Warning to all File-sharers. They are coming for you.

[Senbei Norimaki]

File-swappers face the music. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2970004.stm) I guess now are jails are going to be filled with drug addicts & file-sharers. :bosko:

[SonGoku V3]

File-swappers face the music. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2970004.stm) I guess now are jails are going to be filled with drug addicts & file-sharers. :bosko:


hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :D Record labels really are trying to lose customers, aren't they? :yawn:

[Psycho Fox]

The news article says 4 customers accused of illegally copying music over the net.

If you remeber the thread Don't take the RIAA too seriously (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?threadid=75731)

The RIAA has accused tons of innocent people with no evidence what so ever.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

Hey, RIAA, are you TRYING to make people stop buying from you?

[RZetlin]

It's has been several months since the original copying of illegal material.

I would like to know how the RIAA is going to prove those users stole their music when the users could have just hit the delete button?

[The Penguin]

So let me get this straight, because the RIAA is going after some people who apparently were "sharing" files enough to be noticed this will cause less people to buy CDs? :shrug:

[Psycho Fox]

So let me get this straight, because the RIAA is going after some people who apparently were "sharing" files enough to be noticed this will cause less people to buy CDs? :shrug:
We don't know if they were even apparently sharing files illegal files, look at the Don't take the RIAA too seriously therad. The RIAA has gone after people that clearly done nothing wrong with letter like "You have 0 illegal files if you don't stop these illegal act we will take legal action"

The RIAA thinks everyone is a evil bootleger and given enough power they would have all of the USA behind bars.

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Wow and what a coincidence that record sales have gone down since the RIAA has gone so crazy trying to prevent thmesleves from losing money. How about using your time to put out artists that at least appear to be worth the time of going out and buying the album ?

It's already been proven that it works and it's got to be cheaper than lawyers.

[Ben]

Hm. Why download music anyway? It takes so much time and you're shafting the artist more than if you bought it.

(runs away)

[Psycho Fox]

Hm. Why download music anyway? It takes so much time and you're shafting the artist more than if you bought it.

(runs away)

Actully the artist are getting more shafted by the lables then bootlegers, you see how little percentage they get and the time has come were labels should become obsolete. I support Apples ITunes download service and like the idea for paying a small fee per download, I hope it turns artist independant and labes become a thing of the past.

[RZetlin]

Hm. Why download music anyway? It takes so much time and you're shafting the artist more than if you bought it.

(runs away)

Actually some artist (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/11032002b) are not against filesharing.

In fact some artist feel that they are getting screwed by the record companies (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09162002c).

The record companies has been charged with price fixing (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/07012002b) which means the price of the CD is higher than it is suppose to be.

[James]

File sharers aren't in so deep.

The financial implications are massive. And it's hard to prove. And if they have been removed from the harddrive, then it gets harder to prosecute.

This is a scare tactic. I think the record Industry should buckle down and try and use technology to their advantage and not fight it. There will always be piracy - always has been.

There is a UK scheme which has started in which you join and can get album tracks for around 20-30 cents - they last about 30 days - but the idea is that after 30 days you get bored with a song anyway. You can buy them permentant for about $2 or so.. I think it's something like that.. but the idea is to try and create a cheap scheme which gives to the industry rather than takes away, but doesn't rip you off.

[BLACKHEART]

Has anyone ever heard of something called the cassette tape? How long have people been copying music and sharing it with friends for anyway?

[Jaguar]

Has anyone ever heard of something called the cassette tape? How long have people been copying music and sharing it with friends for anyway?
Since the dawn of time..or at least since the invention of the eight-track.

[James]

Since the dawn of time..or at least since the invention of the eight-track.

And before twin deck tape players, they taped off the radio. It's life. Blame your sales on your over hyped marketing of specific bands, the play it safe rule, prices and lack of incentives for people to buy rather than copy. As I've said before look at the DVD market for a handy hint. Considering a DVD has so many features as well as a licenced movie for around the same price... something has to be wrong with the CD market.

[Psycho Fox]

File sharers aren't in so deep.

The financial implications are massive. And it's hard to prove. And if they have been removed from the harddrive, then it gets harder to prosecute.

This is a scare tactic. I think the record Industry should buckle down and try and use technology to their advantage and not fight it. There will always be piracy - always has been.

There is a UK scheme which has started in which you join and can get album tracks for around 20-30 cents - they last about 30 days - but the idea is that after 30 days you get bored with a song anyway. You can buy them permentant for about $2 or so.. I think it's something like that.. but the idea is to try and create a cheap scheme which gives to the industry rather than takes away, but doesn't rip you off.
That sounds like Apples ITunes system where for a buck you can download the song and use it on up to 3 machines, share it on a network and even burn it.

[Ben]

Actually some artist (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/11032002b) are not against filesharing.

In fact some artist feel that they are getting screwed by the record companies (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/09162002c).

The record companies has been charged with price fixing (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/07012002b) which means the price of the CD is higher than it is suppose to be.

Regardless, by downloading music you are stealing from the distributor. How? Well, how did you find out about the music in the first place? Unless you're hardcore into the genre, you found out from an advertisement, an article, on the radio, or from a friend who saw an ad or an article or heard it on the radio. By pirating you are stealing the distributors' publicity services along with the music itself. And sure it's expensive and the RIAA is full of jerks. But the artists signed contracts with them. So if they want jerks distributing their work (and you have to admit the jerks do a good job of getting the word out), you've got to respect that.

[czyznyck99]

Twage is right in that it's piracy. The real problem I saw from those links are with the artists, not the population at large. Ideally, artists need to break away from the RIAA, which can't happen with them still making millions of dollars. A massive music artist boycott, that's a good idea.

Wait a sec, I think I finally found a reason for American Idol's existance. Sucker in new blood to replace the rebels.

Later.

[Psycho Fox]

Regardless, by downloading music you are stealing from the distributor. How? Well, how did you find out about the music in the first place? Unless you're hardcore into the genre, you found out from an advertisement, an article, on the radio, or from a friend who saw an ad or an article or heard it on the radio. By pirating you are stealing the distributors' publicity services along with the music itself. And sure it's expensive and the RIAA is full of jerks. But the artists signed contracts with them. So if they want jerks distributing their work (and you have to admit the jerks do a good job of getting the word out), you've got to respect that.Yes but in turn the distributors are stealing from the aritist by locking the industry up. You can't go to clear channel if you are a independant label. What is needed is a way for the artist to work as independant labels and sell their works without the middle man.

[James]

Yes but in turn the distributors are stealing from the aritist by locking the industry up. You can't go to clear channel if you are a independant label. What is needed is a way for the artist to work as independant labels and sell their works without the middle man.

Well I don't see any argument for advocating piracy. It is immoral, you do it cos you accept that you are happy with that. There is no justification at all. If you are happy with what you do, fine, it's up to you but no one can truely excuse their actions as just.

I do agree with PF so far as the Industry has locked itself tight - meaning it sucks money from the cream and blocks the up and coming from making money. MTV is the worst - by bowing to the industry and exploiting what it's told to rather than using it's position to open up smaller labels to the general public. This has little to do with Piracy but maybe a definite reason why the industry is losing so much cash it needs to find a public scapegoat.

[Web Head]

Lots of people here are advocating for bands to break free of labels and go it alone but it ain't gonna happen. Could someone like Metallica do it and get away with it? Maybe. But it's not the Metallica's of the music industry that are getting hurt by this, it's the struggling artists that have only one or even no albums. For them a few thousand album sales might be a world of difference, for a bigger band that have a couple of gold albums already it's not that big of a deal.

Coincidentally, as long as there are young musicians desperate to break out, there will be record labels. I mean, how may brand new bands do you think could come out of nowhere and with no marketing machine behind them and no influential agent getting radio airplay, could really hit it big?

Finally, file sharing/swapping is wrong. If you have a pay-per-download site, I don't think the RIAA will care as long as they get their cut. But through things like Nappster (the site, not Seth Green :)) you are ILLEGALLY getting for free a product that artists and record companies put a lot of time, work, and money into creating. Whether you like it or not, you ARE stealing. You are taking someones copyrighted material without giving any compensation whatsoever.

At least that's one man's opinion...

[Psycho Fox]

Lots of people here are advocating for bands to break free of labels and go it alone but it ain't gonna happen. Could someone like Metallica do it and get away with it? Maybe. But it's not the Metallica's of the music industry that are getting hurt by this, it's the struggling artists that have only one or even no albums. For them a few thousand album sales might be a world of difference, for a bigger band that have a couple of gold albums already it's not that big of a deal.
But it is the fact that if you are not in the top 40 your nothing. Labels only care about the safe bets and don't back artistic talent they just in it for the money.


Coincidentally, as long as there are young musicians desperate to break out, there will be record labels. I mean, how may brand new bands do you think could come out of nowhere and with no marketing machine behind them and no influential agent getting radio airplay, could really hit it big?
This is becouse of the record labels.


Finally, file sharing/swapping is wrong. If you have a pay-per-download site, I don't think the RIAA will care as long as they get their cut. But through things like Nappster (the site, not Seth Green :)) you are ILLEGALLY getting for free a product that artists and record companies put a lot of time, work, and money into creating. Whether you like it or not, you ARE stealing. You are taking someones copyrighted material without giving any compensation whatsoever.
But what about the artist that say the record company stole from them so they don't care if anyone steals their work that the record company stole from them.

I want most of the money to go to the artist and the record lable to only get a small cut.

[Web Head]

But it is the fact that if you are not in the top 40 your nothing. Labels only care about the safe bets and don't back artistic talent they just in it for the money.
The fact remains that the record labels are an established part of the business. Take a look at the top 100 artists in any genre, without a label you probably wouldn't have heard of them.

The labels DO serve a purpose for the artist. It gets their music airplay and gives them a phenomenal promotional machine, to the point where you can be a big success without a lot of musical talent (i.e boy bands)

That being said, labels do take a proportionally higher share of the profits than they may deserve, but they DID support and bankroll the artist/band when they were nobodies. And I still say that a band that forgoes any type of music label in favor of the internet will never be a success on the level of a Top 40, which is why labels are necesary.


But what about the artist that say the record company stole from them so they don't care if anyone steals their work that the record company stole from them.

I want most of the money to go to the artist and the record lable to only get a small cut.
You want a sob story go to Tinseltown, you'll get a million of them. If your song is that good, take steps to insure it remains your own (trademarking). Saying a studio stole your song is no more believable than me saying Lucas stole my idea for Star Wars. And as long as the studio system exists in it's current form, the bulk of the $$ will go to it, not the artist.

All of that being said, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why so many people think this stealing is OK.

[Psycho Fox]

That being said, labels do take a proportionally higher share of the profits than they may deserve, but they DID support and bankroll the artist/band when they were nobodies. And I still say that a band that forgoes any type of music label in favor of the internet will never be a success on the level of a Top 40, which is why labels are necesary.

But anyone can be a manager but not everyone can be an artist. Without the artist the labels wouldn't make any money yet without the labels the artist can still make money. Get it the labels are expendable yet the talent isn't.

Plus if there was no mega record companies and nothing BUT independant labels then getting on the top 40 would be more of a show of talent instead a show of marketing that it is today.

[James]

You want a sob story go to Tinseltown, you'll get a million of them. If your song is that good, take steps to insure it remains your own (trademarking). Saying a studio stole your song is no more believable than me saying Lucas stole my idea for Star Wars. And as long as the studio system exists in it's current form, the bulk of the $$ will go to it, not the artist.



I have heard of copyright theft within the industry, but it's rare. Essentially the way the industry uses and abuses artists by manipulating, sucking dry and then throwing them away rather than gently nurturing new talent. It's an industry - like the film industry - which has so much pick of the pile, it needed put back into the art what it takes. It's domination and media control is it's downfall.

I think things like Napster and Kazaa still have merit if used appropriately. If one uses them to sample (singles these days often are not the best example of the album, just what the industry feels will be 'safe' enough to sell), and then use those samples to decide if you want to purchase the album, that's cool IMO. I know a lot of people who have been introduced to music they would have not previously found/bought if it wasn't for file sharing.

It's when people download entire albums without giving anything back to the industry and whine their music is not recognized. As I said, it has to be able to make money to be considered worth by the industry. Put no money back in and your voice goes unheard.

[Ben]

But anyone can be a manager but not everyone can be an artist. Without the artist the labels wouldn't make any money yet without the labels the artist can still make money. Get it the labels are expendable yet the talent isn't.

Excuse me? How are managers expendable? Without his manager my dad couldn't be aware of half the opportunities open to him as an actor. Being a manager is a full time job. You make it your life to find out about opportunities for your clients so that you can help them get work. Artist themselves don't have the economy of scale to do that right. Sure anyone can be a manager if they spend their life working at it, anyone can also be an artist if they spend their life working at that. So there ya go.


Plus if there was no mega record companies and nothing BUT independant labels then getting on the top 40 would be more of a show of talent instead a show of marketing that it is today.

Since when does anyone want to hear talented musicians on the top 40? The top 40 is just driving background music or jump-up-and-down party music. The problem is that my favorite artists, the limited appeal artists like Tom Tom Club or Suzanne Vega, are the ones who will be hurt by piracy. When the record artists are backed into a corner financially they're going to go with the *NSYNCs of the world and not bother with the talented folk. And in that situation I wouldn't even know half of my favorite musicians even existed.

Could the system be improved? Heck yes. The ideas behind capitalism could be improved upon (and no, I'm not a Marxist, but that's a different thread). But that doesn't mean that I have the right to betray these people by stealing their work. PF, you have yet to answer Web Head's question about why all the injustice in the record industry makes stealing OK.

[Psycho Fox]

Excuse me? How are managers expendable? Without his manager my dad couldn't be aware of half the opportunities open to him as an actor. Being a manager is a full time job. You make it your life to find out about opportunities for your clients so that you can help them get work. Artist themselves don't have the economy of scale to do that right. Sure anyone can be a manager if they spend their life working at it, anyone can also be an artist if they spend their life working at that. So there ya go.
Let me put it another way. Anyone can be trained to be a manager yet you have to have talent before you can be a artist and talent can't be trained only improved apon.



Since when does anyone want to hear talented musicians on the top 40? The top 40 is just driving background music or jump-up-and-down party music. The problem is that my favorite artists, the limited appeal artists like Tom Tom Club or Suzanne Vega, are the ones who will be hurt by piracy. When the record artists are backed into a corner financially they're going to go with the *NSYNCs of the world and not bother with the talented folk. And in that situation I wouldn't even know half of my favorite musicians even existed.
Let me put it this way if it wasn't for bootleged cartoons I know alot of fans that wouldn't be fans. There of a number of cartoons that I didn't even knew existed till I got my hands on a bootleg then I became a fan and bought their merchandise.

Same works with music.



Could the system be improved? Heck yes. The ideas behind capitalism could be improved upon (and no, I'm not a Marxist, but that's a different thread). But that doesn't mean that I have the right to betray these people by stealing their work. PF, you have yet to answer Web Head's question about why all the injustice in the record industry makes stealing OK.
Becouse the artist are being held as hostages, give in and the record company can tighten its grip on the artist, not buy you don't support the artist. At least with bootlegs you get the music out of this lose lose situation. Some artist plead with their fans to bootleg their work and for those artist I respect their wishes some don't like it, I don't bootleg their stuff.

[Matthew Williams]

I think things like Napster and Kazaa still have merit if used appropriately. If one uses them to sample (singles these days often are not the best example of the album, just what the industry feels will be 'safe' enough to sell), and then use those samples to decide if you want to purchase the album, that's cool IMO. I know a lot of people who have been introduced to music they would have not previously found/bought if it wasn't for file sharing.

It's when people download entire albums without giving anything back to the industry and whine their music is not recognized. As I said, it has to be able to make money to be considered worth by the industry. Put no money back in and your voice goes unheard.

Right. For me, when I file share, it's usually sampling. I'll download stuff like Queen tracks or other things, but it's to get a "feel" for the album. Then, if I amass enough money, I buy it. I never download leaked albums or more than a certain amount of tracks from an album. I only downloaded a leak once-- and that was for the newest CD for my favorite band. I only d/led it because their last album sucked so damn much, I really needed to try before I buy.

But the record industry, in tandem with the radio industry, has made music so damn dull, so awful nowadays, that yeah, they are putting a scapegoat out. But I have to say that, at least in the rock sector, the new releases this year are the best since 1997. Yes, I said 1997. Neverthless, P2P is really there just to "sample", I think. Make sure you know what you're getting into, because radio isn't worth it anymore.

(BTW, as far as price goes. Four words: shop at Best Buy. I browsed there and a lot of their CDs are $15 or less(Some are even $10). Anyplace else, it's $20, which is way too much. So go to Best Buy for your music needs... that's what I'm doing.)

[RZetlin]

Unfortunately the RIAA heavy-handed tactics is doing more harm to than good.

RIAA forces student to give up his $12,000 life savings account (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/06092003c.php).

Seriously, do you really think $12,000 will pay back all the money artist lost to file sharing?

People have stated that file trading is against the business model.

But the use of file trading has fallen into the rules of economics.

One of the rules of demand and supply is once the consumer has found a better substitute for the current product they will flock to it.

At this time file sharing provides a better substitute to the current distribution of music in stores.

This has nothing to do with moral rights, what the RIAA is fighting against is the principals of economics.

[Psycho Fox]

"Basically they agreed that he didn't do anything wrong, but [they're] taking his 12 grand.

This is why I think the RIAA are just a bunch of thugs.

So why should I care about what the RIAA have to say they are just a bunch of jerks.

[Web Head]

One of the rules of demand and supply is once the consumer has found a better substitute for the current product they will flock to it.
Oh, don't get me wrong, as a consumer if I file share an album I can get it for free without having to even get off my butt. That's why so many people do it. All I'm saying it that it is illegal and wrong. Downloading music is one thing, but at least admit what you are doing and don't try to convince yourself or others that it is morally right.

And a fact of the matter is that RECORD LABELS EXIST. Saying "what if they didn't" really isn't the point.

What I'm saying is that unless a new artist has a)enough money to pay for studio time, CD printing, etc b)has a knowlede of business, marketing, and finance c)has influence among radio stations to get airplay d)has influence and knowldge of promoters and tour venues to get the right forum for your music...it is going to be VERY HARD to become successful. A music label can and does do all that for young artists that have no proven drawing power and are a total unknown.


Because the artist are being held as hostages, give in and the record company can tighten its grip on the artist, not buy you don't support the artist. At least with bootlegs you get the music out of this lose lose situation. Some artist plead with their fans to bootleg their work and for those artist I respect their wishes some don't like it, I don't bootleg their stuff.
If an artist gets even a paltry $0.01 for every one of their CDs that's sold and $0.00 for a dowload from say Kazaa, how is that supporting an artist? And it's one thing for a Metallica to say go bootleg, it's THE NEW AND STRUGGLING ARTISTS THAT ARE HURT BY FILE-SHARING.

[Psycho Fox]

What I'm saying is that unless a new artist has a)enough money to pay for studio time, CD printing, etc b)has a knowlede of business, marketing, and finance c)has influence among radio stations to get airplay d)has influence and knowldge of promoters and tour venues to get the right forum for your music...it is going to be VERY HARD to become successful. A music label can and does do all that for young artists that have no proven drawing power and are a total unknown.
Times have changed, it is the record companies that haven't. Right now record companies are also putting the hurt on internet radio. The problem is all the technology is pushing to get the labels out of the picture were media deals directly with talent ie a internet radio station pays the artist and only the artist for the song. Why can't regular radio do the same. I don't see why a artist can't get a fee directly from Apple to get onto ITunes.

Record companies are the past and they know it. There is no place in the future for them. They are obsolete.



If an artist gets even a paltry $0.01 for every one of their CDs that's sold and $0.00 for a dowload from say Kazaa, how is that supporting an artist? And it's one thing for a Metallica to say go bootleg, it's THE NEW AND STRUGGLING ARTISTS THAT ARE HURT BY FILE-SHARING.
That depends on the goal of the artist some when they get enough say okay now I want the world to hear it and got enough money off it so go and bootleg my work and even though my label still wants money.

[Ben]

Times have changed, it is the record companies that haven't.

Record companies are the past and they know it. There is no place in the future for them. They are obsolete.

What does this even mean? Web Head and I have both shown how record labels/managers still serve a function. They're not obsolete. Your view is unsupportable.


That depends on the goal of the artist some when they get enough say okay now I want the world to hear it and got enough money off it so go and bootleg my work and even though my label still wants money.

...thereby taking money out of the pockets of the record labels making it harder for them to take on new artists.

I feel like you're not listening to us. From my perspective you're just starting to say the same thing over and over without addressing my arguments.

[James]

Unfortunately the RIAA heavy-handed tactics is doing more harm to than good.

RIAA forces student to give up his $12,000 life savings account (http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/06092003c.php).

Seriously, do you really think $12,000 will pay back all the money artist lost to file sharing?

People have stated that file trading is against the business model.

But the use of file trading has fallen into the rules of economics.

One of the rules of demand and supply is once the consumer has found a better substitute for the current product they will flock to it.

At this time file sharing provides a better substitute to the current distribution of music in stores.

This has nothing to do with moral rights, what the RIAA is fighting against is the principals of economics.

File sharing is piracy to a degree - if used to simply download albums, but it can be also an excellent medium for sampling. The RIAA is not fighting against the principle of economics, it's fighting the essence of technology. Piracy is there, they can make examples, but they can't defeat the basic threat of internet piracy. So they should be finding ways to increase interest in purchasing rather than making costly and feeble gestures. The principle of economics is to provide a better product than your competition. If DVDs can do it - so can CDs.

This however requires thought and spending by the industry. Two things it doesn't like. It doesn't want to shift it's position on the market but the times are changing and it will continue to lose money until it does.

[Mackenzie Rainelle]

The fact remains that the record labels are an established part of the business. Take a look at the top 100 artists in any genre, without a label you probably wouldn't have heard of them.

All of that being said, I've yet to hear a convincing argument as to why so many people think this stealing is OK.

This ain't an arguement for stealing, this is just a point. 2/3 of the artists I adore, I have no idea who the hell their labels are, and a good deal of them are 'popular'. The only band and label I actually remember together are The Beatles and EMI. That's it. Billy Joel, Natalie Merchant, L'arc en Ciel, Mylene Farmer, I have NO clue who supposedly represents them, so obviously the labels aren't doing as good a job as they think they are about getting themselves noticed along with their artists.

[RZetlin]

File sharing is piracy to a degree - if used to simply download albums, but it can be also an excellent medium for sampling. The RIAA is not fighting against the principle of economics, it's fighting the essence of technology. Piracy is there, they can make examples, but they can't defeat the basic threat of internet piracy. So they should be finding ways to increase interest in purchasing rather than making costly and feeble gestures. The principle of economics is to provide a better product than your competition. If DVDs can do it - so can CDs.

This however requires thought and spending by the industry. Two things it doesn't like. It doesn't want to shift it's position on the market but the times are changing and it will continue to lose money until it does.

The RIAA seem to have enough money to hire lawyers and sue people.

The RIAA is fighting against the principle of ecnomics.

As of now music lovers are dissatisfy with the CD prices and the content of the music.

If the music fans were happy, they wouldn't be flocking to file sharing programs which they perceive to have a better value.

As you pointed out, the only way RIAA can win back the masses is by offering better content for their products; not arm twisting college students in coughing up the cash.

[Psycho Fox]

What does this even mean? Web Head and I have both shown how record labels/managers still serve a function. They're not obsolete. Your view is unsupportable.
It means that a time will come when there is no record companies and media (radio,tv,internet,ect) pays the artist for their work directly. The manager gets paid by the artist and works for the artist and has no power over the wishes of the artist.

This time is comming as technology is pushing the record industry out of the picture. Since really the artist are the ones that should be sitting in the drivers seat.



...thereby taking money out of the pockets of the record labels making it harder for them to take on new artists.

See above record companies are obsolte anyway and only a matter of time before they no longer exist. May take 10 years may take 20 but sooner or later they will just be apart of history.

Also they are the enemy holding progress back.

[kiddiesunshine]

The RIAA is making this much harder on themselves than it has to be. There is such an easy solution to their problems it's not even funny. It's already been said. All they have to do is provide some incentive to buying the music. Provide some things besides music. Provide features whose files would be so large (not to mention entertaining), it would take forever to download. It seems like the RIAA is afraid to do a little work. Instead, they want to try to scare people into buying music. Well, that won't work on me. If anything, the rebel in me will tell me to copy MORE music just to piss the RIAA off.

[SonGoku V3]

I'm not willing to go into this debate, but I'll add this: I usually buy CDs alot, then I copy them to mp3s to either save on my mp3 jukebox or to save to my mp3/CD player. What this article basically says is that the industry can check into my computer, and prosecute me for having these mp3s on my harddrive.

Why are they going to prosecute me for the things I paid for? There are so many flaws in how the music industry is attacking piracy that it's not even funny. Heck, they're so focused on this that I can go out onto a street corner and still buy a cheap CD, and none of the money would go to them because it's bootleg. I don't see them trying to stop piracy through bootlegging, but they are trying to give consumers, their audience, like me, a hard time because they're not seeing the stellar sales MJ produced on the 80s or what BSB and Nsync did their first weeks out on 2001. They're only killing themselves.

[Psycho Fox]

I don't see them trying to stop piracy through bootlegging, but they are trying to give consumers, their audience, like me, a hard time because they're not seeing the stellar sales MJ produced on the 80s or what BSB and Nsync did their first weeks out on 2001. They're only killing themselves.

They are just tring to cover up the fact that their industry is comming to an end and has no future. They don't like the fact that sooner or later they will be drawn out of the picture. Right now it is possible for an artist to have a mini-recording studio in their home at professional quality for a price independant artist can afford. Meaning it is possible for artist to make a song in their basement or for a small fee get someone else to do (in Toronto I've seen mini-studios pop up all over the place since the 90's) and just hire a manager to promote and distrabute it yet that means the artist is the one in charge no the artist gets the bulk of the money since they didn't need any backing.

[Ben]

It means that a time will come when there is no record companies and media (radio,tv,internet,ect) pays the artist for their work directly. The manager gets paid by the artist and works for the artist and has no power over the wishes of the artist.

This time is comming as technology is pushing the record industry out of the picture. Since really the artist are the ones that should be sitting in the drivers seat.

See above record companies are obsolte anyway and only a matter of time before they no longer exist. May take 10 years may take 20 but sooner or later they will just be apart of history.

Also they are the enemy holding progress back.

Well if it's "comming" then that means it's not here yet, so record labels are not "obsolte" yet. All that will happen is that labels who sell music to radio stations and retail stores and advertise by television and billboard will be replaced by labels who run artist webpages, sell music to online retailers or sell it for download, and advertise online. You seem not to realize that artists don't always have the time or the scale to handle their own publicity, and they certainly don't have time to learn the system (whether it's on or offline) well enough as a professional in the field.

You're living in a fantasy world where everyone can code commercial websites in thirty seconds flat and everyone has a cable modem.

[Psycho Fox]

Well if it's "comming" then that means it's not here yet, so record labels are not "obsolte" yet. All that will happen is that labels who sell music to radio stations and retail stores and advertise by television and billboard will be replaced by labels who run artist webpages, sell music to online retailers or sell it for download, and advertise online. You seem not to realize that artists don't always have the time or the scale to handle their own publicity, and they certainly don't have time to learn the system (whether it's on or offline) well enough as a professional in the field.

You're living in a fantasy world where everyone can code commercial websites in thirty seconds flat and everyone has a cable modem.
Not really since artist can hire people to do those things as labels can't work in the enivorment comming as the big money will be replaced with small money meaning the industry has to simplify and the best way to simplify is the artist runs his own carrer and he may hire help or consultants but don't need big backing or a label running their carrer since he don't need mega bucks to break in.

[Failure]

Not really since artist can hire people to do those things as labels can't work in the enivorment comming as the big money will be replaced with small money meaning the industry has to simplify and the best way to simplify is the artist runs his own carrer and he may hire help or consultants but don't need big backing or a label running their carrer since he don't need mega bucks to break in.

Artists get wrecked by the labels, and they know that, yet they still go through with it. The day record labels become obsolete is the day the US becomes communist. The main thing the record labels offer for musicians is simplification. You think artists want to deal with all the administrative stuff the record company handles? They just want to play. The more time they have to devote to running their own business, the less time they have at refining their craft. This is why artists are willing to take it from the behind when it comes to record labels, it lets them focus on the things they want to focus on. Everyone wants to be a star, not the businessman.

[Psycho Fox]

Artists get wrecked by the labels, and they know that, yet they still go through with it. The day record labels become obsolete is the day the US becomes communist. The main thing the record labels offer for musicians is simplification. You think artists want to deal with all the administrative stuff the record company handles? They just want to play. The more time they have to devote to running their own business, the less time they have at refining their craft. This is why artists are willing to take it from the behind when it comes to record labels, it lets them focus on the things they want to focus on. Everyone wants to be a star, not the businessman.Take the independant comic and animation scene. These guys like the freedom, yes Internation Rocket Ship is now gone and they struggled for ever penny but they made what they wanted and no one could tell them otherwise since it was their money.

Yes labels offer simplification becouse your ass belongs to them and you no longer have the freedom to produce what ever you feel like.

Yes artist hate the business end but that is true with everyone else, Independant: game companies,animation houses, comic labels, record labels, comedy troops, film houses. The list goes on but for price of having to handle the business end they have the freedom to take their art where ever they want.

[Failure]

Take the independant comic and animation scene. These guys like the freedom, yes Internation Rocket Ship is now gone and they struggled for ever penny but they made what they wanted and no one could tell them otherwise since it was their money.

Yes labels offer simplification becouse your ass belongs to them and you no longer have the freedom to produce what ever you feel like.

Yes artist hate the business end but that is true with everyone else, Independant: game companies,animation houses, comic labels, record labels, comedy troops, film houses. The list goes on but for price of having to handle the business end they have the freedom to take their art where ever they want.

Yes, the independent scene will always exist, and is always a viable alternative, but it will always remain on the outside. Your argument doesnt explain why you think major labels would be toppled by the existence of a healthy indie scene. Your anecdote about Internation Rocket Ship even seems to underscore the difficulty of toppling the majors.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the US govt stepped in and decided to break apart the major labels (although that does seem doubtful what with the trend towards media conglomeration), but except for a monstrous anti-trust suit, the majors arent going to be toppled by file sharing or the indies.

[Ben]

Take the independant comic and animation scene. These guys like the freedom, yes Internation Rocket Ship is now gone and they struggled for ever penny but they made what they wanted and no one could tell them otherwise since it was their money.

Yes labels offer simplification becouse your ass belongs to them and you no longer have the freedom to produce what ever you feel like.

In commercial art no one ever has the freedom to do whatever they want, independent or otherwise, because it's up to the consumer whether or not to consume, not up to the producer. In non-commercial art it's up to the artist, but that's not what we're talking about.


Yes artist hate the business end but that is true with everyone else, Independant: game companies,animation houses, comic labels, record labels, comedy troops, film houses. The list goes on but for price of having to handle the business end they have the freedom to take their art where ever they want.

...so you agree with me now?

[SonGoku V3]

Are you guys still arguing the point of this thread? :p No matter how good or bad the RIAA is doing right now, they are trying to get rid of my online privacy by trying to check my computer for "illegal files". Now in my case, how are they illegal when *I* paid for every single artist's music that is on my HD? What are they going to sue me for, using the music I paid for in however way I choose(I like to listen to songs on my PC without having to run my CD back and forth as well as put them on either a CD-RW or my Nomad Jukebox)? You can see what they did to the people at Penn State(I believe it was them), and accused them of having an Usher Raymond mp3(like he's the only guy in music named Usher, for one) when the mp3 just so happened was named "Usher". Their method of battling the file-swapping issue is so flawed that it's not even funny, and does anyone really think that this type of behavior will really encourage people to buy CDs? Things like this really hurts them more and more, and the industry would probably see a change if they brought their focuses on what made them money in the first place: Music Entertainment and how that is presented to the listener.

EDIT - What I'm also interested in is what they'll do if they see a mp3 from another country. I mean, if they see that I have "Soulhead - I'm Just Going Down.mp3" on my computer, will they even care, or will they try to subpoena me then, even though that group isn't even signed to an American label(They're J-R&B/HipHop). Like I said, what they're doing has alot of flaws and it will hurt them in the long run.

[Web Head]

My main point comes down to the new artist. Most of these kids DON'T have the money to rent a professional caliber studio for the time it takes to record an album, let alone buy one. They DON'T have the money to invest in themselves and their music, if they did then they WOULD.

This also isn't a consumer issue. It's a matter of purchasing music or STEALING it without getting caught or punished. There is no logical reason to pay for somethin that you can get for free, only ethical ones.


You think artists want to deal with all the administrative stuff the record company handles? They just want to play. The more time they have to devote to running their own business, the less time they have at refining their craft. This is why artists are willing to take it from the behind when it comes to record labels, it lets them focus on the things they want to focus on.
EXACTLY. I know a guy that can play the guitar so beautifully that it will bring tears to your eyes. But he's still dumber than a box of rocks. Being a musician does not mean you can successfully represent yourself, in which case your going to "take it from behind" as Failure aptly put, from someone else, and it may be even worse.

While you may be able to achieve a limited local or cult following, I still say that no newly formed, non-established band or artist can become nationally recognized and successful without support from a record label. Internet radio is nice, but it ain't getting you in the Top 40

[Psycho Fox]

In commercial art no one ever has the freedom to do whatever they want, independent or otherwise, because it's up to the consumer whether or not to consume, not up to the producer. In non-commercial art it's up to the artist, but that's not what we're talking about.
Well International Rocketship was commercial independant animation house and they did want ever they wanted. They had a good run and lasted for years and it is way harder to be a independant in the animation feild then anywere else. Read the interviews from the people that worked at International Rocketship and the consumers was not even on thier mind they were making it for them self and they hoped there was enough people that also liked it enough to throw money at them and that set up allowed worked for them for some time. Yes when they were low on cash they temorarly sold their services to someone else but then they were right back to the free form.

I know tons of independant comic and music artist that still survive under this stratagy and variations of the stratagy.


My main point comes down to the new artist. Most of these kids DON'T have the money to rent a professional caliber studio for the time it takes to record an album, let alone buy one.Uhh hobbiest can afford mini professional studio. It don't take much I've recorded quality sound from a triped out A4000T and a hi end pro sound car & pro audio software. I've seen studios throw quality studio equipment in dumpsters so if your lucky you can build a studio for just your time. Just throw in quality mics and cables and you got a mini-studio. Most mini-studio run by hobbiest will rent time on their equipment for cheap.



EXACTLY. I know a guy that can play the guitar so beautifully that it will bring tears to your eyes. But he's still dumber than a box of rocks. Being a musician does not mean you can successfully represent yourself

Uhhh the big studios are not they bright either they just have tons of cash so being dumb as bricks don't effect them.

[Failure]

Well International Rocketship was commercial independant animation house and they did want ever they wanted. They had a good run and lasted for years and it is way harder to be a independant in the animation feild then anywere else. Read the interviews from the people that worked at International Rocketship and the consumers was not even on thier mind they were making it for them self and they hoped there was enough people that also liked it enough to throw money at them and that set up allowed worked for them for some time. Yes when they were low on cash they temorarly sold their services to someone else but then they were right back to the free form.


Oh, I agree that the indie scene, for the most part, gives artists a lot more creative range and freedom. But you're sidestepping the issue of how the indie scene would bring down the major labels. The thing about the indie scene is that, theoretically, it allows artists to do what they want. It gives them creative freedom. However, the price they pay is they only reach a niche market, often because of most indie's lack of reach.


I know tons of independant comic and music artist that still survive under this stratagy and variations of the stratagy.

The key word here is survive. Less than 5% of major label signees make it "big" so what's the odds of an indie group gaining more than cult status? Absolutely, positively miniscule.


Uhh hobbiest can afford mini professional studio. It don't take much I've recorded quality sound from a triped out A4000T and a hi end pro sound car & pro audio software. I've seen studios throw quality studio equipment in dumpsters so if your lucky you can build a studio for just your time. Just throw in quality mics and cables and you got a mini-studio. Most mini-studio run by hobbiest will rent time on their equipment for cheap.

Tell that to the people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Plus, having your own mini-professional studio is one thing, making it sound like the real deal is another. It's becomes blatantly obvious when one group records on amateur gear and another group records in a professional studio. Plus, the mastering process often requires outsourcing and costs a pretty penny.


Uhhh the big studios are not they bright either they just have tons of cash so being dumb as bricks don't effect them.

Yeah, the lot of them are probably dumb. I mean, evidence enough on how they're pursuing the file-sharing technology. Instead of trying to use it to their advantage, their bent on making enemies and pissing people off. Not a good strategy. But that said. They know the business. They know the people. They know how it works. They control the power. And just by being on the inside, they're a million miles ahead of every struggling artist out there.

[Ben]

All right, I've shown that:

A) Labels and managers serve a function and can do it very well despite their overriding organization (RIAA) being stupid.

B) Regardless of whether or not you believe A, or even whether or not artists ask people to bootleg their stuff, it's still stealing.

If you still don't understand I don't know what else I can say.

[Psycho Fox]

Oh, I agree that the indie scene, for the most part, gives artists a lot more creative range and freedom. But you're sidestepping the issue of how the indie scene would bring down the major labels. The thing about the indie scene is that, theoretically, it allows artists to do what they want. It gives them creative freedom. However, the price they pay is they only reach a niche market, often because of most indie's lack of reach.

The key word here is survive. Less than 5% of major label signees make it "big" so what's the odds of an indie group gaining more than cult status? Absolutely, positively miniscule.
Becouse of the big labels. It is the same thing in every industry. They start up with 100% independants and grow from there but once they cross the line where more then half of the market is controled by a few mega corperations the industry takes a turn for the worse and keeps gets worse as the mega corperations gain more control over the industry. Since once a company reachers a certain point the bigger they from that point the more stupider they are and more disconnected they are from their consumers.

So now the technology is there for a reversal since now TV and Radio is getting crappier and the abilty to serve content online is getting cheaper sooner or later the line will be crossed and the current mega corperation won't be incharge anymore since why would people run from the boring TV and Radio to boring internet, People will go to quality which won't come from the current talent vacume which is currently in place.


Tell that to the people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Plus, having your own mini-professional studio is one thing, making it sound like the real deal is another. It's becomes blatantly obvious when one group records on amateur gear and another group records in a professional studio. Plus, the mastering process often requires outsourcing and costs a pretty penny.
I wouldn't call is amateur since a $1000 soundcard is basicly broadcast quality.

[Failure]

Becouse of the big labels. It is the same thing in every industry. They start up with 100% independants and grow from there but once they cross the line where more then half of the market is controled by a few mega corperations the industry takes a turn for the worse and keeps gets worse as the mega corperations gain more control over the industry. Since once a company reachers a certain point the bigger they from that point the more stupider they are and more disconnected they are from their consumers.

So now the technology is there for a reversal since now TV and Radio is getting crappier and the abilty to serve content online is getting cheaper sooner or later the line will be crossed and the current mega corperation won't be incharge anymore since why would people run from the boring TV and Radio to boring internet, People will go to quality which won't come from the current talent vacume which is currently in place.
I wouldn't call is amateur since a $1000 soundcard is basicly broadcast quality.

I can see technology helping more indie artists break through, but I still don't see it bringing down the majors. I think if you just take a look around, you'll see that the majority does not go for quality. Companies may get stupider, but for the most part, they keep their eyes on the ball when it comes to $$$. Look at what's most popular now, reality TV, manufactured pop music, stupid brainless movies. Companies target the lowest common denominator because they can. If people started getting snootier tastes, then the companies would follow suit.

The $ it would take to get all the equipment to get a decent quality sound would cost in the thousands. Maybe that doesn't seem like a lot of $ compared to say renting a recording studio for a couple weeks, but it's a lot more than most people can afford. And even with all that, if you don't have everything right, the difference between amateur and pro-quality sound becomes quickly obvious.

[Psycho Fox]

I can see technology helping more indie artists break through, but I still don't see it bringing down the majors. I think if you just take a look around, you'll see that the majority does not go for quality. Companies may get stupider, but for the most part, they keep their eyes on the ball when it comes to $$$. Look at what's most popular now, reality TV, manufactured pop music, stupid brainless movies. Companies target the lowest common denominator because they can. If people started getting snootier tastes, then the companies would follow suit.
Look at 1984 (The video game era not the book) the videogame industry was polluted with big corperation (WB, Atari,CBS,ect) providing the lowest common denominator but in 1984 close to the whole consumer base stood up said why should they pay for crap and jumped onto the home computer market that at the time was free from mega corperations and had far more orginal games at the time. Within the year the game sales for consoles droped over 95% crashing the whole industry

With deregulation in radio and deregulation comming to TV the same thing can happen that happened to the video game industry in 1984 where people stand up say its crap and find other ways of entertain them self.

[EinBebop]

Well if it's "comming" then that means it's not here yet, so record labels are not "obsolte" yet. Remember cabooses on trains? They were around for years after they became obsolete because of the unions involved. Same argument can be made here; the labels are no longer necessary, but linger around because of the power base they've created for themselves.

[Ben]

Remember cabooses on trains? They were around for years after they became obsolete because of the unions involved. Same argument can be made here; the labels are no longer necessary, but linger around because of the power base they've created for themselves.

Sure, the argument can be made. But it's wrong.

Besides, that still doesn't make stealing from them right. That's what I've been saying for threeteenthousandkajillion pages!

OK, I need a break from this thread.

:(

[Psycho Fox]

Sure, the argument can be made. But it's wrong.
Look at the game industry it is still open, Galaxtic Civ is doing well aginst Moo 3. And that is not all the game industry is more driven by the little guys then the big guys. An independant can make it big, it is a long road but you don't need to give up being independance to get there.



Besides, that still doesn't make stealing from them right. That's what I've been saying for threeteenthousandkajillion pages!

Well look at it this way, would bootleging games in 1984 be wrong? The industry was going to crash anyway that year and even if bootleging played a part the crash was a good thing it brought down the evil suits and put the creative process first. Meaning the bootlegers of 1984 helped the industry by helping to distroy it.

Could the same be said now that bootlegers are helping to crash the industry so it can start a new better off without the evil suits. I crash helped the game industry in 1984 and still the industry is better off that the crash happened.

Maybe the current music industry needs a good crash.

[EinBebop]

Sure, the argument can be made. But it's wrong. I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate that; I'm barely skimming this thread. I just had to address the faulty logic that whether or not a system is obsolete is justified by its existence. :)

[Failure]

Look at 1984 (The video game era not the book) the videogame industry was polluted with big corperation (WB, Atari,CBS,ect) providing the lowest common denominator but in 1984 close to the whole consumer base stood up said why should they pay for crap and jumped onto the home computer market that at the time was free from mega corperations and had far more orginal games at the time. Within the year the game sales for consoles droped over 95% crashing the whole industry

With deregulation in radio and deregulation comming to TV the same thing can happen that happened to the video game industry in 1984 where people stand up say its crap and find other ways of entertain them self.

The difference is the video game industry back then was a very small (compared to the current music industry), mostly niche market. The music industry is embedded into the fabric of almost every breathing American. 95% of the population isn't going to stop buying cds, because of file sharing. Quality is a funny thing, it's completely subjective. What I consider crap is selling millions upon millions of dollars. But there's plenty of good stuff out there, which is why people aren't going to feel the need to revolt.

[Web Head]

Could the same be said now that bootlegers are helping to crash the industry so it can start a new better off without the evil suits. I crash helped the game industry in 1984 and still the industry is better off that the crash happened.

Maybe the current music industry needs a good crash.
I think this right here perfectly illustrates the crux of the whole "file-sharing is OK" line of thought. The thinking is that the labels are these "evil" oppressors while the musicians are virtuous and true, wanting only to bring their music to the people.

And I was never one to believe that it is right to steal from someone just because they are rich. At this point I will assume that nobody is going to argue the point that file-sharing is ILLEGAL and MORALLY WRONG.

As for the whole independent, non-label supported artists I will say only this. Give me something. Give me an actual example of an artist that has become nationally recognized and supported in the last five or ten years without ANY help from agents or record labels.

If there is a good example, I may just stand corrected. If there is not, then the argument that labels are obsolete is invalid. That's fair enough, and should bring a swift end to our great debate. (God I love this cafe...)

[Psycho Fox]

The difference is the video game industry back then was a very small (compared to the current music industry), mostly niche market. The music industry is embedded into the fabric of almost every breathing American. 95% of the population isn't going to stop buying cds, because of file sharing. Quality is a funny thing, it's completely subjective. What I consider crap is selling millions upon millions of dollars. But there's plenty of good stuff out there, which is why people aren't going to feel the need to revolt.
But you have the same problems that lead to the video game crash of artist (then programers and game desginers and in this case musicians) feeling like their hands are tied by their employers.

Then the cream of the artist jumped ship to less green but more open and free pastures that they turned greener. The same thing could happen now with a mix of artist and consumers walking on the whole setup. If the artist walk fans will walk followed by more people leaving till nowone is left.


And I was never one to believe that it is right to steal from someone just because they are rich.Not becouse they are rich it is becouse they are jerks that take advantage of hard work of others.



As for the whole independent, non-label supported artists I will say only this. Give me something. Give me an actual example of an artist that has become nationally recognized and supported in the last five or ten years without ANY help from agents or record labels.Happens alot in the video game biz but hey they had a crash to weed out the evil suits (well at least get them under control)

[Ben]

Not becouse they are rich it is becouse they are jerks that take advantage of hard work of others.

The. Artists. Signed. Contracts. With. The. Labels.

They weren't forced to sign. They CHOSE to.

By encouraging people to pirate their work in circumvention of the contract they signed they are showing that they are untrustworthy.

"Artists walking out" doesn't mean rich farts like Metallica saying "Yeah sure, we don't care about the people who put us here, just steal from them," it means actually honest artists never signing with the labels in the first place. And if or when that happens there will simply be another company to publicize the artists' work that will take over from the current labels.

[Psycho Fox]

The. Artists. Signed. Contracts. With. The. Labels.

They weren't forced to sign. They CHOSE to.

Yes they were due to the monopolistic landscape of the industry that punishes those that don't sign with a big label.



By encouraging people to pirate their work in circumvention of the contract they signed they are showing that they are untrustworthy.
So the labels are not any more trustworthy.


"Artists walking out" doesn't mean rich farts like Metallica saying "Yeah sure, we don't care about the people who put us here, just steal from them," Uhh Metallica did most of the work all their label did was lend them some resources and the label already got more then compensated for that.


it means actually honest artists never signing with the labels in the first place. And if or when that happens there will simply be another company to publicize the artists' work that will take over from the current labels.Not really like I said after the video game crash of 1984 the industry stayed wide open since meaning any upstart could take on the big boys given time. Same can happen in the record industry if it reforms.

[zmanjz]

My 2 Cents:

The very existance of copyright is a sufferance.

We have copyright laws as a way to provide artists compensation in order to continue the existance of art.

Contracts and all aside, if there is a better way to compensate THE ARTIST for their work sufficently to continue the production of more art... then THAT should be our method.

I agree that downloading music is piracy.

But what's piracy for the victim, may be the actions of a privateer when seen from another perspective.


The cultural evolution of mankind is premised on the free flow of Ideas. Not necessarily free monitarily, but free of impediments. (such as archaeic methods of artistic compensation.)

I understand the RIAA, and If I were in their position, I would react the same way (Unfortunately).

However, they are now (and I would be) wrong in their choice of reactions.

[Psycho Fox]

My 2 Cents:

The very existance of copyright is a sufferance.

We have copyright laws as a way to provide artists compensation in order to continue the existance of art.

Contracts and all aside, if there is a better way to compensate THE ARTIST for their work sufficently to continue the production of more art... then THAT should be our method.

But copyright law does not compensate the artist it compensates the artist boss.

Take the designer for the game MULE. She came to the community of her game and encouraged bootleging of her game since it was out of print and with the option of
a)not making any money off it and
b)not making any money off it while people enjoy it

she decided on b)

Yet copyright law doesn't give a rats ass about her she was just the artist. Ever since the Gutenberg Press the law cared only of the backer of the artist while the artist had and still has no rights.

[Web Head]

Yes they were due to the monopolistic landscape of the industry that punishes those that don't sign with a big label.
How is an artist forced to sign with a label, when the whole notion is obsolete? What you just said is that RIGHT NOW an artist is "forced" to sign with a label to be truely successful, and if they don't they are "punished" by little or no success, or what I've been arguing this whole time.


So the labels are not any more trustworthy.
The labels are honoring contracts that the artists willfully signed and under no duress agreed to. They had a choice to make it and they made it. Now they have to act like adults and LIVE with that choice.


Uhh Metallica did most of the work all their label did was lend them some resources and the label already got more then compensated for that.
But it was the label's work and their resources that allowed Metallica to make themselves what they are today. Without a label, they might be assistant fry cooks at McDonalds right now.


Not really like I said after the video game crash of 1984 the industry stayed wide open since meaning any upstart could take on the big boys given time. Same can happen in the record industry if it reforms.
COULD the music industry evolve like this? Sure. But our point it that it HASN'T yet. Labels are not obsolete until it does. And while there may be parallels in video games or animation or whatever...they are not the music industry.

As I said, unless someone is able to give me an example of an artist in the MUSIC INDUSTRY that has totally and completely forgone any help from an agent or record label, your argument is invalid.

[Psycho Fox]

How is an artist forced to sign with a label, when the whole notion is obsolete? What you just said is that RIGHT NOW an artist is "forced" to sign with a label to be truely successful, and if they don't they are "punished" by little or no success, or what I've been arguing this whole time.
Only becouse of the monopolistic landscape. They are not needed but becouse it is a monopolistic landscape the artist don't have much choice.


The labels are honoring contracts that the artists willfully signed and under no duress agreed to. They had a choice to make it and they made it. Now they have to act like adults and LIVE with that choice.
Wrong many labels misinform artist some even trick few artist to sign on thinking they will make them famous only to have the label own all the rights and they lock the artist work away so they don't have to pay the artist that much since the profits are zero as they won't sell it so they can put resources onto their sure fire bands without competing or dividing resoures to the sucker band.

So basicly Labels are just snakes.



But it was the label's work and their resources that allowed Metallica to make themselves what they are today. Without a label, they might be assistant fry cooks at McDonalds right now.
What work? labels only give resources they never actully do anything.
.


As I said, unless someone is able to give me an example of an artist in the MUSIC INDUSTRY that has totally and completely forgone any help from an agent or record label, your argument is invalid.
Spearhead along with other indy bands.

[Web Head]

Only becouse of the monopolistic landscape. They are not needed but becouse it is a monopolistic landscape the artist don't have much choice.
If labels were not needed, then an artist WOULD have a choice, and nobody would sign with a label. But people do sign with labels. Why? I thought you said they were obsolete.


Wrong many labels misinform artist some even trick few artist to sign on thinking they will make them famous only to have the label own all the rights and they lock the artist work away so they don't have to pay the artist that much since the profits are zero as they won't sell it so they can put resources onto their sure fire bands without competing or dividing resoures to the sucker band.
I agree with this...providing that the artist is illiterate. But a label puts everything in writing, that's how they get leverage to exploit. An artist has the ability to read over everything a label will provide and require of them. If they choose not too then they are opening themselves to everything they get.


What work? labels only give resources they never actully do anything.
I think you are underestimating the value of money here. Most struggling artists can't afford to print CDs or go on national tours without some sort of financial support.


Spearhead along with other indy bands.
Afraid I don't know Spearhead. What're their big songs?

You seem to associate artist exploitation with labels. And while this IS true, the artist is going to get exploited no matter what. VERY FEW new artists have knowledge of business, promoting, or what it takes to become successful. And musical talent does not equal success. So, they are going to have to hire someone to represent their interests, or they'll get taken by media outlets, tour venues, etc. And who will they hire? An agent, who won't have the resources of a big label but WILL have the knowledge and ability to exploit an artist.

[Drachentöter]

Okay, about the whole "new artists getting shafted by file sharers..."

You have to understand how file sharing works. At least, when I search for something, it has to be wildly popular (ie: on thousands of computers at any given time) for me to find a file that can be downloaded in a satsifactory amount of time. For example, if you look up Wildly Popular Diva, you are guarnateed THOUSANDS of hits from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of users. This artist has already made it big. This artist already has five cars and a mansion.

If you look up So-and-so Nobody You've Heard Maybe Once you'll be lucky if you find one file on one computer worldwide. Basically, if the artist hasn't made it big already, his or her music isn't being "pirated" enough to make the artist lose money. If the artist is good enough, he or she will make millions and THEN his or her music can be found.

It's cause and effect. First comes money, then comes file sharing. File sharing can't circumvent boatloads of cash from reaching a popular artist.

And file sharing can actually HELP boost new artists' music. If you go to MP3.com, they often offer music from underground artists for downloading. The majority of users who like the artist, will actually buy an album. The file sharing program I use has a list of supported artists on the home window. I can't open it without seeing the names of five new bands.

So, yeah, the only people "losing money" are the students getting slammed with lawsuits. It's time for the RIAA to take a step down in the music world. Go back to getting money to the artists instead of hoarding it for themselves.