Society is really screwed up now.

[Immortal Goat]

I am now afraid to download any music from KaZaA or WinMX because of the government cracking down on these music "pirates". They have arrested over 300 people for downloading music, videos, and pictures from these sites, including a 12 YEAR OLD GIRL!!!! Seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with society today that musicians get so greedy that they cannot let people enjoy their music for free? Music is not about money, it is about losing yourself in another person's words.

[Perndog]

Musicians need to make a living, too. I don't know if you've lived our lifestyle, but there is a lot of work involved, oftentimes more work than fun. Furthermore, while most people have steady employers, enjoy job security, and get regular paychecks, musicians are always looking for gigs with the knowledge that if they hit a dry spell they might have to keep to a pretty strict budget or even pawn stuff off for food money. And recording artists, whose revenues (from shows or album sales) depend on an audience, are on even less steady ground, because even after they sign that wonderful contract there is no guarantee of profit. So it should be no mystery why a lot of musicians are pretty pissed about getting ripped off. Half of them know what it's like to live hand-to-mouth in a van or some shithole that only costs $100 a month to rent.

Not that I think they need to do what they're doing. That's another issue, and one I don't care to debate.

And you can blast pop stars all you want though. Greedy fuckers.

[Ninjavenom]

Anyone cracking down like this should have their musician status stripped, and they should be sent to live inside a haunted tomb in Australia until their dying days. Why? Greed. Greed, greed, greed. This all started in the public eye with Metallica, a band that did exactly what Sabbath did before them: made four quality albums (yeah, i'm one of those whiners) and then decided that from then on, it was going to be about making money, not good music. So the quality declined, and they arrived where they are now: middle-aged rockers trying to regain their status as Thrash Icons through meaningless re-invention and pointless lineup changes. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? (Off the record, i hate Suicidal Tendencies) The only difference here is Metallica forgot that being a musician is about making music, not money, so they tried to pull their jaw out instead of fixing the one cavituous tooth.

Let's be clear here: You're very lucky as a musician to make any particularly large sum of money above what Joe Schmoe worker would make. Being a musician is like being an artist. If you're a street painter, and someone comes by and takes a picture of your latest piece, is it lawsuit time yet? It's the same basic thing, but somehow it isn't theft? What about if i read a book in the library, and photocopy a picture or a paragraph that i may want to keep around for a school report or something? Can you sue me yet? Think of it this way: rather than starve or stay on the current (less)greed(y) train, Metallica has decided that it is best to just eat oneself. If they were on par with The Beatles, maybe i could see them suing fans for theft. Thankfully, they aren't. They have the most BORING DRUMMING EVER, and they weren't the only band doing what they were at the time. They already charge horrible ticket prices, (Eighty dollars to see 40 year old men pretend they're still cool just isn't my bag) and they still get kazillions of fans to attend their shows. If they hadn't spent loads and loads of money on sex, drugs, and booze, i might say they have a right to try to get their money back, but when you owe all your debts to a brazillian cocaine cartel, i won't feel sorry for you. Like all rock stars, greed and extravagance has become their number one fixation to the point where "make good music" just becomes a nattering in one's brain, not a driving force in one's heart.

Rather than continue on a stupid rant about Metallica, i'll just give you ten better thrash bands than Metiallica, so you won't even have to think about them anymore.

1. Slayer (overrated, but at least they have competent drum work)
2. Megadeth
3. Anthrax
4. M.O.D.
5. S.O.D.
6. Satan
7. Destruction
8. Exodus
9. Nuclear Assault
10. Sodom

Pick one, and give it a whirl. None will disappoint. None will sue you for listening to them, either.

edit: Whoops, i meant Destruction. Why the fuck did i say Whiplash?

[Schimid]

I heard that Anthrax had to change their name a while back. :/

Misinformed?

[Ninjavenom]

No, they refused to.

[Schimid]

That's what I thought--but then, I heard they WANTED to change their name to Box Of Puppies.

[El Blanco]

Oh get rid of all this self-righteous "artistic integrity" crap. If a construction worker builds a house, he damn well expects to get paid for it. Who here is going to deny him?

Same deal with musicians. They put the hard work in. where the fuck do you get off with these sanctimonious rants about how bands are all greedy and in it for the money? These bands have families to feed, too.

the vast majority of "file sharers" aren't in this as part of some holy crusade to free art from corporate america's clutches. They are in it for free stuff.

While I certainly don't favor the DoJ going after a 12 year old girl, lets not cannonize her for sainthood just yet.

[Ninjavenom]

Oh, come on. Don't be a fucking blockhead. Metallica and Black Sabbath spent their "hard-earned" money on drugs, and hookers, and other wasteful shit. Know when they got this money? Album five. Ozzy said it himself, "After vol. 4 we just started to make music for the money." Do you seriously expect me to support that? They tell stories on VH1 about speedballs and jaegermeister-soaked holidays, and then you expect me to feel bad for these assholes? Fucking rock stars, they should all have cinder blocks shoved into their cunts.

Also, "artistic integrity crap." What do you think music is? Are you going to buy a cd that's extremely medicore in every way? No, you're not. Are you going to keep supporting a band that makes the same damn record every year for two decades? No. Despite what you may think, playing in a band IS NOT A WISE CAREER CHOICE. These guys know what they're doing and what the dangers are when they get into the music business, and if they also know what's good for them, they're going to GET A FUCKING JOB when times get rough. There's no reason to starve yourself for money, that's absolutely retarded. You wanna know why the guys in Mortician, or Anal Cunt, or Lymphatic Phlegm aren't suing anyone? Because they have jobs. They're not stupid enough to think that they can rely on their music to pay the bills, they know that they have to do something else when in such a genre. That's what makes Metallica greedy, their utter disregard for making anything of mention anymore. Maybe you don't like the word greedy? What about Ignorant? Or Self-Centered? How about Moronic? Or witless? Or just plain old "Sell-outs."

The point is that when you're in a band, the focus is the music, nothing else. Same with art. If you get into art, serious art fans are going to be concerned with the integrity and quality of your art, not how many hookers you can fuck with a fish in a hotel in Norway.

[Immortal Goat]

Another point I would like to make is this. All the bands that have money problems and families to feed that rely on the newest record sale are not usually the bands people download music from. The bands that everyone downloads from are bands with some kind of fame and fortune and could very well live without their newest CD selling so well. Take Metallica for example. I see people downloading a ton of that shit every day, and they are rich bastards. Some little garage band that is travelling from town to town hoping to find a gig in a dingy bar is not going to have much music to download, and therefore it is not a problem for them.

[Perndog]

:rolleyes

Send me a copy of your record, Ninjavenom, then I'll listen to you bitch until the sun comes up. Listeners' opinions aside, Metallica and the like aren't just making music because they're greedy bastards who know they can sell millions of albums. If that were the goal, they wouldn't have gone this long without releasing a record. Whatever anyone else thinks, the band is convinced that they wrote and recorded good music, and they did it because they wanted to make music. If money was the only concern, they wouldn't stop touring for so long to go sit in a studio, since they're big enough to sell out stadiums at $80 a seat. (THAT's the part that pisses me off) You're free to think their music sucks, but they're writing what they want to write from an artistic standpoint - if they were that greedy, they would go back to writing more songs just like the black album, but as they've said in countless interviews, they got tired of the same old formula and wanted to try something new. And they earned the ability to do that by making enough money to support them through albums that fewer people liked but were more fulfilling for them. Fuck your high-minded "sell-out" shit. Selling out is changing to suit your audience. When you change and it pisses your audience off, you're losing potential profits in favor of expression, which is what Metallica is doing.

I don't like St. Anger either, but at least I'm not so hung up on bitching about what successful people should do (I'm busy trying to be successful myself) that I can't tell the difference between manufactured tripe and experimentation.

[Anonymous]

Just in case someone is wonder about this, the latest round of RIAA lawsuits were filed against people with tremendous amounts of music on their computers, as in close to 1000 MP3s in some cases.

[Perndog]

Yeah, let's get back on topic...

I have 3500 mp3s, available through AIM or Kazaa. If I go down, I'm going down hard. ;)

[Big McLargehuge]

Weren't you just bitching about ripping of the musicians?

[Perndog]

Not that I think they need to do what they're doing.

No, I wasn't. I was explaining that I understand their perspective. But I still think they're wrong.

[imported_Hollycaust]

Hi, file sharing is gay.
I'm selfish.

[The_Rorschach]

"Same deal with musicians. They put the hard work in. where the fuck do you get off with these sanctimonious rants about how bands are all greedy and in it for the money? These bands have families to feed, too."

The way I see it, and I admit I might very well be wrong, sharing a song with someone across Kazaa is no worse than loaning a Cee Dee to a friend. When I was in High School we used to make tape, actual tape, compilations of bands like Honey Bear and Discount and Cheater and other bands that we could not purchase anywhere else. We'd trade and pass them around, and use them to make second gen compilations that really sucked to listen to.

Most of the songs I've downloaded on Kazaa I found with random searches trying to find something new and interesting. It's how I found Dark Tranquility and Meredith Sex Garden. Its an excellent way for bands not of the traditional circuit to gain followers, even if it does drain slightly on the bands that do make it. Pardon me if I don't cry for Celion Dion and Britney Spears. What we're seeing is the Digital Prohibition, and I'm afraid I'm standing beside Capone on this one.

[punkgrrrlie10]

It's a business. People are trying to make a living doing what they love. If it was only about making music, why would they put out a CD to sell or work at practicing to play a venue? Why wouldn't they just hang out in the garage for the rest of their life w/their band and just play? They want to make music but they gotta eat too and usually people live on shit jobs for a long time to make it in the business. This is their idea sprung from their brains and genius that many people happen to like and want. It works the same for anything. People make cars, gotta pay for one. People grow food, an absolute necessity for society, but if they weren't paid to do so, why would they mass produce for everyone. They do it to make a living. Just b/c you don't want to pay for it, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Why am I paying for law school, to be a lawyer-why? b/c I love law, but would I do all this mother F'ing work for free and starve to death? Absolutely not.

[Zhukov]

This is a problem with society. Like punkgrrrlie said, its not just musicians who need to 'make a living', however, people seem to think that because they are 'artists' that they have to rise above making money to live off. They may just have families too.

When somebody does something, anything, not just becasue they love to do it, but becasue they don't wasnt to starve; well I think that lessens the joy of doing what you do.

Not just the musician should be above 'selling-out' their talents to make a buck, but the house builder too, and the factory worker and any other worker. Like the emancipated musician, I should be able too wake up in the morning and want to go to work for the sheer joy of doing it.

How can we expect the musician to give up music to get a 'real job', when the guy that loves to work at disney land can work there and also 'make a living'? This may sound far fetched, but I think people should be able to do what they want, and not have to look elsewhere just to survive.


It is not a problem in society, it is a product of society.

[Sethomas]

I used to hang out a lot at a sleazy punk venue, and I found that the musicians who are the most hard-pressed for money also tend to be those who look well upon downloading. They're glad for kids to be swapping their songs because at least that means people are listening to them. If they are foolhardy enough to rely on music to pay the bills, they get their money from playing gigs. Comparing musicians to house builders and factory workers is asinine. When the fell swoop of capitalism strikes down a musician's dream, it's not like there's a void left in the economy as would happen when houses need built or buttons need pushed.

Another complication I see is that most kids don't have the attention span to listen to entire albums, and now they don't have to. It's the pop way of life to engineer three or so songs for radio playability then fill the cd with 9 tracks of spacer shite. Such groups are the ones getting hit the hardest by music piracy, and I have no sympathy for them.
The respectable thing to do is download a song that gets stuck in your head, and figure out that of which you'd like to hear more. (God, I hate akward constructions to avoid ending sentences in prepositions.) Then go out and buy the album. Good bands make albums to which you can listen for an hour or so and be thoroughly pleased. Anyone who downloads every song of such an album is just an asshole, though.

[Zhukov]

Comparing musicians to house builders and factory workers is asinine. When the fell swoop of capitalism strikes down a musician's dream, it's not like there's a void left in the economy as would happen when houses need built or buttons need pushed.


I wasnt comparing them in relation to the economy, I was comparing them in relation to the power of their dreams. I was thinking of the future. People still need to 'survive' at the moment; so all you musicians: get a job!

And you would be silly to think that the 'music industry' has nothing to do with 'economy', but yeah yeah, I know what you mean.

[Skulhedface]

As far as I'm concerned...

Yes, indeed, you are an asshole if you enjoy a whole album but download the whole thing instead of just buying the thing. If you like the band so much that you listen to the whole CD, why not show your support and buy it?

On the other hand, I'm all for downloading singles. Why? Because most record companies feel justified charging $7 or more for ONE song, or probably three tracks on one $7 CD, two of which are shitty remixes of the single in the first place. When bands are just making singles around an entire album rather than making a whole album worth of good music, then I'm not so hasty to pass downloading judgement.

Rest assured, unless it's off different albums, I have no more than three songs by one band off the same album. If I like more than three songs on one album, I'll buy it. But I don't feel like I got my money's worth if I pay almost $20 for THREE SONGS.

[sspadowsky]

A fact:
Bands don't make money off album sales. Record companies do. Obviously, the megastars are the exception to this, but a band like Clutch or In Flames (or 98% of other non-multiplatinum bands)makes their money from touring.

Some folks have finally caught on. iTunes has been a very successful site where people can download individual songs for $1 apiece. Universal Music Group has finally come to the understanding that paying $19 for a CD is what is known as "ass-rape," and they have lowered their prices an average of $6 per CD. Other record companies will likely follow suit. I'll go back to buying CDs. Maybe the reduction in record company profits will make them more selective, resulting in fewer shit bands like the Backstreet Boys and such.

[El Blanco]

Oh, come on. Don't be a fucking blockhead. Metallica and Black Sabbath spent their "hard-earned" money on drugs, and hookers, and other wasteful shit. Know when they got this money? Album five. Ozzy said it himself, "After vol. 4 we just started to make music for the money." Do you seriously expect me to support that? They tell stories on VH1 about speedballs and jaegermeister-soaked holidays, and then you expect me to feel bad for these assholes? Fucking rock stars, they should all have cinder blocks shoved into their cunts.


So, if it sucks, why bother downloading it? Time is more porecious than money. I may be wierd like this, but I usually only listen to music I like. Maybe I'm just crazy.

And by the way, its their money, they earned it. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell them how to spend it?

Also, "artistic integrity crap." What do you think music is? Are you going to buy a cd that's extremely medicore in every way? No, you're not. Are you going to keep supporting a band that makes the same damn record every year for two decades?

I'm not going to listen to it at all. Time > money.

Why bother stealing it?

Despite what you may think, playing in a band IS NOT A WISE CAREER CHOICE.

No shit.

These guys know what they're doing and what the dangers are when they get into the music business, and if they also know what's good for them, they're going to GET A FUCKING JOB when times get rough. There's no reason to starve yourself for money, that's absolutely retarded. You wanna know why the guys in Mortician, or Anal Cunt, or Lymphatic Phlegm aren't suing anyone? Because they have jobs.

And Metallica, Dr Dre, Geffen, Sony and all those others have a job. Music. Oh, you forgot that there is more involved in the music industry than some mook playing a guitar, didn't you?

That's what makes Metallica greedy, their utter disregard for making anything of mention anymore.

Because they want to be paid for their hard work? Because they don't want to go back a 9 to 5 lifestyle? I think by that standard 9 out of 10 people on earth would end up greedy in their spot.


What about Ignorant? Or Self-Centered? How about Moronic? Or witless?

Ya, that does pretty much sum up your rant. I can add "pretnetious" if you like.

The point is that when you're in a band, the focus is the music, nothing else.

That is great when you play out of mom and dad's garage. But, when you grow up and realize you have to do this for a living, it gets more complicated. In case you haven't noticed, Metallica et al are protecting their music.

And how are all your favorite bands supposed to focus on music when they are working other jobs?

If you get into art, serious art fans are going to be concerned with the integrity and quality of your art, not how many hookers you can fuck with a fish in a hotel in Norway.

Fuck "serious art fans". Seriously, fuck them all. Its one thing to not like your band's latest work. It is something else to steal it and then make like they are comitting another Holocaust.

You self proclaimed music experts are so pretentious it is laughable. What happened to just sitting back and enjoying some music? Metallica making shitty music( I agree St Anger is blowing monkey ass)? Find another band.

If some dummy wants to pay them for what they are doing, more power to 'em.

[soundtest]

why would they mass produce for everyone

They don't have to. Copying is not stealing.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

It's my understanding that that the record companies make most of the money form record sales. The artist make their money from merchandising and concerts....

[El Blanco]

YEs, but musicians do make some money off the sales. It is not much, but they stil learned it.

Not to mention all the technicians, sound pros, marketers and tons of other people who aren't millionares that rely on the selling of these CDs.

Again, the people stealing this stuff, aren't doing it for something so noble as trying to preserve the integrity of music, they do it because they are getting free shit.

[Bennett]

I pretty much agree with Blanco here,
and I find it interesting that people try to rationalize their file sharing by saying things such as: "Well, I buy three or four albums a month, so I think it's fine/justified if I download some songs... if I want the whole album I'll go out and buy it," and, "I only download something if I don't want to buy the whole album." Try using that rationale with any other purchase you might make.

I think the largest problem, as Kevin mentioned in the last thread that discussed this, is that the industry needs to adjust and reformat itself to the new technology.

[Ninjavenom]

And how are all your favorite bands supposed to focus on music when they are working other jobs?

They work on jobs that will get them money, the music is there for them to express themselves. Considering that there is a decent amount of people who enjoy said music, i imagine that they manage to find the appropriate allotment of time to achieve the music that they desire, elsewise they wouldn't continue making music.

And by the way, its their money, they earned it. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell them how to spend it?


What about the families they have to feed?

And Metallica, Dr Dre, Geffen, Sony and all those others have a job. Music. Oh, you forgot that there is more involved in the music industry than some mook playing a guitar, didn't you?


Please. Do you seriously think the music industry is going to suffer from this? I remember Helm saying something about how corrupt the industry is, and how it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, and i think that holds true now. Some people download music to see if they like a band, hence the argument that if they like a cd, or a band, they will buy it/go see them. Myself, i'm one of those you mention, who simply likes the free shit and the abuility to hear music from as many bands i can fit onto my hard drive.

Fuck "serious art fans". Seriously, fuck them all. Its one thing to not like your band's latest work. It is something else to steal it and then make like they are comitting another Holocaust.

Metallica isn't my band. I'm bitching about them because they're rock stars. Dirty, old, and fading fast. The point about the fish is that i hear all sorts of stories about what so and so rock star did in so and so hotel with so and so many prostitutes, and it gets seriously fucking old, especially when said band's medicore music was only exaggerated through such types of stories.

What happened to just sitting back and enjoying some music?

That's all i do in my free time, don't think i have opinions on many other things than this. Yeah, it probably is a stupid one, too, (seeing as how this turned into a metallica rant more than a rant about filesharing and its adversaries) but i still believe in it, as bullet-riddled as it may seem.

You self proclaimed music experts are so pretentious it is laughable.

Who says i think i'm a music expert? I listen to music, that's about it. If anything, i'm just a lowly critic, offering an opinion.

[Perndog]

Fuck "serious art fans".

Oh yeah, I forgot to say that. And it needs to be repeated.

Fuck.
Serious.
Art.
Fans.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps the RIAA would garner more sympathy for their cause if they showed a musician whose career was ruined by filesharing, rather than a bunch of well-established musicians making a slightly smaller mountain of money because of filesharing.

[imported_Hollycaust]

Hi, file sharing is gay.
I'm selfish.

oh i agree! And mornin'

[Immortal Goat]

I am not one of those people who just like free shit. Most of the music I download is either stuff that is the only song I like from a CD, or stuff that is extremely hard to find (at least in the music stores around me). I don't know about you, but I have difficulty finding a cd of nothing but music from Castlevania in a FYE. And I have NEVER seen a CD for "They Might Be Giants" being sold anywhere near my home. So, yeah, those of you that download entire CDs from well known bands, fuck you. Those of you that download single songs or hard to find CDs, go for it.

[Big Papa Goat]

If artists make most of their money at concerts, and music can be advertised and distributed via filesharing, then there is really no point in the recording industry at all is there? Artists can survive and make money, and people can get the music they want. The recording industry seems to be just a waste of money and labour.

[Perndog]

Dude. Mp3s don't pop out of nowhere when a band writes a song. We have places called studios where musicians get together and twiddle knobs and stuff and make RECORDINGS, which get pressed onto CDs and encoded into mp3s. I wonder why it's called the RECORDING INDUSTRY. Maybe because it makes all those RECORDINGS you share online. >:

ARTISTS DO NOT MAKE ALL THEIR MONEY AT CONCERTS. They almost always get a buck per unit sold, usually more, and if they are on a very small label or produce a record by themselves, they get a very large cut. Bands that aren't really popular yet (and signed to a RECORD label) don't make shit playing live because they can only book little venues at flat rates or like $4 a head, or they open for bigger acts who don't give them very large cuts anyway. Until they get signed by a major label (the ones that make the famous RECORDINGS), their revenue comes from CD and merch sales, and they play live to get their name out so more people will want to buy their music. Poison was playing and filling enormous venues in Los Angeles before they got signed, and they didn't make enough money to keep themselves fed (they had groupies buy them stuff) because they didn't have an album.

Get it? RECORD SALES ARE IMPORTANT. BANDS THAT ARE NOT SIGNED TO CONTRACTS TO PRODUCE CDs DO NOT GET THEIR MUSIC SOLD ONLINE, DO NOT MAKE MONEY PLAYING LIVE, AND DEPEND ON THOSE LITTLE PLASTIC CIRCLES TO MAKE THEIR CAREERS PROFITABLE. PHYSICALLY DISTRIBUTED RECORDINGS MAKE THE WORLD GO AROUND. DOESN'T ANYONE FUCKING GET IT?

And before anyone bitches at me for having an enormous mp3 collection, I also own 200 CDs, I buy more frequently, and over half of my mp3s are from albums I have paid for. Yes, I also have them shared online, but it's not my job to police people and keep them from downloading songs they haven't paid for.

EDIT: Even once a band makes it big and they do make a majority of their profits from live shows, that doesn't mean CDs aren't a piece of the pie. Wouldn't you be pissed if a third or a quarter of your annual income was in jeopardy?

[Big McLargehuge]

And before anyone bitches at me for having an enormous mp3 collection, I also own 200 CDs, I buy more frequently, and over half of my mp3s are from albums I have paid for. Yes, I also have them shared online, but it's not my job to police people and keep them from downloading songs they haven't paid for.


Oh so stealing only counts if you do it it more than half the time? And the whole "it's not my job to police..." sounds like a drug dealer who is claiming he is innocent because he just gave away all his drugs.

[Perndog]

The problem is not people downloading music. The problem is people not buying CDs, which is an effect of people downloading music. I buy a lot of CDs, so I do not contribute to the problem.

And no, it is not my responsibility if someone downloads a file from me, because I didn't say "here, take this!" or send it without their explicit request. I'm not against dealing drugs anyway.

[punkgrrrlie10]

why would they mass produce for everyone

They don't have to. Copying is not stealing.

Actually, according to the Copyright act, it is. And if you really want to get into it, check provisions of the constitution allowing for Congress to pass laws on the protection of science and art. This isn't something that the Record companies spawned but has been in existence since the beginning of law in this country.

And just to let all ya'll know, the artists get about 14 cents per CD sold.

[Big McLargehuge]

And no, it is not my responsibility if someone downloads a file from me, because I didn't say "here, take this!" or send it without their explicit request. I'm not against dealing drugs anyway.

THEN TURN OFF FILE SHARING ASSHOLE >:

[kellychaos]

What about new musicians that put their files out for distribution purposes ... i.e. to get their name "out there"? Is the fact that they don't get money for original compositions "on them" even if they chose to redress the issue at a later date when they're more successful? Is downloading that music then, illegal?

[El Blanco]

If they get up and say, "We are giving this out for free" and make no indication that they wil lcharge for it at a later date, then it isn't stealing.

[FS]

I download music and have my brother copy CDs for me, partly because as much as I love music I'm too cheap to spend as much money as is currently necessary to buy a CD, partly because it's easy and quick and free. I don't keep my files in my shared folder, to avoid attracting attention and to keep my connection from caving in.

Yeah, a lot of us have gotten used to getting music for free from within the comforts of our own home, but don't be a hypocrite about it. If you have a problem with the way the record industry does things, send a message to them by not buying their material. Don't steal it and say you're striking a blow for justice and hitting the Man where it hurts.

Now, until someone in the recording industry gets the balls to try something new and spectacular, like offering legally downloadable music at a fair price, the rest of them will keep trying to annoy us and scare us with lawsuits and preposterous law suggestions. Are they taking it too far? Sometimes. Do you get mad when a shopkeeper shoots a guy who's robbing his store?

I find it ridiculous, just like people getting all huffy when Napster got closed down. We're THIEVES, people. We have no rights.

[El Blanco]

They work on jobs that will get them money, the music is there for them to express themselves. Considering that there is a decent amount of people who enjoy said music, i imagine that they manage to find the appropriate allotment of time to achieve the music that they desire, elsewise they wouldn't continue making music.

So, in other words, they don't need to concentrate full time on their music. Isn't that what you repremanded other bands for?

What about the families they have to feed?

Their money, their right to do whatever the hell lthey want with it. Nobody appointed you the Morality Police.

Please. Do you seriously think the music industry is going to suffer from this?

Is David Geffen going to starve? No. But, what about all the people who actually make, package and ship the CDs?

Myself, i'm one of those you mention, who simply likes the free shit and the abuility to hear music from as many bands i can fit onto my hard drive.

I'm one those people who likes free cars and the ability to drive as many as I can fit in my garage. I'll start with yours.

Metallica isn't my band. I'm bitching about them because they're rock stars. Dirty, old, and fading fast.

I still don't understand why you care so much about them. If I don't like a band, I ignore them. If you aren't downloading metallica's music, then Lars isn't bothering you.

it gets seriously fucking old

So is all the whining by pretentious jackasses claining they "sold out".

That's all i do in my free time,

This is whats wrong. Get a job and then look at the issue.

but i still believe in it, as bullet-riddled as it may seem.

Want to join the Flat Earth Society?

Who says i think i'm a music expert? I listen to music, that's about it. If anything, i'm just a lowly critic, offering an opinion.

You keep acting like your opinions are facts. Despite millions of people who say the contrary, who keep proclaiming Metallica sucks.

[Perndog]

And just to let all ya'll know, the artists get about 14 cents per CD sold.

:rolleyes I think I covered this at least twice so far, and as a musician myself, I should hope I know how it works. But humor me and show me where you got your figures, then I'll send you a link back from the RIAA with real royalty rates. If artists only made 14 cents per copy, they wouldn't record them in the first place. Think about it.

[O71394658]

I see nothing wrong at all with downloading music. Look at it from this standpoint:

I think everyone knows that it's "stealing". It's wrong, yet the American public continues to do it, and partly because we feel justified in doing so. Justified in the fact that the money we may want our hard-earned dollars to go to aren't going to the right places. As punkgirlie stated, 14 cents per CD. I thought it was higher. I thought it was around $1. Look at it this way. Artists do not, repeat do not receive most of their income through CD sales. Not even close. They receive a minimal amount of money through the purchase of each CD. Their primary source of income are concert sales. As in devout fans of the music come and pay to see them live. I would believe that downloading music has little effect on acutal artist's income. I would argue that it would even increase in releasing files. If more fans get exposed to the music (if that artists is good- fewer and fewer of them these days) then more fans will show up to concerts, which will drive up the artists revenue.

Most feel that all the money spent on a CD goes to fat, rich white men who are already millionares, so we feel justified in withholding our money from them. Besides, the fact that record companies are placing sole blame of the music slump on MP3s is ludicrous. Of course, some blame deserves to go there, but clearly not all. It's an interesting fact to know that sales of used and reduced-priced CDs are skyrocketing by the day. Sales are booming in these areas. Most people don't want to shell out $20 for a CD to hear one song that's been repeated ad infinitum on the radio. That's why many "popular" CD artists' sales may have been slumping. Artists these days are popular for one song. The rest of the CD blows. Why pay $20 for a CD when you can download it for free. It doesn't make logical sense. It's happened a bunch of times to me. Buying a CD only to find out the rest of the songs are mediocre at best. If the artists devoted more time to actually putting effort into songs, then they might see the problem correct itself.

Another reason is the fact that many people feel that "true" artists don't care if people download their music. If you're a musician, and you truly care about the music, then all you want is to get people to listen to it. I mean, if you truly love it, then you're definitely going to have a lot of skill, and the money would follow as a result. Too many bubblegum pop princesses are thrown down our throats, people who are only in it to get rich or die trying. This is what I don't like about the music industry, and I think many people don't care if people like this don't get any of their money (even if they do download the songs.)

Myself, I've purchased more CDs since this thing started then ever before. I simply use the Internet as a very effective screening source. If I'm digging a song, I'll check out other songs by the artist. If those meet my expectations, off to the music store I go to pay $20 for the blatantly overpriced CD that cost 30 cents to produce (including packaging and case). The responsibility is with the artist. If he's good, I'm going to like the CD, and purchase it. If he isn't, then I'm not going to buy the CD. No one is going to pay 15 bucks for a single song anymore, and I'm no exception. Those days are over. The music industry has to adapt, most effectively by putting out some quality artists and lowering CD prices to draw customers back in. Kicking and screaming like a kid about to get a tetanus shot isn't going to do a god-damn thing. It's only alienating the public.

[Perndog]

It costs around a buck to manufacture package a CD, and the people who do the manufacturing need to make a profit, too, so packaging deductions run in the 3-5 dollar range.

A lot of money does go to fat rich men, not to mention artists who are already loaded, but there are also the aforementioned manufacturers and the producers, publishers, managers, etc. etc. etc. that also get cuts. In the case of many of these people, they are not rich and their only source of income is from record sales - it doesn't often matter which band is selling, so long as units move - so they get screwed the most when people don't buy records. Bands don't get hurt if a few thousand people download their album instead of buying it, but that few thousand multiplies in the eyes of a publishing company or a recording studio that works with several different artists.

Money does not follow from skill. I worked at a dinky little club last spring, and I saw some phenomenal musicians and excellent songwriters go through, some of whom were even excellent businesspeople, who made a flat $25 there. If being a skilled musician was what it took to make you successful, there would be a few million more rich rock stars out there instead of 40-year-old washouts who played fantastic music for decades and never got signed. I can't tell you everything you need to make it in the business, because otherwise I'd already be famous. But skill alone won't do it, even accompanied with charisma and hard work.

As for that last paragraph, there have always been plenty of quality records available, and if you think there are too many CDs with only one good single apiece, you're not looking in the right places. In those cases, it's rarely the performer's ("artist's") fault, because the albums like that are contrived by the record companies and the performers don't generally write the songs.

And CD prices will not be lowered. Enough people buy them right now that the record companies know price is not the issue. Furthermore, no intelligent consumer buys full-priced albums from stores like Sam Goody. You can get the major-label ones for $15 at Target, and if they're not big enough for Target to carry them, I can almost guarantee you that you can order them from the record labels themselves for $9-$14 apiece. $15 is not an unreasonable price to pay for 40-70 minutes of music plus liner notes, and if you care about the artists, keep in mind that their cut is a percentage of the total retail price minus the packaging deduction. This means that bands will make more money if you buy CDs for $15 than if the prices drop, and thus more people will be willing and able to make music and be successful at it.

[O71394658]

but there are also the aforementioned manufacturers and the producers, publishers, managers, etc. etc. etc. that also get cuts. In the case of many of these people, they are not rich and their only source of income is from record sales - it doesn't often matter which band is selling, so long as units move - so they get screwed the most when people don't buy records. Bands don't get hurt if a few thousand people download their album instead of buying it, but that few thousand multiplies in the eyes of a publishing company or a recording studio that works with several different artists.

Enough people buy them right now that the record companies know price is not the issue.

Self-contradictory? :/

I would doubt that "piracy" would have such a dramatic effect as you make it out to be. It will never get so bad that so many will be put out of work. As for pure economics, more jobs would be created out of MP3 players, digital technology, and the like than would be lost through the manufacturing of CDs.



Money does not follow from skill. I worked at a dinky little club last spring, and I saw some phenomenal musicians and excellent songwriters go through, some of whom were even excellent businesspeople, who made a flat $25 there. If being a skilled musician was what it took to make you successful, there would be a few million more rich rock stars out there instead of 40-year-old washouts who played fantastic music for decades and never got signed. I can't tell you everything you need to make it in the business, because otherwise I'd already be famous. But skill alone won't do it, even accompanied with charisma and hard work.

This is quite obvious. My fault. I should've clarified that I was referring to artists that already had "made it", as in had commercially available CDs in record stores.

there have always been plenty of quality records available, and if you think there are too many CDs with only one good single apiece, you're not looking in the right places. In those cases, it's rarely the performer's ("artist's") fault, because the albums like that are contrived by the record companies and the performers don't generally write the songs.

I never intended this upon myself. As I've said, I've purchased more CDs, but I can understand the reasoning of many. As most of the American public are only followers of "popular" music, as in whatever plays on the radio, this would be the target demographic I would be referring to. I too have made the mistake of purchasing a CD for a single, and I won't do it again. I have absolutely no problem finding quality music. One of my main points was that I would not have discovered this music (thus buying the CDs) if it had not been for "piracy". I will not buy any music in which the so-called "artist" isn't an artist at all, but a puppet of the record company. They are not artists or musicians. In that case I have no pity for them, as if they get songs written for them and are powdered up by the record companies, they'll probably make millions anyway, so no harm would be done through CD sales.


no intelligent consumer buys full-priced albums from stores like Sam Goody. You can get the major-label ones for $15 at Target, and if they're not big enough for Target to carry them, I can almost guarantee you that you can order them from the record labels themselves for $9-$14 apiece. $15 is not an unreasonable price to pay for 40-70 minutes of music plus liner notes, and if you care about the artists, keep in mind that their cut is a percentage of the total retail price minus the packaging deduction. This means that bands will make more money if you buy CDs for $15 than if the prices drop, and thus more people will be willing and able to make music and be successful at it.

I see what you say, and I agree, but most Americans don't. They do shop at the Sam Goody's and pay the $20. They do buy the CDs for a single. That's why record sales have been slipping.

Regarding your other point, paying more money for a CD isn't necessarily going to put more money into the artist's pocket. It only drives away consumers (see falling CD prices for last 3 years for evidence). I also believe that regardless of the price, the artist's cut is generally going to remain the same. It's so negligible concerning the actual price of the CD that price fluctuations would have little difference (I think many artists have contracts on royalties per CD), so regardless if it was $10 or $15, the artist's would get basically the same amount.

[Ninjavenom]

What about the families they have to feed?

Their money, their right to do whatever the hell lthey want with it. Nobody appointed you the Morality Police.

where the fuck do you get off with these sanctimonious rants about how bands are all greedy and in it for the money? These bands have families to feed, too.

:blah

I'll be honest with you, a lot of the stuff i listen to does not require absolute concentration and complete focus to create, but they don't have the kind of money where they can just sling it around in a wet paper sack at ducks in their free time, so they've got a lead on these other fellas. There's a required amount of effort that must be put into music, and when you're just making music to be able to keep doing coke and getting wasted blah blah blah etc., you're gonna lose your train of creativity. That's why Sabbath Bloody Sabbath was an inferior record, it lacked the feeling that Master of Reality and Black Sabbath did. Same deal with damn near every other band living the same lifestyle.

As for those who make and package CDs, i do appear to have forgotten about them, but i seriously doubt that they are also going to collapse from hoodlums downloading music. I, like every other pirate buy CDs, and much more frequently than before now that i have access to bands and the means to acquire their albums. I'll download the whole things, fuck it. I'd love to buy every one of the cds i have on my computer, but when was the last time a 16 year old had four thousand bucks to spend on cds?

I whine about Metallica because they garner so much acclaim for doing so very, very little.


This is whats wrong. Get a job and then look at the issue.


What difference would getting a job make? I'm still going to download music.

Want to join the Flat Earth Society?

:rolleyes

who keep proclaiming Metallica sucks.

Lars Ulrich does the most basic drumming in the universe. Snare/hat snare/hat snare/hat snare/hat snare/hat snare/hat crash. Maybe he'll mix it up on a different song! Snare snare snare snare snare snare crash tom. snare snare... :/

Why have hamburger when you can have steak? If anything i'm just pissy that a band who could make decent albums like Kill 'Em All and Ride the Lightning would end up making something as gay as The Black Album. Come on guys, it sucked.

[The One and Only...]

It seems to be a question of the chicken or the egg: if we stop downloading, will they lower prices, or will they lower prices before we stop downloading?

Me? Doesn't much matter. Most downloads I get from legit sites like www.mp3.com anyway.

[Perndog]

Hey, art fag. Yes, Ninjavenom, I'm talking to you. There's a thing called opinions we have around here. The black album wasn't Metallica's best seller because it sucked. People love it. I love it. You're free to dislike it, but it didn't suck, and if you know enough about music to criticize it, you'll see the value.

Are you a drummer? Because no one else cares about the drums, as long as they're there and in time. People notice vocals, then guitar, then maybe bass and drums afterward, and the vocals and guitar (and bass to some extent) are what made that album good.

And now for the other topic:

I would doubt that "piracy" would have such a dramatic effect as you make it out to be. It will never get so bad that so many will be put out of work. As for pure economics, more jobs would be created out of MP3 players, digital technology, and the like than would be lost through the manufacturing of CDs.

The entire music industry is in a recession now. People are losing their jobs left and right, venues and studios are closing, and it's getting harder for the average music lover to make his way in the business. I wasn't talking about pure economics, I was talking about people with the skills to work in music. I am a musician, not a technologist - people who manufacture mp3 players and the like are not my concern. I'd rather see 50 people staffing a publishing company than 80 people in a facility that develops and assembles mp3 players.

Regarding your other point, paying more money for a CD isn't necessarily going to put more money into the artist's pocket. It only drives away consumers (see falling CD prices for last 3 years for evidence). I also believe that regardless of the price, the artist's cut is generally going to remain the same. It's so negligible concerning the actual price of the CD that price fluctuations would have little difference (I think many artists have contracts on royalties per CD), so regardless if it was $10 or $15, the artist's would get basically the same amount.

Like I said, they get a percentage of the retail price after packaging deduction, not a flat rate.

$15 CD - 25% packaging = $11.75 (round to 11.50). 15% artist royalty x $11.50 = $1.73.
$10 CD - 25% packaging = $7.50. 15% artist royalty X $7.50 = $1.13.

When you sell more than a handful of albums, an extra 60 cents per copy adds up fast. Sell 1000 records at that reduced price, and you're already out $600. Sell 100,000 like just about any record that gets played on MTV, and that's a difference of $60,000, more than many people's yearly salaries.

EDIT: figures adjusted

[Ninjavenom]

Because no one else cares about the drums

That's because everyone is fucking stupid. That's why TBA sold so well, too. The only memorable songs on there are Enter Sandman and The Unforgiven, the first of which has been played to death and back, and the second of which is a boring-ass ballad. Both of them are the most popular tracks by said band, and both also happen to be extremely annoying. When i pick up a metal album, i don't want to hear an acoustic guitar unless it's played swift, and well (ala Opeth, Nile). Also, the singing on the album is so incredibly generic that it's not even funny. Why not listen to power metal if you like singing? Avantasia have plenty of acoustic gtracks. Jag Panzer have one of the best vocalists i've ever heard. Just because no one talks about it doesn't mean it's not superior to what you do hear about.

I'm getting off-track in this thread. If you want to keep arguing, start one about it in Music.

[soundtest]

Actually, according to the Copyright act, it is. And if you really want to get into it, check provisions of the constitution allowing for Congress to pass laws on the protection of science and art. This isn't something that the Record companies spawned but has been in existence since the beginning of law in this country.

American legal system? i care? i was speaking morally.

WE NEED THE RIAA BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM THERE WOULD BE NO MUSIC ANYWHERE JUST LIKE BEFORE THEY WERE ESTABLISHED

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html?ei=5062&en=5c9a7eb79932d782&ex=1064116800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

September 14, 2003

File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle
By NEIL STRAUSS

Since the Recording Industry Association of America began its campaign against file-sharing services and unauthorized song swapping online in 1999, it has offered one chief justification for its actions: downloading songs is stealing money from the pockets of musicians.

But the musicians themselves have conflicted responses to file sharing and the tactics of the association, a trade group that represents record labels, not the musicians themselves, who have no organization that wields equal power.

So, many musicians have found themselves watching helplessly from the sidelines as the recording industry has begun suing people who are their fans, their audience and their consumers — who also share music online without authorization. Last week, 261 lawsuits were filed, the first battle in what the association says will be a long campaign of litigation against the most active music fans sharing songs on services like KaZaA.

"On one hand, the whole thing is pretty sick," said John McCrea, a singer and songwriter in the rock band Cake. "On the other hand, I think it'll probably work."

Many musicians privately wish file sharing would go away, though they are reluctant to admit it, because they do not want to seem unfriendly to their fans. So they have been happy to have the industry group play the role of bad cop. But with the escalation of the battle last week (with lawsuits filed against, among others, a 71-year-old grandfather and a 12-year-old girl), some musicians say they are beginning to wonder if the actions being taken in their name are a little extreme.This is especially true because, regardless of file sharing, they rarely see royalties.

"It would be nice if record companies would include artists on these decisions," said Deborah Harry of Blondie, adding that when a grandfather is sued because, unbeknownst to him, his grandchildren are downloading songs on his computer, "it's embarrassing."

The artist Moby, on his Web site, offered a similar opinion, suggesting that the music companies treat users of file-sharing services like fans instead of criminals. "How can a 14-year-old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multimillionaire musicians and greedy record companies," he wrote. "The record companies should approach that 14-year-old and say: `Hey, it's great that you love music. Instead of downloading music for free, why don't you try this very inexpensive service that will enable you to listen to a lot of music and also have access to unreleased tracks and ticket discounts and free merchandise?' "

A few artists, like Metallica and Loudon Wainwright III, have come out strongly in favor of the record industry's crackdown. It could be seen as a gutsy move, considering the criticism Metallica faced from music fans when it campaigned against the file-sharing service Napster, which was declared illegal.

In a new song, "Something for Nothing," Mr. Wainwright makes fun of the mentality of file sharers, singing: "It's O.K. to steal, cuz it's so nice to share." As for the lawsuits, he said that he was not surprised. "If you're going to break the law, the hammer is going to come down," he said.

At the same time, other influential musicians and groups — like Moby, System of a Down, Public Enemy, and the Dead — contend that the record industry's efforts are misguided and that it must work with the new technology instead of against it.

But most seem ambivalent, or confused.

"I see both sides," said Rodney Crowell, a country music singer and songwriter. "In some ways, I think the record companies have it coming, but at the same time, being a writer and therefore in the business of copyright, they're saying it's impacting our business by 30 percent or more, so we have to do something."

The Recording Industry Association says there has been a 31 percent drop in sales of recorded music since file sharing became popular more than three years ago, but statistics from Forrester Research show that the sales decline since 2000 has been half that, or 15 percent, and that 35 percent of that amount is because of unauthorized downloading.

The situation has become so thorny that many top-selling artists, even those who have been outspoken about embracing new technology, declined to comment on the lawsuits on the record, for fear of upsetting their labels. In interviews, some musicians and their representatives said that their labels had asked them not to talk. And in a dozen cases, record labels did not grant interviews with musicians on the subject.

"I don't think anyone really understands the impact of what's happening, and they don't want to make a mistake," said Allen Kovac, who runs 10th Street Entertainment, an artist management company in Los Angeles. "The impact of lawsuits on fans is a double-edged sword. If you're a record company, do you want record company acts being persona non grata at every college campus in America?"

Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review. (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has earned back the money it has spent on them.)

Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management said.

"I don't have sympathy for the record companies," said Mickey Melchiondo of the rock duo Ween. "They haven't been paying me royalties anyway."

Musicians tend to make more money from sales of concert tickets and merchandise than from CD sales. In fact, many musicians offer free downloads of their songs on their Web sites to market themselves.

For some of them, the problem with file sharing is control. Before a CD is released, early versions of the songs often end up on file-sharing services, where fans download the music under the misconception that it is the finished product. Other times, songs online by one act are credited to another act. And fans exchange studio outtakes, unreleased songs, and live performances that some artists would prefer remain unheard.

Serj Tankian of the hard-rock band System of a Down, for example, said he thought that the free exchange of songs by his band and others online was healthy for music fans, but objected when that free exchange included unfinished studio recordings.

Ween, which recently left a major record label, Elektra, to release its records independently, has found a way to coexist with file sharing, which the band actually supports by encouraging fans to record and trade shows.

At the same time, Ween fans police eBay for people who are selling live recordings and KaZaA for people who are leaking songs before an album is released. "Before `Quebec,' came out," Mr. Melchiondo said, referring to Ween's latest CD, "our fans would message people on KaZaA who were sharing tracks and ask them to take the music down. And they also mounted a campaign where they put up fake copies of our record to throw people off."

Mr. Melchiondo said that Ween's fans acted out of respect for the band, not because of intimidation from the record industry or sympathy with it. "We never asked them to do this," he said. "They just took it upon themselves
###

[Perndog]

Well that lights up a lot of the stuff I wasn't seeing before. Thanks, Kevin.

[Immortal Goat]

That little bit about the record companies not paying royalties to the songwirters anyway, THAT should be the target of these lawsuits, not the fans. If I download a song, it means I like that band and would probably see them in concert if I had the chance, it does NOT mean that I will never buy their CD's.

[Pain_Is_Love]

Seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with society today that musicians get so greedy that they cannot let people enjoy their music for free?

In my opinion, it is all the fame and money. Money can really do things to people. I mean, if I had enough money to live like a King or Queen, I'd be a little selfish too. I guess they think that if everyone just started downloading their music from the internet, they wouldn't get as much money as they usually make on their albums because not many people would be buying them anymore since they could just hear it online. It seems like money is all people think about these days. But I don't blame 'em because the government makes it so you think that you have to have money to be able to live.

[kahljorn]

What the fuck is wrong with people today that they think they should get paid for their work, but musicians should produce great music they love and hold a side job at McDonalds?

[Perndog]

I like that statement. I would add, why don't people bitch more about the salaries of professional athletes while they're talking about greed? All they do is play games to entertain people; at least musicians create and/or deliver art. I find it difficult to tear down any skilled musician or songwriter for wanting money in the light of a basketball player who makes twenty times as much as the musician.

In addition, I think musicians deserve the money they get because they do something that *not everyone is capable of*. Anyone can go to yuppie school and get an MBA and become a redundant manager at some corporation and be respected for it, but not everyone can write and/or perform, market and promote, and tour like musicians can, and for their talents, skills, and effort, it is only right that they receive suitable compensation. They earned the right to be greedy.

And no, I'm not talking about pop stars, at least not most of them.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I like that statement. I would add, why don't people bitch more about the salaries of professional athletes while they're talking about greed? All they do is play games to entertain people; at least musicians create and/or deliver art. I find it difficult to tear down any skilled musician or songwriter for wanting money in the light of a basketball player who makes twenty times as much as the musician.

Two very different animals.

Professional athletes do demand high salaries often out of greed, but they also demand it out of stature. Kenyon Martin didn't just demand a trade from the NJ Nets recently because the money they offered was cheap, it was still a multi-million dollar contract. He demanded more because he felt he has a certain stature amongst power forwards in the NBA, and that stature could be harmed were he to get "short changed" by the Nets.

And unlike musicians on big labels, Kenyon Martin has a negotiator, a professional, who deals with the company like a labor rep. deals with the owners. That guy's job is to get Kenyon Martin the sweetest deal possible. Bands rarely have this, in fact, if you ever read any Steve Albini, the record labels SEND people to bands to pretend they are just this, a rep. on the band's behalf. This isn't the case...

And as for Kahl's argument of "why should artists/musicians need to hold down jobs on the side?", uhhh, news flash, most already DO. When a band signs to a big label, they get fronted a ton of cash on credit. This money needs to not only cover luxury expenses, but it likewise must cover touring expenses, equipment expenses, etc.

Often the case is, bands over-spend, primarily b/c they didn't read the proverbial "fine print," and the band ends up in debt to the label. They thus become beholden to the label, and must produce FOR the label. As the NY Times article above pointed out, most bands RARELY see much in royalties, and I'm willing to bet most bands or artists on big labels STILL hold down p/t jobs, and this pre-dates file sharing on the internet. So please, spare me the starving artist crap....


In addition, I think musicians deserve the money they get because they do something that *not everyone is capable of*. Anyone can go to yuppie school and get an MBA and become a redundant manager at some corporation and be respected for it, but not everyone can write and/or perform, market and promote, and tour like musicians can, and for their talents, skills, and effort, it is only right that they receive suitable compensation. They earned the right to be greedy.

What big band that you know of does their own marketing and promotion?? That aside, the smaller bands, on smaller labels, who just MIGHT do all that stuff, make little money for it, and STILL hold p/t jobs.....!

[Perndog]

The record company sends a rep to talk to the band, and the band (if they're smart) hires an entertainment lawyer to negotiate.

You're right, bands that are already hugely successful do not do a lot of their own grunt work. But of all the working musicians I've met, every one of them either is or is in a band with a person who is very skilled and experienced at promotion and marketing. They make little money for it until they get a really nice break, and *then* they can (maybe) quit their day-jobs and reap the fruits of their labor. Any non-manufactured band on the billboard went through their own time in the same situation, they've just made it past that point.

My point is that people bitch about musicians being greedy because they want a lot of money for what they do, but I think they deserve it.

[kahljorn]

"And as for Kahl's argument of "why should artists/musicians need to hold down jobs on the side?", uhhh, news flash, most already DO. When a band signs to a big label, they get fronted a ton of cash on credit"

So basically what you are saying is... by stealing MP3's from bands who already hold a side job we are just jacking them more, putting them out of even mroe money? Which side of the argument are you on? Everyone's like, "MUSICIANS ARE GREEDY MILLIONAIRES", then the next it's about how poor they are... thank you for reinforcing my point?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The record company sends a rep to talk to the band, and the band (if they're smart) hires an entertainment lawyer to negotiate.

Huh? The band, just getting signed, who are probably still working at the GAP or a supermarket to pay rent to their parents for the basement, are going to pool together and hire an entertainment lawyer....? I call that out of the kettle and into the fire....


My point is that people bitch about musicians being greedy because they want a lot of money for what they do, but I think they deserve it.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but irregardless, they don't see much of the royalties back, not unless they are huge acts who can control the negotiations with the labels. My point isn't that musicians are greedy, my point is that those musicians who take up a very tiny percentage of those who are successful are being greedy, and have forgotten where it is that they came from. Metallica used to give albums out for free when they started out, and DMX built up his own popularity in a similar fashion. Now people are continuing that trend online, and Metallica all of a sudden become ardent defenders of so-called property and artistic rights...?

For every Metallica or DMX file you can get on Kazaa, there are HUNDREDS of tiny garage bands or fresh rap acts who upload their music trying to branch out and get heard on a massive level. Bands like Auto Pilot Off, who I lived near and knew, probably weren't complaining much when kids were downloading music of theirs. They got known by 1. touring like fuck, and 2. by kids sharing their music online. But now they're on Island/Def Jam, so who knows their tune now....

So basically what you are saying is... by stealing MP3's from bands who already hold a side job we are just jacking them more, putting them out of even mroe money? Which side of the argument are you on? Everyone's like, "MUSICIANS ARE GREEDY MILLIONAIRES", then the next it's about how poor they are... thank you for reinforcing my point?

No. My point was that musicians have been poor and struggling forever, and file sharing couldn't have made that any worse, because it's the unknown struggling bands who benefit from file sharing. I came across some bands that are now my favorites by using services like Audiogalaxy and Kazaa. Next week, when one of them swings through Austin, I will go to the show and pay real money that they will get a chunk of at the door. I bought most of their CDs anyway, just to own. But the door money is cash in hand, which is more than what can be said of the CD royalties they will see little of.

The bans this hurts the most are the big name acts, which is where the highest demand for mp3s rests. THESE artists, or more so their record labels, are IMO the ones who need to be flexible and adjust to this new phenomenon.

[Perndog]

Huh? The band, just getting signed, who are probably still working at the GAP or a supermarket to pay rent to their parents for the basement, are going to pool together and hire an entertainment lawyer....? I call that out of the kettle and into the fire....

Yes, they're going to pool together and hire an entertainment lawyer, if they have any good business sense (not that all of us do - I did say "if they're smart"). I currently make about $100 a week, one of my bandmates is unemployed (full-time student), and the other makes somewhat more than me but not a lot. We all pay tuition along with rent and our basic living expenses. But if we were approached by a major record label and offered a record contract, I would personally take out a loan (and yes, I'm working on establishing the credit for it) just to pay to have an experienced entertainment lawyer look at the contract, and I know the other guys would chip in as well. I am aware that my contract-reading skills are only marginal, and I know that spending a few hundred or even a few thousand bucks to have someone negotiate is a better choice than signing a shitty contract.

[kahljorn]

Personally I download mp3's and never buy cds(burn a burn burn), but I think if you're trying to argue from the side of, "Right or Wrong" here it's going to goto the other side every time, no matter if they are getting 20 cents a cd or 10 bucks.

I don't find a need to justify my "Theft".

[Helm]

The music industry is broken. The original sentiment behind what kahl just said I have to agree with: why should being a musician not constitute as means towards a respectable income? It should, of course. But should said income be arranged in regard to popularity? Or maybe in regard to some abstract scale of 'worthwhile music' that a group of art-fags came up with? In the first case, does it mean that just because the world is mostly uneducated and base say Britney Spears should be making billions and Psychotic Waltz live in their garage off t-shirts and demo sales? In the second case, on what terms should an elected group regulate what is 'worthwhile' music and what is not?

I belive public opinion and/or current trends and 'good taste' should not be a factor to how an artist is able to live off his music. A suvival of the fittest model does not suit music, because it exists an unfortunate paradox that in this case the stupidest music would survive and anything eclectic perish. This is because everybody seems to be into music, as opposed to say, visual arts. And when everybody's into something, chances are the vast middle ground of it is going to be stupid. Music has been marketed as a perishable commodity thusly castrating it of any actual political relevance right after when it was most prominent as such a political force in the US. If drugs hurt the rock scene to a degree, then the complete and total commercialization of it did many times the same degree of damage.

Anyway, obviously one reason why public oppinion shouldn't be a factor to whether an artist should be able to live off his music is that of artistic integrity. If there is a kind of music that seems to pay better (simpler, shorter, normalised and stupider music as it is) any left-field artist would be tempted to gravitate towards this so he can have a better chance of living a respectable life. And that hurts the progression of music as a whole. Polyphony is key in pushing the envelope of expression. A more extreme example is how an artist making say, sludge grindgore music would starve to death if he were to stick to his guns. As to the other case, nobody should ever be the one to tell you what is of good taste and what isn't in a free country, not to mention tell you that you're not worthy of being a musician.

So I believe a uniform system of social provision for artists should be employed, where any man that can provide evidence of his musical creation or desire towards the creation of said should be provided with a base budget to use in order to live at least respectably. A sum of money not much more or less than minimum wage. No man should be rated against a set of criteria of what is considered 'good music', and every man involved in artistic creation should be provided with special benefits like recording time at some higher end studio, instruments and education in his specialised musical field. Obviously the money would not be enough to live a glamourous material life, but if such is the desire of an artist, just like with any man, he would be expected to go at extraordinary lengths to achieve them and the extraordinary is not what I am discussing.

What I am proposing stems from my belief that music requires neither public acceptance to be worthy of support, nor any material extravagance to be produced. When those sentiments develop into public opinion it will not be far when they are also practice.

The music itself should be freely provided. Donations, live shows and any other related activites would provide more than enough money to offset the costs of maintaining any given project and getting some money aside to upgrade aspects of it, if basic needs are covered.

There are some obvious counterarguments to my position such as the chance of this system being exploited to an economically counterproductive degree. To this I say that in any country where culture is so reenforced as to create such a provision for artists, it would be highly improbable that many freeloaders would exist. In any society where education and culture is advanced to a tolerant degree, people would show a healthy disposition towards creation in all fields, be them practical or artistic. The person who is seeking to undermine any system is the person who is feeling left out of it. Obviously this system that I suggest would operate under a socialistic environment rather than that of a capitalistic one. This is where Vinth calls me a doped out commie fag.

Given what I believe should be done, my current views on the music industry as it operates now are understandably those of disgust and irritation as well as a solid determination to oppose it. I am a musician who has resorted to having other jobs (teaching english, some translation work, the occasional graphical art or gameart freelance gig) in order to support my music making, in which I've invested countless hours of practise and study. I've resolved to making my band's music available freely (besides costs of shipping, although stable webspace would make that redundant too) and any profit gained if at all (tshirts and demos at shows) would be redirected in the group fund. I will not sign with any label, even if some interest be manifested from any. My goal as a musician includes having a dynamic moblie group operating under the sole direction of our inspiration, and does not include any social ambition. I'm stating this so you know I put my money where my mouth is, no pun intended.


To the best of my knowledge filesharing is illegal. But if it's continued use pushes this industry into collapsing unto itself, I am prepared to not condemn it for the time being. Laws function when they are relevant and obviously they misoperate when they are reactionary to the social situation as is the case since the mp3 explosion. Much of what I speak of has existed as a sentiment in people since a good while before mp3s but it is now that the tools have finally been developed that piracy is actually in the face of the industry. And obviously they will try to break it before trying to work around it, and then they will try to work around it before embracing it. But is it possible for such a music industry to actually embrace filesharing? I think it would be an oxymoron. The reason is simple. The music industry, as with any capitalist industry operates under one simple rule: The maximization of profit. Whereas artistic creation as applied to a social structure apparently has a whole different set of goals inherently.

Personally, I own about 400 original recordings of various bands. My collection has been the result of about 10 years of trips to various record stores and countless letters to strange german mailorders. I almost never buy in major cd stores because they're overpriced. Flea markets and shady vynil stores is where it's at. I have spent approx. 4000 bucks on cds and vinyl. I have about 100 mp3s but that would probably more be attributed to my lack of fast internet access and my habit to clean out the mp3s from below average stuff in my monthly reevaluations than in any actual attempt at moderated downloading. I usually download mp3s from bands I have been unable to find cds of. Very rarely do I download something without knowing something about the band and direction of the music since I am very informed about the 'scene' or scenes I'm following and I don't like wasting 2 hours or more to get crap :( Maybe it's easier for you guys where you click on a song and in 30 seconds it's on your HD. I usually buy CD's from bands I've downloaded music from, if such fortunate choice presents intself. The most recent example of this was with Confessor and Saturnus.

I try to get in contact with the bands and artists I partcularily like to tell them personally that their music has had an impact of whatever sort in my life and if I where in their position, I think that that would be better than my 14 nameless cents.

[kahljorn]

I think we should all have some strange form of socialism like in the Star Trek thing. Everything is free, all you have to do is hold a job. Musicians don't get money, they merely get to play music and get a house and crap to support them. Yea, that would work really well..

[Helm]

What was that, kahl? I didn't catch it quite right because I was preoccupied with trying to figure out what kind of flowers I should get you next time I drop by the hospital.

[kahljorn]

DONT DISS ON THE STAR TREK ECONOMICS, IT TOOK ME EIGHT LIGHT YEARS TO GET MY MAJOR.

[Helm]

You like daisies :)

[kahljorn]

AND pansies.

[FS]

I've give you eight bars of gold-pressed latinum for that new Kenny G. Jr. II Jr. Jr. Jr. CD, kahl.

[kahljorn]

Sorry, busy downloading games and Movies right now, I'll get to it once Hollywood Producers start coming for meee