What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
I think the problem with this argument is that while the transaction cost of the work approaches zero, the cost of producing the work remains relatively high. A major purpose of copyright is to ensure the production of future works; when copyright is ignored by the consumer, as in your argument, no future works are created. I think the logical conclusion of your argument is a world where pre-existing works are freely transferred but almost no new works are created. There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music. My guess is that this is not what people want, consumers included.
An alternative is the Cuban system of the 70s where the government simply gave musicians a living wage and released their music on the national label. Personally, I don't want the government playing that kind of role in our culture.
Interesting, and just so you know, I'm not arguing that the "everything is free" view is correct, legal, moral or whatever. Just looking at the music biz from a pragmatic standpoint.
For some reason in the case of music, I can think of no other product where the copyright concept has taken such a beating. Maybe there's some hope in the Creative Commons approach but that's expecting too much -- if all music was available through a Creative Commons license, you would still witness free ridership on a mass scale. Copyright proection of music has just gotten seriously devalued.
And you are right about musical innovation being killed off by the free rider problem... i really believe artistic innovation occurs in the fringes and if those fringes are further marginalized, then innovation dies. So prhaps down the road when the vast majority of music sucks because all the innovators left the market in disgust... perhaps people will clamor for music that they want AND are willing to pay for?
What about tapping into the main access points for music -- all the companies enabling downloads (legal and illegal) like your ISPs, telcos, wireless service providers and the like? surely there's got to be a way to track a customer's download activity in terms of the types of files they are accessing... if you're mainly using your cable internet service to dl mp3's and ripped cd's, you will have a special use fee tacked onto your monthly bill. these fees, added up across all users, will be split across music content providers that have agreements in place with the ISPs and telco's and other access providers.
For the majors they are already transitioning. Take a look at the deal they did with DJ Quik.
something around 15K (probably plus points and production credit as that figure is pretty low IMO) for a single. He made the single with AMG. ITs getting crazy spins here in LA and they just licensed it to Boost Mobile for around 100K.
No artwork, a few thousand 12inches were created, and beyond that they have already recouped their initial investment 6+ times over.
I think what people are having a hard time contemplating is that the revenue stream from the consumer side is drying up. that does not mean that muic is dead its jsut that you have to take advantage as a musician of other ways to make money. Licensing is going to play a big part of that.
if you take a group like la Coka Nostra, they are absolutely KILLING it on the merch side. And they have never released an album.
As far as music retailer its gotta be all specialty products. rare records, higher quality CDs and comps, an hopefully at some point legally DJ mixes coupled with a few other product lines unrelated to music.
The whole system is breaking apart a its been set up for the last 50 years but if you use all of the new outlets available I think you can really till make a killing. Its all about adapting to the new environment.
but if you use all of the new outlets available I think you can really till make a killing. Its all about adapting to the new environment.
Although that's tough in Danno's case as there's no real identity tied to this as it's a comp. Not to say that it's not possible... I'd rock a Si Para Usted T-shirt for sure (hint, hint).
something around 15K (probably plus points and production credit as that figure is pretty low IMO) for a single. He made the single with AMG. ITs getting crazy spins here in LA and they just licensed it to Boost Mobile for around 100K.
but if you use all of the new outlets available I think you can really till make a killing. Its all about adapting to the new environment.
Although that's tough in Danno's case as there's no real identity tied to this as it's a comp. Not to say that it's not possible... I'd rock a Si Para Usted T-shirt for sure (hint, hint).
Yeah, really two different arguments here.
Is it going to be impossible for all artists to make a living from their music going forward? No.
But it does not follow from that that a living (or a breaking even) can be made from all music projects that previously offered one. What if Danno just wants to make some good music available and cover the costs that he's incurred to do so? Now he's gotta market t-shirts and promote concerts? That may be the reality, but I don't see pointing out that it sucks as unjustified whining.
There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music.
If artists' merit is judged solely on their live performances then this has the potential to be a positive consequence..
Live performances, which are also becoming less profitable except for mega-artists in large venues with huge ticket prices.
Anyone making the argument that a decrese in music sales leads to better artistry is missing the simple fact that it takes money to make music, particularly recorded music. As collectors we all hunt down tons of records from the late 60s and early 70s. This was one of the strongest eras the recording industry has ever seen, particularly for independent labels. Records were cheap to manufacture because tons of people were buying them. Studios popped up left and right. There was a lot of money to be made in the record business, at least to the point where labels could stay afloat.
I honestly can't come to grips with the concept that music should be free.
Software engineers should just be flattered that people are taking their life's work and making copies without paying??
I don't know if it's just my circle of friends/associates, but most software dudes I know including self have come to terms with it. We can either get paid to do freelance work or contract ish, modify our relatively popular software to client's needs and give great support for paying customers, work for someone and relinquish rights upfront (chiefly a big head that makes money on group corporate/educational sales or specialized stuff like defense contracts), and such. A lot of 'em also adhere to open source philosophy or similar, so I guess the life work part would be partly accurate, as well.
I wonder if this'll be a bigger issue in the PC and console gaming industry when
1 - There'll be ways to more easily achieve online play on PC games that isn't a hassle and it's just easier to buy.
2 - Downloading speeds increase to a point that make playing bootleg games more attractive. This is already becoming more popular for stuff like PSP and DS Lite, especially since easier, non-modding options like R4DS has come about.
To contrast, Andrew (Schrock) is doing this online mp3 reissue label... in his spare time.
Well, I'll be interested in hearing how that goes.
There's no way to prove this, but I suspect that there's an unfortunate paradox here--that the fact that Dan put out a physical product with nice packaging (that was being carried by various hipsteur retailers) got people talking about it and, in turn, posting it online for free download.
There will always be people who produce new works at their own expense and those that rely on live performance to support their art, but outside of this minority it will no longer be viable to support oneself in music.
If artists' merit is judged solely on their live performances then this has the potential to be a positive consequence..
Combine this with the recent thread about how labels are now trying to sign more artists to singles deals that, if successful, would lead to an album deal, and aren't we back where we were when the great music explosion of the '60s occurred?
You tour to eat. You cut 45s, and if they take off, maybe you get an album deal. That paradigm produced so much of the music we love today. Just because the pendulum had swung back from the "major artists/major advances/major units sold" paradigm doesn't mean music creation and consumption isn't moving in a positive direction.
What about the immensely positive quality of life impact all of this free music is having on hundreds of millions of people? If I was a frequently downloaded artist, I think the knowledge of the good I was doing alone would sustain me in my musical endeavors.
That knowledge won't buy too many Latin raers!!
True, but the inner warmth with which I would be filled would surely allow me to cut my heating bill significantly.
To contrast, Andrew (Schrock) is doing this online mp3 reissue label... in his spare time.
I would like to hear how Numero is looking at this. Well, other than to swat down the naysayers with more doom and gloom "that's the way it is" talk!
Look I hate to be doom and gloom, but seriously, the business as we once knew it is over. I've been making records for 12 years now, and while sales at Numero are good, I can only imagine how much better the game would have been had we started in 1996. My indie experience and Rob's cheapness are why we turn a profit. The hookers and deli tray days are over, if anyone wants to succeed here, you've got to scale it way the fuck back. Big office? No thanks, I'll work out of a basement. Flashy advertising? Fuck it, I'll invest that into publishing. Heat's out in April and it's 40 degrees in the office? Summer is almost here, bring a blanket in.
Adapt or die. These are the only options.
As far as legal reissue download sites go, I'm shoulder shrugging right now. Sure, we're setting up our own storefront now, as should ANYONE with a decent size brand. But if you're getting into this without a physical component, you're going to see a lot of 0 download days. Why? Because people can't show their frined this cool new record they just picked up, they'll just send the download and it'll be over. Your word of mouth sale is pointless because you're not selling anything real. A file can be lost, erased, corrupted or trashed. If you paid a buck for it, chances are you can replace it for free. With a record, you might actually take care of it. Put it back in its sleeve, or on the shelf if you've got time. You paid $15 for it, and that means something. An hour of work perhaps.
We are still in a physical goods dominated business. My advice for anyone starting a digital download label or regular label is this:
Release REAL records while you have time. You've got seven years to build a brand and you can still do the digital thing. You are not building a better mousetrap, so build something that will bring them to your door when all the stores have closed. Promote the fuck out of your releases via MP3 blogs and national media outlets. Build relationships with stores like Other Music as these are the future digital storefronts that will matter.
Lastly: Make everything available on vinyl. Fuck, make it ONLY available on vinyl.
the fact that Dan put out a physical product with nice packaging (that was being carried by various hipsteur retailers) got people talking about it and, in turn, posting it online for free download.
My diplomas are buried in some drawer, but I framed and hung my dustrygroove, Labcabin, and other music write-ups the moment they were published. They're priceless.
Hand up if you've never downloaded something illegally.
It's not illegal for me to download music. I'm not breaking the law...
Because it's American copyright?
You just answered the question yourself. American... Not world copyrights. That's why you don't see the US RIAA suing in other countries. You see their counterparts in those countries suing.
According to the laws in my country, I'm not breaking the law. Hence why nobody is getting sued.
I have to agree with the poster above that this is a morally dubious defense of the practice.
Especially in the smug manner it is being presented.
The message seems to be "I'm Canadian - and since it's legal here, my conscience is clean as I fuck artists and labels out of money"
This isn't a moral issue tho. And I'm not being smug. It's 2007, not 1996.
Anyone who really knows me, knows that my family lost it's stores because of this shit. I was making pretty decent money doing what I was doing and loved my job. But I realized the world was a changin' back around 98-99 and have been preaching the same thing ever since. If you want to be in the music biz in anyway. Don't rely on the same ass old business model from the last 60 years. It's days are numbered.
Besides, not only is it legal to download music here. On top of that. Every damn person who buy's blank media (CDRs, DVDs, blank tapes, etc) pays a levy on that. Even if your using it to put your photos or documents on it and will never copy an album, you still pay the levy. This money goes into an account and is distributed to the labels. This levy is also now put on mp3's players and I believe hard drives. So, for every ipod sold in this country. A levy of $25 bucks is paid to labels.
I agree with the notion that every download may not equate to a lost sale, but, considering the effort that you put into making this a reality, people shouldn't be sharing this without you gettin' yours.
If Danno or Day or Cos or Myself decided to never put out another release because it just wasn't worth it to see the whole project, years of work, artwork and care get reduced to a free bitstream then that would be the music fans loss, not ours. The music is still in our heads, it just won't be in your ipod. And that is something these cats just don't get.
very well put. People are killing the artists they claim to love. None of them feel bad about it either. They can't wait to download that new album, but have no clue that it's probably the last album that artist may make.
in my humble opinion(i consider myself to be a recording artist). when dealing with matters of art. . .making money cannot be the first priority and maybe not even a consideration. peace, stein. . .
You've got seven years to build a brand and you can still do the digital thing.
What happens in 7 years?
This is what is being called the CD sales window. CDs will of course still be sold, but when the tweener market has buying power they will be buying something else. Most likely video games.
Word to the wise: start soundtracking video games.
in my humble opinion(i consider myself to be a recording artist). when dealing with matters of art. . .making money cannot be the first priority and maybe not even a consideration. peace, stein. . .
It's interesting to hear that from someone that is a success. That sort of statement is usually something gargled by a "promising local band" or something.
Neither the artist or the fan owes the other anything, really. They don't owe it to the band to buy the album if they like them, but it also doesn't give the fan the right to download it. Thes mentioned people stealing shit at shows, that's just stupid kids, and it's a shame if it has become the norm. I'm sure it's been said a few times in this post (by page 8 I've forgotten a lot), but how many people would know about smaller bands or independent labels without the ease of downloading nearly anything (in my Connecticut high school I got Rip-One's "Intense" mixtape off napster in 2001)? The music reaches people somehow, which is great, but it's a job like any other and if you're doing it you should get paid. It???s not something that???ll go away, so I just hope it produces some sort of insane packaging or short dvds or something else that inspires purchase of the full album.
My biggest problem isn't that I'd rather download than buy. It's that I literally can't afford to buy it. My bills just came last week and I owe $604 with $544 in the bank and a credit card nearly maxed out from buying records. I've purchased as many mixtapes from the Strut community as possible (and still rock Delay's Psycrunk weekly) but when I typed in the comp name into Oink, it's hard not to just click download (I haven't yet).
I've loved collecting things since I was a kid and have a pretty decent CD and a decent, if not mediocre, record collection that I've built over the years. The problem is that I just can't always afford to buy every record that comes out that I'm interested in and I have a backlog of albums that I've downloaded that I intend to buy (for the record, I have slowly knocked albums off this mental list). Music means a lot to me (like most people here I imagine) and I definitely put my money where my mouth is when it comes to supporting artists.
That being said, I don't have $19 to buy your comp right now despite wishing I could. Do I hope to in the near future? Of course. But like I said, it's tempting to get the instant gratification of discovering something one minute and listening to it the next. The main problem is that I'd be willing to sacrifice a meal to send you $8 for a CD, but it doesn't make fiscal sense to you (just as paying almost $20 isnt really feasible to me). You have artists to pay and put a lot of time and money into the project yourself. I could, of course, download the album and send you the $8 anyway. But I think paying for something that isn't as good as or as potentially long lasting as the original is tough to do.
I don't know if there is a good solution here (would dropping the cost to $8 or 10 really sell more records?), but it's a reality to me. In the end, I'll probably wind up downloading the comp. But in all seriousness, if you PM me at the end of June (when I'll hopefully be starting my new job), I'll buy a copy then.
Wow, a lot of eye-opening moments from folks like 33third and TNG.
I've sometimes looked for mixtapes on Soulseek and noticed some artist's stuff just do not appear. I wonder how that is? Is it somehow possible for file-sharing networks to "delete" content that is requested by an artist to be taken off?
Heck, I'll be honest, I looked for some J-Rocc mixtapes to download and couldn't find any, so I went ahead and bought one online.
What would your ideal real world (according to the music-business aspect) look like?
For me, the internet and downloading music has opened up a whole new world, because I'm eager to learn about new artists I didn't knew before, especially 60s/70s/80s music that I would perhaps never heard otherwise. On the other hand I also experienced an information overflow because I have a hard time controling myself when it comes to downloading music, reading about music on the internet and doing music "research". I have a hard time just sitting down and listening to an album like I used to do some years ago, because now I'm feeling I'm missing something I could've downloaded or some new artists/records I could've learned about by for example searching ebay. I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future), and this makes me think: how can I exspect other people to spend money on my music when I myself do download? I don't know if it's something different, because I also go out and buy as much music as I can afford and downloading helps me with finding new stuff to buy.
So, for me the ideal world would have a website with an directory of every artist on the planet with full discography and background information and the ability to listen to 30s - 1min of each track. And it somehow would be impossible to download copyrighted music.
Comments
That knowledge won't buy too many Latin raers!!
Software engineers should just be flattered that people are taking their life's work and making copies without paying??
Interesting, and just so you know, I'm not arguing that the "everything is free" view is correct, legal, moral or whatever. Just looking at the music biz from a pragmatic standpoint.
For some reason in the case of music, I can think of no other product where the copyright concept has taken such a beating. Maybe there's some hope in the Creative Commons approach but that's expecting too much -- if all music was available through a Creative Commons license, you would still witness free ridership on a mass scale. Copyright proection of music has just gotten seriously devalued.
And you are right about musical innovation being killed off by the free rider problem... i really believe artistic innovation occurs in the fringes and if those fringes are further marginalized, then innovation dies. So prhaps down the road when the vast majority of music sucks because all the innovators left the market in disgust... perhaps people will clamor for music that they want AND are willing to pay for?
What about tapping into the main access points for music -- all the companies enabling downloads (legal and illegal) like your ISPs, telcos, wireless service providers and the like? surely there's got to be a way to track a customer's download activity in terms of the types of files they are accessing... if you're mainly using your cable internet service to dl mp3's and ripped cd's, you will have a special use fee tacked onto your monthly bill. these fees, added up across all users, will be split across music content providers that have agreements in place with the ISPs and telco's and other access providers.
pipe dream, i know
something around 15K (probably plus points and production credit as that figure is pretty low IMO) for a single. He made the single with AMG. ITs getting crazy spins here in LA and they just licensed it to Boost Mobile for around 100K.
No artwork, a few thousand 12inches were created, and beyond that they have already recouped their initial investment 6+ times over.
I think what people are having a hard time contemplating is that the revenue stream from the consumer side is drying up. that does not mean that muic is dead its jsut that you have to take advantage as a musician of other ways to make money. Licensing is going to play a big part of that.
if you take a group like la Coka Nostra, they are absolutely KILLING it on the merch side. And they have never released an album.
As far as music retailer its gotta be all specialty products. rare records, higher quality CDs and comps, an hopefully at some point legally DJ mixes coupled with a few other product lines unrelated to music.
The whole system is breaking apart a its been set up for the last 50 years but if you use all of the new outlets available I think you can really till make a killing. Its all about adapting to the new environment.
Although that's tough in Danno's case as there's no real identity tied to this as it's a comp. Not to say that it's not possible... I'd rock a Si Para Usted T-shirt for sure (hint, hint).
Yeah, really two different arguments here.
Is it going to be impossible for all artists to make a living from their music going forward? No.
But it does not follow from that that a living (or a breaking even) can be made from all music projects that previously offered one. What if Danno just wants to make some good music available and cover the costs that he's incurred to do so? Now he's gotta market t-shirts and promote concerts? That may be the reality, but I don't see pointing out that it sucks as unjustified whining.
I would like to hear how Numero is looking at this. Well, other than to swat down the naysayers with more doom and gloom "that's the way it is" talk!
Live performances, which are also becoming less profitable except for mega-artists in large venues with huge ticket prices.
Anyone making the argument that a decrese in music sales leads to better artistry is missing the simple fact that it takes money to make music, particularly recorded music. As collectors we all hunt down tons of records from the late 60s and early 70s. This was one of the strongest eras the recording industry has ever seen, particularly for independent labels. Records were cheap to manufacture because tons of people were buying them. Studios popped up left and right. There was a lot of money to be made in the record business, at least to the point where labels could stay afloat.
I don't know if it's just my circle of friends/associates, but most software dudes I know including self have come to terms with it. We can either get paid to do freelance work or contract ish, modify our relatively popular software to client's needs and give great support for paying customers, work for someone and relinquish rights upfront (chiefly a big head that makes money on group corporate/educational sales or specialized stuff like defense contracts), and such. A lot of 'em also adhere to open source philosophy or similar, so I guess the life work part would be partly accurate, as well.
I wonder if this'll be a bigger issue in the PC and console gaming industry when
1 - There'll be ways to more easily achieve online play on PC games that isn't a hassle and it's just easier to buy.
2 - Downloading speeds increase to a point that make playing bootleg games more attractive. This is already becoming more popular for stuff like PSP and DS Lite, especially since easier, non-modding options like R4DS has come about.
Well, I'll be interested in hearing how that goes.
There's no way to prove this, but I suspect that there's an unfortunate paradox here--that the fact that Dan put out a physical product with nice packaging (that was being carried by various hipsteur retailers) got people talking about it and, in turn, posting it online for free download.
Combine this with the recent thread about how labels are now trying to sign more artists to singles deals that, if successful, would lead to an album deal, and aren't we back where we were when the great music explosion of the '60s occurred?
You tour to eat. You cut 45s, and if they take off, maybe you get an album deal. That paradigm produced so much of the music we love today. Just because the pendulum had swung back from the "major artists/major advances/major units sold" paradigm doesn't mean music creation and consumption isn't moving in a positive direction.
Relaistically, do you think he even sold 1100 of those?
You're the only person I know who checks for his albums... although I hear he's big with Sven and Hans n'nem.
Is that a jab at the one dem call Paysecks?
Look I hate to be doom and gloom, but seriously, the business as we once knew it is over. I've been making records for 12 years now, and while sales at Numero are good, I can only imagine how much better the game would have been had we started in 1996. My indie experience and Rob's cheapness are why we turn a profit. The hookers and deli tray days are over, if anyone wants to succeed here, you've got to scale it way the fuck back. Big office? No thanks, I'll work out of a basement. Flashy advertising? Fuck it, I'll invest that into publishing. Heat's out in April and it's 40 degrees in the office? Summer is almost here, bring a blanket in.
Adapt or die. These are the only options.
As far as legal reissue download sites go, I'm shoulder shrugging right now. Sure, we're setting up our own storefront now, as should ANYONE with a decent size brand. But if you're getting into this without a physical component, you're going to see a lot of 0 download days. Why? Because people can't show their frined this cool new record they just picked up, they'll just send the download and it'll be over. Your word of mouth sale is pointless because you're not selling anything real. A file can be lost, erased, corrupted or trashed. If you paid a buck for it, chances are you can replace it for free. With a record, you might actually take care of it. Put it back in its sleeve, or on the shelf if you've got time. You paid $15 for it, and that means something. An hour of work perhaps.
We are still in a physical goods dominated business. My advice for anyone starting a digital download label or regular label is this:
Release REAL records while you have time. You've got seven years to build a brand and you can still do the digital thing. You are not building a better mousetrap, so build something that will bring them to your door when all the stores have closed. Promote the fuck out of your releases via MP3 blogs and national media outlets. Build relationships with stores like Other Music as these are the future digital storefronts that will matter.
Lastly: Make everything available on vinyl. Fuck, make it ONLY available on vinyl.
My diplomas are buried in some drawer, but I framed and hung my dustrygroove, Labcabin, and other music write-ups the moment they were published. They're priceless.
What happens in 7 years?
This isn't a moral issue tho. And I'm not being smug. It's 2007, not 1996.
Anyone who really knows me, knows that my family lost it's stores because of this shit. I was making pretty decent money doing what I was doing and loved my job. But I realized the world was a changin' back around 98-99 and have been preaching the same thing ever since. If you want to be in the music biz in anyway. Don't rely on the same ass old business model from the last 60 years. It's days are numbered.
Besides, not only is it legal to download music here. On top of that. Every damn person who buy's blank media (CDRs, DVDs, blank tapes, etc) pays a levy on that. Even if your using it to put your photos or documents on it and will never copy an album, you still pay the levy. This money goes into an account and is distributed to the labels. This levy is also now put on mp3's players and I believe hard drives. So, for every ipod sold in this country. A levy of $25 bucks is paid to labels.
This isn't something you have a choice on.
You gotta go after these folks...
I agree with the notion that every download may not equate to a lost sale, but, considering the effort that you put into making this a reality, people shouldn't be sharing this without you gettin' yours.
Holla at a playa
h
very well put. People are killing the artists they claim to love. None of them feel bad about it either. They can't wait to download that new album, but have no clue that it's probably the last album that artist may make.
This is what is being called the CD sales window. CDs will of course still be sold, but when the tweener market has buying power they will be buying something else. Most likely video games.
Word to the wise: start soundtracking video games.
It's interesting to hear that from someone that is a success. That sort of statement is usually something gargled by a "promising local band" or something.
Neither the artist or the fan owes the other anything, really. They don't owe it to the band to buy the album if they like them, but it also doesn't give the fan the right to download it. Thes mentioned people stealing shit at shows, that's just stupid kids, and it's a shame if it has become the norm. I'm sure it's been said a few times in this post (by page 8 I've forgotten a lot), but how many people would know about smaller bands or independent labels without the ease of downloading nearly anything (in my Connecticut high school I got Rip-One's "Intense" mixtape off napster in 2001)? The music reaches people somehow, which is great, but it's a job like any other and if you're doing it you should get paid. It???s not something that???ll go away, so I just hope it produces some sort of insane packaging or short dvds or something else that inspires purchase of the full album.
My biggest problem isn't that I'd rather download than buy. It's that I literally can't afford to buy it. My bills just came last week and I owe $604 with $544 in the bank and a credit card nearly maxed out from buying records. I've purchased as many mixtapes from the Strut community as possible (and still rock Delay's Psycrunk weekly) but when I typed in the comp name into Oink, it's hard not to just click download (I haven't yet).
I've loved collecting things since I was a kid and have a pretty decent CD and a decent, if not mediocre, record collection that I've built over the years. The problem is that I just can't always afford to buy every record that comes out that I'm interested in and I have a backlog of albums that I've downloaded that I intend to buy (for the record, I have slowly knocked albums off this mental list). Music means a lot to me (like most people here I imagine) and I definitely put my money where my mouth is when it comes to supporting artists.
That being said, I don't have $19 to buy your comp right now despite wishing I could. Do I hope to in the near future? Of course. But like I said, it's tempting to get the instant gratification of discovering something one minute and listening to it the next. The main problem is that I'd be willing to sacrifice a meal to send you $8 for a CD, but it doesn't make fiscal sense to you (just as paying almost $20 isnt really feasible to me). You have artists to pay and put a lot of time and money into the project yourself. I could, of course, download the album and send you the $8 anyway. But I think paying for something that isn't as good as or as potentially long lasting as the original is tough to do.
I don't know if there is a good solution here (would dropping the cost to $8 or 10 really sell more records?), but it's a reality to me. In the end, I'll probably wind up downloading the comp. But in all seriousness, if you PM me at the end of June (when I'll hopefully be starting my new job), I'll buy a copy then.
I've sometimes looked for mixtapes on Soulseek and noticed some artist's stuff just do not appear. I wonder how that is? Is it somehow possible for file-sharing networks to "delete" content that is requested by an artist to be taken off?
Heck, I'll be honest, I looked for some J-Rocc mixtapes to download and couldn't find any, so I went ahead and bought one online.
For me, the internet and downloading music has opened up a whole new world, because I'm eager to learn about new artists I didn't knew before, especially 60s/70s/80s music that I would perhaps never heard otherwise. On the other hand I also experienced an information overflow because I have a hard time controling myself when it comes to downloading music, reading about music on the internet and doing music "research". I have a hard time just sitting down and listening to an album like I used to do some years ago, because now I'm feeling I'm missing something I could've downloaded or some new artists/records I could've learned about by for example searching ebay.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future), and this makes me think: how can I exspect other people to spend money on my music when I myself do download?
I don't know if it's something different, because I also go out and buy as much music as I can afford and downloading helps me with finding new stuff to buy.
So, for me the ideal world would have a website with an directory of every artist on the planet with full discography and background information and the ability to listen to 30s - 1min of each track. And it somehow would be impossible to download copyrighted music.