What wrong with free mp3 downloads?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dobro
  • Start date Start date
dobro

dobro

Well-known member
Nothing, if you're trying to get known via the internet, right?

A guy in September's Recording magazine, Chris Dunnett, makes a couple of interesting points:

1 Relatively unknown bands promote themselves via the internet. They give away their music or sell their CDs more cheaply than commercial product in order to gain exposure.

2 I'll quote him here: "Why would someone surfing the Net downoad your MP3 when they can download a Metallica one for the same price ($0.00)?"

Well, I'd answer the last question with the answer: "Because I don't like Metallica much," but he's got a good point overall - it's harder to get known on the internet, harder to even give your music away, when people can download 'name' acts for free. If people had to pay for commercial downloads, it would give a competitive boost to aspiring unknowns.

Let's not turn this into a four-page thread. It would just go off the tracks. :)
 
dobro....

Touche', I agree 100 percent!

Because of Napster, the little guy can't compete.
Who wants to hear Joe Shmoe from Idaho, when they can download all the free pop songs they want?
Of course, we'll hear the rant about freedom and all that. But, once you spend a small fortune on recording equipment, put tons of hard work into writing, recording, and mixing, and spend another small fortune on mastering and duplication.... you get a whole different perspective on the Napster issue.
 
When I started on mp3.com there were maybe 100,000 songs available for DL. Now that number has got to be near 1 million. Competition is fearce enough, among mp3 artists, without throwing in the freebie big boys downloads. If you want the big boy music - pay a few bucks for it.

Neat article in issue #9 of EQMAG, a former Motown mastering engr - now indy - is interviewed, and states that sales of most new records/cd's is around 800. The exception being a few big acts selling all the cd's. The internet has had a watering down affect on what the big labels are doing and they do not even realise it. We are just touching the tip of the iceberg.

I think this thread can be derailed in - 2 pages , that is if everyone minds their P's,& Q's.
 
"The internet has had a watering down affect on what the big labels are doing and they do not even realise it."

I don't understand this bit. How has it had a watering down effect on what the big labels are doing? I can see how the internet has had a watering down effect on independent posters' chances (like what you said about the increase of posters on mp3.com). But what about the big labels?
 
You've have to remember that the group that spends the most money on cd's is the 12 to 19-year-olds.
Out of that group, many of them get certain cd's because that defines thier "coolness" and thier ability to fit in with a certain crowd. Owning certain cd's is not always about the music itself, but about an image or attitude that teenagers are trying to convey... just like thier clothing.
That being said, it's pretty damn hard to get your music noticed on the internet, unless you have the ability to create a HUGE buzz among a target audience.
Why should anybody go out of thier way to find new/unknown artists, when they can get anything they want on Napster?
Teenagers are sheep. They follow trends set by the record labels and radio, clothing companies, car companies, and electronics companies. Why??? Because they have all the money to ADVERTISE!
Have you ever listened to a song that you thought was just so-so, then warmed up to it after awhile because of constant airplay? It happens all the time. But, the little guy doesn't have that opportunity. You're lucky if you get one shot to catch someones attention, and you're quickly forgotten unless you have the means to keep bombarding them with your songs (radio airplay, advertisement, etc.).
Charging money for full, hi-resolution, downloadable versions of songs from big-name acts would benefit both the popular artist AND the unknowns in a fair, even-handed manner.
Music is a hand-crafted product that takes lots of time and effort to make. Why should this product be given away for free?
By that logic, Sony should be giving us all free digital camcorders and Cadillac sould be giving us free cars. They could never stay in business that way.
What Napster is doing, basically, is stealing the Cadillacs off of the truck before they get to the dealer, and letting everyone take a free ride.
It circumvents Capitalism and robs the artist of compensation for his talent and hard work.
It's time to get to the table and pound out a fair solution for all sides. Record labels will have to bite the bullet and trim the fat in order to give the consumer a good product for a fair price.
The music industry needs a major overhaul, but let's not kill the little guy in the process.
 
Being a songwriter among other things, free mp3 downloads take away from the songwriters' ability to make money. A pro songwriter relies on the income form that song to keep him going. if a song hits well on radio and someone puts it up for free download, that song could downloaded free millions of times and that puts the songwriter out of his well deserved royalty.
However; if the indies put them up with consent from the writer and the artist, it is a great thing for promotion.

In a way I agree with the others: Make them pay for the big dogs and that will make them more likely to listen to the indies' free mp3's.
On the other hand, the big dogs still make money, while the indies are still out of a buck. So what is wrong with free mp3's?
Nothing if the parties involved are all happy with it.

C YA O(That's see ya around, for people who don't dig it!)
PaleWolf
 
Round like a donut palewolf

dobro-
Shall I say diluted? 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.

It is my belief, that 3 - 5 years ago labels, would be more likely to take a chance on a song or artist. Within the last 2 - 3 years they are not taking chances, but staying with the tried and true.
 
"What Napster is doing, basically, is stealing the Cadillacs off of the truck before they get to the dealer, and letting everyone take a free ride."

The dealers still get the Cadillacs, but the people who have aquired one can make as many copies as they like and distribute them freely. How is this any different than when cassette recorders were introduced? You could purchase a record and make a tape for anyone who didn't want to pay for the record. There is no difference, but the web allows a broader scope of communication.
 
No matter how you look at it, stealing is stealing. If the caddy being stolen was yours, I am sure that you would not be very pleased.
 
HFFritz said:
There is no difference, but the web allows a broader scope of communication.

[/B]
Click to expand...

That IS the difference. That, and the fact that an MP3 file is essentially studio quality, and a cassette is definitely not.

There does seem to be a consensus here that without the artist's permission, providing downloadable music for free aint ethical.

Is it really bad for us new kids on the block? Maybe. But maybe the indies' problem is that the technology has become so accessible that it is a curse as well as a blessing. Yes, it's now accessible to all, but that means that all are submitting MP3 files. So how can Joe (or Josephine) listener find me amid the vast forest? I for one, am interested in listening to stuff I've never heard of, and am no less interested by the fact that I can get for free a lot of stuff that I HAVE heard of. The problem is that there's so darn much of it I don't know what to try...
 
dobro said:
"The internet has had a watering down affect on what the big labels are doing and they do not even realise it."

I don't understand this bit. How has it had a watering down effect on what the big labels are doing? I can see how the internet has had a watering down effect on independent posters' chances (like what you said about the increase of posters on mp3.com). But what about the big labels?
Click to expand...

Well, arguably, the big labels have to charge more for cd's to meet their earnings projections than they would have to charge if everybody paid for their downloads. (Also arguably, they'll charge as much as they can anyway. Also arguably, they use this as an excuse to raise prices. I doubt there's anything about this enterprise that they "don't even realize".) So it would follow, economically speaking, that the fact that the big guys are getting squeezed increases prices and may also make them more reluctant to take risks on new and/or different music, which of course is contrary to what champions of the internet as commercial communication would (should) like to see.
 
They might use internet music file exchange as an excuse to raise prices, but if sales ain't down, they have no *real* justification for raising prices.
 
You are correct, of course. And sales really are not down, and the prices of newly released CD's are insane. But corporations don't really share the same "reality" that you and I do.

Take a typical pop label, a wholly owned subsidiary of a larger, publicly-held company. This publicly-held company is seen as a failure unless its stock price increases, and its stock price won't increase unless earnings are expected to be increasing. This requires continuous economic expansion. Forget about the creative guys-in-charge - they have little to do with this. The financial guys-in-charge see the number of free downloads of their albums as lost sales. They feel ENTITLED to recoup that "loss", in order to continue the economic expansion upon which their own livelihoods depend. So who pays? The reality of capitalism is that the cost is passed on the consumer (or perhaps in my case, like when my nine-year-old son has to have the lastest Eminem album, the consumer's Dad).

So, in answer to your original question, Dobro, the problem for indies (or perhaps I should say DIY's) caused by free name MP3 downloads isn't the mere fact that, say LI Slim's stuff is next to Metallica's (although that would be weird), rather, it's that the availability of stolen property floods the market, causes producers to reduce risks (and therefore discourage creativity), and increases prices to the consumers.

If Napster (or someone else) could strike a deal that directed a certain amount of cash flow to the labels, and the labels didn't get too greedy (again, perhaps a dubious proposition), and people had to pay something for this service (also removing Metallica from my competition), everyone would win.
 
Musician and theif

Hot damn I love this discussion, and this topic.

I'll try to put my 2 cents in without writing an essay. (although I can't promise that :) ) I beleive that free music is good for the whole industry, and that it cannot be stopped. I'll start with my premise for argument. Don't hate me for my opinion. I appreciate all the previous arguments and my thoughts are not set in stone.

1.Last year the recording industry posted a record $15 billion in profit. This happened in the middle of a free music revolution.

2.Major labels have gotten obese off of screwing their own artists over in royalty and contract negotiations. This is besides the fact that with corporations, commerical interests *always* supercede artistic ones. How much of that $15.00 cd is going to the artist?

3.Free music has exposed tons of people to styles of music, and bands that they never would have heard or afford to have heard without it. It has helped thousands of people who are sick of the bland music establishment become enthusiastic music lovers. Music lovers are more likely to have an open mind about all music than those who are constantly spoonfed radio bull. I think people are now more than ever willing to take a chance on the little guys. (Us to varying degrees.) Just look at the growth of sites like mp3.com and iuma. (It has also made things for the little guy far more competive.)

4. Let's face it, most of the people downloading from sites like IUMA and mp3.com are musicians themselves. In my mind that makes the feedback, the downloads and other interest all the more credible. It is a good place to make contacts for establishing oneself in the real world. Also the more popular these sites become, the more likely the industry will be to reevaluate itself and take some chances.

5. Artists must be paid for their work, but the model will have to change. Up front flat fees, followed by the understanding that copies would be made, could improve the situation. Sure fewer musicians would be multi-millionaires (Would the world be a worse place if metallica made as much as well paid mechanics,)but so what. If the pie was divided up more evenly more of us could share it.

6. I could think of nothing more gratifying than thousands of people downloading my music. For free or not.

Sorry if I ruffled any feathers. This is an excellent discussion.

-Jett Rocker
 
Jett...
Here's the lowdown.
1: I believe it was 15 billion dollars is "sales", not profits... big difference.
2: True
3: Not true. People always have and always will like music, regardless of the corrupt music industry. That's an excuse to justify "totally free" music. MP3.com and IUMA are making money from the artists, not the consumers. There's a feeding frenzy going on right now. The makers of recording equipment are raking in a fortune, and so are the websites that promise "a shot" at getting famous. The fact is, only a miniscule few are reaping any success as artists from these sites.
4: Musicians are pickier than the average know-nothing consumer. So, if the majority of perusers are musicians on MP3.com, most are listening, but not buying.
5: Flat fees? I don't think so. A friend of a friend of mine wrote the song "Material Girl" and sold it for $1,500 bucks. That song made millions! I would NEVER accept a flat fee. I want to be paid accordingly.. per play and per sale.
6: Try investing $15,000 in recording equipment, instruments, mastering, and production costs... then tell me you would love to "give" it all away, rather than make back some of that money.

I speak from experience. I've paid and paid and paid.... with my time, my effort, and lots of my own money.
"Free" is not an option for me.
If you invested as much as some of us here on this BBS, you'd be singing a different tune.

Peace...
Buck
 
Buck,
You have some good points.
I haven't exactly invested $15,000, including my ax and all that shit more like three or four, so far.
But I don't think that my opinion would or will change. I make my rock and roll for the sake of rock and roll (so to speak), and have no visions of profit, breaking even is hard enough to do :)

I don't think that I explained the flat fee thing clearly enough. I don't mean allowing others to use your music for profit, or giving the bloated record companies an excuse to rip musicians off worse than ever. More or less, I mean compensation in return for the expansion of fair use principles with the expectation that copies will be made by individuals for personal and not for-profit use. Free distribution, in most cases, gives far wider exposure to any artist. Sort of a fame vs. money trade off in the end maybe. Although it probably follows that the artists who have the widest circulated free music are also selling the most records. I think that for-profit use, makes royalties completely legitimate.

Whether or not the 15 billion was profit or just sales (I agree there is a huge difference) it still was a record. The companies aren't hurting.

In fact, either way, the record companies win. Right now, both fans and musicians lose. Free music at least has the potential to tip the scales away from megacompanies. Things will change. Where they will end up is anyones guess. I don't mean to downplay your investments or the pride you take in your music. Actually, I personally would respect any artist who said, "don't copy my songs". But I can't speak for the masses.

-Jett Rocker
 
I'm going to copy some cuts off an acrylic record to a cassette tonight for a friend. God, I'm so scared. Please don't tell anyone. It's so sad that I have to live my life like an animal, hiding all the while from the RIAA and the Metallica roadies. I don't know how much longer I can last as an outcast from musical society. I guess I'll have to burn the record when I'm done, so there will be no evidence for my family or cat to find. Oh god, the guilt is almost unbearable. Sob...sob...Wait a minute, what's that noise outside? Oh, I hope it's not the brain police again. I hope I destroyed all the pieces of that book I let someone else read without paying any royalties. Oh sob...
 
Hey jet...
I agree wholeheartedly that the consumers and musicians lose out to the record companies. I also agree that there should be changes. But, it can't be done without some fair solutions.
As for me, I'd be happy as hell to just break even on CD sales. We considered it a success just to sell our first CD. The fact that someone is willing to part with thier hard-earned money for our songs gives us a great sense of accomplishment, and it shows how much they appreciate our music.
It's just like the rich kid who's daddy buys him a new car every time he smashes-up the previous one... there's not as much appreciation for the car. In fact, the kid gets spoiled and demands it.
But if you don't have a rich papa, and you buy a car with the money you've been saving for years... you'll appreciate it much, much more.
That's kinda why I feel that all music shouldn't be free.
Giving some of it away should be at the discretion of the artist. Overall, music SHOULD be a helluva lot cheaper than it is now, but not totally free.
 
It is apparent that some of the posters to this topic are not trying to make a living, but are only involved in music for the sheer joy. I too love it and enjoy it, but I still try to make a living. It's hard enough already, why copy someones work who you have purchased and give it to your friend free. Lots of people are left in the cold because of it.

Monty: If you gave your friend a book without copying it, then that is different. You purchased that book and have already paid royalties on it. So giving it to your friend isn't the same. Even giving your friend music isn't the same as selling it to them.
so go pout somewhere else :O)

Palewolf
http://www.korerecords.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top