Elton and Lily take stand against filesharing
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
another filesharing thread.
Musicians Squabble Over Filesharing
Posted on Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 01:01 PM Add |
Filesharing continues to divide the U.K.’s music business and it’s becoming clear that even the musicians can’t agree on how the problem should be tackled.
Members of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which includes Annie Lennox, Billy Bragg, and Pink Floyd’s Nick Mason, feel the government is being a bit heavy-handed to propose disconnecting filesharers from the Internet, while Sir Elton John and Lily Allen are among those who support a crackdown.
“I am of the view that the unchecked proliferation of illegal downloading (even on a ‘non-commercial’ basis) will have a seriously detrimental effect on musicians, and particularly young musicians and those composers who are not performing artists,” Sir Elton said in a letter to U.K. business secretary Lord Mandelson.
FAC took the rest of the music industry by surprise by publicly announcing it has “agreed to disagree” with labels over government proposals to suspend the Internet connections of persistent filesharers.
Apparently all sides including record companies and music lobby groups have been in frantic talks to reach a consensus in the few days before the government’s consultation draws to an end.
“We have negotiated in good faith with the labels all week, but they remain wedded to the idea of suspension of accounts,” read an FAC statement. “We remain steadfast in our belief that making threats against individual music fans is not an effective way to resolve any problems associated with filesharing.”
The Internet service providers and consumer groups share concerns over how such laws would be enforced, with the risk of the penalising innocent Internet users. But more and more artists are coming out in defense of legal measures, echoing labels’ comments that filesharing is hampering investment in new acts.
There are fears within the industry that the public divisions between artists could derail the long-running fight against piracy just when new laws are close.
Lily Allen has set up a blog titled “It’s Not Alright,” a reference to her first album Alright, Still, to collect the views of artists that support her contention that “filesharing is a disaster for new talent.”
She’s condemned Mason and fellow coalition member, Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien, for implying “file sharing music is fine.”
“It probably is fine for them,” she said. “They do sellout arena tours and have the biggest Ferrari collections in the world.”
“I want to make it clear that I’m not after a fight with the Featured Artists Coalition – I want us artists to stand together on this – but they’ve released a new statement which just doesn’t make sense. The FAC seems to be viewing the government’s proposed legislation as an attack on freedom and liberty, but stealing’s not really a human right, is it?”
Now James Blunt has waded in. “Peter Mandelson is looking to engage the Internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility,” he wrote in a letter to The Times.
The FAC says it’s been misinterpreted. It just feels there’s evidence to show that “repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music.”
It explained that its stance has been taken to “imply that it condones illicit file-sharing. It says this not the case and never has been.
“However, we seriously question the wisdom of seeking to deal with this problem by terminating the Internet connections of individual music fans.
“For those of us who don’t get played on the radio or mentioned in the music media … peer-to-peer recommendation is an important form of promotion
At Odds On Brit File-Sharing
Posted on Monday September 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM 1 |
While the major record labels and many other commercial arms of the music industry are embracing Lord Mandelson’s get-tough stance on illegal file-sharing, some of the artists whose interests they purport to represent say the U.K. business secretary is being heavy-handed.
The Featured Artists Coalition, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA) and the Music Producers Guild believe that kicking file-sharers off the Internet may turn fans against music and the artists themselves.
Blur drummer Dave Rowntree, who is a member of FAC, said the organisation is against file-sharing but that previous attempts at legal action have alienated fans.
“We don’t want to make enemies of our fans,” he told BBC News. “The sensible thing to do is to try to see how we can monetise all this file-sharing activity, which is evidence of a lot of interest in music.”
Singer-songwriter Billy Bragg, who is also on the FAC board, said Mandelson’s proposals are “a very heavy sledgehammer.”
“We’re concerned that, in an age where there is much greater competition for attention, these proposals are in danger of driving young people away from the idea of listening to music,” he explained.
He said many young fans discovered his music through file-sharing, and have paid for it in other ways, such as buying gig tickets.
“We should be encouraging people to become music fans, and whether we like it or not, illicit downloading does encourage people to become music fans.”
Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien said cutting off pirates’ Internet connections isn’t the answer and it’s unlikely to work.
British Phonographic Industry chief Geoff Taylor, whose organisation represents the record labels, says the government is right to consider temporary suspension as a last resort, where accounts are repeatedly used illegally despite warnings.
“Most people across the music sector recognise the serious damage that illegal file-sharing is doing to investment in new music,” he said.
BASCA head Patrick Rackow says sanctions would upset fans, rather than drive them toward legal services.
--John Gammon
To me, I always get sort of sick to my stomach when I hear millionaire musicians who have made millions off us, the fans, complain that they hate filesharing, and sort of by default, suggest that only the real fans purchase albums legally.
I think those who oppose it, will be shown in the future, to have been the wrong side of history. Look at how those who engage in filesharing promotion or use new methods of getting the music out are heralded and thought of quite highly, like Radiohead, or NIN, and those who go to lengths to oppose the filesharing are maligned and a backlsah starts, ala Billy Corgan, or lars Ulrich.
The scene of the moment is indie rock. Those like Kim Gordon who oppose filesharing because its bad for smaller bands, I can understand her view. And her and her bands credibility is written in stone, they are justifiable legends with integrity. I dont see them as greedy rock stars living in mansions, because I doubt they live in them. And The Shins, Modest Mouse's, Death Cabs of the world, although, the big things of the moment, I cant imagine them really living high on the hog with butlers and private jets and champagne ala Bono and U2.
What irks me is when people, musicians who are extremely wealthy, start suggesting that this new filesharing thing, is eating into their profit margin. The Elton Johns of the world. Lily Allen who was a priveledged and rich child, even before she released AlRight Still .
Ultimately, time is better spent thjnking up Radiohead or NIN esque ways of releasing your music to the public. Otherwise its a waste of time. Say, you are siding with Elton and Lily. Fine. But strategically and practically, how does one STOP and ELIMINATE filesharing? The recent RIAA crackdowns on "normal" folks, was definitely a scare tactic. If they can fine a mother of four 1.6 million for downloading 22 songs what could they fine and do to a teen who has thousands of illegally obtained songs? Yet, illegal downloading is up every single month, month after month.
I
Musicians Squabble Over Filesharing
Posted on Wednesday September 23, 2009 at 01:01 PM Add |
Filesharing continues to divide the U.K.’s music business and it’s becoming clear that even the musicians can’t agree on how the problem should be tackled.
Members of the Featured Artists Coalition (FAC), which includes Annie Lennox, Billy Bragg, and Pink Floyd’s Nick Mason, feel the government is being a bit heavy-handed to propose disconnecting filesharers from the Internet, while Sir Elton John and Lily Allen are among those who support a crackdown.
“I am of the view that the unchecked proliferation of illegal downloading (even on a ‘non-commercial’ basis) will have a seriously detrimental effect on musicians, and particularly young musicians and those composers who are not performing artists,” Sir Elton said in a letter to U.K. business secretary Lord Mandelson.
FAC took the rest of the music industry by surprise by publicly announcing it has “agreed to disagree” with labels over government proposals to suspend the Internet connections of persistent filesharers.
Apparently all sides including record companies and music lobby groups have been in frantic talks to reach a consensus in the few days before the government’s consultation draws to an end.
“We have negotiated in good faith with the labels all week, but they remain wedded to the idea of suspension of accounts,” read an FAC statement. “We remain steadfast in our belief that making threats against individual music fans is not an effective way to resolve any problems associated with filesharing.”
The Internet service providers and consumer groups share concerns over how such laws would be enforced, with the risk of the penalising innocent Internet users. But more and more artists are coming out in defense of legal measures, echoing labels’ comments that filesharing is hampering investment in new acts.
There are fears within the industry that the public divisions between artists could derail the long-running fight against piracy just when new laws are close.
Lily Allen has set up a blog titled “It’s Not Alright,” a reference to her first album Alright, Still, to collect the views of artists that support her contention that “filesharing is a disaster for new talent.”
She’s condemned Mason and fellow coalition member, Radiohead’s Ed O’Brien, for implying “file sharing music is fine.”
“It probably is fine for them,” she said. “They do sellout arena tours and have the biggest Ferrari collections in the world.”
“I want to make it clear that I’m not after a fight with the Featured Artists Coalition – I want us artists to stand together on this – but they’ve released a new statement which just doesn’t make sense. The FAC seems to be viewing the government’s proposed legislation as an attack on freedom and liberty, but stealing’s not really a human right, is it?”
Now James Blunt has waded in. “Peter Mandelson is looking to engage the Internet service providers who, in my opinion, handle stolen goods, and should take much more responsibility,” he wrote in a letter to The Times.
The FAC says it’s been misinterpreted. It just feels there’s evidence to show that “repeat file-sharers of music are also repeat purchasers of music.”
It explained that its stance has been taken to “imply that it condones illicit file-sharing. It says this not the case and never has been.
“However, we seriously question the wisdom of seeking to deal with this problem by terminating the Internet connections of individual music fans.
“For those of us who don’t get played on the radio or mentioned in the music media … peer-to-peer recommendation is an important form of promotion
At Odds On Brit File-Sharing
Posted on Monday September 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM 1 |
While the major record labels and many other commercial arms of the music industry are embracing Lord Mandelson’s get-tough stance on illegal file-sharing, some of the artists whose interests they purport to represent say the U.K. business secretary is being heavy-handed.
The Featured Artists Coalition, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA) and the Music Producers Guild believe that kicking file-sharers off the Internet may turn fans against music and the artists themselves.
Blur drummer Dave Rowntree, who is a member of FAC, said the organisation is against file-sharing but that previous attempts at legal action have alienated fans.
“We don’t want to make enemies of our fans,” he told BBC News. “The sensible thing to do is to try to see how we can monetise all this file-sharing activity, which is evidence of a lot of interest in music.”
Singer-songwriter Billy Bragg, who is also on the FAC board, said Mandelson’s proposals are “a very heavy sledgehammer.”
“We’re concerned that, in an age where there is much greater competition for attention, these proposals are in danger of driving young people away from the idea of listening to music,” he explained.
He said many young fans discovered his music through file-sharing, and have paid for it in other ways, such as buying gig tickets.
“We should be encouraging people to become music fans, and whether we like it or not, illicit downloading does encourage people to become music fans.”
Radiohead guitarist Ed O’Brien said cutting off pirates’ Internet connections isn’t the answer and it’s unlikely to work.
British Phonographic Industry chief Geoff Taylor, whose organisation represents the record labels, says the government is right to consider temporary suspension as a last resort, where accounts are repeatedly used illegally despite warnings.
“Most people across the music sector recognise the serious damage that illegal file-sharing is doing to investment in new music,” he said.
BASCA head Patrick Rackow says sanctions would upset fans, rather than drive them toward legal services.
--John Gammon
To me, I always get sort of sick to my stomach when I hear millionaire musicians who have made millions off us, the fans, complain that they hate filesharing, and sort of by default, suggest that only the real fans purchase albums legally.
I think those who oppose it, will be shown in the future, to have been the wrong side of history. Look at how those who engage in filesharing promotion or use new methods of getting the music out are heralded and thought of quite highly, like Radiohead, or NIN, and those who go to lengths to oppose the filesharing are maligned and a backlsah starts, ala Billy Corgan, or lars Ulrich.
The scene of the moment is indie rock. Those like Kim Gordon who oppose filesharing because its bad for smaller bands, I can understand her view. And her and her bands credibility is written in stone, they are justifiable legends with integrity. I dont see them as greedy rock stars living in mansions, because I doubt they live in them. And The Shins, Modest Mouse's, Death Cabs of the world, although, the big things of the moment, I cant imagine them really living high on the hog with butlers and private jets and champagne ala Bono and U2.
What irks me is when people, musicians who are extremely wealthy, start suggesting that this new filesharing thing, is eating into their profit margin. The Elton Johns of the world. Lily Allen who was a priveledged and rich child, even before she released AlRight Still .
Ultimately, time is better spent thjnking up Radiohead or NIN esque ways of releasing your music to the public. Otherwise its a waste of time. Say, you are siding with Elton and Lily. Fine. But strategically and practically, how does one STOP and ELIMINATE filesharing? The recent RIAA crackdowns on "normal" folks, was definitely a scare tactic. If they can fine a mother of four 1.6 million for downloading 22 songs what could they fine and do to a teen who has thousands of illegally obtained songs? Yet, illegal downloading is up every single month, month after month.
I
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And you're proving her point. NIN and Radiohead can afford to do this! Smaller bands can't.
I wonder what someone in one of these bands has to say about the subject.. Oh wait! Ed O'Brien has something to say!
http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/47472
He agrees with Lily! You have the floor musicismylife... However, I think when one of your examples disagrees with your central point, you're SOL.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
There are a number of different penalties for illegal activities. Smokers of pot, could get arrested or thrown in jail, but I highly doubt, pun not intended as I am straight edge, anyone who lights up is going to give a damn what the consequences may be.
Same goes for filesharing. its laughable this attempt to stop it, and I am surprised someone like Obrien would think something could be done about it. I think its safe to assume, hundreds of millions of people, worldwide illegally download. How do you stop something that, that many people are doing? If these anti downloaders were gaining traction that would be one thing, but as I said, those who have attacked the downloaders, whether thats the music industry, the RIAA, the record labels, or people like Lars Ulrich or Billy Corgan etc... every single one of them comes off to the larger public as greedy and laughable. Thats without exception.
Its such a massive issue as well. If it was a few thousand, a few hundred people, maybe we could talk about stopping it. But Millions upon millions illegally download. Daily. Hourly. So, to suggest, something can be done about it, is pretty insane.
The world has fundamentally changed. Its self evident. Line up 100 people our age, and 100 people our parents age, and 95 percent of people our age are gonna say they download illegally and see nothing wrong with it, and 95 percent of our parents are gonna say the complete opposite. The fact of the matter is, people dont really want to pay 20 bucks a pop for cd's anymore. We can hem and haugh and wring our hands all we want about the ethics and consequences all we want, but thats a fact.
Its grasping at straws. The record industry, is in the midst of self inflicted death, they blew it, flat out blew it. And they are doing anything, ANYTHING to try and wring that last few dollars out of us.
I dont really give a damn about the record industry. Its meaningless to me. As a music lover, how has the industry and the labels catered to my needs? Do they even care in the slightest I identify as a musicholic, beyond the monetary benefit to themselves? I say good riddance and we should let the industry continue to self implode. Its made up of people who are completely clueless on how to navigate commerce and art in this post Napster world.
I am a radical activist or have been in the past. But if I was to say, try and tackle racism, its such an engrained and large issue its naive and silly to suggest, "Hey if we just kill off every racist, the world will be racism free". Its not logical and doesnt make sense. In essence thats the big lie about this war on terrorism. It operates on this false idea that if we bomb and kill the terrorists that terrorism will end.
So if the British government shuts off the internet connection of filesharers will filesharing be eliminated? The answer is so obvious it doesnt even deserve to be discussed
Say, this band, my band, made a myspace page where we streamed an albums worth of songs, and had a website where we offered different ways to obtain our album, the record cd version, for 10 bucks, a deluxe album with bonus stuff for 12, and then you could also download mp3's of the album from the site. Say also our band posted a bunch of videos on youtube, and then put our stuff for free on the Torrent sites.
What way of doing things makes more sense for ANY BAND in todays digital and post Napster world? The world envisions in the first part of this post? Or the second?
Say you were in a band and after every gig, you personally handed out free copies of your album to audience members, for free.
Again, the question shouldnt be "how do we punish downloaders" but "how do we engage them". "how do we make money in this new world"?
Far from being sad about the current state of the music "industry" I think its pretty exciting personally. I think there are so many possibilities of what can be done, and how it can be done. There is no formula anymore. bands dont have to go to a record label anymore, they dont have to put out videos, they dont have do any of that. To me, thats exciting.
Yes you have impacted the band. If you download an Elton John album, it's not really breaking the bank but what if it's a smaller band? Some of these bands work for next to nothing. Regardless of how many times you listen you've still stolen the album. If you want to sample them first, go to last.fm or their myspace page and see if you think the album is worth purchasing.
Unfortunately this attitude is what has gotten the music industry into the mess it's in. They failed to move with the times and come up with new innovative ways to engage consumers. It's a cold hard fact that any music that is commercially released will be available for free online. You can't appeal to people's moral sides, no amount of guilt tripping is going to make the average Joe believe that downloading a song or album is the same as stealing something from the shop. How do you convince people to "get away from that attitude"? You can't. I don't disagree with you that people should pay for music, but it's just not realistic nowadays.
A far more productive thing to do, would be for the record industry to work out the money they need to make, and set about coming up with new ways to convince consumers to part with their cash. If everybody gets paid at the end of the day, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. Thus, the music becomes a marketing tool - you give away the music for free, to encourage people to spend on coming to see bands play live, buy merchandise etc. There are plenty of opportunities for bands and labels to make money. Even selling cds - make packaging more exciting and exclusive, give away free bonus stuff. Plus make an ultra cheap, really basically packaged version of each album released (I'm thinking in the style of PJ's bootlegs, i.e a simple cardboard case) and sell it really cheap - they wouldn't cost much to produce, and casual fans are gonna be far more likely to pick up a cd if it's only say £4 instead of £10 or £12. There are so many opportunities, and yet the music industry is still dragging its feet and losing money.
A completely unused file on my pc has impacted on them? Have a think about that one and realise how little sense that makes........it makes no difference how big or small the band is, if I don't like the music and don't listen to it again, I'm not getting anything from them.
Ok I agree completely with your previous post, not so much this one. What if you walked into a record store, picked an album and walked out with paying? Even if you never listen to it, it's still stealing no matter how small the impact. Either way you own the album without paying for it. That's how it make sense to me.
But it only makes sense in a theoretical way. In reality, what is the difference between me going online to listen to an album on myspace and downloading it from a rapidshare link? The end result is identical, I hear the album without paying for it. If I don't listen to it again, its value to me is zero. I've gained nothing, the band have lost nothing. I understand your point to some extent, but it's a really unrealistic, moral argument, which at this stage is utterly irrelevant in terms of actually sorting the music industry out.
I think it gets muddied though. The reason why pot is so accepted in many ways to so many people, even non smokers, is that it is so widely used. Commonly used. With illegally downloading music, its so widely accepted thesedays that your logic is sort of well, non logical. Most people dont walk into stores and steal. They just dont. Most people would agree that is stealing. But how many people, at certain work functions when they are told to take one cupcake (free) they take 2 or three? Is that stealing? How about driving on an empty road and the speed limit is 65 and you put your feet on the gas and go 75? Isnt that essentially against the law? But how many people do this? And isnt it just as dangerous as this stealing thing? With stealing you take money from a record company. With speeding you endanger the life of others and yourself.
The point is, hundreds of millions of people illegally download worldwide. No government suit or RIAA scare tactic is gonna stop this. Its just not. And its of course muddied by that fact. If 1 person worldwide is downloading illegally, then its easier to demonize and censure them. But if hundreds of millions worldwide are illegally downloading, how do you realistically stop this? And how do you convince people to stop it, given as I said, that hundreds of millions are doing it also.
I think this behavior has shown itself in the music itself. How many mashups and bootleg type albums are the popular thing right now? How many have their samples cleared? Isnt that stealing? Dangermouse didnt clear any of the samples he used, and neither has Girl Talk. They are only a reflection of society.
A behavior as mainstream and acceptable as illegally downloading isnt easily stopped. It hasnt stopped by bands moaning and demonizing fans who download, and it hasnt stopped by labels and the RIAA fining fans absurd and laughable amounts of money (1.6 million for 22 illegally obtained songs), and it wont be stopped if the british government starts pulling internet connections.
what if 1000 other people think the way you do?
YES! you impact the band. its an accumulative effect. im not saying dont download but dont dismiss your part in the big chain.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
why is music okay to steal but not books, paintings, drawings, or posters or other forms of art?
And everyone is doing it doesnt rationalize anything, when large scale looting occurs does that make it okay to steal? No, you should be able to think for yourself whether you're acting solo or amongst billions.
If you want to say you steal music and download illegally because the odds of getting caught or slim to none, that's one thing...but to say that it's actually okay to do so, that's rediculous.
if you want to give the finger to record companies because somehow they've violated you, the answer would be to simply not buy from those record companies.
And the avg. price for a CD is about 12 bucks...not 20 so thats not going to fly.
And you refer to things as "scare tactics" but what those are, are consequences for getting caught doing something illegal.
I've heard you spew out your unnecessarily long responses over and over about how it's "okay" to steal music, but I've yet to hear any substance behind your words.
I am from Eugene. When I talk about scare tactics its something a resident of my town knows intimately. Jeff Luers was and is a radical activist. He was part of the anarchist scene and of Earth Liberation Front. Basically his beliefs are that radical action needs to occur to bring down society. So anyways, in 1999, he, under cover of darkness, when the place was closed, with no employees around, he went to a car dealership and blew up 3 suv's. Nothing else was destroyed. No people were killed or injured. The store was not burned down. The judge said, specifically, he wanted to make an example out of Mr Luers and originally suggested 50 years. But they brought it "down" to 22 years. Now mind you, this is 22 years for a crime of arson. A crime that resulted in obvious montary damage to a company, but thats its. Again, no human or non human was killed or injured. So, that to me illustrates my idea of scare tactics. What sentence did Jeff deserve? I dont know, but it sure as hell wasnt 22 years. If I went to your buisness tonight and set it on fire, burned it to the growund, I would get in some serious trouble. I would likely be fined and most likely jailed, but 22 years worth? Hell no.
Same goes for the RIAA. Its two main lawsuits were both middle aged woman, mothers. And the people who they went after were people who downloaded at most 22 songs. What punishment should a mother of four recieve for downloading 22 songs illegally? I dont know, but it sure as hell aint fining her 1.6 million. You really think she even has that kind of money? Its scare tactics.
Its been talked about before. Artists themselves recieve little money from cd sales as it is. If you buy Bruce Springsteen's record from a store, Bruce aint gonna get 12 or 18 or 20 dollars. He gets at most a dollar. Now some bands have better deals, PJ said they get 5 bucks with their new labelless deal with target. But overall, stealing a record via downloading isnt taking money from the band. A band created the art, not a record label. The argument is flawed from the start. You really complaining that downloaders steal a dollar from Bruce when they download Working on a Dream illegally? What about the record company that steals the rest of the money from Bruce? So, illegally downloading first has to be put into that perspective. Its stealing from the label not the artist.
Secondly, the point about commonplace stealing is to make it more personal. We all do things we arent supposed to. I am about as moral as they come. I dont smoke, drink or do drugs. I am a sometime activist. I dont eat meat. I believe in certain ideals like the equality of all people. But I can admit that sometimes I jaywalk, or cross the street when the walk sign isnt up and their is a red light, etc...
I am merely suggesting we all do it.
As for the consequences of doing something illegal. Fine lets talk about appropriate consequences for illegally downloading. One has to come up with a law or measure or way, to stop hundreds of millions of people from dowloading hundreds of millions of songs every hour. What law do you propose? And with what sentence?
Frankly, I dont think stealing 22 songs, is equivilent to a 1.6 million dollar fine. I;m sorry but thats not just or fair. Its not the consequences of doing wrong. its the RIAA trying to intimidate illegal downloaders.
Well, it will be interesting to see. The RIAA is betting these actions will eliminate or curb downloading. They may be holding their breath for a long time then...
I feel no sorrow for the dying industry model. They shot themselves in the foot. They did it to themselves. We bought all their products on vinyl, then again all the same on cassettes, then the same on 8 tracks, then the same on cd's. And they have the nerve to come at us like we are criminals when we say, "HELL NO, we aint buying the same stuff from you, the stuff we paid you billions of dollars for".
I feel no sorrow for the executive or the label itself, who are so shallow and out of touch that they think we OWE them, and not the other way around, or GOD FORBID that we and they OWE THE ARTIST! I feel no sorrow for an industry that when napster hit, and it became clear things were changing, they instead of changing with the times and adapting, and figuring out, as all good buisness does, "how do we profit off this new digital music age", they started fining, jailing and demonizing us, the fans, who as I stated before, have lined the pockets of these buisnesses for decades to the tune of billions of dollars.
Trent Reznor, has suggested that the labels really are just completely clueless about it all. And I tend to agree.
So, the point of it all is, so you hate downloading? All right, propose a new buisness model then. Cause thats a hell of alot more productive than fining mothers of four 1.6 million for downloading britney's new album.
I would love to hear a monetary breakdown of where the artists are getting their money stolen from them...if a contract agreement is signed...that's an arms length agreement.
and you have no problem calling them greedy corrupt and blah blah, but you have offered no basis for it other than what you've probably heard from some guy who knows a guy who knows a band who knows nothing but read something.
and you joyously say that you can't wait for an industry to die, yet you steal their services?
I see no problem with the model, other than that people are stealing and downloading...therefore there is no new business model to create.
a solution would be shorter contracts, easier to understand contracts, and more negotiable contracts.
Musicians now have the resources and power to be picky about how to bring their music to an audience and can utilize that in their favor when they go looking for record labels.
If they want to void the record label all together, that's fine too, but there should be no stealing amongst any parties involved
BUT you probably would never have heard of Pearl Jam if it weren't for that major label.
even a basic cursory look at music history, and its pretty damn glaringly obvious musicians have been taken advantage of by executives of labels. If you dont know that by now, I suggest you google how the first "rock and blues" artists were treated and how they were paid, or rather not paid for their art. And how most of these men were black. Or you can look at the basic idea in any record contract today. The label gets the majority of the cash. I have no problem in the argument, artists deserve more money, but to suggest to me, labels should recieve more, frankly, is an argument that if I were personally talking with you, face to face, I would bring you down to the hospital and have you committed. Seriously.
Under the current paradigm, musicians get paid less per album than labels do. Significantly less. So again, the argument isnt whether downloading hurts an artists, its about whether the entire industry and the labels themselves hurt artists. Which of course they do.
And are you really suggesting to me, that its unfair of me to caracterize music industry types as greedy and gross? Again, have you even read anything about basic music industry history. Time and time again, the usual story is: music label and execs rolling in dough, and artist scraping by. This isnt right. That to me is more a crime than downloading. The fact, artists arent treated as humans by their own labels and are in fact scammed by said labels. Thats the ultimate evil to me. So yeah, excuse me for suggesting I feel a little giddy when I think about the damage downloading has done to these industry people.
These are all well known facts. Music industry 101 stuff. Not far out crazy stuff. The fact you arent aware of it, kind of suggests alot about you.
I find it disturbing you would even suggest to me that somehow the idea that industry types are greedy is a wrong typecasting of them. In many ways, the thought you would even suggest this is pretty laughable.
You need to read up on your music history and then get back to this thread and respond. Its pointless trying to converse with someone who doesnt understand the basics, and I do mean basics.
You said, "you cant wait for this industry to die yet you steal their services". The industry and artists are two completely different things. The industry is made up of greedy executives and labels. Labels that dont care about artists or the music. And they dont care about you or I. They dont care if you think an album is the greatest album of all time. They dont care if you have somehow found meaning and pleasure in the work. They care if you buy it, period, end of story. They want those green things in your wallet. Everything else be damned. So yeah, as a music lover, I think this way of looking at things, that money overrules everything else, is harmful and counterproductive to what really matters-THE MUSIC. How do I steal their services? The record label didnt write Bruce's lyrics. They didnt put together the liner notes. They didnt labor over the music. They didnt decide the content. They promote and finance the record, period. Other than that, the ART of it all is all, the artist. So to tell me I steal their services is silly. What services does a dinosaur like Arista or Sony provide to a music lover like myself?
my industry experience as once being a student for and an intern within the industry. I've held convos with and have listened to stories, advice, and opinions from record producers, engineers, radio programmers, artists, roadies, live sound engineers, post-production engineers, members of NARAS, recording studio owners, record store owners, and record execs. And then on top of that I have friends in bands who are working on signing to record labels, some of who have also held internships within the industry. So I feel I have at least a little bit of insight to some Music Industry 101 stuff. And oddly enough pretty much everyone held the general opinion that stealing music is not a good thing.
have musicians been blind sided in the past? yes, just like anyone in any business/industry
have musicians blind sided recording studios in the past? yes, justl ike anyone in any business/industry
have musicians learned from the past of old and have rules taken place and future contracts changed because of said happenings? yes, just like any other business
Does this happen in the majority of all contractual signings? no
Does this happen within a small minority of record labels? yes
As for my credentials. I dont have any hands on experience in the industry like you do, but I have taken an entire college course, based on music history. And I have been volunteering at a music venue, at a pretty intense rate, trying to go to basically every single show for the past year and a half to two years. I also am a music addict and musicholic. Anything music related I read. Books, websites, quotes from insiders, rolling stone, spin, if its music related, i have seen it and read it. And I also have a background in activism and have looked pretty heavily into the expoitation of black artists in the music industry, from past to present. So yeah, I too feel I am not just some armchair nut spouting off, I too know what I am talking about.
I also have seen interviews with Ian mackaye and when I e-mailed him, he I believe personally said it himself, that ANY record contract with a major, is exploitative. period end of story. To me, Ian mackaye, is about as authoritative a voice on exploitation and ethics in music as you can get. He is, and his band is, and remains, literally the only band in the last 20-30 years that has never ever sold out. I take what Ian says as gospel.
Your view of the music world and the industry is one I dont agree with and I think the majority of my heroes, and idols would disagree with as well. Ed, Neil, Bruce, REM, Dylan, and others all have had major squabbles with labels, who have exploited them or tried to get them to do things the labels way. In my mind, the reason why said artists are as important as they are, in large part is their unrelenting view that THEIR ART is THEIR ART. Its not the labels and its not the fans either.
The label doesnt care about the band. You seem to suggest if a label wasnt around bands would be useless and void. The album isnt created by the label. its the band. You are seriously off your rocker if you think the label gives a damn in the slightest about expanding the musical boundaries, or experimentation, or making thought provoking, interesting, jarring and moving music. The industry cares for one thing, and thats more money. And thats pretty sad.
Its all a matter of your view on the industry. Do you believe the majority of these millionaire and billionaire executives who head these multibillion dollar a year companies care about music, and the fans and the artist? Or do you believe the sole motivation for these people is greed, power and money?
So you worked in the industry for awhile, and you came away from the experience, thinking that whole world is generally, with a few exceptions, a good environment and that bad contractual agreements were largely a thing of the past? Wow. Sounds like that was a well worth it experience pal! Thats like some idiot kid going to washington to be an intern for some senator and coming home and going "wow, gee mom and dad, politics in washington is always portrayed as so corrupt and dirty and greedy, but in reality, these senators and politicians all care about the general public". I mean, are you really that blind!
And you just missed my point completely. Even if a million people did what I did it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference. If people download it, listen to it once and then never play it again, the download file becomes devoid of any value. Are you suggesting that bands should rely on some people blindly buying their albums, playing them once through, deciding they don't like them, and then never playing them again? I would be skint in no time if I did that. It would be completely different if people downloaded it, burnt the songs onto a disc and listened to it like they would any cd they had bought. Personally, if I download an album and decide I like it, I would then go buy the cd. For example, this month I've had loads of outgoings, far more than usual, and I couldn't afford to go buy Backspacer on release day. However, I downloaded it, loved it, and today is pay day
I think you have to remember the flip side to this debate, which is that more people than ever are getting into music because they are able to expose themselves to far more through file sharing. The live music scene in particular has exploded in the last ten years. I remember back in the mid 90's when I started going to gigs and festivals, and for the vast majority of shows you could phone up a good few days, even weeks in some cases, after tickets went on sale and still manage to score tickets. I think anyone who's tried to get tickets for a major band these days will tell you this is not the case anymore. So essentially the record companies have this huge audience of people who are passionate about music, so much so that they want to share it with anyone who will listen, and rather than embrace this and look to ways to encourage people to part with some cash, they would rather penalise the very people they rely on.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
We all do it but that doesn't make it OK.
Yep, but at this stage it's irrelevant. The online community is always going to be one step ahead when it comes to downloading, authorities will never be able to track everyone who downloads.
downloading songs the band make available free is very different from downloading illegally. in that instance youre correct it wouldnt matter if a million people downloaded the free song. heck ive done it.
i recently bought an album blind based entirely on the bands name and an interview i read. it was an excellent move on my part cause im now a fan of the band.
to be honest i couldnt care less what music was downloaded. im basing my argument on the fact that if you take for free what should be paid for then yes you are hurting the band.
download all you want but dont try to justify your actions to me by saying its ok and its basically victimless.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say