Napster Rears Its Ugly Head... Again

[johnnytucats]

Should we put poor ol' Kenny Chesney in that group of artists with screwed up recording contracts?

Actually, I'd like to see the list of new artists that don't have a screwed up contract.

I've always said, "Show me an artist that doesn't have a screwed up contract and I'll show you an artist that designs his/her/their own website."

[Timeline]

It's very possible iTunes will adopt a subscription model soon because Yahoo just went on line at 9 bucks, all you can eat.

OK, if iTunes does do this too, it looks like what independents need to do is cancel our digital distribution deals with CDBABY and others and sell direct at gigs and use mail order from our sites etc. CDBABY will take a cd and you don;t have to give up DD rights to list. Thats still ok. Now if only iTunes would allow that to happen and let us select the model.

Live performance may be the last bastion of earnings for the musician/artist.

If major artists pulled out of the DD system, DD would go belly up and that would be great.

New deals could be made to protect the artists outside of RIAA by holding out new product for a better deal.

As long as contracts force artists to hand over digital rights then what can I say, it's over if the major artists sign them to get the front money.

It's going to get worse before it gets better and bloody would certainly describe the entire industries future IMO.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by Timeline:
It's very possible iTunes will adopt a subscription model soon because Yahoo just went on line at 9 bucks, all you can eat . . .

If major artists pulled out of the DD system, DD would go belly up and that would be great.

New deals could be made to protect the artists outside of RIAA by holding out new product for a better deal.

As long as contracts force artists to hand over digital rights then what can I say, it's over if the major artists sign them to get the front money.

It's going to get worse before it gets better and bloody would certainly describe the entire industries future IMO.

ITunes will be sticking with their plan because they created the standard for legal downloads ($.99/track, $9.99/album). All the others are trying different gimmicks and price slashing. Apple doesn't feel too threatened right now because those five million iPod they sold last quarter aren't compatible with Yahoo, Napster, etc. Also, most analysts don't believe that Yahoo can profit from offering such low prices. Napster lost millions last year. Clearly iTunes is the winner.

And as you know, artist can't pull themselves out of DD because the labels own their masters.

Downloading is here to stay no matter what and labels have conceded that they can't control it nor make a lot of money from it. When they used to get kids to buy a full CD (of which they got $6) it makes $.33 to iTunes, $.33 to the label, and $.33 to the artist rather petty. As usual labels have to move on to figuring out another way to get our money.

Hmm, maybe they'll start releasing vinyl again with the tag line, "sounds better than CDs."

-Matthew

<small>[ May 16, 2005, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: mattymac1000 ]</small>

[Don T]

Hello:
This is a great subject. Lets take it elsewhere. I know a guy who was on vacation sking in Colorado. He got a phone call that informed him someone had uploaded his "intellectual property" to a free PTP distribution server (who shall remain nameless). He immediately flew back and began a lawsuit to stop the distribution. He succeeded in getting a temporary injunction. The damage was done however. Within 90 days revenues had dried up. Was he Metalica or some other band where people think they have millions and that makes stealing OK? NO! He was the only guy in the country writing and selling software routines for sewing machines that do embroidery (past and present).
Results:
Stealing of intellectual property drove out of business the only source for the product. Did they know what they were doing? Did they care? Does it matter they ruined the source for their own needs?
Is that what will happen to music? I remember when disco was all the rage. I was asked by performing musicians what I thought of the "fad" playing records instead of hiring bands. Self correcting problem I said. Disco's do not support the musicians who create the music. It will fold in on itself. It is self consuming. 4 years later it was gone.
As the pendulum swings, things will adjust. If CD's, MP3's and similar don't support musicians and artists, pretty soon all we will have left to listen too is live music (not a bad thing). Mega revenues from CD sales will be a thing of the past and the air waves will be filled with music created by anyone who wants to take the time to create on a computer. The quality will reflect the amount of time spent developing the craft while working for free.

<small>[ May 24, 2005, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Don T ]</small>

[Ernest Buckley]

I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the CD and with it the sale of digitally streamed music unless some new method of sales or value added format like 5.1 with safety encryption akin to DVD's is implemented and I was told recently that even that can now be easily copied.

I agree that this is the beginning of the end of the CD and the start of another digital system. I also believe that somehow the industry will find a way to work out the $ issue with artists/labels and anyone else with their hand in the pie.

Yes, there will always be ways to get around encryptions but the idea of taking a portion of sales from computers and anything else that is used in the digital music realm is not a bad place to start.

Being that we are talking about 0s and 1s, there has to be someway to avoid bastards from duplicating music.

The creators of napster should be put to death!

[dougieb]

Originally posted by Ernest Buckley:
Yes, there will always be ways to get around encryptions but the idea of taking a portion of sales from computers and anything else that is used in the digital music realm is not a bad place to start.

Being that we are talking about 0s and 1s, there has to be someway to avoid bastards from duplicating music.

The creators of napster should be put to death! [/QB]

Taxing anything on what it MIGHT be used for is nothing short of retarded and anyone suggesting it should be put to death. If you do this, you'll have to add a tax for everything else it MIGHT be used for including identity theft, investment scams, DVD's, etc. By the time you're done taxing everything and the administrative costs of enacting and enforcing the tax are in place, you wouldn't be able to afford a computer anyway. Dumb.

NAPSTER started the revolution that took the control of music away from the music companies and made it possible for thousands of true artists (who never otherwise would have been heard of) to be heard.

A great example of how NAPSTER benefited true artists is exemplified in the DVD "Rush in Rio" where Rush went to Brazil even though they hadn't sold many albums there (poor distribution?) and thought... "Who's going to know who we are there?". Instead they found that TODAY they have their biggest fan-base in the world selling out 50,000 seat soccer stadiums. I doubt Rush is complaining about file sharing.

Many artists invite kids to download their music. I believe George Michaels and David Bowie are two such artists (but I'm not POSITIVE, so don't slam me!). Other artists invite you to tape their shows (John Mayer, Dave Matthews, etc.).

As an artist, I want my stuff in the hands (or ears) of as many as possible. If I was in it just for cash, I'd do real estate or investment banking full time.

I have stuff "in my iPod" I would never have known even existed were it not for great file sharing services. Garage bands from Des Moines or people creating out of their homes share space in my iPod with Journey, George Strait, Bob Marley, George Duke and Queensryche.

There is not much we can do to leave a true impression on this world. If any of us are lucky enough to have a song still going in someone's head 10 years after we're gone - what an amazing accomplishment!

2 cents - or immortality?

If you're in this business just for money, then do some McDonalds commercials and forget the whole artist thing. Just do it as a job.

I doubt highly that painters are in another forum right now discussing what to do about people taking pictures of their work at shows without paying for it. (lol)

Just my 2 cents worth (again)

-dougieb

[Don T]

Hello:
Well.........I make my living in music. My craft is not praticed during my spare time. Most professionals will tell you that working full time at music and recording is where school really begins. When it is your livelyhood, it matters. Artists may not mind you taking a picture of there work but you sure as hell can't go around distributing copies of it without landing in court. Same with professional pictures sold and copywrited. Same with electronics like that Ipod. Try copying that and distributing it and see what happens. We live in a capitalist society. It's about money and if you don't think so then you are a hobbyist or someone else pays the bills for you.

[pinky]

Originally posted by Studio615:
Just one correction, a company bought the name "Napster" and it's logo from it's original owner. It is now a different company.

That different company was Bertelsmann!

http://www.bertelsmann.com

No small outfit...

[pinky]

Originally posted by Don T:
The quality will reflect the amount of time spent developing the craft while working for free.

Don't underestimate the creativity of the same minds that brought you open-reel, LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes, CDs, & MP3s. And certainly do not under estimate the ability of some of us to actually control our property.

The keyword here is not fairness, nor rights, nor desire for great music. The keyword here is DISTRIBUTION. Repeat after me: D-I-S-T-R-I-B-U-T-I-O-N! A right protected under US and International Copyright Law. Digital copying WILL BE defeated. It will take time, but it is in the works.

For the music professionals out there (out here?) who are making a living, we know where the cash cows are. We guard that information with our lives, and I will not share it here.

Many of the file sharing cronies are youngsters seeking to prove that they are ruder than the next. But they are only observers at best and much of what they listen to really has no value as far as this composer is concerned. Let them have it!

They think they are screwing "the man" but they are screwing themselves. In the near future, copying will be impossible and file sharing will go the way of the dot coms. US based file sharing will be elimiinated and internet restrictions enacted by Congress will prevent file sharing over international borders.

[wonder]

Of course Dave Matthews band and John mayer dont mind you taping their shows ... they've made it. They have their money and crap hundred dollar bills.
for guys living royalty to royalty, to say that sharing music isnt harmful, tell that to the ones who live their life as full time musicians.

living as someone who had a family member's intellectual property stolen YRS ago and had millions taken from them, I can share first hand that regardless of how innocent people make it seem, stealing is against the law.

.99 a track. Pay it, download it, listen. Rinse and Repeat

[pinky]

Originally posted by wonder:
living as someone who had a family member's intellectual property stolen YRS ago and had millions taken from them, I can share first hand that regardless of how innocent people make it seem, stealing is against the law.

That sucks! But I can tell you first hand that infringement suits are very difficult to bring and succeed in, even in obvious criminal cases.

Little $hits like the file sharers would be easy to get convicted, but they hide their cowardly little butts behind false URLs and hotmail address.

Wait... I'm on to another topic... sorry. I'll take it over to findlaw...

<small>[ May 25, 2005, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: pinky ]</small>

[wonder]

well, it happened yrs ago to my grandfather ... and it was an invention used in everyday life. but i wont go into details.

bottom line, dont steal music

[James Steele]

Just a thought, and I may be totally off base here, but does any one think that maybe a contributing factor was that there was some bitterness of the public toward record companies pre-existing the sharing technologies, so consumers were more than happy to exact revenge?

What comes to mind was that we were used to paying $8 or so for an LP record. Then when CDs came out I recall they were much more expensive... something like $15 or so? I remember industry representatives explaining that it cost more to manufacture a CD and that when manufacturing costs decreased in the future, the price of CDs would go down. They blamed the high price on the CD medium itself, intimidating the consumer with how high-tech it was and hard to duplicate/manufacture, but then never lowered the prices. As manufacturing costs went down it seemed like the industry just put more into its pocket and the CD never was the same value that the LP album was.

So, enter file sharing and a bunch of angry consumers feeling like they got taken advantage of by the record industry, and surprise... consumers exact their revenge for every over-priced CD they purchased to replace their aging LPs.

Again, I'm sure there are holes in this thought... I'm just throwing it out there at the risk of being totally wrong here. I invite comments. I'd also like to say that I believe stealing is stealing and I'm not justifying taking music over the net, just looking for possible motivations by the consumer. Perhaps there is a price point on a commercial CD that would encourage more people to buy thus increasing volume and reducing illegal downloading?

<small>[ May 25, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: James Steele ]</small>

[wonder]

angry consumer? I dont buy that at all.

how about college/high school kids taking advantage of any opportunity possible?

Cds have gone down in price. best buy constistently offers 12-15 dollar cds.

mostly, people will take advantage of something, if they cant be caught, even if its illegal.

i dont think that blame can be put on the record companies here. Granted, most budgets for albums are RIDICULOUS and therefore recouping budgets hike the price of cd's, but all in all, thats not an excuse to steal music.

[chrispick]

Originally posted by James Steele:
Just a thought, and I may be totally off base here, but does any one think that maybe a contributing factor was that there was some bitterness of the public toward record companies pre-existing the sharing technologies, so consumers were more than happy to exact revenge?

What comes to mind was that we were used to paying $8 or so for an LP record. Then when CDs came out I recall they were much more expensive... something like $15 or so? I remember industry representatives explaining that it cost more to manufacture a CD and that when manufacturing costs decreased in the future, the price of CDs would go down. They blamed the high price on the CD medium itself, intimidating the consumer with how high-tech it was and hard to duplicate/manufacture, but then never lowered the prices. As manufacturing costs went down it seemed like the industry just put more into its pocket and the CD never was the same value that the LP album was.

So, enter file sharing and a bunch of angry consumers feeling like they got taken advantage of by the record industry, and surprise... consumers exact their revenge for every over-priced CD they purchased to replace their aging LPs.

Again, I'm sure there are holes in this thought... I'm just throwing it out there at the risk of being totally wrong here. I invite comments. I'd also like to say that I believe stealing is stealing and I'm not justifying taking music over the net, just looking for possible motivations by the consumer. Perhaps there is a price point on a commercial CD that would encourage more people to buy thus increasing volume and reducing illegal downloading?

Although I don't think anti-industry ire is what fueled this "sharing" phenomenon, I think you've marked a few of the reasons why the industry doesn't exactly soak up sympathy.

Why I think the sharing thing happened:

One, I think people (not just kids) want stuff-in-quantity for free. That is, I don't think it was spurred by individuals longing for music, then suddenly having a payless conduit availed to them. The speed by which you could gather a mass of material is a variable. On a level, it's about collecting as much or more crap as your friends.

Which leads me to...

Two, music-as-a-learned-craft has been devalued. And I understand why. It's become ubiquitous; it's hard to think of places where it's not piped in. That is, it's constantly available, and seemingly for free (although, of course, it's not free). Music's lost its exclusivity. It used to be, if you wanted to hear an act, you either went to see them play or paid for the recording -- few other options, shy of Don Kirshner's Rock Concert and the odd cereal box 45. Now, songs are everywhere: Fuddruckers, urinals, a kazillion cable tv stations, satellite radio, at shoe-level as I walk through some shopping areas.

<small>[ May 25, 2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: chrispick ]</small>