NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Downloading Music for free off the internet be legal?

Nope, all stealing is wrong, even if it is over the internet.

if its music that you cant actually get anywhere else (shops, etc) then i dont see a problem with it, but when its new music thats still in the shops then no you shouldnt be able to.

If it's done with the consent of the artist, it's an effective advertising tool. (It's not much more wrong than taping songs off radio...)

If I didn't have Kazaa or other filesharing programs to use to "try before I buy", i wouldn't own half of the albums i do today.

*Fires Ignore Cannon at RIAA and copyright laws*
Arrrrrrrrrrrrr Feed those scurvy dogs to the fish.

Ripped albums put online, or shared online without permission should never be legalized, because of the problems to smaller artists it would cause. I dont think the majority of people who do download music buy a *significant* proportion of albums to justify it.

Maybe a small proportion do, but most heavy leechers are just out to take advantage of P2P networks and the free games/music/software etc that they can get.

Saying that, theres lots of bands/artists I never would have heard of, or appreciated without P2P networks. But that doesnt mean it should be legal to rip their albums.

I don't believe in copyright but I'm NOT a communist. I'm more of a 60:40 distributist/capitalist. If anything, the copyright should be owned collectivly by the nation, so the copyright only generates profit at the expense of foreigners and benefits the nation in general rather than for a global corporation. Realisticly speaking, artists only see a fraction of the money anyway, so they aren't losing that much.

No I don't think it should be legalised, but aint gonna stop me downloading it. Even if they stopped making it accesible, i'd just wait till someone I know got hte Cd, borrow it, Rip it on to my Hd and give it them back...they'll never stop the illegal music ring.

Of course, artists whose soul goal is money should never become artists. It can only promote their music and their message.

It shouldn't be legalized, at least without the artist's consent (which would cut down on a large number of files most likely).

Of course, artists whose soul goal is money should never become artists. It can only promote their music and their message.

I doubt artists who aren't easily commericialised teen puppets would last very long in the industry if their soul purpose was to make money.

It IS legal in less misguided countries. Many of the artists I like to download are dead...and don't need the extra cash. With the small percentage artists actually get for their work though, the record sales don't amount to that much, so it's the record labels losing out. Poor them.

"While a select few musicians make millions, the majority are beholden to the record company they signed with and earn a pittance. Steve Albini – an independent record producer famous for his work on Nirvana’s In Utero – suggests that many bands who sign with major labels may be earning about a third the salary of an average convenience-store employee. 9"

"During the recent downturn in the global economy, record companies artificially deflated sales in order to strengthen their arguments that music piracy was severely crippling the industry.

• While it is true that CD shipments were down 10% in 2001, in terms of revenue per title, 2000 was the best year in industry history.10

• Companies deliberately reduced the number of recordings manufactured from 38,900 titles in 1999 to a mere 27,000 titles in 2000 and 2001.10

• In both 2000 and 2001, there were fewer new CDs released than in any year since 1993, and revenues per title were at record highs of over $500,000 per title, from a decade-long average of around $400,000.10

• Over the last 5 years, the global recording industry has sold more than 2 billion items of recorded music making a retail value of more than $20 billion.10"

Read more: http://www.newint.org/index4.html
New Internationalist edition 359, "Sounds of Dissent"


And I'll still fork over $40 to see a group or artist I like.

My addition to that is that free music sharing battles censorship, which is still rampant globally (how many of you hear anything but the chosen top 40 music or classic rock on the radio?). Especially in the west, the majority of radio stations are in the hands of a few businesses who do not allow radical music on their stations.

I think it should be legal because why should you buy an album you can't preview first? There are only a few at the sample stations in the music store. I think that file sharing now only allows you to preview music you are thinking of buying, it also opens up a door to new music; it allows you to sample a whole new world of music and then, if you do like, you know you can buy it and won't be disappointed; chances are, you will buy more of it.

should i be able to go into your house and take your cd collection?

I think that either it should be legal or albums should be a lot cheaper. The main reason I use P2P software is because I don't want to by an album at a ridiculous price just to find out it is crap.

The other reason that I use it, is to find music that I have never heard before. Somehow, I don't think that there is a legal alternative for this.

I am also hugely unsympathetic towards record companies, that have a shit load of money anyway, who charge huge amounts for CDs whilst keeping the artists on their payroll for a pitance of the money that they make for them. For me, music is the artists' property not the record companies,' if the artist wants to sue me fine. And no, I do not have any Metallica songs.

Artists have to make money too.

Artists have to make money too.
Isn't that why they tour?

And no, I do not have any Metallica songs.

Hehe, and what a bunch of whiney old men they are too :)

But seriously, I do agree that album prices are far too high, and need to be brought down. I just dont think people make enough of a fuss about it, so I doubt things will change on that score.

should i be able to go into your house and take your cd collection?
You can't because I don't live in a house! :D

Besides, I'm an artist; I'm a writer. I may not have a published novel, but I publish my work online. That is why I believe all art should be freely shared. I don't care about publication or distribution rights as long as my work is creditted. I say this because someone came to be before and asked if they could translate something of mine into Italian. They said they would give me credit, so, I agreed.

When you go to an outdoor art show, chances are, you probably won't pay to see the show, but you are still seeing the art; it is there before you...

When you walk down the street, some stores are playing music loudly, even if they aren't music stores. You turn on the radio and music comes out; or you're at a party and your host/hostess puts on music... does this mean you're stealing? After all, you haven't paid for it, but you can still get to hear it. Just because it's not in MP3 form...

Ok, let me ask you this... My father has his stereo set up to the tape deck is hooked into the stereo receiver, so its connected to the radio. When a song plays on the radio and he decides he likes it and presses the record button on the tape deck, is that not the same thing as downloading?

Or, what about when a friend has a cd you like...and you decide you want a copy, is that not the same thing as "illegal" downloading of files, regardless of whether you copy it to a blank CD or blank tape...well, is it?

Isn't that why they tour?
Sure, but that's also (at least, partially) why they write songs and release them on CD.

Besides, I'm an artist; I'm a writer. I may not have a published novel, but I publish my work online. That is why I believe all art should be freely shared. I don't care about publication or distribution rights as long as my work is creditted. I say this because someone came to be before and asked if they could translate something of mine into Italian. They said they would give me credit, so, I agreed.

Heh, good on you. I'd feel the same way if my band was good enough to release our stuff :-/

should i be able to go into your house and take your cd collection?

No.

But were is the link?

In one case you are effectively making a replica of a file.

in the other you are breaking and entering, not to mention stealing.

Sure, but that's also (at least, partially) why they write songs and release them on CD.
No they write and record the songs. The record company then essentially steals them and realeases them onto CD.

Fact: Most artists make the vast majority of their income by touring than by album sales.
Fact: Very little of the money spent on a CD actually makes it back to the artist. The RIAA and such take a large portion.

I see music downloading (specifically illegal downloading) as a form of liberating music from corporate manipulation. But then, that is just my opinion.

Nope, all stealing is wrong, even if it is over the internet.

I'd be far more ready to buy music CD's if they were at the proper price.
Note; CD's cost far less than tapes or vinyl to produce; that was the original reason for switching. Then companies worked out that because they were shinier they could charge more and people wouldn't know.

All stealing is wrong; don't let the record companies steal your money.

should i be able to go into your house and take your cd collection?

Sure, I'll burn you copies.

Artists have to make money too.

Tell me how some of the monkeys who 'make' music are artists.
People like Peter Andre deserve not to have their music copied because they deserve not to be given licence to pollute the airways anyway.
Or that disgusting song by NERD.

I know a lot of people aren't fond of record companies, and if you don't want to support them, don't buy their CDs. I don't think that that going and downloading pirated music is the right thing to do. The only reason they're charging so much is because a lot of people are willing to pay that much.

I know a lot of people aren't fond of record companies, and if you don't want to support them, don't buy their CDs. I don't think that that going and downloading pirated music is the right thing to do. The only reason they're charging so much is because a lot of people are willing to pay that much.

I urge you to take a look at the link I posted and see the cut that artists actually make from record sales. It's pitiful. The biggest chunk goes to the record company. Artists make WAY more revenue in concerts, and you can't get in free:). Record companies are not music makers...they are music producers and distributors. Please explain WHY you think downloading music is really terrible. (so we can discuss it:))

I urge you to take a look at the link I posted and see the cut that artists actually make from record sales. It's pitiful. The biggest chunk goes to the record company. Artists make WAY more revenue in concerts, and you can't get in free:). Record companies are not music makers...they are music producers and distributors. Please explain WHY you think downloading music is really terrible. (so we can discuss it:))
The artists sign deals with the record companies, do they not? The rights to distribution of the songs are the record company's, not some 18 year old in college who ripped the songs off his CD. Its illegal. I don't support breaking the law just because you want to stick it to the record companies.

Hmm, I'm not willing to pay that much. And am not to happy on the idea that I should go without music simply because there are suckers in this world prepared to pay through the nose for something that is so cheap to make.

I use it to sample music. And if the song isn't utter bullcrap.
I'll use BIt Torrent to download the whole thing!
If I like a band enough I'll buy there CD. But if it's only a song or 2 which is what most of my music collection consists of.
60% of the artists I listen to are dead.


Remeber the new MP3 files have trackers in it. So remeber to use OGG :)
OGG is better than MP3 anyway.

And if CD's were not 20 bucks I'd buy music.
A resaonble price would be more like 5 or 6 dollars for a CD because they only cost about 5 cents a peice.

The artists sign deals with the record companies, do they not? The rights to distribution of the songs are the record company's, not some 18 year old in college who ripped the songs off his CD. Its illegal. I don't support breaking the law just because you want to stick it to the record companies.
It is a case of sell your soul or go back to your day job. Fine it is a contract which is legally binding.

That does not mean I (should) recognise it as law.

The artists sign deals with the record companies, do they not? The rights to distribution of the songs are the record company's, not some 18 year old in college who ripped the songs off his CD. Its illegal. I don't support breaking the law just because you want to stick it to the record companies.

No, it is not UNIVERSALLY illegal. It is legal in Canada. It is legal in most (if not all...not sure on that) of Europe.

No.

But were is the link?

In one case you are effectively making a replica of a file.

in the other you are breaking and entering, not to mention stealing.


they are both stealing

Whilst we're on the subject. Is this (http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=RIAA_PSA.mpg) for real?

Also, does anyone believe the new campaign telling us that piracy funds terrorism?

they are both stealing
From whom?

No, it is not UNIVERSALLY illegal. It is legal in Canada. It is legal in most (if not all...not sure on that) of Europe.
Really? Could you post a link to confirm? (I'm hoping it is at least. Some nations would have sense then.)

Artists have to make money too.

You're naive if you think artists make money off of record sales. All that money goes to the execs who sign them. That's why the recording industry is all up in arms over downloading. Not because the artists will lose money, but because they'll lose their third houses and seventh boats. Artists make most of their money off of touring and merchandising sales, with record sales barely covering the debts to the record labels that they incur.

I'll tell you what. When record companies stop charging $20 for CDs that cost $8 to produce (including album art and the artist's actual payment), then I'll feel bad about downloading music. Until then, I'll continue to download music to see if I like it. I'm not going to buy a $17 CD without listening to it first; you wouldn't buy a new car without test-driving it first. If the CD is good, I'll buy it. If it sucks, I won't.

When you walk down the street, some stores are playing music loudly, even if they aren't music stores. You turn on the radio and music comes out;


Actually in Canada, stores have to pay a certain amount based on their square footage in order to have the right to play music (from a CD), so more and more stores are opting not to bother. Radio station pay royalties for each song.

I'm still pro-downloading.

I don't care what the idiots who say it can be stopped say.
YOU CAN'T STOP IT.
Unless you want to make it impossible to copy onto a hard drive and put trackers on everyones computers.
Which people could still find away around.
One of the main reasons I use linux for day to day stuff.
You can't track Linux. And it's quite hard to hack.
Bands make money by touring.
The evil record companys don't deserve a cent.

The artists sign deals with the record companies, do they not? The rights to distribution of the songs are the record company's, not some 18 year old in college who ripped the songs off his CD. Its illegal. I don't support breaking the law just because you want to stick it to the record companies.

I, for one, don't necessarily want to "stick it" to the record companies. But, as someone who has worked on the retail end of the music industry, I can tell you a few things truthfully:

- Being able to hear music first promotes sales. Yes, there are good listening systems out there to sample (we happened to have the best ones available right now), but they are always still very limited. You can't hear the whole song, usually.
- Even in this age of music downloading and 'piracy,' music sales are trending up. They are up over last year and up over projected. People still buy CDs...imagine that.
- CD are grossly overpriced. CD production is nowhere near costly enough to justify the prices that the record industry is promoting. Prices are slowly going down...but so are DVD prices. And DVDs have only been around for a few years. CDs have been around for over a decade and still aren't going down to where they should be. You miss an entire range of people when it comes to sales because they will not pay the prices for CDs. Most retailers take a standard markup on product, based on what they pay for it. So if the record companies charge more, the consumer pays more.
- Artists make money off concerts, not record sales. The money from the record sales goes (the vast majority of it, anyhow) to support hte record company and to pay off the atrocious debt that is accrued on the part of the artist just by signing on to make an album.

And the record industry DID exaggerate sales declines and profit loss to try to further their case against P2P music sharing. I don't think it's right...but it's their prerogative.

All in all, I feel that the ability to download music enriches everyone's lives a bit. Some people abuse it grossly and ruin the perception of it for everyone else.

You guys know the only reason that Metallica started this whole deal? It's because someone got a hold of a song that they weren't done with yet and spread it all over the internet before the CD was even out. The main guy that is getting all uppity about it even said that he (an artist, and an "owner" of songs that we're "illegally" downloading) didn't care that people downloaded the songs. He just didn't want the songs spreading around before the CD came out.

I don't care what the idiots who say it can be stopped say.
YOU CAN'T STOP IT.
Unless you want to make it impossible to copy onto a hard drive and put trackers on everyones computers.
Which people could still find away around.
One of the main reasons I use linux for day to day stuff.
You can't track Linux. And it's quite hard to hack.
Bands make money by touring.
The evil record companys don't deserve a cent.

Record companies, evil though they may be in their current incarnation, still bring music to people. They may not deserve the amount of money they get...but keep in mind that without them, the bands might not even exist or be touring at all.

There is room for improvement...but they have a purpose.

Aside from that, I pretty much just stick to this (http://www.bassdrive.com/m3u).


...especially on Monday nights...

Record companies, evil though they may be in their current incarnation, still bring music to people. They may not deserve the amount of money they get...but keep in mind that without them, the bands might not even exist or be touring at all.
.
Yes. Without them the world likely would not have Britney Spears. For that alone, I'd rather the companies go away.

Record companies, evil though they may be in their current incarnation, still bring music to people. They may not deserve the amount of money they get...but keep in mind that without them, the bands might not even exist or be touring at all.

There is room for improvement...but they have a purpose.

Uhm, there are some record companies that will never leave. Any techno/electronica type label will always be in business because there will always be artists making new songs and there will always be DJs needing vinyls. A DJ can't just download and mix (not mix well anyway) with mp3s.

but keep in mind that without them, the bands might not even exist or be touring at all.

Bands have existed before record companies. And with the internet, bands can publisize themselves and promote concerts. Without the need of those that make money off others talents.

Actually in Canada, stores have to pay a certain amount based on their square footage in order to have the right to play music (from a CD), so more and more stores are opting not to bother. Radio station pay royalties for each song.

I'm still pro-downloading.

Yup...
Everyone pays for music somewhere. ASCAP fees are tacked onto ANY performance of copyrighted music. Whether it's a music store or a radio station or what...the record industries see money for its use.

Uhm, there are some record companies that will never leave. Any techno/electronica type label will always be in business because there will always be artists making new songs and there will always be DJs needing vinyls. A DJ can't just download and mix (not mix well anyway) with mp3s.
afaik some DJs are using computers rather then vinyls to DJ, I could be wrong of course.

Really? Could you post a link to confirm? (I'm hoping it is at least. Some nations would have sense then.)

Legal in Canada: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html?tag=nefd_pop

Arghh...can't find a superlist of countries where it is legal...I'd have to search country by country. In any case, it's legal in more countries than it is illegal.

afaik some DJs are using computers rather then vinyls to DJ, I could be wrong of course.
Some are moving over to that, but it's not near as good. Of course, I hope you're not talking about Radio DJs. I'm talking about like club DJs. I know one DJ who uses all vinyls but sometimes, before the record is released (he knows a lot of the producers) he'll get a few mp3s and he'll play those. They're a lot harder to mix in however. DJs tend to prefer the vinyls.

Bands have existed before record companies. And with the internet, bands can publisize themselves and promote concerts. Without the need of those that make money off others talents.

I never said that EVERYONE needed them. And I never argued that the record industry is a bloated entity that is in need of some serious overhaul.

But they serve their purpose for the bands that may need them...or would if they weren't all about sucking every penny out of everything.

But now it's to the point that it's hard to do anything without them...it's like healthcare and insurance companies. You can't afford the industry without the people who made it the way it is. It's a vicious, ironic circle.

Legal in Canada: http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html?tag=nefd_pop

Arghh...can't find a superlist of countries where it is legal...I'd have to search country by country. In any case, it's legal in more countries than it is illegal.
Thank you.

But they serve their purpose for the bands that may need them
If a band needs a record company to make them work, then they are in the wrong business.

Isn't that why they tour?

Only if they charge a lot for tickets do they make money. Most of the time they break even.

Only if they charge a lot for tickets do they make money. Most of the time they break even.
I'd hate to see the amount that they make off albums then. Considering that the albums get them even less money.

If it's done with the consent of the artist, it's an effective advertising tool. (It's not much more wrong than taping songs off radio...)

If I didn't have Kazaa or other filesharing programs to use to "try before I buy", i wouldn't own half of the albums i do today.


I beg to differ, I'm all for the downloading music for free thing, but I don't think people download music just to find out if they're any good. If I download music I download entire cd's, and other people who download music are people who just want the one or two popular songs of the cd, which is incredibly lame, but is the truth...

Ok, let me ask you this... My father has his stereo set up to the tape deck is hooked into the stereo receiver, so its connected to the radio. When a song plays on the radio and he decides he likes it and presses the record button on the tape deck, is that not the same thing as downloading?

Or, what about when a friend has a cd you like...and you decide you want a copy, is that not the same thing as "illegal" downloading of files, regardless of whether you copy it to a blank CD or blank tape...well, is it?


Songs played on the radio are paid for by the radio station through royalties, you can copy all that you want from them.

A CD borrowed from a friend is not theft as the friend paid for it. Now you couldn't legally make copies and sell them to the public, but a purchased cd allows for copying.

A CD borrowed from a friend is not theft as the friend paid for it. Now you couldn't legally make copies and sell them to the public, but a purchased cd allows for copying.
How about just giving them a copy, for free.

No they write and record the songs. The record company then essentially steals them and realeases them onto CD.

Record companies do not essentially steal the artists' work, they are in a legally binding contract signed by both parties. If an artist doesn't make money from a contract it means one of two things: a)not enough record sales b)poor management (ie letting the band sign a lousy contract).

I don't believe in copyright but I'm NOT a communist. I'm more of a 60:40 distributist/capitalist. If anything, the copyright should be owned collectivly by the nation, so the copyright only generates profit at the expense of foreigners and benefits the nation in general rather than for a global corporation. Realisticly speaking, artists only see a fraction of the money anyway, so they aren't losing that much.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

If I write a song (and I do) I should have the right to any money it makes. "The copyright should be owned collectivly by the nation"? What, so some lazy jackass can make money (in the economy) off my creative work? I don't think so!

Debunk time!

Besides, I'm an artist; I'm a writer. I may not have a published novel, but I publish my work online. That is why I believe all art should be freely shared. I don't care about publication or distribution rights as long as my work is creditted. I say this because someone came to be before and asked if they could translate something of mine into Italian. They said they would give me credit, so, I agreed.

Yes, but for a lot of professional musicians, the ones people steal from, their only source of income is their music. Because of this comment, I'll assume your either a student living with your parents or have another job besides writing.

When you go to an outdoor art show, chances are, you probably won't pay to see the show, but you are still seeing the art; it is there before you...

That's the exact same as a free concert: they happen sometimes, and yes the people involved don't make a profit. However, I highly doubt that most artists only display their art in free outdoor showes. They'd starve if they did.

When you walk down the street, some stores are playing music loudly, even if they aren't music stores. You turn on the radio and music comes out; or you're at a party and your host/hostess puts on music... does this mean you're stealing? After all, you haven't paid for it, but you can still get to hear it. Just because it's not in MP3 form...

No, the difference is who owns the rights there. Now, this store/person holding the party probably bought the CD. The fact that your hearing the music is irrelevant, because you probably never will again from that location and medium. For that reason, it doesn't matter thatm you heard the music: your not stealing from the artist, and neither is anyone else.

Ok, let me ask you this... My father has his stereo set up to the tape deck is hooked into the stereo receiver, so its connected to the radio. When a song plays on the radio and he decides he likes it and presses the record button on the tape deck, is that not the same thing as downloading?

Now, this one is on the boarderline. Following the strictist definition of music piracy, it is stealing, and following the more liberal definitions, it isn't. The reason is the radio station pays royalties (called "mechanical royalties") every time the song is played. Therefore, as long as your father didn't actively make copies and put them out into a public domain for free, it's mostly legal.

And that brings us to the issue of amount. In order to tape a song from the radio, yyou have to have a bit of special equipment. And plus, mostly it's just for your own personal use. The P2P sharing is a completely different situation. The people who rip CDs are activly doing it to get it out to as many people as possible. They may have paid for a CD, but when that song reaches 1000 other people, that cost is insignificant.

The closest you'd get to this digitally is ripping a CD for your own personal use. There's nothing wrong with that, as long (as I said before) it's only for your use.

Or, what about when a friend has a cd you like...and you decide you want a copy, is that not the same thing as "illegal" downloading of files, regardless of whether you copy it to a blank CD or blank tape...well, is it?

Technically it is, but the RIAA doesn't really care because they're not loosing that much revinue from it.

What people don't seem to realize about P2P is the sheer number of time an individual song from an individual source is downloaded. If a person rips one song and puts it into KaZaA, by most averages it will be on around 1000 peoples computers in one week. That's 1000 CDs that the RIAA isn't selling, and that's that much more that the artist isn't making. That's the problem.

Fact: Most artists make the vast majority of their income by touring than by album sales.
Fact: Very little of the money spent on a CD actually makes it back to the artist. The RIAA and such take a large portion.

I see music downloading (specifically illegal downloading) as a form of liberating music from corporate manipulation. But then, that is just my opinion.

Fact:The majority of artists make their incomes from album sales and royalties. The only way you make money is if people buy your albums in droves. Concerts are paid for by the band, ie rental of the venue, equipment, travel, commissions for the promoter. Sure nowadays when you can charge more then $100 a ticket you will see a better net take. But now people are wising up and not paying these outrageous ticket prices, for example Madonnas' last tour.

Record companies do not essentially steal the artists' work, they are in a legally binding contract signed by both parties. If an artist doesn't make money from a contract it means one of two things: a)not enough record sales b)poor management (ie letting the band sign a lousy contract).
Just because it is legally binding doesn't mean it isn't stolen. A piece of art, which they did create, they own. No amount of legal fictions wil make me see this.

Who do you think are better at making contracts, the artists or the record companies?

Fact:The majority of artists make their incomes from album sales and royalties. The only way you make money is if people buy your albums in droves. Concerts are paid for by the band, ie rental of the venue, equipment, travel, commissions for the promoter. Sure nowadays when you can charge more then $100 a ticket you will see a better net take. But now people are wising up and not paying these outrageous ticket prices, for example Madonnas' last tour.
Interesting, since the 'facts' above are disputed largely on this thread alone, not to mention by several groups. I remember a great interview with radiohead in which they basically said they'd love for the corporations to die out already. Yet another reason why I love that group so.

Fact:The majority of artists make their incomes from album sales and royalties. The only way you make money is if people buy your albums in droves. Concerts are paid for by the band, ie rental of the venue, equipment, travel, commissions for the promoter. Sure nowadays when you can charge more then $100 a ticket you will see a better net take. But now people are wising up and not paying these outrageous ticket prices, for example Madonnas' last tour.

So you support downloading to force CD prices to become more reasonable?

Just because it is legally binding doesn't mean it isn't stolen. A piece of art, which they did create, they own. No amount of legal fictions wil make me see this.

Who do you think are better at making contracts, the artists or the record companies?

The record company by far, but that is why an artist should hire competent management so they don't get boned.

So you support downloading to force CD prices to become more reasonable?

Let's put it this way, back in 1975 I could buy a new LP for about 3 or 4 bucks. It cost approx. 25 cents to make the pressing of the vinyl including, and another 50 cents to pay the artist advances and so forth. Now compared to todays cd prices, today is the better value. These prices today are very reasonable. Do you gas up and take off without paying because gas prices are too high?

I do not support free downloading.

Interesting, since the 'facts' above are disputed largely on this thread alone, not to mention by several groups. I remember a great interview with radiohead in which they basically said they'd love for the corporations to die out already. Yet another reason why I love that group so.

Yeah radiohead are such anti-corporation advocates, but where do they get their money from. They are almost as funny as Eddie Vedder saying how he didn't want to be famous, but he never did quit music. All of these artists think their shit doesn't stink, but it does, and they do love money just like everyone else.

Let's put it this way, back in 1975 I could buy a new LP for about 3 or 4 bucks. It cost approx. 25 cents to make the pressing of the vinyl including, and another 50 cents to pay the artist advances and so forth. Now compared to todays cd prices, today is the better value. These prices today are very reasonable. Do you gas up and take off without paying because gas prices are too high?

I do not support free downloading.

But it's the same thing.
CD's are as overcharged as Madonna's concerts.
How else are people supposed to register their protest?

And to avoid the petrol prices I only frequent the smaller ones (not Esso or BP as they want in the long term to up the price). When I don't feel like paying at all then I use the bus.

Let's put it this way, back in 1975 I could buy a new LP for about 3 or 4 bucks. It cost approx. 25 cents to make the pressing of the vinyl including, and another 50 cents to pay the artist advances and so forth. Now compared to todays cd prices, today is the better value. These prices today are very reasonable. Do you gas up and take off without paying because gas prices are too high?

I do not support free downloading.


Good. Then don't do it. The rest of us who do support it will keep on downloading music for our personal use, and you can keep paying the inflated price. You are wrong, (and I've posted the link before, but here it is again: http://www.newint.org/index4.html Issue 359, Sound Facts page) that the musicians themselves make most of the money off the sale of albums.

"• Total US gross touring-dollars for the year rose 8.6% to a record $1.7 billion, with record attendance up 6.2% to almost 42 million.8

• Paul McCartney was the top touring artist in the world for 2002, with a global take totalling $126.1 million ($98.8 million in North America alone). U2 held the title for 2001, raking in $109.7 million.8"

You don't tour, you don't make money, period.

Good. Then don't do it. The rest of us who do support it will keep on downloading music for our personal use, and you can keep paying the inflated price. You are wrong, (and I've posted the link before, but here it is again: http://www.newint.org/index4.html Issue 359, Sound Facts page) that the musicians themselves make most of the money off the sale of albums.

"• Total US gross touring-dollars for the year rose 8.6% to a record $1.7 billion, with record attendance up 6.2% to almost 42 million.8

• Paul McCartney was the top touring artist in the world for 2002, with a global take totalling $126.1 million ($98.8 million in North America alone). U2 held the title for 2001, raking in $109.7 million.8"

You don't tour, you don't make money, period.

Check and mate.

How else are people supposed to register their protest?

Not buying new CD's. If music is worth that much to you, you'll pay the $20 or whatever for the new album, if its not, then you won't. Its that simple.

Not buying new CD's. If music is worth that much to you, you'll pay the $20 or whatever for the new album, if its not, then you won't. Its that simple.

That wouldn't work.
All they would do is wait for everyone to give in.
What they need is a challenge, a rival.
Market forces and all that; people still like having CD's even if they already have the MP3.

That wouldn't work.
All they would do is wait for everyone to give in.

Then everyone, or enough people, would admit that they'd be willing to pay that much for an album.

But it's the same thing.
CD's are as overcharged as Madonna's concerts.
How else are people supposed to register their protest?

And to avoid the petrol prices I only frequent the smaller ones (not Esso or BP as they want in the long term to up the price). When I don't feel like paying at all then I use the bus.

Give up on music for 1 year, don't buy any new music and don't attend concerts.

Good. Then don't do it. The rest of us who do support it will keep on downloading music for our personal use, and you can keep paying the inflated price. You are wrong, (and I've posted the link before, but here it is again: http://www.newint.org/index4.html Issue 359, Sound Facts page) that the musicians themselves make most of the money off the sale of albums.

"• Total US gross touring-dollars for the year rose 8.6% to a record $1.7 billion, with record attendance up 6.2% to almost 42 million.8

• Paul McCartney was the top touring artist in the world for 2002, with a global take totalling $126.1 million ($98.8 million in North America alone). U2 held the title for 2001, raking in $109.7 million.8"

You don't tour, you don't make money, period.

Yeah grosses are up because the ticket prices are up. What about the NET profits? Where are your facts there. Grosses just mean ticket sales. Everything has to be paid for in a concerts production. And that is the net, what is left over.Yes Sir Paul made a killing, but most of his tickets were above $150. He does love his fans though, yeah right.

Yeah grosses are up because the ticket prices are up. What about the NET profits? Where are your facts there. Grosses just mean ticket sales. Everything has to be paid for in a concerts production. And that is the net, what is left over.Yes Sir Paul made a killing, but most of his tickets were above $150. He does love his fans though, yeah right.

No prob, I'll look for some more facts. In the meantime, I ask you to do the same to support YOUR statements...that artists make most of their money off of album sales.

Give up on music for 1 year, don't buy any new music and don't attend concerts.

How does that help?
It would have to be done by everyone as even if 50% of people stop then they still make huge profits.

I have little personal income; I'm here on a 500MHZ PC with 12 gb of HD space and a mouse that jumps all over the screen at times for no apparent reason (not viral before you suggest that).
And yet, I like to listen to music.
I cannot afford to pay £15 for every album; to buy the amount of CD's I'd have on my PC would cost at least £500.
Now if CD's were £5 apiece then I could reasonably buy the music I want without paying through the nose for it.
Time was that music was free.

Okay, here you go:

RECORD SALES:
"Another factor commonly overlooked in assessing CD prices is to assume that all CDs are equally profitable. In fact, the vast majority is never profitable. Each year, of the approximately 27,000 new releases that hit the market, the major labels release about 7,000 new CD titles and after production, recording, promotion and distribution costs, most never sell enough to recover these costs, let alone make a profit. In the end, less than 10% are profitable, and in effect, it's these recordings that finance all the rest."http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html


Record company income: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
(an example of one band's actual earnings)


Record wholesale price: $6.50 x 250,000 =
$1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $ 351,000
Deficit from royalties: $ 14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution: @ $2.20 per record: $ 550,000
Gross profit: $ 7l0,000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the game.


Record company: $ 710,000
Producer: $ 90,000
Manager: $ 51,000
Studio: $ 52,500
Previous label: $ 50,000
Agent: $ 7,500
Lawyer: $ 12,000
Band member net income each: $ 4,031.25

CONCERT PROFITS:
Concert profits also vary depending on the amount of advertising exposure a band is given on radio stations and the type of contract they have with their recording label (which can be as unfair as the cd sales are). Independent musicians will make a larger cut, but may not have the exposure needed because of the homogenization of radio playlists. http://www.goshen.edu/~benlb/ClearChannel%27s.htm

I'll still keep looking for some examples of concert breakdowns.

Internet should be an no-mans land with no laws.
Ofcourse the stuff is somewhere on someones server, but then there shouldn't be any laws concerning what you have in your computer.
Net piracy isn't going to destroy any industry.

Internet should be an no-mans land with no laws.

*emails Tsorg a virus*

Internet should be an no-mans land with no laws.

Yeah, I love how neo-liberals want to keep the governement out of everything (social welfare, healthcare, business practices), then scream "Legislate!" when it might hurt them.

Internet should be an no-mans land with no laws.

Too true! I say that we should be allowed to share ideas. The gummint has no right to use force to protect property "rights".

*emails Tsorg a virus*
Yeah right and that's why net should be controlled ? You want all the stuff be censored, because you can't handle viruses or hackers and so on ?
Well if that's so, i find it very sad.

Wouldn't you feel bad downloading people's music whom never had any intention of uploading it to the internet? It's like someone stealing someone else's "personal photographs" and uploading them for the world to see - as horny as it may make you, it just doesn't feel right. :P

Yeah right and that's why net should be controlled ? You want all the stuff be censored, because you can't handle viruses or hackers and so on ?
Well if that's so, i find it very sad.

No, there should be laws against pop-ups, viruses and hackers.

However, I do agree that free flow of information is essential.

And on the note of profits and so on; I can download a version of Homer's Iliad and noone cares that I'm taking money away from Penguin book publishers (who are more honourable than any record company). However, people are up in arms for the rights of exploitive, dishonourable record companies.

Ofcourse warez is bad thing, but it's not going to destroy music, game or movie industry. It's still mainly "geeky" thing, even though amount of "normal" people are increasing in this "scene".
In the future it might be problem, but i think majority of people will always buy their stuff, just because it's easier that way and masses aren't really interested in computers.
In my opnion there should be laws againts it as there are now, but i fear that enforcing them too much might lead to net censorship.

Wouldn't you feel bad downloading people's music whom never had any intention of uploading it to the internet? It's like someone stealing someone else's "personal photographs" and uploading them for the world to see - as horny as it may make you, it just doesn't feel right. :P

That's an entirely different issue. Bands who release their music, do so with the full knowledge that their music will be available to anyone who wishes to buy (or download) it. It is in the public domain. Recordings of you singing in your shower shouldn't be made available for downloading unless you really want people to hear it:).

For some people, P2P and downloading are the only way to get certain music.

For example, I am an American -- but I listen to Nightwish (a Norwegian band if memory serves correctly), Blind Guardian (German), Japanese Rock and Techno such as Malice Mizer (this includs Anime & Game themes).

In my Area -- all three are nearly impossible to find, major chains don't carry them, and the smaller stores in this area also have a tendency to carry american-only labels (you'll see why).

And searching places like Amazon.com, Ebay, etc. for such labels -- they are often $40+!

Reason: Importation Prices and Rarity. Mind you, I am a college student, so money's tight, so I can't drop that kind of dough for CDs, even Amercian/British label is too expensive (espeically if you're buying a 'greatest hits' for bands like Pink Floyd!) -- espeically on EBay where bids can jack up the price twofold -- and risking it being scratched up or a poor quality bootleg.

So P2P is the only way that I can get the music... and that's how I got introduced to Blind Guardian.

Record companies and organisations like the RIAA are making a mountain out of a molehill. There not losing money because of p2p but for the simply fact that the majority of the music they are releasing is purile gash. More and more people are refusing to listen to/buy the repetitive crap that is churned out by the major labels, turning to smaller labels who release cheaper, better music.

If companies slashed the prices on CDs by a half and created a viable way of downloading music 'legally', they'd see a massive return. Oooh, and maybe if there CEOs weren't getting payed ridiculous amounts.....

Instead they blame and (try to) prosecute people whose only crime was not wanting to pay a hugely overinflated price for a CD; and who probably own and purchase more music than your average punter.