Downloading

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.

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. 

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Dean wrote: Pnoom! wrote: Dean wrote: First off, once you legalise illegal downloading then the flood-gates open and no one will buy music ever again - CDs and DVDs will vanish and all the legal download sites will close. Why use iTunes when you can legally get it for free? Blatantly false, since I would. Neither blatant, nor false - Not everyone downloads from iTunes to support the artist - many do it because other methods are illegal. In this instance Justin Timberlake, Britney and Prince are relevant, because it is their fans that make iTunes viable. Once illegal downloads are legal then those fans are the ones who will abandon iTunes - sales from our demographic will not keep iTunes going.

So when you say no one, you don't mean it?

Dean wrote: Part of the morality that stops most people downloading illegally is simply that - because it is illegal.

On the other side of the coin, one reason people do download illegally is little to do with cost or morals or ethics (although it should be), they do it because it's so easy to do; it's a crime committed from the comfort of your own home with the click of a mouse button - it's so easy, it's ridiculous, you don't need to be furtive, you don't need to dodge store detectives, all you need to do is know the right website... how can that be a crime?

Becase it is still theft

It doesn't matter if you're downloading the latest U2 album or an old IQ album - you are stealing.

I don't have a staunch, anti-thought opinion on illegal downloading. Personally, the only thing I find annoys me about the practise is that it trivialises legitimately free music, since most people in the pirate mold consider it all free anyway and we, biased by what's gone before, all come to associate a physical CD/LP/etc release with quality and free music be damned. That in turn lowers the bar on the quality of what people will choose to self-publish, out of desperation or a lack of respect for the material of real musicians, degrading the average free song and making it seem unworthwhile for musical gold prospectors to even bother at all.

Edited by laplace - February 18 2009 at 05:37