Hi guys. For one of my classes, I am writing about how downloads, illegal or not are destroyingthe recording industry. I would love you guys' thoughts on downloads, if you do it, your thoughts on the recording industry and if they are really hurt by illegal downloads, etc. Thanks in advance.

The industry is the downfall of the industry. Holding onto greedy business models instead of moving with the times and developing business plans for the future.

I don't do very much unofficial downloading really and still purchase CDs but the music industry has really itself to blame. It's like the US auto manufacturers clinging onto gas guzzling SUVs because they are the rage. Now that gas prices are strangling families, they have no backup plan because unlike other foreign industries, they didn't care to develop new technologies to carry them into the future. That's how I see it

I find it interesting the sense of entitlement illegal downloading has instilled in alot of people. They don't see it as stealing anymore, they think they deserve to have it for free.

The industry is still making money, but less and less is getting to the artists. As downloading cuts into profits, the company is certainly not going to diminish their cut to make it fair to the artist. They have shareholders to appease and their own pockets to line.

I'm not going to act like I don't have stuff I have downloaded, but if I can pay for it I do. The stuff I have downloaded is not available for purchase or I would buy it.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Why is the industry toblame?

Mars23 said:

I have lots of stuff I've downloaded. Tons. I don't feel a sense of entitlement though. I don't really feel guilty about it either.

Question though: Do you feel it not being available elsewhere is a good "excuse"? I'm not picking on you, for real.

Stymie said:

Yea, If I download a clip of a TV appearance, no-one is losing profit on that. The artist and label get the promotion and the show has been paid by sponsors. If anything, that is a benefit to the artist cause you're doing exactly what they want you to do with promotion; watch it.

Downloading hurts fans as well though, for example, I would venture to guess that we don't see more instant CD sales at live shows is that people will immediately upload it and give the live experience to others, cutting into potential live sales.

i think the industry is destroying itself by not responding faster to what is clearly a popular new technology which could arguably also be the dominant new media for today's music, especially among its largest consumer demographic: those crazy kids. instead, the industry has chosen to punish and chastise consumers for manipulating the technology to get free crap, when the industry could be doing its own fair share of manipulation and making a tidy profit. look at what NIN and radiohead are doing. they're not stupid. radiohead did the pay what you will thing with their album and it STILL hit number one on its first week in record stores. meanwhile, WHAT KIND OF MORON IS GOING TO PAY 17.99 FOR A DAMN MADONNA CD AT BORDERS?!?

i think any artist or anyone in the "industry" right now who has a moral issue with downloading is just being lazy. it's the people who can seduce the filesharing types into wanting their product so much that they ultimately will break down and BUY it who are kicking ass right now.

but heaven forbid we be creative with the marketing of art.

In this country we have been paying way too much for official releases (all formats) compared to USA it sucked big time when I found out in the 90s we pay at least 150% more than our US counterparts for a CD.
I found a iTunes album I liked, for a US citizen it cost US$16.99 to download for an Aussie it was AUS$31.99 – considering our dollar is pretty close to yours, it was not an exchange rate issue licencsing laws? taxes? WHY!!!
It makes me want to seek out alternative options.
[Edited 5/22/08 17:37pm]

here's one of the most brilliant pieces written in recent times about the music industry, by david byrne:

http://www.wired.com/ente...ntPage=all

you should really scan this over for your research paper. you should read it simply because it kicks ass.

I think its both: the record industry's unwillingness to change with the times and the illegal downloader who has convinced themselves that it should be free. If the industry would've caught on in the beginning before Itunes and such, I don't think the problem would be as rampant as it is today-people would've just seen it as new means of music media a step up from cd's I think.

i was given a hard time on here lately because i started a thread about how the local library has such a great music collection and i've been having fun lately, ripping tons of library music to my iPod for free.

some folks hinted that that was a form of pirating music.

legalities aside (and i DO have my arguments there), my attitude when i "sample" an album for free is just that: if i have a chance to listen to a full album for free, at my leisure, as often as i like with no restrictions, if i end up liking that music i will buy it. i will want the artwork and the liner notes and i am still at a point where if an album means something to me, i want it in a "physical" form like a CD or vinyl. i consider mp3s disposable. if i only have an album on mp3, it means i may like it, but not enough yet to really invest in it.

i know there are people out there who don't give a damn about physical vs. virtual media - they just want everything for free. those are the people the industry need to be seducing right now. the industry needs to design a better carrot for those people, instead of alienating them with legal action and sending them farther into an attitude of wanting to put the screws to The Man.

Anxiety said:

I never understood why record companies were suing people for downloading when they have been raping and stealing from artists for years.

Anxiety said:

I agree. As an individual that worked in it for a while, I know that the arrogance of the industry is what did it in. They REFUSED to grasp the technological aspect of the business and still relied on album sales.

I am in graduate studies myself, and the failure of the business and it's refusal to look at the trends is in one of my texts. I'll see if I can find it. It was a literal textbook example of what a business should NOT do: ignore up and coming trends and continue with the tradition.

Anxiety said:

I don't care about physically having an album or CD. I just want the music. I used to buy a hundred albums a year (I am not kidding). Now I may only buy five and only of artists I absolutely adore. They should have thought of iTunes eons ago and stopped the ripping off of consumers as well.

I meant to read that thread of yours.

KatSkrizzle said:

This is an awesome point for my paper. Thanks.

Brownsugar said:

I agree!!!

Stymie said:

because the record companies can afford better lawyers than us or the artists.

Anxiety said:

I have a lot of thoughts about this. I think the general trend is the value of music has decreased substantially in recent years. This is in part due to its wide availability and the instantaneous nature of the world we now live in. When I was getting into music, there was a limited amount of stuff that I could purchase due to 1) my limited budget and 2) the limited availability of stuff in Port Huron. I had to earn my albums and I added to my collection bit by bit. As a result, I wore my albums out and grew to have an emotional attachment to them. Now, it's so easy to download an album of interest, hear it in poor MP3 quality and dismiss it without ever contemplating an actual purchase. To amass a large collection, all a teenager needs is Mom and Dad to chip in for an internet collection.

More concerning is the attitude that the practice of illegal downloading seems to pass the morality litmus test of the majority of the population. I remember last year going to a party where the host was a big Silverchair fan. He downloaded their latest album Young Modern illegally. I asked him why he didn't buy it, and he said that he hadn't bought an album since 1997 and that "those guys don't need to become richer. What do they need my money for, to add another jacuzzi?" Unfortunately, this moral stance seems to be widely held.

Another major issue is the fact that the music industry has not gone for enough to adjust its business model to work in today's climate. While a few artists have used the Internet to bolster their careers (NIN, Radiohead, Prince, The Ting Tings, Arctic Monkeys, etc.), most of the industry remains content to just finger wag and unleash products that are more and more manufactured to cater to the least common denominator to garner bigger sales. Hip hop has been reduced to essentially coming up with catchy 8-second ring tones, while shows like American Idol purport to give unknown talent a chance, all the while molding their contestants into glossy products devoid of any personality. Hardly any of the music that the industry expects to become a big seller has any resonance.

Other factors include the consolidation of record companies and the decreasing focus on music propagated by the main outlets of television and radio. It seems today's youth is more concerned with watching My Super Sweet Laguna Hills Simpson of Love Knows Best Tequila Part IV than a music video. The stricter playlists that ClearChannel will allow also result in less diversity for radio listeners. Essentially, the casual music fan is being exposed to both less music and less varied music.

It's not all doom and gloom, however. One thing I like about the internet is that it gives unknown artists a chance to reach anyone with an internet connection, which essentially gives them the chance to usurp control from the media bigwigs. It gives real music lovers who are more prone to buy their music a chance to easily explore artists that they would have been hard pressed to discover before the digital age took hold. I can't tell you how many purchases I have made as a result of reading music reviews and exploring recommendations by browsing through myspace and youtube for songs and videos. If the music industry would shift its focus by marketing to those of us who actually give a damn, things my change. But that's another issue altogether.

I think I've rambled on enough now!

Stymie said:

it's becoming a lot easier for me to only pay retail prices for a cd when i KNOW it's something i'll be listening to for a long time to come. it's easier for me to take small risks on music i don't know if i'll like, which means i sample more music, which means that i give more artists a chance than i would have before file sharing came into being, because i can't always afford to plunk down 15.99 for something i don't know that i'll even like.

when someone buys a book, they're allowed to flip through it. if someone buys a print or a painting, they don't just get a small square of the artwork to go by. i think the idea of bands allowing free lo-fi downloads of their albums is brilliant...get that hard work out there and show it off, and if people love it, they will want to invest in it and be a part of it, even if it's only with their dollars.

Anxiety said:

I may be naive here, but I think it may be a good idea to have artists offer free watermarked downloads of albums that expire after about 3 listens. I think 3 listens is enough for a listener to assess whether they would be interested in a purchase. That way, we could sample as many albums as we want for free and decide what we want to purchased based on the quality of the music alone.

Moonbeam said:

The quality of music element...I'd have to agree to disagree. I think today's Hip Hop is an ignorant mess, but I also feel like it is the classic older to younger crowd of trends as well. You and I may think its not quality, but perhaps kids are into bullshit. I know my older peers thought my music was mindless bullshit as a teen...so you never know.

Little Brother got signed to a deal strictly from online exposure. They signed to Atlantic for their second album from the noise and publicity of the first album, and Atlantic fucked them. But....Little Brother had NO ONE fighting for them in the board rooms of Atlantic, so I would blame some of that on their sloppy team and lack of persons on the team to fight for them. Atlantic also released their album the same time Lil Kim's came out and she was about to do time. Little Brother's people should have been up there fighting. Instead their manager was hanging out with them on tour (DUMB ASS).

I digress. Yes, record labels don't take risks anymore. They are in the age of superstars. But I feel the reason for that is that they have lost SO MUCH $$$ from sleeping at the wheel. Record labels merge because they are not making dollars because of the loss of record sales. They STILL rely on record sales.

KatSkrizzle said:

I know there has been crap music in every decade, but it seemed like there used to be a lot of good stuff that would get mainstream exposure too. I can't tell you the last time I enjoyed at least 20% of what was on the charts. I am by no means a barometer of good taste, but I just find that music has become increasingly processed and is being released by artists with less and less personality and less of a focus on the musical craft itself. I'm 28, but I feel about 58 when I turn on MTV or am forced to listen to the radio.

Moonbeam said:

i think that's certainly a viable option, though i think the radiohead/NIN examples have proven that you don't even have to go that far.

Stymie said:

I use iTunes (occasionally - I'm not much of a music listener anymore). I have been sent one or two "grey-market" tracks by friends, though.

Has the recording industry been hurt by illegal downloads? The evidence (i.e. sales) overwhelmingly points to the affirmative.

Anxiety said:

Maybe not. I'm not familiar with the quality of their downloads. It certainly seemed like they were successful, but I wonder if they could have been more successful had those downloads expired.

Moonbeam said:

they were low quality downloads. i think to a normal schmoe, that might be sufficient, but think about NIN and radiohead's fans. you have a lot of music geeks and audiophiles, so the promise of better quality and more goodies is going to be a delicious carrot to dangle.

Anxiety said:

Wasn't that a bust (in terms of getting people to pay)? I seem to recall reading that the number of people who kicked in a reasonable amount was very small.

Me thinks that - if it were a resounding success - they would've trumpeted the figures (rather than refusing to divulge them).

Anxiety said:

That's true! Their fanbases are probably not the norm, though. I think a new artist might be better served by having the highest quality downloads available with an expiration after 3 (or maybe 5) listens. That way, audiophiles that happen to take it for a spin will get the full picture, and Joe Schmoe won't be able to just keep it for free.

Ace said:

yet the album debuted on the charts at number one as soon as it hit retail, and it still has an unreal amount of buzz. i guess the question is, by whose standards are we defining "success"?