Downloading, the Music Industry & the Furure

[liquidcow]

Originally Posted by defchime

Theres a difference between selling your music, and selling out on your music...if you write a song so people will buy it youve sucessfully sold out....if you make your music and dont care who wants it or buys it then your still good in my book.

This kind of belongs in the 'selling out' thread really, but this statement makes no sense. Surely if you've got to the point where you can make money from your music, you are both writing a song because you want to and because people will buy it and you'll make money. It's like doing a job you enjoy.

Regarding this whole 'try before you buy' thing, what's interesting there is that it's got a lot to do with the increase in people's download speeds. I remember when speeds were much slowed, and downloading an entire album would have been a bit of a hassle. In those days, my personal method was to download a couple of tracks to hear a band (although these days you can hear tracks just as easily on myspace or spotify), and if they sounded good I'd buy their album. That's enough if you ask me. People don't expect to be able to watch an entire film before they buy a cinema ticket. It's only recently that everyone is suddenly so cautious about buying albums and insists that they're simply 'trying before they buy'. Though nowdays it's so quick and easy, you may as well download the entire album, by which point a lot of people obviously think 'well I've already got the whole thing on my computer, do I really need to pay money for something I've already got?'.

And then of course, from the other side of things, companies interpret download data as if every song someone illegally downloads is one that they would definitely have otherwise bought. I know that a lot of the stuff I've downloaded is stuff that I wouldn't have bothered with if I'd had to pay - again it's a case of wanting to hear something out of curiosity and thinking 'ah, might as well download the whole album'. Although in the odd case I've downloaded something just to hear it, really not liked it, but then gotten into it later on, in which case, yes, I do usually buy the album in question.

Oh, but another thing to add to the issue of record sales: often the crucial thing is how many copies an album sales when it's just been released. This is why you get 'limited editions' and pre-order offers, because they want as many people to buy it the day it comes out as possible. Again, this can determine how financially viable a band is seen to be by their label. So the old 'try now, buy later on' thing can actually be detrimental to a band if you would otherwise buy the album when it comes out.

[ChaNce]

Originally Posted by ihave27frets

I disagree.

We just live in a time when people think its fine to steal as long as they don't feel the repercussions, instead they feel justified. Walk into a Mcdonalds, ask to eat everything on the menu so you can see if you like how it tastes.. and if you like it you'll buy it. Good luck with that.

I didn't go through the whole thread, so this might have been covered, but this very common counterargument rests on an assumption that is invalid.

1. McDonald's business model is the same as the music industry.

No. Not even close. McDonald's makes money not from the burgers it sells, but from its brand. McDonald's provides cheap, consistent, relatively tasty fast food for a reasonable price. It has out-competed its competitors, spent billions on marketing, and created a production model that results in a consistent product that consumers trust. Their product is protected via patents (process and recipes) such that you cannot directly substitute a McDonald's product for another competitor's product. You can buy from BK, but you can't buy a Big Mac at BK.

The Record Industry, on the other hand, creates none of this value for consumers. Before the Internet, RIs were the main distribution channel for music, managed bands, and loaned money to bands to go on the road. For this, RIs extracted MASSIVE rents from the bands that they work with (in general, there are of course a few exceptions). Bands were indebted to their RIs for nearly every cost associated with touring, merchandising, and distributing their music.

Now, we have a situation where the main value that RIs provided, distribution, is gone. Between Amazon and the Internet, there is no need for RIs to distribute albums (and it is extremely costly to do so in this manner). So what is left? Support for touring? Merchandising? Those jobs can be done much more efficiently by smaller companies who know their local markets, and aren't beholden to the desires of the higher-ups who (based on all available information) are nearly all bean-counters and not music fans (again, there are exceptions). Smaller companies are more nimble, have WAAAAY less overhead, meaning they can operate at lower cost than the big RIs.

So, from a band's perspective, which is better? Sign your life away to a big RI who couldn't care less about your career, yet is still extracting most of the profits from the one thing they have real control over (your CD), a product that for all intents and purposes has zero economic value? Or do you distribute your music for "free" (bandwidth costs of course) or for some much-lower-than-the-cost-of-a-CD price that freezes out the RIs? Then you go on tour and make a stack through merch and ticket sales (that the RIs have no access to).

Don't kid yourself: the CD will be dead within the decade. Memory is durable, easily backed up, cheap, and accessible from the web. CDs are none of these things. RIs have NEVER profited from the "art", and, with their model, they can't. They can only profit from the distribution. Now that distribution is upside down, RIs have no value to either consumers or artists. They are an inefficiency, not value added.

The market is correcting after years of inefficient, terrible management of a now valueless business model. We are just seeing the chaos ("stealing", downloading, etc) before the market shakes out and someone figures out how to monetize the new system more efficiently and cheaper than his or her competitors.

It's capitalism, baby

[Aysakh]

^

[I_infect]

Originally Posted by ChaNce

Don't kid yourself: the CD will be dead within the decade. Memory is durable, easily backed up, cheap, and accessible from the web. CDs are none of these things. RIs have NEVER profited from the "art", and, with their model, they can't. They can only profit from the distribution. Now that distribution is upside down, RIs have no value to either consumers or artists. They are an inefficiency, not value added.

I believe it was Chris Rock who said, " The sooner we all start having sex, the sooner we all will look Filipino". - a take on racism. Not sure of the exact comic but you get the idea.

Apply that to the recording industry. The sooner we accept the fact that CDs are in fact, taking their last breath, and with them the labels, the sooner we are all on a level playing field- the internet. You will see bands retaining licensing rights to their music, and creative control will be returned. Creative control/music rights are another hot topic that relates to this discussion as the labels have been censoring bands for years this way, and issuing Time-Life hits of the 80s CD packages, or licensing a tune to a TV commercial. Think a band has any say in that? Not much.

[MusicManBFR]

Originally Posted by ihave27frets

I disagree, Its not making record companies a thing of the past, its only tightening their grip on their artists. The actual "recording" end of the record industry is VERY small compared to everything else labels handle and still control.

Its all about money, thats a record deal is, is one big loan.. with crazy interest. And without that money thousands of bands you listen too wouldn't exist, period. You would not see them on tour, in magazines, in videos.. let alone be able to find their CDs in stores world wide.


Another thing people are choosing not to address is that "record sales" or "sound scans" ..as in actual units sold still determine tons in this industry... and if you love a band and wonder why they don't come to your town on tour, its all about sound scans. And it also determines if bands get offered decent tours at all, without record sale numbers, promoters and booking agents turn bands away as it clearly seems they don't have an "actual" fan base.. one that will pay money to see them... all the friends and plays on myspace does so much and these days dosent do much because it can all be faked.

PJ- I'm surprised by how misinformed your post is- then again, I hear you have trouble getting a hold of Slagel so I guess maybe I can see why
The money you get for your record is and is not a loan. It's a loan ONLY in the sense that they expect to get at least that much back. However- you're not paying any interest on it. If the label is recouped- you BOTH continue to earn off it, it's not just the label taking it all in at that point. You make it sound like labels are just some ponzi scheme or something.
If a band breaks up after recording an album or before their contractual obligations are fulfilled, they're off the hook.
That'd be like a couple who just bought a house and then gets a divorce telling the bank "well, sorry, but because we're no longer a couple, we're done with you." That would never fly in the real world, but it happens all the time with bands at this level.

Second of all, you of all people should know how INCREDIBLY FLAWED soundscan is. I'm not going to go into details on a public forum about it- but you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Soundscan isn't going to determine where you play. It will determine where the label will spend more money on Promotion and that's about it. You guys are still gonna play the same circuit of clubs each tour for the most part.

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by ihave27frets

Walk into a Mcdonalds, ask to eat everything on the menu so you can see if you like how it tastes.. and if you like it you'll buy it. Good luck with that.

I always thought this argument was hilarious.

If i eat the food at mcdonalds, i'm depriving them of food to sell to other customers. downloading a mp3, regardless of its legality doesnt deprive the original owner of the song, or the ability to sell the album.

Theft consists of, according to Merriam-Webster:

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Downloading is not depriving anyone of any property. Its not stealing. Its an infringement of copyright, which is an ENTIRELY different thing than theft.

It reminds me of this quote i read a while back from Bash.org:

<NES> lol
<NES> I download something from Napster
<NES> And the same guy I downloaded it from starts downloading it from me when I'm done
<NES> I message him and say "What are you doing? I just got that from you"
<NES> "getting my song back ....er"

[lurgar]

Thanks Metal Ken for saying that.

One of the crazy things in all of this has been that the music industry claims that downloads represent revenue lost. There's no hard way to determine if somebody who downloaded an album (or song) illegally would represent a sale of any sort anywhere down the line. It's basic economics and record companies ignore that willfully and insist that they're losing billions and billions of dollars based on some ridiculous model of how they wish the world was.

Also, the way the RIAA (and MPAA for that matter) have been attacking people has greatly accelerated people's perceptions of downloading music at least for the younger generations. With the internet to share information, myself and many others were able to see the RIAA sending letters to college kids asking extortionist amounts of money, and then offering in the same letter to "settle" for a few thousand dollars and taunting them in the process. It shaped the way a lot of people view the music industry in general.

[DaveCarter]

While its true that generally the bulk of an artists income will come from merch and live booking fees rather than from recorded music sales, the fact that illegal downloads have meant a decline in the revenue from recorded music has still led to the immergence of the 360 degree contract. So now labels are also taking a cut of merch/gig fees/sync royalties/even endorsement payments, to make up for the loss in revenue that has occurred because of downloading

[Scar Symmetry]

In short: record labels are like the government, and banks. Greedy, greedy ....ers.

[Nitsuj]

Gordon heartily agrees.

[ihave27frets]

Originally Posted by MusicManBFR

PJ- I'm surprised by how misinformed your post is- then again, I hear you have trouble getting a hold of Slagel so I guess maybe I can see why

[liquidcow]

Originally Posted by Metal Ken

I always thought this argument was hilarious.

If i eat the food at mcdonalds, i'm depriving them of food to sell to other customers. downloading a mp3, regardless of its legality doesnt deprive the original owner of the song, or the ability to sell the album.

Theft consists of, according to Merriam-Webster:


Downloading is not depriving anyone of any property. Its not stealing. Its an infringement of copyright, which is an ENTIRELY different thing than theft.

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. Taking McDonalds as an example, they are constantly producing their product, and it's not like they will run out of stock by the end of the day. If you steal a happy meal they will still have enough to sell to everyone who wants one because they always have a surplus amount in stock of far more than they will actually sell. Running out of burgers isn't a problem. What happens when you steal one is that you are depriving them not of food to sell to other customers, but of a sale that they presumably would have made had you bought the happy meal instead of stealing it. That's exactly what people like the RIAA are arguing about downloading. Of course there is the presumption that you would have bought the music if you weren't able to download it for free, but there's also the presumption that you would have bought a happy meal if you weren't able to steal it, whereas you might have either gone somewhere else cheaper or stolen from somewhere else.

Taking that definition of theft (and I'll refrain from going into the issues regarding the use of dictionary definitions for now), you are assuming that 'property' means something physical, whereas it could just as easily mean intellectual property. Legally you are supposed to have the right to decide how your copyrighted work is distributed - e.g if you don't want your logo used in a certain way, or you don't want your song to appear in a film - therefore people distributing it in a way which you haven't allowed is a form of stealing it. If I were to go on to your computer and copy naked pictures of your girlfriend (assuming you wouldn't want me to), would you then claim that I hadn't 'stolen' them, as they are not a physical object? On another point, you could equally argue that the price of the product is the property in question which you are depriving the owner of. Perhaps a better analogy would be a service rather than a product. It's like someone refusing to pay a bill for services rendered, again, is that not effectively stealing?

[Progmaster X]

This thread reminds to ask, Are there any good free p2p file sharing sites at all anymore?

I only know of Limewire and I can't find anything on there, but just when I think i've found something worthwile, it usually stalls out and stops loading!

I would really love to build up my rare demos/out of print and live bootleg collection. Something I was getting a good start on until Audio Galaxy closed in 2002



As far as official albums go, I try to buy as many as I can find becouse like some others have stated being a true music fan is also about having the artwork/liner notes etc!

[McKay]

Originally Posted by Progmaster X

This thread reminds to ask, Are there any good free p2p file sharing sites at all anymore?

I only know of Limewire and I can't find anything on there, but just when I think i've found something worthwile, it usually stalls out and stops loading!

I would really love to build up my rare demos/out of print and live bootleg collection. Something I was getting a good start on until Audio Galaxy closed in 2002



As far as official albums go, I try to buy as many as I can find becouse like some others have stated being a true music fan is also about having the artwork/liner notes etc!

Torrents, rapidshares/megadownloads.

[Progmaster X]

Originally Posted by McKay

Torrents, rapidshares/megadownloads.

Thanks man! I'll check it out!

[Metal Ken]

Originally Posted by liquidcow

Taking that definition of theft (and I'll refrain from going into the issues regarding the use of dictionary definitions for now), you are assuming that 'property' means something physical, whereas it could just as easily mean intellectual property. Legally you are supposed to have the right to decide how your copyrighted work is distributed - e.g if you don't want your logo used in a certain way, or you don't want your song to appear in a film - therefore people distributing it in a way which you haven't allowed is a form of stealing it. If I were to go on to your computer and copy naked pictures of your girlfriend (assuming you wouldn't want me to), would you then claim that I hadn't 'stolen' them, as they are not a physical object? On another point, you could equally argue that the price of the product is the property in question which you are depriving the owner of. Perhaps a better analogy would be a service rather than a product. It's like someone refusing to pay a bill for services rendered, again, is that not effectively stealing?

That definition of theft i used is entirely consistent with the state statutes with where I live, which is why i found it convenient and picked it . I find it hard to imagine you can deprive someone of intellectual property, as well.

I do agree with you about deciding how your intellectual/copyrighted work should be seen or distributed. As far as the pictures example, i wouldn't call that stealing, either per se, unless you had taken the physical pictures. I'd also have to call that the risk of having naked pics of a girlfriend on the computer.

I see where you're coming from with the service thing, but i still maintain its still a bit different of an issue. Its something quite complex and new, which is why so many people, lawyers and executives are arguing and debating about it. The sole point i came in this thread to make is that it is foolishly narrow sighted to simply call it "Stealing" or accusing people of theft. Is it illegal? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd say it is. Is it theft? That's the line I'm skirting here.

[Scar Symmetry]

^

And it should be illegal until they can figure out how to make money out of the way things are distributed on the internet rather than moaning about it.

[PnKnG]

Originally Posted by Scar Symmetry

^

And it should be illegal until they can figure out how to make money out of the way things are distributed on the internet rather than moaning about it.

FAIL

If they can't keep up with the progress .... them.
Thats how life works.

[xiphoscesar]

i think u guys should listen to ihave27frets guy
hes a touring musician and he knows how the music business is



plus hes the guy with the dreadz


EDIT- i take back what i said after reading the all of the thread lol
even though peter is still a kickass musican

[Stealthdjentstic]

Originally Posted by xiphoscesar

i think u guys should listen to ihave27frets guy
hes a touring musician and he knows how the music business is



plus hes the guy with the dreadz

So are MetalKen and Scar Symmetry

[xiphoscesar]

Originally Posted by Stealthtastic

So are MetalKen and Scar Symmetry

now that i read the whole thread i take it back lol

[PnKnG]

Originally Posted by xiphoscesar

i think u guys should listen to ihave27frets guy
hes a touring musician and he knows how the music business is



plus hes the guy with the dreadz


EDIT- i take back what i said after reading the all of the thread lol
even though peter is still a kickass musican

I know that you already changed what you said but I have to say this anyway.

Yeah right, because the music industry totally doesn't tries to brainwash every single artist into saying what they say. That its stealing.
Most artists just don't care about file-sharing and will just say what their label tells them to say what they want them to say and don't actually sit down and actually think about it for themselves and form their own opinion.
Todays file-sharing is no different from letting a friend copy a cassette deck back in the day. The only difference is that today you can do it within a couple of minutes across the whole world.
Another point is that file-sharing has influenced a lot in the IT and Data industry. Online games that use P2P servers for their network and high-speed Internet connection are 2 examples.
Beside there is already the next genaration of file-sharing programs in work.
Ever heard the term darknet?
Darknet (file sharing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Wiz]

Downloading is the future, downloading is legal, and downloading is a better deal for consumers than buying cds. Plz embrace Zune Pass.

[elrrek]

Originally Posted by PnKnG

I know that you already changed what you said but I have to say this anyway.

Yeah right, because the music industry totally doesn't tries to brainwash every single artist into saying what they say. That its stealing.
Most artists just don't care about file-sharing and will just say what their label tells them to say what they want them to say and don't actually sit down and actually think about it for themselves and form their own opinion.
Todays file-sharing is no different from letting a friend copy a cassette deck back in the day. The only difference is that today you can do it within a couple of minutes across the whole world.
Another point is that file-sharing has influenced a lot in the IT and Data industry. Online games that use P2P servers for their network and high-speed Internet connection are 2 examples.
Beside there is already the next genaration of file-sharing programs in work.
Ever heard the term darknet?
Darknet (file sharing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was staying out of this because we have had this discussion before and people still don't get it as displayed by your post - sorry to single you out.

The music industry does cannot brainwash free thinking artist to say what the industry wants them to say, they can brainwash fools. There are loads and loads of artists with their own opinions, you only have to look at the number of "artist collectives" being formed that are lobbying governments around the world for legislation and putting across their point of view with various often opposing opinions and they are artist and not label driven.

And file sharing is very different to taping. The difference is in volume. There was no where near the volume of "home taping" going on compared to the amount of illegal down loading. The act may be the same but the quantity of "copying" going on makes it an entirely different scenario.

And to say "file sharing has influenced the IT industry" is wrong. You can argue about semantics and the use of language if you want but it's not "file sharing" that has influenced the industry and their use of P2P and "high speed internet for their servers", this has come about because of technology making the ideas people had decades before "music file sharing" came along on how they could deliver content in new ways.

As for the definition of "stealing", again that's a language and perception argument, the reality is this - if you pay for a record you have a physical product and a license to listen to the music on that physical product whenever you like for your own personal enjoyment. So, if you pay for the mp3s that's the same thing. If you "steal" the mp3s by illegal downloading you have not paid for the license to listen to it and that is where the "theft" exists.

Sorry if this has all been said before, I can't be bothered to read through 15 pages.

p.s. sorry, I've not read about Darknet, I will.

[JohnIce]

Originally Posted by PnKnG

I know that you already changed what you said but I have to say this anyway.

Yeah right, because the music industry totally doesn't tries to brainwash every single artist into saying what they say. That its stealing.
Most artists just don't care about file-sharing and will just say what their label tells them to say what they want them to say and don't actually sit down and actually think about it for themselves and form their own opinion.
Todays file-sharing is no different from letting a friend copy a cassette deck back in the day. The only difference is that today you can do it within a couple of minutes across the whole world.
Another point is that file-sharing has influenced a lot in the IT and Data industry. Online games that use P2P servers for their network and high-speed Internet connection are 2 examples.
Beside there is already the next genaration of file-sharing programs in work.
Ever heard the term darknet?
Darknet (file sharing) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's a bit unfair to say he's brainwashed just because he's on a major label. I'm not him but I'd assume it has more to do with having a good, beneficial relationship with his label, which is good of course.

Generally, I'll have to side with elrrek on this one.

- edit - However, the idea that purchasing a CD gives you unlimited access to the music on that CD, isn't necessarily the case. These days, many CD's are protected by heavy anti-copy programs, so that you can't store the files on your computer and transfer to your mp3-player/iPod. Some can't even be played on computers. A lot of people have CD players in their cars, and make copies so they don't have to keep the actual originals in the car (as that wears them out pretty fast). This can't be done if the CD is protected. I remember reading a rant in Metal Hammer about a guy who had his car raided and a whole bunch of CD's stolen, and he didn't complain much about the actual perpetraitors, but instead he was angry at the fact that he hadn't been allowed to copy those discs because the record labels want to prevent file sharing.

So in essence, record companies are making a concious effort to make CD's even more inconvenient and useless. They really are digging their own graves.