quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I read this book by Tori Amos where she talked about how musicians often end up owing a ton of money to their music companies for their tours, for pretty much everything. Maybe that's a more larger problem than file sharing. Companies taking chunks of money away from young musicians, them having to pay lawyers, management, everything.A lot of musicians seem to make only a small precentage off their record sales. It doesn't excuse it, but it's a serious problem. People are working their butts off so that managers and companies can make more money off of music than the musicians. File-sharing is a useful tool and shouldn't really be banned. Do you realize that Dir en grey sold out whole concert halls in Germany and America and France WITHOUT any radio exposure or exposure on MTV? Just by the power of the internet? Companies and individual musicians should find a way to harnass that instead of trying to destroy it...
All right, here we go. Traditional Recording Contracts 101:
An artist signs a contract with a label. The label gives the artist an advance of, say, $150,000. The label then pays for the artist's recording and gives tour support and promotion, as well as publicity.
The artist receives, typically, around 13% of the list price of album sales.
The thing is, the artist advance and recording costs generally have to be recouped. Sometimes, the artist also has to pay for part of promotion and tour support.
But when I say "the artist has to pay," what I mean is that the artist's 13% is kept by the label until the label earns back what it has already spent on the artist. Generally, records recoup after around 500,000 copies are sold.
The artist doesn't actually OWE the label any money in the sense of having to pay it back. But the artist won't see any royalties on record sales until he/she/they earns back what the company put out.
BUT, if the artist is the composer of the music on the album, he/she/they DOES receive mechanical royalties on every copy REGARDLESS off recoupment.
The ARTIST doesn't PAY the managers or promotions or ANYTHING out of his/her/their own pocket, if he/she/they has a recording contract.
posted
Read the book... a ton of musicians end up in the red, and it's not just the file sharing.....
But couldn't there be some sort of middle ground? Why must everything be either, let folks do what they want to and dl whole entire albums or stop file sharing, shut down all the sites and programs. None of which solves the problem or helps undiscovered talent get discovered instead of me having to be tortured by the same Avril songs on constant rotation... Middle ground. Moderation. Supporting awesome artist like Sia by buying her USA release and by buying Dir en grey's release of Withering to Death if it EVER comes out in America without them changing the dates. Or perhaps I am just tired of people being so rigid on both sides.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, musicians end up "in the red" because of their own bad judgment, not because of the "evil" record companies. They don't make the artists pay them back except through record sales, and there are plenty of other revenue streams for recording artists, anyway. Concert ticket sales, endorsements, the mechanical royalties, merchandise...
I'm not saying it's "just" file sharing. But the fact is, it's not the big bad record companies, either. In fact, illegally downloading a band's music instead of purchasing the CD makes it more likely that the band will lose its contract and thus much of its label-supported touring and promotions.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I find it rather insulting that people think that they "deserve" music for free.
Cue the random judgments about the music industry and how horrible it is.
-pH
pH your not listening to what was said: The product being downloaded is not available for sale! How can you pay for something when the person providing it doesn't want your money, and hasn't offered to sell it to you? Alot of people record concerts and post them online, I can't see why bands wouldn't be in favor of this, as it should show what a good live gig they have.
Before you and Dag jump all over that point: I am pointing out the obvious, not endorsing the activity. This goes on, and you can't stop it, so you've got to work it to your advantage.
I understand your trying to defend your peice of the pie, but you need to keep your ears open (for lack of a better phrase). The music industry isn't "evil" per se, but it did encourage the file sharing culture before it adopted the internet as a marketing tool, and that isn't purely the fault of selfish downloaders.
You've just got to look at why people are downloading, and then adress the thing logically: how can we make it so that people don't want to do this, or won't because they don't feel it's right. Going on a tear about how its illegal, (not the case in all circumstances anyway) doesn't change anything, it just insulates people against listening to you at all. I agree with you on the points, but your approach needs to be calmer and more collected, with a reasonable idea of who your talking to and about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perception, Fair-Use, and Interoperability.
I. We the consumer perceive to get free music from the radio, which is paid by advertising. a. I change the station when ads come on.
II. Recording off air TV and radio for personal record and archival is ok a. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios III. If I the consumer purchases media or IP, I should be able to use it on any of my devices. I have purchased the right to view or use it.
Subtext: Battlestar Galactica TV (2003-2006) Pilot was pirated on the internet heavily, because: It was broadcast (see I, II), And it happened to reach more consumers via word of mouth (personal interaction between people) therefore raising the awareness and number of potential customers.
90% of the media I consume is free, be it TV or radio, or pirated material; because of that increased exposure I actually purchase things I really enjoy and wish to keep around.
I don't say this to condone piracy, I say it to expose why some people think it's okay, and to expose that it's more complicated than a cut and dry bad or good thing.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That tone sort of makes me want to file share even more. I really think that in the future companies should try to use file sharing as a powerful tool and not try to supress it by SUING PEOPLE or illogical things like that. Bjork had interesting things to say on the subject. It's an effective way to spread music around I think and not a threat to the industry no more than recording off the radio is. (Which I used to do as a kid, don't even tell me music isn't important to me becaue it is, it's an addiction....)
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, trust me, I unfortunately have spent far, far too much time discussing and examining why people download.
There are plenty of different reasons, and downloading itself isn't the sole reason the music industry is struggling. There are any number of reasons.
Unfortunately, however, it has created an attitude, especially amongst people who were teens during Napster's heyday, that they shouldn't have to pay for music.
And yes, I think suing customers may not have been the best way to go about it...but in all honesty, I don't think the RIAA had any clue how to handle such a situation. The major labels are freaking out, which is why they're being very slow on embracing digital downloads as a legitimate source of revenue (and right now, digital music services only make up a small percentage of the total market anyway). I'm not "cool" amongst fellow students because I don't despise the record industry for their reaction. They don't know what to do. Change is hard for any company, especially what will amount to a fairly sizable change in their focus. I mean, the movie industry thought home video would destroy them...and they were also having problems at the time home video was first introduced. Companies in the transportation industry have done the same thing. It's nothing new, and it's not a horrible thing. It's also no reason to "punish" the labels. It would make a lot more impact on the industry if people were to make themselves a part of the legal download market instead of running off to illegal filesharing programs.
posted
I think the situation would improve vastly if labels' legal and customary exceptions to antitrust laws were dropped.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think the first artist who gets a contract in which the packaging fee does not apply to legal download sales will be a huge sign of major label acceptance of the download market and their willingness to rethink their business model.
If it's already happened, I haven't heard about it.
quote:Unfortunately, however, it has created an attitude, especially amongst people who were teens during Napster's heyday, that they shouldn't have to pay for music.
And they shouldn't have to pay for music - unless there is some sign that not paying will prevent the music artists from being music artists. So far I have not seen a sign of that, with artists still profiting from shows, CD sales, etc. And consumers really shouldn't have to pay for music that is now very old and/or whose original authors have passed away - there's not all that much point to that.
Unfortunately, for many years music could not simply be shared in the way file sharing allows it to be. That created an attitude that the music itself could be owned, and that the owner deserves to be paid whenever someone listens to that music. And it allowed the industry to create copyright laws that were both far too long-lasting and far too restrictive. Look at other, more easily shared information and you can see the difference. If I have an idea and tell it to somebody, unless I made him agree to keep it secret, he can tell other people and those other people are under no obligation to pay me anything. If I write a short story and give it to someone, he can go read that story to other people - and they can in turn even memorize it and tell it to even more people, without giving me a cent. If I come up with a mathematical proof and show it to somebody, that person can tell it to other people, and those people wouldn't need to pay me. That's how the sharing of information usually works, and I think consumers would greatly benefit if the laws regarding music were switched in accordance to this. Music should be copyright protected to the extent that people cannot profit from or sell another person's ideas during a certain period of time, and so that other people can't take credit for a certain person's work. However, freely sharing should be allowed to the same degree (and accepted with the same enthusiasm) that people are allowed and encouraged to be check books out from libraries.
I have also seen no evidence yet that artists as a whole will be significantly hurt by this. I suspect big-time artists will get significantly less money (yet still enough to keep being artists), but I think small-time artists will get a boost from an environment where their works can be more easily heard and exchanged. Most of all, I suspect the free exchange of music will benefit good music over bad music, because it will favor the music than fans want to share and download, rather than favoring the music that the industry wants to sell.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: And they shouldn't have to pay for music - unless there is some sign that not paying will prevent the music artists from being music artists. So far I have not seen a sign of that, with artists still profiting from shows, *CD sales*, etc. And consumers really shouldn't have to pay for music that is now very old and/or whose original authors have passed away - there's not all that much point to that.
That'd be a neat trick, if people shouldn't be paying for music.
-pH Edit to fix emphasis.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not so tricky as it sounds. People already pay to go to shows even though they have CDs. They clearly would still pay to go to performances.
I suspect many would also still buy the CDs - for the same reason that many people who check a book at a library and enjoy the book later decide to buy it in hardcover: just to be able to own it. Even if I'm wrong on that, given that musicians existed long before copies of music could ever be sold on CD or record, I think it's extremely unlikely that music would cease to be profitable if CDs stopped being sold.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Not so tricky as it sounds. People already pay to go to shows even though they have CDs. They clearly would still pay to go to performances.
I suspect many would also still buy the CDs - for the same reason that many people who check a book at a library and enjoy the book later decide to buy it in hardcover: just to be able to own it. Even if I'm wrong on that, given that musicians existed long before copies of music could ever be sold on CD or record, I think it's extremely unlikely that music would cease to be profitable if CDs stopped being sold.
I'm not following. People shouldn't pay for music.
posted
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if music was legally available for free, people would still buy CDs.
That would devastate music stores, which are already in serious trouble to begin with.
On top of that, the people who would buy CDs would be...music freaks. The general public wouldn't do it. CD sales would drop dramatically, and the artist would get much less in the way of mechanical royalties. And I sincerely doubt that that money would be made up in concert sales.
posted
The question is not whether the money would be made up in concert sales. The question is whether they'd still make enough from concert sales to and other sales to warrant being professional musicians for a living. Again, professional musicians have existed long before CDs ever did.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I write a short story and give it to someone, he can go read that story to other people - and they can in turn even memorize it and tell it to even more people, without giving me a cent.
This is not an unlimited right, and it applies to music as well, to the same extent.
quote:However, freely sharing should be allowed to the same degree (and accepted with the same enthusiasm) that people are allowed and encouraged to be check books out from libraries.
This is already the case - it is legal to check out CDs from libraries in the exact same way books are checked out.
When you check a book out from the library, you are using copy which was (presumably) paid for. No one else can read the book while you have it, and when you return, you no longer can read it.
This is not the case for file-sharing (as big a misnomer as "pirate" by the way - it's not sharing, it's copying).
If you really think music sharing "should be allowed to the same degree" as checking out books from a library, rejoice! you already have that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I didn't expect this many replies when I started this topic.
Before I get started, I'd like to share with you something that talks a bit about pirating and how the response could get out of hand. <http://rr.beyondapoc.net/afternow/128kbps/afternow_128_01.mp3> The bit about piracy begins at 8:38, but I'd recommend listening to all of it.
Don't worry, it's a legal download posted by the author himself. The site for the rest of the show is <http://www.theafternow.com/listen.php>
Now, here's my questions for pH and all the rest of y'all. First, take legalities out of the picture. I'm talking from a strictly moral standpoint. 1)What if the artist is dead? 2)What if the pirate downloads only songs that were played on the radio, in the same format that the radio played them? 3)What if it were certain that the artist would recieve no money from the only cd's you could buy? 4)(this kinda follows up #3) What if there were NO other way to get their music? 5)What if they happen to be System of a Down? (Sorry, personal biases run deep. There are some bands I hope fail so that they'll stay off the radio.)
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jimbo the Clown: Now, here's my questions for pH and all the rest of y'all. First, take legalities out of the picture. I'm talking from a strictly moral standpoint. 1)What if the artist is dead? 2)What if the pirate downloads only songs that were played on the radio, in the same format that the radio played them? 3)What if it were certain that the artist would recieve no money from the only cd's you could buy? 4)(this kinda follows up #3) What if there were NO other way to get their music? 5)What if they happen to be System of a Down? (Sorry, personal biases run deep. There are some bands I hope fail so that they'll stay off the radio.)
1. If the artist is dead, even ignoring the legal issues, I'd still want to buy the music, I think. To me, purchasing music is a show of support.
2. I still wouldn't go for it. Besides, radio...is becoming increasingly bad. Actually, either Sirius or XM had an issue with that kind of thing...they wanted to make it possible for people to directly record their music or something, and someone threw a fit...I don't remember the exact case; I'll try to find it.
3. I can't think of an instance in which that would be the case. And even so, I think it's important to show whoever put out the CD that you value the artist and his/her music and are willing to support him/her in such a manner. Low CD sales are what get bands dropped.
4. Again, in what situation would there be no other way? If the artist puts his/her own music up for free download, knock yourself out. Otherwise, if the music really is only available in digital format, I'll buy it from my legal download service.
5. Hahahaha. I've got no issue with System. Hell, I paid for one of those atrocious Britney Spears albums. I figured somebody had to help pay her airbrusher.
posted
1. I do like the instant gratification of downloading, but it's good to have that solid CD, even if I don't play it (like with my Dir en grey CDs) and just use the 350 bitrate mp3s. 2. I don't see a problem with it, especially if it's something that is not often played on the radio enough and you just want to have the song. I'm for less restrictions when it comes to things, not more. More just makes it worse. 3. It still would be nice to have the CD. I'd buy a used copy if I can't afford a new one. (I think lack of promotion doesn't help either. There are some bands and artists that are so good, but when do you hear them on the radio? When do they get played on MTV when it gets choked by people like all these dull pop musicians that are as boring as fast food. It's like weeds. What about stuff like Tori Amos that is just so good, but she's now 40 so her record company tried to limit her and basically put a visegrip on her songs until she got annoyed and went to another label.) 4. If it's something rare and the band doesn't mind, I say go for it. 5. I heard a couple of their songs. Dir en grey got compared to them but they are MILLIONS OF TIMES BETTER than S of a D and most of these cookie cutter bands. Long live DIRU!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: originally posted by pH 3. I can't think of an instance in which that would be the case. And even so, I think it's important to show whoever put out the CD that you value the artist and his/her music and are willing to support him/her in such a manner. Low CD sales are what get bands dropped.
Alrite, here's a ferinstance for you. I like the singer Captain Jack. He's dead now, but when he was still alive, I made a point to look for his cds. Everywhere I looked didn't offer them. Even HIS OWN SITE didn't sell the cds. Finally, I found a copy at a local shop. The cd was preowned, so there wasn't a chance that the money from the sale would go to the Captain. Are you saying I should have bought the cd just to support an artist, even though I knew he wouldn't get the money?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another question. What if you had already bought the cd, but through no fault of your own, it was destroyed? Since you already showed support and gave them your money, would it be immoral to download the cd instead of paying for it again?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That happened to me with- NIN Their double album. I crushed one of the CDs under a chair! It's a major PAIN to buy a new copy of a double CD. It's enough to drive me nuts. One of these days I'll get a new copy of Kisou. I treated that CD with kid gloves. I could kill the person who scratched it up when I loaned it to them.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jimbo the Clown: Another question. What if you had already bought the cd, but through no fault of your own, it was destroyed? Since you already showed support and gave them your money, would it be immoral to download the cd instead of paying for it again?
I have, in the past, bought more than four copies of a CD of a band FOR WHOM I WAS WORKING, despite the fact that they would've gladly given me free copies. I ended up buying multiple copies because my brother stole one, my ex-boyfriend never returned one, I left one in a friend's car because he really liked it, and so on.
So I, personally, would find it immoral to download the CD for free instead of paying for it again.
posted
It makes sense to invest in a place/person of employment. That's why my dad buys gas from Shell even when there's a cheaper place across the street.
I believe copyrights allow a person to make one copy of a cd for personal use. I do this with some of my older cds so should they finally become scratched to the point of uselessness, I have a back-up. I don't see too much difference in downloading a cd if one breaks before a legal personal copy can be made.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But their success had no bearing on my pay or my job. I was going to keep working for them no matter what, and the only reason I stopped is because I moved to Louisiana.
I've done the same for bands that I don't work for, too. I was pointing out that I worked for that particular band because I was in a position to be provided with free CDs, and I still decided to pay.
quote:Originally posted by pH: If I understand you correctly, you're saying that even if music was legally available for free, people would still buy CDs.
That would devastate music stores, which are already in serious trouble to begin with. -pH
I agree with you pH, but your snatching up the wrong gauntlet here. These "institutions" of music were all created, they all evolved to make money off of something that already existed. Musicians have been around for millenia, and the recording industy for less than a century.
In that time they've convinced us that its somehow necessary to have all the agressive advertising, overhyping, transforming the artists into unrecognizable lumps of spent uranium so that the industry can glean a few more dollars from a career. I love the arguments that people make about how a new advancement will kill the jobs in an outmoded business model... well duh, if you can't evolve and take advantage of new technology, you deserve to lose your job and your business.
Likewise, and to their collective woe, the things that the recording industry originally did are so cheap and easy, that we don't need them to do those things anymore. The pioneering days of the Beetles in the studio are gone, it doesn't take a lifetime of knowledge to make a record anymore. They no longer control the means of production, so they want to control advertising and distribution. Woops! Advertising is cheap, but we can weight the process down with think tanks and testing. Distribution is virtually free now... well we've just got to stall, prevaricate, try and make the whole think especially difficult and expensive to justify the percentages we reap in this business.
Why do you defend a business that doesn't need to exist anymore? The idea that they are also responsible for exposing the public to new and great music is a false one, because the recording industry is also responsible to ruining or sabotaging the careers of countless artists. And what about the talents that went unnoticed or unnurtured because the industry couldn't see a bottom line?
This is the reason that today IMO most popular music is mindless ear candy- great music doesn't sell if it requires the listener to put a little effort into the experience. The machine that produces music catches onto that, and what do you do when cotton candy sells twice as fast as corn dogs? You sell only cotton candy, all the time. Frankly my stomach hurts from being force-fed this garbage since I was a little kid, so I'm ready to say toodles to the recording industry, for better or worse.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've worked with major labels, artists signed to major labels, unsigned artists, local artists, and, most recently, a small indie label.
So no. I'm not "snatching up the wrong gauntlet," nor am I simply defending my "piece of the pie."
I become incredibly frustrated with people telling me that I don't know "how it works."
Yeah, music stores were created.
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
posted
I dont like getting msuic fromt he internet and this is not from a money point of view. My child wants an MP3 player for this player she wants to download (we would pay for it) only songs she already knows and likes onto it, meaning she is only downloading songs that are getting airplay. But what about all she is not getting. Where will she find songs that are B-sides or in the case of what are now cd's hidden tracks? How will she be exposed to all of the music available from a band. If she isnt reading the cover of a cd, album or tape how will she know who influenced the band? If she doesnt know who influenced the band how will she open herself up to new music? I am to depend on music I already know and a DJ with greased hands to dole out the music my daughter will ever experience? I am all for technology, but not at the expense of art and new experiences.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
opie, most music services will, with each band listing, give a biography that usually lists influences. They also give recommendations for similar artists, and a lot of times, they have some really cool, hard-to-find tracks.
posted
Everyone seems to be stuck on music. Piracy, however, includes books, videogames, movies, and all manner of other things as well.
Personally, I pirate just about everything, but my guidlines vary from one media to another. I pay my fifteen a month for music, but the amount I can download with that fifteen makes it feel free. I will only download books if I have a paper copy, so that I can read them on my Palmpilot. I have no scruples about videogames, movies, or T.V. shows, however. (unless it's a video released by someone I know will get the money, like the video of past concerts bands sometimes sell) So, lets broaden the conversation. What's are your opinions, folks?
Also, while we're at it, how does everyone feel about Tivo and similar programs? Aren't those forms of piracy as well?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have yet to see anything which disproves or argues the fact that people who are heavy downloaders are also the greatest purchasers of music.
There are alot of bands who would not be making money from me if it weren't for the fact that I discovered them via illegal downloads. If I'm even the slightest bit curious about a band, I'll download one of their cds, upload it to my ipod for easy listening. If they're any good, I become hooked and will atleast go back and buy a copy for my car. Some of my favorite bands were found this way and now they have the benefit of one more fan who is there to get their next cd the day it hits stores. And if I don't like the cd, well, I wouldn't have purchased it in the first place regardless. I'm not sad about them not making money off my disappointment.
As for other media, I'm actually a bigger pirate of movies and tv shows. The movie theatre here only has four screens and since this is a college town it acts to serve only local parents with kids and young adults with very little taste. So I download alot of movies. I have to say that I purchase copies of almost all of them because I'm a sucker for Special Edition dvds with extras. I also download alot of tv shows because its a higher quality than my vcr can handle. I have classes and extraciriculars which make it hard for me to catch my favorite shows. So I download when its convient, watch at my leisure, then purchase the sets of my favorite shows once they hit shelves. (for example, I have seasons 3 of scrubs and season 5 of Queer as Folk sitting on my hard-drive to watch until they're both released this May.) Since I don't have a dvd-burner and find blank dvds expensive anyway, I pay alittle extra for the pretty packaging and it doesn't bother me.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Jimbo, what makes you think the people who make video games don't deserve to be paid for their work? Obviously, if everyone downloaded, they would stop making them, because it wouldn't be profitable. . . so why should the rest of us pay for you to play for free?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was trying to be concise, so I didn't fully explain my philosophy on videogames. Old games (Snes, Nes, etc.) are only available preowned nowadays, so any money I pay for them will only go to the store. I don't download computer games, unless it's out of print, until after I've bought a copy. I don't download modern console games at all, however. Part of that, yes, is that the emulators don't exist and I don't want a mod chip, but I AM and avid gamer; I have over forty bought-and-paid-for PS2 games and many more Gamecube games.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry. Like I said, I was trying to be concise; that's why it's so different. Still, so that there aren't any more misunderstandings, I download only movies that have been released on DVD. That's more because camrips are horrible quality than morals, though. I don't really care about the income of Hollywood. (With a few exceptions- I bought my copy of Serenity, and I'll gladly pay for a movie with Morgan Freeman in it.) As for T.V., I'm indiscriminate.(Though I plan to buy Firefly as soon as I get the money together; I certainly hope the show gets reinstated!)
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious about how buying used plays into this. From a purely economic standpoint, and the artist/label point of view, does used = pirated?
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just today I spent $14 for a CD my wife -- the tracks of which I'd already "illegally" downloaded & given to her weeks ago.
I will start respecting copyright protection more when its proponents stop dishonestly treating information as property.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
-pH
You probably know how it works better than I do, so I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. My point is that unlike drugstores and groceries, record stores are nearing a point where what they do is no longer something that we want or need. If that happens, it will be a mix of good and bad results, the culture will be affected for sure. So the business structures that we created to distribute products are slowly replaced by other structures. You can't distribute groceries online, you can't perscribe drugs over the telephone (mostly). But you can foresee a future where media is delivered entirely digitally, and the record business can also see that their usefulness in that schema is going to be at issue.
Since I know you know how it works, I know you can see this happening too. Piracy shows us what is possible. It does tell us what people want, and what people will do. Its just like people who smoke pot, (not exactly the same thing granted), they want a product they aren't allowed to have, so we know that if we started supplying it they would surely buy it legally. The fact that they break the law to get it tells me that they REALLY do want it, so if we can be reasonable and provide music online, fairly and easily, with the artists recieving a reasonable share of the profit, then we should do that. I see the problem being that the record industry has no real interest, financially, in giving up that huge production model with big profits, for what would be a more streamlined business model with digital delivery.
Hey, maybe people will still want albums, but if not, what does the industry provide that we can't do better? Like the dinosaur...
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: I'm curious about how buying used plays into this. From a purely economic standpoint, and the artist/label point of view, does used = pirated?
I remember back in the early 90s (before CD burning or mp3 downloading was even an issue), Garth Brooks was seriously up in arms about sale of used CDs. How he thought this differed from, say, used book stores, is beyond me.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I DO think that the business model is going to have to change; there are plenty of smaller labels that currently focus more on the digital market.
But stealing music isn't going to make the major labels alter their views on downloads as quickly as supporting legal download services will.
Also, "record industry" and "music industry" are two different terms.
posted
Okay, just one comment. As a musician, and a member of a family of numerous musicians, piracy sucks.
However, most artists don't hold the copyright to their work, the record label does and that means that they get what the record company agrees to give them. It also means that if they switch labels, they don't get to take their old recordings with them, and any profits from before they switched are going right into the corporation's pocket, not the artists.
Fair? Not really.
Buy from independant artists. They keep more of their money, and they probably own their own copyrights.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect that free music sharing will eventually evolve naturally, from the bottom up, into the normal way in which music is distributed, even without any legal changes.
As young bands increasingly use the internet (from filesharing programs to myspace.com) to distribute their music, they will see the benefit of allowing free downloading of songs. Bands who give away music get greater exposure than those restricting their music - increasingly so as more and more music fans take advnatage of digital music. And more established bands won't want to look bad by withholding their music when their competitors are giving it away, so they will eventually be forced to accept free sharing of their music too. Eventually, I expect it will trickle up until even the most popular groups will feel pressure to accept free filesharing as the standard method of distribution - or risk alienating fans. It will certainly take time for attitudes to change, though.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Drugstores were created, too. Grocery stores were created. Just about every business structure we have today was created, many of them very recently. What's your point?
-pH
You probably know how it works better than I do, so I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. My point is that unlike drugstores and groceries, record stores are nearing a point where what they do is no longer something that we want or need. If that happens, it will be a mix of good and bad results, the culture will be affected for sure. So the business structures that we created to distribute products are slowly replaced by other structures. You can't distribute groceries online, you can't perscribe drugs over the telephone (mostly). But you can foresee a future where media is delivered entirely digitally, and the record business can also see that their usefulness in that schema is going to be at issue.
Since I know you know how it works, I know you can see this happening too. Piracy shows us what is possible. It does tell us what people want, and what people will do. Its just like people who smoke pot, (not exactly the same thing granted), they want a product they aren't allowed to have, so we know that if we started supplying it they would surely buy it legally. The fact that they break the law to get it tells me that they REALLY do want it, so if we can be reasonable and provide music online, fairly and easily, with the artists recieving a reasonable share of the profit, then we should do that. I see the problem being that the record industry has no real interest, financially, in giving up that huge production model with big profits, for what would be a more streamlined business model with digital delivery.
Hey, maybe people will still want albums, but if not, what does the industry provide that we can't do better? Like the dinosaur...
You can get both groceries and prescriptions over the internet. I was recently very much disabled due to an extremely high risk pregnancy and my family would ahve been up the creek without these services.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I said (mostly) Opiejudy. However your part of the market is small, and you still have to actually get your hands on a physical product, the mail will always be slower, thus less desirable to the consumer.
"But stealing music isn't going to make the major labels alter their views on downloads as quickly as supporting legal download services will."-pH
In this case I would like that to be true, but think about it. If there hadn't been millions of people on napster, we still wouldn't have any legal download services available to us. The threat posed by dowloaders prompted the industry to take action. How could we have supported these services before they ever existed? And since they exist because of the piracy problem, its obvious to me that piracy did serve to show the industry what was possible.
That being said, now IS a good opportunity for consumers to let the industry know that it is on to a good thing at last. The problem is that as soon as the industry as its hands back on the reigns, it surely won't be as reasonable as piracy forces it to be. Ie, companies will continue to become more agressive in their attempts to market and get people to pay more for less. It would be against common sense for them NOT to do that. This is why piracy will remain a check (no matter how distasteful) against that power becoming to concentrated.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
