The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
b) while indie heads might benefit by downloads cause it serves as free advertising, what about the music industry as a whole?? with music sales continuing to plummet and artists making less and less money, how many future stars are going to give up everything to pursue a career in music when less and less people are getting record deals?
Who are you defending here? Music industry or artists?
Changing technology is having a huge impact on the music industry. Eventually the music industry will get up to speed and start making money off the new technology. Just as they have with all the other tech changes.
For artists on the other hand this has been a boom. Today a local bands and singers and songwriters and musicians are tapping a global market place and making far more money than they ever would have in the old days when the industry controlled distribution. They don't have to be the packaged gimmicks like Britney and Soulja that the music industry demands. In fact they can be ARTISTS something the music industry knows nothing about. Just because Sony and Bruce Springsteen are selling fewer cds does not mean more artists are not making a living.
Can we get a clip of the South Park kids seeing what downloading has done rock starts?
The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
Really....does everyone here feel this way....any software engineers/game designers want to chime in??
The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
Surely they are though, they are profiting from the fact that they don't have to pay for it, and can use that money for something else.
If people could download exact xopies of Lexus's, then the car maker would be out of business in a few days,
If Wal-Marts competitor opened an exact replica of their store across the road from them, with the exact same goods in that store, the only different being that the competitor had a sign up saying everything was free, the Wal-Mart would be out of business in a month.
They don't have to be the packaged gimmicks like Britney and Soulja that the music industry demands.
Soulja Boy is an entirely self-made artist, who had already experienced substantial success and had a huge audience before being courted by music industry.
i'm not passing judgment on people who copy music, i do it myself.
what is your point? i haven't once criticized anyone for downloading music. is it illegal and wrong to steal someone's art? i think it is. am i a hypocrite? no. i never said it wasn't wrong.
this isn't even a debate about the moral issues, but the legal ones. artists should be protected....from people like me!
This is your moral argument? That the law is good because it protects artists form moral non-hypocritical people like you.
the law itself is good. artists should have their work protected by copyright laws. imo, its not a good idea to just throw in the towel and say "oh, its inevitable that people are gonna steal music, so fuck it." millions of people, including myself, steal music because its effortless and the chances of getting caught are incredibly small. were that to change, i'd stop sharing music and so would many others. when did i hold myself out to some moral standard? i steal music. if i'm a depraved soul because of it, i guess its good that i'm an atheist.
the record companies are losing money because the technology isn't there to stop file sharing. it might never be there. accordingly, if the govt wants to protect copyrights, they have to enforce the law. imo, the RIAA should come down a lot harder. they need to make people have a realistic fear of getting caught. if that happens, expect music sales to go up. copyright laws are a good thing. if music lovers don't understand that....you must have a depraved soul like me.
The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
Really....does everyone here feel this way....any software engineers/game designers want to chime in??
Again, the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty.
Major record labels are so Frickin' bloated, anything that causes them to rethink their approach to business is a blessing in disguise. Does anyone really think that these companies are worried about royalties for their artists, rather than ensuring that their corporate officers still gets six-figure bonuses at the end of the year?
At 18 years old I had a record collection of about 300-400 LP's(approx. 3,500 songs)
My kids at the same age have about 10,000 songs on their computer/ipod between them and have paid for very few.
They are breaking the law, and know they can face consequences.
To think this is not the norm, or that this practice doesn't effect the bottom line of the record companies is ignorant.
On the other side of the coin I think the music industry is getting what they deserve as they have been greedy for years and used changing technology to their financial benefit.
What goes around comes around.
But as my Grandma always said...two wrongs don't make a right.
The closest analogy I can think of is with computer software.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
Surely they are though, they are profiting from the fact that they don't have to pay for it, and can use that money for something else.
If people could download exact xopies of Lexus's, then the car maker would be out of business in a few days,
If Wal-Marts competitor opened an exact replica of their store across the road from them, with the exact same goods in that store, the only different being that the competitor had a sign up saying everything was free, the Wal-Mart would be out of business in a month.
Anyone looking to make money needs a profitable business plan. I could spend all fall raking leaves and then try to sell them in winter. If people go and get their own leaves out of the woods would that be stealing?
If the future of software/game design is that they are available for free then the people who make them will have to find a new business plan. Perhaps a player that comes loaded so you are buying the player not the game.
Some products are easy to reproduce or to improve upon but remain popular. The classic example is coca cola. It is not their 'secret formula' (water, corn syrup and caramel color) that makes them number one. It is the image.
We have a business here in Portland which is just like Barnes & Nobles but everything is free. Plus they have more books than Barnes & Nobles and more outlets and they are more conviently located right in neighborhoods. But Barnes & Nobles is doing ok.
the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty
seriously. the industry doesnt give a shit about the artists. they can create a new money making machine superstar like nothing. they only care about their fat pockets, and making them fatter, and i say fuck em.
The whole game has change because the music is no longer attached to the medium that it is recorded on. It was easy to figure out who was a pirate and who wasn't when to get a song a physical object (cassette, record, cd) had to change hands. When I download a song from a blog and listen to it the RIAA says that I have committed an act of piracy, but to me I have had pretty much the same experience as listening to a new song on the radio. The record industry has to let it go and understand that when copying a song is as easy as photocopying a page from a book then their business model is outmoded.
Remember, the RIAA is the same entity raiding the studios/homes of DJs for distributing mixtapes that PROMOTE THEIR ARTISTS, usually with the blessing of the artist in question, and often with the track provided to the DJ by the artist themselves.
the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty
seriously. the industry doesnt give a shit about the artists. they can create a new money making machine superstar like nothing. they only care about their fat pockets, and making them fatter, and i say fuck em.
For 19 years I have been releasing vinyl to the tune of 60+ releases.
My last few releases were up on the Internet to download for free within 3 weeks of their release.
Since I had a decidely limited "niche" market, releasing only 500-1,000 copies of any release, it became apparent that this downloading did have a negative effect on my business.
Rather than try to sue or bitch about it I just decided to retire the label.
I'm sure other people in my position experienced the same thing.
Not sure if any one independent label will be sorely missed, but as a whole this has to have a negative effect on the obscure/underground/limited press VINYL record business.
This is the 'Industry' as much as the big boys hauling this woman over the coals.
I say again, the execs will suffer far less than the workers at their companies.
i'm not passing judgment on people who copy music, i do it myself.
what is your point? i haven't once criticized anyone for downloading music. is it illegal and wrong to steal someone's art? i think it is. am i a hypocrite? no. i never said it wasn't wrong.
this isn't even a debate about the moral issues, but the legal ones. artists should be protected....from people like me!
This is your moral argument? That the law is good because it protects artists form moral non-hypocritical people like you.
the law itself is good. artists should have their work protected by copyright laws. imo, its not a good idea to just throw in the towel and say "oh, its inevitable that people are gonna steal music, so fuck it." millions of people, including myself, steal music because its effortless and the chances of getting caught are incredibly small. were that to change, i'd stop sharing music and so would many others. when did i hold myself out to some moral standard? i steal music. if i'm a depraved soul because of it, i guess its good that i'm an atheist.
the record companies are losing money because the technology isn't there to stop file sharing. it might never be there. accordingly, if the govt wants to protect copyrights, they have to enforce the law. imo, the RIAA should come down a lot harder. they need to make people have a realistic fear of getting caught. if that happens, expect music sales to go up. copyright laws are a good thing. if music lovers don't understand that....you must have a depraved soul like me.
I know atheists, I have friends who are atheists, they are not amoral people.
I try not to do things I think are wrong. Not because they are illegal, but because they are wrong.
You are saying that sharing music is stealing. Stealing is bad because it hurts the artists. You do it anyway because you are not afraid of getting caught.
So even though you think it is wrong you do it anyway? Because you don't mind doing bad things as long as you don't get caught?
Well I guess I'm the same when it comes to porn. I know it's degrading, but I look at it any way. But thanks to the internets I don't have to pay for it. So I can understand why you dl music. I just don't understand why you consider sharing stealing.
By the way, if they changed the copyright laws back to what the framers of Constitution called for I would have more sympathy for your argument.
the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty
seriously. the industry doesnt give a shit about the artists. they can create a new money making machine superstar like nothing. they only care about their fat pockets, and making them fatter, and i say fuck em.
For 19 years I have been releasing vinyl to the tune of 60+ releases.
My last few releases were up on the Internet to download for free within 3 weeks of their release.
Since I had a decidely limited "niche" market, releasing only 500-1,000 copies of any release, it became apparent that this downloading did have a negative effect on my business.
Rather than try to sue or bitch about it I just decided to retire the label.
I'm sure other people in my position experienced the same thing.
Not sure if any one independent label will be sorely missed, but as a whole this has to have a negative effect on the obscure/underground/limited press VINYL record business.
This is the 'Industry' as much as the big boys hauling this woman over the coals.
I say again, the execs will suffer far less than the workers at their companies.
Here is a good business question. Were you making money releasing vinyl? Are you making money offering free downloads?
Artists refused to record for Edison because they thought it would destroy their livelihood, which was performing live. They figured if you could listen to their music at home why would you go see them live. Victor and Caruso proved that you could make more money recording than performing live, plus be even more popular as a live performer. Artists and the industry will figure out a way to make the current technology profitable. Apple already has. The answer will not be lawsuits, more enforcement or more encryption.
That's a sad story. I missed that post, was it yours?
I think the story you're asking about was mine.
I had a somewhat unique business because Rockadelic Records would ...
A) Pay the artist a sum up front which amounted to approx. 50% of the potential net profit.
B) Never asked to obtain the copyright or publishing of the music.
C) Allowed the artist to have artistic control of the product even when I felt it might hurt the marketability of the LP.
D) Gave the artist 10% of the finished product
I'm certainly not mad about free downloading, but I do understand the reality that it had a definite negative impact on what I was doing.
You answered my questions before I asked them.
The question now is, can you go forward with a new a business plan that will allow you and the artist make money? I'm sure that is the question you are asking too.
Like the apperance of cassettes this is sad because it means less quality vinyl in the world.
Dan....again, I think it's me you're directing your question to....
I would seek out obscure artists from the 60's and 70's and release their unreleased music, something a major label would never do as the volume is just not there for this type of music.
I don't have a website that offers downloads as I tried to stay true to a "Vinyl Only" mentality(My one or two attempts at releasing CD's were not as enjoyable as my vinyl releases).
I operated on a shoestring, designing, printing and pasting all the covers by hand.
I am realistic enough to know that this endeavor, that started in 1988, is now becoming obsolete.
There is no question that there is "some" music out there that will never be heard because I and people like myself are an outdated model.
the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty
seriously. the industry doesnt give a shit about the artists. they can create a new money making machine superstar like nothing. they only care about their fat pockets, and making them fatter, and i say fuck em.
For 19 years I have been releasing vinyl to the tune of 60+ releases.
My last few releases were up on the Internet to download for free within 3 weeks of their release.
Since I had a decidely limited "niche" market, releasing only 500-1,000 copies of any release, it became apparent that this downloading did have a negative effect on my business.
Rather than try to sue or bitch about it I just decided to retire the label.
I'm sure other people in my position experienced the same thing.
Not sure if any one independent label will be sorely missed, but as a whole this has to have a negative effect on the obscure/underground/limited press VINYL record business.
This is the 'Industry' as much as the big boys hauling this woman over the coals.
I say again, the execs will suffer far less than the workers at their companies.
Here is a good business question. Were you making money releasing vinyl? Are you making money offering free downloads?
If both your label and you web site were break even propositions you have simply changed your method of distribution.
If you will no longer release music because you used to make money doing it and now you are losing money then that is a true loss to the world. Or at least your niche market.
I probably should know your label but I don't. Were you the artist? Will you stop making music?
Artists refused to record for Edison because they thought it would destroy their livelihood, which was performing live. They figured if you could listen to their music at home why would you go see them live. Victor and Caruso proved that you could make more money recording than performing live, plus be even more popular as a live performer. Artists and the industry will figure out a way to make the current technology profitable. Apple already has. The answer will not be lawsuits, more enforcement or more encryption.
Sorry, It appears people have misconstrued my post, this is not me, I am quoting Rockadelic. Conversely my lowly 'music industry' job is strengthened by the filesharing of music (no I don't work for the RIAA it's just that while my moral compass occasionally breaks, I still feel its wrong to steal.
The genie is definately out of the bottle in this respect, however this wouldn't stop me chasing someone stealing my property despite the unlikely hood of me catching him.
I also feel that the two camps will almost always be polls apart, as while I can certainly see the wrongs in vast swathes of music industry practice. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I also and this isn't directed at anyone find those who are for want of a better word 'pro' file sharing on this basis, guilty of obsfucation and often wilfully missing the point, as to me at any road it seems obvious, that when a whole generation sees music as essentially 'free' CD sales will go down, while others point to seemingly flawed data to counteract this.
Much like advocates of smoking claiming second hand smoke isn't causing health problems, when surely anyone with half a brain could see it must do.
Artists refused to record for Edison because they thought it would destroy their livelihood, which was performing live. They figured if you could listen to their music at home why would you go see them live. Victor and Caruso proved that you could make more money recording than performing live, plus be even more popular as a live performer. Artists and the industry will figure out a way to make the current technology profitable. Apple already has. The answer will not be lawsuits, more enforcement or more encryption.
it sounds like things are coming full circle. artists will have to depend on live performances to make money. i like the idea. at least it'll weed out the talentless studio creations that cant perform.
Dan....again, I think it's me you're directing your question to....
I would seek out obscure artists from the 60's and 70's and release their unreleased music, something a major label would never do as the volume is just not there for this type of music.
I don't have a website that offers downloads as I tried to stay true to a "Vinyl Only" mentality(My one or two attempts at releasing CD's were not as enjoyable as my vinyl releases).
I operated on a shoestring, designing, printing and pasting all the covers by hand.
I am realistic enough to know that this endeavor, that started in 1988, is now becoming obsolete.
There is no question that there is "some" music out there that will never be heard because I and people like myself are an outdated model.
No tears and no hard feelings.....just reality.
I had a blast while it lasted.
What kind of surety would you need to pick the operation back up? Preorders?
I would feel differently about this case/ruling if the $$ was going back to all the Rockadelics and independents of the world. But it's going to the Big 4 or 5 or whatever.
What kind of surety would you need to pick the operation back up? Preorders?
I would feel differently about this case/ruling if the $$ was going back to all the Rockadelics and independents of the world. But it's going to the Big 4 or 5 or whatever.
Luckily for me I never depended on this income so if the right release comes along I may continue, just for the fun of it, and the ego boost of turning people on to music they otherwise couldn't hear.
But the evolution of music technology has resulted in less vinyl distributors and a shrinking vinyl market.
Not a business I'd recommend anyone to get into at this point.
Dan....again, I think it's me you're directing your question to....
I would seek out obscure artists from the 60's and 70's and release their unreleased music, something a major label would never do as the volume is just not there for this type of music.
I don't have a website that offers downloads as I tried to stay true to a "Vinyl Only" mentality(My one or two attempts at releasing CD's were not as enjoyable as my vinyl releases).
I operated on a shoestring, designing, printing and pasting all the covers by hand.
I am realistic enough to know that this endeavor, that started in 1988, is now becoming obsolete.
There is no question that there is "some" music out there that will never be heard because I and people like myself are an outdated model.
No tears and no hard feelings.....just reality.
I had a blast while it lasted.
Rich--
I'm curious as to exactly how downloading affected your business. Did you notice a significant decline in orders, or was it that you predicted one, based on the fact that your reissues found thier way online so quickly.
I would think somebody operating a niche business like yours would be less impacted by downloads than the majors, because you've got a customer base that actually does want the physical object even if it is available as a free download... as opposed to a 16 year old kid, who's fine with just having a soundfile. I mean, your customers are already making a conscious decision to cosnume music anachronistically by buying records.
I'm curious as to exactly how downloading affected your business. Did you notice a significant decline in orders, or was it that you predicted one, based on the fact that your reissues found thier way online so quickly.
I would think somebody operating a niche business like yours would be less impacted by downloads than the majors, because you've got a customer base that actually does want the physical object even if it is available as a free download... as opposed to a 16 year old kid, who's fine with just having a soundfile. I mean, your customers are already making a conscious decision to cosnume music anachronistically by buying records.
I admit that it is somewhat of an assumption on my part....
I had a good network of distributors that either slowly disappeared(sometimes with unpaid debt, another problem for small labels)or reduced the size of their orders over time.
I never ruled out that possibly the quality of my releases were just declining but I was assured otherwise by said distributors.
Over the last 2 years I have received emails through my (now deceased)website from various "Psych Music Sharing Groups" literally "threatening" to buy my new releases and offer them for free download complete with artwork.
I realized there wasn't much I could do about it and these folks not only knew that, but rubbed it in my face.
Overall the label was successful....most titles sold out and the accolades were satisfying.
It just became harder and harder due to what I'm sure was more than just one factor.
My LP's have also been bootlegged on vinyl and CD and that has had to have an effect as well.
Was downloading the leading factor?? I'm not sure.
Comments
Exactly. It's the music industry[/b] who should take a look in the mirror.
If a company spends millions of dollars to develop a computer game and then that game is downloaded and made available for free, you don't think that company should have recourse??
I don't think so, unless the person using the software illegaly is using it to make profit.
Who are you defending here? Music industry or artists?
Changing technology is having a huge impact on the music industry. Eventually the music industry will get up to speed and start making money off the new technology. Just as they have with all the other tech changes.
For artists on the other hand this has been a boom. Today a local bands and singers and songwriters and musicians are tapping a global market place and making far more money than they ever would have in the old days when the industry controlled distribution. They don't have to be the packaged gimmicks like Britney and Soulja that the music industry demands. In fact they can be ARTISTS something the music industry knows nothing about. Just because Sony and Bruce Springsteen are selling fewer cds does not mean more artists are not making a living.
Can we get a clip of the South Park kids seeing what downloading has done rock starts?
Really....does everyone here feel this way....any software engineers/game designers want to chime in??
Surely they are though, they are profiting from the fact that they don't have to pay for it, and can use that money for something else.
If people could download exact xopies of Lexus's, then the car maker would be out of business in a few days,
If Wal-Marts competitor opened an exact replica of their store across the road from them, with the exact same goods in that store, the only different being that the competitor had a sign up saying everything was free, the Wal-Mart would be out of business in a month.
Soulja Boy is an entirely self-made artist, who had already experienced substantial success and had a huge audience before being courted by music industry.
the law itself is good. artists should have their work protected by copyright laws. imo, its not a good idea to just throw in the towel and say "oh, its inevitable that people are gonna steal music, so fuck it." millions of people, including myself, steal music because its effortless and the chances of getting caught are incredibly small. were that to change, i'd stop sharing music and so would many others. when did i hold myself out to some moral standard? i steal music. if i'm a depraved soul because of it, i guess its good that i'm an atheist.
the record companies are losing money because the technology isn't there to stop file sharing. it might never be there. accordingly, if the govt wants to protect copyrights, they have to enforce the law. imo, the RIAA should come down a lot harder. they need to make people have a realistic fear of getting caught. if that happens, expect music sales to go up. copyright laws are a good thing. if music lovers don't understand that....you must have a depraved soul like me.
Again, the assumption that the record label/software company is protecting the musician/software designer rather than their own bottom line strikes me as faulty.
Major record labels are so Frickin' bloated, anything that causes them to rethink their approach to business is a blessing in disguise. Does anyone really think that these companies are worried about royalties for their artists, rather than ensuring that their corporate officers still gets six-figure bonuses at the end of the year?
My kids at the same age have about 10,000 songs on their computer/ipod between them and have paid for very few.
They are breaking the law, and know they can face consequences.
To think this is not the norm, or that this practice doesn't effect the bottom line of the record companies is ignorant.
On the other side of the coin I think the music industry is getting what they deserve as they have been greedy for years and used changing technology to their financial benefit.
What goes around comes around.
But as my Grandma always said...two wrongs don't make a right.
Anyone looking to make money needs a profitable business plan. I could spend all fall raking leaves and then try to sell them in winter. If people go and get their own leaves out of the woods would that be stealing?
If the future of software/game design is that they are available for free then the people who make them will have to find a new business plan. Perhaps a player that comes loaded so you are buying the player not the game.
Some products are easy to reproduce or to improve upon but remain popular. The classic example is coca cola. It is not their 'secret formula' (water, corn syrup and caramel color) that makes them number one. It is the image.
We have a business here in Portland which is just like Barnes & Nobles but everything is free. Plus they have more books than Barnes & Nobles and more outlets and they are more conviently located right in neighborhoods. But Barnes & Nobles is doing ok.
seriously. the industry doesnt give a shit about the artists. they can create a new money making machine superstar like nothing. they only care about their fat pockets, and making them fatter, and i say fuck em.
This is the 'Industry' as much as the big boys hauling this woman over the coals.
I say again, the execs will suffer far less than the workers at their companies.
I know atheists, I have friends who are atheists, they are not amoral people.
I try not to do things I think are wrong. Not because they are illegal, but because they are wrong.
You are saying that sharing music is stealing.
Stealing is bad because it hurts the artists.
You do it anyway because you are not afraid of getting caught.
So even though you think it is wrong you do it anyway? Because you don't mind doing bad things as long as you don't get caught?
Well I guess I'm the same when it comes to porn. I know it's degrading, but I look at it any way. But thanks to the internets I don't have to pay for it. So I can understand why you dl music. I just don't understand why you consider sharing stealing.
By the way, if they changed the copyright laws back to what the framers of Constitution called for I would have more sympathy for your argument.
Do most people here feel differently about downloading a small, independent release than they would about, say, Justin Timberlake or Amy Winehouse?
and they nearly all say that this is an embarrassment for the record industry.
I think the story you're asking about was mine.
I had a somewhat unique business because Rockadelic Records would ...
A) Pay the artist a sum up front which amounted to approx. 50% of the potential net profit.
B) Never asked to obtain the copyright or publishing of the music.
C) Allowed the artist to have artistic control of the product even when I felt it might hurt the marketability of the LP.
D) Gave the artist 10% of the finished product
I'm certainly not mad about free downloading, but I do understand the reality that it had a definite negative impact on what I was doing.
Here is a good business question. Were you making money releasing vinyl? Are you making money offering free downloads?
Artists refused to record for Edison because they thought it would destroy their livelihood, which was performing live. They figured if you could listen to their music at home why would you go see them live. Victor and Caruso proved that you could make more money recording than performing live, plus be even more popular as a live performer. Artists and the industry will figure out a way to make the current technology profitable. Apple already has. The answer will not be lawsuits, more enforcement or more encryption.
You answered my questions before I asked them.
The question now is, can you go forward with a new a business plan that will allow you and the artist make money? I'm sure that is the question you are asking too.
Like the apperance of cassettes this is sad because it means less quality vinyl in the world.
I would seek out obscure artists from the 60's and 70's and release their unreleased music, something a major label would never do as the volume is just not there for this type of music.
I don't have a website that offers downloads as I tried to stay true to a "Vinyl Only" mentality(My one or two attempts at releasing CD's were not as enjoyable as my vinyl releases).
I operated on a shoestring, designing, printing and pasting all the covers by hand.
I am realistic enough to know that this endeavor, that started in 1988, is now becoming obsolete.
There is no question that there is "some" music out there that will never be heard because I and people like myself are an outdated model.
No tears and no hard feelings.....just reality.
I had a blast while it lasted.
Sorry, It appears people have misconstrued my post, this is not me, I am quoting Rockadelic. Conversely my lowly 'music industry' job is strengthened by the filesharing of music (no I don't work for the RIAA
The genie is definately out of the bottle in this respect, however this wouldn't stop me chasing someone stealing my property despite the unlikely hood of me catching him.
I also feel that the two camps will almost always be polls apart, as while I can certainly see the wrongs in vast swathes of music industry practice. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I also and this isn't directed at anyone find those who are for want of a better word 'pro' file sharing on this basis, guilty of obsfucation and often wilfully missing the point, as to me at any road it seems obvious, that when a whole generation sees music as essentially 'free' CD sales will go down, while others point to seemingly flawed data to counteract this.
Much like advocates of smoking claiming second hand smoke isn't causing health problems, when surely anyone with half a brain could see it must do.
it sounds like things are coming full circle. artists will have to depend on live performances to make money. i like the idea. at least it'll weed out the talentless studio creations that cant perform.
What kind of surety would you need to pick the operation back up? Preorders?
I would feel differently about this case/ruling if the $$ was going back to all the Rockadelics and independents of the world. But it's going to the Big 4 or 5 or whatever.
Luckily for me I never depended on this income so if the right release comes along I may continue, just for the fun of it, and the ego boost of turning people on to music they otherwise couldn't hear.
But the evolution of music technology has resulted in less vinyl distributors and a shrinking vinyl market.
Not a business I'd recommend anyone to get into at this point.
Really? It would seem new vinyl/used vinyl market is on an upswing but that might be my experience clouding things. I got no numbers.
Rich--
I'm curious as to exactly how downloading affected your business. Did you notice a significant decline in orders, or was it that you predicted one, based on the fact that your reissues found thier way online so quickly.
I would think somebody operating a niche business like yours would be less impacted by downloads than the majors, because you've got a customer base that actually does want the physical object even if it is available as a free download... as opposed to a 16 year old kid, who's fine with just having a soundfile. I mean, your customers are already making a conscious decision to cosnume music anachronistically by buying records.
I admit that it is somewhat of an assumption on my part....
I had a good network of distributors that either slowly disappeared(sometimes with unpaid debt, another problem for small labels)or reduced the size of their orders over time.
I never ruled out that possibly the quality of my releases were just declining but I was assured otherwise by said distributors.
Over the last 2 years I have received emails through my (now deceased)website from various "Psych Music Sharing Groups" literally "threatening" to buy my new releases and offer them for free download complete with artwork.
I realized there wasn't much I could do about it and these folks not only knew that, but rubbed it in my face.
Overall the label was successful....most titles sold out and the accolades were satisfying.
It just became harder and harder due to what I'm sure was more than just one factor.
My LP's have also been bootlegged on vinyl and CD and that has had to have an effect as well.
Was downloading the leading factor?? I'm not sure.
Did it have a negative effect?? I'm certain.
In 1990 my releases would be sold out the day they were delivered from the pressing plant.
In 2004 I had a hard time moving 300 copies of an unreleased LP by a well known psych group "The Wizards From Kansas".
And I'm one of the few....that lasted 19 years.