RIAA Demands YouTube Pirates Personal Details

nilepez said:
I'm not a fan of the RIAA, but far too many people claim that d/l doesn't matter, and it does. Albums that would have sold 10 million a decade ago are lucky to sell a million. .
Click to expand...
And that's because we no longer have to buy the whole damn album of shit songs to get the one song we want. RIAA made sure for years that the best songs were welded to a pile of crap songs so you had to buy 12 songs when you only wanted one. I own 1500 cd's as proof of that, and that doesn't include all the vinyl albums purchased for much the same reasons. The 'album cut' was the song everyone wanted. And the only way to get it for about 40 years was to buy said album. So now artists are hurt by the practices of those who went before them, the practice of ramming sh!t down our throats in order for us to taste the one bite of sweets. Well, sorry, RIAA and all the artists with them, welcome back to reality and selling things for what they're worth, and often, losing sales because your very selling method created the piracy that you hate so much. Consider that had you sold single songs for oh, 99 cents back in the 90's, then down to 50 cents for a download when the means became available, napster and all the file sharing progs would probably never have been invented. Your own greed created the means for your downfall.
 
nightfly said:
And that's because we no longer have to buy the whole damn album of shit songs to get the one song we want. RIAA made sure for years that the best songs were welded to a pile of crap songs so you had to buy 12 songs when you only wanted one. I own 1500 cd's as proof of that, and that doesn't include all the vinyl albums purchased for much the same reasons. The 'album cut' was the song everyone wanted. And the only way to get it for about 40 years was to buy said album. So now artists are hurt by the practices of those who went before them, the practice of ramming sh!t down our throats in order for us to taste the one bite of sweets. Well, sorry, RIAA and all the artists with them, welcome back to reality and selling things for what they're worth, and often, losing sales because your very selling method created the piracy that you hate so much. Consider that had you sold single songs for oh, 99 cents back in the 90's, then down to 50 cents for a download when the means became available, napster and all the file sharing progs would probably never have been invented. Your own greed created the means for your downfall.
Click to expand...

Wait the album cut? Which album cut are you referring to? I just don't know many albums where I bought it because it had a song that wasn't on a single. There certainly wasn't a lack of singles in the 70s and 80s (more of an issue in the 90s, though as an album buyer, I only looked at singles if they had a b-side that I wanted.

To this day, i never buy songs. If an artist doesn't have a good album, i really don't care that they have a great song.

As for a buck for a song, come on. That's a ridiculous price point. It's only that cheap now because of piracy. If you didn't have to compete against free, the price would be at least 4x that price. From what I can tell, singles were around 2 bucks (give or take) in the late 70's. Albums were around 6-$8.00 (the higher end being the mall price). Let's just say a copy of Hotel California was 6 bucks.

So $6.00 in 1977 is $22.75 today. Assuming 1.50 for a single that's roughly $5.70 today. Yeah you got 2 songs, but unless it was a double A single you paid almost 6x as much for a song.

And as always, unless you liked virtually nothing on the album, you were better off buying the album. 4-5 songs and you'd paid as much, or more, than the album cost.

If music wasn't so hugely devalued by free, a single would cost much more now. It might not be 4x, simply because you're buying a crappy MP3 and there's slightly lower cost associated with an MP3 vs a CD or 45(though it's not much less at this point).

File sharing would have been created no matter what. There's plenty of legitimate reasons for it. Regardless, I'm not even against the sharing. I'm against not buying and people don't buy as much music as they did 40 years ago, much less the bubble years when everyone was rebuying their music on CDs (i.e. the late 80s through the 90s)
 
nilepez said:
Wait the album cut? Which album cut are you referring to? I just don't know many albums where I bought it because it had a song that wasn't on a single. There certainly wasn't a lack of singles in the 70s and 80s (more of an issue in the 90s, though as an album buyer, I only looked at singles if they had a b-side that I wanted.

To this day, i never buy songs. If an artist doesn't have a good album, i really don't care that they have a great song.

As for a buck for a song, come on. That's a ridiculous price point. It's only that cheap now because of piracy. If you didn't have to compete against free, the price would be at least 4x that price. From what I can tell, singles were around 2 bucks (give or take) in the late 70's. Albums were around 6-$8.00 (the higher end being the mall price). Let's just say a copy of Hotel California was 6 bucks.

So $6.00 in 1977 is $22.75 today. Assuming 1.50 for a single that's roughly $5.70 today. Yeah you got 2 songs, but unless it was a double A single you paid almost 6x as much for a song.

And as always, unless you liked virtually nothing on the album, you were better off buying the album. 4-5 songs and you'd paid as much, or more, than the album cost.

If music wasn't so hugely devalued by free, a single would cost much more now. It might not be 4x, simply because you're buying a crappy MP3 and there's slightly lower cost associated with an MP3 vs a CD or 45(though it's not much less at this point).

File sharing would have been created no matter what. There's plenty of legitimate reasons for it. Regardless, I'm not even against the sharing. I'm against not buying and people don't buy as much music as they did 40 years ago, much less the bubble years when everyone was rebuying their music on CDs (i.e. the late 80s through the 90s)
Click to expand...
I never paid more than ~ 12.99 for a new CD album. 19.99 for some 2 disc albums, and for popular ones, not some no name Indie in the bargain bun. All before song downloading was viable as a method of piracy. At around 9-11 songs per disc album, that works out to about a buck a song. I don't think piracy had anything to do with that price.
 
I've had spotify premium for almost 30 months consecutively and I also subscribe to SiriusXM. I don't feel bad downloading a few songs or albums here or there, and it's usually older stuff in FLAC anyway. I've paid more than enough music royalty fees lmao.

Now, I did just acquire a record player... this could drain my wallet significantly.
 
teh_chem said:
I never paid more than ~ 12.99 for a new CD album. 19.99 for some 2 disc albums, and for popular ones, not some no name Indie in the bargain bun. All before song downloading was viable as a method of piracy. At around 9-11 songs per disc album, that works out to about a buck a song. I don't think piracy had anything to do with that price.
Click to expand...

An album is buying in bulk. A single is not. Buy in bulk and the cost/unit drop. Also, new albums start at $10.00 or less. In the 90's, Circuit City was about as cheap as CDs got and they charged 12.50 in the first half and 12.99 (maybe more) in the latter half. Eventually that went up more.

Piracy has everything to do with the current price structure. When you're competing against free, you have to lower your prices. If you're selling a gook for 20 bucks and I'm offering everyone a PDF for no charge, you'll have to lower your prices eventually. If it's free, I'll take 3.
 
Maybe you missed my point; the price of an album has not changed from the time just before music downloading was viable until now. The only thing that has changed is the piece meal purchasing of songs vs. whole albums. If your premise is true, album prices would have changed drastically between the period from late 90's until now, which i believe they have not.

Another thing you've overlooked in your analysis of the buck poorer song price point is that it facilitates sales; selling a solid song/track independent of a full album or even a 'single' CD (most of the time a single CD has multiple tracks, and its price reflects that) allows for sales that would not have happened if you had to but a full album.

All piracy did was wise certain people up to the fact that consumers needed a better content delivery system, boor that consumers would refuse to pay for the content. Hence how we have piece meal purchasing and (finally) drm-free downloads. Content is just as expensive as it has been.
 
teh_chem said:
Maybe you missed my point; the price of an album has not changed from the time just before music downloading was viable until now. The only thing that has changed is the piece meal purchasing of songs vs. whole albums. If your premise is true, album prices would have changed drastically between the period from late 90's until now, which i believe they have not.

Another thing you've overlooked in your analysis of the buck poorer song price point is that it facilitates sales; selling a solid song/track independent of a full album or even a 'single' CD (most of the time a single CD has multiple tracks, and its price reflects that) allows for sales that would not have happened if you had to but a full album.

All piracy did was wise certain people up to the fact that consumers needed a better content delivery system, not that consumers would refuse to pay for the content. Hence how we have piece meal purchasing and (finally) drm-free downloads. Content is just as expensive as it has been.
Click to expand...

The prices have gone down. I never got CD's for 5-10 bucks on sale. Now that's the norm. If you adjust for inflation, the price of a CD has dropped from $18.00 in 1999 to to the current prices. The lowest price of a CD was at least 80% more than the Amazon's lowest price for a CD. If you compare it to an MP3 album, it's significantly worse, but I'm sticking with apples to apples.

If you're cherry picking, then you have to compare it to the price of a single and that puts the cost at $4.00 per song. If you're not cherry picking and you're talking about buying actual albums, the price is significantly less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top