What is PJ's view regarding filesharing of their music?

pauland74

Hi,

I'm just wondering what is PJ's view regarding filesharing and what measures government and lobbyist are allowed to take to try to stop file sharing.

The reason for me asking is both due to the problems of trying to stop downloading of music and movies. One of the main problems I see is that to fully stop filesharing of movies and music you would have corporations mostly the music and movie industry controlling the internet, which would of course be a huge violation to our basic rights as human beings. It would be unthinkable to have all of your mails opened already when you recieved them at home, however it seems as those rules don't apply in the digital world. Of course I am aware that it's much easier now to transfer large amounts of data, however to implement a massive surveillance apparatus which would then enable certain groups/orginasations to have total control of what information is flowing on the internet is something that we the human race cannot allow.

Bono (U2) recently commented that in order deal with piracy/filesharing that western countries might have to look how China is doing with it's population.

read the details here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/opini ... wanted=all

This smells definetly like he is promoting fascism/george orwells 1984/DDR/totalitarian country.

For me I would be of course very dissapointed and also heart broken if PJ in any sense would have the same or similar opinions as Bono and other corporate companies. And I would have to reevalute my relationship to PJ. Because I will never walk the slippery slope of fascism. That is not exceptable! What kind of world will our kids live in the future then?

Does anyone have any info regarding PJ and there thoughts about filesharing or similar issues.

I'm pretty sure that PJ doesn't have a problem with this because I have heard it from a couple of fans, but would like to have it confirmed.

Also it has become very clear that filesharing is good for artist since they get more revenue for concerts/merchandise etc... however it is harder for the companies distributing the music. This has been shown in many studies at highly respectable universities. But that information isn't always seen in the media.

Jeanwah

Bono's a writer now?

Caution! The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files. The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.

A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us — and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.

We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product. Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles.

On one hand I feel for the artists *not quite successful yet and trying to get themselves off the ground* getting ripped off with illegal file sharing, but at the same time I feel music is for sharing. Try writing 10 Club and see what they say about it. I remember reading an article over the summer where Vedder reminded me of Lars Ulrich with his claim that he's losing money due to illegal file sharing.

pauland74

Jeanwah: I love the quote from John Lennon, you have on your signature. Haven't heard it before.

Of course nobody wants the artist to suffer from filesharing. But it seems to me that atleast regarding music it (meaning filesharing) is actually helping artist. However for the big companies this is a problem since there role as a distributer and marketing will become obsolete. Think about it for a sec. The marginal cost for distributing an album is approximately 0 USD now if you use the internet. PJ can e.g put up there next album for free on eg. Pirate Bay and also sell there records from this homepage also. This will enable more people to listen to their music and discover the beuty of PJ. This will of course give them more attendance at concerts and more sale in merchandise.

On the other side what happens if the music/movie lobbyist are able to create a surveillance of the internet. What happens with our communication as human beings if we know that all of our communication is recorded? Talk about the ultimate scenario described by George Orwells book 1984. Also the internet is a fantastic tool for democracy and forming opinions and getting information that is not covered by the mainstream media. Are we to give that all up??

I think that a reasonable approch would be:

"All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. File sharing and p2p networking should be encouraged rather than criminalized. Culture and knowledge are good things, that increase in value the more they are shared. The Internet could become the greatest public library ever created.

The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication. Today's copyright terms are simply absurd. Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. No film studio or record company bases its investment decisions on the off-chance that the product would be of interest to anyone a hundred years in the future. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today's world. If you haven't made your money back in the first one or two years, you never will. A five years copyright term for commercial use is more than enough. Non-commercial use should be free from day one."

http://www.piratpartiet.se/international/english

CJMST3K

I recall back when Napster was in it's hayday that PJ was asked, and I think they said pretty clearly that "we're gonna wait and see what happens with this" or something.

Since then I believe PJ has been clearer, since I think now it's clearly eating away at all musician's income. Ed said in an interview a few years ago something to the effect of:
"I had breakfast with eggs this morning in a restaurant, and it cost me about $10. Why wouldn't someone spend an extra $1 or $2 to buy an album which they will cherish for the rest of their lives".

I'm paraphrasing, but it's pretty close. I don't think they're happy with it. I think they, at first, wanted to see if it had a significant impact on their incomes - would it lower their incomes 5%? 10%? Now I believe they are pretty concerned about it, but what can they do?

pauland74

How can anybody know for sure that PJ is losing money due to filesharing? Are there coming less or more people to the concerts? How much are they getting "squeezed" by there record label? These things of course we don't know so much about and of course it isn't really our business, but they do in fact matter.

I personally don't think all people download mainly because it is free (of course this could be a significant part), it could be other reasons such as availabity and simplicity. If a record costs 10-20 $ how much do you think a record that you download (mp3 quality) should cost (remember that manufacturing,shipping cost is zero)?

I have bought all of PJ's album except the last one. But I have also downloaded all there albums from the internet, becaus I prefer to have in a digital format together with my mp3 player.

After downloading them I started to listen to them much more which in turn made me go to the first concert 2 years ago. Now I have been to 2 concerts and I am going this summer to Nejmigen, Holland. So not just have I bought the albums I have also spent money on concert tickets (plus airplane tickets,hotel, etc...)

But still I have illigally downloaded there music from the internet. Does this make me a bad PJ fan? :?

P.S Can't wait to hear Unthought Known this summer live!!

CJMST3K

I think it is safe to say that illegal filesharing has negatively hurt the music industry as a whole, including PJ. I can't see how illegal filesharing has helped! (with the only potential of it helping could be a person who would not have previously bought a record, illegally downloaded it then decided to go out an buy the CD).

...but of course, I have no proof. I am indeed speculating on the literal impact to PJ.

But band members have made statements against it. Wish I could find the precise quote though.

Starfall

I can certainly sympathize with the artists on this one - after all, if I have a livelihood that requires my creative works be sold, copies being distributed over P2P without payment would appear to be piracy.

However, one should examine WHY people pirate music. I'm pretty much convinced it's because the recording companies charge a hefty premium - it's insane to pay $15 for a CD when the CD itself costs about 1% of that to make, and for maybe two or three good songs. That's why Apple's iTunes format took off very quickly - people didn't mind paying 99¢ for a song, and they even put up with the ridiculous DRM copy protection(which thankfully most big retailers have dropped - from Apple to Amazon to WalMart).
I remember when movies used to cost up to $100 on VHS - when DVDs became popular, rather than keep up the ridiculous pricing, the movie industry dropped prices to a more reasonable $15 or so, so people started buying DVDs.

Besides, filesharing isn't necessarily bad. One band in particular said the the exposure given through file sharing boosted their careers. Even Bill Gates at one point attributed the success of Windows to large scale illegal copying - without which Windows would have never achieved the popularity and market penetration that they did.

So here's a suggestion - make the costs reasonable, and for those who can't afford it but love the music, make low bitrate copies (128kbps or lower) freely available for distribution.

pauland74

Filesharing through the internet has been going on for the last 10 years and I haven't seen in reality how filesharing has hurt the artists.

A lot of independent research reports from e.g Harvard, Dutch Goverment and other high rankin universties have shown that actually filesharers are the people who spend the most money music.

http://torrentfreak.com/economy-profits ... es-090119/
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... aring.html

So what is going on?Is the music industry just lying? Or are artist persuaded/conned into saying these things?

Also the internet is creating a much bigger market for smaller types of genre who get there advertisment from filesharing and the internet community.. Maybe the music industry is losing there tighthole of there power? I mean why in the future would a band wanna have a record deal when they themselvse can market and distribute there music at a much lesser cost and have all exclusive rights?

PJ has such a big fanbase that they don't even need to have a record label...Just a thought?

Yielded

Starfall wrote:

...the CD itself costs about 1% of that to make, and for maybe two or three good songs. That's why Apple's iTunes format took off very quickly - people didn't mind paying 99¢ for a song, and they even put up with the ridiculous DRM copy protection(which thankfully most big retailers have dropped - from Apple to Amazon to WalMart).

So here's a suggestion - make the costs reasonable, and for those who can't afford it but love the music, make low bitrate copies (128kbps or lower) freely available for distribution.

The production costs of the actual CD are low, yes. But add to that the recording (studios and producers aren't cheap), and all the people with regular office jobs at the record labels. It's not like the larger percentage that goes to the label is going to one dude. I'm not denying that there is a lot that could be done to make CDs more affordable though.

pauland74 wrote:

Filesharing through the internet has been going on for the last 10 years and I haven't seen in reality how filesharing has hurt the artists.

A lot of independent research reports from e.g Harvard, Dutch Goverment and other high rankin universties have shown that actually filesharers are the people who spend the most money music.

http://torrentfreak.com/economy-profits ... es-090119/
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... aring.html

So what is going on?Is the music industry just lying? Or are artist persuaded/conned into saying these things?

Also the internet is creating a much bigger market for smaller types of genre who get there advertisment from filesharing and the internet community.. Maybe the music industry is losing there tighthole of there power? I mean why in the future would a band wanna have a record deal when they themselvse can market and distribute there music at a much lesser cost and have all exclusive rights?

PJ has such a big fanbase that they don't even need to have a record label...Just a thought?

Pearl Jam are in an exceptional position, how many bands can really say the don't need the backing of a record label? Fact is, there are a lot of people living off music that are being affected. Major labels have pretty much 'outsourced' artist development to independent labels nowadays, so independent labels are taking the risks.

Anyway, all the arguments for and against file sharing are redundant to me. What seems clear is that people aren't willing to pay for cultural goods anymore, now that they've become so accessible. This is a moral problem, but that isn't surprising, morality has mostly gone to shit anyway.

pauland74

Yielded wrote:

The production costs of the actual CD are low, yes. But add to that the recording (studios and producers aren't cheap), and all the people with regular office jobs at the record labels. It's not like the larger percentage that goes to the label is going to one dude. I'm not denying that there is a lot that could be done to make CDs more affordable though.

The production cost for both music and movies has been radically reduced the last years due to cheaper technology that has created increased competition against expensive high class produktions.

I feel that that argument is not so strong.

Yielded wrote:
Pearl Jam are in an exceptional position, how many bands can really say the don't need the backing of a record label? Fact is, there are a lot of people living off music that are being affected. Major labels have pretty much 'outsourced' artist development to independent labels nowadays, so independent labels are taking the risks.

I personally don't think in the future there will be a need for bands to directly have to go through music labels to become popular. There are many ways a band can trough myspace and other internet medium to create a fanbase. Of course there are alot of people living off the music industry that might be affected. Is that an argument? Well in that case I'm pissed off that alot of people who were working as lighting oil lanterns in bigger cities before electricity was introduced and there jobs became obselete. But of course I'm happy we have electricity because it make life a little bit more easier don't you think?

Yielded wrote:

Anyway, all the arguments for and against file sharing are redundant to me. What seems clear is that people aren't willing to pay for cultural goods anymore, now that they've become so accessible. This is a moral problem, but that isn't surprising, morality has mostly gone to shit anyway.

Are arguments for and against filesharing for you redundant? Well they shouldn't be because the way things are going now with lobbyists in bed with politicians creating a surveillanced society which 100 times more dangerous than for example DDR (East Germany). And they are using the music/film industry as a catalyst in this process. Why should we as human beings have to give up our democratic and human rights just because old business models can't adapt to new technology? Also regarding morality the links i posted previously show that people who fileshare the most are the ones most likely to spend money as well, so it seems filesharers do have some morality after all.

keeponrockin

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

CJMST3K

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

I think some people justify it because there is an indefinite supply. You can make a copy of a copy of a copy and it does not deplete any supply.

However, the idea that people should be compensated for their work is lost on a lot of people. Also, fair use for those who did buy music is also a vague thing, such as legality of making copies for all your friends, etc.

http://mp3.about.com/od/digitalmusicfaq ... g_laws.htm

Yielded

pauland74 wrote:

The production cost for both music and movies has been radically reduced the last years due to cheaper technology that has created increased competition against expensive high class produktions.

I feel that that argument is not so strong.

Yes, technology is a lot more accessible nowadays. It is a lot easier for the 'Regular John' to record and publish his own tunes. People tend to think that cheap equipment means everyone can make records or films cheaply. It doesn't matter how cheap or how expensive it is - If you don't know how to use it, you won't make it sound good. Don't you think expertise should be rewarded adequately?

I personally don't think in the future there will be a need for bands to directly have to go through music labels to become popular. There are many ways a band can trough myspace and other internet medium to create a fanbase. Of course there are alot of people living off the music industry that might be affected. Is that an argument? Well in that case I'm pissed off that alot of people who were working as lighting oil lanterns in bigger cities before electricity was introduced and there jobs became obselete. But of course I'm happy we have electricity because it make life a little bit more easier don't you think?

But electricity in turn created jobs in power plants and coal mines, didn't it?

How can anyone think that people will keep creating art if it doesn't allow them to live anymore?

Are arguments for and against filesharing for you redundant? Well they shouldn't be because the way things are going now with lobbyists in bed with politicians creating a surveillanced society which 100 times more dangerous than for example DDR (East Germany). And they are using the music/film industry as a catalyst in this process. Why should we as human beings have to give up our democratic and human rights just because old business models can't adapt to new technology? Also regarding morality the links i posted previously show that people who fileshare the most are the ones most likely to spend money as well, so it seems filesharers do have some morality after all.

Like anything, there's two sides to every argument. There are also studies that prove the contrary. I don't care whether the record industry is right or wrong. What I know is that art isn't worthless and the widespread assumption that has been created (especially amongst young people who have never lived without the internet) that art is just commodity to be shared isn't something I can agree with - As someone who values original creation.

And if you think that you are sticking it to 'the man' by downloading music and films illegally, then so be it.

keeponrockin

I'm 18. I've never illegally downloaded a song, I like having the CDs on my shelf, I love going through my friends' CD shelves, its just fun!

concertaholicshirt

Personally, I feel it's up to the artists, and their wishes should be respected. I happen to believe firmly in private property rights, and think people should be able to do what they want with their property.

However, I also had no issues downloading a lot of tunes that I had on vinyl in my basement... I already paid for and own it, so I'm not going to feel guilty about saving myself the hassle of transferring it all myself (although hearing the same pops and hisses from high school days on Welcome To The Machine was something I had to do )I also think it vitally important to give 'tribute' to the many one-hit wonders out there. Before certain songs hit iTunes, I downloaded them just to have them. Then, once they were available for sale, I went out and bought them even though I already had them so the artists would get their pop. That's not to say that I won't accept a mix CD from a friend and add some songs to my library, but I do my best to hook up the artists, especially the ones who aren't megastars with assloads of money.

One thing that is frustrating is how hard it is to find who has the rights to things. I have a pretty extensive collection of bootlegs on YouTube, and I'd love to get permission from the performers and song writers. It's a pain in the neck to find the proper contacts in the first place, and the few I have never get back to me. Actually, Cheap Trick took the initiative and commercialized their song that I posted, and now ads show up. More power to them if they can make a few bucks from it... I have no problems with that. I certainly don't make any money off of it, and I think it only helps the artists. Seeing one of my videos is far more likely to make someone want to go see the artist live than to say that my footage is an adequate substitute to doing that. However, I'll always respect the artists wishes and take down the video if they want. It's only right.

Jeanwah

Yielded wrote:

Like anything, there's two sides to every argument. There are also studies that prove the contrary. I don't care whether the record industry is right or wrong. What I know is that art isn't worthless and the widespread assumption that has been created (especially amongst young people who have never lived without the internet) that art is just commodity to be shared isn't something I can agree with - As someone who values original creation.

But art IS a commodity if the artist wants to capitalize (which sometimes means compromising) on their work.
Once an artist sells their work, they may have copyrights, but it really opens the leeway of possibly having that work stolen, at the same time.

I think that with filesharing and piracy being so widespread, it's really time for the record companies and artists themselves to find a way to innovate and adapt to the surroundings. Kind of like what NIN has done http://techdirt.com/articles/20091228/0124587508.shtml, Radiohead's really been innovative with giving away their music for free, and all of this opens the door for artists to be truly creative with the technological world and make a somewhat win-win situation...for the fans and artists.

As for as the production companies, I could care less how they make their money, they're simply just the middle men anyway, and always find a way to get their loads of money anyway.

I can tell that PJ's management want to keep tight grips on any news, new music, tour dates, everything. But trying to keep it all hidden isn't working anymore, the music got out before Backspacer was released, and show dates are always leaked before Ten Club announces them. It's obvious that trying to maintain control of the music with the world wide web and piracy issues is NOT working. They seriously need to change their game (be more creative) in order to work with the current technology. Like, say, Radiohead.

musicismylife78

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

And what I dont get is, why people like you continue to apologize and support a dying and exploitative machine like the record industry. You really think any of those CEO's give a damn about any of their clients wellbeing beyond said clients ability to strengthen the bottom line (money)? The record industry shot themselves in the foot, they dug their own grave and now they have the ire and rage of the public to contend with. Its been said a million times before, but obviously some people, cough, cough, dont get it. When Napster appeared in 1999, the record industry could have called Shawn Fanning up and tried to work out a deal. Or they could have started some partnership where, for unlimited downloads, a customer pays 20 bucks a month, and that bill would come in the mail every month like the electric bill or the cable bill. Instead they have spent the last decade, demonizing, criminalizing, fining, and at times jailing those who download music.

Additionally, as illegal downloading is so widespread, hundreds of millions of people engage in it, to even try to contain it or to eradicate it, at least in the manner that the RIAA is going about it, is beyond ludicrous and silly. Fining mothers of 4, 1.6 million dollars for downloading 22 songs is pointless, it only further proves the general consensus about the RIAA and the industry in general. Additionally, 22 songs is 2 albums worth of songs. 12 songs per album times 2 is 24. Cd's are 20 bucks. How is the fine of 1.6 million for 2 albums worth of songs fitting of the crime?

The record industry got to big for its britches. People bought Lp's of their favorite artists. Spent tons of money on that. People amassed huge collections. Then they switched over to 8 tracks. People again, bought everything they had previously owned on LP and bought it again on 8 track. Next, cassettes arrived, and people again bought all the stuff they owned on 8 track, and now bought the same stuff on cassettes. Finally cd's came along, and people bought their entire collections AGAIN, this time in cd form. So yeah, I dont feel bad for the record industry, as that buisness model that I just outlined is beyond absurd. When people started to question this model in 1999 when napster came along, well we have the mess we are now in. Furthermore, the myth that we criminals are taking money from the pockets of bands we love, is beyond stupid and its a vicious lie. First of all, the contracts bands sign nowadays at least on majors, is exploitative. The relationship should be 50 50, maybe 60-40 in favor of the artist. Its obvious this isnt how the relationship is now. Second, WHEN has the record industry EVER been fair to an artist? The whole modern music industry is based on racist, corrupt and greedy CEOS cheating artists out of hard earned money. How many blues artists and original rock musicians (african american) were treated with respect and given the credit they deserved? How many labels at the time took advantage of these artists and milked the artist for everything and the label got paid but the artist didnt?

Illegal downloading isnt taking money away from an artist, its taking money away from the majors, the CEO's.

Bands have to be creative. And they have to work with the downloaders. Radiohead is a perfect example. They did the pay what you will thing, and then months later sold the actual cd for sale. NIN gave away 2 entire concerts for free. Trent gave The Slip out to the masses for free, and I seem to remember Ghosts being a similar thing. If I was in a band, I would focus most of my attention on providing quality merch. Key chains, posters, stickers, shirts, sweaters, and so on. Providing high quality merch. I would also make sure the live show, was top notch. And I also would promote my work through youtube and myspace and everywhere else. I would be doing interviews with the indie press, Stereogum and Pitchfork, and I would liscence the songs to tv shows, commercials and movies. This is how you eek it out in the 2010's. This is how you make it, make a living in music nowadays. The old days of surviving on cd sales are dead.

I am so sick of artists and people on this board complaining about filesharing as if we can all join hands tonight, or fine all downloaders and somehow tomorrow morning: no more illegal downloading. It doesnt work like that.

Why do people download? Why spend 20 bucks on a cd at the store when you can get it for free? And is art worth something to you? Its worth something to me. Some cd's I own have altered my trajectory in life, have made me who I am, altered my beliefs, made me who I am. How do you repay an artist who does that for you? The CEO's at Arista or Sony dont care about me. They dont care that some of the music they put out has changed my life. They care that I buy their product. And to repay artists, these same corps refuse to give their artists fair pay. What bothers you more? Some 20 year old college kid downloading the new Kaiser Chiefs record, or CEO"s, billionaires, who have everything, but refuse to see anything except dollar signs?

CJMST3K

Jeanwah wrote:

As for as the production companies, I could care less how they make their money, they're simply just the middle men anyway, and always find a way to get their loads of money anyway.

Well, there are probably 10's of thousands of bands out there.

Without a record company offering them money in exchange for the potential to make money by promoting their music, I'm sure many of them would have had to stop making music to afford their bills by working 9-5 jobs.

When I took my music business courses in college in the mid-90's, I recall that 80% of the music that record companies invest money into lose money. Only 20% is profitable, but it was profitable enough for them to keep doing it.

....probably not for much longer though.

Great for bands like PJ and Radiohead who were given money by record companies when they needed it most, and once they had a huge following, they can do it on their own.

Not so great for bands who need some support to get their music out there.

I think, with the record companies being (presumably) negatively affected by illegal downloading, a lot of great music will never be created, since there will not be enough potential for a record company to offer new talent a contract. ...and thus, the new Pearl Jam or Radiohead will have to break up so they can work day-jobs.

However, on the positive side, for bands who would never have gotten picked up by a major label, they can promote themselves rather inexpensively... but how effectively?

musicismylife78

You adapt or die, or at least find a new profession. Railing against filesharing, if you are an artist is counter productive and fans have turned their backs on many an artist who has suggested filesharing is stealing.

These are creative people. They make beautiful works of art that impact us beyond measure. So why arent more of them following the Radiohead, Bloc Party, Raconteurs, and NIN model?

Its kind of like, these people have all this passion for preventing others from stealing their album. Why not use that energy to make high quality merch, make a high quality live show, and to work with fans like the bands I just listed have

musicismylife78

its all a matter of how you decide your fate. Look at the integrity bestowed upon Radiohead or NIN. They could have whined and whined. Trent could have said "I will work with law enforcement to pursue any illegal downloader". Instead he say ahead, he stayed ahead of the curve and decided to do something special.

I have little respect for any band or label that treats downloaders as criminals.

Jeanwah

CJMST3K wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

As for as the production companies, I could care less how they make their money, they're simply just the middle men anyway, and always find a way to get their loads of money anyway.

Great for bands like PJ and Radiohead who were given money by record companies when they needed it most, and once they had a huge following, they can do it on their own.

Not so great for bands who need some support to get their music out there.

I think, with the record companies being (presumably) negatively affected by illegal downloading, a lot of great music will never be created, since there will not be enough potential for a record company to offer new talent a contract. ...and thus, the new Pearl Jam or Radiohead will have to break up so they can work day-jobs.

However, on the positive side, for bands who would never have gotten picked up by a major label, they can promote themselves rather inexpensively... but how effectively?

That's the beauty of new media.
We're all in charge and driving the wheel when it comes to myspace, youtube, and Facebook. Perhaps a band won't get huge without the help of a major label, but you can sure get your music out there with the new media and simply playing out locally and regionally. And that happens from legwork of actually going to venue owners and giving them your music.

Pepe Silvia

i don't know how they feel about their studio albums but when they first sold their live boots in stores after Binaural their stance was they don't care what you do with them after you buy them

VINNY GOOMBA

It should be up to the artist whether or not their music is for free. If they want to pursue people who steal from them, it's up to them-- however, anyone who wants to regulate the internet the way Bono is talking about is way out of line. Bono, please, stop sticking up for the little guy, or pick a different little guy to stand up for... This sort of thing is always a backdoor entry to unnecessary censorship, and he almost acknowledges that in his writing with his China reference.

I know my band is going to sell the physical version of our next album, and make the music free to download online. T-shirts, stickers, hoodies, those all cost money, and people actually BUY those these days. Basically, the fans are paying for what actually costs us money-- the packaging and artwork, but the music is free. Music isn't my career, so I'm not in the same ballpark as people who are trying to make this their primary source of income, but in the end, this strategy may benefit us more than someone who is touring the country trying to make money off of everything they have to offer, including the music. Time will tell.

concertaholicshirt

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

pauland74

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

I don't think it's right to compare downloading against stealing. E.g if I come home to you and steal your car then that means you cannot use your car until it's returned. However if I download music from the internet it doesn't mean there aren't any copies left. It's very unfortunate that the two get mixed up together ,because stealing is stealing and downloading is an infringement on a copyright. Also lets not forget that the basis for all communication on the internet is based on copying. Also the ways things are going now is that ordinary people who are caught downloading maybe fined very large amounts of money (atleast here in sweden) more as scare tactics and not the actual value of the downloaded file. That means tha ordinary people could have to pay much larger fines than compared if you would assault,rape or kill someone. Now isn't that sick?

Yielded wrote:
Yes, technology is a lot more accessible nowadays. It is a lot easier for the 'Regular John' to record and publish his own tunes. People tend to think that cheap equipment means everyone can make records or films cheaply. It doesn't matter how cheap or how expensive it is - If you don't know how to use it, you won't make it sound good. Don't you think expertise should be rewarded adequately?

Of course expertise should be rewarded. Have I said anything to the contrary? Just because I advocate free filesharing for private use doesn't mean I don't think highly skilled people should get paid. But you have to get your figures right. The size of the cake has gotten bigger for artist in terms of revenue from concerts and merchandise, however record labels have lost some income due to decline in sales of cds albums. I prefer that the artists gets the money!!

But electricity in turn created jobs in power plants and coal mines, didn't it?

How can anyone think that people will keep creating art if it doesn't allow them to live anymore?

Yes. That's a great point. Even though electricity came and some people lost there jobs, new jobs were created. That's the thing with technology. You can't stop it by laws and other repressive actions.

Yielded wrote:
Like anything, there's two sides to every argument. There are also studies that prove the contrary. I don't care whether the record industry is right or wrong. What I know is that art isn't worthless and the widespread assumption that has been created (especially amongst young people who have never lived without the internet) that art is just commodity to be shared isn't something I can agree with - As someone who values original creation.

Of course there are two sides. RIght now there are corporations who feel that the internet is a threat to them. And on the other side you have people/orginasation/grassroots who are fighting to keep the internet free for all humanity to use and spread information. I would compare what's happening now with what was happening when Gutenburg came with the invention of printing books(another technolgy change where some people probably lost there job,but new jobs were created). This was of course a big threat to the catholic church who then ( I think it was in the 16 th centrury) had a monopoly of all the information that was put out.

I understand your feelings about young people who have never lived without the internet, but consider being in there position. They are used to exchanging information at rate that was unthinkable for us when we were young (I'm 35). Also you have to consider that the amount of data that is being produced every year is growing exponentially. See link.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOpA9kNb3fkAnd this was from 2008.

For me it all boils down to if there isn't anything done with the copyright laws we are going to move towards fascism. So which do you choose?

pauland74

concertaholicshirt wrote:

ll of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

So how do you think you are going to stop filesharing? The only way you can stop it is by controlling all of the information that is flowing through the internet. Of course the costs for this would be very huge (taxpayers will probably have to pay it). But it also mean that there will be a third party listening to all the information that you exchange with family,friends,collegues etc.. A clear violation to the universal declaration of human rights!! Who would you like to give that power to? Are we going to have corporate police on the internet hunting down people for filesharing? This is probably there future business plan I guess. In a democratic country you can't have mass surveillance on the whole population then you are on your way to the slippery road to fascism. This is not acceptable in my point of view. That's why the rule of law says that if you want to surveil somebody you have to get a court order with a justible cause, otherwise there will not be any rule of law which is essential to a democratic society. Also it has been shown that people that live in a surveillance society are often less likely to express themselves in the way that they would if they know or suspect there is a third party listening to them. What kind of impact will that have on society.

But I do agree with you that some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

pauland74

What we refer to as copyrights is actually several rights . These different rights (4 in total) have more differences than simularities. If we are talking about these rights we should be clear about which of these 4 rights we are talking about.

Two of these rights are civil exclusive rights, what we colloquially refer to sa monopoly, and can be sold or transferred. Their purpose is to maximize the culture of society. The other two laws are about an artist's relationship to his work, and stays with the artist throughout their lives and originate in moral rights and values.

1. A commercial monopoly on the production of copies of recordings of the work.Monopoly lasts throught the artists life plus 70 years!!

2. A commercial monopoly on public performance i.e concerts and radio.

3.An artists right to be associated with his work.Attribution. This right basically lasts forever.

4. An artists right to prevent performance on their work.

I think the first 2 points have to be changed/reduced to explicity apply to business activity trades, and should not apply private persons or activities in non-profit organisations. And the monopoly should be reduced for 5 years from publication.It should only apply to the original work. Meaning that mashups,remixes should be encouraged.

Point 3 & 4 I have absolutely no problem with.

keeponrockin

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

Great point.

keeponrockin

musicismylife78 wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

What I don't get is why people feel they are entitled to music at a cheaper price simply because they don't like the price it's currently at. Am I allowed to steal an iPod because I feel they SHOULD be cheaper?

And what I dont get is, why people like you continue to apologize and support a dying and exploitative machine like the record industry. You really think any of those CEO's give a damn about any of their clients wellbeing beyond said clients ability to strengthen the bottom line (money)? The record industry shot themselves in the foot, they dug their own grave and now they have the ire and rage of the public to contend with. Its been said a million times before, but obviously some people, cough, cough, dont get it. When Napster appeared in 1999, the record industry could have called Shawn Fanning up and tried to work out a deal. Or they could have started some partnership where, for unlimited downloads, a customer pays 20 bucks a month, and that bill would come in the mail every month like the electric bill or the cable bill. Instead they have spent the last decade, demonizing, criminalizing, fining, and at times jailing those who download music.

Would you have honestly heard of half the bands you listen to if they didn't have a record deal of some kind? I don't mind the record company getting some of my money BECAUSE they're the ones taking risks with the artists, some of the time paying for recording, and giving them that shot in the arm they need to make it. I would almost gaurantee you that you would not have heard of 'Eddie Vedder' if it weren't for SOME FORM of record company. And it's not just the big boys, if you don't buy music, then I would assume you download EVERYTHING, including something like Broken Social Scene, who ARE THEIR OWN RECORD COMPANY. I think it should be up to the artist, if they want their music to be given away for free, do it. But if an artists wants one to pay for their work, then one should do so.

g under p

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.

Peace

musicismylife78

concertaholicshirt wrote:

Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.

Them being compensated for their work has no bearing in this conversation. So by buying an Elton John cd rather than stealing, I am helping Bernie feed his family? If I steal, I am stealing from Bernie? I dont have that power and neither do you. Again, you ever read a record contract? The relationship isnt fair to begin with. No question artists should be compensated for their art, but the question is whether time should be spent tracking down downloaders in order to get artists compensated, or if time would be better spent doing something else? Something else, like trying to change the RIAA recording contract laws, and trying to get congress or the House involved in passing a law that requires labels to enter into the contract 50/50. AT the end of the day, Bernie is gonna be happier with that result, as opposed to tracking down some University dorm student who couldnt afford the cd anyways.

Again you miss the point friend. Were these forgotten about songwriters EVER respected, or given their dues? You seem to think of this mythical, and make no mistake it is mythical, time where artists who were honest, and important and whatnot, were rewarded with loads of money for their work. Those who wrote the music and accompaniment for the best music of the last century never were respected, and never were given compensation for their work. The music industry is rich precisely because they refused to pay any money to these folks.

What overall picture are you talking about? When have the most important people in music ever been given the due they deserve? Its always the Britneys who are living comfortably, while the creators of real honest music languish in the shadows. Its alot like activism. MLK and Malcolm x are important. But maybe more important than them, are the millions of blacks who protested and demanded their rights. The grandmothers who walked miles to work each day during the Bus boycott. We will never know their names, yet, they deserve probably even more credit than the MLK's of the world.

So yeah, I agree, many musicians languish in the shadows and never recieve their due credit. But again when were they ever? As I said, modern music is built off the work, exploitated work that others, usually black musicians did. How many of the original blues musicians and early black rock musicians ever got their due for being the impetus for the billions of dollars modern music makes every year?

The illegal filesharing issue is a strawman. The real issue is the treatment of artists by their employers. I do not have the power to hire or fire a musician. The real enemies are the CEO's of these corporations who as I said, ONLY care about the bottom line. When a musician signs a contract, the CEO doesnt give a crap whether that artist makes important, long lasting music, or if that music is cherished by people in personal ways. The artist is dropped if he or she isnt making money. That to me is beyond sad.

How about creating a more valuable A and R experience. Where the record label employs someone who can guide the artist after that first record hits big. An A and R person who can help the artist deal with fame, stress and the modern musical environment.