Quote:
Originally Posted by djfierce
I record, produce and distribute bands/artists. I know full well what the costs are. Yes the hard copy costs are not so big, but there seems to be a misunderstanding that digital releasing is super cheap, it isn't, it's cheaper yes, but that's reflected in the cheaper price of the product. However that theory doesn't work when you can buy the cd at the same price also, cds spend very little time these days at full price before being cut down to almost half their price, the shop doesn't take that hit, the label does and in turn the artist does. Cd volume sales are not as bad as the public perceive them to be or are being led to believe, the revenue from them is, it's a big difference. That's what's hurting the presence of the physical product, fans know that even with big artists, they just have to wait maybe less than a month, bam the cd is reduced or thrown in a multibuy offer. As popular as Adele's album was, only 3 weeks after it's release, you could buy it from HMV at £6 that's £1.99 less than the download price.
So while i agree in part with the costs are less argument it's not entirely the case accross the board.
But my main point for comparison of prices was the perception of cost from the consumer standpoint being that the current prices are too high when in fact from a consumer point of view it is much cheaper than it ever was to purchase an album or single :0) which should be great, because it should mean that more people are buying music, but because of these sites it means the opposite, people feel more entitled to music now than they ever have, it's a shame.
|
I agree with you that on the whole, music has become cheaper to buy - probably cheaper in real terms than it has ever been and the "too expensive" argument to justify ripping off copyright is utter nonsense. I do still feel that copyright has always been infringed via cassette though - I think the major difference is that it was done in a localised way - at least someone of a group of friends would have to buy it then mates would copy/ share and lend - if you really wanted something you would buy it though - borrowing and copying albums was usually artists you were less familiar with and wouldn't spend the cash upfront in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you'd heard a friend's copy or on the radio for free first. Also, the copy was never the same sound quality as the original. With the technology available now one person can obtain the work and potentially share it with millions for free, with no loss of quality thus seriously affecting sales.
The stats do suggest it is still possible to sell a million copies of a song though. 10 artists have in the last 2 years in the U.K. - that's about 1 in 50 in the entire population that have actually parted with cash for it.
When I was broke, I bought a lot of second hand C.D.'s and Vinyl from boot-sales, record conventions etc....
Should that be seen as copyright theft also? I know legally it is fine, but when a disc is re-sold, another person gets use of it with no cash going to the artist. Can;t help back-catalogue sales, but then often new back-catalogue discs are as cheap as buying secondhand nowadays.