Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Music industry ends mass lawsuits against file sharers, stealing music off internet, combat online music piracy, legal assault, breach of contract, Napster, RIAA headquarters
In 20 years the "music industry" is not going to be around anymore. With the internet artist get mass distribution of their stuff on line- no middle man needed. And few artist really give a crap about the labels anyway because about 95% of what an artist makes is made on the ROAD. Artist make very little from the record company because the record company deducts a massive amount of expenses like promotion, distribution, advertising, studio time, production cost before the artist sees a CENT of money from a record. Then, after that, the artist gets about $1 on a CD that it sells to you for $13. The average artist has to sell about 1.2 million records before they get anything. That is why they are on the road all the time. That is where they make their money. Have you noticed that there are artist that have not made a new record in 30 years but are still touring and packing concert venues (Chicago, Doobie Bros, Allman Bros)?? There is a reason they don't make new records. They didn't make any money off the old records and they don't need to make new ones!
All true. It's also why indie labels have exploded over the past 10 years or so.
You've also got artists like The Alarm or Maria McKee who had a mildly successful career years ago but suffered from the inattention of their labels. So they've simply gone independent. They're still making albums, but they are completely self-made, promoted, and sold.
Well, I am going to play devil's advocate here and say that I for one would like to see people who download music illegally get fined. Sorry! Artist have to eat too. If they sign a deal with a big-label, than it's their prerogative. The artist is in business with the said record company and they sell the work on behalf of the artist and the artist gets a cut. The size of that cut is a matter between the artist and the record company and is of little concern to the consumer.
But, when someone downloads a song illegally, guess what? The artist isn't getting a dime. Artists need to eat to you know, and when someone downloads the song illegally instead of NOT BEING CHEAP and buying the CD, you are denying the said artist their fair share.
And spare me, SPARE ME the tired "but they make their money from live shows!" argument. Every time someone asks this question I just use the same question on them that they can't answer: what about groups that don't perform live? Are they to starve? How many Ambient music groups perform live? Not many. So no one should make money off of ambient music and hence, the only people making it will be a bunch of hobbiest, most of whom suck and the quality of ambient music goes down the tube?
And what about groups that do perform live, but are never live in the area where their "fan" in question lives? I love the German band Corvus Corax but guess what? They've never come to the US on tour. So, if I was one of the downloading hordes, and I only listened to their music illegally from a download, than I would enjoy their product for years without giving the maker of that product (the band) any payment for it...HOW IS THAT NOT THEFT??
Granted, I do believe that the major record companies really need to stop looking at downloading and look at the real reason their sales are going down: THEIR PRODUCT SUCKS! I mean, who is going to spend money on that crap on mainstream radio? Not many. If they started cultivating new artists and new genres instead of just signing "the next big act" to make them short term money, they might get somewhere.
Personally, it would take allot for me to download a song illegally: it would have to be out of print and impossible to find, it would have to be by a band I haave already supported, and have to be something I had really liked. Other than that, I don't mind shelling out the whooping fifteen dollars for a CD.
It all boils down to people being too cheap to buy a CD. Just because it's not a physical CD does not mean it's not theft...if you think so, than please give me your social security number so I can steal your identity because hey, I am not taking the physical social security card so it's not really theft.
But, if their are no lawsuits, than I think the artist should be allowed to post poisened downloads of their current work where ever they want to so that people who are illegally downloading things that they could pay for get viruses on their computers. Once 1/3 of every illegal file on the web makes the downloader's computer trash, downloading will be a thing of the past.
In 20 years the "music industry" is not going to be around anymore. With the internet artist get mass distribution of their stuff on line- no middle man needed. And few artist really give a crap about the labels anyway because about 95% of what an artist makes is made on the ROAD. Artist make very little from the record company because the record company deducts a massive amount of expenses like promotion, distribution, advertising, studio time, production cost before the artist sees a CENT of money from a record. Then, after that, the artist gets about $1 on a CD that it sells to you for $13. The average artist has to sell about 1.2 million records before they get anything. That is why they are on the road all the time. That is where they make their money. Have you noticed that there are artist that have not made a new record in 30 years but are still touring and packing concert venues (Chicago, Doobie Bros, Allman Bros)?? There is a reason they don't make new records. They didn't make any money off the old records and they don't need to make new ones!
And the 1,000,000 dollar question is...what about bands that do not, can not perform live? They don't deserve to get paid? Future sound of London hardly ever performs live, and :Wumpscut: never has, because when you're a one-man electronic project, it's kind of hard to do a live show. So what, artists like that don't deserve to make any money?
And what about groups that do perform live, but are never live in the area where their "fan" in question lives? I love the German band Corvus Corax but guess what? They've never come to the US on tour. So, if I was one of the downloading hordes, and I only listened to their music illegally from a download, than I would enjoy their product for years without giving the maker of that product (the band) any payment for it...HOW IS THAT NOT THEFT??
Well, there's always the T-shirts, the messenger bag, and such. ((Though, I'd love to see E Nomine live... that would be my dream concert)) You do have a point about the foreign bands that are massively loved here - but how many of those countries have such anti-downloading laws as America? I know in Canada, for instance, downloading music is fine, but uploading is not. There are certain other countries where you can upload and download all the music you want. But only artists from that country. Not like you can go to one of those countries and upload the latest Nickelback *hahahahhaha* CD.
Again, I still say that the music industry needs to rethink their battle plan. Attacking the fanbase is not the best way to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
But, if their are no lawsuits, than I think the artist should be allowed to post poisened downloads of their current work where ever they want to so that people who are illegally downloading things that they could pay for get viruses on their computers. Once 1/3 of every illegal file on the web makes the downloader's computer trash, downloading will be a thing of the past.
Purposely posting a file on the internet bugged with viruses, trojans, and worms... that is massively illegal on a federal level. While it may sound like a decent idea from one angle, it would make the "music" industry no better than the fan-base who download illegally.
I think the idea of downloading individual songs that you like from ITunes, etc for like a fair deal(99cents per song from some site) is a good idea. Some people don't want to buy an entire CD since there might only be one or two good songs.
I have songs that I've actually paid for three times - once on vinyl, once on cassette, and once on CD or MP3. How is the artist not making money from that? Yes, this is over a 30-year period, but still...
I do understand that artists need to eat, and that downloading songs should be illegal. Is $.99 a song too expensive? Not for most people. I prefer to download by the song instead of buying an entire CD for $12 or $15 with songs that I may or may not like (I could probably name on one hand all of the albums I can listen to the entire way through without skipping any songs). Even compilation CDs don't do it for me, because I tend to like the hits that weren't as popular (i.e. I liked "She Bop" better than "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" by Cyndi Lauper).
It's truly wonderful that YouTube and My Space exist so that bands can get name recognition without always having to go through a record company. I know a guy who worked at Atlantic Record for thirty years, and he has told me a lot of how the record business has changed. There are many acts that probably wouldn't have a chance to make it today, because the business model is completely different. Way back when, the record companies were willing to make an investment in bands that didn't necessarily take off like wildfire immediately. INXS, for example.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the answer is, but the fact remains that some artists actually like the exposure that the illegal downloading gives them. Janis Ian is one of those, and her views can be found on her website here:
Janis Ian.Com : The Internet Debacle (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html - broken link)
I have songs that I've actually paid for three times - once on vinyl, once on cassette, and once on CD or MP3. How is the artist not making money from that? Yes, this is over a 30-year period, but still...
I do understand that artists need to eat, and that downloading songs should be illegal. Is $.99 a song too expensive? Not for most people. I prefer to download by the song instead of buying an entire CD for $12 or $15 with songs that I may or may not like (I could probably name on one hand all of the albums I can listen to the entire way through without skipping any songs). Even compilation CDs don't do it for me, because I tend to like the hits that weren't as popular (i.e. I liked "She Bop" better than "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" by Cyndi Lauper).
It's truly wonderful that YouTube and My Space exist so that bands can get name recognition without always having to go through a record company. I know a guy who worked at Atlantic Record for thirty years, and he has told me a lot of how the record business has changed. There are many acts that probably wouldn't have a chance to make it today, because the business model is completely different. Way back when, the record companies were willing to make an investment in bands that didn't necessarily take off like wildfire immediately. INXS, for example.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the answer is, but the fact remains that some artists actually like the exposure that the illegal downloading gives them. Janis Ian is one of those, and her views can be found on her website here:
Janis Ian.Com : The Internet Debacle (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html - broken link)
Here is an interesting suggestion, downloaders could obtain a blanket site license, like the radio stations have, from BMI and ASCAP. Of course, the costs would be scaled way down as the downloader is an individual person and not a radio/TV station or corporation. The license would also cover the uploading of song files through the peer-2-peer (P2P) networks like Knutela and eMule. A individual site license would cover only one P2P network and additional licenses would be required for addition P2P networks. The license would be valid for one year and renewed annually. Having a site license from BMI and ASCAP would cause this whole downloading and P2P mess to be moot and everyone would get their cut of the take.
I think the idea of downloading individual songs that you like from ITunes, etc for like a fair deal(99cents per song from some site) is a good idea. Some people don't want to buy an entire CD since there might only be one or two good songs.
There's nothing wrong with paying to download a song, it's the people who insist that "all music should be free" who I don't understand. On Itunes, a song is a dollar (cheaper than a small Dunkin Donuts Coffee) and a album is usually priced at ten dollars. That's not allot of money, I don't care how you slice it.
If you can afford computer, a internet connection, and a Ipod to listen to the music in the first place, than you can afford to buy music legally on Itunes or Amazon.
Bottom line with all this "screw music industry! music should be free blah blah blah" crap is this...
I have songs that I've actually paid for three times - once on vinyl, once on cassette, and once on CD or MP3. How is the artist not making money from that? Yes, this is over a 30-year period, but still...
I do understand that artists need to eat, and that downloading songs should be illegal. Is $.99 a song too expensive? Not for most people. I prefer to download by the song instead of buying an entire CD for $12 or $15 with songs that I may or may not like (I could probably name on one hand all of the albums I can listen to the entire way through without skipping any songs). Even compilation CDs don't do it for me, because I tend to like the hits that weren't as popular (i.e. I liked "She Bop" better than "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" by Cyndi Lauper).
It's truly wonderful that YouTube and My Space exist so that bands can get name recognition without always having to go through a record company. I know a guy who worked at Atlantic Record for thirty years, and he has told me a lot of how the record business has changed. There are many acts that probably wouldn't have a chance to make it today, because the business model is completely different. Way back when, the record companies were willing to make an investment in bands that didn't necessarily take off like wildfire immediately. INXS, for example.
Anyway, I'm not sure what the answer is, but the fact remains that some artists actually like the exposure that the illegal downloading gives them. Janis Ian is one of those, and her views can be found on her website here:
Janis Ian.Com : The Internet Debacle (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html - broken link)
Thing with youtube and Myspace and internet radio is that people can listen to music, but can't really download it and own it. 99% of artists like the idea of people LISTENING to their music as a sample, it's just the whole OWNING the music without paying for it that they don't like.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
((Though, I'd love to see E Nomine live... that would be my dream concert)) You do have a point about the foreign bands that are massively loved here - but how many of those countries have such anti-downloading laws as America? I know in Canada, for instance, downloading music is fine, but uploading is not. There are certain other countries where you can upload and download all the music you want. But only artists from that country. Not like you can go to one of those countries and upload the latest Nickelback *hahahahhaha* CD.
