Universal to Sell CDs for $10 - Duh.

jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
I'm aware of the benefits of a CD vs. a download, but my question was why the label would care which version was purchased?
It could be the digital distribution lets some of the air out of the 'Hollywood' accounting practices that are used to determine payouts to the artist.

Just my guess.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
.

Do you really think I was saying that it is illegal to transcode music that you own? Did you totally miss the illegal part? HOW, HOW can you miss the illegal part with what he suggests?:mad:
So lets review this for clarity purposes.

He's ripping the CD to make himself a copy. He mentioned nothing about sharing the files out on the internet. Nothing illegal there.
He sells the CD into the used market. Nothing illegal there either.

He did pay for the CD therefore paying all the royalties against for the CD. I don't what's illegal with this practise.

And as far as I'm concerned the RIAAA are a bunch of fat bottomed impotent sheisters that screw the artist out their fair share anyway. Thats a topic for another thread anway.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
It could be the digital distribution lets some of the air out of the 'Hollywood' accounting practices that are used to determine payouts to the artist.

Just my guess.
translated means the fat copr bastards can't stick it the artists as well. Poor bast?rds
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
I don't get that. Piracy thrived in the days of the CD. You rip it, you pirate it (like our friend upthread who rips then sells his CDs - piracy!).
But a purchased download is not a pirated version. I interpreted, perhaps erroneously, that Universal was dropping CD prices to compete with legal, purchased downloads.
I know we are bunch of EDUCATED and TECH SAVVY People, who know exactly there is no technical difference between audio on cd and bunch of wav files on hard drive and it's easy to transform from one form to another. Are you so far with me?

Now, studio think very differently - CD is physical, tangible object, like a book - you can't read it at same time at two different places, thus if two people want to "read" they HAVE to buy two CDs.

However in their heads - it's extremely easy to make infinite amount of perfect copies of music files, thus killing their profits. Therefore they brought us the most hated technology ever produced on earth - DRM.

You'd argue and tell me making copy of CD is almost as equally easy - I know, but studios don't get it .....
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
So lets review this for clarity purposes.

He's ripping the CD to make himself a copy. He mentioned nothing about sharing the files out on the internet. Nothing illegal there.
He sells the CD into the used market. Nothing illegal there either.

He did pay for the CD therefore paying all the royalties against for the CD. I don't what's illegal with this practise.

And as far as I'm concerned the RIAAA are a bunch of fat bottomed impotent sheisters that screw the artist out their fair share anyway. Thats a topic for another thread anway.

WOW. I really don't know what to say to someone that doesn't see the issue with that.

The CD is just a delivery mechanism that happens to retain it's content. You are keeping something that you no longer have a legal right to. When you sell a CD or DVD you aren't supposed to retain any material in an form.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
WOW. I really don't know what to say to someone that doesn't see the issue with that.

The CD is just a delivery mechanism that happens to retain it's content. You are keeping something that you no longer have a legal right to. When you sell a CD or DVD you aren't supposed to retain any material in an form.
Ok.. that part I understand now. As long as he deletes his ripped files, then everything is above board. Still thats a pretty harsh thing to say and a bit slef righteous IMO. Child molesters are bottom feeders whcih is a far cry from ripping of the rich fat corps at the RIAA who stick it to the artist.

As far as I'm concerned the RIAA is as useless as unions. They are in teh makrket top serve themselfs withouit having the best interets of the people they represent at heart.
 
Last edited:
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
Wow.. So all the used CD stores and vinyl stores are acting illegaly? Is that what I'm hearing? Selling CDs in a yard sale must be illegal then too.
No, not at all. You are making some wide ranging assumptions.

The stores are acting 100% in good faith. The bad actor is potentially the person selling the CD/DVD.
 
Serj22

Serj22

Full Audioholic
I don't get that. Piracy thrived in the days of the CD. You rip it, you pirate it (like our friend upthread who rips then sells his CDs - piracy!).
Did no one catch the part where I said I DONT do that?:rolleyes: I said people do it. I have every single one of my Cd's that I ever bought, and I also have digital copies of them. The only CD I sold back was that one Disturbed Cd, because out of the 400+ Cd's I have, it was the worst one I had ever heard, and I did not copy it.

Also, one would think, when purchasing a CD, some of the money goes to the label and some goes to the overhead of the store. When selling a used CD, the overhead goes only to the store, unless there was some way of controlling that. A CD that cost $14.00 many moons ago, then sells to a store for $0.50, then gets marked up to $5.00. I'm pretty sure all $4.50 go to the store and none of it makes it back to the label, unless I'm wrong, and if that's the case, then the company got the money, and now you're just allowing someone else to enjoy it for a lower price. I do not see how keeping your copy on PC or whatever would be bad, because you bought the medium in the first place. It just doesn't seem to fit together. Also, keep in mind I'm not defending anything, just discussing it for clarity.
 
Last edited:
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Did no one catch the part where I said I DONT do that?:rolleyes: I said people do it. I have every single one of my Cd's that I ever bought, and I also have digital copies of them. The only CD I sold back was that one Disturbed Cd, because out of the 400+ Cd's I have, it was the worst one I had ever heard, and I did not copy it.
No worries. Some people jump to quick including myself. I had posted a response to the moderator and then edited after I re-read his response. He should have caught what you said as well. ;)
 
W

westcott

Audioholic General
So there has to be a catch. What is it Clint. Hidden security files, disc will only play 10 times, trojan horses, no jewel case or artwork, some kind of 7 day waiting period and registration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has to be something hair brained. Nothing the music industry does is so straight forward as this.
 
F

fredk

Audioholic General
Did no one catch the part where I said I DONT do that?:rolleyes: I said people do it.
You also said it was legal to keep the content AND sell it. To those of us who have been around the block more than once, you're second post sounds a lot like backpedaling.

I do not see how keeping your copy on PC or whatever would be bad, because you bought the medium in the first place. It just doesn't seem to fit together. Also, keep in mind I'm not defending anything, just discussing it for clarity.
If you want to own a disc, you can buy those blank for a buck. The other 13 is for the privilege of owning and listening to the content. Years ago, under fair use, it was established that if you got tired of the content, you could sell it on to someone else so that they could enjoy it.

You cannot separate the disc and the content. Together they form the product you bought. When you sell the product, you give up the right to the content as it is an inseparable part of the product.

The accounting for who gets what in a resale is not relevant. If you sell your car to someone else, the company that made it does not get a share of that sale either. Nor do you still have the right to drive that car after you have sold it. Its pretty simple

Personally I don't care if people pirate music. 100% of the money from sales, disc or download, goes to the retailer and the label. Artists see nothing from that transaction. The big labels have been screwing their artists from the day this business got started. Often they do not even pay the royalties they contractually agree to. There was an article here on audioholics a couple of years ago where it was found that greater than 50% of the software Sony was using in its headquarters in Europe was pirated. The labels get no sympathy from me.

To me, it looks like the indy scene is getting bigger and more viable. The big studio's days are numbered. This price drop is a desperation measure because the studio finally figured out that no matter what they do, people will find a way to obtain and use the content the way they want to.
 
Cristofori

Cristofori

Audioholic
This is great news for those of us who still care, and about high time the prices of music came down. The good thing is that other record companies may follow suit with a similar plan. This may become an industry standard, and no one will want to be left out in the cold! :)

I consider a physical recording to be a package deal. I don't just get the music, I get the liner notes, technical info, beautiful artwork, etc. There is no substitute for getting a fresh CD or LP in your hand, opening it up and reveling in it! :cool:

I can understand someone downloading the one hit wonders or pop diddies, but being a big classical fan, that kind of music is too complex to download, edit, burn, etc., and I usually listen to a large portion (if not all) of the CD's anyway. The only exceptions I might make is if a certain recording I really want is not available in any other way, but they will be few and far between.

Then there is the issue with questionable sound quality, viruses and other potential problems associated with downloading. Plus, I already spend too much time on the CPU already. I would rather not conduct my entire life in cyberspace thank you very much. :(

I will continue to buy new CD's/LP's until I cannot easily buy them anymore, and then I may stop buying new product altogether. There is a seemingly never ending supply of used stuff out there, and by that time I will already have enough music to last several life times.
 
Serj22

Serj22

Full Audioholic
...
You cannot separate the disc and the content. Together they form the product you bought. When you sell the product, you give up the right to the content as it is an inseparable part of the product.

The accounting for who gets what in a resale is not relevant. If you sell your car to someone else, the company that made it does not get a share of that sale either. Nor do you still have the right to drive that car after you have sold it. Its pretty simple

...
I see, when you put it that way, it definitly makes sense.
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
I will happily pay $10 for a CD with uncompressed audio on it. However, I'm still waiting for mass market lossless downloads.
 
sgtpepper9

sgtpepper9

Audioholic
I see, when you put it that way, it definitly makes sense.
Don't get intimidated and change your mind just because someone on here rudely insults your opinion. I see nothing wrong with ripping the CD and later selling it. If it was so important, they would make it so that the CD couldn't be ripped at all. They already got your money. I could care less about Universal selling CDs for $10. The artists still aren't getting squat. If you want to support a musician, go see them live, buy an album and a t-shirt at the show. At least you can put the money in their hands.

I just had to stick up for Serj, it was completely out of line to insult him that way.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top