Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 06:15 PM

Since some days ago this "downloading/copying" thing was tackled here, I thought I give you guys my point of view on this whole topic, and I would like to hear your opinion on this.

Well, the music industry created this slogan "copy kills music", but is this really true? In my opinion it isn't, the problem is not really copying. Music has always been copied and most likely always will be copied. Back when I started to listen to music me and my friends also copied new albums for each other, the only difference was of course that back then there were no 1:1 copies on cd's, we had to use tapes, so there was a loss in quality. And, unlike today, you had to know somebody if you wanted to check out his albums. Today this is a bit different, in theory it is enough if one person on this planet buys an album, as soon as he uploads it to the internet the rest of the world could have it.

But as I said in the beginning, I don't think that copying music is the basic problem, in my opinion the real problem is peoples attitude towards all this, specially towards music itself. Back when I was a kid it was something SO special to go to town and buy a new album. I remember that I went to all the record stores in town every single day when I knew that a new album of one of my fave bands was supposed to be released, until the day when it finally reached the stores. I immediately bought it, went straight home and was not seen anymore for the rest of the day (or the rest of the week). I listened to the album all day long, while getting lost in the lyrics, the cover artwork, the pictures and all those things, I was in a different universe. As I said before, we also copied albums back then, but not to get them for free, for us it was a way of checking them out. If a friend of mine bought an album that I didn't know he gave me a copy so I could check it out myself, and if I liked it I bought a copy for myself, I always wanted to have the original if I liked an album.

And this is exactly the point where the problem starts, in my opinion the attitude towards music has changed completely. Today getting a new album is nothing special anymore. Kids don't wait for the release day anymore, they are not excited about this day to come anymore, they get the album weeks (if not months) earlier already, either on the net, or on a dvd filled with thousands of albums, that somebody gives to them in school. Music turned into a kind of fast food, something that is consumed while doing something else, it is not really something special anymore. Those kids get this dvd with tons of mp3's this week, so during the next couple of days they might listen to a few of those songs (most likely on the way to school, with only one earphone in their ears, so they can still talk to their friends at the same time...), and by next week they get a new dvd with another load of mp3's. There is absolutely no chance to listen to all of those songs of course, but they don't really care, it is only about HAVING them all, not listening to them.

And of course this attitude leads to this thought of "why should I pay for music when I can have everything for free?" If music is not special for that person anymore, if it is only "consumed" as something secondary, the will to pay vanishes, specially since it is no problem anymore to get any album for free. And of course the world is full of excuses for this, because nobody wants to admit that he/she is doing something wrong or illegal. My fave excuse is "I am not doing anything wrong, I downloaded this album for free, but I would not have bought it anyway, so the band is not losing any money, they would not have got mine anyway"... Well, this is complete bullsh...t!!! If you go to the next music store and just grab an expensive guitar, giving the argument that you would never buy it anyway, you will go straight to jail, because you just stole an expensive instrument, very simple. Illegal downloads are nothing different, you take something that is for sale, but you don't pay for it, sorry, but per definition this is stealing. And of course this is harming every single band that there is on this planet, no matter if we are talking about Blind Guardian, Metallica, Madonna or small newcomers.

As I said above, I also traded music with friends, I still do sometimes, but the difference is that I only do it to check out new bands that I don't know yet and that somebody recommends to me. If I like the band, I will go and buy the album, if not, well, I delete the file. As long as people have this attitude, if they are still willing to pay for the music that they like, if they are still willing to support their fave bands, downloading is not that much of a problem, actually it can be a good advertising for a band (I for example talked to many fans of BG that got to know about us by downloading some of our songs), but if somebody comes to me, telling me that he is our biggest fan, that we are the greatest band in the universe, and then he askes me to sign his whole BG collection, which consists of one dvd full of copied mp3's... well, sorry, there is something wrong (and yes, this actually happened in exactly this way!).

But anway, I think I babbled enough for now and I would like to hear your opinions on this, so this topic is open for discussion now

Posted by: Maximus May 20 2008, 06:32 PM

I couldn't agree more about the ritual of waiting and buying a new album. Another part of this new age of music is that people now buy only the "hits" for the most part. I remember the sense of discovery when you dug into an album and really got to know the whole texture of the entire song list over a long period of time. Your favorite song on day one was replaced by another by day 5. My first album way back when was Styx's Paradise Theatre. The album art was an entire story by itself. I can still look at that cover and be transported back to those exact feelings i had in the early 80's. I still love music as much as ever but the "fast food" culture we live in is certainly changing the face of music to it's core. Anyway, very well said Marcus. I agree with you 100%.

Posted by: PassionPlay May 20 2008, 06:33 PM

I agree with you. in the age of 12 when i started listening to music i loved to explore different genres and bands. There were, and is, just so many nice bands and i just wanted to have all the good music, so i had the freedom to listen to a specific band when i wanted to. But about christmastime last year a friend of mine came up with a lot of good points not to download music. It wasn't this usual argument "downloading is stealing", but he told me that buying a CD and actually listen to it a lot of times, and ONLY buy the music you really like, let you feel the music in a complete other way. And he was right. Since then i have not downloaded music, and i try to delete the illegal music gradually and only buy "legal music" from now. Not only for the sake of the musicians, but also for my own sake.

Posted by: javari May 20 2008, 06:44 PM

imho it hs to do with the perception of value.
Since everything went digital this has completely changed.
I see it in my own work. I'm a photographer and when I was still shooting on film there was more appreciation. You handed soething to the client, the film.
Now you just mail them a file or burn a CD

The same is with music. An old LP record was something physical, you could hold it, it had substnace, the sleeve was big enough for nice artwork.
When the CD came the artwork on the box was already much smaller, and for some reason it didn't look as good as an old record.

Now a lot of music has no physical form, it's just a downloaded file.
That has an impact on the value perception.
In general most people don't see copying of files, be it software, music, films or whatever, not as stealing.

And with the internet copyright issues have become very difficult to control.

Whether all this is good or bad for music, I don't know.
The big record companies lose a lot of money and that will have effects, on the other hand, nowadays it is much easier to make your own music, record it and put it on the internet.

I'm very curious how things are going to develop in the coming years...

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 06:45 PM

Thanks for your opinions guys, good to hear I am not all alone in this

Posted by: Mark. May 20 2008, 06:50 PM

Damn it's hard to comment on this one, and doing it in english makes it even more difficult.
Lot's of thoughts about this topic, some I don't know if I should post them, and others I have problems with discribing them in english.

What can I say; many of the things you say I can understand and I agree with them. But some things I cant agree with you, if I compare it with me.
Like when you say that it becomes like fastfood and that we kids only listenen to them like 1 time and then do nothing with it. This is probably true for most kids, but as I don't really belong to any group this is a bit different for me.
I download music because I simply cant pay for it, but I do only download the stuff I really like. I first check out the bands clips on youtube and my space. I normally listenen to 5 albums each day ( the full album not only a couple songs ), and repeat these albums for weeks. I do this while going to school, or when I'm at home making homework or playing a game. I listen to it concentrated, and I love it. Just as with games, music gives me an oppertunity to escape from the real world.

Anyways I can agree with what you say, and if I ever get famous like you I probably understand it even better.
But for you it's a bit easier buying the albums, because you have money.

I dont have any money to buy these albums and I just need music, I'd love to buy the real albums because I'm always fascinated with the albums covers. Maby I will buy everthing in a couple of years once I'm earning some money.

---

Probably gonna feel stupid after comenting this,
Sorry for any bad english and I hope that you dont think of me as a total bastard now. Dx

Mark.

Posted by: Old School Rocker May 20 2008, 07:02 PM

Im with you 100% on this one Marcus I only download music if I cant find the album in local stores and thats only about 5 songs (and those are songs my friends showed me) of my colection of CD's and that doesnt include my vinel records

But I love just doing nothing & listening to music, but unfortunately I was not old enough to know about the Led Zeppelin or Van Halen etc. realease dates I wasnt even around during those realese dates. Otherwise I woulda been waiting in line just in front of you

So 99% of my collection is legaly downloaded (whoops meant to say legaly storebought music) and the other 1% was shown to me by friends.

EDIT:stupid mistake

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 07:20 PM

@ Mark: First of all, don't worry about posting in English, your English is perfectly fine. About music becoming fast food, of course I can't say that YOU are consuming music like that, I am fully aware that there are people that still respect music and really enjoy getting lost in it, but fact is that the majority of kids today is different, unfortunately.

About this money aspect, unfortunately you are seeing this a bit one sided. You have no money to buy all the cd's that you want to listen too, that is why you just download them, and you say that for people like me it would be much easier because we have the money. Well, guess what, if everybody has this attitude I don't earn a single cent in my job, because my band won't sell any cd's anymore. I would not only not be able to buy cd's myself anymore, I would also not be able to buy food, pay my rent or continue being a musician, because what can you do if your job doesn't make you any money? Can you continue in that job then?

The problem is what Javari already said, the perception of value. An mp3 file downloaded from the net seems to be something rather virtual, so people don't really worry about downloading them illegally. But is there any difference between taking musik without paying or taking anything else in a shop without paying? As I said before, if you go to a shop, take something (no matter if it is a cd, a bottle of water, a book or whatever else) and leave the shop without paying, you steal something, if you are caught you are in trouble. And the argument that you have no money but wanted to have this thing that you just stole wont help you much. If you download music without paying you are stealing from the band that created those songs, after all recording an album costs a lot of money, money that the band has to spend, and if nobody buys albums anymore, how are bands supposed to continue writing and recording music?

Posted by: fatb0t May 20 2008, 07:25 PM

Awesome topic....

I love the idea of fast food music, very interesting. I live in America where a lot of things are 'disposable'. I think a lot of POP music people may listen to with one ear phone, or listen to a song for 38 seconds then skip to the next tune. But for some folks, whether they downloaded it illegally or paid for it - do really ENJOY the music. I listen to music from the second I wake up, until I'm fast asleep. In the car, at work, in the gym, constantly at home. I think music for some is disposable for others its indispensable, regardless as to how they obtained it...

Marcus don't bands make most of their money from merch and concerts? I figured the corporations gutted most of the profits from CD sales...

Posted by: DeepRoots May 20 2008, 07:33 PM

Absolutley shameless...that is quite shocking

Marcus, it's great to hear your opinions on this topic, as you are obviously somebody affected by this.

You've definitely made me think about how i should treasure each album, thanks!

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 07:35 PM

Nowadays it is like this, yes, because the record sales are going more and more down, not because the corporations would profit too much. In the early days you went on tour to promote your new album, today you release an album to promote your tour. The consequence of all this is that merch and concert tickets are getting more and more expensive because many bands try to cover up for the money loss that comes with album sales. When I have seen Maiden (just to pick one random example) for the first time back in the 80's the ticket price was 28,- DM, which is around 14 Euros, and I paid 12 DM (6 Euros) for a tour-shirt...now go to one of their shows today and compare the prices...

Posted by: ItsMe May 20 2008, 07:41 PM

You really nailed the important point Marcus: music became a consumable that isn't considered to be something special. But music was always something that was more important to some people and others just consumed it. There is a whole genre designed for mere background ambience: easy listening. In addition most of the pop radio stations pump out music that only a few listen to consciously. For the greater fraction of the general population in industrialized countries music just happens and is a part of the general sound canvas. But that was the same 10 or even 20 years ago. But with no doubt, to a different extent. And for sure more people bought the music they decided to really listen to.
The biggest difference between the good old times and today is that people in general and in particular the youngest consumers don't value any products they buy and possess. Because every single popular product that influences everyday live is price adjusted due to the immense marketing pressure, intrinsic to the recent social structures. Think of computers, cell phones, mp3 players, gaming consoles. They get sometimes heavily subsidized or just extremely competitively prized. A cell phone which costs millions of dollars in development is worth a dollar on the market. A disposable product. So it has no real value for people because it can be replaced easily. Thinks lose their emotional value because you don't have to safe money for weeks or months to buy them. But on the other hand that's how an economy can maintain growth nowadays. You dish out millions of pieces for nearly no money. And even ten years ago the same product would have been something that only a few could have afforded.
The same general decline in the perception of the value of things holds true for music. Downloads make everything so easily accessible that you don't care for them. You don't have to wait. You don't have to buy a whole album. On the other hand the great thing about the new days is that you can access a much bigger audience. Even a small band operates globally. Streaming radio platforms like lastfm or myspace allow you to discover things you couldn’t get your hands on even ten years ago. I think in addition to all the problems, it creates great opportunities. I think in general more people get access to more music than ever before. So even with millions of dollars lost due to illegal downloads still millions of dollars can be made via i-tunes or similar platforms. The heydays of the music business might be over, but with the right adjustments and marketing strategies enough money can be made to keep the world rocking to great bands like Blind Guardian.
I buy most of my music on i-tunes or other platforms. I'd love to hang out in stores more often, but on the one hand I don't have the time and on the other hand there are no stores any longer. When I moved to Boston 3 years ago from Germany there were a lot more record stores in this great city. The best one is still there, but most off them are gone.
Sometimes I get music from friends or share stuff I have, with them. When I like a band I'll buy their music. Much like you do, Marcus. I hope there will be enough people out there that care and value all the creative, technical and labor intensive processes that had to happen so the music can come alive when you press the play button. So hopefully the old saying holds true. Rock’n roll will never die

Posted by: Smikey2006 May 20 2008, 07:45 PM

I completely agree with you marcus.. Music is just being consumed now days.. and alot of music is being made for the consumer, bands punching out records ( imo especially rap music ). I somewhat wish i lived back in the day, but i still get that giddy feeling regarding albums.. ive done my share of downloading, but there are albums that i know are coming out and ill wait for it, right now im waiting for watershed. All my friends have the whole thing, downloaded bit torrents, but for me its not the same so im waiting for the album to come out so i can buy it and listen to it in my room, using my cd player, you get the full effect that way. I believe that sampling music by downloading is acceptable, but i have friends who don't own a single cd. for me if a cd is good enough for you to want the whole thing you should buy it, support the artist, support the record company, and support yourself by being able to enjoy the music fully

Posted by: Spreedmaster May 20 2008, 07:55 PM

Theres nothing compared to buying a CD which you really love, like Marcus said

I used do the same all the time when I was younger, but nowadays I Just tend to buy the CD (usually online as the stores round here suck! ), rip it to windows media player and sync it to my MP3 player and the CD is ust left in a drawer. It really isnt the same anymore, I dont really have the time to appreciate it but I still love to own the actual CD.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 07:59 PM

For sure the internet offer great opportunities too, as I said it can be a great way to advertise your band, and I am a big fan of online shops myself, I love the fact that I can buy music in Itunes 24/7, no matter where I might be on this planet, this is for sure a great thing. The internet itself is not to be blamed, the music industry didn't take it serious for much too long, it failed to see the potential of the internet, thats why record companies have so many problems now. I am really curious to see how the business will be like in 5-10 years, will there still be record companies or will bands only use the net to sell their music online exclusively?

I also kinda stopped using my cd's, I am a big fan of my iPod, I buy cd's, copy them to my iPod and listen to my music like that, I just love the comfort of havving everything at hand in this little device

Posted by: Zizi Top May 20 2008, 08:01 PM

I do the same thing, actually not ... i don't download music, i borrow them from friends and copy it to my computer .. if i like it, I go and buy the CD if i don't like it, I delete it. Since i'm a student and don't earn money, it's difficult to me to buy CDs, so that's why my collection of CDs is short :s, but it's okay with me, sometimes when i tell people that i listen to heavy metal, or hard rock, they start telling me names (of famous bands) that i don't even know, but it's okay with me, i'm not into knowing 5000 bands, I prefer listening to few bands but (like you said marcus, listening to all their song and since i'm a musician like all of us here i also try to study them to see who did they compose ...)
I can't deny that i have some copied songs on my computer (not on a CD), I'm not gonna buy their CD soon and i know this, but some of them i'm going to delete cause i don't like them a lot, and some, i'm gonna keep them till I find them in stores or find some money .. my problem is that i like bands that sometimes aren't really known so we have to buy their CDs from the internet, so sometimes it's a little bit complicated

Also, i would like to add that lot of my friends copy CDs, so I like to offer them music CDs for their birthday gifts, some of them look at me like ! why did you offer me that !! and others are really happy to have the original copy, (i wonder why they don't buy it !!=

Posted by: Matt_00 May 20 2008, 08:21 PM

Marcus said

There definatley should have been some proactive thinking done a long time ago to try and regulate this. Not just with music but with all digital media. There is absolutly no regulating these pier to pier file sharing programs, torrents etc..
The only people with any control over it anymore are the internet service provider, if they simply blocked the required ports to transfer digital media and only allowed connectivity to legitimate sites like i-tunes etc they may be able to slow it down.
It's funny thinkin back while I was in my room listening to my new albums puffin' a hoolie and getting lost in it for a few hours, some poindexter was in his basement lab building a computer snickering away telling his Transformer collection that he was going to Rule the world someday.
Now I am at his mercy addicted to I -tunes and World of Warcraft. It was all a conspiracy right from the beginning.

Posted by: Canis May 20 2008, 08:28 PM

Awesome topic ^^

I can't claim that I haven't downloaded any music illegaly, since I would be lying.
Nowadays though, I've just got my first job, and burned away my entire first paycheck on physical music I've allready downloaded =)

It's something different to have the CD on the shelf. It's that wam, fuzzy feeling of listening to the real deal I later rip them onto the PC later and transfer them over to my MP3 player, since I can't go anywhere without music. I have a half hour of sitting on a bus every morning to get to school, so I sit there, half-asleep with my eyes just half-open, watching the scenery pass by (and I live in Norway, so it's great scenery everywhere!), and listen to my favorite songs. It's a great feeling ^^

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 20 2008, 08:35 PM

I don't think the internet can be controled AT ALL! Any provider that would block those ports would immediately lose a lot of customers, they would just switch to a provider that doesn't block any ports, and trust me, there would always be providers that offer completely unblocked access to the net. I also don't want a controlled internet like that, just as I don't want any copy protection on cd's, that is nonsense in my opinion. Any cd that can be played can also be recorded and copied, period, all those copy protections are crap that only drive more people into downloading. In my opinion there is only one way to go: bands have to deliver quality albums (I am also not interested in spending 15 or 20 Euros on a cd that only has one good song), the music industry has to adept to a completely new system, using the internet with all its benefits, and the fans have to realize about the value of music again.

@ Canis: I know that feeling, this is exactly what I do on tour. I always have my iPod with me, 80 gb filled with my collection

Posted by: Zizi Top May 20 2008, 08:38 PM

Yeah i also think that some band that we love to listen too, are also really expensive, their should be a kind of limit to prices ... no !

Edit: for example, metallica's last CD, i didn't like, it's like the band has changed his style, i prefer old albums .. and when i bought the CD ( it was expensive) i was so disapointed !! :s

Posted by: Canis May 20 2008, 08:57 PM

I'm gonna try not to go on another rant about how I hate todays "top-charts"
But.. I think more people buy metal and rock, then say todays "hits", since these "hits" with Justin TimberFAIL and stuff like that gets overplayed on radio and TV. Who wanna pay for it when you can turn on the radio and hear those songs five times every hour?
We got a program on TV here in Norway called "Svisj". Basicly, a list of songs scrolls through the lower end of the screen with a code. You take your mobile, send the code via SMS to the station, and that song get a vote... This way, of course there's only like three or four songs playing over, and over, and over, and over again..... (Thank god there's Metal-Svisj once a week!).

Back to my point, we who listen to Metal, Rock, Blues and other kind of real music, enjoy the music for what it is: Art =) And by that, we like to have the physical CD in our collection.

Another little positive side to buy the real deal: The smell. Oh my god, the smell of a newly bought CD of one of your favorite bands =)

Posted by: Matt_00 May 20 2008, 08:57 PM

Agreed, I have bought many a LP for one song after they did away with 45's. I also find nowaday there are so many one hit wonders throwing out 12-14 song albums for the sake of filling up space with garbage. I am curious as well to see where things are at in the next few years it seems now the people driving the production of electronics are really at the helm and the music industry is constantly playing catch up.

Posted by: Spreedmaster May 20 2008, 09:28 PM

OH MAN! I love that smell!

Posted by: Smikey2006 May 21 2008, 03:26 AM

To Marcus.. I was discussing with my friend today this idea of downloading music. He stands by the fact that getting music for free is not a bad thing.. mainly because he has never been into music at a time when music purchasing was nessisary, his arguement is that related to something you said, he says that because music can be gotten for free and less cd's are being purchased that concert prices and t-shirt prices are going up. He said that it seems like a balance to him. He believes that he has gotten his music for free,, which got him into the bands he listens to, and because of this when he sees a band he likes playing a show near him he goes and buys a t-shirt, and he believed that this idea of paying more for t-shirts and more for concerts balances out the lack of cd sales.. whats your opinion on this?

Posted by: blindwillie May 21 2008, 08:23 AM

Spot on Marcus.
Interesting to hear someone who surely is effected by Internets bright and dark sides talk about it in a rational way without the "they are stealing my money" approch.

I've been on the listening side since Deep Purple and Black Sabbath (yepp, I'm that old :/ ).

You are right about buying albums in the old days. It was something very special and you knew months ahead which records would be released.
As it is now all this drowns in a flood of similar sounding artists, movies, games and all other kind of entertainment we "have to" consume. Ofc no one is forcing us to do it, but we feel we want to. I mean, back in the days there was a few, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath. Then a few others came around. Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Budgie, Ten Years After, Montrose, AC/DC... Still not a bunch. We was hunting for new finds, discovered odd bands in odd import stores. Today... well, just look at metal. There is more sub-genres in metal than the number of great bands then. Which is great in many ways, but I get stuffed, can't press in another bite. For me the "band-hunting" nowadays consists of going to small, obscure clubs in my town and listen to local bands. Often they have more urge to play than skill to play but some are real good (one of them entering the final of a nationwide talent contest this Saturday which is really an achievment considering they are the only metal band to get there along with cute "Idol 200x" looking singers )

Next thing is that I don't want to play CD's or DVD's anymore. I want to play my media wherever it is possible. In my computers (quite a few), phones, Ipods, the car, the media center, the XBOX, stream from home to wherever I am... everywhere it's possible. And I dont want it limited by artifical (DRM) restriction. I don't want to put it up on Pirate Bay but I do want to share it with my closest friends like before "Hey! Listen to this. What a find!"
But in contradiction to that I want my media "time proof". I want to be sure that I still have access to, and still can play all my media in , 10 and 25 years. Which requires a physical media I guess, or a more inventive way of distributing media to the market.
And I want it now. The technology allows me to search and find anything I'm interested in and get it delivered to me instantly, almost wherever I am.

Third. The way the media companies treats me as a longtime customer, to be frank, *really* p*** me off.
Stuffing audio and video content with rootkits, DRM, commercials, trailers and FBI warnings. Re-issues, re-masters, special edition, directors cut, directors cut special edition, 10 year anniversary directors's cut special edition. No thanks.
I more or less stopped buing music in the 90-ies when I realized that the overpriced CD's would never get a reasonable priceing and from that it just gotten worse.

And, finally I guess, I could go on forever. I truely belive that you (as an artist) could be better of with another marketing model. I do belive that there are other ways to distribute media content that satisfies me as a customer and you as an artist. To hear lawyers claiming that every artist have the right to live on their work.... please. No one have that right. Knowing that for a CD that I buy for 15 euro you get something like 0.4 euro. Doesn't compute.
I'd rather see that you get 4 euro and the media moguls 0.4 euro. Sounds more reasonable to me. Another way to pay an artist is to give a part of the net income. But before the net income is set, they go through the "Hollywood accounting" phase. This is so stupid.
It's the same for say farmers. They get "this" amount for "that" but when I buy it in the store the price is 1000% higher. Who got the profit? Not the farmer.

Posted by: ballistic31 May 21 2008, 09:52 AM

I dont realy buy music anymore cause..To me there is just to much music out there now , It seems that most but,, not all bands put out 2 cds and a box set every year lol ..That and this huge cover tune thing going on drives me crazy . I almost wonder if they just are not all tapped out of there own ideas for new stuff.. That and it seems most but not all sound about the same in some respects ...So for me im just waiting for the new fresh band to come out that realy blows me away...I mean no disrespect for any band out there makeing music,, just nothing latly has realy grabbed me with the wow factor in a long time.. As far as downloading music not a chance here i have to much money tied up in my computers to risk it.. thats mu happy thoughts on this matter..I will probly have a im with a warning tomorrow seems everytime i open my big mouth someone hates me for it cause i offended them in some way So chil and relax its just a opinion...and was not directed at you or anyone or band in general lol ..

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 21 2008, 12:08 PM

Thanks for all your posts, it is really interesting to read about all your opinions

@Smikey: Unfortunately your friends way of thinking is very wrong. First of all, let me say it again (hehe, yeah, I know, I mentioned this before): Music is not something that is for free! Producing an album is expensive... depending on how good the studio is and how long you spend in it, it can be VERY expensive, and this is money that the band has to spend. It is just like... I don't know... building a car, this costs money, so obviously the car is not for free, if you want it you have to pay for it, otherwise the company that built it will go bankrupt. I don't know if your friend is still in school or if he has a job, just ask him how he would like it if he would be working, but nobody would buy his products because people found a way to get it for free? I doubt he would like this thought. And this thing about paying the band by buying a shirt and coming to a gig. Unfortunately it is not that easy. A newcomer band has absolutely NO chance to survive like this. New bands are not big enough to go on a big tour as a headliner, they either play a few gigs that can't make them enough money to survive without album sales, or they open up for a big band, like that they don't earn any money (the support bands don't really get money form ticket sales), if they have bad luck they will even have to pay to be able to open up for that big band. You can already see this effet in todays music scene, where are the bands that grow over some years, that get bigger and bigger, that keep releasing good albums? All I see is some big bands that are there since many years already, and some new bands that release an album today, and that are gone again tomorrow.


@ blindwillie: I absolutely agree with you in many of your points. DRM and all those copy protections are pure crap! If I buy a cd I want to be able to listen to it on any cd/dvd player, I want to be able to copy the songs to my iPod, to my computers, to cds for my car, and I don't want any restrictions, after all I paid for the cd. I also don't really like all those special editions. Well, it is ok if they are all released on the very same day, so I can go to a shop, check them all out and then decide for the version that I like most, but of course this is not how it is working. Of course first only the regular version is released, and then, some weks later, all the blown up versions are released step by step, trying to make us buy the same album over and over again...

But I would like to comment on something that funny enough was not mentioned so far... the price of cds. I heard this many times already, people complaining about high prices of cds. Those people always come with the argument that back then vinyl albums were only half the price of what he have to pay for cds today. Well, yes, vinly albums were only half the price, but those people froget something... vinyl albums were also only half as long, the capacity for those albums was about 35 minutes, while most of the cds released today have between 60-75 minutes. So for twice as much money you get twice as much music, this is still fine for me. The big problem of course is the quality of the music. As I said before I am also not willing to buy a cd for 15 Euros if I only like a single song, this would be wasted money.

As Ballistic said, there are many bands that release 2 albums per year, and in between those two albums they are on tour of course... so now I wonder, how the hell is this supposed to work? How is the result supposed to sound good? Writing good songs just takes some time, of course I can write a new song every day, like this I could record a new album every 2 weeks, but would those albums be good ones? I doubt But many bands have no other choice, as I said before they can't survive by just playing gigs, they HAVE to keep releasing albums to make a bit money at least, they can't take the time that they would need to write 10 great songs and put them on an album, with luck they write one or two good ones, the rest will be fillers, but at least they can release another album and go on tour again...

Posted by: tonymiro May 21 2008, 12:42 PM

Great topic Marcus,
and pretty much endorse what you've already said.

But just to add from a slightly different angle perhaps the large labels need to take some responsibility. Not only were they very slow in responding to the Net - as has already been said - but they have encouraged the uptake of mass consumption/consumerism AND helped encouraged the idea of (POP) music as a short lived, disposable commodity.

To some extent that promotion has been with us for decades but arguably it's accelerated in the late 90s with the uptake of the Net and the development of TV programs that claim to be popular talent shows (American Idol, X Factor, Pop Idol, etc, etc, etc). Now record labels don't have to invest in and promote a group - just pick up and sign whoever wins this years competition. But because there will be a new competition next year, well lets not invest too heavily in what will become 'last year's model'. Music becomes not just a commodity but a short lived and disposable one and as such the consumer won't see any real value in it and also then won't see much harm in acquiring it by unpaid download/copying. It all becomes an issue of acquisition - you need to have the latest product but because it changes so quickly you can't keep pace (legally) and because it has such a limited time then why invest your own money in it? Here today and definitely gone tomorrow - everything becomes valueless.

Within this vicious circle you now have the Net and MP3 players. The former helps us access and distribute material on a massive scale and, as has already been said, its very ephemerality and lack of embodiment just encourages us to see it as 'nothing'. Digital material has no 'real' form and so no 'real' substance and as such is a 'nothing' that can be infinitely substituted for yet more 'nothing'. MP3 players give us the ability to do this on a massive scale - no longer is there any physical involvement; down load, set the player on shuffle and you don't have to get up and change the record. You don't physically have to come in to contact with the record so again it is winnowed out in to 'nothing'.

Furthermore this winnowing out and mass consumption is supported by the very scale of what we can store. A big record collection in my youth was 1000 lps but now we talk about big in terms of how many gig the player has. A big capacity now is 80-160Gb - what's that about 20-40,000 tracks or 60-120,000 minutes of music (1-2000 hours, 42-84 days, 1.5-3 months of continual play) ? Never mind finding the time to listen to it all where do you even find the time to load it all in any meaningful manner? Seriously, when I was young and bought records, just the same as you it was an event - something to look forward to and enjoy. Something that you did in an informed way but now many people just 'fill' their MP3 in order to have lots of content. My daughter does that - she fills her MP3 with anything just so that she can say it's full!

Great line in an episode of the BBC comedy 'Gavin and Stacy' where the middle aged uncle announced he had bought an 80 Gig Ipod. He then looked a little chagrined when he went on to admit he only had 70 songs to put on it but he continued to explain that it had the capacity for 1000s more .

Anyway, record labels have, to my mind, so far blamed the consumer for the mass consumption and commodification of music but they have also been instrumental in it. Maybe it's time for them to come up with some answers rather then just continually demanding legislation and passing the buck .

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 21 2008, 01:12 PM

I absolutely agree with you Tony, you are 100% right, of course the music industry is enforcing all this by focusing on all those casting shows, there is no building up a new artist anymore. When we signed our first record deal in 87 everything was different, we had the chance and the time to grow as a band, if you get a deal today you have exactly one chance, you release one album and either you sell big time or you are dropped immediately. There is no growing anymore, just overnight success that lasts for one or two years, or immediate flops.

Posted by: black and white May 21 2008, 01:16 PM

Regardless of why, if you take something that is not rightfully yours, that is stealing, and in most places, illegal. The problem is justifying why it is OK to take something, (in this case music) that you have not paid for. This is a behavioral problem and really is an ethics issue. It is pretty sad that people think it is OK to steal. Sorry, that is just one persons opinion. People often work very hard to produce the material on a record and to just take it without due compensation...IMHO, that is just flat our wrong. The gaming and software industries have similar problems.

On another note, Marcus, I found it interesting that you used Madonna as an example in your first post... Do you have a soft spot for her

And for the record, I do like madonna.

And Mark, your english is great............I am working in Spain currently so I understand being in another country and trying to get your point across. it can be tough.....you did great, keep it up.

Posted by: visi0n May 21 2008, 01:26 PM

I totally agree with you Marcus, there need to be something to stop this, but i cant think of anything what could stop this.. And about signing copied CD/DVD of your favorite band i will shame myself if you go to an artist/band to ask for signing that, i just dont got words for that... very shamefull.. but i exactly agree with you ..

Posted by: Daniel Robinson May 21 2008, 01:27 PM

I think what you said to smikey hits the nail on the head Marcus.


And frankly i think this is a direct result of the record industries want to control all of the pie over the last 2 or 3 decades. Back in the era of the Super groups...like Led Zepplin for instance. There was nobody...and i mean nobody who sounded like them. The record company worked hand in hand with them, allowed them time to find their sound. Build a following and over the long haul become one of the most popular groups in history.

The same holds true for alot of the long standing groups, Rush is another great example. They were allowed time to build their following etc and so forth.

Nowadays its a clone war, groups look to sell out to just be famous and on top. And this in turn is encouraged by the record industry. Its like the difference between commodities traders and long term stock traders. Commodity traders are looking for fast high yield returns and the long term investors are looking to be steady and strong over the long haul. The music industry mirrors this idea, now its not about long term investment but short term high yield turnover.

Lets use someone like Nickelback, when they hit the scence they were pretty unique in sound. Next thing you know another record company says...hey we need to have a group that sounds just like them. Its this constant keeping up with the Jones that is the heart of the matter.

The sad fact of the matter is if Led Zepplin came out today, they would have a shelf life of about 2 years and they would disappear never to be heard from again.

I think very much that the record industries lack of forsight about the change the internet would bring has compounded this problem. Artists scramble for a piece of the proverbial pie. And yet the record companies are unwilling to allow the "Artist" to be in control of their proverbial destiny. As muscians we know what we need to do from an artistic standpoint to draw in the fans that will stand the test of time. But the bean counters think they know whats best and the idea's of the artist are tossed to the wind.

You look at the people who have absolute control over their music and you find the people who stand the test of time. Alot of famous musicians down thru history have seen this as their saving grace and alot of them realized in order to be around for a long time they broke away from the corporate red tape and formed their own independent labels so they could have complete and utter artistic and monetary control of their music.

I don't know what the answer is to fix this big mess, but i do know that the industry is rapidly changing into a new creature all together and hopefully someone smart enough to take advantage of the wind of change will make things bright for all musicians.

Daniel

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 21 2008, 01:41 PM

Again I absolutely agree. Nickelback is a perfect example, they hit the scene, delivered good albums, and suddenly you have tons of bands that sound EXACTLY like them, every record company on the planet wanted to have "a Nickelback".
And unfortunately, most likely you are right about Led Zeppelin, if they would be newcomers today, I seriously doubt that they would go through the same carreer as they did back in the 70's, same for Rush or whoever you want to name here. New bands today just don't have this time to grow anymore.

@ black and white: hehe, yeah, I think Madonna has some good songs

Posted by: Jeff May 21 2008, 03:14 PM

I must be in the minority, but I think CD's are a reasonably priced commodity. In fact, I bet if you compare the cost of CD's vs. the cost of albums in a given period of time, the CD's would be cheaper. I bought albums in the 70's and 80's at $10 - $15 bucks a shot. That was 20 - 30 years ago. The dollar was worth more back then. CD's can be had for an average of about $15 dollars today (US). I think they are a better deal and they also don't wear out like all of my old Jeff Beck, ZZ Top, Doobie Brothers, Zep, Boston, etc. collection. I still remember the scratches in the LP at parts where a cool guitar lead was. The needle would jump right over it and I would get pissed! Transcribing leads off of an LP was a lot more work.

I have the exact same experience that you do Marcus, in that I had to wait, save my money and buy albums at the local music store when they came out. I used to have a great collection of records and I bought them all. I still have never heard a good defense for anyone stealing or downloading music illegally. I feel bad for guys like you who work hard only to get your music stolen. Just about anyone who has a computer can go to iTunes or similar and listen to a sample of a song. They are free and about 15 - 20 seconds which is plenty of time to decide if someone likes the band enough to purchase their CD.

Sure I would love to go to a local Ferrarri dealer too and say, "hey I'll just take this car. I would buy it if I could afford it, but I'm sure you don't mind. I'm just checking it out. I'll justify my actions later."

Anyway, I'm looking forward to legally downloading my first Blind Guardian CD! I buy my songs off of iTunes nowdays because I got tired of storing CDs.

Posted by: Aranox May 21 2008, 03:25 PM

I would like to comment on a certain argument that I always see popping up in these discussions, and which always irritates me. Downloading music is just like taking something from a store without paying. In my opinion, there's a big difference. When you take something from a store, you actually remove it, and nobody that comes into the store after you can buy it. Therefore the owner would loose the item's value. When you download something, the owner doesn't actually loose anything he paid for (or made himself), other then maybe prevent gaining from a new sale.

That said, I still think you're right overall, and downloading music as an alternative to buying it is completely wrong.
However, in my case it was downloading that got me into buying. I was never really into music, but started downloading a bit, and started liking music a lot. I didn't have the money to buy many cd's, so I kept downloading for a while and discovered a lot of new music I liked. And when I got my first job I made up for it And never really stopped (My mother still sighs when she sees my collection )

I think there must be some kind of "perfect balance" between downloading and buying. I'm not talking legal here, but more in a moral sense: In my opinion, you should be able to check out new music, and share between friends. But be honest and reasonable, and buy that which you listen to a lot.
Unfortunately, humanity isn't known for being honest when they can get away with it

Posted by: Fsgdjv May 21 2008, 03:39 PM

I have to say that I mostly agree with you, Marcus. I download music, quite a lot even, but then I also buy even more music. Downloading an album is good to check a band out, just like copying tapes was back in the days, but downloading and not buying an album is disrespectful. Same thing goes for downloading leaks, it's not fair imo. But obviously I'm a huge hypocrite, so I still download leaks, except that I have a feeling of guilt when I do it and I buy the albums on the release dates. This still doesn't make it ok to do, but as I said, I'm a hypocrite when it comes to that.

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 21 2008, 03:42 PM

I buy about 20 albums a month. I'm a bit of a fool with money but it's better than downloading the albums for free. I wish all the money went direct to the band but that can't happen I own 2500 albums (around), been to 302 concerts and bought hundreds of band t shirts lol. I support the bands I love. I think Pearl Jam have half the money I've ever earnt lol.

Posted by: Sam Hook May 21 2008, 04:50 PM

Do you honestly have time to listen to all of those albums all the way through more than once?

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 21 2008, 05:06 PM

Good point Jeff, cds for sure last much longer than vinyl, and yeah, learning solos was a lot of work back in the old days
But I have to say I like your idea about the Ferrari, I will look for a dealer and try to get one for free, I am sure he won't mind

@ Anarox: Your thought is not really correct. I earn money when somebody buys my cd. So yes, I lose money if you download it for free from the net. You are not stealing something physically, but you are getting something that you have to pay for, without doing so, you don't pay me for the work that I have done before. You have to see it like this, first I do my job, and I get paid for this only later, but if everybody downloads music, I don't get paid at all.

@ confusion: Pearl Jam? forget about them, invest your money in Blind Guardian from now on

Posted by: audiopaal May 21 2008, 06:36 PM

There is nothing like coming home putting on an album you've been waiting for and turn the volume up

I have to admit I download albums too, to see if I like it.
If I like it I buy it (..and I've bought maaaaaany albums )
I think I got about 1000 Cd's t the moment and a bunch of Compact Cassettes and LP's..
And I'm proud of my collection

If I don't like it, I'll delete it.
So for me the downloads is more of a preview, as it isn't as easy as before to go listen to them in a store.
In my younger days (not that I'm old..) it was fun walking down to my favourite music store and pick out cd's to listen too, but now there's fewer stores, usually crowded and most of the time they don't have the album I'm looking for.

So for me it's good to be able to download something to check it out.

I don't feel like I'm doing something illegal, although I probably am..

And I've bought all your albums Marcus so at least you can't be mad at me

Posted by: Canis May 21 2008, 06:53 PM

Quoted for truth

I've been wondering something, and who better to ask then someone from within the game itself, like Blind Guardian? =)
How much money do you get for each album you sell? I'm not snooping around to find out how much money is on your paycheck I mean like, do you get some percent of each album/concert you do, or do most of the money go to the record company, or something like that?
And do you earn less now then before, because of the copying?

Posted by: Tjchep May 21 2008, 07:43 PM

Didn't read the whole post.. but I read enough to tell you about my experiences.

My attitude has changed a bit towards music defiantly the only albums that I really wait for are my favorite bands and some instrumental stuff. Because for the most part, there are not alot of really truely good new bands coming up. They are all blown up pop bands, which the guitarist only knows how to play a power chord.

The reason why I don't buy that much normal music that my peers would listen to is mainly because everyone has it.. you hear it on the radio.. you have people talking about it all the time and theres just no point to waste your money on what are potentially studio mock ups.

I have just lost a bit of respect to alot of bands out there because alot go from being a garage band never even gigged before, then to being a headliner on warped tour or something.

But music is cheap anyways.. its much easier to download full quality songs than to download a crappy quality song off limewire..

Posted by: blindwillie May 21 2008, 08:33 PM

Well put Tony and Daniel.
Wish I could express myself that clearly in english.

At least in Sweden, and I know in other countries too, copying is NOT stealing. Per definition in the law text.
It's illegal yes, but it is not stealing.

And the fact that something is written in law texts doesn't make it the right and an absolute truth. We still have the right and should debate the purpose of laws, what value and justice they bring and to whom. If we think they are wrong we should work to change them.
It was legal to download any copyrighted material in Sweden up 'til 3 years ago (I'm uncertain about the time).
Would you say that before the law change everything was OK? If so, was it wrong to change it? Who tried to change it and why? We already had a law regulating this.
And now, just because there is another decision everything is upside down, but it is still OK because it is the law?
That law was enforced very hasty and under circumstances that has been much debated.

In an african country, unfortunatly I don't remember which one, they claim to be the biggest movie producing country in the world. They claim that Hollywood produce 600 movies a year, Bollywood 1200 and this country 1600 movies a year. In a country that lacks any kind of copyright laws. Bootleggers don't sell domestic CDs because the pirated copies gets as expensive as an original, so noone buys a copy. There goes the argument that we have to have copyright regulations to encourage creativity. Try to find a documentary called "Good copy, bad copy".

The historical meaning of the word copyright is exactly what it says. From the start it was not a way to give the creator certain rights or encouregement. It was a monopoly given by the government (in England) to a selected few publishers to enforce censorship. "If you follow our directives you will get the exclusive right to print this". Copy-right. They also got the right to raid non-authorized publishers and demolish their equipment. Very convenient for the government.

Posted by: Joe Kataldo May 21 2008, 08:46 PM

100% agree with you, only think I'd like to add is that price of cds at least in my county are to high and this accentuate more the illegal sharing, I don't know you, but I can perfectly hear the difference between an 128 Kbps mp3 and a real one, I still buy what I really like, but sometime, High price really take you to the dark side of sharing

Posted by: Toni Suominen May 21 2008, 09:10 PM

I agree with you Marcus, your story has definitely made me appreciate my album-collection more. The feeling of going out and buying an album and really holding it in your hands is really great, something that just downloading it off the internet cannot do.

Posted by: black and white May 21 2008, 10:34 PM

This is the US legal definition of copyright. Not sure if, or how things are applied in other countries. It seems to indictate that the author has the right to distribute his creation. When you copy without permission from an author, you are infringing on that persons right since he has no authority to grant you access to his work. When you purchase, you are actually entering into a pre agreed contract. For this dollar amount, you can use this material. I am not sure at all how things work in other countries and if they do not have the same rules (laws) then one would not be stealing in that country. Whether it is ethical is another question, but technically you would not be stealing IMHO. Good points you bring up BlindWille. interesting how there can be so many different laws in different countries.....and there in lies a lot of the problem. The internet crosses so many countries....and there are not any real laws...........Tricky problem.

copyright
1) n. the exclusive right of the author or creator of a literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not use) and to give it to another by will. As soon as a work is created and is in a tangible form (such as writing or taping) the work automatically has federal copyright protection. On any distributed and/or published work a notice should be affixed stating the word copyright, copy or ©, with the name of the creator and the date of copyright (which is the year of first publication). The notice should be on the title page or the page immediately following and for graphic arts on a clearly visible or accessible place. A work should be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by submitting a registration form and two copies of the work with a fee which a) establishes proof of earliest creation and publication, is required to file a lawsuit for infringement of copyright, c) if filed within three months of publication, establishes a right to attorneys' fees in an infringement suit. Copyrights cover the following: literary, musical and dramatic works, periodicals, maps, works of art (including models), art reproductions, sculptural works, technical drawings, photographs, prints (including labels), movies and other audiovisual works, computer programs, compilations of works and derivative works, and architectural drawings. Not subject to copyright are short phrases, titles, extemporaneous speeches or live unrecorded performances, common information, government publications, mere ideas, and seditious, obscene, libelous and fraudulent work. For any work created from 1978 to date, a copyright is good for the author's life, plus 50 years, with a few exceptions such as work "for hire" which is owned by the one commissioning the work for a period of 75 years from publication. After that it falls into the public domain. Many, but not all, countries recognize international copyrights under the "Universal Copyright Convention," to which the United States is a party.

Posted by: petar64 May 21 2008, 11:42 PM

I agree with you Marcus, but not in all points.

For me, the internet is to blame. I think that the internet and the "virtual world" changed peoples inhibitions.
They dont have the feeling that they are doing something wrong and criminal because its like virtual.
I think that most of the people who download music illegally from the internet would never go to a real shop, take a real physical cd and steal it. They would not dare because they are afraid that they get caught by the police. But when they download the music from internet, they are at home, alone, nobady sees or blames them so they dont have the feeling that they are steeling something.

I compare it with the fact, that in our modern civilization many people run into big depts because they buy in online shops and pay with creditcard. They dont have the feeling that they spend a lot of money. When you go to a real shop and pay with real and hard earned money you will think twice what you buy.

I also cant hear this excuses anymore from younger people like "i dont have the money so i have to download "ahm...steal" it"
This doesnt make it legal. Everybody is having things he cant effort and is not stealing it. Its my lifetimedream to have an own house but i dont have the money to buy one. So what? Should i go and steal one? sure not.

You are right, there has always been copying. I remember when i was young (long time ago ) i also made copys from LPs to tapes or from radio to tapes. And there will always be copying because the internet helps here as well - you dont need to know somebody who owns the album- you can find everythiing in the net.

I have a big CD- and still a LP-collection at home (not to forget the computer games). I have my favourite groups and from them i own every album. Sure i also download things from time to time. When a group is new to me i want to check if i like it. And when i like it I buy the CD. Not only because i love to have originals and love the booklets.

Its a benefit for me as well. If a band can live from their Music they will go on making more good music - and I can enjoy it.

Petar

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 09:13 AM

I don't even have time to listen to them once a lot of the time lol But I always whack them on my i-pod so they will come up eventually. I have 80,000 tracks on there. About 6 months of music

Posted by: Hisham Al-Sanea May 22 2008, 09:14 AM

nice topic Marcus i agree with you

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 09:15 AM

I had a question actually Marcus that I don't know if you have answered. What do you think of people downloading live concerts by your band or any band that aren't available to buy and that you are unlikely to release?

Posted by: Juan M. Valero May 22 2008, 11:42 AM

I don't think that copy kills music. The most important for a band are the concerts, so I think it's better when lot of people listen your music... of course if download something and you like it the best is buying the CD, but if need to choose in what spend my money I'll choose in going to a concert of the band better than getting his CD.

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 11:44 AM

But bands don't get to play big enough concerts to get money if they don't sell enough albums.

Posted by: Juan M. Valero May 22 2008, 11:57 AM

mmm yeah, that's true

Posted by: Trond Vold May 22 2008, 11:59 AM

I fully agree with everything you said Marcus.

I download quite a bit of music though, but to me it's more of a quality-check then just settling for a copy. Kind of like listening through the album in a store with the exception that you dont have a grumpy storeclerk waiting for you to finish
If i like it i will buy it as soon as i can.

The same goes for movies and such. If i like a movie, i wont settle for a crummy and compressed divx/xvid. But problem is that most movies i'm after are nearly impossible to find on dvd or vhs.
I sometimes have to settle for a copy made by another collector.
Same thing probably applies to people thats after more obscure music, with bands that only release limited cdr's etc.

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 11:59 AM

I know a lot of signed bands early on which have toured and actually spent the same as they earnt or spent more than they earnt.

Posted by: Toni Suominen May 22 2008, 12:25 PM

Btw Marcus, do you know how albums leak to the internet before they are released? I've always wondered this, and I know that before an album is released, it is sent to journalists in music magazines etc. for reviews and such. Does this cause the album to be leaked? like does some journalist upload it into the internet or something?

Posted by: superize May 22 2008, 12:58 PM

have been following this thread very much and after reading everyones thoughts i got a bad conscience so i ordered three cheap albums. Follow the blind by Blind Guardian, Fantasy By Insania and Rhapsody live in canada. I got all of theese for ábout 30 dollars(Shipping included). So there are cheap albums to find.......

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 01:01 PM

sheap lol. Twice

Do you mean sheep or cheap

Posted by: superize May 22 2008, 01:03 PM

Yeah sorry about that

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 22 2008, 01:06 PM

Thanks a lot for all your comments guys.

@ Petar: Of course most of those people would never go to a record store and just steal a cd, they would be way too afraid to be caught. But at home, all alone, hiding behind their monitors, they feel safe, so they have no problems with downloading. Still I can't blame the internet for this. The internet is nothing but a tool, that can be used, and also abused. The internet itself does not distribute pirated copies of cds, people do this.

And about this aspect of downloading some songs to check out a band, as I said before, I do this myself from time to time, I also got too lazy to go to a shop and look for the album I don't think this is a big problem, as long as you buy the cd in case you like it. As I said, the internet can be a great way to promote your band.

about this money thing, I guess it is not a big secret that a big part of the money that you guys pay for a cd stays with teh record company or the distributors, the shop itself also wants to earn a bit, but it is not that I as a musician only get a few cents, I earn a bit more from record sales. But all this depends on the status of the band too of course, a big and established band will for sure be able to get a much better contract than a young newcomer.

About leaking albums, unfortunately there are many possible ways for an unreleased cd to end up on the net. One source is press, yes. It happened many times already that promo copies have been sent to magazines for reviews, and on the next day the album was online. Thats the reason why many bands don't give away any promo copies anymore, instead of this there are listening parties where press people can listen to the album as much as they want, but they don't get copies anymore. Another source is the actual production of the album. At some point you will have to give away the master, so the final cds can be produced, and you can almost be sure that a few days later the album is online...

And about the question if Blind Guardian is affected by downloading, there is just one answer: yes, we are, any band on this planet is, the musician that answers this question with no is lying!

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 22 2008, 01:13 PM

Did you see my question here Marcus? It has always interested me.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 23 2008, 10:21 AM

Sorry, I didn't oversee your question, I just forgot to answer Well, bootlegs are something different for me, if somebody finds a bootleg somewhere on the internet and he wants to download it, fine for me. Personally I prefer the two official BG Live-albums over all the bootlegs that there are from my band, but this is just my personal opinion of course, and I also used to collect bootlegs for a while. Well, actually I still do, I collect Blind Guardian bootlegs, but not because I would listen to them, I just want to have them

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 23 2008, 10:31 AM

I buy the live albums but some bands best shows are never released so I have to have them I like what Pearl Jam do. They record every show and have official bootlegs so you can download any show you go to within 24 hours of it ending or purchase a real copy. They do about 1000 copies of each show. It's great. Any chance of BG doing this?

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 23 2008, 10:41 AM

I doubt, this would mean we would have to carry our recording gear with us all the time, we had enough of that on the "night at the opera" tour, when we recorded 40 shows all around the world.

Posted by: OrganisedConfusion May 23 2008, 10:45 AM

Fair enough. I guess it is a lot of extra equipment to take around.

Posted by: blindwillie May 23 2008, 12:53 PM

Hahaha. That was a tiny bit weird

Posted by: Orlandun May 23 2008, 09:06 PM

I pretty much agree with everything Marcus said on this one. I have always bought my albums. I hate having buying just mp3 copies because i always liked having the actually cd and the booklets. Sure i make mp3s to throw on my player but i can't listen to that stuff in my car. When i first starting listening to Blind Guardian i started buying cd's and getting into music. When ANATO came out i rushed to the local bestbuy to pick it up. I recently did the same thing with the most recent Ayreon album, I did it with the New iced Earth album, I did it with A Twist in the Myth. To me there is a level of excitement you get from buying a cd, ripping off the plastic, putting it into the car stereo and blasting it on your way home. Even things that are new releases but simply new albums i have never heard before, I get excited waiting for the disc to. If no one else is going to put money down for this awesome music then somebody has to and that somebody might as well be me. i ahve a friend that pirates every piece of music he owns. He has 2 or 3 cd's that he bought himself and thats it. I remember one day he was complaining that one of his favorite bands, a ska band from Japan, never comes to the Us. The way i saw it he was only hurting those chances by downloading all their music rather then buying it. After that comment he simply laughed at me and said why pay money when he had the internet.

I would be lying if i said i had never burned a cd for someone or taken a cd from someone else. However just like you we traded these cd's to try out music and spread around our favorite bands in hopes that their popularity would grow a little bit. I had a specific blind guardian mix i passed around to my other metal head friends of a few choice BG songs. 90% of the people i gave those to ended up loving your music and eventually ended up buying at least two cd's in a couple cases nearly all of your releases. I did similar things with bands like Iced Earth and Ayreon. Although im no longer in high school you used to be able to trace the small group of blind guardian and iced earth listeners straight back to me and a lot of these kids ended up buying many of their cd's. This results in more cd sales as a hole as well as more potential concert attendees. The other 10% just weren't too into the music for the most part and thats fine they probably wouldn't have bought the music anyways.. If i never handed out those mixes those people would have never bought those cd's, except maybe one or two of them who i hung out with alot so they frequently heard my music. I'm not completely against passing around a couple songs to promote bands and spread around musical taste but going online and ripping an entire bands cd collection only to listen to a few and forget about them to me is a bit of an insult to the music as well as the artists who depend on your sales to make a living.


I don't like the route of a digital distribution only market and i hope solid copies of music always continue to exist. Although the creation of the i tunes store has had many benefits to the industry and allow you to buy just the songs you want. Because lets face it, how many times have you bought a cd because you heard one or two cool songs only to realize most of it was crap. I know this is the reason some people download alot of their songs because they only want one or two off the album anyways. people shouldn't be afraid to share music here and there. Maybe with a downlaod to check out a band your unfamiliar with. But when it comes down to it, support the bands and buy the albums you like and go out and buy them.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen May 23 2008, 10:28 PM

I absolutely agree with everything you said!

Posted by: Enucleation May 23 2008, 11:22 PM

I agree with Marcus on the download thing. I used to download music but not anymore.

I think it's one thing if you are saying "hey, listen to this band *send mp3 of like one song*" but another if you burn a CD for someone. I mean, yeah I've burned plenty of albums for people, but I don't intend to anymore, I remember I got friggin angry when my mom wanted me to burn Nightwish for her and I ended up having to do it for my brother and his girlfriend, and yeah it's good theya re getting some good music but...BLAH.

Also, I admit not too long ago I downloaded a few songs, but it was really a different thing, I went on youtube and downloaded a video of the song Make Them Suffer by Cannibal Corpse and reverted it to audio but, like Marcus said its a bad quality recording and I still want to go buy the album. I've done this to a few other songs and I do in some sense regret it though.

So no more downloading AT ALL for me. (well the whole "hey check these guys out" scenario may be different.)

Posted by: Aranox May 26 2008, 08:53 PM

Ouch, the guilt hit hard when I read that.

Sorry for nitpicking like that, but it's my programmer nature...
I just can't help myself

Posted by: Gerald May 29 2008, 09:27 PM

What if I listen to the radio and I make a tape of songs from the radio. I didn't download it illegally, and there is no disclaimer I have never heard on the radio which says, do not copy or reproduce. So is it illegal for me to distribute a tape/cd of songs downloaded from a radio station?

Personally I don't download music. I do this http://pandora.com - I think it's the compromise between getting music for free and the people who put the work in getting a kick back.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jun 1 2008, 05:30 PM

Recording music that is played on the radio is not illegal. Radio stations pay royalties for every song they broadcast, like this the artist is paid for his work. I have no idea how this works with all those internet radios though. "regular" radio stations for example have to make lists of every song they play, but I doubt that every internet radio is doing this.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Jun 2 2008, 11:02 AM

Hmm I often download music, to try some bands, and if they are good, I buy them. Also if I am going to a music festival with many bands that I don't know good enough, I sometimes download their "best of" to know the songs I will hear on the show.

Anyway I buy the cd later if I find it okay, if not, I am not listening to it, and it will disappear from my disc sooner or later. Another things is, that here in Poland cd's are really expensive, because we earn much less than "westerners" and cd's are often more expensive than in those richer countries. For example, buying all Blind Guardian albums took me 3 months, because I couldn't afford all of them at once. If I would earn more, I would probably buy much more cd's, but because I don't earn more, I try the music first, and after that buy it, or put it in my computer bin, and forget about it.

Posted by: tonymiro Jun 2 2008, 11:45 AM

Taping AM/FM radio broadcasts is allowed in the UK, USA, Australasia and probably most of the so called 1st world provided it is done under 'fair use' for personal use only. Back in the 1980s the BPI (UK) and the RIAA (USA) tried to make home taping against the law but eventually settled for 'fair use' - including home video. 'Fair use' pretty much means you can tape for your own private, non-commercial use and came about - I think - from the Sony US vs Universal Studios court case back in the early/mid 1980s where Sony argued for, and won in US court, home video tapes as a 'fair use' form of 'time shifting' films and tv broadcast.

In the UK ALL radio stations, including all digital formats and internet radio, are required by law to have a broadcast license and a transmission license and the area is overseen by Ofcom, and albeit that digital licenses are different to analogue (DAB licenses for instances are issued to the holder of the multiplex). Failure to comply is an act of broadcast piracy. I think a similar situation prevails elsewhere. WRT Internet radio the USA RIAA has already managed to get the US Congress to pass a bill that would require receivers to incorporate DRM technology. In the case of Digital Subscription radio the RIAA has also already reached an outline agreement with the two major US Digital Subscritption radio broadcasters. I would assume that in the UK the BPI will do similar.

Where the difference seems to lie is that the BPI and RIAA etc view digital recording and transmission as different to analogue because there is no deterioration in quality between 1st and successive generations of copies. That thus allows multiple 'perfect' copies to be produced from a single source.

Slightly differently AIM (Association of Independent Music) has argued for a return to the days when recordable tape (music and video) carried a tax to cover copyright. AIM however want ISPs to be taxed for hosting file sharing - sort of a broadcast license.

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: Gitarrero Jun 24 2008, 02:17 PM

Hi Everyone,
being a new member I'd like to give my opinion on that topic.
I used to download some music a few years ago to get to know some bands better. I might have heard a song or two on the radio that I really liked and so I turned on the computer and got more songs. This is how I discovered at least half of my fav bands. Later I went to the ecord store to get their newest albums, so I think I'm pretty much like Marcus. Actually, this is how I discovered BG! But I agree, most people don't have that attitude and simply download, never buy or delete anything.
I must say, the bands that I downloaded and liked got money from me, because I either bought their records later or went to their concerts, and I think if everybody did this, the industry wouldn't have to worry so much.
Actually, some bands (like Pennywise) give their new albums or some songs away for free (for a limited period of time).
What do you think about that, Marcus?
Grüße aus Münster
Gitarrero

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jun 24 2008, 06:51 PM

Giving away some songs for free for that limited time might be a great tool of promotion for the band, it might get many people interested in the new album, but unfortunately not every band is allowed to do this, it depends on your record contract too, some record companies will for sure be strictly against something like this. But in general, as I said before, I think the net can be used as a great promo tool, it just has to be used in the right way.

Posted by: Iron King Jun 25 2008, 10:52 AM

man, I just had an argument with a friend over this.
We were at Heavy MTL (a heavy metal festival) and we saw a band that neither of us knew too well. After the show we were both impressed and he told me: "Those guys are good, I gotta download some of their stuff tonight", to which I responded: "you mean BUY"... it went on from there. He used the argument that big bands make more money off concerts and merch, blah blah

I really don't understand how people think downloading is ok. Using my friend as an example, we both work at a video game company. If somebody just downloads our games (which I'm sure thousands have) our jobs become meaningless. Honestly, it doesn't really affect me in terms of salary (although it could if enough people do it), but it's a simple issue of respect. The people that download just completely ignore all the months of long hours and all our emotions and love that goes into what we make.

anyway, back to your original post. I think you are right on a lot of points. The music industry today seems to be all about mass consumption. We have so many artists that sound the same. It's obvious that these aren't seasoned musicians, they are simply people that fit the mold so that they can be exploited to fit a current trend in mainstream music.

I find that the consumerist aspect of modern music is really ruining the art. It goes beyond the fact that so many bands have short life spans, and put out albums with 1 good song. I find that the simple act of going to purchase a cd to be a pain now. Large record companies have driven many of the small spots out of business. I used to go down to a hardcore/metal store, chat with the employees, have them recommend me some music (they would know because they also loved the music) and maybe purchase a ticket to a local band's show. Now all I have near me is massive store. The staff there usually don't give a **** about the music, and obviously can't help you unless you are looking for something extremely popular. You're no longer treated like a fellow music enthusiast, you're just money to them. It seems like browsing and listening is strongly discouraged now. Go in, buy something within 5 minutes or leave... sheesh

anyway I got off topic, sorry about that

I do have some downloaded stuff, but it's only really poor quality songs that were recorded in the 80's and were never commercially released

oh and Marcus, don't worry I've never stolen from you
In fact I recommended Blind Guardian to a friend over the weekend... don't worry about her either. She's an old school hardcore/metal fan, she refuses to download anything... in fact she hates all digital media... same here

Posted by: Canis Jun 25 2008, 12:25 PM

About internet as a promotion source: I think the answer is YouTube.
Lately, I think it has reduced the dowloading of music significantly, since it's easier just to click your way in there, search for a song and listen to it on the fly. I've done that with all new bands I've heard lately. Easy way to find out if I should buy an album or not, if the rest of the bands music is good.

Posted by: Gitarrero Jun 25 2008, 12:41 PM

That's right, since I've disovered youtube, I'm looking for new bands there.
But then again, you find lots of new albums there, all the songs are available because someone uploaded them with just one picture as a "video", and with the right software you could easily get them this way, which (i guess) might even be legal. So I think something should be done about this.

Posted by: DeepRoots Jun 25 2008, 12:54 PM

Not legal.

The person who uploaded those songs to youtube more than likely didn't have permission from the copyright holder.

Ofcourse, it is their responsibility to get it removed from youtube, however doesn't make it legal for you to copy.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jun 25 2008, 01:18 PM

Youtube is also a nice way to check out bands, but yeah, I also seriously doubt that all the copiright holders gave their ok for all the stuff that is online on youtube. It is funny to see that the industry is going nuts about filesharing, but nobody even comments on youtube...

Posted by: tonymiro Jun 25 2008, 03:26 PM

YouTube has content deals with a lot of the big media companies and shares advertising revenue with them and also acts to take down any material that breaches copyright when notified. In doing that - responding by taking down material that infringes copyright - YouTube relies on the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. However whether or not YouTube's interpretation of that Act would be good enough to withstand a legal challenge...

Cheers,
Tony

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jul 9 2008, 09:53 AM

I just read an article that said youtube is just being sued by the music industry for copyright violations...

Posted by: Antonio23 Aug 21 2008, 12:47 PM

i totally agree that music has become just consumable.
well i can´t lie,i´ve downloaded lots of songs,but i love them all.there isn´t a single song i haven´t heard.some of the songs i downloaded,i did it because i couldn´t find the cd in any store.but i have a big colection of cds too and i have a great pashion for music(i am waiting for a long time for metallica´s death magnetic and for the new rammstein album(wish im not sure when it will come out)

Posted by: Henry Dietzel Aug 21 2008, 01:51 PM

I'm surprised it took the industry this long to act. It will be interesting to see the outcome. I am still puzzled why sites like powertabs.net were closed after publishers sued but guitarpro tabs are still active. I figured I'd keep my 2 cents out of their forums before they end up taking GP offline too.

As far as your original post I couldn't agree with you more. I personally would rather have the originals and not copied or bootlegged albums. After reading your post it brought me back to my younger days waiting in line at the record store when use your illusion hit shelves. I remember the line was out the door and around the block

Ahhhhhhh.......the good ol days

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Aug 24 2008, 12:07 PM

hehe, I have never really been into Guns 'n' Roses, but yeah, I was waiting in line for The number of the beast

Posted by: Tiltil Oct 1 2008, 10:20 AM

"Copy kills music" is definitely a false phrase in my eyes. Without an old schoolmate haven given me a copy of The Bard's Song live, you guys might never have profited from the shirts, cds and the concert tickets i bought to see you play ! I think a personal copy and a free distribution of information is essential for a wide range of musical variety. And imagine people like Paul Potts, if he had just been on British TV with his act, and not been viewed on youtube over a million times, he'd probably still be selling cell phones.

In my opinion the economical success of a band lies very much in the way they are linked to their fans. Take my favourite band for example: Böhse Onkelz. I have even more cds and tshirts of them than i have of BG (Sowwi ). As well as you guys, they are (or were) simply authentic.
Now compare that to any of the "hyped" bands around (people like Madonna.. or casted bands). They are not authentic, people do not identify with them, they have nice voices, even the songs can be good.. but what does that count? People don't feel the urge to support them as "their" band.

It is possible that many music labels will cease to exist on a long run. But I don't see any alternative, at least not one where my civil rights are tarnished, just because some lobby guys can't think of a different way to earn cash.

To sum it up: A band, which manages to create a connection between themselves and (potential) fans by hard work (lyrically, musically, gigingly <- ) will never have anything to worry about in my opinion. The others, well, I don't know about you, but I don't really care.

Regards.

Edit: Whoops, just saw this topic is a month old already. Forgive me for bumping ^^

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Oct 2 2008, 12:05 PM

No need to be sorry, better late than never

Posted by: Tono Fyr Jan 13 2009, 05:25 AM

A friend of mine likes to argue that I "Waste money" when I buy CDs, because I'm "paying for data" and because bands don't tend to see much out of record sales (that's the perception, anyway, when, in fact, selling records almost directly translates into tour dates, aka the main source of income for most bands), however, I disagree completely, for not on the previous reason, but also because of this simple fact:

I'm not simply paying for data. I'm paying for the hours, days, weeks, months, YEARS, of blood, sweat, tears, heart, and hard work put into each song, the creativity, the artistry, everything. The sum total of that alone makes it worth it, in my opinion. My 15 dollars is well worth all the time and effort put into an album.

I will say, however, that I feel that using downloads as a source of advertisement is a brilliant strategy. Many albums that I've downloaded have since become a part of my personal collection (or have been deleted from disinterest), and I will say that my first exposure to Blind Guardian was through Downloading, and that considering that I now own all of your studio albums, one of your singles, and the Live DVD, I'd say that you've made quite a fan of me. It's good to see that you see the potential for this as a way of attracting fans.

I also rushed to the store when ATITM came out.

Posted by: kahall Jan 13 2009, 06:34 AM

I don't think I ever posted my thoughts on this. If I did here is another and hopefully I am not repeating myself as I often tend to do. ;-)

I work on PC's on the side for friends and co-workers. I would say that 50-60% of the problems they have are from illegal downloading using whatever the latest and greatest software out there. Usually it is still limewire. When I tell them they should really not be using it they just do not understand my reasons. Besides the fact that there is a small chance you will get busted it can really cause all kinds of problems if you do not know what you are doing.
Some will actually argue that since they could technically record any of the songs while a radio station is playing it ( I did that a lot when I was a kid on a reel to reel.) that it should be ok. I usually tell them that radio stations do not regularly play whole albums for that very reason.
I have an acquaintance who was recently hired for a city in some kind of legal department. They mentioned limewire and using it after only working there for a few months. Their co-workers hushed em up real quick telling them not to mention it in the office etc. This person called me a few days later on how to get rid of all of the evidence so I helped out. They really wanted to keep the job and it all worked out, but they seriously had no idea it was illegal.

Posted by: utak3r Jan 13 2009, 08:47 AM

Let me tell about my point of view...

Yes, I do download mp3's. Why? Because it's the only way of finding out what new music I'd like to listen to. If I find something really cool - I go and buy it. I don't have a problem with buying music, but I don't like buying a cat in a bag, I just have to listen to it - and not for 10 minutes in a store, but for several days.

The other problem is record label's selling politics. The price for a LP is really from their heads, and telling that copying music renders musicians modest - that's not true. It is true in situations, where the music were made with an independent label - that's where if robbed, it has a straight impact on musicians. BUT - independent labels have normal prices (I don't know hot it looks in US or somewhere else, but here in Poland CDs from big labels are insanely expensive).

So... my way is - if I find a good music, worth of listening to it - I go and buy this LP legally. If I couldn't make it this way - I just wouldn't buy it, because I can't afford buying a CD which I don't know if I even like it. My downloads ain't making anybody more modest - because I wouldn't buy it either way, so.... but the chances are that I will make them more rich - if I find this music worth of buying...


That's just my point of view...




ahh, one more thing - singles in radio stations... they won't tell if you if a LP is good or not... you know the singles are the best pieces from an album, right?.... Besides, radio stations play usually a crap not even worth of listening to
So I thank for example LastFM - I can reasearch for some interesting music via this service.

Posted by: enforcer Jan 13 2009, 01:31 PM

Well IMO, there are two aspect of this illegal downloading stuff.

Firstly, there are ways to listen to music by avoiding the illegal aspect of this downloading stuff. For example few months ago, I noticed that Iced Earth released two new albums, one in 2007 (Framing Armageddon) and one other in 2008 (Crucible of Man), since I was generally disappointed with my original buy of Glorious Burden, I wasnt sure if I wanted to buy these, so I found a PROMO copy of these two albums, which was great to check out because these copies were roaming freely on the NET. So I listened to them, liked them and went to a local shop and buy them. At this point I disagree with people saying "I dont have money to buy music" stuff because a CD is not a goldbar, if in a week, you dont go out as much as you usually do, you dont eat at your favorite restaurant and eat at home, you can easily spare money to buy original cds.

I agree people on saying you dont have to be paying for data, but one thing is different here, MUSIC IS NOT SOME RANDOM DATA! This is actually precious work of some very creative man, they care for it, they love it as they would love their children and they share it for our lives to get richer. I am sure, lots of musicians would share it for free if the process of recording an album was free. But it is not, I know and say it as I musician who had to pay these costs from his pocket to release his own album. Yes our band worked really hard and made gigs for virtually free for about half a year to be able to cover the cost of our albums.

Make no mistake, I dont believe that bands and musicians would go out of bussiness and wont have a coin after all that illegal downloads, imo, a musician has to gain money by giving concerts, and as long as he performs his music, not by sitting in his CASTLE drinking old brew and eating caviar. But paying for an album has nothing to do with this paying for an album is actually respecting his hardwork and covering his expenses.

I agree that you have all the rights in the world to have free basic information but music, movies, comics etc are LUXURIES! And you have to pay for these things to provide the continium of this luxuries.

Cheers,

Can

Posted by: audiopaal Jan 13 2009, 02:28 PM

Well said mate

Posted by: tommyboy Jan 13 2009, 02:57 PM

Having dealt with this issue head on as a photographer I'll chip in my two cents. Since copyright pertains to mediums much more than just the music industry I'm going to use my experience as a professional photographer to make my point.

When I started in photography film was the only medium, digital wasn't even on the horizon. Cameras weren't as fool proof as they've become and taking a really great photo was the photographers understanding of the lighting conditions as well as having mastered his equipment and subject matter.

People used to ask me all the time how can you charge $50.00 for a 8x10 photo. They would say they could get one printed at there local corner lab for under $5.00. My answer was always the same. But not with the image I took on the paper. I tried to educate people into understanding that it's the creative art that your paying for. A piece of photo paper without the image was just a plain piece of paper.

This is the exact same problem with music. People are not looking at a song a as a wok of ART! It's just a computer file. Peoples thinking and mentality is the problem today. With the way the world is today art isn't in the forefront but in the background of most peoples lives. It's everywhere, TV, Radio, Internet, Billboards, etc. but people aren't looking at it as art. It's now called advertising, entertainment, etc.

Ok, now back to photography. I loved being a photographer, I was quite good and made very good money at it. However, when digital came out I was not impressed but I could see the writing on the wall. I was either going to have to change over or become a dinosaur. I decided to sell my studio and get out verses go down a path I was going to be unhappy with.

Alright, now here's what I think the root of the problems lies. With all the new digital technology artists aren't appreciated for what they are producing. Sure, a loyal fan of a band might rush to the record store to buy their latest album (creative works, art piece, etc.). But the casual fan will not. However, with todays media formats producing a perfect copy is as easy as a click. Copying has become ok because it's easy and you can do it right as home on your own computer. So it doesn't really feel like your doing anything wrong. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. I think in some respects all the new technology is doing more harm than good when it comes to the arts. But that's a whole other debate.

Art is kind of like wine. You have your everyday $5.00 bottle and your once in a lifetime $1000.00 bottle. Until people perceptions change art in society will continue on this slow decay and the true meaning of art will be lost in obscurity.

So I really do think Copy Kills Music because it minimizes the artists creation. Perception is 80% of reality. Gibson Les Pauls have a perception of being great guitars. However, not all Les Pauls are great. Until people start appreciating the artists and there contributions better this problem will only get worse.

People always want to point the finger at the record companies. Without them many of the great musicians we know today would still be playing in obscurity.

tommyboy

Posted by: Jose Mena Jan 22 2009, 10:55 PM

Nice topic, it is old but I am glad someone revived it. I can't believe that someone actually approached you with mp3s on dvds for you to sign, that is outrageous.

What you have said here is so true, even the same people that used to buy music before, don't anymore, I know older guys that have ipods full of mp3s that were given to them by their kids or grandkids.

I still buy what I like, 1. to support the bands and 2. I like to have the lyrics, artwork read the story behind songs, whatever the band wants to tell me.

But as has been said here, people's minds have changed, they don't view music as they did before, you have said it the best way possible comparing it to fast food.

However I believe this file sharing has its positive outcomes, many bands I would have heard of if it wasn't for mp3 downloads and file sharing. So to me it seems like the Big Names such as Metallica might have lost some money, but allowed the little guys to be heard and even start a career??

I pose it as a question because I am not sure about this, just seems this way to me

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jan 23 2009, 07:10 PM

Better believe it Jose, it really happened... Somebody also came to the official BG forum and asked, where he could find the lyrics for the new album... well, they are printed in the booklet
Filesharing in general is for sure not the end of the music industry, music has always been copied and shared, but yes, the attitude of people changed, they don't see the value in art anymore, as the enforcer said people see mp3's not as music or art, those are just small data files that are online and available for free, so why pay for a cd? As long as people don't realise that a song is not just a 5 mb file, but actually a lot of work and devotion there is something wrong and a problem.

Posted by: 29a Jan 29 2009, 08:48 PM

Interesting topic indeed. I personally don't like CDs. I'm just too lazy to search for them, and I tend to break them. The first thing I do when I buy one is to copy it to my PC. And as I don't like to fiddle with stupid copy protection schemes I won't buy any copy protected cd. You ask why pay for a cd. I actually think that's a real question. For me, the only reason to buy a CD is to support the artist that created the music. But I don't need a CD. I don't need a booklet. I don't need a music store. And I don't need a label to decide what's good enough for me and what's not. And I certainly don't wanna feed lawyers that sue me for sharing music with my friends. The only thing I want is to support artists to create music. And legally listen to it, share it with friends and hell even post a cover of it on youtube.

There's a lot of so called music out there where I don't see a lot of hard work and devotion behind it. But may be I'm wrong there.

I don't think its because of file sharing that people value music less. I don't even know if this is true. Because for me and most people I know this is not true. It's quite the opposite indeed.

- Jonas

Posted by: Paiva Jan 29 2009, 09:12 PM

Hey cool thread I will just tell my example

Well I download some music not a lot tho because I just love the feeling about the CD (as you explained in the opening post) I love to get home after buying and just spend an afternoon listening to it and almost every time I do this with my father because he is a music lover too and has a huge collection of CD's and he encourages (sp?) to buy CD's if I really like the band. God damn I even bought all studio CD's by Led Zeppelin 30 years after they were released because I really like them and in hope that one day I can show them to my son or my younger cousin that is now 5 years old.

One of the things that you pointed out is the fact that we don't care much for the release well atleast in my case I'm not because most of the bands that I like are dead or not together or too old

And in my class mostly hip hop and rap listeners I encourage them to buy some CD's because it's different to listen to a single song download with limewire than listening to a whole CD

One thing that I also love to do is to buy DVD's I love like 2 weeks ago I bought G3 live in Tokyo I love to watch it and really concentrate on what they are playing and analyze their playings and stuff like that it's awesome!

Posted by: 29a Jan 30 2009, 02:02 PM

DVDs are cool. But most of them have bad audio quality instead of crystal clear surround sound.

- Jonas

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Jan 31 2009, 12:35 PM

I am not saying that nobody cares about music anymore, but unfortunately this seems to be a trend. I know people that share music among each others, but I am not talking about giving each other a cd once in a while, with a cool band that they discovered, I am talking about swapping whole hard discs, 100 gb every week! If you get 100 gigabyte of new music per week, do you really have the time to even check out all those bands??? I doubt...

Posted by: Marc_Maiden Feb 26 2009, 05:34 AM

looks like im a little late to the party here,


but i dont think there is a better feeling in the world, than when you find a band youve never heard of, and turns out to be awesome...

when i started liking rock/metal i listened a lot to the eagles..doing searches got me to iron maiden (which made me pick up my first guitar) and from iron maiden i met my first progressive/power metal bands...the first ones i couldnt stop listening to:

Blind Guardian
Sonata Arctica
Kamelot


i think though blind guardians "And then there was silence...." got me into really big epic music (long songs telling stories) this kind of interest lead me to symphony x which was at the top of my list of favorite bands with the songs such as "Divine Wings of Tragedy" and "The Odyssey"

it really is true how people (kids especially) dont really follow "music" anymore as in they dont wait for albums or really search for new music...they kinda go with the flow and hear what ever is on the radio or video games.

im fortunate though that we have the internet and forums like these where big communities can share ideas and thoughts about music...if i hadnt gone to the forums i did (Ibanez Forum, Shredguitars Forum, and GMC) i would probably be a snobby power chord playing guitar player who only like specific bands and thinks they are the best

Posted by: wrk Feb 26 2009, 09:31 AM

I was reading a few times in this topic that kids don't value music anymore and i don't understand from where this impression comes from ... there is such a wide range of different music existing today and it's growing every day, who is doing and listening to it, if it's not the todays generation?

People and kids have to search even more these days to find the music they like and they do this by searching unsigned musicians on youtube or myspace channels. Maybe they don't wait anymore that an album comes out, but i think it's not completely correct to think, if people don't value the packaging of an album anymore or the act of going in a shop to buy an album/CD, that they automatically don't value music anymore as well.

Funny is, i don't want to know what my parents were thing about the music i listened to when i was a kid and now those bands and music is part of the definition for "good" music. Values are changing, but to say that my values from these days are better then how it is today would make me feel very old suddenly

Posted by: Alex87 Feb 26 2009, 10:03 AM

I really like this topic! Think you have great opinions on this subject Marcus
Personally I buy alot of music, I never copy or download for two reasons:

1: I like sound QUALITY! I spend money on the right stereo and loudspeakers so I can turn the volume up and listen to great sounding music (regardless of the artist, lol). Besides no download quality song can ever be compared to a CD quality.
Also I check youtube sometimes for new bands, and if I like it I buy their album, even if it's for one song, which sends me to my second reason.

2: The size of a CD collection Nothing is better to look at what you been buying throughout the years. These days I think I reached about 400 CD's and counting. Some like it compact on a computer in files, but I enjoy the sight every day Yes I'm a geek

Also I'm kinda old school in a way, and I buy loads of LP's these days aswell. I like the analogue sound alot, I think it's the best you can get. Tho it's more sensitive ofcourse.

Posted by: jer Mar 17 2009, 08:46 PM

Merged from another topic
/Micke
From here

I cant find the original thread. I think it was called "Copy Kills Music"

Yeah, I searched for it. The search engine here in the forums is atrocious. Most forum ones are. You arent along GMC!


Anyway.... I was thinking. And before I say anything let me say this.

I'm aware that some people steal music. And I'm aware that people will use whatever excuse they can....

Anyway. Say you bought a new album. Via download from amazon, itunes. cd from the store, however.... You are free to put that on your ipod. Your PC. Make copies for personal use in the car, van, whatever... I'm assuming we are all ok with this.

Now, suppose, like me, you have converted EVERY SINGLE CD YOU OWN to a computer format and have your music on a hard drive for streaming all over your house via your network, ipod use, whatever.....

What if my cds got stolen? Do you think I should have to erase all of that music? I paid for the rights to it. I didnt sell the discs. They were stolen.

What if my house burned down? Now the originals were destroyed. But I grabbed the hard drive on the way out. Do I have to erase it now? Why should I have to buy it all again?

Thoughts?

Posted by: DeepRoots Mar 17 2009, 08:51 PM

Here you go:

http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=15593&hl=

Finding threads can be quite easy, go Search > more search options, the click the link for advanced search help- helps alot when trying to find that specific thread you lost

Posted by: Emir Hot Mar 17 2009, 08:56 PM

When I buy something I always make a backup of it. Nobody can say it's illegal, I paid for it. The moment I make a copy for a friend, that's illegal. At least that's my opinion which I hope makes sense. I wouldn't even care about the law if I am the only one who listens to it. In case of Ipod you have it in digital format so no need to worry that your CD is scratched. If you lose your Ipod you still have it in your Itunes library which is again yours and you paid for it. Next time you can synchronise it with your new device if you want.

Posted by: sigma7 Mar 17 2009, 09:02 PM

no, imagine this...

is it stealing when we let a friend borrow a cd, videogame, or movie?

Is it stealing when we just post up one song up on a website?

Is it stealing when you buy a cd and put it on your computer (like you)?

No, it is the hacker who takes the music from you who is in trouble





o yah, did ne1 here about this weird advertisement thingy where WB and Sony are trying to make P2P for them fair?

Like they are devising a way to make money themselves through people who file share on the internet, cool isnt it?

It is ridiculous how many people borrow off the internet, isnt it?

Posted by: Frederik Mar 17 2009, 09:09 PM

not stealing. cause eventhough u dont have the cd. u still have bougt the right. it might be hard 2 prove in court though

Posted by: sigma7 Mar 17 2009, 09:11 PM

i hate court i never win (speeding tickets)

Posted by: Frederik Mar 17 2009, 09:12 PM

i actually got 1 cancelled by writing a very clever complain

Posted by: sigma7 Mar 17 2009, 09:14 PM

nice, justice PREVAILS! haha

Posted by: Frederik Mar 17 2009, 09:17 PM

Posted by: jer Mar 17 2009, 09:32 PM

Thats the thing.

If you had the music but cant prove you ever bought the cd.

Anyone could say, oh yeah those were stolen out of my car! (one reason all the cds in my car are cdrs with mp3s. I've had too many cd wallets ganked from my car)

Nobody could prove or disprove it.

Posted by: Ajmurrell Mar 18 2009, 02:08 AM

One sure way they can press charges is if they have proof of you downloading and then sharing an illegal file via P2P.

All torrents have a tracker, telling the ISP exactly what it is you've been downloading and sharing. This is illegal whether you have bought the content previously or not because P2P starts sharing the second you have something downloaded.

ISP's have already started sending people mail in the UK warning them that the companys are aware of their sharing habits and will disconnect if it continues. Don't think any court trials have occured yet though.

Already people have devised a way of explaining this evidence, either by saying someone hacked in to their WiFi or someone else downloaded it while at the house.

Posted by: enforcer Mar 18 2009, 10:13 AM

Merged from another topic
/Micke
To here

You paid for it and you own ever possible right to copy it. You might not own the originals anymore due to some unfortunate incident, as long as you didn't sell your originals your copies are legal. Evenmore, you have rights to use cracks or patches to copy a video game or a dvd that has a copy protection but that you own. You have all the rights to download a emulator ROM of an arcade game if you own the actual arcade machine. You even have right to download the pirated version of an album that you already own but only if that is the exact version of what you own (not a live cd version if you own the album version for example) There isn't a slightest possibility that someone should come and ask you where your originals are, as long as you are not a part of a long piracy chain.

I really don't understand the behavior of some publishing companies. People started to show some great care for the campaign against piracy and immediately there they are trying to exploit that sensitivity...

Cheers pal!

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Mar 19 2009, 12:27 PM

I agree with you, if I buy a cd I have the right to make a backup for myself, I have the right to copy the songs to my computer and to my iPod, I do this myself, no problem. There is no law telling me that I am only allowed to listen to those songs via the cd, I can use all the options, so far, so good... in theory at least:

@ Enforcer: In Germany the law is very clear about this: If something (Game, cd, movie, whatever) is copyprotected, you are NOT allowed to bypass this protection in whatever way, no matter if you bought the cd and therefor own it. Cracking or bypassing any kind of copy protection is illegal here and therefor a crime. So no, in this country you are not allowed to copy a protected cd to your ipod or computer, or to make a backup of your newest movie, or to use a no.cd patch for your latest games, all this is officially forbidden here. No idea how it is in other countries, but here this is not allowed.

@ sigma: Your attitude is rather typical, many people say "But I only uploaded one song to my homepage..." Yeah, you uploaded only one song, 9 others uploaded only one song as well and immediately the whole album is online. Oops, what now? Where is the limit? Or to formulate it drastically, is it ok to go to a record store and steal only one single? After all it was only a single, not a whole album.

@ wrk: Sure kids still listen to music, but do they still really value it? I see many people trading hard disks with gigabytes of music every single week, they have no chance to even check out all those bands, not to mention really listen to those albums, how can you really value something that turns into this kind of fast food?

Posted by: sted Mar 19 2009, 12:50 PM

file sharing is here to stay, it is so ingrained into modern day life that any amount of court actions and campaigns simply isnt going to stop it, morally it is wrong to do it, but do music companies act in a moral way? I dont really buy mainstream music and prefer blues and stuff yet I can buy a chart CD for £8 but if i wanted an Eric Bibb CD it would cost me £18! There is no way that any music compny can justify that sort of price difference, all they are doing is exploiting the percentages. At the end of the day we live in a capitalist society that revolves around the profits demanded by all those involved, right up from the artist, agents, record companies, wholesalers and distirbutors all taking their cut, the internet and file sharing cuts all these people out and they lose out and start complaining instead of accepting that it will never change and adapting their business to suit, the car industry is the same, their refusal to change has led them into a blind alley from which there is no escape, the music industry should take note!
If I like a band and could purchase the music directly from them online I would gladly pay it as it would be way cheaper and I know the artist would get the proceeds, they are the only people I want to see make a living from the music.
I have heard of initiatives that dont charge for music downloads if you listen to a 30 sec advert, again the revenue is secured and the rights have not been infringed, they have had it all their own way for so long that I for one welcome all of it as it will benefit the cmmon man in the end, it is nothing short of a revolution for music fans and if the companies wont change their outlook and adapt their businesses to suit, im sorry but they only have themselves to blame!

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Mar 19 2009, 01:31 PM

I agree with you that the music industry will for sure have to face the internet and somehow learn to work WITH it, not against it, something that they failed (or refused) to do so far. But about this direct marketing, selling your music through your webpage directly to your fans, yes, this can work, but only if you are an established act that has a certain fanbase already. If you are an absolute newcomer you can't do it like this, simply because you don't have enough fans yet. If nobody knows you, who will come to your page and buy your music there, and like this pay your studio costs? of course you can also use Youtube and stuff like this to make yourself a name in the internet, but in my opinion this sounds much easier than it actually is.

Posted by: 29a Apr 2 2009, 09:01 PM

I think you'll have to agree that recording music has gotten cheaper over time. You it's now possible to record music in a reasonably fashion with a pretty small budget. So I don't think that's the issue.

About promotion, I partially agree with you here. I think were not yet at the point where artists can easily operate without the support of labels to promote them. At least for non mainstream music. Mainstream seems to adopt slower, may be because it's bigger.
I don't know how you get to know new artists but for me it's mostly through friends (or concerts). Some friend tells me "hey you might like this band, check it out". And I get an mp3, youtube link or similar. And honestly I like this. And I think this should be legal to do. In fact in Switzerland it is to some extent. I don't want some suit guys at a label to decide what I should hear based on some return on investment calculations they do.

From what I know the record labels job is:
- Filtering out the "good" music (where good is defined on the estimated profits)
- Support bands in producing more "good" music by paying for studios etc. (I'm note sure to what extent this is true)
- Promoting Bands
- Distributing/Selling Music
- (Annoying, offending and suing their customer base)
....

I think the Internet will be able to do all this things and probably most of them in a more efficient way. And the labels will either adopt to that and find their place in this new world (may be as platforms) or die. And I don't think this can be stopped. Even when doing extremely stupid things like censoring the Internet.

Now the problem is see is that we are in a transitional state right now. And I think there is one major thing missing. The support of the artists. Why is the support of the artists missing? I guess it's because it's not yet clear how to compensate them (and because they seem to be afraid of that Internet thing). Honestly? I'm not sure how that will work in the end. But I'm certain that one or many ways will be found. Also without the big overhead of the labels (how much do you earn per cd you sell?) musicians might actually earn more not less.

Copying or the Internet will definitely not kill music. But it could kill the music industry. And generally I wouldn't miss them.

- Jonas

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 01:07 AM

Well I am the first who thinks never to record an album again because of this. My 2 years of hard work is not made for torrents and other P2P things. Those songs didn't come from the clouds just like that. Someone had to sit and make all that. Not to mention money spent in the whole project. (I am even scared to talk about the exact number). If you think that copying is not killing music then I can't agree with that. I am sure many people are not happy about it. Firstly it killed the way of listening music. No more feelings about it. Marcus did a great comparison (this became like a fast food). How do you think we (artists/songwriters) can be motivated to continue if we're spending money for nothing. This should be like any other job. When you invest in something then it is logical that you wait for something to come back to you from sales, royalties, publishing etc... If everyone is downloading things for free, then this job becomes pointless. I really see no reason why I would do another album.

Posted by: Schumi Jr Apr 3 2009, 01:25 AM

To play devil's advocate, what about revenue from touring/live shows, other merchandise sales (t-shirts, stickers, DVD's, etc), and equipment sponsorship (albeit tiny compared to show revenue, etc)??

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shame the music itself has become so undervalued, but there are still many good reasons to release albums even if they are heavily pirated.

Here's a direct example: I can listen to a lot of stuff legally without "purchasing it" through my monthly Zune pass. So until recently Muse and Kamelot have only gotten my money through whatever pittance they receive through their distribution deals (I have no idea how much that is, but I'm guessing very little). However, this gave me exposure to them I wouldn't have had otherwise, and now Muse has made a lot more money off of me in the way of two t-shirts (wife is now a big fan), two concert tickets, and HAARP cd/dvd, and will be actively seeking future nearby shows. Same thing with Kamelot.

Posted by: Koopid Apr 3 2009, 06:18 AM

You have to make a name before selling merchendise. CD's or separate mp3's you can sell but merch takes a much bigger name than music.

I read yesterday that "Music should be free" and that was really stupid but to say that copy kills music is just not true. We have all copied music. It used to be tapes then CD's and mp3's. We recorded on taperecorders from radio and so on and we played it to our friends and then we bought the records. I buy records but I listen to them first illegaly, if I like 'em I buy 'em, if not I wont. I do buy more records now than before I could listen on youtube or download but that could also be because I make more money now than I did when I was younger. I am not justifying listening illegally to music, I am saying why I do it. I never buy anything without trying it first.

To be honest I think that it was the music industry that made the copying as big as it is today. When the CD first came it was cheaper to produce from day 1 than vinyls. Music industry still sold them for quite a lot more money than vinyls or tapes and CD's became very easy to copy and spread through computers and internet. If CD's were cheaper people would not have put so much time and effort into easy programs to copy and spread music. It would still happen but to a lot lesser extent than today. And today people have learned and made it so "accepted" so it is really no use stepping back and lower the prices now.

(Just for the comparasy in Sweden a couple of years ago the government raised the taxes on tobacco a LOT making the prices too high for normal people to buy hoping that they would stop smoking. People learned to import and buy illegal tobacco for much less and government earnings went down a lot but people still smoked nearly as much as before. The government backed and lowered the taxes but now people already learned to import.)

What I am mean is that hadnt the music industry gotten greedy people wouldnt had put as much effort into making copying so easy. People would still do it ofcourse (just like people used to import or buy illegal tobacco before the taxraise) but not to the same extent.

The sad thing is that it is the actual musicians that suffers and I am certain that it wasnt *them* that decided what prices CD's would sell for.

That said I almost completelly stopped downloading music since Spotify. I haven't gotten around to paying for premium yet but I will. For me it is perfect, I can listen to the records legally and know that the artists get some payment for their effort and it wont cost me extra the more i listen. The records I like I will buy. Unfortunatly some greedy artists (Metallica) and greedy record companies think that they will loose recordsales to Spotify and wont allow their records or songs on there. They don't understand that it is the downloaders that will use Spotify (or last.fm or similar) instead, the record buyers will still buy records.

Musicians should get payed for music, of course. But listeners should have a chance to know what they are buying.

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 08:53 AM

Sorry but I have to say that the last thing I was thinking about when I was making my record was that I'm gonna be selling t-shirts.

I really thought I would sell some CDs

Posted by: Frederik Apr 3 2009, 09:09 AM

I thing what needs to be done is a completly new approach to the music industry. Where people chooses to donate to the musicians they like. Because theres already so much music for free (youtube, etc) this way music manufactures and soulless producers will get cut out, and the musicians will be free to compose whatever they feel like


-Frederik

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 09:42 AM

We live in digital world and age where there is virtually not set standards and laws yet.

If there were harsh laws and penalties, and police would prosecute people who download things for free, it would be a different story I imagine.
I am not just talking about people downloading music and albums, I am talking about movies, tv shows, software etc. All this costs money and effort was put into it.
Police has to do a better job, form online piracy units and start shutting down website, prosecuting people who spread piracy etc

Do you think regular person would download music for free if they hear every other day that somebody from their country city or area was fined 20 or more thousand dollars and was given jail time ? I don't think so !



So to sum things up, there is lack of law in place in terms of internet freedom. This is why we as artists, musicians, guitar players should take advantage of this !

Sell your album online on your website. Make everything available for download. Put your album on famous selling machines like Itunes that will do the work for you. Promote your album via social networking sites - myspace facebook tweeter, music websites and blogs. Offer donation button on your website to support the album - let users put as much money as they feel they can for your product.
Million other ideas like this come to my mind, I could type a book about it probably now

Instead of feeling sorry for way things are, take action and make things right.
You should also know (if you didn't before) that when you make an album, unless you have really great marketing and record deal behind you - don't expect to make money in fact you are most likely going to loose money !
Thats the reality of unrecognized artists. Also, think about style of music you are doing ? If you are not mainstream and marketable for record companies, there is no space for you to earn good money of it.


In conclusion, next time when you make album approach things wisely and wage your options. Don't put money into project you can't afford as it might put you in more depth . However, if you use advantage of internet marketing and find right audience by ways I described above, you will be surprised how much money you will make - people from all over the world would buy your album.


I am sorry to hear that you didn't make money on your album Emir. You are great guitarists and as you know in life things don't always work out as you expect them to do. You have believe in something 100% and put a lot of effort and passion. I am absolutely positive if you try out marketing your album yourself that you could sell in one year at least 1000 copies - thats less then 3 albums a day.

Hope things work out, and I definitely think you should keep doing albums man

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 10:00 AM

Pedja, I have everything you mentioned that an artist should have. I have great label, record deal, great marketing, 4 official releases (Japanese, Russian, Finnish and Serbian). I have distribution in 60 countries in normal stores plus iTunes, Amazon, CDbaby and all other major internet shops. Besides I have hundreds of great reviews and the most important I have two of the biggest names in metal on my record.

In the first 6 months I have managed to get 25% of the money invested. I don't think I will ever get it all back but that doesn't matter as I wanted to have this product anyway because of personal reasons. My label told me about statistic regarding the illegal downloads. Their analysis shows that if people didn't download it illegaly, I would have had 3 times money back in just first 6 months. Don't you think that's a big impact? There are some interesting oppinions in this thread like - we should hear something before we buy it. I agree with that but not to be able to get the whole thing for free and then decide if you want to buy it. I would be happy with 1 min song samples (which everyone does anyway) plus reviews. That is enough for me to understand if an album is worth buying. The way things are looking now, I don't think I am ready for another serious project. The only thing I would accept is if some popular established band calls me to play and I don't need to think of anything else.

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 10:25 AM

In that case man offer donation type downloads on all those sites you have your album. Its better to make 1$ straight from sales then to make no money at all. I think you would agree with me here

Posted by: wrk Apr 3 2009, 10:48 AM

Don't know .. i find it difficult to put the customers that much into criminality and let them pay for what the music industry initially has mess up.

I agree with what has been said before that this is a transition time. New solutions have to be found. To put huge efforts and investments into a systems to prevent, track and judge piracy, only for to keep an old business plan alive can not be the solution.

Maybe you are right and the income from records will rise again, but i find the idea a bit funny that for a period of time, up to this system is settled and changed customer habits, the biggest supporter for an artist will be the ones who payed their fines and not the one who bought the record. A bit sarcastic of course ...

Business has to be adjusted to developments on the market and their customers ... and not the other way around through laws and penalties.

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 11:02 AM

Check this out Andy

The industry is trying to adjust by putting everything on Itunes and sites like that, sharing profits with musicians and record companies as well as third party involved.

Now here is the biggest problem !

If you fine people for downloading and make a case out of it, people will start to slowly fade out download and rather by CD's in store or online legally.

Think about it - I can just type Greg Howe and find him online for free for example.
But, in my town I don't know anybody who listens to Greg Howe, so if there wasn't ability to download it from internet, I would go to store and buy a CD 100% !!!

I hope this clears things out a bit

Posted by: Schumi Jr Apr 3 2009, 11:29 AM

Fair enough on the t-shirts - but what about the touring/live shows revenue?

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 11:46 AM

On the last tour I earned $0

We could just cover all the expenses and had some great fun. Metal business is not what it used to be like 10 or more years ago. Very difficult.

Posted by: Koopid Apr 3 2009, 11:47 AM

I just want to make it clear

I defenitly do *not* think it is my "right" to listen before buying. It is illegal, period.

I will still not buy a record without listening first, unless it is a record from a band I want to support regardless of the music (friends and such).

Sure, give me the opportunity to listen to 1 min and read reviews. For me that is not enough, I'll just not buy the record. I will however pay for a service that lets me listen to songs before buying, like Spotify.

I *want* to pay for music, I *do* pay for music, I just don't want to pay for music I don't want

The only thing I will buy untested is movies and books since the whole idea is to not know what you are getting..

And I also think that for very big bands the downloads are eating a large percentage of the total sales, but for smaller bands I don't think it is as much. Smaller bands need the extra percent more though...

Posted by: wrk Apr 3 2009, 12:40 PM

Pedja, my only point is that fines and laws can not be the solution. I doubt that people will stop to download music and start paying again by setting strong penalties. The music industry abused customers too much and too obvious and is now confronted with the problem to make them sensible again for what exactly they have to pay and that this price is reasonable.

iTunes and other online stores are a good ideas, but the price strategy is as unclear as before. Maybe you can explain me for example the price of 0.99 $ for an digital file? ... I'm not saying it's too cheap or too expensive, but on what this price is based? Logistic, packaging (etc.) costs are reduced by delivering the product in digital form, but the price is the same as if i buy a physical product imported from the other side of the world.

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 12:46 PM

I am not fan of just fines either Andy, but combination of law at work and strong marketing can make things right.

0.99$ is typical American system of pricing. Its not 1$ its less then 1$ !
That sounds appealing and is highly likely to do good and sell. Anybody who has computer and internet should have 1$ somewhere. I think that was the idea they were going for

Posted by: 29a Apr 3 2009, 01:42 PM

Sure there are people who are not happy about the status quo. But it won't kill it. There was music long before there was copyright. Hell I'm sure there was music before there was money!


Can you show any evidence that this trend is caused by copying?

I think there is some misunderstanding. Is the point of your job to charge people money or to make a living from creating music. If it is the first one is the case (which I seriously doubt) you should work as sales man and not as musician. Which would be very sad because you are a great muscian.

If it is the later is the case, then I don't see how "downloading things for free" makes your job pointless. Then your problem is not that people are "downloading things for free" but that you don't make any money from it.

I think musicians should think about alternative ways to make money. But I'm sure it's not easy in every case.

To enforce this would kill privacy and require censorship. Wrong way.

Also how would you justify such high penalties or jail times? If I steal a CD from a music store I'd probably end up getting a relatively small fine. By stealing the cd I caused actually measurable direct damage to the music store. Now if I copy something I don't do any direct harm or measurable harm but I should go to jail for it? That's not the jurisdiction I'd like to live in.

How did they come up with this number?

Would you as a musician care about the fact that I got your music for free when you'd get a fair amount of money for producing your music?

I've got some more questions for you which really interest me. How much money do you make when I walk in the store and buy a copy of a cd? And do you think you would make more money with your music without the internet?

Now an idea how established bands could make money form their songs:
Set up a website where you write that you'll record a new album after receiving X$. Oh and everybody who donates more than 10$ will be able to download the album right after the release from the official website. Everbody who donats more than 30$ (or 50$) will receive a promotional package containing a CD and a tshirt or what ever.

Now I'm not sure if this would work (I guess if manowar, or metallica did it it would it would work). I guess it would not work for small Bands.

But then again, was it easier for unknown bands to make money 30 years ago? 20 years ago? I don't know. But it would interest me.

Jonas

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 01:51 PM

Jonas if you steal in store or online its still a crime.

If you feel you will get less punishment from stealing live then doing it from internet then you are absolutely wrong.
Right now we have a situation where millions are downloading instead of buying and that trend is increasing. Are they being punished in any way ? No, of course not. Should there be something done about it to prevent it ?
Absolutely yes !
I don't want to go to far and say jail time but significant fine would do the work for starters.

Its funny that you mention privacy, I laughed a bit when I read it. Usually people who have something to hide in their computer always stick with privacy law. Its like those American movies where you are not guilty until proven otherwise

Final thing

- Steal from the store, security cameras catch you, might get beaten up by store owner, and police will find you no doubt
- Steal from online - absolutely no consequences - only theoretical possibility that somewhere in this world some cops will knock on your door for music you downloaded illegally.

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 02:05 PM

I would like to have time to reply to all this but right now I am busy with the comments for my collab. I have to admit that I had pretty much similar oppinion as yours before I entered the music industry. Now when I see how things are not worth doing and are not that easy as they look (or used to be 15 and more years ago) I am really not interested in making music available for free just like that. Yes I am trying to make a living of music but it is still very hard. I haven't given up but I will try different ways. Maybe just a session work or teaching. I am not a sales man. My sales are sorted just the way it should be but people are just talking about some great music and nobody is buying it. The only way I could explain this is if you experience it yourself. Spend 2 years making music. Be lucky enough to get signed by a proper label and do 5 jobs at the same time to pay for the studio, musicians and all other expenses. I am really talking about some serious money. After that you obviously want to have something back from it. I didn't do this because I didn't have anything else to do in my life. I wanted this to be my job for which I am officialy qualified and which I enjoy doing but it showed that it is not worth.

Posted by: 29a Apr 3 2009, 02:30 PM

Copying is not stealing. By copying you don't take away anything. But the definition of stealing is legally taking away property from another person. And yes, I think that noncommercial copy right infringement is not as bad as theft. I'm not even sure if it is a crime by definition. IIRC it's a matter of private law rather than criminal law - at least in Switzerland.

Like in the US where the Music Industry sues teenager for hundreds of thousands of dollars PER COPY OF A SONG? I think current copyright law is by far strict enough. The problem is that it's hard to impossible to enforce them. Tell me, how would you proof I gave a copy of a CD to a friend?

Privacy is an important basis of a democracy. I'm now not going into the whole "If you've got nothing to hide then you don't need privacy" debate. But yes I've got tons of things on my computer I'd like to keep private. And no, not because they are illegal.

So if I would pay you all the expenses it takes to produce an album (including your wage) but you'd have to release your album for free you'd deny that offer?

- Jonas

Posted by: Pedja Simovic Apr 3 2009, 02:38 PM

Jonas your very first answer made me laugh man.
I don't think that we can discuss nor debate this further.
You clearly don't think that its not much of a crime to copy music but it is to steal from the store.
In my mind this is completely wrong so I will just stop talking to you about this issue here as we have totally separate opinion of what crime and law is and should be regarding this whole matter.

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Apr 3 2009, 02:46 PM

Two things worth remembering:
1. copying i.e. downloading something is different than stealing a CD from the store, because virtually You gained something ( the files on Your computer ), but no one lost his files/cd's so the difference can be clearly seen.

2. so when someone downloads the music, the artist/industry loses only the profit, that MAYBE it would earn otherwise. This surely is true, but I for one know, that without the internet I wouldn't buy many many cd's that I have bought because of the possibility to listen to them before buying. For example Your cd Emir. It is very hard/almost impossible to buy Your cd in Poland. No shop in my town has the CD, same goes to the people I know. I have certain amount of cash to spend, and I am 100% sure, that I wouldn't order it without hearing it first. What is more, I really don't like 1 minute song samples. I won't know after hearing it, if I heard the best fragment, the average one or the worst. Some songs are great because of few seconds in it... One full song, some kind of a single maybe would be more helpful, although the song would have to be very good, to convince me to buy a full album. Especially as there are to many bands that have 1-2 good songs on an album, and the rest is there to "fill the space"..
Besides I treat music as something that I will "use" for a long period of time, like a car or clothing. I don't like the idea of buying a CD like a box of cookies, and thinking "hmm if they are tasty than great, if not maybe someone else from my family will eat it".
So in my case, the internet made me to buy more cd's than I would buy without it. And I am sure there are many people that act the same way.

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 02:56 PM

No, I would do it in that case but that type of deal you can only get from Sony, BMG, EMI and similar companies. I would be more than happy to accept something like that but of course my wage should be something that I can live with.



To me 1 min of each song + reviews + 1 full free video from a single would be really enough to see if the music is worth buying.

About my album, you can find it everywhere on internet if you have paypal or a credit/debit card.

If you want it in Poland, my distributor for Pland is "Metal Mundus".

You can buy my album from their website. This is the direct link
http://www.sklep.metalmundus.pl/pokaz_produkt.php?idprod=1704

Cena: 42.99 PLN

Posted by: 29a Apr 3 2009, 03:05 PM

We probably just have different definitions of crime. There is criminal law and civil law. Civil law is about disputes between individuals. As as I know copyright is mostly a matter of civil law - at least in Switzerland. There is another interesting bit there. Private copies are basically legal - at least here in Switzerland. I'm allowed to give a copy of a song to a friend. We even pay for that right when we buy mp3 players, empty cds, cd burners and so on.

So if you still belive that copying a file is the same as stealing a cd then I guess we really can't discuss this issue much further - unless you explain me how copying something takes away something from you.

Jonas

Posted by: Schumi Jr Apr 3 2009, 03:07 PM

Emir, first, I have tons of respect for you. You have put blood sweat and tears into continuing your dream of being a full-time musician whereas many like myself gave up early on and took on other careers.

That said, this latest reply bothers me a bit. I can completely empathize where you coming from. However, I think (just my opinion based on quick reads of your replies) that you may be a bit too focused on the illegal-download-makes-it-not-worth-making-albums issue.

Some points to keep in mind:
1) It IS a different world now. Some new disadvantages (easier copying), some new advantages (internet promotion, much cheaper recording equipment).
2) Not only are other musicians finding ways to take advantage of the new world, but as a photographer, I can tell you that the photography industry is wrestling with even worse new issues, and yet many photographers are figuring out how to take advantage. With photography, not only can you take one pro photo and then go illegally make copies and even enlargements, but every now has access to digital SLR's and pro-like editing tools and think they can now do portraits and weddings themselves. Think if somehow all of a sudden mortals like me thought we could play guitar nearly as well as you (good enough most people wouldn't notice the difference) without us even having to try. But many photographers have still found ways to thrive in this new world.
3) Again I'll relate this to my experience in photography, but you're attempting to take something people truly enjoy doing (playing guitar) and making a living off of it. I can't think of many situations where turning something that is normally thought of as a hobby into a profession an easy or straightforward task. It takes a lot of hard work, but it also takes some business, directional, or other types of creativity... and in many cases, some comprimises...
4) You said you made $0 during last show and mentioned metal isn't what it used to be. I'm sure you've already thought of this, but might it be worth comprimising a bit and guiding your style to one that is more sought-after in today's market? Playing a different style for awhile is still more true to yourself than getting a "normal" job and the increased exposure may help get you to a place where you can be successful playing your own style in the future.
5) If you're not a good salesman, find a friend who is. Promotion/marketing/creative-business-plans are all massively important to succeed in anything interesting these days. Find a friend or fan who's willing to discuss some ideas with you or even run some of it themselves - don't rely on a label and don't rely purely on your musicianship.
6) You mentioned trying different directions, and I think that's really important. Maybe record and distribute on your own. Maybe team up with other musicians/bands. Maybe network even more with successful musicians you know. Maybe even move to a different area/country/region. Etc etc etc. I'm sure you have 1001 other ideas in your head - run with them. You didn't give up playing guitar when it took you a while to master a certain technique, don't give up now without either trying different directions or coming to the decision you'd ultimately be happier choosing another career path.
7) Finally: Move past the notion that copying-kills-music. Of course your label is going to mention it, and of course it is true to some extent, but what can you do about it? Probably not much directly. Recognize the situation but then concentrate on what you can do about it, take it as a personal challenge, and execute.

I expect that you've thought of most of what I wrote above many times already - but I took the chance of wasting your time by writing to give you someone else's perspective, maybe give you an idea or two you haven't thought of or have forgotten, but most importantly to provide the encouragement to keep moving forward!

Take care,
Mike

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Apr 3 2009, 03:14 PM

Emir, thanks for the link, I already bought Your CD via Paypal, but couldn't find anyone selling it in Poland. Now maybe some of my friends will buy the record, as they didn't like the idea of ordering internationally ( don't know why, but here in Poland most people has the same attitude:/ ).

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 03:33 PM

Thanks for your support and nice suggestions Mike. According to my contract with Lion Music, their job is to distribute albums and I don't think I am allowed to do it myself apart on a live show for which they can supply an agreed amount of CDs with a special price. Trust me they are doing a great job. One of the rare labels that is really honest and cares about their artists. Their dirstribution is very well organised and they have ways to enter some great places with their products e.g. I have seen their releases in HMV, Virgin Megastore etc... Every 6 months I receive the list of what has been sold, downloaded, publishing rights, sublicencing, radio plays etc... This number is never accurate even with the biggest record labels but that is not their fault. Many radios just don't report what they play etc... I have spoken to many other artists signed to Lion Music and they are all more than happy to be part of their team. If I try to promote and sell the music myself, I am sure I wouldn't make 10% of what they can do.

Of course I haven't given up playing music and yes I am thinking of doing something totaly different. I have some good contacts and non-stop working on more solutions so time will tell

Thanks for your nice words again.



Cheers Marek, and thanks for buying the CD.

Posted by: 29a Apr 3 2009, 03:34 PM

I hope that there will be other ways to get similar deals in the future without major labels. For example there are proposals for a so called "Kultur flatrate". The idea is to impose some sort of tax (possibly on internet connections) that will be used to pay artists. At least in Switzerland similar taxes on radio/tv are already in place to compensate artists and finance the production of content. It's not perfect either, but it might be more successful than trying to sue everybody.

The important thing is we try to find new ways for paying artists. And I'm actually quite certain that a new business model will emerge.

Jonas

Posted by: Emir Hot Apr 3 2009, 03:41 PM

I hope so

Posted by: jer Apr 4 2009, 02:17 AM

Posted by: audiopaal Apr 4 2009, 10:26 PM

Awesome vid
Thanks for sharing!!

Posted by: Koopid Apr 4 2009, 10:57 PM

One thing people seem to be missing is that the music industry is actually selling more music than ever regardless of copying.

Buyers of music has a certain amount of money to spend on music. This amount has not changed much the last 20 years (if you count inflations and so on) but the amount of music and artists has increased by insane numbers. There are a lot more artists that has to share the same amount of money which means less money/artist. This is just math. The costs to make music increases with the number of artist but the total sales remain about the same which means it will become harder to make money as an artist. You just can't expect to make a living as a musician the same way as before.

I do not agree with what has been said about copying versus stealing in a shop. If you download it its a missed sale for the shop, the same amount of money missed as if you went in and stole it. It may make *you* feel better but it is as illegal as stealing it physically from the shop. I download illegal music (very little now since Spotify) but I don't try to rectify it by saying it is ok, because it is not. I also drive too fast and I try to avoid taxes if I can...

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 4 2009, 11:12 PM

You can rationalize it however you want but stealing is stealing. Like Koopid said...if you dowload it illegally thent that is a missed sale...I don't see how people can say this isn't stealing. I think if you were the artist that spent years practicing and a bunch of money making the album and then somebody stole you work I think you would feel differently.

Posted by: 29a Apr 5 2009, 11:55 AM

Downloading (or uploading) stuff illegally is copyright infringement. Stealing is when I take away property from you. When I steal something from a shop something is missing afterwards because I took it away. Now, what do I take *away from you* by downloading? It's illegal but it's not the same as stealing.

Jonas

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 5 2009, 11:58 AM

You take away revenue that I would have made if you would have bought it. You are stealing money from the artist that they would have received had you bought it legally.

Posted by: 29a Apr 5 2009, 12:30 PM

So if I buy a used guitar I'm effectively stealing? Because I take away revenue that the store and manufacturer would have made if I bought a new one?

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 5 2009, 12:33 PM

Notice you used the word "buy".....

Posted by: 29a Apr 5 2009, 12:46 PM

I still removed potential revenue, which by your definition, as far as I understood it, is stealing. Or would it be ok again if I bought illegal copies?

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 5 2009, 12:51 PM

Jonas....you can rationalize it all you want. You are a smart guy....you know what your doing when downloading stuff illegally. If morally you are OK with this then there is nothing anybody can do to change your mind.

Posted by: jer Apr 5 2009, 02:07 PM

The band got paid for the used cds in the stores.

For each one that is bought there is one less fan that owns one. So the number of cds in circulation matches the amount the band was paid for.

Posted by: 29a Apr 5 2009, 08:39 PM

That's a good argument. But it's still lost potential revenue. Pretty much in the same way an illegal copy would be. Which leads us back to the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

lcsdds, I'm not saying that infringing copyright is morally right or good. I think it's not. In my opinion Copyright together with proper fair use laws IS ok. I'm a software developer so my job basically depends on copyright too (although the software industry is less dependent on it because it is more service oriented). All I'm saying is that the act of copyright infringement is not the same as the act of theft.

I German this is even more crazy. There an illegal copy is called "Raubkopie". Where Raub means robbery (or even rape). And so it's basically theft and violence or intimidation. Sorry but at least in that case it's very clear that some one wanted a scary term rather than an accurate one.

Jonas

Posted by: jer Apr 5 2009, 09:45 PM

It's legal lost revenue though.

When a painter, paints a painting and sells it to someone, he has no control over them wanting to sell it to someone else. But the end result is there is one painting out there that he made and got paid for. What happens after that is out of his hands.

But if whomever bought that is xeroxing it and giving people copies for free that's illegal and wrong. It wasnt his to give.

That image is copyrighted and owned by the painter. Only he/she can sell it.

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 5 2009, 09:57 PM

EXACTLY.....

Posted by: berko Apr 5 2009, 10:16 PM

I can understand what Jonas is explaining... Copyright infringement is a different matter compared to theft... legislatively (is it the right word? ).

But in this case the two actually falls into one place. Take the age of vinyl records for example when there are no tape recorders yet and you want to get the latest record. You have to by that vinyl disc because the music is on that disc. There are no vinyl copiers available that can cut those lines into a blank piece of disk. So if you wanted to listen to a new record you could either borrow it, but if you wanted it yourself, you'd have to buy it.

It's a totally different matter that TODAY copying music is technically possible. It's only a file. You are, of course not TAKING it away from the artist, since if you copy it, you have a copy and the artist still has a copy. But you didn't pay for the opportunity to listen to it. If the artist did not invest money into recording that music, you wouldn't be able to listen to it now.

Now I know that this has been discussed thoroughly but this was my 2 cents...

Btw I did use to download music a lot. The main reason for it was because many albums or live DVDs weren't/aren't available in ANY stores... not even in Budapest. There are quite a few but many times I'm looking for something from between 1995 and 2000 and it's close to impossible to get it. Let alone all the older records. And ofc I always like to listen to at least a few tracks before buying a CD. Since last.fm and myspace I can narrow down my wishlist and I do buy many original CDs.

I still think, however, that CDs are way overpriced. The price of production and distribution+ advertisement is, in average, only a little proportion of the copy. The rest that goes to the artist isn't that much either. I would definitely buy much more CDs for the 60-75% of the price and music industry wouldn't starve to death.

I like buying from independent labels or from venues of "underground" music, when I can listen to the tracks live and then buy the copy for a reasonable price (50% of the average). I have many great stuff from such places. Ofc, this is not possible for all CDs, especially when distributing internationally. I have no idea how, but music industry must shift its weights and get along with today's situation with a new attitude.

Posted by: jer Apr 10 2009, 10:17 PM

http://www.metalinjection.net/latest-news/lamb-god-bassist-filesharing

Posted by: 29a Apr 12 2009, 03:06 AM

That dez guy must be pretty naive if he really believes DRM can prevent music from ending up on the internet. And I mean "all artists should sue itunes and ipod", what the ... He seems to believe that technology is some kind of magic.

Anyway I pretty much agree with John Campbell. But he doesn't answer the one important questions, how are musicians supposed to make money in this brave new world.

Jonas

Posted by: jer Apr 12 2009, 03:43 AM

touring

merch

songwriting royalties

Posted by: 29a Apr 12 2009, 07:37 PM

That would mean that concerts are going to cost more. I'm not sure if this would result in less people going to the concerts, which would nullify the benefit. But yes, I guess it's shifting from concerts to promote albums to albums to promote concerts. I'm just not sure if it's possible to make a reasonable amount of money from just playing concerts.

Jonas

Posted by: jer Apr 12 2009, 10:54 PM

concerts HAVE gone up.

And bands are touring more.

And tours have more bands on them.

And they are going to more places.

I have read about record deals now having clauses where the label gets a cut of your merch sales too.

BRUTAL.

Screw the labels I say.

If the band says its ok to download their music then what reason is there not to?

Posted by: 29a Apr 13 2009, 02:39 AM

If they release it under a proper license I think there would be nothing wrong with it. And honestly if they would tell me to order a t-shirt instead of a cd, I'd probably do this. I've got too many tshirts anyway

And about concert prices, it depends. Concerts of big bands have gone up. Metallica, or AC/DC have crazy prices but the smaller concerts are still very cheap. And honestly? I don't care about guys who already made millions.

What I care about is the small to medium bands. I love small concerts! I mean when a concert costs less than watching a movie at the cinema the artists, and organizer can't make all that much money.

Jonas

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 13 2009, 08:00 PM

God, I have not been online for some days and suddenly this discussion exploded... I can't answer everything now, I only had the time to read the last 4 or 5 pages once and not everything that was said stuck to my mind, so there will be another longer answer later, but let me comment on some random things that were said right now:

When I go to a concert I don't care about how big or small the band is, I care about the music. I can enjoy big arena shows as much as small club gigs as long as the band is good. Why should a big band be not as good as a small one???

Somebody complained about the fact that cd's are more expensive than vinyl. True, a cd is more expensive, but did you realise that a cd is also almost twice as long? A vinyl album was limited to around 36 minutes of music, most of todays cd's are at least 60 minutes, if not for 74 minutes, so for the price of one cd you get as much music as for two vinyl albums. Considering this, is a cd really that expensive?

Somebody suggested that Emir should change the style of his music to maybe sell more albums... sorry, this is complete nonsense! Emir loves the songs that he wrote, this is the stuff he wanted to play, this is the stuff he wanted to record, why the hell should he do something completely different and record a Brintey Spears album for example????

Copying music, just as downloading IS taking away something from the musician/band, period! If you download my album illegally I don't get paid for my job (yes, I love playing music, but aside from this my music is also what is paying my rent or my food, it is a job, not only a passion), so I lose money. If your friend bought my music and you copy his cd so you get it for free it is exactly the same thing, you don't pay my work, I lose money. A lot of people do not consider downloading something as a big thing because they hide at home behind their monitors, they feel safe there, but sorry, it is illegal, and it might not exaclty be stealing, but it is not any better.

About checking out an album before buying it, no problem with that, I do this too, but do you really need more than one minute samples to find out if you like an album? After all you normally get one minute samples of every single song, for me this is definitely enough to get an impression about the album.

Somebody said that musicians should look for alternate ways of making money... well, yes, we have too, but isn't this ridiculous? If being a musician is my job, should I really have to look for a side job to make a living? Does a baker have to look for other ways of making money or should he focus on baking good bread?

Somebody said that bands make enough money with touring and shirts... well, shirts have to be produced too, you need to pay somebody to paint the design/album cover or whatever you want to be on your shirt, you have to pay somebody to print the shirt, you have to buy the shirt itself, you have to transport the shirts to every gig and in the end the venue comes and demands 30% of your merch money or you are not allowed to sell anything at the concert... does this sound like big money to you? And a band on tour has some expenses... PA, light, trucking, nightliners, plane tickets, crew, production, backline.... do you guys have any idea how much an average show costs? ( and I am talking about the expenses that that band has to pay to make the show happen, not about the concert ticket)

Well, as I said, those are just some random comments, some more will follow during the next days.

Posted by: jer Apr 13 2009, 08:05 PM

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

When I was mnetioning other ways of making money, I'm not saying that the bands are expected to do that and its ok to steal their music and hurt cd sales.

I was commenting on how they DO make money in the face of not making it on cds.

And yeah, people are bootlegging t-shirts too......

Posted by: 29a Apr 13 2009, 09:01 PM

If it was just about the music I could just stay at home or go to some sort of disco. For me concerts are about the atmosphere. And yes the atmosphere at a concert is quite different if you know at least half of the people in the little hall or club. And you'll probably disagree with me on this one, but I think less known bands tend to be far more passionate about their shows than super stars which are on tour since half a year.

To make money. Not everybody can have his hobby as job. Other professions are exactly in the same situation. Do you think I enjoy writing every piece of software I do as part of my job? Nope. My job is to create the software the customer wants. If I want to do what I just feel like I have to do it in my spare time.

If you are referring to me, I'm thinking about other ways to make money from creating music. But if you can't make a living from doing what you love to do then you'll have to do other things to earn money. Is this ridiculous?

- Jonas

PS: If this sounds a little bit harsh to you, it wasn't meant to.

Posted by: lcsdds Apr 13 2009, 10:07 PM

To me this seems so simple......Illegal Download=Stealing.....PERIOD!!

Posted by: jer Apr 13 2009, 10:11 PM

no argument here.

Posted by: 29a Apr 14 2009, 01:35 AM

I, for example, live in a country where downloading copyrighted material is legal, only uploading/publishing it is not. But I think thats not the important point here. I think the interesting point is how can artists make a living in a world where filesharing is a reality.

Jonas

Posted by: jer Apr 14 2009, 01:37 AM

Do you think its dishonest to take music you didnt pay for?

Posted by: 29a Apr 14 2009, 01:36 PM

I think people should accept the authors interests and their decisions. To some extent. I think it is ok to play music while friends are over without getting a license and I believe that private copies are ok. I think its ok to create a cover of a song for non commercial purposes. As singing http://www.iia.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=32 in the public should be.

I'm not sure if copyright itself is a good idea. By "a good idea" I mean of if provides more benefits than harm for an entire society , not just for the artists. Because that's the point behind it (it was invented as a tool for censorship but anyway). But right now we live in a world that's quite dependent on it so copyright is a reality just like file sharing is.

Jonas

Posted by: jer Apr 14 2009, 01:46 PM

After all that I didnt see an answer in there.



Do you think its dishonest to take music you didnt pay for?

Posted by: 29a Apr 14 2009, 02:00 PM

My answer is it depends. If the artist released it under a CC license, then it's obviously not. If it's against the authors will through public filesharing, then yes. But even there I see exceptions. There are cd's where theres simply no (reasonable) way to purchase, mostly older ones anyway. And yes I would download those from the internet without any feeling of shame or dishonesty.

Jonas

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 14 2009, 04:34 PM

I don't think that a big band is less passionate by default than a small one, it all depends on the band. I have seen Kiss in front of 30000 people for example and they just rocked the place to the ground, while I have seen small bands in small clubs that were boring me to death. But this is a matter of personal taste I guess, there is nothing wrong in prefering clubs over arenas or vice versa, in my case I just like both.

About this money making thing, sure, if I play in a band and my albums just don't sell because nobody cares about my music, then I will have to look for a different way of making a living, the fact that I would like to be a successful musician of course doesn't make me successful by default. But here we are talking about a slightly different scenario, we are talking about musicians that have a (more or less) big following, just that the following doesn't pay for the music cause it can be downloaded for free on whatever filesharing sites. This is just wrong! And it is the same about Emir, he recorded a great album and if everybody that "has" the album would have paid for it he would have made some money. Now you suggest he should change his music to maybe sell more next time? Why should he change, he didn't do anything wrong, he did his job very well, just his "customers" didn't do their "job" at all, they prefered to download the album instead of paying for it.

About the legal situation, this is slightly different from country to country. here in Germany a privat copy is legal too, as long as you don't work around any copy protection. As soon as something is copy protected a privat copy is illegal. And downloading is not really illegal here either, just the uploading, but there is no filesharing system that lets you only download without offering the file for uploads too.

Posted by: Skalde Apr 14 2009, 05:34 PM

I did only read the last 2 pages and found the discussion very interesting, but in this point you are mistaken.
It is not really a problem for people to download whole discographies with fullspeed without uploading anything.

But, hey don't get me wrong. I buy the music I like(and I paid for all your albums )
though, I think there is nothing wrong with copying the music from the cd to your mp3 player oder pc. If there is a stupid protection on the cd I would download the album.

Posted by: jer Apr 14 2009, 05:42 PM

I'm not familiar with any.

All torrent based sites and filesharing sites like kazaa and the like have you uploading the same thing you are downloading.

Even if you downloaded it and erased it immediately, while its downloading its available for upload simultaneously.

Posted by: MickeM Apr 14 2009, 09:58 PM

Just a moderator reminder - Don't offer solutions to how to download without uploading. GMC doesn't support illegal filesharing.

Posted by: audiopaal Apr 14 2009, 10:19 PM

Very well said!!
It all depends on the band as you say..
And your second paragraph is just my opinion too!

Although, in Norway, I believe you're allowed to make a personal copy no matter what protection there's on the disk..
If I buy an album I'm allowed to copy it to my computer and have it on my iPod for example..
I guess this is different from country to country?

Anyway, very well written

Posted by: jer Apr 14 2009, 10:26 PM

I dont think anybody is concerned with copies for personal use. Trust me after 1 time of getting cds stolen from my car I have NEVER had a non-cdr in there again.

All my music is ripped to my PC. I stream it all over our house.

No one is concerned with that. (I dont think)

Yet these topics keep popping up when people hide behind what IS ok. Thats not what this thread is about.

If you want the music, pay for it!!!! Or listen to the radio, the radio pays the record companies.

Same with movies. If you want to watch it BUY IT. Or go to the theater. Or pay for HBO, who pays the movie companies.

Obtaining the contents of a cd or dvd without purchasing a legit version is stealing. And it does hurt the artists.

Is anyone disputing THAT?

Posted by: 29a Apr 14 2009, 10:40 PM

One could argue that he targeted the wrong "customers". But in the end that is his problem, the number of paying customers is to small (or the price to low, which I doubt).

Oh and about the big and small bands, I agree with you it's not a default. But it's a tendency I've noticed.

About copy protection, I don't buy cds with copyprotection on them nor DRM'd files so I don't have to worry about that.

Why do they bother me with pitiful copy protection mechanisms then?

Jup, I do. First, copyright infringement is not theft. Second, as said before, there are cases in which obtaining the contents of a cd without purchasing it is legal and thereby definitely not theft.

...some how I feel like I lost track about the real topic of the discussion

Jonas

edit:
Uhm, but according to most jurisdictions it would be legal filesharing then

Posted by: Koopid Apr 15 2009, 06:06 AM

I agree with the moderation. I just want to add that over 50% of for example Piratebays uploads actually *are* legal. And that there are many ways to download without uploading.

Posted by: MickeM Apr 15 2009, 08:20 AM

Moderation remark: I want to take the opportunity to say that moderator reminders are not up for funny remarks or questioning. Our intention in such case is only to inform about a discussion getting out of hand, or like in this case to let everyone know what would be a violation of GMC rules to avoid for someone breaking them.
Just look at these remarks as information, not part of the discussion, so don't question or discuss them in public since it's not a contribution to a discussion.
/Micke on behalf of the moderation team

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 15 2009, 10:07 AM

I also don't see any problem of making copies for PRIVATE use, I copy my music to my computers, to my ipod, and to cdrs in my car, no problem with that, the problem starts when you give away those copies or the music itself to others, no matter if you agree or not, this IS harming the artist! And those copies should be made of something that you actually bought before of course...

About filesharing in general (and I absolutely agree with the moderators, this should definitely not turn into a topic about how to download anything), no matter if somebody finds a "legal" way to download something or not, NO band that records and releases albums wants this. If a band wants to spread its music for free, why should it record an album then? They could put all their music on theit homepage for free and everybody would be happy, fine, but albums are for sale, not presents.

Posted by: Skalde Apr 15 2009, 10:53 AM

Eisbrecher - One of their albums contains their cd + 2 blank CDs with the demand to burn this cd. And Eisbrecher is a quite successfull band here in Germany.

Trent Reznor(Nine Inch Nails) - Free songs / albums on his website + he spreads 400GB(!) high defintion live material to his fans + albums with cc-license

What I can't understand is that some Bands, sue their fans for sharing songs. These fans support the band even if they have some illegal songs by buying some of their albums, buying marchandise, visiting concerts..
This is how you do not make friends.

Posted by: wrk Apr 15 2009, 11:54 AM

Pff .. thats an interesting information, i didn't know that 30% of merchandize revenues have to be paid. I guess this is just one example along the chain between the artist and the customer. Things like this makes me angry as it shows that something is completely wrong in this business. Both, artists on one side and the customers on the other side have to pay the bill and in the middle everybody is earning money.

This does not at all justify illegal downloads, but i still believe that it's not right to put all the fault to the customers and to declare illegal downloads as the only and main reason for this mess.

Statements like "illegal downloads = stealing" are catchy and for sure true somehow, but the 30% merchandize example shows that there is a lot more "stealing" going on.

I think artists would be better of if they find a way to get organized together with the customers and start to change something. Maybe i'm a bit naive, but i think a lot of people are basically willing to pay if they would know that the majority of the money arrives where it belongs.

Posted by: tonymiro Apr 15 2009, 11:57 AM

WRT cc - music industry contracts tend to be very restrictive and may not allow for any creative commons licensing. The contracts rarely give the musician any real control over the distribution and marketing of their material. Some big name musicians put up material like this in contravention of their contract. Don't know about Trent here but Public Enemy, for instance, did so when they were in dispute with their old record label.

A similar situation exists in book/manuscript publishing. I put the majority of my academic publications out via cc. but many commercial publisher contracts explicitly forbid this. TBH as an author publishing contracts tend to be very one sided in favor of the publisher and not the author. Just like music industry contracts .

Posted by: Skalde Apr 15 2009, 12:15 PM

I think wrk mentionend some important aspects here. I buy a lot of albums of bands who don't have a contract yet. They sell their albums on their webpage on their own for 10bucks. This are 10 bucks who arrive to 100% at the band.
When I buy a album for let's say 20bucks in a local store I doubt that the bands gets a share of 10 bucks .(honestly I don't know big the cut for the bands actually is, just guessing)

Posted by: jer Apr 15 2009, 01:53 PM

I ALWAYS buy new albums from the artists. Evn if its thru the merch links at their websites. They may not get all of the money, but they're gonna get more than if I go to Best Buy.....

Posted by: Skalde Apr 15 2009, 02:05 PM

What do you mean by "best buy"? cheapest buy / second hand buy?
As I said, don't get me wrong, I paid for the music I like.

Posted by: jer Apr 15 2009, 02:09 PM

Sorry, I forget that as a USA native I am a minority here.

Its that American arrogance.

Best Buy is a large retail chain here. They are pretty much the only reamining "music store" when it comes to cds and stuff like that.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 15 2009, 08:08 PM

I have to say that I don't know Eisbrecher at all and I am also not really familiar with Nine Inch Nails / Reznor, but I seriously doubt that any of them go to the studio, record a new album (and pay studio, producer, cover, mastering...) just to give it away as a free present on their web page. Many bands put live recordings online, we did this too, when we recorded "Live" the original idea was to release it as a tripple cd, the regular 2 cd's plus a third one with outtakes, but Virgin only wanted to release the 2 disc version, so we put the outtakes online.
And as Tony pointed out, not every band is allowed to do this anyway, record deals can be very restrictive about such things.

Posted by: crazytrain101 Apr 15 2009, 09:03 PM

Personally i had downloaded some songs illegally even though i was paying for napster to go. I learned the hard way though when my computer crashed from limewire. From then on i have bought cds. I just love to see the album art inside the booklets and read the lyrics. I love even more that i can say i have the physical copy of my favorites bands cds. My friends strongly think i am weird for buying cds but i tell them that i am supporting my favorite bands. Even though i still use napster to go and download new music i tend to listen to the albums i buy much more. I don't always agree with the fact that you should be able to listen to the music first free, buy later. I feel that if you have bought a bands albums before and you enjoyed them you should feel that every album they put out is great. I bought BG's Imaginations from the other side first and i fell immensely in love with their music and i basically bought all of their other albums without ever thinking what they will sound like. This statement holds true for the other bands i like such as coheed and cambria and Iced Earth. I have finally got my friend to delete his illegal stash and buy them legally on itunes. The most funny thing i got told though when i told a fellow classmate that i use napster they said that was illegal while they are using limewire. I tell them that they are not paying for the music so how is their method legal? They answer it's just music.


P.S. Marcus i have the live cd where exactly is the outtakes and please can you get your crew and jon to tour together again in the U.S.?

Posted by: jer Apr 15 2009, 09:26 PM

thats 3 for the US!!!!!

Come on, we need about 3000 more to make it worthwhile to come here and do a show for us.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 15 2009, 09:35 PM

See, this is the problem I am talking about, when somebody thinks you are weird because you actually pay for a cd then something is VERY wrong...

About the outtakes, we had them online on our homepage back when "Live" was released, but I guess it is not online there anymore. I know I still have it somewhere, I just don't know where

Posted by: Marek Rojewski Apr 15 2009, 09:41 PM

Yeah, most of presents I bought for my girlfriend were cd's, some people couldn't understand why I do it, why she wants it, instead of burning her 4GB of music in one go... I blame poverty and communism for such mentality, but as we can read even here, without these two, people act the same..

Posted by: jer Apr 20 2009, 03:57 PM

from hardradio news

Posted by: NoSkill Apr 25 2009, 03:45 AM

This is an interesting discussion. In Canada, there has even been attempts to block access to file sharing sites. Canada, through the CRTC, attempts to protect Canadian Artists with Canadian content laws for broadcasters, and to prevent these sites from being hosted in Canada. There are two examples that I won't mention as I don't want to make the moderator bleed from his eyes, but downloading music is theft by Canadian law. As I live under that jurisdiction, the law is the law.

Now, if it wasn't for Youtube, I wouldn't know who Marcus was and I wouldn't have been able to enjoy Blind Guardian music. But for listening on my stereo in good sound and listening in my truck, I have to go to Amazon.ca to purchase Blind Guarding albums. I guess my generation is a bit different. I have hundreds of vinyl records from my favorite bands from when I was in my teens and early 20's. Before the advent of CD's. We did copy music all the time back then, on to cassette tape for play in our cars. So I guess I'm guilty of copying it. There was always the dreaded mix tape that you gave to the girl you were courting, but again, of music you owned and the music meant something to you so you gave it to the girl...for whatever reason. LOL. Copying has been around forever, but downloading music? It is taking money out of the pocket of the artist and it would be difficult to argue that it isn't.

I will leave this post with a philosophy my father taught me, "I won't criminalize myself for $15. If I want the album, I'll go buy it." I don't think it's a waste. Even if the album sucks. I really feel that I lose more than that just in my clothes dryer and in the seat cushions of my couch. If I have a CD in hand, with an insert to read, and music to listen to, then it's never a waste.

However, I will leave this issue to people smarter than I am.

Posted by: Marcus Siepen Apr 26 2009, 05:51 PM

I don't think this discussion has anything to do with being smart, it is just a matter of attitude. I like your fathers philosophy, I think he gets it to the point pretty well. And about the laws, copy protections and blocking access to filesharing, this is not (and never will be) the solution to the problem. There will always be a way to work around such barriers if you want to work around them, so what should change is peoples attitude towards music.