When will the madness stop?!?!

[Magi]

Stupid punks

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ech_music_dc_9

Derf.

[MC Hammered]

I guess I have a target on my head then. :(

[Wood]

I think, since the Recording Industry has decided to make their own customers the target of their latest money-grubbing efforts, that the only logical response is a full-out boycott of all major label product. No amount of lawsuits is going to make file sharing go away, it's a fact of life in the 21st century that the industry is gonna hafta learn to deal with. Consumers have a right to test a product before purchase - if people listen to an album they downloaded and then aren't compelled to go and buy it, it's not their fault - it's the industry's fault for letting their standard of quality slip to a rediculously low level over the past 30 years. It's their own responsibility, having gravitated towards a lowest-common-denominator, quantity over quality approach to releasing music has landed them in this predicament. I honestly believe that if artists and labels spent more time & money cultivating more intimate relationships with their customers & fan base, instead of feeding the cult of personality that elevates musicians to the status of super human, that people would feel better about spending their hard earned cash on a CD or LP.

wouldn't you feel better about supporting an artist who released their music on an independant record label, rather than one owned by a multinational corporation (ie Sony) who's interests are tied up in all types of questionable enterprises? Would you not be more inclined to pay for music from an artist who booked their tours independantly, kept concert tickets reasonably priced, rather than using their star power to sqeeze every possible dollar out of their fans, and prohibiting many dedicated fans from even attending their shows?

The music industry is shit, artists need to go back to their roots or they simply can't expect the continued support of consumers.

[Wood]

Some advocates have argued the networks provide a harmless way for music fans to discover new artists, but Sherman and other music-industry figures likened them to shoplifters who steal groceries and other tangible goods.

fuck, it's this particular attitude that i find most offensive. It's like those TV adds that liken satellite signal theft to shoplifting ("..but Dad... you steal sattelite signals!"). It's NOT the same, it may not be right in the eyes of the law, but when somebody steals something from a shop, not only are they breaking the law, but they're robbing the shopm owner of their livelihood. Stealing something from a huge corporation, even if it was a tangible item, presents no moral dilemma for me - most of these companies have chosen a style of business that puts 'the bottom line' as their absolute priority - at the expense of any consideration for human rights or the environment. They demand no respect or decency from human beings, as they function in an entirely inhuman way. To steal something intangible, such as an mp3 or satellite signal, is inconsequential to such an organization - especially considering that most peole who'd go to the length of stealing sattelite signals or downloading songs do so because they can't afford to pay for those luxury items. To compare that to out & out theft is utterly rediculous and offensive IMO.

[Velcro]

The flipside of that is the situation they have in China right now, where file sharing is such a huge occurance that it is next to impossible for an artist to make money. I just read an article that explained how artists over there are having to maintain regular day jobs just to live, even though they are a "rock star" in their own country.

I agree that the RIAA is chasing their own tail with their ideas of how to 'combat' downloading and file-sharing, but can you blame them for trying to protect artists? They seriously passed the buck when they first heard about the format, and now it's a scramble....not to figure out a way to capitalise on it, but instead they are trying to wipe it out all together, and failing miserably at that. All these claims that the public is 'stealing' from them is indeed a crock of shit. I agree with you whole-heartedly there. Except that the only people I know that are stealing satalite signals could more than afford them.....heh..

However, it's really not an argument to say that any consumer has the right to preview an album before buying it, therefore downloading should be ok. Every major retailer (and most, if not all indipendant stores) will let you listen to an album before buying it. On the same tangent, perhaps if styles and tastes didn't change so damn quickly, the hot single that you downloaded 'for preview' wouldn't be out of date before you've had a chance to hit the store and buy the album. I know I've heard songs that I wanted to pick up, but come payday I've got an entirely new list of songs that I want instead. Go figure? I guess that just relates to your comment about artists spending time working on their relationships with fans.....read on:

Of course I always feel better supporting the indipendant artists, but with every major deal that gets signed, a good handful of those artists start their own indipendant labels. It's the hot thing in hiphop right now have your own label. And those labels are giving rise to a lot of new artists who have cultivated that personal relationship with their fans, booked their own shows, and kept ticket prices down. Even in the rock world, the new 604Records has signed a few local bands that are starting to get the play they deserve, none of which would have happened had Mr.Kroeger not signed a major label deal and been able to make money from his releases.....money that he's now using to introduce new artists that probably would have struggled for years waiting for a deal of any sort.

I'm not saying I'm against downloading mp3's, but I would hate to run into my favorite artist at the local fast food joint asking me I'd like fries with that....

[Senior]

It seems to me like the obvious thing to do would be to sey up a system where people can legaly download songs for a cvertain small fee. I heard there was already something like this but that it was a bit over priced. If record companies made their music available for $0.10 to $0.25 per song through a secure source it would be nearly all profit and the public would in a lot of cases use the service rather than file sharing as they do now.

[Hot Karl]

on the piracy tip. in china once again, they barely film chinese movies anymore. which is a tragedy. simply because the vcd's and shit are on the street before the movie even comes out. and especially in china, a disc is like $1cdn. we're fuckin ourselves too. at least in that particular industry.

[Wood]

^but why would you pay .10 for something you could more easily get for free? The only benefit to buying a CD is that you get the package & liner notes.... if you had to pay for downloads, you wouldn't even have that.

Velcro - i agree with most of what you're saying... i still think the idea of downloading for preview is valid in theory, although obviously it's a privledge that many would abuse. I haven't shopped at a Virgin or A&B type placein quite a while, i was under the impression that only certain CDs were available for preview.... and what about stuff they don't have in stock? How often do you think somebody finds a song they like online, then has to order in the CD from their favorite CD retailer? I get people asking me to order stuff they heard online EVERY DAY at my shop, so it must be an even more common occurance at big chain stores, don't you think?

also, labels like 604 or Battle Axe - correct me if i'm wrong, but they aren't independants, they're subsidiaries. While the artists spearheading them do retain most of the creative control, they're still backed by the major, and thus are still subject to the whims of the label execs who will drop them in an instant if the sales don't measure up. so there's still this pressure to appeal to the lowest common denominator, or risk losing the deal.

There's no easy solution to this whole issue, and certainly whichever way it goes will result in artists making less money. I just hope that means that consumers are saving, as opposed to the majors further lining their pockets.

[Wood]

Originally posted by Hot Karl
on the piracy tip. in china once again, they barely film chinese movies anymore. which is a tragedy. simply because the vcd's and shit are on the street before the movie even comes out. and especially in china, a disc is like $1cdn. we're fuckin ourselves too. at least in that particular industry.

well piracy is whole other issue.... reproducing someone else's product and selling it for profit is clearly a crime, no gray area there. No one can prove that people downloading songs are doing it in place of buying the album. Obviously many people are, but the ones who aren't shouldn't suffer because of it.

besides, it's not like people couldn't share music before internet file sharing came along.... anyone remember the cassette tape?? :trippin:

[Senior]

Well as I understand aren't a lot of the recordings floating around on these file share services low quality and isn't it easy for your computer to get a virus or whatever?

It just seems like they could sell the song on a service like that for a small fee and also have spin off's like web advertising to generate revenue.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that it seems there's no way to stop file shering from going on so why not try and set up a way to let it continue but a bit more in the record companies interests.

[Wood]

^yeah, it's a good idea in theory, i've though about it a lot because i'd actually like to set up something similar to that myself (ie an independant label that only sells music in soft format).

Fuck the majors though, i'd like to see all those companies go down in flames. I'd love to see web-based independant labels take over the music industry, let the consumers deal directly with the artists, basically. Unfortunately, the majors have cranked out so much bullshit for so long, it's gonna take a lot of work to get the music buying public used to the idea of supporting an artist by spending their money on music. most people wouln't have enough insight into the whole scenario to realize the difference between a major label superstar and an independant artist who happens to sell a lot of records.

[miss.myra]

...I might feel bad for downloading music if I knew that most of the money I would spend on such things would actually go right to the artist themselves. [as far as bigger artists are concerned, of course]

Sure a lot of people are going to download the new Justin Timberlake groove, but they're still going to his concert and buying a t-shirt. Are they losing that much? ...you have to wonder.

[crackjoy]

i dont buy cds cuz i dont have the money for them. i dont have 20-30 dollars to spend on every cd cuz i like a couple songs. and even then, i only like two songs, so wuts the point?

wut i think they should do (and this could work) is set up burning stations in the music store. have a huge database with millions of songs on them in the store, every song the highest quality. then u make ur own cds based, the cost defined by the length of the cd, and the base cost of the burnable cd itself.

[Wood]

^somebody actually tried to initiate a system just like what you described, back in the early '90s. The majors wouldn't go for it though, because it wasn't as profitable as selling full CDs. Also, i doubt many artists would have been behind the idea because it compromises their efforts to make a cohesive full album.

My idea is to start a web based record label which sells music directly to consumers, in soft format. You'd be able to buy just 1 song, or a full album that might include exclusive tracks not available as singles. All the singles would also be available as a free, lower quality download, of which file sharing would be encouraged. The crucial part, though, would be to have a very intimate relationship between the label and the customer, so when someone purchased a full-quality file they would keep the sharing of that file to an absolute minimum (ie close friends only, not in the 'shared folder'). It would differ from sites like mp3.com because it would be much more focused, there would be far less volume and a far greater standard of quality. It's something i'd like to get started on a very grass-roots level, get artists to contribute songs on the premise that all profits from sale of their music would go directly to them, after covering site maintenance and marketing costs. And then if it eventually became more profitable, there would be money to pay artists up front for their music or sign more established artists for remixing.

I think it's a more genuine approach to selling music, because nobody's getting rich off of it... but it still allows the artists the opportunity to become established globally and hopefully build up their profile in enough markets that they could tour profitably. It's an idea that would work in a perfect world, but i haven't felt confident enough yet to actually get it started....