OK, point taken... although it seems we're getting back to the Chitlin Circuit where artists are making CDs for basically no return and hoping to earn on the road.
Of course everyone makes more money on the road, but I don't recall a time (and I was once also an indie artist) where people were making records at a loss, almost as a rule.
Billy - I kind of see that as being backwards. Recording artists used to bank on actual sales. It wasn't until the last five years or so that people started to print music STRICTLY to get people to the shows, as the shows were the better way to make money. That might be the current reality but it doesn't make it right... and as long as I can do what I do I feel strongly about differentiating between "the way it is" and "the way it should be".
I don't think you can fault Cosmo or me or any other DJ for at least wanting to break even on a CD. I mean, WTF. Like we should just be giving this shit away?
Why *shouldn't* we look to get paid on a CD? I mean not PAID, but at least compensated?
Because people now say so?
That shit is weak to me. (no offense meant)
No, I totally understand what your saying. And it's not that I disagree. I've been in the record sellin' biz is some way or another for most of my life. But this is the world that we find ourselves in. People can fight it all they want. But reality has to set in sooner or later and realize that things need to change. The business model thats existed is on it's last legs.
Hell, you can now have a kid make a record and sell it himself off of his myspace page. No tangible product involved. No need for major label promotion or distribution.
Hell, some record labels are even contemplating offering non DRM mp3's. Which I believe has been holding back and severely hampering the online music sales growth.
All, I'm saying is. Sure it's shitty. But what are you going to do? Spend time and energy bitching or are you going to use that time and energy thinking & implementing a new way of making a living doing a thing you love.
And when I brought up Cosmo, I was just meaning. He didn't really lose with that kid downloading the mix. Cause the dude showed up at one of his gigs. Who knows, maybe he spent 100 bucks at the bar. And Cosmos mix put money in a few peoples pockets and furthered the economy a lil more. Maybe he'll do it again when Cosmo is back in town.
It's funny, I was remarking to my lady this morning how I need to get down to the Virgin/CircuitCity/whatever and pick up the 5 or so CDs from this year that I want to support... and she was like, "why don't you just d/l it from itunes..."
I dunno, I still like the idea of a tangible product. In a world where you can totally circumvent not only the recording industry but also the production aspect of it I am constantly reassured that people still want records... not so sure if it's the same for CDs.
I don't think you can fault Cosmo or me or any other DJ for at least wanting to break even on a CD. I mean, WTF. Like we should just be giving this shit away?
Why *shouldn't* we look to get paid on a CD? I mean not PAID, but at least compensated?
I think dj cds are the only cds i actually pay for. That being said, you are getting publicity for putting out cds and will see some form of compensation later if it is quality. I "shared" Dj Riz's Live from Brooklyn part II cd with a few of my (non-dj) friends who would have NEVER spent the money on it themselves because i wanted them to hear how dope it was. He came to philly on friday night and they all showed up as paying customers. There it is.
The whole debate about djs charging for cds is sorta irrelevant. It is illegal for djs to put out free cds with music they didnt clear, so the fact that they are charging doesnt make much difference....except that if they were to get caught, the penalties would likely be more severe. In terms of "robbing from other artists", that is really up to the individual artists to decide. I would suppose that some are thrilled to be gettiing the publicity and others might feel as if that money that went towards the mix cd, could have gone in their pocket. Imo, the lesser known artists would really appreciate the love.
But johnny, he's not a recording artist! He's a DJ. The artists he spins can just as easily say the exact same thing - why will these kids buy my album when they can buy Cosmo's DJ mix? And I really think you underrate how significant the internet and downloading have been for Cosmo's career. I certainly would have no clue who 'the rub' were if it wasn't for the internet. The reason these guys can do cross-country tours is, as far as I can tell, because of the internet and downloading. It just seems utterly hypocritical to me to be all "taking money out of the artists mouths!" like dude, you're a party DJ!
This isn't an attempt to slight or diss Cosmo and I don't know why people are taking it that way. I don't think there's anything wrong w/ what you do! I just don't get how its any different from kids downloading your mix CDs, at least when it comes to the ethics of music sharing.
Now there's a grey area and i understand that - its where mixtape DJs come in. Drama's tapes. But Rub mix CDs as far as I can tell are extremely different - yr talking about, oftentimes, music from dudes who are still alive but are going to be receiving zero bank from you including them in their CDs
I don't think you can fault Cosmo or me or any other DJ for at least wanting to break even on a CD. I mean, WTF. Like we should just be giving this shit away?
Why *shouldn't* we look to get paid on a CD? I mean not PAID, but at least compensated?
The whole debate about djs charging for cds is sorta irrelevant. It is illegal for djs to put out free cds with music they didnt clear, so the fact that they are charging doesnt make much difference....except that if they were to get caught, the penalties would likely be more severe. In terms of "robbing from other artists", that is really up to the individual artists to decide. I would suppose that some are thrilled to be gettiing the publicity and others might feel as if that money that went towards the mix cd, could have gone in their pocket. Imo, the lesser known artists would really appreciate the love.
There are plenty of small time dj's who give out their mixes for free to create publicity. I don't know if that's really illegal, but I'm pretty sure no one's gonna get busted for it. I can't really hate on anyone trying to break even, or even make a little money selling their mixtapes. But if you're "trying to feed your family" selling unlicensed music, you're just a hypocrite complaining that people are d/ling your mix/cd/etc.
1. Unless you are the most basic kind of top-40 DJ I would classify you as a recording artist - particularly if you are creating CDs that involve some sort of artistic vision let alone complex mixing/remixing or musical ability. Specifically, in this example, Cosmo is not only a party DJ but a musician and a recording artist (even in the most conservative sense of the word)
2. I think the internet is a wonderful thing. But it's not an argument to support irresponsible downloading/not supporting an artist's *actual* releases. "I found out about you through the internet" and "I just ripped all of your for-sale CDs through the internet" should not have to be part and parcel of the same deal
3. Unless Cosmo or any other DJ is playing artists' entire albums on their CD hopefully there is something making the separate purchase of said artists' albums worthwhile... oh like say a few other good songs? I mean really
1. Unless you are the most basic kind of top-40 DJ I would classify you as a recording artist - particularly if you are creating CDs that involve some sort of artistic vision let alone complex mixing/remixing or musical ability. Specifically, in this example, Cosmo is not only a party DJ but a musician and a recording artist (even in the most conservative sense of the word)
unfortunately, no matter how you classify it, it's still copyright infringement. there is something called the "fair use doctrine", but it doesn't apply here. read the short article i linked to earlier in the thread (different subject matter, but the same legal principles apply). personally, i am in favor of djs being able to sell their mix cds, but i think there is some confusion about the legality of it and you are only making things worse.
Yeah I mean legalities aside, I think its totally fine that DJs shd be able to sell mix CDs under the counter or whatever. I don't think, though, that they have a right to demand payment for that shit (or at the very least get self-righteous about piracy) when, unlike street mixtape DJs, they're not actually performing a service for the artists they're using to make their own names (except for maybe in the broadest sense).
Brianna LaHara said she was frightened to learn she was among the hundreds of people sued yesterday by giant music companies in federal courts around the country.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) ??? a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits ??? couldn't answer that question.
"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.
Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."
Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock."
"My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said.
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said.
When reporters visited the apartment last night, Brianna ??? who her mom says is an honors student ??? was helping her brother with his homework.
Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software ??? and thousands more suits could be on the way.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet.
People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.
Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- A day after being sued for illegally sharing music files through the Internet, a 12-year-old girl has settled with the Recording Industry Association of America.
She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.
Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.
"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.
The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.
"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."
Monday, RIAA filed lawsuits against 261 individual Internet music file-sharers and announced an amnesty program for most people who admit they illegally shared music files through the Internet. The amnesty would only offer protection for songs represented by the RIAA and not from publishers, musicians or others with rights to songs.
Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said the civil lawsuits were filed against "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyright song files.
Record companies blame illegal music file-trading for a 31-percent fall in compact disc sales since mid-2000.
Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to users who voluntarily identify themselves, erase downloaded music files and promise not to share music on the Internet. The RIAA said it will not sue users who sign and have notarized a Clean Slate Program affidavit.
The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people targeted by copyright subpoenas from the RIAA. The decision was made a few weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.
Until now, the only music file-swapping lawsuits filed by the RIAA were against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Those cases were settled for $12,500 to $17,000 each.
Sherman said Monday that the RIAA had negotiated settlements in the range of $3,000 with a "handful" of Internet users who had learned from their Internet service providers that they were being targeted for lawsuits. The industry is also pursuing subpoenas at universities around the country seeking to identify music file traders.
unlike street mixtape DJs, they're not actually performing a service for the artists they're using to make their own names
the two things aren't mutually exclusive. i probably have more musically clueless friends than anyone on this board. when i play a dj mix cd for them and they like the songs, the first thing they do is go straight to itunes and buy them. just because party djs arent getting paid by the labels, doesnt mean they arent valuable promoters of the artists.
I think it was Mike Watt of the Minutemen who said that the records were considered another form of flyer for the gig, a way to get people in the door when you were on tour. In my own experience with the Punk scene, my band definitely made more money playing shows (which certainly wasn't much) than we ever did off records or CD's (except when we sold records AT a show).
Sidenote: I see Mike almost every day riding around town on his bike. Sometimes I drive around to peep him out or catch him at the local coffeehouse playing in any number of group incarnations. Def. an inspiration.
thats the same as the argument for downloading, though!
and your point is? promotion is promotion. artists aren't complaining that millions of illegal downloads are hurting their notoriety...just like they wouldn't be mad at a dj (in terms of promotion) when they see one of their tracks on his mix cd. the monetary issue is a whole different story. however, as i said before, you can't generalize and say that an artist would approve/disapprove of either illegal downloads or unlicensed dj mixtapes. some might view the positives (promotion, getting their name out, resurrecting their name) as outweighing the negatives (potentially losing money if a consumer chooses to download a song/buy a mix cd INSTEAD of paying the artist for it).
thats the same as the argument for downloading, though!
and your point is? promotion is promotion. artists aren't complaining that millions of illegal downloads are hurting their notoriety...just like they wouldn't be mad at a dj (in terms of promotion) when they see one of their tracks on his mix cd. the monetary issue is a whole different story. however, as i said before, you can't generalize and say that an artist would approve/disapprove of either illegal downloads or unlicensed dj mixtapes. some might view the positives (promotion, getting their name out, resurrecting their name) as outweighing the negatives (potentially losing money if a consumer chooses to download a song/buy a mix cd INSTEAD of paying the artist for it).
right which is why i think its ironic that a dude who benefits from a basically equivelent situation is complaining about it when its happening to him
I look at it as a harmless pastime like stamp collecting -- it is a trivial detail that it involves music, and I believe its impact on the consumption of music in commercial forms is neutral or positive. Eventually the music industry will accept this as the obvious truth and the issue will disappear, just like the hoopla over home cassette taping.
For what it's worth, another study on the subject that suggests the same
Soulstrut, where bitter people go to talk shit about things that do no know, running ideas into the ground and good people get run off with no desire to return.
I'm glad that Monty wants to try and hold me up to some scrutiny, whereas my level of "artisanship" doesn't come anywhere near the venerable Mr. Starks. Thank you for allowing me, and others, to see the light of day. I will now completely stop what it is I am doing. Perhaps then, some of my work can lay unapreciated for a good 20 years, while I sit dormant and bitter in the desert waiting to be saved by a generation that come after me.
Thanks to Deej for in the infinite wisdom of a 19 year old Shawnna fan, continues to inform me about what it is exactly that I do, and what my crew does and what kind of music my group creates. I see nothing but BIG THINGS for you in your fledgling career as a journalist. Your acent is going to be that of a rocketship.
I'm so glad that I have been chosen as your example in this topic. Thanks.
I look at it as a harmless pastime like stamp collecting -- it is a trivial detail that it involves music, and I believe its impact on the consumption of music in commercial forms is neutral or positive. Eventually the music industry will accept this as the obvious truth and the issue will disappear, just like the hoopla over home cassette taping.
For what it's worth, another study on the subject that suggests the same
One of the best threads recently in here. My two cents now: We have two different things here: I agree that dl does not have the prognosed impact on actual sales (kind of what the study showed). But I do think that the impact on consumption patterns is there. As was said, if you grow up consuming music only for free and you dont even went once into a "traditional" record shop, how will you develop a fair understanding of consumption of music? So it is not the internet hurting sales, but internet economics hurting consumption patterns. Both things are distinct, but of course related. And please be serious, 2007 will have the death of promovinyl for most major and indy labels and how many young kids will still buy turntables, let alone records? Alot less that 15 years ago....
Look... I hate to see you guys struggle to make it because you deserve nothing but success for doing what you do the way you do (Thes, Day, Cosmo, etc.)
What I also hate to see is you guys getting upset with the situation because there's no resolution there. Times have changed and people are going to continue downloading. There's really no way around that so if you want to continue your careers, you need to get creative and find other revenue channels. You have to adapt to the market changes. The music biz is fucked up, true, but there's still ways to succeed. Some examples would be merchandising. Create a brand for yourself that is recognizable and desireable and put it on EVERYTHING. Shit, you could sell People Under the Stairs... stairs probably. I dunno... get creative.
Artistic packaging... make your CDs and vinyl something worth having a real copy of over a digital copy. You could have a limited numbered run of specially packaged CDs with signed inserts and charge twice as much for them.
Ringtones... dudes, this is the only music people pay for anymore. No joke. You'd be surprised how much money is in that one. Unfortunately, it's very mainstream music dominated right now, but it'd take 2 seconds to make and could generate som income.
I'm just brainstorming here... I'm sure some folks could throw out some more ideas. Think about how you can do it and not why you can't do it.
Please don't take this as me telling you how to do what you do because yes, I'm an outsider looking in, but try and take this as constructive suggestions from someone who truly cares.
Thanks to Deej for in the infinite wisdom of a 19 year old Shawnna fan, continues to inform me about what it is exactly that I do, and what my crew does and what kind of music my group creates. I see nothing but BIG THINGS for you in your fledgling career as a journalist. Your acent is going to be that of a rocketship.
Without going back and re-reading Deej's posts, my memory is that Deej did not criticize what you do, but argued that it was the pot calling the kettle black for you to criticize people who illegally download music. From a legal standpoint he is right that, regardless of how good or how much time you put into making your cds, if you don't have the licenses, then you could very well be violating the same or similar laws as someone who jacks your mixes off of soulseek.
However, in this case, there is an obvious distinction between the two situations. Anything you create is art. However, the law jumps in when you have interpreted someone else's work (regardless of how creatively you did it) and puts the clamps on your ability to re-sell it. Now, compare that with some 15 year old kid who jumps on Limewire and downloads a bunch of albums/songs/movies. Technically, you both broke the same and/or similar laws, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the distinction. Its basically a producer v. consumer situation, so for that reason, I don't find Deej's moral argument as compelling as his legal one (if he even intended to make a legal point).
Comments
Of course everyone makes more money on the road, but I don't recall a time (and I was once also an indie artist) where people were making records at a loss, almost as a rule.
No, I totally understand what your saying. And it's not that I disagree. I've been in the record sellin' biz is some way or another for most of my life. But this is the world that we find ourselves in. People can fight it all they want. But reality has to set in sooner or later and realize that things need to change. The business model thats existed is on it's last legs.
Hell, you can now have a kid make a record and sell it himself off of his myspace page. No tangible product involved. No need for major label promotion or distribution.
Hell, some record labels are even contemplating offering non DRM mp3's. Which I believe has been holding back and severely hampering the online music sales growth.
All, I'm saying is. Sure it's shitty. But what are you going to do? Spend time and energy bitching or are you going to use that time and energy thinking & implementing a new way of making a living doing a thing you love.
And when I brought up Cosmo, I was just meaning. He didn't really lose with that kid downloading the mix. Cause the dude showed up at one of his gigs. Who knows, maybe he spent 100 bucks at the bar. And Cosmos mix put money in a few peoples pockets and furthered the economy a lil more. Maybe he'll do it again when Cosmo is back in town.
And, in the end... Cosmo has yet ANOTHER FAN!
I dunno, I still like the idea of a tangible product. In a world where you can totally circumvent not only the recording industry but also the production aspect of it I am constantly reassured that people still want records... not so sure if it's the same for CDs.
I think dj cds are the only cds i actually pay for. That being said, you are getting publicity for putting out cds and will see some form of compensation later if it is quality. I "shared" Dj Riz's Live from Brooklyn part II cd with a few of my (non-dj) friends who would have NEVER spent the money on it themselves because i wanted them to hear how dope it was. He came to philly on friday night and they all showed up as paying customers. There it is.
The whole debate about djs charging for cds is sorta irrelevant. It is illegal for djs to put out free cds with music they didnt clear, so the fact that they are charging doesnt make much difference....except that if they were to get caught, the penalties would likely be more severe. In terms of "robbing from other artists", that is really up to the individual artists to decide. I would suppose that some are thrilled to be gettiing the publicity and others might feel as if that money that went towards the mix cd, could have gone in their pocket. Imo, the lesser known artists would really appreciate the love.
This isn't an attempt to slight or diss Cosmo and I don't know why people are taking it that way. I don't think there's anything wrong w/ what you do! I just don't get how its any different from kids downloading your mix CDs, at least when it comes to the ethics of music sharing.
Now there's a grey area and i understand that - its where mixtape DJs come in. Drama's tapes. But Rub mix CDs as far as I can tell are extremely different - yr talking about, oftentimes, music from dudes who are still alive but are going to be receiving zero bank from you including them in their CDs
There are plenty of small time dj's who give out their mixes for free to create publicity. I don't know if that's really illegal, but I'm pretty sure no one's gonna get busted for it.
I can't really hate on anyone trying to break even, or even make a little money selling their mixtapes.
But if you're "trying to feed your family" selling unlicensed music, you're just a hypocrite complaining that people are d/ling your mix/cd/etc.
2. I think the internet is a wonderful thing. But it's not an argument to support irresponsible downloading/not supporting an artist's *actual* releases. "I found out about you through the internet" and "I just ripped all of your for-sale CDs through the internet" should not have to be part and parcel of the same deal
3. Unless Cosmo or any other DJ is playing artists' entire albums on their CD hopefully there is something making the separate purchase of said artists' albums worthwhile... oh like say a few other good songs? I mean really
unfortunately, no matter how you classify it, it's still copyright infringement. there is something called the "fair use doctrine", but it doesn't apply here. read the short article i linked to earlier in the thread (different subject matter, but the same legal principles apply). personally, i am in favor of djs being able to sell their mix cds, but i think there is some confusion about the legality of it and you are only making things worse.
"I got really scared. My stomach is all turning," Brianna said last night at the city Housing Authority apartment where she lives with her mom and her 9-year-old brother.
"I thought it was OK to download music because my mom paid a service fee for it. Out of all people, why did they pick me?"
The Recording Industry Association of America (search) ??? a music-industry lobbying group behind the lawsuits ??? couldn't answer that question.
"We are taking each individual on a case-by-case basis," said RIAA spokeswoman Amy Weiss.
Asked if the association knew Brianna was 12 when it decided to sue her, Weiss answered, "We don't have any personal information on any of the individuals."
Brianna's mom, Sylvia Torres, said the lawsuit was "a total shock."
"My daughter was on the verge of tears when she found out about this," Torres said.
The family signed up for the Kazaa (search) music-swapping service three months ago, and paid a $29.99 service charge.
Usually, they listen to songs without recording them. "There's a lot of music there, but we just listen to it and let it go," Torres said.
When reporters visited the apartment last night, Brianna ??? who her mom says is an honors student ??? was helping her brother with his homework.
Brianna was among 261 people sued for copying thousands of songs via popular Internet file-sharing software ??? and thousands more suits could be on the way.
"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said Cary Sherman, the RIAA's president. "But when your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action."
At the same time, the RIAA offered amnesty to file-swappers who come forward and agree to stop illegally downloading music over the Internet.
People who already have been sued are not eligible for amnesty.
Brianna and the others sued yesterday under federal copyright law could face penalties of up to $150,000 per song, but the RIAA has already settled some cases for as little as $3,000.
"It's not like we were doing anything illegal," said Torres. "This is a 12-year-old girl, for crying out loud."
She's the first of 261 defendants to settle their lawsuits with the association.
Brianna LaHara agreed Tuesday to pay $2,000, or about $2 per song she allegedly shared.
"I am sorry for what I have done," LaHara said. "I love music and don't want to hurt the artists I love."
The suit claimed LaHara had been offering more than 1,000 songs on the Internet, using the Kazaa file-sharing service.
The RIAA said it was pleased with the settlement. There are 260 cases still pending.
"We're trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file-sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA chairman and chief executive officer. "And as this case illustrates, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing on their computers."
Monday, RIAA filed lawsuits against 261 individual Internet music file-sharers and announced an amnesty program for most people who admit they illegally shared music files through the Internet. The amnesty would only offer protection for songs represented by the RIAA and not from publishers, musicians or others with rights to songs.
Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, said the civil lawsuits were filed against "major offenders" who made available an average of 1,000 copyright song files.
Record companies blame illegal music file-trading for a 31-percent fall in compact disc sales since mid-2000.
Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to users who voluntarily identify themselves, erase downloaded music files and promise not to share music on the Internet. The RIAA said it will not sue users who sign and have notarized a Clean Slate Program affidavit.
The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people targeted by copyright subpoenas from the RIAA. The decision was made a few weeks after U.S. appeals court rulings mandated that Internet providers turn over the names of subscribers believed to be sharing music and movies illegally.
Until now, the only music file-swapping lawsuits filed by the RIAA were against four college students accused of making thousands of songs available on campus networks. Those cases were settled for $12,500 to $17,000 each.
Sherman said Monday that the RIAA had negotiated settlements in the range of $3,000 with a "handful" of Internet users who had learned from their Internet service providers that they were being targeted for lawsuits. The industry is also pursuing subpoenas at universities around the country seeking to identify music file traders.
the two things aren't mutually exclusive. i probably have more musically clueless friends than anyone on this board. when i play a dj mix cd for them and they like the songs, the first thing they do is go straight to itunes and buy them. just because party djs arent getting paid by the labels, doesnt mean they arent valuable promoters of the artists.
Sidenote:
I see Mike almost every day riding around town on his bike. Sometimes I drive around to peep him out or catch him at the local coffeehouse playing in any number of group incarnations. Def. an inspiration.
Pedro Represent!
"BIG FAN, MIKE!"
"STOP FOLLOWING ME IN YOUR CAR, CREEP!"
and your point is? promotion is promotion. artists aren't complaining that millions of illegal downloads are hurting their notoriety...just like they wouldn't be mad at a dj (in terms of promotion) when they see one of their tracks on his mix cd. the monetary issue is a whole different story. however, as i said before, you can't generalize and say that an artist would approve/disapprove of either illegal downloads or unlicensed dj mixtapes. some might view the positives (promotion, getting their name out, resurrecting their name) as outweighing the negatives (potentially losing money if a consumer chooses to download a song/buy a mix cd INSTEAD of paying the artist for it).
right which is why i think its ironic that a dude who benefits from a basically equivelent situation is complaining about it when its happening to him
For what it's worth, another study on the subject that suggests the same
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html
I'm glad that Monty wants to try and hold me up to some scrutiny, whereas my level of "artisanship" doesn't come anywhere near the venerable Mr. Starks. Thank you for allowing me, and others, to see the light of day. I will now completely stop what it is I am doing. Perhaps then, some of my work can lay unapreciated for a good 20 years, while I sit dormant and bitter in the desert waiting to be saved by a generation that come after me.
Thanks to Deej for in the infinite wisdom of a 19 year old Shawnna fan, continues to inform me about what it is exactly that I do, and what my crew does and what kind of music my group creates. I see nothing but BIG THINGS for you in your fledgling career as a journalist. Your acent is going to be that of a rocketship.
I'm so glad that I have been chosen as your example in this topic. Thanks.
Bye bye good people.
One of the best threads recently in here. My two cents now: We have two different things here: I agree that dl does not have the prognosed impact on actual sales (kind of what the study showed). But I do think that the impact on consumption patterns is there. As was said, if you grow up consuming music only for free and you dont even went once into a "traditional" record shop, how will you develop a fair understanding of consumption of music? So it is not the internet hurting sales, but internet economics hurting consumption patterns. Both things are distinct, but of course related. And please be serious, 2007 will have the death of promovinyl for most major and indy labels and how many young kids will still buy turntables, let alone records? Alot less that 15 years ago....
What I also hate to see is you guys getting upset with the situation because there's no resolution there. Times have changed and people are going to continue downloading. There's really no way around that so if you want to continue your careers, you need to get creative and find other revenue channels. You have to adapt to the market changes. The music biz is fucked up, true, but there's still ways to succeed.
Some examples would be merchandising. Create a brand for yourself that is recognizable and desireable and put it on EVERYTHING. Shit, you could sell People Under the Stairs... stairs probably. I dunno... get creative.
Artistic packaging... make your CDs and vinyl something worth having a real copy of over a digital copy. You could have a limited numbered run of specially packaged CDs with signed inserts and charge twice as much for them.
Ringtones... dudes, this is the only music people pay for anymore. No joke. You'd be surprised how much money is in that one. Unfortunately, it's very mainstream music dominated right now, but it'd take 2 seconds to make and could generate som income.
I'm just brainstorming here... I'm sure some folks could throw out some more ideas. Think about how you can do it and not why you can't do it.
Please don't take this as me telling you how to do what you do because yes, I'm an outsider looking in, but try and take this as constructive suggestions from someone who truly cares.
No, don't go Cosmo! You know Monty... it was just another ironical joke.
Dude I'm not going. I fucking run this joint.
Wait, does this mean you don't[/b] pay to post here? Shenanigans!
(PS: I'm with Day, Thes, Cosmo, etc.)
Without going back and re-reading Deej's posts, my memory is that Deej did not criticize what you do, but argued that it was the pot calling the kettle black for you to criticize people who illegally download music. From a legal standpoint he is right that, regardless of how good or how much time you put into making your cds, if you don't have the licenses, then you could very well be violating the same or similar laws as someone who jacks your mixes off of soulseek.
However, in this case, there is an obvious distinction between the two situations. Anything you create is art. However, the law jumps in when you have interpreted someone else's work (regardless of how creatively you did it) and puts the clamps on your ability to re-sell it. Now, compare that with some 15 year old kid who jumps on Limewire and downloads a bunch of albums/songs/movies. Technically, you both broke the same and/or similar laws, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to see the distinction. Its basically a producer v. consumer situation, so for that reason, I don't find Deej's moral argument as compelling as his legal one (if he even intended to make a legal point).