What wrong with free mp3 downloads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobro
  • Start date Start date
jonesie said this: "The universal corporate pirates all have their fingers in the pie
and, it seems to me, to have an effect on new music that we hear and, more
importantly, do not hear. While, underneath it all is the subculture of listeners and
players that - the biggies do not want to recognise because they have not figured
a way to profit from it, yet."

When he posted it, my feeling was: "Gee, I hope it continues like this. I'd rather be part of a subculture that escaped the notice of those dinosaurs." I'd like to see musicians and writers getting paid for their work outside the established and traditional channels. I've been reading an old Fritjoff Capra book, The Turning Point, and he talks about those big cultural transitions where traditional approaches don't work anymore - they're too big, too inflexible, too obsessed with maintaining their position - while at the same time new, small operations are coming up with innovative answers to the new challenges. I'd like to get money for what I'm doing musically (it would pay for some of this gear, for a start), but given the choice, I'd like to avoid the Biggies if I could. But talk about a temptation, if one of the Biggies offered one of us a recording contract - you probably wouldn't make any money, but what a distribution machine!

By the way, have you noticed that Paul Simon's got four songs off his new album up on mp3.com? About $900 in playback earnings last time I checked. Mp3.com just went mainstream. :D
 
To my verbal friend Monty,
Don't even get me started sweetheart. If your talking to me that way, I might as well call you sweetheart, hehee.

Get a grip and get a life.

The truth hurts.<--that's a period

Later
 
{HORSE LAUGHING}

That is not really appropriate here in this forum. Or at least not necessary. People tend to show their intelligence by their vocabulary. If I were a fag, I might just fall in love with you as much as you enjoy giving it to me. hehehe, wake up and smell the garbage and go get your self a room so you can play with your fish.

Sorry amigos for this, but I won't stand by and not defend myself.

C ya O(except for monty)
Palewolf

P.S. If I find out where monty lives, I may just go over there and cut his eyelids off and string him up in the desert, then he couldn't see how to type all those words he is using.
 
I would like to see artists start their own download sites. And as far as downloading no name's or listening to them I do it quite often when I have an extra 15 to 30 mins. And have gotten interested in new music beings I am a die hard vinyl listener. And I have listend to some very talented artists on this site and mp3.com and real.com and a few others that I would have never been exposed to any other way. I don't beleive that its right to steal someone's work and artists should be paid for their work but on the other hand what about the artists that are one hit wonders that get alot of air time and their music sucks except for that one song sombody might like the rest of it but who. Or the fillers record companys have them play from god knows where and when but you get em wether you want them or not. Thats stealing too but from you right out of your pocket book. Digital music like cd's and internet music is here to stay record labels need to make it more appealing for downloaders not ask 3 to 6 dollars a pop for a song (HIGHWAY ROBERY).
 
palewolf - step back and wait a while. You don't understand something that's going on here.

Alternately, you could come cut my eyelids off, too.
 
DObro, I was just referrring to monty's way of repling to what I had to say. evidently he misunderstood me and used certain language to tell me how he felt. I was only referring to him not anyone else.

I know very well what is going on in this topic. It's great discussion on the politics of free mp3 downloads vs. reimbursement or those downloads. As I have said before, as long as the artist and the writer approves of distributing their material free, it's cool with me. But for those who put it up without proper authorization, it is illegal and aggravating.

Palewolf
 
hmmm.

It seems like we are all operating in the same universe here. :)

While we haven't agreed specifically on mp3's (I don't know if we will), we are in the same ball park on many of the surrounding issues.

1. The big labels mostly suck, although there are some good artists on them. There are also massively overpaid and overrated artists with bloated contracts.

2. The labels rip off both consumers and musicians.

3. The price of music is often prohibitively high.

4. None of us have a problem with free mp3's if it's ok with the artist.

Here's a question: What if its ok with the artist, but not ok with their label? I've been at a number of concerts where the singer will say something like, "If you can't buy our cd, then steal it." Do they mean it? Or are they just posing?

Personally I could care less about the legal issues. There are plenty of unfair laws. Really my only concern is how artists can put food on the table. And personally I don't think that free mp3's have hurt music sales, yet. They might actually be helping sales.

To a large extent I agree with dobro. I wouldn't really want to be under the same tent as the big boys. There's something satisfying about being part of sub-culture, that cares more about their music than $$.

Also the same mechanism that gives us the ability to take music, gives us the ability to distribute. It's not a perfect scenario, but 10-15 years ago, even a forum like this would not have been available. Artists are able to form virtual communities now. With that sort of organizational ability, it might be possible to put pressure on the crappy labels, and give people an alternate to the bland soft-serve, dished up 24-7 at outrageous prices.

There's also part of me that would love to see the rug pulled out from under the major labels. I don't think that free music is the lynchpin though.

-Jett Rocker
 
Die, Napster, die!

My thoughts goes like this:

I think the artist should get payed for his music. Otherwise only hobby-musicians will exist. Rock'n'roll mau not die, but it will become a hobby-project. I don't like that. Most of the music I listen to are done by people who create music full time, and put down their heart and soul into it. If they only had their free time to do it, they wouldn't be able to do what they want. 95% of my record collection would not exist.

I don't like the move I'm seeing towards free music. mp3.com is another thing altogether, because there you put up your own music, and can get a percentage on the ad-sales. But Napster is a system designed for people to be able to steal others music.

Mp3.com goood! Napster baaad!
 
Well, MP3.com has gotten into lawsuit trouble by doing kind of what Napster does in a too-clever way (that is, giving people free music if they promise that they've already bought the CD).

I agree with Dobro's sentiments that independent artists shouldn't be thrown into a huge bin with label artists. Actually, the "system" in place now kind of works for independents, including the option of posting a couple of songs and giving people the opportunity to buy a CD if they like. The "flat fee" concept works for the label bands. Napster pays the label a flat fee to post the songs. Or maybe AOL pays a flat fee to post songs. (Users can either be charged a flat fee or not, if it's worth it to Napster to keep giving it away free so people will look at advertisements or if AOL wants to absorb the cost in order to entice more people into using their service.) The artists would need new contracts to give them cuts (but artists shouldn't complaint later on that they're not getting enough - one should live up to one's agreements). Put the label stuff in a label bin and the independent stuff in a free bin. Obviously, there are a number of ways one could formulate this basic idea.

It would be nice if the industry (both record and internet)to respond to techinical innovation with business innovation instead of litigation.........
 
Well, MP3.com has gotten into lawsuit trouble by doing kind of what Napster does in a too-clever way (that is, giving people free music if they promise that they've already bought the CD).

I agree with Dobro's sentiments that independent artists shouldn't be thrown into a huge bin with label artists. Actually, the "system" in place now kind of works for independents, including the option of posting a couple of songs and giving people the opportunity to buy a CD if they like. The "flat fee" concept works for the label bands. Napster pays the label a flat fee to post the songs. Or maybe AOL pays a flat fee to post songs. (Users can either be charged a flat fee or not, if it's worth it to Napster to keep giving it away free so people will look at advertisements or if AOL wants to absorb the cost in order to entice more people into using their service.) The artists would need new contracts to give them cuts (but artists shouldn't complaint later on that they're not getting enough - one should live up to one's agreements). Put the label stuff in a label bin and the independent stuff in a free bin. Obviously, there are a number of ways one could formulate this basic idea.

It would be nice if the industry (both record and internet)could respond to techinical innovation with business innovation instead of litigation.........
 
I have been contemplating doing a solo acoustic act and have
been downloading songs that I though might be appropriate
from napster. Each song I download I instant message the person I download from and ask them if 1. They are a musician, 2. If they still buy music. Everyone who has answered was not a musician and still buys music and a large
majority of them replied they now buy more music mostly due
to napster turning them on to a single tune, then they go
buy the CD. Boy I hope the music police dont come and get me when I am doing those copy tunes in a solo act. If they grille me real hard (like tickle me) I will have to tell them I copied them from napster and it will be a double whammy and I could get the hot seat.
 
Dragonworks - your sample's probably a pretty small one, but if you extrapolate, then what you'd come up with is something like this:

* It *appears* that napster is cutting into working artists' revenues. The 'napster's a thief' view.

* What isn't so apparent is that napster is actually generating a huge buzz surrounding music that boosts sales. The 'subtle effect' view.

I'd be willing to consider the above as a distinct possibility, yeah. And if it's in fact the case, it makes the Industry look, not just greedy, but stupid as well.
 
more of the same

Right now it is the case. Even the labels admit this. They are worried about the future. Right now record sales have reached record highs (Way to go Brittney Spears). Record companies will always be greedy, because push for profits over anything else in the competition for investor capital, and slightly higher share prices.

To me, it looks like the record companies are causing themselves more damage than free music. And then Metallica, suing your fans. Come on. May those *rebellious* poseurs, who originally could only distribute their music on copied cassettes wither and die. However, I do respect an artists decision to not want their work given away.

Sony has come up with a model where you would pay something like $50 up front and then you could download like 1000 songs. I like that better than $18.99 for a cd. Plus you can get a hold of imports and stuff only sold in other countries. Still I think that Sony would take like a 99.9 percent cut and their artists .1 percent. But that's sony's fault.

-Jett Rocker
 
Hear me when I say

Fellow Napsterhaters -

We must only accept the power to pick and choose.

The cd I've been trying to buy lately is, the "mac brothers" most recent effort, forgive me buck. After that I am wating for ....the address to send my $22.00 money order for the hr.cmpilation cd.

WE MUST SUPPORT EACH OTHER
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top