Discussion on:

BitTorrent users take another hit

Is it me or does the music industry now employ more lawyers than musicians? I have little sympathy for either side in this battle. I just want to see more creative music being more available at a more reasonable price and all music not being swamped by the marketing efforts of a few big names.

Very interesting reading! Keep em coming (with a bit of decorum tho!). Either way, each one (P2P, Record Labels, Bands/Musicians, etc) will have to find a way to survive. We'll go along with the eventual winner, I say!!!!

I use torrents regularly and would like to keep doing so. Yes there is mega abuse and illegal distribution BUT I tend to put that down to the folk that are trying to STOP it in the first place. Tackle the cause and kill the problem at source..... overpriced and restricted distribution.

Movies - Restricted distribution by region and to enhance their revenues [not sure it works in practice personally]. I do see the movies in the cinema BUT the kids want to see them at home. So.. I download and put up with the lower quality till the DVD is released then buy that. ?15, or so, is good value for the quality and features! Let me buy it if you want me to stop downloading!

Music - How many times have we all spent over ?10 on an album to find it's garbage apart from 1 track? Too many! itunes is one answer and I don't hear anyone complaining about reduced revenues. Torrents are another. Download and see if you like it; Buy it for the superior quality if you like it enough to feel that the over-inflated cost is worth it. Personally, I don't think many are BUT I have bought some.

Backups - I'm currently tossing all my tapes in the bin, and downloading torrent versions. Does anyone really see that as theft? Get real; I'm swapping media with minimum fuss and bringing older music back into my life. Many more must be doing the same thing too.

My point is it's a great marketing tool in the same way that radio is. Yes radio stations pay per track on our behalf, but it's not costed on the number of listeners. It's a set payment per track. Maybe they need to look at that model and see if it can help.

The only folk against this technology are the CONTROL FREAKS who rightly see their vast cash cow drying up. Rather than embrace the new distribution channels and vex the current distributors (Virgin, HMV, et al [all good homely names who are also pressurising upwards]) they'd all rather force us to buy a 50p CD for > ?10.

If you want to stop something properly, kill the requirement.... cut the cost or it'll just mutate into another problem. Napster to open-torrents to ???????

You do not steal because music is too expensive. You steal because it is almost impossible to get caught. It wouldn't matter if CDs where $2 people would download them because it's FREE because you've STOLEN it! If you want to say you just don't care, then I'm OK with that. But don't try to pretend your theft has anything to do with the RIAA and the PAAA or anyone else.

BTW, I have seen many music sites where you can download samples of the songs on an album to see if you like it. You can also go to the artists website and many times you can stream the album for free.

Stealing the music and then paying for what you like (HA! Like anyone really does that!) is not an acceptable alternative.

I don't like the fees charged by Ticketmaster to buy tickets for concerts. Is it OK for me to sneak into the show or make my own tickets with my awesome printer?

I don't like the fees my bank charges me. Can I rob an ATM?

I think I'm under paid, can I steal stuff from work?

I burnt many classical CDs from the library as a way of getting into classical music. Blatant theft, copying 20 year old CDs, from foreign companies, paying little in royalties to the actual artists. I ended up spending several thousand $ on classical CDs, something I never would have done without burning, and burning lots more. After spending what I could afford I then burnt.

If I have $20 to spend is it better to buy that foriegn CD from much more than my wage, or spend it seeing a financially struggling local orchestra?

So it's the old moral catch-22, eh?

You're in a 4 person raft with 5 people. A boy scout, a mother of 4, the president, and older man, and yourself - a father and head of a charitable organization. Who do you throw out of the raft so the other four can survive?

Your choices weren't 1) steal music so that I may become a fan of calassical music and someday support a local orchestra or 2) buy legitimate music and maybe not be interested in it at all.

Your choices where 1) Do what is morally right and legal or 2) Break the law.

You chose to break the law. yes, there were positives from it. But what if you ended up hating classical music? Would your theft then have been "more" punishable? This is not a case of breaking the speed limit to get your dying child to the hospital or stealing to feed your baby because you've lost your job.

You could come up with ten thoudand rationalization to help justify the stealing. Just ponder this: if I have to rationalize it, can I ever say it was the right thing to do?

We always throw the President over.

This issue is very simple. If I borrow a cd from a friend or an acquaintance and copy it, it's not stealing. If I tape songs from the radio or record videos from television, it's not stealing. Just because the government(record companies) say it's stealing doesn't make it so. Record companies are applying the word stealing to something that may never have been realized monetarily.

The BIG four in North America control the entire industry, music, television, movies, retail outlets and....RADIO STATIONS.

Radio stations are not independant, as they once were, where they were paid to play.
It used to be an issue of the label/artist promoters visiting private radio stations and buying play time and setting up a rotation, Ever heard the term PAYOLA? THat's where it comes from, Payola was used by these record 'agents' to get more play time. The stations would hold out and get better offers from different companies, trips, meals, tickets etc. And a LOT of cash!!! It used ot cost about $1500 US to get SOME airplay, just to have them thrown it on when they had free time (and that's on top of normal rotational play costs).

Since they apprently stopped allowing PAYOLA to control the industry, sure they did, the radi ostations made less money and started getting bought out by the record labels.


From Wikipedia: "As of 2005, the "big four" music groups ? Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony BMG, and Universal Music Group ? control about 70% of the world music market, and about 80% of the United States music market. Record companies (manufacturers, distributors, and labels) may also comprise a record group which is, in turn, controlled by a music group. The constituent companies in a music group or record group are sometimes marketed as being divisions of the group."

That's why when you turn on the radio, nobody takes reuests anymore, unless its in teh rotation already. You can't solicit your own music to them anymore, gone are the days of hanging out with DJ's and trading music to play. It's done for and the buying public are now the victims.

Kids don't buy what they think sounds cool anymore, they buy what they are told to buy and saturated with (brainwashed) by the radio stations, MTV etc.)

There's no individual choice anymore, no self expression just conformity to the masses or else you risk standing out from the crowd. And what teenager really wants to stand out from the crowd these days?

It's BS, they have you 'hook', line and sinker.

Its theft. A massive theft ofculture. Some ******** owns the rights to the Beatles!

I am careful to make sure I pay full price for a CD where the artist has been dead for 30 years. Get a life, get a job and contribute to society. Music companies are not serving the greater good.

Whatever you said, mate.

Oz_Media your rant rings true. While I as a 50 something guy look wistfully backwards to the good old days.I do from time to time drop in on the club scene, and I'm happy to report some very nonconformity young 19 to 20 something doing and listening to new tunes.
Your rant makes me wonder if the Internet could recreate the good old days of "request radio", that could come alive again, in real time?
Goddog

"Is it me or does the music industry now employ more lawyers than musicians?"

The IRAA doesn't employ musicians... they own them. The attorneys are employed as the industry's personal "handlers" and are doing their best to maintain the recording industry's monopolistic hold over the consumer and artist alike.

those who try to keep a lid on "intellectual property" are going to lose utterly and completely. Once an idea has been expressed, it is public domain.

Want to keep it? Keep it in your head!

...the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Next to all these people saying the RIAA is killing a technology because they shut down some sites who help people illegally download protected content.

Some things, such as those that might benefit all manking, you can make a case for. Clearly you have no concept of how the world works. Maybe too many episodes of ST:TNG has warped your thinking. Sure, in the future there may be no money or need for profitablity, but for now I like feeding my family and with that come the need to sell things.

It's like all these people who thing software should be open-source and free. Most of the guys I know who have written that stuff have day jobs that pay the bills and they code at night for fun and then offer it for free. If the companies the wrotre software for during the day didn't charge for it, how would they pay their employees?

If you want to be a theif then just don't hide behind the bull. Just admit you like getting stuff for free and as long as the risk is low you'll keep doing it.

Pretend things like music are just "intellectual property" and forget the hours that went into writing and perfecting it. Forget the costs of musical equipment and dedication to pay low playing gigs to build a fan base. Just be the cheap self-indulgent jerk you are anjoy all of your stolen music.

The problem is Scott is right, simple but right. The problem is that there are two oppossing goods here, the benefit of cheap music to the masses, and the benefit of viable industry.

The trouble is the power imbalance. It ain't a level playing field. The length of time an item stays subject to intellectual copyright is an arbitary matter, and not a objective reality of the free world. Clearly the current rules of the game are not the best for society. A 30 year old CD from Led Zepplin still costs you the same as it did 15 years ago. Hey didn't I pay for that on vinyl too? But the excessive amounts of money aren't going to the musos, its mostly to the middle men as usual.

How about a collective movement to not buy overly priced CDs. A protest, go spend the money at a live gig instead. Alarmingly, here in Australia our government is considering in legislation to make you able to be sued by business for there losses if you try that.

How about a rules governing the kind of contracts artists can be governed buy. Or rules saying you must spend X number of $ on artist development to get a licence to be a music distribution company. Or a tax on music company profits which could be spend on all the instutions they have killed off, like live venues, opera etc.

They have no sense of social responsibility to go with their priveledged position in society. So we should just let them dominate us both financially and culturally, because thats better for everyone, not.

For better or worse I live in a capitalist society. They move jobs overseas to save money on production. A cost saving measure that pleases consumers while it can destroy a family's income. They cut warranties on products to keep the selling price the same in a world of rising material costs, but then I have to spend more on a new one in 6 months when it breaks.

I can empathize with a music lover's desire to obtain new music without feeling like they are going broke. I've been laid off three times in 6 years due to incredible negligence by management at the companies I have worked for. It's a raw deal but it's part of life. A friend asked me if I would sue one of the companies and I said no. He told me I was crazy, I had great grounds to get at least some more money. But what if the the other thousand people who got laid of sued? What if we all won and bankrupted the company further? My friends who still workwed their might lose their jobs as well. Then who benefits? The CEO and CFO were gone, the board had several members changed out, so who would I be punishing?

The same rule applies here. The people who steal think they are proving a point, but they not. They are proving they are selfish and willing to steal instead of be patient and work a problem the right way. They hurt the artists because the record companies just take it out on them and the consumer with lower royalties and higher album prices.

The best way to fix the issue is to get the snai-mail and email addresses of record company executives and encourage your friends and family to not buy albums, and send letters and emails to executives and tell them why you won't buy albums.

Ok, the thing about professional muscians is this, they really don't make any money on the albums. Where your bands make their money is on the live concerts and consessions. You, T-shirts, ball-caps, posters, etc. If you are in a band that is recording you will find that out. I know that the record companies claim that "stealing" music is hurting the bands, but the truth is that downloading the albums does not really impact the bands. Just my 2cents.

Just be the cheap self-indulgent jerk you are anjoy all of your stolen music.

...the stupidest accusation I have heard in my entire life.

There is not a single piece of music on my computer, stolen or otherwise. I can go to the local library and borrow all the CDs and DVDs I care to watch or listen to, at no cost what-so-ever.

Oh, and Molly Hatchet will be playing local this weekend, and I have already bought tickets. So blow it out your ass, moron!

... then your claim that there is no such thing as intellectual property. And true for many of the people who have posted in this thread regarding their own theft of music. But if you don't believe in intellectual property then why wouldn't you copy music or download it? If you aren't then good for you!

BTW, I didn't say anything moronic, I said something insulting. If it turns out that the shoe doesn't fit you then I'm glad. But judging from your comment I wouldn't have known that.

Although you mention a great point. I am a supporter of my local library and donate money and books whenever I can. It's great resource for children (and adults) to have free access to great works of art, be it literature, music or film. Don't want to buy a CD? Donate to yout library.

"no such thing" as intellectual property. I meant that it ceases to be the creator's "private property" once it is expressed.

In the realm of invention, it is becoming a lot harder to imagine that two minds couldn't come up with nearly the same idea independently, and that is where the majority of my beef lies (when one is allowed to profit from it and the other not).

What's your issue here anyway? YOu are in Canada, not the USA.

So far they have yet to find a Canadaian judge that will take such a case, it is defended in the Canadian Constitution. Many have tried, even to the supreme court of Canada but when that judge said no go, the CRIA got pretty quiet and started to look at the US to make a stand.

It's just the Yankers that have such issues with thier freedom being taken all the time and thier constitution being inored or in support of the big business it is designed to protect, not us.

Canadian record labels had asked the court for authorization to identify 29 alleged file swappers in that country, in preparation for suing them for copyright infringement, much as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has sued more than 1500 people in America.

But the judge denied that request. In a far-ranging decision, the court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online appeared to be legal in Canada.

That same case was brought forth again in 2007, to no avail though, as it never made it to the bench before being thrown out as unconstitutional and and infrongement on Canadian rights. The issue is not the sharing, well that's pretty much deemed legal here too, but the issue was having the ISP offer up the IP's.

Doing so would in turn start countless cases against the ISP for privacy issues. In the end, the ISp would pay more for offering IP's than it would if sued by CRIA.


Too bad we can't be free like Americans, we all know how much everyone wants to live in America, or so they say anyway.

IMHO (universal disclaimer, I'm ranting about ideas, not individuals or their worth as human beings. All ideas are not created equal, they live or fail on their ability to spread and become accepted, based on the funding to spread them, the acceptance by the majority of the media, or the integrated self replicating memes embedded within (read God given truth or two or 100). )

The fact is that the music industry lied and used illegal monopolistic practices when the music CD was introduced. They claimed that the music CD would only have a high price for the initial 2-5 years, until the 'research and development costs were recovered', then CDs would drop in price and be cheaper than vinyl. They also claimed that CDs were virtually indestructible compared to vinyl. You can find magazine ads from the early 80s when they were trying to get CDs off the ground with exactly this kind of wording. Then the major distributors started refusing to accept returned vinyl for cost and began heavily discounting returned vinyl, even customer returned defective vinyl, refunds to the retailers. All the while, it appeared (to myself and several friends) that they were going out of their way to produce vinyl in poorer quality, like ABC/Dunhill, Avista, and other companies. This gave a brief niche market to high quality producers of vinyl, half speed mastered disks, limited pressings, etc., while forcing retail outlets to switch to CDs.

Have you noticed how many of these companies also produce the playback and recording devices, or have a major stake in the manufacture's that do, or vice-versa? Used to be that any klutz with modest amount of mechanical skill could put together a decent turntable, align a cartridge and isolate the platform from vibration. When was the last time you replace a read head on a DVD player?

They got greedy when they saw how much they made when they replaced 8 tracks with cassettes for the mobile market.

I have over 800 vinyl titles. It wasn't a problem if I made a tape for my own use, or even to give to a friend, that usually amounted to two copies at the most. And it was of music that I had already paid for. The same applies to TV and radio broadcasts. For special events, the stations used to even provide cues for commercial breaks so that you could record the show for your own use. I also paid for duplicates of about 50 titles on cassette and then again on CD. Why did I have to pay for the same product 3 times in some instances?

Have the prices of CDs dropped?
Why can I buy a DVD of a great movie, two or more years after its release, for 1/3 the price of a CD? Is the music industry that much greedier than the movie industry? Aren't their production costs higher? Why do the majority of the albums released today contain only 2 or 3 decent tracks with the rest garbage? And why do the same retail outlets sell CD media storage products that damage CDs? I haven't heard more than a few 'quality' albums of new music a year. In popular music, Ozomatli's Street Signs contained an amazing collection of cross genre music, all well written and produced, and a couple of dozen other artists, in their respective genres, have done the same. Look at the crap that established bands have put out. The Clapton/JJ Cale CD was mostly crap. Any of JJ Cale's previous albums were better. The Eagles lastest? Mostly mediocre.

Taste is personal. The desire to be able to listen to a variety of music, old favorites and something new, used to be more prevalent. The time was that, if you decided that you needed to collect music, many radio stations would rotate lots of different material. If you collected, you would get excited about 2 to 12 new releases a week. You'd go out and buy about half of them. College stations, guys in the military around the world, would
play a wide variety of old and new music, regional favorites, and samples of music outside of their market genre. I remember hearing bluegrass, bebop, acid rock, reggae, country, swing, folk rock, blues, pop classics from the 40s and 50s, kool jazz, fusion, and even classical music, all on one radio station during the weekend. I went nuts exploring the different styles, buying a bit of everything.

Corporate greed took over. The corporate takeover and merger of radio stations was part of a coordinated marketing and restraint of trade action combined with the release of the CD format.

In the local market where I live, when a small company tries to start a new radio station, with a more creative format for music, the corporate giants coordinate 2 to 4 of their local stations with format changes and expanded play lists to try and squash the new station. If, or when they succeed, they return to their bland boardroom dictated format. The same corporations that control 40-80% of the broadcast market, now control more than 50% of the live venue production market.

The music industry was healthier before corporate consolidation and greed.
I'm hoping the internet can change that. And P2P sharing is part of it.

As far the artists go. Take a look at an old editorial article that the old American Society for Quality Control published in their magazine about the Grateful Dead.
Number one in quality for customer service in the music industry. They invited fans to bring recording equipment to their concerts and set up a separate engineering board that they could hook into. They negotiated all of their record deals to force the record company to release albums at the lowest possible price. They did the same with ticket prices for concerts. They were even cited for how they treated their employees. In the mid-80s the average low end salary for their roadies, technicians, etc was $50k/year. After a year with the band, college trust funds were set up for all of the employee's children. They also guaranteed set periods of inactivity from the road so that employees could have time with their families. They created the first band controlled 800 line for ticket sales, then internet sales, without the added service fees of Ticketmaster. Their merchandising was always highest quality. Bootleg recordings circulate all over the place, but their fans also pay for the product enough that they have a comfortable living, as do their employees.

And speaking of keeping ticket prices lower. Lets all burn any media content with Barbara Streisand and the Eagles. World class ticket prices for concerts were $35-$45 a seat before Babs decided her fans would pay $125 a seat. (and the idiots did) The Eagles followed suit as the first major rock and roll act to ask over $70 a seat. Boom. Now I only attend concerts for 'cult' bands, up and coming bands, or nostalgia tours by bands who've lost their mass appeal. The average college student could afford a dinner and a concert date once. Not any more, unless mommy and daddy are footing the bill, along with their Porsche.

File sharing is NOT an artist issue. Its an issue of controlling the corporate distribution channel. Is that what the copyright laws were intended to protect? Hell no, they were set up to protect the individual creative forces.

I NEED TO HEAR IT BEFORE I BUY IT. RADIO IS NOT FULFILLING ITS FUNCTION 99% of the time.
In the past, radio got caught flat footed a few times. In college, we were listening to the revamped Fleetwood Mac, a la Buckingham and Nicks, six months before we heard a single cut played on the radio.

Bit Torrent and other P2P file sharing as a form of distribution is a direct result of the music, movie and software industries shutting down bulletin boards, usenet binary sites, and pirate sites.

I don't care what some giant corporation tries to tell me about what is a copyright violation. If it were really true, the entire system of public libraries would be shut down tomorrow. And, as a completely different topic, it looks like the techbook and certification industries have found their own methods to cripple libraries, if you've looked at trying on-line library ebooks to prepare for a certification test.

I believe anyone is completely justified in today's corporate environment to download an album. 90% of whats available for download is compressed and not a hi-fidelity sample. I won't pay for that. If I like it, I go out and buy it. And for all those who believe that most people who love music would not do that, you're idiots with tin ears that don't really love music. And the music industry actually agrees with me. Look at the attempts to introduce higher quality formats. Yeah, MP3s are great for the gym, jogging in the city, etc. They suck at home, in the car, on the road in a hotel room, or in a club. I would never offer anyone a gift that was an MP3 recording.

Notice I didn't say a song, or a track. Track based marketing is step backwards for the music industry. A return to the 45 single and artists putting out one or two samples of quality work along with a bunch of mediocre examples of their 'sound'.
Album sales fueled one of the most profitable eras in the music industry, along with out of control DJs and people swapping tapes.

Another side issue. The perversion of the copyright laws by corporations with software and even hardware.
Patents were the tools used to protect corporate manufacturing. And they are time limited. Then competition can come in and try to sell a better mousetrap.

How the hell can a giant corporation claim copyright for a product that the original programming team created and was then laid off? How does this protect the true creative individuals intellectual property?
You want me to honor a copyright? Introduce me to the individual programmers who wrote the first revision AND the user manual, and nursed it to release. Prove to me that they, or their direct descendants, are still collecting royalties on the sales.

Outside of small programming companies, corporate copyright is a lie. Show me any code produced by Bill Gates in the last 20 years. Hell, for over twenty years now, hardware manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon. They've been circumventing the patent laws by using copyrights for chip layouts, printed circuit board layouts, wiring diagrams and enclosure layouts.

Look at some of your peripherals and 'service', like your camera, cable TV or cell phone.

I'm on my fifth cell phone, my third digital camera. My first two cell phones contained simple games. they were great if I had to stand in line and forgot something to read. Now I have to subscribe to a service and also pay a download for a game that's been in existence for 20 years, like tetris? And if I stop the subscription to the service they strip the game off the phone? How the hell is this protecting the intellectual property of someone? How is this a service worth paying for? Pay attention Verizon.

Every digital camera I had till the most recent, formatted the memory chip so that I could buy a card reader and see the card and its contents as removable media in my computer file manager. Now Kodak has 'Easy Share'. I couldn't believe it when I hooked the camera up to the PC and I couldn't get my pictures without firing up the 'Easy share' software. Then couldn't believe it when even that wouldn't work if I put the memory chip in a card reader. I have to buy an Easy Share card reader from Kodak for that. I will discourage everyone I know from ever buying a Kodak camera for the rest of my life.

The cable company. FCC rules state that ALL local broadcasts (more or less) must be carried on basic cable. We have 6 stations broadcasting a hi def signal. Our new TV can detect digital signals. It detects and shows ONLY the local hi def broadcasts. We cannot see any content that is only shown on a higher level of service. But the cable company wants to define any hi def as a higher level of service. So what do they do? They won't publish the location of these signals, they move the local hi def signals every two months to different channels, they broadcast software codes to lock up the TV. Meanwhile we get a preview of the all digital basic cable line up (once again, no content of a higher level of service). Guess what their spending their research dollars on? Down converting local hi-def broadcasts to 480i.

Look at the Hollywood writers strike. Who's at the beginning of the creative process in the first place?

Now the last point. The law is the law.
Benjamin Franklin funded his printing house by violating copyrights of European authors. Almost all print shops in the US did. You have to have government authority to brew beer and ale, make wine, or distill spirits.
The FDA has to oversee the entire process from design conception to individual failures of medical devices, this evolved from a law that protected poppy growers in Connecticut and Massachusetts from foreign imports of opium?

1984 has been here since about 1860. Black is white. Peace in our time. Drug addicts steal and commit crimes (please show me records of all the drug addicts committing crimes before 1903, when it was a medical and not a legal issue).

You claim to be so upstanding on this point of 'morality'. That means that you've never violated a traffic law- never speed, never do a rolling stop, never yield the right of way on the highway and force merge into traffic, never have a glass of wine or beer with a meal and then get behind the wheel, never cut someone off in traffic, never tailgated, never drove in the left lane without passing, never took a colleagues idea and incorporated with your own, never lusted after someone other than your spouse, never took advantage of someone in a business deal, never payed a Congressman a $1500 campaign contribution to have breakfast or lunch with them, never sued someone needlessly, never hired a lawyer to protect you from a justified law suit, never reverse engineered a product, never inhaled, and you did not have sex with that woman?

The facts are that this country was founded to protect the rights of the individual businessman, whether he was a farmer, a printer, a shop owner or a lawyer, before the concept of the modern corporation was invented. It was to protect us from the worst of government tyranny and business - the East India Company and their like. The constitution could NOT be ratified without the Bill of Rights. And the government and corporations have been trying to nullify the Bill of Rights from day one.

The only people who have a moral complaint on P2P are the writers, musicians, and programmers who live on royalties, not corporate salaries.

The music industry is NOT losing money, this is a lie. Its not growing profits as fast and as big as it would like. Just like the arguments about cuts in government funding. 99% never happened. Either got shuffled around, or cut the scheduled increase in spending.

Its miracle the open software foundation exists, its one of the few things balancing things out in the intellectual property mess. Otherwise we might soon discover that our private thoughts are violating some corporation's copyright. We need the equivalent for the music industry, and the 'service' industry.

If we live in an information society, how is continually restricting, controlling and charging for information any different than the company store taking our entire paycheck for the company house, food and clothing from the company store, and bills from the company clinic, doctor and pharmacist? Are we going to have National Guard militia machine gunning down people who've had enough of the abuse?

See what a toothache can do for a forum rant?

I am glad I checked back in on this thread...
Wow, thats about all I can say atm... maybe after the coffee has kicked in some. Good post. Not sure I agree 100%, but I do agree with the meat of your post. Big buisness has turned music into a commodity instead of an artistic expression. Greed and profitering have sent prices through the roof and kept them there. Piracy is blamed for the loss in revenue, not hugely inflated prices, and poor quality products. (I have had well over 15 commercial CDs decay on me in under 10 years of life. How long were they claimed to last?) With radio stations no longer providing a good mix of music, people look elswhere for samples, selections to hear. Hence p2p. And, like you, I purchase much more music when I am exposed to many new and different bands. I purchased more CD's in the Napster age then I have since. And its not because I am downloading them, because I am not. I juat have become very, very selective. And my DVD purchases have gone up.
HDTV, I will not get into that..its a nightmare of lies, deceit, marketing, and massive DRM, all in an attempt to prevent you from recording shows for latter viewing. Bye bye dvr. HDTV could be the death of TiVO.

leave us downloaders alone, we ain't doin' no harm.

My wife is a music producer... a successful one and is well known in the latin industry. P2P has KILLED KILLED KILLED the music industry... now not even one of your friends has to buy the cd to make copies.... at least before someone you knew had to purchase something at the store. let me shed some light on how just one aspect of the industry has changed since Napster.

In the past you could write a few tunes.. record a few and pitch them to record labels and publishing companies. If you were a producer thru say SONY, and had produced artists or singles to them and were successful in the past you have a good chance of them taking up your new project and funding it. Now YOU HAVE TO PRODUCE YOUR FIRST ALBUM (OF THE NEW ARTIST) ON YOUR OWN!! Which is about $30-50K if you have your own musicians... thats not including hiring studio musicians at $150-250 and hour. The record labels will not throw a single dime at you ... Thats just how it effects the musicans and the producers which only get paid for the work they do.. not the ******** corp paper pushers... this is your friends and family.... Everyone is out of work.. no one can produce or record full time anymore because only a select few that are safe and marketable are getting all the work.

Now I do agree with all the BS that is going on combating it? NO... I think they need to stop spending money on reactive measures and instead rethink their entire marketing and distribution methods.... but this will not happen anytime soon.. they'd rather put the beat down on everyone stealing their revenue.


While I am on the soap box I am going to go download BIOShock on Direct connect...

Just kidding!! :-P

The record industry gets the lions share for record production because of their ownership of the distribution channel. Artists have had to sell their souls to the devil (record labels) for too long to get access to that channel. Why do you think the artist go on tour? Because they see little money from the CD sales. That is an established fact. Why do you think so many garage bands now have a chance to distribute their music? Because of the internet! I think there are very few musicians out there that wouldn't love the chance to eliminate the record labels.

Music labels have shot themselves in the foot, maybe they shouldnt have been charging stupid money, over ?13 for a CD which only cost about ?1 to make... if they werent so greedy about the money they made, and realised they were only successful due to the money poured into those who love music... now those who love music dont see why they should have to pay for it, well not the extornate money those labels force us to pay!

I think the entire music industry is to blame for these illegal downloads, and it serves them right!! Artists, Producers, Labels, whoever... no one else to blame but their money hungry pockets.

I can easily make music in my bedroom,my pc, bit of software, sampler... bang! i dont need some executive in a suit to sell it... i'll whack it on MySpace!

and you don't .. Artists go on tour to promote their ALBUM because they get points on the backend of the album sales, they get a one time payment for each show... for instance shakira got $25,000 a show on her last tour.. how do i know that?? MY wife produced and cowrote her first album (Gloria Estefans husband publishing company does all the crossover gigs).. how much do you think garage bands get to play on tour... LOL if you get in a nice college tour.. playing venues that hold 1500-2500 people, you will maybe break even on the tour after expenses... cause guess who is paying for it?!?!?! YOU!! so shut your trap you don't have any idea how any of the industry works....... Garage bands have no chance in getting anywhere now.. that is a fact. You may get noticed.. but your not getting the money to make your album... also the "indy" scene is merely producers that were established.. that can't get work anymore and already have their own publishing company and deals thru the record companies (like a IT consultant) I understand you seached google to find things out before you responded but again... YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE

Can you tell me how garage bands are going to make any money if you steal their music and not pay for it?? Are you implying you only steal music because Big corporations are involved.. are you a 12 yr old or an adult??

I have found, and subsequently paid for more music from lesser known bands as a result of internet downloads. I don't listen to the radio (which generally you are only going to hear the big names anyway). I don't watch TV much, so I rarely pick up and soundtrack songs from shows (not that you would have any way of tracking those to artist as a genreal rule). I don't have time to stand around in borders, virgin etc... thumbing through labels, and then hoping I can actually listen to the songs on the album to see if it is worth paying for. I do listen to music when I am working on my computer, and when I come across an artist I haven't heard before, I often download a few titles. If I like them, I download a few more, then Go looking for the album to purchase it. These are often bands who are getting little to no advertising mileage from their label. Many are foreign groups which get no play in the US.

I bet I'm not the only one.

I have bought many, many cds because of the downloaded music I have listened to.

After hearing about the band Laika, and downloading some mp3s for free *directly from their website*, I ended up buying some 3 or 4 of their albums.

Should I be considered a thief as well? (question aimed towards the industry's apologists)

p.s. I haven't bought any other cds in months as I'm not about to support the industry's current practices.

I have managed bands that use P2P to check and see what titles to use on each disk. Most bands have a large bank of music to draw from, when they compile a new disk, it's always noce to get an idea of what works by using P2P to share it initially.

BANDS love P2P , LABELS hate P2P.

Bands benefit from P2P, Labels simply don't get a sale.

Many bands have become successful and have been able to globally shop deals, avoiding teh US rip off deals, and start a much more lucrative career.

Here's a T-shirt for you.
http://store.northshoreshirts.com/istmuoffint.html

Love it!

so now we know who to blame for shakira's crappy music. your wife is one of the reasons people don't pay for music without listening first.

Way to be a classless jerk. I can't say I am a fan of Shakira's music, but is this really what you consider a logical, well-defended post? Most of the people on this site are technical folks so I assume you are at least partly educated and certainly a motivated self-starter. I find many of the comments posted on this site embarassing by association. Go check out how many albums Shakira has sold. Apparently you may not like it but millions do.

It all comes down to one thing here. We all want money. You want to keep yours and get things for free. The record companies want to make money and they need your money to do it. So just don't buy anything. Start a letter writing campaign. Get other people to join you. Put in some E-F-F-O-R-T. I know, it's easier to steal, but maybe your integrity doesn't matter to you.

Chances are the companies you work for over charge for their services as well. Do you have problems sleeping at night? Of course not, your "moral" outrage only kicks in when it affects your wallet. Congratulations on having morals just as low if not lower than the record execs you criticize.

BTW, you can go to some artist's websites and hear many of their songs streamed for free if you really want to "sample" their songs. Or go to iTunes and listen to the freely downloadable sample.

Oh what's that you say? By "sample" you mean listen to repeatedly for years without paying for it? Oh, OK, I got ya.

You sound like a kiddie on a gamers website.

Your comment was absurd, incorrect and absolutely uncalled for. It was a personal slam against somebody's wife who is unable to defend herself or counter your ridiculous claims.

Grow up.

Here are links to more suitable websites for you:
http://tinyurl.com/6wbv


http://tinyurl.com/2a85mz

Music is by definition owned by everyone, it's not owned by a single person... Seen from that point of view paying for music would be like paying to be allowed to think... or to breath air...

If you think music is owned by everyone, perhaps you should consider the idea of your own WORK being owned by everyone. And them thinking they don't owe you anything for it. How long will you continue doing it?

Your attitude of entitlement is one of the most amazing expressions of self importance and thoughtlessness that exists in the world today, boy. A few beatings from your parents would have fixed your disease in a hurry. Instead you are free to infect the rest of the world.

"Seen from that point of view" yet I have read them all and don't see one that is "that point of view".

Sound as an audio receptory gift, is most definitely not what this thread is about.

We are discussing people's manipulation and crafting of specific sounds. When someone is involved in creating it, it becomes intellectual property.

MUSIC, is created.
SOUND is that stuff you hear for free.

Everyone can create sound, not everyone can create music. Music is a form of art, a way of pleasing the ear, a way of transforming feelings, thoughts and beliefs into audio forms.

Your off base mate.

"Seen from that point of view" yet I have read them all and don't see one that is "that point of view".

Sound as an audio receptory gift, is most definitely not what this thread is about.

We are discussing people's manipulation and crafting of specific sounds. When someone is involved in creating it, it becomes intellectual property.

MUSIC, is created.
SOUND is that stuff you hear for free.

Everyone can create sound, not everyone can create music. Music is a form of art, a way of pleasing the ear, a way of transforming feelings, thoughts and beliefs into audio forms.

Your off base mate.

Musicians should be paid for their music. No doubt about it, they created it, put their heart and soul and sweat into it. Its their music to offer.

OK...

One thing you fail to mention are the contracts created by record labels and how BIASED they are against the musician. The "industry" claims the lion's share of the profits and do little to actually promote the artist, band or music.

I come from a family of entertainers. One thing that we, and many artists, agree on is that the entertainment industry as a whole would be far better off without the RIAA or MPAA. These groups are nothing but legal loan sharks looking to make a killing off ANYBODY, including artists.

I don't promote piracy. I don't download music and movies. This doesn't change the way I see the industry, though.

BTW, go to the RIAA site and see if you can find contact info. Last I checked there was no such link to offer any sort of feedback to them. What does that tell you? It tells me that YOU are indeed the clueless one....

If you sign a bad contract, isn't that your fault?

If you take a job shoveling cow amnure for $10/hr can you complain that your getting screwed?

I hung out in the "party" scene in my younger years and had many, many friends in bands and went to places with live music almost every night. A few of them signed deals with local labels, then complained of getting screwed over. Well, they were high or drunk most of the time and didn't even bother to have a lwayer look at the contract.

I'm not saying what record companies do is right. But everyone on this forum who supports stealing because they don't like the cost is just showing what is going wrong with our world. All you care about is yourself and damn what is morally right. There are tons of places to get free music, but you want tolisten to U2, DMB, Shakira, Green Day, or whatever. Those people signed contracts and you have to deal with the results. Why don't you blame the musicians for selling the music to vampires looking to suck us dry when they could have sold it to you through a variety of alternate channels.

Maybe if people started taking personal responsibility for their actions instead of looking for the nearest "cause" for their behavior our world wouldn't have so many problems.

Please don't take the high moral ground on the basis that musicians are just getting what they deserve.
Record labels are not in the business of producing music, never mind quality music. They are certainly not in the business of nurturing talent or allowing avenues for creative expression.
They are in the business of making a profit. That is not the basis for a positive moral attitude. Why don't they offer better contracts to musicians instead of getting them at a drunk moment and fleecing them for what they can?
That is what is wrong with the world, money as an end and not a means to an end.

a Tad naive matey.

If someone (not me) downloads an entire CD in the UK, they've deprived the musician of ?1.75 and the record company of ?15.25. If the music is good (rare but possible) the musicians will get more benefit out of this untaxed method of distribution than the record companies will.

That's what this battle is about.

Pointing fingers at other peoples morality is for those who practice what they preach. That might be you, it's not the f'ing RIAA though.

YOu are wholly right in your post BUT, you seem to be lumping in all record labels as the same.

In actuality, it is the North American labels (the big four conglomerates)that are abusing the listeners. In England, Germany (especially Germany), Brazil and other major music production areas, musicians are really encouraged to do thier own thing.

Ex. Many deals for new bands do NOT include ownership the way it does in the States. IN the majority of cases, they simply sign distribution or tour deals. These are great because the label allows the group to cut a CD on thier own, or at a low cost in the label's studios. They label gets a cut of sales, SMALL cut, but they also procide access to the distribution outlets they own/operate or have deals with. So a new group can get some decent retail exposure, globally, for very little skimmed off the top.

IN cases where the label actualy does invest n the music, they reap very minor rewards, they allow the musicians to hold most intellectual rights and grow with the HELP of the label.

It's kinda like giving the artist a helping hand and allowing the use of thier resources
for a small cut. Not the outright ownerhip for pennies per album returned to the artist that the US offers.

US acts also get stuck with the bill a lot, go on tour, be showered with gifts, riders, party all night long etc. Then when the CD money is to be handed out, all those costs get deducted from the artists paycheck. this often leaves them in serious debt and bound to the labels contract for a few more years. If music doesn't sell, they get poorer and poorer, while the label focuses on thier newset flavour and lets the old one die into bankruptcy.

You apprently know the insutry, or as it seems one TINY little part of it anyway.
"Can you tell me how garage bands..."

HOw do they make music from file sharing? Easy, MOST garage and indie bands (I'll get back to your 'indie' misconnception if I have time)promote and shop for their own deals. Usually they run screaming from anything nearing a US marketplace and seek deals in Brazil, UK, Germany, France etc.

The popularity of music online, and demand at local record stores, is exactly what gets them those deals. Not a fancy press kit or EPK, though you must be packaged when approached.

I know more than a half dozen bands personally who used this avenue to get signed with EMI London, Sanctuary music and a couple of other smaller labels. So P2P DOES lead to success for some garage bands, because they use it as a marketing tool and it works, as a way of getting outside of North America.


As for indie bands, Slocan is not a washed up or former production company. Remember when RoadRunner was a tiny little indie label? A little startup?

How about BW&BK, they wer once a little underground metal magazine, not the corporation they have become.

So as for indie music, you simply don't have a clue either.

What you know is VERY simple, a little bit of industry spew from your wife who works with a label. You have about 10% of the big picture andrespectably abotu 30% (at most) of the industry in which your wife works.

You certainly don't have enough hands on, global knowledge of massive and very diverse industry to make such absurd claims though.

As for touring, I've managed a warmup for a MAJOR globally recognized tour. Your right, they don't make f-all, and don't aim to on such a tour. The artists, who is free from North American labels makes a heap and a half, but not the support act. They pretty much get most expenses paid and tour for free in order to make a name for themselves, and ultimately sell CD's without a need for the label's support. why do you think so many support acts are signed two days before a tour begins? Or right after they start the North American tour leg? That way the record company has some control of the money and their future success...IF the are hungry, tired of playing gigs and just want to sell out in the US that is.