Elton and Lily take stand against filesharing

2456

Comments

  • mookeywrench
    mookeywrench Posts: 6,086
    well to start with the services that the record labels provide....the entire recording process, the entire mixing process, the entire mastering process, the distribution process, and the marketing process that lets you hear the finished product....in a nut shell: the album.

    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
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    mookeywrench wrote:
    well to start with the services that the record labels provide....the entire recording process, the entire mixing process, the entire mastering process, the distribution process, and the marketing process that lets you hear the finished product....in a nut shell: the album.

    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!
  • Them-Bones
    Them-Bones Posts: 518
    Smaller bands benefit from file sharing, most of them embrace it anyways, so the only people really against file sharing are people who need more money, fuck em.
    "If my thoughts, dreams, could be seen, they'd probably put my head, in a guillotine, but it's alright ma, it's life and life only."
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    catefrances wrote:
    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.

    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 :mrgreen: Morally I can make my peace with that because I'm re-dressing the balance. You can talk about the moral implications all you like but when you look at the bigger picture the band haven't lost anything based on my actions.

    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.
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    As much as people hate Courtney Love, she wrote a brilliant breakdown of how record labels rip-off their artists, it's pretty shocking:

    http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
  • nuffingman
    nuffingman Posts: 3,014
    Downloading music, film, software that is meant to be paid for is theft - simple.

    We all do it but that doesn't make it OK.
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    nuffingman wrote:
    Downloading music, film, software that is meant to be paid for is theft - simple.

    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.
  • nuffingman
    nuffingman Posts: 3,014
    facepollution wrote:
    nuffingman wrote:
    Downloading music, film, software that is meant to be paid for is theft - simple.

    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.
    I agree with you but there seem to be some posts on here that hint at it being OK. Some have been caught and dealt with in the courts. As long as people realise the risk, however small it is they can't bleat about it.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    facepollution wrote:
    catefrances wrote:
    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.

    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 :mrgreen: Morally I can make my peace with that because I'm re-dressing the balance. You can talk about the moral implications all you like but when you look at the bigger picture the band haven't lost anything based on my actions.

    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.

    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. :mrgreen:

    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.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    musicismylife... If the labels are so bad, why do bands continue to want to get signed with them? Because they're fucking helpful.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    keeponrockin wrote:
    musicismylife... If the labels are so bad, why do bands continue to want to get signed with them? Because they're fucking helpful.


    I disagree, and with the recent success of bands releasing stuff on their own, without the backing and or promotion of a major, it seems to show that quite the opposite is true, labels hinder rather than help the process.

    Radiohead is the most obvious example. Bloc Party, The Raconteurs and NIN also come to mind in terms of in Bloc party and Raconteurs case, bands who came out of nowhere, and just one day said, "hey fans, we are releasing a new record in a few weeks", or in the case of NIN, completely bypass the label and just release things online.

    The answer to your question is pretty obvious, and its the same answer to why Pearl Jam caved, and went back to Ticketmaster, after their battle with them. If you read my posts I dont bash indie labels. Those are different. In the case of a Dischord, or Alternative Tentacles, the whole "artist/label" relationship in those two labels is virtually unrecognizable compared to the major/artist relationship. Ian Mackaye doesnt even make a salary on Dischord which of course he runs and owns and operate. And no band on that label has any sort of contract. He talks about how, "its a bizaare idea, but we feel any band working with us, should feel happy and proud to do so". What a concept! I would assume Alt Tentacles is much the same way. I have heard that Dischord and the artists split profit 50 50. That to me is just and fair. But honestly, your high if you think Sony or Arista or whoever is also doing this. They dont split it 50 50. The percentages are more tipped to the label, and I just think thats absolute madness.

    But back to the point, the reason so many bands sign to majors is several fold: one they actually believe what they have seen on tv, that once a band signs to a major they will have girls galore, cars galore and money galore. Thats obviously not the case. More often than not those things go to the label as I just stated above. Secondly, the Ticketmaster Pearl Jam metaphor I was using, is the same for the labels. Bands sign with majors because: what else is there. PJ went back to Ticketmaster because: what else is there?
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    again, Ian Mackaye provides light as always.

    He has said, he has friends on major labels, but that he also knows that ANY contract a band signs with a label is exploitative.

    To me, thats facts right there. Few people have the integrity and moral standing that Ian Mackaye does. The guy literally is like some kind of Saint. And thats not overstating the case in the slightest.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    keeponrockin wrote:
    musicismylife... If the labels are so bad, why do bands continue to want to get signed with them? Because they're fucking helpful.


    I fail to see how a label that takes away YOUR earnings and DESERVED pay is helpful. As I said, most labels, most majors and artists contracts are not 50 50. Most slant towards more money being paid to the label. I think that is wrong.
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    keeponrockin wrote:
    musicismylife... If the labels are so bad, why do bands continue to want to get signed with them? Because they're fucking helpful.


    I also fail to see their relevance anymore. Nowadays even amatuer and small bands can post on Myspace or You Tube or make a website where they sell or stream or offer free Mp3's of their songs and records. So again, how exactly are record labels helpful in 2009?
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    edited September 2009
    catefrances wrote:
    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. :mrgreen:

    Yeah I've done the same in the past, and had both good and bad experiences. Sometimes they are amazing records, and others just gather dust on my shelf. Having the opportunity to hear the records first means I can make better decisions and choose more wisely what I spend my hard earned cash on - it's not just artists who slave away in their work after all.
    catefrances wrote:
    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.

    But not in the example I gave, because 99.9% of the people I'm talking about would never have bought the album anyway - the band never would have seen their money, so the band isn't being hurt.

    catefrances wrote:
    download all you want but dont try to justify your actions to me by saying its ok and its basically victimless.

    Trust me, I feel absolutely no need to justify myself to you. I'm merely trying to point out the other side of the coin. In my example there are no victims. I download it, don't enjoy it, either delete it or forget it's on my pc - at no point, even if downloads didn't exist, would I ever have parted with any of my cash, or continued to listen to the album. If you're trying to argue that this hypothetical band are victims because they didn't manage to dupe me into blindly buying their album, then, uh, well........I guess we really aren't on the same page.......
    Post edited by facepollution on
  • Rhinocerous Surprise
    Rhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    Downloading music is basically just the new radio - where you hear music before you buy it. The fact that record companies are struggling to adjust to the modern reality - and even though it is stealing, the reality is that filesharing isn't going to end - is as much a failure on their parts as the people downloading albums. It's their responsibility to stay afloat in the market, after all.

    BUT - and it's an important but, hence the capital letters - if you want to support the music you do enjoy, it's still important to pay for those albums eventually, or to pay to see them in concert, or whatever. It's just a case of the power in the seller/buyer relationship shifting to the buyer, at least for now.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    musicismylife78 wrote:
    again, Ian Mackaye provides light as always.

    He has said, he has friends on major labels, but that he also knows that ANY contract a band signs with a label is exploitative.

    To me, thats facts right there. Few people have the integrity and moral standing that Ian Mackaye does. The guy literally is like some kind of Saint. And thats not overstating the case in the slightest.

    yeah, so what?? surely none of us think any differently from mackaye on this issue.

    hes not a fucking saint. hes human like the rest of us.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • facepollution
    facepollution Posts: 6,834
    New question. Say your dad manages to scratch the shit out of your R.E.M cd to the point where it will no longer play, is it permissible to download the tracks and burn them to disc?

    See if I bought the album again from amazon, it would cost me £6.68 for the cd, or £4.99 if I downloaded it from them. So presumably the content of the cd is worth 4.99, and the packaging is worth 1.69. I don't need a new cd case and booklet, and technically I've already paid for the content. Bear in mind that I could be putting that money towards a cd I don't own and thus supporting another band.

    Thoughts?
  • catefrances
    catefrances Posts: 29,003
    facepollution wrote:
    New question. Say your dad manages to scratch the shit out of your R.E.M cd to the point where it will no longer play, is it permissible to download the tracks and burn them to disc?

    See if I bought the album again from amazon, it would cost me £6.68 for the cd, or £4.99 if I downloaded it from them. So presumably the content of the cd is worth 4.99, and the packaging is worth 1.69. I don't need a new cd case and booklet, and technically I've already paid for the content. Bear in mind that I could be putting that money towards a cd I don't own and thus supporting another band.

    Thoughts?


    which REM is it?? ;):mrgreen:

    just buy it again.

    technically youve paid for it ONCE. thats all your money entitles you to.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • musicismylife78
    musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
    catefrances wrote:
    facepollution wrote:
    New question. Say your dad manages to scratch the shit out of your R.E.M cd to the point where it will no longer play, is it permissible to download the tracks and burn them to disc?

    See if I bought the album again from amazon, it would cost me £6.68 for the cd, or £4.99 if I downloaded it from them. So presumably the content of the cd is worth 4.99, and the packaging is worth 1.69. I don't need a new cd case and booklet, and technically I've already paid for the content. Bear in mind that I could be putting that money towards a cd I don't own and thus supporting another band.

    Thoughts?


    which REM is it?? ;):mrgreen:

    just buy it again.

    technically youve paid for it ONCE. thats all your money entitles you to.


    In all seriousness this is a question no one answers. I have posted it multiple times and no one has given an adaquate answer to it. Most libraries, have cd's for borrowing. So the library bought these cd's or was given them by patrons. Is it stealing to burn them if you borrow from a library? How about something as benign as a friend buys the new Wilco album, and you say "No way, how is it", and you friend says "I will burn you a copy and bring it for you tomorrow". Is that stealing?

    People always act like illegal downloading is some sketchy thing people do in the dark, that its some shady underground activity. But as I said before, most of the people who look like us, as in they are young and our age Teens and 20 year olds, all download illegally.

    And its important to note that not all illegal downloading is done via torrent or Kazzaa. As I said, technically and for all intents and purposes, if you buy the new Bob Dylan cd and then burn it for a friend, you have broken the law. Whether that is the same as going on a Torrent or going on Kazzaa is a matter of discussion, the point is, there isnt just a all or none thing here. Its varying degrees and varyign points of view.

    I think the fundamental question here, is what is music worth. And what are you willing to do to obtain it. If you have 100 bucks, you could go to a store and buy 5 cd's. Or you could go to a store and get 5 spindles of 50 blank cd's, and then come home and burn all those cd's. Most people have chosen to the do the latter. And I think will continue to do so.

    For whatever reason, I and alot of other people, dont want to spend 15-20 bucks on cd's anymore. I dont feel its worth it. Its overpriced. And as I said, if most of that money was GOING TO THE ARTIST that would be a different situation.

    As it stands most of the money goes to the label. I have no problem stealing money from a multibillion dollar label made up of 50-60 year old males who only care about the flavor of the month. The fact I love music, the fact that my identity and life has been altered and changed, and that music is what makes me want to get out of bed each morning, the record label and its executives couldnt give a hoot about that. So yeah, I feel no shame, that I and hundreds of millions of other kids are stealing profit from them.

    Again, we bought all the bands stuff on LP's and vinyl. Then we BOUGHT THE SAME STUFF AGAIN, on 8 track. Then we BOUGHT THE SAME STUFF AGAIN on cassette, then we BOUGHT THE SAME STUFF AGAIN on CD. So yeah, I have no guilt whatsoever saying "hey record label, I aint gonna do it again".

Categories