Indie Artists Support Peer To Peer

dpilgrim writes "Alex Veiga at the Associated Press has a good story on indie artists voicing support for file sharing networks. While not a new topic on Slashdot, it's great to see musicians speaking out about the value of p2p as an alternative channel for reaching audiences. Choice quote from Veiga's article, on what it's like to pass muster before a mainstream media company: "For Sananda Maitreya... online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released. 'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.""

Comments

P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

If you look back, even major label artists get helped by P2P. Case in point: Radiohead. Their 2000 album Kid A wasn't promoted in any way, however a copy was leaked onto Napster before it was released. Millions downloaded it, and sales went right through the roof. The same thing happened a few years later with Hail To The Thief, which sold more copies than the previous two combined.

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

btw, there's a RealAudio clip of band member Colin Greenwood defending P2P right here.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, P2P availability and CD copy-protections are a disaster for the media companies.

I will never buy a copy-protected CD especially if I can get the CD on P2P. However, if the CD is unprotected I will buy it.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Lisandro]

Ditto. Said it a millon times before, but the only artists hurt by P2P downloads are the ones with the hot-must-have-single-of-the-week. Why would you shell $X for a CD when you can get the new Britney Spears song off the net and delete it when you grow tired of it?

I bougth 12 CDs so far this year. 10 of them i listened first as P2P/BT downloads, and it's music i wouldn't have given a chance otherwise.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[cliffy2000]

I seem to recall that Radiohead released Pablo Honey (with the huge single "Creep"), The Bends (with the huge single "High and Dry") and OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time PRIOR to Kid A being released.
But that's not what made that (IMHO, disappointing) album sell, it was the P2P leak. Correlation != causation, foo'.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

Heh, well, of all my ~20 CDs, none of them have any kind of copy protection on them, or at least they ripped cleanly on my Linux box.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Ytsejam-03]

It does help the record industry make money.

Agreed, it does. It also helps independent artists make money without the major labels, which is why the majors hate it.

If we're lucky, P2P and internet radio will make the major labels completely irrevelent. There's lots of great independent music out there.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[AnonymousJackass]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

It helped the record industry make money from you, and many others that do the same as you, but honest people such as yourself are in short supply. That's the problem. If everyone used P2P just to get free samples with the intention of going out and buying the full product later, the record industry would have no reason for being upset.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[jb.hl.com]

(I actually bought Pablo Honey and it's the worst album I've ever heard in the entirety of my lifetime, my love of Radiohead notwithstanding, but anyway...)

The point is that the band did NO advertising for the album besides it being leaked on P2P. There were no singles, no music videos, no posters, no TV ads, nothing besides maybe a few displays in record stores. Precisely dick.

I also point you to this quote from Wikipedia:

The record industry assumed the album was now doomed to failure since fans already had the music for free. Instead the opposite happened and the band, which had never hit the US top 20 before, captured the number one spot in Kid A's debut week. With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success, [a journalist] declared this was proof of the promotional powers of file trading and of word-of-mouth generated by the Net.

There you have it.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Monkelectric]

Record companies know that p2p helps their sales, but it messes up their CONTROL OF THE DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL. Why would we need sony music at ALL if bands can sell their albums directly to you?

Also it takes the control of popular culture out of their hands. I recently downloaded an album from a cool south american folk/electronica band. Is that *EVER* going to be on MTV, VH1 or Clear Channel? I think Not

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the people the RIAA sued tried this in court.

She said she only downloaded the music to sample it and deleted it all within 24 hours.

the judged basically laughed in her face and the RIAA won.

the lesson is breakign the law is illegeal, regardless of whatever moral argument you have to convience yoursel fit is OK.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Satan Gave Me a Taco]

OK Computer, one of the most successful albums of all time

That's somewhat of an exageration (great album though). IIRC they sold about 4 million copies, didn't Michael Jackson sell 50 million copies of Thriller? Not that sales are in any way an indication of quality... just saying.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Custard]

With the record's absence of radio airplay, big time marketing, and any other factor that may have explained this stunning success

How about the fact that it's just really good, original music?

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Lisandro]

I remember liking "Lurgee" and "Ripcord" from that album. OTOH, you had attrocities like "Anyone can play guitar" aswell.

Radiohead got much better with "The bends" and "OK computer"... after all, it seemed to me that they just wanted to prove they could do any other style of music they wanted. They succeded - now get back to the old stuff, please? :)

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[angle_slam]

Wikipedia is not exactly the most reliable of sources. The simple fact is that OK Computer was one of the best reviewed albums of all-time. The hype for Kid A was through the roof in music mags because it was their first album in 3 years. They also appeared on Saturday Night Live. I have no idea how you think they did no publicity.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[angle_slam]

$500 is fewer than 50 music CDs. You're just a blip on the radar. If you want to use anecdotes, I know people who have thousands of CDs, most purchased before P2P became popular. What does that mean?

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Microlith]

The paranoia here is unbelievable.

It messes up their control of the distribution channel of THEIR titles. No one else's.

The record companies could give a shit less about each other. They're concerned with their own copyrighted works, and how their copyright is being violated.

And hey, bands can sell directly to you now but they're still signing on with Sony, et. al. so I think we've got a way to go before they're truly irrelevant. But once that day comes there'll be nothing they can do.

Until then, don't misconstrue their actions against people violating their copyrights as an all out attack on P2P. If they really hated internet based distribution, they'd file suit against everyone who ever released an audio compression codec.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[mmkkbb]

Why should they do more old stuff? You already have those albums.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Monkelectric]

The record companies could give a shit less about each other

You are completely wrong. They want P2P shut down so SONY/BMG et all are the ONLY way to buy music.

Music labels are obsolete, heres whats going to happen, itune like stores are going to start selling music from indie bands, and they will bypass the music industry all together. THAT is what they are afraid of.

You've been drinking the RIAA koolaid.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Lisandro]

Because, honestly, they aren't very good at it. I don't mind bands trying new things - hell, i love the STP, and they made a point of changing the style of the band with every album.

But Radiohead... it just feels overdone to me. Of their post-computer albums, the only one i (marginally) liked was "Hail to the thief" - they just tried too hard on the others to sound "different" and "artistic". Too self indulgent.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Hold your flames.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[superpulpsicle]

It's not the P2P users fault. The industry executives are lazily marketing the same people over and over. Most artists in the mainstream are qualified to make a few good tracks, not 3 albums in 3 years.

I used to buy from iTunes, and I am a Rhapsody user now. The best albums, I can find 5 good songs out of maybe 20 tracks. Amazingly none of these great albums were really mainstream. If it wasn't for these services, I wouldn't even know they exist.

You can't possibly tell me 50cent is the best hiphop artist available in 2004 and 2005. P2P has to stay, so people know their options. Buying CDs is like buying a lemon automobile, 50% usable.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[CDarklock]

> Why would we need sony music at
> ALL if bands can sell their albums
> directly to you?

This is just an idea, but a major label could start to think of itself as an exclusive "club" of sorts, where they use their economies of scale to get discounted rates on things musicians need. In return, you just pay a (large) monthly fee and hand over X% of your sales revenue.

This would look and feel a lot like what labels do today, but the label would be unable to hold an artist or his music "hostage" by failing to market and promote it.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[poison_reverse]

sorry man but a true radiohead fan would realize that pablo honey really was a great album. You can actually hear instruments...imagine that.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ateaseweb.com/extra/richdork/index.htm

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[cthrall]

Come on now...once a band acquires a decent size fanbase, there are going to be a lot of people buying the album regardless of advertising.

Not to mention they already have a bunch of $$$, so they can look hip by saying P2P is ok and still add the new wing onto the mansion.

Let's see a band start from *nothing* and release the first album on P2P and make money.

Also, quoting Wikipedia on P2P is like quoting Slashdot on DRM...

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! the follow up to OK Computer sold millions??? Who could have expected that? I remember Kid A receiving plenty of publicity, but even without it, the buzz from OK Computer (as well as the previous two Radiohead records), especially at the millenium, when everyone was making their Best Records of the 90's lists, would have carried Kid A plenty far...

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[rpozz]

Interesting you should bring that up. I'm sure I read somewhere that it's only copyright infringement if you store a copy on your computer for over 24 hours - to avoid the sticky area of accidentally downloading something.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Arrawa]

Actually, that happened already: http://www.mp3tunes.com sells songs directly from independent artists. For an album you pay dollar 8,99. Artists receive 6 bucks. Yes, I bought a couple of albums.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Her mistake was in showing up to the corporation-owned courtroom in the first place.

The REAL lesson here is: The basis of the law is a cultural philosophy, not a mechanical method involving lobbyists, legislators and lawyers. The culture is turning against strict copyright protections, and money is fighting that trend. We're at WAR with our corporations, and that's the final statement ... in war, people get hurt and things get broken.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[rawyin]

P2P networks allow you to realize prior to dropping $20 for a CD, that it's garbage and you don't want it. Perhaps this is a big part of the $2 billion dollars missing in their revenue stream?

Truth be told, P2P helps good artists and good music reach the world in ways it never would. I can see why it scares the Dixie Chicks.

However it lacks controls to keep some people honest and to account on a piece of paper the title of "biggest label". It comes down to a bloated industry trying to float in the safety it has garnered for years.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

$500 is fewer than 50 music CDs.

Not necessarily, if you are a member of the BMG or Columbia House music clubs you could amass quite a collection of music CD's for $500. At least I know I could have back in the day when I was on thier lists...

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[killjoe]

I suppose it didn't hurt that the album was pretty good too. Something that seems to get lost in this conversation.

Maybe if something is really good it doesn't need that much advertising.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[gobbo]

I will never buy a copy-protected CD

That's true no matter what: if it has copy protection, it won't have the Compact Disc logo on it, because it isn't a true CD, merely a shiny disc that pretends.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it was really good music, if it was crap people would have downloaded it, deleted it from their harddrive, then burnt the harddrive. With fire.

But without marketing, radio play, music videos, or anything else, how would people know it was really good music in order to buy it?

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[not-real-sure]

I wont say that it helps artists but it sure doesn't hurt them. My brother is one of the original house DJs from chicago. Along with his public gigs he has released several albums under his own record label. http://www.classicmusiccompany.com/ He knows that alot of his music in the P2P networks but he also knows that he makes the majority of his money from live shows. The tour is where the money is for the artist. The record is where the money is for the record label. Its no wonder the artitsts support P2P. P2P means the artitsts music gets out and it makes for bigger draw at a live show.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[zotz]

There you have it. Potentially great economically for the artists, potentially lousy for the record companies.

all the best,

drew

Think of the rights of the artists... (that we force/trick into signing away to us.)

The above only applies to you if the shoe fits. All others are exempted.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[natemc]

Actually, they played on Saturday Night Live to promote Kid A, which was when I realized how much of a whiney singer Thom is. It made me NOT want to buy that album. But they did do the press game to promote the album. I also remember seeing full page ads in music mags.

OK Computer was about their only album I really like.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

"hell, i love the STP, and they made a point of changing the style of the band with every album"

the style didn't change, the music just got shittier from the second album onward

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[curious.corn]

Please share the band ID, electronic intrigues me as much as folk does. ;-)

e

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Microlith]

They want P2P shut down so SONY/BMG et all are the ONLY way to buy music.

I want proof. Until you can supply me proof that they've actively moved to shut down legitimate distribution outlets that operate outside the RIAA, I can't look upon your (and others) rantings like this as anything but paranoia.

They only see P2P as a threat in the sense that it strips control from them of their works. Apparently eTree is a place where you can download legitimate music torrents. If what you say is true, I expect a lawsuit to be filed against them.

Oops, they haven't, because they know it'd be groundless and they'd get hit hard for it.

Stupid paranoid slashbots.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[joeljkp]

That's a big myth propagated by questionable download sites.

I challenge you to find any mention of a 24-hour rule in the US Code.

They may take it into consideration when they decide how much you have to pay, but it doesn't stop it from being infringement.

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[ozmanjusri]

Let's see a band start from *nothing* and release the first album on P2P and make money.

Seventh did just that. They couldn't get airtime or a contract, so they distributed their music via MP3s. It got them the exposure they needed, and they're still giving music away and making money doing it.

These guys put out quality music, good enough that Codemasters paid to use their sounds for the Operation Flashpoint sountrack, Flashpoint MP3s and none of that would have happened if the record companies still had their stranglehold on the music industry

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Chess_the_cat]

Their 2000 album Kid A wasn't promoted in any way, however a copy was leaked onto Napster before it was released. Millions downloaded it, and sales went right through the roof.

Uh, Kid A wasn't Radiohead's first album. Pretty sure it would have sold millions with or without any "promotion."

Re:P2P actually does help artists

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone has probably forgotten what's at the heart of all this......Radiohead shows that great music doesn't need all the hype and marketing....what has caused the music (and i use that term loosely) industry's loss of sales is the fact that they are producing a whole lot of crap and increasing their prices (to pay for usher/alicia keys type image consultants, no doubt)...so why would you pay more for less??

Great...

[Havenwar]

Now if only someone ever listened to what the artists said...

Or to indie artists in general.

Re:Great...

[jb.hl.com]

The problem is that the music companies are generally seen by the populous as representing the artists and trying to nurture the artists/protect them from evil. Thus it becomes very easy for the record companies to put out its own selfish views and call them helpful to the artist, rather than actually listen to what the artist says. I linked to a RealAudio interview between a musician and a record company boss further up this thread, listen to it and you'll see what I mean.

Re:Great...

[yuriismaster]

This is sadly true...

Of course, media spins on the RIAA cases + the broad success of iTunes (which doesn't need RIAA) will start to turn RIAA from the protector to the oppressor.

We /.'ers know RIAA is 'ebil', but we need to let the populace know. Media is a powerful tool, and we need to get this kinda stuff posted to more major news sites (nbc, cnn, etc)

Only then will the masses become enlightened.

Re:Great...

[Havenwar]

Yeah, I've listened to it. Good clip, and a view I do share - good for artists is not the same as good for music companies.

Re:Great...

[msporny]

Now if only someone ever listened to what the artists said...

Or to indie artists in general.

We listen to indie artists: Bitmunk

Especially indie artists that want to spread their stuff via P2P under their terms (artists get to set prices, distribution formats, countries, descriptions, and licenses). We even have Creative Commons licensing options that the artists may use.

I just want to make this clear - I'm not astro-turfing - I'm the CEO of Digital Bazaar, the company that created the Bitmunk P2P music network - so don't take my word for it, check it out and come to your own conclusions.

In short, we're a non-DRM, P2P network that pays the artist up to 84% of the sale price regardless of who downloads/uploads their stuff on the network, the artist gets paid. All songs on the network are high quality 192kbps-320kbps VBR MP3s (which will play in any MP3 player). Additionally, you may then turn around and sell the artists work on the network and add your own small fee (which you can then use to buy more music on the network - or withdraw to your bank account).

The network launched this past Monday:

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=709

We've been covered by Slashdot before:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/13/183324 5&tid=95&tid=98

Re:Great...

[Havenwar]

Wow, spammail via comment-reply..

But this sounds cool, I think I'll be the one in ten to check this out.

Okay, so consider me a sucker. =P

Re:Great...

[h4rm0ny]

The problem is that the music companies are generally seen by the populous as representing the artists and trying to nurture the artists/protect them from evil.

You're kidding me? Most of the people I know (a good cross-section covering a pretty wide range of the educational spectrum), don't regard music labels as anything but money hungry companies.

Now that we have online purchasing and downloading, bands need precisely one thing from a record label - exposure. And with the record labels current reputation, people are increasingly suspicious of their hype.

The thing that the record labels get is radio airtime and magazine exposure. But I'm increasingly listening to music streams on my computer rather than traditional radio. Especially as I can record the streams to listen to later. The labels have no control over this and it's exposing me to a lot of bands that I wouldn't have heard of otherwise.

Incidentally, this is how I discovered the Dresden Dolls. These two have taken a real chance in publishing some great (good-quality) music and videos free to download on their site. It works - I downloaded, then bought the CD and am now buying another for a friend. Hell - I might even be going for the T-shirt.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, i'm going to join you, freeing up 9 other people to click on something else.

Am I the only person to read Mr. Sporny's uid as "MS Porny," the only Office Assistant worth paying attention to?

I see you're writing a letter... can I help you:
(O) find pics of hot teens?
(O) find movies of hot teens?
(O) buy lube?

Sorry, Manu, I have an easily mockable name too.

-AC

Easy communications empowers the individual

[Mrs. Grundy]

The media distribution companies, whether music labels, movie producers, or stock photography corps, all understand that when communication becomes much easier among individuals their business model suffers. The only service they really offer is making media easy to find and get. The internet has done that for everyone now, and frankly, I'm surprised it is taking this long for individual artists to get on board. One of the problems that still is being worked out is open, well supported formats for sharing information. Look what RSS did for blogging and what it is doing to traditional journalism. Imagine what similar formats and application to support them can do for other individual producers of content.

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual

[Anonymous Coward]

incorrect. the labels hype things and market them.

that is their function (a pretty crappy one in my opinion)

they are a hype machine

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual

[denissmith]

Exactly. The P2P piracy "crisis" has never really been about intellectual property rights, or compensation for the artists, it's really about preventing the artists from finding easy and reliable ways to get directly to their listeners. In short, it is about control, but not control of the music, control of the artists themselves. Some artists did get it early, some got a snow job from their labels and bought it.

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual

[Casca]

Thats what he said, they make it easier to find stuff. Considering there are thousands of albums released every month now, how do you make it easy to find one? You hype the hell out of it. Make it stand out, make it easy for people to find...

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting another key point about the ease of communication bit. Now that information of all kinds is easier to find, artists themselves are way more educated on the entire process of being successful than they ever have been before. There's information all over the internet detailing how the RIAA is an unnecessary second step. Frankly I think that artists themselves being smarter is having a much larger effect on RIAA sales than anything else... because more and more people are self-releasing, self-recording, self-promoting, etc, and succeeding at it. It hasn't really hit yet with mainstream music, but "indie" music has grown substantially lately, and more and more people are searching out small-label or independently-released bands. I speak with the perspective of being in a band that recorded our album ourselves on a $0 budget (all equipment owned by us or borrowed), sell online, at shows, or at local record shops, and have no problem with it. Fuck sitting around waiting for a record deal - it's not hard to bring in cash anymore doing everything yourself.

Re:Easy communications empowers the individual

[geekee]

" Thats what he said"

No. The original post said the function of the recording industry is to distribute music. The reply was that the recording industry also promotes and markets the music. Music doesn't just magically become popular. Someone has to decide it's worth playing on the radio or whereever. The average person doesn't want to listen to a thousand albums to find a good one. They want the industry and the media to do the work for them.

The Beatles

[daniil]

The Beatles have ripped off every single band after them. That's about as Conservative as anyone can get.

How else would a staring artist afford music?

[demonic-halo]

How else would a staring artist afford music?

=)

Re:How else would a staring artist afford music?

[kid_wonder]

Well, if he(she)'d quit standing around staring and write some freakin' music, maybe they could make some money for food.

What they hell is so interesting that they need to stare at it all day?

essentials

[Anonymous Coward]

Artists need money. Fortunately, audiences have money!

Artists don't need middlemen taking their money and screwing with their work. Fortunately, these days audiences don't need them either!

Re:essentials

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where P2P solves the problem of artists needing money.

Re:essentials

[UWC]

He's sure to advocate concert venues, merchandising (t-shirts, etc.), and purchasing of legitimately offered media. He could go on to mention the undeniable substance of having an officially-made CD with liner notes, cover art, and so on, or the possibility of releasing low quality or sample tracks over P2P and advocating the purchase of higher quality (maybe even lossless) media through official channels. He'd then go on to say that when artists recognize the needs of the fans and fans know that the artists actually benefit, offering DRM-free media would pose an insignificant problem.

That's not to say any of that is correct. It would take trying such methods to find out (does Wilco do such things? I've yet to listen to them or investigate that). I do know that I purchase the CDs of artists that I like. I also like the copyright notice of independent Righteous Babe Records: "Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing."

Re:essentials

[TommydCat]

I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where P2P solves the problem of artists needing money.

How much money do you think artists really make through the RIAA as opposed to touring, selling schwag, etc? I see selling records being used more as a tool to get paying fans in seats at the show, which is how it all started. Only an industry as twisted as the recording industry to mutate a simple duplication process into such a marketing and legal monster.

Re:essentials

[UWC]

Oh! To add to my last sentence there. Andrew Bird is the artist on whose CDs I've seen that copyright notice. Thus I feel able to spread around some of his music to friends. One such friend, who enjoys the music, lives near a concert venue at which Bird recently performed for two nights. I told the friend about the upcoming performance one or two weeks before the cancert date. Friend went to the (I assume fairly small) concert venue for tickets to find out that both nights had sold out. I know that does not mean a great deal, but just some interesting evidence that openly lax views of copyright do not mean financial disaster. Or maybe just evidence that Andrew Bird is gaining in popularity and that they are not scaling concert venues up appropriately. Regardless, it lets me know that I should buy tickets well in advance when he comes around here in May.

Re:essentials

[jadavis]

Maybe I'm a little cynical, but if the indie artists really wanted people to share files, they would make them public domain or GPL(or GFDL or whatever it's called) or something. That would not only increase the distribution, it would be good PR, and it would lend legitimacy to online file sharing.

However, I get the idea that many of them only want to use file sharing when it suits them, and enforce the copyright later when it suits them. When people want to start buying CDs they will want a piece of the action.

Re:essentials

[antiMStroll]

For very many of us P2P brings artists to our attention. Little known fun fact: most radio station playlists are under 1000 songs. Many more than you'ld imagine rotate 500 songs. Thanks, but I've had my fill of Lincoln Biscuit and Limp Park. The only way I get introduced to exciting new music and film is via downloads, which I then buy for the offical packaging and to support the artist. The rest stay on the drive unheard until either something clicks or I'm short on drive space. Some times I wonder if the RIAA and such fear P2P because it helps people decide which albums to avoid. ;)

Re:essentials

[LaCosaNostradamus]

P2P can save the artists the costs of traditional advertising, and possibly distribution. What remains risky is if these methods will leverage sales at all levels (online materials, concert attendance, media sales, etc.).

So all you're doing here is telling us you don't understand business risks. Have you ever heard the maxim that "you have to spend money to make money"? Well, putting your work on a P2P system is essentially such an investment.

Re:essentials

[Jherek Carnelian]

I'm still waiting for you to get to the part where P2P solves the problem of artists needing money.

Commission.

One form being live concerts - people pay for their ticket, the band takes the money and then gets up on stage and entertains them.

Another form being the group-buy - people pay for the creation and release of an album, the band takes the money and goes to a recoding studio, makes an album and releases it into the public domain with distribution via P2P. Everyone who paid for it can download it, anyone else who downloads it is really getting advertising for the band's next album. It may sound like good music, even taste and smell like good music, but it is really advertising.

If it is good music (advertising), the band will be able to get an even higher asking price for their next album because their fan(customer) base will have grown since the last release.

When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Golgafrinchan]

'The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.

I'm not sure that the Beatles are a good example here. By the time they started doing really revolutionary stuff on Revolver, they'd already had 10 #1 singles. I'd suspect that any artist who reached that point would have a lot more freedom in what they did.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[GPLDAN]

Good point. The early Beatles were all about being managed. They started in Germany with the leathers, and came back and Brian put them in suits and made them mod.

They were as managed and as packaged as anything that comes from American or World Idol. The difference, of course, between them and Kelly Clarkson, is that they were brilliant musicians and songwriters.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Artifakt]

The Beatles were steered by some sort of management comittee. Remember "Michelle"? The year it was released was 14 years after the year the name "Michelle" became the most popular name to give baby girls in Britain. Looking at the other Beatles albums, the pattern emerges. On the early albums, there is almost always a song using the most popular 14 or 15 year old girl's names in Britain, while on the latter ones, (basically after the Ed Sullivan appearance), there are songs using both these and the most popular US adolescent girl's names as well.

Anna, Julia, Lucy, Rita, Martha, Maggy (Mae), Penny, Pam, Honey, Sadie...

Beyond this, there's the required love song on every album, the required 3:22 long song for optimal AM play, and so on. Looking at when songs were actually recorded in studio, John and Paul uusually had to wait to record their favorites until someone in management was satisfied they had the required songs in the can.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[filmmaker]

Why be so nice about it. That guy is a complete asshat for trying to dis the Beatles in order to increase his own celebrity stock. What a zero.

The Beatles were on the cutting edge of popular music, even at the very beginning. As soon as they found Ringo, and would stay late after shows and play Blues records and listen to Fats Domino and later, Bob Dylan they were right on the edge. Remember, where they come from, no one was playing the stuff they were listening to. They chomped bennies all night and drank booze to perform like machines in those Hamburg shows until late into the night. They were surrounded by hookers the rest of the time. If that's not rock n' roll, I don't know what is.

Once they got introduced to psychedelics and perhaps more significantly, transcendental meditation and Eastern culture generally, they exploded. The beginnings of their compositional transendence (of their rock n' roll peers) is heard on Revolver, still among my personal favorite Beatles albums.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed . . . what made The Beatles special was that they could take a requirement like "Write a love song about Michelle, 3:22 in length" and still produce a timeless classic out of it :)

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Watts Martin]

You don't need to even RTFA, you could just RTF quote before shooting off about complete zeros:

For Sananda Maitreya, who also joined the legal brief, online music distribution gives him the freedom he says he lacked when he was signed with a major label in the 1980s under his former name, Terence Trent D'Arby. Back then, Maitreya recalled, committees had to sign off on any music released.

"The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music," said Maitreya, who now lives in Italy.

His example was clearly using the Beatles as an example of a group which produced great music, and suggesting they wouldn't have been able to do so with the record-by-committee style of modern pop.

Ask not for the asshat is worn. It is worn for thee.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[l4m3z0r]

By the time they started doing really revolutionary stuff on Revolver

Whoa whoa whoa slow down a minute. They were doing revolutionary stuff right from the get go. Hell they were turned down by a number of labels before they got to that point because they all thought it was crap and wouldn't sell.

Quote:"Guitar groups are on the way out, Mr. Epstein." - Dick Rowe head of Decca recording in London.

They had freedom in the beginning to do whatever because people genuinely didn't care and didn't think they were talented or would get anywhere. As much as you can poke fun "Love me do" and "eight days a week" are revolutionary songs. As revolutionary as say "while my guitar gently weeps" and "let it be". In fact without the original boy bandish revolution the later beatles would have never materialized as they built off there earlier musical innovation.

Re:When you have clout like the Beatles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget George Martin, their producer at EMI/Capitol Records. According to at least one experienced musician who met them, Martin was the one responsible for many of the professional sounding harmonies and arrangements in their early hits, such as "If I Fell".

Good idea, but...

[rm999]

Peer to peer has a lot of potential, but up to now it has largely been disorganized. There is no easy way to go through a list of all the music, and no way to know which of the 1% of the songs are legitimate.

This means that the chance someone will download some indie music off kazaa is close to 0. There needs to be a way for artists to advertise their own, legal music on these networks. There are already websites that allow this, like http://www.garageband.coc. I think free download websites like this are a much better way for indie artists to spread their name.

Re:Good idea, but...

[hesiod]

Never heard of the .coc TLD, and not sure I want to go to one ;)

Fixed & linkified: http://www.garageband.com/

Re:Good idea, but...

[zotz]

Is there some way to re-implement the napster feature set in P2P for indie music?

I never played with napster enough to know, but I have friends who swear by it when it comes to quality music discovery and discussions. They claim to have bought more music, and more varied, when napster was around than before or since. Some have basically stopped buying all togehter now.

all the best,

drew

Re:Good idea, but...

[glasse]

This is a perfect opportunity to pimp http://www.webjay.org/. It's a collection of user-submitted deep links to MP3s around the Internet. If a link is to a copyrighted work that the creator doesn't want distributed, Webjay admins remove the link. Which is really neat, because I'm sick of providing RIAA people with free advertising which they're only going to sue me for providing.

It's decentralized taste in a digital age. Some of the stuff you get from Webjay is crap, but a lot of it is really good.

Ethan

Re:How else would a starving artist afford music?

[demonic-halo]

Re:How else would a starving artist afford music?

(I meant to say starving, funny what a difference a 'v' makes)

An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[robyannetta]

To be honest, I don't use p2p utilities for any reason. However, I would love to distribute my films via p2p, but am afraid The Man (TM) will attempt to come down on me for distributing films over p2p. I don't have the kind of cash needed to defend myself against the faceless monsters behind the MPAA.

Its these threats that's keeping indies like me down.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[goldspider]

Are you paranoid or just a dumbass? On what grounds would The Man squash the distribution of YOUR film (as in YOU own the copyright)?

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[sahonen]

You have absolutely nothing to worry about. You own the copyright on your own film, and therefore have the exclusive right to say how it may be distributed. The MPAA has zero right to tell you how you may distribute your own film.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Rude Turnip]

You need someone else's permission to distribute *your* films?

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Handpaper]

If it's yours, you can distribute it in any way you see fit.

My sig referencences my brother's band, there are tracks available for download there. They can do this because they own their creations. They also don't mind their music being shared - see the copyright notice.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[robyannetta]

You're right... It's MY films.

I'm afraid of the automated emails that get sent out saying that it found me distributing movies via a p2p app.

I can barely afford making the movies, let along defending myself (successfully) in court.

THAT's what's keeping me down.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

An automated e-mail carries no legal weight. It is not notice of a lawsuit, and the whole matter could be straightened out withoug involving the legal system.

You don't need to go to court to tell the RIAA that you own the copyrights to the films you were distributing, and that you were sent the e-mail in error.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Ayaress]

Well, if you name your films after major ones, then, maybe. It'd be like the makers of Xfile getting in trouble because the automailer identified it as X-Files episodes. If you have unique titles, though, that won't happen. Those bots that search for people sharing movies search by title, not just if it's a movie or not. The MPAA may have more power than it should, but it doesn't have enough power to stop you from distributing something that's not owned by somebody they represent. Even a commercial movie not produced by an MPAA member company, the MPAA can't do anything about. The only risk to you distributing your own files via ptp is that a major lawsuit will take down the service you're distributing through, but in that case you could safely move to another service.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Hallow]

Well, it really depends. You might have the copyright on your movie, but have you carefully checked all your audio to make sure you're not using anything copyrighted, or can even hear anything copyrighted? Made sure any buildings or artwork that appear aren't copyrighted? Better not have used a coke can or a t-shirt with a cool design - all those are probably copyrighted. Got releases from every identifiable person in your flick?

This has even made me a little scared when it comes to just sharing family home movies online! You can get sued for just about anything these days.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.. We'll have to talk to our Congress critters in the pocket and have this fixed immediately!

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[XenonChloride]

You might want to contact Mark Burson and William Farmer from Fistful of Film how the "release" of "First You Live Then You Die" on edonkey went for them.
However note that one of them stated:

Both my co-director and I have gone on to other things, and this film is just something that pops into our heads now and then as a bunch of fun memories. [...] and yes anyone can post this on emule or anywhere they wish. Since it never found "legitimate" distribution, I don't mind letting it out there in whatever form possible.

So they pretty much just let it go, which might not be exactly what you were looking for.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[nunchux]

I hate to be cruel, but you'll never make it in the indie film world with that kind of business savvy. The second most important thing you need to know (right after the actual craft of filmmaking) is what your rights are, and what obligations you have to the rights of others. Thinking the MPAA is going to come down on you for distributing your own film-- which, presumably, you have the rights to-- is plain ignorance.

Make sure your assetts are clear (especially music, location and personal releases!), then put the film on P2P and on your own website, and on Indie sites like Slamdance's Anarchy if you can. Why not? There's nothing better than word-of-mouth and underground "buzz" (sorry to use that word) for an aspiring artist. Getting noticed the traditional way (by sending reels to studios, production companies and film festivals) is nearly impossible without a connection, but the vast and anonymous world of the internet and P2P is a great leveller where unknowns can pop out of nowhere if they have a good idea. Look at Homestarrunner or Red VS Blue, for example...

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking the MPAA is going to come down on you for distributing your own film-- which, presumably, you have the rights to-- is plain ignorance.

Apparently you're ignorant of things like realistic-looking legal threats sent out by machine in response to whatever random flags went off in the computer (the X-Files letter springs to mind). These days it takes a lawyer to sort things out after your website has been taken down due to an invalid DMCA letter.

What do you want to bet that when lokitorrent's logs get run through by the *AA they'll be sending letters to everyone on the list without first checking to make sure that everything on the site really was infringing?

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[nunchux]

Are you really that afraid that if you share your OWN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL (and only that), you're going to bring all of the powers of the DMCA cartels down to sue you for all you're worth? Is that the only thing holding you back from sharing this film on P2P? (And we all know you're the grandparent poster, not some random AC.)

Good luck in the film business. You'll need it.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[zotz]

Unless there is something "infringing" in the movie. Or that can be claimed to be infringing.

all the best,

drew

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right... It's MY films.

I'm afraid of the automated emails that get sent out saying that it found me distributing movies via a p2p app.

I can barely afford making the movies, let along defending myself (successfully) in court.

If you're serious, just give it to a few other people and have them distribute it. Or upload it to a service like OurMedia.

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[zxsqkty]

What are you talking about?

If it's your own content and you're not under a contract that exercises control over distribution, or you're otherwise licenced to distribute someone elses content, you can distribute it as you like. You don't have to follow anybody elses rules unless you accept them.

Bottom line: p2p (as you imagine it) is not illegal. There are those that seek to make it so, though the "those" in this case generally represent the current media distribution channels wo are naturally trying to protect their own corporate interests.

Try a variation of this as a business plan:

1. Post .torrents of your old stuff
2. gain karma.
3. sell new stuff.
4. Profit??

Re:An Indie filmmaker's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Sranger things have happened in the world we live in. But who cares about that? The important part is who gets kicked off Survivor Island.

Seriously.

[Patrick Mannion]

P2P is a good tool. I've been thinking about it for a long time and told my dad the idea. He went, do you want to be poor? But still, it's a good way. It's free and isn't as a hassle as setting up a myspace, garageband or soundclick account.

This time, it's not just indie artists

[EvilStein]

That quote was seen on another article talking about the Grokster case. I read it the other day.

There are a few label artists that have filed amicus briefs with the court as well, the rock band Heart being one of them. They've been using p2p (the "weed" application) to distribute new material. Heart may not have any chart topping hits right now, but they've been around since the 1970's and have been a consistant solid touring act. Howard Leese (guitarist) still owns the "Bad Animals" recording studio up in Seattle.

Another 70's artist, Janis Ian, has also thrown her support behind p2p. After seeing older tracks winding up on p2p networks, they noticed that her older albums had in increase in sales.

p2p is great for indie artists, true, but it's also nice to see some longtime "major label" artists throwing their names behind it as well.

Will it stop? Doubtful.

[mycro]

It seems that the majority of artists support file sharing until they get big. Some of the bigger bands support sites like purevolume, where you may (or may not) download an MP3, but listen to a song through flash instead. I would hope that artists who provide MP3s at websites would not get angry about file sharing. I don't see it coming to an end, because this is going to create a war between artists and fans, which is ultimately worse for the artist.

Re:Will it stop? Doubtful.

[msporny]

We have found a way for the artist and fan to work together (the artist gets paid and so does the fan):

Bitmunk P2P Music Network

DICLAIMER: I am the CEO of Digital Bazaar, the company behind the Bitmunk P2P network. Take what I have to say with a grain of salt if you must, but go and check out the site and decide for yourself.

We're really trying to help everybody out here - non-DRMed, high quality MP3 files, fair prices determined by market forces (not suits in a boardroom) and best of all - the artist gets to set their prices, licensing options, distribution countries, etc. The fans can re-distribute the artists content legally, and charge a small fee (for bandwidth, etc) if they so desire.

The most mediocre, conservative music...

[soupdevil]

Yeah, that sounds just about like Terence Trent D'Arby.
I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.
A certain young artist from Sony just shot a $150,000 video, which will hit mtv2/vh1 next week. The original budget for the video was about $20,000, but after the song took off on the networks, the label delayed the album launch and put more money into the video.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[garcia]

I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.

Yeah because no big names allow their music to be distributed by P2P right? Grateful Dead, Phish (remember these are two of the largest touring bands ever), and a recent notable Wilco (#1 alternative rock album), Los Lonely Boys (quite famous recently for whatever reason), etc.

Just because Ashlee Lipsynchson and various other talentless popular artists don't do it doesn't mean it doesn't help the "big" artists.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to prove that they're not scared of losing money, they're scared of losing control.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[soupdevil]

My point was that it does help the labels determine which big artists to support.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[garcia]

And my point is that it doesn't matter. No matter the size of the band P2P does nothing but help the artists gain popularity and distribution.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[Golgafrinchan]

What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for.

Indeed. This topic has been covered on slashdot before, too! One such company who provides these statistics is BigChampagne.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[nate nice]

The best part is the record label actually doesn't pay for that video. In the end, they are like a bank taking a risk on an artist. If the artist doesn't make any money for them, then the artist gets nothing and the label takes a loss. On the other hand, if the artist makes money, they only make it after their label debt is repaid, generally in full and sometimes with interest.

In short, the artist you just mentioned is going to have to make back 150,000 instead of 20,000 before they start to make money, + the cost to engineer the album and market it, etc.

It's a really bad deal. Read this for more info:

http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusi c. html

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[soupdevil]

If you decide to be a big label artist, a deal like this is the only way to make it. If your first single fails, it doesn't matter if they're $20K in the hole or $150K in the hole. They're going to dump you. But a big-budget video (or medium budget in this case) gives you the exposure to executives at the label and at the video networks -- exposure required to make it mainstream.

Re:The most mediocre, conservative music...

[zotz]

So, should all of the P2P programs/networks include in their TOS a prohibition against using statistics gathered for marketing purposes withoug the payment of a fee?

Possible?

all the best,

drew

Any publicity is good publicity

[caryw]

For an Indie artist P2P is essential for helping to distribute their art to the public. They usually do not have the means to host a web server for themselves for listeners to download MP3's. Several websites exist for independent artists to share their music such as SoundClick and (the late) mp3.com which is nice when a potential fan already knows the artists' name and music. However in order to get introduced to the indie artist a listener must find his music somewhere. These days it definitely won't be on the radio or MTV, so that only leaves word of mouth or a BitTorrent amongst illegal ones on a P2P website somewhere. Speaking about Indie artists, check out DZK, a talented artist I never would have found if not for P2P.
- Cary
--
Anyone from Fairfax County or Northern Virginia?

At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally own about 47GB worth of music in MP3 format. I will never buy the album now. I got more music then I know what to do with before napster closed the virousa hole.

Would I have bought the CD's otherwise. Yes, a lot of them. No to some of them.

I am sure that the most downloaded artists need all the help they can get. I mean without p2p I woudl have never heard of Eminem or Britney Spears.

At least recogonize that in some cases p2p is detrimental to artists and I will have a fuck of a lot more respect for you.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

At least recogonize that in some cases p2p is detrimental to artists...

Only the greedy lazy ones who want to be paid for next 75 years for their one great hit. Screw that.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not me. If it wasn't for p2p, I wouldn't have listened to any of Eminem's or Britney Spears' songs. In fact, even *with* p2p I don't listen to their songs. They are crap. If you call that music, you better shoot beethoven in the head first. That's right, dig him up from his grave and shoot him. IN THE HEAD.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck Yes! A guy on slashdot who's not full of it.

Let's face it. With one or two exceptions, virtually ALL of you have pirated something off the net at one time or another. You didn't need it, it was a luxury item, and you knew what you were doing was illegal.

Stop hiding behind this "P2P helps the artists" and "Information wants to be free" shit. There's nothing worse than someone who does something wrong, and then has the nerve to try and justify it. To all you above and below trying to justify unnecessary copyright infingement: go fuck yourselves.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What's "wrong"? Corporations are now defining the term.

I'll make you a deal: I'll start obeying copyright law, when the US Congress lets the copyright on Mickey Mouse expire.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, at least you're being honest. You're pirating stuff because the media cartels are a bunch of dicks and they deserve it. That's totally fair enough - I respect that.

What I'm having a go at is people who actually try and come up with some moral reason why it's good to pirate stuff - as if they're helping the artists or some crap.

Re:At least admit you are semi full of shit

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this for a "moral reason": I have never, and will never pay for music that I haven't heard. Period.

I'm a Clutch fan and the radio stations in my area refuse to play anything created with in the last quarter century.

I have purchased nearly every Clutch CD the band has come up with, I buy a concert ticket every time they come to town, and I have three Clutch t-shirts that I bought at the show.

I would be spending a whopping $000.00 on them if I hadn't "pirated" their music at some point.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that don't support their favorite artists. Stupid people are prone to doing stupid things.

The other side of the coin would be buying a dozen broken eggs because you didn't feel you were justified in opening the carton before you paid for them.

Agenda of the Power Elite

[pegasustonans]

The Beatles could not have faced that criteria and come up with anything other than the most mediocre, conservative music,' said Maitreya.

Yes, the problem is that the current economic-political structure doesn't want anything but 'mediocre, conservative music.' So, insightful independent artists such as Maitreya will continue to be ignored while the power elite continue to go after p2p.

Re:Agenda of the Power Elite

[Anonymous Coward]

Righ. Go listen to the lyrics in any R&B or hip-hop album, and come back here and tell us it's "conservative".

Mediocre? Definiately. You won't get an argument out of me on that point.

Re:Agenda of the Power Elite

[bonch]

Yes, the problem is that the current economic-political structure doesn't want anything but 'mediocre, conservative music.'

Funny, I just thought today's mainstream artists were lazy. And record labels are afraid to take chances on riskier artists, because they're afraid of piracy eating into their return investment.

Every generation thinks the youth's new music is "mediocre, conservative music." A lot of people don't realize how much they sound like old fogies complaining about their grandkids' music. A lot of people love today's music.

But hey, at least you got to use the phrase "agenda of the power elite" in a Slashdot post...no melodrama here!

Re:Agenda of the Power Elite

[/dev/trash]

Have you listened to music lately? I'd not call any of it conservative.

It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[riptide_dot]

This from the perspective of an "indie" musician:

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

ProTools + P2P distribution + web advertising = no more RIAA requirement PERIOD.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[Tjoppen]

The latest South Park episode seems relevant;

"We have to make Token believe he needs us, when actually he doesn't need us at all..."

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[bonch]

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you.

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything

You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.

Besides, you don't need P2P piracy for distributing free music. iTunes offers free downloads all the time. Encouraging the use of networks that we all know is 95+% illegal piracy--as in, distribution of content without permission--is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed. You people wanted the record labels to embrace legal online downloading. I've been here for years, and have read post after post, editorial after editorial. Well, it's here in several forms, and now they're still not good enough.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap. Amateur recording engineers thinking they can just click through Pro Tools and get it done. You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[mmkkbb]

And hell, a decent multitrack Pro Tools setup will run several thousands of dollars. I mean, nice acoustics don't matter for electronics but stuff still has to be properly mastered, especially for vinyl.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[riptide_dot]

You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music.

That assumes that they didn't have any money at that point in their careers. At that point in their careers, they could live of the gobs of money they had already made. They could also sell an album just because they were the Beatles (people would buy them based on the fact that they knew it was good just because the Beatles wrote it). Plus, they were in a time where the distribution model was such that you had to tour to promote your album. That's not necessarily the case anymore.

ProTools = no more requirement for RIAA to supply you with a "professional" recording studio

Hardly! There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...jesus, that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap.

Pardon my french, but no shit sherlock. There's a lot more to writing a good program than having C++ on your computer too, but if C++ cost millions of dollars to buy, and there were no alternatives, there would be a whole lot fewer C++ programmers. The proliferation of ProTools and cheap(but quality) recording hardware means that anyone can create a truly professional sounding studio out of their house without having to have millions of dollars worth of mixing software and hardware to do it.

Albums sound crappy for multiple reasons, and bad recordings is just one of them. Bad music is also one. The RIAA is a corporation where money is the bottom line, so they don't care about promoting any artist they don't think will be hugely popular. That makes for a pretty small circle of artists for a consumer to choose from.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that artists ought to attempt to distribute/promote their music on iTunes and places like that as well, but if they want to distribute their creations on a free P2P network, that's their decision, and in a free country, you should respect their right to make that decision, even if you don't agree with it.

Consider this from an artist's point of view: If someone likes the song you wrote, most likely they will want their friends listen to it. And if their friends like it, and the friends of those friends like it, and so on, you suddenly have a fan base. And when you come to their town to put on a show, they just might show up and be willing to pay for a ticket.

Re:It's not just P2P that's hurting the RIAA

[zotz]

"If you disagree with me, reply and post why. Don't mod me down. Those mod points are better spent elsewhere."

Here we go...

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything

I don't know.Aas I posted elsewhere under this topic, I know people who started buying lots of music again when napster got popular and have all but stopped now.

I have basically stopped out of private protest over the crazy copyright situation and how the laws are being used/abused by the big boys.

Instead of buying, I am trying to create and release my works under a "copyleft" type license.

I am even trying to learn a few instruments.

I personally don't want to break the law, but I sure don't want to give the copyright abusers any of my money to carry out attacks designed to put fear and terror into the hearts of the public.

The current copyright laws, and specifically the possible penalties, are crazy in my estimation. The durations too by the way. Until this changes, I am trying to keep my money out of their hands where possible.

"You know, the Beatles stopped touring in their careers so they could put out a lot of classic albums. In that mindset, they wouldn't have been able to make a living recording that music."

Now, the fab four are one of my all time favourite groups, my dad is supposedly in a scene in Help. I certainly am not calling for not paying or supporting artists. Seems the big labels are famous for shafting many (a majority?) of those same artists though.

We do need to find a reliable way to support (monitarily) artists. I would be happy to see many more artists make a comfortable living wage from their music even if it meant less having the chance for hugh fame and fortune though. That is a tradeoff I would be comfortable with, both as a supporter of artists and as an (a potential?) artist.

"is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed."

From what I hear, iTunes still will not sell to people in my country. PayPal will not give us accounts. Although we can receive DirecTV, to my understanding, we cannot legally buy a subscription, etc.

We can buy overpriced CDs and listen to and tape from a few radio stations though.

"that's part of the problem of why so many albums sound like crap."

Sure, but people have to learn to be independant and how to make good music and money together without giving up the copyrights on thier work.

This may or may not work. We will see. Some of us want to try and make a difference though.

One thing we can do is to give all participants in a production copyright credit and thus let them share in any royalties. In music, at least the (P) copyright. Perhaps the (C) copyright too though.

With the right license, I think we can copyleft our work while still leaving room for it to produce income for many years to come.

I don't think the copyright landscape will necessarily look too much like it does now though.

"You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on."

Networking and sharing.

Not necessarily the easiest thing to do, I grant you.

Constructive discussion welcomed, even if it expresses strong disagreement.

all the best,

drew

I don't get your logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and imagine how high the sales would have been WITHOUT the loss incurred by P2P. The sales went through the roof even with P2P, which speaks for a good album, but there must have been a significant number of people who downloaded the CD but never bought it. Without P2P some of those people would have bought the album.

Or are you actually trying to imply that P2P improved the sales? I don't get your logic.

Re:I don't get your logic

[jb.hl.com]

Yes, and imagine how high the sales would have been WITHOUT the loss incurred by P2P. The sales went through the roof even with P2P, which speaks for a good album, but there must have been a significant number of people who downloaded the CD but never bought it. Without P2P some of those people would have bought the album.

Well, yeah, of course there were probably some who just downloaded the album but didn't buy the CD, but my point is that Kid A was released with no marketing whatsoever. Radiohead had never been in the US top 20 before and Kid A went directly to number 1 within a week of its release. This with no marketing whatsoever. Given the lack of advertising, the sales could have been vastly worse.

Re:I don't get your logic

[angle_slam]

You're acting like Radiohead was nothing before Kid A. Wrong. First, OK Computer is one of the best reviewed albums of all time. Any follow-up would have been huge. They didn't HAVE to do any advertising, because the media buzz was huge. Second, Radiohead did SNL. It's not like they did absolutely nothing to hype the album.

The fact that a band does no advertising is meaningless. Pearl Jam made no official videos after their first album. Didn't stop there next two albums from setting single-week sales records. Why? They were already big.

Do they really support it?

[Glowing Fish]

Do Indie Rockers really support P2P? Or are they just saying they do, because its five years old now, and its retro-ironic to pretend you like it?

Doesn't change anything

[bonch]

Yes, it's great that some artists want people to distribute their music in this way. They have given permission for people do that.

Most artists have not given that permission. Yet, most pirates don't respect that. Slashdot posts things like this to make it seem as though there's some supportive movement among artists for P2P piracy, but there is not. And in between all the "stolen GPL code" articles, arguing in favor of P2P copyright infringement is all the more silly and hypocritical.

Just my opinion. Nobody's ever validly justified infringing on artists' rights without their permission. It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free. That's all P2P piracy boils down to. It's not a cultural communications movement. It's human beings wanting stuff for free because people have made it easy to get. Basic human nature here.

Those artists who have given permission are cool. But the copyright holders who don't give permission also have the right not to, and if people want to pretend they have a moral ground to stand on, they'd respect the wishes of those people. But they don't. We instead get more ranting about the RIAA going after individual infringers (just like Slashdot suggested they do in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit), in between articles about GPL violations where people go after individual GPL infringers.

Though I know there are people who don't fall into this mindset here, I'll never understand the majority Slashdot position on this. By majority, I'm referring to both the position of the editors based on the stories they post, and the position of the majority of posters based on the upmods received for certain opinions that support the piracy mindset of entitlement to everything without giving anything in return...what we call "freeloading."

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Jesus IS the Devil]

I've seen the parent post modded to a 3, then back down to a 2, within the span of minutes. This just goes to prove his point. His arguments hit the nail right on the head. This is they hypocricy that is slashdot.

Go ahead, mod me down. Like I really care. Makes the point all the more valid.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[garcia]

It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.

Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.

Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.

I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

The difference between music piracy and GPL violations is quite simple.

In the latter case, the company committing the violation is making a profit off the work of others, and in a way, cheating their customers.

In the former case, nothing is being stolen, and no one is being cheated, as many people would not have bought the CD or CD single to listen to the song(s) if they didn't download it.

It's about money. Nothing more, nothing less. That's just how I see it.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Please remember that comment moderation points may go down as well as up.

There are mods who disagree with him. This does not make it a hypocrisy. The OP is confusing two different types of violations.

It's an interesting argument, not a good one.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Jesus IS the Devil]

What exactly is it about money that makes your argument valid?

If the point is to encourage the sharing of information, to better society, then why prevent someone from profitting (via GPL violations) to bring forth more innovations? How is that any less evil than say, Microsoft forcing you to license their product before you can develop code from it?

It all boils down to the mentality of, "I don't want anybody to succeed or profit". Basic human selfishness. "If I don't get rich, I don't want someone else to get rich."

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the parent post modded to a 3, then back down to a 2, within the span of minutes.

You lie like a rug:

Moderation +3
70% Insightful
30% Interesting

Re:Doesn't change anything

[goldspider]

Puh-leeze.

"Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil)...

Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!

"...and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them."

I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

The point is that people believe it is wrong for anyone to make a profit of someone else's work.

If the company also wished only to encourage the sharing of information, it is free to share the GPL code and not charge for the code. But it does, and that is wrong.

When pirates start selling MP3s, like Maui X-Stream is doing with PearPC code, then I agree both sides are wrong. Until then, only the latter is wrong in my book.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[iminplaya]

Most artists have not given that permission. Yet, most pirates don't respect that.

Because they refuse to accept gov't granted ownership? Nothing wrong with that.

Nobody's ever validly justified infringing on artists' rights without their permission.

Nobody's ever validly justified copyright without lying about "increasing innovation", etc. When just the opposite is true.

It's human beings wanting stuff for free because people have made it easy to get. Basic human nature here.

Sounds like the IP rights holder's attitude to me. Work once, get paid many times. They claim ownership of some thing that can't be owned. That the gov't agrees doesn't make it right. It's the public's generosity that gives you any copyright at all. There are NO inherent ownership rights! If you continue your greedy attempts to extend it, eventually the publice might wake up, see what you're trying to do, and take back those rights.

...with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

LIAR! LIAR! That has been refuted many times. We're just telling them that they have to perform WORK to get paid. Try to get it straight, damn it! You are LYING when you say that. You know it's not true, yet you continue to say it. That makes you a LIAR!

Re:Doesn't change anything

[bonch]

It's not the artists music when they are RIAA backed. It's the RIAA's music and no matter how much the RIAA claims that they have nothing but the artists' best interests in mind they prove time and time again that they only have their own best intentions in mind.

Well, let's clarify this. It's not the RIAA's music. The RIAA is just a representative lobbying body for a group of record labels. The record labels are who, to some degree based on the contracts the artists sign, own the copyrights to this intellectual property.

Now, read that again. "Contracts the artists sign." I see a lot of people vaguely describing evil actions against artists on the part of the RIAA, like some big conspiracy. Yet, artists willingly sign their contracts. Obviously, there are specific cases of business deals gone sour between artists and record labels, JUST LIKE IN ANY INDUSTRY. And nobody's claiming the record labels are these innocent little businesses who are in it for the music (though there are some).

But to keep regurgitating this non-specific meme of the evil RIAA hurting artists doesn't actually SAY anything. It's a convenient justification made in Slashdot posts to end a discussion thread. "I copy music, but the RIAA is the evil one because they hurt artists!"

Now, when there is a GPL violation it is sometimes by a corporate company (i.e. a company that distribute SOHO routers) that is using GPL'd software to drive their product w/o giving credit where it is due. The Slashdot community gets pretty pissed off when the corporations shits on the little guys.

It's a double-standard. GPL code is regarded as intellectual property whose license should be followed. But copyright infringement of media content that someone doesn't feel like paying for is okay.

Now, the RIAA is a corporation (convicted of price fixing none-the-less) that is shitting on the little guys in two different arenas. Both the artists (their monetary share of the profits are nil) and the consumers who purchase the music distributed by them.

I've already somewhat addressed this before.

1.) Artists willingly sign their contracts. There are "entertainment lawyers" who make sure to go through and balance out contracts for both parties. Record labels do a lot of stuff to make an album successful, from manufacturing and advertising to booking appearances.

2.) Music sells now for as cheap as .99 per song and $9 an album. I've seen magazines on my newsstand more expensive than that. I just don't see a valid justification anymore now that iTunes is such a huge success. People should put their money where their mouth is and show the music industry that consumers want to spend their money on digital formats.

I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms.

Permit me to generalize as well. You are right that it's a personal justification. Me, I'm a down-to-earth kind of guy. Yes, I've pirated music. I'm not going to sit here and claim it's some social movement against the evil corporate-controlled world. Slashdot makes itself look like such a ridiculous community with such opinions.

The vast majority of P2P piracy is nothing more than:

1.) People wanting stuff for free so they don't have to pay for it.
2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!"

The ignorance of basic human nature and perception when it comes to the justification of copyright infringement on P2P networks is what kills me. It's so phony. People should just admit what they're doing. You're copying music so you don't have to pay for it. You don't want to shell out--not even $0.99 goddamn cents.

It's like this guy I saw during lunch in hi

Re:Doesn't change anything

[garcia]

Despite the fact that there is no shortage of bands/musicians trying to land these horrible contracts... go figure!

Imagine that. Not caring about ownership of music they created for a chance to make big money! The RIAA was *the* only way to make it big for so long and now that we have inexpensive and near free distribution costs the RIAA does not need to exist anymore. Sadly it will take time before everyone realises that.

I'm still waiting for the story to appear on Slashdot where the RIAA sued someone for buying a CD.

They sued someone for supposedly downloading/uploading when they didn't. I think that's worse. YMMV.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[weopenlatest]

As a self-described audiophile, I have a deep respect for the musicians who provide me with all of this entertainment. I don't complain when I pay $10 or $40 to see a show. I don't mind shelling out $15 for a T-shirt. But I do refuse to pay $20 for a cd. I know that only a dollar or two will go to the artist, unlike maybe half of a concert ticket. If it's a Beatles cd, that dollar is going towards Michael Jackson's kid-touching defense. The rest goes to promote the next Brittany Spears.

I could go to a used record shop and buy a CD for $5-$10 legally, but my favorite one down the block just went out of business, along with most of my other favorite ones. Don't tell me it's gone because of file sharing--it has a lot more to do with WalMart. So I download the track, and then go and pay for a concert ticket when the band comes to town. Usually I can by a copy of the cd at the show for $10, which I'm fine with.

Fact is, as long as music prices reflect huge marketting budgets that mean the stuff on the radio can't compare in quality to the cashless musicians who play at the bar down the road, I don't see a need to spend money on full priced CD's from the big labels.

As for the arguments that few musicians agree, i think that if you polled only the quality musicians you'd find a different story. And besides, bands like The Grateful Dead have been allowing fans to freely tape and distribute their concerts for almost 40 years. In the Dead's case, they'v made a hell of a lot of money in the process.

If you want to make a legal argument against file sharing, be my guest, you'll probably be correct. But please, quit the moralizing. I've done my part in supporting the arts financially through concert tickets and the CD's I do buy. More importantly, I've supported the arts by demanding quality and fighting the marketting monster that is the true threat to the future of music. I've fought it by covering my ears to top 40 garbage, and to complaints of those who shovel it in my direction.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Most artists have not given that permission.

Most artists that anyone has ever heard of, do not own the rights to their own music and cannot give permission.

It's always "the evil RIAA" with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

Many artists get very little or none of the money collected for their record sales. They usually do better with t-shirt or concert ticket sales.

But the copyright holders who don't give permission also have the right not to, and if people want to pretend they have a moral ground to stand on, they'd respect the wishes of those people.

I don't violate copyrights as far as I know. I also have no ethical problem with those people who do. I'll tell you why. Copyright is not a natural right like the right to free speech or the right to freely exercise one's religion. Copyright is a special government sponsored monopoly that was supposed to be half of a two sided bargain. Artists were given a limited monopoly on commercial copying so that they could make money. The public was given the assurance that copies would then be made, thus making books, songs, and art forms more widespread and available. Also, it insured that our children would be able to freely read older works, which would be preserved for them.

That agreement was destroyed after big business began bribing (lobbying) the government to change the laws. They have removed their half of the bargain and left the public with jack shit. Copyright is broken. As a result of the current laws the majority of copyrighted materials are gone forever. No one can read them, hear them, or view them. Hundreds of thousands of works that are our artistic heritage are buried in the name of making a few more bucks and removing them as competition for whatever is being pushed today. If they could, corporations would retroactively gain copyrights on all the classic works and bury them forever too. It is a travesty and is helping to dumb down our culture. Most people don't know that things used to be different, or that the laws were originally designed to do exactly the opposite of what they do now. Copyright was supposed to help us preserve works, now it removes them for all time. Many of these works are owned by companies that don't know they own them, or no one at all, yet still they are denied to the public.

In light of this legal, but horribly unethical situation, I have no problem at all with anyone who wants to steal works, copy works, hack into big media's bank accounts, slash their tires, or kick them in the testicles or some other tender body part.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Where comes this inate "right" to distribute easily replicable material and then demand the world doesn't copy it? Don't confuse laws the result of decades of expensive special interest lobbying with basic human rights, any more than trade agreements or license regulations describe "rights". You also completely sidestep the damage to everyone's right to freely exchange information and ignore the draconian legal remedies required to enforce what you erroniously describe as "rights". You essentially beg the question, and the repeated use of term like "take", "steal" and "pirate" make it pretty clear you believe in a strange sort of absolutism for a commercial minority.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[HishamMuhammad]

If it's a Beatles cd, that dollar is going towards Michael Jackson's kid-touching defense.

Last I heard, Jackson took a loan from Sony (who co-owns/used to co-own the rights with him) and if he didn't pay, Sony would get the rights. Since everybody seems to be saying out there that MJ's current financial situation is at best flaky, I expect him to lose the Beatles rights soon (if he hasn't already).

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

copyleft is the opposite of copyright. there is no contradiction is opposing one and supporting the other.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Stonehand]

Overly simplistic.

There are also many people who, being aware of the availability of free and easy alternatives, change their "might buy" attitude to "why should I buy" -- or, "why should I but -that- when I can get -this- fore nothing"? Take away the free entertainment, and perhaps people will spend more money on other entertainment rather than standing around. If there were no free online infringement, for instance, perhaps people would pay for more concerts.

Furthermore, there are scenarios in which money is involved -- but very, very indirectly.

For instance, what if one media company obtained a leaked copy of a competitor's movie, and offered 10,000 free copies of the DVD a week before the competitor released its own? Or distributed free copies on the streets of Beijing, metaphorically washing its hands of the obvious consequences? Or if it offered a highly compressed version for free download before opening day, in order to reduce the incentive for people to actually go to the theatres? Or, worse, offered a free download of a version deliberately edited to make it look not worth seeing in the theatres?

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Stonehand]

The artists owned their rights in the first place. The studios didn't forcibly seize those rights; the artists transferred them through completely voluntary contracts.

Don't want to sign your rights over? That's your choice; find a different distribution method, such as self-publishing via P2P and relying on word-of-mouth, or going through a different service such as CD Baby. Just don't sign a contract that hands over your rights, and then whine about your lack of them.

It's their own damn fault. Same thing as if an IT worker signed a contract forcing him to work 90h/week for $50K/year in the middle of the Silicon Valley and ceding IP rights over stuff created even on his own time with only his own resources and unrelated to company IP; he's an idiot, and it's his fault.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

True, the prevalent attitude is one of "why should I buy". However, this says more about the media offered than it does about the "pirates" themselves. No one wants to spend money for a CD which only has a few songs. No one wants to spend extra money to get extra channels on cable for only a few shows.

The success of iTunes has shown that if there is an alternative where customers can buy only a few songs for a reasonable price, they will. There have been a number of posts on /. about how people would pay to download TV shows. Not too many are happy with skirting the law for a few dollars. But if the **AA charge exorbitant prices for mediocre products, it pushes many people to piracy.

If a media company obtained a leaked copy of a competitor's movie and released it, they would indirectly be making a profit (relatively speaking). After all, once the competitor is ruined financially, it wouldn't be able to take on many more projects, ensuring the media company's survival in the market. I already addressed how /.'ers feel about this.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The artists owned their rights in the first place. The studios didn't forcibly seize those rights; the artists transferred them through completely voluntary contracts.

In some cases that was their intent, in others they were misled. For some reason not that many artists are experts in contract law.

find a different distribution method

Many artists do. Most TV and radio stations are controlled by big media companies. The same goes for newspapers. There is always the internet and underground publications. There are even some popular indy music publishers.

But that does not matter. The problem is copyrights now extend to non-commercial uses, last forever, take away additional rights via law enforced technological measures, and fail to promote the spread of knowledge, art, and science as was intended.

I never agreed not to copy anything I want. There is no reason for me to agree not to do so. The law says I can't because it has been corrupted by corporate interests. The law is wrong. I would support a fair copyright system, but I don't have that option.

Here's a little story for you. Have you ever heard of the classic Christmas film "It's a Wonderful Life." It tanked at the box office. It was shelved and thrown in a back room. Just before copyrights were extended in perpetuity it entered the public domain. PBS aired it (since it now was free to all) and it was very well received. If not for that you would never have heard of it. Due to some weird legal trickery on the part of the studios, when copyrights were extended it became re-copyrighted and you now have to pay for it again. There are probably thousands of books, songs, movies, and other art that would be beloved and important parts of our heritage if not for the perversion of copyright that extended it forever. Now they are where that movie was, sitting in a box. Much of it was burned, or rotted away. It will never again be seen by anyone.

The Disney corporation, several other media houses, some book publishers, and a lot of corrupt politicians have done this. And I say "screw them." If I am not given a fair copyright system, I will certainly not feel ethically or morally bound to play by the rules of an unfair one.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Artifakt]

There's no shortage of kids hoping to go into the pros when they start playing highschool football, but the chance a given one makes it is less than one in ten thousand. The percentage that get injured in high school is better than half, and a substantial group of them drop out without even a high school diploma afterwards. Then there's all the ones who end up with the kind of great education that lets them sell used cars.
There's no shortage of kids moving to the Hollywood area hoping to get one of those big actor's contracts. Despite this, the average yearly income from acting for the ones who actually get a Screen Actor's Guild card is less than from a full time job at minimum wage, and for the ones who never get into the union, the average income often turns into 20$ a blowjob.
Your "go figure" translates into "A lot of young people, often unsupervised minors, see nothing wrong in gambling on a million to one shot with no back up plan. A smaller group of older, more socially mobile people sees nothing wrong with basing their whole business plan on that fact."

Re:Doesn't change anything

[antiMStroll]

And that simple statement illustrating the relationship between two former worldwide #1 artists and one of the world's biggest music distributors demonstrates just how little this RIAA IP crap really is about "feeding artists."

Re:Doesn't change anything

[zotz]

"Now, read that again. "Contracts the artists sign.""

If word on the net is to be believed, contracts that many artists have signed without reading, or at least without understanding, without having a lawyer on their side, and which end up being significantly different from what was verbally portrayed to them by their "A&R" guy. (Is that the right term?)

Do you deny this?

"And nobody's claiming the record labels are these innocent little businesses who are in it for the music (though there are some)."

Question is, is this a more one sided industry than most?

"It's a double-standard."

Yes, it may be. Perhaps it is simply a different standard being applied?

Question is, can you apply a double-standard without being a hypocrite.

"1.) Artists willingly sign their contracts. There are "entertainment lawyers" who make sure to go through and balance out contracts for both parties. Record labels do a lot of stuff to make an album successful, from manufacturing and advertising to booking appearances."

Yes, and word is that they own the copyrights to the album and make most of the profit that is made on the album. I hear that often, the artists end up in debt to the label even with successful albums.

Do you deny this?

"2.) Music sells now for as cheap as .99 per song and $9 an album. I've seen magazines on my newsstand more expensive than that. I just don't see a valid justification anymore now that iTunes is such a huge success. People should put their money where their mouth is and show the music industry that consumers want to spend their money on digital formats."

iTunes will not sell to people in my country. It is not just the costs to object to. If you are in the US, you face felony charges, (loss of right to vote to correct the situation) jail time, hugh statutory damages... In my country, apparently, jail time and hugh statutory fines. (I don't know about for downloading though, but I just spoke to a lawyer this week and you do for simple posession of a CD or DVD that was made in violation of copyright and purchased by you, even if you understood it to be legit when you were purchasing it.)

I often wonder if it is possible for the little guys to get their stuff downloaded, posessed illegally, informed on (ala the BSA. Perhaps with offers to share the statutory damages collected) and then to file and win suits over the "illegal" posession. (Both as a scam, and honestly.)

As to putting my money where my mouth is, I choose not to follow your advice. I am not getting the big boys stuff anymore - period. Not illegally. Not legally. Instead, I am spending my time (and money) creating works to release with "copyleft" type licneses. I am trying to do my small part to provide a countering force to these abuses.

"2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!""

If I were a betting man, I would bet you that many think it is ethically right, just legally wrong, or that the only reason it may be ethically wrong is because it is legally wrong.

Now, I actually do not want to presume to speak for the majority. Right now, just myself and I am not sure I believe all of what I have just written. I do believe it was worth my precious time to write and it may be worth consideration and discussion.

all the best,

drew

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice job making up shit that doesn't exist.

Moderation 0
40% Insightful
30% Overrated
10% Flamebait

No "interesting" rating at all.

Re:Doesn't change anything

[Keeper]

You are abusing the moderation system if you mod someone down just because you "disagree" with them. Contrary viewpoints add to the value of the discussion; they don't detract from it. Without them, every post on here would be a "me too" post.

it's unfortunate

[kevinx]

I still think it is debatable whether people actually download indy music off of your typical peer to peer network. People go with what they know and have heard of; that's major label music. If peer to peer music sharing networks did a proactive job of advertising and rating/ranking indy musicians, it might spawn into it's own industry....... if that happens..... it'll somehow become controlled by those who are out for a profit.. and someday people will be having a discussion over some new technology that is destroying it.

Re:it's unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

still think it is debatable whether people actually download indy music off of your typical peer to peer network.

We do.

If peer to peer music sharing networks did a proactive job of advertising and rating/ranking indy musicians

That's the artist's job, not the network's. In fact, I'm talking to the guitarist for a band from Spain on SoulSeek right now. I just bought 2 copies of every single 12" and 7" they ever pressed. (And paid for overseas shipping)

Guess who introduced me to that band? The guitarist did. He shares their entire discography and encourages others to do so as well.

This is no isolated example either, I can say the same thing about quite a few dozen underground bands; without P2P I'd have never heard of them.

Re:it's unfortunate

[kevinx]

That's the artist's job, not the network's

without P2P I'd have never heard of them

If it's the artists job to advertise, then what does that have to do with finding them on P2P? Using P2P usually starts by knowing what you are searching for. If you search for "music" or "rock", you will get too many results to find anything worth your while. Most peer to peer networks don't have a great category system. I'm thinking something more along the lines of what cnet does with shareware

I haven't bought an album for ages

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody here seems to be extolling the virtues of P2P and how it increases sales.

I must be an exception then, because ever since I discovered P2P, I haven't bought a single CD. It's just way too easy to download a CD instead of going all the way to a record store, buy the CD and rip it so that I can add it to my music collection.

CDs contain so little music that listening to them is a pain in the ass. You have to be changing discs all the time and I like to have random background music 24h (yes, I like to have music playing quietly even when I sleep).

Re:I haven't bought an album for ages

[VAXcat]

If you think CD's contain too little music, just think what things were like back in the 60s and 70s, when a typical LP had about 20 minutes of music on a side...we had to get up and change the record constantly, and they were darned delicate, too.

No Statues

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no statues of committees

Re:No Statues

[Anonymous Coward]

"" - Gilbert K. Chesterton

You're an EXCEPTION

[bonch]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards? Have you been to a college campus lately or talked to other young people with high-speed connections?

It's admirable that you use P2P in that way, but don't pretend your personal experience suddenly signifies that P2P piracy is a good thing for the music industry.

One may as well argue that stealing GPL code is good for the software industry. If I like CherryOS, I may check out PearPC! Retarded arguments all around.

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[mankey wanker]

I have such a lot of music already that I rarely find anything new of interest. But practically everything I bought in the last year was from a defunct San Francisco label named "City of Tribes." Beyond that it was a pair of Bill Laswell CDs, one by Lydia Lunch, and the latest Kraftwerk. Most of that stuff I had to purchase without ever hearing a single note beforehand - I just had to trust in the type of music I was buying. The Kraftwerk I downloaded first - and after I found I liked it, I bought it. I wanted a clean copy to rip to my music server.

Yeah, it's all lies. People don't really do that...

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Custard]

I personally own about $500/250GBP worth of music CDs, none of which I would have bought without P2P being there. It does help the record industry make money.

Please. Do you really think the majority of people who have 250GB worth of MP3s are doing it to go out and buy the CD afterwards?

There's a difference:

250GBP

250GB

$500/250GBP = about 40 CD's; a reasonably sized collection.

250GB = about 62,500 songs. Wow.

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

40 CDs is a reasonable collection? Wow, I've got more than that sitting on my desk, and several hundred ripped, tagged as mine, and boxed for storage. On my computer, I have about 60 mp3 files I've downloaded, and about 3000 ogg files I've ripped myself as I replaced the mp3s I downloaded with legit copies.

Just the other day I managed to locate an out of print CD from the 90s, which will similarly be stored, replacing the 3 mp3s from the album. Someday I intend to legally own ALL of my music, somehow.

But apparently I'm unreasonable :D

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

Where on earth does he say that he has 250GB of music?!? Get off the crack.

Re:You're an EXCEPTION

[Anonymous Coward]

i agree.
40?? Thats what you carry round with you in a cd wallet!!!

Got about 500 cd's myself...not all ripped...not all worth being ripped. Downloaded and borrowed from friends heaps too. No-way i can ever buy all of them....not even goin to try.....i do purchase some that i want to be in my collection...i download and borrow to preview the cd's...if i listen to it more than say 10 times and if i listen to it months later and still think its just as good, i will buy it...if its just one song, i will either delete the rest or buy secondhand or wait for the bargain bins...out of the 500 cd's you know there are about 25% that i feel i was ripped off by the record co...1 good song, the rest crap...also...i was an 80's child....still got boxes of tapes...isnt this the same thing??

Mod parent WAY up!

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be read by everyone, regardless of whether or not you disagree. Anyone who mods him down only further proves his point.

Musicians want people to share *some* of their...

[turnstyle]

But musicians only want people to share the specific tracks that they want people to share.

Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.

It's misleading to say that musicians favor P2P without considering what portion of their catalog they'd like to be shared.

Okay, following your logic

[bonch]

Following your logic, have P2P copyright infringers asked permission from every single artist from whom they copy music?

Or do you really mean, "If only we all listened to the indie artists without contracts who are giving permission for P2P distribution because they need the publicity...and ignored the rest."

Why do people think they're entitled to anything that can be pirated? It's like people argue from a position of inherent "right" to pirate music. Can I pirate Doom 3 just because I can? If John Carmack tells me not to, does that make him a greedy person? Can I infringe the copyright of the GPL too?

Re:Okay, following your logic

[Havenwar]

Okay Hairy Nutsack, listen up... (got your attention? good. No hard feelings, I know nothing about your nutsack, just wanted to open this up in the same sort of overly aggreavted tone you started in, so that you feel right at home.)

I believe I am entitled to anything that is legal to do, and I will fight tooth and nail for any right I enjoy that is being taken from me. I would fight just as hard for the freedom of speech of that was being threatened, or the freedom to urinate in nature, or the freedom to fart in your general direction.

A "right" as you say, is simply anything that is not forbidden. So yes, there is - at least in sweden - an inherent RIGHT to download copyrighted music without compensating teh artists. This RIGHT will be taken from us, because not enough people listen to what the artists think, and what the general populace thinks, and way to many people listen to what the MAJOR CORPORATIONS thinks...

Now my idea on this is that teh major corporations should either change their business model or just collapse and die. They say they loose tons of money - fine, I am very happy. In this age the major corporations that have been between artists and consumers is no longer needed, any artist can easily create music with computer aid and justa s easily sell it or give it away for free. They can book shows and make ads for themselves, and no corporations are needed.

So, they say they go bankrupt due to our pirating... GREAT. I have never been happier. I just wish the governments would stop making new laws only aimed at restricting new technology so that major corporations can still make money the "old way" instead of changing.

Now when it comes to Doom 3 or the GPL, what you are suggesting is not legal, and therefore not a right. It's a crime.

Please keep yoru facts straight.

Re:Okay, following your logic

[Anonymous Coward]

...any artist can easily create music with computer aid and justa s easily sell it or give it away for free.

Maybe it is time for artists to rethink their position as well. I've heard one very successful group say that the majority of their income is from live shows--particularly from the merchandise they sell at the concerts. We also know from numerous reports that artists barely make anything at all off of album sales which usually has to go back to the label to pay off the recording debt. If this is the case then distributing music via P2P or through something like Magnatune under a Creative Commons type license would be helpful, not hurtful to the artist.

They could get their music out there to the masses quite easily. Perform live. Sell T-shirts, CDs, etc. and make money where it's really there to be made.

Artists need to consider their best interests before chaining themselves to a major label...

Re:Okay, following your logic

[aconbere]

hmmm ... you also have neglected to study ethics.

first there are two conceptions of right, legal and universal. Legal rights are simply those protected by the law, a while universal right is defined as a permision to perform a certain action coupled with others obligations of non-interference.

while in this case it sort of supports your quasi point that we tend to over use the term rights, and to expand our conception of rights to anything we feel we should be permitted to do. Most of these actions do not also imply obligations on the part of others not to interfere.

For instance in the case of file sharing:
If one were to believe that filesharing was a Right then there would be obligations on the part of musicians not to interfere with that right. Which would seem to imply that they actualy had an Obligation to supply you with their music. Which is certainly not the case. If I as a musician don't want the world to hear my damn music I think I have every damn (actual right here) Right to do with the music I've produced as I please. This make sense. I have produced the music, I there for that permission to do with the music as I please, and no one better get in my way.

now how does this aply to the music industry? What have the actualy done in the production of the music? anything? have they contributed at all? (not really... small production stuff) but the music is still (in my humble ethics opinion) the property of the musician. Where they should still have the right to control their music as they see fit. Of course record labels wouldn't really exist if this was the case.

The Gpl does a pretty good job of this. In a twisted convulted mess of terms.

anyways I just thought I should clear up some terms.

Anders

Re:Okay, following your logic

[Havenwar]

Very interesting post.

I purposely dod not mention any ethic definition of "Rights" in my post, because in my view ethics and morals is not absolute truths, and can differ from person to person. So I try not to discuss them to much.

But all you really say is that if the musician had teh right to their music, record companies would not exist. Since this is not the case, and you made clear that the consumer have no right to the music, this would mean that te record company have the only rights?

Nah, doesn't fly.

As I said, Ethics and morals are hypothetical things - in most cases they just complicate questions easy enough to see through ithout philosophy.

Not to mention.. there is no such thing as universal right.

Re:Okay, following your logic

[Jeremi]

Following your logic, have P2P copyright infringers asked permission from every single artist from whom they copy music?

Is that practical to do? Most people don't have hours to spend tracking down the author of every mp3 file that floats by and asking him for permission, and most authors wouldn't have time to reply to that many requests, either.

Why do people think they're entitled to anything that can be pirated?

For the same reason they feel that they're entitled to breathe the air that is in their vicinity without paying for it ... because it's so trivially easy to do.

Re:Okay, following your logic

[aconbere]

well... if you want to talk about the way people work in the world on talks about "universal rights" while they may not be entirely unviersaly there deffinantly apear to be a set of moral standards that all people adhear to.

for instance, in almost all societies murder is unacceptable. And at least in cases that directly effect us (relatively localized cases) I think it's safe to assume that there is something moraly at stake when someone takes the life of another.

I don't follow your logic on the record company arguement. I said that the musicians DO have the only right to their music. I didn't say that Record companies aren't in violation of that right every time they inforce decisions that go against the will of the artist. This a believe it true. Simply becuase a right exists does not imply that everyone is sticking with the obligations brought on by those rights.

Personaly I would love to see a non-prophit organization created to distribute music online for musicians that want to maintain control of their music. Release all music under the creative commons. Musicians make money off shows and merch, not on CD sales. CD sales in the end largely benefit the record labels. So even though dropping traditional distribution might be in the best interest of a musician, it's not really an option for a corperation.

I don't see (don't want to see) places like I-Tunes and the new Napster take the place of record distribution companies. I-Tunes will destroy the conception of the album, the entirety of music put together by an artist to meld together. This is alright when looking at the big name artists that only put out a CD full of singles, but for the most part, I only want to listen to full albums. that kind of aesthetic isn't available through current online distribution mediums.

maybe if you could offer torrents of albums, seed them yourself, and then offer the free. I don't know... that's my take on it all.

Anders

Re:Okay, following your logic

[Havenwar]

Heh, okay, I must have misunderstood you about the "record company argument."

When it comes to universal right though: in all societies, Murder is not only acceptable, but give the highest reward possible.. as long as the reasons is good. Or should we say, killing is accepted, murder is not. Murder thereby implying an own agenda, while killing is for the general good of teh group, or whatever.

So, this means that kiling being wrong is not dependant on any type of morals, but of the situation and whatever the current government decides... yet another proof that ethics is not universal, or in effect: there is no universal Rights......

Trust me, any thing you say is right or wrong, I can come up with an example of a time, place or situation where it would be considered acceptable. Well, almost, at least. Say for instance rape would be locally accepted in a group during war-situations, but not socially accepted if it got out. Still the humans involved accepts it, the group of soldiers around teh perpetrator accepts it with their silence, so obviously this is not either a universal right or wrong...

Seriously, I've been through this ethics thing a lot. Its interesting, but still just imaginary.

I Knew The Beatles And You, Sir...

[ExampleUserAccount]

It's true, Terence/Sananda was forced at gunpoint to write and release "Supermodel Sandwich". Here are some lyrics from that classic:

Supermodel Sandwich by Terence/Sananda
You're so fine what's your solar sign?
Yield the right of way she said without delay
Flame fame flame fame flame fame flame
Supermodel sandwich would you let me hang?

It's ironic that he invokes the Beatles. At the time he was quoted as saying that his album was better than Sargeant Pepper. His nonsense aside, p2p and podcasting are great for the indies. I bought two indie albums last week from http://albumlunchbox.com/ that I could only have heard through the internet.

Re:I Knew The Beatles And You, Sir...

[ExampleUserAccount]

Supermodel Sandwich is not redeemed by its music, it has leaden, clunky lyrics set in a boring midtempo disco tune. I considered some of the silly things the Beatles wrote, but even when they were silly, their lyrics had great cadence and rythmn. Lovely Rita is a great example of silly words that flow and sound wonderful despite their silliness. Not to mention some of the best melodies ever written.

NOT FLAMEBAIT ---- HONESTY

[Anonymous Coward]

This is far from flamebait. This guy is being honest. /. a culture that punishes honesty.

what a bunch of tards you mods are.

If you need help. This is flamebait. The parent is interesting.

reality check!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha!

It's so typical that people like you rationalize your criminal activity as some noble fight against an evil empire and even expect an apology from the victim for some imagined crimes.

At least be honest about it and say that you're infringing on their copyright because you like it.

I do.

iTunes

[bonch]

Yes, and now that we have legal music services like iTunes and Napster, what's the point of P2P piracy again?

Even indie artists like those mentioned in the article could easily offer their music for free on iTunes. In fact, iTunes offers free downloads weekly, which is the same "free advertising" Slashdotters love to reference in these discussions.

At .99 a song, how can anyone justify P2P piracy anymore? If nine bucks for an entire album is still too much, then clearly your incentive for piracy is not a "communications movement" to "empower the individual," but is basic human nature--wanting something for free so you don't have to pay for it. Even chimpanzees in social experiments will try to swipe a banana if they learn they don't have to give something back in return.

Sorry to be so harsh. I guess I just tired of the whole "we're so noble" act. Just admit what's going on. We're pirating music so we don't have to pay people for it. Because we're lazy and don't feel like stepping foot in a store and paying money. And we're too cheap to go to iTunes and pay .99 for a song that we know has been provided (illegally) to us for free on a P2P network. Just admit it, you know?

Re:iTunes

[soupdevil]

Hmmm... with cheap paperbacks at $1.50, how can anyone justify libraries?

The fact that a small minority of available songs are for sale in a proprietary, sonically-abridged, crippled format does not remove the need for people to share music. What if it's not on iTunes? What if it's not in a format I enjoy or can use on my listening device? What if I already purchased it in another format?

In a perfect world, the fact that people want to share a particular piece of information would be justification enough for the sharing.

Re:iTunes

[garcia]

At .99 a song, how can anyone justify P2P piracy anymore? If nine bucks for an entire album is still too much, then clearly your incentive for piracy is not a "communications movement" to "empower the individual," but is basic human nature--wanting something for free so you don't have to pay for it.

You and your trolling... .99 *is* too much for a song and $9.99 *is* too much for an album when there is no physical medium and you have DRM which locks you to listening to that song on a handful of devices at a reduced sound quality.

Now, CDs are a completely inexpensive medium but have high quality. It's certainly not worth $12.99+ for a CD being that the medium costs are so low but it's certainly worth more than what DRM'd/low quality/near free distribution of digital files are.

Even chimpanzees in social experiments will try to swipe a banana if they learn they don't have to give something back in return.

TROLL. This was unnecessary. I am giving something back in return when I purchase something of iTMS (and even if I don't). I'm giving them browsing statistics. What was listened to, seen, and purchased. They get to have a ton of data to sort through now to better market their wares to the people.

That should be worth some money back don't you think?

Re:iTunes

[bonch]

A dollar?

A dollar is too much for one single song?

*blinks eyes*

AAC files on iTunes are higher-quality than CDs because they're often ripped directly from the original master tapes, before the dithering and mixdown process to CD format occurs.

iTunes has one of the most lax DRM schemes there is. You can just recreate your playlist infinite times for unlimited burning. Again, as I've said elsewhere, this is really no different than the kind of usage restrictions expected from someone following the GPL. What is the GPL other than a plain-text digital rights management license?

As for giving back, I was referring to P2P piracy. On iTunes, you're actually compensating them for the music they made. On P2P, they get nothing and you get everything.

Re:iTunes

[salmacis2]

If you can point me to a legal service that will sell me an mp3 file for less than £1, I'm all ears. So why can't I find one? The record labels will let me buy an unencrypted CD which I can rip into mp3, but they won't let me purchase the mp3 file itself. Why is that? No, I'm not going to use iTunes while they insist on their own incompatible and DRM-encumbered format. Why should I have to burn an AAC file onto a CD and rip it again just to get in to play in my iRiver?

Re:iTunes

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Sorry to be so harsh. I guess I just tired of the whole "we're so noble" act. Just admit what's going on. We're pirating music so we don't have to pay people for it.

The harshness comes from your attempt to narrow the scope of the argument. Expand your mind and imagine people downloading music to try it out ... and eventually they buy the CD for the security of ownership.

I can't defend the guys with massive MP3 collections. But I don't have to. I'm not on the defensive here -- YOU are, given your sad attempt to focus the argument on illegalities and away from moralities.

Also, if the general public chooses to download an MP3 illegally for free, over buying it legally for 99c, then by definition the price is too high. The same applies to CDs.

(BTW, this is why I buy my CDs used instead of new ... a practice which is under constant assault by the original manufacturers, who want to be paid each time a sale is made, and in fact each time content is read or listened to. The only thing stopping them from that is the current state of law, and the way things are going, the rights of resale are probably going to go away too.)

Re:iTunes

[killjoe]

Maybe unconciously we are striking back at people who have been ripping us off for years.

There has to be a reason why nobody feels bad about pirating music. If I took a coat from a homeless man I'd feel guilty, if I kicked a dog on the street it'd feel guilty. The other day I downloaded a song I didn't feel guilty.

I can't really tell you why I don't feel guilty, I just don't. Maybe because I only wanted to hear the song right then and there and haven't listened to it since, maybe becuase they play it on the radio a lot so it's not that much different to me.

Maybe just maybe I look at my shelf full of CDs I paid 15 dollars for and realize that most of them have only one or two good songs on them and feel like I have been ripped off.

Re:iTunes

[Anonymous Coward]

AAC files on iTunes are higher-quality than CDs because they're often ripped directly from the original master tapes, before the dithering and mixdown process to CD format occurs.

I have heard AAC and it's nothing even close to a CD nevermind what comes off of other file formats. You're misinformed and/or clueless.

iTunes has one of the most lax DRM schemes there is. You can just recreate your playlist infinite times for unlimited burning. Again, as I've said elsewhere, this is really no different than the kind of usage restrictions expected from someone following the GPL. What is the GPL other than a plain-text digital rights management license?

You're insane again. iTMS is not free and thus DRM does not allow you to restore files that were lost in transit, due to file corruption, or user error (ie losing a computer and not deregistering it).

I don't see what the GPL has to do w/this.

Re:iTunes

[phriedom]

It sounds to me like you believe that the only possible reason to use P2P instead of iTMS is because people want something for nothing, is that right?

That assumes that iTMS is perfect, doesn't it? And that there is no reason anyone would want an alternate distribution channel? You see the problem with that don't you?

Re:legit uses or no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree - I'd like someone to kiss my ass pretty darn soon.....you free?

P2P is a great system for some

[wheelbarrow]

P2P works well for some artists and entertainment consumers. They are both making a free and voluntary choice. Likewise, some artists choose to release their work for pay and with restrictive DRM. Some consumers voluntarily choose to consume entertainment within those constraints.

Nobody, in either scenario, is compelled by force to do anything they do not wish to do. We already live in a perfect world with regards to P2P and DRM.

Whatever...

[AsnFkr]

While not opposed to P2P, indie musicians have the chance to put themselves out there without relying on virus/spyware/legally-scarry loaded p2p systems. You can get webhosting CHA_CHA_CHEAP (500 gigs transfer for $50 a month ain't hard to find..and 500 gigs is a SHITTON of mp3's) to distribute your songs on a website. The hot part is you have the chance to actually track how many hits you get and control what songs are available, not to mention create more traffic for your site giving you the chance to promote tours/shows/t-shirt sales all in the same swing. In fact, in a shameless plug....I'm *IN* a underground band that records and puts out our albums all DIY with full album distribution on our website.

This is our new album
And this is our "main" website.

In fact, within a couple of weeks we will have a music video on the site as well, with not only the ability to stream the video but actually download it in high quality to your hard drive. I don't get bands that don't offer these types of features. It's insane!

Re:Whatever...

[rokzy]

yeah but you're making it harder for yourself to sell a greatest hits videos DVD.

Re:Whatever...

[VB]

I agree that Weed doesn't look like any more viable an option to generate interest in a band/artist's music than mp3.com was and other p2p systems are saturated with signed music so as to lose most/all indie music in that noise. I set up a pc to share all my self-produced mp3s for about 6 days once and received a million search hits without a single download. I don't know what that tells me, but people on p2p networks appear to be going after music that's commercially available, elsewhere; perhaps to sample before buying, download to cover in their own project, or just steal. Who knows? I ceased the process as a means to distribute my own stuff.

As far as the web-site, there are many ways indies can use them for promotion and I hope more artists/bands start using them more effectively and get better reach. $50/mo for 500 gigs is very reasonable. I've never gone over 6 gigs on my $50/mo cable which comes to somewhere around 25,000 mp3 downloads/streams. Perhaps this is what the "Industry" is afraid of?

My favorite indie band...

[LokieLizzy]

is called Indiefox. It's basically one guy and a guitar. But 'tis so good.

Sign Your Name

[Anonymous Custard]

I wonder if Terence Trent D'Arby's hit "Sign Your Name" was influenced by him having to sign contracts for everything he did with music back then?

(and here's some guitar tab that I did if you want to try playing this fun song :-) )

But do they support copyright infringement?

[goldspider]

I think that would be more interesting to know.

Re:But do they support copyright infringement?

[Voxus]

Pencil and paper can support copyright infringement by making it easier for someone to reproduce the works of others.

Re:Doesn't change anything... actually, it does.

[muel]

Does this mean you feel guilty when you hear a song on the radio? The whole point of "indie artists support P2P" is to find better promotional distribution now that the musical community has outgrown the limits of clamped-down radio. Major labels have always had a stranglehold on radio distribution, but now we're in a world where smaller artists and labels have the power, technology and distribution to receive just as much attention as the artist who suckles at ClearChannel or MTV's teat. P2P is a way to get people to hear imperfect copies of songs - much like radio, but with more control. Does this create freeloaders? Sure, just as cassette tapes did in the 80's, but even if it's to a grander scale, the tape-to-purchase ratio of the 80's is nowhere near the mp3-to-purchase ratio of today - you can make some serious money from downloaders, oftentimes through ticket and merch sales even more so than album sales. "Most artists have not given their permission" - that's not the case, because if someone releases a CD, they want it promoted. They want to be heard so they can make some goddamn money. Consider P2P distribution a "marketing expense" and it makes complete sense. It costs less to seed a torrent and give away a few free copies of an album than it does to whip up a huge batch of flyers, for crying out loud!

OK for Indies

[Quiet_Desperation]

But what about artists outside of Indiana?

I'm sorry. It's Friday. That's all I can muster.

Rock Is Dead - Long Live Rock

[Doc Ruby]

"guitar groups are on the way out." - Mike Smith, Decca exec, rejecting the Beatles 1/1/62 audition

Scott Tenorman and Radiohead

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about all that publicity around the Scott Tenorman incident.

Income break-down

[felipe.ledesma]

I would like to now why the profit in the music business is so focused on the record sales. What about concerts? Videos? Interviews? Advertising? Soundtracks? It would be nice to have a break-down of the percentages of the profits with the traditional model and with the new model (where p2p comes into play).

Re:Income break-down

[Farmer Tim]

"What about concerts?"

It depends what level you're talking about. For indies who earn a couple of hundred dollars for a show, what money isn't eaten by costs is usually put towards recording (the musicians don't take any; musicians have been funding independent recordings this way for as long as recording has existed, it isn't a startling new invention that nobody thought of before P2P came along, it just isn't very efficient, profitable or visible).

But mostly the record companies don't touch concert revenue, and there is a good reason for this: it's so acts whose recordings aren't instantly profitable (5/6 of them, contrary to popular belief) can offset the costs of touring to promote the album. Simply, if a band can pay it's way to other cities, and do some interviews while they're there, that's one less item for the record company's accountant and one less item the band is paying back from their share of sales.

"Videos?"

Music videos only earn a few dollars per playing for the composer, if that's what you mean; never enough to make back costs from that alone. But as for concert/live videos, well they can be ripped and downloaded too, so I don't see how this business model is any less "broken" than asking people to pay for CDs (there's no point asking the RIAA to adopt the MPAA's business model). Besides, some people listen to music because it's music, and see no added value in paying for video content; does Kiss sound any better because you can SEE how ugly they are? I suppose in a relative way...

"Interviews?"

You mistakenly believe musicians get paid by music rags to do interviews, not the other way around. People are only paid for interviews when it's exclusive, no cash for media whores! That's why indies don't get interviews: in order to get an interview or a front page photo you have to spend a certain amount on advertising. If you don't believe me just call any publication, from your local pulp weekly to Rolling Stone, and ask for their advertising rates; they usually won't specify a price on paper (some do), but they will verbally offer an interview if they think it will secure some extra revenue. Again, don't take my word for it, pose as a PR hack and try it for yourself.

"Advertising?"

Either you have to worm your way into the business side to get the composition work (and many musicians would rather stick a fork into their eyeballs, with good reason), or you have to be well known enough for a culturally vaccuous advertising executive to have heard of you (consider how many times you've heard the William Tell overture in commercials if you want a rough guide to how probable this is). And as for sponsorships...put it this way, most companies aren't prepared to put in real money, especially considering music's reputation for drug-fuelled psychotic mayhem and anti-establishment politics ("Nirvana's 'Nevermind' brought to you by Pfizer"; "This Marilyn Manson CD is proudly presented by Cosmopolitan"; "U2 is sponsored by General Dynamics"... no, not good PR). Even endorsements from musical instrument makers are just heavy discounts and the odd free T-shirt unless you're already famous enough for your signature to add 30% to the list price of a product (but then I've only talked to Shure, Fender, Yamaha, Zildjian and JBL, other companies may be more generous but I couldn't say from personal experience). Put simply: if you're worth something to advertisers, you're probably already wealthy enough to fund your own recordings; Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, David Bowie and Shakira have all advertised Pepsi, but only AFTER charting hits, and you can't guarantee what will be a hit in advance...think about order of operations, that's the key...

"Soundtracks?"

Where pop music is used for soundtracks it's usually from established artists (look for Randy Newman in the music credits of just about any recent comedy, he's probably there), and often the fee is nominal because it sells the recordings (think "The Big Chill", which from the record indus

Can you say...

[Anonymous Coward]

...disintermediation? Cut out that appendix!

web sites & net labels, actually...

[radarsat1]

i think indie artists rely more on netlabels and well-designed personal web sites. also, chatting on forums and posting said links.

i really don't think p2p forums are used all that much for distributing indie music, because the average Kazaa user will not really download something they don't recognize, even if it shows up on a file listing. also, if something is published on a web site it's much easier to explicitly state things like licensing terms (creative commons, etc) which gets entirely skipped if the person just downloads it from a kazaa client.

the average single-track mp3 is between 3 and 10 megabytes, hardly a candidate for the advantages that bittorrent offers.

Re:web sites & net labels, actually...

[zotz]

"i really don't think p2p forums are used all that much for distributing indie music, because the average Kazaa user will not really download something they don't recognize"

Which is why I wonder if a napster type experience would work better for indie music.

all the best,

drew

Re:Doesn't change anything... actually, it does.

[goldspider]

You missed the parent's point.

His point was that stories like this are used to drump up support for and somehow justify the illegitimate uses of P2P that many Slashdotters (including, according to the parent, the editors) endorse. Which would be fine and intellectually honest, except for when Slashdot bemoans the violation of IP rights in GPL violation cases.

Don't be surprised

[gmknobl]

If the government tries to outlaw this technology OR try some method of controling it directly. It's an anarchist technology and the type of thing over-controlling fascist governments hate. I don't think it will ever be fully controlled but it may be forced underground. Anyone else think the world is getting to be too much like "The Matrix"?

Re:Don't be surprised

[Farmer Tim]

"I don't think it will ever be fully controlled but it may be forced underground."

Given that each protocol survives only as long as it lives in obscurity away from the RIAA's prying gaze, how will P2P get any more underground? Does it go from "illegal activity" to "double super-secret underground illegall activity", and everyone gets decoder rings...?

Re:Don't be surprised

[gmknobl]

You made me laugh in spite of myself. That is a funny response! Thanks. I needed to laugh.

Well, when I see a new technology or program or such mentioned on /. I'd say it's not really underground. I'd also say that I could easily track it down, load the prog on my computer and have fun using it for a month or so before the rest of the world catches on. That may be "underground" by your definition but not by mine. Maybe for the public at large though, it is. I'm not sure. For me "underground" is how most of the warez sites info get around to people who do that sort of thing. I don't know how to get that info so to me it is underground. I suppose this means that it's a relative definition and any status as underground can only be measured by total number of people knowing about it before authority figures get ahold of it. I don't know where that magic dividing line is but I'd like to hear theories on figuring it out.

FIle-sharing bashing.

[Anonymous Coward]

P2P distribution + web advertising = no more incentive to sell anything

You base this on what, exactly? No matter what, people will always sell things. Have you ever heard of the weed file format?

Besides, you don't need P2P piracy for distributing free music.

Who are you to determine this, may I ask?

It's optional, something people can take advantage and have to work in their favor. considering that there are millions that use P2P sharing still, I don't think it hurts to use this method if one chooses.

And just a little note, it isn't piracy if you are distributing your own work, or other works with permission.

Encouraging the use of networks that we all know is 95+% illegal piracy--as in, distribution of content without permission--is just ensuring that valid legal alternatives like iTunes never succeed.

1. File sharing progeams are in no way illegal. Distributing your own tunes (you own the copyright to) is legal as well. Just because it is jused ilelgally (where did you pull that percentage out of anyways?) doesn't make it any more or less a valid way to distibute something you have made.

There's more to recording a good album than just having Pro Tools...

Your right, you need experience reccording with it, and using proper volume controls, etc, but nonetheless you can in fact record good sounding things in through your computer. I have done it.

You need, mics, gear, room ambience, a mixer, a masterer, and so on.

YOU DON'T need that crap. Sure it is preferable, but all that is available with software too now. The reason albums turn out like crap is NOT the software, it is lack of experience with it.

- You don't need a mike if recording with a guitar, line in cable in the computer works fine, and the sound quality (depending on volume, distortion, etc is exceptional
- Ambience - not needed if using guitar for reason in bullet #1
- Mixers - already in software I use.

I respect that people have different opinions, but this is bashing a system because either a few people didn't have it work for them, or a few suck at home reccording. Experience is the key to succes, not bashing.

Here, posted in full

[nate nice]

the problem with music
by steve albini
excerpted from Baffler No. 5

Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends, some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a contract waiting to be signed.

Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit. Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left. He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, "Actually, I think you need a little more development. Swim it again, please. Backstroke."

And he does, of course.

I. A&R Scouts

Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a high-profile point man, an "A&R" rep who can present a comfortable face to any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire," because historically, the A&R staff would select artists to record music that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is still the case, though not openly.

These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock credibility flag they can wave. Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their ranks as well.

There are several reasons A&R scouts are always young. The explanation usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip" to the current musical "scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative rock and roll experiences.

The A&R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise them the moon than an idealistic young turk who expects to be calling the shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even believes it.

When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember that great, gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast.

By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A&R guy, the band will say to themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all! He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he was hired.

These A&R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract has been agreed on.

Re:Here, posted in full

[misterpies]

There may well be some truth in the basic scenario, but a little time with a calculator will show that the numbers do not add up. It also seems to ignore the $250K advance in figuring the band's income...so it's not $4K each income, but their portion of $250K, plus the $4K, plus their portion of the $20K publishing advance (which seems to have got lost in the income calculation), less their portion of the $14K owed back in royalties. Which overall probably leaves them with about $60K income for the year each. Not millionaire, true, but not 7-11 and not bad for a bunch of kids with probably little education or prospects at anything else.

Re:Here, posted in full

[Aim Here]

Erm, the advance is right there, right at the top, and it appears later on when it gets taken away again because, well, it's an advance.

The numbers don't add up because some are income, and some are expenditure (credits/debits, whatever) but the poster didn't take the time to distinguish properly between them. It's slightly clearer in the original, but not much.

Re:Here, posted in full

[misterpies]

Sure, it gets "taken away again" to leave the band with the $4K. That's my whole point. They get left with $4K after the advance is subtracted from their earnings to date. The advance which they have been paid. Which if they hadn't spent it, would be sitting in their bank account.

True, the figures show they managed to burn through all that money during the year. Being a rock star is expensive, hiring limousines, getting fancy equipment, drinking champagne, living in a tour bus. So maybe at the end of a year of high-cost living they have only $4K left over each. That doesn't mean they earned $4K that year. It means that of their earnings, they spent all but $4K. If they'd kept their old equipment, used a cheaper studio (probably just as good), stayed in motels, had a far smaller (but sufficient) road crew - in other words, if they'd kept the same behaviour as when they were a struggling small-time band - they would have probably saved a lot of money.

But like I said, these kids probably have little education and no prospects outside music. They just burned through the money without thinking. Next time maybe they'll be wiser, and get an accountant as well as a lawyer.

Re:Here, posted in full

[Farmer Tim]

"The advance which they have been paid. Which if they hadn't spent it, would be sitting in their bank account."

Nope, fatal misunderstanding of what constitutes an "advance": any money a record company spends on a band (including staff time, the $3000 in promotion costs for example) constitutes an advance, whether or not any actual cash passes through the band's hands. They are not paid $250,000 in cash up front, it was never sitting in their bank account; the only cash the band sees initially is $15,000 (listed as "Band Fund") and the remaining $17,000 from the publishing advance, the rest appears only as billable items on their statement. Even the instruments are paid for directly by the record company; the system is about as close to a cargo cult as you can get, and that's a deliberate tactic to prevent the artists keeping track of expenditure. $250,000 is simply the allocated budget, the record company's guess on the break-even point for this particular recording. Sure, the band can cut costs, but that doesn't mean they receive more cash to begin with, just that the record starts making them money sooner.

"If they'd kept their old equipment..."

Which might have been second-hand junk that fails twice a night, as is often the case for struggling bands. Anyone who tries touring with unreliable gear is an idiot, and WILL be pelted with empty beer cans; a broken string is understandable, an amplifier blowing up in front of a crowd of 1000 looks unprofessional at best and is a lynchable offence at worst (voice of experience speaking here, I don't mind admitting).

Then there's the fact that any given $1500 guitar will sound better and feel better to play than a random $150 guitar (and the $3000 for two guitars quoted isn't that expensive; that won't even buy a sticker from Fender's Custom Shop. Hell, my off the rack 5-string Washburn bass cost $900, and it isn't even shaped like a potato!). It's like screwdrivers: if you've only ever used $2 screwdrivers you'll simply prefer nails and never understand why sometimes it's worth paying $20 for something that works properly. Musical instruments, like any other precision tool, are easier to use when they're better engineered.

"...used a cheaper studio (probably just as good)..."

As a set of electrical specifications on paper, maybe, assuming the two studios have the same mic selection and equivalent outboard effects (usually more expensive studios have a wider variety of equipment). Unfortunately the acoustics of a recording space are still important and more or less unique to each studio, regardless of what room simulators are available, and sometimes you go to a studio as much for the brain between the ears behind the mixing desk as the desk itself (you can't buy expertise, but you can hire it). I don't get what "phase doctors" are and I've never met one (perhaps, having rewired more than one studio myself, I actually am a phase doctor. Woot, another entry for my CV!), but it strikes me as weird and somewhat unnecessary paying $3000 for someone to check that the studio you're paying $50,000 for actually works. But again, this is crooked accounting we're looking at here...which explains $10,000 for mastering. Yikes! I know $400 an hour isn't unheard of, but the mix must have been really dodgy to need that much work.

"...had a far smaller (but sufficient) road crew..."

Their crew was 3 (three)...probably front-of-house sound, lighting op, foldback op/instrument tech. That's really about as small as you can get and have a consistent performance. Sure, you can use in-house people, but they don't know the cues, which can be embarassing on lights ("song ending, drop to black...oh, $h!#, there's another chorus!!!"), plain inconvenient on foldback ("So when you went up to the mic and started singing, you wanted to hear yourself?"), and just wrong on FOH ("Everybody kept saying the drummer's singing was terrible tonight"-"It's terrible EVERY night, that's why we told you to keep his mic turned off!" BTW, these are actual q

typical losers

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants to create an album and limit its access only to those that pay for it then they should have the right to do so. Period.

This constant attempt by people to try to justify theft is pathetic.

It boils down to strength of character. If you believe so strongly that music should be freely distributed then only support/listen-to artists that participate in your belief. Trying to undermine anyone that doesn't by stealing or shaming them only proves that your beliefs sucked.

aRDy Music

[nnet]

Here's all of Rick Dicaire's songs, freely available for download, and p2p distribution!

Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we need sony music at ALL if bands can sell their albums directly to you?

Who's going to front the money to produce your music? Who's going to pay for the studio time? Not everyone has a DAW in their house, let alone the acoustical environment necessary for quality production.

I am a huge proponent of leveling the media playing field with appropriate use of P2P technologies, business models like Magnatune and tools such as the Creative Commons Licensing. Still, recording ain't cheap.

Re:Music Costs

[Lodragandraoidh]

It is quite a bit cheaper to produce your own music now than it used to be:

$500 - 1.4 GHZ P4 computer w/24bit soundcard - parts built by myself - I was able to find some good deals - for example I spent $10 for the case.
$75 - 24bit compatible multitrack recording software (N-Track)
$99 - good quality condenser mic
$79 - good quality cardoid mic
$25 - two mic stands
$30 - enough DIN cable to choke a horse (for connecting the mics to the mixing board)
$50 - decent 6 channel mixing board
$30 - misc other gear (RCA cables etc...)
$60 - BOSE computer speakers (excellent sound quality and onboard amp and 2 inputs - for mixing down your stereo master).
----
$948 - Total (not including instruments - I assume if you are a musician you already have your instrument).

So, for about a grand you can have your own home recording studio that can produce as good sound quality as any professional studio out there. Of course, you have to spend the time to learn how to properly record sound - but there are books out there you can buy that take you through it in detail - from how to properly set up an acoustic environment to microphone placement to setting recording levels and how parametric equalization works etc...

Recording ain't cheap for those who can't or don't know how to do it themselves. Those who can do. They are doing it today and going indie, or even posting their tunes for free if they are not interested in the business side of music. http://music.myspace.com has a good selection - and there are other sites as well that allow users to post their MP3 recordings for download and/or streaming.

With the sorry state of pop music today, more and more people are finding a viable alternative online via free downloads and sales of independently produced music. With the closure of traditional outlets for advertising certain genres (Rolling Stone is reporting that Clear Channel is closing down a large number of Rock stations in favor of urban/hip hop formats - at the same time as we are seeing a renewal in interest in Rock! Where will Rock artists go to get exposure? I think it will be the web - and in a big way due to the lack of air-time in the traditional form).

Anyway, I believe the traditional big record labels are going to be around in the future, but they are not going to be as 'big' as they once were - and quality music that is not spoon-fed vanilla pop will be more and more a web phenomenon.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait, once the RIAA has their way and we live with Trusted Computing and Secure Audio Path, you'll have to pay a copyright clearinghouse (probably Sound Exchange (aka RIAA)) just to record your song. $20,000 deposit or so up front, you know, to prove you're not just using the analog hole to rip DRM'd Metallica files. Then everything you produce will have to be cleared with Sound Exchange, to make sure if its a cover of some band, they'll get their cut or whatever. Of course, they charge by the minute, plus bandwidth costs, so you'll be seeing that $20k deposit evaporate fast.

In a few months, you'll get your DRM'd audio files back with whatever settings you requested. Of course, even if you request that anyone be able to play them and distribute them, they'll still be encrypted to make sure no "untrusted" computer platform can play them. I'm sure there'll also be a fee for "handling" the DRM on those files as well, so kick back, relax, and watch the last of your deposit dry up, you're not getting any of that money back from the RIAA for your own music.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have a blast with my Tascam 4-track analog deck. Easy to use and I got some decent results on tape. But that was then... this is now...

I have built my own DAW recently using Planet CCRMA at home. I'm sure with your kit you can do some cool things, however everything I have read on the subject would indicate that a single commodity 24-bit soundcard isn't really going to cut it for professional work. Dunno. You tell me. Fortunately, in my case I obtained an RME HDSP 9652 for virtually nothing (many thanks to DLS!)...

However, I don't know how to use the software and I don't know much about this killer DSP card either so basically I am not getting anything done with this kit! Fear not though, it will not go to waste. I will learn, because I want to. I have the ProTools manual (which is indicated as a helpful reference for Ardour). I have the DSP manual. The digital recording process interests me so I will learn how to do it...

However, some artists do NOT want to be recording engineers (which is an artform of its own in every respect).

Some people don't want to learn how to master a disc.

They may be world-class musicians but not have an ounce of geek in them. In their case they need someone to handle that side of the equation for them, and that isn't cheap...

I guess I should have said, "not everyone has a DAW in their house--or even wants one for that matter."

Re:Music Costs

[Moofie]

"not everyone has a DAW in their house--or even wants one for that matter."

And those people can continue to do business with record companies, and continue having the same problems.

Adapt or die. That goes for everybody.

Re:Music Costs

[MrBigInThePants]

You make it sound like the music industry is the only one with recording equipment??

There are hundreds of smaller recording studios more than willing to help you out for a reasonable price. If you aren't good enough to earn enough money to afford it, then you probably wont sell any CDs anyhow...

This may come as a huge shock to you, but they wont ask you to sign your life away...or even sign at all...

Re:Music Costs

[tdhillman]

Unfortunately, it takes a hell of lot more than that to create a decent studio environment. The equipment may be fine, but the acoustic design of a decent space takes a lot more. In addition, studio engineering and production isn't exactly a drop and drag ind of thing.

Remember, no matter how much gear you jam into a space, the producer is still going to make it work. There's really only one name you need to thin of- Mutt Lange. Without him, AC/DC, Def Leppard, Shania Twain, Bryan Adams, The Cars, and countless others might not have realized the full level of success.

An indie artist is going to be able to attract Mutt, and Mutt will attract the labels. Look at Shania Twain before and after Mutt Lange.

It's not about the equipment alone. It's the artist.....and no way Mutt Lange is ever going to pla the P2P game. And if he comes knocking at the dor, I advise any artist to say "Please come right in sir."

And as regards that equipment- a well equipped studio is also going to have a variety of guitars, amps, keyboards and various other goodies. How many artists carry a Theremin around just in case. A recording is built in the studio with the tools there. A simple computer based system can give you loads, but there is so much more needed- what do you do if the sound you need is actually produced by running a Les Paul Special through a Pignose for a pre-amp into a Peavey Ultra with a Peavey 412 cab.

There's more to this than meets the eyes.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't good enough to earn enough money to afford it, then you probably wont sell any CDs anyhow...

Oh brother...

Have you ever actually been associated with any aspiring-to-be-professional musicians? They're [generally] always broke! Does that mean their music would NOT sell just because they are poor? That's a strange assertion...

If your day job doesn't pay well enough to fund your recording ambitions, and your technically not inclined to doing a professional job yourself, common knowledge says you certainly can't expect to make enough playing live to cover the rest. Even if you're known locally for putting on a killer show, if you get paid anything at all to play live (i.e. gas money, maybe?) then count yourself lucky.

Where there's a will there is a way, but really this argument that if you don't have enough money to fund your recording work then you're probably no good anyway is seriously flawed.

It's a long way to the top if you wanna rock & roll...

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

"not everyone has a DAW in their house--or even wants one for that matter."

And those people can continue to do business with record companies, and continue having the same problems.

Adapt or die. That goes for everybody.

Maybe they would rather spend their time actually playing music instead of geeking around on computers?

Tell you what, you learn how to run digital audio workstation software and then open shop to record all these creative folks instead of assigning them to oblivion for their lack of interest in computers.

Oh, and BTW, building an acoustic room for real recording work is not cheap. Software can't do everything for you.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, it takes a hell of lot more than that to create a decent studio environment. The equipment may be fine, but the acoustic design of a decent space takes a lot more. In addition, studio engineering and production isn't exactly a drop and drag ind of thing.

MOD +5 Infomative

Yes!! Thank you!

Re:Music Costs

[Moofie]

I'm not condemning anybody to do anything. I'm saying that if you want to undertake a commercial venture (like selling music recordings) you can either 1) learn how to do it yourself or 2) pay somebody else to do it. I'm not making any judgements whatsoever about what any given individual is going to find advantageous or desireable.

What are you advocating, exactly?

I know that building an acoustic room is not cheap. I know people (musicians) who didn't want to pay a record company to do their stuff, so they learned how to build their own record company.

Ever heard of DIY? It's got a bit of history in the music world...

Re:Music Costs

[MP3Chuck]

No offense, but I kind doubt you've done much DIY recording or you'd not have posted this. I'm doing DIY recordings right now with my band... That setup is nice for someone recording at home with a synthesizer or a guitar, maybe two ... but get into a band setting and that setup is useless.

First off, a 1.4GHz P4 is useless if you want to mix a whole band in realtime. Hell, if you want to mix more than a handfull of tracks in realtime. It's what we've got. Playing back all the tracks is no problem, but put more than a few effects on (even the essentials: EQ, Compression, reverb) and you can't even hit play.

A single-input soundcard is also useless. And if you want to record drums properly, you'll at least need an 8+ input box. Bare minimum that'll run you $600-700. That also means you need 8 microphones, and 8 stands. Sure, you could route all the drums through a mixing board and record them in 1 stereo track to tape, but the final result will sound like ass. Especially if you're using a couple of $99 microphones.

And do tell ... if you can find me a 6-channel (NOT 6-input!) mixer for $50 I'll buy it outright. Behringer is about as cheap as it gets for any reasonable quality, and their 6-channel is $200+

Then there's the recording space ... anywhere but a studio is less than ideal. Ceiling reflections, room compression, you name it. All of that going to tape, to be modified with whatever plugins that came with the $75 recording software which, if anytning, isn't much. And if, just if, there's somone behind the wheel who knows full well what they're doing when it comes to mixing and mastering (on $60 Bose speakers) in the same room that everything was recorded in, you might get a final recording that someone might find worth listening to in a world where every "professional" track has pristene production, recording, and mastering.

I'm not saying DIY is impossible ... I'm doing it. Lots of people. But we spent a few grand, read up everything we can on mixing, tracked some songs just for the sake of learning how to mix, and the result is still far from even the cheap studio we went to a few summers ago. It's good enough to give to the public, and it gets us gigs, but you'd never hear something like this coming from the pros. DIY will never replace an experienced producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer on top-notch equipment in proper acoustic environments. It's more than knowing how to take levels and work parametric EQ's. Like anything else, you get what (and who) you pay for. This is no different...

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not condemning anybody to do anything. I'm saying that if you want to undertake a commercial venture (like selling music recordings) you can either 1) learn how to do it yourself or 2) pay somebody else to do it. I'm not making any judgements whatsoever about what any given individual is going to find advantageous or desireable.

I was simply responding to your statement, "Adapt or die. That goes for everybody."

It sounded like you wanted non-geek musicians to learn how to DIY digital recording--which (probably) just would not happen in most cases if said musician was not already predisposed to that kind of technological experimentation (not to mention the time factor involved in getting up to speed not only on DAW software but sound engineering in the first place).

But yes, I can see your point when viewed more broadly. If they don't want to geek out on building their own digital studio--there are other avenues.

If your totally focused on the music, building studios or record companies may not work for you. I suppose the key in those situations is to surround yourself with people who are interested in those aspects, if possible and see what happens.

Re:Music Costs

[Moofie]

No, EVERYBODY has to adapt or die. Not just musicians. Music companies. Me. You. Everyone must adapt to the world around you.

And, I happen to think that getting stuck in a record deal is a lot like dying, so my comment works on a couple levels.

Non-geek musicians have a tremendous opportunity now. Geeky non-musicians (and geeky musicians) are creating a whole new way of producing, promoting, and distributing music. They have a chance to not get raped by a music company, if they take the time to try to figure out how this stuff works (in broad strokes anyhow).

If you're totally focused on the music, you're going to get ass-raped by a record company. If you only care about the music, then maybe, MAYBE, the record company will give you enough to keep making your music. You won't be able to make it your way.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed then.

We are in the midst of a cultural revolution--I'll state the obvious (even if 99% of the populace doesn't realize what is happening), the masses are attempting to take culture back from the media-moguls while they (in turn) are trying every which way to stop it.

Now is the time when we need to do everything we can to develop media business models that work to everyones benefit. Props to Magnatune for taking the lead on something like this. And I'm agreed with you that right NOW is the time for the geeks to step in with their expertise in the digital world to assist the artists in this brave new world of methods of production, distribution, etc.

Times are a changin' and it may well be that artists may have to accept the fact that they might not become bazillionaires any more (illusionary as that is in most cases anyway). However, we can't entirely factor out the profit motive, but it probably can't be the driving force in this new climate. Still, musicians have to make a living just like the rest of us...

Can't find the link, but I recall Kirk Hammett commenting on the current and future state of audio distribution. They obviously understand that P2P file-sharing (stealing?) is not going away, but where does that leave the bands? That leaves them with making money on touring alone--"rock stars" relegated to the role of traveling minstrels as in days long past?

Society sets the value of the product. If the product is suddenly commoditized and "freely available" then the producer is going to have to find alternatives if they want to stay afloat.

The parallels in the software industry between propietary v. F/OSS are striking--yet unsurprising. This cultural revolution seems to be taking place on all fronts. I hope the government takes the side of the common good over corporations but the track record would indicate it's going to be an ugly fight...

This has been a lively and interesting discussion (a departure from a lot of things that get posted here for sure). Thank you.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! I took a listen to your bands MP3s and I'm really impressed! I noted that you guys do not mind (and in fact encourage) the sharing of your music files. Do you own the rights to your material? If so, do the world a favor and hook up with somebody like Maganatune--you'll get more exposure, and hopefully more sales. I just bought another Jersey bands album from them today (Roots of Rebellion). You listen to the mp3 stream long enough, and then you break down cuz you have to have the lossless quality files to burn to CD to listen to in your car--hence the purchase. Man, their drummer is good! (But I digress.) So, what do you think? Let us all know if you go that route (with Magnatune or another distributor) please.

For those interested, check out the Tempus MP3s. Very good stuff!

PS MOD +1 Informative re: your take on DIY digital recording. There is so much involved. I can see a home-built system used to lay down idea track in the middle of the night when inspiration strikes you, but it would take a lot of cash to build a true production facility worthy of the name...

Re:Music Costs

[MrBigInThePants]

Yes I have. I am also one, although I am not foolish enough to believe I will ever be "famous". (or actually want to be either)
Just because the sterotype is a bunch of losers and your experience has been with the same, does not mean that there are no hard working musicians out there.
My father was one and I have met many.

I agree, that there are many complete losers out there attempting to "make it big"(TM) without putting in a hard days work or forking out any cash. (or forking it out on the wrong things!)

Much like any endeavour, without hard work and at least SOME capital, you are unlikely to succeed.

As to your ideal of "poor talented musicain", I say "big deal?".
Even if you are the most talented musician in the world, if you are a stupid, lazy moron with no motivation, you are not going to make it. (and nor should)

Music is HARD and takes WORK. You ain't got the stones, you are never going to be like them.

Re:Music Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Case File: Prince

No matter what you feel about his music, Prince is the example of this. No longer with a major record company, you can jump onto his website and purchase his music directly from him. Regarding of sales, he said in an interview that he no longer recieves a small cut from a large sum....but a bigger cut from a smaller sum. All that said, you cannot discount the fact that he has had a huge loyal fan base since the early 80's....but....if you jump onto some price forums...his 'new' fans are young...too young to be loyal long term 80's fans....and his music in the last 10 years has really been 'for the fans'....he is also the muscicians' muscician...never about the hype, always about the music .

Jeff Tweety of Wilco and his advocacy

[Hachey]

Jeffy Tweety of Wilco (mentioned in TFA), a popular indie band, is a staunch advocate of P2P music distribution and making music possible via the internet. When their label Reprise rejected thier album "Yankee Foxtrot Hotel", they purchased their master copies and streamed it online for free.

In other news, Jeff Tweedy and Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig will discuss their opinions regarding file sharing, free culture, and the arts. Lessig wrote the 2004 book Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. Steven Johnson, author of Interface Culture: How New Technology Transforms the Way We Create and Communicate, will moderate the discussion. All LIVE from the NYPL in conjunction with Wired magazine.

Thursday, April 7 at 7 p.m.
Celeste Bartos Forum


P.S. Wilco rocks. Hard.



-----
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org :
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !

Re:Jeff Tweety of Wilco and his advocacy

[Karl Tacheron]

You mixed up the album title. It was called "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot."

If I took revenue away, where is the money then?

[Anonymous Coward]

...with no mention of the human beings whose music you're actually taking and depriving revenue for because you want it for free.

Where is it then? If I actually took something he/she has, then it must be somewhere in my room, but last time I downloaded a song, no money appeared on my desk. It is really funny how people get so wrapped up in things like this where they claim that they have things they don't and try to say things that defy the lwas of physics. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU TAKE SOMETHING FROM THEM THEY DON'T HAVE YET? (my money for example) Simple, you cant, it defies the laws of physics. I can't take tomething you don't have yet. Just because they feel you should be paid every time music they made is played doesn't mean it is going to nessecarily happen the way you want it to. **** happens. That doesn't mean anybody can try to distory the laws of physics to make it logical though.

This week Wired reported on a band...

[garagekubrick]

I directed a video recently for a band called The Decemberists who aren't on a major label. They have, however, drummed up a lot of mainstream press notice and attention and good sales for a true indie label band. Once the video was done, however, I got my obligatory MTV2 airings at weird times of the night. So how were we going to share it? There'd be a cruddy low res version which is barely what the band could afford to host. So we distributed via bittorrent directly. We literally gave their fans as high quality file as we could. In one week using only bittorrent and not including the low res Quicktime, we've had over 5000 downloads. This is in the same week that Universal Music Group (one of the titans) has declared that music videos will no longer be streamed for free. Wired ran an article with all the details here: Wired article on how to get around MTV And now? The band is at number 7 on the iTunes music store and 19 at amazon. That is with the marketing budget of a small indepdendent label. Rewards come to those artists who embrace and understand how to use this tech. BTW i kept trying to submit this story but to no avail.

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[BlackFoliage]

And thanks again for doing that. The video was great and it looked fanatastic in high resolution. The bittorrent experience for this was excellent. Plus, the Decemberists kick serious amounts of ass. :-)

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[lou2ser]

when you pass the black foliage
imagine an eternity wrapped in silver sound

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[BlackFoliage]

:-) You are the first person to actually catch that reference.

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[makohund]

Wow, that is a coincidence. I just heard of them for the first time today... but for rather sad reasons.

They just recently had their trailer stolen after a show in Portland OR. Nearly all of their equipment and instruments were stolen. They weren't insured against the loss. The trailer has been recovered, but was emptied out.

Word has been spread throughout the Portland musician community to be on the lookout for the gear, which is how I heard about it. (They published a list of everything, including serial numbers.)

Some of their fans set up a donation fund to help replace the gear... their tour dates are being postponed in the meantime, because they have no way to perform them.

All this can be found at http://www.decemberists.com/news

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[lou2ser]

This happens more frequently then you would think.

Sonic Youth and Frank Black have both been ripped off.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.music.we en /browse_thread/thread/7c543ffee130d4e3/cd4c85b0839 20fe1?q=sonic+youth+trailer+stolen&rnum=4#cd4c85b0 83920fe1

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[makohund]

Yeah, I know.

Heck, our old practice studio was broken into and a bunch of stuff taken in a hurry. My bass, two guitars, etc.

That's rough, but doesn't stop you in your tracks. You can usually borrow or get what you need.

But everything at once, in mid-tour... ouch!

Now, I have to return to a local conversation about the issue, and on gear/trailer security in general. ;)

Re:This week Wired reported on a band...

[Sadfsdaf]

Long time decemberists fan, quick question, was it on purpose or a blooper that the blackboard didn't stay the same from the different camera angles around 2:15 into the video?

Love the video style, great story :-)

Re:Musicians want people to share *some* of their.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.

And the ones people want to share are...wait for it...the ones you buy the CD for.

It's almost like they want you to *pay* for the music.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Check out Incredibad's "The Heist" and tell me whether or not you think it could have been made w/out P2P filesharing.*

IMO, Indie music and P2P are only related by coincidence, because how do you type in the name of a band or a song if you don't know what you're looking for?

(* the fact that you could download and listen to it over the web should be a clue...)

SXSW Torrent

[digithead]

I didn't read TFA to find out if it was mentioned, but I thought releasing the 750 or so songs from showcase artists at SXSW was brilliant. It's gonna take me until sometime in April to listen to and rate everything on my iPod, but I'm pretty certain that I'll find some bands I hadn't heard of before and will want to buy their music. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Here's a good current example of P2P driving sales.

On a releated note, it was nice to see the iTMS promoting 50 of the SXSW artists with a highlights album this week.

Whatever happened to boycotts?

[guitaristx]

I remember back in the day, when there was a boycott on tuna. Now, it was my understanding that boycotts actually do something to indicate that consumers want a change in the moral practices of a business.

Now, considering what we know of boycotts, it would lead me to believe that saying "fsck you, RIAA!" and downloading music illegally is exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to bring down the RIAA, or get them to change their ways, e.g. price fixing, promoting crap music, etc. If the RIAA promotes crap music, why are you downloading it illegally and listening to it? Quit supporting the RIAA by doing without the music that is backed by the RIAA. Quit going to RIAA-backed concerts, quit buying RIAA-backed CDs, and quit downloading RIAA-backed music! Just like people did without their tuna in the '80s, you can suck it up and do without your Metallica.

Re:Whatever happened to boycotts?

[YeEntrancemperium]

Who wants to listen to awful Metallica anyway. If I want thrash I'll just listen to Dark Angel. Thanks.

nonsense lyrics

[mgkimsal2]

As a huge beatles fan, I have to say they had some lyrics that, when written out, look pretty silly (maybe not as bad as 'what's your solar sign?')

Some examples:
"I would like you to dance,
Take a cha-cha-cha-chance."

"Lovely Rita meter maid
Lovely Rita meter maid"

"We all live in a yellow submarine"

and so on.

The point is that often times the song is just as much about the music as the lyrics. The Beatles had some fab songs with fab lyrics, but sometimes the lyrics were secondary to the totality of the performance (and they generally had first-rate performances, regardless of the song!)

BTW, I've not heard the supermodel song, so I don't know what the performance of that song is like. Is it fast? Slow? Loud? Quiet?

Re:YES, & TEH SPOKE IS IN UR ANUS LOLROLOFFOLE

[Anonymous Coward]

&nbsp <-- lol u suck cocks

Until someone explains...

[Belial6]

Until someone explains how libraries killed the publishing industry, any claims that access to free information kills distribution industries is pointless.

Any one of us can go down and get virtually any book we want for free, use it until we are done, and never pay a penny. The authors have no say in this. If you don't want libraries to have your books.. Too bad. It's not up to you.

Did libraries kill the publishing industry? No. Why? Because most people will take the extra convinence of just paying 5 bucks for the book, over the inconvinence of the library. If the Media Barons would take a more reasonable cut, and make getting music more convienent, they wouldn't have to worry.

Basically it comes down to this... Since P2P networks are an equivellent institution to libraries, (execept the "...on the Internet." line that makes no difference.), claiming that P2P is wrong. (Not illegal...wrong) means that you either:

1) Think Libraries are wrong and should be shut down. Benjamin Franklin was a theiving pirate. Radio is evil. (mandatory licensing) People who use libraries are theives. Our educational system systematically teaches our children to be theives by putting a library in almost every school. America has a tradition of being theives dating back to 1731. And the publishing industry collapsed sometime in the middle to late 1700s, never to be a viable industry again.

OR

2) You are a hypocrate.

Of coarse if you have ever used a library, either in school, or public, then of course you are a hypocrate anyway.

Re:Until someone explains...

[argent]

1. HypocrIte, not hypocrAte.

2. "the inconvinence of the library." ... so, they just have to make downloading from whatever free illicit sources exist (P2P is often used that way, but that's not all it's used for an there are lots of other avenues) less convenient than buying the music online. How do you propose to do this?

This just in:

[GMFTatsujin]

Protestant reformation supports printing press. News at 11.

And for 180 degree change....

[tdhillman]

I've spoken about distaste for pirating here in the past, but as the manager of an indie rock band, I'll also swear by P2P as a promotion mechanism.

Small bands make virtually nothing from club appearances. The money, at least at the beginning, is in merchandise- t-shirts, stickers, and CDs.

Every last one of them provides free downloads on sites such as Pure Volume or on My Space They still realize CD sales at performances and via web purchase as they chase the holy grail- the record contract.

File trading has, does, and will still work as part of a comprehensive business model. The Grateful Dead certainly did rather well considering that nearly everything they ever did can be downloaded from Archive.org.

P2P becomes dicey when a group's success is predicated on album sales, and not performance money. I don't think a lot of Steely Dan albums would have ever surfaced if P2P was a dominant medium in their period.

Most importantly though, it is still a decision that the artists must make- do they want to sacrifice the financial protection offered by copyright law or open the doors in hopes of atracting an audience. In the first, they've got a business entity whose hands are in the pot- in the latter, they are self-promoting and hoping to realize the success that brings.

If you want to see an example of how indie bands at their best work, check out Monty's Fan Club and see what a small band from Rhode Island can do with P2P and a willingness to get the music out there.

In the meantime, I'm going downstairs to get my kids to turn the damn guitars down.

Exactly, consider new Moby album...

[SuperKendall]

I'm probably going to buy the new Moby album. But how did I hear about it? Eamil from iTunes because I had bought some Moby stuff before. Where was the record company involved there? Probably only the artwork, which I think they are being dramatically overpaid for in this case.

Here it is...

[SuperKendall]

???

Sorry, you had to know that was coming.

What theft? None! It's copyright infringement.

[Travelsonic]

someone wants to create an album and limit its access only to those that pay for it then they should have the right to do so. Period.

I honestly don't disagree, and I think most of us here would agreee with out.

This constant attempt by people to try to justify theft is pathetic.

What theft? I see nothing lost from the artist's posession (except for potential revenue that he/she doesn't have yet) So what happened here then? The person infringed upon copyrights. The two crimes are different. Get it strait. Copyright infringement - the duplication od copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright older (fair use is an exception). Theft is constituted with something is taken, and the perosn it was taken from was deprived of it's use. This is a legal fact. I don't think copyright infringement is nessecarily right, there are some who don't give a damn, but to call the mindset opposed to the RIAA for ANY REASON theives, or to slanderize them by accusing them of supporting or rationalizing a crime unrelated to illegal/legal is as logical as saying 2+2=5, or that a banana is exactly the same as a grape.

"Indie Artists Support Peer to Peer"

[Anonymous Coward]

The title is misleading. In reality, the article describes:

1) a few unknown artists who support P2P as a tool for publicity.
2) a record exec and couple larger indie artists who begrudgingly accept that P2P is a reality.

The title incorrectly suggests that all indie artists, as a collective group, have rallied behind P2P, which is blatently not the case.

Re:"Indie Artists Support Peer to Peer"

[bonobonewton]

The title is misleading. In reality, the article describes:

1) a few unknown artists who support P2P as a tool for publicity.
2) a record exec and couple larger indie artists who begrudgingly accept that P2P is a reality.

Where does Wilco fit into your deconstruction, exactly? Or are you trolling?

Just because not many were mentioned...

[Travelsonic]

1) a few unknown artists who support P2P as a tool for publicity. 2) a record exec and couple larger indie artists who begrudgingly accept that P2P is a reality.

Just because a few artists and companies were in this case or mentioned here, supporting P2P doesn't mean that there aren't more, or that they are the only ones. Many artists on sites like Dmusic.com for example like file-sharing with their songs as well.

Re: Not a valid analogy

[Maxo-Texas]

You have to picture being able to call the library and a perfect copy of the book appears on your desk.

Given that do you think libraries would not impact the publishing business?

Personally- I think artists are in some kind of dream world believing they deserve to be millionaires when I bust my butt and barely make a decent living. And the executives who do NOTHING except manage the flow of artists taking 90% of the artists income is even more ludicrous.

We have a growing glut of -good- -high quality- artists. What happens when you have an oversupply of something?

Please, stop making me laugh...

[WIAKywbfatw]

You're post deserves to be modded +5. Of course, that should be +5 funny rather than +5 informative.

Everyone and his brother raved about Radiohead's two albums prior to Kid A, The Bends and OK Computer respectively. And not only did they receive critical rave reviews, the music-buying public loved them too.

For example, Q Magazine's readers' poll of the top 100 albums of all time had both prominently in the top dozen or so, with OK Computer at number 1 in that chart. Of course, such a chart is pretty skewed towards recent releases but that gives you some kind of indication as to the popularity that Radiohead enjoyed before the release of Kid A.

Now, you may disagree but I think the success of Kid A had more to do with the fact that it was the much-anticipated, latest album release by one of the most popular rock bands on the planet rather than the fact that it was leaked onto a P2P network.

If you can't see that people who love an album will be very much inclined to rush out and buy the next album that the same artist releases then you really have no clue about how the music industry works.

That The Bends, OK Computer or any other Radiohead album hadn't previously been in the US top 20 is irrelevant. More relevant would be the sales figures for any of those albums (which could have been sure but steady rather than flavour-of-the-month in nature) and the number of people who'd paid to see them perform live in the three year hiatus between the release of OK Computer and Kid A.

Back Seat P2P'ers.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have absolutely nothing to worry about. You own the copyright on your own film, and therefore have the exclusive right to say how it may be distributed. The MPAA has zero right to tell you how you may distribute your own film."

It's not the MPAA that people have to worry about. It's all the P2P'ers telling the artist how their copyrighted material will be distributed.

Humanities worse enemy--themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see it coming to an end, because this is going to create a war between artists and fans, which is ultimately worse for the artist"

Depends on how you define "worse".

The worse consequence of rampent piracy is that want-to-be artists don't become artists, and go into a profession that's not so easily affected by piracy. From the standpoint of the copyright violaters*, worse is the supply either disappearing completely, or diving towards the depths of mediocrity, were it's no longer worth the trouble. (Virus kills host, film at eleven)

*Make note that "copyright violations" aren't tied to any particular technique.

The most mediocre, conservative [Government]

[Anonymous Coward]

"I would agree that P2P helps the little artists. What is not as well known is that the label execs (many of whom I know and work with) rely on P2P statistics to decide which records to promote and which songs to shoot videos for. "

That's a little like using Slashdot statistics to decide how to run the government.

Earth tones.

[Anonymous Coward]

"P2P distribution + web advertising = no more requirement for RIAA to promote and sell your album for you."

Hi! I'm in the middle of Tanzania. I've never heard of you, but I have heard of "The Beatles".

Piracy spelled with a "M".

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think that's the personal justification most Slashdotters use. But then again I'm speaking for a large majority in general terms."

Well gee, that takes care of the music piracy. Now how about the games, books, movies, and even web sites that people pirate? Is EVERYONE evil, except for the rightious copyright violater?

Last defense: "I didn't know".

[Anonymous Coward]

Well since we're posting things.

Here's mine

So once again; why are people hiding behind ignorance? Isn't this "oh so wonderful internet" suppose to foster enlightenment?

Re:Last defense: "I didn't know".

[Farmer Tim]

"Isn't this "oh so wonderful internet" suppose to foster enlightenment?"

But enlightenment gets in the way of blind hatred and sometimes forces people to concede that others may have valid concerns, and we can't possibly admit being wrong, even if the errors are stupifyingly obvious, because admitting a mistake shows weakness or acknowledgment of a greater authority, and as we all know nerds have no weaknesses or greater authorities.

Whatever happened to [thinking]?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, considering what we know of boycotts, it would lead me to believe that saying "fsck you, RIAA!" and downloading music illegally is exactly the wrong thing to do if we want to bring down the RIAA, or get them to change their ways, e.g. price fixing, promoting crap music, etc."

Make a mental note of the conflict between:

"The Robin 'bringin down the man' Hood position"

and

"Well Stealing isn't really stealing because we're not taking anything (and implying that it doesn't hurt anyone).

Well it it isn't going to hurt, then why do it?

Until someone [justifies my actions]...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Until someone explains how libraries killed the publishing industry, any claims that access to free information kills distribution industries is pointless."*

Or you're arguing a strawman, because that's not what's being complained about.

*If you're always this sloppy in your posts, why should we enlighten you?

Re:When a bunch of nobodys give you support

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, this is not a "nobody". This is Terence Trent D'arby! Remember him? He had that one song and I think he had dreadlocks or something. He is indie rock!

Re:And for 180 degree change....garageband.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd also like to add http://www.garageband.com/ to the list of Indie download sites. Anyone can post their own original music in exchange for reviewing other artists' songs.

Easy communications empowers the [corporation]

[Anonymous Coward]

"Easy communications empowers the individual"

Easy communications doesn't discrimminate. Individuals or corporations. That's why for a lot of you, your job is headed overseas.

"The only service they really offer is making media easy to find and get."*

So do grocery stores. So when was your last trip down to the farm? How about the furniture factory? Was it a lot of work.

*All together now. Say "division of labour". Say "society". You all can talk all you want about "obsolete business models", but until you're willing to fill in that role, and can get the majority of "society" to do so. You're all talk.

Re: Not a valid analogy

[Belial6]

Well, p2p is hardly instant, and definitly not giving you perfect copies on any kind of regular basis, so it is more like calling the library, and later you will get a copy that might be perfect, or could be horribly mangled.

Although, even if they were perfect copies, and they showed up in seconds, it would be little different from the transistion from hand copying, and the movable type printing press. Think about it. Instead of copying one book in months with a large error rate, a single person could produce thousands of perfect copies in a fraction of the time. I would dare say that a printing press is more reliable at producing perfect copies than most p2p applications.

People forget that the written language is a digital medium. It is not analog. There is no value between 'A' and 'B' or 'T' and 'U'. When written text is copied, it is either copied correctly, or incorrectly. If may be stored in different formats like script, type, or on a computer, but the letter 'A' is an absolute value.

On a tangent, could hieroglyphics be considered analog writting? Do they have absolute values, or do they sort of mean stuff?

The most mediocre, conservative [Bank]

[Anonymous Coward]

"The best part is the record label actually doesn't pay for that video. In the end, they are like a bank taking a risk on an artist. If the artist doesn't make any money for them, then the artist gets nothing and the label takes a loss. On the other hand, if the artist makes money, they only make it after their label debt is repaid, generally in full and sometimes with interest."

Gee, that sounds just like...Student Loans.

lol @ tweety

[Anonymous Coward]

and his name's Jeff Tweedy. and yeah he isn't bad.

Eternal grimness under a grim wintermoon

[YeEntrancemperium]

If you are grim and only play true Norwegian black metal you don't need money. You only need to be grim in the forests! Unsilent storms in the northern abyss! Hail the necrowizard!

Painting everybody with the same brush?

[Travelsonic]

The vast majority of P2P piracy is nothing more than: 1.) People wanting stuff for free so they don't have to pay for it. 2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!"

1), How do you know that is the exact mindset of the majority? Did you peek into their brains to figure it out, or just pull that smelly one out the rear end? I admit that not even I know the exact percentages, but there are many mindsets in the groups that download files off of P2P 2) Who the hell are you to tell US what is ethical, and unethical? This is subjective at most. Some people think downloading illegal files without permission is ethical, some don't, some even think that downloading files on P2P alltogether (with the artist's permission) is unethical! I believe however this "blame" if worded better can serve as justified civil disobedience.

It's like this guy I saw during lunch in high school years ago. He would jam his arm up the coke machine slot and work out a coke. Now, obviously it's not a digital copy so in this case, he really was taking something, but let's get real...

No, how about you take your own advice, because to me there are major logical and even legal differences between what the guy does, and downloading a file. Sure there is a chance that the artist won't see the money, but who really knows? The infringer might go out and buy the CD, or a copy of the file on ITunes or Napster, maybe not, but trying to assume all infringers thing the same is pathetic, just plain pathetic. I think your attempts to paint everybody who uses P2P networks as doing it fro the same reason and comming up with uncomparable situations to make the point is unreasonable and laughable at most.

FUCK YOU BONCH

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:STILL Not a valid analogy

[Farmer Tim]

"Well, p2p is hardly instant..."

Still faster than a trip to the mall, even on dial-up.

"...and later you will get a copy that might be perfect, or could be horribly mangled.

I take it you've never borrowed anything from a public library then. Of course it's going to be horribly mangled!

"Instead of copying one book in months with a large error rate, a single person could produce thousands of perfect copies in a fraction of the time."

Which was just the break the publishing industry had been waiting for: book sales really took off after the press was invented (thank you, Professor Obvious from STFU).

But again, bad analogy: the parallel to the movable type press would be the record press, or more recently the CD press. In comparing P2P to the printing press, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that eBooks are also illegally available along side music, so print publishing is "threatened" just as much as music publishing. A better analogy to P2P wold be putting a photocopier on every street corner in the world with an infinite supply of paper and toner, ready for anyone to press the "Copy" button. But might I suggest you stick to the logic of each situation in it's correct context? This analogy thing doesn't seem to be working out for you...

"I would dare say that a printing press is more reliable at producing perfect copies than most p2p applications."

Considering that a lot of software is available through P2P, and software has to be delivered bit-perfect otherwise it just doesn't work, I'd suggest you guess again. Bad rip != bad download. And if the downloads really are corrupt, then that's the fault of the protocol (if the 8-years-in-beta web browser I'm using can stop and start downloads at will, there's no reason an app designed specifically for transferring data shouldn't be able to; if it can't then it really is a POS of no use to anyone, legally or not).

"People forget that the written language is a digital medium. It is not analog. There is no value between 'A' and 'B' or 'T' and 'U'."

Wrong. The word "digit" means quite specifically "any of the figures from 0-9" (quote OCD). In other words, the figures A-Z, which are not part of the group of figures 0-9, are not digits, they're letters, which is why letters are called letters and digits are called digits. Therefore, in the strictest sense of the word "digital", which means "pertaining to, containing or consisting of the figures 0-9; information stored in numerical form", the alphabet is not "digital" at all. It is not stored as a numerical abstraction in an arbitrary decodable array, it is stored as continuous marks on a piece of paper, which is very much the analog domain.

The fact that there are no values between letters simply means that the alphabet is commonly expressed as integers, even though letters have different sounds according to the accent of the person speaking (and there are indeed intermediate values for vowels, best known being the dipthong, which is ae combined). However, a lack of intermediate values is not the defining characteristic of digital, merely a necessary limitation of using a finite number of bits (analog is just digital with an infinite number of bits; less in practice, since there is a lower limit to any measurable quantity determined by physics. Even a thermionic valve is limited to a current resolution of 1 electron, regardless of voltage).

So to say that writing is digital is a misuse of the word: digital does not mean "integer", nor does it mean "value varying by discrete quantities" (although digital signals do display both properties), it means "represented by numbers"[1]. This is not true for the alphabet. Sorry if this pedantry bothers you, but you started it...

"Do [heiroglyphics] have absolute values, or do they sort of mean stuff?"

Both[2]. For example, a rock (semi circle, flat on the bottom) is both the word "rock" (in Egyptian, obviously, but I don't recall how it's pronounced, much less how to spell i

Re:Musicians want people to share *some* of their.

[iminplaya]

It's almost like they want you to *pay* for the music.

I, for one, will be happy to pay... For a performance. Maybe even a T-shirt, a poster, or a CD of the event(at the event). Not the demos. Actually, I could concievably buy a demo. Just don't tell me what I am allowed or not allowed to do with it. Or anything else that I buy.

Re:STILL Not a valid analogy

[Belial6]

Wow, your reading comprehension is very low!.

"Still faster than a trip to the mall, even on dial-up"
"Which was just the break the publishing industry had been waiting for: book sales really took off after the press was invented (thank you, Professor Obvious from STFU)."
And using a printing press is still faster than a hand scribe. How big is the hand scribe business? Yes, that's right, very low. Just because some people will make more money and some will make less, does not mean that an information sharing technology should be shunned as evil. (No offense to any Quakers that may be reading this.)

"I take it you've never borrowed anything from a public library then. Of course it's going to be horribly mangled!"
Ahhh...But I can generally still read it. Why? Because Letters are in essence integers. That means that you get a perfect copy of each letter (possible corrected at reading), or you don't get it at all.

"Considering that a lot of software is available through P2P, and software has to be delivered bit-perfect otherwise it just doesn't work, I'd suggest you guess again."
That's just silly. No program uses every bit of data at launch. Actually, there is a lot of software that had data it NEVER uses. Did you know this, were you fibbing...Or do you still deny it?

"The fact that there are no values between letters simply means that the alphabet is commonly expressed as integers, even though letters have different sounds according to the accent of the person speaking (and there are indeed intermediate values for vowels, best known being the dipthong, which is ae combined). However, a lack of intermediate values is not the defining characteristic of digital, merely a necessary limitation of using a finite number of bits (analog is just digital with an infinite number of bits; less in practice, since there is a lower limit to any measurable quantity determined by physics. Even a thermionic valve is limited to a current resolution of 1 electron, regardless of voltage)."
Digital to mean pertaining to the "Numbers" 0-9 only, whould mean that any Hex data is not digital. I'm pretty sure that it is, and am suprised that you don't think so. You do recognize that Hex is digital? Perhaps you are going to say that this or that physics model requires it to be a 1 or 0 at this atomic level or that. Fine....The fact is that there are no ones and zeros on my hard drive. There are switch states, and those switch states can be CONVERTED to a 1 or 0 which is a REPRESENTATION of what is actually on the drive. They can then be CONVERTED to HEX (0 - F) as a REPRESENTATION of what is on the drive. It can then be CONVERTED to A - Z, as a REPRESENTATION of what is on the drive. This can go back and forth forever, and you will either get perfect copies, or integer errors. This is what makes it digital.

Honestly, I wish that your definition of "Digital" were correct, as it would resolve all of the problems we have with the RI/MPAA. Since none of the songs, movies, books (well maybe a few books have some "Digital" data in them), you name it are never represented as 0-9, it would mean that none of this is digital media, and thus does not fall under the DMCA! Please...PLEASE let your defiition hold up in a court. I certainly wouldn't try using that defense, but I hope someone could successfully.

Re:STILL Not a valid analogy

[Farmer Tim]

"Wow, your reading comprehension is very low!"

And your ability to spot a joke or two is equally low, which is why I'm not going to bother responding to the first two points (BTW, the odd carriage return really helps if you can't use HTML tags).

"That's just silly. No program uses every bit of data at launch. Actually, there is a lot of software that had data it NEVER uses. Did you know this, were you fibbing...Or do you still deny it?"

Try unzipping/unstuffing/unraring a corrupt file sometime. Did I hear someone say "invalid checksum"? The fact is most audio and video formats are designed to withstand corrupt packets and have error correction built in, compressed archives WILL NOT decompress unless they are bit perfect. Did you not know this, or do you still deny it? ("Fib"? I haven't heard that since kindergarten).

"Digital to mean pertaining to the "Numbers" 0-9 only, whould mean that any Hex data is not digital."

Wrong again. You cite a special case (non-base 10 numeral systems), which are delineated from normal decimals by an indicator, usually an ampersand. Perhaps you hadn't noticed that? Put simply, the letter "A" in a hex string has been assigned a numerical value which has a decimal equivalent (and is used in lieu of special characters 10 to 15), wheras the letter "A" as part of a word does not have a decimal equivalent because it doesn't have a numerical value: therefore it is not digital, even if it does have an absolute phonetic value. Integer values are not a definition of digital, just a property (BTW, you can use decimal places in hex, but it is difficult and unusual because hex is generally only used as the human-readable dump of a binary value)

"They can then be CONVERTED to HEX (0 - F) as a REPRESENTATION of what is on the drive. It can then be CONVERTED to A - Z, as a REPRESENTATION of what is on the drive."

Bingo! That's the part you aren't getting: the conversion of data into a form represented by discrete numerical values (whatever base you like, but which can always be reduced to a decimal: that's the key!). As I said, "A" does not have an inherent decimal value: to represent "A" digitally we commonly use ASCII code 65, or if you prefer 01000001 (note that the ASCII code for "A" is not the same as it's hexadecimal value). "A" written on a piece of paper is "A", it is not a numerical representation of itself expressable as a decimal number, therefore it is not digital. It isn't analog either in the strictest sense, but who said data had to be either analog or digital?

"Honestly, I wish that your definition of "Digital" were correct, as it would resolve all of the problems we have..." My definition of digital data (as opposed to just digital) is "information represented by numerical values"; the Oxford English Dictionary concurs. I don't include "integer" in the definition, because digital systems are capable of including irrational numbers, they are just not directly expressable in binary (digital does not mean binary; you can buy tri-state logic devices, though they aren't as common as they once were)

"Please...PLEASE let your defiition hold up in a court."

My definition is the one the courts use. http://www.worldlii.org/Look it up. Someone has a failure of comprehension, but the fact that the Oxford Dictionary and the posted legal definition backs my version, I'd suggest it isn't me...

Re: Not a valid analogy

[Maxo-Texas]

I would dare say that a printing press is more reliable at producing perfect copies than most p2p applications. You must not be using the p2p services that I use. And text files are not stored in lossy formats.