TracyLee Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Interestingly enough, my buddy actually saw that exact thing happen in Vegas last week. 371396[/snapback] You have a 'buddy'? No way!
VABills Posted June 30, 2005 Author Posted June 30, 2005 You have a 'buddy'? No way! 371893[/snapback] It' BF.
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 You have a 'buddy'? No way! 371893[/snapback] Nah, my entire life revolves around smacking dim union loving folks who allow their kids to commit felonies.
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 It' BF. 371907[/snapback] Those 3 letter words are a B word before lunch time.
TracyLee Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 It' BF. 371907[/snapback] Nah, I think his buddy is imaginary....
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 I think... 371951[/snapback] We've seen no evidence that is even theoretically possible.
GG Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 iTunes just started linking to free podcasts today. Most were already out there, but you had to look for them. Now everyone that has an iPod or uses iTunes will have access to free music. The corporate rock giants most likely won't allow mainstream music to get out there for free, but a sh-tload of independent labels and bands will now get max exposure. Why, because it's legal and free. The end of the stranglehold on music by corporate rock is coming to a close. 371358[/snapback] Keep buying the anarchist hype. We need more people like you
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Like the assassin loves his sniper rifle. Copyright infringement is a crime. Same as you walking into a chocolatier and popping coconut cremes without paying. Why does everyone think theft is okay if there isn't a face? If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it -- but don't steal it. Expect to be prosecuted if you continue. 369542[/snapback] Did you ever tape anything off the radio when you were a kid? There are limitations, obviously. Bootlegging (i.e. copying and selling) is obvious copyright infringement. And artists should have some kind of compensation for their work, otherwise no one is going to make the kind of music/art we want (although in the mainstream, it's hard to say they are making it, but I digress). I think the emphasis should be on free distribution, but not necessarily "free" music / movies, etc. And the emergence of free file sharing technologies is in part a response to the fact that people don't want to pay for garbage. Conversely, TONS of people are paying for their music at the ITunes music store, music they like and want but perhaps don't want to pay up to 20 bucks for when all they want is one song. The quality is at a guaranteed level (though not CD quality) and there is a certainty as to what is available, unlike P2P. Point being, P2P networks have forced the industry at least in part to realize it is in complete dinosaur status and it must catch up (or prosecute) to survive. Anyone who thinks "artists" are losing out here has never had any experience with the music industry. I have, and I'm happy to talk about it, just as I'm happy to hear from military folks who have much more front-line experience and knowledge than I do. The overwhelming majority of art is lost and artists lose out the minute they sign the dotted line with a major. There are so many middlemen, there is so much focus on money, so little to do with music it is beyond belief. Most mid-level artists, the people you'd think would be suffering, are actually benefiting from a free distribution model. Witness Wilco, who put out their record for free to eager ears, won a battle with their record company, and still ended up surpassing by a mile any of their previous record sales. And with blogs and free distribution joined together, a lot of unheard artists trying to get their name out have more avenues. The record industry no longer has a lockdown on this material. They don't like it, because more people win and they can't control it. Their answer is to become larger and larger conglomerates that are more and more distanced from the music-making process and more focused on a bottom line. The irony being that the people at the top (as well as the ground-level people like A&R) are all about marketing and have no idea about music. A-level music business people have been completely purged because the profits are never enough. Meanwhile, the major-label strategy becomes more and more to focus on image and simulation. And we wonder why "music sucks today." Call it stealing, call it whatever you want, but I think in the end this is going to be good for music, and people who make and listen to music. The industry is just prolonging the inevitable because it is unprepared. [/rant]
Gene Frenkle Posted June 30, 2005 Posted June 30, 2005 Like the assassin loves his sniper rifle. Copyright infringement is a crime. Same as you walking into a chocolatier and popping coconut cremes without paying. Why does everyone think theft is okay if there isn't a face? If you think it's too expensive, don't buy it -- but don't steal it. Expect to be prosecuted if you continue. 369542[/snapback] Actually, your analogy sucks. See, when I pop candies at the chocolatier (who the hell says chocolatier?), I'm depriving said chocolatier of his merchandise that I may or may not have legitimately bought otherwise. When I download music or a movie off of the web, I am not depriving anyone of anything other than a potential sale to me. I did not pocket a cd or dvd. There's a big difference.
finknottle Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Did you ever tape anything off the radio when you were a kid? There are limitations, obviously. Bootlegging (i.e. copying and selling) is obvious copyright infringement. And artists should have some kind of compensation for their work, otherwise no one is going to make the kind of music/art we want (although in the mainstream, it's hard to say they are making it, but I digress). I think the emphasis should be on free distribution, but not necessarily "free" music / movies, etc. And the emergence of free file sharing technologies is in part a response to the fact that people don't want to pay for garbage. Conversely, TONS of people are paying for their music at the ITunes music store, music they like and want but perhaps don't want to pay up to 20 bucks for when all they want is one song. The quality is at a guaranteed level (though not CD quality) and there is a certainty as to what is available, unlike P2P. Point being, P2P networks have forced the industry at least in part to realize it is in complete dinosaur status and it must catch up (or prosecute) to survive. Anyone who thinks "artists" are losing out here has never had any experience with the music industry. I have, and I'm happy to talk about it, just as I'm happy to hear from military folks who have much more front-line experience and knowledge than I do. The overwhelming majority of art is lost and artists lose out the minute they sign the dotted line with a major. There are so many middlemen, there is so much focus on money, so little to do with music it is beyond belief. Most mid-level artists, the people you'd think would be suffering, are actually benefiting from a free distribution model. Witness Wilco, who put out their record for free to eager ears, won a battle with their record company, and still ended up surpassing by a mile any of their previous record sales. And with blogs and free distribution joined together, a lot of unheard artists trying to get their name out have more avenues. The record industry no longer has a lockdown on this material. They don't like it, because more people win and they can't control it. Their answer is to become larger and larger conglomerates that are more and more distanced from the music-making process and more focused on a bottom line. The irony being that the people at the top (as well as the ground-level people like A&R) are all about marketing and have no idea about music. A-level music business people have been completely purged because the profits are never enough. Meanwhile, the major-label strategy becomes more and more to focus on image and simulation. And we wonder why "music sucks today." Call it stealing, call it whatever you want, but I think in the end this is going to be good for music, and people who make and listen to music. The industry is just prolonging the inevitable because it is unprepared. [/rant] 372214[/snapback] I produce audio books and, like most producers, sell exclusively over the internet. How do I benefit from the free P2P model? Why would anyone go to my site and pay to download when they could go to a grokster, browse my own catalog, and download the files for free? What's my business model?
GG Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 I produce audio books and, like most producers, sell exclusively over the internet. How do I benefit from the free P2P model? Why would anyone go to my site and pay to download when they could go to a grokster, browse my own catalog, and download the files for free? What's my business model? 372334[/snapback] You're part of the revolution, man. Screw the business model. Don't you see? You sell more of your stuff for free. The world is a better place because people get to see your stuff for free. You get exposure that you never had, and you can sell more stuff for free. In perpetuity. Power to the people. Down with the man.
VABills Posted July 1, 2005 Author Posted July 1, 2005 You're part of the revolution, man. Screw the business model. Don't you see? You sell more of your stuff for free. The world is a better place because people get to see your stuff for free. You get exposure that you never had, and you can sell more stuff for free. In perpetuity. Power to the people. Down with the man. 372348[/snapback] They got to you too? Invasion of the bodysnatchers by the communists and anarchists.
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 I produce audio books and, like most producers, sell exclusively over the internet. How do I benefit from the free P2P model? Why would anyone go to my site and pay to download when they could go to a grokster, browse my own catalog, and download the files for free? What's my business model? 372334[/snapback] My point is that the business models need to be adaptable, and P2P is forcing this. Why would people go to your site? Well, if they respect and believe in your work, they should pay for it. Besideswhich, what about people who go to the library and get your audio books? Hundreds of people could possibly be using your product (gasp!) for free, instead of each personally buying a copy. But as we all know, libraries are havens for communism. Shut 'em down. Note that I said free distribution, not "getting it for free." If you read my first paragraph you'd see I said it's imperative for artists and producers to be compensated for their work. If they can't make a living doing it, how can they possibly be expected to produce it?
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 You're part of the revolution, man. Screw the business model. Don't you see? You sell more of your stuff for free. The world is a better place because people get to see your stuff for free. You get exposure that you never had, and you can sell more stuff for free. In perpetuity. Power to the people. Down with the man. 372348[/snapback] Wilco sold more physical records and sold out more concerts and made more actual money after letting people hear their record so they could decide it meant something to them. Novel concept. But "whatever, man." Your stereotyping is just as tired to me as I imagine my views are to you. I have seen what the conglomeration to three major labels has done to music and the people who work in it firsthand, and 95% of them would tell you it used to be better, before every label was owned by some bigger company that had no interest in music -- forcing it to become just another product. But you know better, I suppose, from all your music business experience. Ultimately, money is the key to happiness. It's all that matters, right?
Alaska Darin Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Wilco sold more physical records and sold out more concerts and made more actual money after letting people hear their record so they could decide it meant something to them. Novel concept. But "whatever, man." Your stereotyping is just as tired to me as I imagine my views are to you. I have seen what the conglomeration to three major labels has done to music and the people who work in it firsthand, and 95% of them would tell you it used to be better, before every label was owned by some bigger company that had no interest in music -- forcing it to become just another product. But you know better, I suppose, from all your music business experience. Ultimately, money is the key to happiness. It's all that matters, right? 372487[/snapback] Way to take the thing way past the context he was going for. The key to the whole thing is balance. Technology is getting to the point that the major labels are going to lose everything if they don't do something dramatically different. At the same time, the consumers and their dishonesty is screwing alot of deserving people out of money they deserve (I'm not talking about the execs here). No matter what your average union mullet says, the internet is doing its part in killing the industry - which is a good and bad thing, I guess.
Johnny Coli Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 The key to the whole thing is balance. Technology is getting to the point that the major labels are going to lose everything if they don't do something dramatically different. 372492[/snapback] So we should sit back and wait for them to get their crap together? Why? None of you advocate doing that for any other business. If the business plan doesn't work, why should the consumer care? At the same time, the consumers and their dishonesty is screwing alot of deserving people out of money they deserve (I'm not talking about the execs here). And at the same time, the major labels and their dishonesty is screwing alot of deserving artists out of the money they deserve. Most don't see any money from these sales. The major labels would have you believe that P2P is resulting in all these starving artists, when in reality, they were starving before P2P. I'm not advocating stealing music. That is NOT my point. I don't do it, and most people I know don't do it because there is plenty out there for free that is legal, and quite frankly, I'm not ever going to be mainstream or into mainstream music. My point is that the only people getting screwed here are the major labels and maybe a few super-acts. Adapt or die. That's basic business, is it not?
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 Way to take the thing way past the context he was going for. The key to the whole thing is balance. Technology is getting to the point that the major labels are going to lose everything if they don't do something dramatically different. At the same time, the consumers and their dishonesty is screwing alot of deserving people out of money they deserve (I'm not talking about the execs here). No matter what your average union mullet says, the internet is doing its part in killing the industry - which is a good and bad thing, I guess. 372492[/snapback] I think his point was that I don't understand business and I am out for some revolution. I just countered that. Take a good look at a record contract sometime and you'll see how recording artists get screwed. Johnny Coli is right, artists were getting screwed before, and most artists have only ever made their money through touring. What free distribution does is allow this music to be heard, it fosters exposure. Conversely, P2P is not good in that it fosters the idea that music is more disposable and can be gotten for free. What you do to counter this is offer a product of better quality/consistency, that is more reliable, that is something that people believe in (which is in truth what music has always been about). For added value, a client like ITunes charges less per record (usually 10 bucks) and offers a lot of other interesting content like bands' playlists, links and recommendations, video content, digital booklets. Not the same as your tangible gatefold LP sleeve, but it's a start. Musicians depend upon fans. Now tell me, who is doing better -- Vanilla Ice -- sold a boatload of records -- or that indie band that sells 50,000, plays to five hundred every night? That band is a success on one level, a giant failure on the major level. I find it slightly ironic that people who want the government out of our lives, power to the people / freedom etc. want the government to regulate how we consume media rather than forcing business to adapt and letting the consumer make his/her own decisions.
Kevbeau Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 I produce audio books and, like most producers, sell exclusively over the internet. How do I benefit from the free P2P model? Why would anyone go to my site and pay to download when they could go to a grokster, browse my own catalog, and download the files for free? What's my business model? 372334[/snapback] Don't worry. You'll make it up in volume.
GG Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 I think his point was that I don't understand business and I am out for some revolution. I just countered that. Take a good look at a record contract sometime and you'll see how recording artists get screwed. Johnny Coli is right, artists were getting screwed before, and most artists have only ever made their money through touring. What free distribution does is allow this music to be heard, it fosters exposure. Conversely, P2P is not good in that it fosters the idea that music is more disposable and can be gotten for free. What you do to counter this is offer a product of better quality/consistency, that is more reliable, that is something that people believe in (which is in truth what music has always been about). For added value, a client like ITunes charges less per record (usually 10 bucks) and offers a lot of other interesting content like bands' playlists, links and recommendations, video content, digital booklets. Not the same as your tangible gatefold LP sleeve, but it's a start. Musicians depend upon fans. Now tell me, who is doing better -- Vanilla Ice -- sold a boatload of records -- or that indie band that sells 50,000, plays to five hundred every night? That band is a success on one level, a giant failure on the major level. I find it slightly ironic that people who want the government out of our lives, power to the people / freedom etc. want the government to regulate how we consume media rather than forcing business to adapt and letting the consumer make his/her own decisions. 372563[/snapback] It sounds like you understand the business from the artist side and not from the total industry side. The recording acts get screwed by the labels? How? Because in signing the record deal, the label gets to have copyright over that group's creations during the contract's term? Welcome to the business world. There's absolutely nothing that prevents the band from not signing the deal and making a go of it on their own. But you know it's not how it works, because most musicians see stars and don't want to be bothered with the minutae of setting up studio recording dates, booking tours, promotions, and marketing. A label provides an army of minions that do all that crap, leaving the artists to create their "art." The problem hits when the artist stops performing to the label's expectation, and gets thrown down to the dungeon. For the artist, it's a slap in the face. For the label, it's a business, and there are other acts that can do better for its business. I'm glad that you brought up the Wilco example. Note that people didn't necessarily use P2P to discover Wilco. They used P2P because the band didn't get the attention from the label it thought it deserved. Because Wilco already had a well established audience, releasing an album on P2P was a smart move. Same thing when Prince released Musicology only on his tour. That's not going to do much with an up & coming band like Wide Right, who still needs to pay the dues in the local clubs. Well, how is P2P hurting young bands you ask? By taking away the easy money the labels make off the big fish. The trickle down effect works. I'll agree that the labels got stupid, and their business model got out of whack. They had too many artists on their rosters and paid stupid avdances. P2P forced them to fix the business, and smaller bands have to go back to the club circuit to build an audience. As to the detrimental effect of P2Ps, there's always a confusion of terminology that people equate digital delivery of music with P2P file sharing networks. Other than offering a good experiment of speeding up delivery of large files over a distributed network, P2P's have no legitimate purpose. The major mistake that the music industry did, was delay the introduction of a legit digital distribution service. But if you ever worked in a large organization, you know that when faced with a potential threat to your business model, your primary move is a defensive one. The industry is catching up fast. I get a kick out of the complaints that Yahoo's unlimited music service is too expensive at $60/year, when I was paying $8/album in 1977. Compare a $0.80/song download to a $1 per 45rpm single in the '70s. As to your point that we acquiesce to the government's directive of how we're consuming music, please do well to read the actual court case. The cases revolve around people designing systems aimed at circumventing existing copyright laws. Please note that SCOTUS went to great lengths to ensure that the fair use provisions that were central in the Betamax case were strongly confirmed. If anything, digitization of media is giving us much more freedom and flexibility to consume media. To Coli's suggestion that podcasting is the great new thing, you're missing the obvious analogy. What's the real difference between music pushed at you by an A&R toady at Warner Music, or the guy behind the scenes at BMI and the bohemian podcaster who's sitting by his microphone after his real job every night? If you tell me it's passion, I'm calling bulls!t.
Chilly Posted July 1, 2005 Posted July 1, 2005 The industry is catching up fast. I get a kick out of the complaints that Yahoo's unlimited music service is too expensive at $60/year, when I was paying $8/album in 1977. Compare a $0.80/song download to a $1 per 45rpm single in the '70s.372729[/snapback] Now THIS is the truth. I'm a subscriber to Y! Unlimited ever since it came out. Before Y!, there wasn't a fair priced subscription internet music service. After I saw the prices for Y!'s service, however, the bwenefits of going legal for that price FAR outweigh the cost. I even bought a new MP3 player that supports Windows Media subscription based services so that I can listen to it on my MP3 player.
Recommended Posts