[redshifter]

i would be 100% for a system that pays musicians directly from a fee attached to new mp3 players, without a major corporation as the middleman. logically such a system would encourage growth in the new medium (the internet) while taking care of the most important people in the chain, the musicians.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Comment apologetically withdrawn. I was in a stinking mood last night and a couple of gins loosened my waffling post finger.

I greatly appreciate this gesture, Duggeh.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redshifter /img/forum/go_quote.gif i would be 100% for a system that pays musicians directly from a fee attached to new mp3 players, without a major corporation as the middleman. logically such a system would encourage growth in the new medium (the internet) while taking care of the most important people in the chain, the musicians.

The government should not get involved, in my view - they will look at things entirely from an economic perspective, and not from an artistic perspective.

The thing that is being overlooked significantly is that the smaller music labels have seen an incredible jump in music (both CD and MP3) sales. The internet is the cause for this; it is exposing people to new forms of art that would otherwise be neglected from more mainstream methods of obtaining information. Just last year, my two-man "record label" saw an over 650% increase in product sales. And we release music that is not even considered music by the general populous...

Some sort of tax regulated by the government may give some artists the money they deserve, but what about the majority of artists that will forever be neglected? I can only see this as a further force that will continue to polarize the music industry; a lot of money going to an artistically useless crowd of "musicians", and very little money being distributed amongst an extremely high number of musicians whose artistic vision takes importance over their paychecks.

We have to go with the times. Inevitably, digital, compressed music is the future. (Although, DRM may be reaching the beginning of the end). We have to embrace this and simply give those who are illegally downloading music very little incentive to do so. The target downloading audience is in the age/demographic brackets that don't possess disposable incomes - pre-teens all the way up to grad students and young adults. Major record labels should place all of their strength into marketing for and distributing to this demographic, and online distribution services should follow up by adopting different distribution strategies to reach their target audiences. By changing their spending strategies, and where they place their money and funding, they can offer their music at the same quality but for a lower price. At the moment, the RIAA and the government are both responsible for the slowdown of this process. It will only take time to make this possibility something to be fully realized - and not much of it, anymore.

"Indie" and more specialized labels should continue their current trends and keep on reaping the benefits. This demographic is much more likely to purchase CDs than the other, so there is no reason why these labels should not continue to make their products like so (even if it'll be a niche product). Until they start seeing the losses that major labels are, there's no reason to change. If they want to increase revenue, most should probably consider online distribution deals of some sort or another, no matter how 'ghetto' it ends up being in operation.

The fact is that eventually the 'indie' and 'major' music labels will simply be in different industries, and this split in financial strategy will allow for competition between the two new industries, creating a much-needed, healthy feel of competition - something that has been missing in the music industry for nearly a decade now.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....

But if you look at the artistic point of it, why should only the people who are able to dish out 15$+, be allowed to experience music? Is music something only the wealthy should be able to enjoy?

There is many many people who cannot afford to obtain music legally, and for decades these people have obtained "pirated" copies of music.

P2P should be viewed as a huge step forward for music as an art. In minutes someone can experience a small unknown band from some remote area, and then spread the music in their own area. Music can become global known very quickly.

For example, I listen to some bands from australia, that only have demo's released. Without P2P, there would have been no way for me to obtain that music, and it would not have spread here like it has, on the other side of the planet. Abolishing P2P would be throwing music into a stone age.


I largely think that P2P has become a scapegoat for music corporations, which cannot keep up with the shift in the market. They are fighting the shift, instead of adapting to it. And you cannot fight a shift which is being pushed along by such a large majority of people(in developed countries). Any other business would have recognized the shift coming, and planned accordingly much in advance.

People would gladly pay for music if it was reasonably priced and was open. People dont want to pay a ridiculous amount of money on CD's that destroy property, prevent them from making archive copies, and violate the laws of some markets (DRM scandals)

Personally, I cant think of an art form that is trying to be so highly controlled and sold by corporations such as the current state of modern music.

 

[asmox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you look at the artistic point of it, why should only the people who are able to dish out 15$+, be allowed to experience music? Is music something only the wealthy should be able to enjoy? There is many many people who cannot afford to obtain music legally, and for decades these people have obtained "pirated" copies of music.

My personal opinions on file sharing and music distribution aside, there's a certain black and white aspect here. That being capitalism. Just like there are many people who cannot afford to obtain gigantic music collections legally, so are there many people who cannot afford, say, a sprawling mansion on a tropical island, or a garage full of exotic European cars. These people rent apartments, drive Honda's (or use bicycles, skateboards, public transportation, etc), and deal with it until they can garner the amount of wealth necessary to purchase whatever it is that they might want. They certainly don't say, "Well damn, I don't have enough money to buy this car, so I guess I'll just steal it!"

Do I download music? Yeah, I won't deny it for a second. I spend hours on Soulseek. I rely heavily on the Internet to discover new artists and avoid falling into a musical "comfort zone", as it were. However, a product is a product. If you do not have enough money to purchase a product, you're going to have to either do without it, or acquire it in some other-than-legal fashion.

As ridiculous as prices might be and as ridiculous as it is to turn creative and intellectual property into a consumer product, that's the way the country works. An owner of a given product has every right to say, "I'm charging this much, and I'm not offering any kind of demo version. Buy it or piss off." If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. But using that as a justification for p2p'ing is rather daft.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asmox /img/forum/go_quote.gif As ridiculous as prices might be and as ridiculous as it is to turn creative and intellectual property into a consumer product, that's the way the country works. An owner of a given product has every right to say, "I'm charging this much, and I'm not offering any kind of demo version. Buy it or piss off." If you can't afford it, you can't afford it.

Exactly why record companies are having problems. Because thats NOT how value is determined in our economy. But yet they seem to think it is. Consumers are what ultimately decide the cost of any given product.

An item is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. And it seems people have spoken on the value of "legal" cd's.

And relating the issue to stealing in itself is a stretch. Is a reproduction of David stealing? in what other art form is reproducing a work for personal use considered theft? Real artists want their art to be experienced and enjoyed. The people who benefit from the restriction of art, do not want this.

It simple really, from a business standpoint, the record companies are destroying themselves, for refusing to adapt to the market.


EDIT:
Also, if you look at the stats of records sales that the RIAA posts, you will see that the sales are only returing to normal, after a surge in 2000. Also, it hasnt been the downward spiral like they portray, in 2003-2004, sales went up 2.8%

Also, to further negate things, if you combine ALL sales of traditional and digital media, you will see that total value of sales has only dropped 0.6% from 2003-2004, when it was up 4.1%

Also, total unit sales are the HIGHEST in the recorded time period, 1995-2005.


http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/...yrEndStats.pdf

Read through that, work the numbers, and tell me if you still believe their propaganda.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

Real artists want their art to be experienced and enjoyed.

Do you honestly think that the writers, illustrators, photographers, actors, and musicians ( among others involved in the process) who create books, movies, and music for a living, would rather do it for free? I don't think so.

Quote:

Personally, I cant think of an art form that is trying to be so highly controlled and sold by corporations such as the current state of modern music.

How about books, magazines, movies, photography, and television programs?

 

[bperboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you honestly think that the writers, illustrators, photographers, actors, and musicians ( among others involved in the process) who create books, movies, and music for a living, would rather do it for free? I don't think so. How about books, magazines, movies, photography, and television programs?

Well yes, but have the major publishing houses been out suing 12 year olds for downloading some new music?

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif But if you look at the artistic point of it, why should only the people who are able to dish out 15$+, be allowed to experience music? Is music something only the wealthy should be able to enjoy?

Right, but the thing is that you obviously didn't read anything I posted earlier.

You probably should learn a bit of a history lesson, too: Throughout history, only recently has any person other than a member of royalty or high class been able to experience music at all! Musical performances were only for the extremely wealthy until the early 1900s.

And, if you are paying for the broadband connection that allows you to download these albums off the internet, then affording it probably isn't the problem. Remember that the majority of people who download music illegally are those who don't have any disposable income, and are most likely not paying for their internet service provider fees...

Also: I would suggest that not even half of all the record labels in existence today belong to the RIAA. And yet, all record labels I know of charge the same MSRP of between 15-20 dollars a pop. Look at tiny independent labels like Tzadik, Secretly Canadian, One Little Indian, Leo, et cetera. They all charge between 15-20 dollars. None of them belong to the RIAA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bperboy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well yes, but have the major publishing houses been out suing 12 year olds for downloading some new music?

This analogy doesn't make sense. Not to mention that the RIAA has been suing people, not the major record labels individually.

I should remind everybody to read my previous post on this matter. I am not at all advocating for the RIAA, nor for breaking the law (which both sides of the fence have done). But there also needs to be an established decency of fact versus fiction, and some people here have simply shown no sense of logic in this discussion.

 

[LawnGnome]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Right, but the thing is that you obviously didn't read anything I posted earlier. You probably should learn a bit of a history lesson, too: Throughout history, only recently has any person other than a member of royalty or high class been able to experience music at all! Musical performances were only for the extremely wealthy until the early 1900s. And, if you are paying for the broadband connection that allows you to download these albums off the internet, then affording it probably isn't the problem. Remember that the majority of people who download music illegally are those who don't have any disposable income, and are most likely not paying for their internet service provider fees... Also: I would suggest that not even half of all the record labels in existence today belong to the RIAA. And yet, all record labels I know of charge the same MSRP of between 15-20 dollars a pop. Look at tiny independent labels like Tzadik, Secretly Canadian, One Little Indian, Leo, et cetera. They all charge between 15-20 dollars. None of them belong to the RIAA. This analogy doesn't make sense. Not to mention that the RIAA has been suing people, not the major record labels individually. I should remind everybody to read my previous post on this matter. I am not at all advocating for the RIAA, nor for breaking the law (which both sides of the fence have done). But there also needs to be an established decency of fact versus fiction, and some people here have simply shown no sense of logic in this discussion.

Humans are fallible, and history proves it. So because of the inequality of the past, doesnt mean it should/will continue in the future. Especially now when people have more and more alternatives.

Also, saying because someone has broadband they can afford CD's is ridiculous. People buy burnt CD's, and people have been copying CD's for a long time.

Not to mention you can get a month of broadband for the price of a single CD.

But still, you have yet to touch on the fact that the actual Net income has only actually dropped .6%. Nothing anywhere near the type of "music industry destruction" the RIAA goes on about.

Who is the RIAA kidding? There market is getting bigger, MUCH bigger. How many people in North America have cell phones? Now think how many of those people have custom ringtones of songs. We are putting music into many devices, and companies all get their royalties.

That market brought them 421 000 000$, or 3% of ALL net profit, in its First year of introduction. But that was just ringtones, now you can download full length songs and music videos on your phone!


EDIT: also, if your comment on logic was in anyway directed at me. Please refine your own arguments. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements, and seem to be ignoring all the evidence I have provided showing that the music industry is not in flames like they say.

 

[Aman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif EDIT: also, if your comment on logic was in anyway directed at me. Please refine your own arguments. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements, and seem to be ignoring all the evidence I have provided showing that the music industry is not in flames like they say.

I don't understand. I have provided plenty of evidence for my statements. I don't think you even read my post which you quoted to begin with! And, to be honest, I don't know what the hell you're going on about. I don't think I was disagreeing with anything you were saying about the RIAA's poor business practices. Your reasoning is just off. If all record companies charge $15 or more for a CD, regardless of their belonging to the RIAA, then obviously there are other factors going into the cost of CDs other than the RIAA.

Part of what I do for a living is produce, record, and distribute music CDs. I can tell you with great certainty that, no matter how much I hate the RIAA, I can't see myself charging any less than $15 MSRP for a CD. Studio costs, materials, legal resources, my time, and the musicians' time and talents, all come in as cost factors.

The RIAA has done immoral, illegal, and idiotic things in the past. I don't support them at all, and don't believe in anything they stand for. Their entire philosophy, as I outlined in my original post, is completely bogus to me. Regardless, I don't disagree with your hatred for the RIAA and I think it stands reasonable. However, I think your logic and reasoning is entirely unreasonable, and it doesn't give indie labels' causes (who are trying to work against the powerhouse forces of the RIAA) any better of a meaning if people are misrepresenting the facts and complaining for the wrong reasons.

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LawnGnome /img/forum/go_quote.gif Humans are fallible, and history proves it. So because of the inequality of the past, doesnt mean it should/will continue in the future. Especially now when people have more and more alternatives. Also, saying because someone has broadband they can afford CD's is ridiculous. People buy burnt CD's, and people have been copying CD's for a long time. Not to mention you can get a month of broadband for the price of a single CD. But still, you have yet to touch on the fact that the actual Net income has only actually dropped .6%. Nothing anywhere near the type of "music industry destruction" the RIAA goes on about. Who is the RIAA kidding? There market is getting bigger, MUCH bigger.

Hmmm...OK...so what is it about any of this that makes it OK to acquire music without paying for it?? Is it the part about all the money that is being made?

Whether you call it copyright infringement or stealing, when one downloads via bit torrent or P2P, one is obtaining a product that would otherwise cost money at no cost. One is thus denying both the great satan AND the artist of their rightful earnings. How is it again that this is justified?

Ah...I think I understand...it's because people have been copying CD's for a long time, right??

It's IMHO like cheating on your taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes...I think we can all agree on that. However, to the extent that others don't pay their fair share (according to the laws and regulations on the books), there is less total tax revenue produced. The rest of us ultimately end up paying more.

Works the same way here. To the extent that CD sales are less than they might otherwise be, total revenue is also less. Given that economies of scale exist, and that marginal unit sales have more profit (given that sunk costs are already covered), it's reasonable to conclude that we'd be paying LESS for CD's if sales were greater.

So all you folks who think it's perfectly legal to download...thanks. You just cost me more money when I bought CD's yesterday.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the cost of CD's: I rarely pay as much as $13 for a CD. In 1986, when I started buying CD's, they cost $16.99 a piece, and have come DOWN since then. Back then, I could buy a brand new Ford Tempo (please...don't ask!!) for a shade over $7 grand. A similar car today would cost at least twice that. Now, I'm not saying that the CPI has doubled in 20 years...though it might be close to that (I've not checked). I'm just saying that all this bitching about the cost of CD's seems like more rationalization from folks who want to feel like Robin Hood while stealing music from the evil Prince John that is the record companies, and the evil Sheriff of Nottingham that is the RIAA.

It's the same tired old "well...I'm JUSTIFIED because of (insert favorite tired old rant here)". Well, a lot of folks think you're wrong...some of them don't even work for the music industry or it's enforcement arm.

 

[werdwerdus]

i didn't read much of this thread, but I'd just like to add that I have increased exponentially the amount of music that I buy since I started to download music... the RIAA should be thanking me for downloading and exposing myself to tons more than I ever would have.

For me, downloading = find new awesome music that I go and purchase (usually).

For instance, I just discovered the band Manowar today, and it's my new favorite metal band ever... No way I ever would have discovered this band by conventional means.

 

[Knockturne]

I don't think downloading music can be compared to stealing cars, etc. or cheating taxes. Music is an art. It's not a material thing.

Few people can afford to buy everything they want to listen to. I have more than 1500 albums on my computer...if I couldn't download music I couldn't possibly have heard a tenth of that amount of music. And if I hadn't, I would definitely be a different person. Without "illegal" music, music wouldn't be hardly as important to me as it is now. I buy as much music as I can afford, but I still have to download music. And come on - who wants to spend (or possibly waste) $15 (many CDs are actually $25US here in Australia) on a band they've never even heard.

Anyway, music sharing does not even effect CD sales. People who can afford CDs will still choose to buy CDs over mp3s. All P2P does is give everyone access to all the music in the world, no matter how poor they are. Records still sell, and even if there was a decline in sales musicians would still cope. There are other ways to make money - playing live shows and selling merchandise. And that decline in sales would probably be due to less people buying albums they don't like, which they would have wasted their money on if it weren't for music sharing. In fact, I have bought more music because of P2P than I would have if it didn't exist, and I'm sure many others have too. Not only because it has created a love for music, but also because I know what I'm paying for, so I won't hesitate to spend what I can afford on music.

Not to mention, without music sharing, many many many Indie bands wouldn't be where they are today. eg. Broken Social Scene

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think downloading music can be compared to stealing cars, etc. or cheating taxes. Music is an art. It's not a material thing.

Hmmm…so it would be OK to steal something, so long as it could be called “art”. Interesting…and it might explain why there are so many starving artists. I wonder if it would explain the glut of velvet Elvis paintings too??


Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif Few people can afford to buy everything they want to listen to. I have more than 1500 albums on my computer...if I couldn't download music I couldn't possibly have heard a tenth of that amount of music. And if I hadn't, I would definitely be a different person. Without "illegal" music, music wouldn't be hardly as important to me as it is now.

You know, there are LOTS of things in this world that I want that I can’t afford. You know what…too damn bad! That’s just the way it is in the world. We don’t get everything we want in life, and the fact that we don’t have something we want doesn’t give us license to steal it (or, if you prefer, borrow it indefinitely)…whether we call it a material thing or art.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif I buy as much music as I can afford, but I still have to download music.

You don’t HAVE to download music…you choose to do so because you want something that you apparently can’t afford. The notion that someone HAS to download music is, frankly, absurd.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif And come on - who wants to spend (or possibly waste) $15 (many CDs are actually $25US here in Australia) on a band they've never even heard.

Nobody…but that’s how it goes. I’ve purchased plenty of duds by bands I’ve HEARD, and I don’t feel like that gives me the right to take it without paying for it.

You know, there’s this thing here in the US called FM radio…maybe you have it in Australia too?? You can listen to it and it doesn’t cost you a thing.

If you don’t, there’s this other thing called the library…you can borrow CD’s there (it’s legal too) and listen to them.

There’s also more than one LEGAL download service (e.g. Rhapsody, Yahoo! Music, etc…) available to listen to music for a small monthly fee. Ditto satellite radio (e.g. Cirrus), which has a pretty extensive offering for a relatively small fee.

Let’s assume for a moment that NONE of these options are viable down under. Too bad. You are not entitled to receive free that which costs the rest of us money simply because you can steal it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Knockturne /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, music sharing does not even effect CD sales. People who can afford CDs will still choose to buy CDs over mp3s. All P2P does is give everyone access to all the music in the world, no matter how poor they are. Records still sell, and even if there was a decline in sales musicians would still cope. There are other ways to make money - playing live shows and selling merchandise. And that decline in sales would probably be due to less people buying albums they don't like, which they would have wasted their money on if it weren't for music sharing. In fact, I have bought more music because of P2P than I would have if it didn't exist, and I'm sure many others have too. Not only because it has created a love for music, but also because I know what I'm paying for, so I won't hesitate to spend what I can afford on music. Not to mention, without music sharing, many many many Indie bands wouldn't be where they are today. eg. Broken Social Scene

I count no fewer than seven distinct (and well worn) rationalizations in that last quote.

I particularly like “Records still sell, and even if there was a decline in sales musicians would still cope. There are other ways to make money - playing live shows and selling merchandise”.

Hmmm…what if some clever fellow were to set up a mic and start a clandestine live broadcast over the internet of all a particular band’s live shows. Let’s assume that he makes no profit…just does it because it’s art and he thinks that all folks, no matter how poor they are, deserve to have access to this live show. I mean, concert tickets are awfully expensive…right?

Let’s also assume that another fellow decides to sell his own t-shirts at cost outside of these same live concerts. Again, he doesn’t do it because he wants to make money (and holy ****, is there money to be made…you think CD’s are expensive, try buying a t-shirt at a concert!!), but because he thinks that “art” ought to be available to the masses, not just those who can afford it.

I wonder…is any of this wrong?? Do you think that concert ticket and merchandise sales would suffer? I guess it’s OK though…musicians would still cope, right?

I say it is wrong…in fact, it could even end in tragedy:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28467

OK…so you’ve said a lot here. It still sounds like the same old excuses for doing something that, ultimately, you know isn’t quite right, even if there is some question about whether it’s legal or not.