View Full Version : Are We Being Ripped Off?
I've just bought the latest edition of Mojo magazine and there is a fantastic letter on the 'Theories, rants, etc.' page.
I've been unable to find it on the Mojo site so I've transcribed it myself below. If this infringes any forum rules I do apologise. If indeed so, then please take the necessary action.
For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with every sentiment of the letter and I'm posting it here for discussion.
Open up your hearts and wallets
I'm one of those middle-aged men who illegally downloads music from the internet. I bought my first record deck five decades ago. Since then I have bought, traded and collected in all formats - I have an important job, but music is my passion. My house is stuffed with music, including the home-made tapes the record companies told me in the 80's would kill music, remastered versions of CDs I bought as upgrades from vinyl I bought previously and often still have, special editions of albums I already have with added tracks at premium prices drawn from off-cuts never intended for release, and so on. While I attend way less concerts now the prices have got silly, my music budget is still as much as I can afford. I also have stacks of CDR bootlegs that have actually denied the artists nothing as they are not available officially. If they were, I'd buy them.
The most consistent feature of the past 50 years is record companies trying to justify overcharging. Probably the best example is The Beatles. Peerless in every way- I have bought every LP, single, EP, CD imports, everything released by each individual Beatle (except some of the later Ringo stuff - sorry Ringo). I will probably even shell out £150-plus for the top-priced remastered stereo set without added bonus tracks. I won't be parting with almost £200 for the mono version on top though but I have found a download site and have 'stolen' it. Given the latest of the set was recorded nearly 40 years ago and remastering has meant not a single soul has picked up a single instrument, how on earth can this pricing be justified? Further examples are myriad.
I now avoid MP3 downloads that are expensive as the CD. I recall the justification fro the excessive pricing of CDs as the cost of packaging, transport etc. Charge me a fair price for a decent product that doesn't ask me to re-buy at premium rate things I have already paid for and you'll win my heart, my money and my thanks. Keep taking the piss and I will download what I can't afford and scour second-hand shops, ebay, boot sales and charity shops to avoid lining the pockets of the greedy bastards whose excuses for ripping me off have grown increasingly thin as the decades pass.
To the artists, my message is to remember that while the record companies write the cheques it's people like me who supply the money. One way or another I'll spend my money on music. How your record companies treat me as a customer will determine how much of it makes it's way to you. It'll come as no surprise I would prefer to remain anonymous. Such is the animosity of the unjustly self-righteous.
Anon, somewhere in the east of England.
Why do we buy reissued albums that contain a few extra tracks when we already own the original? Make those extra tracks available for us.
By the way, I did NOT write this letter :)
I also wholeheartedly agree with the author of the letter.
Substitute The Beatles for Pink Floyd and that letter could have been written by me.
BTW,what was the response?
I also wholeheartedly agree with the author of the letter.
Substitute The Beatles for Pink Floyd and that letter could have been written by me.
BTW,what was the response?
No response.
No response.
They probably agree with the author as well,but too scared to say.
The Vinyl Adventure
15-12-2009, 15:34
i mentioned this on the naim forum once.. i nearly got banned, that particular well known naim forum mod had a right mare at me
i agree too by the way. a chap i know was going to make me a copy of a high rez file ripped from a sacd that i already owned on cd.. mentioned that on naim forum ... all hell broke loose
Music "piracy" is a rich countries' concept... It makes no sense on 95% of this planet.
Think about it. ;)
Rare Bird
15-12-2009, 16:06
Great letter..
I have quite a lot of rare prog stuff that i have illegally downloaded from blogs people have put up on the net, taken from the old vinyls..Do i feel guilty! Do a farkers loike..If you can't buy em on CD what am i suppose to do, go without? You ask a major record company that owns the rights to the recordings to release em, what reply do you get ''Well it's not worth our while, the smallish sales would not justify issuing em''it is it's just they are greedy..Till one of these tiny firms get rights to issuing say 500/1000 batches of said recordings nothing i can do, the chances of them getting issued is very slight anyway, but it's still against the law to download the albums..So bollox to them in a nut shell.This is just one instance.
I have bought many thousands of LPs, and nearly a thousand CDs brand new.
However, due to health problems and the associated lack of funds I can rarely afford to buy LPs (my prefered format) these days, except for the occasional splash out on Ebay. By buying music on ebay, not one penny goes to the record company or copyright owner.
I also download music (high quality FLAC files). And again, not one penny goes to the record company or the artist. How different is my downloading to buying on ebay? Why should one be legal and the other illegal? It's illogical . . .
Are the record companies loosing any money from me? No, because I can't afford to buy new music. Do I feel guilty about cheating the record companies or the artists by not buying new? NO. I have spent many thousands of pounds buying new. They've already had more profit from me than from the majority of people out there.
And what about Spotify? How much money gets paid to the artists? Very little. The record companies grab most of the profits for themselves. And remember the recording contracts signed in the 60's and 70's. The artists themselves got pennies.
The prices of the new Beatles set. Pure greed. If they'd sold the sets for £20 they'd still be making a tidy profit - probably more of a profit as they'd sell more.
As for the price of 'audiophile' LPs, well, I feel it can be partly justified, more so than a similar price for audiophile CDs.
£10 album downloads? No printing/pressing costs, no distribution costs. Total rip off. And anyway, most modern 'chart' music is so compressed its frankly unlistenable. Not that I would want to listen to most of it anyway.
My housemate recently bought the MJ 'This is it' Cd. She thought (quite logically) that this was a soundtrack from the 'This is it' film. It's not. It's a glorified 'best of' with a couple of new tracks thrown in. She said she felt conned. And the tracks are very compressed and badly re-eq'd compared to the originals. Even she could hear the difference, and she's half deaf (seriously, she is). Her verdict on her purchase? Waste of money. It'll be a while before she thinks about buying a new CD again . . .
P.s. I've bought more music since joining AOS (thanks to the 'listening to now' thread) than I have in the previous year. What does that tell the record companies and artists? How many record companies or artists are members of this forum? I can guess the answer . .
Peter Galbavy
15-12-2009, 16:34
I buy 99.9% of everything I listen to (that's not a radio or other broadcast). The stuff I don't buy is either borrowed to listen to from friends or simply not available. It irritates me that when a CD breaks or is damaged I cannot get it replaced minus the IP cost.
IMHO There should be a clear defense in law against "personal" copyright infringment (aka part of a Fair Use defense) when a rights holder stops making something available to the general public through publication or some other similar distribution mechanism.
Rare Bird
15-12-2009, 16:57
Is it not true that if a product hasnt had it's patent re newed for over ten years anyone can copy the design! I was also under the impression if a certain album hasnt had a re-issue for over the same period it's public domain! So why is illegal to down load a 40 year old album thats been deleted with no re-issues since the 70's?
I read that the Beatles' catalogue is regarded as EMI's "Crown Jewels," in other words, a cash cow for the record company. A shame that ALL digital releases don't get the TLC that the Beatles' recordings had in recent years.
I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.
I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.
Well, LPs produced now are still cheaper than the equivalent CD issues. For instance, the last Pacebo is cheaper as a LP (with the DVD in it) than the same CD+DVD pack.
Go figure... ;)
Rare Bird
15-12-2009, 17:08
I must say in defence that CD's are much cheaper now than new LP's (with inflation) would have cost if mass produced today.
Dunno dave the music i buy i have to import, without the shipping your talking £14 quidish..
I downloaded loads of Beach Boys stuff from the Smile sessions from a fan blog. You can't buy that stuff, so it's not stealing, it's sharing. Listening to that has given me a greater appreciation of the Beach Boys which has lead to more actual purchases of theirs and Brian Wilson's CDs. So, go figure.
Griffster
15-12-2009, 22:19
Webby, a mate of mine introduced me to the Zappateers forum which operates on a similar principle. If it was ever released by Zappa then it's a big no-no, but anything else, bootlegs, interviews, TV footage etc, which hasn't ever been available to buy, then it's "there for the share". I applaud this approach, it shows respect for the artist.
For what it's worth, I wholly support everything that was said in the letter. I believe that artists deserve to be paid for their music. But I also think that the record labels have demonstrated time and again that they are greedy, and the perceived legitimisation of downloading and torrents is the direct result. The record labels are reaping what they've sown and deserve every bit of it.
Stuff 'em!
For the record, I don't actually illegally download music, I prefer to own the physical media, with a few exceptions bought through iTunes in the past.
One point of the letter that really got me thinking was that of remasters and why we buy them when we own the original recordings, be that on CD or LP.
I've bought remastered CDs by U2, Simple Minds, and The Beatles amongst others. I'm sure there are many here who have bought many, many more. Why is a recording remastered? Seems to me an admission that the original wasn't mastered as good as it could have been. Or of course newer technology enables to improve the master. I don't know the technicalities of it to be fair. However, the question remains; why do we have to pay twice?
Recently, iTunes introduced iTunes Plus; a bit rate of 256kbps (less the DRM) instead of the previous 128kbps. If you'd purchased tracks at 128, you could upgrade them to 256 for a nominal fee. 30p I think it was, so roughly 35% premium for twice the quality.
I'd love to take back my U2 CD's and exchange them for the remasters and pay my £3!
Rare Bird
15-12-2009, 23:54
Lee i wouldnt give one pence for a MP-3 download.
I have bought iTunes tracks before but I got a £15 voucher when I bought 2 CD's in Sainsburys once.
Obviously it's the idea of the upgrade price I was highlighting.
Peter Galbavy
16-12-2009, 08:22
Is it not true that if a product hasnt had it's patent re newed for over ten years anyone can copy the design! I was also under the impression if a certain album hasnt had a re-issue for over the same period it's public domain! So why is illegal to down load a 40 year old album thats been deleted with no re-issues since the 70's?
Nope. The area of IP (Intellectual Property) is a hobby of mine. I am not a legal professional so anything I say may be worth what you paid for it. That said, there are a number of different types of protection in the UK which is nicely summarised in the title of the primary legislation in use, the "Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1984". This has been supplemented and enhanced over the years but fundementally Copyright exists in works which are "creative" while patents exist on "inventions". Design and Database rights also exist with specific focus.
In history Copyrights were first issued AFAICR in the reign of Liz I as a social contract to allow authors and publishers the protection of the law which up until then was a free for all. The idea being that if you publish a work then you get legal protection for a number of years in *exchange* for that work becoming public domain after that time. Patents have a longer history and are about giving someone an exclusive to exploit a specific technology for a time period.
IMHO the problem of Copyrights in this day and age is the "Disney effect" where large media companies have lobbied internationally for ever increasing timescales for protection without the flip-side of the work becoming public property,ever. The original timescales of about 17 years (I am not sure what the very early timescales were) was about half the working life of the author/publisher, but now for most works it's 90 year longer than the life of the original creator. Hmm.
Oh, in the UK there is no defense of "Fair Use" unlike in the US and some other countries. By ripping a CD you are effectively breaking terms of the CDPA. It's the elephant in the room for the media companies, and this is one reason they really want to get us downloading rather than buying physical media because thenthey can start lobbying for enforcement against ripping CDs at home.
Rare Bird
16-12-2009, 19:08
Are you saying that if i rip all my CD to FLAC files i'm breaking the law?
I'm also breaking the law downloading a 40 year old vinyl burn thats never had a CD released or a vinyl re issue for around 30 years?
Are you saying that if i rip all my CD to FLAC files i'm breaking the law?
I'm also breaking the law downloading a 40 year old vinyl burn thats never had a CD released or a vinyl re issue for around 30 years?
My understanding is that both of those are infringements of copyright and yes, therefore illegal. I believe it is something of a myth that you are allowed to make "personal copies" - though it is extremely unlikely anyone would be prosecuted if they have an original.
Rare Bird
16-12-2009, 22:02
Therefore borrowing a friend you CD is illegal, posting You music clips on AOS from You tube is illegal.
The hifi dealership that gives you a demo playing a CD to the general public in doing so is also illegal. Playing your CD's with the roof back in your car so all the public can hear is illegal etc etc
Private copying etc are very controversial view of "infringment" : won't stand a single chance in court. ;)
It's simply the way some firms would dream it to be. :lol:
It's all a load of old Bollocks isn't it?
Home taping never killed music like they said it would. Poor mastering and compression is killing music. Lack of choice for the consumer is killing music. Constant reissues that fleece the buyer are killing music. Cos one day, we'll stop buying and start sharing.
It's all a load of old Bollocks isn't it?
Home taping never killed music like they said it would. Poor mastering and compression is killing music. Lack of choice for the consumer is killing music. Constant reissues that fleece the buyer are killing music. Cos one day, we'll stop buying and start sharing.
Well said. ;)
aquapiranha
16-12-2009, 22:53
Well said. ;)
+1
Rare Bird
16-12-2009, 22:58
aye
aquapiranha
16-12-2009, 23:02
i have read recently that surveys report people who illegally download music ALSO buy twice as much music legally!
I must admit, when I used to use pandora I bought more just through listening to more...
Peter Galbavy
17-12-2009, 10:02
Simply put, organised lobby groups like the music and film industries have very very large international budgets to "help steer" politicians into writing laws that server their interests. Consumers generally have very little support, except oddly in the EU where consumer law is getting better - but even there the recent noises around IP protection and the "digital age" are sounding ominous.
The secret, confidential treaty discussions going on right now to decide the international future of Copyright - in the name of anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy - look to be ready to screw us, the consumer, even harder.
Therefore borrowing a friend you CD is illegal, posting You music clips on AOS from You tube is illegal.
The hifi dealership that gives you a demo playing a CD to the general public in doing so is also illegal. Playing your CD's with the roof back in your car so all the public can hear is illegal etc etc
Playing it is entirely different to copying it Andre - pubs, clubs, shops, village halls all need a PRS licence, if they play music that the public can hear (you even need one for "on hold" music) so I guess the dealers would need one, borrowing a CD is fine though, as far as I understand it as long as not copied. Re. You Tube, it depends on copyright of the original same as anything - but quite possibly yes, that is illegal if the copyright owner hasn't given their permission.
Peter Galbavy
17-12-2009, 13:05
Actually, technically you need permission from the Copyright holder or it's assignees - which is what any Performing Rights Society is. If my musician friend gives me (written) permission to play there music in my pub/shop/club etc. then that's a private arranegment. The law allows these collection societies to act as an umbrella even for act they have not made an agreement with to collect rolyaties. They then take their ludicrous cut and distribute the leftovers to the record companies that have the biggest names and the real musicians get to fight over the scraps, wait years for their share and generally starve.
Me, a fan of PRS, MCPS etc. ? Hmm. Not that I a musician or similar, I just know a few...
Hey, my newborn baby is a boy. Can he wear his big brother's clothes or are we not allowed to share them?
Can I lend my car to my Dad for the day (assuming he's insured)?
Peter Galbavy
18-12-2009, 09:37
Hey, my newborn baby is a boy. Can he wear his big brother's clothes or are we not allowed to share them?
If it's a designer label, they appear to be trying very hard to stop this kind of "brand dilution". See how Tesco's can't import branded jeans from another EU country and resell at a big discount ? See how people can't resell *genuine* perfumes on eBay by the big expensive brands ? The EU is supposed to be about free trade and open borders, but only in theory.
Can I lend my car to my Dad for the day (assuming he's insured)?
Modern cars are full of software which you only license. We are probably in the ludicrous situation that some moronic company will try to impose use and resale restrictions on this one day soon.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.