divine.216 Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 does not in and of itself make it moral from an ethical standpointLook up the definitions to words before you use them, sorry. file sharing does not allow the individual who created the piece to receive the payment that he/she requests and deservesFile sharing has nothing to do with an artist receiving payment. Signing onto a record label that will take all of the revenue from your work does. Suing your customers and fans. Hiding from technology and the future it demands. These things all contribute to an artist not receiving payment -- not file sharing. File sharing actually represents the vast majority of artists single hope for receiving payment: they don't need to sign horribly contracts with record companies in order to get their music distributed anymore. RadioWhen music was first played on the radio, the recording industry tried to ban it, claiming no one would buy records if they could hear music for free on the radio. That !@#$%^&*ertion was patently absurd. To appease the recording industry, radio stations agreed to pay small fees to licensing agencies such as ASCAP and BMI each time a song was played. This !@#$%^&*ured that the record company would receive payment for music in the form of royalties. The royalties they received were soon a pittance compared to what they paid out. It was almost instantly clear that radio was a better form of promotion than the music industry had ever dreamed of. People who heard music on the radio did buy records. When music fans heard a song they liked, they had to have a record of it, and the stores couldn't keep them in stock. Soon this promotion was not free. If you produced a record, you wanted to sell it, and the only way to do that was to get it on the radio. To get that, you had to pay DJs and radio stations. Slip them a copy of the record with a one hundred dollar bill in the jacket, and they would play it. This was called "Payola". It has been proven by study after study that file trading is a great form of promotion. In its infancy, fans heard a new song on Napster, and had to have the CD. They rushed out and bought it. Unlike radio, the industry didn't have to produce any payola to get a song listed on Napster. It was free! CD sales went up. At some point, greedy individuals decided that this was wrong. People were hearing the music they wanted almost on demand, and they didn't have to pay for it, beyond paying for internet access. Record executives, radio executives, and independent promoters could not stand it, nor could a few already wealthy artists like Metallica's Lars Ulrich. No one should be able to hear music without paying for it, so they claimed. Just as radio had done in the early days, Napster tried to come to licensing terms with the recording industry, but the labels, save Bertelsmann, would not even talk to them. They ran crying to Congress and the courts until Napster was no more. Guess what? CD sales plummeted, and they tried to blame it all on "Piracy". Not only had they looked the gift horse of a new and free promotion channel in the mouth, but they had it put down like an old nag. In some cases, the recording labels such as EMI messed up their own corrupt system of payola using their "copy protected" discs. They sent promotional copies of discs (read more) to radio stations in the hope of getting them played and promoted, but the stations had computer based CD players. The discs did not work. It was poetic justice that this hurt the recording label, but sad that it hurt the artists.read more... "Bars can't have TVs bigger than 55 inches. Teddy bears can't include tape decks. Girl Scouts who sing "Puff, the Magic Dragon" owe royalties. Copyright law needs to change."Stupid laws _should_ be broken.
Bargeld Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 name a "big name" band or movie or piece of software whose origins come solely from p2p. Then consider how much they make. Compare this to Britney Spears, Metallica, and other "Mainstream promoted" bands which use traditional methods of promotion and advertising. Name a band with a video on MTV or a song on the radio who is not signed to a label and who distributes solely on through file sharing. Your points are valid, but it just doesn't work that way. As far as copyright laws are concerned, yes its a big jumble when it comes to the internet, because US copyright law doesn't always apply to international users. This is the only reason why Kazaa has lasted as long as it did... If you look into the structure of how the program is/was developed, owned, and distributed, you will find that the developers were from europe, the company which contracted them was from australia, but it was a subsidary owned by a company out of asia (I think.) The US has no jurisdiction to stop the distribution of a product which functions in the same manner as Napster (which was based out of the US and thats why it was shut down.) The structure of Kazaa was proven to be a valid way of protecting the product when the US arrested that Russian guy who was contracted to write a piece of software which "cracked" ebook files. He was found innocent of the charges, but his employers were not. Therefore PriitK and his team are untouchable. The next step is to move on to the Australian company, which was owned by yet another international firm. It will take even longer to sort out the laws regarding jurisdiction here. P2P is not illegal, by its technical definition. But P2P filesharing is illegal in almost all cases. Welcome to america, capitalism at its best. We have laws in place and a power system which allows the rich to be, legally, more powerful than the poor. And personally, I agree with it. If you don't like it, go find a way to work the system just like everyone else (the rich) have done. They got that way for a reason and you have all the same opportunity that they have, the poor simply choose not to exercise it. People aren't being "held down by the man," they are held down by their own inadequecies.
madhaha Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 name a "big name" band or movie or piece of software whose origins come solely from p2p. Then consider how much they make. Compare this to Britney Spears, Metallica, and other "Mainstream promoted" bands which use traditional methods of promotion and advertising. Name a band with a video on MTV or a song on the radio who is not signed to a label and who distributes solely on through file sharing. Prince (as in the artist formerly known as, now named Prince again). Steady income. Complete artistic freedom. Commercial and creative success. Not signed to any lable. Staff of 1. Currently getting lots of money since he gave up his lavish lifestyle while having a subscribing fanbase of approximately 100,000 die hards. 100,000 * monthly subscription is enough money for me to consider rich. Just because it isn't hitting the headlines or surprise surprise not on the radio, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Apologies, but the rest of your thread got blocked by my "silly drivel" remover.
MonteZuma Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 OK....I've read the crap....Here is my take.... Music....in its purest form - is a dying art form. In the long run, musicians/record companies/whoever are going to have to lower prices and add value to their product if they are going to continue making money. After all, what is a song? Three minutes of noise? They will never be able to secure that and stop P2P. The price of a single or a lp CD is ridiculously high, and now that we have MP3s and MP3 players, the media (CDs) is -*BAD WORD*-bersome and outdated. People want portable (and I really mean port-able) music, and they don't want crap. Digital, pick-and-pay distribution of high quality recordings (in stores or over the 'Net) at very low prices will probably be the way of the future. The industry will need to add value by switching to DVDs and selling the clips, with extra multimedia content if they are gonna justify the current level of pricing. I see this happening when the world switches to HDTV, and after DVDs become the standard for music - and after they become more versatile. If data is so easy to copy, transmit and store, record companies and musicians CANNOT justify the prices that they currently charge. There are too many pigs at the trough. Monte.
Yupa Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 P2P is not illegal, by its technical definition.technical definition? it's not illegal, period (not yet anyways *yawn*) But P2P filesharing is illegal in almost all cases. I suppose you have accurate data you collected yourself to support this? Heh, just kidding - I agree, most of it is probably sharing of pirated software.It doesn't matter, though - "almost" isn't ALL and never will be.
Bargeld Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 agreed akai, but if the RIAA can stop almost all of the illegal filesharing, then they will be happy. As for you madhaha, read what i said... I wanted an artist whose ORIGINS came SOLELY from P2P sources. The only reason prince is able to do what you say is because he has already made tons of movies and music (I would even go so far as to bet $10 that Purple Rain was made (1984) before you were born.)
Yupa Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 It's just sad I remember hearing something on the radio about how basically what ISPs are allowing the RIAA to do is itself illegal or uncons!@#$%^&*utional or something. Spineless ISPs...
divine.216 Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 A band that made it's name via file sharing? Radiohead (before signing onto major label)You also asked for a band that was played on MTV.MTV is owned and controlled by the same people who own and control all the other conventional music distribution channels. You talk about these "huge" artists and say that they used traditional paths to achieve their success. You misunderstand both how they got there and you misunderstand what "success" actually is to a musician. How they got thereBritany Spears et al did not "achieve" their success, they were selected by the recording companies as "artists" who could be fashioned and marketed in a manner such that the companies could control. Success to a musicianSuccess to musicians is largely the ability to rely on their musical career as a full time job, the ability to freely explore their music, and 'connecting' with fans. For the vast, vast majority of even the very dedicated musicians this is not a possibility due to the high price of entry into the music distribution market. File sharing, P2P file sharing particularly, removes this high price of entry into the market. Musicians don't need to be mega-millionaires to be considered "successful", the sad reality of late is that the restrictions being forced on the industry by the RIAA have made it so that musicians are either millionaires or starving -- they don't allow for variety which results in the crappy unoriginal filth that we call pop-music.
Bargeld Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 I never mentioned "success" I only mentioned how much money they made. People aren't getting sued for stealing artist's success, they are being sued for not giving up the proper cash for their media. And you are wrong about Radiohead, they started just like everyone else: breakthrough single, tours with major bands.http://www.iconofan.com/Artists/r/radiohead/bio.shtml I don't like pop music either, but if you would like to record and edit your music using a 32 or 64 track mixer and have experienced and talented people work for you to do this, you need $$. Otherwise you are just another garage band with a 4 track, of which I'm sure there is no shortage of mp3's on Kazaa. Sure those garage bands must be -*BAD WORD*-a happy that millions of people are hearing their tunes. But does that pay the bills? Nope.
madhaha Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 We've talked about this point already. P2P is free marketting. People hear the music and buy the records/CD's if they exist and if they like them. Please think of something new to add.
Guest DeathToYou! Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 I don't think it's killing music... The only "bands" that suffer are the really huge ones that have craploads of money like the backstreet boys. Nobody wants to spend money on a whole album when they just want whatever is their latest and "greatest" song.. for somewhat average size bands like Tool, I think it's 50/50.. they lose some customers, but they get some too.. And then for really small bands (that I like), it kinda helps.. ok it really helped... yeah helped.. Before it helped people find out about this rare music, and they'd buy it... and they lost hardly any customers because 1: there are so few2: their fan base is the most loyal of all3: half their fan base were collectors anyway! But it doesn't help them so much anymore because the new p2p clients suck so bad at music for rare stuff. When I search for songs for Paramecium, Silentium, Garden of shadows, whatever. I always come up with *nothing*... (before audiogalaxy had it all, and so did napster.. no longer.. *sobs*). as for impeding freedom, I think that's a moot point.if you or I made copies of music with our own money, wouldn't it be our right to put a copyright on it and ask for legal support when people start copying the music and sending it all over? Personally though, I think record labels should shut their @^@^#.. They get more money from the cd's they sell than the musicians/composers themselves, that in itself is a crime in my opinion, and furthermore, if they're so rich, why the -*BAD WORD*- don't they be more generous for joe-shmoe's around the world sharing music? oh.. and more bout p2p clients, I hate em.. they don't have my music, and they make my brother download craploads of gigs of useless porn on *our* computer (that is mostly his because so much of it is corrupt with his stuff, and every time I go on it, the hd is full).
Bargeld Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 just some interesting data I found: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/entertainme.../cd.pop.pie.gif
Yupa Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 And this relates to p2p how? cd price > consumer preference to download for free instead of pay high price > RIAA crusade to stop pirated music
madhaha Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 I could repeat every point that was raised in the thread that you're still ignoring but I'm too tired.
Bargeld Posted September 13, 2003 Report Posted September 13, 2003 And this relates to p2p how? just want to show exactly who is getting ripped off when an mp3 is illegally downloaded, and by how much.
madhaha Posted September 13, 2003 Report Posted September 13, 2003 Again you're !@#$%^&*uming the people would have bought that particular song on CD originally if MP3 existed. MP3's let the curious listen to a song and people pay if they like it. This is as opposed to the old way where the curious decided they couldn't stump up the cash and so didn't bother.
Silk Posted September 13, 2003 Report Posted September 13, 2003 not necessary, they could just download a whole cd or the songs they only like. P2P isnt goign to improve sales.
madhaha Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 Prove it. Sales figures says that it does.
madhaha Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/
Yupa Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 Again you're !@#$%^&*uming the people would have bought that particular song on CD originally if MP3 existed. MP3's let the curious listen to a song and people pay if they like it. This is as opposed to the old way where the curious decided they couldn't stump up the cash and so didn't bother. just as an example - if you go into pretty much any Borders, you can listen to every sone on any CD they have before you buy it
Silk Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 That site doesnt prove it actually is improving sales. For larger bands, it isnt going to improve their sales. For smaller bands, it will help them bring their tracks into the world and people will buy their songs but it wont last.
madhaha Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 just as an example - if you go into pretty much any Borders, you can listen to every sone on any CD they have before you buy it True but I'd rather not go down to Borders. I'd rather sit at home. I don't know what site you're referring to Silk.
Yupa Posted September 14, 2003 Report Posted September 14, 2003 just as an example - if you go into pretty much any Borders, you can listen to every sone on any CD they have before you buy it True but I'd rather not go down to Borders. I'd rather sit at home. ditto
Recommended Posts