Well the argument about low-budget, little-known musicians is valid and I'm not going to argue in favor of downloading against Jeff's friends, but I do have to say that any person who loves music enough to pursue it full time or even for the love of it as an intention to make a lot of money, well it's their choice. I don't know the statistics, but the amount of musicians who get a lot of money is far less than the amount who struggle through life. It's nothing against them, but it's their choice in life to do such a thing. Again, I'm not arguing against them, and if their music is good, they deserve to be paid for their time and effort. They could've chosen to pursue higher-paying jobs but didn't. So what I'm alluding at is the small-scale musicians are still somewhat responsible for their (financial) well-being. Personally, I do use Kazaa Lite, but not often. I RARELY download music, basically because I don't listen to music. When people ask me what type of music I like or listen to, I'm the only one I know of without a response. I mean, I played trombone as a kid for a few years, but somehow I was never influenced enough somewhere along the line to be truly inspired by rock, techno, jazz, rap, or classical. I did use MusicNow on a free trial basis and I did enjoy it, so the future of internet music looks good. However, the record companies (and the lawmakers) have to realize that an all-out end to file sharing is virtually inconceivable. I compare file sharing to bootlegging of movies a few years back with illegal VHS; it still exists and isn't a big problem. That or it's now at a small enough level that it's just not a big issue. The record companies of today have to realize that bootlegging of files and music will last forever, but steps are being taken to reduce the number. However, if they think they are 'losing' money, they will have to adapt to it because they'll never make as much as they did say 10 years ago. The amount of file-sharing will be more than bootlegging of old and if sales and 'illegal' downloads and come to a compromise, they can co-exist to a degree. Both sides just need tolerance. Now all I download now (and currently for that matter) is old Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes. Season 2 to be precise. That's only because I know I will buy the DVD on June 15, but couldn't wait that long. (I have Season 1 and it's the best DVD I've bought ). A local record store that was in business for 24 years in my town just closed, bsaically because of the internet (and Wal-Mart). It wasn't the best music store, but it was a local legend; the only place in town to get vinyl records. Now they just moved out of their storefront and they already have plans to adapt -- they're moving business to the internet. Here's a suggestion about paying for music; as record companies are reluctant to sell music on the internet (as most just want one or two songs from a CD), they ARE losing money in that extent. So my suggestion is make up for the possible 'loss' by basing song prices on the number of downloads or 'hits' -- sort of like the stock market. The 'hotter' or higher the number of downloads (a popular song theoretically), the higher the price.
But Jeff, haven't you seen the studies that show that heavy downloaders are typically also among the biggest music purchasers? IMO, downloading is the new age of recording off of the radio and passing it to friends. If I were running a music company, I would provide free 64kbps MP3 downloads and charge for high quality ones. In addition, I would provide a way for people to choose 8 or 10 or 15 songs from whatever artist and make their own custom CDs. A vending machine that could do that would make LOADS of money and the artist would still get their cut. When it comes down to it, there are some people who will steal exclusively. Most of us who download are heavier than average purchasers (I have over 600 CDs) who use downloads as a way to screen our purchases. For example, I heard a new song by The Killers on the new music show on the Buzz and, after downloading it and listening a couple of more times, have decided to buy it when my next CD purchase comes along. I don't think people are ENTITLED to free music, but I think the studios are missing the boat on the new technology. Industries that buck technological improvements are rightly destroyed and replaced by industries that meet the needs of the consumer.
I download all the time to preview. I'll usually only download no more than 3-5 songs from an album or artist- to me that's enough to decide if I want to buy. If an album is under 10 bucks to begin with, I may not download and may just rely on reviews or word of mouth instead, and buy anyway. Overally I'd say I rely more on reviews than downloading, by far. My main goal is to end up with a CD in my hands though- I want to be able to have the liner notes, lyrics, whatever- to actually SEE and know something about the band. I don't understand the people that talk about CDs costing 18 bucks or whatever. I spend an average of maybe 11 bucks per NEW CD. Then you also have used CDs ...
I still d/l for free. However with the gluttony of purposefully screwed up music on Kazaa Lite, it takes a LOT of work to find a song in proper condition (multiple downloads and testing)
I use Kazaa Lite and I've noticed a lot more viruses lurking around. Everytime I d/l music, my Norton Antivirus software starts to alert me of incoming viruses.
i haven't used it in quite a while. There are too many fake songs, etc... I've been using Ares Lite which is similar but haven't had any problems finding songs that are actually complete and without error.
Well, if the posters here are an accurate sampling of downloaders across the land... the whole system should shut down shortly (since no one seems to participate in the "sharing" aspect of file sharing... just the downloading)
I absolutely agree with this. You have to know that the line of work you're entering into has certain pro's and con's. I work in the software industry, and I just deal with the fact that I know people are pirating software like crazy, and that in a few years something may happen in the market to cause me lose my job. It's not like people who download music hate Jeff's friends, or disregard their needs. How many people do you actually know that download music just to "stick it to the man"? It's a convenient way to preview albums, and/or snag a few singles from artists who's full albums are, shall we say, less than stellar. If your albums are good, people will buy them. I do. If they're not, maybe you should consider another job with a more stable income. Most people have jobs they hate so that they can pay the bills. I'd venture to say that most artists love what they do, and chances are they get paid less. That's life. I don't know, if recording artists are that concerned about losing money, it seems like they should organize a strike or something and demand better treatment. Or, you know, get a job at the post office.
A lot of people are just stupid, don't care about the consequences, or don't live in America. I like to think that we represent a somewhat more informed cross-section of the community at large.
In the late 80's the music industry was up in arms about the proliferation of CD resale shops – they were going to be the downfall of the industry. A decade before that it was cassette tapes and now it’s filing swapping on the internet. Exchanging music files on the internet is not hurting musicians anymore than software ‘pirating’ is hurting programmers. I can only speak for my friends and myself and without a doubt file swapping has increased our exposure to new music that has in turn has increased the amount of money we have spent benefiting musicians, live venues, and the ‘industry’. To claim that we are stealing and harming people in the business is flat wrong. Also if file swapping has no real impact on declining CD sales then who should we point the finger at? Study Shows File Sharing Has Not Hurt CD Sales 2004-03-30 A study released Monday (March 29) from researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina states that file-sharing has a minimal effect on cd sales. Music file downloads were tracked over 17 weeks in 2002, matching data on file transfers with actual market performance of the songs and albums being downloaded. Even high levels of file-swapping seemed to translate into an effect on album sales that was "statistically indistinguishable from zero," they wrote. "We find that file sharing has only had a limited effect on record sales," the study's authors wrote. "While downloads occur on a vast scale, most users are likely individuals who would not have bought the album even in the absence of file sharing." This study is the most detailed economic modeling survey to use data obtained directly from file-sharing networks. Harvard Business School associate professor Felix Oberholzer and University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill associate professor Koleman Strumpf used logs from two OpenNap servers in late 2002 to observe about 1.75 million downloads over their 17 week sample period. This data sample showed that the average user logged in only twice during that period and downloaded about 17 songs. The data was narrowed by comparing a random sample of 500 albums from the sales charts to the associated downloads. According to their model it would take about 5,000 downloads to displace sales of just one physical CD. And even with the rampant amount of music downloads occuring globally, it would only have a miniscule effect on cd sales over the past two years. The data even suggests that downloads could even have a slight positive effect on the sales of the top albums. Record label executives dismissed the new study. The major labels have been blaming file-sharing for decreased album sales over the past few years. Other factors may have contributed, such as lower household spending during the recession, and increased competition from other entertainment forms such as DVDs and video games, each of which have grown over the same time period. article link
i have used this site also. i was quite weary of the site so i used an alternate CC number from my citibank card just in case. got exactly what was advertized. i recommend it.
I think you guys missed my point. I, like all musicians, know what the business is like and how much money is in it. In fact, I could argue that we know FAR better than any non-musician does because we've seen it first hand. What frustrates me is the complete disregard for the fact that downloading is not ok based on the desires of artists, nevermind the business. I have yet to hear one single justification for downloading a song when someone doesn't want you to. All I have heard is, "Well, they should expect it" or "They know they aren't going to get paid a lot." It's like me leaving the front door to my house wide open, having the place looted and then the police saying, "Well, you should've known better." Well, duh, but that doesn't give people a free pass to steal my ****. If you are speeding down the highway and you get pulled over, you can make every excuse in the book, but that doesn't change the fact that you broke the law. You may be able to justify it in some way - to yourself or the officer or whatever - but you were still breaking the law. Denying that doesn't solve the problem. With downloading like speeding, I've done it. I'll probably do it again at some point. No one thinks it is going away or that people are just going to stop. It isn't the reality of its existence that bugs me. It is the unwillingness to admit what's going on and deal with that. I have a feeling that if every study clearly showed that downloading was hurting CD sales, no one would stop. It's still free music. The arguments and the justifications don't change the fact that downloading a song without the permission of the artist is not ok. I'm not asking for anyone to stop, just to admit it and move on.
You're exactly right; there is no [purely valid] reasoning for downloading fo free. I've never understood or liked the 'well record company execs are greedy bastards' excuse, regardless of the fact that it's wrong; it is the musicians themselves losing money while record companies are still gaining more and more $$$. That's what makes getting paid (if musicians do it SOLELY for the money instead of the love for music) while 'not selling out' so damn difficult if not impossible. I'm not defacing your comment, but what exactly would I be admitting? Whether it's 'wrong' is HIGHLY debatable. I mean, I don't particularly have moral issues with it bascially because there are no concrete or set guidelines regulating files and music. In some cases, somewhere along the long line, yes, deserving people are not 'losing' but not getting the money or attention they deserve. I will admit that, but unless there is an easy fix or a stronger and FAIR way to deal with this 'edipemic', then no one will listen. The Chapelle 'internet mall' skit defined this problem PERFECTLY. There's just nothing you can do when [almost literally] EVERYONE does it. I personally don't see it as a big problem now; in fact I see it as a key to the future. Now is where the greedy record execs come into my vocabulary. Musicians deserve to be compensated for their success. For I don't know how long, record companies have cashed in on their success. Compact Discs (in my opinion) will bw near obsolete (well, at least where cassettes and vinyls are today) in 10-15, maybe 20 years. Digital audio players will take over and the companies have to start up plans to go solely to e-format as opposed to plastic. It would cause various people to lose jobs (like CD and CD-material makers), but it would also save on manufacturing costs. The music industry could save itself (and cut back on potential $$$ losses) by thinking and planning ahead. Good points by everyone in here though.
Jeff, what we are dealing with his a paradigm shift in a world were ***tangible*** items used to be controlled by a few companies. Rules that were used before don't apply anymore. Definitions of "theft" and what's "piracy" change too. The internet has changed all that. That's why merely downloading a song isn't seen as theft the same way breaking into a store would be; it's tooooooo EASY to DO!!!! YET, the recording labels want to charge us the same it would cost to produce a physical CD based on an old business model? That's crazy. You can't take the "download" out of the "internet" even if it would mean the death of a few music labels; jobs. As time goes on, the price of downloadable songs will drop. It has to. That's the only way you can change the mind-set of people to choose fee-based songs over free. Think about it. What would happen if songs were 5 cents for tens songs? Cheap pricing like that can be done when there is an audience of billions around the world that would have never been able to be reached otherwise. Plus, you'll have repeat buyers of the same song. Pennies for multiple downloads is very close to free. I mean, what is a trillion cents worth? Huh? Also, the value of a particular site that offers those type of prices should be "better" than what one would get from downloading from "illegal" sites. It will work itself out sooner or later. You don't need to offer free songs. But you can offer NEAR FREE songs (5 cents or 10 cents). Somewhere around that. Or 50 cents for 20 songs. The threshold is not yet known. But 1 dollar per song is too expensive. That's still using the old tangible CD price model. Right now, the record labels are too scared of lowering prices. But they will be forced to do so. One of the great things about the Indie labels is that they don't have to play by the established music labels rules. They don't have to since they have their own distribution system: THE INTERNET. And that levels the playing field for new bands that don't want to sign with the big labels. This will force the big music labels to change. You also talked about the cost that it takes to employ "engineers, producers, studio musicians, studio owners, songwriters, arrangers, managers, collaborators, technicians and on and on." Well, that's THEIR FAULT. They will change too. The music labels job is one thing: TO FACILITATE PROMOTION via production of CDs and store distribution. They are used for the sole purpose of ADVERTISEMENT. That's it. Think about it. What's the purpose of radio play? What's the purpose of selling CDs? What's the purpose of having distribution stores around the world? All used to promote an artist! All paid for by the music lables upfront! This is done so that people will learn about a particular artist and that those fans will go see them in CONCERT (the payback for an artist signing on the dotted line). That's why only a fraction of sales goes to the artist on CD sales. The artist make their money by touring. But in order to get people to come to the concerts, they labels have to promote, promote, promote. The label's employees (CEO, engineers, producers, managers, etc...) all get paid by all CD sales. That's how they make their living. But the CD's sales are not meant to enrich the artist. CD sales are used to keep the advertisement machine chugging along. This was a monster that was created by the lables. The artist had NO CHOICE but to sign on the dotted line w/the lables. Ten years ago the internet wasn't what it is today. That was then, this is now... What's the new "advertisement machine?" The internet; newsgroups, college campuses, chat groups, word of mouth...that seems to be doing a pretty good job of getting unknown bands KNOWN. So, what's the purpose of the lables now that we have the internet? To pay the label employees? To keep an antiquated business models alive? Its time is done. That model is dead. They will change. Their customers will force them to. So, the music labels can continue to cry "theft" and "piracy." But potential customers will continue to do so until a middle ground is reached and pricing becomes more inline with the *ease* of copying and downloading. I'll leave you with a story about Adobe software. A few years ago they started pushing a "new technology" called E-Books (electronics books on PDA's or computers). In their User Agreement, it stated that "...by no means shall any persons owning one of said E-Books shall READ ALOUD THE E-BOOK. This would be seen as copyright infringement of said Ebook..." Basically, it implied that if you read out loud the ebook, you could be sued for committing copyright infringement. And the person sitting next to you that could hear you could be charged for theft since they were "not authorized" to read/hear the book. Yes, that also means that you couldn't lend your PDA to someone to read a E-Book, on an airline, lets say (even your wife). Needless to say, this User Agreement was brought to some trade groups attention. There was an outrage. Adobe played dumb, though. The played it off as a misunderstanding, and couldn't understand how the public would have misinterpreted what they really meant. Of course the User Agreement regarding "aloud reading" was removed. Sigh...oh, those little words like "piracy" and "theft." Funny how the CEO's of music labels can just spin them in order to paint a picture of travesty. Spare me.
Mr. Mooch, You bring up a good point. A co-worker of my were talking about that issue: when/if CDs become obsolete. He's of the opinion they will. But I'm not so sure for a few reasons. 1) Today we have blank DVD for home movie production (mini-cams). 2) Today we have Pay-per-View 3) Today we have Video on Demand (VOD). Yet. We still buy DVD movies. We're not even talking about music yet. There's just something about tangible ownership that seems to be timeless. Sure, people will access their movies online of via cable ordering. But tangible ownership, backups, and copies will never get old. I do foresee that movies and music maybe able to be STORED outside of your home and there will be services that offered that. But that wont happen until we get fiber optic to the home (faster than cable or DSL). Once that happens, then yes! You'll start seeing less CD/DVD ownership. But, this can't come at the expense of limiting what people can do with their own copies. They bought it, they should be able to make copies. So, the CD/DVD blank media will still be around for a long time. Hell, cassette tapes are still around. Hard copy media will supplement online/on demand music/video for a long time. At least until we get super duper fast online/cable storage services which makes data transfers seem like they are being played locally. Once you reach super high speeds. It's hard to tell. It becomes seamless. At work, we are at 1Gbit to the desktop. Yes, that's right. Remeber this: 14.4Kbit 33.6Kbit 56 Kbit 112 Kbps (ISDN) 384 Kbps (cable) 782 Kbps (cable/DSL) 1024 Kbps (cable/DSL) 2048 Kbps (cable/DSL) <---this is what Comcast Offers At work? 1,000,000,000 Kbps It be fast!
Where do you work?!?!?! Yeah, I agree with everything you said about tangible items. It's just weird that some things are still lakcing the DVD/CD technology like radio recorders still be cassettes and DVD recorders (the new VCR's) and DVD camcorders just coming out...and not catching on. I should've mentioned more specifically about my ideas of having files instead of tangible discs. Of course the files would have to be hel don something...memory sticks! Those things are great! Holding media is getting smaller and smaller and I don't see why they just don't have everything on memory sticks. First, there should only be one kind of card; there must be at elast 6 different types of flash memory cards for some odd reason. They contradict each other and I don;t know which one is best, but Sony Memory Sticks are what I use. I don;t get why Sony doesn;t just make like a 40GB stick and put those in camcorders, digital cameras, etc. I also recall just having a conversationj with my brother about memory sticks a couple weeks ago; we were talking about DVD media and I was thinking of how those self-destructing DVD's failed in selling and since media is getting smalelr and smaller, why not put EVERYTHING on sticks??? THink about it -- movies on memory sticks. They should cost the same as DVD's, but save on things such as manufacturing costs and space. Of ocurse that's DECADES away anyway, if everyone is stuck on having items instead of a virtual library. Also, GREAT points about song cost and record companies above!^^^
Oh, yes! Solid State storage. That exist today but it's more expensive than magnetic drives. Keep an eye out for solid state hard drives though (brethren of memory sticks and PS2 flash memory module technology). They should start catching on more and more. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=solid+state+hard+drives&btnG=Search Less moving parts is good!
Hey Jeff. Know any artists? Musicians? DJ's? Teachers? Send them here (link below), and ask them to use CC as a tool for creativity. Creative Commons Presents: We have two Flash-based shorts to watch, "Get Creative" which explains the history and launch of Creative Commons, and "Reticulum Rex" that revisits Creative Commons a year after launch and looks toward the future. http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/ Explains the music industry's profit methods: http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
I hate the 2nd Amendment, hate it, hate it, hate it, despise it ... etc. But it's the Got-damn 2nd Amendment, and the majority of morons with guns have to be ignored in this case. The OVERWHELMING majority of people who download Mp3s are comparable to the morons who fire guns off into the air after their favorite baseball team wins a wild card berth, or after they found out their ex-wife isn't pregnant with their kid. That said -- since 1999, 99% of the albums I've bought I've already listened to via Mp3 or used LP. I don't buy many new albums. I don't buy ANY new albums, but out of the hundreds upon hundreds I've bought in the last five years; less than five of them I've purchased without taking in an mp3 or two. Mp3s are horrible in quality, the sound is tinny and boasts the worst of the compressed/digital world. But, like AM/FM radio SHOULD be, they offer an impatient music nut like myself a chance to listen my next potential "favorite song" before plunking down 18 bucks on a disc. Like a lot of us here, I have thousands and thousands of CDs. I'm a completist: I need the best quality version of the song I love, from the band I respect. I will continue to take in free Mp3s, but I see it as a small step up from holding a tape player next to a transister radio. Just a means to waiting long enough to stuff 97-cents in the artists pocket, and sending a bunch of 13-cent checks to the artists (songwriters/engineers/studio cats) who REALLY deserve it. Sorry for rambling.
Sorry, I don't think I made much of a point: I think downloaders hurt the industry. I also think that one in every 1-billion 'downloader' (KD) actually has a heart of gold.
