Randy Blythe, worth reading

[svart]

Originally Posted by fps

Yeah man. Re label hatred (some justify it due to overpricing in the past) I think the labels served as an important buffer in the fan-band relationship. Bands could always say, re CD prices, *look guys our hands are tied by the labels*. The label got the flak for the pricing of the CDs, the bands still got to look like heroes of the working class, so at the top end the bigs bands could continue to rake it in while looking like average guys caught in a system.

NOW, though, with free downloading, the fans believe that these heroes of theirs have always been willing engagers in philanthropy, giving their music away for free but for the evil corporations who put prices on everything so they could continue, when in fact any pro band is OF COURSE trying to make money from it, make a living, as good a living as they can from what they do. The lie that the people on stage (pros not amateurs) were just like you, fighters of the powers that be, has been blown wide open, every band is terrified of saying it but they're all thinking it- how are we going to get our money out of our fans?

I can add a little story to it. System of a down had a new album out, saw wholesaleprices for distribution over here... 2$ a piece!!! and that album went for sale in Free recordshop(a musicstore chain) for 22€!!! but it still was the greedy label to blame...

[slowro]

I love how people change the arguement to what they want it to be. I have a simple view on it.

Music cost money, bands need paid for the WORK they do, Record companies have people who WORK to promote etc in a short attention span overcrowed scene
Key word = WORK
In my world work = pay. It may not be fairly distributed but you can't argue that.

This Cribs culture of I'm 50cent/Simon Cowell/Whatever "I have so much more money than you check out my house and cars you can't afford" makes people think that everyone in the music industry is driving gold plated veyrons. This is NOT the case. Take something for free and its theft. Regardless if you think you should or deserve to pay for it, who cares? thats life

If this was a smaller band than LOG no one would take notice. Randy Blythe talking sense? wow

If someone makes music I love I WANT to pay them to make more so I can enjoy it

[linchpin]

Originally Posted by Panacea224

True, but if the record labels go under it will probably be even harder to make a living as a musician.

Probably... but that's no excuse for the music to stop... it simply becomes a hobby again

[RevDrucifer]

Not only is it time for musicians/bands to re-think ways of 'making it', but also labels. They've been far too comfortable for too long.

I've got ZERO ideas on how to put life back into the music business, aside from the idea that the business model has to change.

I think the Manson example might be slightly off, as his sales have been dwindling for the past few years, while LoG's have only gotten bigger and bigger. That more seems like natural progression of two different bands rather than promotion via big label vs. self-released.

Wonder how much Manson had to put into that record out of his own pocket. Shit, even with selling 38K CD's in a week, he still could have just broken even.

[noxian]

Originally Posted by slowro

...bands need paid for the WORK they do...

ironically, perhaps thats the mentality that needs to change.

Scott Kurtz (one of the more successful webcomic artist, an artistic medium that pretty much gives it wares away for free) had a very good quote. paraphasing, because i don't remember the exact wording, "every artist wants to be paid to produce art. but what they need to do is produce art, then figure out how to monetize it".

and just speaking from my personal work, that does seem to be the difference i've seen between those who have figured out how to make a living in this wild frontier that is the digital age, and those who haven't.

philosophically its the difference between spending your time worrying about who has your work and didn't pay you for it, and spending your time trying to sell your work (or sell some good related to your work) to people who don't have it yet.
or to simplify it even further, its the difference between worrying about who isn't giving you money, and figuring out how to get people to give you money.

of course philosophies are easier to say than solutions, but the very least i can leave you with something i was told about this subject straight from the mouth of a label rep once (and once again paraphrasing because this was some time ago and i don't remember the exact words), "no one is going to pay you for your work until you're an established artist with a resume a label can bank on. its up to up-and-coming bands to figure out what to do to reach that point."

[DLG]

Originally Posted by RevDrucifer

I've got ZERO ideas on how to put life back into the music business, aside from the idea that the business model has to change.

adapt or die my friends.

I went to school to be a journalist, but with print media dying out and even most news agencies drastically cutting down on correspondents what was I to do? Either starve looking for a newspaper or magazine job or adapt.

I do still write for one newspaper, but I mostly now blog, write SEO content, and do whatever I can do using my writing skills to carve myself a niche and get paid. If I was stubborn about making a living according to old models I'd still be in my mom's attic eating two dollar ramen at the age of 31.

[prh]

jon gomm is a great example of what a modern, talented artist can be - he has no label, releases everything himself, got 'famous' via youtube, makes a living from being incredible at what he does, and his PR agent is his mum

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by linchpin

There will always be music... with or without suits.

Yeah, I mean, bands will have no trouble at all getting the money to pay for recording and get/pay for tours outside of their home state and generally play music full-time--not to mention get major retailers to stock their albums and get their music airplay, cover fees such as merch and album layout design--without the financial backing of a label or "suit"...

[slowro]

Originally Posted by noxian

ironically, perhaps thats the mentality that needs to change.

Scott Kurtz (one of the more successful webcomic artist, an artistic medium that pretty much gives it wares away for free) had a very good quote. paraphasing, because i don't remember the exact wording, "every artist wants to be paid to produce art. but what they need to do is produce art, then figure out how to monetize it".

and just speaking from my personal work, that does seem to be the difference i've seen between those who have figured out how to make a living in this wild frontier that is the digital age, and those who haven't.

philosophically its the difference between spending your time worrying about who has your work and didn't pay you for it, and spending your time trying to sell your work (or sell some good related to your work) to people who don't have it yet.
or to simplify it even further, its the difference between worrying about who isn't giving you money, and figuring out how to get people to give you money.

of course philosophies are easier to say than solutions, but the very least i can leave you with something i was told about this subject straight from the mouth of a label rep once (and once again paraphrasing because this was some time ago and i don't remember the exact words), "no one is going to pay you for your work until you're an established artist with a resume a label can bank on. its up to up-and-coming bands to figure out what to do to reach that point."

I understand but I fear that the point may be missed that many people are hugely limited by their social backround. If you can't afford a good home setup etc to make a decent quality record (not a pro quality record just decent) AND put food on the table then why would we, who have a saturated overweight bloated internet forcing things upon them, take any notice of a shoddy record. It may be fine if you stay within a reasonable distance of a new band you could support them by going to a show and buying a shirt directly from them but how could you FIND them? If i did a search for "new thrash metal band" how much garbage would I find that has nothing to do with the search. As a music lover who actively looks for new music it is hard to wade through music online and to be honest promotion is KEY. I do believe that bands can do a lot themselves provided they have the right circumstances but if they have commitments they may just quit music and pay the bills. this is our loss.
How many bands have found their sound after a few releases? If we lose the paid experts in the future where will the skills be to help bands? What if you have no business skills/tech skills/music production skills but write some amazing music? You fail and no one hears you.

I don't see why the moral crusade is forced on the music industry? We pay for food and water to keep us alive, you pay for healthcare to keep you alive, you pay for heat and shelter to keep you alive. Why should we make an example of art when the vital things in life COST and art is subjective. If I can't afford a beautiful guitar I don't just take it and say that because its art the maker should adapt or starve. Where does art end and where does it begin?

Newspapers are dying because they are useless, media that has sponsors is not impartial, they are at best showing day old news and it is dumbed down too much.
This is not a personal attack on anyones opinions its all IMHO

[Sikthness]

Originally Posted by DLG

adapt or die my friends.

I went to school to be a journalist, but with print media dying out and even most news agencies drastically cutting down on correspondents what was I to do? Either starve looking for a newspaper or magazine job or adapt.

I do still write for one newspaper, but I mostly now blog, write SEO content, and do whatever I can do using my writing skills to carve myself a niche and get paid. If I was stubborn about making a living according to old models I'd still be in my mom's attic eating two dollar ramen at the age of 31.

Absolutely. Music is an industry just like every other job. Sure it has its unique aspects, but its still a business. I work in a job that is mostly hard physical labor, and everyone I work w/ is constantly complaining that manufacturing jobs are being outsourced n there are no high paying jobs for laborers. Instead of trying to think of what THEY can do individually to adapt to the way our country's economy is set up, they want the president/politicians/whoever to bring back the labor jobs so today's world can be like the world they grew up in. But thats not going to happen, its just the way it is. Just like how pirating and the internet is not going away, so musicians and the industry people need to adapt, and make themselves marketable instead of just hoping sometime, somehow, things can go back to how they were, because they aren't going to.

[slowro]

true i suppose,
things are the way they are and it probably aint going to change. I think more than anything I wish it attacked the top down. Less beibers, chris browns and soulja boys taking cash from hormonal teenage girls and parading their spoils on MTV would only make society a beter place, I dont need a bling jesus piece and a mercedes with gucci floormats to be happy and to be honest no one does

[linchpin]

Originally Posted by SenorDingDong

Yeah, I mean, bands will have no trouble at all getting the money to pay for recording and get/pay for tours outside of their home state and generally play music full-time--not to mention get major retailers to stock their albums and get their music airplay, cover fees such as merch and album layout design--without the financial backing of a label or "suit"...

I was saying how music will continue to be made forever... there's a lot of people out there who have this notion that "Death of record labels = Death of music" and that's thanks to some scaremongering on their part... goes to show people will do and say anything when faced with extinction... they should at least die with some dignity but knowing what they are, I doubt it.

[Necris]

Nothing that smears from Randy Blythes brain onto a page is worth reading.

[RevDrucifer]

Originally Posted by Necris

Nothing that smears from Randy Blythes brain onto a page is worth reading.

He's quite opinionated and has a pretty strong ego, whatever he says IS the word in his book. Regardless, he's got some good insights and he's a pretty straight shootin' guy.

I love reading his tweets. His rants can be quite humorous. I also think it's pretty cool that he RARELY talks about LoG, singing for LoG or anything of the sort.

He seems to live a fairly humble lifestyle. He's had some money rolling in for a while and even bought a used truck instead of spending his rockstar bucks on some new pimped out thing.

Mark Morton seems to invest all his cash into his house, which is in the middle of no where. Both guys are pretty cool. The openness with the public is something not enough guys in the industry do.

And Mark's drunken tweets can be ....ing GREAT.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by ChrisRushing

So what determines middle of the road music? If I feel like Longhorns serves me up a steak that is middle of the road....do I get to just up and walk out without paying because that's just the way it is?


I am not trying to pick a fight, I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. The way I see it.............There are a lot of great bands/artist out there but the more we as fans/listeners shit on them by stealing their music, how long will they be able to continue? I am not saying they are entitled to an easy million but at the end of the day something is inherently wrong when your justifying theft because of what you describe as a lack of quality.

Oh and I am guessing that if you could find a way to download merchandise you wouldn't be paying for it either. Just saying..............."This shirt is clearly middle of the road, I can't be expected to pay for this".

Ok, I'll try and tackle this one.

Your premise is entirely false, nothing is being stolen. Nobody is being stolen from, the producers of the music still have full utility of the music, the fact that somebody has copied it does not in anyway impact the producers of the musics ability to derive use from the recording(s).

You are confusing two issues; ownership of the music* and ownership of potential economic value of the music.

*(you can't really own a pattern of notes or a certain sequence of words in a language so by ownership of the music I mean ownership of the product, a CD or an MP3 or whatever.)

For example you can own your house but you don't have ownership of the economic value of that house. If someone builds a whole bunch of houses near your house and thereby the value of your house is reduced you can't legitimately claim to have been stolen from.

And I would apply the same logic to music. If a producer of music fails to capture a (perceived) economic value of their music because people have shared it with each other then they can't claim to have been robbed. So file sharing would be the equivalent to the building of new houses in the above example. It's a game changer in other words, it makes deriving economic value from the music potentially harder but that is very different to stealing, as you were suggesting.

That line of thought must say that there is an innate economic value in all music an that the producers of that music are entitled to that economic value. Actually if you do follow your line of thought then listening to a CD with a friend is stealing (reducing economic value) or lending a CD to a friend is stealing (reducing economic value).

Yes, it's harder for a band to make money from music by following an outdated business model but that doesn't mean they've been stolen from.

There are lots of facets of property ownership and what constitutes property/IP/copyright that I haven't talked about so this is a simplistic analysis but a valid one. We'd be here for hours talking about abstracts but what I wanted to get across was that copying music isn't theft, the band was never entitled to those profits.

[Ckackley]

No business can afford to create a product without some income. Period. Until guitars, drums, recording gear, strings, cables, food, gas , tires, oil, and anything else it takes to record and tour are free, your favorite bands are eventually going to run out of money. My band is in the hole for the last album we recorded. We log hundreds of downloads from illegal sites. If we had the income from ONE of those sites we'd at least have everything payed for. I appreciate that the music gets out, but at this rate we're not going to be able to afford to make and record much more of it.
We sold the crap out of Tshirts to our local fan base. It's too pricey to tour more than a few hours out. Once everyone has a shirt they're not buying any more. A cut of the door at gigs might buy half the gas for the night.
It's great that any bedroom musician can record a quality album and put it on line. That guys not going to do live shows. He's not going to road test his songs for audience after audience.
So go ahead and talk about new business models or how much you support the local scene buy obtaining a product you didn't pay for. I'll be out on a construction site beating on something with a sledgehammer so I can feed my wife and kid. I might have enough to get a pack of guitar strings too.
Before anyone asks- I've NEVER illegally downloaded. I seldom buy online. I buy a physical CD direct from local artists when they have them and major acts I support local by actually going out in public and buying from a store. The people behind the counter in my city need work as much as a packaging company in Indonesia.

[VBCheeseGrater]

Just because a musician can make money by touring or selling Tshirts, doesn't make it OK to steal his or her recorded music.

You own a mom & pop restaurant, and people pay for chicken and fish but always steal the steaks. I don't think you're going to be acting all cool about that, and blame it on corporate greed. The argument in favor of piracy is just a list of excuses to steal a musician's work. No rationale changes the simple fact - someone is offering something for sale, and people are taking it without paying for it, thereby stealing. It's not complicated.

The labels are pretty much irrelevant to the morality this argument. If someone puts in the work to create music, puts it out independently for SALE, and you go and steal it, you are f*cking them just the same. It has nothing to do with business model, getting with the times, etc...it's just a new way of robbing folks that requires less balls.

[VBCheeseGrater]

Originally Posted by Isaac

Ok, I'll try and tackle this one.

Your premise is entirely false, nothing is being stolen. Nobody is being stolen from, the producers of the music still have full utility of the music, the fact that somebody has copied it does not in anyway impact the producers of the musics ability to derive use from the recording(s).

You are confusing two issues; ownership of the music* and ownership of potential economic value of the music.

*(you can't really own a pattern of notes or a certain sequence of words in a language so by ownership of the music I mean ownership of the product, a CD or an MP3 or whatever.)

For example you can own your house but you don't have ownership of the economic value of that house. If someone builds a whole bunch of houses near your house and thereby the value of your house is reduced you can't legitimately claim to have been stolen from.

And I would apply the same logic to music. If a producer of music fails to capture a (perceived) economic value of their music because people have shared it with each other then they can't claim to have been robbed. So file sharing would be the equivalent to the building of new houses in the above example. It's a game changer in other words, it makes deriving economic value from the music potentially harder but that is very different to stealing, as you were suggesting.

That line of thought must say that there is an innate economic value in all music an that the producers of that music are entitled to that economic value. Actually if you do follow your line of thought then listening to a CD with a friend is stealing (reducing economic value) or lending a CD to a friend is stealing (reducing economic value).

Yes, it's harder for a band to make money from music by following an outdated business model but that doesn't mean they've been stolen from.

There are lots of facets of property ownership and what constitutes property/IP/copyright that I haven't talked about so this is a simplistic analysis but a valid one. We'd be here for hours talking about abstracts but what I wanted to get across was that copying music isn't theft, the band was never entitled to those profits.

Sorry for the double post, but i had to tackle this. Your house analogy would only match if someone were living in the house for free, but the houses not sold are empty. When you download music illegally, you take ownership of it. That copy of it is yours, same as that copy of the cookie cutter house you buy is yours. Those houses not bought are not being lived in, just as music not bought is not sitting someone's ipod.

Now i agree, if your music is no good, then no one is going to buy it - that's your fault, but that's no excuse for people to take it without paying the asking price., just as moving into a shack for free when the price is $20K is stealing. "Oh this music stinks, so i'll just take it for free" "Oh this house is rubbish, so i'm movin in for free"

[flint757]

To the bagel analogy earlier it may not be if you steal it you lost anything, but you did lose profit. So if the bagel cost $5 and you sell it for $8 with music you may not lose the $5 that the bagel cost, but you did lose the money you would have made.

I have a complicated opinion on piracy, but the whole I'm taking a copy not the original is ridiculous. Lets blow up the numbers if everyone pirated Bieber's albums instead of buying them he wouldn't be a wealthy prick.

[EDIT]
piracy argument also reminds me of the movie Office Space. (fractions of a cent)

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by vbshredder

Sorry for the double post, but i had to tackle this. Your house analogy would only match if someone were living in the house for free, but the houses not sold are empty. When you download music illegally, you take ownership of it. That copy of it is yours, same as that copy of the cookie cutter house you buy is yours. Those houses not bought are not being lived in, just as music not bought is not sitting someone's ipod.

Now i agree, if your music is no good, then no one is going to buy it - that's your fault, but that's no excuse for people to take it without paying the asking price., just as moving into a shack for free when the price is $20K is stealing. "Oh this music stinks, so i'll just take it for free" "Oh this house is rubbish, so i'm movin in for free"

You misunderstand the analogy, it doesn't matter if the houses sell or not their presence would be enough to depress overall market value of the house the person is living in. Thus the presence of file sharing depresses the market value of the music. (What I mean is that the new houses offer alternatives and competition to a potential house buyer, thereby the house seller would have to reduce the price of his house if he were to sell. File sharing allows people to get a product for cheaper (free) so extracting the value of an artists music may be harder for them but that's just too bad because they were never entitled to that value to begin with).

Now fundamentally you're still making a mistake in that file sharing is not stealing.

In your shack analogy the squatter is depriving the use and utility of the shack from the owner, that's stealing. Simply copying a CD or downloading a song isn't stealing, no use has be deprived and the band still own the master tapes and are free to use as they wish. The argument you're making has that musicians are entitled to a certain amount of economic value for their musical ideas is nonsense, the market value of anything is fluid and at the moment music has a (perceived) lower market value due to file sharing, if you accept as I do that file sharing isn't theft then it's simply unfortunate that the they no longer have the potential income that previous generations have had. In the same way there is no longer the market there was for typewriters or bi planes.

Now I'm not suggesting that my beliefs on file sharing and IP mean everyone should download music for free. I suggest people pay what they are willing (sometimes nothing) and that artists and labels do what they can to try and raise their market value; to persuade us to buy.

edit:grammer.

[bhakan]

Originally Posted by Isaac

And I would apply the same logic to music. If a producer of music fails to capture a (perceived) economic value of their music because people have shared it with each other then they can't claim to have been robbed. So file sharing would be the equivalent to the building of new houses in the above example. It's a game changer in other words, it makes deriving economic value from the music potentially harder but that is very different to stealing, as you were suggesting.

I think a producer can completely claim to have been "robbed" (don't want to get into semantics) in that situation. He owns the music and has the right to charge what he wants. The two main differences between the house analogy and piracy is that building houses next to another is completely legal, unlike downloading music and that when people think that a house is overpriced, they don't just take it for free and live in it anyway. When selling a house or any other product, a seller has a right to overprice their product. Not many people would buy it, but some people would want it enough to pay the overpriced cost. If people think music is overpriced, fine, don't buy it, but with downloading, people feel entitled to pay only what they think its worth. All the awesome free music out there (Sithu, Lithium Dawn, etc) devalues music legally, and artists/record companies/producers don't have a right to stop that, but they do have a right to make you either pay their price for the music, or not own it at all.

TL;DR- You don't have the right to determine the value of your product, but you do have the right to determine the price.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by bhakan

All the awesome free music out there (Sithu, Lithium Dawn, etc) devalues music legally, and artists/record companies/producers don't have a right to stop that, but they do have a right to make you either pay their price for the music, or not own it at all.

TL;DR- You don't have the right to determine the value of your product, but you do have the right to determine the price.

I agree completely.

Arguing over whether or not piracy (theft of Intellectual Property) = theft is sophistry whose sole purpose seems to assuage a person's guilt over the knowledge that their actions will eventually result in the demise of the art form they so enjoy.

If you create something, you own that thing (assuming you have established that legally), whether it be a physical thing you've made or an idea you've had. You obviously control how physical things are made and in balance with the market, you establish a retail value for that physical item and any reproductions thereof. What copyright law does is try to establish a similar system for ideas.

Using someone else's idea in your own piece of music, art or writing is almost universally derided as plagiarism. That's an example of how we as a society recognize that ideas belong to the original creator of said idea and that they should retain control of how it is used, and of any profit that might be made from the use of that idea. Extending that example to the copying of a creator's music in part or in whole should lead us to the same point: that the creator should rightfully expect to retain control of the copy of his work and any profits that can be derived from it.

All of that being said, I actually look forward to a shift from music as a corporate-driven enterprise to one where the artist retains control of all aspects of their music (both creatively and monetarily). However, even were that shift to occur, artists must retain control of their creation and all copies derived from it (ideally).

Piracy law is no different than the loss-prevention systems retail stores employ to prevent theft of physical merchandise (or should I say, physical copies of patented physical creations ). The most successful loss prevention system would have a 0% loss rate, but anyone who has worked in retail knows that isn't really possible. The same can be expected of piracy prevention. 0 % loss is unrealistic, but the idea should be to bring things to a state where digital copy loss is closer to physical loss.

[Isaac]

Originally Posted by bhakan

I think a producer can completely claim to have been "robbed" (don't want to get into semantics) in that situation. He owns the music and has the right to charge what he wants. The two main differences between the house analogy and piracy is that building houses next to another is completely legal, unlike downloading music and that when people think that a house is overpriced, they don't just take it for free and live in it anyway. When selling a house or any other product, a seller has a right to overprice their product. Not many people would buy it, but some people would want it enough to pay the overpriced cost. If people think music is overpriced, fine, don't buy it, but with downloading, people feel entitled to pay only what they think its worth. All the awesome free music out there (Sithu, Lithium Dawn, etc) devalues music legally, and artists/record companies/producers don't have a right to stop that, but they do have a right to make you either pay their price for the music, or not own it at all.

TL;DR- You don't have the right to determine the value of your product, but you do have the right to determine the price.

You sort of have to get in semantics because we need a properly defined concept of ownership and theft or the conversation is meaningless.

Theft is In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it According to Wikipedia.

Now we can argue over ownership of ideas/intellectual property, I would argue that the idea of ownership/property rights has it's roots in tangible, finite and scarce commodities so one needs property rights to protect his/her property but ideas or information have no natural scarcity: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. Therefore it isn't a form of property at all. It's impossible to own an idea, which is essentially what music, literature ect is.

This would lead me to argue that it's protection under law has no logical or moral basis. so your comment about it being illegal is null. I'm not debating legality I'm contesting the logic, morality and ethicacy from first principles.

Also the house analogy is only a fairly specific example and isn't a perfect example. Although the rebuttle to your argument would be that the building of the houses isn't the only way to lower the value of the house that already exists. It could have it's value lowered but increased crime in the area, that's not a legal, should the house owner be compensated for that? Anyway it doesn't matter, it was just an analogy.

So if Ideas aren't own-able scarce commodities then property rights do not apply - the artist doesn't own the the patterns and notes that make the music. All they can claim to own is the recording ie a CD or MP3 file not the creative content.

And file sharing doesn't in anyway deprive the original owner of use of it, the original CD/MP3 ect is still exactly as was before the copying. Therefore is not legitimately theft.

This is a complex issue so I hope I'm at least being semi coherent If not I apologise.

Look Shakespeare wrote plays for a living long before any any copyright/IP laws existed, indeed people invented things for commercial gain as well, so the idea that if we accept file sharing is fine we'd all stop paying and the industry would collapse is a fallacy.

Look at fashion, they have no such copyright/IP protections. A fashion artist can come up with a clothing design and have it immediately copied and sold by anyone, yet it doesn't happen (well no to the detriment of the industry). Fashion is a lively and vibrant industry doing well and progresses rapidly as new creative ideas are thought of and pursued. There is no reason to believe the same wouldn't be true of the music/film/technology industries.

tl;dr
file sharing is ok ya?

[ArrowHead]

Who cares if piracy is right or wrong? It IS.

Do you debate if the bear is hungry or not, or do you run? Stop worrying about changing what CANNOT be easily changed, and spend a little time learning to innovate or monetize in new ways.

After all, that's ALL that the record industry IS!!! The last remaining vestiges of the last group of people that stepped in and figured out how to monetize on music. 50 years later, it's OUR TURN. Who has ideas, and who wants to just bitch about piracy?

[ArrowHead]

Also remember, piracy or no piracy, the arts always rise and fall. When is the last time you went to a ballet? An opera? What's the last piece of classical music you went to see performed? Last time you went to a museum, or spent more than $1000 on a painting? Last poem you read aloud, or poetry reading you attended?

The people saying we need a new model, will the new model help? Or has music just lost it's footing in popular culture, taking a back seat to television, film, and internet video? Music will never die, but I don't think it's nearly as culturally important as it was in the 40's through the 90's.