EmbattledWarrior said:

laurarichardson said:

It does not matter to you because you really do not give a shit about music. You want artist to adapt to a market place that really is not a market as free music means no exchange takes place.

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.

"hat Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

That is bunch of crap. You are an artist but I am sure you have bills to pay, band members that need to be paid, and other expenses. No need to question your role of as an artist because you want to be paid for your work.

laurarichardson said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.

"hat Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

That is bunch of crap. You are an artist but I am sure you have bills to pay, band members that need to be paid, and other expenses. No need to question your role of as an artist because you want to be paid for your work.

Yes, but I've found other mediums to finance myself outside of music.

my music is a Loss Leader. It stimulates my other ventures, where I do make money,

Merchandising, touring and production. It pretty much stimulates a conversation.

This is how an Artist must survive in this day and age.

i don't really mind it, cause I have 100% creative control of what I do, and I enjoy doing it.

It'd be nice if people bought my music, and they do sometimes at gigs.

but I'm not dependent on it as my main cash stream.

It's an interesting place to be.

And I'm happy about it.

If you listen I'm happy enough, as it should be

Good i hope the industry does die.

Musicians and performers in it because they love making music over money. Imagine.

There's a reason i'd rather spend time watching a talented busker over switching on the radio.

That's the way it's heading and i can't fucking wait.

Sometimes I wonder about music as an art form becoming less popular. These issues make me think there might someday be less music in our lives, the same way fewer people are interested in painting, sculpture, ballet, poetry, plays, and even reading novels.

I know it is not file sharing that kiled painting, but still I felt as a musician that I was lucky that my artform was so popular (compared to my friend who writes plays) but now I am seeing that is not the case so much. Not that many people actually are interested in "real music by real musicians"

Add to it these industry problems and it will just get worse before it [hopefully] gets better.

Its too late.

The only thing that's permanent is change. Change happens. Adapt or die.

[Edited 9/27/10 12:41pm]

BlaqueKnight said:

Its too late.

That's the fact. ITS TOO LATE.

ISPs are not going to fall in line with what "artists" want. (and by "artists" I mean the greedy ass execs who are using artists as a posterchild/scapegoat so they can keep living on easy street by doing next to nothing and profitting from it) The movie & music industry has been trying to get ISPs to police for them for the past few years. Its not EVER going to happen because its a BUSINESS for them. Its like the police giving a pimp a badge and asking him to go and arrest all of the johns that visit his hookers...for free.

A rule in business is not to shit on your customers if you expect repeat business.

Most of the people of that mindset are 30 years behind and completely out of touch.

Private industry's basic motto is "keep the government out of out business" so there's no way any other industry outside of entertainment is gonna back that move.

The days of the superstar are over. Make your music. GIVE IT AWAY and charge like hell for your shows and merchandise. This should be set in stone for artists. I have been saying that on this site since 1999-2000. Some people still don't get it.

The only thing that's permanent is change. Change happens. Adapt or die.

[Edited 9/27/10 12:39pm]

Totally agree, i guess i'm not supposed to approve but i so don't care at all anymore.

If i had a choice, I'd rather the movie industry survives over the music industry. I think it probably will too.

BlaqueKnight said:

The movie & music industry has been trying to get ISPs to police for them for the past few years. Its not EVER going to happen because its a BUSINESS for them. Its like the police giving a pimp a badge and asking him to go and arrest all of the johns that visit his hookers...and do it for free.

Exactly.

Cinnie said:

BlaqueKnight said:

The movie & music industry has been trying to get ISPs to police for them for the past few years. Its not EVER going to happen because its a BUSINESS for them. Its like the police giving a pimp a badge and asking him to go and arrest all of the johns that visit his hookers...and do it for free.

Exactly.

yes, or like asking drug dealers to voluntarily pay paxes on their earnings

BlaqueKnight said:

Its too late.

That's the fact. ITS TOO LATE.

ISPs are not going to fall in line with what "artists" want. (and by "artists" I mean the greedy ass execs who are using artists as a posterchild/scapegoat so they can keep living on easy street by doing next to nothing and profitting from it) The movie & music industry has been trying to get ISPs to police for them for the past few years. Its not EVER going to happen because its a BUSINESS for them. Its like the police giving a pimp a badge and asking him to go and arrest all of the johns that visit his hookers...and do it for free.

A rule in business is not to shit on your customers if you expect repeat business.

Most of the people of that mindset are 30 years behind and completely out of touch.

Private industry's basic motto is "keep the government out of out business" so there's no way any other industry outside of entertainment is gonna back that move.

The days of the superstar are over. Make your music. GIVE IT AWAY and charge like hell for your shows and merchandise. This should be set in stone for artists. I have been saying that on this site since 1999-2000. Some people still don't get it.

The only thing that's permanent is change. Change happens. Adapt or die.

[Edited 9/27/10 12:41pm]

I think the industry knew file sharing was happening back in the 90s but wanted to just get by until the next quarter, then the next quarter. Then there were a few big sellers here and there they could point to that helped them pretend the business was iron-clad.

Cinnie said:

I think the industry knew file sharing was happening back in the 90s but wanted to just get by until the next quarter, then the next quarter. Then there were a few big sellers here and there they could point to that helped them pretend the business was iron-clad.

yeah, they just don't seem to have much vision at this point. Steve Jobs found a way to continue getting rich off of selling music.

The funny thing is, the industry was so happy milking their catalogs making a couple of bucks re-selling the same music everybody already by offering "digitally remastered" cd's of everyone's favorite tracks thinking they were getting the last laugh, that they were blindsided by the fact that it was these very "digitally remastered" cd's that made it so conveniently easy for anyone to easily pop into their computer and upload that got the ball rolling so quickly in the first place.

vi0letblues said:

The funny thing is, the industry was so happy milking their catalogs making a couple of bucks re-selling the same music everybody already by offering "digitally remastered" cd's of everyone's favorite tracks thinking they were getting the last laugh, that they were blindsided by the fact that it was these very "digitally remastered" cd's that made it so conveniently easy for anyone to easily pop into their computer and upload that got the ball rolling so quickly in the first place.

Yep!!! These record execs and "managers" can cry me a river.

EmbattledWarrior said:

laurarichardson said:

It does not matter to you because you really do not give a shit about music. You want artist to adapt to a market place that really is not a market as free music means no exchange takes place.

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.

There are usually many many more people involved in bringing the artists vision to life than just the artist. People who deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

Nothing you can say takes away from the fact that digital works are getting stolen like nobodies business and next to nobody in the general public cares, yet if I asked you to do a few hours of work for me for free, you'd probably decline.

To add to that, it's also the artists prerogative whether they want to charge for their work. If they do decide to charge for their work, which is their right, and then people steal their work, don't blame the bloody artists!

Greedy people these days that think they are entitled to everything are the problem here.

nd33 said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.

There are usually many many more people involved in bringing the artists vision to life than just the artist. People who deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

Nothing you can say takes away from the fact that digital works are getting stolen like nobodies business and next to nobody in the general public cares, yet if I asked you to do a few hours of work for me for free, you'd probably decline.

To add to that, it's also the artists prerogative whether they want to charge for their work. If they do decide to charge for their work, which is their right, and then people steal their work, don't blame the bloody artists!

Greedy people these days that think they are entitled to everything are the problem here.

Again with the record label standard "scapegoat the public" routine?

"This town needs an enema"

BlaqueKnight said:

nd33 said:

There are usually many many more people involved in bringing the artists vision to life than just the artist. People who deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

Nothing you can say takes away from the fact that digital works are getting stolen like nobodies business and next to nobody in the general public cares, yet if I asked you to do a few hours of work for me for free, you'd probably decline.

To add to that, it's also the artists prerogative whether they want to charge for their work. If they do decide to charge for their work, which is their right, and then people steal their work, don't blame the bloody artists!

Greedy people these days that think they are entitled to everything are the problem here.

Again with the record label standard "scapegoat the public" routine?

Remember that Napster started BECAUSE OF CD PRICES, not the other way around. If you are going to point fingers, before you point at the public for jumping on a trend, point at the labels for sky-high CD prices when everyone knew they were being blatantly overcharged but could do nothing about it. And then blame the industry AGAIN for trying to fight technology instead of embracing it. Even Steve jobs was late to the game but at least he finally got a clue. If what he did had been done right from the beginning, people wouldn't mind paying for mp3s and there would be much more of a balance. People have developed a sense of entitlement - true. Yet, you can't lay it on the people when its the industry's fault for screwing people in the first place. What is it with everyone always letting big business slide with EVERYTHING? At this point, artists' smartest moves are dealing directly with their fan base.

The greatest thing to come out of all of this will be the death of the manufactured pop star. Fake ass non-singing caterwallers like Rihanna who openly say they don't like performing will have to find another hustle. Same goes for basement-spawned, shoegazing nerd bands who can't play and dealer-turned-rappers. Kick 'em all out of the industry.

"This town needs an enema"

I'm not on the side of big record labels at all. In fact I'm closely associated with indy musicians (talented ones) who hustle hard for not much pay. It's demoralising to see how much effort by so many people is involved in creating a great record, only recorded music to be perceived as something of little value by the public in general. This has only happened in the last 5-10 years. Remember that 99% of the people involved in creating even the big budget records are living modest lives with modest pay just like most people.

And it's not that people have actually evolved into a species that doesn't appreciate music. They LOOVE it. They play it every day. For hours on end.

A big reason is because this Paris Hilton generation has grown up to think they deserve the world for being born. If somethings there to be taken, it should be.

I recall days not long ago at all, where people would browse and carefully select something they like the sound of to spend their own hard earned cash on and be entertained by. Contrast that with kids now who can download (steal) a 200 songs in an afternoon, and not listen to 180 of them, because they don't really give a shit about what they've got.

I'm not going to give up on recorded music being valued. It's a hard battle that I'm only taking part in at grass roots level but it still makes sense to get the right attitude ingrained amongst my friends. I'd hate to see all profession removed from music recording and records reduced to bedroom quality recording/mixing with the era of the 50's to the 90's being the best there was and but a distant memory to us in the future.

If digital weren't around, there be no problem (apart from major labels slightly overcharging).

90% of people weren't walking into record shops in the 90's and stealing albums.

I agree that the death of the manufactured popstar will be brilliant! But I'd still like to be united amongst large groups by music, so wouldn't support the death of the popstar period.

A return to a time where looks and image were low on the priority list would be grand.

So a question I'd like to pose to you guys, which is really at the root of this problem of music being devalued, is - when and why did music start being devalued?

I know overpriced CD's has been mentioned as a crux. But this can't be all there is to it.

I know it is a factor. As is the ease and safety of stealing music online.

nd33 said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

Calm down there kimosabe.

The real question you'd have to ask yourself is Art meant to be bought, or owned.

Artist have always been civil servants.

The "exchange" between The Artist and the Fan, is more than a monetary exchange.

If an Artist is complaining about said monetary exchange.

That Artist should question his/her status as an "artist"

We live in a capitalist society, and thus the artist is now a commodity.

I being an artist, and someone who has to make money in the music business am constantly torn between that dilemma.

There are usually many many more people involved in bringing the artists vision to life than just the artist. People who deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

Nothing you can say takes away from the fact that digital works are getting stolen like nobodies business and next to nobody in the general public cares, yet if I asked you to do a few hours of work for me for free, you'd probably decline.

To add to that, it's also the artists prerogative whether they want to charge for their work. If they do decide to charge for their work, which is their right, and then people steal their work, don't blame the bloody artists!

Greedy people these days that think they are entitled to everything are the problem here.

I'll tell you whose involved with bringing the artists vision to life.

It's called a PRODUCER. And producers main source of income comes from the ADVANCE he receives from the artist. The producer gets compensated, no matter if the song sells or not.

So trust, they'll be fine.

How do artist find money to pay the producer?

Through TOURING, MERCHANDISE, LICENSING, PUBLISHING, EVENTS.

An established artist will get money for just showing up to events.

Because the artist has been able to adapt, producers have still been compensated.

There was a time, when the producer was hired by the label, and he too took a chunk out of the artists pie. But with the rise of 360 deals (look it up) finding a producer was shifted to the artist, and came out of the pot of the artist, dwindling what little chunk they're getting.

Believe it or not Digi sales do not pay Didley.

Apple takes 30% The record company takes the remainder.

artist gets 10% of the remainder

common album sells for 9.99 U.S.

Itunes gets 3.00

Leaving 7$ left, how much does the artist get, its gonna shock you...

70 CENTS!!!!!!!!!

And with that 70 cents, the artist has to pay his team of managers and producers.

So if a digi album goes platinum, thats a bonafied 700,000

Producer gets 5% each (think of those albums with multiple producers)

so a producer gets 35,000 of the initial 700,000

Most albums have at least 5 producers.

Thats 175,000 taken away from 700,000

525,000 left

Now you have to pay your personal manager 20%

yes you heard right, 20%

105,000!!!

420,000!!! left, you still have to pay the lawyers who helped sign you, business managers etc...

And whatever sunset clauses (look it up) you have to adhere to.

long story short, that 700,000 dwindles to 300,000 FAST!

With that 300,000 you have to set up your tour.

tours are expensive, 60,000 for every 5 weeks your on tour.

for a tour over 3 monthes, your spending your 300,000 and dipping into your own pockets.

Artist are usually indebt after their first tour.

even more so now, because of 360 deals where they have to pay labels a cut now.

Hopefully they can generate a profit from that tour so they can start their new album.

BECAUSE LABELS ARENT GIVING ADVANCES ANYMORE.

So what do I need a label for?

to make me broke.

those are the facts cuzin

take away that middle man, the revenue stream goes up the roof.

without the need of digidownloads.

Licensing to t.v. shows, commercials, movies are what pay the big bucks these days.

its a brave new world.

EmbattledWarrior said:

nd33 said:

There are usually many many more people involved in bringing the artists vision to life than just the artist. People who deserve to be compensated for their hard work.

Nothing you can say takes away from the fact that digital works are getting stolen like nobodies business and next to nobody in the general public cares, yet if I asked you to do a few hours of work for me for free, you'd probably decline.

To add to that, it's also the artists prerogative whether they want to charge for their work. If they do decide to charge for their work, which is their right, and then people steal their work, don't blame the bloody artists!

Greedy people these days that think they are entitled to everything are the problem here.

I'll tell you whose involved with bringing the artists vision to life.

It's called a PRODUCER. And producers main source of income comes from the ADVANCE he receives from the artist. The producer gets compensated, no matter if the song sells or not.

So trust, they'll be fine.

How do artist find money to pay the producer?

Through TOURING, MERCHANDISE, LICENSING, PUBLISHING, EVENTS.

An established artist will get money for just showing up to events.

Because the artist has been able to adapt, producers have still been compensated.

There was a time, when the producer was hired by the label, and he too took a chunk out of the artists pie. But with the rise of 360 deals (look it up) finding a producer was shifted to the artist, and came out of the pot of the artist, dwindling what little chunk they're getting.

Believe it or not Digi sales do not pay Didley.

Apple takes 30% The record company takes the remainder.

artist gets 10% of the remainder

common album sells for 9.99 U.S.

Itunes gets 3.00

Leaving 7$ left, how much does the artist get, its gonna shock you...

70 CENTS!!!!!!!!!

And with that 70 cents, the artist has to pay his team of managers and producers.

So if a digi album goes platinum, thats a bonafied 700,000

Producer gets 5% each (think of those albums with multiple producers)

so a producer gets 35,000 of the initial 700,000

Most albums have at least 5 producers.

Thats 175,000 taken away from 700,000

525,000 left

Now you have to pay your personal manager 20%

yes you heard right, 20%

105,000!!!

420,000!!! left, you still have to pay the lawyers who helped sign you, business managers etc...

And whatever sunset clauses (look it up) you have to adhere to.

long story short, that 700,000 dwindles to 300,000 FAST!

With that 300,000 you have to set up your tour.

tours are expensive, 60,000 for every 5 weeks your on tour.

for a tour over 3 monthes, your spending your 300,000 and dipping into your own pockets.

Artist are usually indebt after their first tour.

even more so now, because of 360 deals where they have to pay labels a cut now.

Hopefully they can generate a profit from that tour so they can start their new album.

BECAUSE LABELS ARENT GIVING ADVANCES ANYMORE.

So what do I need a label for?

to make me broke.

those are the facts cuzin

take away that middle man, the revenue stream goes up the roof.

without the need of digidownloads.

Licensing to t.v. shows, commercials, movies are what pay the big bucks these days.

its a brave new world.

All good and well my brother, but my concern is not for the major labels.

My concern is that the general public thinks they deserve music for free. I'd like to talk about why this is and whether that's fair to all the people involved in making records (the creatives and technicians not the label bosses).

nd33 said:

EmbattledWarrior said:

I'll tell you whose involved with bringing the artists vision to life.

It's called a PRODUCER. And producers main source of income comes from the ADVANCE he receives from the artist. The producer gets compensated, no matter if the song sells or not.

So trust, they'll be fine.

How do artist find money to pay the producer?

Through TOURING, MERCHANDISE, LICENSING, PUBLISHING, EVENTS.

An established artist will get money for just showing up to events.

Because the artist has been able to adapt, producers have still been compensated.

There was a time, when the producer was hired by the label, and he too took a chunk out of the artists pie. But with the rise of 360 deals (look it up) finding a producer was shifted to the artist, and came out of the pot of the artist, dwindling what little chunk they're getting.

Believe it or not Digi sales do not pay Didley.

Apple takes 30% The record company takes the remainder.

artist gets 10% of the remainder

common album sells for 9.99 U.S.

Itunes gets 3.00

Leaving 7$ left, how much does the artist get, its gonna shock you...

70 CENTS!!!!!!!!!

And with that 70 cents, the artist has to pay his team of managers and producers.

So if a digi album goes platinum, thats a bonafied 700,000

Producer gets 5% each (think of those albums with multiple producers)

so a producer gets 35,000 of the initial 700,000

Most albums have at least 5 producers.

Thats 175,000 taken away from 700,000

525,000 left

Now you have to pay your personal manager 20%

yes you heard right, 20%

105,000!!!

420,000!!! left, you still have to pay the lawyers who helped sign you, business managers etc...

And whatever sunset clauses (look it up) you have to adhere to.

long story short, that 700,000 dwindles to 300,000 FAST!

With that 300,000 you have to set up your tour.

tours are expensive, 60,000 for every 5 weeks your on tour.

for a tour over 3 monthes, your spending your 300,000 and dipping into your own pockets.

Artist are usually indebt after their first tour.

even more so now, because of 360 deals where they have to pay labels a cut now.

Hopefully they can generate a profit from that tour so they can start their new album.

BECAUSE LABELS ARENT GIVING ADVANCES ANYMORE.

So what do I need a label for?

to make me broke.

those are the facts cuzin

take away that middle man, the revenue stream goes up the roof.

without the need of digidownloads.

Licensing to t.v. shows, commercials, movies are what pay the big bucks these days.

its a brave new world.

All good and well my brother, but my concern is not for the major labels.

My concern is that the general public thinks they deserve music for free. I'd like to talk about why this is and whether that's fair to all the people involved in making records (the creatives and technicians not the label bosses).

i just broke it down that the technical team

is covered by THE PRODUCER.

Everything else is handled by the artist.

Out of all the people in the process of getting paid,

the artist is last.

What your obviously not understanding is, that there are no technical teams anymore.

its just an artist and a producer (and whatever crew he brings who he pays out of his pocket)

What im telling you is that music can be free, as a loss leader (look it up)

What the public thinks is irrelevant. Thats a morality issue.

You seem to have hang ups on the word "steal"

You ever think what is actually being stolen?

its no longer a disc.

its a Digital code of zero's and ones. I.E. an ambiguous uncontrollable medium.

Whatever your qualms are about the actual stealing, or you either deal with it or whine.

Someone mentioned it was "too late"

No this is only the beginning.

vi0letblues said:

Someone mentioned it was "too late"

No this is only the beginning.

This has already been going on for damn near 10+ years already. There are an entire generation of people who have never purchased any music in their entire lives. It is already too late.

Actually, I remember similar reactions when the printing press was invented. Everyone thought that the world was going to hell, because those who controlled books were threatened by the fact that anyone could have access to the materials that they had only been available to the privileged few. As we have seen some hundreds of years later, everything turned out all right. This is will be no different. People share things all time which include movies, music, and etc. It is human nature. This is how we advance as a society and will continue to do so. Things are changing and some people are having a hard time adapting. Those who can not will continue to die off.

This is the ultimate truth and can not be escaped no matter who says what or whatever kind of bills that they try to pass such as that ACTA crap.

nd33 said:

All good and well my brother, but my concern is not for the major labels.

My concern is that the general public thinks they deserve music for free. I'd like to talk about why this is and whether that's fair to all the people involved in making records (the creatives and technicians not the label bosses).

It seems like what you are saying is that you want to discuss piracy without dicussing the sources that led to the download culture that we know today. Well, what we are saying to you is that it all ties in and the old way of business is all but done. Its actually BEEN done. The culture that is here now is not going away. It came about AS A RESULT OF shitty business practices - greed gone awry. What is done won't be undone any time soon.

You want to talk public entitlement? Well, he who has the gold makes the rules. If an artist is making music to make money, they are in the wrong business. When the game changes, you have to change with it. These lame "legislators" are always 10 steps behind. As soon as Napster went down, there were plenty things to take its place. Even if the ISP legislation passed, I bet you have no idea what's in place to keep things goingas they are. Believe me, there's plenty. You want to sell music, you have to give people a reason to buy it.

[Edited 9/28/10 12:22pm]

CynicKill said:

Dave Matthews Band: Had a reputation as a great live act before they were signed. Will always be a huge concert draw despite how many records they sell. Ani FiFranco: Millionairess. Never had a hit single or album. Never will. STS9: A mix between DMB and William Orbitt. Never had a hit single or album. Never will. I'm not for piracy OR siding with the labels. The labels have had practices that have ALWAYS been questionable. But the public knows that downloading songs that an artist has put his hard work into is counter-productive. One last thing: Has anyone ever bothered to ask why the old model of big stars and big hits worked so long in the first place? Marketing sure, but isn't the world just a more fun place with huge artists and hit singles and albums? Just a thought.

great post.

nd33 said:

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here... I'm stating that copyright laws are being ignored by the public at large. Music is stolen through digital means at an enormous rate. More is stolen than legitimately obtained. These are facts so we can ignore arguing them. I'd like to know how and why we've got to this point and how it could be turned around.

See the term Copyright gets bastardized by the industry, and misused. Copyright laws are not being broken by the downloading of music via P2P per se. A copyright is the securing of ownership for intellectual property. Copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property and posing it as your own or using it for financial gain. The problem with copyright law, and its piracy definition, is that the original meaning does not coincide with the contemporary download practices. Piracy is the abuse of copyrights for financial gain. P2P services don't operate in this way because there is no financial gain, and there is no one person in charge of it. It is a syetem architecture. Which is why they can't shut down alot of P2P services.

Music is indeed being stolen, but what i'm saying is it only minimally effects the artist because said artist never made any real money from their work. The only people who are whining about downloading are record labels. Why? Because they own the copyright to all the masters of their artist. Thus the infringement is their problem. The only real way this effects the artist and/or producers involved in making the music is with labels taking out huge chunks of revenue from other mediums. Which i've endlessly stated.

i don't condone the theft of any kind. What i'm saying is in this current market, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the hemorrhaging to stop. And all morality aside, it is either fight or flight. Times change. In this age of social networking, I'll tell you what my music business teacher told me; "The archetype of the Record Label has become obsolete," and so has the Superstar. In addition, because musical technology is so advance, Artist can now make music, theoretically for free (after purchasing the right DAW.) You no longer have to schedule studio or rehearsal time. You can do it all in your bed room, Owl City Style. So you have to wonder if the recording, manufacturing burden has been lifted and the middle man is out of the way. You can give away your songs for free and network a nice fan base. Play shows, and sell merch at the venues, whilst selling "special edition" versions of your album to fans on LP, ala Jack White, and Ryan Adams. Your income stream will go through the roof. One of my associates gave an album alway for free. And he received donations from his fans, because they thought it was so good. And now we enter back into this whole morality issue of why people where stealing in the first place.

Two words, filler tracks

I say the industry ripped off the consumer by developing lackluster albums, with only a few gems usually only the hit singles.

Believe it or not, people will pay for music, when its good.

So in a roundabout way this whole ordeal promotes originality and artistry.

It's bittersweet.

Yeah its sad the Superstar is gone.

But face it, alot of them were train wrecks anyway, do we really need them?

No.

He's right. It's not in the ISP's interests to curtail file sharing. The way the ISPs see it, the more free stuff people can get off the Web, the more people there are that will buy that Web access from them.

EmbattledWarrior said:

nd33 said:

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here... I'm stating that copyright laws are being ignored by the public at large. Music is stolen through digital means at an enormous rate. More is stolen than legitimately obtained. These are facts so we can ignore arguing them. I'd like to know how and why we've got to this point and how it could be turned around.

See the term Copyright gets bastardized by the industry, and misused. Copyright laws are not being broken by the downloading of music via P2P per se. A copyright is the securing of ownership for intellectual property. Copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property and posing it as your own or using it for financial gain. The problem with copyright law, and its piracy definition, is that the original meaning does not coincide with the contemporary download practices. Piracy is the abuse of copyrights for financial gain. P2P services don't operate in this way because there is no financial gain, and there is no one person in charge of it. It is a syetem architecture. Which is why they can't shut down alot of P2P services.

Music is indeed being stolen, but what i'm saying is it only minimally effects the artist because said artist never made any real money from their work. The only people who are whining about downloading are record labels. Why? Because they own the copyright to all the masters of their artist. Thus the infringement is their problem. The only real way this effects the artist and/or producers involved in making the music is with labels taking out huge chunks of revenue from other mediums. Which i've endlessly stated.

i don't condone the theft of any kind. What i'm saying is in this current market, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the hemorrhaging to stop. And all morality aside, it is either fight or flight. Times change. In this age of social networking, I'll tell you what my music business teacher told me; "The archetype of the Record Label has become obsolete," and so has the Superstar. In addition, because musical technology is so advance, Artist can now make music, theoretically for free (after purchasing the right DAW.) You no longer have to schedule studio or rehearsal time. You can do it all in your bed room, Owl City Style. So you have to wonder if the recording, manufacturing burden has been lifted and the middle man is out of the way. You can give away your songs for free and network a nice fan base. Play shows, and sell merch at the venues, whilst selling "special edition" versions of your album to fans on LP, ala Jack White, and Ryan Adams. Your income stream will go through the roof. One of my associates gave an album alway for free. And he received donations from his fans, because they thought it was so good. And now we enter back into this whole morality issue of why people where stealing in the first place.

Two words, filler tracks

I say the industry ripped off the consumer by developing lackluster albums, with only a few gems usually only the hit singles.

Believe it or not, people will pay for music, when its good.

So in a roundabout way this whole ordeal promotes originality and artistry.

It's bittersweet.

Yeah its sad the Superstar is gone.

But face it, alot of them were train wrecks anyway, do we really need them?

No.

Another great post.

EmbattledWarrior said:

nd33 said:

Also, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to argue here... I'm stating that copyright laws are being ignored by the public at large. Music is stolen through digital means at an enormous rate. More is stolen than legitimately obtained. These are facts so we can ignore arguing them. I'd like to know how and why we've got to this point and how it could be turned around.

See the term Copyright gets bastardized by the industry, and misused. Copyright laws are not being broken by the downloading of music via P2P per se. A copyright is the securing of ownership for intellectual property. Copyright infringement is the theft of intellectual property and posing it as your own or using it for financial gain. The problem with copyright law, and its piracy definition, is that the original meaning does not coincide with the contemporary download practices. Piracy is the abuse of copyrights for financial gain. P2P services don't operate in this way because there is no financial gain, and there is no one person in charge of it. It is a syetem architecture. Which is why they can't shut down alot of P2P services.

It may be different in the USA, but here in NZ, it is illegal to dowload/take music files that you haven't paid for (unless it was freely distributed by label and/or artist of course).

Music is indeed being stolen, but what i'm saying is it only minimally effects the artist because said artist never made any real money from their work. The only people who are whining about downloading are record labels. Why? Because they own the copyright to all the masters of their artist. Thus the infringement is their problem. The only real way this effects the artist and/or producers involved in making the music is with labels taking out huge chunks of revenue from other mediums. Which i've endlessly stated.

What about the artist that is fully independent or signed to an indy label, that DOES make something out of each copy sold? This ingrained culture of recordings being devalued affects them too. Although it's true that indy artists are more likely to get the "sympathy purchase" from consumers, it doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken to stem this right of entitlement that kids are growing up with in regards to all things digital. Just because it seems overwhelming doesn't mean that everyone should just give in. All things worthwhile take time and effort.

i don't condone the theft of any kind. What i'm saying is in this current market, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the hemorrhaging to stop. And all morality aside, it is either fight or flight. Times change. In this age of social networking, I'll tell you what my music business teacher told me; "The archetype of the Record Label has become obsolete," and so has the Superstar. In addition, because musical technology is so advance, Artist can now make music, theoretically for free (after purchasing the right DAW.) You no longer have to schedule studio or rehearsal time. You can do it all in your bed room, Owl City Style. So you have to wonder if the recording, manufacturing burden has been lifted and the middle man is out of the way.

Yes you can record in your bedroom. Most musicians have some kind of home recording setup these days. That doesn't mean they're any good at recording, producing, mixing or mastering. These things will obviously go downhill without specialists in each field. One man bands are always compromised. After the magical recordings (technically) of the 70's, 80's, 90's, I feel things have already started to go downhill in quality. We have come so far in the craft it would be a damn shame to revert to bedroom recordings (which I deal with everyday from a technical perspective).

You can give away your songs for free and network a nice fan base. Play shows, and sell merch at the venues, whilst selling "special edition" versions of your album to fans on LP, ala Jack White, and Ryan Adams. Your income stream will go through the roof. One of my associates gave an album alway for free. And he received donations from his fans, because they thought it was so good.

It's near impossible to make a livng out of touring/merchandise in NZ as it's far too small a country and flights to anywhere are expensive as hell. Tours are loss makers for us. I can see in the USA or Europe that being a valid option with alot of cities within driving distance.

There are other reasons not to tour either such as family or job commitments, so making records is the option of artistic expression for many. If the record can't sell any copies and pay for itself, things start looking a bit grim for starting any new projects that will have costs to incur.

And now we enter back into this whole morality issue of why people where stealing in the first place.

Two words, filler tracks

I say the industry ripped off the consumer by developing lackluster albums, with only a few gems usually only the hit singles.

Believe it or not, people will pay for music, when its good.

So in a roundabout way this whole ordeal promotes originality and artistry.

It's bittersweet.

Yeah its sad the Superstar is gone.

But face it, alot of them were train wrecks anyway, do we really need them?

No.

Yes, I agree that the quality of albums as a whole in terms of songwriting and actual performing talent in the pop realm has taken a nose dive in the last 10-15 years. The downfall of the major labels will surely shift some focus in music generally back to talented peeps rather than image. I also hope we can find some ground where the quality in crafting of albums technically doesn't follow the same fate that songwriting/performance has over last decade.

[Edited 9/28/10 20:03pm]