There is too much money at stake for the record labels, movie & tv studios (as well as software companies that get bootlegged more than anyone) for there not to be an imminent crack-down on file sharing. Either they are gonna come up with encryption software or they are gonna start nailing people with lawsuits on a daily basis...or both. Napster and Grokster got nailed, Limewire and others are sure to be the next taken down. It will only be a matter of time before blogs start getting picked off for copyright infringement.
When E-Z pass first came out, people were flying through those things like crazy and not getting pulled over. Not to say regulating millions of websites and filesharing transactions is as simple, but when money is involved, the technology is sure to come.
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.
Well, you know, in the old days people who didn't have money to purchase every last luxury good that they desired had to forgo some of said luxury goods. It was a harsh world.
There is too much money at stake for the record labels, movie & tv studios (as well as software companies that get bootlegged more than anyone) for there not to be an imminent crack-down on file sharing. Either they are gonna come up with encryption software or they are gonna start nailing people with lawsuits on a daily basis...or both. Napster and Grokster got nailed, Limewire and others are sure to be the next taken down. It will only be a matter of time before blogs start getting picked off for copyright infringement.
When E-Z pass first came out, people were flying through those things like crazy and not getting pulled over. Not to say regulating millions of websites and filesharing transactions is as simple, but when money is involved, the technology is sure to come.
This is simply a fantasy world your living in. You have a better chance of getting to the moon on a tricycle than stopping this now. For all your examples of companies that have "Gotten nailed" there have been hundreds of other sources to come around.
I know I'll get blasted here for saying this. But you know who is just as much to blame for this as anyone else?
Record labels. If they would have had the mindset to see into the future back in the late 90's and jumped into using the technology, things now would be a little better off now IMO. But instead they tried to destroy it and sue anyone they could and in the process, pissed off a massive portion of their customer base trying to make them feel like thieves.
This is simply a fantasy world your living in. You have a better chance of getting to the moon on a tricycle than stopping this now.
There is a difference between stopping filesharing completely and cracking down on it so that it is no seen as a relatively risk-free alternative to actually buying music/dvds/software. What if blogger.com started getting its records subpeonaed so that the labels could see what ip addresses were clicking on zshare and yousendit links; or what if EVERY internet provider suddenly got supbeonaed in districts all across the country for the same purpose (tracking down illegal downloads)??
The average ADULT has a fear of getting sued, paying a fine or perhaps being convicted of something criminal (i'm sure the record labels are lobbying for criminal enforcement). It would definitely change the game if (and when) these crackdowns start happening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who already have this fear (as a result of the hundreds of lawsuits/threatening letters that have already been issued) and therefore are not illegally sharing files.
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.
Well, you know, in the old days people who didn't have money to purchase every last luxury good that they desired had to forgo some of said luxury goods. It was a harsh world.
Indeed. I am amazed that people share thoughts like this....
This is simply a fantasy world your living in. You have a better chance of getting to the moon on a tricycle than stopping this now.
There is a difference between stopping filesharing completely and cracking down on it so that it is no seen as a relatively risk-free alternative to actually buying music/dvds/software. What if blogger.com started getting its records subpeonaed so that the labels could see what ip addresses were clicking on zshare and yousendit links; or what if EVERY internet provider suddenly got supbeonaed in districts all across the country for the same purpose (tracking down illegal downloads)??
The average ADULT has a fear of getting sued, paying a fine or perhaps being convicted of something criminal (i'm sure the record labels are lobbying for criminal enforcement). It would definitely change the game if (and when) these crackdowns start happening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who already have this fear (as a result of the hundreds of lawsuits/threatening letters that have already been issued) and therefore are not illegally sharing files.
Have you noticed at all a few RIAA lawsuits have not gone in their favor? Maybe because some people are starting to actually not be scared.
The biggest misconception anyone has is that you can just track down an IP addy and find the person that did the offense.
I understand that you urself are a lawyer. But seriously... Good luck on anyone trying to control the Internet.
Have you noticed at all a few RIAA lawsuits have not gone in their favor? Maybe because some people are starting to actually not be scared.
The biggest misconception anyone has is that you can just track down an IP addy and find the person that did the offense.
Its not about the substance of the lawsuits, but whether even the threat of a lawsuit has acts as a deterrent....which it does. I'd make an educated guess that an overwhelming majority of people who have been sued have settled. The RIAA is offering to settle for 4 figures to each end user. If you go to court you are going to spend at least that amount on an attorney, plus risk liability for thousands of dollars for every song you downloaded.
What do you mean - "not be scared"? If you have downloaded songs/movies/software illegallly, you are GUILTY of a crime. I don't know enough about tracking ip addresses to say whether the evidence is purely circumstantial, but is that really your argument? That illegal filesharers can rest easy because the RIAA won't be able to prove its case to a jury? please.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future)...
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future)...
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
What if blogger.com started getting its records subpeonaed so that the labels could see what ip addresses were clicking on zshare and yousendit links; or what if EVERY internet provider suddenly got supbeonaed in districts all across the country for the same purpose (tracking down illegal downloads)??
This may have been explained here previously, but is the actual DOWNLOADING illegal in the us, or just filesharing, ie uploading? That's the way it works in Sweden anyway.
I can only cosing a lot of the concern expressed above. Basically the idea of loving and supporting an artist, but not caring at all if that artist can make a living off music or not, is pretty distressing. The major labels puzzle me sometimes though. I'm not sure I understand why albums like Sgt Pepper and Pet Sounds has to be so damn expensive on cd. New artists have to live off their music or at least try, but why not make classic albums that have already made piles of dough for wealthy artists affordable for the kids? (Somewhat unrelated, but whatever...)
I understand that you urself are a lawyer. But seriously... Good luck on anyone trying to control the Internet.
I've heard a number IT lawyers argue for increased regulation of the Internet. The reasoning is premised on the Internet being a necessary piece of infrastructure, like our highways system. Just as our highway system is so vitally important that we closely regulate it, the Internet is sufficiently important to require similar regulation. Our society tolerates a surprising number of highway-related deaths, so too will we tolerate a measure of Internet-related loss, but this loss will occur within the context of close control.
Personally, I find it reasonably convincing. I haven't heard any examples of the sort of regulation people are advocating, but the comparison to highways gives a rough idea of the terms in which they are thinking.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future)...
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
SG
By the way, I'm pretty sure "Play" was made by an advertising agency who also built the lifelike android we know as Moby.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future)...
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
SG
correct.
Incorrect. I have music in numerous Video Games including the Tony Hawk multi-gazillion sellers and NFL 2K etc.'s. And every time it's the same deal: "Hey Thes, we want to put your music in this video game that is going to sell a few million copies but there is no advance and no publishing payout, but you get the prestige of having your credits roll in the game and have your music on there. Oh, that's not OK? We'll pick someone else then who will gladly give it to us for free. Thanks!" Of course this isn't always the case but most of the time it is, depending on how badly they care about your music (which usually doesn't outweigh paying you). I know it's nice to think we are getting laced from this stuff but it's always the same deal: It's GREAT exposure.
I get more money from having my song in one episode of the show Girlfriends than I do for all the video game licensing we've done
And btw, I respect that people are entitled to their opinions around here, but if you aren't in the business and don't know how it works, kindly do not speak on it as it just furthers misinformation amongst consumers.
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.
But with this prevailing attitude of music as social currency and entitlement, there's thousands of other artists that can easily take the place (in their view) of whoever decided to stop releasing music. It's more of a potential threat to the dudes who regularly buy than anything.
I'm also an musician/producer myself that wants to make a living out of this (some time in the future)...
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
SG
correct.
Ok, but this has some pretty major cultural implications. It seems to me that when musicians can only make a living by creating soundtracks and glorified advertising jingles, music will only be an end in itself for amateurs. Arguably, this will leave professional musicians artisans rather than artists. Maybe a patronage system will develop where the wealthy commission music for music's sake (and their own glorification).
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.
But with this prevailing attitude of music as social currency and entitlement, there's thousands of other artists that can easily take the place (in their view) of whoever decided to stop releasing music. It's more of a potential threat to the dudes who regularly buy than anything.
True, and the turnover will be so quick amongst artists that can't support themselves that no one will probably ever put out anything interesting.
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.
But with this prevailing attitude of music as social currency and entitlement, there's thousands of other artists that can easily take the place (in their view) of whoever decided to stop releasing music. It's more of a potential threat to the dudes who regularly buy than anything.
True, and the turnover will be so quick amongst artists that can't support themselves that no one will probably ever put out anything interesting.
Basically, the new myspace mentality is: "I make music and I'm broke, why should I buy anyone elses music?" But don't worry, the artists are supported through the "Add to Friends" button. You can feed your kids myspace friends, right?
Well, you know, in the old days people who didn't have money to purchase every last luxury good that they desired had to forgo some of said luxury goods. It was a harsh world.
Indeed. I am amazed that people share thoughts like this....
This is actually a huge factor though! I don't really get the easy dismissal. Not so much for a grown niche release like Danno's, but I think for artists like PUTS, huge segments of your audience are faced with the same dilemma. I'd wager a fair share are post-pubescent ipod pimps with little to no disposable income and that gross sense of entitlement. If they've already downloaded it, it's almost impossible to reel them back. However, I think the same kids are much more likely to drop 15-20 bucks on a live show or a t-shirt. It's easier to justify. The same goes for broke college kids. MUCH more likely to spend the money seeing you locally or buying a t-shirt if they've had the album months before it comes out.
I could be way off base though. Who is the domestic audience for People Under the Stairs?
Have you noticed at all a few RIAA lawsuits have not gone in their favor? Maybe because some people are starting to actually not be scared.
The biggest misconception anyone has is that you can just track down an IP addy and find the person that did the offense.
Its not about the substance of the lawsuits, but whether even the threat of a lawsuit has acts as a deterrent....which it does. I'd make an educated guess that an overwhelming majority of people who have been sued have settled. The RIAA is offering to settle for 4 figures to each end user. If you go to court you are going to spend at least that amount on an attorney, plus risk liability for thousands of dollars for every song you downloaded.
What do you mean - "not be scared"? If you have downloaded songs/movies/software illegallly, you are GUILTY of a crime. I don't know enough about tracking ip addresses to say whether the evidence is purely circumstantial, but is that really your argument? That illegal filesharers can rest easy because the RIAA won't be able to prove its case to a jury? please.
No, I was more getting at the fact, that IP addresses don't mean shit really. From using an open wifi network to setting up dummy shell account, there are ways that with a little knowledge you can mask what your getting up to.
But even if this was totally possible and the RIAA could track down anyone they wanted with no problems. Let me ask you this. And any artist on the board, go ahead a chime in.
Do you really wanna be a part of something thats answer is to go around installing fear into making sure your music is not shared?
Example.
Little Timmy is 9 years old and downloads your new track. The RIAA tracks Timmy's IP and sends off a lawsuit. The RIAA wants X amount of money paid. Now, Little Timmy gets in trouble and may feel bad that he's gotten him mommy in trouble, but I bet thats nothing compared to his feelings towards the RIAA and maybe even the artist themselves.
Now maybe some wouldn't care. But I know if I was an artist, I wouldn't want anything to do with suing one of my fans and a potential buyer somewhere down the line. Maybe I get a portion of that money, but one thing is for sure, you've lost a fan for the rest of his life.
Here's a concept. Concentrate on the people still buying music, instead of suing the ones that aren't.
Ok, but this has some pretty major cultural implications. It seems to me that when musicians can only make a living by creating soundtracks and glorified advertising jingles, music will only be an end in itself for amateurs. Arguably, this will leave professional musicians artisans rather than artists. Maybe a patronage system will develop where the wealthy commission music for music's sake (and their own glorification).
Isn't that how it is for a fair chunk of theater sound designers/producers/composers now? They take jobs that bore them to tears (e.g., commissioned high school/university gigs, big budget glitz, etc.) in order to do shows they believe in for little to nothing on the side?
I understand that you urself are a lawyer. But seriously... Good luck on anyone trying to control the Internet.
I've heard a number IT lawyers argue for increased regulation of the Internet. The reasoning is premised on the Internet being a necessary piece of infrastructure, like our highways system. Just as our highway system is so vitally important that we closely regulate it, the Internet is sufficiently important to require similar regulation. Our society tolerates a surprising number of highway-related deaths, so too will we tolerate a measure of Internet-related loss, but this loss will occur within the context of close control.
Personally, I find it reasonably convincing. I haven't heard any examples of the sort of regulation people are advocating, but the comparison to highways gives a rough idea of the terms in which they are thinking.
But unlike real highways. The internet has this amazing thing, where you can create your own roads. Anyone who knows about an old thing called "Darknets" knows the deal...
It's interesting that two of the most read threads at the moment are :-
" People sharing your album : how to react ? " 2241 views and " REQUEST AN MP3 " 2635 views...
Personally I both buy and download music and find each process influences the other. However I'm of the opinion that you can only complain about downloading if you can put your hand on your heart and say it's something that you have never done...
Do you really wanna be a part of something thats answer is to go around installing fear into making sure your music is not shared?
Example.
Little Timmy is 9 years old and downloads your new track. The RIAA tracks Timmy's IP and sends off a lawsuit. The RIAA wants X amount of money paid. Now, Little Timmy gets in trouble and may feel bad that he's gotten him mommy in trouble, but I bet thats nothing compared to his feelings towards the RIAA and maybe even the artist themselves.
9 year old timmy is exempt from liability. his mom is not, but the RIAA would probably have to show that a reasonable parent would have been able to monitor timmy's downloading. if timmy did this while mom was at work, they'd have a pretty weak case imo.
Regardless of this "poor Timmy" example, i think your argument is . Filesharing is illegal. It is stealing. People make up moral justifications for it, but the bottom line is that if bankrobbing was just as easy, we might have fools debating whether its okay to steal from those who can afford the loss.
Its not the end users place to decide if its okay to steal from one artist or another. You can dismiss my impending internet crackdown theory all you want, but i don't see this problem being solved in any other way.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Ok, but this has some pretty major cultural implications. It seems to me that when musicians can only make a living by creating soundtracks and glorified advertising jingles, music will only be an end in itself for amateurs. Arguably, this will leave professional musicians artisans rather than artists. Maybe a patronage system will develop where the wealthy commission music for music's sake (and their own glorification).
Isn't that how it is for a fair chunk of theater sound designers/producers/composers now? They take jobs that bore them to tears (e.g., commissioned high school/university gigs, big budget glitz, etc.) in order to do shows they believe in for little to nothing on the side?
This is similar to the argument put forward by a lot of jazz musicians when asked why they took gigs playing pop, rock, MOR, etc.
The fundamental difference here is that, in many cases, the audience for jazz wasn't big enough to enable jazz musicians to make a living from jazz alone. What we appear to have now is an audience that's substantial enough to support the music it supposedly loves, yet seems to bridle at actually paying for it.
You do realize that this is what Technology does, right? It changes the world... often times quite dramatically.
Yes, it sucks if Danno cannot re-coup his costs because of downloading folks (but I suspect that the audience of this comp are people who currently enjoy spending money on and supporting music products so I'm not really all that convinced that downloading is that big of a deal here). And, yes I suppose it sucks that for some people, you have been discouraged from doing products like Danno's because of the fear of not re-couping your dough. That shit sucks and people like us who enjoy consuming products lose something there. Furthermore, you're welcome to be upset about it. But, let's not forget: this is what technology always does[/b] and people are always[/b] frightened by these new technologies.
Yes, the music industry is dramatically different than it was just 5 years ago and rest assured that it will be dramatically different than it is 5 years from now. I do however find it hard to believe that (a) music will start being "bad" because of these changes and, more importantly, that (b) our capitalist system will not find SOME WAY to adapt to these changes to make money off of music.
I think many of you are failing to consider that maybe these dynamic changes that downloading will lead to will offer a solution (though I'm not sure "solution" is the right word) that we simply aren't capable of imagining just yet. Nearly everyone on this site has a completely different relationship with music than the average downloading 10th grader currently does so I don't think it's ridiculous that many of us on this site see this as such a tragic development. But maybe we're blinded by our closeness to the history of the music industry that we simply cannot fathom where downloading is going to take it.
But, just because WE can't think of it most certainly does not mean that there isn't a "solution" out there.
Lastly, let's say that downloading does destroy the music industry and music is no longer a "commodity" in the same sense that a baseball hat is. Isn't anyone excited by the possibility "of a new historical stage, a liberated one entirely beyond the commodity, when music is no longer a product, but a process that is engaged in by everyone" (Shaviro, here)
Yes, perhaps technology has changed the "music product" as we know it, but music has been made for thousands and thousands of years--pre-dating capitalism let alone the goll darn internets. You people really think music is doomed to a lifetime of crappiness and irrelevance because you can't get rich off it anymore?
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
Comments
When E-Z pass first came out, people were flying through those things like crazy and not getting pulled over. Not to say regulating millions of websites and filesharing transactions is as simple, but when money is involved, the technology is sure to come.
Well, you know, in the old days people who didn't have money to purchase every last luxury good that they desired had to forgo some of said luxury goods. It was a harsh world.
This is simply a fantasy world your living in. You have a better chance of getting to the moon on a tricycle than stopping this now. For all your examples of companies that have "Gotten nailed" there have been hundreds of other sources to come around.
I know I'll get blasted here for saying this. But you know who is just as much to blame for this as anyone else?
Record labels. If they would have had the mindset to see into the future back in the late 90's and jumped into using the technology, things now would be a little better off now IMO. But instead they tried to destroy it and sue anyone they could and in the process, pissed off a massive portion of their customer base trying to make them feel like thieves.
Good luck shutting down the internet...
There is a difference between stopping filesharing completely and cracking down on it so that it is no seen as a relatively risk-free alternative to actually buying music/dvds/software. What if blogger.com started getting its records subpeonaed so that the labels could see what ip addresses were clicking on zshare and yousendit links; or what if EVERY internet provider suddenly got supbeonaed in districts all across the country for the same purpose (tracking down illegal downloads)??
The average ADULT has a fear of getting sued, paying a fine or perhaps being convicted of something criminal (i'm sure the record labels are lobbying for criminal enforcement). It would definitely change the game if (and when) these crackdowns start happening. I'm sure there are plenty of people who already have this fear (as a result of the hundreds of lawsuits/threatening letters that have already been issued) and therefore are not illegally sharing files.
Indeed. I am amazed that people share thoughts like this....
edite: not that i'm defending dude
^^^^Never had to choose between records and new clothes.
Have you noticed at all a few RIAA lawsuits have not gone in their favor? Maybe because some people are starting to actually not be scared.
The biggest misconception anyone has is that you can just track down an IP addy and find the person that did the offense.
I understand that you urself are a lawyer. But seriously... Good luck on anyone trying to control the Internet.
Prohibition of the future. DIGG IT.
Its not about the substance of the lawsuits, but whether even the threat of a lawsuit has acts as a deterrent....which it does. I'd make an educated guess that an overwhelming majority of people who have been sued have settled. The RIAA is offering to settle for 4 figures to each end user. If you go to court you are going to spend at least that amount on an attorney, plus risk liability for thousands of dollars for every song you downloaded.
What do you mean - "not be scared"? If you have downloaded songs/movies/software illegallly, you are GUILTY of a crime. I don't know enough about tracking ip addresses to say whether the evidence is purely circumstantial, but is that really your argument? That illegal filesharers can rest easy because the RIAA won't be able to prove its case to a jury? please.
Sadly, I believe that the only way to make a substantial amount of money in the music biz of the future is going to be through licensing one's work to non-music companies for advertising (see Moby's "Play" album) or film/video game soundtracks.
SG
correct.
This may have been explained here previously, but is the actual DOWNLOADING illegal in the us, or just filesharing, ie uploading? That's the way it works in Sweden anyway.
I can only cosing a lot of the concern expressed above. Basically the idea of loving and supporting an artist, but not caring at all if that artist can make a living off music or not, is pretty distressing. The major labels puzzle me sometimes though. I'm not sure I understand why albums like Sgt Pepper and Pet Sounds has to be so damn expensive on cd. New artists have to live off their music or at least try, but why not make classic albums that have already made piles of dough for wealthy artists affordable for the kids? (Somewhat unrelated, but whatever...)
I've heard a number IT lawyers argue for increased regulation of the Internet. The reasoning is premised on the Internet being a necessary piece of infrastructure, like our highways system. Just as our highway system is so vitally important that we closely regulate it, the Internet is sufficiently important to require similar regulation. Our society tolerates a surprising number of highway-related deaths, so too will we tolerate a measure of Internet-related loss, but this loss will occur within the context of close control.
Personally, I find it reasonably convincing. I haven't heard any examples of the sort of regulation people are advocating, but the comparison to highways gives a rough idea of the terms in which they are thinking.
By the way, I'm pretty sure "Play" was made by an advertising agency who also built the lifelike android we know as Moby.
Incorrect. I have music in numerous Video Games including the Tony Hawk multi-gazillion sellers and NFL 2K etc.'s. And every time it's the same deal:
"Hey Thes, we want to put your music in this video game that is going to sell a few million copies but there is no advance and no publishing payout, but you get the prestige of having your credits roll in the game and have your music on there. Oh, that's not OK? We'll pick someone else then who will gladly give it to us for free. Thanks!" Of course this isn't always the case but most of the time it is, depending on how badly they care about your music (which usually doesn't outweigh paying you).
I know it's nice to think we are getting laced from this stuff but it's always the same deal: It's GREAT exposure.
I get more money from having my song in one episode of the show Girlfriends than I do for all the video game licensing we've done
And btw, I respect that people are entitled to their opinions around here, but if you aren't in the business and don't know how it works, kindly do not speak on it as it just furthers misinformation amongst consumers.
But with this prevailing attitude of music as social currency and entitlement, there's thousands of other artists that can easily take the place (in their view) of whoever decided to stop releasing music. It's more of a potential threat to the dudes who regularly buy than anything.
Ok, but this has some pretty major cultural implications. It seems to me that when musicians can only make a living by creating soundtracks and glorified advertising jingles, music will only be an end in itself for amateurs. Arguably, this will leave professional musicians artisans rather than artists. Maybe a patronage system will develop where the wealthy commission music for music's sake (and their own glorification).
True, and the turnover will be so quick amongst artists that can't support themselves that no one will probably ever put out anything interesting.
Basically, the new myspace mentality is: "I make music and I'm broke, why should I buy anyone elses music?" But don't worry, the artists are supported through the "Add to Friends" button. You can feed your kids myspace friends, right?
This is actually a huge factor though! I don't really get the easy dismissal. Not so much for a grown niche release like Danno's, but I think for artists like PUTS, huge segments of your audience are faced with the same dilemma. I'd wager a fair share are post-pubescent ipod pimps with little to no disposable income and that gross sense of entitlement. If they've already downloaded it, it's almost impossible to reel them back. However, I think the same kids are much more likely to drop 15-20 bucks on a live show or a t-shirt. It's easier to justify. The same goes for broke college kids. MUCH more likely to spend the money seeing you locally or buying a t-shirt if they've had the album months before it comes out.
I could be way off base though. Who is the domestic audience for People Under the Stairs?
No, I was more getting at the fact, that IP addresses don't mean shit really. From using an open wifi network to setting up dummy shell account, there are ways that with a little knowledge you can mask what your getting up to.
But even if this was totally possible and the RIAA could track down anyone they wanted with no problems. Let me ask you this. And any artist on the board, go ahead a chime in.
Do you really wanna be a part of something thats answer is to go around installing fear into making sure your music is not shared?
Example.
Little Timmy is 9 years old and downloads your new track. The RIAA tracks Timmy's IP and sends off a lawsuit. The RIAA wants X amount of money paid. Now, Little Timmy gets in trouble and may feel bad that he's gotten him mommy in trouble, but I bet thats nothing compared to his feelings towards the RIAA and maybe even the artist themselves.
Now maybe some wouldn't care. But I know if I was an artist, I wouldn't want anything to do with suing one of my fans and a potential buyer somewhere down the line. Maybe I get a portion of that money, but one thing is for sure, you've lost a fan for the rest of his life.
Here's a concept. Concentrate on the people still buying music, instead of suing the ones that aren't.
Isn't that how it is for a fair chunk of theater sound designers/producers/composers now? They take jobs that bore them to tears (e.g., commissioned high school/university gigs, big budget glitz, etc.) in order to do shows they believe in for little to nothing on the side?
But unlike real highways. The internet has this amazing thing, where you can create your own roads.
Anyone who knows about an old thing called "Darknets" knows the deal...
" People sharing your album : how to react ? " 2241 views and " REQUEST AN MP3 " 2635 views...
Personally I both buy and download music and find each process influences the other.
However I'm of the opinion that you can only complain about downloading if you can put your hand on your heart and say it's something that you have never done...
9 year old timmy is exempt from liability. his mom is not, but the RIAA would probably have to show that a reasonable parent would have been able to monitor timmy's downloading. if timmy did this while mom was at work, they'd have a pretty weak case imo.
Regardless of this "poor Timmy" example, i think your argument is
Its not the end users place to decide if its okay to steal from one artist or another. You can dismiss my impending internet crackdown theory all you want, but i don't see this problem being solved in any other way.
This is similar to the argument put forward by a lot of jazz musicians when asked why they took gigs playing pop, rock, MOR, etc.
The fundamental difference here is that, in many cases, the audience for jazz wasn't big enough to enable jazz musicians to make a living from jazz alone. What we appear to have now is an audience that's substantial enough to support the music it supposedly loves, yet seems to bridle at actually paying for it.
Yes, it sucks if Danno cannot re-coup his costs because of downloading folks (but I suspect that the audience of this comp are people who currently enjoy spending money on and supporting music products so I'm not really all that convinced that downloading is that big of a deal here). And, yes I suppose it sucks that for some people, you have been discouraged from doing products like Danno's because of the fear of not re-couping your dough. That shit sucks and people like us who enjoy consuming products lose something there. Furthermore, you're welcome to be upset about it. But, let's not forget: this is what technology always does[/b] and people are always[/b] frightened by these new technologies.
Yes, the music industry is dramatically different than it was just 5 years ago and rest assured that it will be dramatically different than it is 5 years from now. I do however find it hard to believe that (a) music will start being "bad" because of these changes and, more importantly, that (b) our capitalist system will not find SOME WAY to adapt to these changes to make money off of music.
I think many of you are failing to consider that maybe these dynamic changes that downloading will lead to will offer a solution (though I'm not sure "solution" is the right word) that we simply aren't capable of imagining just yet. Nearly everyone on this site has a completely different relationship with music than the average downloading 10th grader currently does so I don't think it's ridiculous that many of us on this site see this as such a tragic development. But maybe we're blinded by our closeness to the history of the music industry that we simply cannot fathom where downloading is going to take it.
But, just because WE can't think of it most certainly does not mean that there isn't a "solution" out there.
Lastly, let's say that downloading does destroy the music industry and music is no longer a "commodity" in the same sense that a baseball hat is. Isn't anyone excited by the possibility "of a new historical stage, a liberated one entirely beyond the commodity, when music is no longer a product, but a process that is engaged in by everyone" (Shaviro, here)
Yes, perhaps technology has changed the "music product" as we know it, but music has been made for thousands and thousands of years--pre-dating capitalism let alone the goll darn internets. You people really think music is doomed to a lifetime of crappiness and irrelevance because you can't get rich off it anymore?
-e
"charge it to the game"