Illegal music downloads

[JunkBondTrader]

Okay, there's probably been a thread on this already but I couldn't find it, so here I go, into the line of fire.

I'm probably the only person in my group of friends who still buys CDs and vinyl, the rest of them all download and not through the legal channels either. We're growing up in a generation that thinks music is free and it's killing music. Hate to say it but it is.

I was all for illegal downloading and anti-intellectual property laws until I actually became a semi-pro musician and realised how expensive and difficult it all is. We perform almost constantly, draw a good number of people to our shows and yet we're barely breaking even. We're also currently in talks for a split single with some friends of ours on their label. But how are we supposed to be making music with no promise of reward?

Don't get me wrong, songwriting is my passion and I love playing, but it often costs me more than I can afford. Music is a full-time business and I'm not asking for a private jet here, or a hundered-room mansion. I'm just asking that people who have enjoyed an artist's work give them the money to get by.

I've heard all the arguments like "people will still make music even if there's no money in it." But no one who says that actually knows how expensive it is to run a band.

Opinions.

[deadpie]

Taken from this thread. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=85464)


MUSIC PIRACY BULLSHIT


4Qi1ZVk_TeU


When stupid fuckface shit licker Gilbert fucking Gottfried was put in this video above, little did he realize what a fucking douchebag brainwashed brainfucked idiot he was making himself look like. Can I first say that nothing he says is ever funny except his annoying fucking voice that sounds like a cock against sandpaper? Anyone with fucking logic would realize that Artists make most of their money off of T-Shirts and going out live in concert. Music Industries are the ones getting ripped off by the internet downloads. They’re the ones making about seventy percent off all the albums artists release.

You have a label with shitty artists from Victory Records who will beg for you not to steal their horribly produced albums and then you have a bunch of Independent Labels who could give a fuck less. The best part is that those independent labels ARE going to end up making more money than the suck up Victory Records. What Victory Records needs to get through their fucking skull is that taking passion in music will get you profit, not shitting on instruments in a studio and expect money to start flying out at their face like they hit the motherfucking jackpot.

Trent Reznor ended up leaving music labels and put out two of his albums for free along with his new side project. He put out a torrent from one of his live concerts. People like him are going to end up making more money because doing that PROVES that he cares more about the music and the fans. Fans will appreciate an artist allot more when they actually give a shit about what they’re doing.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/7404/lifehack11.gif

This is taken from off how much Nirvana made when they released "In Utero" -



Advance: $ 250,000
Manager's cut: $ 37,500
Legal fees: $ 10,000
Recording Budget: $ 150,000
Producer's advance: $ 50,000
Studio fee: $ 52,500
Drum Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $ 3,000
Recording tape: $ 8,000
Equipment rental: $ 5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $ 5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $ 10,000
Catering: $ 3,000
Mastering: $ 10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $ 2,000
Video budget: $ 30,000
Cameras: $ 8,000
Crew: $ 5,000
Processing and transfers: $ 3,000
Off-line: $ 2,000
On-line editing: $ 3,000
Catering: $ 1,000
Stage and construction: $ 3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $ 2,000
Director's fee: $ 3,000
Album Artwork: $ 5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $ 2,000
Band fund: $ 15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $ 5,000
New fancy professional guitars [2]: $ 3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs [2]: $ 4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $ 1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $ 1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $ 500
Big blowout party for their friends: $ 500
Tour expense [5 weeks]: $ 50,875
Bus: $ 25,000
Crew [3]: $ 7,500
Food and per diems: $ 7,875
Fuel: $ 3,000
Consumable supplies: $ 3,500
Wardrobe: $ 1,000
Promotion: $ 3,000
Tour gross income: $ 50,000
Agent's cut: $ 7,500
Manager's cut: $ 7,500
Merchandising advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Publishing advance: $ 20,000
Manager's cut: $ 3,000
Lawyer's fee: $ 1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 =
$3,000,000
Gross retail revenue Royalty: [13% of 90% of retail]:
$ 351,000
Less advance: $ 250,000
Producer's points: [3% less $50,000 advance]:
$ 40,000
Promotional budget: $ 25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $ 50,000
Net royalty: $ -14,000
Record company income:

Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =
$1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.

Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25

Source. (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)

As you can see, it's the band members that got the smallest amount of money.

Like I said, see them live and buy the T-shirts or other gear. That's what will actually make them money.

[Perseus]

I don't torrent for the soul fact that I am paranoid that I would be the one to get caught. I do not see anything wrong with people torrenting music, to be honest. Most bands who get torrented from make ass loads of money from tours and merchandise. And I like to have the CD.

[JunkBondTrader]

You have a label with shitty artists from Victory Records who will beg for you not to steal their horribly produced albums and then you have a bunch of Independent Labels who could give a fuck less. The best part is that those independent labels ARE going to end up making more money than the suck up Victory Records. What Victory Records needs to get through their fucking skull is that taking passion in music will get you profit, not shitting on instruments in a studio and expect money to start flying out at their face like they hit the motherfucking jackpot.

But they're not making money! That's exactly my point! I'm all too aware of the big, rich, greedy record labels ripping off the working man but they're not as powerful as people think. And as for the indies, people download they're music too. I know a lot of people who run independent labels and they're struggling so badly.

Live music as it is only attracts a selection of dedicated music fans and not the music-consuming public at large. You've ignored my point completely, that I am a gigging musician and I do know the score. I don't care if you think my music's bullshit because that's irrelevant. I bring in crowds yet I spent more money on rehearsals and stuff. But now I'm getting off-topic.

The point is, evil or not, the super-rich are super-rich, Trent Reznor is super-rich because he started out when the industry was still alive and kicking. He can afford to give his music away. I can't. The labels don't pay the established artists any less, they just stop investing in new ones like mine.

I don't torrent for the soul fact that I am paranoid that I would be the one to get caught. I do not see anything wrong with people torrenting music, to be honest. Most bands who get torrented from make ass loads of money from tours and merchandise. And I like to have the CD.

But as I said above, those are established acts. And these days, most don't. The age of the rock god is over and it's a good thing, but musicians still need to buy food.

[deadpie]

But they're not making money! That's exactly my point!

Are you sure you read the second half of my post?


I'm all too aware of the big, rich, greedy record labels ripping off the working man but they're not as powerful as people think. And as for the indies, people download they're music too. I know a lot of people who run independent labels and they're struggling so badly.

They're struggling badly for the same reason any label struggles badly. But come to think of it this way - If you were some like me with hardcore music addiction dedicated to listening to at least five new albums a day, how much money would that cost? Sorry, but I don't want to go broke for listening to art. Maybe it should be illegal for people to post paintings online, because when you look at them, it's not like the artist is making any money off of it. huh?



The point is, evil or not, the super-rich are super-rich, Trent Reznor is super-rich because he started out when the industry was still alive and kicking. He can afford to give his music away. I can't. The labels don't pay the established artists any less, they just stop investing in new ones like mine.

LOL. You think that most of the new bands that are up on Bandcamp are making that much money? The rap label "Odd Future" is giving out all of their albums for free. This has created a huge community of fans. Guess what? That label is growing faster then any new label out there right now.

There's many bands that make jack shit money, but they still put their music out for free.


But as I said above, those are established acts. And these days, most don't. The age of the rock god is over and it's a good thing, but musicians still need to buy food.

And I fully support Artists, doing whatever I can to see the ones I've listened to live. That's why I signed up for last.fm, so I know when any artist I've listened to is coming by soon. No matter what, I force myself to go there and see them live. And yeah, it does cost money to get a place to play, but that's why you have to play things out smart.

[Sebastian Michaelis]

Personally I agree, but my wallet doesn't! Seriously though, yeah I understand I ONLY use Limewire, Frostwire, ect. if I can't find the album near where I live, but if it's a new album I get my mom's lazy ass up and she takes me to the store so I can buy it!
Ps. Did anyone else here about Limewire getting shutdown and the lady that's getting sued for $1.2 million because she downloaded 24 songs from it?

[Amnesiac]

Personally I agree, but my wallet doesn't! Seriously though, yeah I understand I ONLY use Limewire, Frostwire, ect. if I can't find the album near where I live, but if it's a new album I get my mom's lazy ass up and she takes me to the store so I can buy it!
Ps. Did anyone else here about Limewire getting shutdown and the lady that's getting sued for $1.2 million because she downloaded 24 songs from it?

Limewire has been shut down by court order, yes. It wasn't any good anyway; the network was full of child porn, mp3s at less than 100kbps (holy fucking shit) and viruses. Good riddance, there are safer and higher quality ways to download music other than networks like Limewire and Frostwire (which I won't dive into as per VT's rules).

Anyway, I pretty much agree with everything Tim (deadpie) said, his essay is my opinion on the issue. Unfortunately, I live in Houston, so we never get the bands I like to come down here, and when they do, the tickets are ridiculously expensive (example: The Wall cost upwards of $1,000 for one ticket).

[JunkBondTrader]

Are you sure you read the second half of my post?

Of course I did. You were talking about majors, though. I was talking abour independents. There's a major difference. As for the In Utero figures, when are those figures from? I've read Kurt Cobain's biography and happen to know he made susbstantially more than $4,000 over the course of his career. As for Geffen's profits, I'd guess a significant proportion of that went into investing in newer bands.

They're struggling badly for the same reason any label struggles badly. But come to think of it this way - If you were some like me with hardcore music addiction dedicated to listening to at least five new albums a day, how much money would that cost? Sorry, but I don't want to go broke for listening to art. Maybe it should be illegal for people to post paintings online, because when you look at them, it's not like the artist is making any money off of it. huh?

Of course you shouldn't have to go broke and that's probably the hardest thing about this argument. If someone was into my band and couldn't afford to see us live or buy anything we released, of course I'd still want to them to hear us, but here's the thing:

There's a fine line between sharing and stealing. I'm all for the sharing of music. If someone loves a record, then they should, by all means make a copy and give it to a friend. But once you're torrenting it to thousands of anonymous people, that is stealing.

People still managed to be music addicts on a low buget before downloading became the norm, I don't see why that can't still happen today.

LOL. You think that most of the new bands that are up on Bandcamp are making that much money? The rap label "Odd Future" is giving out all of their albums for free. This has created a huge community of fans. Guess what? That label is growing faster then any new label out there right now.

There's many bands that make jack shit money, but they still put their music out for free.

Of course I don't, but I'm saying that if they're losing money they can't stay afloat. I'm aware of Odd Future and should point out that they're not in fact a record label, they're actually owned by the act itself. They're releasing their music for free probably because they're aware no one will pay for it and it doesn't cost them any money to distribute online. And good for them! But how they're funding it is beyond me.

And I fully support Artists, doing whatever I can to see the ones I've listened to live. That's why I signed up for last.fm, so I know when any artist I've listened to is coming by soon. No matter what, I force myself to go there and see them live. And yeah, it does cost money to get a place to play, but that's why you have to play things out smart.

And that's good, but I do play it out smart. However the promoters are dying too because only a fraction of the music buying population actually goes to concerts. I agree completely that artists need to get off their arses and tour more, but a lot of the time it's just not a viable alternative, especially for someone who's starting out. I work mostly with the two largest independent promoters in London and I'm not going to say bad things about them here because they're giving us as much money as they can to cover their overheads and yet we still see fuck all, depspite pushing every show like there's no tomorrow. Same story with every other band I know.

And back to my larger point, with labels losing money, both major and independent, the result is simply that they sign fewer bands and our scope is narrowed. Even if you're into underground shows, the vast majority of people aren't and never will. Bands giving their music away for free will never be able to make a living off it because the business model's not sustainable.

EDIT: Sorry for the essay.

[deadpie]

Of course I did. You were talking about majors, though. I was talking abour independents. There's a major difference. As for the In Utero figures, when are those figures from? I've read Kurt Cobain's biography and happen to know he made susbstantially more than $4,000 over the course of his career. As for Geffen's profits, I'd guess a significant proportion of that went into investing in newer bands.

That was off one album, not their entire career.


Of course you shouldn't have to go broke and that's probably the hardest thing about this argument. If someone was into my band and couldn't afford to see us live or buy anything we released, of course I'd still want to them to hear us, but here's the thing:

There's a fine line between sharing and stealing. I'm all for the sharing of music. If someone loves a record, then they should, by all means make a copy and give it to a friend. But once you're torrenting it to thousands of anonymous people, that is stealing.

Most underground artists are found out by file sharing. Without those, they would have less attention and probably make less money. The more people to see and find the album, the more you have a chance of someone actually wanting to buy the album.


People still managed to be music addicts on a low buget before downloading became the norm, I don't see why that can't still happen today.

That's probably because they had a job for reviewing albums or worked at a record store. I'm a damn teenager with no job or car, so that's a little bit more difficult for me.


Of course I don't, but I'm saying that if they're losing money they can't stay afloat. I'm aware of Odd Future and should point out that they're not in fact a record label, they're actually owned by the act itself. They're releasing their music for free probably because they're aware no one will pay for it and it doesn't cost them any money to distribute online. And good for them! But how they're funding it is beyond me.

What about the hundreds of bands on Bandcamp giving there music out for free? Most of them aren't even signed to an independent label, but just trying to make the money themselves.



And that's good, but I do play it out smart. However the promoters are dying too because only a fraction of the music buying population actually goes to concerts. I agree completely that artists need to get off their arses and tour more, but a lot of the time it's just not a viable alternative, especially for someone who's starting out. I work mostly with the two largest independent promoters in London and I'm not going to say bad things about them here because they're giving us as much money as they can to cover their overheads and yet we still see fuck all, depspite pushing every show like there's no tomorrow. Same story with every other band I know.

Who said making a career of music is easy? Even if you are making the money off touring, gear, and the little off albums, it's still not going to be as much as you would expect it to be, especially for underground artists. And everyone should know the majority of music artists are underground, not mainstream. The majority of talented artists aren't well known.


And back to my larger point, with labels losing money, both major and independent, the result is simply that they sign fewer bands and our scope is narrowed. Even if you're into underground shows, the vast majority of people aren't and never will. Bands giving their music away for free will never be able to make a living off it because the business model's not sustainable.
EDIT: Sorry for the essay.

Don't be sorry for the essay. I applaud you for actually debating with me with good points. I actually like you as a user because you don't just throw out two penny ass points and run off from the thread. You actually dissect my posts like what I do to everyone else in a debate. That is what I like to see.


My biggest point is that downloading music illegally, file sharing, actually makes underground artists gain a bigger audience. When you have audiences growing, you ought to have people who want to start buying your music and etc. There is big advantages for giving your music out for free.

[JunkBondTrader]

That was off one album, not their entire career.

True, but what I meant was, how soon after the album's release are those numbers from?

Most underground artists are found out by file sharing. Without those, they would have less attention and probably make less money. The more people to see and find the album, the more you have a chance of someone actually wanting to buy the album.

Also true, however the real problem is when you get people saying that and downloading whole discographies, listening to them all the time and then never buying the record. And I don't blame them! Of course it's tempting. No one likes spending money, especially on something you already own.

That's probably because they had a job for reviewing albums or worked at a record store. I'm a damn teenager with no job or car, so that's a little bit more difficult for me.

Not necessarily. Of course it's difficult, but so is paying for anything. I save up the money I can get my hands on and buy (granted, second hand) CDs. Some of my friends go to the cinema, I don't because I'd rather stay at home with my headphones on.

What about the hundreds of bands on Bandcamp giving there music out for free? Most of them aren't even signed to an independent label, but just trying to make the money themselves.

Yet again, true. However, I'd argue that many of them are doing so to get their name out there and grab the attention of labels. It's no different than demo shopping like they did back in the day only without the added cost of physical media. They see it as an investment, that the money they spend on recording their material might get them somewhere in the future. And it's a good thing too, unlike so many talented musicians I know who sit around at home waiting to be "discovered".

Who said making a career of music is easy? Even if you are making the money off touring, gear, and the little off albums, it's still not going to be as much as you would expect it to be, especially for underground artists. And everyone should know the majority of music artists are underground, not mainstream. The majority of talented artists aren't well known.

I'm not saying it's easy, I respect that, but it's all part of the starting out stage. Some make it some don't. It's still possible to make a living off an independent as a lesser-known band, Mudhoney are a great example. But I feel that because of the decline in record sales, a lot of bands are finding themselves stuck in this phase forever, there's no return on their investment and they end up losing money for as long as they keep going which, for most people is not a viable option unless you have money to burn.

Don't be sorry for the essay. I applaud you for actually debating with me with good points. I actually like you as a user because you don't just throw out two penny ass points and run off from the thread. You actually dissect my posts like what I do to everyone else in a debate. That is what I like to see.

Same to you.

My biggest point is that downloading music illegally, file sharing, actually makes underground artists gain a bigger audience. When you have audiences growing, you ought to have people who want to start buying your music and etc. There is big advantages for giving your music out for free.

Definitely. My point wasn't so much that downloading is wrong or immoral, and I'm sorry if it came across like that. But I think that ultimately it does hurt artists because they pump every penny they earn into practicing and getting to shows and so on and then see no return on their investment. Fewer acts than ever are reaching a significant (not necessarily mainstream) audience because the record labels are unwilling to fund anyone.

[Daniel_]

I use frostwire. Always. Don't see why I should waste my money, when I could get it free by downloading it. And how is it ruining music? It doesn't make it sound worse or anything.

[JunkBondTrader]

I use frostwire. Always. Don't see why I should waste my money, when I could get it free by downloading it. And how is it ruining music? It doesn't make it sound worse or anything.

Err... for all the reasons I just said. It's ruining music not in a physical sense but because music costs money to make. This is a classic example of the free rider problem. Say I record an album, spend money recording and producing it and you download it off Frostwire because you don't think you should have to pay. Then, let's assume everyone thinks like you. No one buys it, thus, I can't afford to record another.

[deadpie]

True, but what I meant was, how soon after the album's release are those numbers from?

Uh, it doesn't say in the article actually.


Not necessarily. Of course it's difficult, but so is paying for anything. I save up the money I can get my hands on and buy (granted, second hand) CDs. Some of my friends go to the cinema, I don't because I'd rather stay at home with my headphones on.

The music I listen to is underground, so if I ever want to get an album it's going to be through ordering it online. That usually costs more because of shipping.


Yet again, true. However, I'd argue that many of them are doing so to get their name out there and grab the attention of labels. It's no different than demo shopping like they did back in the day only without the added cost of physical media. They see it as an investment, that the money they spend on recording their material might get them somewhere in the future. And it's a good thing too, unlike so many talented musicians I know who sit around at home waiting to be "discovered".

Mostly true, although lots of labels don't mind giving out free mixtapes of their artists these days. An example of a really good label would be Hydra Head Records. They support their artists well even if it means having to pick pennies off the fucking sidewalk. That's dedication to art. They also don't just release their albums on jewel disks, but try to find creative ways of selling the product.

That's another thing - physical copies. If you want to get more people to buy it, try to find offers and ways to sell it.


I'm not saying it's easy, I respect that, but it's all part of the starting out stage. Some make it some don't. It's still possible to make a living off an independent as a lesser-known band, Mudhoney are a great example. But I feel that because of the decline in record sales, a lot of bands are finding themselves stuck in this phase forever, there's no return on their investment and they end up losing money for as long as they keep going which, for most people is not a viable option unless you have money to burn.

I like the idea of not something that's easy, but still putting dedication into making music. Although, it's just that much harder to make money.

One of the best ideas for an artist to make money is to raise money off of kickstarter. One of my favorite artists, Toby Driver was able to get enough money from fans to pay off for the second release for one of his side projects. He also through out allot of awesome deals for people that help support.

There's smart ways that you can still make money and keep fans.


Definitely. My point wasn't so much that downloading is wrong or immoral, and I'm sorry if it came across like that.

It didn't.


But I think that ultimately it does hurt artists because they pump every penny they earn into practicing and getting to shows and so on and then see no return on their investment. Fewer acts than ever are reaching a significant (not necessarily mainstream) audience because the record labels are unwilling to fund anyone.

Yeah, it does hurt artists if they don't make money, which should be quite obvious to anyone. I don't know if I can expect anything to get better or worse over the years about the prophet of music for artists. I've mentioned this site many times before, but like I said, Bandcamp could be a really good solution for bringing underground artists out and showing people a bigger variety, which could start putting money in their pockets.


Is banning websites really going to make the public WANT to agree that it's bad to do it? I don't think so. Taking down sites that give out music is just going to start internet wars, which will lead to internet censorship, then lead to probably the internet with a rule guide. We as people have to think - Maybe taking down these sites isn't that good of an idea. Then you also have to think - Maybe I should start supporting artists more often.

Things are all tied together in terms of music these days, which is the same with any form of art too - like Movies and even modern art.

Artists that paint, sculpture, and etc are at the bottom of making money. Not only is it incredibly fucking difficult to get any of your art in a display, but it's harder then ever to get your own art show. You have to be one of the hundred that ends up getting liked in an art college that you wasted four years going to. That's as close as it gets in the real world. Fuck those movies where you see the child prodigy becoming world famous artists - that's all bullshit.

Movies are also torrented, so the value of money is going down for those. Although, every person I know that downloads movies ends up buying the movie. I kind of like that idea - watch it, and if I like it and it's worth watching again, I'll buy it. Personally, I looooove physical copies of DVD's more then albums.

I use frostwire. Always. Don't see why I should waste my money, when I could get it free by downloading it. And how is it ruining music? It doesn't make it sound worse or anything.

Have you read anything in this entire thread? You aren't even contributing to this, but just throwing out an opinion and running off.

[Black Eight]

I hate people that are so arrogant that they believe they don't need to pay for music. My brother is a struggling artist so I see how much time and money it takes to produce music. When you don't pay for music then the artists won't be able to fuel their career and you won't get any more music from them.

People use the argument that the bands are already rich and make money from live performances and merch. But bands and artists can't get there if they don't make any money from recorded music. Why would live-event companies take on artists that don't make any money from their albums?

I always make sure I pay for my music.

[Amnesiac]

I hate people that are so arrogant that they believe they don't need to pay for music. My brother is a struggling artist so I see how much time and money it takes to produce music. When you don't pay for music then the artists won't be able to fuel their career and you won't get any more music from them.

People use the argument that the bands are already rich and make money from live performances and merch. But bands and artists can't get there if they don't make any money from recorded music. Why would live-event companies take on artists that don't make any money from their albums?

I always make sure I pay for my music.

Well, as mentioned above, artists don't struggle to make a living because people are torrenting their albums. It's because the record companies ripped them off, pretty much. Artists make their money off of concerts.

If I had the money, I'd buy all my music. However, that just isn't the case for me and millions of other people. Music is a part of culture; it has been for thousands of years. To deprive the people of something so revered in society purely for-profit is a disgusting thing to do. As a capitalist, I don't believe in the government putting restrictions on the music industry. However, I also don't believe torrenting sites should be shut down — ever. The only reason the record companies are able to price their music so high is because, historically, they have gone without competition. The rise of Internet piracy is a good thing for the economy. Why? It encourages competition. Now, the record companies can stop being stupid fucks and actually price their products low enough so the average middle-class American can afford to buy multiple CDs. I'm talking CDs being $5 or less, not $20, and songs being 10 or 20 cents, not a fucking dollar. If the music industry fails to do this, it'll see itself plummet into the ground — which is also a good thing for artists, who will be liberated from the iron grip the record companies hold on them. The only reason artists go to the record companies in the first place is because without one it would be nearly impossible for them to make a name for themselves.

I look forward to a world where music is treated like the rest of art: something to be enjoyed by everyone freely. We don't see paintings being corrupted by corporations; painters are free to pursue their own careers and make their own full profits. It should be the same for artists.

Besides, copyright law has been severely corrupted from its original purpose. Copyrights are supposed to be a short-term protection for an artist so they can make a profit off of it, then the product is supposed to be enjoyed freely by the general public. This has been mutated into a complicated and terrible law that lets corporations hold onto songs for decades.

[Black Eight]

If I had the money, I'd buy all my music. However, that just isn't the case for me and millions of other people. Music is a part of culture; it has been for thousands of years. To deprive the people of something so revered in society purely for-profit is a disgusting thing to do. As a capitalist, I don't believe in the government putting restrictions on the music industry. However, I also don't believe torrenting sites should be shut down — ever. The only reason the record companies are able to price their music so high is because, historically, they have gone without competition. The rise of Internet piracy is a good thing for the economy. Why? It encourages competition. Now, the record companies can stop being stupid fucks and actually price their products low enough so the average middle-class American can afford to buy multiple CDs. I'm talking CDs being $5 or less, not $20, and songs being 10 or 20 cents, not a fucking dollar. If the music industry fails to do this, it'll see itself plummet into the ground — which is also a good thing for artists, who will be liberated from the iron grip the record companies hold on them. The only reason artists go to the record companies in the first place is because without one it would be nearly impossible for them to make a name for themselves.


The artists will suffer from this too though, not just the record companies. If albums were to be priced at $5 and songs at $.20, no way would the artists be payed the same amount as they are now. The artists will always make a small percentage of what you pay for. So if you pay less for their music, then they're going to get even less of your money. The record company will always take the majority of the money, paying less for music won't change that.

[Amnesiac]

The artists will suffer from this too though, not just the record companies. If albums were to be priced at $5 and songs at $.20, no way would the artists be payed the same amount as they are now. The artists will always make a small percentage of what you pay for. So if you pay less for their music, then they're going to get even less of your money. The record company will always take the majority of the money, paying less for music won't change that.

Well, that's a different issue. This thread deals with two issues: how artists barely make any money off album sales, and how record companies price their music insipidly high and expect the government to lift them right out of the piracy issues. While it's true that any change to the current way the music industry functions is going to hurt everyone involved, one could say it's all for the better. If the record companies fail, artists will be freed. I know it's a prophetic outlook that is unlikely to happen, but it's true. If we want any change to how the artists are paid, then their struggles need to be publicized. You can't solve an issue without making it an issue first.

So yes, it is true that if music is priced lower artists could get paid less (assuming that the price cuts wouldn't result in a surge in sales and backtracking from torrents and other P2P networks), but nobody could make a living off of $4,000 (or whatever insanely small amount of money they get) anyway, so it's irrelevant. Musicians make their money through live performances, that's what counts, not the albums they sell.

[BOBBY HILL]

It's legal to pirate music in Canada. As long it's for personal and non profit use.

[Aves]

I agree mostly with Tim and Justin on the above. Especially on Justin's thought of CDs and individual songs being reduced in price. Trust me, I know I would buy albums a lot more if a single disc album cost no more than $10, ever.

I go to stores all the time, where truly great albums (Pink Floyd and the Beatles, for example) are $15 each! Too outrageous? Not if you want to buy one album at the time. But what if I want to walk home with two? It irritates me to pay $30+ tax, for something a friend of mine could let me borrow for free. Why does it irritate me? Because for the most part, the more expensive albums are from bands that have broken up (i.e. Pink Floyd). I love Pink Floyd, but it's just not worth the physical copy.

[Syvelocin]

If I adore an artist/band, I buy the CD because they usually put so much effort into the artwork and packaging, I love it. If just enjoy it, I'll get it from iTunes. Anything else isn't even worth the time, possible virus, and risk of illegally downloading it.

[Iceman]

I used to download it illegally, but I ended that due to the fact I want music to stay around. Now I usually just use CD's that either my friends or I buy

[Bluesman]

Well I get all my music off the internet, plus I have some CD's... none of which I bought. I'm sorry but I have 500 songs on my Ipod and there's no way that I'm spending $500 for that. Sorry, but that went to a guitar, so the RECORD COMPANY, not the artist, that wouldve gotten that $500 is simply sol.

[deadpie]

I used to download it illegally, but I ended that due to the fact I want music to stay around. Now I usually just use CD's that either my friends or I buy

Music isn't going to just stop being made if people keep downloading it illegally. Money isn't always the reason people are inspired to make art. Actually, that's probably the bottom of the list, knowing how much they actually make.

[trooneh]

Music isn't going to just stop being made if people keep downloading it illegally. Money isn't always the reason people are inspired to make art. Actually, that's probably the bottom of the list, knowing how much they actually make.

That's not to mention that I believe that most of the money that musicians make is from live performances.

[Magus]

Man, I download music for sampling purposes. If it is good, then I will buy the dashiz later... or maybe I will never buy dashiz.

[deadpie]

That's not to mention that I believe that most of the money that musicians make is from live performances.

And then it costs money to actually perform at that place, but if you have a decent audience, then it should be alright for making enough money for food for a couple days.

[Hastro]

I download music that I dont really see the point of buying, I'll only buy the album if Its one of my favourite bands or a new released album.

[Jenna.]

I download music that I dont really see the point of buying, I'll only buy the album if Its one of my favourite bands or a new released album.

This is basically what I do too. I torrent most of my music but I have bought some CD's or songs off of iTunes depending on how much I like the band or not.

[Zephyr]

I download music that I dont really see the point of buying, I'll only buy the album if Its one of my favourite bands or a new released album.

Exactamundo.

There was nothing I hated more when I was a kid than buying an album just because you wanted to listen to a few songs, and the rest were crap.

If I think a single song is worth buying, I'll suck it up and pay iTunes the $1 and some odd cents. If it's by an artist that I know I'll love all of the songs, I'll buy the album. If it's from an artist that I know you can't buy the music anywhere, I download. Most of what I download is underground techno and dance, or certain remixes that arn't sold anywhere.

Do my 'justifications' make it right? No. But I download as a last resort.

[Sith Lord 13]

It's legal to pirate music in Canada. As long it's for personal and non profit use.

Can we get a source here? I find that hard to believe.

[JunkBondTrader]

Music isn't going to just stop being made if people keep downloading it illegally. Money isn't always the reason people are inspired to make art. Actually, that's probably the bottom of the list, knowing how much they actually make.

It won't, of course not. But it will become more difficult for people to get into it and support themselves. It's not just that bands incur costs like rehearsals, recording, transport and stuff but because music can be very time consuming which often leaves artists unable to support themselves through regular work.

Tim, I haven't attempted to shoot down your last post because upon closer examination, I actually agree with much of what you're saying and think we may have been at cross purposes. My problem is not so much with people who download, it depends on the reasons they do so. You've justified it by pointing out that you do indeed try to support small bands whenever possible and I respect that, unlike certain people in this thread who've besically just come in and said they see no reason they should pay for something they could get for free.

Downloading isn't a black and white issue and there will always be a grey area, despite what the RIAA and BPI may say, it's not always inherently wrong. I think it ultimately lies in the way in which the music is shared. I just think that sharing a product via BitTorrent with thousands of anonymous people is different from making a copy of it for a friend. I can't back this up scientifically/mathematically, but it's about the spirit of it. I think sharing between friends really will encourage people to support the artist whereas sharing at will does the exact opposite, since most of those people will never buy the record, not see the band live.

In short, music should be free, but in reality, bands need to cover their losses. As a musician, I would prefer that someone downloaded my music if there was no chance they were going to buy it as they still would've heard it but I think we need to reverse this culture present in modern youth where music is a totally free product, because then there may really be no way these bands can support themselves.

[goat]

It's stealing. No one has a right to music. If I make something, anything I have a right to sell it form what I want. If you want it, you pay. Otherwise your a thief. That's called CAPITALISM. Now if I demand too much, no one buys and AI don't make money. Thats called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. If you take whats not yours thats called THEFT. You steal, you go to jail, that's called THE RULE OF LAW. What download thieves support is called ANARCHISM. it is clearly self defeating. Illegal downloading makes it harder for small groups that truly contribute to diversity to make it

[Amnesiac]

It's stealing. No one has a right to music. If I make something, anything I have a right to sell it form what I want. If you want it, you pay. Otherwise your a thief. That's called CAPITALISM. Now if I demand too much, no one buys and AI don't make money. Thats called SUPPLY AND DEMAND. If you take whats not yours thats called THEFT. You steal, you go to jail, that's called THE RULE OF LAW. What download thieves support is called ANARCHISM. it is clearly self defeating. Illegal downloading makes it harder for small groups that truly contribute to diversity to make it

Have you read any of the arguments presented in this thread?

Illegal downloading, if anything, encourages the capitalist ideology of economic competition.

[Kohta]

Illegal downloading of music is a way of free promotion for bands and artists, and if I like what I hear I will actually go out and buy the cd or pay to go see them live.
Also don't worry about music dying off its a part of life and will never go away, plus there are so many bands out there because its the cool thing to do and kids find that as a way to express themselves.

[Mrs.KermitTheFrogx]

I always buy cd's
not vinels but cd's
but i think nowadays they can be sooooooooooooooooooooooo exspensivee >.<