Waaaahh!! We want to download your music for free! Waaaahhh!

It's socially irresponsible to peddle some of that crap as music.

And there are still people who say U2s pre-emptive strike against Negativeand in the 80s was out of character for those pretentious douchebags.

Speaking at the Midem music industry convention in Cannes, Mr McGuinness said: "A simple three strikes and you are out enforcement process will see all serial illegal uploaders who resist the law face a stark choice: change or lose your ISP subscription

wow. that'll really suck for the dude who's open wi-fi hotspot I jacked. Ah well, i'll just move down the block and find me another spot. Not like it's a problem after all....

Knucklepopper: Waaaahh!! We want to download your music for free! Waaaahhh!

um...you realize that you can't stop file trading, right?

It seems that the majority of downloads were through illegal P2P download services like BitTorrent and LimeWire even though the album was available for nothing through the official band site. Notwithstanding the promotional noise, even Radiohead's honesty box principle showed that if not constrained, the customer will steal music.

You know, I have paid for every damn song on my computer, but this guy is just out of his farking mind. There should be no public policy in any venue, anywhere, that he can even slightly influence.

vartian: You know, I have paid for every damn song on my computer, but this guy is just out of his farking mind. There should be no public policy in any venue, anywhere, that he can even slightly influence.

Until/unless the music industry acknowledges and accepts that NOTHING they do is going to stop file trading/downloading, there isn't any point in having the discussion. Short of a large scale EMP event over most of the western world, nothing can stop file trading. Especially bittorrent streams.

Weaver95: um...you realize that you can't stop file trading, right?

Actually, my guess is people will stop it themselves once music becomes unprofitable enough that less people professionally produce it.
That's the spoiled American for ya', they expect everything to be free as long they don't produce it.

Knucklepopper: Actually, my guess is people will stop it themselves once music becomes unprofitable enough that less people professionally produce it.

That might be true of corporate controlled music. But music itself will survive just fine. In fact, it might even get better. File trading will actually help small bands find their niche and reach a larger audience.


That's the spoiled American for ya', they expect everything to be free as long they don't produce it.

No, actually - the typical american response to overpriced/heavily taxed and regulated industries is to pirate, steal and/or smuggle. We've been dodging The Man ever since the American Revolution thru prohibition and right on into the modern era of rock and roll. What makes you think we'd treat music any differently?

40below: And there are still people who say U2s pre-emptive strike against Negativeand in the 80s was out of character for those pretentious douchebags.

As I recall, Negativland were among those who went out of their way to point out that it was Island that launched the lawsuit and not U2.

Weaver95: We've been dodging The Man ever since the American Revolution thru prohibition and right on into the modern era of rock and roll. What makes you think we'd treat music any differently?

I guess the biggest reason I hold people who don't pay for music but feel they're entitled to it in such disdain, is because sooner or later, they start comparing their "right" to ripping off what they should be paying for, to sovereignty, emancipation, and Prohibition.
Nobody is taking away your right to listen to music; feel free, just pay for it when you're asked to. Now, if you don't listen to
"corporate" music, that's great. But my guess is you listen to it just fine, you just don't think you should have to pay for it.
That ain't freedom, son. That's just being cheap. Something akin to shoplifting.

Knucklepopper: I guess the biggest reason I hold people who don't pay for music but feel they're entitled to it in such disdain, is because sooner or later, they start comparing their "right" to ripping off what they should be paying for, to sovereignty, emancipation, and Prohibition.

I'd say that you've completely and totally missed the point of the conversation then.

Nobody is taking away your right to listen to music; feel free, just pay for it when you're asked to. Now, if you don't listen to "corporate" music, that's great. But my guess is you listen to it just fine, you just don't think you should have to pay for it.
That ain't freedom, son. That's just being cheap. Something akin to shoplifting.

um...have you been paying ANY attention to the actions of RIAA/MPAA over the past couple of years?

FTA: He probably doesn't realise it, but the collapse of the old financial model for recorded music will also mean the end of the songwriter.

Because as everybody already knows, songwriters didn't exist prior to the 1950's. The "old financial model" for recorded music created them and if it ends, music as we know it will cease to exist.

/oh wait....

Mekanikal: FTA: He probably doesn't realise it, but the collapse of the old financial model for recorded music will also mean the end of the songwriter.

Because as everybody already knows, songwriters didn't exist prior to the 1950's. The "old financial model" for recorded music created them and if it ends, music as we know it will cease to exist.

/oh wait....




The collapse of the old business model will only end up flushing away all the "turd people"... agents, A&R guys, Label execs. Ya know, the people who never should have been making all the money to begin with?

/The band is just fantastic, that is really what I think...

//Oh, by the way... Which one's Pink?

FTA: "We have tried to persuade ISPs to implement solutions that could avoid the need to take action against broadband customers who use illegal peer-to-peer filesharing."

Newsflash dickweed, peer-to-peer filesharing is not illegal.

Weaver95: um...have you been paying ANY attention to the actions of RIAA/MPAA over the past couple of years?

Has the big bad RIAA been taking your rights away?
Your right to what? Not pay for something because you don't think it's worthy of your money?

Knucklepopper: Has the big bad RIAA been taking your rights away?

Mine? No. I'm technologically adept enough to avoid their ham fisted attempts to 'regulate' the internet. You might find their efforts rather intrusive tho.


Your right to what? Not pay for something because you don't think it's worthy of your money?

Pay attention - you *cannot* *stop* *file trading*. Short of a nuclear war, the technology is out there and (to borrow a phrase) it absolutely will not stop. EVER.

Given that reality, it's pointless to continue with the current business model. Why do you even try to defend it?

Weaver95: Pay attention - you *cannot* *stop* *file trading*. Short of a nuclear war, the technology is out there and (to borrow a phrase) it absolutely will not stop. EVER.

Oh don't worry man, it'll stop. Much like most investigative reporting in this country has stopped because the idiots at the newspapers couldn't figure out a way to turn a buck online. Pretty soon you just kind of run out of options.
But hey, there's always going to be those Neil Young youtube videos around.

Knucklepopper: Oh don't worry man, it'll stop. Much like most investigative reporting in this country has stopped because the idiots at the newspapers couldn't figure out a way to turn a buck online. Pretty soon you just kind of run out of options.
But hey, there's always going to be those Neil Young youtube videos around.

I can't remember a time where I couldn't find something on bittorrent. In fact, my problem is finding TOO MANY things on bittorrent. So it's obvious that file trading is not only here to stay, but that the trend will only continue.

Again - given that reality, how can you continue to defend an outmoded business model, such as that used by RIAA and it's membership? You can't stop file trading, and every attempt to slap DRM on digital files has failed. So why not accept that change is inevitable and start trying to figure out a way to make file trading work FOR you rather than against you?

FTFA: He probably doesn't realise it, but the collapse of the old financial model for recorded music will also mean the end of the songwriter.

I am a songwriter and resent this comment like you wouldn't believe. It is so far wide of the mark that I am gobsmacked.

In fact, I am thrilled about the shift in the business model, as frankly the main people being burned are middlemen who didn't really have much right to be in the industry in the first place. Kind of like band managers who start thinking they're artists :-)

The other big problem is the (even now) nine out of ten music industry business personel do not understand how the new technology works, let alone have a valid opinion on how it should be regulated.

Weaver95: In fact, my problem is finding TOO MANY things on bittorrent.

My guess is you're of the 85 percent of the crowd who doesn't pay or rent off bittorrent?
Again, you not paying is not a survivable business model. Not for the "Nazis at the recording industry" and not for you as a consumer. Sooner or later, you'll end up getting what you paid for.

Knucklepopper: My guess is you're of the 85 percent of the crowd who doesn't pay or rent off bittorrent?
Again, you not paying is not a survivable business model. Not for the "Nazis at the recording industry" and not for you as a consumer. Sooner or later, you'll end up getting what you paid for.

Once the record industry creates a workable business model (for instance cheap drm free mp3s) people will start paying for music again.

hey i download something and if it is good and i support it then i buy a hardcopy. if i don't like it then i delete it. woooooo?

also i'll stop downloading shiat when i get to stop paying higher prices on recordable media because of all of this. so you want to charge me for it but i can't do it. i see... money for nothing.

/and your chicks for free.

I used to share my original music on WinMX until this attitude from other asshats got it shut down. Screw U2, screw their manager, screw RIAA and any other organisation with the same agenda.

All the whining and lobbying in the world can't stop me from going to the library and ripping 20-40 CD's at a time. I'm not worried until that gets scrutinized.

/still only have 5,700 songs

Knucklepopper: Weaver95: In fact, my problem is finding TOO MANY things on bittorrent.

My guess is you're of the 85 percent of the crowd who doesn't pay or rent off bittorrent?
Again, you not paying is not a survivable business model. Not for the "Nazis at the recording industry" and not for you as a consumer. Sooner or later, you'll end up getting what you paid for.

So it's the consumer's job to create and abide by a sustainable business model?

It's the business's job to figure out a way to make money, not our job to overpay for garbage we don't even want. If they can't design a sustainable business model given high demand and boundless technology they are the ones at fault, not the consumers.

Once these greedy cronnies are all out of business a new group of people will be free to implement a system where music is affordable and easily accessible, with a business model that works WITH the consumer-market instead of AGAINST it.

Once upon a time, in the Cretaceous Period, recordings were a side gig (bad pun intended). The entire purpose of them was to drum up interest in the musical act when they finally came to YOUR TOWN HERE to perform. Performers made the majority of their bank from the live shows.

Add to that the merchandising and endorsements available now.

It's called "Why shouldn't you have to work for a living too?". Look into it.

Paul mcguiness likes to be tied up, thrashed and dominated by hot Canadian chicks.

/true

Knucklepopper: Not pay for something because you don't think it's worthy of your money?

Actually the RIAA is kind of doing that. Namely with their attempt to collect royalties for every song played on streaming radio. And doing this without giving artists any way out of it and then mandating artists pay a fee to collect their royalties. For more fun, many of those artists wouldn't even be on RIAA affiliated labels. yet the RIAA wants it so there are no exceptions. Problem is they're not legally authorized to collect royalties for radio play, and it goes against copyright law to collect royalties under any circumstances for someone who hasn't authorized you to do so. And the whole bit about the fee, yeah that's not even close to legal.

Also when it comes to proceedings against individual users, there are plenty of issues the RIAA refuses to even aknowledge. Which is why they try to drag out court proceedings.

madmann: Performers made the majority of their bank from the live shows.

They still do, as mentioned by others, the only people losing money are the retailers, who get 50% of CD's cost, labels and other middlemen.

I wonder.

Is the money lost by this "socially irresponsible" behavior equal or greater to the debt the average record company owes to the Columbian Drug Cartel?

Knuckle says, "sooner or later... you end up getting what you paid for", which confuses me.

I always thought the saying was, "You don't always get what you paid for." The established saying would better apply I think.

Heh. It's almost like Knucklepopper is the Bush Administration or something.

Sleeping Monkey: Newsflash dickweed, peer-to-peer filesharing is not illegal.

Not all of it, anyway, although unlawful copies of copyrighted materials make a sizable component of the traffic.

On the other hand, modern music sucks. The last album I bought new was the complete Tom Lehrer collection (mostly pre-1975), about four years ago; the last one I bought used was Billy Joel's "Piano Man" (c. 1973?), a replacement for the one an a$$hole ex-housemate swiped. About the only album these days I can imagine wanting to buy if I even were to wander into a music store by mistake would be a CD re-release copy of Nazgul's "Music To Wake the Dead". The chances of that are... rather low.

/obscure?

Millzners:

It's the business's job to figure out a way to make money, not our job to overpay for garbage we don't even want.

I'm not sure why you'd download something you "don't even want", or why you'd be forced to purchase it. Would you rather underpay for this "garbage"? If you don't want it, then where's the issue, exactly?

Think the headline with the little dog named Snuggles meant a bit more....

Knucklepopper: That ain't freedom, son. That's just being cheap. Something akin to shoplifting.

While I agree with copyright laws and think downloading music for free should be illegal (even though i'm still going to do it), it is not even close to shoplifting, that is the dumbest analogy ever. I am not depriving ownership of something, I am making an illegal copy. They arent losing money because I never bought CDs to begin with and wouldnt otherwise.

lilplatinum: Knucklepopper: That ain't freedom, son. That's just being cheap. Something akin to shoplifting.

While I agree with copyright laws and think downloading music for free should be illegal (even though i'm still going to do it), it is not even close to shoplifting, that is the dumbest analogy ever. I am not depriving ownership of something, I am making an illegal copy. They arent losing money because I never bought CDs to begin with and wouldnt otherwise.

What? The producer of the music is NOT losing money because you're not paying? I don't get it. They are losing money if they produce a unit that doesn't move because you made an illegal copy elsewhere. If no illegal copying mechanism exists, you might buy the CD.

This is not to defend the RIAA - I do agree that the old business model is dead and the recording industry needs to change, but you can't justify away what is very obviously theft due to this major flaw. Consumers are still complicit in theft if they pirate music, end of story.

Is Lars Ulrich their manager?

These guys are from England and who gives a shiat?

paulseta: FTFA: He probably doesn't realise it, but the collapse of the old financial model for recorded music will also mean the end of the songwriter.

I am a songwriter and resent this comment like you wouldn't believe. It is so far wide of the mark that I am gobsmacked.

In fact, I am thrilled about the shift in the business model, as frankly the main people being burned are middlemen who didn't really have much right to be in the industry in the first place. Kind of like band managers who start thinking they're artists :-)



/this+

New methods of music marketing offer the artist a lot of opportunity, particularly those artists unlikely ever to get a major label contract.

I've made a (crappy) living as a musician in the past, and that was almost exclusively through live performances. Our recordings were lucky to pay for themselves, taking into account not only CD production but studio time, a portion of the cost of equipment, etc.

These days, I do something else for a living (the "day job" I get encouraged not to quit...), but still make music. Virtually all of the music production takes place digitally (DAW + softsynths + samplers, etc), with only vocals and violin getting recorded acoustically. It's a one-man project that will probably never play a live show. But I'm still able to make a bit of money with it via single-song downloads and the occasional CD sale.

FWIW, I don't steal music (most of what I like is other indie artists like me, and I just don't feel right ripping them off), but as others have said, file sharing isn't going away.

madmann: Once upon a time, in the Cretaceous Period, recordings were a side gig (bad pun intended). The entire purpose of them was to drum up interest in the musical act when they finally came to YOUR TOWN HERE to perform. Performers made the majority of their bank from the live shows.

They still do. The highest selling artists can hope to negotiate keeping between 10-12% of the profits made off their albums. Often the packaging costs come out of their pocket as well. Live shows are usually not mentioned in contracts, making them one of the only sources of revenue that the artist actually gets to keep the majority of.

But the labels aren't the problem. It's the downloaders. Right?

Weaver95: the typical american response to overpriced/heavily taxed and regulated industries is to pirate, steal and/or smuggle. We've been dodging The Man ever since the American Revolution thru prohibition and right on into the modern era of rock and roll. What makes you think we'd treat music any differently?

THIS.
America was founded on not paying taxes to 'the man.'
When the yankees became 'the man' and started charging taxes - The Pennsylvania whiskey distillers revolted.

What a country!

Just stopping by to see a string of people rationalizing theft of intellectual property

*reads*


yep, there you go

Lieutenant Rad: It's socially irresponsible to peddle some of that crap as music.

I just have to ask, am the only one who can't stand U2? I'll change the radio when they come on. I find their music irritating, and I just want Bono to shut the FARK up.

Lynoitus: madmann: Once upon a time, in the Cretaceous Period, recordings were a side gig (bad pun intended). The entire purpose of them was to drum up interest in the musical act when they finally came to YOUR TOWN HERE to perform. Performers made the majority of their bank from the live shows.

They still do. The highest selling artists can hope to negotiate keeping between 10-12% of the profits made off their albums. Often the packaging costs come out of their pocket as well. Live shows are usually not mentioned in contracts, making them one of the only sources of revenue that the artist actually gets to keep the majority of.

But the labels aren't the problem. It's the downloaders. Right?

Of course! The labels are the source of all sweetness & light!

/ 9/11 changed everything.

Will Continue to Monitor: Millzners:

It's the business's job to figure out a way to make money, not our job to overpay for garbage we don't even want.

I'm not sure why you'd download something you "don't even want", or why you'd be forced to purchase it. Would you rather underpay for this "garbage"? If you don't want it, then where's the issue, exactly?

I'm speaking in general about albums from which most people would only want to listen to a song or two; albums where there's one or two good tracks and then uninspired generic filler. This is the norm -- but it's not profitable given the current business model to produce a whole album only to have only 1 track sell online. So instead they use hype and branding to sell CDs and not the quality of the music. It's like the movie companies that make a movie b/c they know the preview will sell the movie -- not the movie itself actually being good.

If the crap CD costs 8-10 bucks that's probably not a big deal, but most new CD's cost upwards of 20 dollars. I could sit here and ramble off alternatives and solutions to the issue but they'd rather cling to the old model developed in the 60's, and use the fear of lawsuits to stunt change.

i don't remember the last CD i bought with just 2 good tracks and then the rest "generic filler".

if you're buying albums like this, you're doing it wrong

Doctor Hooey: If no illegal copying mechanism exists, you might buy the CD.

Choo choo! Here comes the clue train, next stop is you. I wouldn't buy the CD on a whim to see if I like it, because I'm not paying $18 for a piece of plastic worth a fraction of a cent when chances are the music on that $18 plastic circle sucks complete ass.

Do you buy a car without test driving it first? No? Ok, then why shouldn't I be able to listen to the music before I buy it, especially when they're charging over $20 for it. If I hear a song I like, I download an album or two by the band and give it a listen. 99% of the time, that song was a fluke and the rest of the songs suck. Good thing I found out before I dropped $50 on a couple of their albums. But 1% of the time, I hear a song like "Shame" by Hardcore Superstar, and then listen to a few albums and go buy them because Hardcore Superstar farking rocks and if you don't like them then you must be stupid.

Got a bit off track there, but do you see my point? By being able to test-drive the music, I discovered I liked it and thus bought it. If I wasn't able to download it, I wouldn't buy it at all. Downloading = money! (A couple studies actually proved this, but I'm tired and I don't want to go on a Google hunt.)

Uzzah: These guys are from England and who gives a shiat?

Ireland. But you get an E for Effort.

Doctor Hooey: What? The producer of the music is NOT losing money because you're not paying?

If I wasn't downloading music I wouldn't be buying it. I didnt buy CDs before I had bitorrent or napster back in the day. YOu can't argue that a copy is necessarily a loss of property in the same way that physical theft is (i.e. you deprive someone of inventory).

Im not arguing it should be legal, but it is not 'theft', its illegal reproduction.

Theft is far worse anyway, it deprives a storeowner of money they have already spent, as opposed to depriving a producing company of money they may have otherwise potentially maybe received.