User 41221

Well, if you want the opinion of a musician who danced along the fringes of "making it", as far as I am concerned, RIAA and trecord companies deserve what they get. RIAA have run a monopoly for way too long. Why do you think you only hear 15-20 songs over and over again on the radio? They choose what will "become popular" by force feeding it to the public. And if you think payola is dead, I have news for you, it hasn't had so much as a runny nose in most markets. They may change the way they pass the money around, but its all the same ol thing...

I could go on and on about this for hours, but it really doesn't address the original question. For what its worth, tho, I would be thrilled beyond thrilled to have people wanting to download my music for free. You can still sell plenty of product by being innovative in your packaging, and most bands don't make diddly off record sales anyway... its the touring and merchandising sales that puts the money in most bands pockets, and MOST bands, including the "popular" ones that you would think have "made it" don't have three nickles to rub together. They may spend advance money like its going out of style, but they usually don't have any understanding that an "advance" is a loan that they will have to pay back.

Do I sound bitter? lol

Regards,

Epic2112

Well it at least costs significantly less to stamp a CD than it does to make a cassette tape. A CD is a platic disc, a cassette is many pieces of plastic with magnetic film wound around more pieces of plastic, fuzzy pieces to keep things from rubbing wrong, and screws to hold it all together.

I'm sure the mark up on cassettes is disgusting too, but if they at least sold CDs at the same price I would be back in stores browsing. But since the industry is treating me (and everyone else) like I'm some stupid bastard who will pay more for cheaper crap they can go to hell. I find taht personally insulting. I suppose I'm a bit more millitant when it comes to connsumerism than most people, but that's just me. Until there are some changes the only pre-stamped CDs I'm buying are used ones that come from ebay and half.com. It's a shame the musicians don't take a stand on this stuff also, but the ones that matter are all a bunch of sheep anyway.

Everyone should make sure they are well informed about who they give their money to and what it will be used for down the line. If you pay attention you can make more of a difference (at least in the US) depending on who you give your dollar to than you can at a ballot box.

Ok now I feel better

RMills944

If you do use Kazaa lite ++, just notice the IPblock option is not set unless you manually check the box when you install it.

Ag951

There was an article on slashdot a few months ago about a typical band with a gold debut album getting about $200k (to divide among the band members) once the distributor, label, etc. took their huge shares. Not too good for a few thousand hours of work. They make most of their money on tour, if they make anything.

At the current rate the RIAA is suing music traders, it'll take them just over 2000 years to get everybody trading today (assuming no new traders pop up in two millenia).


I'm not sure how the IP blocker in Kazaa works, so I won't comment on it, but I do know how TCP/IP connections work. The client must transmit its IP to the server, if you alter it, the server will not be able to transmit data back. You can't hide it, because the other machine will still have the ip address in the packet headers. Spoofing works better when the connection runs through a server somewhere (like an IM client). On a direct P2P connection the machines must know the other's address to be able to connect.
If you go through an anonymous rerouter, the ip it gets will be that of the rerouter, and (hopefully) the rerouter will destroy all evidence of the link between your IP from your ISP and the temporary one assigned. If not and they get a subpoena, you're screwed.

Tyler951

In my opinion, being able to selectively download certain singles/songs that are released on the radio and usually the best work from the album is very enriching to ones musical collection. You are able to get the best of what you want and don't have to worry about all the other songs on a xx.xx priced cd not being up to par. But if there is enough quality material on the album or i feel like i want to support the artist than i will go out and purchase the cd. But really the best way to help artists get paid is to go to the concerts.

I get into all sorts of arguments with my girlfriend about her devotion of creed. I used to like them but i think they have become way over-played. Still, I love her and respect her tastes. (Don't know where that came from) I guess i am so in love that any chance i can talk about her i do.

As for avoiding a subpeona, i think all you have to do is not share. If you are just leaching you are simply taking advantage of what is out there for your own personal use. You are not aiding the piracy any farther after your stingy self gets that song. But, everybody should continue to share as much as possible as to let me to continue having a grand selection of music to leach!

Wade B

I don't like to get involved with arguements on here generally, but as a musician/songwriter (like you, Scott), it is hard to stay out of this, and I'm sure some of you knew the dissent was coming, so here goes; Yes, the world is full of stories about artists that get ripped off by the record companies along the way, and the big record companies are part of the reason that we are forced to listen to formulaic music all the time. I would love to see the biggies get what they deserve in this but it is the artists that suffer. Music is intellectual property. If you are taking it (or I guess the word would be "sharing") without their permission then I think by definition there is a word for that and that word constitutes a crime. Sure there are groups out there who would love the added exposure and would submit their material to be used for free. But that mentality of selling your soul or doing anything to get your stuff out there is why a lot of artists are preyed upon by the record companies. Since the money is really in the publishing rights, other artists have even started to prey on each other by starting publishing companies and hoping that the upcoming artist hasn't done his research. I've heard a lot of talk about punishing the biggies on here but no sympathy for "sharing" also affecting the artists. Yes, this could go on and on and there are pros and cons but at the basic level, should you be able to avoid a subpoena if you have committed a crime ? Flame on, guys.............

Travis - sflraver

A friend of mine got the boot from AOL for using Kazaa and downloading movies.

IRC all the way, thats my view on it.

Being somewhat of an "artist" myself, I would welcome the added exposure that programs like Kazaa bring and would inturn be flattered by the sheer number of people who want to hear the music that I have created. That would be like Perry saying , "You cant put my car on the cover of Excellence.... ."

Dan Gallagher

I wish they would sue me so i could give them the finger on the evening news. If they lower the price of a cd to like $5 i MIGHT buy it but really the only person i would go out of my way to pay is the no name guy who is just making cds to make music and not bitch that bently just made a new car that he doesnt have yet because i dont have it either.

those new mpaa commercials showing how many people it takes to make a movie and how they wont get paid if i download things are cool because they kinda make you think...... make you think that actors shouldnt be making multi millions per movie if the lighting guy is feeding 3 kids and a wife.

and forget all that p2p stuff too, i am one of those private ftp, movie dump site loving 31337 hax0rs who has been at it since before napster knew what a mp3 was... that said if you must use a p2p i would go for the open source gnucleus (http://www.gnucleus.com/Gnucleus/) or if you are open to something different / willing to do a bit of searching / willing to share, we can again turn our attention to the open source community and find bit torrent.

and to these new pop 'musicians' & rappers especially dont need to make money on record sales, they all drive the ferrari with the diamond studded steeringwheel because they have their hands in multiple projects and companies... if anything the music is just a way to promote their name and distributing it to 10 people for free is better than 2 people who paid $20

btw, yes i am a very angry boy.

UDPride

Ive never really understood the concept of intellectual property myself.

If I go to the hardware store and buy a garden rake, there is nothing in the world preventing me from taking that garden rake home and sharing it with every neighbor on the block. I could even consult every neighbor before I buy that garden rake and tell them "Hey, lets not all buy a Garden rake, I'll buy it, and let everybody use it. Each of you can buy another garden tool and we'll share. Hell, if I like you enough, I may even give you my garden rake forever."

Nothing in the law prevents this. In effect you are ruining the garden tool business by sharing tools among many. You can do this with any piece of physical property with as many people as you like, and nothing becomes of it. You could buy a car and carpool. Perectly legal, yet you are undermining the automotive industry arent you.

But (and I dont understand why because I am stupid), if you do it with a musician's song, under no circumstances can you ever share that song with anybody. You can go buy notebook paper at the store, make color copies of it, and give it anybody you like so they dont have to buy notebook paper too. I guess I just dont understand why the music industry and other industries that fall under the term "intellectual property" have a different standard. I agree the music is from the brain and creative, but so is the patent and engineering for a garden rake. The guy who invented it is losing big money if you share that garden rake with everybody in the neighborhood yet its perfectly legal. Think about the guy who invented the Garden Weasel. Hes losing millions if everybody shares it with their neighbor.

Im not trying to give anyone a hard time, Im just tryihg to understand how the laws are written and why certain things (property that you buy and own outright) is handled differently depending on what it is. I would think, just on logic that if I can do anything I want with my garden rake -- even sit in my garage all day and make a mold of it, pour silicone in the mold, make backup garden rakes, and give them to my neighbors without the intent to make a profit -- logic would dictate I should be able to do anything I want with my CD I full own free and clear as long as Im not using it as a resource to turn a profit.

I guess anything in my opinion can be classified as intellectual property. Nose hair clippers could be. Somone invested time and intellect and creativity to design and patent it, but when Mr Jones lets everyone on the block use his nose hair clippers, its okay. I love music, but I dont think any more creativity goes into music than goes into a COBOL program or a watch face.

Someone tell me my logic is completely hosed. Just trying to understand everything. Im not too bright.

Epic2112

Just playing Devil's Advocate...

One of the differences is this: only one person can have the rake at any given time, whereas the MP3 (or whatever) is copied, as opposed to being lent. Many people can have it. If two people want to use a rake at the same time some one needs to buy a second one. If two people want to listen to the same song at the same time it is much easier than making a copy of the rake. I understand what you are confused about, and I agree it is a bit counter-intuitive, but a big part of the issue is that there is simply a lot less money in the rake-making business, on top of which rakes generally don't go bad. Pop music, on the other hand, goes bad pretty quickly (BECAUSE IT SUCKS SO MUCH!!!!!!!!!), so if the huge amount of money that could potentially be made is to be achieved it must be done relatively quickly. Rakes are not going out of style any time soon, I think. It's definitely confusing, and while I don't think there would be much of an issue if you found a way to duplicate something like rakes, I do think that you would run into trouble if you started duplicating let's say a Dremel 231D Shaper/Router Table and marketing/giving it away saying that it IS in fact a Dremel 231D Shaper/Router Table instead of that it is a duplicate of one. It's the specifics that have a lot to do with it. If I give out MP3s of Hendrix playing Foxy Lady it's a "crime", but if I give out MP3s of me playing Foxy Lady it's okay because that's something different. (In actuality this might cause a whole different problem, but forget about that right now). Maybe that cleared things up, maybe it made things hazier, what the hell do I know?

P.S., I don't think silicone would make a very good rake, back to the drawing board for you.

UDPride

Good points. You could by a single sheet of notebook paper, color copy it 10,000 times, and give it to anyone you wanted though. So many people would be using it at the same time.

I agree probably the shelf life issue in the music biz prob. has as much to do with it as anything. I will buy that argument.

Perry 951

How about a view from a Radio Programmer.

Copyright and intellectual property -
The garden rake is an excellent analogy, only 1 person can use it at any given time. If you share that 1 rake, that is not illegal. Now, say that rake has a patent (simple as a coating on the handle, paint on the tines, type of wood) and you built 10 exact copies to give to friends, you would be breaking patent law. Apply that to a CD and you have the same situation. If you bought a blank piece of paper and copied it, you would be fine. If there was anything on it, such as an article from a book or newspaper, you would break copyright law.

Payola -
I'll be the first to say it probably still happens in one form or another. The Record Company supplies a station 20 CD's to give away, is that payola? Technically, no. If the station sold them, then it would be. Any intelligent programmer would not allow any type of payola in their station. The fine is obnoxious (% of station revenue) and the possibility of the FCC taking the broadcast license. A few hundred bucks, or even a few thousand is not worth the risk.

Air Play -
Record reps will "push" a song or artist that they think will make them money and sell CD's. They have no input on what will or won't air on a station. It's the discretion of the program and music director. If it is something they like, fits the format, and could lead to more listenership (and more sponsor revenue) they'll play it. Just because Brittney has a new CD that a rep is trying to push, that does not mean I am going to play it on my rock station.

Cost of CD's -
Sure, the physical CD, jacket, and case may cost $.11 to make, but you must consider the many other costs involved in it. 1st, you must pay the talent for their song. Then you must pay the recording studio to track it, produce it, and master it. You then have staff who design the jacket, promo flyers, tv spots, concerts, appearances, etc. You have marketing costs, shipping costs, accounting costs, and on and on. If you sit back and think of how many people are involved in the 1 sale of a CD, you can begin to grasp it.

Back to the rake analogy... are you pissed that the rake you bought cost $11.99 for probably $1 worth of materials? No.. so don't be pissed about the cost of a CD.

Danno

"If you do use Kazaa lite ++, just notice the IPblock option is not set unless you manually check the box when you install it."

Also hiding the IP of your personal machine is irrelevant. It's the IP of the gateway connection to the ISP that's still public and is a pointer to you.

Rich Sandor

Well, there's one good thing about livin' in the great white north. Apparently the RIAA's reach doesn't extend over the border!!!

Rich Sandor

Also, regarding the whole rake analogy..

If I own the CD, can I download a copy of the song? What about if I own the a TAPE of the song? I've had metallica's Black on tape, and needless to say I no longer have a tape deck in my house or car... so now I gotta go pay for a CD??

What about if my roomate happens to have a Nelly CD in his room, and when he's playing it, I hear it too. Do I have to own my own copy of the CD if I want to hear it? Or can I simply download a copy of it because my roomate also has the cd?

But playing it over the radio or in earshot of a large audience is illegal without paying out the label.. right?

The only thing you can compare music theft to is theft of other artisitc property. Such as if I make a GIF file and then other people see it and use it all over the net - and perhaps even get paid for using it, ( what was originally my work.) As far as copyrights go - as soon as you create unique individual concepts or designs of any medium, you posess a legal copyright to it. The ability to protect that intellecual property can only be asserted if you REGISTER your copyrighted materials.

One good example of this is 3D models for game. I once made a Ferrari F355 Challenge for a game, and put it up for download. Before I knew it, people had converted it to other games, totally mangled the quality of my work, and even had the gall to pass it off as thier own work. This after 3 months of me working on a mesh....

How long does it take for Nelly and company to make ONE track? And HOW much do they get paid??? THEY SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN!!!! I heard stories (from two feet awy from Axl Rose himself) about Guns N roses writing **** while high on coke within an hour or so of actually recording the album. And they made more off of that one song, even after thier cut, than I'll ever see in my life.

If I'm going to BUY a CD, It's going to be from a small fledgling band, not from someone who's so loaded with money they are smoking weed from rolled up benjamins.

Edit: And just to add one more thing - most of these "artists" that bitch about people downloading music would, no doubt, do the EXACT SAME thing they are damning, if they had no talent and weren't in the industry and filthy rich.