Kazaa pays up, Metallica loves mp3

Remember how much Metallica hated MP3s, and downloads, and the internet, and Napster a couple of years back? Well the worm has turned with the band finally giving in to the digital revolution, deciding to make their entire back catalogue available for download…legally only of course!

And Sydney-based operators of the file sharing program Kazaa have reached an agreement with Record companies, offering the industry $151 Million for the pirated music downloaded using the program over the last 4 years.


Is there really anyone who doesn't
already have the entire catalogue,
legally or not, left to pay up for it
now?

And just how much of that settlement
do the band members actually think
they'll see.. after everyone else
(attorneys,reps and etc.) get their cut?

Anyone still using P2P for music.. or
any other downloads or have you bitten
the bullet and paid for services like
iTunes/iFlix for legal files?


I guess I can consider myself lucky,
after working in the industry I still get
advance copy from friends. And with
my music collection numbering in the
neighbourhood of 15,000 discs.. vinyl
and otherwise, I find myself putting more
and more of it to digital storage for the
ease and conveinence of keeping track
of it all... not to mention preservation
of rare originals and other one of a kinds.

I knew the whole thing was going to have a limited lifespan, so I tried to grab as much as possible when it was still easy and new. Especially all the old retro stuff and nostalgia music that I would not want to pay full price for. But I am sure that in the future, I will have to pay for new music just like I used to. But the whole Napster thing was great for completing my catalog of old stuff.

I still use limewire, i refuse to pay for music online, its a joke.

Either way if it wasnt for psp programs i would have never discovered the great music i listen to now, i owe everything to kazaa

I still download music illegaly, using bit-torrent, theres no way in hell that i would pay to download music on the internet. If i want to pay for music i buy the album when possible.

mcdonalds had a huge promotion with one "pay to legally download" company awhile back... had my dad buying like 2 or 3 big macs a week so he could get the free songs from the code on the box...
nasty.

eat big macs get free music? Thats the American DREAM!

Metallica... that's how i define 'sellout'.

^yeah! Fuckin damn. Anyways...I don't buy MP3's...I stick to the good old fashion CD's. My MP3 Player just broke so I went back to CD's. I like hanving to manually change the shit when the CD is over... though most of the time a CD will typically stay in my CD player for a few weeks. I've had Slayer-Seasons In The Abyss in there for like 2 weeks...and I don't see anything changing unless I bring the new Slayer CD to work today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Friendly

Metallica... that's how i define 'sellout'.

---

give the man a choclate cigar, he just pinned the tail on the donkey!:thumb: I havent even listened to a metallica cd since and justice for all came out. they suck.

I got an import-only MP3 player because I figured I'd need huge storage to hold all the music I would want to listen to. Found I'm just not really into listening in that format.

Regarding the Kazaarghhhh settlement arranged with the RIAA, funds payed by the network operators are to offset historical revenue streams lost by member labels rather than as direct reimbursement of mechanicals for rights owners (he says putting his work hat firmly on at a jaunty angle). In other words there is no intention for any of the received funds to be streamed to an artist or songwriter, or for it to be distributed to record labels outside the RIAA. Since legally the RIAA can only negoatiate copyright on behalf of members and not for the music industry as a whole, it's effectively a private deal between Kazaa and a small band of US record labels. Indies, artists and non-US labels remain free to sue as much as they want, or push for a similar deal - but since the RIAA is the only music industry organisation on the planet that has an in-house special forces team (don't laugh, tis true!), they get their deals a lot easier than a ten-buck outfit in Des Moines.

Oh, and Gnarkill must've missed the newswires this past fortnight - Limewire is being taken outside and beaten with sticks even as we speak - they either pay a substantial fine *and* agree to block copyrighted material on their ultrapeers, or the RIAA will erase them. Since Limewire is actually a company (that sells advertising) they're incredibly vulnerable to prosecution, and the labels I work with are looking at them paying over $500 million before they'll call off their dogs.

I know 80% of you will be pro-sharing, anyone in the music industry gets pasted as the son of Satan and a meter maid all the time - but we seriously think P2P sharing will cease to be a problem within the next 3 years - remember even if we kill all the client software companies and people start distributed networks of their own, every packet you send goes down a wire your ISP can be made to filter.

mG

okay one, i've never liked metallica. ever. his voice annoys me beyond words.
there are a few songs i tolerate but yeah, no like.

& i am a music pirate. argggh. (my schools mascot too, Hicks Pirates, yeah odd)
but yeah, my poor ass . . . . psssh. if i didnt download music . . . . i'd be in trouble
& considering my crappy dial up(21.6kbps). the time i have TO SIT THERE & WAIT . . . yeah . . . . grrrr.

the only spot we even have where i live to buy cds is wal mart. haha.
& i will not pay to download. when i can just download it for free.

kill P2P?

ridiculous.

i've never downloaded a song in my life. yet all of this hullaballoo from the RIAA (along with other things), has pissed me off to the point that i have refused to buy a single CD for the last 6 years, until last month when i finally broke down and bought a FEAR album (because I Love Living In The City).

i used to buy 5 cd's a week.

the more they tighten the screws, the less money they'll make.

Since it seems I'm on a roll for controversy tonight, I want to know if the folks who are happy to admit to not paying for their music consider it theft or not, and if "it's there means it's free" is your argument, what's the difference between music and 'real world' things like newspapers, books, bus rides...

mG

yeah that makes me think... if you buy a book... then lend it to a friend, is that illegal? or LIBRARIES omg.

funny thing is right now im listening to metallica on a burnt disc... *hides*

but yeah gnarkill... bigmacs for free music... haha... its gross. made me wonder how many people came one burger away from a massive heart attack just to get another song... :S

fuck the RIAA...

music sales will continue to diminish.

boohoo.

Well i dont care if limewire is being ***** as we speak, its still up and running.


The RIAA and record companies need to learn that their shit doesnt sell anymore because it SUCKS and not because of P2P.

And mindgames, Newspapers and buses cant put on shows across the country when it comes out with a new one.

Yes, I do think all those things should be free, I think everything should be free. If it's not worth doing out of a sense that you want to and because you think it's something that should be done, then it's not worth doing at all. pretty much apply that to everything. the artists wil be free to make art because they won't have to worry about "making a living" because all the staples of living will be provided out of sheer enjoyment and neccesity. people will have the free time, because all the time consumed doing pointless stupid shit that is uneccesary will no longer have any place in people's lives.

Idealic? maybe. In the meantime though, the digital revolution is coming down right now with people recording music, stories, news, anything that they can think of in thier basements on the weekend, uploading it to a free community website viewed by millions, and it get's passed around through good old fashion word of mouth by that same means. sure it's being wasted for the most part on shallow hook ups, but it has the potential to change the world.

All my music is digital now. If I want to support a band, I'll buy a concert ticket and/or merch. I have a 30Gb mp3 player that is nearly full and it's my goddamned baby. Wait, that's a bad analogy because I actually love it, not like I would a baby.

well at least with a concert tick. or a t-shirt at the show they might see some of that money... fuck the RIAA, and their bloated leachtocracy...

That's the way I feel. I read an article a bunch of years ago that had a pie-chart breakdown of where the money you pay for a CD at a record store goes. If I remember right, they used something like $18 as the average CD price. Of that, the artist got exactly 3 cents, which I remember very well. It was pretty enlightening. Most of the money went towards the marketing material, the CD case, the album-art, etc.

So when you drop 18 bucks on a CD, the band gets 3 cents, and the printing company that made the little booklet inside the case get's a buck seventy-five. Fuck that.

According to Rolling Stone, the merchandise sold in concert tours is what generates the most profits for bands small and big alike (14 July 2004). In 2004, Ozzy Osbourne grossed US$ 35 million in concert sales and another $15 million directly from merchandise sales, while Mötley Crüe's "Red White & Crüe" 2005 tour averaged $10 in merchandise sales per concertgoer per show. Revenue was generated from new and vintage Mötley Crüe goods including that mainstay of the rock and roll lifestyle: women's panties. For lesser-known bands, merchandise sales can be the lifeblood that literally feeds the artists.

While multi-million dollar album and concert sales sound impressive from a gross figure standpoint, even the biggest artists may only receive about a dollar per CD from sales. According to Gary Bongiovanni, editor in chief of Pollstar, a trade publication on the concert business, artists may receive as much as fifty percent of the gross concert sales once production costs are deducted. However, the biggest profit piece of the economic pie is in the merchandise itself. For every $25 standard tour t-shirt sold, as much as $10 per t-shirt may go directly to the artist. For mega artists like Britney Spears and Ozzy, a worldwide tour can translate into multi-million dollar prospects in just merchandise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rockwulf

That's the way I feel. I read an article a bunch of years ago that had a pie-chart breakdown of where the money you pay for a CD at a record store goes. If I remember right, they used something like $18 as the average CD price. Of that, the artist got exactly 3 cents, which I remember very well. It was pretty enlightening. Most of the money went towards the marketing material, the CD case, the album-art, etc.

So when you drop 18 bucks on a CD, the band gets 3 cents, and the printing company that made the little booklet inside the case get's a buck seventy-five. Fuck that.

---

Which was the exact reason behind why
I even started a recording studio in Detroit
a number of years ago (now defunct)...
with a number of existing studios already
in business, I was told it wouldn't be profitable,
but considering all we did was remaster, dupes,
demos and limited pressings.. it was what most
other studios didn't offer in-house and at least
not at the costs I was able to provide.

I'd be lying to say it wasn't profitable... but also
I never screwed over an artist either... that's
what employees were for. (anyone who worked
for me, you know that's not true... free lunch
Fridays and weekend trips to Toronto titty bars
all on my dime) But there are still several aspects
of the business that have left a long lasting bad
taste to linger still years after the fact... most
of it I just tend to bite my tongue on.. there are
way too many dirty little secrets... but it's just
the nature of the business, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mindgames

Since it seems I'm on a roll for controversy tonight, I want to know if the folks who are happy to admit to not paying for their music consider it theft or not, and if "it's there means it's free" is your argument, what's the difference between music and 'real world' things like newspapers, books, bus rides...

mG

---

I dont consider it stealing, because basically, i stillbuy records, and more importantly i still go see bands perform and buy thier merch. The recording industry needs a serious kick in the ass anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kidthorazine

I dont consider it stealing, because basically, i stillbuy records, and more importantly i still go see bands perform and buy thier merch. The recording industry needs a serious kick in the ass anyways.

---

yup yup, and if it wasnt so impossible to find cds i want in record stores id definetly buy more. The last cds i bought were Give em the boot and that was back in january i think.



artists should make money performing their music, not selling it.

Just wait until the release of darknet. that will get people something to really bitch at

whats darknet all about? that soudns kinda evil :D i like it already.

you can't download vinils and unfortunately I play on vinils :S

btw take a look at our fancy site for our nxt club :P www.society.nu

Yes, you're all perfectly correct that for a mainstay CD release the mechanicals (fees per sale received by the artist and songwriter) are small. It's simply down to margins, and it's been like that since the last war - Sinatra didn't make much more per sale than Madonna does now. The exact mech depends on contract and the other people involved, but you have to be realistic - an artist takes a week to write a song, uses a few scraps of paper and a pencil, and it's done once. The guy delivering the boxes to record stores has a lot more overheads to cover, and wants paying over and over for years.

For a typical single-CD album produced in the USA and distributed worldwide, the following people will want a part of the cover price:-

The songwriters (of the score)
The lyricist
The musicians
Their management and agents
The record label owning the master recording
All of the above over again if you've sampled someone
The recording studio
The producer and mixer
The pressing plant
The artwork designer
The inlay printer
The US distribution (trucking and storage) company
The record stores
The sub-licensor for export sales
Customs and taxes on export goods
The export pressing plants, printers and designers
The distribution companies in each country

Now most of these want payment in advance of the first drop, based on predicted sales - even if everyone got the exact same percentage you're talking pocket lint. The reason people like the label or the pressing plant seems to have a larger share is they're taking shares for others on the list and passing them down.

Now let's say the artist issues one new album every two years (which is about typical), and sells 3 million worldwide. The entire process of writing, production and distribution will take 6 months at least and involve close to 10000 people. At $10 cover even without any profit, you end up with annual earnings less than minimum wage - the albums haven't been the main earner for the artist for years simply because they never were anything like decent income. Merchandising has less people in the loop, so more share for each - but of course the industry will defend the music sales because if nobody buys the CDs radios won't play it, people won't hear it and there'll be less people wanting the shirts. Downloading free music doesn't make one jot of difference as you simply don't download music from artists you don't know exist.

mG

yes, that's all well and good Mindgames, however i think you failed to mention that the RIAA can eat a dick.

going after P2P users with insane fines kinda makes me think that they can go fuck themselves with rusty sporks, even if they were only getting the same .03 as the artist.