BlaqueKnight said:

I didn't say itunes was good, I said that Steve & Co. got in the ball game when most labels didn't. iTunes is a major player in an industry where they shouldn't be and it is the fault of the labels. They made moves while labels and the RIAA tried to sue their way through the game.

The lazy ass public is going to have to look for its music, get spoon fed Rih-Ke$h-as 24/7 or stop listening to new music.

itunes is a player, but in reality, that whole mindset isnt working, the money that Apple makes is off the sale of the iPod,iPhone that it keeps changing every 3 months, and rakes in billions on, the store itself (iTunes that is) though is set up for artists, in reality, the majority dont use it, as the fact was stated awhile back, everyone owns an mp3 or ipod but about 2% of what is on it comes from that store, and about 5% is legally obtained (meaning paid for), so, the whole idea of digital is failed in the long term, as the idea of the Live Act and going to see a band drops from the mentality of people the so called artist that wants to make a living in music, will die off too, sorry to say.

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm not justifying anything but rather stating what IS and how it came to be. Napster came about as a result of corporate greed and spawned the downloading age. Well, its here now. That's the reality. No one is stating that artists shouldn't be paid for their work but there has always been a debate on intellectual properties and how much they are worth. I don't feel like going into all of that right now but, I completely disagree that its "justifiable to blame the consumer" when its clear how we came to where we are right now. The consumer AND the artist have been cheated by corporations for years and years now. Now they are being hit back and its absurd to blame the abused for hitting back. Instead of reacting in the right way like Apple did and try to get a piece of the pie, the industry called its lawyers. HA! Fossils like Gene here are still of that same mindset. That is the road to failure. The smartest businessmen know when to jump off the sinking ship. Why do you think labels are forcing 360 deals on artists who are desperate and foolish enough to take them? Suppose your car dealer said he'd sell you a great car for cheap but if you drove anyone around and they gave you gas money, you had to give them part of it. What would you say?

Bottom line is this: artists have to change their business model in order to make money from their music. They can no longer sit back idlely and collect their pennies from labels who overcharge for CDs. Those days are done. The Mays brothers (who started Clear Channel and sold it) jumped right into the next step with LiveNation. They knew where the money was going to go. After they took over the airwaves, they moved right on to the venues because that's where the next move was. They knew because they contributed to the demise by creating a palette of corporate payola with labels.

Rather than trying to protect a dying business, artists have to move forward onto a more direct connection with their audience and restructure how they make their money. There is no escaping this. Its always hardest for those who have made a great deal of money in one area to accept when the well has run dry.

Adapt or die; that's how it is.

[Edited 10/11/10 16:11pm]

I think you may be looking at this issue too narrowly and letting your opinions of an industry of the past cloud your judgment. We are still in the infancy of the digital age. Book publishers, newspapers, magazines, music publishers as well as security concerns and more will slowly forge a cohesive formula in this matter. One that will continually evolve. The free market will dictate what is and isn't financially viable. There are a lot of interests involved now. There is a much bigger picture here. The question is not whether there will be protections in place to help protect commerce on the internet; the million dollar question is "how?" but more importantly "how far are we willing to go?".

When people download music they don't care if it is from a independent artist or Universal Music group or how much of a cut anyone takes. They take it because they can, not for any other reason.

The music industry is not dieing because of lack of interest or love of music. Or lack of a market for it, but because of theft and people's capacity to justify that theft.

[Edited 10/11/10 18:38pm]

.

[Edited 10/11/10 19:06pm]

andykeen said:

Like anybody has downloaded his shit anyway...

novabrkr said:

It was just inevitable that it would happen one day. I couldn't have myself predicted in the 90s that it would be due to filesharing, but it had to be something with the digital format becoming easier and easier to copy. The problem is that the "industry" was getting its revenue from selling the storage media and the package and not from the product that it claimed to be selling.

If you look at, say, the dairy industry then they're obviously operating on completely different grounds. When you buy a carton of milk or yogurt you pay for the edible content of the product itself and not the cardboard container around it. Packaging and the P&R campaigns for these type of products obviously contribute to the costs that the companies have as well, but...

... uhm, what the hell was this thread about anyway? Gene Simmons? Why did I end up writing about milk and yogurt?

I was trying to follow you... but I got lost just after the milk and yogurt

Vanilli said:

Whenever anyone posts or talks about the music industry and lawsuits over this...I am

reminded of something MJ said way back in early 2003.

HOLLYWOOD - Michael Jackson is speaking out against new legislation that would make downloading copyrighted material over the Internet a felony punishable by jail time.

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download but the answer cannot be jail," Jackson said in a statement. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish that would not be forgotten."

Lawmakers introduced the bill currently under consideration, called the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners Protection and Security Act of 2003, July 16 in the House of Representatives. The act would make downloading songs over the Web a felony offense.

"Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws," he said. "We should look to new technologies, like Apple's new Itunes Music Store, for solutions. This way, innovation continues to be the hallmark of America."

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Michael_Jackson_Slams_Music_Piracy_Bill/1722880

I miss Michael. and I have new love for him, here. What he said is on the mark.

V10LETBLUES said:

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm not justifying anything but rather stating what IS and how it came to be. Napster came about as a result of corporate greed and spawned the downloading age. Well, its here now. That's the reality. No one is stating that artists shouldn't be paid for their work but there has always been a debate on intellectual properties and how much they are worth. I don't feel like going into all of that right now but, I completely disagree that its "justifiable to blame the consumer" when its clear how we came to where we are right now. The consumer AND the artist have been cheated by corporations for years and years now. Now they are being hit back and its absurd to blame the abused for hitting back. Instead of reacting in the right way like Apple did and try to get a piece of the pie, the industry called its lawyers. HA! Fossils like Gene here are still of that same mindset. That is the road to failure. The smartest businessmen know when to jump off the sinking ship. Why do you think labels are forcing 360 deals on artists who are desperate and foolish enough to take them? Suppose your car dealer said he'd sell you a great car for cheap but if you drove anyone around and they gave you gas money, you had to give them part of it. What would you say?

Bottom line is this: artists have to change their business model in order to make money from their music. They can no longer sit back idlely and collect their pennies from labels who overcharge for CDs. Those days are done. The Mays brothers (who started Clear Channel and sold it) jumped right into the next step with LiveNation. They knew where the money was going to go. After they took over the airwaves, they moved right on to the venues because that's where the next move was. They knew because they contributed to the demise by creating a palette of corporate payola with labels.

Rather than trying to protect a dying business, artists have to move forward onto a more direct connection with their audience and restructure how they make their money. There is no escaping this. Its always hardest for those who have made a great deal of money in one area to accept when the well has run dry.

Adapt or die; that's how it is.

[Edited 10/11/10 16:11pm]

I think you may be looking at this issue too narrowly and letting your opinions of an industry of the past cloud your judgment. We are still in the infancy of the digital age. Book publishers, newspapers, magazines, music publishers as well as security concerns and more will slowly forge a cohesive formula in this matter. One that will continually evolve. The free market will dictate what is and isn't financially viable. There are a lot of interests involved now. There is a much bigger picture here. The question is not whether there will be protections in place to help protect commerce on the internet; the million dollar question is "how?" but more importantly "how far are we willing to go?".

When people download music they don't care if it is from a independent artist or Universal Music group or how much of a cut anyone takes. They take it because they can, not for any other reason.

The music industry is not dieing because of lack of interest or love of music. Or lack of a market for it, but because of theft and people's capacity to justify that theft.

[Edited 10/11/10 18:38pm]

Yeah those are all amazing points, i think we tend to think, oh go indie and people will support it because the "big bad labels" are gone, well that is putting faith in the consumer, and lets be real, if given the choice MOST not all but MOST are going to go the free route. which at the end of the day whether you are on universal or on your own, its going to hurt you. Labels have adapted just not the way we wanted them too, they are still getting paid,because at the end of the day they will sell whatever to sell and cut whomever is costing them, labels are making plenty of money still, the industry is down in terms of sales by huge margins but the top is still getting paid.

BklynBabe said:

To me it's like taping music off the radio or borrowing yoir friend's cd to copy. Folk will find ways if they don't want to pay.

except neither of those brought down the entire industry to the point where they used to all sell at least 40k in the top 40 and now it's what? 20k? cd sales are over since napster no matter how you spin it.

V10LETBLUES said:

The music industry is not dieing because of lack of interest or love of music. Or lack of a market for it, but because of theft and people's capacity to justify that theft.

This is where we disagree and I have already proven my point. The industry (in its current form) IS dying, contrary to lastdecember's comments. AND itunes did its best quarter ever Q1 2010. I haven't checked this quarter but itunes is NOT failing. Its sales keep going up.

The business is wide open right now and more and more artists are coming from the web and carving a successful pathway without relying on conventional record label support. They have to change. They SHOULD change. Its their own fault that things are the way they are today and to ignore that is to ignore a part of the truth and reality.

Yeah right this is the same mofo that said he's too RICH to care!

BlaqueKnight said:

This is where we disagree and I have already proven my point. The industry (in its current form) IS dying, contrary to lastdecember's comments. AND itunes did its best quarter ever Q1 2010. I haven't checked this quarter but itunes is NOT failing. Its sales keep going up.

Back to what I was saying, I think its very short-sighted to only look at illegal downloads as the source of the problem. That's industry conditioning at its finest.

If given the choice of free or pay, most people will pick free - especially in this down economy, which also plays a BIG part in recreational spending. True. I'm not arguing that. That said, if you are indie and you are gigging your ass off, you can eat off your music. I know too many people doing this, so I can NOT be told differently. I KNOW it works. There are too many lazy ass artists who have circled their money around CD sales and don't want to tour. Music videos have made artists video stars and too many of them have lame ass live shows. (see: most hip-hop artists)

The business is wide open right now and more and more artists are coming from the web and carving a successful pathway without relying on conventional record label support. They have to change. They SHOULD change. Its their own fault that things are the way they are today and to ignore that is to ignore a part of the truth and reality.

I agree with you that marketing yourself and being a great live act helps. People who are savvy and talented will figure out a way to make a living at it no matter what. Heck even people who I though of as studio artists like Moby are doing great touring. And I can hear his music on tv commercials and in movies a lot more than I ever did on the radio. I think Moby is making a good living just by the licensing his music alone.

Maybe you're right and music artists should resign themselves to a new reality that music recordings are only going to be of value as a promotional tool for live performances or as a product to license to sell phones, bread, butter and cheese, rather than be the bread and butter in and of itself. Even Led Zeppelin finally caved in to let Cadillac use their music to sell some cars. U2 wasn't beneath that to sell ipods. Even though some of these artists considered it selling out and held out for years, they now figure selling out is better than selling at all.

Not all methods will work for all artists, but things will work out somehow, It is not the end of the music industry, people always have a habit of adjusting. On their own terms or by necessity. People will always find a way to make money from the work they and the people love.

I have nothing more to add to this topic.

[Edited 10/12/10 7:07am]

V10LETBLUES said:

When people download music they don't care if it is from a independent artist or Universal Music group or how much of a cut anyone takes. They take it because they can, not for any other reason.

Actually, this is not entirely true. It is quite typical for people that are into underground music to buy the records by underground artists and simply download the mainstream material. I might download some mainstream stuff, because it's easy to do and I just want to check it out. I want to support the independent artists with the money that I put into records.

I haven't bought an album by a mainstream artist since 2004-5, and even the last Prince album I bought was Musicology. I don't feel obliged to support his ridiculous spending habits, whereas with small-scale artists it's a different deal.

Identity said:

October 2010

Kiss star Gene Simmons has accused the music industry of not reacting fast enough to curb the problem of illegal file-sharing.

The bassist said lawsuits should have been issued against illegal downloaders sooner and that the error had cost “hundreds of thousands of jobs” in the industry.

“The music industry was asleep at the wheel and didn't have the balls to sue every fresh-faced, freckle-faced college kid who downloaded material,” Simmons said.

“And so now we're left with hundreds of thousands of people without jobs. There's no industry."

The bassist added: "Make sure your brand is protected. Make sure there are no incursions. Be litigious. Sue everybody. Take their homes, their cars. Don't let anybody cross that line."

Simmons was speaking at the MIPCOM convention in Cannes, France, reports Ars Technica. The convention is a content market for multi-platform entertainment.

The problem of illegal file-sharing has continued to blight the music industry over the last decade.

http://www.gigwise.com/ne...le-Sharers

CORRECTION: The RIAA were suing music fans that were doing "illegal" downloading. After realizing that they were wasting too much money on a losing battle, the RIAA stop suing altogether.

BlaqueKnight said:

People who fight the progression of technology instead of adapting to it always lose.

Somebody put this fossil back in his museum.

Exactly.

--

Vanilli said:

Whenever anyone posts or talks about the music industry and lawsuits over this...I am

reminded of something MJ said way back in early 2003.

HOLLYWOOD - Michael Jackson is speaking out against new legislation that would make downloading copyrighted material over the Internet a felony punishable by jail time.

"I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music. It is wrong to download but the answer cannot be jail," Jackson said in a statement. "It is the fans that drive the success of the music business; I wish that would not be forgotten."

Lawmakers introduced the bill currently under consideration, called the Authors, Consumer and Computer Owners Protection and Security Act of 2003, July 16 in the House of Representatives. The act would make downloading songs over the Web a felony offense.

"Here in America we create new opportunities out of adversity, not punitive laws," he said. "We should look to new technologies, like Apple's new Itunes Music Store, for solutions. This way, innovation continues to be the hallmark of America."

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Michael_Jackson_Slams_Music_Piracy_Bill/1722880

I wish Michael was still around to tell his peers that!

the music industry is responsible for its own demise.

BlaqueKnight said:

V10LETBLUES said:

The music industry is not dieing because of lack of interest or love of music. Or lack of a market for it, but because of theft and people's capacity to justify that theft.

This is where we disagree and I have already proven my point. The industry (in its current form) IS dying, contrary to lastdecember's comments. AND itunes did its best quarter ever Q1 2010. I haven't checked this quarter but itunes is NOT failing. Its sales keep going up.

Back to what I was saying, I think its very short-sighted to only look at illegal downloads as the source of the problem. That's industry conditioning at its finest.

If given the choice of free or pay, most people will pick free - especially in this down economy, which also plays a BIG part in recreational spending. True. I'm not arguing that. That said, if you are indie and you are gigging your ass off, you can eat off your music. I know too many people doing this, so I can NOT be told differently. I KNOW it works. There are too many lazy ass artists who have circled their money around CD sales and don't want to tour. Music videos have made artists video stars and too many of them have lame ass live shows. (see: most hip-hop artists)

The business is wide open right now and more and more artists are coming from the web and carving a successful pathway without relying on conventional record label support. They have to change. They SHOULD change. Its their own fault that things are the way they are today and to ignore that is to ignore a part of the truth and reality.

Regardless of iTunes being up, yeah its up from last year because the cd is going going gone, but who do you think iTunes pays its money too? the labels, itunes isnt an alternative, its another hand in the pocket of the artist, why do you think someone like Jay Z or Don Henley have taken issue with them? its just another cut, now if you are doing straight business with them, it can work, but you still have to have something backing you up in the end, whether its your name or your past work on a label or whatever, very very few can sustain themselves for a catalog of work. How many artists with 10+ albums are totally totally indie since day one? Now i mean indie i dont mean some small label that can be tied back to Universal. Take someone like Julian Lennon, son of a beatle, has had this new record done for 2 years now, tried, a new marketing tecnique where YOU the consumer can actually make money off the artist by pushing them, great concept, great product, great artist, failed miserably, lost money and now Julian is shopping the record to labels to take the brunt of the distribution costs and volume. Now Julian is far from a Hip Hop artist, he is one that can play, tour, and sell out shows, but still needs to have some sort of backing to an extent, not saying he's got to join a major (which he already said he wont) but still he needs the machinery to do the legwork. The % of artists gigging and making enough money for that to be their only job and also to release records is a small %, i know plenty too, but i also know tons that do it for a year or two and then reality sets in when the shows are half empty because no one wants to pay to see shows anymore.

great discussion all.

I think I'm starting to believe (and after reading this thread's points into it) that this drama is basically gonna end with the artists marketing directly to comsumers (then the correct folks get paid)..and they will continue to profit from merch & touring.

Kinda seems like the intermediaries of yester-year are gonna be forced out economically & it'll all revert to "medieval model" of travelling artists getting paid by the recipients.

But....as you guys have noted.......file sharing? Taping? CD burning? Never gon stop. I think Mike was right....it ultimately FEEDS the appetite for music anyway.

JamFanHot said:

great discussion all.

I think I'm starting to believe (and after reading this thread's points into it) that this drama is basically gonna end with the artists marketing directly to comsumers (then the correct folks get paid)..and they will continue to profit from merch & touring.

Kinda seems like the intermediaries of yester-year are gonna be forced out economically & it'll all revert to "medieval model" of travelling artists getting paid by the recipients.

But....as you guys have noted.......file sharing? Taping? CD burning? Never gon stop. I think Mike was right....it ultimately FEEDS the appetite for music anyway.

Well i think that is where it is anyway, but you mostly have to be established and have that base already to make it work, Prince can sell shit and not care that something sells 25,000 copies because he is alreayd paid, now someone unknown, has to find a way to get to that kind of market share without a label, and lets also remember that people arent going to shows like they used too, i go into places here in nyc all the time, Bb kings and shit like that, and you can see tumbleweed blow by on some nights, so i think what we are missing is that you still need cash behind you in some form, not saying sign with a label, cause almost all the artists i like at this point are either off labels and selling their shit on their own, or just not playing the game of the label mechanics.

Now with that said there are good examples of artists who gig and live and release music, take Rick Springfield for instance, go to his webstie, his shit gets more traffic than any Prince site has ever gotten, Rick is paid, he is on his own, has been since 1998, has been doing about 100-150 shows a year for almost a decade now, (no one is doing that) and though it might not be arenas, the places are pretty full and he has a base, however he wouldnt have this opportunity, if it wasnt for the label that built him to a place that he could do this, that is the point.

Yep. That's why I say "medieval". The little guys are gonna make only a little & the ones with some "means" (either recording, self-marketing, or touring) are gonna eat better.

All-n-all...I think it;s gonna be a better scenario than yesterday for artists and comsumers.

Sandino said:

errant said:

you just ruined my whole life.

I can't say I don't wanna see this porno...just to see if the hype as big as been speculated.

It looked like he was trying to pump a pillow

JamFanHot said:

Yep. That's why I say "medieval". The little guys are gonna make only a little & the ones with some "means" (either recording, self-marketing, or touring) are gonna eat better.

All-n-all...I think it;s gonna be a better scenario than yesterday for artists and comsumers.

true and like i said before i will support that artist that is gonna do the work and the tours and all that long before i will support someone who is gonna play the game now to just play the game, dont get wrong, there are plenty of artists now that are with labels that do this, that i will support, because quite frankly everyone cant be on their own because of the way things are now, but one day, maybe soundscan will be gone and that billboard mentality that quotes first week numbers will be too.

andykeen said:

Just saw Gene's Porn.....man he has a small cock....and he fucks the hottest chick!! not cool

i had to look it up to verify that but

that was some dumb blonde bimbo with fake tits

how is that hot ?

[Edited 10/12/10 18:50pm]

V10LETBLUES said:

BlaqueKnight said:

This is where we disagree and I have already proven my point. The industry (in its current form) IS dying, contrary to lastdecember's comments. AND itunes did its best quarter ever Q1 2010. I haven't checked this quarter but itunes is NOT failing. Its sales keep going up.

Back to what I was saying, I think its very short-sighted to only look at illegal downloads as the source of the problem. That's industry conditioning at its finest.

If given the choice of free or pay, most people will pick free - especially in this down economy, which also plays a BIG part in recreational spending. True. I'm not arguing that. That said, if you are indie and you are gigging your ass off, you can eat off your music. I know too many people doing this, so I can NOT be told differently. I KNOW it works. There are too many lazy ass artists who have circled their money around CD sales and don't want to tour. Music videos have made artists video stars and too many of them have lame ass live shows. (see: most hip-hop artists)

The business is wide open right now and more and more artists are coming from the web and carving a successful pathway without relying on conventional record label support. They have to change. They SHOULD change. Its their own fault that things are the way they are today and to ignore that is to ignore a part of the truth and reality.

I agree with you that marketing yourself and being a great live act helps. People who are savvy and talented will figure out a way to make a living at it no matter what. Heck even people who I though of as studio artists like Moby are doing great touring. And I can hear his music on tv commercials and in movies a lot more than I ever did on the radio. I think Moby is making a good living just by the licensing his music alone.

Maybe you're right and music artists should resign themselves to a new reality that music recordings are only going to be of value as a promotional tool for live performances or as a product to license to sell phones, bread, butter and cheese, rather than be the bread and butter in and of itself.

The thing is most artists never made any bread and butter off selling records. Only the major ones and then many of them only a little, like Prince. He complains he only makes little of the royalties off Purple rain for example.

The system is and has been for a long, too long time that artists try to get the best deal possible by getting the biggest advance possible. And record companies compeat over it. Most artists don't care about ownership, because they know they won't get it anyway. But when you can trade that ownership against a million dollar advance?

That's the reason why there are few real artists left and why it's not about music anymore, but only about money and how to make that as fast as possible. That's the source of the current state of the music industry and why it's good that change is forced upon them.The music industry is a playground for non-talented 'producers' and 'artists' that can't sing let alone play an instrument, and mostly sell sex and violence. It is owned by gigantic multinational conglomarates that are only intersetde in profit numbers and that buy and sell age old music walhalla's like motown over night for a couple of hunderd million, really not caring what cultural destruction they are overseeing.

It's good that we are seeing the destruction of this system that has never been tood for artists nor consumers. It's good that "hundreds of thousands of people" need to find another, better job, than this, collaborating in the destruction of popular music.

When radio became popluar in the beginning of the 20th century radio stations were raided for piracy and the death of music was announced. 20 years later collective composer organisations were formed worldwide to collect compulsory licenses from the stations playing popular music.

These 'collective rights organisations' became very powerful over time and quickly managed to impose fees on TV stations too, as well as on every other business entity publicly performing music, be it a bar, restaurant, hotel, supermakrtet, shopping center, airline company or grocery store in many parts of the world.

In the 70's and 80's hometapingwas killing music and the movie industry too. After a US Supreme Court decision made hometaping legal the industry gave up its long fough legal battle and arranged for a statutory fee on all blank video and music cassettes sold in much of the world.

The same was done when CD's CD'rs and DVD's etc were introduced. The industry receives a fee for a every blank copy sold.

But when the internet rose the industry did nothing, except for making new laws and filing a lot of costly but pointless lawsuits that did nothing to curb file sharing. Worse that only made it more and more popular.

Ten, what? Fifteen years down the road and they STILL don't offer all their music online in a supportable manner.

That's not simply incompetence. That's willful neglect.

Tremolina said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I agree with you that marketing yourself and being a great live act helps. People who are savvy and talented will figure out a way to make a living at it no matter what. Heck even people who I though of as studio artists like Moby are doing great touring. And I can hear his music on tv commercials and in movies a lot more than I ever did on the radio. I think Moby is making a good living just by the licensing his music alone.

Maybe you're right and music artists should resign themselves to a new reality that music recordings are only going to be of value as a promotional tool for live performances or as a product to license to sell phones, bread, butter and cheese, rather than be the bread and butter in and of itself.

The thing is most artists never made any bread and butter off selling records. Only the major ones and then many of them only a little, like Prince. He complains he only makes little of the royalties off Purple rain for example.

The system is and has been for a long, too long time that artists try to get the best deal possible by getting the biggest advance possible. And record companies compeat over it. Most artists don't care about ownership, because they know they won't get it anyway. But when you can trade that ownership against a million dollar advance?

That's the reason why there are few real artists left and why it's not about music anymore, but only about money and how to make that as fast as possible. That's the source of the current state of the music industry and why it's good that change is forced upon them.The music industry is a playground for non-talented 'producers' and 'artists' that can't sing let alone play an instrument, and mostly sell sex and violence. It is owned by gigantic multinational conglomarates that are only intersetde in profit numbers and that buy and sell age old music walhalla's like motown over night for a couple of hunderd million, really not caring what cultural destruction they are overseeing.

It's good that we are seeing the destruction of this system that has never been tood for artists nor consumers. It's good that "hundreds of thousands of people" need to find another, better job, than this, collaborating in the destruction of popular music.

When radio became popluar in the beginning of the 20th century radio stations were raided for piracy and the death of music was announced. 20 years later collective composer organisations were formed worldwide to collect compulsory licenses from the stations playing popular music.

These 'collective rights organisations' became very powerful over time and quickly managed to impose fees on TV stations too, as well as on every other business entity publicly performing music, be it a bar, restaurant, hotel, supermakrtet, shopping center, airline company or grocery store in many parts of the world.

In the 70's and 80's hometapingwas killing music and the movie industry too. After a US Supreme Court decision made hometaping legal the industry gave up its long fough legal battle and arranged for a statutory fee on all blank video and music cassettes sold in much of the world.

The same was done when CD's CD'rs and DVD's etc were introduced. The industry receives a fee for a every blank copy sold.

But when the internet rose the industry did nothing, except for making new laws and filing a lot of costly but pointless lawsuits that did nothing to curb file sharing. Worse that only made it more and more popular.

Ten, what? Fifteen years down the road and they STILL don't offer all their music online in a supportable manner.

That's not simply incompetence. That's willful neglect.

You know I get all that. And I doubt we will ever will stop piracy completely, just like we will never stop regular theft outside of the internet in our day to day life. But like I mentioned earlier, this is about way more than the measly music industry. This is about protecting commerce. Commerce is what drives all people of all nations, and as more and more commerce is being carried out on the internet, I think it is foolish to think that anyone is going to just let this type of activity impede commerce without anyone having a big say on the matter. Whether it be music online or any other commerce online, there will be a forceful concerted effort to protect it.

Since the beginning of time people have figured out how to rob people on the street, in a bank, on a train, in the high seas, through wire fraud and every way imaginable, it will continue till the end of time. But people have yet to throw their hands in the air and give up on the whole commerce, goods and services thing, or let people just let people just take what they wanted freely. I highly doubt we will start now, regardless of how difficult it seems the effort to curb it will be.

Sure, the internet has been around for a while now, but this is really just the beginning. Before it was just a curiosity that people were taking for a spin, now it's getting to be the backbone of commerce.

Just as we have seen Rim's Blackberry service threatened recently to better allow foreign governments easier surveillance of their devices, I have no doubt digital checkpoints of some sort will be in place along the digital pathways sooner than later. Governments will be paranoid enough to implement a heck of a lot more security, whether to protect commerce or the proverbial chestnut of "National Security" This is all just par for the course. What we now know of the internet will seem quaint in the decade to come.

Anyway to get back on topic. I have no doubt in my mind that the music industry, as well as all other digital commerce on the net will figure this mess out in a way that they can make money on. But MOST importantly, for a way that our good government can tax us on.

We thought this was just about pimply faced teens, sleezy record execs and rock stars? Uncle Sam is not letting any of us off the hook that easily. ......Please!

[Edited 10/13/10 15:07pm]

lastdecember said:

JamFanHot said:

great discussion all.

I think I'm starting to believe (and after reading this thread's points into it) that this drama is basically gonna end with the artists marketing directly to comsumers (then the correct folks get paid)..and they will continue to profit from merch & touring.

Kinda seems like the intermediaries of yester-year are gonna be forced out economically & it'll all revert to "medieval model" of travelling artists getting paid by the recipients.

But....as you guys have noted.......file sharing? Taping? CD burning? Never gon stop. I think Mike was right....it ultimately FEEDS the appetite for music anyway.

Well i think that is where it is anyway, but you mostly have to be established and have that base already to make it work, Prince can sell shit and not care that something sells 25,000 copies because he is alreayd paid, now someone unknown, has to find a way to get to that kind of market share without a label, and lets also remember that people arent going to shows like they used too, i go into places here in nyc all the time, Bb kings and shit like that, and you can see tumbleweed blow by on some nights, so i think what we are missing is that you still need cash behind you in some form, not saying sign with a label, cause almost all the artists i like at this point are either off labels and selling their shit on their own, or just not playing the game of the label mechanics.

Now with that said there are good examples of artists who gig and live and release music, take Rick Springfield for instance, go to his webstie, his shit gets more traffic than any Prince site has ever gotten, Rick is paid, he is on his own, has been since 1998, has been doing about 100-150 shows a year for almost a decade now, (no one is doing that) and though it might not be arenas, the places are pretty full and he has a base, however he wouldnt have this opportunity, if it wasnt for the label that built him to a place that he could do this, that is the point.

I keep hearing people talk about this Rick Springfield. Tell me this is not Rick (General Hospital-Jessie's Girl) Springfield??

Could it be? What is he doing lately to garner this much attention?

prodigalfan said:

I keep hearing people talk about this Rick Springfield. Tell me this is not Rick (General Hospital-Jessie's Girl) Springfield??

Could it be? What is he doing lately to garner this much attention?

http://www.rickspringfield.com/

V10LETBLUES said:

Tremolina said:

The thing is most artists never made any bread and butter off selling records. Only the major ones and then many of them only a little, like Prince. He complains he only makes little of the royalties off Purple rain for example.

The system is and has been for a long, too long time that artists try to get the best deal possible by getting the biggest advance possible. And record companies compeat over it. Most artists don't care about ownership, because they know they won't get it anyway. But when you can trade that ownership against a million dollar advance?

That's the reason why there are few real artists left and why it's not about music anymore, but only about money and how to make that as fast as possible. That's the source of the current state of the music industry and why it's good that change is forced upon them.The music industry is a playground for non-talented 'producers' and 'artists' that can't sing let alone play an instrument, and mostly sell sex and violence. It is owned by gigantic multinational conglomarates that are only intersetde in profit numbers and that buy and sell age old music walhalla's like motown over night for a couple of hunderd million, really not caring what cultural destruction they are overseeing.

It's good that we are seeing the destruction of this system that has never been tood for artists nor consumers. It's good that "hundreds of thousands of people" need to find another, better job, than this, collaborating in the destruction of popular music.

When radio became popluar in the beginning of the 20th century radio stations were raided for piracy and the death of music was announced. 20 years later collective composer organisations were formed worldwide to collect compulsory licenses from the stations playing popular music.

These 'collective rights organisations' became very powerful over time and quickly managed to impose fees on TV stations too, as well as on every other business entity publicly performing music, be it a bar, restaurant, hotel, supermakrtet, shopping center, airline company or grocery store in many parts of the world.

In the 70's and 80's hometapingwas killing music and the movie industry too. After a US Supreme Court decision made hometaping legal the industry gave up its long fough legal battle and arranged for a statutory fee on all blank video and music cassettes sold in much of the world.

The same was done when CD's CD'rs and DVD's etc were introduced. The industry receives a fee for a every blank copy sold.

But when the internet rose the industry did nothing, except for making new laws and filing a lot of costly but pointless lawsuits that did nothing to curb file sharing. Worse that only made it more and more popular.

Ten, what? Fifteen years down the road and they STILL don't offer all their music online in a supportable manner.

That's not simply incompetence. That's willful neglect.

You know I get all that. And I doubt we will ever will stop piracy completely, just like we will never stop regular theft outside of the internet in our day to day life. But like I mentioned earlier, this is about way more than the measly music industry. This is about protecting commerce. Commerce is what drives all people of all nations, and as more and more commerce is being carried out on the internet, I think it is foolish to think that anyone is going to just let this type of activity impede commerce without anyone having a big say on the matter. Whether it be music online or any other commerce online, there will be a forceful concerted effort to protect it.

Since the beginning of time people have figured out how to rob people on the street, in a bank, on a train, in the high seas, through wire fraud and every way imaginable, it will continue till the end of time. But people have yet to throw their hands in the air and give up on the whole commerce, goods and services thing, or let people just let people just take what they wanted freely. I highly doubt we will start now, regardless of how difficult it seems the effort to curb it will be.

Sure, the internet has been around for a while now, but this is really just the beginning. Before it was just a curiosity that people were taking for a spin, now it's getting to be the backbone of commerce.

Just as we have seen Rim's Blackberry service threatened recently to better allow foreign governments easier surveillance of their devices, I have no doubt digital checkpoints of some sort will be in place along the digital pathways sooner than later. Governments will be paranoid enough to implement a heck of a lot more security, whether to protect commerce or the proverbial chestnut of "National Security" This is all just par for the course. What we now know of the internet will seem quaint in the decade to come.

Anyway to get back on topic. I have no doubt in my mind that the music industry, as well as all other digital commerce on the net will figure this mess out in a way that they can make money on. But MOST importantly, for a way that our good government can tax us on.

We thought this was just about pimply faced teens, sleezy record execs and rock stars? Uncle Sam is not letting any of us off the hook that easily. ......Please!

[Edited 10/13/10 15:07pm]

Commerce...

Protecting Commerce...

3 words for ya

Steve Mothafunkin Jobs

Apple generates 15.7 billion dollars a quarter on iphone and ipad related stuff alone...

And good ole steve likes to pay taxes

deary...

Commerce is fine

And thats the bottom line

Cause Super Steve Says So