OK, good. It just bothers me when people argue in favor of illegal downloads because the record companies get most of the money. It typically seems like the majority of these people wouldn't legally obtain music if the artist got 100% of the royalties.
Okay. But right now it's a big metric in the industry. Maybe that has already changed.. but if everyone downloaded and a band had absolutely $0 in sales, it's hard to imagine that anyone would produce another record for them?
From what I understand from my friend who has a record label, she will see less than or close to a buck from every cd sold (for around $15). The record labor gets about 10x that. Free music let's me find what I like when normally I wouldn't buy an album. I think it works out bc if they're good, I'll see them in concert when they come to town.
Well, with the advancement in technology music production isn't quite as costly as it use to be. Distribution isn't a problem obviously. The only thing I see record companies doing now throwing their weight around for promotions/radio time. Apparently 30 Seconds to Mars didn't make any money selling records. http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=30+seconds+to+mars
I download and I don't rationalize my actions. I do it because it's easy and free, and I can consume more because of those facts. I do see my bands and buy merchandise, for what it's worth.
Amazon, but if I could find a much cheaper way, I would D/L there. Is that Russian site still up? If so, is it legal to get stuff there? I stopped with the D/Ls after my son was born. I don't want to teach him that just because something is out there it's ok for him to take it for free.
thus the "quotes", but that is true of any intellectual property... not just digital music. If they're giving it away, then I think that's great. If you just aren't buying copies of the music... no problem. If you duplicate it or obtain it 'illegally', then I have to say I take issue with it for the most part. Not "That man should be sued for thousands of dollars" issue, but "That probably isn't good for artists in the long run" issue. Ask a software programmer from the 80's who had all his games duplicated and traded (without the internet's power, mind you) not seeing a dime, and I bet you'll find many who just quit putting their time into it as it wasn't profitable. You mean the album that someone else paid to produce, expecting a return on their investment? They do. They make money for the companies who pay to promote acts. An act doesn't want their money? Fine, don't sign a contract with them and get your music out to your audience another way. I think this is a good thing, but easier said than done.
I don't like this argument. Because a lot of people make it (including REEKO in this thread also), and maybe you 2 are music junkies who go to every show possible. But most people will go see a few of their favorite bands and buy that merchandise. If you can tell me that you go see shows by ALL the artists you listen to at home, and buy merchandise from ALL of them.. then fine. But if I did that, I'd fill a storage closet with t-shirts every year. I listen to a lot of different music. I can't afford to see every one of their shows, much less buy items from each of them. So in the end, the justification of going to the shows when they come to town still doesn't fly--for MOST people.
The argument still doesn't fly. You're still depriving people of a legal interest that they have in the music. The record companies, producers, etc all have an investment in the music that they deserve to make a return on.
Downloading copyrighted works without paying and/or without permission is stealing regardless of how anyone tries to justify it.
agreed. But that seems like something they're aware of and willing to ignore for some reason.. so I wanted to point out a direct flaw in their argument.
Duplicating someone's music in order to make a profit even if it's playing music as a DJ is bad. If you make any type of profit from someone's work it's wrong. I'm sorry you had to experience losing your games without any control. Most people learn about how to manage their content the hard way just like you probably did. The days of expensive productions are all but dead. I'm a Audio Engineer and with the home studio revolution things are tough. I think the Artists investment should be his own. If you are in it for the money and think, "I spent $1,000 to make this record so I better make that back" you're in the wrong business and good luck with that.
That's fine if that's how you think artists should go about their business. But however they go about their process, the fact remains that they are owed something, and you are depriving them (or whoever) pieces of what they are owed because you're going down a different path. And you're justifying it by saying "well it's not that big a piece". It's like the Office Space argument. "It's just fractions of fractions of a penny"
Or the argument on stealing software: "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so they are not out any money."
I agree, Most people can't defend it but I can. I have 3 shows to go to next month. I look at it as research. Like I said in the above post, you just can't expect to make money because you think your music is good enough for someone to pay for it. It's a relationship with the listener you need to establish and once that relationship is established the Listener buys and buys and you make money and more money. If your making records to make money your business plan is useless. People invest money on their hobbies all the time. I'm sure Clutch didn't start his site to make money and he's making money now (I hope) and we support him because we love the site.
Oh, and if you really value your content and don't want to enter the reality that things like this happen Keep your stuff to yourself and you won't lose.
I thought Clutch has always lost money on this site.. but maybe someone else has more current knowledge
Anyone who downloads music regularly does it for the aforementioned reason. Rationalize it any way you want but if we could apply the same principle as readily to any other product -- cars, homes, movies, video games, etc -- we would. Its not right but it is what it is. The industry, as it stands now, is a tremendous commitment for any musician who wishes to make comfortable living off his/her own original music. Just getting off the ground requires: (a) Constantly gigging, generally on bills with 3 or 4 other acts trying to accomplish the same goal, on bills that may or may not be filled with your same genre of music, for club owners who may or may not pay you at the end of the night. (b) Constant promotion for the aforementioned gigs, including production of your own flyers, posters etc; (c) A healthy investment in a professionally recording demo cd you will distribute for free for the purposes of (a) and (b) (d) A healthy investment in professional equipment: instrument, tour vans, amps, stage lights, PA's, etc. (e) W/in all of the aforemention, finding time to hone your craft on your instrument and actually write and record material. Bands spend years doing the above, for little to no pay, for the chance to record these records we steal and to tour and merchandise to pay off these records we don't buy. Its a tremendous investment most gladly make but I don't think people realize how hard these artists are we working to create this art we so readily take for granted.
