Share 24 songs...
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- joyride0
I'm not trying to say stealing is right or wrong, we all know it's wrong. my points are that the system is messed up. But the bands are still enabling the system. Bands are an investment for the record company, they are looking for ROI. As soon as bands start changing that, doing something other then the norm, this broken system will keep on going. I don't have a solution, but I think there is a great opportunity for someone to develop a new way that puts the artist first. Which at the end of the day, all fans and bands want. But, I think it's going to take already successful bands to NOT sign that next contract with major labels, to start this.
Radiohead is a start, and I will support there effort and buy the album. Viva la Revolucion!
- TResudek0
Joyride - the answer to your question about how much money from record sales goes to the artist is none. Artists have to sell at least 750000 copies before "recouping" with a major label and at that point more costs are introduced. All but a handful of modern day artists have never seen one penny from CD royalties.
Does that make stealing the album right? Probably not. Major labels put up a lot of money and resources to make an album and promote and artist and up to now they have been expecting to make money from CD sales. If they stop getting their $, then they stop promoting bands, sign fewer bands, and they start looking for other ways to get paid. Bands have lived off touring and merchandise, which until very recently does not have any money shared with labels. Now new labels like FBR are changing that - as a result of declining CD sales. THUS.... the band loses out on their revenue stream.
So, in a roundabout way stealing music IS effecting the bottom line of bands.
Ultimately the industry will drastically change and things will go back to normal (I hope) but just know that cheapskates that steal music are the reason why bands are broke.
- joyride0
Don't forget that with a cd you can resell it when you're done. That ave. is now gone with mp3's. I wonder how much the used CD market used to make.
- ukit0
The argument of record companies being greedy is kind of irrelevant because, let's face it, nothing's cheaper than free. If CDs were $10, I'm still not sure people would get off their ass and go to the record store when they can just download the shit on Soulseek or bittorrent.
- monkeyshine0
'"Here's is a question, how much of the total cost of purchasing a CD goes to the artist. "
Of course it depends on how big the artist is and what kind of deal they have but for the most part close to $0. Most artists still make their money from touring. They even have to buy their own CDs back from the label to sell as merch.
But to whoever said they want to support the artist rather than the label...you have to remember that the artist signed a contract with said evil label in the first place with the hopes of being successful.
- joyride0
*Here's is = Here's
=(
- joyride0
Here's is a question, how much of the total cost of purchasing a CD goes to the artist.
CD's have a lot of prices built in, the artists, the stores markup, the cost of distribution, the labels markup, production, etc. So now, with a digital dist. you take a lot of legacy stuff out of the picture, but they are still charging what a CD would cost. I would love to see a breakdown, on average.
- TResudek0
True - this is a kneejerk response to the problem of illegal downloading and the music industry is totally falling apart. I don't think anyone believes these lawsuits are going to solve anything. However, they really should be suing (or threatening to sue) as many people as they can afford to. People who steal music or movies (or even software) are stealing from artists, creative people, innovators....
I think this radiohead experiment is going to really show the true side of music downloaders. We'll see what kind of average price they get for their new album. I am guessing it will be closer to $0 than to $12.
- ukit0
Of course its illegal. But the RIAA doesn't have any practical means to enforce the law. Every time they shut one channel down, two or three more pop up. The entire industry is scared shitless, but really isn't sure what the new model is at this point.
- Jaline0
TResudek has a point in that it is illegal. But there seems to be vague rules about that, and I don't think most people would disagree that it's illegal (unless they're afraid of the word itself or don't want to be associated with it, which is ridiculous).
- version30
talent. talent might help as well on that.
- joyride0
I like to pay the artist, it's them I like, not the pimps that get them to market.
the RIAAs future is weak, and they know that. The dist system they set up, which is what the artist want/need is failing because of new technology. Soon all an artist will need is financial backing to cut/promote music.
- menos0
"Record companies said she had illegally shared a total of 1,702 songs."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/techn…
but why would she want to face the court instead of paying the possibly much lower fine? thats what i dont get...
- TResudek0
Devil's Advocate - It is pretty clear that downloading copyrighted work through a network is illegal. There is a pretty simple way to not get sued for $222,000 - that is to pay for music.
I'm not saying I have the RIAA's back but honestly, maybe people should just pay for music like they used to.
- version30
i like that point k0na, "it was where someone COULD have taken it"
where is the RIAA every time a book of cds is stolen from a car?
- k0na_an0k0
It sucks. Face it - your industry is dead and your business model is dead. It's like blacksmiths suing Henry Ford and winning and making sure everyone still has to keep horses. It's insane.
TheBlueOne
(Oct 5 07, 09:40)abso-fucking-lutely.
it says in the statement that she was guilty because she put the files in a public place which COULD allow people to download them. they never said users actually downloaded the songs.
so what if i leave a brand new cd at the end of my desk for a week. would i be in trouble because people COULD grab the disk off my desk and make illegal copies?!?
it's madness.
- TheBlueOne0
not exactly tbo
it's not the plastic they're upset about, it's the data contained therein
version6
(Oct 5 07, 09:41)Same thing. It's like your transportation business involved shoeing horses adn then someone comes along and provides horseless transportation...you're basically suing for the right to continue shoe horses even if no one in the market is riding them.
- TheBlueOne0
And to think the industry had a working and popular distribution system in hand with Napster and they fucking blew it up.
They deserve what they get, which is a place in the dustbin of history.
The technology is there for artists to produce and distribute everything themselves. A whole new industry would be starting a company that would be fee based on doing the marketing aspects that record companies do now, without the long production/distribution contracts.
- version30
not exactly tbo
it's not the plastic they're upset about, it's the data contained therein
- Redmond0
Because 700$ was probably a big thing for her?