Still like illegal downloads?

Chris_V wrote: Excpet file sharing doesn't just cut out the middleman. It cuts out any money going to the artist, period. Which also means no money for the guys mixing, the studio musicians, etc who do not go on tour with the artist and make money from the touring.

The technology does, with a couple grand in gear and a decent space to record I don't need the middle man anymore.

The software is really simple to use, the demand for a less produced sound is there. Heck I don't even have to be in the room with other musicians you can just send the files back and forth.

Give the music away for free or ask for donations and post your show dates and you are off and running with minimal outlay in cash.

mad_machine wrote: the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money

Ah, but the studio musicians and mixers and the like that worked on that album don't make any money off of the tour dates.

this is true.. but it might boil down to the 'cost of business'.

bands need to make albums to get their name out.. so mixers and studio musicians are going to get paid anyway. It will just have to be done "at a loss" as a way of doing business if they want to do the big money making tours.

Maybe.. just maybe.. this means more and more bands on tour.. which is good for EVERYBODY

Shaun wrote: I stopped buying music because of all this crap. In 1974 I bought a license to hear "Dark Side of the Moon", It was on Vinyl at the time. ... Then in 1982 I bought another license to hear "Dark side of the Moon" on vinyl because I wore out the first one.

A few years back, I "bought a licence" to own a new car. A few years later, after it was worn out, I bought a licence to own another car. Maybe when we wear out a car, we should get a replacement for free, too.

You cherry-picked the one part of that post that you could apply your metaphor to, nicely done . Like your car, the hardware wore out and that's what you're paying to replace.

But in the case of digital music, it doesn't wear out. There's a minuscule cost involved in producing another "copy", which is very different than a car. A bus pass would be a better comparison.

Imagine if the road standards kept changing so you were required to buy a new car (one that never wore out, it just became obsolete) every few years.

Much as with authors, the biggest problem most musicians face is obscurity. There have been a number of studies showing that giving away ebooks doesn't cut down on print sales, it actually increases them.

The music industry is a great case study of how to consistently make bad decisions. Instead of providing a reasonable alternative, they decided to litigate the internet out of existence. Well, that didn't work. It was iTunes that really showed what should have been done - much easier to use than the original Napster ever was (there was a lot of crap on there), a catalog that covered all the major labels and a price per song that people were willing to accept. Had the labels taken this approach themselves and much earlier, things would have turned out very differently.

Shaun has a good point.

It's generally felt that the music industry has been screwing everyone for years. Artists by charging them too much to record albums and for promotion. The Artist essentially can't make any money on album sales so are always in debt to the label for touring costs. The consumer wants the music so they buy the cd...with one good song on it. The other 9 or 10 are crap. Not to mention CD's are practically free now. You can buy a 100 blank CD's for next to nothing and we were supposed to pay $20 for them at the record store? The perception is that labels are not longer needed so they're cut out of the equation. The only people hurt by that are...the labels.

The gig is now up and the only people crying big fat tears are the guys who got rich doing it. Everyone else is better off.

I'm an avid music fan. When I like an act's music, whether I hear it for free on the radio or over the internet, I'm going to see them play. I usually buy a shirt and/or a cd when I see the show. That's how I support the artist. I spend this money a lot more now that I can hear more music for less money. Bands I would've never listened to before I now avidly follow and travel hours to go see.

Chris_V wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money

Ah, but the studio musicians and mixers and the like that worked on that album don't make any money off of the tour dates.

They don't make any money off the albums either. They're typically paid a fee up front for their services.

I saw an interview with the guys from Sevendust, and they said that selling CD's is dead, and even iTunes downloads are no longer where a band makes money. Simply too much illegal downloading going on. Touring is their primary source of income, and for some bands, ring-tone downloads actually contribute a lot.

Xceler8x wrote: I'm an avid music fan. When I like an act's music, whether I hear it for free on the radio or over the internet, I'm going to see them play. I usually buy a shirt and/or a cd when I see the show. That's how I support the artist. I spend this money a lot more now that I can hear more music for less money. Bands I would've never listened to before I now avidly follow and travel hours to go see.

Good for you. But are you avid enough to drive across country or internationally to see an artist live?

Don't get me wrong, I like the more modern model of buying songs individually, where the artist gets most of the money. And I think that once you buy a song, you shoudl be able to copy it to any media to listen to it on any equipment you have, as often as you want, so long as you aren't selling it again or sharing it to enough people that you remove buyers from the artist's market.

But I really think that other than that, I'm hearing way too much (not just here, mind you) justification for stealing property, even if it's just intellectual property.

I think M3s are overpriced and the dealer makes too much money on them. You think that's a good enough justification that I could get away with taking one from the dealership without paying for it?

I may not like all the parts of a frozen dinner. So do you think that maybe I could take the dinner home from the grocery store, cook it up and eat it, then let them know if I'm going to pay for it, or pay for some of it ("I didn't like the taste of the veggies, so I'm only going to pay part of the cost of the dinner.")?

93celicaGT2 wrote:

Chris_V wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money

Ah, but the studio musicians and mixers and the like that worked on that album don't make any money off of the tour dates.

They don't make any money off the albums either. They're typically paid a fee up front for their services.

True. It's paid as an investment in future returns. Without future returns, though, are they going to pay for the services up front?

Chris_V wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

Chris_V wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money

Ah, but the studio musicians and mixers and the like that worked on that album don't make any money off of the tour dates.

They don't make any money off the albums either. They're typically paid a fee up front for their services.

True. It's paid as an investment in future returns. Without future returns, though, are they going to pay for the services up front?

They're going to have to.... or else they won't recieve the services. They're the ones with the idea, it's their responsibility to get it out there. The mixes, studio musicians gotta make their money, too, otherwise they'll be doing a bunch of work for people that they'll potentially never see a dime out of if they aren't any good.

DILYSI Dave wrote: A friend of a friend is in that middle ground between starving artist and rock star. Doesn't have to have a real job because he makes enough to get by off of his music, but spends 200 days a year on the road in smokey clubs to pull in that much. He also is a guest speaker regularly to music business classes at the local university. Anywho, his take on it is that you can't control the distribution. Pandoras box is open. What you have to do now is put out a good enough product that people are passionate about your work. Some will buy it, some won't. Regardless, they are the people who will turn your 50 person show into a 500 person show, or your 500 person show into a 5000 person show. The music is the medium that gets them to the show, and the show is where the money is made.

I like this POV. Immortal Technique has a song where he tells you to burn his music off the internet, and I oblige. I also attend every show he's in that comes to Detroit, and if the crowds aren't too crazy, will buy an actual album or T-Shirt.

berkeley the RIAA. Adapt and move on, or GTFO.

Chris_V wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote:

Chris_V wrote:

mad_machine wrote: the Artists do NOT make that much money off of album sales.. concerts and live shows are where they make a TON of money

Ah, but the studio musicians and mixers and the like that worked on that album don't make any money off of the tour dates.

They don't make any money off the albums either. They're typically paid a fee up front for their services.

True. It's paid as an investment in future returns. Without future returns, though, are they going to pay for the services up front?

Well, no of course not.

But we're not seeing a dearth of music; it's still being made. The artists aren't going anywhere. In fact, the inevitable death of the big studio system will serve to level the playing field for aspiring musicians.

Our record [shameless plug] AVAILABLE AUGUST 21 [/shameless plug] was made entirely outside the studio system, but did involve a pro studio, engineers, mixers and mastering houses. Not to mention package design and printing, and promo work. All fees were paid up front, out of our pocket, from the money we make playing a pretty relaxed live show schedule around town. If we do another record (already in the works), it'll be done about the same way, I'm sure. We'll be able to do a little local distribution in some cool record stores, but the majority of physical sales will happen at shows, and the majority of distribution in total, will, I'm sure, be online.

With this model, costs stay low, we retain complete control over every aspect of the record, the production pros stay in business, and our music gets to all the ears that want it. Sounds about ideal to me.

Chris_V wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I'm an avid music fan. When I like an act's music, whether I hear it for free on the radio or over the internet, I'm going to see them play. I usually buy a shirt and/or a cd when I see the show. That's how I support the artist. I spend this money a lot more now that I can hear more music for less money. Bands I would've never listened to before I now avidly follow and travel hours to go see.

Good for you. But are you avid enough to drive across country or internationally to see an artist live? Don't get me wrong, I like the more modern model of buying songs individually, where the artist gets most of the money. And I think that once you buy a song, you shoudl be able to copy it to any media to listen to it on any equipment you have, as often as you want, so long as you aren't selling it again or sharing it to enough people that you remove buyers from the artist's market. But I really think that other than that, I'm hearing way too much (not just here, mind you) justification for stealing property, even if it's just intellectual property. I think M3s are overpriced and the dealer makes too much money on them. You think that's a good enough justification that I could get away with taking one from the dealership without paying for it? I may not like all the parts of a frozen dinner. So do you think that maybe I could take the dinner home from the grocery store, cook it up and eat it, then let them know if I'm going to pay for it, or pay for some of it ("I didn't like the taste of the veggies, so I'm only going to pay part of the cost of the dinner.")?

I have no interest in stealing property, any more than I have an interest in getting ripped off by the "majors". The old model is dead, there are multiple new models forming, and there are losers and winners. Music is a very tough business, that is why I quit.

When I quit, the Majors had a strangle hold on ALL forms of distribution and the public got ForignerREOspeedwagonFoghatBostonJourneyFramton shoved down their brain. With the demise of the old business model we now have zillions of choices. I have no idea What the solution is, but I like the way it is going with live music again being paramount. Again, Live music receipts are growing as rapidly as the majors are going down and music has grown exponentially. Of course I want musicians and songwriters and recording professionals to make money, but there is simply no going back and lawsuits like this one are the lashings of a zombie.

on a similar note:

I am product designer/mechanical engineer: Can you please fix the exporting of most of my profession to Asia? It is unfair.

I literally know THOUSANDS of working musicians saying pretty much the same thing Alex said above. They get it, even if the record companies don't.

This inflated verdict is about one thing. A Minneapolis jury finally sticking it to those shifty Brainerdites. Twin cities folk are tired of their kids getting harrased by Brainerders hawking their bootlegs out of their Saab trunks down by the lake(s).

Jerry From LA wrote: The way I understand the law, you can download a song off the net (which is like borrowing from a friend) but you can't share the file with anyone else.

You understanding of the law is flawed. The downloading of an unauthorized copy is an act of infringement.

Chris_V wrote: ... I think that once you buy a song, you shoudl be able to copy it to any media to listen to it on any equipment you have, as often as you want, so long as you aren't selling it again...

You pretty much can. The archival exception in the copyright act allow you to make an archival copy, which need not be in the same format. You can archive either the purchased copy or the copy you made and use the other.

Chris_V wrote: ... or sharing it to enough people that you remove buyers from the artist's market.

If by "share" you mean loan out an authorized copy, that's fine, but if you mean "let them copy" you can't do that at all. Even one copy for a friend is an unauthorized copy and an act of infringement.

Tim Baxter wrote: I literally know THOUSANDS of working musicians saying pretty much the same thing Alex said above. They get it, even if the record companies don't.

Yep.

The other thing is that advancement in technology has brought professional recording to the masses. The days of $300 / hour studio sessions are a thing of the past for all except major releases. The vast majority of recording now happens in some guys bedroom on his PC. Even if a studio is involved, the new reality has brought prices way down - $50 / hour or less.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: I literally know THOUSANDS of working musicians saying pretty much the same thing Alex said above. They get it, even if the record companies don't.

Yep. The other thing is that advancement in technology has brought professional recording to the masses. The days of $300 / hour studio sessions are a thing of the past for all except major releases. The vast majority of recording now happens in some guys bedroom on his PC. Even if a studio is involved, the new reality has brought prices way down - $50 / hour or less.

Which is why the studios' pool of talent is drying up (why would we make an agreement with a label where they take part of our profits and want a say in the product?), which is why they're running out of money, which is why they're suing their best customers.

I never have Illegal down load'ed eny music, true I have barrow'd and "rip" some stuff from friends. If I like some thin I will go and buy it.

Or you can just go to your local library or university, rent a laptop, install bittorrent, download whatever you please, load it onto your portable hd, and never get caught. Or take your laptop to the campus, use their wireless, and their ip and not have to worry.

I will admit to DL some things for my viewing and listening pleasure.. usually stuff not availible here in the US.

And Much like how GM dug their own grave.. so is the RIAA

MC Chris said: I'm just glad none of you berkeleyers can download a T-shirt!

CrackMonkey wrote: Did you even read the article you linked? She was sharing more than 1700 songs. This is the second trial in which she was found guilty (the first was deemed a mistrial by the judge because he erred in jury instructions given at the beginning of the case).

No, you've bought the recording industry fabrication. For they never presented any proof of that assertion. The assertion was based on her simply being logged onto a file sharing forum.

That's the reason the recording industry dropped this claim. They couldn't back it with anything. Anything at all.

Keith wrote: The music industry is a great case study of how to consistently make bad decisions.

How do they compare to GM?

Gotta bring some auto aspect to this