# Randy Blythe (LOG) - Online Raging via Twitter



## Rick (Sep 19, 2011)

From theprp.com: 

Lamb Of Gods Randy Blythe Speaks On Illegal Downloading And The State Of The Music Industry | Theprp.com  Metal, Hardcore And Rock News, Reviews And More



Stop fucking stealing music.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 19, 2011)

Brilliant metaphor.  I love Randy. I have him on twitter and he comes out with some genius shit.


I think file sharing is a valuable tool, if used with respect. 90% of all the CDs I own I bought based on a couple of songs I downloaded somewhere. If I like a band, I'll check them out, listen to a few songs and download a couple to tide me over until I buy the album soon after and delete the downloaded files. If I don't buy an album, then I go see them at a show or something. I also show that band to my friends as well, who generally end up buying the albums too. I use downloading as a way of investigating and finding out new music. Call me morally wrong, but I wouldn't have the CD collection I have now if it weren't for it.

I do however, object to downloading if you have no intention of buying the album. If it's a rare b-side, live track or whatever then maybe, but if you're torrenting whole albums and discographies because you can't be bothered to pay for them, then that's really fucking lame.


----------



## CrownofWorms (Sep 19, 2011)

so many Cap Locks..........

But Imo Illegal downloading is only justified if you would go and support it after a listen to see if it suits your taste or if it is nearly impossible to get(Gorguts Obscura). Other than that yeah


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 19, 2011)

What an ass.


----------



## AeternusEternus (Sep 19, 2011)

i think bandcamp's got a decent model. stream it free in a lower quality, buy it in whatever lossless format you want (or they can offer it free), pay the artist directly. bandcamp takes a cut. it's still a work in progress, they say.. i pray that means they're considering taking less money or finding a way around paypal to dodge those fees.


----------



## anomynous (Sep 19, 2011)

He mad


----------



## chronocide (Sep 19, 2011)

What an embarrassing read.


----------



## brutalwizard (Sep 19, 2011)

me and a couple friends split up who is going to buy what cd. 

i got the new dream theater, so my friend is getting the new opeth, and my other friend bought the new corelia.

and we keep it pretty equal, and keep the costs down.


----------



## JeffFromMtl (Sep 19, 2011)

Man, _if only_ McDonald's would go out of business! The world would be such a better place for it. One can dream...


----------



## rippedflesh89 (Sep 19, 2011)

*this forum has no freedom of speach, i feel like im a little boy on the internet with my mother hovering over shoulder*

Mod Edit: She should be correcting your spelling. See you in a month!


----------



## SenorDingDong (Sep 19, 2011)

Anyone can nitpick all they want, but it is true. The music industry has gone to shit since illegal downloading and leaking began. 
You can whine about corporate greed all you want, but in the long run, you are still steeling form the bands themselves. 
Those musicians you love and admire? Yeah, you're helping them struggle. 
Those bands you wished were signed? Yeah, you're helping them struggle.
Those bands that you loved who called it quits do to basically being flat out broke? See above.

Take All That Remains for example. I hate them.
That being said, they have to tour nonstop to support themselves. Otherwise? They would be broke and homeless. 
People are destroying the music industry themselves. There has and always will be greed, that will never change. It has been as constant as music has.

There is no way to justify stealing music. 


/End rant.


----------



## MikeH (Sep 19, 2011)

I'm with him. I have cut back on downloading significantly in the past 6 months, and started buying a shit ton more digital downloads and physical albums as well. I've just started noticing the decline of quality in the music industry and I want to promote the bands that I like and would like to see keep going.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 19, 2011)

whats the decline in quality everyone is refering to? Seems to me every joe schmo can and is recording an album, and a ton of them are awesome.

IMO, other than a select few, people are going to have to face the fact that music shouldnt be paid for like it has been. It server no real purpose and its a dime a doezen. If supply is up, you cant keep charging the same amount of money.


----------



## Double A (Sep 19, 2011)

The fact of the matter is that the music industry as it was in it's golden age is over, done, toast, etc. People like this guy and the major labels do not see that a changing paradigm in the industry could be a good thing if they would just go and innovate and change their fucking model. I will insert a line about the Chinese character for crisis is the same one for opportunity or some shit. Instead they want to erase time and sue people that can't really afford their product anymore.

People that think illegal downloading is the end of the music industry have a very narrow view of the whole thing and the fact is that the industry as a whole (well most of it) don't want things to change because they were raking in dough hand over fist while doing basically nothing and bankrupting most of the artists they signed to begin with. I have no sympathy for them at all.

Randy of LOG and the record companies sound like inarticulate neanderthals stuck in a vanishing past. It is just stupid. As things that we consume for entertainment like books, albums, movies, tv shows etc move to digital forums the huge companies that controlled them in the past have to realize that the money they used to make is irrelevant now. It truly is and it will just become more and more so as we march toward a computer/internet/digital dominated forum for entertainment. It is not going to stop and the sooner these people realize the sooner we can come up with a different more efficient business model that supports the artist more than it does the Execs. But until then they will fight tooth and nail to hang onto their cash cow.

I kind of feel sorry for people like Randy of LOG as he is basically drumming up support for the person that created this mess. Misguided is the word.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 19, 2011)

He's right about one thing: CD sound quality is superior. But guess what, 99% of music listeners can't hear and/or don't care about the sonic qualities of the music....

I have a bit of a laissez-faire attitude towards this. If for any reason McDonald's couldn't profit from making burgers, they would not be making burgers at all. This might sound a little cruel, but the music industry does not have some inherent right to exist the way it has forever, or at all for that matter. Everyone knows the risks and that it is incredibly hard to be profitable as a non-mainsteam musician. If you are concerned about not making a profit (or breaking even), then don't get into the music business. Yes, I am aware that pirating music is illegal, but that's not the point. The music industry can't stop it. The government can't stop it. Hopefully there will always be artists out there who will make music and perform for the excitement and glory and get past the money issue. People will still pay for concert tickets and merchandise I suppose.


----------



## The Grief Hole (Sep 19, 2011)

VINYL


----------



## EdgeC (Sep 19, 2011)

It's not whether it's right or wrong or who gets ripped off in the process becasue your average Joe Blow could care less.

Rather than getting upset with those who do it get upset with those who have the power to stop it being possible becasue while it's possible people will do it.


----------



## ry_z (Sep 19, 2011)

chronocide said:


> What an embarrassing read.



This. 

Every time someone compares downloading music to stealing a physical object, I can't help but ignore them, because they really don't understand how the technology works.

If you steal a physical object (be it a CD, a car, or a MCDONALDS BURGER lol, the person you've stolen it from no longer has that object.

If you share a file, you're creating a _copy_. Nobody has *lost* anything. The most that could be argued is that they've lost a _potential_ sale.


Also: He apparently doesn't know about lossless audio compression.


----------



## Espaul (Sep 19, 2011)

I like buying cds, but I'm very poor right now, so I can't afford buying them. (I mean I literally can't afford them).

Should I then not be able to listen to new music? I don't know. I downloaded a lot before, but now as I've gotten to be a bit older, I'm having some problems with doing it, morally.

So now I seldom listen to new music. Although I use spotify, so I can listen to some.
As soon as I can afford cds again I will buy them


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 19, 2011)

I wonder how many dollars the music industry has taken its customers for when buying a cd with the vast majority of the songs on it being crap.


----------



## Don Vito (Sep 19, 2011)

Most CD's are overpriced anyways.


----------



## Ricky_Gallows (Sep 19, 2011)

The internet made music TOO accessible. You can go to a bands page hear two songs bounce on over to youtube watch a live video and make a judgement on a band you've never personally experienced. It's the biggest double edged sword off all time imo

I buy what I like. i get my hands on a few mp3s and if i like it I buy it if i hate it i toss em. I'm sure everyone has bought those few records after hearing a single and then shortly after realizing the entire record is rubbish and are now left to stare at the cd case going "what the hell was i thinkin?!".

One thing i'd like to point out though. The "little" bands I've encountered over the years that ARE signed download just as much as any other greedy scene obsessed teenager and then two seconds later get on stage and preach about how its ruining the business. 

Major adjustments need to be made with this business and I agree that the best for all parties is most likely to stick with bandcamp.


----------



## Infinite Recursion (Sep 19, 2011)

He's way off on the technical aspects, I'm not going to even touch the rest. Furthermore, he's not in the position to bitch about this. Underground bands (i.e. Nile) are definitely, strongly, negatively impacted by illegal downloading. Lamb of God are far beyond the underground.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 19, 2011)

The artists who create your music don't profit when you don't pay them to listen to their music. If they don't profit, they have to do something else to buy food. Unfortunately for everyone, food is an actual item, so it requires a physical exchange so the artists can't use everyone' else logic and just steal a copy of the food they need to feed themselves.

It doesn't matter if you are stealing a digital copy or a physical CD. When you don't pay someone for their product, they can't afford to eat anymore and have to do something else to put a roof over their heads.

Of course, for those of you familiar with the spectacular PC game Titan Quest, you should also be familiar that game was rampantly pirated and despite the number of people raving about the game (critics and users alike), the lack of revenue forced the developer to close its doors. 

If you disagree with a product's pricing, then by all means let the seller know you would buy it if the price was lower. That does not mean you get to steal their product because you think it costs too much.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 19, 2011)

And with a healthy dose of irony:







Its certainly not what I expected to see when discussing the illegality of downloading music for free.


----------



## I Voyager (Sep 19, 2011)

I was just reading all of this on Twitter before. Good analogy, even though he does come across as a bit of an ass on there.


----------



## decypher (Sep 19, 2011)

It downloading more evil than youtubing? and if so, then why can we link to any song on youtube on here without being bashed? 
(I haven't tried to share a rapidshare link on here yet, but I can imagine what would happen, if I would...  )


----------



## AeternusEternus (Sep 19, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> The artists who create your music don't profit when you don't pay them to listen to their music. If they don't profit, they have to do something else to buy food. Unfortunately for everyone, food is an actual item, so it requires a physical exchange so the artists can't use everyone' else logic and just steal a copy of the food they need to feed themselves.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are stealing a digital copy or a physical CD. When you don't pay someone for their product, they can't afford to eat anymore and have to do something else to put a roof over their heads.



this is all true

what the music industry did though was SELL art. art's a tough sell. without the people who made the album expensive, lamb of god wouldn't have had as many customers as they had. some people might argue that the exposure from filesharing is good, there is no such thing as bad publicity after all.. but that depends on your overhead. if it isn't low enough, you don't profit. so it's likely that many artists won't feed themselves from their music without labels. i know i don't


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Sep 19, 2011)

this to me is an example of why record companys/stores are going out of buisness:
i ordered a cd from my local record store, it took 4 months to arrvive, and they charged my $47 for it. it was a 6 track ep.
alternatively i could have bought the cd from the bands website for maybe $20 (in hind sight this would have been wise)
OR i could download it for free. 
the problem is that when face with all three of the above options, slot of people will opt for the latter, rather than the former options. something need to be done to make all ways of purchaseing the music more in line how people are choosing to collect music. how, i have no idea...


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 19, 2011)

It cost money to make a record / Market / Distribute.
Record labels make bands re-coup the money from album sales.
You pirating their music means they are not recouping their costs and may get dropped from a label.

If the band is unsigned, they have paid for recording / advertising / distribution out of their pockets. 
Pirating will slow the rate of recoup and could prevent them from being able to put out another album.
It is steeling. The "potential" sale they could have had = a loss. Period. 
You are hurting the bands who create the music you love.
Period.


----------



## Goatfork (Sep 19, 2011)

. . . . . Download Fest '07, anyone?


----------



## the fuhrer (Sep 19, 2011)

Where can I get a copy of the Mcdonalds key?


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 19, 2011)

Might I add......

Social networking Band pages / youtube pages = let you sample an artists music. 
Legal Mp3 Download sites let you sample the music before you buy it. 

There is no need for this "I want to check it out before i buy it" pirating nonsense.


----------



## heminder (Sep 19, 2011)

macdonalds? what a poor analogy.
you can't duplicate a burger but you can effortlessly copy a music file.

filesharing technologies are just simply a better and more efficient method of distributing music. 
the RIAA are just scared that this is rendering them and their business model obsolete.

also, i'll drop this here...


----------



## decypher (Sep 19, 2011)

And then the pirate party drops in without even acknowledging any of the former statements.... no wonder people don't take you too serious.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 19, 2011)

heminder said:


> macdonalds? what a poor analogy.


 
A better analogy would be the second link on my sig.

Refer to points 4 and 2 in particular, but really the article as a whole sums it up.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 19, 2011)

It is amazing the hairs people will split in an effort to deny being a theif. These threads are always amusing in that sense.


----------



## anne (Sep 19, 2011)

Dude sure uses a whole lot of caps...


----------



## heminder (Sep 19, 2011)

decypher said:


> And then the pirate party drops in without even acknowledging any of the former statements.... no wonder people don't take you too serious.



which bit didn't i acknowledge? i commented on the link in the OP.

also, it seems people are indeed starting to take them seriously. they've got two MEP in the European Parliament, and just yesterday also got elected into the German parliament in addition to all the other countries. that's pretty fast for a new and young party.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 19, 2011)

2 questions...

Do you think artists / musicians have the right to choose who distributes their music?


Do you think musicians can better bring you the music you enjoy by being compensated for copies of their music?


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 19, 2011)

Also @heminder 

While, I commend you for liking my post, I can't help but fee that you've completely missed the point of it.


----------



## AySay (Sep 19, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> It is amazing the hairs people will split in an effort to deny being a theif. These threads are always amusing in that sense.



"Hey Hammer!" "Meet Nail's fucking forehead!"



What I don't understand is the people here saying "Oh well shit happens, people download now, change your business plan/adapt/whatever other bullshit."

How do you propose artists adapt to this? 
The way things are going, it is simply not going to be profitable to make music. When that happens(if it hasn't already happened...), why the fuck would they continue to?

How can you nitpick to such a degree where you deem stealing acceptable?


----------



## MFB (Sep 20, 2011)

AySay said:


> How can you nitpick to such a degree where you deem stealing acceptable?



Context my good man, is the parent who steals bread for his family not doing what he needs to in order to get by? But stealing music is not a necessity to live, so in this case, to nitpick to where it is acceptable is rather silly.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Sep 20, 2011)

This maybe a silly thought. But ever since napster and other pirate sites been saturating our minds to get shit for free, we are now facing the consequences as carriers/politicians cap the shit of our network. 

Just recently, I just had a friend who got his time warner internet turned off because he decided to download true blood from a shady site. This really sucks, but at the same time he got what he deserved.

I want to make a living off of music, I want to make a decent living working a video studio at paramount. I want to have a CAREER in industry where some people think its "EVIL" and "GREEDY" because I know I'll love it for the rest of my life.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

If a musician picks your pocket for the cost of his album after you pirate it, is that steeling? lol No different. You took his product with out compensation.


----------



## AySay (Sep 20, 2011)

MFB said:


> Context my good man, is the parent who steals bread for his family not doing what he needs to in order to get by? But stealing music is not a necessity to live, so in this case, to nitpick to where it is acceptable is rather silly.



Not just silly but cruel. The music may not be a necessity to live for the consumer, but it is for the creator.


----------



## MFB (Sep 20, 2011)

AySay said:


> Not just silly but cruel. The music may not be a necessity to live for the consumer, but it is for the creator.



Exactly.


----------



## anomynous (Sep 20, 2011)

Randy's so Mad


----------



## Goro923 (Sep 20, 2011)

Hmm... I'd give my opinion on piracy, but last time I did it I got FUCKING BANNED. Not taking my chances.


----------



## ry_z (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> If a musician picks your pocket for the cost of his album after you pirate it, is that steeling? lol No different. You took his product with out compensation.



If someone takes money from your pocket: They now have the money, and you don't.

If someone copies a file from you: They now have the file, _and you do too_.

As I said in my previous post, analogies between file sharing and the theft of physical objects are profoundly misguided.


----------



## Slunk Dragon (Sep 20, 2011)

If anyone should learn anything from the filesharing and shit, it's that it's the music that matters. The bands that produce the good music will still get the legions of fans buyings their albums, t-shirts, and band swag (because every good band has tons of swag to sell). IMHO, pirating music is obviously hardly beneficial to musicians, but there are websites like Bandcamp where you can simply sell the files of your songs, for cheap, in any file format you desire, EVEN LOSSLESS, WAV, AND APPLE LOSSLESS. You get hundreds, or thousands of people buying your albums digitally for $8 a pop, and look how much profit you'd be making instead of losing thousands and thousands of possible sales to online piracy? People won't want to pay $12 on iTunes for an album that's shit, when they can just pirate it and then delete it off their computer if they hate it.

Of course me being an audiophile, I love physical copies of things. So having the CDs and LPs of albums is what makes me a very happy camper. I avoid illegally downloading albums because their quality is shitty, you avoid the whole issue of being arrested for pirating music, and plus I get to know the fact that the music I am purchasing is giving bands part of their paycheck every month. I AM a loyal music fan and I love having music that's not low mp3 quality.

Oh, and that article was funny. I loved how his metaphor had loopholes up the wazoo in it. x3


----------



## asher (Sep 20, 2011)

I feel like far too many people, particularly those who complain about it, are too busy complaining/being butthurt/rightfully angry about what's going on/etc and aren't spending enough time figuring out how to make a new business model that doesn't bone artists but works with the realities of internet and digital distro... and downloads. Because this shit is here to stay, people.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

ry_z said:


> If someone takes money from your pocket: They now have the money, and you don't.
> 
> If someone copies a file from you: They now have the file, _and you do too_.
> 
> As I said in my previous post, analogies between file sharing and the theft of physical objects are profoundly misguided.



If the only way the musician offered their product is by sale, you being in possession of a copy with out that copy being paid for = you being in possession of a stolen product.  Thats steeling right? just as bad? it was taken with out permission. The artist did not receive compensation.

This is like you saying " copies of a musicians product are not their product anymore. They have no copyrights on the copies, only the originals."


----------



## ry_z (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> If the only way the musician offered their product is by sale, you being in possession of a copy with out that copy being paid for = you being in possession of a stolen product.



Imagine that you had a machine that could instantly duplicate any physical object.

While walking down the street, you see in someone's driveway a nice new car. You think "Hey, I'd love to have one of those."

You use your machine on it, producing a brand new car, which you then drive away in, leaving their original car untouched in their driveway.

Are you then in possession of a stolen car?

I can't see any reasonable argument that the answer would be 'yes'. Copying files is exactly analogous to this.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

ry_z said:


> Imagine that you had a machine that could instantly duplicate any physical object.
> 
> While walking down the street, you see in someone's driveway a nice new car. You think "Hey, I'd love to have one of those."
> 
> ...



You may not be hurting the person you copied the car from (The peer in a p2p network).. But you would be hurting the car manufacturer / creator (The musician / victim) in your little story. Where if you wanted the car bad enough you would be an honest person / save money and pay for it. There would not be millions of illegal copies of cars. This is why cars have VIN NUMBERS / PATENTS. The potential sale to you is now a loss... You got the product for free. You wanted the product. You got it. You did not pay. The creator did not get paid. Its is their loss. Your gain. Who is greedy now?


----------



## ry_z (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> But you would be hurting the car manufacturer / creator



How so? There aren't any cars missing from the dealership's lot, or any parts missing in the manufacturer's factory.

As I said in my first post, the most you could argue is that they may have lost a _potential_ sale.

In reality, of course, such a machine doesn't exist for physical objects, but it does for digital information.




Evil7 said:


> The potential sale to you is now a loss... You got the product for free. You wanted the product. You got it. You did not pay. The creator did not get paid. Its is their loss. Your gain. Who is greedy now?



A potential sale is not the same thing as a loss. If instead of paying $25 for a meal at a restaurant, you cook an identical meal yourself at home, the restaurant has lost a potential sale - but I can see no reasonable argument that you are guilty of stealing $25 from the restaurant, or the chef who invented the dish.

What gives physical objects value is either scarcity or labor. Copying digital information requires (essentially) no labor, and eliminates scarcity.



asher said:


> figuring out how to make a new business model that doesn't bone artists but works with the realities of internet and digital distro... and downloads. Because this shit is here to stay, people.



On another note, this. The fact is that the long-standing paradigm of the recorded music industry has broken down irreversibly. I love to support artists as much as I can, which includes buying physical copies of music. I love buying vinyl because of the much larger art, whereas a CD will just get ripped to lossless files and get stuck on a shelf.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

ry_z said:


> How so? There aren't any cars missing from the dealership's lot, or any parts missing in the manufacturer's factory.
> 
> As I said in my first post, the most you could argue is that they may have lost a _potential_ sale.
> 
> In reality, of course, such a machine doesn't exist for physical objects, but it does for digital information.



Causing the musicians to loose sooooooooo many potential sales is not dishonest and wrong? If you made an exact copy of a physical product, a lawsuit would hold up in court and you would be found guilty of copyright infringement / patent steeling.

You think the car copying machine would be honest, if it put whole factories / people out of work because the value of the product was reduced to nothing?

It hurts the musicians who create the music you love.
It is a solid fact that piracy has hurt album sales... FACT.

Your analogy of the food being made at home is not valid.. If you make a cover of a song at home... It is not an EXACT copy of the original.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 20, 2011)

I think file sharing is a really good, good thing. I can tell you there's no way I'd be listening to the music I do now 

Artists just need to change their business model, IMO Nolly/RSF is doing a really good job with it. 

They released the music for free then did a great job promoting and selling their T-shirts.


----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 20, 2011)

Here's an idea: change your business model. I admire Keith Merrow's business model, and I'm very likely to use that.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 20, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> It is amazing the hairs people will split in an effort to deny being a theif. These threads are always amusing in that sense.


 
This is what astounds me the most. I hate talking and arguing about piracy more than piracy itself. Simply because a lot of us have enlightenment issues about theft and at the same time none of us just can't cast any stones on the subject. It's the reasons why I just either remain silent or treat it with tact. 

However...



Bloody_Inferno said:


> A better analogy would be the second link on my sig.
> 
> Refer to points 4 and 2 in particular, but really the article as a whole sums it up.


 
To extract a bit from this article yet again:



> An ebook sold to a library will thus delete itself out of existence after a year, or after X number of times it had been lent out. This is a big source of controversy between publishers and public libraries, maybe because both of them know they've found the loose thread that can unravel all of society. After all:​
> 
> A. Why can't the library just buy as many digital copies as are needed for the customers, and keep them forever, if they don't naturally degrade?​
> 
> ...


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

Being forced to change a business model and musicians being forced to pull their main income from merchandise is really shitty. So musicians are not expected to profit or recoup to their record labels with album sales... This should be done by them selling shirts? I know album sales are not 100 percent killed by piracy, but its still dis honest... Bands and aritsts being FORCED to change their business model is no argument for piracy being honest / correct / or moral. IMO


----------



## BMU (Sep 20, 2011)

The golden age for the music industry is a thing of the past. We're in the golden age for the music listener. But won't last very long if musicians continue to be unable to make a living.

There's simply too much music now. Technology has made it easy to make music. This is good for the listener, but there are very few people who can buy everything coming out. So they buy some and steal a lot. If the means to steal didn't exist, they'd still buy the same amount. Disposable budgets are fixed, and in most cases tight. 

So a downloaded copy is not a lost sale. (Just to clarify: I'm not defending the practice. Just observing. Personally I buy a lot and steal nothing, because I can afford to.)

It's difficult to see a solution to this. The only advice seems to be: don't try to make a living out of music.


----------



## ry_z (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> If you made an exact copy of a physical product, a lawsuit would hold up in court and you would be found guilty of copyright infringement / patent steeling.



I've said nothing about legality - I've been talking about ethics.



Evil7 said:


> You think the car copying machine would be honest, if it put whole factories / people out of work because the value of the product was reduced to nothing?



_Honest_? Sure. It might be unfortunate, but there's nothing dishonest about it.

Similar things have happened before - the Luddite textile artisans in the 19th century protested against the introduction of mechanized looms, which replaced their jobs.



Evil7 said:


> Your analogy of the food being made at home is not valid.. If you make a cover of a song at home... It is not an EXACT copy of the original.



I was assuming, for the sake of argument, that it was completely identical.



Evil7 said:


> It hurts the musicians who create the music you love.



The fact that very few people have found a business model that is sustainable under the new paradigm hurts them, yes.


What we're seeing is basically the conflict between a scarcity economy and a post-scarcity economy.


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

Being a musician who sells music: I buy my music or listen to it where the artist has offered it for sample / free. 

I would not want my business hurt. I choose not to hurt theirs. 

Would you want your business exploited in such a way. Are you not musicians? 
You have to see the simpleness of this issue. It hurts their income. Period. 

You like their music enough to want to own it right? This means you enjoy it.
Why would not not want to be honest and help that musician by compensating them for the enjoyment / copy of their music.

This hurts bands that are not signed and signed bands alike.. Maybe more so for the unsigned band attempting to sell cd's to recoup studio costs / fund another album. 

Seems like everyone on this site should be against piracy.


----------



## ry_z (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> Would you want your business exploited in such a way. Are you not musicians?



To reuse a previous example: Would you not want mechanized looms banned? Are you not a textile artisan?

Obviously, I want to see artists continue to be able to devote themselves to their art, which is why I support artists financially when I can. It's very unfortunate for some artists that a paradigm they had previously relied on has broken down, but that says nothing about the ethical acceptability of the new paradigm.

Perhaps we'll end up with some sort of patronage system - I know *maudlin of the Well* recorded _Part the Second_ with fan-donated funding, and released it for free. The real point is that someone needs to come up with a new system that works, because the old one has been irreversibly broken.



Evil7 said:


> You have to see the simpleness of this issue. It hurts their income. Period.



It's not a simple issue. Pretending that it is only confuses things further.


----------



## federock90 (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm gonna be honest. I've downloaded music for very fucking long time but now I don't do it anymore. Not because "stealing" scares me, but because I don't want my favourite bands/artists to stop making music. As the randy thing is concerned; I love him, his style and I was lucky to meet him a few time ago. Let me say that the comparison was kinda childish, but the sense was indeed true


----------



## Evil7 (Sep 20, 2011)

Maybe its just that. Honest people would understand the musician's position. 
More honest people will not fuck up musician's incomes by downloading or even worse hosting a musician's music. 

Hurting someones income,knowingly, is dishonest. <(-- Outside of honest competition of a like product.

Edit... You people who say "If i like the music, I will go buy the music from the artist after pirating it" This is you admitting it is wrong and agreeing the artist should receive compensation for the music they spent money on - for you to enjoy.

Edit 2... Enjoying a debate as much as I do: I doubt I could choose the opposite side of this debate and win against myself on this topic. 
Media Piracy is wrong and it hurts musicians. It does.. 
Does that mean it will stop? No time soon im guessing.
Does them mean musicians are forced to adapt? Yes.
Are you perpetuating a problem / adding to it by partaking in piracy. I think so.

If everyone decided (as a collective) that piracy of music was wrong and just quit, albums sales would be restored to previous status.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

Double A said:


> The fact of the matter is that the music industry as it was in it's golden age is over, done, toast, etc. People like this guy and the major labels do not see that a changing paradigm in the industry could be a good thing if they would just go and innovate and change their fucking model. I will insert a line about the Chinese character for crisis is the same one for opportunity or some shit. Instead they want to erase time and sue people that can't really afford their product anymore.
> 
> People that think illegal downloading is the end of the music industry have a very narrow view of the whole thing and the fact is that the industry as a whole (well most of it) don't want things to change because they were raking in dough hand over fist while doing basically nothing and bankrupting most of the artists they signed to begin with. I have no sympathy for them at all.
> 
> ...



This, this, this.


----------



## yingmin (Sep 20, 2011)

BMU said:


> So a downloaded copy is not a lost sale. (Just to clarify: I'm not defending the practice. Just observing. Personally I buy a lot and steal nothing, because I can afford to.)



I disagree because there are a lot of people (primarily those young enough not to remember a time before file sharing was easy and commonplace) who spend literally nothing on music, simply because they have the ability not to. If free downloading weren't available, their options would be to buy music, or not listen to music at all. The mere existence of a third choice, having free access to all the music they could ever want, renders the first two options absurd and unthinkable. Every album they download is, at the very least, a POTENTIALLY lost sale. How much of the music that a lot of the younger generation listen to would they not have if they were forced to buy an album in order to listen to it? This results in the somewhat paradoxical situation where younger people listen to more different artists, and more diverse styles of music, and just a much greater volume of music in general, and find it more important to their lives than most older folks, yet find the idea of spending even a penny on music ridiculous.


----------



## rjnix_0329 (Sep 20, 2011)

That's cool Randy, I'll just download Red Seas Fire's free EP instead of your increasingly trashy music.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

What an amazingly terrible analogy. I'd almost think he's being deceptive on purpose, he very clearly makes the objects that are being freely duplicated the keys to the burgers, not the burgers themselves. 

That was indeed an embarrassing read.




rjnix_0329 said:


> That's cool Randy, I'll just download Red Seas Fire's free EP instead of your increasingly trashy music.



Or Cloudkicker's entire discography. 



> So far, not a single analogy has come in. Well, 1 about 3rd World fans- but that's not the issue, now is it? No $ ever came from them anyway



This speaks volumes about his argument. I wonder if he assumes that everyone who has downloaded an album who is in a financial position where they could have bought it, would have done so, if downloading wasn't an option.


----------



## Wookieslayer (Sep 20, 2011)




----------



## ZEBOV (Sep 20, 2011)

Evil7 said:


> Seems like everyone on this site should be against piracy.




I just plain refuse to download music at all. I buy nothing but CD's at a slow rate. It's not that I'm hell bent on not stealing. I just want the best possible sound quality, and the best possible sound quality is guaranteed when you buy the physical CD. CD's are pretty expensive though, so I buy them at a slow rate. You'd be surprised at what albums I don't have and probably won't have for another year, especially "djent" bands since I had never heard of "djent" until about a month before I joined SSO. I'm slowly but surely getting there though.


----------



## federock90 (Sep 20, 2011)

Just bought "Opeth, The Roundhouse Tapes" and Amazon just sent me an e-mail to tell me that they don't know when they will deliver the new Heritage. Fuck 'em.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

The amount of elaborate argumentation to justify stealing digital property is nothing short of amazing - a digital copy, as the name implies, is indeed a replica, and I still have the original.

You know, the same original I paid from my money to produce, which has CD's printed via my money, and copyright (I believe the name is self-explanatory) I paid for myself, not to mention the very long hours of work I did myself. There are no corporate monsters, no shady dealings, no companies doing my marketing, it's all my work and money, and it will get ripped and distributed illegally like all others (albeit with a lot less downloads than, say, Periphery or Animals as Leaders). Everytime that occurs, I'll get 0 back, so I go from the "potential sale" to the "guaranteed no sale" with a click. 

Now that many musicians are self-produced, the whole "taking from the evil corporate machine" thing needs to be taken with a grain of salt, more than ever before.


----------



## drmosh (Sep 20, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> The amount of elaborate argumentation to justify stealing digital property is nothing short of amazing - a digital copy, as the name implies, is indeed a replica, and I still have the original.



My thoughts EXACTLY. Anything to make yourself feel better about doing something wrong, going as far as to even make it sound like nothing is actually wrong with it.


----------



## drmosh (Sep 20, 2011)

etcetera said:


> I wonder if he assumes that everyone who has downloaded an album who is in a financial position where they could have bought it, would have done so, if downloading wasn't an option.



That right there is a massive part of the problem. Not having enough money, or arguing how CDs are too expensive is never justification to download an album.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> Everytime that occurs, I'll get 0 back, so I go from the "potential sale" to the "guaranteed no sale" with a click.



It isn't always a case of "guaranteed no sale' though". Just as it isn't always a case of "potential sale". There's a lot more grey areas to the issue than just that.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 20, 2011)

Lamb Of God Frontman On Lack Of Innovation In Music And &#8220;Djent&#8221; | Theprp.com &#8211; Metal, Hardcore And Rock News, Reviews And More -in-music-and-djent/



Read this a few days ago, and forgot about it,
saw the other one about illegal downloading.

This takes the cake, I lost it when he said everyone keeps playing the same songs. As if they dont


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 20, 2011)

ry_z said:


> As I said in my previous post, analogies between file sharing and the theft of physical objects are profoundly misguided.



No, they are not. Intellectual property is about people paying you for ideas. Without the musician, the music doesn't exist. You are paying for their thought, their skill, their production, not a physical or digital copy. If you don't pay them, they can't continue to create pure and simple.

Splitting hairs over physical vs non-physical is pointless and misguided. If you really want to go into it though, there is an argument to be made for the physicality of data, or even thoughts and idea. I'll make that short: in so far as data is concerned, the 1s and 0s still exist in physical form on your hard drive, mp3 player, phone, etc. They might not be physical to you in the sense a CD seems, but it is still physical. If you don't think it is, try deleting those files (rearranging the magnetic structure on your HDD in the process, a physical act) and see if you can still listen to the music.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 20, 2011)

Someone tell him typing in all caps makes him pass for a moron.


----------



## loktide (Sep 20, 2011)

way to make a fool out of himself


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 20, 2011)

Andromalia said:


> Someone tell him typing in all caps makes him pass for a moron.



in addition to all the other stupid crap he says

what have they innovated on exactly? LOG is just a groovy-er/thrashy-er version of pantera. on top of that, their not real good 

LOG: *cant djent, gets mad*


----------



## Augury (Sep 20, 2011)

yes, lamb of god is definately the biggest virtuosery ever to say if there is djent or not ._.
i have no idea if i can call djent a genre, but if someone says djent i know "aaa its something like periphery". if someone says "brutal technical death metal" i know "aaa it's something like beneath the massacre". even though they are both heavy metal, there is a 'little' difference between them.
people call group of bands djent because it's hard to classify it to an other genre. someone would say, it's progressive death metal. but obscura is progdeath too, and they sound very different from after the burial etc (think yo get what i mean)
so, i mean, ppl are calling those bands (VoM, periphery, ATB, AaL etc.) "djent", because they aren't the same as other bands. djent hat a specificaly tones, techniques, chords and so on.


----------



## guitarister7321 (Sep 20, 2011)

&#8220;Cantplayinreallifebutcanonacomputer-core&#8221;

LOL


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

etcetera said:


> It isn't always a case of "guaranteed no sale' though". Just as it isn't always a case of "potential sale". There's a lot more grey areas to the issue than just that.



Absolutely correct. 

I don't understand why people insist on making the issue simple when it is so clearly not. As Double A stated earlier - there is no turning back. The record companies have overwhelming odds stacked against them and the less cash in the pockets of those that do it for the money not the music is fine by me, though that's not to say that there aren't those in the music management industry who do love music that are also suffering. 

The issue is not simple, but the solution is: find a way to make money from the way things will be done in the future, not the past.


----------



## ivancic1al (Sep 20, 2011)

Hey I can pointlessly rant on my twitter account too. 

It made me  when he spelled "etc" as : "ect" a couple of times though.


And as far as bashing other people for lacking innovation, as my friend would say, "the irony is delicious." 
Oh Randy...


----------



## Thrashmanzac (Sep 20, 2011)

wow, he sounds like a complete idiot haha


----------



## SenorDingDong (Sep 20, 2011)

Okay, so based off of the arguments every pro-downloader put forth, would you all mind PMing me your Social Security number and bank account information? 

Seeing as they are not physical items, you should have no worries. Besides, there is only a _potential_ that I _may_ use them anyways. 

And hey, maybe if I like you enough, I'll give some of that money back. 

Actually, I don't think I should pay you back for it, because regardless of if you worked for that money, it's not physical. It's in a computer, which makes it okay for me to take. 

Not like I stole from a store right?

If you argue, I'll just say, 
'_Well, times have changed. Get on with it. The things you labored over are now mine. Your boss is greedy and corrupt, just like his boss was and the boss before him. I think everything you make should be dished out to me free of charge to compensate me for something that never happened to me. Don't like it? Oh well, I'll take it either way. This is the new generation. So fork it over._'


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

Can someone _please_ make a Randy Blythe meme?


----------



## Nile (Sep 20, 2011)

I still like Lamb of God after this.


----------



## Nile (Sep 20, 2011)

ivancic1al said:


> Hey I can pointlessly rant on my twitter account too.
> 
> It made me  when he spelled "etc" as : "ect" a couple of times though.


 
The etc and ect depends on how you would say it, Randy has an odd southern accent kinda thing so how it sounds when he says it would probably make him think ect, and probably say it that way too.


----------



## Prydogga (Sep 20, 2011)

Just like we have our Dream Theater, Periphery, Devin Townsend etc megathreads, I think we need a 'RANDY BLYTHE SAYS THINGS' thread.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

Jstring said:


> Okay, so based off of the arguments every pro-downloader put forth, would you all mind PMing me your Social Security number and bank account information?
> 
> Seeing as they are not physical items, you should have no worries. Besides, there is only a _potential_ that I _may_ use them anyways.
> 
> ...



Completely separate logic. Music is something you choose to release and/or stay in the business of _knowing the risks._ Playing music for a living and making money from people idolising and praising you is a privilege, not a right.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

And getting the songs an artist worked his arse off making without his consent or just compensation is a _right_ neither you or anyone possesses, I'm sorry to say.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Absolutely correct.
> 
> I don't understand why people insist on making the issue simple when it is so clearly not. As Double A stated earlier - there is no turning back. The record companies have overwhelming odds stacked against them and the less cash in the pockets of those that do it for the money not the music is fine by me, though that's not to say that there aren't those in the music management industry who do love music that are also suffering.
> 
> The issue is not simple, but the solution is: find a way to make money from the way things will be done in the future, not the past.



Yes. And there are already people who are doing quite well by embracing the changes, rather than fighting them. The Flashbulb (Benn Jordan) and his label Alphabasic are pretty well known examples of this. All of the music he releases he also uploads to popular torrent sites, with a note basically saying "if you like it, consider buying it or donating". I'm not saying that just because he does it, it makes it ok to download any other artists music, or that they should be obligated to do the same, but he's a pretty successful artist for his genre so I imagine it's working for him. This probably isn't even the best solution, but the point is he's attacking the problem in a progressive way, and the results have been positive.

Also, I find that anonymous neg-rep kind of hilarious. Rather than telling me to leave, why don't you openly address/argue against my _opinion_, which seems to upset you so.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> And getting the songs an artist worked his arse off making without his consent or just compensation is a _right_ neither you or anyone possesses, I'm sorry to say.



Again, a privilege and not a right. We all have our bias and I'm aware that it's possible to work very hard at music, but if you are fully aware of risks within an industry it is wise to have a plan B and maybe even a plan C is it not?


----------



## Duraesu (Sep 20, 2011)

i dont know why are you all picking on him UG style...he has some pretty valid arguments, maybe he's not expressing himself very well but he speaks the truth... 

that "djent" thing is just ridiculous, Metal has too many "names" for sub-genres, most of them do not have any real differences. Maybe i'm being a purist but thats how i feel about the subject... i say kudos for Randy for speaking out about that!


----------



## Blake1970 (Sep 20, 2011)

Sounds like he just has an opinion on something. No big deal.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Completely separate logic. Music is something you choose to release and/or stay in the business of _knowing the risks._ Playing music for a living and making money from people idolising and praising you is a privilege, not a right.



You choose to go to work every day. You chose what job you took. You don't think you did? You applied and accepted. That is choice. You could easily stay home and your bills would go unpaid and you would be evicted. 

Why are musicians any different? They chose their career. They work just as hard as everyone else. Now they have to work much, much harder than everyone else, do to people like _you_.

Why should you be allowed to steal from them? What gives you that right? You pay for the goods, you get them. You don't pay and take them anyways, and you are stealing. 

Try to rationalize how you want, you are still a blatant thief. 

A thief, is a thief, is a thief. Nothing will ever change that.

I bet every single person who has ever stolen can come up with a brash justification for their actions. 
Then again, they would still be wrong, because they stole. 

Every criminal has a warped sense of justifications for their actions.

That simple enough and close enough for you?


EDIT: How is it some people can be so against plagiarism, the act of stealing someones music and claiming it as your own work, but so supportive of stealing music, and claiming it as your own property?


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

You are mixing two very different issues here, and that leads to a flawed logic, in my opinion. Simply put "making a living off of music" and "expecting to get paid when people actually get the work you put for sale" aren't in the same league to begin with.

The whole "making a living off music" is something that is as diverse as it gets. Being reasonable, your original work will get you some income if people fancy it enough, but many of us end up doing all sorts of session work and hired gun stints to make sure we can get along without major issues. Speaking of my own case, I do not expect Atonement to net me vast sums of money in any way shape or form, nor such a torrent of gigs that I can afford to stop doing session work and the like and become a new Steve Vai of sorts - expecting that is, at least in my view, unrealistic and supremely arrogant, as you assume many, many thousands will find you awesome and flock to buy your stuff. I do expect people to stream the tracks to give them a listen and, should they like them and want to keep them, pay me (and it is ME they are paying, as I am solely responsible for the entire process) to do so. If not, stream away - it's free and I'm more than happy to see people go to one of my pages to enjoy my songs.

This brings me to point 2 instantly. I am already taking a risk in making the album at my own expense to begin with, and until further notice, I got 0% of my hard earned cash back, with more money to go when I place the CD order and pay Mattayus for the final masters. I am also giving one of my tracks away in exchange for a measly FB wall post, and I never remove tracks from streaming unless I am replacing them with a version with better quality. This is absolutely free for the final consumer and I gain ZERO from it, but it was MY choice. I own the material, I make it free in whatever form I deem appropriate. That also makes it my choice, and one that must be respected legally and ethically, to ask for money should you like my songs enough to want a full resolution download. By doing this, I'm expecting decency, not a half-arsed excuse regarding the evils of modern corporations my solo work isn't even related to, sorry. 

I also don't expect anything from music, I simple make it because it's in my nature to do so - this doesn't exclude that I ask for people to help me out as I don't eat air, nor does my family, and other than the expenses I have doing the best I can to give you guys a pleasurable listening experience, the time I spend taking care of all this stuff is time I'm not getting paid for in any way except for the less than 2 pints worth money the downloadable version will cost.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 20, 2011)

There's no point in arguing whether it's ethical or not to pirate music. The fact is that it is free, easy and practically risk-free - people are going to continue to do it under these conditions. 

How many people think that they can successfully make a living being a musician, particularly a metal musician (since this IS is a predominantly metal-centric forum)? It's a damn risky undertaking and that's an understatement. You aren't gonna rake in cash selling records. If you make any money at all, it's likely from concert tickets (can't be recreated successfully) and t-shirts (can be recreated but it isn't free or easy). 

There is no inherent right bestowed on us that we be able to make a living as musicians and no one is forced to try to do so. Randy shouldn't be making moronic analogies about McDonald's - McD's operates under market conditions that allow it to make money. Musicians mostly do not. Is that because of the ease of pirating? Maybe. So the music industry needs to find a way to change the underlying conditions if it wants to make money for itself and those in it. Until then, either take the huge risk to try to make a living as a musician or don't.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Can someone _please_ make a Randy Blythe meme?



hates derivative regurgitation

*photo of randy*

keeps making albums that all sound the same


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

Jstring said:


> You choose to go to work every day. You chose what job you took. You don't think you did? You applied and accepted. That is choice. You could easily stay home and your bills would go unpaid and you would be evicted.
> 
> Why are musicians any different? They chose their career. They work just as hard as everyone else. Now they have to work much, much harder than everyone else, do to people like _you_.
> 
> ...



What sets the limit for a career I can choose and expect to have the right to make a living from? 

Also, if I walk into a furniture store or a bakery or a clothing store or whatever, and see an item I like, and go home and make myself a perfect replica of it, is it really stealing? All ethical questions aside, it's difficult to argue that what I'm doing is _stealing_. It sounds to me like you have such a strong ethical objection to downloading that you're willing to forgo logic and reasoning in the name of defending your values. You can repeat the label 'thief' all you want, but it won't make it an accurate description for downloading music. The potential sales idea is a fallacy, and a pretty blatant one at that. 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that downloading music is necessarily ethical/right, I'm simply pointing out the mistake in calling it theft and trying to oversimplify an inherently complex issue.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 20, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> There's no point in arguing whether it's ethical or not to pirate music. The fact is that it is free, easy and practically risk-free - people are going to continue to do it under these conditions.
> 
> How many people think that they can successfully make a living being a musician, particularly a metal musician (since this IS is a predominantly metal-centric forum)? It's a damn risky undertaking and that's an understatement. You aren't gonna rake in cash selling records. If you make any money at all, it's likely from concert tickets (can't be recreated successfully) and t-shirts (can be recreated but it isn't free or easy).
> 
> There is no inherent right bestowed on us that we be able to make a living as musicians and no one is forced to try to do so. Randy shouldn't be making moronic analogies about McDonald's - McD's operates under market conditions that allow it to make money. Musicians mostly do not. Is that because of the ease of pirating? Maybe. So the music industry needs to find a way to change the underlying conditions if it wants to make money for itself and those in it. Until then, either take the huge risk to try to make a living as a musician or don't.



It goes beyond being a musician...

I know it may be tiring for me to requote that 2nd Cracked article on my sig and for all to read it yet again... but it's relevant. 

The Future Will Turn Us All Into Lars Ulrich



> The world has changed. For everyone. I'm in the same boat as Lars Ulrich. But so are you.
> 
> Lars makes money selling his music. You make money selling your labor. At some point down the line, like his music, your skill as a human being can and will be converted to an electronic format for a fraction of the cost, rendering your skill worthless.
> 
> ...



Randy Blythe, with his colourful opinion on piracy, is just another example. And who could blame him? Regardless of level of success, his art is at stake of being stolen. Christian Muenzner also expressed a similar opinion and Obscura ain't exactly Lamb of God's status, whom also a far cry from Metallica's status too. But the issue is the same and you can't prevent artists of all levels express their disdain for piracy and people stealing their music.


----------



## petereanima (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Playing music for a living and making money from people idolising and praising you is a privilege, not a right.




But so is listening to the music. Who said that it is the right of every person in the world to receive all music ever made, for free? IF an artist is realasing stuff for free download its all o.k., but if one chooses not to do so, imho everyone should respect that. Besides the fact that, only a small percentage of artists that put their stuff up for sale intend to LIVE from it.

2 sides of the coin...

The "old" system doesnt work anymore, I think we all can agree to that, but seriously - neither does the status quo. BOTH sides need to change their attitude. There are - as far as major releases go - too many people and companies involved getting their cut. This needs to be reduced, to the minimum. And also stuff needs to be AVAILABLE. I will buy records if I get them. A 3 song EP only available as import, costs are EUR 49,- - will I buy it? Probably not. (Actually....its more likely that I will buy it nonetheless because I'm a helpless record-collector, but the majority won't, so you get the point ) Same dilemma as, for example, TV- and movie industry - I dont pay Eur 50,- for (lets say) HEROES SEASON 4.1 and again EUR 50,- for HEROES SEASON 4.2, so I receive 2 DVD boxsets, fully loaded with shit no one needs to justify additional discs and seperate sets, and its available 6-12 months after it has been aired. Release it, for a reasonable price, RIGHT AWAY, and I'll buy it.

But seriously - the "other" side needs to change their attitude as well. There's always this "Oh, I download it at first, and if I like it, I buy it." - excuse. Bullshit. I know so many people preaching this, and seriously, maybe 2% (if so many at all) really do it that way. Most of them don't buy it (but keep lstening to it over and over again). If you guys check your harddrives now, search for albums that you have on your harddrive/mp3-player to which you have listened more than - lets say - 3 times in total, and then check how many of them you have bought.

One needs to realize - you arent hurting the music industry that bad. You think the music industry lives of metal? Really?? They have their shit that sells, dont worry. What all the illegal downloading is ruining, is what many of you (as far as i can say) are trying to do - to get signed by a label, to go on tour, get money for a good studio etc.etc...wonder why you dont get signed and/or endorsed? Well, because your band does not SELL. 

Its easy to say "well, they need to change" when one himself wouldnt bring the same will for a change.


That all said, I for myself prefer people to listen to our stuff illegal downloaded rather than they would not listen to it at all.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 20, 2011)

Bloody_Inferno said:


> It goes beyond being a musician...
> 
> I know it may be tiring for me to requote that 2nd Cracked article on my sig and for all to read it yet again... but it's relevant.
> 
> ...



The Lars blurb was more sensible than Randy's drivel. Ever read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut? It takes place in a society in which robots do practically everything. Humans are either engineers that design the robots, or they are municipal workers that do mindless labor. Great book.

Maybe ACTA is the only way to stop pirating. But that's got nothing to do with robots performing human work. Music and books are intellectual property and it is hard to determine how many pirated copies would have be sales instead - it's definitely not 100%. Machines making my coffee at Starbucks is different. Again, not condoning it, just sayin'...


----------



## Edika (Sep 20, 2011)

Even if you agree with his opinions or not, or like the music he plays or not what nullifies the credibility he might have is his demeanor. I know heavy music is supposed to be all tough guy attitude (it sells) and rebel against the norm but in the end it is just marketing. And I hate when the entertainment industry considers us all idiots.

On the other hand I like LOG and no matter how idiotic I think his behavior is I still will listen to their songs.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 20, 2011)

Edika said:


> I know heavy music is supposed to be all tough guy attitude (it sells) and rebel against the norm but in the end it is just marketing. .




In the end, I find tough guys are tough guys and nice guys are nice guys. Doesn't matter if it's a country band, hardcore band, or metal band. Also doesn't matter how they dress. Just compare early Dave Mustaine to early Kirk Hammett - tough guy, nice guy, two completely different attitudes, both dressed in black leather.

Either way, I see nothing Randy did or said as "tough guy".


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

Ok, this guy is clearly an idiot. I was getting somewhat annoyed with his rants after reading the other thread, but after this I just think it's kind of funny. No need to argue against him, he's doing a fine job making himself look like a complete dick as it is.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 20, 2011)

Prydogga said:


> Just like we have our Dream Theater, Periphery, Devin Townsend etc megathreads, I think we need a 'RANDY BLYTHE SAYS THE DARNEDEST THINGS' thread.



Fixed because it has a better ring to it.


----------



## Sicarius (Sep 20, 2011)

Edika said:


> Even if you agree with his opinions or not, or like the music he plays or not what nullifies the credibility he might have is his demeanor. I know heavy music is supposed to be all tough guy attitude (it sells) and rebel against the norm but in the end it is just marketing. And I hate when the entertainment industry considers us all idiots.
> 
> On the other hand I like LOG and no matter how idiotic I think his behavior is I still will listen to their songs.



Or the guy really hates Djent, and wants there to be less bands like every other band.

He's not the only one. There is no nullification of credibility. Dude's a ragin' 'cause he's really passionate with his hate. 

On the other hand, there's a thread with his thoughts on piracy and everyone was going "Fuck yea, Randy!" 

Now he hates Djent and everyone's reaction is:
"Ha, he can't Djent so he mad."

Dude's just wildly expressing his opinion, and while I don't like him, or his music, I have to say I agree with him, 100%.


----------



## stevemcqueen (Sep 20, 2011)

I do agree with him on the genre thing. I am getting so tired of people being more worried about figuring out what genre a band is than listening to the band. Someone blew up on me for calling some Whitechapel death metal the other day. Seriously dude? I like good music whether it is pop punk, death metal, djent, or progressive polyrhythmatic technical symphonic black deathcore. Oh and fruitbatcore is awesome too. 
Randy Blythe does sound quite lacking in the intelligence department though.


----------



## Tomo009 (Sep 20, 2011)

I'm not sure what all of you are reading, but they were separate things I'm pretty sure. Nowhere there did I get the idea he hated, Djent, just the title. The first part was pretty stupid, but he can have that opinion if he wants, obviously. Not saying it is a good position, I wouldn't agree with him at all. On his second point I simultaneously am guilty of what he is saying while agreeing that there is somewhat of an over-classification in some schools of metal. I do think the name Djent is pretty stupid, but it is different enough it kinda needs a name to group the bands of that sound. He went a bit crazy with the hardcore rant though, &#8220;&#8230;all this BULLSHIT &#8220;Deathcore&#8221; & &#8220;Djentcore&#8221; & fucking &#8220;Cantplayinreallifebutcanonacomputer-core&#8221; it&#8217;s just a NAME&#8221; Especially seeing as Lamb of God even sometimes is classified as metalcore. 

Maybe with some context these ridiculous quotes would make more sense, maybe he is also bashing djent, but I didn't get that from the article. The title of the article is pretty misleading, as usual.


----------



## Mysticlamp (Sep 20, 2011)

i do hate the overclassification of metal


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 20, 2011)

' &#8220;Cantplayinreallifebutcanonacomputer-core&#8221;'

sound like he's lashing out at the people releasing whole albums of material from their bedrooms without having a gigging lineup. Which, while I agree many people are re-hashing the exact same sound as each other, is not necessarily a threat or offense to Randy except when the generic bedroom recorded stuff SOUNDS better and is BETTER music than anything he's ever done. 

I mean, isn't he the guy that just yells? I've been the guy that just yells in the band, and while I may have done my share of effort and sweating I was assuredly the absolute least creative or hard working member in that band. Same goes for Randy.


----------



## Espaul (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't get the rant on there being to many genre descriptions in metal. I know people love throwing out genres, but I kinda feel it's in the spirit of metal.

Also as for my own sake, it narrows down what I will check out. It's not always that I want to check out djent bands (since rolling stone magazine or whatever used it as a genre, it is a genre) or death metal bands.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Sep 20, 2011)

ShadowFactoryX said:


> in addition to all the other stupid crap he says
> 
> what have they innovated on exactly? LOG is just a groovy-er/thrashy-er version of pantera. on top of that, their not real good
> 
> LOG: *cant djent, gets mad*


LOG: *Djent sucks*, SSO gets mad.

Now someone make a Randy Blythe fruitbatcore meme.


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

"regurgitating someone elses music"...??? 

LOG=Pantera+everything else LOG listens(ed) to. It's all being rehashed and only a few bands REALLY change the game. 

"sub-categorizing is stupid"

If you happen to be a band that does something different, so what if you call it whatever. Shitcore would be great if you can repeatedly produce the brown note and get the desired effect. To me, djent is just an EQ setting. If you like to EQ your rig in the "djent", so be it. If someone else says, "Hey, djent sounds cool for how we sound", so what!.

I think he's just pissed cuz LOG arent doing anything new or ground-breaking.. LOL.. By this rant, he pretty much told his own tale of his views of LOG's inadequacy as song-writers. I dig LOG and see nothing wrong with what they do, even if they are a rehash of Pantera/everything else.

I'll still listen to them.


----------



## avenger (Sep 20, 2011)

A vast majority of metal bands would have a small local to zero following if not for people having downloaded their stuff. I think its a great thing for bands to get heard and noticed and there is no better way then people "stealing" their music. Sure you might not sell 1 million records because not everyone is going to buy it but if they didn't steal it in the first place you'd still be playing shitty bars in your hometown instead you can tour all over the world and have fans.

blahblahblahblah bands are a business suck my dick blahblahblah.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Sep 20, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> ' &#8220;Cantplayinreallifebutcanonacomputer-core&#8221;'
> 
> sound like he's lashing out at the people releasing whole albums of material from their bedrooms without having a gigging lineup. Which, while I agree many people are re-hashing the exact same sound as each other, is not necessarily a threat or offense to Randy except when the generic bedroom recorded stuff SOUNDS better and is BETTER music than anything he's ever done.
> 
> I mean, isn't he the guy that just yells? I've been the guy that just yells in the band, and while I may have done my share of effort and sweating I was assuredly the absolute least creative or hard working member in that band. Same goes for Randy.



my sentiments exactly. he's pretty much being the old man yelling at kids to get off his lawn. a lot of technological progress is happening to the music industry really quickly and some people aren't able to see it, much less adapt to it, so they just fight it and say it's not 'real'.

the fact is, musicians these days are able to turn the ideas in their heads into fully-realized tracks in a very short amount of time and with less and less effort. (not that it's easy as pie to record a song in your bedroom with zero experience...) so the ideas and all that are less filtered and more or less 'fresh-squeezed'. although he's partially correct in that a lot of these artists don't/can't play shows, at the same time that's discounting all of the bedroom-bands that have surprised us by being quite good live.

as far as 'djent' is concerned, it sounds like he isn't so much as bashing the music but being annoyed with the word being misused as a genre instead of either coming up with something that makes sense or just labeling it as metal. im the type that likes calling things 'metal' and leaving it at that, but sometimes i need a way to specify exactly which type of music i like most... which happens to be down-tuned progressive odd-timed metal. it's just easier to say 'prog'.

don't get me wrong, i'm not boiling his attitude down to jealousy or anything, but it's pretty obvious that he's misunderstanding where a lot of these bedroom bands are coming from, and how their approach to creating music has almost none of the entry-barriers that his generation had. the world is becoming more social and so is the music industry. no longer do you *need* to jam around in a practice space writing songs and becoming more tight with a set of people over the course of months and years, playing lots of local shows and working hard to build up a following, and then scrounging up the money to make a demo or something. people can, with a bit of homework/time/patience churn out all of the fantastical ideas they have in their head to their computer and release for the WORLD WIDE WEB (see? i can all caps too!) to listen to. not just 30 people a few shows here and there in your local town.

/rant

@DIGGY^: yeah i agree. they don't really do anything phenomenal and ground breaking but they are consistently 'good'. he IS being a little hypocritical though because of them never changing anything up or doing new stuff. i will still listen to them anyway. maybe they should adopt that mode of thinking? sometimes bands don't NEED to evolve and change up, and the fact that they stay the same and give us more of the same is acceptable and good? i'm kind of glad the industry has gotten to a point where you won't drown if you don't keep the carrot on the stick out there for the audience. but yeah, 'djent' is just a guitar tone sound, as far as im concerned. or a type of picking you can do in modern metal. if i try to describe the type of playing that i hear with bands like meshuggah, volumes, monuments, etc. i just say "odd timed" and "angular". (in addition to putting them under the Progressive umbrella term)


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

^ Agree with Espaul...

I constantly see people posting on here to "recommend me a band in this style"... and thats how I learn about new music that is similar to what I like, or can avoid styles that I'm not interested in.

e.g. I like the band "I am Abomination" and it would be easier for me if I could just search for a certain term and I could find similar bands. Same thing with "Into Eternity"... (iTunes recommends powermetal bands that to me are not similar).

e.g. I would love to be able to search for a term so I could find metal bands that have a Phrygian Dominant/Arabic/Iwato type sound to them (maybe Nile, but I don't like that low style "death?" regurgitating)... Sumeriancore? (Cacophony minus the bad Rob Halford impersonation would do...)

So, why are terms like "djent" bad? If that's what you like then why not make it easier to find more like that? And if you hate it then it will keep you from wasting your time...

On the negative side, I don't like symphonic or black metal, but I recently stumbled upon Chthonic and I like them... so trying to shoe-horn every band into a strict category might sometimes make you miss out on a good band, too.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

Streaming tracks is free. Such players and their playlists are also easy to embed, share over social networks, and quite a few of them work perfectly on mobile phones. Don't give me the whole "they'd be nowhere if not due to piracy" - they are where they are due to hard work, and due to having the money and factual numbers to support their touring while allowing them to make a profit. When you're touring to promote a new album, the objective is, surprisingly enough, to promote the album.

I'm sorry, but that particular argument is among those that really strike me as mind boggling and farfetched. If you sell very few copies, you get dropped. If everyone's ranting and raving but no one pays enough for you to have a next album, you stop due to lack of funds. This is as simple as it gets.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

&#8220;Cantplayinreallifebutcanonacomputer-core&#8221;'

Well, that is partially true, due to how easy it is to edit every remotely less perfect bit out and copy/paste your way to perfection. Thing is that this is not exclusive to computer based recordings, and the atrocious performances of some bands, to the point of making us wonder whether it was them who even recorded the album in the first place, are a timeless testament to this. I've had to be the "stunt guitarist" for some dudes who couldn't even play their own songs before, so I should know...

As for all the genre hating, I always fail to realize why we should be wasting time finding shit we dislike and telling the whole world how pissed off we are at it as opposed to sharing stuff we DO like. What constructiveness is there in this sort of bash? Honestly, if I dislike Britney Spears, the last thing I'll do is to go on a killing spree ranting on how much I hate that shit and that pop music is all the same, blah, blah, blah...


----------



## SenorDingDong (Sep 20, 2011)

etcetera said:


> What sets the limit for a career I can choose and expect to have the right to make a living from?
> 
> Also, if I walk into a furniture store or a bakery or a clothing store or whatever, and see an item I like, and go home and make myself a perfect replica of it, is it really stealing? All ethical questions aside, it's difficult to argue that what I'm doing is _stealing_. It sounds to me like you have such a strong ethical objection to downloading that you're willing to forgo logic and reasoning in the name of defending your values. You can repeat the label 'thief' all you want, but it won't make it an accurate description for downloading music. The potential sales idea is a fallacy, and a pretty blatant one at that.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that downloading music is necessarily ethical/right, I'm simply pointing out the mistake in calling it theft and trying to oversimplify an inherently complex issue.



Unlike furniture, you must first steal the music to create a replica. 
You can in no way simply hit a create button on your computer that will form an entire track out of nothing. 

It has nothing to do with ethics. There is a reason it is called _ illegally_ downloading. Law is not ethics, law is law.

You can try to condescend how you will, but either way, according to the _law_, you are completely wrong. My ethics have no place on the internet. I keep those to myself, as people such as yourself will undoubtedly create a thousand opposing views full of piss and vinegar just to spite.

Potential sales aside, the music industry that all metal heads complain about constantly is being felled from within by the 'fans.'

Then again, there will always be a group of people who think they are above the law. This is a blatant display of those exact people.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 20, 2011)

Jstring said:


> EDIT: How is it some people can be so against plagiarism, the act of stealing someones music and claiming it as your own work, but so supportive of stealing music, and claiming it as your own property?



I love that thought in particular.


----------



## eaeolian (Sep 20, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> Seems to me every joe schmo can and is recording an album, and almost none of them are awesome.



There. Fixed that for you. A lower barrier to entry has had some positives, but it's also resulted in a flood of very mediocre (or just plain bad) releases.


----------



## goherpsNderp (Sep 20, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> There. Fixed that for you. A lower barrier to entry has had some positives, but it's also resulted in a flood of very mediocre (or just plain bad) releases.



this.

don't have a producer sitting with you through it all to almost write the thing for you. gotta do it all on your own.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 20, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> I love that thought in particular.



Well, the answer is simple: if you're a fan and someone else plagiarises the idea, you will be offended due to your protective feelings over that band you love, the very same band that stealing music from is absolutely alright because it's you, the "fan", doing it and you express your appreciation in Facebook, Twitter and forums, which justifies everything in spite of giving the artists basically zero money.

Also, while merch plays a role in giving musicians a complimentary source of income, the touring argument is actually false for the most part, and in this day and age of musicians getting paid for the solo artist to have a gigging band - madness, I say! - having zero or negligible income from the songs you had to invest work and money on isn't going to help unless you are quite wealthy to begin with. You only start making real money from touring after a bit and assuming favourable conditions with a growing fanbase, or as a hired gun for an established artist.

Also yes, it is evident that the ease of recording made it easier for very mediocre things to be released, which in turn generates a hell of a lot of offer. Again, I'm all for streaming tracks to know what's coming.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 20, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> Also, while merch plays a role in giving musicians a complimentary source of income, the touring argument is actually false for the most part, and in this day and age of musicians getting paid for the solo artist to have a gigging band - madness, I say! - having zero or negligible income from the songs you had to invest work and money on isn't going to help unless you are quite wealthy to begin with. You only start making real money from touring after a bit and assuming favourable conditions with a growing fanbase, or as a hired gun for an established artist.



This, people do not realize touring has almost no profit margin.

Most of the time its breaking even at best.

I remember a while ago there was a great pie chart that showed an average independent/small label band's touring expenses and profit, as well as compared overall profit between albums, merch, ticket sales.

I wish I knew where it was...I love pie


----------



## petereanima (Sep 20, 2011)

I dont call it "touring" anymore....within the band, we nowadays speak of "expensive holidays without showering".


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2011)

I think people fail to realize that we dont really need more bands. Hell, i'd love to sit on the sidewalk and chew gumballs all day. I could bitch about how people dont pay me to do it, or i could realize its just not needed.

There are tons of people (like cloudkicker, agorphobic nosebleed ect...) that make music from home. I think taking money out of the equation makes music more honost. It makes people play because they love to.

If your lucky enough to have enough demand to tour, then make you money off the tour and merch.

But IMO, its just a teenage boy dream to expect that you are going to be a professional musician that makes a good living(playing your original music i mean)

Oh, And i dont need justification to download stuff and have it not be stealing. It doesnt bother me at all 

IF YOU CANT MAKE MONEY AT IT, THEN LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD AND GET A REAL JOB LIKE THE REST OF US.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

Some really amazingly poor arguments in this thread.  I'm not going to single anyone out, but it's quite shocking seeing some of these things on a forum comprised of musicians. 

The music industry is changing yes, and bands and their labels are slowly but surely getting to grips with that. This doesn't give people an excuse to continue the selfish behaviour of recklessly downloading everything. Just because a forest is on fire, doesn't mean you should set more fires of your own. It's all about being responsible and respectful. 

It seems people are pretty selfish and ignorant as to the wider issues they're causing. You don't see it as stealing as you're not taking a unique object from someone. Doesn't change the fact that it is. 


As for Randy saying a lot of crazy shit, I find it hard to imagine none of you guys have done that.  This is the internet, we often say random shit that is on our minds that we may regret later. I've done it, Randy has done it. We're all human.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Just because a forest is on fire, doesn't mean you should set more fires of your own.



I'm pretty sure its already a burned cinder at this point.


----------



## Diggy (Sep 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> As for Randy saying a lot of crazy shit, I find it hard to imagine none of you guys have done that.  This is the internet, we often say random shit that is on our minds that we may regret later. I've done it, Randy has done it. We're all human.




LOL... touche


----------



## BMU (Sep 20, 2011)

avenger said:


> A vast majority of metal bands would have a small local to zero following if not for people having downloaded their stuff.


'Tis verily. There's no market, that is all.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

Jstring said:


> You choose to go to work every day. You chose what job you took. You don't think you did? You applied and accepted. That is choice. You could easily stay home and your bills would go unpaid and you would be evicted.
> 
> Why are musicians any different? They chose their career. They work just as hard as everyone else. Now they have to work much, much harder than everyone else, do to people like _you_.
> 
> ...



No need to be a dick man, completely unwarranted. You have your opinion and I have mine, there's no need to get so smarmy.

That said, I see your logic entirely and to a certain point I agree, but what you're asking for is the reversal of time - it's never going to happen.

Everyone knows music is a tough business to get by in, anyone that doesn't is a fool. Being poor in music is an occupational hazard. Choosing to continue a career in music is a choice, the same as it was to persue a career in music knowing the hazards (and through a certain degree of luck "making it" - again working in music and being an idol is a privilege rather than a right if you ask me). 

No-one could've predicted that this is the way it would go but now this is the way it is. So look to the future. I'm not saying that I'm happy with the issue, what I'm saying is that while I'm not proud of it I have succumbed to, I didn't choose for it to be this way either. If downloading was to be taken away tomorrow - bravo, hurrah, great. We'd all be buying CDs again just like the old times. But it's not possible for that to happen now, so we have to look at what it is possible and focus on the solution rather than the problem.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No need to be a dick man, completely unwarranted. You have your opinion and I have mine, there's no need to get so smarmy.
> 
> That said, I see your logic entirely and to a certain point I agree, but what you're asking for is the reversal of time - it's never going to happen.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Boo hooing about how the senerio isnt ethicial or right isnt going to change it. The majority of the world runs on practices that arnt ethical or right. Its the "what are you going to do about it now" that needs to be enacted instead of crying because the status quo isnt the same anymore.

I also think the industry needs to realize that technology is cheaper now as well. You can get an amazing recording from a home studio, so they dont really need to spend as much(actually a fraction) as they did on production.


----------



## TheSixthWheel (Sep 20, 2011)

The media format is obsolete, the cost is overpriced, and when the fuck else do you buy something in full without knowing what it contains? That's a lucky dip, and I stopped taking part in that shit when I was a kid.

Loads of people who moan about others downloading their music and call it stealing are quite often the same people who only have ONE ignorant, thumb-up-their-ass way of distributing their albums - super high priced CDs, albeit through contractual obligations, but still the same result: Nobody buying their shit. Take the recent Opeth release as an example. Many have blindly bought the album and been disappointed by its direction. They might not have done their homework, and have been expecting something entirely different. But because bands can and SHOULD be able to do what they want, some albums can be more appealing than others.

When more bands avoid record deals and embrace the "pay whatever you think it's worth" option, you'll see them recouping more money as a result. I can't WAIT for record companies to become a thing of the past which we tell our children about, and be met with confused expressions as to why they lasted so long.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 20, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No-one could've predicted that this is the way it would go but now this is the way it is. So look to the future. I'm not saying that I'm happy with the issue, what I'm saying is that while I'm not proud of it I have succumbed to, I didn't choose for it to be this way either. If downloading was to be taken away tomorrow - bravo, hurrah, great. We'd all be buying CDs again just like the old times. But it's not possible for that to happen now, so we have to look at what it is possible and focus on the solution rather than the problem.



I completely agree with this sentiment. The business model for making music does have to change with the times and it has certainly been slow to do so. I only object to the sentiment some have expressed in this thread that appears that there is a justification in downloading a copy of a retail product that the person who did the downloading did not pay for.

For what its worth I do think the labels need to realize their product is over-priced and compensate. They should also have easy and secure online versions available for purchase that have variable bit-rates and a licensing model which gives you rights to listen on an album or song basis, regardless of the format. Microsoft uses a similar model for their OS licensing...they don't care how you get the OS, so long as you have a license to use it.

/EDIT - to further that OS analogy, Microsoft also allows you to buy a license after the fact and doesn't sue you for using the product before without a license. It seems they have the idea that the license can be retro-active. I think record companies would have come off a lot better if, when they were actively prosecuting people for downloading music, that the culprit was given the option of purchasing the music at the current market value without having any other penalties assessed.


----------



## ridner (Sep 20, 2011)

I download music all the time. I use it mainly as a way to check out new bands. I can't afford to go buy a CD from every band that I have heard about. If the download turns out to be solid, I will either buy it or support the band elsewhere - merch, concert tickets, etc. I also download leaks from bands I love as I am totally impatient and want to hear the new stuff ASAP. In these cases I have usually already pre-ordered the album or am planning to buy it locally the day of release. If not for file sharing, etc - there are tons of bands I never would have been exposed to. I think it is a good tool and if done properly can actually help a band/artist.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2011)

MikeH said:


> How did I know this thread would turn into this?



Into what? Seems like a normal discussion to me. On a discussion forum


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> There. Fixed that for you. A lower barrier to entry has had some positives, but it's also resulted in a flood of very mediocre (or just plain bad) releases.



If .1 of the stuff comming out is good, it will still be more than there was because there is so much comming out.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 20, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If .1 of the stuff comming out is good, it will still be more than there was because there is so much comming out.


 
I'll be stealing this line and using it later tonight...


----------



## Cynic (Sep 20, 2011)

Blythe sounds like a crybaby.


----------



## I Voyager (Sep 20, 2011)

On a somewhat related note, considering this whole thing was started by Randy Blythe, I was reading Mark Morton's Twitter and he said that they used 7 strings on the new LOG album.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

I Voyager said:


> On a somewhat related note, considering this whole thing was started by Randy Blythe, I was reading Mark Morton's Twitter and he said that they used 7 strings on the new LOG album.



Yeah I was gonna post a thread about that, couldn't be assed though.  Tis epic news though, excited to hear the groove.


----------



## Necris (Sep 20, 2011)

I buy plenty of music every month but if a band decides to call it quits because they don't feel they're making enough money from album sales I honestly couldn't care less.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 20, 2011)

ry_z said:


> This.
> 
> Every time someone compares downloading music to stealing a physical object, I can't help but ignore them, because they really don't understand how the technology works.
> 
> ...





ridner said:


> I download music all the time. I use it mainly as a way to check out new bands. I can't afford to go buy a CD from every band that I have heard about. If the download turns out to be solid, I will either buy it or support the band elsewhere - merch, concert tickets, etc. I also download leaks from bands I love as I am totally impatient and want to hear the new stuff ASAP. In these cases I have usually already pre-ordered the album or am planning to buy it locally the day of release. If not for file sharing, etc - there are tons of bands I never would have been exposed to. I think it is a good tool and if done properly can actually help a band/artist.



This and this, dammit. You should be able to hear something before you buy it. File sharing is a great tool to get music out there, and I will always download music and listen to it several times before buying it. That said I wont hesitate at all to buy a CD or shirt if the music is good enough.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 20, 2011)

I Voyager said:


> On a somewhat related note, considering this whole thing was started by Randy Blythe, I was reading Mark Morton's Twitter and he said that they used 7 strings on the new LOG album.



Very awesome news.


----------



## kung_fu (Sep 20, 2011)

I Voyager said:


> On a somewhat related note, considering this whole thing was started by Randy Blythe, I was reading Mark Morton's Twitter and he said that they used 7 strings on the new LOG album.



He best not be djenting. What would Randy think?


----------



## djpharoah (Sep 20, 2011)

*Let's keep this thread going w/o OT memes and more mature discussion. Thanks.*


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 20, 2011)

eaeolian said:


> There. Fixed that for you. A lower barrier to entry has had some positives, but it's also resulted in a flood of very mediocre (or just plain bad) releases.


 
 That low barrier was also a rite of passage for those who have been deemed mediocre by label higher-ups. All the bands rejected were given to options: to lift up their game and get better, or to give up entirely. There has been plenty of success stories as a result of the former.


----------



## sell2792 (Sep 20, 2011)

...People still pay for music?

Seriously though, I'll buy local or small bands CDs at shows and stuff, but thats about it. And with a smart phone and lap top, I can just YouTube everything anyways.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Sep 20, 2011)

I like this quote from the blog:



> The bottom line is that albums will leak and people will download music. You can rage against that fact like this fellow is doing, or you can be smart and change your business model to accommodate it. No matter how much you yell and scream, people aren&#8217;t going to change their behavior&#8230; it&#8217;s the people yelling that need to change. That requires some creativity, but it&#8217;s necessary.




I currently work at a shoe warehouse, we get people who steal all the time, shitty people who steal aren't going to stop anytime soon so the company sets aside money etc to account for such a margin of losses.

Also my main job as well as all the employees is technically customer service, but we never actually get to do any, because women in retail are fucking asshole slobs who leave shit everywhere and make huge messes then expect you to clean up after them. So how does the business cope? We spend all of our time cleaning their messes while providing customer service when we can.

We could yell at these shitty examples of human beings until we're blue in the face but it won't make them clean up after themselves etc, so we learn how to cope with it as a business because its what needs to be done if we want to continue selling shoes. You can't change your target market, you can just accommodate it. 

Industries change... the music industry has NEVER had a good way of doing things the artists have always been getting dicked and now the customers are dicking the corporations as much as the corporations were dicking the musicians in the first place and people are getting upset.

In the end the victim has always been the same person.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't think the responsibility is completely on the music industry, I do think consumers need to be told off and reminded of what they're doing. It's fairly evident from all the people who message Bulb saying 'oh you must be totally rich' that many have no clue of the financial implications of a life in music are. People assume that popularity = money when it's not that easy. I saw a band who posted their budgeting for an album and tour to give people an idea of what they made and had to live on. Can't remember who it was, but it really made you appreciate just how dedicated you have to be in order to condemn yourself to such financial uncertainty. I mean I thought I had an idea before then, but that really opened my eyes. 

People need to be told the effects of what they're doing to the bands they like, and likewise labels need to realise there are a lot of selfish dicks out there who just don't care and will download regardless. There's no single way of dealing with this, the industry and the consumers need to change their ways and it will take years before things start 'working out'. Consumers will want to shift the blame onto labels in order to justify their own behaviour, and labels will want to attack consumers because they feel like they're being fucked.


----------



## orakle (Sep 20, 2011)

evolution disturbs




period


----------



## ivancic1al (Sep 20, 2011)

sell2792 said:


> ...People still pay for music?
> 
> Seriously though, I'll buy local or small bands CDs at shows and stuff, but thats about it. And with a smart phone and lap top, I can just YouTube everything anyways.



Careful dude....


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I saw a band who posted their budgeting for an album and tour to give people an idea of what they made and had to live on. Can't remember who it was, but it really made you appreciate just how dedicated you have to be in order to condemn yourself to such financial uncertainty. I mean I thought I had an idea before then, but that really opened my eyes.



Dedicated is one way to put it...foolish is another 



vampiregenocide said:


> Consumers will want to shift the blame onto labels in order to justify their own behaviour, and labels will want to attack consumers because they feel like they're being fucked.



I'm not sure that it's a matter of blame. Do those who pirate music blame the labels? I think it's just a matter of the ease and lack of risk. And I don't think labels are "attacking" the consumers. They are trying to make money in an industry that is broken and inefficient. Unless all the labels are colluding, then none of them should be making too much money because they are all in competition with each other. That's how a free market works. Labels can't completely screw the consumers without screwing themselves - another label will eventually come along and offer the product for a cheaper price. The consumer has now found an easy, albeit illegal, method of getting the product they want.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 20, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> I don't think the responsibility is completely on the music industry, I do think consumers need to be told off and reminded of what they're doing. It's fairly evident from all the people who message Bulb saying 'oh you must be totally rich' that many have no clue of the financial implications of a life in music are. People assume that popularity = money when it's not that easy. I saw a band who posted their budgeting for an album and tour to give people an idea of what they made and had to live on. Can't remember who it was, but it really made you appreciate just how dedicated you have to be in order to condemn yourself to such financial uncertainty. I mean I thought I had an idea before then, but that really opened my eyes.
> 
> People need to be told the effects of what they're doing to the bands they like, and likewise labels need to realise there are a lot of selfish dicks out there who just don't care and will download regardless. There's no single way of dealing with this, the industry and the consumers need to change their ways and it will take years before things start 'working out'. Consumers will want to shift the blame onto labels in order to justify their own behaviour, and labels will want to attack consumers because they feel like they're being fucked.



So you just buy albums without having listened to them first?


----------



## Blind Theory (Sep 20, 2011)

This is quite simple, do you love a band? I love All Shall Perish. I BUY their CD's. I want them to continue to make music I like. One of my favorite bands, Mutiny Within, got fucked over because of file sharing/illegal downloading. They got signed to Roadrunner, came out with an AMAZING CD that was revolutionary, in my opinion, and because people illegally downloaded it, they didn't sell enough CD's and got dropped. If people had bought it, they would have put out a new CD by now and started a revolution in metal. So if you think it is okay to do this stuff, shut the fuck up and get real. The people who think it is okay to do this are going to kill the music industry.


Edit: thanks to whoever neg repped me telling me to "eat shit faggot." That's real mature.


----------



## Double A (Sep 20, 2011)

I would like to point out to those that neg repped me for giving my opinion on the state of the music industry that I never once said that I condone illegal downloading. I was simply stating that things are being irrevocably changed, by that I mean everything we know is being changed and the structures and ways we have always done things are beginning to not apply. We are smack dab in the middle of it where no one really knows what is going on and quite frankly it is scaring the shit out of everyone. And I don't just mean the music industry... but getting back to it, I have a feeling that with new technology and with the ability to self promote and advertise on the internet that record labels will become completely marginalized and in most cases will probably cease to exist. Basically they are there to promote you, pay for your recording (well, more like put you into complete debt through an advance) and technology is basically letting the artist do all of this themselves. There are some things Labels can do that going alone can't, obviously, but success can happen with the right exposure, ask The Heavy or Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeroes, and you can still be successful while embracing it, ask Talib Kweli, Pearl Jam, Radiohead etc. 

Of course the industry is in bad shape right now and illegal downloading is a big factor in that, but the same record companies and some of the artists that defend them share a lot of the blame for that as well. It was a stale business being run by the same people that ran it decades ago who got caught with their pants down. It is just change and the smart ones realized quickly that things are not going back to the way they were.

On another note, Red Seas Fire gets my utmost respect. Obviously buying a t-shirt is not the overall answer but it is at least something and I think (and they must it seems) that the exposure this will get them will be more beneficial. They put out an awesome product, got tons of exposure (I HOPE!) and probably got a lot of people to buy t-shirts for being so fucking cool about the whole thing. And the best part about it is that _the music matters!_, as it should and it speaks for itself. This is how it should have been all along, I think we all got so used to the ubiquitous giant presence of the Labels that music as art has almost been lost. We got numb to it and to me the popularity of tv shows like American Idol and The Voice should show us how much of a product it has all become.

Neg rep me all you want but to me, as Biohazard once so aptly put it, music is for you and me, not the fucking industry.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 20, 2011)

Blind Theory said:


> This is quite simple, do you love a band? I love All Shall Perish. I BUY their CD's. I want them to continue to make music I like. One of my favorite bands, Mutiny Within, got fucked over because of file sharing/illegal downloading. They got signed to Roadrunner, came out with an AMAZING CD that was revolutionary, in my opinion, and because people illegally downloaded it, they didn't sell enough CD's and got dropped. If people had bought it, they would have put out a new CD by now and started a revolution in metal. So if you think it is okay to do this stuff, shut the fuck up and get real. The people who think it is okay to do this are going to kill the music industry.



This is a fallacy, correlation doesn't imply causation etc. How do you know it didn't sell well because people downloaded it? How do you know everyone who downloaded it would have bought it anyway? Perhaps the CD wasn't as amazing as you thought it was. Again, people are oversimplifying an inherently complex issue.


----------



## EdgeC (Sep 20, 2011)

This thread reminded me of this:


----------



## Rick (Sep 20, 2011)

Osiris said:


> So you just buy albums without having listened to them first?



I do, especially to support bands that I love. Plus, you can go to iTunes and listen to the songs before you make your decision to buy it or not, I don't understand people's issue with just doing that instead of downloading it first. 



Blind Theory said:


> This is quite simple, do you love a band? I love All Shall Perish. I BUY their CD's. I want them to continue to make music I like. One of my favorite bands, Mutiny Within, got fucked over because of file sharing/illegal downloading. They got signed to Roadrunner, came out with an AMAZING CD that was revolutionary, in my opinion, and because people illegally downloaded it, they didn't sell enough CD's and got dropped. If people had bought it, they would have put out a new CD by now and started a revolution in metal. So if you think it is okay to do this stuff, shut the fuck up and get real. The people who think it is okay to do this are going to kill the music industry.


----------



## yingmin (Sep 20, 2011)

etcetera said:


> This is a fallacy, correlation doesn't imply causation etc. How do you know it didn't sell well because people downloaded it? How do you know everyone who downloaded it would have bought it anyway? Perhaps the CD wasn't as amazing as you thought it was. Again, people are oversimplifying an inherently complex issue.



To say nothing of the fallacy that there is any way to know how many people downloaded the album illegally, and of those people, how many didn't then buy the album.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Sep 21, 2011)

Osiris said:


> So you just buy albums without having listened to them first?



Sorry, I had to laugh when I saw this.

I'm not meaning to insult you, it just reminded me that a little while ago, you HAD to buy the album before you listened to it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

Blind Theory said:


> This is quite simple, do you love a band? I love All Shall Perish. I BUY their CD's. I want them to continue to make music I like. One of my favorite bands, Mutiny Within, got fucked over because of file sharing/illegal downloading. They got signed to Roadrunner, came out with an AMAZING CD that was revolutionary, in my opinion, and because people illegally downloaded it, they didn't sell enough CD's and got dropped. If people had bought it, they would have put out a new CD by now and started a revolution in metal. So if you think it is okay to do this stuff, shut the fuck up and get real. The people who think it is okay to do this are going to kill the music industry.



Dude what are you smoking? I want some.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Sep 21, 2011)

Is it me or does it seem like most of the complaining about illegal downloads comes from really successful artists?


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 21, 2011)

Blind Theory said:


> This is quite simple, do you love a band? I love All Shall Perish. I BUY their CD's. I want them to continue to make music I like. One of my favorite bands, Mutiny Within, got fucked over because of file sharing/illegal downloading. They got signed to Roadrunner, came out with an AMAZING CD that was revolutionary, in my opinion, and because people illegally downloaded it, they didn't sell enough CD's and got dropped. If people had bought it, they would have put out a new CD by now and started a revolution in metal. So if you think it is okay to do this stuff, shut the fuck up and get real. The people who think it is okay to do this are going to kill the music industry.



...what is this supposed "revolution in metal" you speak of?

Mutiny Within shouldnt have signed with roadrunner, that was their problem. 
Just as many people bought that album, and just as many illegally downloaded it as any other band.


----------



## BMU (Sep 21, 2011)

I've been coming down on the objective, cold hard reality side of this debate (the market is too small.) But on a personal level I must say I would've felt very shitty if I'd pirated an album by say, Scar Symmetry or Muenzner or Xerath when I could afford to buy it.

People right up there with the most talented imo, making music I love, who can -just about- scrape a living as I understand it. There's no fix, but it is a shame.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

BMU said:


> There's no fix *yet*, but it is a shame.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 21, 2011)

what ever happened to having a job, but(and this must be a revolutionary concept) NOT trying to make a living at being a musician. How bout making music because you love to and dont worry about getting paid and trying to live off the money?
What a horrible world that would be.


----------



## linchpin (Sep 21, 2011)

I still don't see how it's stealing when nothing actually went missing...

But seriously, i still buy CDs from bands i KNOW won't try to slip me a nasty surprise with their 'new direction', i know when Fear Factory releases an album, I know what i'm gonna get and that's me off to the store without even the need to hear anything, but there are those who can't make up their own mind or jump to a new trend which really is annoying to hear and know... THOSE bands NEED to be heard first before the CD is bought....... its not 1998 anymore when i use to feel shitty about buying something that wasn't what i wanted.


----------



## Bloody_Inferno (Sep 21, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> what ever happened to having a job, but(and this must be a revolutionary concept) NOT trying to make a living at being a musician. How bout making music because you love to and dont worry about getting paid and trying to live off the money?
> What a horrible world that would be.



Already going through that. Full time job, part time guitar teaching, 2 active bands, 2 side bands (and a heap of others on the side). But it comes at a cost. A lot of my income has to go to these bands like instruments, rehearsal money, petrol to get to rehearsals... and that's not even getting to the meatier costs like funding an album, merch and a full scale tour. Sure I have to eat terrible cheap food, live at home and at times mooch of close friends and family members, but music is what I love to do, and my closest friends and loved ones understand that. And as hard as the situation as I am now, I'd be damned to be otherwise, and I certainly won't allow this "we don't need any new bands" logic to stop me from doing what I love. 

And it's not gonna stop others either. We need new bands, we can't just live of existing bands and their past glories. Humans thrive on new things. And sure there's a ton of mediocrity out there. But the good bands are the bands that survive and strive on against all odds, love what they do, believe in their music, and feel that it's good enough to share to others. Our favorite bands (regardless of genre), were the result of their passion for music. None of them just want to work 9-5 and play on the side. Seriously, without these kind of musicians, music as we know it will cease to be awesome. 

With all that said and done, it would be nice to see at least some of the hard work we're doing pay off. It kinda sucks when you know you've invested so much of your time and hard earned cash on your art, only to know that you're not getting any of it back at all. Is a little reward after hard work asking for too much? I also find it amusing how fans who download a band's music, then have the audacity to admit it to the band themselves with complete lack of tact. I'm pretty sure the guys in Periphery have grown thicker skin just reading through those kind of posts from their fans. 

Alas, such is the life of a musician I guess....


----------



## BMU (Sep 21, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> what ever happened to having a job, but(and this must be a revolutionary concept) NOT trying to make a living at being a musician. How bout making music because you love to and dont worry about getting paid and trying to live off the money?
> What a horrible world that would be.


Yes, that obvious fact is well accepted and most of these talented musicians do in fact have jobs. 

But since some of them are literally the best in the world at what they do, it *would* be nice if they got rewarded somewhat better. Because becoming that good takes more time than it takes to qualify as, say, an engineer.

Would THAT be such a horrible world?


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 21, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> what ever happened to having a job, but(and this must be a revolutionary concept) NOT trying to make a living at being a musician. How bout making music because you love to and dont worry about getting paid and trying to live off the money?
> What a horrible world that would be.



THIS OMG THIS 

This is how I've felt about music since I started playing.
I dont want to make money off what I do, I want to share it with people that will enjoy it.
And if they don't, its no loss, because I enjoy it.

Take example, my atmospheric/ambient project. All synths, bass, layered textured sounds, and lot of good heavy drums. I dont expect anyone to like it, (I'll post it here when I'm done with the album regardless) But I LOVE making it, its a kind of music that money could not equate to how I feel while listening to it.

Shouldnt all musicians aim for that? If you make a paycheck, then great, thats just an added bonus.
The musicians that get paid the most usually dont deserve it anyway. 

And fans that really appreciate a band's/musicians work, 99.9% of the time I would say support them in some way or another. I have over 80 band shirts in my closet, and cant count all the shows Ive been to. I buy cd's only if its an album that really moved me, and I go out of my way to find certain albums. 
But I'd say 97% of everything I listen to today is because of downloading albums. I wouldnt be playing instruments if it werent for that, nor would I have an open mind to music.

I'd rather someone appreciate something I do with the sincerity of their heart than their wallet first.

 ka-ching


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

RevDrucifer said:


> Sorry, I had to laugh when I saw this.
> 
> I'm not meaning to insult you, it just reminded me that a little while ago, you HAD to buy the album before you listened to it.


 
Or tape it off the radio while some douche morning zoo DJ talked over the intro and all the way up to the beginning of the singing...


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> what ever happened to having a job, but(and this must be a revolutionary concept) NOT trying to make a living at being a musician. How bout making music because you love to and dont worry about getting paid and trying to live off the money?
> What a horrible world that would be.


 
Isn't this a similar argument to how football was better back in the day when they played for the love of the game and not because of the money? (e.g. Wasn't it the old 49'ers RB Hugh McElhenny that used to deliver ice in the off season, because back then they all used to have regular jobs too?) Now you have guys like Fat Albert that get $100M and that's not enough to motivate them to play?

/tangent

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get paid for your intellectual property and for you're efforts, but if you're getting in music for the $$$ good luck with that. 

I'd leave my job in a heartbeat if I could make 1/10th of that playing music!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Sorry what's wrong with wanting to make a career in music and actually getting paid? Shouldn't have to do a regular job as well just so people can get your shit for free.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Sorry what's wrong with wanting to make a career in music and actually getting paid? Shouldn't have to do a regular job as well just so people can get your shit for free.


 
Nothing wrong with that to me! I just don't think that I would tell my kids to study their modes so they can grow up and buy papa a house some day...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> Nothing wrong with that to me! I just don't think that I would tell my kids to study their modes so they can grow up and buy papa a house some day...



It's definitely a risky business to get into, as evident from this thread making money can be difficult. However if you play your cards right there is no reason you can't be successful. People work hard to get into the career they want, and so say a musician should do his work for free because it should be completely sincere and not for money just doesn't make sense for me. What about photographers? Painters? Should they work for free? No. Providing art that people like is a service that people should pay for. Whether you let that money govern how you do your work is down to you, but there is nothing wrong with making an honest living from music.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Sorry what's wrong with wanting to make a career in music and actually getting paid? Shouldn't have to do a regular job as well just so people can get your shit for free.



Exactly. 

I'm really curious about how many of you who seem to purport that being a musician shouldn't be a paid occupation have actually had to leave out on your own, win your own bread, day in, day out and scratch a decent enough existence out of life that you can support a family. I have, and let me tell you, if I could take my hobby and make it my occupation, I would in a heartbeat. I would do it if I could just replace the income I have from my current job, but until I can reliably count on having a certain amount of income, a hobby it must stay.

Another point on that...do you think John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Guthrie Govan or any other guitarist in their caliber could develop their kind of insane technique while working 60 hours a week and having at best, 3 hours a day to practice (assuming they didn't have wives to please? Hell no. It just isn't happening. SO if you don't already develop that technique while you live at home and mooch off your parents (assuming they are willing to let you do so), its simply not going to happen for you. I've had to give up on the idea of developing serious chops because I can only devote so much time in a day to music.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 21, 2011)

"Don't try make a living off music" , "downloading music exposes people to the songs and gets you recognition for more gigs" and "music is for the people" are among the finest fallacies here so far.

It's really worth insisting on a few key points here: when I make music and I'm making it available via streaming to the public on a number of different sites, I AM making music for the people. Recording copies of the high quality material without purchasing it, however, and in spite of the insistence on the topics of "you keep the original" and "it's not material", stealing - the definition encompasses a lot of things, and you will be taking possession of something against the owner's will. Music is made and legally owned by the artists, regardless of how they publish it.

The music is not yours to keep a copy of, it's mine. I don't give a shit about your false pretensions of culture for all, because it is already available to all via streaming. Owning a copy is a privilege, not a right, a privilege that, when required by the music's creator, must be paid for. Lossless audio of anyone's song, if not specifically said to be going for free, is a luxury. Luxury costs money. If I believe I'm entitled to read for free, as it is quite an elevated form of culture, can I just copy books then? I promise to be a good boy and buy them if I like them. Eventually. Maybe I should kick the museum's door down and go watch an exhibition. Art belongs to the people, right? Why should I pay for their maintenance. It's not like Picasso got paid for his paintings, even! Oh, wait.

Fact is that I can do nothing to prevent illegal downloading. An equal fact is that you are stealing the music and embellishing the act with preposterous arguments in some cases. It is also a fact that, when you download illegally, you are acquiring a luxury you aren't entitled to, and that addition to your collection means the artist gets absolutely nothing of what he should and is legally entitled to. No self-justification will change that.

tl;dr - you may make up excuses to justify the act and fiddle with semantics in the most clever ways, but the truth is that it is illegal and against the artist's will, hence making it wrong and unlawful possession of a copy which, legally, you have no right to. You are harming the artist's finantial well being and you know it.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

Best thread ever. Laced with bias from all parties, but at least it's an interesting read.

At this point though, we're going in circles. Dwelling on what it is doesn't help anyone. 

I would like to point out though that despite the conviction behind a lot of these posts, no one argument holds more weight than the other. The legality side of it is a non-issue, or do you agree with every law there is?

At the end of the day, we're all just arguing for our own purpose.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 21, 2011)

Can someone provide some actual statistics regarding pirated music? We have a huge thread about how harmful pirating is to musicians and to the industry but I haven't actually seen any evidence that supports that notion. If it's buried in the thread somewhere and I missed it, then I apologize. Otherwise, I would love to see some numbers...


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 21, 2011)

> Best thread ever. Laced with bias from all parties, but at least it's an interesting read.



If you look at the biasing, you'll see people who are in the music industry one way or another, and people who attempt to find a way to justify stealing with the immaterial nature of online data. It is quite obvious why this division occurs - on one side, you have people getting directly or indirectly raped by loss of revenue due to so many people finding it hard or refusing to use a source of streaming (this is really the VERY hard to understand part, for me), on the other, you have those that are downloading the material illegally and attempt to bend words and logic to find a way to mitigate the nature of the actions.

Let's face it - both sides are just facets of humanity's many interesting traits, some better then others.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> Can someone provide some actual statistics regarding pirated music? We have a huge thread about how harmful pirating is to musicians and to the industry but I haven't actually seen any evidence that supports that notion. If it's buried in the thread somewhere and I missed it, then I apologize. Otherwise, I would love to see some numbers...



I wouldn't even trust numbers. We're all entitled to our opinions on this, berating others or trying to claim to have a more valid argument from either side is essentially futile. Can we not all agree that something needs to be done about it rather than flinging shit?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> If you look at the biasing, you'll see people who are in the music industry one way or another, and people who attempt to find a way to justify stealing with the immaterial nature of online data. It is quite obvious why this division occurs - on one side, you have people getting directly or indirectly raped by loss of revenue due to so many people finding it hard or refusing to use a source of streaming (this is really the VERY hard to understand part, for me), on the other, you have those that are downloading the material illegally and attempt to bend words and logic to find a way to mitigate the nature of the actions.
> 
> Let's face it - both sides are just facets of humanity's many interesting traits, some better then others.



The only part of your post I take issue with is "bending words and logic", the rest gets a thumbs up.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> "Don't try make a living off music" , "downloading music exposes people to the songs and gets you recognition for more gigs" and "music is for the people" are among the finest fallacies here so far.
> 
> It's really worth insisting on a few key points here: when I make music and I'm making it available via streaming to the public on a number of different sites, I AM making music for the people. Recording copies of the high quality material without purchasing it, however, and in spite of the insistence on the topics of "you keep the original" and "it's not material", stealing - the definition encompasses a lot of things, and you will be taking possession of something against the owner's will. Music is made and legally owned by the artists, regardless of how they publish it.
> 
> ...



I was hoping you'd post here.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 21, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I wouldn't even trust numbers. We're all entitled to our opinions on this, berating others or trying to claim to have a more valid argument from either side is essentially futile. Can we not all agree that something needs to be done about it rather than flinging shit?



Basically, there are many points I'd really like to see developed, namely what a pro-download (half-arsed definition, I know  ) individual has to suggest. Saying I shall steal from the industry but stealing from independent artists is, in itself, a contradiction, for instance - there are cases, like mine, in which the "industry" is me, Mattayus taking care of mixing and mastering, and my mate and web designer Kalen, and most are even smaller than this, like the amazing Cloudkicker; where do you draw the line?

What can the music industry / artists do to convince you to pay for said music? A download of my entire album is a drink in many pubs, using my own example. As such, why is going to the pub to grab said drink not seen as a financial burden but a one-time payment for an entire album you get to keep permanently such a big deal?

Give me true reasoning and suggestions and I'll be the very first to debate them as I always do! 



Scar Symmetry said:


> The only part of your post I take issue with is "bending words and logic", the rest gets a thumbs up.



That part is not a personal attack - many were quite honest and said the justification is "I don't want to spend all that money" or something that, although I can't agree with it, which is fine -, whereas others defied what is clearly written, namely the definition of illegal and the like.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> It's definitely a risky business to get into, as evident from this thread making money can be difficult. However if you play your cards right there is no reason you can't be successful. People work hard to get into the career they want, and so say a musician should do his work for free because it should be completely sincere and not for money just doesn't make sense for me. What about photographers? Painters? Should they work for free? No. Providing art that people like is a service that people should pay for. Whether you let that money govern how you do your work is down to you, but there is nothing wrong with making an honest living from music.


 
I'm not saying anything about musicians not _deserving_ to get paid. I simply made an analogy of playing "for the love of music" to the NFL and playing "for the love of the game". I never stated any opinion other than if you're getting into music for the money then good luck with that - and I still 100% back my statement. I never said that is the way it _should_ be... just that it is the way it is.

Mordacain better stated my point when he said that it's awfully difficult to be an "adult" (and all that goes with that - family, bills, etc) and play music for a living, unless you are one of the lucky few that gets noticed and make it big... or you still live at home and can devote your resources to a music career.

*I don't see anyone arguing whether musicians should be paid here. *

The argument appears to be:

1. whether the record companies / management / etc should be paid as lucratively as they did in their heyday (i.e. this isn't about the musicians)

2. whether piracy / illegal downloading is actually affecting the monetary gain of musicians, or whether it is a false notion being promalgated by the companies to get you to stop pirating (i.e. since we don't have stats and 85% of stats are BS anyways, how do we know if it's really affecting musicians)

3. is piracy the issue, or is it the larger current business model failing/outdated (e.g. newspaper industry killed by internet)

4. moral / ethical issue for some (i.e. I don't think it should be illegal, thus I'm going to do it aways)

Confounding factor - I can make a near-studio quality album in my house now with the available equip and software, so do I even need a bloated record label or can I just make my own Cds/T-shirts/etc, tour, and self advertise.

Not my opinions, just what I see from reading the previous posts... ok, let's get back to arguing...


----------



## ItWillDo (Sep 21, 2011)

For a long, long time I've been wondering if there is room for a Modus Vivendi between both parties. And as time grows, and more energy is wasted in the discussion of this issue instead of the search for a compromise, I kind of gave up on the debate.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> *I don't see anyone arguing whether musicians should be paid here. *
> 
> The argument appears to be:
> 
> ...



With the advent of independent, self-produced bands / solo artists, problem is that even the lower cost of their efforts, when published directly, isn't enough to prevent stuff from being illegally downloaded anyway. That is the reason why I asked for suggestions, from those that believe that even this is a non-usable format, regarding what the path could be to harmonize the situation.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> I'm not saying anything about musicians not _deserving_ to get paid. I simply made an analogy of playing "for the love of music" to the NFL and playing "for the love of the game". I never stated any opinion other than if you're getting into music for the money then good luck with that - and I still 100% back my statement. I never said that is the way it _should_ be... just that it is the way it is.
> 
> Mordacain better stated my point when he said that it's awfully difficult to be an "adult" (and all that goes with that - family, bills, etc) and play music for a living, unless you are one of the lucky few that gets noticed and make it big... or you still live at home and can devote your resources to a music career.



My comment wasn't aimed at you in particular.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

In today's market where I can press download and have the music go right to my iPhone... no CDs, no cases, no shipping/handling, no stores/clerks, etc (i.e no/less overhead)... is $10 too much to be paying for a album?

For me being a little older, I feel like the production cost has gone down immensely, but the cost for me as an end user is about the same... (I'm not a "music professional" so I could be way off-base here *)

You will never eliminate piracy... but...

If you could buy Born of Osiris' next album for $5 would that be affordable enough that the risk/reward aspect would make more people buy vs steal (and would this overcome the lost revenue from decreasing the price)?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 21, 2011)

Fred the Shred said:


> Basically, there are many points I'd really like to see developed, namely what a pro-download (half-arsed definition, I know  ) individual has to suggest. Saying I shall steal from the industry but stealing from independent artists is, in itself, a contradiction, for instance - there are cases, like mine, in which the "industry" is me, Mattayus taking care of mixing and mastering, and my mate and web designer Kalen, and most are even smaller than this, like the amazing Cloudkicker; where do you draw the line?
> 
> What can the music industry / artists do to convince you to pay for said music? A download of my entire album is a drink in many pubs, using my own example. As such, why is going to the pub to grab said drink not seen as a financial burden but a one-time payment for an entire album you get to keep permanently such a big deal?
> 
> Give me true reasoning and suggestions and I'll be the very first to debate them as I always do!



The drink/album point is a very good one and is one that I have myself been thinking about whilst reading this thread. I haven't thought about it long enough to comment properly on it, but you are absolutely right in bringing that up. Force of habit perhaps? I'm not sure. Either way I will be examining my behavior following this thread _much_ more carefully, if I can help it. I have a lot to worry about outside of downloading music, but if you can't justify something to yourself then you know it's time to look at something more carefully. 



Fred the Shred said:


> That part is not a personal attack - many were quite honest and said the justification is "I don't want to spend all that money" or something that, although I can't agree with it, which is fine -, whereas others defied what is clearly written, namely the definition of illegal and the like.



I'm not disputing legality, I'm disputing legal = morally sound. Both laws and morality are incredibly complex and to claim them to be parallel is not viable in my eyes. However, I'm not claiming downloading to be morally sound either, I just want people to check their own arguments.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

Back in the 80's, most bands - EVEN ONES ON MAJOR LABELS - never made money off album sales. After all, labels recouped via album sales until advances were paid.

So the whole "downloading is costing me money" is the most hilarious thing I ever heard. People are bemoaning something that never existed. Bands used to make money off ADVANCES, which were repaid through album sales. And often they couldn't repay, and it destroyed bands' careers. Think of the band Boston, as a good example.

And the "independent artists" excuse? When, exactly, was this amazing time in history when an independent artist could record, produce, and distribute an album themselves and TURN A PROFIT of any sort? I'll gladly eat my words, but in all my time I never saw it.

Is it wrong to ILLEGALLY download? Absolutely. It's illegal, isn't it?

But thinking artist have EVER made a fair income from recording sales is asinine.

And meanwhile, the industry pre-downloading that all these idiots bemoan losing started dying 20+ years ago, and only came into existence around 30 years before that. How are people having such a hard time letting go?

Look at books - mom and pops replaced by warehouse sized book stores, and now those being replaced by online e-book sales.

Look at movies - theaters replaced with video rental stores, in turn replaced by Netflix and Redbox kiosks (among others)

Look at the example of museums someone mentioned (I think Fred) - Upon my last visit to the Museam of Fine Arts they were accepting donations in lieu of ticket purchases. 


Software and Music were the first two industries impacted by digital (and often illegal) downloads, but ironically they've been the two slowest to react, partly due to an industry (which INCLUDES us musicians) that refuse to admit that what we are working towards just doesn't exist in our current age.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> You will never eliminate piracy... but...
> 
> If you could buy Born of Osiris' next album for $5 would that be affordable enough that the risk/reward aspect would make more people buy vs steal (and would this overcome the lost revenue from decreasing the price)?



I think that's what it boils down to: what is the sweet spot in price that will discourage pirating while still compensating the artists? Clearly, $10 isn't it. $5 is better. But as long as the music can be acquired price-free and risk-free, there will be people out there thinking: "why would I even pay $1 when I can pay zero dollars?"


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

I personally think bands should release more free stuff alongside proper releases. Say I write an album, and in the process I have 30 odd songs to choose from. 12 of those end up on the album, and two or three get pushed for promotion with one being a main single. The consumer has heard three songs from that album already.

I still have 18 songs sitting around that didn't make it to the album. Why waste them? Pick 4 or 5 of the strongest ones and release a free EP. You have enough for a couple of you wanted to. Sure they might not be as strong material as what made it to the album, but people can download those for free legally and decide whether to buy the album. You could dish out plenty of EPs and Live recordings as freebies between full albums to give people a way of trying out a band to see if they like them. Singles are often the most radio friendly and commercially viable songs from an album, so being able to hear a bunch of other stuff would put it into context.

Costs wise you could make it download only so no paying for a physical copy to get printed. All you'd need to pay for it artwork, which could be done fairly cheaply. You could organise fan competitions to get people to design the artwork for your next EP. You could have the albums available for download on a 'pay-what-you-want' scheme, like bandcamp does, so dedicated fans can choose to pay for the EPs and better support the band.

If one day I get a band up and running, this is something I'd like to try. It balances the tables between selling a full product and giving the consumer something free to get them into you.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> I think that's what it boils down to: what is the sweet spot in price that will discourage pirating while still compensating the artists? Clearly, $10 isn't it. $5 is better. But as long as the music can be acquired price-free and risk-free, there will be people out there thinking: "why would I even pay $1 when I can pay zero dollars?"



I think when I started out a band was lucky to make $.75 off a $12 cassette sale (pre-cd's). And that was only after enough sales to pay off what typically amounted to a $200-500,000 loan from the record label. Divided by $.75, that's a LOT of albums to sell before making so much as a penny.

So the sweet spot to me is a much lower spot than $5. Realistically, as an artist I would be very happy to make a $1 profit on a $1 album download rather than MAYBE making .$75 off a $12 album sale. And I think as a fan I ALSO would rather buy 10 hot new albums for $10 than pay $10 for a single album. 

It's kinda like watching Borders bookstore closing. The last days when discounts hit 80%-90% off were RIDICULOUSLY busy, and the bookshelves were emptied. Yet when sales were at 50% off, it wasn't nearly as busy.

When you hit that magic price point, you'll know. You just might be unhappy that the price is much lower than you were hoping for.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> In today's market where I can press download and have the music go right to my iPhone... no CDs, no cases, no shipping/handling, no stores/clerks, etc (i.e no/less overhead)... is $10 too much to be paying for a album?
> 
> For me being a little older, I feel like the production cost has gone down immensely, but the cost for me as an end user is about the same... (I'm not a "music professional" so I could be way off-base here *)
> 
> ...



This is a great point.
Why is the price still the same for intangible media? If I have the option to spend $10 in store/online for a physical cd as opposed to a digital download, I'll go the route of obtaining the physical copy.

But still, that doesnt give me an incentive to buy either.

I think one thing thats going to remain true is that piracy is here to stay, whether one is for it or against it will be another constant.

I also am one who thinks that there's nothing wrong with the "try before you buy" idea.

One thing I didnt see mentioned is if someone buys a CD, then burns a copy (semi-outdated formula, but still applicable) Thoughts?


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Say I write an album, and in the process I have 30 odd songs to choose from.



That is typical when a band records a first album and has been collecting songs, riffs, and ideas for years. But once it's released and the touring cycle starts, you'll find amassing a list of 30 songs is much much harder to do for the next album.

Van Halen, for example, wrote something like 40 songs at once, which in turn was the bulk of their first four albums. After that, it took them 20 years to grace us with what - 15 more song? 20?


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> I think that's what it boils down to: what is the sweet spot in price that will discourage pirating while still compensating the artists? Clearly, $10 isn't it. $5 is better. But as long as the music can be acquired price-free and risk-free, there will be people out there thinking: "why would I even pay $1 when I can pay zero dollars?"


 
I guess you have to hope for a moral _and_ a financial tipping point? 

You can prob tell by my post above that I believe that the paradigm is simply outdated (same as newspaper industry) and if you don't react then I can't feel sorry for you. We had a huge local newspaper going under here (Boston Globe) because they refused to modernize, cut salaries, or even ackowledge their industry issues... and then they wanted everyone to feel sorry for them and help them remain afloat.  Meanwhile, other newspapers saw it coming and embraced the internet and e-versions of their paper.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> That is typical when a band records a first album and has been collecting songs, riffs, and ideas for years. But once it's released and the touring cycle starts, you'll find amassing a list of 30 songs is much much harder to do for the next album.
> 
> Van Halen, for example, wrote something like 40 songs at once, which in turn was the bulk of their first four albums. After that, it took them 20 years to grace us with what - 15 more song? 20?



Certainly some bands aren't as prolific as others, but even then many songs get cut from an album. I've seen many bands mention after spending months writing material that they have 40 odd tracks to whittle down to an album. Most bands end up cutting songs from an album that never end up getting heard. It just seems like a waste. Even if you cut 4 songs from an album, that's enough for an EP.


----------



## USMarine75 (Sep 21, 2011)

ShadowFactoryX said:


> I think one thing thats going to remain true is that piracy is here to stay, whether one is for it or against it will be another constant.
> 
> I also am one who thinks that there's nothing wrong with the "try before you buy" idea.


 
I hate to agree with someone from the 'burg... but... this ^



> One thing I didnt see mentioned is if someone buys a CD, then burns a copy (semi-outdated formula, but still applicable) Thoughts


 
Hmmm... I buy shit and put it on my kid's iPod and me and the wife's iPhones all the time... what is the ethical/legal threshold? Could I put in on my mom's iPod? If I put All that Remains on my mom's iPod will I be starving Ollie???


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Certainly some bands aren't as prolific as others, but even then many songs get cut from an album. I've seen many bands mention after spending months writing material that they have 40 odd tracks to whittle down to an album. Most bands end up cutting songs from an album that never end up getting heard. It just seems like a waste. Even if you cut 4 songs from an album, that's enough for an EP.



I think the point is that most bands end up cutting 30-40 songs because they're collecting ideas and riffs they've been working on for a lifetime. After that, as time goes by, we ALL become a little less prolific. Add a touring schedule and lack of downtime, and most bands use that material for follow-up albums. Not B-Sides and E.P.s. 

But honestly, if you're capable of writing 40 album worthy tracks every time your band is ready to put out an album, you're a talent to be reckoned with. I know few musicians, amateur or pro, who can produce that level of output while trying to support themselves as well.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> I think the point is that most bands end up cutting 30-40 songs because they're collecting ideas and riffs they've been working on for a lifetime. After that, as time goes by, we ALL become a little less prolific. Add a touring schedule and lack of downtime, and most bands use that material for follow-up albums. Not B-Sides and E.P.s.
> 
> But honestly, if you're capable of writing 40 album worthy tracks every time your band is ready to put out an album, you're a talent to be reckoned with. I know few musicians, amateur or pro, who can produce that level of output while trying to support themselves as well.



Hmm dunno, either way it's something that could work providing the band has enough unused to material to do something with.


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Sep 21, 2011)

USMarine75 said:


> I hate to agree with someone from the 'burg... but... this ^
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm... I buy shit and put it on my kid's iPod and me and the wife's iPhones all the time... what is the ethical/legal threshold? Could I put in on my mom's iPod? If I put All that Remains on my mom's iPod will I be starving Ollie???



Hey whats wrong with us yinzers?!

But thats the point i was trying to draw out. If you bought it, you're free to do as you please with it really. Though its stated that reproduction is illegal. 
If a friend wants to hear an album, I burn it, they end up liking one song, was there harm done or no?

There's so many gray areas in this subject, that can go either way for anyone really.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

ShadowFactoryX said:


> Hey whats wrong with us yinzers?!
> 
> But thats the point i was trying to draw out. If you bought it, you're free to do as you please with it really. Though its stated that reproduction is illegal.
> If a friend wants to hear an album, I burn it, they end up liking one song, was there harm done or no?
> ...



What you're discussing is actually the justification and method through which piracy first came into existence for software and music. People ripping tape/CD copies for friends, and giving pals copies of computer software to use on their new expensive fancy Apple 2E and 2Cs. (remember them relics?)

Problem is, it was easier to justify then because it was so much of a smaller scale. Most didn't know how to do it, or that it could be done. And a copy of a copy would degrade as you make more, thus it was more common for those trying before buying to actually DO the buying!


Again, Piracy IS wrong. So is speeding. I do both, and don't give a shit. I don't _*need *_justification - I'm an AMERICAN dammit! I am entitled to everything.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Sep 21, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I would like to point out though that despite the conviction behind a lot of these posts, no one argument holds more weight than the other. The legality side of it is a non-issue, or do you agree with every law there is?
> 
> At the end of the day, we're all just arguing for our own purpose.



I dunno, speaking with plenty of bias  I think my last post is one of the most relevant in this thread.

I'm not arguing the legality of it, its fucking stupid to do so because everyone and their mother knows it is what it is. 

My whole point is it isn't going to change anytime soon and we all know it, all we can do is change our business model to accommodate it. I also left off with the fact that the musicians have *always* been getting dick'd as arrowhead has echo'd a few times already.

In all honesty I think keith merrows model on his first album was one of the smarter ones in this day and age. He simply released the album for free for all to enjoy, and if you felt like he deserved money for his effort he added a donate button to his site. (and from the looks of his updated rig he made some cash doing so)

This gave everyone the access they would have gotten to the music _anyway_ through pirating etc but also gave them the option to pay him for it. When people aren't being forced to pay for something the people who are going to give money tend to give more generously or are plain OK with paying money because its not being forced of them.

Look at the red seas fire release, people immediately went *holy shit this album is absolutely fantastic! They deserve my money! Why isn't there a donate button?.. take my money dammit*

The fact is people need to stop crying over something they cannot change and start figuring out how to work with it.


----------



## renzoip (Sep 21, 2011)

I did not bother to read Randy's rant, since I can already tell his position on this subject matter from all the posts here. 

But I can say that when you are illegally downloading music, you are taking a copy of a piece of art without the consent of the original artist, which is not cool in my book. 


Analogy: I can lend someone my homework if I choose to do so, but if someone photocopies my homework and takes such copy without my consent, then it's different and we've got a problem, even if I still have the original in my possession.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Since the discussion has veered towards possible solutions, I figured I'd share my basic plan for self-producing any personal works (strictly speaking, just work that is completely my own and not a collaboration):


 Album streaming for free (96Kbps, decent quality) - that will let people determine if they like the composition enough to by a higher quality.


Album downloads in varying formats, with price ramping up for higher end formats: 128 Kbps: $4.99, 192 VBR: $5.99, FLAC: $7.99


CD with album art, liner notes, etc: $9.99 (Personally, I feel $10 is the sweet-spot for a physical copy of an album)
Merch through CafePress (or some other medium I can control over the internet)
I also like the idea of giving away B-Sides and things like that at 128Kbps. I would charge for higher quality though to offset server costs.
I would like to think that having a good quality product at fair prices would enable me to live solely off my music, provide for my family (put kids through school, etc). I do think many of the large acts that harp on piracy have become corrupted by the avarice of the system they grew up in and have become accustomed to being f$ckin rich. Personally, I don't want to be rich.

As far as I am concerned $100K a year income is enough to live comfortably just about anywhere in the States and that would be my personal goal.

If the industry starting lowering their expectations on what their income should be, I think there would be greater album sales, and more musicians able to make a decent living doing what they love to do.


----------



## linchpin (Sep 21, 2011)

renzoip said:


> Analogy: I can lend someone my homework if I choose to do so, but if someone photocopies my homework and takes such copy without my consent, then it's different and we've got a problem, even if I still have the original in my possession.



Your analogy suggests the person who stole your homework is out to benefit from your work, its the same with designing a blueprint of an important building and someone steals your idea and goes ahead and builds it before you do thus taking all the credit... benefiting... somehow i dont quite see it in the same light as downloading unless its being sold on by that person.

PS. i'm actually not Pro or Against piracy... just an observer


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

linchpin said:


> Your analogy suggests the person who stole your homework is out to benefit from your work, its the same with designing a blueprint of an important building and someone steals your idea and goes ahead and builds it before you do thus taking all the credit... benefiting... somehow i dont quite see it in the same light as downloading unless its being sold on by that person.
> 
> PS. i'm actually not Pro or Against piracy... just an observer



In so far as music goes, when you listen to music, you are enriching your life. So the person downloading is benefiting from the music, otherwise, why would they do it?


----------



## linchpin (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> In so far as music goes, when you listen to music, you are enriching your life. So the person downloading is benefiting from the music, otherwise, why would they do it?



The No1 reason for making music, true... enriching one's own life and hopefully others
But i see music more than just a product, in fact, there's no price for it.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

linchpin said:


> The No1 reason for making music, true... enriching one's own life and hopefully others



Worth paying for, no?


----------



## linchpin (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Worth paying for, no?



Absolutely.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Personally, I don't want to be rich.
> 
> As far as I am concerned $100K a year income is enough to live comfortably






These statements do not reflect each other very well. $100,000 is more than DOUBLE *average *U.S. income, and is an amount that many Americans would certainly consider pretty "rich". And it's a VERY lofty goal for a working musician.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> These statements do not reflect each other very well. $100,000 is more than DOUBLE *average *U.S. income, and is an amount that many Americans would certainly consider pretty "rich". And it's a VERY lofty goal for a working musician.



Do no reflect each other well according to your standards, maybe. 

Average income doesn't mean anything as most people make too little to be debt-free in the US. I make over $50K (granted its by working 60 hour weeks and overall busting my ass) and its still a struggle to pay bills, put my wife through school, plan for kids, etc. I don't live extravagantly, either. Most people that only make $50K a year struggle to make ends meet. $100K is the level I deem minimum to avoid that grinding existence. If I could make what I make now just by selling albums, I would do that, but it would still be a struggle to get by and I'd still be looking at other employment options.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Since the discussion has veered towards possible solutions, I figured I'd share my basic plan for self-producing any personal works (strictly speaking, just work that is completely my own and not a collaboration):
> 
> 
> Album streaming for free (96Kbps, decent quality) - that will let people determine if they like the composition enough to by a higher quality.
> ...



I don't mean to come off as offensive, but this post sounds like a pipe dream. You can come up with any plan you want to have different pricing options for different levels of quality, etc. but the fact remains that pirating music is FREE! That's why people do it - because it's free, simple, and easy to get away with. Screwing over the artists and the labels is the effect, not the cause. Someone made an analogy to speeding earlier - driving faster than the posted speed limit is illegal, plain and simple. But it's easy to do without getting caught as long as you don't go overboard with it. Some people get in trouble for speeding and some DO get in trouble for pirating...typically when either is done egregiously, not moderately. You want people to pay for the music? Find a way to eliminate pirating.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 21, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> These statements do not reflect each other very well. $100,000 is more than DOUBLE *average *U.S. income, and is an amount that many Americans would certainly consider pretty "rich". And it's a VERY lofty goal for a working musician.



Averages mean shit, how many of those people have truly put the effort in to achieve their goals and craft a good career? How much of the populace works in a burger joint for life bearing their mistakes? The average is for the average, some folks just aren't 'average' enough to settle.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ (Sep 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Averages mean shit, how many of those people have truly put the effort in to achieve their goals and craft a good career? How much of the populace works in a burger joint for life bearing their mistakes? The average is for the average, some folks just aren't 'average' enough to settle.



Horatio Alger?


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> I don't mean to come off as offensive, but this post sounds like a pipe dream. You can come up with any plan you want to have different pricing options for different levels of quality, etc. but the fact remains that pirating music is FREE! That's why people do it - because it's free, simple, and easy to get away with. Screwing over the artists and the labels is the effect, not the cause. Someone made an analogy to speeding earlier - driving faster than the posted speed limit is illegal, plain and simple. But it's easy to do without getting caught as long as you don't go overboard with it. Some people get in trouble for speeding and some DO get in trouble for pirating...typically when either is done egregiously, not moderately. You want people to pay for the music? Find a way to eliminate pirating.



I don't advocate piracy at all. all of my posts in this thread bear witness to that as I've been one of the posters most vehemently condemning piracy. I am all for catching pirates and making them pay a fair price for what was stolen. 

And my post is a dream; its how I would run my own show if (and when) I get around to releasing a self-produced album. I was merely showing what prices I deem fair to assess as the topic has come up that CDs are too expensive (which I agree with and is one of the reasons I purchase so few now).


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 21, 2011)

i bought ashes, sacrament and killadelphia -- all nice and legal. i still think it's stupid for musicians to complain about this stuff.

the analogy sucks, because people who work at mackie dee's have a crap job for low pay. blythe does what most people wish they could do and is far above the poverty level. not only that, he gets a percentage from the sale of log's music, even though it's probably really small.

where's the gratitude? man, i wish people cared enough to download my stuff. oh, well. he's honestly not that tightly wound. and doesn't really care about his fans. otherwise he wouldn't instigate so much violence at the shows.


----------



## JP Universe (Sep 21, 2011)

I'll throw a spanner into the works.... how about youtube? Is it wrong to watch a clip to a song or a TV show?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

Ancestor said:


> i bought ashes, sacrament and killadelphia -- all nice and legal. i still think it's stupid for musicians to complain about this stuff.
> 
> the analogy sucks, because people who work at mackie dee's have a crap job for low pay. blythe does what most people wish they could do and is far above the poverty level. not only that, he gets a percentage from the sale of log's music, even though it's probably really small.
> 
> where's the gratitude? man, i wish people cared enough to download my stuff. oh, well. he's honestly not that tightly wound. and doesn't really care about his fans. otherwise he wouldn't instigate so much violence at the shows.



They're very grateful for the support of their fans, besides it's all relative. You could then argue that the guy at MacDonalds is lucky to have a job at all, and should not complain because people are worse off. Where does it end?

Randy does care about his fans, he's a pretty nice guy and having seen them live I don't know what you mean about the whole instigating violence thing. Besides, it's metal.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 21, 2011)

JP Universe said:


> I'll throw a spanner into the works.... how about youtube? Is it wrong to watch a clip to a song or a TV show?



No because that's streaming, you're not actually in possession of the media. However, if the media was uploaded without permission then the uploader is at fault.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

JP Universe said:


> I'll throw a spanner into the works.... how about youtube? Is it wrong to watch a clip to a song or a TV show?



Legally, that actually depends on a few things. Depending on your country, its ok to post a clip you recorded yourself that was publicly available. I think in the US, its illegal period without permission from the original broadcast network (as far as TV goes).

With music, its fine as long as it is posted by the copyright holders (or their representatives). Basically, as long the artist made it available to you on that medium, then its fine.

Leaks and things unsanctioned by the artist are illegal, and generally are taken down pretty quickly once they are discovered.


----------



## EdgeC (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> In so far as music goes, when you listen to music, you are enriching your life. So the person downloading is benefiting from the music, otherwise, why would they do it?


 
So does that mean if I downloaded an album that was rubbish the artist should pay me restitution?

I don't advocate piracy at all but i've listened to some terrible music over the years and don't beleive that just because you're an artist you deserve to be paid for your work. That being said if you have something that people are willing to pay for then you are entitled to receive it.

Funny thing is though I remember seing LOG before Sacrament came out and I swear Randy said something along the lines of "we've got a new CD coming out, go buy it, download it or whatever just make sure you get it".


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> Sorry what's wrong with wanting to make a career in music and actually getting paid? Shouldn't have to do a regular job as well just so people can get your shit for free.



While I understand where you're coming from I think people aspiring to be musicians/against pirating need to simply realize times have changed and the old business model is no longer practical.

You will never convince people to pay for what they can have for free, especially if by taking said object for free there are no consequences for them personally. Sure they'll hurt the person that made it but really, nobody cares. You might, but you're in the minority.

If you are a working musician and actually expected to make decent money from album sales or something, I think you should re-evaluate your expectations, not very many people are going to be paying for something that's free to them. 

Sure it's wrong but for a lot of people...

No consequence = No care.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

EdgeC said:


> So does that mean if I downloaded an album that was rubbish the artist should pay me restitution?
> 
> I don't advocate piracy at all but i've listened to some terrible music over the years and don't beleive that just because you're an artist you deserve to be paid for your work. But if you have something that people are willing to pay for then you are entitled to receive it.
> 
> Funny thing is though I remember seing LOG before Sacrament came out and I swear Randy said something along the lines of "we've got a new CD coming out, go buy it, download it or whatever just make sure you get it".



I guess there is just a generational gap here that can't be overcome. When I grew up you had three options: listen to the radio, buy albums or record tapes of a friends' album. Personally, while I would use tapes to record albums, I'd erase them if I didn't like them and I always bought a copy of what I liked. I'd then make a travel copy (same thing I do today) while keeping the original safe. The beauty of that system was that the tape was inherently inferior to the original, so there was incentive to own your own copy.

How it stands today is that you can sample anything you like from Amazon, iTunes, Zune or any other online music store. The argument that you should be able to download the artists' work to try before you buy is null on its face for the reason that previews are available everywhere now, so there is no reason you'd ever get stuck with a turd.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 21, 2011)

How many of your are willing to go to work every day with the promise of being paid only to not get your cheque? That is effectively what anyone arguing that downloading music is saying they approve of. I am sure none of the people arguing for illegal file sharing will do it either, because hypocracy rules the game.

I don't work for free, I have been too smart for that since a very young age. I don't expect others to work for free either, because that is ridiculous.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> While I understand where you're coming from I think people aspiring to be musicians/against pirating need to simply realize times have changed and the old business model is no longer practical.
> 
> You will never convince people to pay for what they can have for free, especially if by taking said object for free there are no consequences for them personally. Sure they'll hurt the person that made it but really, nobody cares. You might, but you're in the minority.
> 
> ...



Part of what we've been discussing here are ways of changing the system to make it a better one. There's no-one I've seen here advocating that the old system is perfect and we should just go back to that. 

Stealing is not a system, its a violation of the system. People make justifications for that however they want, but what it really boils down to is that people don't really consider it wrong because they don't see firsthand the damage they do and because they personally don't get punished for it.

And just to dissuade the idea that you don't make money from album sales, lets consider Pink Floyd. They haven't toured for nearly two decades and have been able to live pretty well by most accounts on what would mostly be their back catalog (and savings of course). Bands just starting out don't make money touring, most are lucky to break even. You only start to make money from touring when you can play large enough venues to get more money per stop than what cost you to get there.

The long and short of it is this: musicians have to make enough money to live otherwise they won't be able to keep making music.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Part of what we've been discussing here are ways of changing the system to make it a better one. There's no-one I've seen here advocating that the old system is perfect and we should just go back to that.
> 
> Stealing is not a system, its a violation of the system. People make justifications for that however they want, but what it really boils down to is that people don't really consider it wrong because they don't see firsthand the damage they do and because they personally don't get punished for it.
> 
> ...



I never said they don't make money from album sales, I just said people should stop having that expectations 

Also, sure it'd be great if they could make money, but I'm just being realistic, you need a complete overhaul and charging money for the music isn't going to get you anywhere fast.

Like I said earlier, I really, really dig what RSF did by releasing the music for free then making it really easy to pick up a T-Shirt too.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Since the discussion has veered towards possible solutions, I figured I'd share my basic plan for self-producing any personal works (strictly speaking, just work that is completely my own and not a collaboration):
> 
> 
> Album streaming for free (96Kbps, decent quality) - that will let people determine if they like the composition enough to by a higher quality.
> ...



From a consumer standpoint, the increasing charge for bit rate seems pretty gay. Like the gayest idea ever. 96kbps is pretty darn bad too. I think a more humble and fair-ish idea would be offer the album in 320kbps and flac for download and have the donate button next to it like Keith Merrow did. If my band ever gets any decent recordings we're going to do this.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> I never said they don't make money from album sales, I just said people should stop having that expectations
> 
> Also, sure it'd be great if they could make money, but I'm just being realistic, you need a complete overhaul and charging money for the music isn't going to get you anywhere fast.
> 
> Like I said earlier, I really, really dig what RSF did by releasing the music for free then making it really easy to pick up a T-Shirt too.



I just don't see how one can viably not charge for music. Even doing everything yourself, you still have an overhead for recording costs and production, not to mention manufacturing. There's also the server costs if you want to host your own files.

I like that services like Bandcamp are starting to crop up that make it easier to distribute your own music, but its still very limited exposure and just one measure individuals can use to distribute their music and still get some kickback while not having to cover the distribution costs themselves.

I suppose personally the concept of not paying for something I enjoy, that I know someone poured their heart, soul & time into is just not a compatible idea. To me its like taking advantage of welfare, disability or some other social program; its just not something a decent, upstanding citizen does and if everyone did it, the system would breakdown and then it wouldn't be there for those who truly need it.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Osiris said:


> From a consumer standpoint, the increasing charge for bit rate seems pretty gay. Like the gayest idea ever. 96kbps is pretty darn bad too. I think a more humble and fair-ish idea would be offer the album in 320kbps and flac for download and have the donate button next to it like Keith Merrow did. If my band ever gets any decent recordings we're going to do this.



You do understand that server costs are higher for a higher quality file because the file itself is larger right? If you host your own files, you'll have to recoup that cost somewhere and its not going to just magic itself into your bank account.

There always the option of using torrents as distribution method (which I would do for 96K to offset server fees for the free medium) but that's not a reliable distribution source for a retail product and you'll still have to have a server seeding the file to guarantee availability.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

Yeah but how are you going to get around downloading? The internet isn't just going to stop existing.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> You do understand that server costs are higher for a higher quality file because the file itself is larger right? If you host your own files, you'll have to recoup that cost somewhere and its not going to just magic itself into your bank account.
> 
> There always the option of using torrents as distribution method (which I would do for 96K to offset server fees for the free medium) but that's not a reliable distribution source for a retail product and you'll still have to have a server seeding the file to guarantee availability.



Host it on mediafire then link to it


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

Or throw it up on the site where everyone else downloads things, just host it for the first 48 hours and after that you're set.


----------



## EdgeC (Sep 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> How many of your are willing to go to work every day with the promise of being paid only to not get your cheque? That is effectively what anyone arguing that downloading music is saying they approve of. I am sure none of the people arguing for illegal file sharing will do it either, because hypocracy rules the game.
> 
> I don't work for free, I have been too smart for that since a very young age. I don't expect others to work for free either, because that is ridiculous.


 
I would not work for nothing. But the moment my job or the industry I work in becomes redundant (for whatever reason) I no longer am able to get paid for my job so I need to find another source of income. 

Again I do not advocate music piracy but, as has been said before, due to technology (and the abuse of said technology) the industry is fast becoming redundant. Artists are entitled to profit from their product but albums sales may no longer be the way to make an income but perhaps more of a marketing tool to get people to shows, sell merch etc.

Take Free to air TV. I am a Rugby League fan and we get 3 games a week on free to air TV. But the game makes it's money off sponsorships, crowd attendance, club memberships and merchandise. Even though the actual product, being the game, is free for me to enjoy.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> I never said they don't make money from album sales, I just said people should stop having that expectations
> 
> Also, sure it'd be great if they could make money, but I'm just being realistic, you need a complete overhaul and charging money for the music isn't going to get you anywhere fast.
> 
> Like I said earlier, I really, really dig what RSF did by releasing the music for free then making it really easy to pick up a T-Shirt too.



So you want people to change their expectations because other people refuse to refrain from illegitimate acts. I am going to start serial mugging people, but they should just adjust their expectations and carry less around in case of the advent that I decide to mug them. I am not doing anything wrong afterall, I think that not mugging is an old and outdated system which needs to be adapted.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

^^ Exactly, why would you work for something knowing you won't make money doing it?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> So you want people to change their expectations because other people refuse to refrain from illegitimate acts. I am going to start serial mugging people, but they should just adjust their expectations and carry less around in case of the advent that I decide to mug them. I am not doing anything wrong afterall, I think that not mugging is an old and outdated system which needs to be adapted.



Yes I do because it's realistic. What stops anyone from downloading anything they really want. 

Nothing.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Osiris said:


> Host it on mediafire then link to it





Stealthtastic said:


> Or throw it up on the site where everyone else downloads things, just host it for the first 48 hours and after that you're set.



Guys, I understand what you're saying but just assume, for the sake of argument, that you sold a million copies of an album. You would not be able to host that sort of volume on mediafire or any other free hosting site purely due to the volume of traffic you'd generate. Those things work for your general inhouse project because volume is low. 

Replace the current system with an all home-brew system (again, purely for the sake of argument) and then ramp up the numbers. That is what you'd have to consider when planning in making a self-funded music career where you could afford to live off of album sales.

I've already explained that torrents are not a viable distribution method for a retail product. The only retail product I've seen use one was World of Warcraft and they don't use a torrent distribution method anymore because of the amount of backlash from the users (and that was a torrent network numbering in the millions).


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 21, 2011)

Stealth, you are correct, but that is a side effect of moral bankruptcy.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 21, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> Stealth, you are correct, but that is a side effect of moral bankruptcy.



Yup and it's unfortunate, but I don't see the logic in wasting time trying to get people to have morals. I think we all know something needs to change, but what...nobody knows quite yet


----------



## Osiris (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Guys, I understand what you're saying but just assume, for the sake of argument, that you sold a million copies of an album. You would not be able to host that sort of volume on mediafire or any other free hosting site purely due to the volume of traffic you'd generate. Those things work for your general inhouse project because volume is low.
> 
> Replace the current system with an all home-brew system (again, purely for the sake of argument) and then ramp up the numbers. That is what you'd have to consider when planning in making a self-funded music career where you could afford to live off of album sales.
> 
> I've already explained that torrents are not a viable distribution method for a retail product. The only retail product I've seen use one was World of Warcraft and they don't use a torrent distribution method anymore because of the amount of backlash from the users (and that was a torrent network numbering in the millions).



Then again if you're so big a band that you can sell a million copies, you'd probably have a record deal and affording bandwidth probably wouldn't be an issue. You could always find a way to offer your music for free. And have a little donate button.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> Yes I do because it's realistic. What stops anyone from downloading anything they really want.
> 
> Nothing.



Currently, maybe. I seriously doubt the few people that the RIAA sued the hell out still download things illegally (not that I condone that in the least).

The RIAA has been waging war against piracy and lobbying the hell out of Washington ever since piracy became easy with Napster. Look at the results of that, there is essentially only one real viable peer to peer distribution method for illegal content now - torrents which are being targeted. As soon as the legislation makes hosting a site that enables distribution of trackers hosting illegal files punishable by jail sentences, you'll see the number of people willing to host such a site diminish. Without the network, you'll only have isolated networks that can't cause the widespread distribution you see today. The RIAA's plan is essentially a return to the minimal impact of person to person sharing (like taping a buddy's record).

The network is ultimately what makes piracy a viable threat financially. Cut the network off and you minimize the effect. In theory that could work, and it might. It certainly worked in the case of Napster, Kazaa and Limewire, all of which were gutted and shutdown eventually.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

Osiris said:


> Then again if you're so big a band that you can sell a million copies, you'd probably have a record deal and affording bandwidth probably wouldn't be an issue. You could always find a way to offer your music for free. And have a little donate button.



I think if I could avoid being signed, I would. There are plenty of successful acts that start their own labels just to retain ownership and creative control of their music.

To the other point, I personally would not give my retail product away. I'll consider various models when I actually release something. Hell, I might put out a high-quality B-Side version of my full album, but the retail product should be higher quality in my opinion, otherwise what impetus is there to buy it?


----------



## the fuhrer (Sep 21, 2011)

I don't know about everyone else here but downloading an album cheapens the experience for me. I get excited about buying a new cd. I anticipate its release for weeks. When I get my hands on it for the first time I listen to it front to back several times. I take in every little detail. The few times I have downloaded something I shut it off the first time I hear something I don't like. I never give it a chance, why bother. I have gone back and found something that I downloaded years ago when I was young and discovered it was awesome. I just never cared at the time because I wasn't out of 10 bucks either way. Now days I buy music to support the artists I love but I also buy music because I enjoy the experience of it. I appreciate the value of a good album. I think that is whats missing today. The newer generations haven't had to wait for a cd they wanted. They get it for free the minute they want it. I remember begging my parents for l.d. 50 when it was released. The anxiety of waiting, hoping I would get it. I couldn't just hop on youtube and listen. The feeling I got listening to that for the first time at 15 after waiting weeks to get it will probably be one of the best musical experiences of my life.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

the fuhrer said:


> I don't know about everyone else here but downloading an album cheapens the experience for me. I get excited about buying a new cd. I anticipate its release for weeks. When I get my hands on it for the first time I listen to it front to back several times. I take in every little detail. The few times I have downloaded something I shut it off the first time I hear something I don't like. I never give it a chance, why bother. I have gone back and found something that I downloaded years ago when I was young and discovered it was awesome. I just never cared at the time because I wasn't out of 10 bucks either way. Now days I buy music to support the artists I love but I also buy music because I enjoy the experience of it. I appreciate the value of a good album. I think that is whats missing today. The newer generations haven't had to wait for a cd they wanted. They get it for free the minute they want it. I remember begging my parents for l.d. 50 when it was released. The anxiety of waiting, hoping I would get it. I couldn't just hop on youtube and listen. The feeling I got listening to that for the first time at 15 after waiting weeks to get it will probably be one of the best musical experiences of my life.



There is certainly something to be said for waiting for the experience. Its like saving up for an expensive instrument. The waiting builds the anticipation to the point that when you finally obtain this object of desire its become something else entirely. The last album I felt that way about was probably 10,000 days. I remember getting that package and checking out Adam's crazy-awesome art design before sitting down to put the CD on....Its probably the last time I really pushed my old HiFi speakers as well and I loved every second of it. I intentionally don't listen to leaks or early versions purely to not spoil my ancticipation of an album (even if it is already bought and paid for on preorder).


----------



## the fuhrer (Sep 21, 2011)

Hell yeah man, that's what its all about for me. I remember getting Behemoths Evangelion and reading all the liner notes. You can't download that stuff, definitely worth 15 bucks. I guess a lot of people don't have the appreciation for music and the artists that we do.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 21, 2011)

the fuhrer said:


> Hell yeah man, that's what its all about for me. I remember getting Behemoths Evangelion and reading all the liner notes. You can't download that stuff, definitely worth 15 bucks. I guess a lot of people don't have the appreciation for music and the artists that we do.



I think its all relative, really. For some people music is just a soundtrack to their lives. Personally its more of a religion to me;I have a reverence for albums that makes them basically holy works to me.

I see parallels to the idea of free music with the idea of free software. Don't get me wrong, I love free software and I use quite a bit of it. The authors can sometimes get by from ad revenue and other inbuilt revenue-generating features, but I have no problem for paying for quality software. I similarly have no problem with the shareware model or trial versions of programs to give me a taste of the program.

I just like to see people receive fair compensation for their work. When its an incredible work and a great contribution to society as a whole, that person should receive greater compensation in my opinion. I simply just can't understand wanting to deny an individual the fruits of their labors.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 21, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> To the other point, I personally would not give my retail product away. I'll consider various models when I actually release something. Hell, I might put out a high-quality B-Side version of my full album, but the retail product should be higher quality in my opinion, otherwise what impetus is there to buy it?



Respect for the artist, liking the music, liking the physical cd/booklet/cover art, buying the album for a friend. If an artist is a big enough bro to be so humble to give away their product but accept donations, I'd be more compelled to donate/buy the album just from him being so generous.

Then again this isnt really a viable option for big record companies. I think itunes has the right idea, especially if they offer free listens to the music before you buy it.


----------



## DDDorian (Sep 22, 2011)

People cite a lot of different reasons (or, more often than not, excuses) as to why illegal downloading is a useful tool that empowers both the customer and the artist, but how many of them still ring true? Let's go over a few of 'em briefly:


*Illegal downloading isn't theft because I'm just making a copy!* What you are stealing is an artist's intellectual property and their right to profit from it, not some physical object. You don't have to agree with the notion that artists have an individual right to protect their intellectual property but it's one that's enshrined by law in most countries and plays a very important role that reaches far beyond merits of music or other forms of entertainment media. (Also if I see anyone facilitating it here I'm gonna ban 'em for it. Just sayin'.)

*Downloading a torrent is so much more convenient than dealing with the hassles of physical distribution!* Six or seven years ago, yeah, maybe, but since then the media industry has made massive advances in legal avenues of digital distribution - the barrier to entry is way lower, online payment systems are simple and secure, the customer has more choice in terms of format/audio quality, you can choose to purchase individual tracks instead of full albums, and you can access these services from an increasing array of multimedia devices. The only convenience still unique to illegal downloading is that you aren't paying for anything, but even that can be nullified by the peripheral benefits that come with purchasing something legitimately through a well-featured DD platform - not music-related, but Steam is an excellent example of a DD platform that took a struggling industry (PC gaming) and turned it into a massive success and an invaluable tool for consumer, publisher and developer.

*Downloading an album allows me to sample the music before paying for it. Why should I pay for music that I may not even like?* First off, if you're on SSO and you still think you have discriminating taste you're kidding yourself Secondly, and more importantly, there are an increasing number of ways to listen to albums in their entirety for free that don't involve illegal downloads - there are officially-sanctioned pre-release streams, there are legitimate streaming services like Soundcloud or whatever, there are subscription-based services... fuck, even listening to ripped tracks on Youtube is a less damaging option seeing as bands at least have a little leverage if they wanna pull their stuff down. You can't expect all of these options for every release, naturally, but if people continue to support more legitimate means of sampling music for free then it becomes easier for artists to provide these services and can even allow them to profit without charging directly for anything.

*Downloading an album allows me to stick it to those greedy dinosaurs at the major labels! Get with the times, grandpa!* While it's true that the importance of record labels of all sizes has been diminished due to factors like the increasing affordability of home recording equipment and the ease of self-distribution via the internet, they still provide a multitude of very valuable services to those who want to make a living in the industry - they have access to a lot of promotional channels that are inaccessible to independent artists, they allow you to develop working relationships with others in the industry, they act as a gatekeeper to good music for a lot of people which helps your music get noticed over the crowd, and they can streamline the process of multi-platform distribution. What's more, today's musician is in a better position to negotiate a favourable contract than ever before; as the primary role of labels shifts from financing releases to distribution and promotion the amount of control they can reasonably exert over an artist is diminished, meaning that musicians have more creative freedom and are able to keep more of the money made from each sale. Theoretically, anyway.

*Making a living through music is a stupid juvenile fantasy. Get a real job.* The fact of the matter is that part-time musicians, even talented ones, will only ever be a fraction of the musicians that they could be if they were able to dedicate their full time and energy to bettering themselves and honing their craft, and anyone who says otherwise is probably in denial about what a mediocre musician they are. It only requires a very modest contribution from a very small number of people to allow someone the freedom to work on their music more seriously, which in turn results in better music for everyone, including the self-absorbed dicks who decides it's not worth paying for. Win/win!

Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 22, 2011)

Hey look dorian posted  he should ban me, i deserve it!


----------



## GATA4 (Sep 22, 2011)

DDDorian said:


> People cite a lot of different reasons (or, more often than not, excuses) as to why illegal downloading is a useful tool that empowers both the customer and the artist, but how many of them still ring true? Let's go over a few of 'em briefly:
> 
> 
> *Illegal downloading isn't theft because I'm just making a copy!* What you are stealing is an artist's intellectual property and their right to profit from it, not some physical object. You don't have to agree with the notion that artists have an individual right to protect their intellectual property but it's one that's enshrined by law in most countries and plays a very important role that reaches far beyond merits of music or other forms of entertainment media. (Also if I see anyone facilitating it here I'm gonna ban 'em for it. Just sayin'.)
> ...



/thread

For real. All other uses of "/thread", in this thread, are improper and unworthy.


----------



## Osiris (Sep 22, 2011)

DDDorian said:


> *Downloading an album allows me to sample the music before paying for it. Why should I pay for music that I may not even like?* First off, if you're on SSO and you still think you have discriminating taste you're kidding yourself Secondly, and more importantly, there are an increasing number of ways to listen to albums in their entirety for free that don't involve illegal downloads - there are officially-sanctioned pre-release streams, there are legitimate streaming services like Soundcloud or whatever, there are subscription-based services... fuck, even listening to ripped tracks on Youtube is a less damaging option seeing as bands at least have a little leverage if they wanna pull their stuff down. You can't expect all of these options for every release, naturally, but if people continue to support more legitimate means of sampling music for free then it becomes easier for artists to provide these services and can even allow them to profit without charging directly for anything.
> Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.



You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.

That said, I was listening to the Mastodon stream yesterday of Hunter and it rocked tits. Probably gonna buy Crack the Skye soon.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 22, 2011)

Osiris said:


> You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.



Downloading an album from a torrent, illegally is morally wrong. 

If the artist has posted other ways of listening to their music for free they still retain control over how their creation is experienced, by and large. They still control distribution.

The key thing is that the artist retains control of their creation. Downloading their album illegally takes that control away from them.


----------



## DDDorian (Sep 22, 2011)

Osiris said:


> You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.



Officially-sanctioned freebies give artists the potential to earn money indirectly through sponsorships or advertising, and they also allow the artist to monitor the general habits and trends of their audience - where they're from, the average amount of time they spend listening to something, a rough percentage of how many listeners followed through and bought the album, etc - which they can then use to better target/promote their stuff and to improve the experience the next time around. If they're giving it away for free then you can certainly argue that it doesn't _really_ matter whether you download from p2p or you check out a Bandcamp profile, but by prioritising official freebies over pirated rips you'll encourage more artists to offer freebies on their own terms and to make it more accessible to everyone, as well as help them out a little financially without spending any of your own money. None of those things are possible if you just download a torrent.


----------



## F0rte (Sep 22, 2011)




----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 22, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Do no reflect each other well according to your standards, maybe.
> 
> Average income doesn't mean anything as most people make too little to be debt-free in the US. I make over $50K (granted its by working 60 hour weeks and overall busting my ass) and its still a struggle to pay bills, put my wife through school, plan for kids, etc. I don't live extravagantly, either. Most people that only make $50K a year struggle to make ends meet. $100K is the level I deem minimum to avoid that grinding existence. If I could make what I make now just by selling albums, I would do that, but it would still be a struggle to get by and I'd still be looking at other employment options.




What does it have to do with the price of tea in china, as it may be? $100,000 a year is pretty rich to the majority of Americans, no matter how you spin it. 





SirMyghin said:


> Averages mean shit, how many of those people have truly put the effort in to achieve their goals and craft a good career? How much of the populace works in a burger joint for life bearing their mistakes? The average is for the average, some folks just aren't 'average' enough to settle.




What the heck are you babbling about? Average includes the underachievers AND the ludicrously rich. That's what makes it an average. The point being, his idea of making $100,000 minimum and not wanting to be rich is in fact a goal to be in the top 30% of earners in the country, or somewhere thereabouts. 




Either way, still not sure what any of it has to do with music, as I don't see many of us that attempt it ever coming close to that figure working as a musician. It doesn't seem relevant at all.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Another point on that...do you think John Petrucci, Steve Vai, Guthrie Govan or any other guitarist in their caliber could develop their kind of insane technique while working 60 hours a week and having at best, 3 hours a day to practice (assuming they didn't have wives to please? Hell no. It just isn't happening. *SO if you don't already develop that technique while you live at home and mooch off your parents* (assuming they are willing to let you do so), its simply not going to happen for you. I've had to give up on the idea of developing serious chops because I can only devote so much time in a day to music.



That's what the three examples you cite did. And pretty much any example I can think to give of a massively technical player. 

Not many people work sixty hours a week, mind. The average chap here would have twenty-five to thirty hours extra a week than that would allow to practice if that was their inclination.


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 22, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> What does it have to do with the price of tea in china, as it may be? $100,000 a year is pretty rich to the majority of Americans, no matter how you spin it.



OK, go on believing 100K is rich. While you're at it, cite me some figures that say a "majority" of Americans believe that $100K is "rich." I did an informal poll at work with 4 guys and none thought $100K was even close to rich. In fact the leading definition of rich among that group was being able to live comfortably off of the interest generated from the amount you had in a savings account.

The relevance of citing a figure is in setting a goal. And while we're on the subject:

Average Income of a Musician

You'll see ranges of an average working musician from $22K to well over $100K (for certain symphony orchestras). 

Determining how much you can earn is always relevant. If I determined I could only make $25K a year as a working musician but I need $50K to support my family properly, obviously I can't go off being a musician. Unless of course I want to be a total selfish prick and ignore the needs of my family to pursue my own selfish desires.


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm not great on US living costs, but a couple of seconds googling tells me that in 2006, only the top 20% of US HOUSEHOLD incomes (77% having 2+ earners) totalled above $91,705. So $100,000 seems a lot.

I put on lots of fair sized bands, some earning WELL into the thousands per show and selling a lot of records. I'll bet I've never put on someone who earns that.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 22, 2011)

I do think it's worth bringing up the Red Seas Fire album/EP again.

A lot of hard work was put into it and it's a quality product. People are flinging money at them because they can hear the hard work put in and can tell that in this day and age where everything is available fast, in abundance and sometimes free - this is worth their money, even if they're not paying for the music directly.

I will be buying the new Threat Signal album because they are extremely talented and have obviously worked hard. I like the look of everything about their new album. However, if a band thinks that they can cruise by in their careers by making an awful product and then expect people to pay just as much then it could be argued that they are stealing from the consumer who doesn't know any better or has been tricked. How many times has an album been sold on the strength of one track only for the customer to find that the rest of the album is complete shit? I'm not putting it forward as a strong argument, just a little food for thought.

Since the days of Myspace music has become a different ball game. There's so many fucking bands these days as someone said earlier in the thread it could be argued that we don't really need any more new bands. So, work hard, be smart, make a quality product and release your shit for free and you will find people chucking their money at you. If they don't, look at what you could do differently. Otherwise you forfeit your right to complain.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I do think it's worth bringing up the Red Seas Fire album/EP again.
> 
> A lot of hard work was put into it and it's a quality product. People are flinging money at them because they can hear the hard work put in and can tell that in this day and age where everything is available fast, in abundance and sometimes free - this is worth their money, even if they're not paying for the music directly.
> 
> ...



Actually it's interesting you brought up threat signals (if I'm thinking of the right band that is!). Was he the one that did cool things if people donated to the making of the album? Like signing copies and writing special songs for people? I think that is a very, very cool way to raise money


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 22, 2011)

chronocide said:


> I'm not great on US living costs, but a couple of seconds googling tells me that in 2006, only the top 20% of US HOUSEHOLD incomes (77% having 2+ earners) totalled above $91,705. So $100,000 seems a lot.
> 
> I put on lots of fair sized bands, some earning WELL into the thousands per show and selling a lot of records. I'll bet I've never put on someone who earns that.



And again, average income means nothing in terms of perception of wealth. Just saying however many people are under a certain threshold does not illustrate what those people's conception of wealth is. 

Regardless, 100K a year is my personal benchmark so why does anyone care? Its only the level I set myself to where I feel comfortably doing nothing but creating music as a career and not feel compelled to look for another line of work. Its exceptionally limited in scope and its personally how I feel.


----------



## brutalwizard (Sep 22, 2011)

DDDorian said:


> Oh, and Lamb of God sucks, by the way.




AMEN


----------



## chronocide (Sep 22, 2011)

EDIT: To Mordacain, folks be too sharp on the posting!

Aside from it being monstrously unrealistic, it just seemed somewhat condescending to people who make music for a full time living and who are successful since it made your post read like it's not worthy of being a full time occupation unless you're earning a serious amount of money more than they do. I don't that was your intention, but it certainly came across that way to me (and at least several others, evidently).


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 22, 2011)

Ancestor said:


> i bought ashes, sacrament and killadelphia -- all nice and legal. i still think it's stupid for musicians to complain about this stuff.
> 
> the analogy sucks, because people who work at mackie dee's have a crap job for low pay. blythe does what most people wish they could do and is far above the poverty level. not only that, he gets a percentage from the sale of log's music, even though it's probably really small.
> 
> where's the gratitude? man, i wish people cared enough to download my stuff. oh, well. he's honestly not that tightly wound. and doesn't really care about his fans. otherwise he wouldn't instigate so much violence at the shows.



Fuckin' A. As I said earlier it's a privilege not a right, these days moreso than ever. A lot of these bands needs to wake the fuck up and stop making fools of themselves publically.


----------



## DLG (Sep 22, 2011)

this is like the dude from Disturbed complaining a while ago. You sell out arenas on the reg, dude. be thankful. very thankful.


----------



## yingmin (Sep 22, 2011)

Stealthtastic said:


> Actually it's interesting you brought up threat signals (if I'm thinking of the right band that is!). Was he the one that did cool things if people donated to the making of the album? Like signing copies and writing special songs for people? I think that is a very, very cool way to raise money



Josh Freese did something like that for one of his solo albums, although the rewards for donations got to be extremely ridiculous (i.e. doing acid and playing mini-golf with him and Maynard from Tool).


----------



## brutalwizard (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Fuckin' A. As I said earlier it's a privilege not a right, these days moreso than ever. A lot of these bands needs to wake the fuck up and stop making fools of themselves publically.



were only 11 pages in on a topic were ever valid point has already been discussed on each side. Its only bound to repeat itself for 5-6 more pages.

I hope....

edit 12 pages


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I will be buying the new Threat Signal album because they are extremely talented and have obviously worked hard. I like the look of everything about their new album. However, if a band thinks that they can cruise by in their careers by making an awful product and then expect people to pay just as much then it could be argued that they are stealing from the consumer who doesn't know any better or has been tricked. How many times has an album been sold on the strength of one track only for the customer to find that the rest of the album is complete shit? I'm not putting it forward as a strong argument, just a little food for thought.



To elaborate on my own point further - a positive to come out of downloading is that it's become much harder for bands to cruise by in their careers and has encouraged people to work much harder. I wish that was the case in the film industry, it would make finding decent films much easier. Luckily I am good at picking films anyway, but my god there is so much shit released it's unbelievable. Here's to hoping.


----------



## fps (Sep 22, 2011)

If you download an album for free and like it enough to listen to it more than once without then buying it, then any justification you have for doing so is self-serving nonsense.


----------



## petereanima (Sep 22, 2011)

Everything is said already, I just wanted to point out one more little detail, as some obviously dont get it:



Osiris said:


> You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.



Ever thought about that if you STREAM a track (best example, on youtube) where its legally available, you are actually helping the artist? Every visible click counts. Hell, our record got downloaded over 30.000 times...our vid on youtube has just a bit over 1.000 hits...if people would have streamed it on youtube, and it would show 30k views, we would get on better tours, bigger gigs inside of our country, easier onto gigs in foreign countries, better slots on festivals, even endorsements are possible with just enough youtube-hits...


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 22, 2011)

vampiregenocide said:


> They're very grateful for the support of their fans, besides it's all relative. You could then argue that the guy at MacDonalds is lucky to have a job at all, and should not complain because people are worse off. Where does it end?
> 
> Randy does care about his fans, he's a pretty nice guy and having seen them live I don't know what you mean about the whole instigating violence thing. Besides, it's metal.



you're right it is relative. however i can't agree that the guy at mackee's is fortunate to be where he is. he is _unfortunate_, but not _as_ unfortunate as a disabled person who has no home.

whereas randy is lucky to be where he is. maybe his situation isn't quite as good as he'd like, but i'd say it's pretty damn good. you know?

did they do the 'wall of death' when you saw them? that's asking for some pretty serious violence. i saw them in tampa, but i was hammered so i'm not going to lie and say i remember if he did a lot of "c'mon motherfuckers don't be pussies" stuff. 

but just because it's metal doesn't mean someone has to get their head kicked in. there are little kids at those shows. every so often i'll get in a pit, but i mostly i like to watch the guitarists so i can see what they're doing.

mustaine used to get fucked up and start shit too. i just think it's wrong.

actually randy reminds me more of anselmo.

don't get me wrong. i love log. i've loved them since i heard them the first time. the guitarists are awesome. just... idk. i loved metallica for a long time, too. i think it hurts worse when someone you respect does something that seems fucked up.


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I do think it's worth bringing up the Red Seas Fire album/EP again.
> 
> A lot of hard work was put into it and it's a quality product. People are flinging money at them because they can hear the hard work put in and can tell that in this day and age where everything is available fast, in abundance and sometimes free - this is worth their money, even if they're not paying for the music directly.
> 
> ...



you said it right, man. exactly. it's _a different ball game_. i'm not going to say what i do for a living, but there's are serious copyright and related issues that have forced those in my industry to work for little or no pay. but i still don't want to see people sued over it. it's something i have to deal with or get out. and i'm dealing with it. i think about it and share what i know with the other colleagues and we try to make it better.

one of my teachers said it best i think, "the genie is out of the bottle." you can agree or disagree with downloading, but it's here to stay. going after downloaders won't ever change that. 

to me, it becomes ethically wrong when you record or copy illegally and then make a profit from someone else's work. in my field, they call it "aggregating" and the biggest names do it. the biggest.

but the bottom line is you have to offer something that is worth paying for when you're dealing with intangibles. downloading a CD is not the same as shoplifting one from a store. sorry, different. 

if it's worth it, people will buy it. and you can complain and cry and ask "why lord why?" but this is how it is.


----------



## Fred the Shred (Sep 22, 2011)

Osiris said:


> You say that like downloading an album is morally wrong and streams, youtube videos, bandcamps and soundcloud profiles offering music for free arent. If an artist throws his music up there for free then he probably doesnt care how you get his free music.
> 
> That said, I was listening to the Mastodon stream yesterday of Hunter and it rocked tits. Probably gonna buy Crack the Skye soon.



As I said earlier in thread, I am all for people being able to stream my tracks, and I sure as hell care about how you'll get them to your PC / iPOD / whatever, as I paid for the whole shizzle myself. It is MY choice what mediums are alright for the listener to use to stream the songs, not some self-entitled kid who doesn't even know me and invested but a mouse click on the whole thing, sorry. 



Scar Symmetry said:


> To elaborate on my own point further - a positive to come out of downloading is that it's become much harder for bands to cruise by in their careers and has encouraged people to work much harder. I wish that was the case in the film industry, it would make finding decent films much easier. Luckily I am good at picking films anyway, but my god there is so much shit released it's unbelievable. Here's to hoping.



This only reinforces my point about streaming, which I'm all for provided there is the artist's consent. Ages ago, in the beginnings of MySpace's golden era, I found a band called To Mera, and I streamed their songs time and time again. Given my audio kit, even back then, I could easily capture the streaming audio and save it - thing is... "why should I when I don't even need to?".



petereanima said:


> Everything is said already, I just wanted to point out one more little detail, as some obviously dont get it:
> Ever thought about that if you STREAM a track (best example, on youtube) where its legally available, you are actually helping the artist? Every visible click counts. Hell, our record got downloaded over 30.000 times...our vid on youtube has just a bit over 1.000 hits...if people would have streamed it on youtube, and it would show 30k views, we would get on better tours, bigger gigs inside of our country, easier onto gigs in foreign countries, better slots on festivals, even endorsements are possible with just enough youtube-hits...



And here's why. Every time you click on a streaming track, I may get no money, but I get a valuable help regarding clinics and bookings, as well as the perceived reaction of the public, and what Fred has to offer them. This is leverage when negotiating things, so even when not gaining directly, the number of listens is a good way to complement the notion of projection artist / band X may have. It is also a way for me to let you guys hear or see what I'm up to, be it in its demo form of the fully fledged final product, as I like to share the evolution of my work, personally.


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 22, 2011)

god, there are such simple solutions to these problems but no one seems to ever see them. especially for an entity as large as the ri.


----------



## Ckackley (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm about to sound old ... 

Reading over this thread makes my stomach hurt.. So, it's not stealing because it's a copy ? It's a privilege to make music , but a right to listen to it ? Yay modern school systems. We've finally reached the point where we can reason ANYTHING we want out. Wanting something and reasoning out a sketchy argument on why stealing it is ok does not make it right. 
My band makes albums in our drummers basement. We have gotten revues putting us toe to toe with worldwide touring acts such as Nightwish and Epica. Most reviewers have no clue it was recorded in a basement. It still cost some money for mastering and pressing albums. Our band doesn't make any money. We all work day jobs and music is a hobby. However, if we had a sale for every person that tells us " I LOVE your music! I've downloaded all three of your albums!! " we'd have a pretty decent second income, allowing us to spend more time making music and less working another job so we can eat. It's great to hear that people like our stuff, but words won't put a roof over your head or food on the table. Downloading is stealing. Use whatever excuses you want, taking something without paying for it is thievery. Maybe one day money will be obsolete and we can all do what we want and share the stuff we create. That would be awesome! However it's NOT reality.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 22, 2011)

fps said:


> If you download an album for free and like it enough to listen to it more than once without then buying it, then any justification you have for doing so is self-serving nonsense.



It has already been covered that the issue at hand is not that simple.  I'm not saying I'm not justifying it or defending it, but that's what we're all doing here - serving our own purpose. The high horse is completely useless at this point - get off it.



Ancestor said:


> you said it right, man. exactly. it's _a different ball game_. i'm not going to say what i do for a living, but there's are serious copyright and related issues that have forced those in my industry to work for little or no pay. but i still don't want to see people sued over it. it's something i have to deal with or get out. and i'm dealing with it. i think about it and share what i know with the other colleagues and we try to make it better.
> 
> one of my teachers said it best i think, "the genie is out of the bottle." you can agree or disagree with downloading, but it's here to stay. going after downloaders won't ever change that.
> 
> ...



I completely agree with everything said here man. 

It's all very well people bitching, but if they're not offering a solution or even trying to find middle ground on how we can move forward then what are they contributing? Absolutely nothing. If you're going to vent at least offer a solution.


----------



## gotnothing (Sep 22, 2011)

fps said:


> If you download an album for free and like it enough to listen to it more than once without then buying it, then any justification you have for doing so is self-serving nonsense.



Exactly....bands deserve compensation for their hard work


----------



## etcetera (Sep 22, 2011)

Ckackley said:


> I'm about to sound old ...
> 
> Reading over this thread makes my stomach hurt.. So, it's not stealing because it's a copy ? It's a privilege to make music , but a right to listen to it ? Yay modern school systems. We've finally reached the point where we can reason ANYTHING we want out. Wanting something and reasoning out a sketchy argument on why stealing it is ok does not make it right.
> My band makes albums in our drummers basement. We have gotten revues putting us toe to toe with worldwide touring acts such as Nightwish and Epica. Most reviewers have no clue it was recorded in a basement. It still cost some money for mastering and pressing albums. Our band doesn't make any money. We all work day jobs and music is a hobby. However, if we had a sale for every person that tells us " I LOVE your music! I've downloaded all three of your albums!! " we'd have a pretty decent second income, allowing us to spend more time making music and less working another job so we can eat. It's great to hear that people like our stuff, but words won't put a roof over your head or food on the table. Downloading is stealing. Use whatever excuses you want, taking something without paying for it is thievery. Maybe one day money will be obsolete and we can all do what we want and share the stuff we create. That would be awesome! However it's NOT reality.



Yay modern schooling systems? I'm sorry if reasoning and logic are valued now, and weren't before as you implied, but somehow I don't think that's the case anyway. Just because you don't agree with an argument, labelling it a sketchy and a justification for stealing doesn't offer any kind of refutation. You're simply restating the fallacy that every download would have been a sale, when there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. The whole situation is nowhere near that simple, and people claiming that every download (how do you even accurately assess how many times it's been downloaded?) is equitable to a lost in income is ridiculous. 

I'm going to have to provide this disclaimer again - I'm not saying downloading is morally ok, or is a workable model for the future of music. I'm just trying to point out that oversimplifying the issue by labelling fans/people who are interested in your music as criminals goes nowhere towards finding a solution.


----------



## petereanima (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It's all very well people bitching, but if they're not offering a solution or even trying to find middle ground on how we can move forward then what are they contributing? Absolutely nothing. If you're going to vent at least offer a solution.



Well, what kind of solution are you asking for? I really would like to know what is needed to make people go from illegal free downloads to paying for music again?

There actually ARE offers, and imho - maybe due to me not being interested in downloads at all/beeing an old fart - actually already more than enough...please correct me if I'm really missing something which sould be offered.

To stick with the example Lamb Of God: I now go realtime while writing this post to amazon, first hit with searching for Lamb Of God - their record "sacrament". Available are single tracks for 0,60-0,97 per track (so you dont have to buy the whole record if you are only interested in a few tracks), the full record downloadble for 6,60 (still cheaper than the CD, no waiting time blabla) , or the real physical CD for 9,- (good price imho).

I dont know what is missing here.

And even if the price for one track would be 0,50 or lower - the majority would STILL keep the few cents and download illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is that the "solution" everyone is asking for is simply "make filesharing legal goddamnit".


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 22, 2011)

petereanima said:


> Well, what kind of solution are you asking for? I really would like to know what is needed to make people go from illegal free downloads to paying for music again?
> 
> There actually ARE offers, and imho - maybe due to me not being interested in downloads at all/beeing an old fart - actually already more than enough...please correct me if I'm really missing something which sould be offered.
> 
> ...





No, not at all. Things can't go back to how they were - the game has changed! I'm sick of repeating myself at this point. 

I don't know what the answer is, but I am genuinely excited to see how things turn out because it won't stay like this forever.

Maybe once again I can myself, as a musician (and I don't think people in this thread realise how much I want a career in music) can actually take a career in music seriously again.

I'd also like to point out that I myself have a CD that is available on all of the filesharing sites. I managed the band, wrote a lot for it, was involved in every single artistic aspect, I arranged the songs and the recording and I funded most of it myself too. Do you see me complaining? NO. It doesn't take a lot of wisdom to realise that in this instance, there's nothing you can do about it, so embrace it and move forward!


----------



## etcetera (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No, not at all. Things can't go back to how they were - the game has changed! I'm sick of repeating myself at this point.
> 
> I don't know what the answer is, but I am genuinely excited to see how things turn out because it won't stay like this forever.
> 
> Maybe once again I can myself, as a musician (and I don't think people in this thread realise how much I want a career in music) can actually take a career in music seriously again.



Exactly. Things won't go back to the way they were before, and the solution at this stage isn't clear, but I'm genuinely excited to see how it will all pan out once the dust has settled. 

For anyone who's interested, this is an interview with musician/producer Benn Jordan/The Flashbulb, who also owns the label Alphabasic -  Pirated by iTunes, Artist Turns to BitTorrent
 
As I mentioned before he releases his music on various BitTorrent trackers with a note about donating/purchasing a physical copy if you enjoy it. But given the behaviour of certain members who prefer leaving anonymous neg-rep instead of debating the issue in public, I have a feeling they aren't actually interested in furthering their knowledge or hearing anyone else's opinion on the matter.


----------



## petereanima (Sep 22, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It doesn't take a lot of wisdom to realise that in this instance, there's nothing you can do about it, so embrace it and move forward!



Of course not. As you might remember, I have a band myself ( I carry almost all the costs for production etc.etc., just the same as you did), and besides the "old school" style with the real physical CD up for sale etc, we uploaded the record to specific blogs ourselves so it is available, as we/I/.. are fully aware of how things are running today.

I thought we were already beyond this point in the conversation.

My post was really more about the "solution" everyone is screaming for - that would imply (as I stated earlier) that _both_ sides need to change something. And my questions imply was, _what_ is it the downloaders would change? Would they stop free downloading and pay for music again? Obviously not, because the offer would be here, so I really just wanted to understand WHAT everyone here is actually asking for.


----------



## Homebrew1709 (Sep 22, 2011)

petereanima said:


> And even if the price for one track would be 0,50 or lower - the majority would STILL keep the few cents and download illegal.



^ And that's the bottom line.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 22, 2011)

etcetera said:


> Yay modern schooling systems? I'm sorry if reasoning and *logic* are valued now >snip<



I am quite certain you have no idea what logic actually means, gathering from your posts. I never look at the modern youth and think well, these kids are far too logical. True story. It is more 'what in the hell are they doing' and if you ask them they will tell you 'I don't know', which is neither reasonable, nor logical.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 22, 2011)

SirMyghin said:


> I am quite certain you have no idea what logic actually means, gathering from your posts. I never look at the modern youth and think well, these kids are far too logical. True story. It is more 'what in the hell are they doing' and if you ask them they will tell you 'I don't know', which is neither reasonable, nor logical.



So could you show where I'm being illogical? I still don't see any refutation of what I said, other than some vague ageism.


----------



## GATA4 (Sep 22, 2011)

Good arguments in this thread. I like it.

*MOD EDIT: Don't be so butthurt over rep. *


----------



## brutalwizard (Sep 22, 2011)

etcetera said:


> So could you show where I'm being illogical? I still don't see any refutation of what I said, other than some vague ageism.



you talk as though there is a 100% proven method to evaluate that every illegal download would not have been a sale and tote it around as evidence to justify the concept to evolve past paying for music as the format is now.

i agree we need to "get with the times" and help find other alternatives to make music as a whole a stronger business.

"You're simply restating the fallacy that every download would have been a sale, when there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. "

i would love to see the evidence that suggests otherwise!!!

i mean cold hard real evidence, not just you saying something like 
"well you see, some people could have downloaded and deleted it and forgot about it". 

those are subjective variables, and without a study or general consensus to conclude the percentage of such things occuring, your saying the same thing as
every download would have been a sale.


----------



## SirMyghin (Sep 22, 2011)

etcetera said:


> So could you show where I'm being illogical? I still don't see any refutation of what I said, other than some vague ageism.



That you purport the ideology that stealing an idea is alright as it isn't tangible. Your furniture store example illustrates that train of thought clearly.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 22, 2011)

A lot of people re-hashing the same line about how they are hurt or financially impacted by illegal downloading. Still _*no examples*_ of how it is in any way worse of different than the way artists were compensated before the advent of downloading. I see a lot of romanticism here for a system that never actually existed.

Fred, not to single you out, but if not for downloading, internet distribution, and your ability to do what you do on your own, you wouldn't even exists. 30 years ago you had pretty much one choice for a guy like you - pray to Jesus that Mike Varney likes you. And even then, very few of those guys made any money either.

People want their cake and to eat it to - get their music out easier than ever, but still have people pay for it like some rare commodity.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 22, 2011)

brutalwizard said:


> you talk as though there is a 100% proven method to evaluate that every illegal download would not have been a sale and tote it around as evidence to justify the concept to evolve past paying for music as the format is now.
> 
> i agree we need to "get with the times" and help find other alternatives to make music as a whole a stronger business.
> 
> ...



Ok, maybe I've mistakenly implied something or completely forgotten about a previous post, but I certainly don't think there is any evidence to suggest that every illegal download wouldn't have been a sale. It's just as ridiculous as saying that every illegal download equates to a lost sale.



SirMyghin said:


> That you purport the ideology that stealing an idea is alright as it isn't tangible. Your furniture store example illustrates that train of thought clearly.



I certainly never said that. The furniture store analogy was to illustrate that copying isn't theft, it doesn't mean that it isn't wrong on some other level. I thought I'd made this obvious by adding the disclaimer: "Just to be clear, I'm not saying that downloading music is necessarily ethical/right, I'm simply pointing out the mistake in calling it theft and trying to oversimplify an inherently complex issue."


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 22, 2011)

PIRACY and THEFT are two different things. BOTH are unethical, BOTH are illegal, but they are not interchangeable concepts. I think that is what etcetera is trying to say.


----------



## etcetera (Sep 22, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> PIRACY and THEFT are two different things. BOTH are unethical, BOTH are illegal, but they are not interchangeable concepts. I think that is what etcetera is trying to say.



Pretty much, although I'm more interested in the ethical side of it, as opposed to the legal. I've actually seen a few people in this thread using the illegality of downloading as some kind of argument against the morality of it, which seems pretty silly.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Sep 22, 2011)

Ancestor said:


> did they do the 'wall of death' when you saw them? that's asking for some pretty serious violence. i saw them in tampa, but i was hammered so i'm not going to lie and say i remember if he did a lot of "c'mon motherfuckers don't be pussies" stuff.
> 
> but just because it's metal doesn't mean someone has to get their head kicked in. there are little kids at those shows. every so often i'll get in a pit, but i mostly i like to watch the guitarists so i can see what they're doing.
> 
> ...



I see what you mean, but the middle of a crowd is generally where a pit starts, so if you go to a metal show and stand there then expect to get caught in it. I personally don't like pits, so I stand to the side, but the people who do go into the pit love it and they tend to look out for each other. I am sure if Randy saw something going on that looked very unsafe, he'd make a point of it. I've seen many frontmen who encourage moshing stop and try to control things when it gets too much. It's only violent if people make it violent. I've been to some hardcore metal shows, and those fans are very different. They don't care about other people's safety and deliberately go out of their way to hurt one another.

But, another topic for another thread I think.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Sep 22, 2011)

I like how this thread keeps getting on and off track and jumping back pages in discussion because no ones reading posts before they respond xD


----------



## RevDrucifer (Sep 22, 2011)

I also like how this thread is entirely about the downloading issue and not one person has commented on what Randy is doing this weekend for breast cancer and his ranting about that yesterday.

One thing I would like to see is for the bands who are bitching about downloading to show us the exact facts of how it all breaks down financially. Maybe if people saw actual numbers as to how it's hurting the industry, people would give half a shit more than they do now.

Personally, I see both sides. I've downloaded in the past without buying a record, but the ones I do dig, I *HAVE* to get the disc as artwork/booklets are just important to me as the music. #whyvinylfuckingruled


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm gonna take my ukulele and become a wandering minstrel, playing for a bed, bread and beef broth.

Ah, the good old days!


----------



## Lon (Sep 22, 2011)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm gonna take my ukulele and become a wandering minstrel, playing for a bed, bread and beef broth.
> 
> Ah, the good old days!


Actually, you're on the money there, not to become a wandering ministrel, but to change your businessmodel.

If you closely observe how new bands are pushed (HAARP Machine would be a recent example), its like Pokemon 10 Years ago, its not just about music (or the Gameboy-games), you gotta offer something to listen, to watch, to read, to everything. Full fledged multi-media assault, interviews for the philosophers, playthrough videos for the skill-sturbators, youtube streams for the crowd to listen to, and of course *crosspromotion* from other bands, this is why labels are still important, pure and simple promotional whoredom.

And of course this is not a evaluation to tell you how its done, this is just an observation how bands get pushed now and what you can try to do. The problem is, you cant half-ass anything, every aspect of your bands "public face" must be top notch production quality (guess why there are professionally done lyric videos nowerdays and no more windows moviemaker fanvids...)


----------



## Ancestor (Sep 22, 2011)

what would happen if a band (who owned their licensing) made every song and video they put together available for free? had their own site and allowed people to legally and easily download their stuff? then sold advertising?

who would bother with an illegal download if you can get a better quality version for free legally? everyone would go to that site. if the band has enough traffic, they can sell advertising (as well as cds, dvds and merch) and probably make more money than they would from their tiny percentage they get from a recording contract.

most bands don't want to bother with learning the business part of music and they get stuck in terrible contracts. bands like type o. 

i mean, c'mon people. we have brains. most of us are pretty smart. we just need to use them and stop relying on a solution that doesn't work or works with horrible inefficiency.


----------



## JP Universe (Sep 22, 2011)

Homebrew1709 said:


> ^ And that's the bottom line.


 
Cause Stone Cold.... said so


----------



## lemeker (Sep 23, 2011)

I didn't get through every post but on the topic of piracy and downloading, and the argument of stealing and copying, what about the old days when people used to pass cassette tapes around......now I know sound quality greatly diminished after each recording, but the principle behind would be the same, and nobody complained about it back then. For that matter burning discs, same thing isn't it, still nobody said a thing..... 

I'm not justifying it, I have downloaded, and am a horrible person for doing so......I still buy 98-99% of my music. 

I was always under the impression artists never made much money on records anyway....most of their revenue came from merch and ticket sales for concerts....


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 23, 2011)

lemeker said:


> I didn't get through every post but on the topic of piracy and downloading, and the argument of stealing and copying, what about the old days when people used to pass cassette tapes around......now I know sound quality greatly diminished after each recording, but the principle behind would be the same, and nobody complained about it back then.



This was the beginning of piracy, and nobody was complaining because it was not wide spread. The inconvenience, the need for a dual tape deck that most didn't have in the beginning, the degradation in quality, etc... - not that many people were doing it. If anything it was helping promote and spread new artists further and faster, and brought the mainstream sales figures to previously underground bands and genres. (See: Metallica).

Unfortunately the industry was too short sighted to think that some day not only could one reproduce music PERFECTLY from copy to copy, but that it could be distributed over airwaves in a matter of seconds. So what may have been easily ignored or even beneficial then has turned into the nail in their coffin today.


----------



## ArrowHead (Sep 23, 2011)

You wanna talk piracy, here' a funny memory:

When I was a kid, I remember my friend bringing me an album by Weird Al Yankovich. (the first album). It was awesome, and I had to have it. My sister and I had identical shitty mono tape decks from radio shack, so we put them face to face so that the speaker of one was up against the microphone of the other and recorded the album as it played. 

Thats how it worked then. We didn't even have dual cassette machines yet as the idea of copying albums was so new. (and even then - illegal). The quality of the resulting dub was something that we would describe as "horrific", but I rocked that copy of that cassette for weeks. When I finally made it to the record store my entire saved allowance went to buying that album so I didn't have to listen to that shitty copy.


----------



## Necris (Sep 23, 2011)

I wonder how he feels about buying used albums. I do it all the time and I get albums (ones still in production at that) for significantly less than they would cost new and none of my money goes directly to the artist or the label, it all goes to the guy selling it to me. Presuming I'm the third or fourth owner of that album and will sell it myself eventually quite a few people hear the album in it's intended quality without any money going to the artist or label but it's perfectly legal. And that's without taking lending the CD out to people into account.


----------



## oremus91 (Sep 23, 2011)

Well this is the 13th page so I doubt anyone cares anymore but I feel like I should through out my thoughts for good measure. Some people have had similar viewpoints already I think. Anyways...

You can't compare burgers with music. Burgers are physical property, music is intellectual property. I personally believe that it is a little ridiculous that you can patent knowledge and ideas because that is something that should be shared with everyone for the greater good. That being said, artists work hard for what they do and deserve compensation for the process and as a valid appreciation of their contributions and while piracy isn't direct theft, it is immoral. I realize it's difficult to make money with the kind of hippie ideas I have so take it with a grain of salt.

If I was cool enough to have my own band I would charge for swag and for us to play shows. We would take donations if they enjoyed our music but the music itself would be under a license that promotes individual liberty. Freedom to acquire and distribute my music or use it as a model for their own as long as they also give me credit (assuming it was even any good!) because I, like barney, don't believe you should go to jail for sharing with your neighbor.


----------



## Shi7Disc0 (Sep 29, 2011)

Theres too much stuff I want to listen to for me to pay for everything. I will say though, that if I like the music I will make an effort to support the band by purchasing other merchandise, or pay to see them live. I doubt LOG makes that much money from their albums anyways.

The market is oversaturated with independant recording studios who can get the job done just as easily working out of their basement on a DAW saving you tons of $$. This is a new generation and you cant fight free internet distribution, your just pissing off your fans and rejecting exposure to a larger crowd. 

Heres an idea, record under a cheap indie/ no name label and give your album out for FREE on the INTERNET. Only make physical CD's with extra content/ posters and bs to the hardcore fanboys who PREORDER. Focus on making money from TOURING and selling MERCHANDISE. Problem solved.


----------



## rectifryer (Dec 22, 2011)

Sorry for a little bit of a bump......


The communications revolution has cut out all sorts of middle men; the music industry is no different. Is it intellectual property? Yes. It transduces to a monetary value no matter how abstract that value may be. That is undeniable and inarguable. However, reitterating points made before me, the music industry doesnt have an inherent right to maintain superfluous operation. 

Online distribution at a lower price with direct agreements between the host and artist is the solution. Maintaining a price point of physical media is insulting to customers especially since none of the overhead of physical distribution is there. Its clear that people have an issue with this, thus, they have turned to piracy. Thats not the only reason people pirate, but its probably the main factor. All in all, there are still other options instead of the criminal route....

I dont like paying 10$ for a CD, SO I DON'T. You know what I do? I support the local musicians that are just as good as the labels' offerings. There are so many free artist products out there, that its borderline denial to simply pirate. The trade off is promotion of the lower tier bands. In this aspect, turning to piracy reduces a need for an audience to discover local talent; talent that could just as easily satisfy a consumer's demands. In this illustration, its easy to see how piracy hurts your local scene.

Don't give me the production argument. Nearly every artist on the website has nice production. SSO itself is a testament to the quality of free music.


----------



## Joose (Dec 22, 2011)

It's been about 2 years since I downloaded any music; proud to say it too.

And, Randy is awesome.


----------

