So how many $ have you stolen from downloading...

The thing about the current musical climate as it relates to file sharing is that I believe it's created a separate subculture of less commercial, more down-to-earth bands that aren't the ones on the radio, not the ones that get overly promoted, but they are doing well and are becoming popular none-the-less. There is a movement of listeners against the major pop-culture musical flavor. Instead, people are becoming true fans of bands and genres of music, not of top 40.

For instance, witness the Bonaroo music festival. Over 70,000 people were there to see bands like The String Cheese Incident, moe., Ween, Widespread Panic, Jack Johnson, Jurassic 5 and Ben Harper. None of them get much promotion, but they are very popular. I think some of this has come out of the file-sharing culture. However, I think a lot of it is also a natural reaction to the overpromotion of top 40 pop.

Now that does not mean that I believe illegal file sharing is right. I do believe that if you do download songs from the internet, you have an obligation to buy CDs. Not necessarily each CD for each song you download, but to contribute to the overall pot. I don't download hardly at all anymore, just if I need to get a specific song for something, sometimes I'll just download it. But I buy ten times that number of songs in CDs every month.

However, I also think that a lof of this trend has been the result of live concert trading, which has really taken off in the past few years. I've been burning CDs nonstop for a month for people, of all kinds of bands from DMB to Jack Johnson to Phish and Ben Harper. I would never have known about Jack Johnson, Ben Harper, gov't mule, Phil Lesh and Friends, String Cheese Incident, or any of these groups if I hadn't started DMB concert trading.

 

And you don't think this could maybe just be slightly related to the fact that the economy is worse now? After all, during the first ntwo-three years of heavy napster use CD sales rose dramatically. But the RIAA cried that it was the economy that boosted the sales, not Napster. Well you can't have it both ways...

 

What if you only download dead artists' music?

 

I'm not saying that isn't a factor. I'm saying that it cannot be ignored. It's pretty simple. If you can get your music for free and you honestly don't think of it as theft or wrong, you're going to do it. Obviously, millions of people do it now. Unless you are morally or ethically opposed to it, who doesn't prefer free to paid for?

 

Vengence: Tremendous post. IMO, the BEST thing about MP3 swapping is its ability to highlight and promote artists outside the mainstream...to give bands and musicians a chance who might not have had one inside the industry. This is why I am so supportive of MP3.com and other places that promote indie music.

If people would spend more time sifting through some of the great music on sites like that, the industry would dramatically expand. But, since most people only want to download what they hear on commercial radio, that doesn't happen as much as many of us would like.

 

Just to clarify...No offense meant to Jeff or Ref above, even though I disagree. Ref, no joke about yr smarts - I thought protecting the mouse for 70 yrs was "a joke.", not yr sig.
Subsequent posts better express the story of the expansion of copyright, which I personally think has gone too far, esp with the Sonny Bono law. Jeff, my impression about money came from a WSJ article on profit $ sources to music industry and to artists. Mettalica was an example. I also have friends who are songwriters. For them, I think fame would be better than protection. Since the law is based on the idea of social good, there is a reasonable arguement for the public to define the benefit and rewards attributable to work. There must be a more reasonable balance.

The $ 1.00 a song for a quality clean copy is a good start in the right direction. I'd want to hear it first for free, of course. Also wish there was an accepted attribution method to "quote" respected prior authors, as we do with the printed word.

 

I am a little closer to 80gb

Mostly movies, but a lot of music and TV shows.

Serisouly though, after I watch a downloaded movie I delete it and if I like it I go and buy it. I have close to 100 DVD's and over 100 CD's. I figure I am ripping Blockbuster off more than anyone... they are too expensive anyways.

 

Understood. No problem. The fact is that at this point in our history our copyright law is a mess. The Copyright Act of 1976 does not fit with our treaties and new technologies. We have tried to keep up via patchwork acts (ie Digital Millenium Copyright Act) but they do a really poor job. We should have a complete overhaul.

 

How I wish I could agree completely with Jeff’s post.

The entertainment industry has been notoriously slow to embrace new technology. They were scared of cassettes, scared of video recorders, are still scared of DVD recorders and refuse to offer a viable, convenient and cost effective way to utilize on-line music. There was a recent thread about a service that would allow downloads at $0.99 each (for subscribers to their $10/month service). As many pointed out, this would result in a higher price per CD (assuming 10 to 14 songs) plus you don’t get the liner notes, CD art and all the other extras. When CD’s were introduced, they were, and still are, more expensive than the cassettes they replaced, even thought they are much cheaper to produce. On the few occasions I have downloaded (usually old 80’s songs for which I have the record) I’ve felt that if a better organized, reasonably priced service was available – I would have preferred to pay. I will pay for convenience and quality – but I will not be gouged.

Also note that many countries in Europe, and also Canada have a copyright fee that has to be paid when you buy recordable CD’s. I have recorded three music CD’s and countless of data backups – yet have paid the copyright fee for all of them.

The argument about emerging bands is the one I really wish I could accept. Unfortunately the struggles new bands face with the record labels is due to the concentrations in the industry and not so much to file downloads. The concentration in the music industry has led to a situation where they have so much money and need the ‘big hit’ that it’s less of a risk to sign REM or Mariah Carrie to contracts worth tens of millions then it is to promote an artist who could only realistically sell a few hundred thousand CD’s. When labels were smaller, they were not in the same position to take the huge dollar gamble, even if the payoff might be greater.

The music industry is going through a transition and file sharing is just one aspect of it. When they blame declining sales on file sharing, I really wonder if they should be, instead, accepting responsibility for putting out poor product. The music industry hides behind the poor emerging artists who aren’t getting their royalty as they fight file sharing, yet I expect most file shares are the big buck artists. File sharing, if anything, has rekindled interest in old music. It’s not my fault the music industry has not found a way to capitalize on this technology in a way that benefits both the copyright holder and the consumer.

That said: 3,000 songs!!! PSJ has got to get himself away from the computer to breathe some fresh air.

 

A quick question to Jeff and others more up on the business side for new artists.

I buy dozens of CD’s directly from artists who perform at folkfests, or small venues. Over the last two to three years the quality has been excellent. (in previous years, the quality was sometimes suspect).

Has the costs to record a good quality CD come down to such a degree that an artist can do fairly well on CD sales, even without selling huge amounts?

Also, many of the performers have their own websites from which you can buy the cd’s. but I have yet to see a good overall distribution method for this music.

Do you see anything down the pike that may allow independent bands and artists to avoid the record companies altogether and still make a decent go of it.? As the bands are already funding their own production, it seems they primarily need the record companies for distribution and promotion.

 

When I was younger, I only downloaded music from CD's that I already owned...but, for some reason, I started to download songs from other albums...Until I had about 100 songs off of CD's that I didn't own. Realizing that I was wrong, I made a plan to buy all of these CD's by the New Year. It was kind of rought at first simply because most of the songs were off of all different CD's.

My computer, however, had a different plan. Apparently I had some corrupted windows file(Some might remember, I posted here because I thought I might have had a virus), and all my songs were deleted.

I have since only downloaded live songs, covers, and songs from CD's that I own.

Legal is the way to go!

 

Well Jeff If you are passionate about something the least you could do would be to post a lengthy post...Jeez...

Now this coming from a guy that fancies himself as somewhat of a musician and somebody that would ultimately like to make a crapload of money from his musical skeeeeels should mean at least something to you all.

I side totally with the parasitical thieving b*stard file share-ers. As technology and the medium for distribution and financial gain changed and evolved it was the responsibility of the musician, or the performer if you will, to evolve and change. He didn't. He kept his reliance on a variable.

 

my thoughts exactly.

 

Personally I think Cd's are too expensive--and I think they would sell easier if they were a few dollars cheaper. $12-13 for a CD is just too much. If all CD's costed around $8-9 I would be buying a lot more CDs. As I tend to buy used CD's on half.com alot for $5-6.

I just think CD's should be cheaper and I think the sales would rise. I know downloading music is wrong--but personally I like buying the Cd's cause they are of higher quality than the AVERAGE 128kbps Mp3.

 

I agree Nikos. I think part of the file-sharing boom is precisely because of the cost of CDs. I've read a number of articles talking about how every single item that goes into a CD (content, promotion, etc.) has gone down in price, but CDs have actually increased in price, despite the record companies saying that CDs were going to go down in price. That's part of what the whole price-fixing lawsuit is all about.

If we look at this from an economic standpoint, we get a form of competition. Before mp3 filesharing, you could buy CDs and . . . . well . . . . there were no competitors. So you have your $15 CD, and that's your only option. All the sudden, mp3s become big and people start sharing them. CD sales go up, but let's just ignore that and look at two competing products:

CDs - cost $15, scratch easily, somewhat portable, sometimes booklet, lyrics and case are included.

MP3s - cost is time in finding them, no monetary cost, never go bad, not portable, no value-added items.

Now, CDs have quite a few advantages. They are portable, and they include a booklet with lyrics and a case. Also, they are a simple way of getting the music, and getting the better quality sound. But the simple fact is that those points are not worth $15. They may be worth $5, but not $15. Both MP3s and CDs contain the same material, but different extras.

The key for the record industry is two things -- one, make the CD cheaper!!! Two, make it worth it to me as a consumer to buy the CD instead of downloading it. The content is the same, but the add-ins and value-added extras are what you sell, not the material itself. So for instance, the new DMB CD (Busted Stuff) came with a DVD including a few live song performances and a code to listen to a concert online and get special access to other features. There are a number of other artists who've done this. They aren't selling the content because you can just download that from the internet, and they aren't lowering the cost, but they are making it more worth $15 than just a plain old CD. They've added value to the product and made it able to compete with MP3s.

I can't say that this would necessarily work, but to a certain extent I think the recording companies just can't compete because they don't want to. It's easier and more profitable for them to prosecute file-sharers, and keep CDs at $15 a pop than to take measures to compete.

But understand that I still don't necessarily approve of downloading the music if you are just a freeloader. When I put Windows 2K on my family's computer, I specifically never installed any file-sharing software (to much wailing and rending of garments) because my sister NEVER buys any CDs, NEVER contributes to buying anything. She's a total freeloader. THAT is wrong.

 

This is the golden age of sharing, stealing, borrowing, whatever you want to call it. The controlling interests will shut-down or continue to make more difficult file sharing. They will eventually go after individuals with large libraries this is a fact. Many of you have noticed songs with incorrect titles, glitches of some sort (crackles, hums, etc.) or other annoying errors with downloaded music. This of course will become more frequent as will the development of viruses that will work from read-only formats. However, with all the losses posted from on-line trading last year was the industries most profitable.
Support music priced fairly at your local shop, go see live music, support ideas for on-line trading such as bit rate transfer limits,((ie) less than CD quality is allowed), but never be lured into buying $18 Cd's again.

Happy Downloading...Kazaalite+adaware+webwasher= no spyware, scripts, etc. etc.

 

This has emerged as a good way for up and coming artists to get a record deal. The recording industry has "operatives" at these shows and all over the local music scene in most locales. Their job is to monitor which bands are able to sell CDs at their shows. Once a band has sold a significant number of CDs, the record companies become much more likely to step forward with a record deal...complete with fat advance payment (without telling them that the costs of recording the albums will be taken out of THEIR share of the sales).