A Musician's Take on File Sharing, DRM, and Copyleft Licensing
Subject:   Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
Date:   2003-06-11 16:37:27
From:   anonymous2
Response to: Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves

That's rubbish. It's a flawed assumption to assume that someone who downloads then doesn't purchase would have purchased in the first place. There is no loss of sale if no sale would have been made.

Artists make stuff all from their CD sales anyway (unless they're independent). It's far more valuable to any artist to have a larger fan base than to make a CD sale. Fans come to shows and buy merch. The problem with you argument other than the flawed "lost sale", is that it's a short term perspective on something that has long term effects.

The only people that lose are the Record Company. The artist can do naught but gain.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 17 of 17.

  • This whole topic
    2003-06-28 12:15:07  anonymous2 [View]

    I am an out of work musician. Yes P2P etc blah blah blah affects my remuneration. But it affects it in both positive and negative ways. There will always be 1 in 1000 P2P etc users that act as a bootlegger. Besides that, the rest of the P2P is usually only positive. Like the saying in our business goes, "The only bad publicity, is NO publicity." Therefore, the ONUS is on the Record Producers. Not the P2P Producers. More to the point from the musicians point of view are many other factors. The no smoking rule in public places has got to be the #1 deterant at the moment. I wouldn't go to a club I can't smoke in. Just my opinion but the truth is, P2P and format changes are NOT enough of a factor. Let's talk about CLUBS that do not have LIVE entertainment. I can listen to whatever I want in the comfort and privacy of my home. When I go out, I want to see some LIVE talent, not listen to some DICK DJ that thinks they've got their crap together all that. My opinion is 90% POSITIVE, 10% NEGATIVE for file sharing in general. But I'm talking music. Movies, sorry, I only need to see a movie ONCE. Therefore, the math is simple.
    • This whole topic
      2003-06-28 12:45:00  anonymous2 [View]

      Me again, and more to the point, if I hear a song I like, and YES, some artists only have 2 or 3 songs max per album, I will want that song in whatever format I need it in order to hear it another 20 or 50 years down the road. So yes, we have to keep up with the times. It's not fair, but that's life. Why no talk about Sony sitting on the recordable mini disk for so long in hopes of MONOPOLIZING the market that even serious computer users couldn't integrate them? There are so many factors here that are not being listed that I'd have to post a reply every day for the next decade. And why nothing about the risk involved with downloading tunes? I know for fact that about half the downloads are spiked or good for crap because of the BANDWIDTH war. Therefore, I take the smart route. My ISP has a QUOTA so I don't have to suffer bandwidth wise because of kazza or winmx or limewire fools. I have the PRIME ISP for my area, but how many songs can I truly fit in 5 Gigs/month if I really wanted to. Not enough to hurt the recording industry. Therefore, lets take the arguement to the ISP's that allow UNLIMITED bandwidth usage. Let's let them kick in a little for screwing up the bandwidth for serious users. If people want to pay per Gigabyte, let them, but lets get the right people paying for the right product instead of ISP's that prefer to provide secondary or crappy service in order to gain the lion's share of the market. So just like "This beat goes on" this list goes on, and where can we just "Switch it to Glide?"
  • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
    2003-06-28 11:57:22  anonymous2 [View]

    You are all a bunch of ignorant monkey fucks. I have heared all this talk about a "revolution" in the music industry, but no comments on how this is to come about or how it is to work. How is the artist(s) supposed to pay for his or her recording, distribution, and promotion without a record label? How is he/she supposed to profit from it when their music can be downloaded for free? If someone could please enlighten me on how this is supposed to work, i might change my mind on the subject.

    I am a musician and i have spent the last eight months in a studio recording. I have done this at my own expense. I have spent every ounce of free time that i have in my music. Believe it or not, it is EXTREMELY hard work. I play 3-4 shows a week, and have been doing so for the past 3 years. I put everything that i have into this, and would like to one day reap the benefits of my struggle.

    This would be utterly impossible if people could recieve the fruits of my hard work for free over the internet. How does a musician win in this situation? He can't.

    Maybe i'm different from most people, but when i listen to a song on the radio, i can tell if the band is worth a shit or if its not. Therefore, i don't buy CDs with one or two good songs on it. Your argument about that is just an excuse for wanting to get your shit for free. I don't buy one ounce of that argument.

    People, believe it or not, we live in a capitalist society. The concept of capitalism implies that if you want goods, services, or entertainment, you have to pay for them. I agree that CD prices are too high, however, I remember them being much lower before napster hit it big. It is true that many labels own all of the rights to the artists (which i definitely do not agree with), but that is not true in all cases.

    I guess my argument is, if you guys get your way and get all of your music for absolutely free ... what then? After you've choked the life out of the music industry, where does new music come from?

    Way down the road, when the bands that you love start to get dropped from their record labels, where will your music come from. I promise you will be singing a different song then.
    • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
      2003-08-12 05:05:13  anonymous2 [View]

      Ignorant monkey fucks..I think not...yes you work hard to become sucessful, as do we all, so you are not alone there... (point.. mute) as for where will your money come from. well, if your any good, people will go to your concerts (paid for by the fans who go to your concerts)money in your pocket. t-shirt sales and misc other items with your bands signature on in your pocket... appearances paid for by in your pocket...oh ya.. the cd's in the have to buy them before you can swap them... money in your$1500.00 example..isp.. $30.00 and misc other crap you need to access the p2p programs...$50.00 (guessing) so how are we getting this for free and where are you losing money? not everyone in the world owns a computer and has access to the file swapping so they will be out there buying your cd's... (that's you making money) so how are you losing? everyone is making money in this business.. they just may not be able to afford the 50 million dollar mansion and will have to settle for the 20 million dollar mansion, do I feel bad for them..hell no !!!! there will always be music and music swapping no matter what happens with this suit.. and yes, there will always be cd's being made too.. Just depends on how good you are and if the world wants to hear your music.. so, in closing, everyone in the music business needs to stop whining about the all mighty dollar and listen to the people who buy the product and lower the prices of the cd's and give up on this rediculous suit. If the swappers really wanted to make a statement.. they could always boycott the music industry and then where will they be... no money for them and no money for you... guess where not all that bad now are we... we are putting the money in your pockets so why not think about the people who make you famous... that would be us.. the file swappers who enjoy and buy! your music! Gotta buy it to swap it!!! an ignorant monkey..signing off....GO SWAPPERS!
    • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
      2003-07-23 07:15:58  anonymous2 [View]

      well you should work hard all other people work had everyday and if you want money play live and work like the rest of the world you ass! why should you put out a couple of songs and reap in money forever without you working bullshit tour
      for your money music should be free to listen to
      and if it is good we will see and pay to see you in concert
    • My point of view (By IceDude)
      2003-07-21 07:03:36  anonymous2 [View]

      Bare with me here, I'm trying to be as objective as possible.

      Let's take a look at some basic facts we might be able to all agree on.
      - People buy less CD's

      The first one is the obvious one :) Still, often forgotten when flaming each other over the P2P issue.

      The logical question is of course:

      This is where people get guessing and claiming they know better.
      "The problem with not getting to an answer often lies with not understanding the problem"

      To get closer to the core of the problem (and closer to the answer) I'll introduce another element.
      - The amount of people listening to music has not decreased.

      Again, a simple fact. As far as 1+1=2, so can you merge the first fact, with the second one.
      Resulting into something like this:
      - People have other means of listening to music than simply buying CD's

      To fully understand this concept, we must ask ourselves two questions:
      - What ways of getting music are there?
      - Why do people use these means?

      Both complex answers that can be answered fairly simply.
      I'll divide the answers of the first one in main groups (accordingly to the main problem):
      - Static free media
      - Static paid-for media
      - Dynamic free media
      - Dynamic paid-for media

      And for the second one:
      - Preferences

      Static media refers to a medium of which you can't change the content. e.g. radio, TV, commercial CD's, etc. The free part refers mainly to TV, radio, and the likes, because you only pay for the means of getting the content, rather than the content itself. (As for CD's you pay for the content)

      Same goes for dynamic media. With a difference that dynamic refers to mediums that can give the content of choice. e.g. P2P networks, Internet services that sell costume CD's, etc.

      Now we have enough information to describe the problem.

      Out of the four groups mentioned, we pick the two that are in conflict with each other:
      - Static paid-for media
      - Dynamic free media

      These two groups are the biggest of the four mentioned above. To specify even more wouldn't be objective anymore. But we can say where the "voice" of these two groups is situated.
      Mainly the RIAA and the music labels for the static paid-for media, and the P2P Networks for the dynamic free media.

      Back to our first fact:
      - People buy less CD's

      And the one why they use the mediums they use:
      - Preferences

      + a new one, which we can all agree on:
      - More and more people use P2P Networks

      This is where people start to make mistakes.
      They conclude out of the above three facts:
      - More and more People prefer P2P Networks over CD's
      Which, in there eyes, means that for everyone who downloads a song over a P2P Network and keeps it on there PC, without buying it, steals some of the rightful money otherwise made by buying a CD. Which makes P2P illegal as it harms the industry and promotes stealing.

      The problem with this assumption is that it's flawed. It's based on a flawed equation of elements, consisting of two different groups (because it's possible for someone to belong to these two groups at the same time, it becomes impossible to add them to each other). If we correct the basic equation, it would look more like this. 1+1 and 1+1 = 2 and 2.

      Again, back to our first fact:
      - People buy less CD's

      And the one why they use the mediums they use:
      - Preferences

      + the new one about P2P:
      - More and more people use P2P Networks

      And again the one why they use the mediums they use:
      - Preferences

      These would result into:
      - The preference to buy CD's is dropping
      - The preference to use P2P Networks is rising

      Again, this is as far as you can compare these two elements without seizing to be objective.
      (As they are two different elements AND come from two different groups)

      Again, back to the basics:
      - People buy less CD's

      Both sides have their ideas on solving this.
      Some P2P enthusiasts clamed the music industry has to evolve to survive, while the RIAA aims at stopping P2P.

      Lets look at these two solutions.
      The first one is aimed at adapting. The music industry has a vast grip on all forms of static media. Adapting to P2P by imitating there "advantages" (by offering a form of dynamic content), and surpassing them with things digital media can't offer (such as certain quality's, ease of use and bonus stuff/material... etc.) could give the music industry a stable base to build on. Although they will have to live with the fact that allot of people will have their songs, before they'll even consider buying them.

      The second one is the way of the RIAA.
      It's based on statistics and charts that show that P2P is one of the fastest growing means of getting songs. As I said before, the general assumption they have is flawed. They do not see "a new public" for which they have to adapt their content to accordingly, but merely the same people now getting things for free. Although the assumption is based on a flawed equation, the solution they aim for is equally efficient. Eliminate the competition and get 100% control over the market again. The problem for the RIAA is that new consumer groups have the tendency of growing really large really fast. They are somewhat aware of this fact and try to stop P2P now, while they believe they still can.
      • My point of view (By IceDude)
        2003-07-21 07:06:53  anonymous2 [View]

        PS: sorry for the typo's (e.g. typing "answers" instead of "questions"), but I think you get my point.
    • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
      2003-07-04 00:04:47  anonymous2 [View]

      So, it is now reduced to Use Net language,ie calling us p2p'rs "Monkey F**Ks" does not improve your status, keep it civil. And you lost the track of the point, and that being the RIAA has been lying thru it's mouthpieces, Hillary and Carey to the artist's, the consumer's and the Congress most of all. We are not saying we will not purchase CD's or whatever media format comes out in the future. We are saying "Stop the Lies and Hypocracy". See Sony /Phillips are both members of the RIAA and they gave us the consumers the CD player and recorder, smell a rat here yet?? They both get royalty's on all products and media, so why are they whining?? The obvious anwser is that they truely are "Pigopolist's", as are all RIAA member labels that are supporting the consumer war. What happened to the FTC's suit of price fixing?? That seems to have gone to a back shelf at their offices somewhere, soon after "Mr Bush and the Forty Thieve's" took office. Where are our $12.00+/- that the RIAA settled with the FTC for the long years of screwing the consumer?? Did you get yours?? I did not and has been months since it was settled and I have yet to see even a discount coupon(that I will be more than happy to torch in front of Sam Goody's if and when it ever arrives in my mailbox)

      P2P for all it's faults has brought me to 2 groups I will now mention. The Gathering Field( and Shamall(, if I had not been searching for an out of catalog song. I have since ordered a few of their CD's and they are NOT RIAA affiliated. Until the artists and writers are given their royalty's as gauranteed under the law(which has been perverted to the label's whims), prices of a new CD with acceptable content to me the consumer are reduced by at least 1/2 the current prices, the DMCA and any such hinerances such as TCPA/DRM are tabled permenantly, I will never ever purchase any CD by any artist of a RIAA member label again(I used to purchase 10-15 per month, even when I was downloading on Napster), I will buy RIAA member labels from 2nd hand sources, since I know they will not see a penny from it's sale(this has been in effect since Metalica/RIAA took and killed Napster). Speaking of Metalica, you do know they have had a change of heart and are now embracing the P2P?? See, we are gaining more support every day as the RIAA and the Washington hoard are losing, next election I will be working hard for the next President that will actually get elected, not bought and packaged by industry, be very scared the voter's are PISSED. Ok, I off my Soapbox now.

      Btw, haven't I seen your RIAA Troll post's in P2P Groups?? -=;=-

      • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
        2003-07-04 05:23:31  anonymous2 [View]

        Quote: Speaking of Metalica, you do know they have had a change of heart and are now embracing the P2P??

        This is heartening news to my ears.
        I have just been reading that artists can expect to get 10-25% cut of the price of their CDs -once they manage to sell about a million!
        I think if they let their work propogate on P2P and publicise on the Internet. They could sell CDs online without the need for Agents, Contracts and Start Up Financing. The notion that fans will stop wanting to buy because they can burn scrappy CDs, I think is a lie to protect the earning potential of the big stars and agencies who dont want their dictated network to be eclipsed by this new technology.

        Free Internet streaming would have benifited Artists and Listeners more than P2P if the RIAA hadnt legislated to Tax Streams into obscurity.

        A simple solution exists for artists to help themselves in this new era, stop dealing with Agents and companies who will not accomodate and work with the soul of the Internet.

        And for the agents, learn about Internet publicity and webhosting and Marketing.

        Why on earth should musicians need officious contracts as a license to earn a living from being musicians? Bankers and Lawyers and Doctors etc, I understand need to sign oaths, But how does the world's Music benefit from meddling accountants?

        How does stifling the music scene benefit those who want to work in it?

        All this stuff harms Music, musicians should know that from the joy they get from their talent.
        This accountancy harms every musician except the extremely rich ones because it is just a barrier to getting recognised as a desirable member of society for singing and playing in its own right.
        Buskers and Cabaret artists, jammers and Gig bands all suffer for the sake of this corporate conspiracy.
        The amounting money people have spare to spend on their musical passion has not been changed by P2P but the passion is increased and horizons widened massively.

    • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
      2003-07-02 19:29:30  anonymous2 [View]

      I don't really appreciate cd's with only one or two good songs. Does RIAA really think I want to spend 20 dollars on 5 minutes of music? Even worse is a cd that has all the good songs from the previous four CD's that I already own and is marketed as a "new" work. What gives? I personally bought 5 cd's of an artist (who I won't name) because I liked some of the songs I found on Kazaa. I liked the first 3 of the five cd's but I almost never listen to them. How am I supposed to find out about music if it's not for P2P. I don't read music reviews and I'm certianly not about to buy something just because it is the latest thing. It has to be worth listening to before I'll get it.

      • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
        2003-07-27 13:58:08  anonymous2 [View]

        I feel like I was locked in a shell before I really got online and into P2P. I thought I knew what music I was "in to". damn, was I wrong. I just had no idea of the vast selection of music types and artists that were making good music this whole time...and I was locked into what I heard on the radio or with friends-what an incredibly slow way to find new music. I've never bought more CD's than after I discovered Napster (then morpheus, then Kazaa) because I ran out of music to buy! I had already bought what I liked, and rarely found new music to purchase. Once I got online and searching I would find similar artists-or collaborations (that I had not heard of before), so I could go and check out these other artists and Holy Hell!...what a great way to discover a whole new world of music-and even better, it's right at your fingertips. No more wasting money on a CD you've only heard one song from, now we can listen to the songs before we buy it.

        On another note...I would much rather download songs I want and make my own CD's. I would be more than happy to compensate an artist for thier work...but I'm not happy about compensating a record company exec because he has albums burned to CD on a large scale (among all the other piddly excused for getting rich of the work of others).
        If I find a new artist (esthero-for example) that I like on a P2P network, I would gladly go to her website and hit a button that says "make a donation here" with a little PayPal icon below it. That way I support the ARTIST (they get the money they deserve), I pay for my own blank CD's, and I get what I want right NOW. Not to mention that no one but me has to pay for anything, like cd production costs, marketing, fees, subpoena's (hahehehahha). Theoretically an Artist could hit the market alone...get a good webpage, offer a decent sampler of music on P2P, work with MusicMatch or other streaming sites...etc, and leave out the record companies. Of course that's not all inclusive for a list of how to get it done, but hopefully someone gets the point.
        • Mp3 Helps, the record industy hurt themselves
          2003-08-01 13:20:06  anonymous2 [View]

          This whole RIAA record sales decline is a bunch of bull. There are a couple of things I can state that just doesn't add up that the RIAA claims is decreasing record sales.

          1st of all, the exact same record labels in NY and elsewhere that are complaining about file sharing, and the artists losing money are the same ones that aren't giving a crap about bootleggers, and never have. I could walk a "couple of blocks" away from any major record label in Manhattan and go find any CD of any artist at a table on the street corner. But yet they're saying their serious about piracy? Doesn't seem that way to me.

          2nd, technology wise, this theory about MP3s doesn't wash for me. For 1 thing, in just the US alone, not everyone owns a PC, maybe about 35% or little more at best. 2nd, at least about 75% of US citizens are still using 56k connections, not DSL or Cable. So what does this mean? Well here's the deal. I don't know anyone that goes online downloading whole albums, especially not with a 56k connection. No one has that much time in the day with a 56k connection, and that's assuming that you can even get a full connection rate of 56k, 9 out of 10 you won't.

          If by chance you did find an entire album of an artist, no one in their right mind would download that file, not just because of the speed problems, but also because you know that each song wouldn't be encoded with the better bit rate quality, because that would increase file size, which is the whole purpose of having MP3's in the first place.

          People aren't downloading albums, their downloading singles. And sure, artists don't get paid for downloads, which I feel evey artist is entitled to their money for their labor, but myself, as well as many others that have expressed their opnioins on this forum are tired of spending hard earned money for an album, just to take it home and hear "maybe" 2 "average" tracks. And it really pisses me off because I'm a producer. I've had many people in the industry that have told me my tracks are "major level", but because I don't have a name for myself, like "Baybface", "Timbaland", "BT", "Neptunes", I'm not even considered for some projects. THen I listen to their tracks and it's like "They got paid $50k - $200k for that song?" Yeah, right.

          Again, my example just takes into acct. the way things are here in the US, but everybody in the world doesn't have a PC, yet even with all of the bootlegs, explain to me how a rapper named "50 Cent" sold over 800,000 units in a week if people aren't buying albums? THe RIAA is half right, people aren't buying albums, just not crappy ones.
        • from John, an unsigned artist
          2003-08-01 11:30:30  anonymous2 [View]

          nor do i plan to get signed by a major label. i'm glad that most people are of the mind set that artists should be paid for the work they do. i was not impressed by the post where someone told a working musician to get off his ass and do more shows a week when he was already doing 4-5 shows a week. there's a guy doing it himself, puting out good music, gigging, and trying to provide his fans with a good sounding product. please support that. most people do, from what i've read.
          anyone who thinks music should be free is just wrong. it will never be, not because I SAY so, but because of the constitutional rights of copyright given to creators of art and science. if you want things to keep progressing, we've got to support innovative minds.
          labels are desperate, they're going down. they're signing deals that have as much as 50% royalties to the artist!!!! not that that's not the way it should have been since the beginning, but that's where it's going. i think we'll see more of our artist friend out there working the scene themselves with their own exclusive label. however, all those people who said that bands should tour to get money, who do you think fronts the money for tour support? THE LABEL. ticket prices are going up becaues labels don't have money to put towards touring. so pretty soon everyone will be bitching about that, too. so artists will start to loose more money there. then the only thing people will do is steal music. there's got to be money going to the artists somehow.
          look at it this way--i'll utilize the benefits of file sharing to live in california and you find a great band in florida, "gator inflator", over file sharing. but you don't pay for the music because you're going to support them by seeing one of their shows. meanwhile, gator inflator is on their own label, doing REALLY well, pulling in about 300,000. each guy of this 4 piece band pulls in about 75,000 a year. now do you think that if the labels are weary of sending bands on tour since it's not a big money maker that four dudes from florida are going to embark on a nationwide tour with the anticipation that they'll turn a profit? it will rarely happen. it's great that they got their exposure to you, but it's really a shame that you, as a fan, stole their music when you could have bought it for $.80-1.00.
          my main concern is people who think music should be free. artists work as hard as anyone else with the added stress of risk. if they know that their stuff is good and that they have a big audience and fan base, but the money is not coming in, how long do you think they will stay in the business (ESPECIALLY if it's their own)? don't steal candy, don't steal cars, don't steal music--support the artists you listen to...i know i could use it!
          check out there's free downloads, and if you like those you can order our old cd for $5 and the new one for $8. later all!
          • Art and Industry
            2003-09-07 03:36:23  anonymous2 [View]

            The assumption that people create art for monies paid to them is wrong. Mankind did not start creating art in order to get paid for creating that art. They started creating art so that other people could see or hear what they have created (so that they could SHARE their art with other human beings). Since the beginning of "industry", we have seen a change in this, and therefore have seen a serious change in the art being created. Just for example: abstract Paintings (or in other words, paintings that are done by someone who has no particular skill in painting but wishes to be called a "painter" nonetheless), The Backstreet Boys, plain and boring looking Furniture and Pottery. In order for us to have high quality art, we need to take the "Industry" out of Art. P2P is a small part of a revolution that is taking the "Industry" out of Art. As for the musician that stated that he plays 4-5 nights a week and expects more than what he is already getting, I would like to note that there are many millions of human beings that work 16 hour days, 6-7 days a week and make barely enough money to keep "their head above water". The sole reason that people are barely making it and working so hard, is because of "Industry". If there were more regulations on "Industry", the playing field would be leveled, thus creating an atmosphere where not only could you make more than enough money to get by, but would also have the time to actually start creating more Art. For the record, I am an unsigned musician. I create art so that I can share it with others, not so that I can get paid for what I create. As a creator of Art, "Industry" has made it very difficult for me to share my art with large masses of other human beings. I look forward to the day when technology defeats the effort of "Industry" to suppress my ability to share my art with the rest of Mankind.

            • Art and Industry
              2003-09-13 19:53:52  anonymous2 [View]

              You are all wrong.
              • Art and Industry
                2004-01-23 17:28:25  orrybreaker [View]

                3 of my friends and my uncle are musicians my friend and uncle are solo and the other two are in the same bands. They all write their own songs and they would like to used p2p for promoting themself. Musicians make money from touring. They figure if they are good enought and the word gets out about them they could tour the state or in the nation. Modles on MTV is destroying music. The real musicians are being treated unfairly, p2p is their only chance of getting heard world wide. They don't get to be on tv just because they are not as preatty like the modles on mtv and plus they are more talentive and have better songs then them.
                P2p is the right for musicians to easily promote themself lets not take that away from them.
                • Art and Industry
                  2005-06-01 13:24:03  johnemcd627 [View]

                  I think a lot of people are looking at things too narrowly here...

                  Keep in mind that the musicians on the radio and prominently displayed in CD stores represent roughly 1% of the total musicians in this country. There are millions of musicians not even on a major label who are composing, producing and distributing CDs on their own or with smaller independent labels...

                  And while file sharing undoubtedly helps them--it's free publicity and this generation's version of 'grassroots'--when people stop buying these artists' CDs, it REALLY hurts them. In this case, the artist--not the RIAA or major labels--is losing significant money that could be used to mount tours or pay for production costs (costs that the artist is shouldering).

                  For these independent and lesser known artists, the ability of basically anybody to get that artist's music without buying a CD really drains what little resources they've worked hard to build from basically nothing.