Downloading

Pnoom! wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Other points to ponder.  If I buy used, nothing new goes to the artist, but if I buy new and they are signed with a major record company, they don't get much.  If I buy directly from their site they get the max.  Please do that whenever you can. If you don't buy hard copies directly from the artist/label, it doesn't matter whether it's new or used, the artist gets nothing from your sale.

This is utter nonsense. If you buy a label's CDs from a distributor/vendor, they will order more, and then the artist/label get paid. You are playing a mental shell game with money. It's all part of the same ecosystem.

With 4,000 posts to your "credit" I think it's time to start thinking more before each one.

smcfee the reference to Pnoom!s post count is completely irrelevant.

If this thread dissolves into personal attacks again warnings will be handed out.

EvilGnome wrote: Pnoom! wrote: smcfee wrote: This is utter nonsense. If you buy a label's CDs from a distributor/vendor, they will order more, and then the artist/label get paid. You are playing a mental shell game with money. It's all part of the same ecosystem. This is not guaranteed.  It might happen, but the money the artist gets still doesn't come from your purchase. Your previous posts seem to contend that the artists get zero compensation for record sales. Sell 1,000 copies of an album, get zero dollars. Sell 1,000,000 copies of an album, get zero dollars. I think most people are aware that artists generally don't get a commission for each copy sold, but to argue that there is no benefit to the artist for buying new is absurd.

The point I'm making is that there's no guaranteed benefit to the artist for buying new, though I can see where that would be misinterpreted.

I'm not saying you shouldn't buy new, and I'm not saying that it's more likely to support the artist, I'm just trying to hammer home that the only way to guarantee that you help the artist is to buy directly from them/the label.

Pnoom! wrote: If you don't buy hard copies directly from the artist/label, it doesn't matter whether it's new or used, the artist gets nothing from your sale.

IMO that's totally beside the point. The important thing is: The artist signed a contract with the record company, agreeing to how the albums will be sold. If that means that the artist doesn't get anything from the album sales ... then so be it. But as long as enough albums are sold, the record company might finance the recording of the next album, so the artist may get *something* from those album sales in the end.

Long story short: If you decide to download for free what the artist (or their label) don't offer for free, you're infringing their rights.

Pnoom! wrote: The point I'm making is that there's no guaranteed benefit to the artist for buying new, though I can see where that would be misinterpreted. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy new, and I'm not saying that it's more likely to support the artist, I'm just trying to hammer home that the only way to guarantee that you help the artist is to buy directly from them/the label.

The main problem with focusing on that aspect of the record industry is that it is too often used as justification for piracy.

I think the more interesting points in the illegal downloading debate are that the biggest downloaders also tend to be the biggest buyers and that buying used offers almost as little benefit to the artist as downloading does.

Pnoom! wrote: He won't receive that money He wouldn't receive it if you didn't buy it in the first place.   I want a ferrari, the store won't receive money if I don't buy it, so...Can I take it? Ergo...You are stealing that money from him and using his property in our benefit....The two caracteristics of a crime are there: Animus delicti (You know you are taking something it's not yours) and animus lucrandi (You are geting a benefiit from the act). You aren't stealing that money from him because he doesn't have it in the first place.   But you are using something YOU KNOW IT'S NOT YOUR'S in your benefit, if you want to listen that music, you have to pay the artist, so yes, you are depriving him of his proprty. BTW: Stealing copyrighted material is worst than stealing a CD, a CD has monetary value of 2 or 3 bucks, not more, if you want to talk about commercial value, lets say 15 to 20 bucks, if you steal one, it's shoplifting. Copyrighted material is invaluable, that's way you can be forced to pay US$ 125,000 per song..   CDs contain copyrighted material.  Therefore, stealing a CD is like downloading illegally, only someone actually loses money.   Not exactly,. the law hasn't catched technology, if you steal a CD, it has a value in the store, it's 11 or 15 bucks, so it's shoftlifting If you download illegaly, you can be sued and forced to pay $125,000 per song Also, the idea that copyrighted material is invaluable just isn't true.  If it were, artists would never let labels own their work.   Yes it is, it doesn't have a determined cost when you protect them, so it'sn literally invaluable. Iván

Pnoom! wrote: For the record, I plan on being a musician, and I also plan on letting people download my work free.

Well, I'm just a part time hobby musician, but I also made the demo song that I recorded available for free (at last.fm, search for MikeEnRegalia).

But I think that it's important that we let each artist make the decision how to make their recordings available, and respect it. I'm not saying that you don't ... I'm just saying.

I always download. I spend my money on the things that make music. Can't afford both.

A few notes from my side ...
First, the genie is out of the bottle. Suing fans, closing down sites has not worked. Putting out sub-par albums, with one hit single (for mainstream acts) and 15 filler do not merit a $20 price tag. Prog and other niche genres may be exempt from that. Not because the quality is higher, just that there is less of a focus on getting one song on the radio.
Second, after you get past the top tiers, most musical acts make no money off their albums. It is usually a cycle of the label advances the monies, you record, sales pay part of the advance, hopefully the tour pays the rest, and you have some left over for you. Indeed, touring is likely where most groups make their living. Even the ones on indie labels.
Third, there is no study that directly correlates declining sales with P2P. The most realistic estimates I've seen say about 10%. Then there's the consideration of the benefits of getting your music out there, and possibly generating more ticket sales for your gigs.
Fourth, the dedicated fan, the hard core, are where most bands will make their money. These people buy your albums, the special editions / box sets etc..., the T-Shirts, and other merchandise, along with attending your shows.

So what about downloading - the answer that has been proposed for years is to find a way to monetize it.
TDC offers unlimited playing of music for their cell phone customers. As long as you have a subscription, you have access to more than a million songs, including those from 3 of the 4 major labels.
Other models are a monthly fee for internet access. You own the songs, you download what you want, when you want, how many times you want. No need to worry about losing your collection. You can get it back anytime as long as you have the subscription. The royalties are paid out to the artists based on the percentage of downloads or streaming.
This is the model used by cable TV companies. You don't pay for each show you watch, you pay for the package. Cable TV and Pay channels make money, and the TV show producers, actors and others involved get paid based on their value to the services.

AND, in most cases, you can still buy the physical product.
There will still be those who steal. There will always be some. Most of those who currently do would likely prefer a secure (no viruses, trojans, mal / spy ware) where you simply locate, click, and access the music on the spot. ITunes is now the number one music retailer in the U.S. . This despite the fact that these same Web users could easily get the same music for free by stealing it.

So, it is & has been the case that there are valid options out there. The only remaining part of the puzzle is who's going to be first.

stonebeard wrote: "Never - it's killing music" That is such nonsense, and I'm surprised so many people voted for that. You may say "never," but to say that it's killing music would be saying that the 00s have been worse than previous decades for music, which is laughable to me. Maybe for PROG, they're not so good, but I chalk that up to lack of good ideas and originality. Music now, is freer to be as innovative as possible. IOn the past, it was hard to make good music on the side and you'd always be f**ked over by big companies anyway. Now, someone can easily record their own songs, post them on the web with PayPal, and make all profit. There will be illegal downloading of course, but if the artist has good enough ideas, they'll probably make some money, at least. It will be harder to make a living being a musician in the future, but to say illegal downloading kills music is cynical and an insult to good musicians. If anything, it filters out sh*t music. Come up with a better argument not to download.

The best argument is that it is stealing. Taking without consent, borrowing it, whatever. it's theft plain and simple.