p2pnet - rss feed: ‘Fans who share music aren’t thieves’
p2p news / p2pnet: Canadian musicians are rising up against p2p lawsuits, statutory damages, DRM and anti-circumvention legislation.
They’ve started a new group called the Canadian Music Creators Coalition.
“Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates,” they state unequivocally. “Sharing music has been happening for decades.”
Members include, Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman.
Below is their first white paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A NEW VOICE: POLICY POSITIONS OF THE CANADIAN MUSIC CREATORS COALITION
APRIL 26, 2006
Debates about the way copyright law and cultural policy affects Canadian music have been dominated for a long time by a very small number of special-interest lobbyists. In the midst of the wrangling over the demands of powerful representatives of recording and music publishing companies, collective societies and the broadcasting industry, actual Canadian artists have been squeezed out of copyright discussions. Although some lobbyists purport to speak on behalf of artists, the voices of real people who actually make music - songwriters, composers, performers, musicians and the like - have been mostly neglected. This document marks the start of an effort to change that, by talking truthfully about Canadian artists’ wishes for the future of copyright law and cultural policy in Canada.
Who We Are
We are a growing coalition of Canadian music creators who share the common goal of having our voices heard when it comes to making the laws and policies that affect our livelihoods. We are the people who actually create Canadian music. Without us, there would be no music for copyright laws to protect.
Our musical backgrounds and interests are diverse. We represent a wide variety of musical genres. We create everything from popular top-40 tunes to critically acclaimed selections to grassroots folk songs. We make rock, pop, blues, jazz, R&B, hip-hop, folk, country and even classical music. We play various roles in the music production process. We are not just singers and songwriters, although most of us write or perform our own music to some extent. Some of us are also record producers and music promoters, for ourselves or other artists.
We have won dozens of Juno and Grammy awards, and have sold tens of millions of albums worldwide. Most, although not all, of us are associated with major record labels, collecting societies and industry associations. We have found that our voices are drowned out within or by these groups. They do not genuinely represent our interests.
‘Not in Our Names’
Until now, a group of multinational record labels has done most of the talking about what Canadian artists need out of copyright. But let’s be clear: major labels are looking out for their shareholders, not for Canadian artists. Recording industry lobbyists, despite claiming to represent artists, seldom speak for us. Legislative proposals, particularly those that would facilitate lawsuits against our fans or increase the labels’ control over the enjoyment of music, are made not in our names, but on behalf of the shareholders of the labels’ foreign parent companies.
Record companies and music publishers are not our enemies. They’re often run by people who love music and are passionate about the promotion of Canadian culture. However, representatives of the sound recording and music publishing industries are in an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict has led to fundamental problems in the way Canadian artists have been represented in the copyright reform process.
Industry lobbyists claim that they represent our interests. In truth, these representatives are often beholden to the directors and corporate shareholders of a small number of multinational companies headquartered outside Canada. As part of the effort to maximize revenue, record labels typically seek to acquire, not protect, artists’ copyrights.
Most of the campaigning on behalf of major record labels is not about protecting artists or promoting Canadian culture. It is about propping up business models in the recording industry that are quickly becoming obsolete and unsustainable. It about preserving power structures and further entrenching the labels’ role as industry gatekeepers. Lobbying efforts are focussed on obtaining laws that restrict artists’ ability to take control of their own music, reach their fans in more direct ways and earn a decent living from music without sacrificing their autonomy.
Canadian artists are deeply concerned, not only about autonomy and financial security, but also about creating, preserving and spreading Canada’s unique cultural heritage. Laws that help to cede control over the Canadian music industry to foreign labels do not address these concerns. It is the government’s responsibility to protect Canadian artists from exploitation. This requires a firm commitment to programs that support Canadian music talent, and a fresh approach to the process and substance of copyright law reform.
Guiding Principles
We, as Canadian music creators, have identified three simple principles that should guide copyright reform and cultural policy: (1) Suing our fans is destructive and hypocritical, (2) Digital locks are risky and counterproductive, and (3) Cultural policy should support actual Canadian artists.
Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
We do not want to sue our fans. We oppose any copyright reforms that would make it easier for record companies to do this. The labels have been suing our fans against our will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in our names.
We believe that the current litigious atmosphere in the music industry is destructive. Lawsuits unfairly alienate our fans. Artists cannot expect to say, ’see you in court,’ and then, ’see you at Massey Hall next fall.’ A few other countries have created a legal climate where suing fans is the norm. Lawsuits against music fans benefit no one. If there is a threat to Canadian artists, it is not p2p downloading or sharing music but lawsuits brought by the recording industry against our fans.
Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates. Sharing music has been happening for decades. It is hypocritical for labels to sue fans for something that everyone in the music industry has done him or herself. New technologies may have changed the way that fans share music, but they have not changed the fact that sharing helps artists’ careers.
In terms of specific copyright reforms, this principle suggests that the government should repeal provisions of the Copyright Act that allow labels to punish fans with damages of $500 to $20,000 per song. Statutory damages of this magnitude are unduly harsh where music fans share songs for non-commercial purposes. The threat of such enormous liability does not deter file sharing, but unfairly forces vulnerable people to cave in to the labels’ bullying tactics without a hearing of their case. To sue for non-commercial music sharing, record companies should have to prove their damages or lost profits, as is usually required by law.
Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music, let alone laws that would prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. Digital locks, and laws protecting them, are risky and counterproductive.
Most Canadian labels do not use digital locks when distributing artists’ music. However, some labels, particularly major foreign labels, wish to increase their control over Canadian artists and music consumers. Artists themselves are given little or no choice over the use of digital locks by labels. If given a choice, most artists would rather allow consumers the flexibility to determine how and when they enjoy the music they buy.
The major labels’ tactics are backfiring and hurting artists. The use of digital locks is decreasing consumer confidence in entertainment products and leading to resentment of the music industry as a whole. The labels that employ these tactics feel the backlash, but actual Canadian artists also suffer as a result. The recent incident concerning Sony BMG’s digital rights management systems illustrates the risks inherent in trying to control consumers through technology.
Technological restrictions on music are also counterproductive, because they disappoint fans. Taking away consumers’ choices will cause fewer fans to buy our music. Artists want to ensure that fans have simple and convenient access to a wide variety of Canadian music on terms that are fair and reasonable. That means that when fans buy music, they should be able to use it how and when they want. It is not fair that fans who buy songs, whether downloaded or on a CD, may be prevented from playing them on certain devices. Yet, rather than provide artists and music consumers with flexible options, record companies are demanding more control over the use and enjoyment of music.
Therefore, the government should not blindly implement decade-old treaties designed to give control to major labels and take choices away from artists and consumers. Laws should protect artists and consumers, not restrictive technologies. If enacted at all, laws prohibiting the circumvention of technological measures should remain narrow. Any new legislation should not prohibit technologies or devices that may increase flexibility and facilitate choice for artists and music consumers. The law should also guarantee that artists and fans retain the ability to access music, and to use it in a fair manner.
On the issue of fair use of music, copyright law should be changed to clarify that transferring songs from one format to another is not an infringement of copyright. It is not fair to require consumers to pay twice for the ability to transfer bought songs to an iPod or other device by imposing additional levies. Instead, eliminating the rigid technicalities of the current fair dealing provisions and moving to a more flexible concept of fair use can solve this problem.
Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should, therefore, use other public policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene. The government should protect Canadian artists from those who would exploit us.
The Canada Music Fund and FACTOR are examples of the types of initiatives that benefit Canadian artists. The government should make a positive long-term commitment to develop and grow these support mechanisms. It should foster the growth and development of Canadian talent by investing in music training and education at all levels. The government should consider creating limited tax shelters for copyright royalties earned by individual artists, which would directly benefit those who most need support. Individual artists should be protected from inequalities in bargaining power, and collecting societies should be subject to greater accountability and more transparency.
Unless actual Canadian artists are supported, concentrated control over access to audiences and music markets will impede their ability to break through on the Canadian and international music scenes. This in turn will restrict the development of a diverse and representative pool of Canadian music talent, and jeopardize the existence of a distinctly Canadian musical identity.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
These artists are very much aware ot the new movement to boycott the artists that are supporting or being supported by the RIAA hoods.
Many people in the US are gutsy and ignore all this and keep on with P2P but the Canadians will probably form a concert event around this like Woodstock 3 but with a cause.
I’ll go.
In the meantime I keep throwing out cds from the RIAA crowd. If I ever later want to listen, I’ll let someone share with me.
Next, the RIAA will be telling you how loud you play the music.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
or demand players be built that detect the number of people in general area and start billing you for public performane if there is someone else within listening range.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Go get ‘em folks.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Nice to see musicians in at least one country standing up to the bastards.
The Canadian government will make sure the labels get their way, though.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
So how come the Bare Naked Ladies polluted p2p networks with piles and piles of fake tracks when their album came out? I had BNL filed next to Metallica based on a few instances of their behaviour towards p2p, sharing and their fans’ rights to use their ears as they like.
April 26th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
It wasnt neccesarily the GROUP Barenaked Ladies sitting at a computer putting out fake files. It was almost certainly some aspect of the record company doing it.
That is the entire point to what the white paper said. These measures (litigation, proposed locks, DMRCA) are measure being carried out by the companies controlling the music, not the artists themselves. Thats why the artists want to start a “Not In Our Name” campaign.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Hell now I’m gonna go out and buy Our Lady Peace’s latest album.
Awesome stuff, this.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Same with Sara… I got her CD, ripped it and got all kinds of crackling noise on my rip. Vowed never to buy her stuff again… They say that they have no control over what the labels do though and I can believe that… I might have to re-consider buying her stuff again if they actually fight this nonesense.
Cheers from the US.
PS: I downloaded a non crackling version from the net. Somebody used analog or didn’t have the same butthead copynoright crap on it.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
bravo! i salute the artists involved in this movement. change and progress are part of any industry. the idea is to intergrate technological changes into a new business strategy, not to restrict it.
it is my opinion that intellectual property belongs to the people who thought it up and that they should have the right to what decide what legal steps should be taken, if any.
anyway, $500 a song is just wrong. they even tried to sue a child…
hey, i should still have an old casette by the barenaked ladies… maroon… good album. is it legal for me to download it? (if i haven’t already.)
i did buy it the first time…
April 26th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
That’s the point these artists are trying to drive home, sharing music is not bad. QUITE THE CONTRARY, it’s been happening since the dawn of time. Used to be people shared songs by literally singing them from one village to the next, now it’s on the net. The only ones refusing to accept and reap the benefits of viral marketing are the music and film industry.
Many in the software industry who are confident about their product understand that a kid downloading their software will most likely buy it or addons down the road. When that kid gets a job, he’ll ask his boss for that software. It gets their name and product out there.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
So from this date forward…are all of these artists giving their music away for free? Including their back catalog? Granted, past sharing of music was borrowing a friend’s album or cassette tape and making a copy of it. Eventually the tape wore out and you bought your own copy. THEN and only then did the artist make money from it. If they didn’t like the percentage that the record company took then THEY are the ones who signed the deal! It’s amazing to me that it’s usually the artists who have already made their money, developed a comfortable fan base (with the help of the record company after they signed their deal) so they can make more money touring than with actual music sales, are the ones who now sing out against the record industry. These are bands we would probably never heard of if it were not for the record company people who trek from radio station to radio station hawking their artist’s latest recordings. Whether the recording sucks or not they are begging at the stations doorstep to get the songs played. Granted, I’ve been angry about CD prices for year, but I PURCHASED the music so that give me the RIGHT to complain. NOTHING is for free folks and the ideology that art, music or anything created by an individual IS for free because YOU feel it should be…is STEALING. If the ARTIST says it’s for free…fine. Don’t even get me started on how songwriters who are not pretty enough to be ARTISTS are getting ripped off. -Matt
April 26th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Many people make the mistake that allowing for file sharing means the end of sales or art. If that were the case the industry would have already collapsed as HUNDREDS of millions of people (possibly billions) have music files that are not payed for.
In fact seeing as the diversity of music is richer than ever…it might even make the music more diverse and allow musicians that would never have a chance to compete against the RIAA marketing machine far more accessable. The only people this will really hurt is all the middle men that basically do nothing but marketing and taking well over 80% of the typical artist’s income from music sales anyway. With the internet this clearly is not needed anymore as their exists a perfect distribution medium.
The laws in the US basically allow an artist to have a monopoly. If art were at risk I’d say fine keep those laws. Clearly this is not the case… furthermore if looking at the US as a case example to have those laws will create a new class of criminal that could go 10-20 years to prison for downloading (ridiculous).
Artists can still make plenty of money of public appearanced, concerts and various paraphenalia… not too mention plenty of people would still pay to buy CDs if the price was more realistic for the level of work provided.
It’s wonderful to see some artists stand up for their fans and to do the right thing. I can only hope more remember the roots of why they got into music and what they sing about….and stop being manipulated by greedy suits that care nothing for music only easy money.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
yeah see the following link to see how ‘good’ the major labels are to artists.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
April 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
OK. You are still not getting it. This money that they are going after was THEIR money in the first place. Granted, the fines against these individuals are ridiculous, but it still doesn’t make taking the music in the first place ok. If it was ok to take the music, then why don’t you walk into your local record store and just TAKE what you want. Why? Because it’s STEALING! How freakin’ hard is it to understand? It does NOT matter that you are using the internet to do it or if you walk in the store and take it..it’s freakin’ stealing. They are NOT standing up for their fans!!!! This is plain and simple REVERSE CORPORATE THINKING!! These artists may lose or choose to lose their record deal, but by doing this will seem ‘hip’ to their public by acting like they are not selling out to the corporations that helped establish them in the firstplace.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
” Granted, I’ve been angry about CD prices for year, but I PURCHASED the music so that give me the RIGHT to complain.”
and because people like you purchase the music for the ridicously high prices, the prices remain high. People who choose not to buy the CD’s are actually doing something unlike you, the *IAA’s decision to blame the downturn on dl and not their own pricing is a poor decision.
And No I don’t agree with dl songs and KEEPING them without paying for them. I agree to being allowed to hear all songs on an album before purchasing them.
If they priced the CD’s as they should be they would sell more and make more… but more money for less effort is just to enticing for them. Not to mention a few execs might have to give up their bonus’s, & they wouldn’t be able to give artists/performers (as many are just that these days) piles of diamonds for their birthday… they might jut have to learn to be a little more frugal like most companies.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
“OK. You are still not getting it.”
See what I just did above, I “stole” your words. That’s right, it doesn’t hurt you, doesn’t cost you a penny or loss of pennies, BUT IT GETS YOUR WORDS AROUND !
Next time you write a book, soemone reading my spreading your words around JUST MIGHT BUY IT ! Don’t count on it though, strange person (to be polite).
April 26th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
No the money was not the labels, nothing was stolen. How freakin hard is that to understand. It’s copyright, a right that society allows artists to have in order to encourage creation. To strike a balance between societies rights and creators rights. But the balance has been moved too far in the copyright holders favor (not necessarily the creators favor).
yeah see the following link to see how ‘good’ the major labels are to artists: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
“These artists may lose or choose to lose their record deal, but by doing this will seem ‘hip’ to their public by acting like they are not selling out to the corporations that helped establish them in the firstplace. ”
And when the recording industry is controlled by a monopoly (the work together under the *IAA umbrella, but remain seperate entities to get around the monopoly thing) artists/performers have no choice as to whom they go with. So no they are not selling out the corporations thet helped establish them. Not to mention how the labels lobby to have laws altered so they don’t have to pay the performers etc a royalty (tried having it relabelled as works for hire). Yeah the labels love their creator/peformaer as long as they can screw em.
April 26th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Nice try, Matt. Surely you are a RIIA or someone else’s mole.
Anyway, you make no sense at all with your fancy footwork.
Hooray for Canadian artist!
April 26th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
This is great. At last someone is seeing things as they are and can serve as an example.
I am from Puerto Rico. Here our music and culture has been decimated by RIIA and the American music publishers and performance collectives, who have set the local music industry in a destruction path. In the prcess we are loosing our culture, all so that the already rich can make more money with foreign (some good, mostly terrible) music. Also, as a rsult classical music is dead. Ask a teenager who Beethoven was and you will get a stare. Ask him who singer “Killo Rap” is and you will get a detailed explanation.
Of course the gimmicks are well known: Payola, abusive songwriter and artist contracts that pocketed judge and courts refuse to rescind regardless of how abusive and foreign they are or how damaging they are for our fast dissapearing songwriter and and artist class.
Then there are the back room accounting and royalty distribution systems that no one audits, trusts see or understand.
I sincerely hope that we Puertoricans emulate the Canadian, else we are culturally doomed.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 26th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
For more information and what so many of us are already doing, check out this link:
http://macgomez.typepad.com/scopetech/2006/04/whats_the_probl.html
Peace and long live MUSIC!
April 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Matt may never learn, but others can. In fact, an argument can be made that without downloading (as mentioned by another post), the music industry wouldnt have exploded like it has since the advent of p2p sharing systems. To reiterate, more bands are able to get exposer that otherwise would have been impossible, and these smaller bands often have the capibility to explode, making large sums of money for the precious labels they are signed to. Also, it is hard to believe that the record industry is actually losing money to downloading. Those people that were buying ablums before, are still going to buy them, and those that are downloading the albums, werent going to buy them in the first place. Again, with the explosion of non-mainstream bands and exposer, a whole new market opens up, and with new markets = new money. I know that I like to hear an album before I buy it, and while there are many modes to go about this, sometimes downloading is the easier. If it is worth a purchase, Ill buy it. Nothing makes me more angry than buying and album for a large sum of money, and then have it be complete crap. What is almost worse is the digital protection that prevents me from ripping it effectively to mp3. When this happens, it almost forces ppl to download the CD anyways in order to have a “digital copy” (which is legal).The argument that “the consumer buys the CD, not the digital copy of it” makes no sense to me. A CD is just a digital copy of what was recorded in the studio, I should have the ability to listen to it on my computer, iPod, or whatever medium I choose when I buy something.
Somewhat tangentially, I hate buying a DVD and having to sit through those BS ads about how “stealing is bad” and how “it supports terrorism” (lol) er whatever … I BOUGHT YOUR DAMN DVD! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT! I shouldnt be punished for that.
In any case, downloading music ensures that the consumer doesnt get ripped off. If it is worth buy (at a reasonable price) people will. I know I do. When I go to Best Buy and see good music on sale anywhere from $7-$10, I’ll take advantage if I see something I recognize. But I wouldnt have recognized it if it hadnt been downloaded in the first place.
April 26th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
As a student, I use software called Solidworks. The company that makes solidworks knows that students won’t spend tens of thousands on software, so they offered a $5 student version knowing that if they get me to use their software now, I will ask my future employer to buy it. Seems like the software industry gets it, its just movie and music industries that are falling behind.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
I would love to pay for the music I download, but I WILL NOT be dictated to by the record labels as to where, when or how I can play that music. This is what the DRM (Digital Rights Management) mechanism does. It protects the labels “rights” while denying mine — the rights I acquire to play the music by purchasing it. While such mechanisms control pay-to-play download services, I will continue to be considered a “pirate”. Plain and simple.
April 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
I just bought the new Juno CD, which is Canada’s Version Of the grammys (juno awards), I have ALL the Juno cds 16 in all, and this year was the first year the cd had copy protection, isnt that SAD!!!
Del Bodnarek
rockindel1@gmail.com
April 26th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
I agree with this, especially the last bit about buying good cheap stuff if I consider it worth that much. And that I wouldn’t know a lot of the bands I know without P2P, Last.FM and stuff like this.
April 26th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I find it very odd that nothing in all this is being said about the theft of your fair use rights through DRM. This wasn’t a legislation that made it possible to take it from you, it was the use of digital locks. I can’t sell something I don’t like after I get it and decide it was no good to my tastes. This business stinks as you can’t get a refund for being dissatisfied as you would expect with other items you buy everyday. Simply, I don’t like the way they do business. Nor do I care for the financial terrorism that is being hoisted off on the public. I do not support this idea, nor will they recieve any money from me to support this set of actions.
The statutory penalities are far out of bounds for the actions. I don’t see the opposite happening where the cartels stole listenership time on the radio by payolla that has in essence turned the radio stations from a place you could hear new music to a replay heaven. If artists don’t get the idea that not only I but a good portion of the listening public has been watching these actions by the cartels and have our own ideas of a responce then they sink with the ship. No amount of commonsense tells you that you can sue your best customer base and walk away unscathed. Since overhype has lead to subpar submissions in the form of albums that don’t meet the customer expectations, there is no one to blame but the very industry that is intent on self-destruction.
As far as I am concerned the real theives are the cartels and I intent that they will recieve their just deserts. In otherwords, no money from me in the form of any purchase till they clean up their act. Like it or lump it.
How many of those that go to prision for 5 years are going to be buying any more music? Self defeating isn’t it? So are the statutory penalities where the cartels don’t have to prove financial loss. These are nothing more than modern day mafia thugs.
April 26th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
“As far as I am concerned the real theives are the cartels”
But strangely no one from a record company has ever seen one day in jail for stealing royalties from artists and no music publisher has ever gone to jail for stealing songs and royalties from songwriters, even though these are common everyday thefts.
That is the advantage of having lobbies and big law firms working for you. They place you above the law.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 26th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Record Labels AND Artists need to think back to the time, not long ago, when artists would put their art onto a “tape” (remember tapes people?) and beg people to spread it around town in the hopes of radio stations, record producers to gain notice of their work. And some of those artists did get lucky, word spread that they were talented, and low and behold, a radio station would get a hold of their tape, and actually PLAY IT, without a contract of any kind being signed. Those were the days! But the one thing that these jazillionaire artists need to realize, it is their FANS that made them what they are today. If I like an artist, I WILL promote them to my sisters, friends and anyone else that will listen, and I WILL make copies of my CD’s for them. They should be thanking us for spreading the word about their talents. I am so happy to see this White Paper, and just for their open-minded ways, I may have to check out some of the bands that support this White Paper, as I support ALL artists that are greatful of their fans!
April 27th, 2006 at 12:15 am
That’s cause they commit ‘white collar crimes’ not like the evil bastards who dl music and support terrorism (I don’t think i’ll ever understand where the hell they get that connection)
April 27th, 2006 at 12:18 am
It doesn’t protect their rights it allows them to create new right that they do not have, and remove all of the customers rights… except the right to NOT purchase their product.
I know I will not purchase anything that removes my rights to use it. I’d never purchase a car I could only drive on certain roads (toll roads), so I’ll never purchase music I ca only play on certain machines, when the music mofia says I can.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:47 am
“NOTHING is for free folks and the ideology that art, music or anything created by an individual IS for free because YOU feel it should be…is STEALING.”
You, like many other people (most notably the RIAA), are confusing copyright infringment with theft. They are not even close to being the same thing in the eyes of the law.
Copyright infringment IS NOT THEFT. There are different courts and different laws for these very different things.
Please try not to help the RIAA too much in their campaign to have everyone believing that copyright infringment is exactly the same as theft of property.
Reframing the language is a fools way of winning a debate. but then again if you are trying to convince other fools….
April 27th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Look’s like Metalica didn’t make the list!!!! Still living on the Dark side!!!!!!
April 27th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Way to go, artists ALL AROUND THE WORLD !
April 27th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Sorry everybody. I’m not an RIAA ‘mole’ or anything of the kind. I just think that an “artist” who has made a conscious decision to sign a recording contract,(and take lots of up front cash, like an athlete takes a signing bonus) made the decision to use that industry and it’s money to promote itself (It’s called getting “signed”), that they should not come out and say that this is wrong…AFTER they’ve made all their money. They should have said it was wrong BEFORE they signed their deal and done it all on their own.
These people don’t just have ‘recording’ contracts. If they write their own music they have ‘publishing’ deals as well or they have their own publishing company. This is how they really make their money aside form touring and personal appearances. Every time one of their songs is played on the radio, TV, or included in a movie soundtrack…the ARTIST/SONGWRITER makes money. If you really knew anything about the music business itself you’d understand how important that is. These people have made a life changing decision to be PROFESSIONAL musicians to make their living. They can’t make that living if no one buys their music. If no one buys their music, they don’t make money as musicians. They play local clubs, post their songs on the internet that you are taking anyway and work in factories the rest of their lives. At that point…we will probably never hear of them.
Do it all on your own and ask someone in the know how much a one page ad for your band costs in a major music magazine. More more than I have…thats for sure. Ask them how much it costs to upkeep a website with a huge transfer bandwidth, or to record and produce their own CD’s. I’m not in the music business, I’m just a music fan, but I’ve realized a cold hard truth about the music business. When you become a professional musician…it is just that…A BUSINESS. No matter how you all slice it, no matter how you try to justify it…it’s just stealing. From the artist or the record company it does not matter.
When the artist says it’s all for free…then I’ll have no argument. There are some great bands on a LOT of websites that I have downloaded for free…because they SAY it is. If they are charging for it, and I like it…then I PAY for it. A very simple concept indeed. -Matt
April 27th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
“These people don’t just have ‘recording’ contracts. If they write their own music they have ‘publishing’ deals as well or they have their own publishing company. This is how they really make their money aside form touring and personal appearances.”
Publishing Deals: A method to steal song rights from songwriter by promising the songwriter will make money but if money is not made, too bad, as the songs were assigned for the life of the copyrights and there is no way to get the songs back even when the publisher is a total failure.
“Every time one of their songs is played on the radio, TV, or included in a movie soundtrack…the ARTIST/SONGWRITER makes money.”
Performance rights organization:
The racketeering arm of music publishers. They work only for the benefit of the publishers.
“If you really knew anything about the music business itself you’d understand how important that is.”
If you or anyone wants to know about more the music business,that is said in my web page, call me. Get my phone from my web page.
The music business is nothing but a bunch of crooks that steal from artists and want to send kids and their mothers to jail for sharing music.
If you are not a mole, you sound like one.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 27th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Like there is much choice for a musician who wants their recordings heard, even if you sign with an independant label there is a chance your records are distributed via one of the big 5, or is it 4 or 3 now? The labels aren’t signing these bands up cause they’re nice, they’re signing the bands up so they can milk as much cash out of their talents as they can.
See the following link to see how ‘good’ the major labels are to artists: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
“These people have made a life changing decision to be PROFESSIONAL musicians to make their living. They can’t make that living if no one buys their music. If no one buys their music, they don’t make money as musicians. They play local clubs, post their songs on the internet that you are taking anyway and work in factories the rest of their lives. At that point…we will probably never hear of them.”
With p2p and the internet independants have a better chance at succeding (what low cost marketing impossible, the labels handle the marketing and get paid BIG for it) with out the ‘major’ labels. I look forward to the day when musicians can make a good living without having to give away most of their money to the “marketing and distribution” middlemen. I wonder why big music really want to close p2p and music distribution over the internet down; because it hurts the ‘artist’ as they claim or cause the artist might be able to get a better deal without big music.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:43 am
Mick Jagger isn’t pretty, neither is Barry Manalow. Mama Cass??? forget it. songwriters get screwed by the labels, not the fans. why you support a system that steals more from it’s own artists in a year than a lifetime of music sharing by 60 million people ever will is beyond me. Do you use a VCR? the industry used to say it was illegal and the law supported them. Did you ever use cassette tapes? that was claimed to be illegal too. only difference is they went after the companies, not the fans. and their sales were sky high at the time. isn’t it ironic that when they started taking legal extortion action toward their fans that their sales plumeted?? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Rick
April 28th, 2006 at 2:38 am
“Like there is much choice for a musician who wants their recordings heard”
THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE
The labels aren’t signing these bands up cause they’re nice, they’re signing the bands up so they can milk as much cash out of their talents as they can.
THE BANDS ARE SIGNING WITH THE LABELS BY CHOICE>>>THEY TOOK THE CASH$$$$$$$
“I look forward to the day when musicians can make a good living without having to give away most of their money to the “marketing and distribution” middlemen”
I AGREE!!! FINALLY, YOU UNDERSTAND MY WHOLE POINT! I YOU DON’T SIGN THE CONTRACT>>>YOU DON’T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE!!!!
Thanks for the link too. Albini’s a little bitter, but it is exactly what I was talking about before. If you make a deal with the Devil…the Devil makes the rules.
I’m sorry if I’m harping about this too much. I’m just assuming that people know the dirty secrets of “getting signed” by a major label. I’ve a few books about it. The best and most eye opening is : Everything You Wanted to Know About The Music Business” by Donald Passman He breaks it down to the bare bones of what’s in the small print of a deal, how to avoid the pitfalls and hopefully enter the business with your eyes open.
I think it is a MUST read for anyone even thinking about signing a record deal. If you don’t then you’re bound to get ripped off. I’ve met a few talented people over the years who have been very disappointed with their record label experiences. Read the book if you choose the way of $$$$$$$$$
I will comment no more. -Matt
April 28th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
“songwriters get screwed by the labels, not the fans.”
Right on. But sometime the songs were supposed to be managed (meaning, among other things, royalties collected) by publishers, who sometimes are the record companies themseleves (talking about conflict of interest!).
Then the publisher found out it was better to collect less (on the books) and pay even less to the songwriter.
This sounds illogical, but here is how it makes sense.
First, as less royalties are collected on the book by the publisher, more is collected off the books (under the table, some may call it). Off book payments are then not shared with the songwriter. Only the reduced on the books royalties are shared with the songwriter.
Then there is the cut process as royalties pass through various sub publishers before it gets to the songwriter. A good example: From the record sales in Europe, the royalties are paid to a European sub publisher. The European publisher cuts the royalties before sending the remaining royalties to the country of the songwriter, where the cut process is repeated.
Then one could say that if songwriters do not get paid or their songs are mismanaged they will be lost as clients by the publishers and the record companies and the songwriters would move to another publisher. But that is not so.
Publishers and all record companies have associations that makes sure that publishers and record companies work in the same manner to prevent movement by songwriters from one publisher to another.
In essense publishers have set up monopolies to make sure that songwriters and performes have no bargaining power and that there is no real free market vis a vis songwriters and artists.
The methodology is the contracts that songwriters must sign to have their songs recorded. The contract are almost always a a take it or leave it offer or proposition, that if not accepted by the songwriter means that there is no access to the publisher and thus there is no acess to the record company.
I confirm it, as a music publisher. Most songwriters get screwed by most publishers and most record companies, just as most preformers are.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 28th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
“I just think that an “artist” who has made a conscious decision to sign a recording contract,(and take lots of up front cash, like an athlete takes a signing bonus) made the decision to use that industry and it’s money to promote itself (It’s called getting “signed”), ”
Up Front money, which is actually a loan ( called an “Advance” ), which the labels expects eventually to be paid back. But it never CAN be paid back. Everything from studio time to toothpaste is “charged” to the indentured servant, and creative accounting insures that the indentured servant is always in debt to the label.
So, it’s nothing like a signing bonus at all.
Are Athletes expected to eventually give that money back ??
At one time, signing with a label was the ONLY WAY for a band or artist to be heard outside of it’s own little corner of the world. Payola meant that it was also the only way to get radio airplay as well.
Thats no longer true.
Their contracts are no longer needed.
They fear P2P, NOT because of Copyright infringement, but because with P2P an artist NO LONGER NEEDS THEM.
Those that are already signed had little choice, and since they are in a state of perpetual debt to the label, they CAN’T speak openly about it.
What a marvellous system.
“These people don’t just have ‘recording’ contracts. If they write their own music they have ‘publishing’ deals as well or they have their own publishing company. ”
Like Jessica and Ashley Simpson perhaps ??
Like all the other paper doll figureheads ??
Most of those don’t play any kind of instrument either.
Granted, there are a few, VERY few, that do write there own songs, but the reason there are so few …..
Labels DON’T WANT perfomers that write. They are too expensive to maintain. They pay a smaller blanket fee to a publishing house for the songs, and then cheap pretty “puppet” to perform them ( of course , they charge their puppet for the band, studio time, etc .. ) get the picture ?. A performer that writes may eventually be in “the black” and escape their control.
What an AMAZING system.
“Every time one of their songs is played on the radio, TV, or included in a movie soundtrack…the ARTIST/SONGWRITER makes money. ”
Now I know for certain you are a mole.
This is the single biggest lie being force fed to joe public.
The COPYRIGHT HOLDER makes money.
The COPYRIGHT HOLDER is almost NEVER the ARTIST/SONGWRITER.
That contract you mentioned above …
You see, it assigns all rights to the Label.
The Label is the rights holder.
This is STANDARD on all contracts.
If you don’t like it, you don’t get signed.
Since the Label insures the artists expenses are always greater
than income generated, the ARTIST never sees a dime.
Since they don’t own the rights, they aren’t entitled to it either.
If you don’t like it , Don’t sign.
This USED to be a problem, when the Labels were the only way to be heard.
Home recording, P2P … well,
If you don’t like the contract, do it yourself
It is now VERY possible, and scares the shit out of the Labels.
That is why they MUST criminalize P2P.
That is why they MUST monetize bandwidth.
“When you become a professional musician…it is just that…A BUSINESS. No matter how you all slice it, no matter how you try to justify it…it’s just stealing. ”
No matter how many times you repeat it, It still doesn’t make it true. No one has been deprived of any property. No proveable effect on sales has EVER been shown. No damages have EVER been proven. The Supreme Court even ordered RIAA lawyers to
stop calling it stealing ( Grokster ). But the lie is so much more important to the RIAA. No matter what moles like you say .. We all know it’s NOT stealing.
If you are and ARTIST … you will be one whether or not you “git paid” for it. It’s in the blood. You can’t help it. If you are in it strictly for the money … well .. it shows. Thats what we call a “hack”.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
“THERE IS ALWAYS A CHOICE ”
There wasn’t.
Now there is.
April 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I predict that RIAA or CRIAA will set up a competing artist organization to counter this new and legitimate movement.
If they choose a logical name, it may be CACA, for Coalition of Artists from CAnada.
A simlar move was made by American publisher when songwriters here in Puerto Rico were organized for the purpose of collecting royalties for songwriters, who at the timewere not getting paid by music publishers, broadcasters and record companies.
The Americans made a competing “songwriter organization” organization that could not survive as the Americans had the money.
Just watch out!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
April 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
You’re probably correct, and as part of all contracts Canadian Artists will have to join the label approved organization…and then send out press releases/shills to post/etc that state the artist chose to join.
April 28th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Big lol
April 29th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Hey! Stop giving the idiots ideas!
We all know what they’re doing with those
April 29th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Consider capturing the stream next time.
Quality will be better than Analog, and no worry about digital restrictions on “copying” because it’s not really copying in the same sense.
Of course, you could also rip it on a Linux box. Windows DMCA/retrictions don’t work there!
April 29th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
And god forbid, you actually share the book with someone.
Could you imagine the publishers running around suing people for lending books?
Sheesh.
The fact is, mp3’s are piss poor quality, in and of the realm of music copied from the radio. People have been doing that for years.
If people like the music, they buy it. Many folks just aren’t into music enough to buy it. I never was. The only time I EVER bought CD’s in any huge amount was when I DJ’d part time. I amassed a crap load of dance music that I would never have bought, because it got people up on the floor. Mind you, I probably should have been paying some insane amount for “public performance” of this music.
The music industry is full of idiocy, and their licensing requirements and restrictions are total crap.
Thank god these fine Canadian artists have banded together to call for sense in the matter.
Keep in mind: In Canada they TAX CD’s, DAT’s and MP3 players…. and the money is SUPPOSED to go to the artists in compensation for copyright infringement. Of course, artists never get the money, instead going to the money-grubbing, corporate skimmers.
I’d never invest in a music company, cuz their days are numbered, in their current form.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:42 am
I have said this in the past but it is worth repeating.
Because in the past records were copied by music lovers and collectors, many musical works have been saved from oblivion.
A good example, the music of my father. About 200 of his songs were recorded commercially in the 1930-1950 era, before he decided that the music business was a scam and withdrew from the busines in part, and in part was blacklisted by the American music publishing business that somehow controlled the local music scene. Most of those 1930-1950 recordings are no longer commercially available because the record companies than made the recordings no longer exists.
Only because many music collectors made what is now called criminal and illegal copies have many, if not hundreds, of the songs have been saved. Some of those copies were given to me on cassette so that we copyright owners knew that the song existed and could herar it and could SAVE IT.
Surely record companies cannot guarantee they will be around forever or that they will always market all he recordings they made.
Even music publishers do not save, let alone publish or get recordings done, of most musical scores and materials that songwriters give them, as music publishers have no sense of history or cultural purpose. They are just in the money business. As a matter of fact, publishers have a habit of throwing away as garbage most of the musical material that songwriters give them, as that is less costly than finding the songwriter or his/her heirs and returning it.
Its all very clear. Most record companies and their RIAA and music publishers do not give a damn about the culture of any country, wether it is Canada or my country, Puerto Rico. They are a nationless, culturaless, historyless business. Just in it for the money.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:02 am
It is absolutely appropriate to boycott music you feel is being offered by a group (such as the RIAA) who undertake practices with which you don’t agree; but, don’t be a hypocrite and steal music offered by an artist or label associated with the RIAA just because you, or your friends, like the music… or you think that you will be getting back at the RIAA. Stick to your guns, stay true to your cause, and, in the end, all artists will be treated the way they have chosen to be treated. After all, it’s the artist that matters in the end. Isn’t it?
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 am
“don’t be a hypocrite and steal music offered by an artist or label associated with the RIAA just because you ….. ”
No matter how many times it’s repeated, it STILL isn’t true.
Nothing has been “Stolen”. No one has been deprived of the use
or enjoyment of any physical property by anyone else, therefore
no “theft” has taken place.
Furthermore,
It STILL has not been proven that downloading has cost the
industry, or anyone a DIME in lost sales. It HAS been shown to
have “zero” effect ( Oberholz/Strumph study ).
Don’t be an industry sheep and spout the same tired lies.
May 4th, 2006 at 4:20 am
The theft that has taken place is the theft of my income stream.
I’m a songwriter. I don’t get paid until someone purchases a recording of my song. If someone likes my song well enough to add it to their collection but chooses to download an unauthorized copy rather than purchase it, they have stolen the royalty payment due me.
I don’t perform. I don’t sell t-shirts. I have no marketing machine. All I gettin is mugged by those who love my music enough to take its value from me.
Sure, I still have my song … but, that doesn’t do me a whole lot of good if my means of feeding my family is by writing the music you love enough to copy without paying.
Hey, and, did you know that the backup musicians and signers health, welfare and retirement benefits are based on the sale of recorded product … as are the salaries, and perhaps even the availability of jobs of people who work at legal downloads sites and other ancillary services built upon the music I write …
The livelihoods of real human beings are being robbed, and, in many instances snuffed.
As for Oberholz/Strumph, that study is so old and has been so discredited by the truth that I’m surprised to see anyone still bring it up. Next I’m sure you are going to tell me you think Terry Fisher understands what he is talking about.
I’m in the real world… I see my royalty statements … and my friends tell me about theirs. Oberholz/Strumph can’t convince any of us that we’re not being seriously pillaged by people that don’t understand … and, I know, don’t give a damn about anyone else as long as they can get anything they want whenever they want it without paying.
Thousands of writer/artists are gladly giving their music away and are making it easy for you to get it … Please don’t take my music if I’d rather you didn’t. I’ll happily suffer the consequences.
May 4th, 2006 at 8:30 am
“I’m a songwriter. I don’t get paid until someone purchases a recording of my song. If someone likes my song well enough to add it to their collection but chooses to download an unauthorized copy rather than purchase it, they have stolen the royalty payment due me.”
Dear songwriter:
Because we do not know anything about, your name, the songs you wrote, your income from songs, who is your publisher, and what record compnies paid you properly and which did not, how much the performance collectives paid you, etc. it is hard to determine if you are saying the truth or what. Frankly, you sound like a music industry mole.
Iam the son of a songwriter. Many say he was one of the greatest. My web page has the data. His income from music: None. His music never paid enough to cover expenses, because, mainly, of theft by the many record companies, big and small, that sold millios of records with his songs. The crooks were also the alleged music publishers (who stole most of the songs the publishers allegedly owned) and their controlled performance collective.
Thiefs are not kids tha share abd copy songs. The real thiefs and pairates of the songwriter’s income stream id the music industry leeches that have become the owners and controllers of the music.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
May 6th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
THANK YOU!!!!!
Between my husband and myself we have over 800 CD’s. We both love music. Fortunately for us, all of our CD players are older versions and don’t incorporate any of the new technologies that limit where, when, and how I can use music that I have purchased. Our computer is an older model too, so it doesn’t have any of this new technology built in to it, but we have to buy a new computer in the next few months, and this is a huge concern, especially as this technology is being built-in and purchasers are not being told this.
A while ago my husband bought the CD of a group that I love - it was produced by Sony Music. Normally, I would download the CD to my computer as MP3 so that I can take compliations with me wherever I go (especially to work), and leave the CD in my 400 CD player to listen to (protecting my master copy/investment), but about the time that he bought me the CD, I learned about Sony’s blocks. This has made me terrified to even put it in my computer. So now, I have the choice of taking the CD with me should I decide to listen to it, risking damage to it, or leave it at home and only listen to it there. Thank you Sony!
I am older (50+), so I’ve been through all sorts of technical changes. Vinyl (78rpm, 45rpm, and 33rpm), 8track, cassettes, CD’s and now DVD’s. Up until the last few years, sharing music has not been a big deal (granted, there wasn’t any way to record copies of 78’s, 45’s or 33’s when they first came out). Copying became an issue once cassettes gained popularity, although 8track brought out the issue. Until the last few years, howver, I do not recall hearing of people being prosecuted for sharing. There is a big differance between individuals “sharing” and commercial piracy.
Individuals being allowed to share the music that they have purchased is good for the artist as it generates word of mouth recognition. Word of mouth isn’t as as important to established artists as it is new (or unknown) artists. For them, often the only way to get the recognition of industry “players” is the grassroots movement. I know that the Bare Naked Ladies were on the music scene for a number of years before they got any radio play, because I used to work with a woman who was a huge fan and tried to see them each time they played in Toronto. This was long before our beloved Mayor made a big issue of their name, bringing them to the attention of the general populace. Forbidding sharing, prosecuting copywrite infringement, will effectively stiffle word of mouth, eliminating the effectiveness of grassroots movements, making artists even more dependant on the industry.
I hope that somebody in the government is listening - doubt it though, as even though the names in the article are big names on the Canadian music scene, they can’t bring to bear the clout that comes with millions (perhaps even billions) of dollars that the likes of muisic industry giants like Sony can. I think that the next few years will be dark ones for the entertainment industry.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:50 am
There are some tech can be used to share music online. Such as sopcast.com and streamerp2p.com, Furthermore, sopcast supports authorization when access, I thinks it’s the future of music share.
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Rafael,
The following article by Steve Albini suggests he would agree with your take on things.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 am
So how many copies of your song(s) have you lost royalties on? One could just as easily conclude that your failure to achieve success is due to your lack of talent, rather than the “theft” of your songs.
The vast majority of people I know that download “illegal” copies of songs discard the ones they do not like, and buy CD’s containing the ones they do like. So it’s an effect (even if illegal) marketing tool from my perspective.
A common complaint that I have heard is that there is only one or maybe two decent songs on a CD, yet you’re forced to buy the stuff you dislike along with it. It’s time to review marketing techniques.
Try marketing directly to your listeners (if you really have any). Sell them one song at 50% higher than you would get for it when included on a CD. Problem with that is that you wouldn’t be able to force anyone to buy the garbage, would you?
April 1st, 2007 at 2:43 am
“Ask them how much it costs to upkeep a website with a huge transfer bandwidth”
You could get your own website with enough bandwidth to digitally transfer nearly 3 million albums a month for about 50 bucks or less. Since most artists will never sell 3 million albums a month, I’d say that 50 bucks a month is about all they would ever risk spending in their entire carrers to maintain their own distribution site. Worse come to worse, you coul get dedicated servers for less than 200 bucks a month. Storage space is so large and cheap now an artist could store his entire lifes work on a $40 harddrive.
“or to record and produce their own CD’s.”
Using digital equipment found in most music stores today, and a decent PC with some quality software an artist would be more than capable of recording, re-recording, re-mastering, tweaking, and tuning his work till it was as perfect as he/she wants it to be and with a little work could put out a quality product that would rival any record company.
The real issue here is that most musicians want fame, fortune, drugs, women, and they want it now. Big up front advance give them instant gratification and turns their brains to mush. From then on, they are owned.
Do artists really get paid in this world? Is P2P really hurting them as much as claimed? Not a chance. They hurt themselves more by remaining ignorant. If you want proof that artists do get paid, talk to P-Diddy. After all, he is the richest entertainer in the world. Notice I said entertainer? Thats because as a musician, and a producer/songwriter he makes more money than any other artists, bands, Actors, Circus performer, whatever, he tops them all.
Want more proof that music artists do get paid well despite the P2P situation? Can anyone tell me what these women do and what their number represents?
4. Madonna, 325 Million
5. Celine Dion, 250 Million
6. Mariah Carey, 225 Million
7. Janet Jackson, 150 Million
12. Britney Spears, 100 Million
19. Christina Aguilera, 60 Million
My heart bleeds for those poor women who have suffered repeated song thefts via P2P. The RIAA movement is nothing more than a way to extend profits for the already fabulously wealthy. Protecting artists has NOTHING to do with it.
I want to share this quote from another site..
“Yes. Clearly the music industry as it has been over the last 80 years or so is history. The rate of decline of record sales and royalties will be exponential. Musicians will need to perform live to make money. That’s life.” - Andrew Montgomery
What was it that artists did to make money before albums, tapes and CDs? Oh yeah, they performed LIVE. They worked for their money. My advice to them as a fellow musician who has been there, done that, go it alone, screw the major labels and start your own label. Charge people a fair price for your product and they will buy it. In my day, if you made 75 cents per album sold, you were banking bigtime(even though the recording company was making nearly 10 times that amount). An independant artist can get professionally pressed and printed CDs for as little as 1.50 each. Sell them for 3 bucks a pop and you will be making twice per album what you’ll likely get signing the recording contract. And hell, if your music is worth listening to, who wouldn’t pay 3 bucks for the album?
October 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I am one of the many who download music for the purpose of sampling before I buy.
When I was young, with very limited funds to spend on music, it was often disappointing to purchase an album from which I had heard one or two excellent singles only to find that the rest of the album was utter garbage. It is not cool when the one CD you can afford to buy in a month is crap.
I was already an adult when filesharing became popular, but with somewhat of a limited income. i found that downloading music did not so much reduce the number of CDs I bought, it just meant I knew ahead of time what I was getting, and as a result spent less on crappy CDs.
Fast forward a few years. I am now making very good money. I can afford pretty much whatever entertainment options I want. I still download music. If I like it, I buy the cd (from the band themselves, whenever possible, as that is the only way I can be sure they actually see the money). In the past year, I have purchased around 100 cds, attended a music festival and at least 20 concerts (both local and touring acts), and purchased several hundred dollars worth of assorted merchandise from these shows.
Do not try and tell me that anybody is losing money from my music habits. Anything I download and don’t buy, I would not have bought anyway.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:58 am
Sharing=sharing, does not=stealing. How hard is this simple concept to you meeja trolls? Your contrived ‘reasoning’ involves the concept that a song downloaded means a lost sale. Even if this were true, it isn’t theft. If my business impacts on yours, it’s your bad luck and my good luck. Besides, your specious logic falls flat when people would not have otherwise bought it.