Downloading music

[suzieq]

I am still looking forward to hearing the new album!

For free right?

[BostonAngel]

For free right?

I'm hoping to buy it. I love looking at all those CD booklets, especially the artwork. Or I will get it the way I get almost all of my music - Download it from a site where it is LEGAL & FREE!

[melon]

Download it from a site where it is LEGAL & FREE!

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[ricgough]

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

There are sites which legally stream content for a nominal subscription fee and ad- exposure.

I remember a certain web-based Rock radio station streaming Bat 3 for free with Meat's blessing, though as soon as you make a copy of it you are infringing copyright.

There is a market out there for someone to fulfil the role of the traditional D.J led radio station. Offer artists a reasonable depth of exposure for no initial cost to the end-user - but if you want your own copy you have to buy it to take it wherever you go and play anytime, at your own will for years to come. You-tube could potentially do that if used well - Why doesn't Meat have his own channel with high quality, carefully controlled content and "red pony" everything else???

I and others have probably used file-sharing in this way in the past - download stuff for free, listen to it once or twice and if you like it, buy a hard-copy from the store to keep forever - delete what you don't like. I can't honestly say my usage of digital media is any way different from recording tracks/ sets/features from the radio or friends collections in the 70's and 80's. I believe the WWW is getting a lot of the blame which should be going towards the increasing "mcdonaldization" and commoditisation of mainstream media. It is controlled by a few "barons" with increasing control.

Again, it is personal responsibiliby. Buy the stuff you like and turn Napsta/piratebay type sites into an asset for artists rather than a threat then they would probably still be available to use legally. At least that way the content you heard for free would be dictated by record buying communities and individuals rather than style-nazi's at record companies and media controllers.

Free to air media is increasingly limited by cultural fascists - those with monopolies who can manipulate the press and keep a lot of a lot of vacuous crap on the air with a soap-opera in the press. There is no room for creativity anymore and the "Simon Cowells" of this world dominate the mainstream. That is as much of the reason for the depression of the industry nowadays as illegal downloads. If something truly innovative ever got the chance to go viral then there would always be the desire for people to own it for themselves, and there would always be commercial opportunity for the artist through genuine sales, advertising, touring, endorsements etc....

Okay, it might not be traditional, but the commercial opportunity is potentially as great as it ever was, just not through traditional record sales. It is of course always easier for artists to attack copyright theft rather than the barons, but people have been ripping off their mates' album collections since the invention of the hi-fi through tape-dubbing and recording tape from vinyl....

There was a whole industry relating to bootleg CD's which is no longer an issue. They are traded for free amongst fans and I find it hard to believe affect official release sales in any way at-all nowadays.

It is largely a question of "adapt or die" but obviously intellectual property needs to have the same level of protection it had in the days of diverse radio stations with individual D.J. playlists and twin-deck cassette recorders.

Some have embraced this new digital era and have done well. Others haven't and complain about it.

I'm sorry, the situation is the same for everyone. You offer high quality content in the right place for the right price with the right strategy then you will make money. That simple.

It is a simple fact that there was almost as many million-selling singles in the 1990's (the years of "truly free internet") in the U.K as the 1970's. In the last 2 years, there have been 10 million-selling singles as opposed to only 15 in the whole of the 2000's. The market is still there if you can tap into it, thouh it is probably a harder sell for an artist like Meat due to demographic considerations and industry bias - and yes, age-discrimination comes into it, but Meat's target audience is much better financially estabshed and has higher spending potential than those appealing to a younger demographic - especially in times of immensely high youth unemployment. I'd say that if the product is right then in purely financial terms then Meat should be able to compete with anyone in terms of Album sales and concert tickets - IF the product is right - and I'd be going for quality over quantity right now.

[melon]

Yes but she said "download" which you have just said once its copied its illegal

[Evil Ernie]

There are sites which legally stream content for a nominal fee and ad- exposure.

I remember a certain web-based Rock radio station streaming Bat 3 for free with Meat's blessing, though as soon as you make a copy of it you are infringing copyright.

There is a market out there for someone to fulfil the role of the old radio station. Offer artists a reasonable depth of exposure for no initial cost to the end-user, but if you want your own copy you have to buy it to play anytime, at your own will for years to come.

I and otheres have probably used filesharing in this way in the past - download stuff for free, listen to it once or twice and if you like it, buy a hars copy from the store to keep forever.

Again, it is personal responsibiliby. Buy the stuff you like and turn Napsta/piratebay type sites into an asset for artists rather than a threat then they would probably still be available to use legally. At least that way the content you heard for free would be dictated by record buying communities and individuals rather than style nazi's at record companies and media controllers.

Free to air media is increasingly limited by cultural fascists. there is no room for creativity anymore and the Simon Cowells of this world dominate them. That is as much of the reason for the depression of the industry nowadays as illegal downloads. If something truly innovative ever got the chance to go viral then there would always be the desire for people to own it for themselves, and there would always be commercial opportunity for the artist through advertising, touring etc....

Okay, it might not be traditional, but the commercial opportunity is potentially as great as it ever was, just not through traditional record sales.

It is largely a question of "adapt or die" but obviously intellectual property needs to have the same level of protection it had in the days of diverse radio stations with individual D.J. playlists and twin-deck cassette recorders.

I've been saying this for awhile, but many have the same old school mentality and it will only limit them IMO.

I know it's hard to compare music to other forms of business, but look at Google. They sell everything at a loss because they know that it will be made up for with other content that compliments it.

Digital media is everything now, and (un)fortunately easy to get for free. In the past someone would say, "I'll burn you a copy" or "I'll make you a tape". But that required effort from the other person and you would often say "This is too much time to wait, I want it now."

Now, you're friend is the internet and he's always there for you. If you embrace the internet you can make money. If you start fighting it, you will lose your shirt.

Are we off topic? I'm not really sure.

[BostonAngel]

No such thing.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

There is such a thing. I use it all of the time. It is called Freegal and it is sponsored by Sony Music. I access it thru my local library. You can only download 3 songs per week. It truly is free and it is legal. They have lots of great music old & new

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: Moved from the debate thread.
What was once off topic is now on topic. :mrgreen:

[melon]

:twisted: Moved from the debate thread.
What was once off topic is now on topic. :mrgreen:

Thanknyou

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: I'm certainly sceptical that there are sites you can download commercial music for free :rly:
I don't agree with the philosophy that downloading increases sales for an artist. There are plenty of ways of sampling an artist music without downloading.
But we've been through this before :shrug:

I think this pic is rather good though :mrgreen:

http://media.mlxxfc.net/respectartist.jpg

[BostonAngel]

Here is the link to the info for the Freegal sight: http://www.freegalmusic.com/homes/aboutus
Based on this current bit of info from the site, it sounds as if it is now owned by a private company and possibly no longer associated with Sony.

[melon]

If I want music, I buy it, with money. If I can't afford it then I just wait until I have money. If I'm in a position where there is no money coming in, I do something about it. Not complain.

In my opinion, "freegal" will suffer a similar fate to limewire, either in the short or longterm.

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

[The Flying Mouse]

Here is the link to the info for the Freegal sight: http://www.freegalmusic.com/homes/aboutus
Based on this current bit of info from the site, it sounds as if it is now owned by a private company and possibly no longer associated with Sony.

:twisted: Interesting concept, but I doubt the record companies (or artist for that matter) are happy. I'm amazed they are allowed to do this. How long has the site been going for?

It's a little like librarys being allowed to photopy books and give them away. I don't think publishing houses would have much sympathy with the idea :wtf:

But I don't think it's a big contender in the downloading world, where one can burn a full album in a couple on minutes.

[BostonAngel]

:twisted: Interesting concept, but I doubt the record companies (or artist for that matter) are happy. I'm amazed they are allowed to do this. How long has the site been going for?

It's a little like librarys being allowed to photopy books and give them away. I don't think publishing houses would have much sympathy with the idea :wtf:

But I don't think it's a big contender in the downloading world, where one can burn a full album in a couple on minutes.

I have known about it and have been using it for almost 2 years now. yes, there is a limit of 3 songs per week. Over time, you can download an entire album. When you are unemployed & money is always tight it is a great way to get new music. And I love that it is LEGAL and free! I am going to do further research the next time I go to the library to find out if it is still in fact sponsored by Sony Music. Obviously Sony was sympathetic.
Just did some further research and found out that Sony Music is still in fact a sponsor for the site! Probably why they have Meat's albums on there.

[evil nickname]

I think this pic is rather good though :mrgreen:

http://media.mlxxfc.net/respectartist.jpg

You use comic sans, your argument is invalid. ;)

[JennaG]

If I want music, I buy it, with money. If I can't afford it then I just wait until I have money. If I'm in a position where there is no money coming in, I do something about it. Not complain.

In my opinion, "freegal" will suffer a similar fate to limewire, either in the short or longterm.



I agree with you. I have been unemployed in the past and I know what it's like when money is tight but regardless of whether this 'freegal' thing is legal or not, to me it wouldn't feel morally right to be downloading music that artists have put a lot of time and effort into creating. If I can't afford to buy it, then I can't have it, it's as simple as that and I accept it.

I can't believe that record companies allow this to happen to be honest. It's one thing to allow a couple of tracks per artist to be downloaded but to allow every track on an album to be downloaded? They may as well tell the artists not to bother promoting their albums to fans and just tell everyone to go and get a library card and get the album for free.

[djfierce]

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

[ricgough]

Yes but she said "download" which you have just said once its copied its illegal

That is technical semantics. In order to stream something you still have to download it.

If you are copying music frm the internet to avoid paying for the product you use then I think that is morally wrong even where it isn't technically illegal via certain loopholes etc. It is freeloading and damages artists. Morally it is theft.

If an artist/record company allows content to be free, or licenced to commercial organisations such as radio, T.V. or other web-based providers then it can be beneficial to all parties - certainly in terms of exposure for the artist driving sales as has always been the case. The internet is just another media channel in this respect.

[ricgough]

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

Fair comment, but it has always been a numbers game due to the cost of hard-copy manufacture, which is now largely taken out of the equasion. Back then you had the factory and shipping costs as well - which ramped the up front costs meaning a greater quantity had to be sold to break even - hence 13 quid as opposed to 6 on download. as fewer people buy hard copies then effectively the manufacturing cost per unit effectively goes up due to less economy of scale on that particular format surely?

It isn't always as black and white as it may seem.

[robgomm]

Consumer attitude of entitlement to music makes me sick, these sites are technically legal, but they use current loopholes in entertainment laws, because of national boundaries and the international community failing to get it together in acknowledging music laws that shouldn't just apply to where the record label and artist are based or the publisher has the license. Yet these leeches think they are doing a service to music fans by just taking and putting it out there for anyone.

I saw someone post on facebook the other day that itunes was too expensive and was forcing people to download or stream music for free. That's just rubbish. I remember paying £2.99 for a single cd when i was younger, now to buy a single you're looking at 69-99p of which the artist receives approx 10p depending on their deal with the label.Albums used to be around £13 now sells for £6ish of which the artist recieves approx £2.What about the band that has to split it 5 ways? I know money is tight for everyone these days, but artists deserve the respect of having their product bought and not stolen. Music enriches our lives so can't we at least show some love to the artists and musicians that pour their money, time, love and commitment into making something that can make your day a little brighter.

This is one of the main reasons why there is so much shitty pop formula driven music out there atm, record labels are playing the numbers game now more than ever to generate sales, it has also caused the emergence of the just plain evil contract known as 360 which takes half of everything artists make. It's obscene but its not just the record labels we have to thank for that, its the fans who think music should be made available to them, that they are entitled to hear their favourite artist without paying a penny or as little as possible. It's hard as hell for new bands and artists to get started for this very reason.

One of the best posts i've ever read, agree 100% with everything you say.

[djfierce]

Fair comment, but it has always been a numbers game due to the cost of hard-copy manufacture, which is now largely taken out of the equasion. Back then you had the factory and shipping costs as well - which ramped the up front costs meaning a greater quantity had to be sold to break even - hence 13 quid as opposed to 6 on download. as fewer people buy hard copies then effectively the manufacturing cost per unit effectively goes up due to less economy of scale on that particular format.

I record, produce and distribute bands/artists. I know full well what the costs are. Yes the hard copy costs are not so big, but there seems to be a misunderstanding that digital releasing is super cheap, it isn't, it's cheaper yes, but that's reflected in the cheaper price of the product. However that theory doesn't work when you can buy the cd at the same price also, cds spend very little time these days at full price before being cut down to almost half their price, the shop doesn't take that hit, the label does and in turn the artist does. Cd volume sales are not as bad as the public perceive them to be or are being led to believe, the revenue from them is, it's a big difference. That's what's hurting the presence of the physical product, fans know that even with big artists, they just have to wait maybe less than a month, bam the cd is reduced or thrown in a multibuy offer. As popular as Adele's album was, only 3 weeks after it's release, you could buy it from HMV at £6 that's £1.99 less than the download price.
So while i agree in part with the costs are less argument it's not entirely the case accross the board.

But my main point for comparison of prices was the perception of cost from the consumer standpoint being that the current prices are too high when in fact from a consumer point of view it is much cheaper than it ever was to purchase an album or single :0) which should be great, because it should mean that more people are buying music, but because of these sites it means the opposite, people feel more entitled to music now than they ever have, it's a shame.

[ricgough]

I agree with you. I have been unemployed in the past and I know what it's like when money is tight but regardless of whether this 'freegal' thing is legal or not, to me it wouldn't feel morally right to be downloading music that artists have put a lot of time and effort into creating. If I can't afford to buy it, then I can't have it, it's as simple as that and I accept it.

I can't believe that record companies allow this to happen to be honest. It's one thing to allow a couple of tracks per artist to be downloaded but to allow every track on an album to be downloaded? They may as well tell the artists not to bother promoting their albums to fans and just tell everyone to go and get a library card and get the album for free.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but it has been said that nowadays, new albums for many artists are seen as loss-leaders in order to sell tours. I guess there are cases where this will be true - albums at best break even and the real money is made on live shows.

Loss leaders are a well established marketing strategy in other industries - why not in music?

Of course it has to be the artists choice to adopt that business model, it cannot be forced on him by unscrupulous websites and people, but the existence of this strategy does muddy the waters sometimes when it comes to making generalised statements on the issue.

[ricgough]

I record, produce and distribute bands/artists. I know full well what the costs are. Yes the hard copy costs are not so big, but there seems to be a misunderstanding that digital releasing is super cheap, it isn't, it's cheaper yes, but that's reflected in the cheaper price of the product. However that theory doesn't work when you can buy the cd at the same price also, cds spend very little time these days at full price before being cut down to almost half their price, the shop doesn't take that hit, the label does and in turn the artist does. Cd volume sales are not as bad as the public perceive them to be or are being led to believe, the revenue from them is, it's a big difference. That's what's hurting the presence of the physical product, fans know that even with big artists, they just have to wait maybe less than a month, bam the cd is reduced or thrown in a multibuy offer. As popular as Adele's album was, only 3 weeks after it's release, you could buy it from HMV at £6 that's £1.99 less than the download price.
So while i agree in part with the costs are less argument it's not entirely the case accross the board.

But my main point for comparison of prices was the perception of cost from the consumer standpoint being that the current prices are too high when in fact from a consumer point of view it is much cheaper than it ever was to purchase an album or single :0) which should be great, because it should mean that more people are buying music, but because of these sites it means the opposite, people feel more entitled to music now than they ever have, it's a shame.

I agree with you that on the whole, music has become cheaper to buy - probably cheaper in real terms than it has ever been and the "too expensive" argument to justify ripping off copyright is utter nonsense. I do still feel that copyright has always been infringed via cassette though - I think the major difference is that it was done in a localised way - at least someone of a group of friends would have to buy it then mates would copy/ share and lend - if you really wanted something you would buy it though - borrowing and copying albums was usually artists you were less familiar with and wouldn't spend the cash upfront in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you'd heard a friend's copy or on the radio for free first. Also, the copy was never the same sound quality as the original. With the technology available now one person can obtain the work and potentially share it with millions for free, with no loss of quality thus seriously affecting sales.

The stats do suggest it is still possible to sell a million copies of a song though. 10 artists have in the last 2 years in the U.K. - that's about 1 in 50 in the entire population that have actually parted with cash for it.

When I was broke, I bought a lot of second hand C.D.'s and Vinyl from boot-sales, record conventions etc....

Should that be seen as copyright theft also? I know legally it is fine, but when a disc is re-sold, another person gets use of it with no cash going to the artist. Can;t help back-catalogue sales, but then often new back-catalogue discs are as cheap as buying secondhand nowadays.

[djfierce]

The quality thing is the biggest issue, i remember recording stuff off the radio onto cassette or copying someone elses onto cassette. But the quality was never great so if it was a band i really like then i had no other option but to buy it so yea the copyright infringement was always there but was more tolerable because the poor quality of copies drove sales anyway leaving those who had copies probably wouldnt have bought the real thing anyway. The like for like quality of sharing a file causes problems with the sales because people feel why should they buy it when they get the exact same quality for free.

The current problems are caused by two factors, the consumer not reliasing or caring the impact they have and the industry not reacting early enough possibly even back as far as when cd burners came about. The industry was complacent, they thought that people actually would notice and care about the lesser quality of the mp3 compared to cd, thinking the whole download era would be very short. Huge misjudgment to say the very least. The irony is that Vinyl sales are rising and even approaching the popularity of the cd, problem is now it's more expensive to press vinyl than ever.

p.s i think we agree lol even to the point where i may have said exactly the same as you, apologies, i don't exist on forums very well anymore ;0)

[The Flying Mouse]

You use comic sans, your argument is invalid. ;)

:twisted: :lawl:
If I ever find out who put it together, i'll pass your argument along :wink:

[misterfive]

If you pay for the album once you can listen to it anywhere and form.

[BostonAngel]

If you pay for the album once you can listen to it anywhere and form.

Exactly! Once you pay for a song on any music service, you can download it to your computer to listen to it multiple times, load to your smartphone, i-phone, i-pad, i-pod or whatever devices you choose to.

The libraries all over the US who subscribe to Freegal, must pay a hefty fee in order to provide the service to its library patrons. If there was anything immmoral about it at all, a public entity, such a a library, certainly would not be allowed to provide it. As I said before, Sony Music is a sponsor of it, so they obviously don't have a problem with it. And any other music company who allows the work of their artists to be provided, doesn't have a problem with it either.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

I do still feel that copyright has always been infringed via cassette though - I think the major difference is that it was done in a localised way - at least someone of a group of friends would have to buy it then mates would copy/ share and lend - if you really wanted something you would buy it though - borrowing and copying albums was usually artists you were less familiar with and wouldn't spend the cash upfront in the first place if it wasn't for the fact you'd heard a friend's copy or on the radio for free first.


I believe also, at least in the U.S., there are royalty fees paid on blank cassettes (blank music CD's, too, I think) to help make up for the lost revenue.

[djfierce]

Exactly! Once you pay for a song on any music service, you can download it to your computer to listen to it multiple times, load to your smartphone, i-phone, i-pad, i-pod or whatever devices you choose to.

The libraries all over the US who subscribe to Freegal, must pay a hefty fee in order to provide the service to its library patrons. If there was anything immmoral about it at all, a public entity, such a a library, certainly would not be allowed to provide it. As I said before, Sony Music is a sponsor of it, so they obviously don't have a problem with it. And any other music company who allows the work of their artists to be provided, doesn't have a problem with it either.

Legal doesn't mean Moral. And big labels supporting it doesn't mean they actually like it, it means they feel they have to co exist otherwise people are gonna do it anyway. Trust me i read a huge report where the majors justified their support of peer to peers and streaming services. They don't like it but they feel they have no choice but to push the market rather than follow. The indies feel bullied into co existing by the fans and the majors, they can't afford to but they have to in order to keep up.

Big labels can afford to build it into their business model, indie labels can't and they're the ones who bring all the diversity out there. But now even the larger indie's are starting to play the numbers game. No proffessional company in the industry likes peer to peer or streaming services, a huge survey recently compiled showed overwhelming contempt for these companies but feel unable to compete at the moment. The industry is scrambling to try to find a way to get rid of these sites, but the popularity of these sites is forcing the industry to act in a way it feels uncomfortable with right now

[djfierce]

I believe also, at least in the U.S., there are royalty fees paid on blank cassettes (blank music CD's, too, I think) to help make up for the lost revenue.

same for the uk

[ricgough]

There is a school of thought that says Indie labels have been replaced by self-production (not a realistic option in the past) and social media promotion.

It is an interesting debate because there is a criminality issue here and then there is social and technological flux; potentially which renders traditional industry structures redundant.

I'm all for the protection of copyright and intellectual property, but how much of your argument (djfierce) is to do with this specific issue of legality and how much to seeing your own corner of the market shrinking through technically legitimate means - ostensibly a technically "protectionist" argument ?

Challenges from new technology and business structures is a vital component of the free market after all.

(Sorry, playing Devil's advocate a bit with this one but would appreciate your response!)

[PanicLord]

same for the uk

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

Perhaps this is why an mp3 track can cost over £1... they add in some money to cover lost income from piracy and copyright theft?

[evil nickname]

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

That is why in The Netherlands they've just decided to charge a thuiskopieheffing (home copy surcharge, i.e., a 'tax' to compensate for the legal copies you may make for private practice, study or use) on PC's, mobile phones, memory cards, etc.

(Also, downloading copyrighted material, even from an illegal source, still remains legal in over here.)

[djfierce]

Really? I never knew that!

I wonder how many people still burn music CDs though? I just put everything on my pc mp3 player and phone. Car manufacturers are looking at not providing CD players any more also.

Perhaps this is why an mp3 track can cost over £1... they add in some money to cover lost income from piracy and copyright theft?

There's talk about bringing that in, but it hasn't happened yet. The price is dictated somewhat by the publisher, they get a choice of low, medium or high price from the distributor. Some go low to encourage more sales, some go high to try to make as much as poss from low sales. That's why you see tracks of various prices, it also depends on the retailer, for instance the price band we choose, tracks are sold on amazon for 69p but the same track is 79p on itunes, that's the vendor choosing the price not us. If we chose the high band then our tracks could be over £1

[djfierce]

There is a school of thought that says Indie labels have been replaced by self-production (not a realistic option in the past) and social media promotion.

It is an interesting debate because there is a criminality issue here and then there is social and technological flux; potentially which renders traditional industry structures redundant.

I'm all for the protection of copyright and intellectual property, but how much of your argument (djfierce) is to do with this specific issue of legality and how much to seeing your own corner of the market shrinking through technically legitimate means - ostensibly a technically "protectionist" argument ?

Challenges from new technology and business structures is a vital component of the free market after all.

(Sorry, playing Devil's advocate a bit with this one but would appreciate your response!)

With respect, It's an incorrect school of thought ;-)
There have been so few self released artists to actually 'make it' that many really don't see it as a viable option still. The 'you can do it yourself' hype is taken up by artists at first because they believe they can, usually because they see someone doing well who is self published. But look deeper and you will always find they are funded and produced by an indie label on some level and sometimes even by a large label, why? Because the i did it myself in my bedroom story sells, because people like to think all the money they spend goes to the artist,almost always it does not. Just checking the release code against the bpi or prs tells you exactly who has a stake in that production, its usually a label of some description whether a full discreet deal, a production or just a promotion and distribution deal, there is a proffessional body fueling their success.
I'm not saying there aren't any self released artists, there are lots, its easier than ever to release your own music. The difficult part is paying for recording, mixing and mastering time. The costs of distribution (which are still there albeit smaller than before) and the knowledge time and contacts to effectively promote. Many radio stations, festivals, events, even internet bloggers and vendors will not deal with unsigned artists. I must point out there are some that will only deal with unsigned artists too but not enough to level it for unsigned.
The market isn't shrinking, in fact it's growing,those are official figures, people are consuming music much more than they ever did, what's shrinking is the revenue. Studio time is cheaper, meaning if i work as a producer only for a band, i probably get paid less for the 16hr day than an average person does for 8, it's a passion, no one on this side of the mic gets into this business for the money i can tell you that for sure lol. When i started working i said many times i just want to make enough money to afford to keep doing it.
I don't need to defend my corner of the market because i can happily tell you every person i produce and release have all previously hired me on producer only work, so why do they come to me when they can do it themselves? The most simple answer i can give you is that they found out the truth behind the self release option, a band i have just released are doing very well now having come back to me after a year and a half. I produced them a year and a half ago, they paid me for my time and went off to self release and promote their new album convinced they could do it. They tried for over a year before coming back to sign up to me on a promote and release deal. So what did they get? They got instant attention to their music and website, they got their music played in places they never could before, they got gigs they couldn't get before, access to film companies who produced top notch music videos for them.
The long and short of it is, that even though it took them a year, they realised they couldn't just put a track out there and wait for their facebook friends and twitter followers to buy it amongst other things. They realised there were places they just couldnt penetrate or have the knowledge how to use effectively. The market has evolved in a big way, that just means labels have to make sure there is a reason for artists to use them. The attitude has shifted in a big way, indie labels in particular see working with an artist as a partnership much more than the artist works for them attitude.
My posts are obviously business related as it's the environment i work in but mostly as a music fan and consumer based on how i like to consume music, i use sites like Last FM and Reverbnation but more for the use of finding artists i never heard of rather than the artist i like, i still buy music because on a moral level i believe its right, and i know first hand how hard it is for artists unsigned or on indies to move into a position of doing what they love on a regular basis.

I apologise for the long ass post, and i hope it makes sense but i'm typing during my break here at the studio lol

[Evil Ernie]

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

[bobbin]

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

Lol classy, let me know when you open up a shop ill come and steal your stuff

[Mr. Happy]

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.

Hey recording artists: I'm not gonna pay for your music (that much) anymore. My money is still there, get it through other means if you're clever enough.

And if I like you enough, I MAY buy your CD to show some additional support. Not the other way around.

A lot of money and effort goes into recording those CDs. Just because you can get them free doesn't mean you should get them for free. I don't know how you can even try to justify you shouldn't have to pay for it, it's outright theft. :shrug:

I know that's sort of a no shit statement, but I don't like disliking someone's post without saying something. I feel dirty afterwards >.>

[CarylB]

I don't generally pay for music because I don't want to.

I'd rather spend my money on stuff that I can't get for free. Like concerts, tshirts, trips to shows outside of my city.

I'm sick of trying to justify it.



Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing? :shock:

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

[TheDoode]

Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing? :shock:

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

I'm not defending Evil Ernie, but what happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? Did we just forget about that again? I'll go on record and say that the majority of kids 19 and under do not pay for music anymore, in my opinion (and experience). Doesn't make it 'right', but that's the reality of what is happening. Music has been made so readily accessible for free that it's common practice amongst university students and school kids alike - most of them don't even think about it in the same way that we do; they take it as a fact: music is available to download for free. Great. Now what's for dinner?

And I don't think you should be questioning anyone else's morals when it comes to the theft of intellectual property...

[CarylB]

Noteworthy you quote and reply to me and not to Bobbin or My Happy ....

[TheDoode]

Noteworthy you quote and reply to me and not to Bobbin or My Happy ....

Your post was the first one that I read when I logged in. I don't have anything personal against you Caryl, and I've tried on numerous occasions to engage with you in a civil way. If you have a problem with that, PM me, and we'll talk and keep the thread clean at the same time.

[CarylB]

Thank you, but as I've said before, not again.

I simply posted my opinion, just as others did in the immediate posts before mine :-)

I don't doubt that Evil Ernie's opinion is that he has a right to not pay for music because he doesn't want to. Like others, mine is that because it may be possible, it's not morally right. Just our view. And I explained why it was mine. I thought it was OK to say to him don't get sick .. who would want him to be that?

[TheDoode]

And then made the assumption that he would just 'rip' a concert from Youtube... rather than just watch it. It was the tone of your comment, really. For the sake of clarity Carly, do you believe it to be morally reprehensible to take a piece of intellectual property and use it without it being condoned by the owner or creator of the work?

[Monstro]

The topic of the debate thread and peoples views there should stay there, if it doesn't the whole board will be taken up with it.

Please keep to the thread topic

[CarylB]

I didn't assume, I said "perhaps". My understanding is that the topic here is about downloading music free as opposed to purchasing it, thus enabling those involved in its production to make their living. To deprive an artist of their living by taking a painting or sculpture rather than paying for it would be in my view wrong, yes. I am not going to play any off topic game of debating intellectual copyright and the sometimes dubious claims to own it.

[Sue K]

Go to work this week ... come Friday and your boss says, no pay this week... I decided just to use you for the work and maybe I'll do the same next week ... You'd demand pay or quit ... Imagine if all musicians did the same... QUIT... NO MORE MUSIC... FREE OR OTHERWISE ... yeah ...

[Evil Ernie]

Lol classy, let me know when you open up a shop ill come and steal your stuff

Sure. If by stealing from me you mean making a neutered copy without me being immediately aware... and I get to keep the actual item for sale to somebody else

A lot of money and effort goes into recording those CDs. Just because you can get them free doesn't mean you should get them for free. I don't know how you can even try to justify you shouldn't have to pay for it, it's outright theft. :shrug:

I know that's sort of a no shit statement, but I don't like disliking someone's post without saying something. I feel dirty afterwards >.>

As I said. I not justifying why I download music. I just don't want to pay for it and it's legal in my country, so I can get away with it.

If it gets to the point where I can get concert tickets and tshirts for free, I'll do that too.

If it gets to the point where it's almost impossible for a musician (such as myself) to make money at what they do, than I'm all for it. You shouldn't do art for financial gain anyway.

Anything you get should be a mere residual of doing your art. Whether it's fame or money. The true reward should be touching people, so whether somebody 'steals' music by downloading it is irrelevant. Enough people will pay for products for you to make you money back, because in order to make it 'free' somebody has to make a purchase and not everyone is going to download the same torrent.

In a way the less an artist makes the better, because a) they do it for the art alone and don't worry as much about how marketable it is, b) A suffering artist tends to make better art.

Did it stop Van Gogh? did it stop JS Bach? No, it only made them better because they did it for themselves as an artist. They never thought "Oh, I need to make this part catchy so I can sell more copies of my sheet music."

If you really think about it, it's ridiculous that a famous musician or actor makes 50 times more money than the average person, yet their job is less stressful (I don't care what anybody says) and they get to do their art for a living. I understand the reasons, but if they lose money I have absolutely no pity.

The notion that if we don't pay for music the quality and quantity will go down is absolute trite nonsense. Even though the shit marketed to the masses kind of sucks, good music is still out there. You just have to seek it out and not listen to the outlets that the corporate masters have created to market the stuff that is scientifically designed to appeal to the wide, easy to please masses. The internet sets you free in your mind, your enlightenment and your wallet. :D

Don't get sick .. just don't even try to justify a philosophy and practice that's morally indefensible. The things you prefer to spend money on are the things you can't get away with stealing? :shock:

All those involved in getting new music to the point where we can listen to it are entitled to receive their share. It's their living, so they can make choices on what they do and buy. If everyone took your stance what would the concerts and shows you prefer to spend your money on cost I wonder. Oh .. perhaps you'd wait and rip them from YT ...

I don't understand the part about not getting sick. And as I said, I'm not justifying anything. I just don't want to pay because I don't have to. To me it's like paying to listen to the local radio station or having to pay to walk on the sidewalk. I don't have to, so I won't. I COULD write a cheque to the city out of the kindness of my heart and volunteer to clean the toilets at my local radio station, but I'm not a sucker.

It appears that the people involved in the industry are still making music and making money. These days it is extremely cheap to record anything. It makes 'Bleach' by Nirvana @ $600 seem like a ripoff. Money is there to be made. They need to be more creative and THEY ARE.

The music industry may scream up and down about downloading, but they have experts that tell them how to market and sell their product in the 2000's. It may not be what it was, but the industry is still making tons of money.

You also cannot duplicate the experience of a concert by watching YouTube. So don't even try that.

If somebody is not making enough money by making music than they should get a second job. In fact that's what most musicians do. I'm supposed to have sympathy because the lucky rich ones are losing money and have to move from a 29 bedroom house to a 17 bedroom house? Gimme a break.

[Evil Ernie]

Go to work this week ... come Friday and your boss says, no pay this week... I decided just to use you for the work and maybe I'll do the same next week ... You'd demand pay or quit ... Imagine if all musicians did the same... QUIT... NO MORE MUSIC... FREE OR OTHERWISE ... yeah ...

Weak example. That is something that I can file with the labour board and have resolved. If my boss doesn't pay up that he goes to jail.

What recourse do the people I'm downloading off have? Not a damn thing. Making art is not work.

Sorry to be blunt about it, but it's a very weak and far reaching example.

Saying that musicians would quit is like saying a hooker would stop having sex because nobodies paying for it anymore.

They would quit playing? And never play any shows? Or put anything on youtube? Or create something on Garageband and distribute it in the internet to see how people like it? Just because they're not being paid?

Sure.

In fact many will operate AT A LOSS because they love it so much.... like me.

[Evil Ernie]

I'm not defending Evil Ernie, but what happened to everyone being entitled to their own opinion? Did we just forget about that again? I'll go on record and say that the majority of kids 19 and under do not pay for music anymore, in my opinion (and experience). Doesn't make it 'right', but that's the reality of what is happening. Music has been made so readily accessible for free that it's common practice amongst university students and school kids alike - most of them don't even think about it in the same way that we do; they take it as a fact: music is available to download for free. Great. Now what's for dinner?

And I don't think you should be questioning anyone else's morals when it comes to the theft of intellectual property...

Lol. I'm not sure what you think, but I'm over 30. I take the free music as a miracle from the One True Lord (FSM).

Also, I DO still buy CD's. I only buy slightly less CD's than I did before in the 90's, but I download 10 times thats now. So in other words my music exposure and intake has increased dramatically while only slightly lowering the amount of money that I invest in the music industry.

I thought it was OK to say to him don't get sick .. who would want him to be that?

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/omg/grand/cenagif.gif

:D:-):arrr::)):keke::keke::keke:

You're alright Carly. This made me literally LOL.

[bobbin]

Ooh someone is in need of some attention lol

Goodbye

[TheDoode]

Lol. I'm not sure what you think, but I'm over 30. I take the free music as a miracle from the One True Lord (FSM).

Also, I DO still buy CD's. I only buy slightly less CD's than I did before in the 90's, but I download 10 times thats now. So in other words my music exposure and intake has increased dramatically while only slightly lowering the amount of money that I invest in the music industry.



http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/omg/grand/cenagif.gif

:D:-):arrr::)):keke::keke::keke:

You're alright Carly. This made me literally LOL.

Actually, I agree with you: art should exist for the sake of art, and not as some product to be mass marketed at consumers by an over-saturated capitalist economy.
That reply was directed towards Caryl's post, and the age range was just a typical example of a demographic here in the UK who download music for free without seeing it as 'theft'.

[Evil Ernie]

Ooh someone is in need of some attention lol

Goodbye

Great contribution.

[chairboys]

Sure. If by stealing from me you mean making a neutered copy without me being immediately aware... and I get to keep the actual item for sale to somebody else





So, you are happy to sell? ;) :lol:

[Wario]

This argument is void.

People put so much hard work and energy into movies and music, and to just take it for free, without them getting due profit is wrong. so wrong. especially movies.

Theres no two ways around this. if u download music without paying for it thats like breaking into a record store and stealing a CD. if its on itunes you should pay for it!!

[evil nickname]

Not that I'm defending anything, but:

if u download music without paying for it thats like breaking into a record store and stealing a CD.

No, it's not. Moral issues aside, when you download music without paying, you're making a copy, with no loss to the owner of the music. When you break into a record store and take a CD, the store owner has one copy less of the album, which cost him money to stock, etc. etc.

It's rather like going into a public library, taking pictures of every page of a book, and then leaving. (Except that you don't get a perfect copy of the book, but close enough.)

[The Flying Mouse]

Not that I'm defending anything, but:



No, it's not. Moral issues aside, when you download music without paying, you're making a copy, with no loss to the owner of the music. When you break into a record store and take a CD, the store owner has one copy less of the album, which cost him money to stock, etc. etc.

It's rather like going into a public library, taking pictures of every page of a book, and then leaving. (Except that you don't get a perfect copy of the book, but close enough.)

:twisted: It's an argument i've heard many times, and I still don't buy it (no pun intended).

One of the things many downloaders say to justify their actions is that CD's cost a matter of pence to produce, so how come they are £££ by the time they get to the shops.

Because the CD, the case, the booklet, they are not what you are paying for.
You are paying for the media.
That's where the art is, that's what cost thousands to produce, and that's what you are buying.

(note the lack of comic sans in this post :lol: )


I agree with Evil Ernie that art should not be done for money, but i'd argue that just because it's not done for money doesn't mean you can't charge for your art.

There have always been proffessional artists, and their art is no less great because they have the downright cheek to charge for what they spend so much time and effort creating :wink:

I doubt Michaelangelo would have done the ceiling of The Sistine Chappel if he was working in Burger King from 9 - 5 :wink:

http://media.mlxxfc.net/micbk.jpg

[evil nickname]

:twisted: It's an argument i've heard many times, and I still don't buy it (no pun intended).

One of the things many downloaders say to justify their actions is that CD's cost a matter of pence to produce, so how come they are £££ by the time they get to the shops.

Because the CD, the case, the booklet, they are not what you are paying for.
You are paying for the media.
That's where the art is, that's what cost thousands to produce, and that's what you are buying.

(note the lack of comic sans in this post :lol: )

I'm not arguing that. Of course the cost of CD in the store covers more than just production.

I'm just making the case that the act of downloading music is nothing at all like stealing. When you steal something, the original owner has one less item of merchandise. When you download something, you've made a copy, and the original owner still has the same amount of merchandise. The two are fundamentally different, and I believe you can't have a decent discussion when you're muddying the water with appeals to emotion like "downloading is stealing, and thou shalt not steal, 'cause stealing's bad, m'kay?"

That said, personally I have no problem with paying for music. (Unless the artist plays the "let's milk the fans dry and release seventeen thousand different editions with multiple bonus tracks". Screw that.)

[olblueeyes]

I'm just making the case that the act of downloading music is nothing at all like stealing. When you steal something, the original owner has one less item of merchandise. When you download something, you've made a copy, and the original owner still has the same amount of merchandise. The two are fundamentally different, and I believe you can't have a decent discussion when you're muddying the water with appeals to emotion like "downloading is stealing, and thou shalt not steal, 'cause stealing's bad, m'kay?"


I see the distinction being made between the two, and while the original item has not been taken from it's owner/author, their earnings for providing a copy of that has been diminished because some people decide they are entitled to have for free what others must pay for. You could therefore say by the same token that tax evasion is not stealing.

[evil nickname]

Hmm. I was just about to reitterate everything I said in this thread (http://mlukfc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18278).

[Evil Ernie]

Theres no two ways around this. if u download music without paying for it thats like breaking into a record store and stealing a CD. if its on itunes you should pay for it!!

As I said. Not defending it. Perhaps I SHOULD pay for it, but I don't want and I don't have to.

Simple as that.


I agree with Evil Ernie that art should not be done for money, but i'd argue that just because it's not done for money doesn't mean you can't charge for your art.

There have always been proffessional artists, and their art is no less great because they have the downright cheek to charge for what they spend so much time and effort creating :wink:

I doubt Michaelangelo would have done the ceiling of The Sistine Chappel if he was working in Burger King from 9 - 5 :wink:

http://media.mlxxfc.net/micbk.jpg

Well, Michaelangelo was being paid for by the Catholic Church. And I personally think that he WOULD have done it for free, but that's impossible to determine.

Fact is that artists still make money. Somebody had to buy the CD to put onto the internet. And if it gets to the point where you can't make a dime (or shilling?) than it will really cut down on the crap.

[bobbin]

But if you are 'just making a copy' then you dont need to buy it, therefore taking away a sale from the artist. So while you haven't taken anything physically you've still taken.

I don't really think artists should be told they shouldnt be in it for the money, i'm pretty sure the bands i see down the local pub already know that and don't get paid for alot of the time they spend already but the small amount it costs to buy their music isnt really such a hardship on the consumer. It's a shame we just expect great music to be made available to us. Easy to not think about the effect it has, kinda the i'm alright jack attitude.

[Evil Ernie]

But if you are 'just making a copy' then you dont need to buy it, therefore taking away a sale from the artist. So while you haven't taken anything physically you've still taken.

What if I wasn't going to buy it anyway? Is it not better that I hear the album and have a chance to decide whether to contribute the artist in another way?

People will say, "listen to it on youtube." There is ABSOLUTELY no difference.

I don't really think artists should be told they shouldnt be in it for the money, i'm pretty sure the bands i see down the local pub already know that and don't get paid for alot of the time they spend already but the small amount it costs to buy their music isnt really such a hardship on the consumer. It's a shame we just expect great music to be made available to us. Easy to not think about the effect it has, kinda the i'm alright jack attitude.

This forum has a big problem with people reading what they want to read.

As a musician I'm not gonna say that an artist should NEVER be paid anything, but I was no sympathy for an artist who is losing money simply because an individual is enjoying your work for free.

Enough people will contribute to make it worth it. Sales are still happening and it's not going to stop. Music has pretty much been free for over 15 years.

But once again, I don't justify it. I just don't pay for (most) music because I don't have to. Simple as that. At least I'm not on some soap box because I think that I'm so righteous and good because I don't DL music.

Fact is that I've pumped for more into the music industry in my lifetime than the average person ever will. I have very little guilt.

Let's wait for the next post to say the same thing that 15 people have already said.

[The Flying Mouse]

:twisted: This subject has come up a few times, and could be discussed all day, and nobody would ever convince somebody with opposing views to change their point of view :bleh:


lTX7sKHI_0g