon to be $17.98!) claimed in the other article. i didn't claim that CDs were any specific price, either. so, no, going by what you've presented i'm not wrong at all about the first article and maybe only a little wrong with the other (though with how long ago it was written you'd have expected those $18 CDs already).

if you're paying for shipping thats you're own damn fault. go to the store and get it

 

[jjones]

I'm glad people are stealing from the RIAA. It's payback for them stealing from me for every blank CD I buy.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jjones
I'm glad people are stealing from the RIAA. It's payback for them stealing from me for every blank CD I buy.

its the israeli-palestinian conflict of the US!

 

[KC5AV]

.