The Music Industry Makes Me Mad!

[bre.star]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n30scotus.html


I was reading the newspaper today and reading about yet another battle the music industry is having with illegal filesharing networks. It's ridiculous and in the end it's all about greed! They are already making a bajillion dollars! Over half the world doesn't even know how to download a file sharing program! They need to get over it. A true musician would be happy that their music was being heard, regardless if it was illegally...because if someone likes their music when they download it, chances are they are going to share it with their friends, and then buy their cds and t-shirts and and stickers and go to their concersts etc etc...Personally, illegal music downloading has opened my eyes to a broad horizon of music! Without Napster in the 6th grade, I would never have even heard of half of my favorite bands today! I really don't like any of the bands who have come out in the open to say that they do not support online music sharing, because they are FILTHY RICH, and obviously not in it for the music, they are in it for the money, so fuck them. I just had to get this off my chest...

How do you guys feel about "illegal" online music sharing?

[23*]

How do you guys feel about "illegal" online music sharing?

i like it!

[KilLAtomiK]

i love music piracy and i usualy do buy the albums if i like what i download, i go cd shopping like once a month and sampling bands b4 you buy does help out.

[tinstar]

Didn't we have this discussion recently?

[killerkat]

i do becuse alot of the grind i listen to ,is REALLY hard to get,so if i can hear it first,it's nice,then i can wait a month to buy it from australia or something....

[Ichigo]

I also probably would not have heard of many of the bands I like if it weren't for file sharing. I don't, however, like downloading whole albums. I've unfortunately have had to do that lately though, because I don't have a lot of money. I noticed that I don't like to listen to it as much if I have a whole album that is a burned copy.

[ForrestBlack]

Smash and grab jewelry store robery has really opened my eyes to how much I really like diamonds. You'd be shocked to see how positively people react to someone wearing a lot of diamonds. And besides, it's not like the jewelry cartels are not filthy fucking rich, I mean, not too many people rob jewelry stores. They should get over it.

[Skavian]

I think I already had a discussion about the value of art. That shit is straight played out. Instead I'll be all goth here and say: The world is a vampire, she eats her kids.

[Amelia G]

Of course bands that suck will be flattered when someone downloads one of their songs because that means that at least one person listened to their talentless drivel. Bands who produce something worthwhile which they know people like are going to be a bit less thrilled. I've got another question about how people feel about this, but I'm going to start a new thread for it.

[Skavian]

Of course bands that suck will be flattered when someone downloads one of their songs because that means that at least one person listened to their talentless drivel. Bands who produce something worthwhile which they know people like are going to be a bit less thrilled. I've got another question about how people feel about this, but I'm going to start a new thread for it.

I think that is somewhat narrow-minded. What is determined as good but what the individual thinks? We all disagree on what is good, and sometimes what is horrendous is still good in some ways.

[Amelia G]

I think that is somewhat narrow-minded. What is determined as good but what the individual thinks? We all disagree on what is good, and sometimes what is horrendous is still good in some ways.

If it is good in ways which appeal to people, then people want it.

Let me spell it out. If an artist produces something that they are pretty sure no one is going to want, then they may be flattered by someone stealing it because this implies that their work has more value to the world than they suspected.

If an artist produces something that they are pretty sure somebody is going to want, then it is no compliment if someone wants what they created but doesn't want to support it.

[23*]

the difference here is between what is good and what is commercial.

[Amelia G]

the difference here is between what is good and what is commercial.

I am talking about if an artist has something that people want. Whether or not it is something they would bring Bob Rock in to produce and put on billboards is not the point.

If the artist believes that people will not want a song and it turns out some do, then the artist may be flattered.

If the artist believes that people will want a song and it turns out that the ones who do don't want to support that artist, then the artist may be upset.

[Kidthorazine]

My thoery on this is that file sharing doesnt hurt artists that badly mainly because most artists dont make very much money from record sales anyway (and the ones that do dont need the money) they make money from touring. For a tour to be succesful it must be promoted and record companys rarely promote up and coming bands that much and filesharing is essentially free promotion which is good for bands though maybe not so much for record companies. Also i think most people who use filesharing still buy records its actually a good way to sample stuff before you spend money on it.

[Amelia G]

My thoery on this is that file sharing doesnt hurt artists that badly mainly because most artists dont make very much money from record sales anyway (and the ones that do dont need the money) they make money from touring. For a tour to be succesful it must be promoted and record companys rarely promote up and coming bands that much and filesharing is essentially free promotion which is good for bands though maybe not so much for record companies. Also i think most people who use filesharing still buy records its actually a good way to sample stuff before you spend money on it.

I think the issue is tha artist's right to have their work shared in the way the desire, whether or not they are getting any $ for it or giving it away for free. If an artist wants to give a song away on his or her site in a context, for example, but not on P2P networks, then I think that is the artist's right and should be respected.

If we expect the music industry to make money off tours and not songs, then that punishes good song-writing and rewards theatrical gimmicks. Fine if you prefer that, but something to keep in mind.

Plus, realistically, you don't buy the cow when you get the milk for free, unless you really really love the cow. And people just don't love the cow that much that often.

[Kidthorazine]

I think the issue is tha artist's right to have their work shared in the way the desire, whether or not they are getting any $ for it or giving it away for free. If an artist wants to give a song away on his or her site in a context, for example, but not on P2P networks, then I think that is the artist's right and should be respected.

If we expect the music industry to make money off tours and not songs, then that punishes good song-writing and rewards theatrical gimmicks. Fine if you prefer that, but something to keep in mind.

Plus, realistically, you don't buy the cow when you get the milk for free, unless you really really love the cow. And people just don't love the cow that much that often.

From the money on tour thing im talking about the artists making money not the record company. But i do agree that the artists should have a say in how music is distributed but from what ive read there arent too many artists who speak out about file sharing i can only think of maybe twenty or so and i know lots of people who buy records and download music

[the_plague]

good or bad, it will never be stopped...but is that good or bad?

[Jax]

From the money on tour thing im talking about the artists making money not the record company. But i do agree that the artists should have a say in how music is distributed but from what ive read there arent too many artists who speak out about file sharing i can only think of maybe twenty or so and i know lots of people who buy records and download music

But the artists dont make money if they have a record label. The artists have to pay everything back to the record label, so yes, the record label IS making money, not the artists.

[ForrestBlack]

But the artists dont make money if they have a record label. The artists have to pay everything back to the record label, so yes, the record label IS making money, not the artists.

On some levels, that can be the case. Some bands cost record labels more than the band actually ever makes. Some bands break even, expense wise, and some successful bands make a great deal of money. A record label speculates on a band, puts up a lot of money to support them and hopes to make it back. Unfortunately, some bands feel that every dollar they make should go directly into their bank account, and not pay for the tour bus rental, the art department that designed their posters, t-shirts, CD, website, etc. They feel they shouldn't pay for the publicity department that booked them on all the radio shows, that got them written up in all those magazines. All of a sudden, they feel that they are big rock stars and that every one else should have been working for love and art. There was a structure there that put them in that position.

[Amelia G]

On some levels, that can be the case. Some bands cost record labels more than the band actually ever makes. Some bands break even, expense wise, and some successful bands make a great deal of money. A record label speculates on a band, puts up a lot of money to support them and hopes to make it back. Unfortunately, some bands feel that every dollar they make should go directly into their bank account, and not pay for the tour bus rental, the art department that designed their posters, t-shirts, CD, website, etc. They feel they shouldn't pay for the publicity department that booked them on all the radio shows, that got them written up in all those magazines. All of a sudden, they feel that they are big rock stars and that every one else should have been working for love and art. There was a structure there that put them in that position.

Very very true, but I think Jax' point was that the money from a tour does not go directly to the artists any more than the money from a CD sale does.

[Amelia G]

good or bad, it will never be stopped...but is that good or bad?

It could be greatly curtailed.

(1) People could have a bit more respect for other people's property and for artists' rights.

(2) Government could step in and make the internet a much more regulated and less private place and everyone will lose privacy and freedom, but some people will have enjoyed not paying for music first.

[Tequila Zaire]

Of course bands that suck will be flattered when someone downloads one of their songs because that means that at least one person listened to their talentless drivel. Bands who produce something worthwhile which they know people like are going to be a bit less thrilled. I've got another question about how people feel about this, but I'm going to start a new thread for it.

That's a bit uneven...many good bands got their break in terms of developing a fanbase on stuff like mp3.com and via assorted P2P networks. During the napster days I meet a lot of artists who were far from major label stars but made great music.

These days I use it a sa radio station almost...test out new stuff and finding out about stuff I may have missed.

The major labels and big name bands are the major people complaining and they produce most of the shit that drowns and kills off lesser known acts...

[Tequila Zaire]

It could be greatly curtailed.

(1) People could have a bit more respect for other people's property and for artists' rights.

As soon as these "artists" respect consumer rights...then sure. But more and more they make their final product more like a "rented" work that has way too many limitations on how and where it's used. That is incredibly diresepctful and hampers how people use music...so until that happens...their rights will be shot in the head like they do to their fans/consumers.

[Amelia G]

As soon as these "artists" respect consumer rights...then sure. But more and more they make their final product more like a "rented" work that has way too many limitations on how and where it's used. That is incredibly diresepctful and hampers how people use music...so until that happens...their rights will be shot in the head like they do to their fans/consumers.

I understand why people are angry at the music industry. I'm not disagreeing there. I'm angry at the music industry.

I have never downloaded a stolen MP3, but I'm unhappy with many of the music industry's business practices. They want everyone to respect their intellectual property rights, but they don't respect the intellectual property rights of others. If I had a proper paycheck from every band who ever stole my photography to promote their band which they were trying to make money off of, then I would never have to stress about paying a hosting bill ever again, even if I stopped working tomorrow.

But none of that changes the fact that stealing is stealing and stealing from rich and powerful people is dangerous. I think the P2P theft on an international scope could easily lead us down a path to far less personal freedom and the prospect of losing my civil liberties because somebody else wanted The Cure on their iPod with ease and convenience but didn't want to pay for it . . . well, it seems like a bad deal to me.

[ForrestBlack]

That's a bit uneven...many good bands got their break in terms of developing a fanbase on stuff like mp3.com and via assorted P2P networks. During the napster days I meet a lot of artists who were far from major label stars but made great music.

These days I use it a sa radio station almost...test out new stuff and finding out about stuff I may have missed.

The major labels and big name bands are the major people complaining and they produce most of the shit that drowns and kills off lesser known acts...

I really liked mp3.com. It was a commercial entity though. Advertising supported a lot of it and bands could choose what they wanted to share. I had a very popular collection of tracks on that site and gave exposure to a lot of cool bands I like. Bands were able to promote their CDs and shows and merch too. P2P strips away a lot of that, and that is why I object to it so much. Small labels and unsigned bands embrace the technology because they have very little to lose. However, I think it is short sighted, in that they seem to change their mind once they become established. But, I don't want to live in a world ruled by not ready for prime time players. I've been a music journalist for many many years, and I'm sure I don't have to tell you how many people deserve to fail. It far outnumbers the ones that deserve to succeed. I think that sites like mp3.com really allowed the good ones to shine and get success through earned popularity and talent, without stripping them of their artistic control of their own work.

[Tequila Zaire]

What I liked about mp3.com was the lack of a middleman between the artists and the listener...I would love to see THAT become the modern music industry...charge by the song not the album...look how well iTunes did as a result.

It just needs to evolve past the mess it is now where the consumer it's now enemy #1.

[Amelia G]

What I liked about mp3.com was the lack of a middleman between the artists and the listener...I would love to see THAT become the modern music industry...charge by the song not the album...look how well iTunes did as a result.

It just needs to evolve past the mess it is now where the consumer it's now enemy #1.

That is my favorite thing about the internet! There are so many ways to go more directly to the end user and cut out the middleman who may just not get it. MP3.com and iTunes were still middlemen to an extent but not to nearly the same extent as say Clear Channel. I like the potential for opportunity for artists to shine and be seen by the people who will understand and care.

[ForrestBlack]

What I liked about mp3.com was the lack of a middleman between the artists and the listener...I would love to see THAT become the modern music industry...charge by the song not the album...look how well iTunes did as a result.

It just needs to evolve past the mess it is now where the consumer it's now enemy #1.

I agree with that model. I think it's important to recognise that the staff of mp3.com was still, in some respect, a middleman though. There were costs associated with running a site like that, and perhaps they didn't charge enough, if they were unable to continue with their valuable service. That is why I don't object to a middleman taking a fair cut, provided they are giving a valuable service for their cut. I like a pay by the song model, and I would support an artists right to decide that their album was a story or whole concept and thus support their right to decide to only offer it as one piece, composed of x number of tracks. It's their art after all.

[Tequila Zaire]

I have never downloaded a stolen MP3

That's the thing though...what many of us who have or still do use P2P for music liked about it is that it was like opening up a music colelction to share and trade with...it was not so much about free stuff. It became that way when it grew so massive you could get entire albums for free...the quality was never all that amazing though. It was good but not great. Pay sites and in particular allomp3.com pushed for quality and insanely low prices...it allowed for the customer to decide on what kind of encoding to use.

THAT needs to be the new model...user chosen encoding on a sliding scale of prices and competative availabilty. Not exclusive artists catalogs mind you but something extra in the mix like DVD's do...vanilla editions on place...collectors ones in another...something diffrent than 10 tracks on a lame CD.

Thing is this was all doen before P2P with mix tapes and CD...I remember that was THE way people traded music since I was in grade school and it was pretty massive too....Mp3's simply made it possible to put 100 + tracks on a CD instead of say only 20.

We are in the age of MASS music...and the industry needs to react accordingly...

In my ipod I have 6000 + paid songs...some may question the legality of HOW I paid for them...but they are paid for. Walking around with 6000 songs is insane...but it's all too common.

That's the reality...and it's being ignored by the people who supply the content.

[Tequila Zaire]

I agree with that model. I think it's important to recognise that the staff of mp3.com was still, in some respect, a middleman though. There were costs associated with running a site like that, and perhaps they didn't charge enough, if they were unable to continue with their valuable service. That is why I don't object to a middleman taking a fair cut, provided they are giving a valuable service for their cut. I like a pay by the song model, and I would support an artists right to decide that their album was a story or whole concept and thus support their right to decide to only offer it as one piece, composed of x number of tracks. It's their art after all.

As long as the middleman does not feel so overpowering that you feel you are supporting that person above the artist then it will work...but with record shops making it so THEY are the ones who dominate and music is just a lil commodity they sell...we have problems.

Look at Tower Records...it feels more about Tower Record than say the isles of music they sell...no matter how they decorate or try to run it they feel too dominant and distance the customer form the music.

It's like trying to have something warm and comforting in a hospital setting...it's just not gonna work.

[ForrestBlack]

That's the thing though...

I hear what you are saying. I'm still not clear on a couple things though. I don't really have an mp3 player or an ipod, mostly because I don't download mp3s, so it seemed like something I just didn't need. It would be nice to walk around with all the songs in my collection that I like though. Are you saying that legal objections or technological restrictions that prevent you from recording mp3s onto your mp3 player from CDs that you purchased is what you are rejecting? Or is it more complicated than that? I have a CD player that plays mp3s, and I have a cd or two that I mixed together from a collection of other CD's I own, and yeah, I think that is totally legit. Hail Satan, I think is one of them. It's a fun collection of Manson and Crue and Sabbath and stuff, spanning their careers. Mostly, I didn't want to have to shuffle CDs all day.

Sharing is a completely different issue to me though, and I do think people object to copy protection under the guise of protecting their personal collection, when in most cases, they just want to pirate and share. It's sort of like crying wolf to me. That argument carries a lot less weight when so many people abuse their ability to 'backup' their data.

[ForrestBlack]

As long as the middleman does not feel so overpowering that you feel you are supporting that person above the artist then it will work...but with record shops making it so THEY are the ones who dominate and music is just a lil commodity they sell...we have problems.

Look at Tower Records...it feels more about Tower Record than say the isles of music they sell...no matter how they decorate or try to run it they feel too dominant and distance the customer form the music.

It's like trying to have something warm and comforting in a hospital setting...it's just not gonna work.

I think Tower was reacting to the fact that music sales were down, coincidently around the same time file sharing got popular, but some feel there was no connection. So, Tower had to sell magazines and books and t-shirts and all sorts of other hard goods stuff that could not as easily be stolen from outside their store.

[One Eyed Cat]

My friends that have been in the music industry are mad at the music industry. Their concern is more with the middleman than file sharing tho. If you can get distribution, you'll often make more on your own than signing to a major.

OEC

[karyn]

My friends that have been in the music industry are mad at the music industry. Their concern is more with the middleman than file sharing tho. If you can get distribution, you'll often make more on your own than signing to a major.

OEC

did not work for prince.

[One Eyed Cat]

did not work for prince.

It does work for some people tho. I would imagine for bigger draws like Prince, you'd need the label.

OEC

[ForrestBlack]

It does work for some people tho. I would imagine for bigger draws like Prince, you'd need the label.

OEC

I think that has a lot to do with the services the distributor offers. I know that some of the distributors on the goth-industrial end of the specturum do provide services that are normally handled by the label, but they feel that labels that small and bands that small simply don't have the power to create a buzz of any significance. So, they feel that as a distributor, it still makes sense for them to step in and service DJs, magazines, etc. At a higher level, these tasks are just better handled by the label.

[One Eyed Cat]

I think that has a lot to do with the services the distributor offers. I know that some of the distributors on the goth-industrial end of the specturum do provide services that are normally handled by the label, but they feel that labels that small and bands that small simply don't have the power to create a buzz of any significance. So, they feel that as a distributor, it still makes sense for them to step in and service DJs, magazines, etc. At a higher level, these tasks are just better handled by the label.

True. I'd have to check on how the distro is working for these guys. One thing I have noticed is that they tend to have a few fuck-ups after coming off a major. I'm sure it helped that they were "names" already tho (both had been on majors and on mtv etc etc) I'm sure a label is the easiest *if* you sell really well. It's a very precarious business.

OEC

[devil13]

Im sorry but if you are a musician, you have to ask yourself this question, why am I a musician? Is it for the money or for the love of making music and having people hear your music? If it is for the music than you shouldnt mind that thousands of people are geting a chance to hear your music and showing any interest in your music. if its for the money well then you better have some real talent and you better start singing pop music because thats the only way you are going to see enough money to be filthy rich ( enough money to wipe your ass with a $100 dollar bill like it was nothing). Why is it only those type of bands are the ones making any fuss about file sharing? Matalica was backing the record labels whan they faught napster. Hell, they are the last ones I thought should have any bitch about file sharing. they are all for people recording their live shows but they are against file shareing. does that make sense to anyone?
Another thing if I e-mail you an mp3 for free thats ok but if I get it for free on some file share site for free thats not ok. does that make any sense? I feel that the record industry is just trying to make more money from file sharing and they are finally seeing the fact that people are not going to go out and spend $15-$20 dollars for a cd that might only have one hit song on it but they will spend $15-$20 dollars to download them.

[Amelia G]

Im sorry but if you are a musician, you have to ask yourself this question, why am I a musician? Is it for the money or for the love of making music and having people hear your music? If it is for the music than you shouldnt mind that thousands of people are geting a chance to hear your music and showing any interest in your music. if its for the money well then you better have some real talent and you better start singing pop music because thats the only way you are going to see enough money to be filthy rich ( enough money to wipe your ass with a $100 dollar bill like it was nothing). Why is it only those type of bands are the ones making any fuss about file sharing? Matalica was backing the record labels whan they faught napster. Hell, they are the last ones I thought should have any bitch about file sharing. they are all for people recording their live shows but they are against file shareing. does that make sense to anyone?
Another thing if I e-mail you an mp3 for free thats ok but if I get it for free on some file share site for free thats not ok. does that make any sense? I feel that the record industry is just trying to make more money from file sharing and they are finally seeing the fact that people are not going to go out and spend $15-$20 dollars for a cd that might only have one hit song on it but they will spend $15-$20 dollars to download them.

I'm a fan of recycled paper toilet paper specifically manufactured for the ass wiping function. Who wants germs and cocaine in their butt?

[devil13]

I'm a fan of recycled paper toilet paper specifically manufactured for the ass wiping function. Who wants germs and cocaine in their butt?

you asked what it meant to be FILTHY RICH didnt you?