Society is really screwed up now.

[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]

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

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?

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

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]

Originally Posted by God

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]

Originally Posted by Perndog

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]

Originally Posted by soundtest

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]

Originally Posted by Perndog

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]

Originally Posted by punkgrrrlie10

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

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]

Originally Posted by I

What about the families they have to feed?

Originally Posted by el blanco

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

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

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.

Originally Posted by el blanco

Want to join the Flat Earth Society?

Originally Posted by el blanco

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:

Originally Posted by O71394658

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.

Originally Posted by The Number Person

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.