Downloading

They would be able to.  Even if it were legal, musicians would probably adopt some form of pay what you want downloads (a la Radiohead) and people would use that.

I'm not suggesting that it's a viable business model for those looking to make a living doing music, but I fail to see how it's "not really paying for music."  Just because you can legally get something for free doesn't mean that all you're doing if you buy it is making a donation.

Dean wrote: I would love to know how much Radiohead made per download for In Rainbows compared to Pax Cecilia for Blessed Are The Bonds - I would guess Pax Cecilia made more dollars per download, but considerably few downloads.

Download music via fileshare is illegal, but why is illegal?

angelmk wrote: Dean wrote: angelmk wrote: Dean wrote: I would love to know how much Radiohead made per download for In Rainbows compared to Pax Cecilia for Blessed Are The Bonds - I would guess Pax Cecilia made more dollars per download, but considerably few downloads. they made 10 millions from internet release of the album, this sum is not exact,  and it is only for short period ,in the some  weeks  are something  like that : ''Yorke reveals, "In terms of digital income, we've made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever - in terms of anything on the 'net. And that's nuts. It's partly due to the fact that EMI wasn't giving us any money for digital sales. All the contracts signed in a certain era have none of that stuff." Is that a real number? What is it's source? Last I heard Radiohead were not releasing the sales info for the pay-what-you-want download, only the total figures for all formats (including vinyl, CD and iTunes releases) - which was 3 million "copies". http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/radiohead_make_10_million_from_in_rainbows.html

The thing with Radiohead to keep in mind also, is that this was their first flying solo project (without the backing of a big label) be opting for this method (pay as you see fit download) it generated VAST worldwide (and completey free I might like to add) publicity. People are STILL talking about it................ although I don't  recall any discussions about the music per se.
It was a FREE marketing excercise, and it paid off big time. It paid off because although only 40% paid anything, that 40% was a far, far, far bigger number than they could have hoped for without the free world wide publicity. On hearing that 60% of folk paid jack, then a larger than could be expected ammount of people went out and booked the all singing, all dancing, packed by Thom super deluxe box set. (maybe to make up for all those gits who took it for free and disapeared into the nether regions of cyberspace)

It was as marketing goes almost perfect. The best we've seen for a few years. It was perfectly timed and excetuted. Good Luck to them.

However, this stunt will not work again, it will not work to the same effect for a much smaller band, (and most of the bands we discuss here on PA are much smaller) This was a once only stunt. It's been done now. I think if any smaller band tried to copy this trick they would find themselves woefully disapointed, and out of pocket.  
IT WONT WORK AGAIN. 

Alberto Muñoz wrote: Download music via fileshare is illegal, but why is illegal? it's illegal for the copyright rights that protect a intellectual propierty of abuse.   Those copyrights are, in most cases, forever, until the copyright holder decides to sell to another person. Or die and the descendanst (generally) inherit the copyrights titularity.   Now the main problem that face the bussiness record companies is how volatile is the information on the internet, and here enter many international laws and local laws that should have prohibited this kind of sharing system.   And point two: These companies of file sharing do not do anything  to prohibit illegal UPLOAD of content, so any anonymous person can upload what ever want.   So, to broke the law is necessary the  behaviour of that person that have the willing of UPLOAD that copyrighyted content, the UPLOAD can be a cd's a couple's of songs, entire books, etc. But i think that the person who UPLOAD is that about to blame, because he put avaible to all the world (almost) the copyright material in mention.   So, maybe we can talk of illegal UPLOAD.

Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally.

If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.

Rocktopus wrote: Please stop talking about recording being much cheaper and all that. Its correct of course, but a lousy argument for music to be given away for free. A qualified artist should be able to be an artist for a living. Atleast ideally. If painting equipment suddenly was given away for free, should I start giving away my work? This is what I do fulltime. If I could only do this in the evenings, after having worked my ass of doing "proper" work, my art would obviously suffer.

I didn't say that because recording has become much cheaper artists *should* give away their music for free. I'm all for "let the artist decide". The point is: Today it is *possible* for an artist to be independent of record companies and still make really good music recordings. That means that contrary to the situation in the 70s, 80s and even 90s, today there are alternatives.

I've just sent in the PA interview with Nick Barrett of Pendragon. You may want to read the sections where he talks of this issue.