File sharing doesn't hurt musicians

[SidMau]

How about, instead of making people pay for the music, let them pay what they want... If they want it for free, fine. If they want to pay, then they pay. It keeps everything under control, legally, the people are happy... It makes sense :\

 

[Desirsar]

To the whole thread and industry alike : Albums are like movie posters. They're not your main product, they're advertisement. If you make any profit at all directly from advertisement, it's already a miracle.

Oh good, someone else who gets it...

OK for all the people shouting "It's against the law!!!", keep in mind that intellectual property is an ethereal argument because it's theoretical ownership of an idea or work of art based on a proposed system to manage it and give someone ownership of it on the basis of...nothing

In business there is a thing called a "lead-in" item, it is an item you lose money on selling in order to get people in the door and buying other things, that you do make money on. If this seems crazy to you ask any business owner, they work fantastic.

In this instance, your music is the lead-in item. You have got them in the store, now get them to buy a concert ticket and some merch.

Almost every retail industry builds itself around this model, big box or convenience store. Probably the reason the music industry doesn't "get" it is that it's usually their only retail item, as they are a service industry. I wonder if movie studios would be that way with their popcorn and candy recipes if they owned the theaters and concession food production...

"Radio quality" means nothing today. Try funding an album with top-notch studio musicians, an arranger, a producer, a good mixing engineer and good mastering without a good budget. Not going to happen. Sure, if you're some indie band it can be really cheap to produce a passable album but to produce the kinds of albums that I grew up loving? Those albums are a thing of the past and it's a damn shame.

And again, I think you're grossly overestimating revenue potential where concerts are concerned - at least for the vast majority of bands.

And yet one person can put together a studio quality track in FL Studio in a couple hours, maybe a few others included if you need a band or singers.

Whether I lose money or not is beside the point that my property has been stolen. My ability to make a profit on that property is not germaine to the fact that a theft has occurred.

It's not pointless when people are stealing other people's property. How many burglaries take place every year in the US? Worldwide? Should we just say to hell with it and let 'em rip us off blind? Of course not.

That is certainly your choice, and if you choose to make your product freely available, you have a right to make that choice. In that situation your are making a business investment decision to accept some initial losses with the hope of recouping those losses with increased ticket sales.

They are criminals because a) they are stealing my property, and b) it's against the law for them to do that. I will make the decisions I must to stay in business, but I choose not to embrace this new culture of lawlessness and disrespect for other people's property rights and I will continue to name it what it is.

Any bets on whether Rocksmoot owns shares in privatized prisons in the US?

When I was a kid (teenager). 4 kids could write songs, scrap together money for a van and hit the road selling shirts and records.

Good luck pulling that off now.

The fact that no one buys records (in whatever format) HAS NOT ONLY HURT THE MAJOR ARTISTS.

You can still do that. Even the people who have already downloaded the band's entire catalog will buy albums along with shirts when they go to the show, though most likely they won't have heard of these kids in this van before they see the show anyway. If they have, they're probably doing pretty well on ticket sales by that point, on top of merchandise.

Another option is what Radiohead did with one of their albums. Put it up online, tell the people that it is free to download and let them pay what they think it's worth or feel led to. IIRC, average amount paid was around $12. That seems like a pretty solid move to me, because it's more or less telling the fans you trust them and that you care what they think it's worth and aren't dictating it to them.

Or use the Danzig method, put the files up for free and release a fancy deluxe version with awesome things in the box and good art on the CD booklet. His album sales went up, not down.

That's the problem. Apparently the "free market" has decided the old iTunes model was the wrong way, but at least they tried. The proverbial cat is out of the bag now. Adapt and survive I guess, but it sounds like a lot of whining artists when nobody even mentions the impact of removing all DRM from music files.

I feel that most people aren't thieves, most people aren't particularly honorable, people are just lazy and will procure music however it is easiest.

They'll pay for convenience if the price is correct. DRM magically preventing all piracy won't turn illegal downloads into sales, it will just stop the downloads. $1 a track works because you're guaranteed a high quality file from a site with paid support staff. $20 an album you haven't heard when the norm is 2 good songs and 6-10 crap filler? (Let's assume major label here.) You've probably priced out a lot of people, who will then download the album illegally, or just forget about it, and the band with it.

No, it wasn't.
Do you "free music" people not get the irony that the reason you started this movement was because the records companies weren't paying the artists and were stealing the fruits of their labor?

Pretty sure any effort on the part of fans was the labels gouging the fans. The bands were screwed either way, and they needed to be fighting for themselves from their own end.

 

[mcarp555]

In business there is a thing called a "lead-in" item, it is an item you lose money on selling in order to get people in the door and buying other things, that you do make money on. If this seems crazy to you ask any business owner, they work fantastic.

In this instance, your music is the lead-in item. You have got them in the store, now get them to buy a concert ticket and some merch.

This is so naive, I can't even begin to explain it properly.

As far as I know, stores that use "lead-in" items (also known as "loss leaders") have the ability to decide for themselves what items they will use. You don't go into a Best Buy and take a 54" Plasma screen and walk out without paying because you've decided it's a "loss leader".

As for the second point, is that what it comes down to? Using your own music just to shill for tickets and merchandise? Buying a cheap t-shirt gives you license to download an artist's life's work? What about the bands that make great music, but don't have a trailer full of t-shirts? What about someone like Moby, who (last I heard) doesn't tour? What's your model then for people who create music to survive? Why is it 'wrong' to sell the music itself? Other than "because", I can't see why.

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

That is certainly your choice, and if you choose to make your product freely available, you have a right to make that choice. In that situation your are making a business investment decision to accept some initial losses with the hope of recouping those losses with increased ticket sales.

They are criminals because a) they are stealing my property, and b) it's against the law for them to do that. I will make the decisions I must to stay in business, but I choose not to embrace this new culture of lawlessness and disrespect for other people's property rights and I will continue to name it what it is.

There is a great quote from Stevie Ray Vaughn (I think it was him) when he said, "this isn't my music, it's the people's music." We can all argue until we are blue in the face, the fact is nobody knows what the future holds but I personally see more and more artists "giving away" their cd's like Radiohead did (with great success) and I see business models like your going the way of the dinosaur spending countless dollars persecuting downloaders instead of building better artists. I encourage people at my band's shows to buy one copy of our CD and share it with their friends, it is essentially free advertising. You view it as stealing, when it could be considered to be a sampler to get you hooked. For me personally, I download every album before I buy it unless it is impossible to find, it puts a bigger demand on an artist to release a quality disc instead of the hit single and 11 tracks of **** (Anybody else buy the Spacehog record?). Are you going to stop youtube too? You will protect your cash investment but you will stunt the growth of your audience, which will have a greater affect on your cash investment in the long run.

With the record companies dying it is harder to get going to the national level, but at the same time, bands are not having to pay out big percentages for people who are barely involved with the band.

 

[rocksmoot]

What you're missing is that labels now get a percentage of an artists merchandising and ticket sales, which was unheard of ten years ago. In business this is called a 360 deal. They do this to offset the lower album sales due to illegal downloads.

You can argue all you want that "free" music only hurts the labels, but every cent the label spends has to be recouped before the artist sees a dime. This can include merch and ticket sales. So how is an artist supposed to make any money performing when the label gets that too?

Just pay for the music you listen to.

All hail the voice of reason.

There are lots of good reasons, many of which highlight the benefits to artists, for respecting people's property rights.

However, IMHO, whether music sales benefit artists or sleazy music executives more is simply a gross rationalization for people getting stuff for free that they used to have to buy (ie: steal). The idea that more and more people somehow find ways to justify out and out theft of valuable property to the extent that it's now accepted as simple a "change in the industry" is repugnant to me.

 

[Bass_Pounder]

How about, instead of making people pay for the music, let them pay what they want... If they want it for free, fine. If they want to pay, then they pay. It keeps everything under control, legally, the people are happy... It makes sense :\

Why don't you use that rationale when you go shopping - let me know how that works for you

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

All hail the voice of reason.

There are lots of good reasons, many of which highlight the benefits to artists, for respecting people's property rights.

However, IMHO, whether music sales benefit artists or sleazy music executives more is simply a gross rationalization for people getting stuff for free that they used to have to buy (ie: steal). The idea that more and more people somehow find ways to justify out and out theft of valuable property to the extent that it's now accepted as simple a "change in the industry" is repugnant to me.

What value is there on art? It is in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Album sales do pay record companies, why do you think plenty of bands are now shunning their labels and are actually quite happy with the way the music industry is going? They are people who just put their hands in the cookie jar.

 

[David Jayne]

No, it wasn't.
Do you "free music" people not get the irony that the reason you started this movement was because the records companies weren't paying the artists and were stealing the fruits of their labor?

Well, the overwhelming perception is that the artists DID and DO get paid. Can you list some that didn't? The ones that got screwed by their labels? For the record I'm not a 'free music' advocate.

 

[sevdog]

Well, the overwhelming perception is that the artists DID get paid. Can you list some that didn't? The ones that got screwed by their labels? For the record I'm not a 'free music' advocate.

Really?

 

[I am Soma]

One of my favorite bands, black dahlia murder, recently had a new release coming up. They posted on FB saying their page has over 1 million likes and pleaded with everyone to buy the album instead of pirating it. It was amazing to see the backlash of "fans" saying they bought a shirt so shouldn't have to pay for anything else. Even when the band said they need record sales to pay their bills and to ensure they can release more music "fans" complained and called them greedy. I'm all for fines and jail time for stealing no matter what it is - even music.

 

[David Jayne]

Really?

Yes, really. Name names.

 

[rocksmoot]

There is a great quote from Stevie Ray Vaughn (I think it was him) when he said, "this isn't my music, it's the people's music."

I love Stevie and always will, but if he really believed that he would have given his royalties away, which he certainly did not.

We can all argue until we are blue in the face, the fact is nobody knows what the future holds but I personally see more and more artists "giving away" their cd's like Radiohead did (with great success)...

Great for them, I'm happy that choice worked for them. But they chose to do it.

... and I see business models like your going the way of the dinosaur spending countless dollars persecuting downloaders instead of building better artists.

When did people refusing to give up their rights become a business model? If you want to talk about how to solve the problem of widespread theft of intellectual property, that's a different discussion from the OP's original question. I don't think that arresting people is the only answer, not at all, but it would be a heck of a good start.

I encourage people at my band's shows to buy one copy of our CD and share it with their friends, it is essentially free advertising. You view it as stealing, when it could be considered to be a sampler to get you hooked.

No I don't view that as stealing. You are choosing to give your property away as a business decision. People don't have a right to steal your CD's if you want to sell them, do they? What if every aspect of your musical life was up for the taking by whoever wanted it?

How is stealing your merchandise, or demanding or even requiring you to play for free different from stealing music? In all cases your rights are being violated. It seems to me that you are giving up a fundamental right without much of a fuss now, so why should society stop there?

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

Why don't you use that rationale when you go shopping - let me know how that works for you

Big difference, that is a product not a service. Products have a cost. Music is a service. I do not think anybody is for it when you are referring to stealing a physical album, that is straight up wrong as it costs money to produce that CD with case and artwork.

Look around, you will find plenty of professionals with a pay what you can mentality from lawyers to psychologists. It does happen.

 

[rocksmoot]

Well, the overwhelming perception is that the artists DID and DO get paid. Can you list some that didn't? The ones that got screwed by their labels? For the record I'm not a 'free music' advocate.

It really doesn't make any difference who got paid what. By allowing that argument, we accept the notion that it's okay to decide what we will and won't steal based on any arbitrary whim that pops into our heads. And something will always pop into a thief's head.

 

[mcarp555]

I see business models like your going the way of the dinosaur spending countless dollars persecuting downloaders instead of building better artists.

And when the labels are gone, who will be 'building better artists?

I encourage people at my band's shows to buy one copy of our CD and share it with their friends, it is essentially free advertising. You view it as stealing, when it could be considered to be a sampler to get you hooked.

So if by some miracle, one of your songs clicked with the public and it gets passed around and downloaded for free say a few million times, would you be okay with selling a thousand shirts? No? Too many?

For me personally, I download every album before I buy it unless it is impossible to find, it puts a bigger demand on an artist to release a quality disc instead of the hit single and 11 tracks of **** (Anybody else buy the Spacehog record?). Are you going to stop youtube too? You will protect your cash investment but you will stunt the growth of your audience, which will have a greater affect on your cash investment in the long run.

I don't think anyone would care about downloading if it could guarantee a resulting sale. A policy of 'try before buy' (including YT) would be similar to radio, which in the old days, would play records on-air for people to listen. If they liked it, they could buy it. A few people would tape off the radio, but often the quality would not be the same, and it was small potatoes anyway. But it's not a 1-to-1 ratio of d/l to buy.

I see a lot of fact-twisting in the argument for stealing, such as it's 'the future' and a sort of majority rules nonsense, etc. Flawed studies are thrown up to show that 'illegal' downloaders buy more. Car thieves might buy more gas than most people; so what? But as many people have pointed out, it's just stealing in the end. People who steal will always find a way to justify it. Saying it's a good thing does not make it so.

 

[rocksmoot]

I do not think anybody is for it when you are referring to stealing a physical album, that is straight up wrong as it costs money to produce that CD with case and artwork.

If no one ever got arrested for stealing a physical album, no one would think it was wrong either.

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

If no one ever got arrested for stealing a physical album, no one would think it was wrong either.

That is so horribly inaccurate. The fact people get arrested for something is not what guides a persons moral compass.

 

[I am Soma]

That is so horribly inaccurate. The fact people get arrested for something is not what guides a persons moral compass.

From the person trying to justify stealing music?

 

[DiabolusInMusic]

And when the labels are gone, who will be 'building better artists?



So if by some miracle, one of your songs clicked with the public and it gets passed around and downloaded for free say a few million times, would you be okay with selling a thousand shirts? No? Too many?



I don't think anyone would care about downloading if it could guarantee a resulting sale. A policy of 'try before buy' (including YT) would be similar to radio, which in the old days, would play records on-air for people to listen. If they liked it, they could buy it. A few people would tape off the radio, but often the quality would not be the same, and it was small potatoes anyway. But it's not a 1-to-1 ratio of d/l to buy.

I see a lot of fact-twisting in the argument for stealing, such as it's 'the future' and a sort of majority rules nonsense, etc. Flawed studies are thrown up to show that 'illegal' downloaders buy more. Car thieves might buy more gas than most people; so what? But as many people have pointed out, it's just stealing in the end. People who steal will always find a way to justify it. Saying it's a good thing does not make it so.

If my song was heard around the world and I didn't make a single cent I would die an extremely happy man. I do not know why you guys started playing music but I know why I did.

 

[sevdog]

Yes, really. Name names.

When I searched "musicians screwed by labels" there were 5,350,000 results. You're on a computer. Do some research.