If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   GAO says that, contrary to what the RIAA would like you to believe, your mp3 collection isn't worth $10,000,000   (arstechnica.com) divider line 117
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

8129 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Apr 2010 at 3:01 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-04-14 01:39:12 PM
Only if it was performed live by every band.
 
2010-04-14 01:44:19 PM
Are they sure? I do have Nickleback's Greatest Hits.
 
2010-04-14 02:30:37 PM
See, I would have thought my music collection was worth the $100 bucks or so that it would cost to download off of iTunes.
 
2010-04-14 02:33:18 PM
gee, you mean RIAA lied to us? i'm shocked!
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2010-04-14 02:41:03 PM
Maybe not my mp3 collection, but my credit card number collection may be clo ..s ..e

/did I say that out loud?


//Hold on a sec., someone's at the door
 
2010-04-14 02:42:46 PM
[This post has been removed due to a copyright claim by Recording Industry Ass. of America]
 
2010-04-14 03:03:46 PM
Lousy albums and the emergence of video games as a major player for entertainment dollars are the reasons album sales are down.

Illegal copying is happening at the same rate it always has. You think it started with Napster? It's been going since home audio-recording became widespread.
 
2010-04-14 03:06:22 PM
I had a class with one of the guys that got sued for 96 Billion a few years back.

It was asinine then, it's asinine now.

//cool short story bro
 
2010-04-14 03:10:49 PM
Heh...I don't download MP3s. I just have a friend who has all his media on an external hard drive. I borrow that hard drive, transfer everything he has that I want onto it, and give it back.

No file sharing here, just file taking
 
2010-04-14 03:10:52 PM
What if it's stored with half a gram of skunk weed? Is it worth $10 MM then?
 
2010-04-14 03:12:57 PM
soooo... if your house got destroyed, or someone stole your computer, could you take recent RIAA lawsuits to your insurance company as examples of fair market value?
 
2010-04-14 03:17:23 PM
I used to DL a bunch. Most of it I'd listen to once then never again. If I bought everything I downloaded and kept....my out of pocket wouldn't be that much.

/buys it if I like it
//deletes the rest
 
2010-04-14 03:18:52 PM
taylonr: soooo... if your house got destroyed, or someone stole your computer, could you take recent RIAA lawsuits to your insurance company as examples of fair market value?

You'd have to prove that you had them in the first place, and if the RIAA found out, then they'd just sue you for the settlement. It could be as brilliant as having your hand burn down and claiming all the pot in your hydroponic garden as several hundred thousand dollar loss on the insurance claim.
 
2010-04-14 03:19:01 PM
Saborlas: Lousy albums and the emergence of video games as a major player for entertainment dollars are the reasons album sales are down.

Illegal copying is happening at the same rate it always has. You think it started with Napster? It's been going since home audio-recording became widespread.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2010-04-14 03:20:03 PM
You know what made me stop pirating... The lack of music worth pirating.

Good jorb RIAA.
 
2010-04-14 03:22:31 PM
The best part about that number is that it'd only be worth about 1.1 million to the people who actually made the music.
 
2010-04-14 03:23:23 PM
One of the problems in quantifying a collection of mp3s is in the assumption that, if someone didn't download the mp3s illegally, they would have purchased them legally. This isn't true at all. In fact, it's probably the opposite. When people can't get something for free, they won't even bother with it.

On the flip side, there is the assumption by the RIAA and MPAA that people who download music and movies illegally don't also purchase things legally -- and this too has been under the spotlight. It's posited that many people who download things illegally actually spend more money on movies and music than those who buy things legally and don't download illegally.

It's easy to see how that works. Assume two people each with $50 to spend on entertainment. One of these persons will not download illegally. The other will. Both end up spending $50, but the person who downloads illegally finds more music and movies, albeit illegally, and may end up spending, let's say, $65 the next time, whereas the other person is still limited in scope, and spends only $50.

It's obviously not the case for a lot of people -- a lot of people don't have that $50 in the first place, but then that goes back to the first argument -- they were never going to spend it to begin with.

Is it still stealing then? Well, no, it's copying. It would be like going into Barnes & Noble, and instead of stealing the book, you bust out a notebook and write every word down.
 
2010-04-14 03:25:41 PM
The last time I bought a CD was about 12 years ago. I have a couple dozen gigs of downloaded music. I don't care. Screw 'em.
 
2010-04-14 03:26:29 PM
El Chode: The best part about that number is that it'd only be worth about 1.1 million to the people who actually made the music.

That's a generous estimate.

/Really want to support the artist? Concerts and merchandise.
 
2010-04-14 03:27:17 PM
Saborlas: Lousy albums and the emergence of video games as a major player for entertainment dollars are the reasons album sales are down.

Illegal copying is happening at the same rate it always has. You think it started with Napster? It's been going since home audio-recording became widespread.


I'm glad you provided all those links and citations to back up those concrete claims you've made, otherwise people with the slightest bit of critical thinking ability might not take you seriously.
 
2010-04-14 03:28:34 PM
Unless someone will buy it for $10 million, it's hard to see where those numbers came from.

(BTW, if anyone wants to buy a large MP3 collection, let me know.)
 
2010-04-14 03:28:40 PM
In other words... people use the internet (youtube) as a shait avoidance radar.

Also I reserve the right download digital copies of every song that I've bought in another form at one time... tape, record, lost CD.. etc.
 
2010-04-14 03:29:07 PM
A song collection may not be worth that much on the retail market, but they're not looking at the street value of the songs.
 
2010-04-14 03:29:49 PM
Saborlas: Lousy albums and the emergence of video games as a major player for entertainment dollars are the reasons album sales are down.

Illegal copying is happening at the same rate it always has. You think it started with Napster? It's been going since home audio-recording became widespread.


They ignore the monetization of the video game market. What has been the music industry's best friend over the past 5 or 6 years? MUSIC! What do the biggest games have in common? MUSIC! Whether it be actual popular music *Hero games or GTA/Fallout 3/Bioshock, the Industry has been able to monetize in a whole new way. Plus with the development of 360 deals, they're taking even more money out of the pockets of the artists, so what we have a case of is a fat kid with his hand in 4 or 5 cookie jars and complaining no one is spooning ice cream into his mouth.
 
2010-04-14 03:30:26 PM
TheBlackrose: El Chode: The best part about that number is that it'd only be worth about 1.1 million to the people who actually made the music.

That's a generous estimate.

/Really want to support the artist? Concerts and merchandise.


That's just based on the mechanical royalty rate on $10,000,000.

Then again, I'm horrible at math, so I don't stand by this estimate.
 
2010-04-14 03:31:00 PM
Nexzus: The last time I bought a CD was about 12 years ago. I have a couple dozen gigs of downloaded music. I don't care. Screw 'em.

You're a dishonest cheapskate and I wouldn't let you in my house for fear that you may still the good china and linens, but, otherwise.... yea I don't really care either.

It's hard to muster much sympathy for a group of people who seems to think that randomly suing ip addresses and children is an appropriate business model.
 
2010-04-14 03:31:20 PM
The RIAA is preparing a response right now...

img220.imageshack.us
 
2010-04-14 03:32:38 PM
TheBlackrose: /Really want to support the artist? Concerts and merchandise.

Oh, and also, labels are increasingly dipping their hands into these areas especially. Many contracts will call for a 50% of all merchandising cut if the band's attorney doesn't negotiate properly to reduce that. Combine that with a 35% cut taken by the venue, and you can see how quickly that diminishes.

Live music? Traditionally, yes. But new acts with little bargaining power are often forced into 360 deals that absorb up to 25% of their GROSS live performance profits.
 
2010-04-14 03:34:43 PM
If the RIAA wants to stop people from downloading individual songs they should make individual songs easily available and price them according to popularity and demand. Expecting people to shell out $20 for a shiatty CD that has 2 or 3 good tracks is asinine, and is one of the major reasons music piracy exploded when technology made it simple to pirate CDs.
 
2010-04-14 03:35:10 PM
You're 20,000+ John Doe lawsuits too late.
 
2010-04-14 03:36:04 PM
zarberg: If the RIAA wants to stop people from downloading individual songs they should make individual songs easily available and price them according to popularity and demand. Expecting people to shell out $20 for a shiatty CD that has 2 or 3 good tracks is asinine, and is one of the major reasons music piracy exploded when technology made it simple to pirate CDs.

You mean like an online store where people can click without even having to enter a credit card and have the music instantly transferred to their electronic devices?
 
2010-04-14 03:36:35 PM
Spaced Cowboy: You know what made me stop pirating... The lack of music worth pirating.

Good jorb RIAA.


THIS. I stopped listening to the rock stations because I was tired of all of the same songs (not their fault). I started listening again after about 6 months and all of the "new" songs out just sound like rehashes of crap songs already out.
 
2010-04-14 03:39:19 PM
www.ihasafunny.com
 
2010-04-14 03:39:27 PM
FTA:For instance, these studies ignore the obvious points that pirating goods leaves consumers with more disposable income, which is likely spent elsewhere in the economy.

Piracy is not theft, it's a savings account.
 
2010-04-14 03:41:09 PM
Spindle: THIS. I stopped listening to the rock stations because I was tired of all of the same songs (not their fault). I started listening again after about 6 months and all of the "new" songs out just sound like rehashes of crap songs already out.

RIAA doesn't really have a whole lot to do with that...yet. They don't even make that much money directly from radio spins. You can thank ClearChannel for that by having a computer in Milwaukee decide what listeners in Austin want to hear, and converting most genres into a "Top 40" format.

Also, lax payola and other enforcement issues, such as the prohibition against playing the same song x amount of times in y amount of hours. When Timberlake's "Sexy Back" came out I counted 3 plays in under 75 minutes, which I'm pretty sure not only castrated me, but was illegal.
 
2010-04-14 03:42:00 PM
Nice tricycleracer. I'm sure that's been floating around the internet for years, but I've never seen it.

Got a good laugh out of that one.
 
2010-04-14 03:42:12 PM
Spaced Cowboy: You know what made me stop pirating... The lack of music worth pirating.

Good jorb RIAA.


THIS. Dropped it long ago. Which is why the model of how music is delivered has to change, and that's what it's doing. When the RIAA finally bites it, I'll be dancing on their grave.

/LOTS of good music is out there, it's just all live.
 
2010-04-14 03:42:41 PM
El Chode: zarberg: If the RIAA wants to stop people from downloading individual songs they should make individual songs easily available and price them according to popularity and demand. Expecting people to shell out $20 for a shiatty CD that has 2 or 3 good tracks is asinine, and is one of the major reasons music piracy exploded when technology made it simple to pirate CDs.

You mean like an online store where people can click without even having to enter a credit card and have the music instantly transferred to their electronic devices?


A super squishy made entirely or syrup?!? Such a thing does not exist!

All kidding aside ... aren't there more than a handful of bands/factions of the RIAA that have a huge problem with the online music stores?

It just comes across as one of those Governor Tarken tightening his grip and having more shiat slip through his fingers sort of thing; the more the RIAA tries to control what we listen to and how, the more it will bite them in the butt in the end.
 
2010-04-14 03:43:57 PM
Spaced Cowboy: You know what made me stop pirating... The lack of music worth pirating.

Good jorb RIAA.


This

The VAST majority of music that I have added to my collection recently is either free to download (mashups and remixes) or distributed under Creative Commons by the artists themselves with a "pay what you think its worth" policy.

I'm hard pressed to think of a band on a major label that I care enough about to even TRY and pirate their music.
 
2010-04-14 03:44:34 PM
El Chode: You mean like an online store where people can click without even having to enter a credit card and have the music instantly transferred to their electronic devices?

Oh man, you use bittorrent too?
 
2010-04-14 03:47:52 PM
Given the near perpetual copyrights, I used to avoid things that were younger than 30 years. Now, as the public domain has been eroded to a point where it effectively has ceased to exist and the Supreme Court has abrogated its responsiblity, I just don't care anymore.
 
2010-04-14 03:48:55 PM
www.giantrobotinvasion.com
 
2010-04-14 03:51:51 PM
ignite ice: One of the problems in quantifying a collection of mp3s is in the assumption that, if someone didn't download the mp3s illegally, they would have purchased them legally. This isn't true at all. In fact, it's probably the opposite. When people can't get something for free, they won't even bother with it.

On the flip side, there is the assumption by the RIAA and MPAA that people who download music and movies illegally don't also purchase things legally -- and this too has been under the spotlight. It's posited that many people who download things illegally actually spend more money on movies and music than those who buy things legally and don't download illegally.

It's easy to see how that works. Assume two people each with $50 to spend on entertainment. One of these persons will not download illegally. The other will. Both end up spending $50, but the person who downloads illegally finds more music and movies, albeit illegally, and may end up spending, let's say, $65 the next time, whereas the other person is still limited in scope, and spends only $50.

It's obviously not the case for a lot of people -- a lot of people don't have that $50 in the first place, but then that goes back to the first argument -- they were never going to spend it to begin with.

Is it still stealing then? Well, no, it's copying. It would be like going into Barnes & Noble, and instead of stealing the book, you bust out a notebook and write every word down.


Just to add some other scenerios and a bit of a rant:

Lets not discount other forms of downloaders. The guy who reads a few pages of that book, and the guy who just carries it around.

My ex brother in law(my sister just divorced his lazy ass) did almost nothing but compulsively download everything. PC games, programs, movies, music. He spends maybe 1 hr a week using such things, but he's a cyber packrat. Gotta have the last 5 versions of every popular program, for no purpose whatsoever. The downloading is the status symbol, not the content. This is actually a major factor in widely distributed information. People brag about having watched Avatar AT HOME, or having downloaded the latest Photoshop or CAD, whatever. This guy, all he does with movies is scan through them for quality.

My other bro in law(current, different sister) Uses netflix to copy DVD's. He's probably only watched half of them, and only once at that. It's more a matter of convenience and can watch them at leisure, or save the info for viewing at a later date.

Neither of them really utilize what they get to any major extent. They don't "cost" any industry a dime. Even if they loan out or give someone a version of say, photoshop to an aunt to help with scapbooking...

IS any of that money that definitively would be spent? No.

Also, most of the Music I have is MP3's illegally downloaded, sort of. 95% of the CD's of said content I've owned in the past and lost / scratched / partyfouled(changing CD's while drunk and setting them wherever).

IMO, Treat the internet like a library. Books, movies, and even CD's can be found in most libraries, and ones with good computers have many programs on them.

Tack 5$ on everyone's monthly internet bill, and dole that out the way libraries do. That's really what the internet is used for. It's the library without having to wear more than your dirty underwear.

In addition, it's unfiltered and uncensored. You won't get politition X saying Huck Finn has to go because it's homo erotic, or late fees, or a limit on what you take.

(as for programs being used for professional work, well, watermarks, info, restricted output etc, pretty much as things work today. Hobbyists/students can use a plethora of things for free but cannot use them to make money)

Sure, put a stop on pre-release movies and games. I won't argue that, even though in many cases it's still not $$ lost.

Hell, with the lowish quality of most early realeases, treat them all as user reviews. You certainly don't get the whole crisp experience, and if you really like it, you will go see it or pick up the dvd in a month at walmart for 9.99.

/rant
 
2010-04-14 03:52:08 PM
zarberg: El Chode: zarberg: If the RIAA wants to stop people from downloading individual songs they should make individual songs easily available and price them according to popularity and demand. Expecting people to shell out $20 for a shiatty CD that has 2 or 3 good tracks is asinine, and is one of the major reasons music piracy exploded when technology made it simple to pirate CDs.

You mean like an online store where people can click without even having to enter a credit card and have the music instantly transferred to their electronic devices?

A super squishy made entirely or syrup?!? Such a thing does not exist!

All kidding aside ... aren't there more than a handful of bands/factions of the RIAA that have a huge problem with the online music stores?

It just comes across as one of those Governor Tarken tightening his grip and having more shiat slip through his fingers sort of thing; the more the RIAA tries to control what we listen to and how, the more it will bite them in the butt in the end.


Yeah, their problem was that they decided they wanted to control how consumers used their product after it was purchased - which then wasn't a purchase of the song, but instead a license. And as far as I know, every time I purchased a song I wasn't signing a contract detailing the terms of the license of how, where, and when I was using the music (aside from the legal issues involved in copyright). I know you can argue otherwise since it's implied that I can't go publicly performing the music, but that'd be a sophist argument at best.

Anyway, the RIAA's big problem was fighting the technology at first. It was a battle of business models. I'd say that their reluctance to change with the times sort left the barn door open far too long, especially when compared to the MPAA/TV Industry
 
2010-04-14 03:53:02 PM
Remember this?

i236.photobucket.com

I miss when groups of musicians would get together to form a "band" and release "songs" on what were called "albums".
 
2010-04-14 03:53:32 PM
TheWizard: Given the near perpetual copyrights, I used to avoid things that were younger than 30 years. Now, as the public domain has been eroded to a point where it effectively has ceased to exist and the Supreme Court has abrogated its responsiblity, I just don't care anymore.

Unfortunately, Stevens was one of the two Justices who understood that. And now he's gone.
 
2010-04-14 04:00:25 PM
At the going iTunes rate, $10,000,000 at 99¢ per song = 10,101,010 songs.

At about 4MB per song, that's 40,404,040 megabytes.

That's 38.5 terabytes.

So yeah, most people probably don't have that kind of personal collection.

/your bit rate may vary
 
2010-04-14 04:00:58 PM
Of course it isn't worth 10 million. I paid nothing for it. It's worthless.

It's not pirating, I'm just taking the CD for a test drive for a couple of years. Does it count as stealing if I download it and just send a check for $10 to the band?
 
2010-04-14 04:05:50 PM
Lumbar Puncture: Does it count as stealing if I download it and just send a check for $10 to the band?

No no no.

Send $9.50 to the record company and 50 cents to the band.
 
2010-04-14 04:09:03 PM
tricycleracer: Send $9.50 to the record company and 50 cents to the band.

HA! On a 10 song album, assuming the artist on the album is also the songwriter, the rate is 9.1 cents per song.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report