New Interview

[stretch37]

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/s...t?oid=14029573

[Sarge]

In Sweden, they passed a law that says it's legal to download music for free. So I guess if you're Swedish, you can go to the Louvre and steal the Mona Lisa and not be arrested.

I didn't know that the Louvre was located in Sweden and that Leonardo's paintings have turned into audio files.

When exactly was that law passed, by the way? All I heard was that there was a controversial proposal by a politician but I don't know if that has become a law yet.

[evil nickname]

In The Netherlands it's legal to make copies of copyrighted works of art for personal practice, study and use. At the same time, I cannot walk into the Rijksmuseum and take home Rembrandt's De Nachtwacht.

I understand artist's desire to equate "illegal" downloading of music with theft, but it the comparison just doesn't work. When you steal something, you take something from the original owner, who doesn't have the thing anymore. When you download something, a copy is made, and the original owner loses nothing. Perhaps in the case of artists, they lose a sale, but I wouldn't even argue that people who download music would buy all they download when they couldn't download it.

It's a complex issue, but I believe that the current copyright laws are completely inadequate for this day and age.

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

In The Netherlands it's legal to make copies of copyrighted works of art for personal practice, study and use. At the same time, I cannot walk into the Rijksmuseum and take home Rembrandt's De Nachtwacht.

I understand artist's desire to equate "illegal" downloading of music with theft, but it the comparison just doesn't work. When you steal something, you take something from the original owner, who doesn't have the thing anymore. When you download something, a copy is made, and the original owner loses nothing. Perhaps in the case of artists, they lose a sale, but I wouldn't even argue that people who download music would buy all they download when they couldn't download it.

It's a complex issue, but I believe that the current copyright laws are completely inadequate for this day and age.

While Illegal downloading is major issue for musicians and the music industry, I think Meat was exaggerating, being a bit tongue-in-cheek, having some fun and adding some humor to the interview. I love the fact that Meat has such a great sense of humor and doesn't take most things too seriously. Great article. Thank you for posting it stretch

[PanicLord]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

In The Netherlands it's legal to make copies of copyrighted works of art for personal practice, study and use. At the same time, I cannot walk into the Rijksmuseum and take home Rembrandt's De Nachtwacht.

I understand artist's desire to equate "illegal" downloading of music with theft, but it the comparison just doesn't work. When you steal something, you take something from the original owner, who doesn't have the thing anymore. When you download something, a copy is made, and the original owner loses nothing. Perhaps in the case of artists, they lose a sale, but I wouldn't even argue that people who download music would buy all they download when they couldn't download it.

It's a complex issue, but I believe that the current copyright laws are completely inadequate for this day and age.

I feel a thread split looming... however...

Before I start, when I say you below I mean it in the general sense not you Evil Nickname or anyone else specifically :)

I find it astounding that anyone could call this complex or a grey area.

The copyright holder has the right to control who has access to their work.

You have illegally obtained something that you should have paid for. That sounds to me like a very good definition of stealing.

Now, some theft acts, the UK Theft Act of 1968 for example, is probably behind the times and needs updating to reflect the fact that you have stolen something digital not physical.

However, the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 is VERY clear:

Extracts...

Rights covered
The law gives the creators of literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, broadcasts, films and typographical arrangement of published editions, rights to control the ways in which their material may be used.

Restricted acts
It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the owner:
Copy the work.
Rent, lend or issue copies of the work to the public.
Perform, broadcast or show the work in public.
Adapt the work.

Infringement of copyright by copying.


(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.


So, it is illegal, not "illegal".

You have stolen something you have no right to and should have paid for and it is only technically not Theft because the theft act needs updating, it is absolutely still stealing.

[TheDoode]

I think the problem with this is that to most people, it actually isn't stealing anymore. The general conception of downloading music has changed and, being on a campus covered by over 12,000 students, trust me when I say that they don't see it as theft at all. I think the only way for the music industry to actually make money from music again, is to develop an entirely new format, one that's better than mp3 in every conceivable way - i.e. DVD - Bluray. It needs to make music feel worth buying again to the people who currently don't. And obviously, whatever that format is, it needs the forethought of protection against copying if it's going to work.

[CarylB]

I wouldn't disagree with anything you say .. but just because it can be done, doesn't mean it's right .. or legal. And yes, the industry need to grapple with this and find a solution imo.

I loved Meat's analogy when I first read it. He may not be an artist in da Vinci's terms/medium, but he can paint a graphic and colourful picture. In my view this one put in sharp relief what it is people in effect do when they download illegally the work of a recording artist. The location of the painting is wholly immaterial I think .. few have not heard of the Mona Lisa .. that's why it works as a colourful example.

Caryl

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by stretch37

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/s...t?oid=14029573

Thank you so much for posting this.

[loaferman61]

Holy smokes. I am pretty sure I have seen the name of that girl Meat dated when I was compiling my family tree. I think she and I are distantly related.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by evil nickname

Perhaps in the case of artists, they lose a sale, but I wouldn't even argue that people who download music would buy all they download when they couldn't download it.

Artists do lose a sale, and that's the problem. The music industry has changed, and most of the money is made from touring these days as opposed to record sales. This is not a huge issue for established artists, who already have a following to buy their concert tickets, but up and coming bands, I think, have no choice except to give some music out for free in order to get their music out there. It's a cost of doing business.

I also think you are correct in that people probably wouldn't otherwise buy everything they download. and it might even work in the artists' favor in the long run, because you might get turned onto a new artist via a download and end up buying their stuff later or seeing them live. It still doesn't make it legal, though.

[stretch37]

artists lose sales through filesharing, but gain popularity through mass viral spreading of their music. For Established artists looking to attack the charts, probably not a good thing. For up and coming artists wanting to spread their name and talent, someone "illegally" downloading their album and spreading the word is probably the best thing that ever happened to them.

[Wario]

had no idea meat played the innagreal Ball for Bush:

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

http://imagecollect.com/picture/mari...e-photos-87234

only image i found for the clinton Inauguration ball:

[The Flying Mouse]

But this homie don't play that.

Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat

He might well have played this for laughs (silly voice etc) but audio/visual humour doesn't translate to a written page.

It's like getting to the pearly gates and finding out St Peter talks like Goofy.

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, Rap & Rock have nothing in common and should stay the hell away from each other.

The only way rap influences me is that it makes me want to shoot something.
It's true, rap encourages violence

Rock, however, is still very relevant to me. So as it was, so it shall always be


I agree with Meat's opinions on downloaded music.
Not so long ago I had a row with a guy on another forum about downloading music, and let me share a few of the points and counterpoints.

He claimed downloading was good for the artist, because their music is heard by someone who might not go out and buy an album, and who might buy the next.

I answered that if you want an idea of what an artist is like you can..........
Listen to their music vids (available on youtube)
Ask friends what the artist is like.
Read reviews online and in magazines.
Buy a compilation album (giving a broad spectrum of the artists work).
Buy a second hand copy of one of their albums on ebay (set you back, what? £2 tops).
Also, if someone has ripped off an artist for their complete works, it's not very likely that they are going to decide to legitimatly buy the album next time. If they like it, they'll download it for free again.

He didn't like any of these options, and he asked why buying a second hand copy on ebay is better than dowloading (he told me that he was currently downloading Meat's entire discography).

I told them there's a big diference between a cheap sample to see if it's for you, and ripping off an artists complete works.

He argued that the music business is a rip off, that record companies take too much profit from album sales.

I answered that I agreed with him, but it's not fair to deprive the artist of the small percentage they are due.

But still this wasn't good enough, he claimed that musicians should not make any money at all from album sales, that all music should be free, and that bands should only make money from concert tickets.
He claimed that for a singer to release an album 20 years ago, and then to still make money off it is like a plummber fixing a leaking tap and still charging for the job he did 20 years latter.

I pointed out that each customer only bought the product once.

At the end of the day, I still believe now what I believed before that argument (the guy was a mod too, so I kissed that forum goodbye).

There is no need to dowload music to sample a taste of an artists work.
There are enough ways to see if an artist is for you without breaking the law.

People like the asshole i've just been talking about are nothing but tightarsed b@stards who want to steal the product for nothing while trying to claim some moral high ground.

They want to be Robin Hood.
But Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor so the poor wouldn't starve to death.
These guys want to steal from the artist to keep for themselves what they could very comfortably live without, and the money they save from not paying for these things go on other luxury items they could well do without.

There's a huge difference between stealing to feed people who would starve and stealing so you can save a few quid to spend on a Big Mac and a pir of trainees

People should vote with their feet.
If they like an artists work they should buy the artists work because then the revenue creates a higher possibility of more work from this artist in the future.
An artist that doesn't sell records is not likely to make another.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat, Meat

He might well have played this for laughs (silly voice etc) but audio/visual humour doesn't translate to a written page.

Does this relate to Meat using the phrase you quoted and the word "homie"? Because if it does I'm really non-plussed Mouse that you feel it deserves a face-palm. Meat makes it plain he is pretty much the definition of the word from choice, and surely given it's an inteview in the US the phrase works?

It's like getting to the pearly gates and finding out St Peter talks like Goofy

Not to me. I liked this interview a lot. Many truths conveyed and done so graphically. To me nothing "Goofy" at all .. some shrewd observations and some informed ones, conveyed clearly and with an appropriate sense of self-deprecation and fun

I've said it before, and i'll say it again, Rap & Rock have nothing in common and should stay the hell away from each other.

The only way rap influences me is that it makes me want to shoot something.
It's true, rap encourages violence

That's your perspective though isn't it? Meat can have his own, as can we all. I am one who thinks the genre has been skillfully integrated into his new album. I know you don't, and respect your right to not consider it so .. but neither can claim our view is a defining fact. I tend to agree with Meat's perspective that the more modern styles he referred to are what speak to a significant swathe of today's audiences. Rap doesn't encourage me to the slightest violence

I agree with Meat's opinions on downloaded music.

We find accord here I liked your story and examples which were very apposite. As to the rest, we'll need to agree to hold different views.

Caryl

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Does this relate to Meat using the phrase you quoted and the word "homie"? Because if it does I'm really non-plussed Mouse that you feel it deserves a face-palm. Meat makes it plain he is pretty much the definition of the word from choice, and surely given it's an inteview in the US the phrase works?

I'm 35 and people have been known to comment on my use of the word "dude".

Speaking like that, in an interview laced with praise for rap, from my perspective, it seems that Meat is trying to be hip, to be something he is not, although I am the first to say that Meat is him and I am not, so Meat has more of an idea of what he is and what he isn't than I have, but it still sounds wrong from my perspective.

Does that make any sense?

Buzz words and phrases don't make hip, and sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make a chicken (if the interview wants to bring up Fight Club ).

To me, he's a rocker, and i'll always love him as a rocker

Originally Posted by CarylB

Not to me. I liked this interview a lot. Many truths conveyed and done so graphically. To me nothing "Goofy" at all .. some shrewd observations and some informed ones, conveyed clearly and with an appropriate sense of self-deprecation and fun

I meant the cartoon character
It's not what i'd expect St Peter to sound like.
In fact, perhaps a better way to put it is that if I got to the pearly gates and St Peter turned out to be Ali G, I would back slowly away from the gates and go see what's happening in hell

Originally Posted by CarylB

That's your perspective though isn't it? Meat can have his own, as can we all. I am one who thinks the genre has been skillfully integrated into his new album. I know you don't, and respect your right to not consider it so .. but neither can claim our view is a defining fact. I tend to agree with Meat's perspective that the more modern styles he referred to are what speak to a significant swathe of today's audiences. Rap doesn't encourage me to the slightest violence

Every one of our posts is based on personal perspective
None of this fact, and neither of us can claim to be right, but I still argue that Meat Loaf, to me, is very relevant. Rock music is relevant.
Perhaps rap speaks to "a significant swathe of today's audiences" (if you don't mind me borrowing the phrase ) but Bat was not recorded to speak to the significant swathe of 1977, nor was Dead Ringer hip in 81, MATLAF was not made for the trendies of 83 and Bad Attitude was not cool in 84.

I don't really need to go on do I?
Meat has never tried to be hip, or cool, or popular all the way through his career. He's always made his own beat and marched to it.

His success (IMHO) was because his music was so damn good, and a lot of people outside the significant swathe thought it was pretty motherf*cking great.

So OK, he wants a little rap on his album for artistic reasons, that's his choice (although not to my liking). to say that Rap is relevant and Rock in not, all I can say is that it depends on who's listening.
I respectfuly disagree with Meat on his perspective.

Originally Posted by CarylB

We find accord here I liked your story and examples which were very apposite.

Thanks.
I also remember that when he said that he believed all music should be free I replied that I thought all pies should be free

Originally Posted by CarylB

As to the rest, we'll need to agree to hold different views.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I'm 35 and people have been known to comment on my use of the word "dude".

But hopefully they wouldn't in the US

Speaking like that, in an interview laced with praise for rap, from my perspective, it seems that Meat is trying to be hip, to be something he is not, although I am the first to say that Meat is him and I am not, so Meat has more of an idea of what he is and what he isn't than I have, but it still sounds wrong from my perspective.

Does that make any sense?

It makes sense, although personally I don't think Meat is trying to be hip. I accept he has explored, listened to and learned about a different musical genre to the point where he has found something there he had missed before. I'll admit I have not, and still find a lot of rap not to my taste .. although my aversion stems largely from it assaulting me at top volume from open car windows .. and I would not do that with Meat's music, which I love, simply because it is so discourteous to others. I love Meat's albums but I wouldn't force them on anyone. But that assaulting experience, repeated so often, is what set it apart for me. I am glad though that Meat has introduced me to some that does appeal, so at least I can acknowledge that for me it's the assault rather than the music, and I have found there to be more to it than I assumed.

Buzz words and phrases don't make hip, and sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make a chicken (if the interview wants to bring up Fight Club ).

I don't believe he is. I think this has been a personal discovery

To me, he's a rocker, and i'll always love him as a rocker

Fair enough. I love him as a rocker who is constantly exploring and pushing the boundaries musically

I still argue that Meat Loaf, to me, is very relevant. Rock music is relevant.
Perhaps rap speaks to "a significant swathe of today's audiences" (if you don't mind me borrowing the phrase ) but Bat was not recorded to speak to the significant swathe of 1977, nor was Dead Ringer hip in 81, MATLAF was not made for the trendies of 83 and Bad Attitude was not cool in 84.

I agree, and thousands will hopefully pile into the arenas here later this year to underline that No objection to your using the phrase BOOH was Jim and Meat's vision .. and whether it was planned to appeal to a mass of people, the fact is it did .. and has done to millions ever since. I don't think though that Meat has to stay recreating BOOH, or sticking to one style, not for me anyway. HCTB was a new sound .. Meat's new adventure, which I loved. With HIAH he continues to explore, and I have the classics, and know I will hear them at every concert as well as the newer stuff where he is moving forward.

I remember he said some years ago that there should be no boundaries on artistic endeavour, that you need to keep pushing, that a closed door leads nowhere. I love his excitement as he moves forward and explores new things .. and yes he still marches to his own drummer .. but no reason imo why he should not try to sell his particular, and to my mind evolving, beat, just as he sold BOOH back in '78

Caryl

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I agree with Meat's opinions on downloaded music.
Not so long ago I had a row with a guy on another forum about downloading music, and let me share a few of the points and counterpoints.

He claimed downloading was good for the artist, because their music is heard by someone who might not go out and buy an album, and who might buy the next.

I answered that if you want an idea of what an artist is like you can..........
Listen to their music vida (available on youtube)
Ask friends what the artist is like.
Read reviews online and in magazines.
Buy a compilation album (giving a broad spectrum of the artists work).
Buy a second hand copy of one of their albums on ebay (set you back, what? £2 tops).
Also, if someone has ripped off an artist for their complete works, it's not very likely that they are going to decide to legitimatly buy the album next time. If they like it, they'll download it for free again.

He didn't like any of these options, and he asked why buying a second hand copy on ebay is better than dowloading (he told me that he was currently downloading Meat's entire discography).

I told them there's a big diference between a cheap sample to see if it's for you, and ripping off an artists complete works.

He argued that the music business is a rip off, that record companies take too much profit from album sales.

I answered that I agreed with him, but it's not fair to deprive the artist of the small percentage they are due.

But still this wasn't good enough, he claimed that musicians should not make any money at all from album sales, that all music should be free, and that bands should only make money from concert tickets.
He claimed that for a singer to release an album 20 years ago, and then to still make money off it is like a plummber fixing a leaking tap and still charging for the job he did 20 years latter.

I pointed out that each customer only bought the product once.

At the end of the day, I still believe now what I believed before that argument (the guy was a mod too, so I kissed that forum goodbye).

There is no need to dowload music to sample a taste of an artists work.
There are enough ways to see if an artist is for you without breaking the law.

People like the asshole i've just been talking about are nothing but tightarsed b@stards who want to steal the product for nothing while trying to claim some moral high ground.

They want to be Robin Hood.
But Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor so the poor wouldn't starve to death.
These guys want to steal from the artist to keep for themselves what they could very comfortably live without, and the money they save from not paying for these things go on other luxury items they could well do without.

There's a huge difference between stealing to feed people who would starve and stealing so you can save a few quid to spend on a Big Mac and a pir of trainees

People should vote with their feet.
If they like an artists work they should buy the artists work because then the revenue creates a higher possibility of more work from this artist in the future.
An artist that doesn't sell records is not likely to make another.

Well said on this part.

[robgomm]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Thanks.
I also remember that when he said that he believed all music should be free I replied that I thought all pies should be free

Lol love it

[stretch37]

Also, if someone has ripped off an artist for their complete works, it's not very likely that they are going to decide to legitimatly buy the album next time. If they like it, they'll download it for free again.

well i'm gonna have to disagree

I didn't know who Meat Loaf was until I randomly saw the video for CHSIB on a random website and happened to play it. I proceeded to pirate Meat Loaf's discography and become obessed with him.

since then I've spent REAL money on 5 concerts, and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

Therefore Pirating MADE MEAT LOAF MONEY.

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by stretch37

and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

But have you bought the rest of his discography?

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Evil One

But have you bought the rest of his discography?

Good question; I'm sure many (possibly most even) do not. And surely it's the artist's choice whether the fruits of his labour should be made available free. Meat's managed his career and business for 40 odd years, and imo is entitled to make his own decisions.

One example does not provide convincing statistics that pirating makes Meat money .. nor that it makes more than is lost, which is surely the point rather than whether he made a small amount off this example. He clearly doesn't believe pirating makes him money, nor does he agree with it .. and it should be his choice to make.

Caryl

[Monstro]

Originally Posted by stretch37

well i'm gonna have to disagree

I didn't know who Meat Loaf was until I randomly saw the video for CHSIB on a random website and happened to play it. I proceeded to pirate Meat Loaf's discography and become obessed with him.

since then I've spent REAL money on 5 concerts, and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

Therefore Pirating MADE MEAT LOAF MONEY.

Sorry, you're saying you pirated 10 albums (I've assumed the only compilation you stole was the 1998 one) and you've totally made that acceptable by buying the last 3? I'm afraid you're going to have to educate me as to how you feel that's ok?

Originally Posted by Evil One

But have you bought the rest of his discography?

And that's the killer question

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by Monstro

you've totally made that acceptable by buying the last 3? I'm afraid you're going to have to educate me as to how you feel that's ok?

but how many copies of the last 3??

could have bought 15 hang cools and 24 hell in a handbaskets for all we know

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by stretch37

well i'm gonna have to disagree

I didn't know who Meat Loaf was until I randomly saw the video for CHSIB on a random website and happened to play it. I proceeded to pirate Meat Loaf's discography and become obessed with him.

since then I've spent REAL money on 5 concerts, and each new CD and DVD that has been released.

Therefore Pirating MADE MEAT LOAF MONEY.

You couldn't have bought the albums rather than download them?

Or, if you really really wanted to download something, you couldn't download a album or compilation to give you an idea of if his music was for you or not?

Saying that pirating has made money for Meat from you is like (to use the plumber metaphor again) getting a guy to do an entire house and then paying him just for the sink.

I know that some people download an album, like it, and so become interested in the artist and buy future releases legit, but they are in the minority. Most will continue to download future works illegally, very few will buy the new releases legit, none of them ever replace their illegal copies for official CDs that put money in the artists pocket.


IN this day and age where downloading is so rife, it's almost expected that people will illegally download an album by an artist to decide if it's any good but that's a big difference from stealing every album they've ever made.

No offence, but IMHO, downloading an artists album is bad enough, but downloading their entire lifes work for free is taking the piss.

But in the interests of honest debate on the subject (although we might be better starting a new thread for this ) can you tell me.............

Have you downloaded the complete works of any other artist apart from Meat?

Have you gone on to buy any of their new albums?

Do you ever plan on getting rid of the illegally downloaded Meat Loaf albums and buying originals?

If you dowload an album, decide you don't like it and never listen to it again, do you consider that album stolen?

[evil nickname]

Some responses:

Originally Posted by PanicLord

I find it astounding that anyone could call this complex or a grey area.

Changing copyright law is complex because of all kinds of international treaties and the like. National legislators cannot simply say, "hey, this Intelectual Property-law needs updating. Let's do it."

Also, the reality of what's going on with people downloading versus the philosphical way you think it ought to be and how to come to a new way of doing things in a way that benefits all parties: that's not going to be easy. At all.

Originally Posted by PanicLord

So, it is illegal, not "illegal".

Remember, in The Netherlands it's legal to copy copyrighted works for private practice, study and use. So in my case, there is no "illegal downloading".

************

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

He claimed downloading was good for the artist, because their music is heard by someone who might not go out and buy an album, and who might buy the next.

He has a point there. It happened to me. Downloaded something to sample, spend a lot of money later on because I liked it a lot.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I answered that if you want an idea of what an artist is like you can..........
Listen to their music vida (available on youtube)

Which quite often happens to be uploaded by fans without the artists' permission, made by crappy camera-phones, etc. etc. etc.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Ask friends what the artist is like.
Read reviews online and in magazines.

"That fat bloke can't sing and his music is shite."

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Buy a compilation album (giving a broad spectrum of the artists work).

They weren't going to spend money on an artist to find out what he's like, remember?

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Buy a second hand copy of one of their albums on ebay (set you back, what? £2 tops).

None of which will go back to the artist, so you might as well download it.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Also, if someone has ripped off an artist for their complete works, it's not very likely that they are going to decide to legitimatly buy the album next time. If they like it, they'll download it for free again.

True. Still, they might not buy the music, but they might go to concerts, buy shirts, whatever.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

There is no need to dowload music to sample a taste of an artists work.
There are enough ways to see if an artist is for you without breaking the law.

Perhaps there is no need, but it is quite a lot easier and faster that going on eBay, buying an album and waiting for it to arive. Or going to a shop to pick up a cheap compilation.

Also, you could argue that the phyiscal formats are on their way out, especially for the younger people—O, god, I'm just 32 and look at what I just wrote—and that mp3s are easier. How many people carry around a discman and a stack of CDs nowadays? Conveniance is king.

Yes, I know: iTunes. Spotify, what have you. Why still download illegally? I'll keep it at this: I cannot use iTunes on Linux, and Spotify is far from complete, and silly geographical restrictions when the internet is this global network. There's a lot of room for improvement in that department. As long as it's still easier to just torrent whatever you want, people will keep doing that.

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

People should vote with their feet.
If they like an artists work they should buy the artists work because then the revenue creates a higher possibility of more work from this artist in the future.
An artist that doesn't sell records is not likely to make another.

Believe me, I'm all for artist making money with their art. I still buy a lot of CDs and LPs, perferably straight from the artist. Maybe because I can remember the time before the internet, when home taping was still killing the music industry.

But: the internet/filesharing has changed the game. The cat's out of the bag, and it's never going back in. I believe that instead of lamenting the change, artist and the industry should embrace it, and develop new ways of generating revenue. Perhaps by giving away their music for free if they choose to.

As in all evolution, you have to adapt to the changing circumstances, or you're facing extinction. That might sound harsh, but you don't hear the neanderthals complaining about that now, do you?

I'll keep it at this for now, cause I have six people coming over for dinner in an hour and a half.