Actually, the point about HMV having problems is a tricky one, because that's equally down to people shopping online. I'll generally order any album I'm actually buying off Play or Amazon or CD Wow, because their prices are usually at least 50% better than record shops. The only thing I'll buy in actual record shops is vinyl, cos I don't want a shattered piece of uselessness coming in the post.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Actually, the point about HMV having problems is a tricky one, because that's equally down to people shopping online. I'll generally order any album I'm actually buying off Play or Amazon or CD Wow, because their prices are usually at least 50% better than record shops. The only thing I'll buy in actual record shops is vinyl, cos I don't want a shattered piece of uselessness coming in the post.
Its a circle isnt it? They charge too much, so we download for free, they dont make as much money so they get rid of cds for games and stuff.
Actually, the point about HMV having problems is a tricky one, because that's equally down to people shopping online. I'll generally order any album I'm actually buying off Play or Amazon or CD Wow, because their prices are usually at least 50% better than record shops. The only thing I'll buy in actual record shops is vinyl, cos I don't want a shattered piece of uselessness coming in the post.
Its a circle isnt it? They charge too much, so we download for free, they dont make as much money so they get rid of cds for games and stuff.
Well, that's my point - canny shoppers, even ones who don't necessarily download illegally, will probably order some CDs online as long as they're significantly cheaper than retail. HMV's overcharging would be a problem with or without filesharing.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Actually, the point about HMV having problems is a tricky one, because that's equally down to people shopping online. I'll generally order any album I'm actually buying off Play or Amazon or CD Wow, because their prices are usually at least 50% better than record shops. The only thing I'll buy in actual record shops is vinyl, cos I don't want a shattered piece of uselessness coming in the post.
Very true.
It's amazing that between record companies and the record shops, nobody seems to have twigged that people would be more likely to buy cds if they were cheaper. It's not like they cost a lot to physically produce them. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, they could do a more elaborately packaged version, and a really basic version in a carboard sleeve kind of like PJ's bootleg packaging. That way the more casual fans could pick up the basic version for say under a fiver, and the hard core fans could, and would most likely splash out on the higher priced versions.
I'll bet that the majority of HMV's cd sales are probably through their ongoing multi-save sales. Why would I buy a new album there for £12 when I could get three older albums for the same price in one of their deals? Like you, I buy most of my cds online, or if they have them, at the local supermarket. Thus it would make much more sense to look at the average prices people are willing to spend and adjust accordingly.
people keep coming into this thread in support not stealing music with tons of fresh ideas that knock out your points but you keep on saying the same few things over and over again with nothing to back it up...
I guess if you say it enough times it comes true eh? This is why you can't rationalize with irrational people.
oh and P.S. the average price of a CD in 2004 was $13.00 and it's only gone down since. So enough of this 20 buck crap.
oh yeah and here's that breakdown I asked for earlier as to where the price of a CD goes to from a Rolling Stone magazine article.
The numbers come from an independent (as in not in support of a label or music fan boy) research and marketing database called the Almighty Institute of Music Retail.
Anything not in bold is an expense and no one sees that money between the label the artist and the retailer .
The numbers don't lie....oh yeah...and because people are stealing music on such a large scale some labels change the contracts for new bands so that the labels get even more profit by lowering the amount of artist's royalties per album and then giving the artist more royalties until they recoupe....there's a nice unintended consequence for ya.
"I've said it before", if you don't like record labels...the solution is to not buy from that label...not stealing
Oh and another thing, this article was released in 2004, when the avg price of a CD was 13.00, so 3 bucks needs to be pulled out of that equation in order to satisfy your customers....I'm gonna let you play CFO here musicismylife....where do you pull out the 3 bucks?
you can talk about prices going down where you are....all i know is that in Ireland any new releases cost €18 approx. Which is what, like 20 or 24 bucks? thats a big fucking difference.
oh yeah and here's that breakdown I asked for earlier as to where the price of a CD goes to from a Rolling Stone magazine article.
The numbers come from an independent (as in not in support of a label or music fan boy) research and marketing database called the Almighty Institute of Music Retail.
Anything not in bold is an expense and no one sees that money between the label the artist and the retailer .
The numbers don't lie....oh yeah...and because people are stealing music on such a large scale some labels change the contracts for new bands so that the labels get even more profit by lowering the amount of artist's royalties per album and then giving the artist more royalties until they recoupe....there's a nice unintended consequence for ya.
"I've said it before", if you don't like record labels...the solution is to not buy from that label...not stealing
Oh and another thing, this article was released in 2004, when the avg price of a CD was 13.00, so 3 bucks needs to be pulled out of that equation in order to satisfy your customers....I'm gonna let you play CFO here musicismylife....where do you pull out the 3 bucks?
*Applauds*
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
Anything not in bold is an expense and no one sees that money between the label the artist and the retailer .
So how do they get away with selling cds for much less than that? None of those things have to be set in stone.
I'm sure Wal-Mart, etc. Can do this as a lost litre.
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
the only way to stop file sharing is to come up with technology that doesn't allow music files to be copied - as long as it is as easy to do as it is currently there is no stopping file sharing. unfortunately for the record industry because they have been slow to stop file sharing technically you have a generation of fans today (say the under 25 crowd) who has grown up with file sharing as the norm.
unfortunately for the record industry because they have been slow to stop file sharing technically you have a generation of fans today (say the under 25 crowd) who has grown up with file sharing as the norm.
Agreed. Whether it's right or wrong, to eradicate file sharing now, could potentially be very harmful to a lot of artists. People share music because they are passionate about it. People like to bring new music to their friends, and with the internet, their friends can be all over the world. Like you said, file sharing is the norm for a whole generation of people, a generation who have completely different ideas about experiencing music. Personally I think it's about time that people put the moral argument aside for a minute, and looked at the bigger picture.
P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?
unfortunately for the record industry because they have been slow to stop file sharing technically you have a generation of fans today (say the under 25 crowd) who has grown up with file sharing as the norm.
Agreed. Whether it's right or wrong, to eradicate file sharing now, could potentially be very harmful to a lot of artists. People share music because they are passionate about it. People like to bring new music to their friends, and with the internet, their friends can be all over the world. Like you said, file sharing is the norm for a whole generation of people, a generation who have completely different ideas about experiencing music. Personally I think it's about time that people put the moral argument aside for a minute, and looked at the bigger picture.
P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?
I think the ticket prices rising as a result of downloading is another scare tactic. Cd's are overpriced and concerts have been overpriced for decades, what makes you or anyone think this situation would magically be better if no downloading existed. We have documentary evidence to prove this. The early 90's were a non downloading time, no napster no torrents. And a certain famous band, one named Pearl jam or something, went on a crusade suggesting that ticket prices were absurd and unfair. And of course you have the Ian Mackaye method of selling music, which is each cd is 10 bucks. So cd prices and ticket prices have been rising through the years, even without this downloading this. They rose, year after year.
Someone here mentioned that a way to stop filesharing is to put anticopying software on the cd. Its been tried before, a few years back many cd's came with anti copying devices on them. And people got pissed. I think another issue is, the fundamental idea, I have posted about 5 times without a response now is, its one thing to be against someone downloading a torrent from BTTorrent. its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?
unfortunately for the record industry because they have been slow to stop file sharing technically you have a generation of fans today (say the under 25 crowd) who has grown up with file sharing as the norm.
Agreed. Whether it's right or wrong, to eradicate file sharing now, could potentially be very harmful to a lot of artists. People share music because they are passionate about it. People like to bring new music to their friends, and with the internet, their friends can be all over the world. Like you said, file sharing is the norm for a whole generation of people, a generation who have completely different ideas about experiencing music. Personally I think it's about time that people put the moral argument aside for a minute, and looked at the bigger picture.
P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?
Good point, I think many people who dont download act like those who do, are criminals and scum. I personally dont download because I hate the artists. I dont even necessarily download because I hate the multibillion dollar companies who are a bunch of wusses. I download, because I love music plain and simple.
I have a massive cd collection, massive collection of cd's I downloaded. I dont do it because I love stealing. I do it because my life is meaningless without music. I do it, because I dont think people have a right to charge 18 bucks for a new cd. As I said, if I have 100 bucks, makes much more sense to buy 3 or 4 spindles of 50 blanks, than to go to a store and get 5 cd's at most at 18 bucks a pop. Just common sense.
And I do, in many ways, find it gross how alot of multi millionaire musicians talk down to illegal downloaders.
The basic facts are: if you are starting a band tonight. Its YOUR OWN FAULT if you come into this thing and continue thinking that you will be making huge amounts of money off cd sales. It just aint gonna happen.
What makes more sense in light of those facts: to try and shut down hundreds of millions of illegal downloaders, or to come up with new and interesting ways to promote and sell and package your music and tours and merch?
I think the question is also about access. As a matter of principle, I could right now, head to my local cd store and buy a few dylan records, 5 maybe, for 100 bucks. Or I could go on a torrent and download his entire catalogue and have them all on cd by tonight. I really dont think there is that much debate about what a majority of people have chosen to do.
And no one has mentioned this: in the past vcr's were opposed by tv and media companies because they felt that people could tape shows and obviously it would be free to do so.
Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.
P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?
Very good point!! To answer the question, they're not going to fall. Ticket prices will rise as long as people keep buying.
So cd prices and ticket prices have been rising through the years, even without this downloading this. They rose, year after year.
I dunno, I think there's been a fairly steep rise in the last couple of years. Obviously you have inflation and stuff, but I guess bands are taking advantage of tours as a way of making money.
Someone here mentioned that a way to stop filesharing is to put anticopying software on the cd. Its been tried before, a few years back many cd's came with anti copying devices on them. And people got pissed. I think another issue is, the fundamental idea, I have posted about 5 times without a response now is, its one thing to be against someone downloading a torrent from BTTorrent. its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?
Yeah the anticopying software was rubbish, and uttely pointless - there will always be people who are one step ahead of the game.
In terms of your question about copying cds for people, personally I see nothing wrong with it at all. I've gotten around 15-20 of my mates to come along to see the band Alter Bridge (no I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on my tastes!) multiple times, after burning them cds. The majority of them have now gone out and bought their records. So through me 'breaking the law', I have gotten Alter Bridge album sales, and ticket sales. From a moralistic stand point, I've apparently done wrong, but in terms of supporting the band (the thing I actually care about), I've done pretty well.
its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?
Legally, that is stealing. This was a big part of the appeal for the industry when CDs were developed - harder to copy a CD than a cassette, so they thought. The cassette bootlegging industry was the problem in the 1980s, now it's online. There were international reports done about it then. The internet has made it worse, but this problem is not just due to the internet, it happened long before that.
So, you buy a copyrighted CD. The Copyright holder is legally the only person allowed to make copies of that CD (yes, even down to individual CDs sold). So, making a copy of the CD is a breach of that copyright, even if its just for friends/family. Obviously in that case, no one's going to prosecute anyone. The rule was developed to stop the guy who would buy one copy of an album, and repeatedly copy it, or sell it. In digital terms, this translates as a third option (after the two you suggested): Buying an album, uploading onto a server, and allowing others to copy it. (they have to have this rule so the guy cant defend himself by saying he bought it).
This is how Copyright law is designed to nail uploaders.
Personally, I think that sharing on music blogs is particularly beneficial for smaller bands. The blogs put up one or two tracks by artists, who get exposure to different countries & markets that wouldnt be possible otherwise. More often than not, you cant find material by smaller groups/local groups on torrent sites anyway. And newer bands are usually cheap enough, you can buy it from them directly too sometimes.
Music blogs are how I heard of most musicians I've bought something by in the last few years.
Uploading entire ablums/catalogues though, I do think is totally wrong. I download anyway though...I never upload, but i do download a fair whack of stuff. I studied this for a long time in college, and i still have no idea what the solution should be! Ultimately i think that its fair if record companies take the hit, its a fair & competitve market, theyve done the least to try and figure out a solution. Whereas artists, listeners and copmanies like iTunes have moved on, record companies havent really brought anything innovative to the table in 10 years except to whinge. good bands still succeed, and in that way nothing has really changed over the years.
Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.
Yeah, but where is it written that artists deserve to make vast amounts of cash? For all you or I know, many vaguely mainstream artists could make a perfectly decent living. And if it doesn't work out, they could do what the rest of us do, and move on to the next job. Lily Allen just bought a fucking island, and she's totally a product of the downloading age. Save the moral 'you don't have the right' stuff, it's absolutely null and void in this day and age. People feel they have the 'right' because the record lables did nothing ten years ago to protect their artists - oh, and there's next to nothing the record labels can do about it. No sooner will they put in some anti-piracy measure, before some tech-savvy bod will have worked out a way around it. I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't understand the sentiment you are clinging to, but it's so outdated it's unreal.
good bands still succeed, and in that way nothing has really changed over the years.
Aint that the truth, ask Kings of Leon if downloading has caused them any sleepless nights - bear in mind their most recent album came out a year ago now, and it was only one place behind Backspacer this week in the UK chart.
And no one has mentioned this: in the past vcr's were opposed by tv and media companies because they felt that people could tape shows and obviously it would be free to do so.
Thats a great point. The development of things like Digital TV, recording features whereby you "store" recordings without being easy to copy/sell it off , they're all great & innovative changes by broadcasters & media outlets. Particularly clever is TV on Demand, pay a really small fee and you can watch thousands of hours worth of tv series of your choice that will be updated. All are clever, different ways of doing BS and preventing filesharing somewhat. The time for cinema releases to become available on DVD has also dropped hugely. The record companies by contrast, havent come up with half as many clever or sustainable ideas that respond to where technology is going.
It's interesting too that artists are the ones who have come up with different types of Business models & methods ...Radiohead, NIN, even PJs Target deal. I wonder how long it will be that a band can make it as big as any of those without the help of a record company? Or will it be common practice that once a band reaches a point where they can be a sustainable BS without a record co, they'll go it alone.
Aint that the truth, ask Kings of Leon if downloading has caused them any sleepless nights - bear in mind their most recent album came out a year ago now, and it was only one place behind Backspacer this week in the UK chart.
Word. and the fact that pop charts are far more cluttered with industry shit (which i guess is driven by public demand for things like Xfactor & pop idol), shows that there is still a part of the market where record companies have a total monopoly. How many of those kinds of musicians will ever release an album without a record company? lol.
Word. and the fact that pop charts are far more cluttered with industry shit (which i guess is driven by public demand for things like Xfactor & pop idol), shows that there is still a part of the market where record companies have a total monopoly. How many of those kinds of musicians will ever release an album without a record company? lol.
Yeah I hear that. Although I must step in and say that I don't think it's impossible for those kinds of shows to find amazing talent. Adam Lambert who was runner up on this year's American Idol, is an incredible singer - maybe the best I've heard in the last five years or so (I'm a sucker for singers who can hit all those crazy notes!).
Just because you love music doesnt mean you have the right to steal it. Just because they dont get rich off cd sales doesnt mean you can steal it. I have stated in a previous post other ways you could support artists but you havnt replied. I say again take 15 % of your next pay check and just give it away. Its not all of it but its a good portion. You seem to come up with the same argument repeatedly but still haven't explained why you think you have a right to free music.
we all do what we have to do. I am a music fanatic. its my religion. So I go to alot of gigs. My t shirts are by and large band t shirts. I have posters of bands on my walls. So, yeah I buy merchendise. And what I think hasnt been talked about is, as far as artist takes, buying merch gives the band more profit personally, than buying a cd at a store. The band gets a bigger take off the pie with merch.
I go to concerts all the time, I buy alot of merch. And I will often rave to people about new bands, which i think is a main way people hear about new bands. I will say "this band changed my life". I cant think of better praise I could give than that.
We all do what we have to do, as I said. Ed recorded bootlegs of the Who and others illegally as a kid.
I think the problem comes in when the unspoken idea is : you arent a real fan unless you buy cd's. Thats b.s. Plain and simple.
Music is my only real expenditure. I am not like other kids my age. I dont own a car. I dont make car payments. I am not married. Dont have kids. My splurge is music and art. Music, books and movies.
I have a right to free music, because, the record company overcharges for cd's, the current system as it exists is exploitative and it makes no sense to continue to support an exploitative situation. The answer to slavery wasnt to keep buying cotton, it was to overturn the entire system and civilization that made it so, blacks were forced to work these awful and gross and illegal situations. Bands dont get a fair take as it is, so my buying a cd as opposed to downloading isnt going to make a difference. Lastly, music I think should essentially be free. Charge money for shows, and merch. But why charge for something that most people nowadays can get for free.
Trent Reznor said it best. Why not spend a ton of time on your website, sprucing up the website, and then also making alot of merchendise and all that. Why spend time thinking about the physical cd sales.
As I said, I volunteer at a local music venue very frequently. The cd sales, as in bands who have the cd for sale at the gig dont sell a ton of actual cd's. Thats based on my experience of volunteering regularly at this venue for a year and a half. What I have noticed, is merchendise sales though, always are pretty steady and consistent. People always are buying stickers, or posters or shirts.
The point is, it makes more sense to buy products like that because 1) the band gets more money in the exchange, and 2) its a walking billboard and advertisement for the band. If I buy a t-shirt, I go everywhere with that t-shirt on, all with the bands name on the front.
with any band its all about getting as many people to hear your music as possible. Thats the goal of every single band in history, except for maybe Fugazi.
But the point is, buying a cd from a band isn't going to alter that one way or another.
I think its beyond cool as well, that the current downloading era, has forced bands to try new things in terms of releasing music.
I have said before, I have an aquaintance I went to college with, he started playing music just for fun in his dorm. Anyways, his music has really taken off, he is in a band, they are doing well, and on his website he has all 3 of his albums for free. And every release gig he has played for those 3, he has given the cd's out for free.
That to me, is pretty smart thinking. It recognizes the current paradigm in music, and it plays off it.
Realistically, I dont think they are on a label at the moment, but what do they lose by doing that, giving the stuff out for free? They are getting the music in the hands of people reguardless of if its free or not.
Comments
Its a circle isnt it? They charge too much, so we download for free, they dont make as much money so they get rid of cds for games and stuff.
Very true.
It's amazing that between record companies and the record shops, nobody seems to have twigged that people would be more likely to buy cds if they were cheaper. It's not like they cost a lot to physically produce them. I mentioned it earlier in the thread, they could do a more elaborately packaged version, and a really basic version in a carboard sleeve kind of like PJ's bootleg packaging. That way the more casual fans could pick up the basic version for say under a fiver, and the hard core fans could, and would most likely splash out on the higher priced versions.
I'll bet that the majority of HMV's cd sales are probably through their ongoing multi-save sales. Why would I buy a new album there for £12 when I could get three older albums for the same price in one of their deals? Like you, I buy most of my cds online, or if they have them, at the local supermarket. Thus it would make much more sense to look at the average prices people are willing to spend and adjust accordingly.
He uses the beat from her song "22".
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
people keep coming into this thread in support not stealing music with tons of fresh ideas that knock out your points but you keep on saying the same few things over and over again with nothing to back it up...
I guess if you say it enough times it comes true eh? This is why you can't rationalize with irrational people.
oh and P.S. the average price of a CD in 2004 was $13.00 and it's only gone down since. So enough of this 20 buck crap.
The numbers come from an independent (as in not in support of a label or music fan boy) research and marketing database called the Almighty Institute of Music Retail.
For a CD with a list price of 15.99
$0.17 Musicians' unions
$0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
$0.82 Publishing royalties
$0.80 Retail profit
$0.90 Distribution
$1.60 Artists' royalties
$1.70 Label profit
$2.40 Marketing/promotion
$2.91 Label overhead
$3.89 Retail overhead
Anything not in bold is an expense and no one sees that money between the label the artist and the retailer .
The numbers don't lie....oh yeah...and because people are stealing music on such a large scale some labels change the contracts for new bands so that the labels get even more profit by lowering the amount of artist's royalties per album and then giving the artist more royalties until they recoupe....there's a nice unintended consequence for ya.
"I've said it before", if you don't like record labels...the solution is to not buy from that label...not stealing
Oh and another thing, this article was released in 2004, when the avg price of a CD was 13.00, so 3 bucks needs to be pulled out of that equation in order to satisfy your customers....I'm gonna let you play CFO here musicismylife....where do you pull out the 3 bucks?
*Applauds*
So how do they get away with selling cds for much less than that? None of those things have to be set in stone.
I'm sure Wal-Mart, etc. Can do this as a lost litre.
Yeah but I doubt the record shops can.
That was brilliant! And so true.
Agreed. Whether it's right or wrong, to eradicate file sharing now, could potentially be very harmful to a lot of artists. People share music because they are passionate about it. People like to bring new music to their friends, and with the internet, their friends can be all over the world. Like you said, file sharing is the norm for a whole generation of people, a generation who have completely different ideas about experiencing music. Personally I think it's about time that people put the moral argument aside for a minute, and looked at the bigger picture.
P.s As a side note, if the dramatic increase in concert ticket prices is a direct result of illegal downloading, can we presume that if they did manage to halt illegal downloading, that ticket prices would fall?
I think the ticket prices rising as a result of downloading is another scare tactic. Cd's are overpriced and concerts have been overpriced for decades, what makes you or anyone think this situation would magically be better if no downloading existed. We have documentary evidence to prove this. The early 90's were a non downloading time, no napster no torrents. And a certain famous band, one named Pearl jam or something, went on a crusade suggesting that ticket prices were absurd and unfair. And of course you have the Ian Mackaye method of selling music, which is each cd is 10 bucks. So cd prices and ticket prices have been rising through the years, even without this downloading this. They rose, year after year.
Someone here mentioned that a way to stop filesharing is to put anticopying software on the cd. Its been tried before, a few years back many cd's came with anti copying devices on them. And people got pissed. I think another issue is, the fundamental idea, I have posted about 5 times without a response now is, its one thing to be against someone downloading a torrent from BTTorrent. its another thing entirely to buy a cd, then copy it to your computer and then burn a disc, that disc for as friend or your mom. Is that stealing? A hell of a lot of people do it. And if you buy a cd, are you allowed to do whatever the hell you feel like with it, since you paid for it?
Good point, I think many people who dont download act like those who do, are criminals and scum. I personally dont download because I hate the artists. I dont even necessarily download because I hate the multibillion dollar companies who are a bunch of wusses. I download, because I love music plain and simple.
I have a massive cd collection, massive collection of cd's I downloaded. I dont do it because I love stealing. I do it because my life is meaningless without music. I do it, because I dont think people have a right to charge 18 bucks for a new cd. As I said, if I have 100 bucks, makes much more sense to buy 3 or 4 spindles of 50 blanks, than to go to a store and get 5 cd's at most at 18 bucks a pop. Just common sense.
And I do, in many ways, find it gross how alot of multi millionaire musicians talk down to illegal downloaders.
The basic facts are: if you are starting a band tonight. Its YOUR OWN FAULT if you come into this thing and continue thinking that you will be making huge amounts of money off cd sales. It just aint gonna happen.
What makes more sense in light of those facts: to try and shut down hundreds of millions of illegal downloaders, or to come up with new and interesting ways to promote and sell and package your music and tours and merch?
And no one has mentioned this: in the past vcr's were opposed by tv and media companies because they felt that people could tape shows and obviously it would be free to do so.
Very good point!! To answer the question, they're not going to fall. Ticket prices will rise as long as people keep buying.
I dunno, I think there's been a fairly steep rise in the last couple of years. Obviously you have inflation and stuff, but I guess bands are taking advantage of tours as a way of making money.
Yeah the anticopying software was rubbish, and uttely pointless - there will always be people who are one step ahead of the game.
In terms of your question about copying cds for people, personally I see nothing wrong with it at all. I've gotten around 15-20 of my mates to come along to see the band Alter Bridge (no I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on my tastes!) multiple times, after burning them cds. The majority of them have now gone out and bought their records. So through me 'breaking the law', I have gotten Alter Bridge album sales, and ticket sales. From a moralistic stand point, I've apparently done wrong, but in terms of supporting the band (the thing I actually care about), I've done pretty well.
Legally, that is stealing. This was a big part of the appeal for the industry when CDs were developed - harder to copy a CD than a cassette, so they thought. The cassette bootlegging industry was the problem in the 1980s, now it's online. There were international reports done about it then. The internet has made it worse, but this problem is not just due to the internet, it happened long before that.
So, you buy a copyrighted CD. The Copyright holder is legally the only person allowed to make copies of that CD (yes, even down to individual CDs sold). So, making a copy of the CD is a breach of that copyright, even if its just for friends/family. Obviously in that case, no one's going to prosecute anyone. The rule was developed to stop the guy who would buy one copy of an album, and repeatedly copy it, or sell it. In digital terms, this translates as a third option (after the two you suggested): Buying an album, uploading onto a server, and allowing others to copy it. (they have to have this rule so the guy cant defend himself by saying he bought it).
This is how Copyright law is designed to nail uploaders.
Personally, I think that sharing on music blogs is particularly beneficial for smaller bands. The blogs put up one or two tracks by artists, who get exposure to different countries & markets that wouldnt be possible otherwise. More often than not, you cant find material by smaller groups/local groups on torrent sites anyway. And newer bands are usually cheap enough, you can buy it from them directly too sometimes.
Music blogs are how I heard of most musicians I've bought something by in the last few years.
Uploading entire ablums/catalogues though, I do think is totally wrong. I download anyway though...I never upload, but i do download a fair whack of stuff. I studied this for a long time in college, and i still have no idea what the solution should be! Ultimately i think that its fair if record companies take the hit, its a fair & competitve market, theyve done the least to try and figure out a solution. Whereas artists, listeners and copmanies like iTunes have moved on, record companies havent really brought anything innovative to the table in 10 years except to whinge. good bands still succeed, and in that way nothing has really changed over the years.
Yeah, but where is it written that artists deserve to make vast amounts of cash? For all you or I know, many vaguely mainstream artists could make a perfectly decent living. And if it doesn't work out, they could do what the rest of us do, and move on to the next job. Lily Allen just bought a fucking island, and she's totally a product of the downloading age. Save the moral 'you don't have the right' stuff, it's absolutely null and void in this day and age. People feel they have the 'right' because the record lables did nothing ten years ago to protect their artists - oh, and there's next to nothing the record labels can do about it. No sooner will they put in some anti-piracy measure, before some tech-savvy bod will have worked out a way around it. I don't think there is anyone out there who doesn't understand the sentiment you are clinging to, but it's so outdated it's unreal.
Aint that the truth, ask Kings of Leon if downloading has caused them any sleepless nights - bear in mind their most recent album came out a year ago now, and it was only one place behind Backspacer this week in the UK chart.
Thats a great point. The development of things like Digital TV, recording features whereby you "store" recordings without being easy to copy/sell it off , they're all great & innovative changes by broadcasters & media outlets. Particularly clever is TV on Demand, pay a really small fee and you can watch thousands of hours worth of tv series of your choice that will be updated. All are clever, different ways of doing BS and preventing filesharing somewhat. The time for cinema releases to become available on DVD has also dropped hugely. The record companies by contrast, havent come up with half as many clever or sustainable ideas that respond to where technology is going.
It's interesting too that artists are the ones who have come up with different types of Business models & methods ...Radiohead, NIN, even PJs Target deal. I wonder how long it will be that a band can make it as big as any of those without the help of a record company? Or will it be common practice that once a band reaches a point where they can be a sustainable BS without a record co, they'll go it alone.
Word.
Yeah I hear that. Although I must step in and say that I don't think it's impossible for those kinds of shows to find amazing talent. Adam Lambert who was runner up on this year's American Idol, is an incredible singer - maybe the best I've heard in the last five years or so (I'm a sucker for singers who can hit all those crazy notes!).
we all do what we have to do. I am a music fanatic. its my religion. So I go to alot of gigs. My t shirts are by and large band t shirts. I have posters of bands on my walls. So, yeah I buy merchendise. And what I think hasnt been talked about is, as far as artist takes, buying merch gives the band more profit personally, than buying a cd at a store. The band gets a bigger take off the pie with merch.
I go to concerts all the time, I buy alot of merch. And I will often rave to people about new bands, which i think is a main way people hear about new bands. I will say "this band changed my life". I cant think of better praise I could give than that.
We all do what we have to do, as I said. Ed recorded bootlegs of the Who and others illegally as a kid.
I think the problem comes in when the unspoken idea is : you arent a real fan unless you buy cd's. Thats b.s. Plain and simple.
Music is my only real expenditure. I am not like other kids my age. I dont own a car. I dont make car payments. I am not married. Dont have kids. My splurge is music and art. Music, books and movies.
I have a right to free music, because, the record company overcharges for cd's, the current system as it exists is exploitative and it makes no sense to continue to support an exploitative situation. The answer to slavery wasnt to keep buying cotton, it was to overturn the entire system and civilization that made it so, blacks were forced to work these awful and gross and illegal situations. Bands dont get a fair take as it is, so my buying a cd as opposed to downloading isnt going to make a difference. Lastly, music I think should essentially be free. Charge money for shows, and merch. But why charge for something that most people nowadays can get for free.
Trent Reznor said it best. Why not spend a ton of time on your website, sprucing up the website, and then also making alot of merchendise and all that. Why spend time thinking about the physical cd sales.
As I said, I volunteer at a local music venue very frequently. The cd sales, as in bands who have the cd for sale at the gig dont sell a ton of actual cd's. Thats based on my experience of volunteering regularly at this venue for a year and a half. What I have noticed, is merchendise sales though, always are pretty steady and consistent. People always are buying stickers, or posters or shirts.
The point is, it makes more sense to buy products like that because 1) the band gets more money in the exchange, and 2) its a walking billboard and advertisement for the band. If I buy a t-shirt, I go everywhere with that t-shirt on, all with the bands name on the front.
But the point is, buying a cd from a band isn't going to alter that one way or another.
I think its beyond cool as well, that the current downloading era, has forced bands to try new things in terms of releasing music.
I have said before, I have an aquaintance I went to college with, he started playing music just for fun in his dorm. Anyways, his music has really taken off, he is in a band, they are doing well, and on his website he has all 3 of his albums for free. And every release gig he has played for those 3, he has given the cd's out for free.
That to me, is pretty smart thinking. It recognizes the current paradigm in music, and it plays off it.
Realistically, I dont think they are on a label at the moment, but what do they lose by doing that, giving the stuff out for free? They are getting the music in the hands of people reguardless of if its free or not.