[X] My Assistant

[Gati]

Maybe the title got your attention... But anyway, there's this big argument going on, mostly in Europe about downloading mostly music and movies. Some musicians support it and the companies are constantly suing. You might have heard of it already, but people are saying that music should be free while of course the companies are wasting their money on "anti-piracy" campaigns.

Should companies just shut up about it and adapt to the new generation of media (file sharing), or is it the people to blame for the lost of money and jobs. Discuss about it, I'll post later.

[Flamer]

Hmm, its a interresting one. At the end of the day, I do wonder how many jobs are actually being lost by this kinda thing. I mean, these are huge companies, and its not like they're no longer selling records. If they've got the vast resources to waste money on stupid schemes to prevent it, then they've got money to keep hold of thier employies. My main problem with it would be ripping of the artists. At the end of the day, not all musicans are high flying millionaires, and the ones who are are often the ones who don't really make thier own music. For these big artists, I wouldn't have a problem, they're very much in the same boat as the record companies. But its the smaller bands and artists that have written thier own music, used thier own talents and most importantly stuck to creating the music that they like and have not sold themselves and thier music out for some massive record deal. The again, if those same artists don't mind their musics being distributed for free, then thats cool. But if they do, then I think they have earned the right to have thier views respected.

[Paiu]

Honestly, free never hurts. Radiohead released their entire new album online for free, and it was still one of the best selling albums of the last few years.

The way I see it, you like a band. You want to support them. If you truly want them to see your money and your support, buying their CD isn't the way to go. Most artists, unless they created it themselves from start to finish including packaging, will see roughly 1-3 cents from each album purchased. Alternatively, you can save your $12, pirate the album, burn copies for all your friends, and go see them live. Buy a T-shirt.
You just gave your favorite band $5-10 more (Bands DO get the lion's share of their merch money.) and more fans who will also provide them with money and support.

(As someone who worked at a venue and occasionally visits to help out, and does a little amateur drumming and being the sound chick, I have an inkling..)

[King Calamity]

i think it should be left up to the artist weither to charge for their music or not, because, like paiu said, they get more money for merch and concerts. but some of these companies do need the money in order to keep producing and managing these artists. i kinda feel like i should know some of this seeing as how im trying to make it as a musical artist, but if i ever make a popular selling album, then ill probably charge no more than 5 bucks or something for it, because $15+ for an album when youre paying for just some data is ridiculous.

[ShrapnelStars]

I'd rather donate money directly to an artist than have the money be filtered through about forty different companies before it goes to the artist. That's what happens when you pay for the music. The CD makers get a cut, the recording label gets a cut, the agent gets a cut, the costume designers get a cut, and so on so that by the time it gets down to the artist, they only get a few cents per CD made/mp3 sold. If they get 1 cent per CD, and they sell 100 CD's, they get one dollar. Can you pay your mortgage or rent or buy groceries with a single dollar? No. It doesn't work that way.

Like Flamer said, there are some darn awesome artists who don't care if the music is free, maybe even preferring that it be free. The play from their hearts and want people to love what they do and who they are, instead of viewing their audience as a cash cow.

There have actually been some artists that I've heard that I chose to pay for because I loved them so much. I could have gotten the song for free, but I paid for it so that they could get support and keep on playing. I wish artists had some sort of donation section on their websites. (Some might. I haven't paid too much attention.) I could support them and not have to worry about some big corporation taking a chunk of my love for their own personal gain.

I think that since anybody can make a kickin' CD (or set of files) in their grandmother's basement these days, the labels should quit complaining and obstructing and realize defeat. A fledgling artist needs only to make a Myspace/Facebook/Purevolume page and people will be sure to check them out. I don't know how iTunes does it, but if an artist can get onto the iTunes store site and link themselves to some related genres, their name will appear to the listeners in a suggestions list when they click on a song in their library. I've found tons of artists that way, and it's now my preferred method of exploration.

It looks to me as if people will willingly donate and pay for things that they love. A price doesn't need to be imposed on them. I see it all the time.

I'm thinking that there should be a site where artists can congregate to get explored. They can upload their songs for people to download, and people can donate freely to keep them alive. Or, if they want, they can have each song at a set price, but the money would go to them entirely.

(Maybe aside from some server fees or something. Better yet, the site could have its own donation panel to keep the site itself up.)

The bottom line is that I'll take music according to my method until the artists themselves say something about how they want it done. The companies are by no means the artists' mouthpieces and could very well be setting up the opposite of what they want done. After all, for all these years the artists have been tools to bring them the most money. I think the tides needed to turn on them.

[Lord Raven]

Let copyright protect those who want it. I know for a fact that South Park creators encourage downloading their episodes, whereas others may not be so appreciative. It's better to convince the artists themselves to let them sell it off (people are going to buy albums regardless of the ability to download) than to fully legalize it.

[Eric Smith]

I think that piracy is stealing (though others don't. Why? Only God knows)
Free music will stop that. And the donating thing sounds awesome.
Though I don't get much music, (only have 1 song at the moment)
I am surrounded by great song/music and would gladly donate to the artist instead of the unimportant people who basically put sprinkles in the cake.

[Reyo]

Quite frankly, I think there is way too much rape, murder and robberies out there for people to be freaking out about little Timmy deciding to burn a Metalica CD. Heaven forbid we use our resources to cath murderers or rapists, we need to throw Granny McFee in jail for copy pasting her Barry Manilow file and sending it to her grandkids via e-mail...you know what? Let's throw the grandkids in jail to. Thoe little basterds are THEIVES!

[Eric Smith]

@ ^:

ROFL!!!
Nice point though. But we can't catch everyone who has broken the law.

[Gati]

I had expected for this thread to be more lively (although its been only about 5 days)

Anyway, I appreciate the replies and many of you have a really good point about paying more money to the companies than the authors (why do you think that is the companies constantly suing). And yes, now days more and more artist support it (and people respect and like that), because they earn much more money with their concerts, clothing, etc. While the record companies can not take their money away from that stuff (I think ). And besides, the more famous you are, the more money you have, more people will download it. And it is the same way but opposite with less known artists. I still buy CDs and even DVDs, not to 'support' (they're rich, why the hell do they need me?) but because I also believe that the original will always be better, but that is of course if I like the group or really liked the movie, and I won't pay to download something when I can get it for free, that is just stupid
And what Lord Raven said is right, some TV shows are already adapting to this, they know that not many people buy their 30+ USD volumes, so they just make streaming videos in their site with commercials to make a much better profit (which is smart and people respect that).

With that aside, I strongly believe that file sharing is not piracy (piracy is what happened in Somalia a couple of months ago). And file sharing is even expanding culture, how else would we know about all these different bands and cartoons in far away countries. Just like right now I am listening to now one of my favourite groups that just a couple of years ago I never had heard of them. Problem is, their albums are nowhere to be found where I live, and importing them is ridiculous because of the shipping, making the albums sometimes to cost 25 USD (no thank you on that). However, the more they'll get recognise, maybe fans will put up blogs and why not, and different bands will soon come.

[Kalith]

Honestly, free never hurts. Radiohead released their entire new album online for free, and it was still one of the best selling albums of the last few years.

The way I see it, you like a band. You want to support them. If you truly want them to see your money and your support, buying their CD isn't the way to go. Most artists, unless they created it themselves from start to finish including packaging, will see roughly 1-3 cents from each album purchased. Alternatively, you can save your $12, pirate the album, burn copies for all your friends, and go see them live. Buy a T-shirt.
You just gave your favorite band $5-10 more (Bands DO get the lion's share of their merch money.) and more fans who will also provide them with money and support.

(As someone who worked at a venue and occasionally visits to help out, and does a little amateur drumming and being the sound chick, I have an inkling..)

I completely agree with you. I would throw my money at my favorite artists through merch or tour tickets rather than paying for something that no doubt, at some point, my children will use as hockey pucks and/or Frisbee's.

I'd rather pay Jonathan Davis for his glorious music over some Fat Cat producer.

[yankeesrock]

I don't really think it is that bad, it is a waste of money to keep on buying music. You can just watch a video with the album cover and the song. Also, many people become fans of bands from a song on a radio or a friend tells them about it. Sure, if they gave away all of their songs for free, they would lose money, but if they give away 10 or so free songs, then people will get them for free, like them, and then buy tickets to their concerts and tee shirts and all of that stuff.

[Chemical Hound]

To be honest, i pirate that many songs that im suprised ive not been arrested

and theres that many illegaly free sites out there that thered be no point in sueing anyone cause it wont ever stop

[Fullmetal]

let there be free music. the artists should be able to decide.

[Mande]

I think that if CDs didn't cost so much, then there shouldn't be free music, because artists live with CDs' money..but most of Cd are very expensive, so..if you want to listen that particular song..you have to download it..

[Patrick I]

Hmm, yes. Music should be free. Yes, I understand, that this way the artists won't make a lot of money, but they'll have to accept it, since now, there is no stopping it. Movies and music and games all get downloaded, which means that it should be like that.

[legionsky]

I disagree with music being free.
Musical career will not be there and everyone would not wanna work under the music career sec cause there's no pay.

[Genidoxian]

I believe in paying for music, however, sometimes companies can go a little overboard with their copyrights. We all know how much Youtube hates fan-made music videos. But removing videos because of snippets of music playing in the background? Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me...

[Lord Raven]

I disagree with music being free.
Musical career will not be there and everyone would not wanna work under the music career sec cause there's no pay.

Christian Rock Hard - South Park

I think it should be up to the guy who writes it. If i were to start a band, I sure as hell would make my music free but others want to profit. Honestly though people aren't going to buy it if they're going to download it anyway, on top of people buying albums anyway for collection, so not much will change at all if all music is free.

[Reyo]

The moment anyone starts controlling what I do with my computer files is the moment personal freedoms go right out the window. It's just like the wiretaping thing. "In order to reserve personal freedoms, we must sacrifice personal freedoms" WHAT?! Since when does something like that make sense? That's just like a Marathon having one of it's registration requirements being that you have to cut one of your legs off. It makes no sense.

And the musicians make most of their money from concerts and merch anyway. If they didn't, the Metalica and U2 wouldn't be doing it still. Those are two of the biggest bands in the WORLD. If they're able to live off of the money made with their music in iTunes, then why are they still on tour?