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
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)
Interesting point. Some bands would never get the record deals if it weren't for Myspace or Youtube. The music business is about getting the hookups from who you know. I think many bands are frustrated at the record companies, so using Myspace is a great way for them to get their music out.
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...
PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO JUSTIFY BEING CHEAP!
For most part, agree w/ your statements here,,, but, IMHO its not, at least for me and most of what I am reading here in this thread and w/in other places, about 'people just trying to justify being cheap' or the such - its about a desire to acquire, legally and/or fairly, at an equitable amount where the original artist(s) are the ones that get the vast majority if not all of the money that is paid 'em. Sure, charge me 10 bucks for a CD, but I want to see that the artists get the profits, not the suits in the background doing little besides riding these people for pure profit. Sure, there are those responsible for marketing, legal aspects, etc., and that is important, but when they are the lion's share, that is not good.
Me thinks the reason that the RIAA has decided to drop all this is besides the public relations black eye they have created in this, they also are paying out more money in legal fees than they are dragging in on settlements. How much money are they getting when they go after 10 year old kids? Sheesh!
And they should know about public relations black eyes. They have it down to a science.
SandyCo made a good point on post #17 regarding formats on a recording that you would think of the cost being paid for and then some. Let's take the Beatles "Sargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band". It was released on the following formats; 4 track cartridge, 8 track cartridge,cassette, reel to reel, picture disc, Mobile Fidelity Half Speed Master, UHQR Box Set (only 5000 released and VERY collectible). Then there are the standard lp's- rainbow label, lime green label, apple label, reissue orange label, reissue purple label. And the albums that were monaural released.
About 3 years before the first compact disc hit the retail racks, the big labels were carping to the RIAA about how Maxell, BASF, and other blank tape manufacturers were hurting their business with the manufacture and sale of prerecorded tapes. The RIAA, in turn went to Congress about it. In Billbord Magazine they advertised it as "Home Taping Is Killing Music."
The record labels in the UK took it a step further. I bought quite a few imports back then from London stores and when you bought an album and pulled it out of the cover you would get a generic white paper sleeve. On it was printed a black cassette with skullbones across it, and in big black letters at the top of the sleeve was that message; "Home taping is killing music". The 2 labels that were most prominent in this practice was EMI and Polydor. So we have covered this ground before.
Last edited by DOUBLE H; 12-20-2008 at 09:08 PM..
Reason: spelling, addition
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,837,653 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
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?
I have never heard of bands that don' do live shows. Never. That is where most of them got noticed and built their fan base. Even MC Hammer said he made more money selling his records at his shows than he made with the label he signed with. As for Wumpscut, who the hell is that?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,837,653 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesLang
Interesting point. Some bands would never get the record deals if it weren't for Myspace or Youtube. The music business is about getting the hookups from who you know. I think many bands are frustrated at the record companies, so using Myspace is a great way for them to get their music out.
I would add to that American Idol. Look at how a few of them have done and without the show, they never would have got noticed by the record outfits. I have been to Nashville and heard some pretty damn good artist that you never hear on radio and I have always wondered why.
I have never heard of bands that don' do live shows. Never. That is where most of them got noticed and built their fan base. Even MC Hammer said he made more money selling his records at his shows than he made with the label he signed with. As for Wumpscut, who the hell is that?
If you never heard of bands that don't perform live, than I can tell that you're not into electronic music, which, by it's design, is not meant to be listened to live. Electronic artists get their fanbase from word of mouth, club play etc, but not live shows. ESPECIALLY AMBIENT MUSIC. How often do ambient musicians play live? Hardly ever.
:Wumpscut: is the one-man industrial project of Rudy Ratzinger and it's big with the goth/industrial crowd. He has never done a live show.
Also, like I said, what about bands that don't perform live where their fans live? I love European symphonic metal, but most of those bands don't tour here in the US because the fanbase isn't big enough to justify coming all this way...so I guess I should just download their music without paying for it, not see them live (having never had the chance to) and in no way shape or form support the artists who's music I enjoy?
I am not (that) cheap, and spending fifteen dollars on a CD is not, for me, out of the question.
I think a loop-hole could be the fanvid, which is not made by the company and hence, not subject to copyright laws
However, the content of the fanvid, footage or song, could be subject to copyright laws. I've seen a few fanmade music videos pulled for that reason.
I'm not going to say much on this topic besides this:
If I download a song, and I like it, the band IS going to get my money, one way or another. In fact, it's opened me up to so many bands that I've never heard of otherwise. Such as Kamelot, Within Temptation, Lacuna Coil, Sonata Arctica, or The Gathering. I'm not praising pirates, as it IS illegal, but like I said, it does open some people up to bands they otherwise might not have heard of. (And no, I don't listen to the radio most of the time.)
Instead, they have dug their heels in the ground and want to live in the past. They need to accept that people do not value the CDs at the prices they are sold at. $.99 is too much for a song.
That pricing has probably backfired, too, in that it suggests that the physical materials you buy in the store are worthless, and you're instead paying that much for "owning the music" as such.
People willing to pay more for the physical item were probably figuring "well, the costs of production and distribution have gone up", and then here comes the record industry suggesting that the costs of production and distribution are actually closer to zero.
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.
