Forums > Community Stuff > MP3 Piracy continued
Jump:
Forums > Community Stuff > MP3 Piracy continued
Code of Conduct   Search
Original message:83 days 7 hours 18 minutes ago
+ 3  
Member: Leif
985
WebCred
i want to clear up a couple of things from an ugly forum i was posting from. I want to start off by saying in no way do i approve the downloading of music without the artists consent....end of story. I purchase cd's and then convert them to mp3 immediately so i always have them in digital format. I used to purchase cd's over and over because they scratch...So every mp3 in my library was purchased legally so i am all in for the file format....but this is another story.

But i do want to clarify one thing whether any of you beleive it or not. Initially with the advent of Napster, mp3 downloading actually increased cd sales by 5%! File sharing had infact been a form of promotion (yes promotion!) beyond the control of the record companies...It was not until the RIAA shut Napster down that the general file sharing public and others rebelled by turning to other file sharing services which backfired completely and now due to piracy, cd sales have gone from an increase to a large decrease in cd sales which in turn effected the artist. The fact is the record companies did not know enough about music themselves to understand the pr behind what was happening.

Beleive me or not? i don't want to fight with anyone and i don't bother with limewire or any of those other filesharing services because it is an invasion of copyright laws which i support....but legal or not it was a form of promotion when it all began..A way where artists actually received recognition beyond the dollar of the promotional campaigns brought down through the record execs..File Sharing initially did SELL ticket seats and bands without recognition achieved quite a bit through the internet.

Also, it is a fact that artists receive on average (except for ones with their own label) 10 cents per cd on averaGE SOME AS LOW AS 5 CENTS. I think the whole thing is horrible but i blame the recording industry first and the downloaders 2nd as initially noone was suffering a loss until the crack down. File sharing was at the begining putting money in artists and record companies pockets. The bottom line was GREED from the Record Execs...Not some kid on Napster. Many artists complete understand this.

Anyone who says i am supporting piracy by writing this should reread this paragraph. Thanks guys. I love all my buds at guitar.com and up for an intellectual discussion only...love my buds at guitar.com
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
Reply:83 days 4 hours 59 minutes ago
Member: RuiOlasBrandon 's
    + 4  
463
WebCred
I AGREE with free mp3 downloads.

Some years ago I discovered 5 bands called Coldplay, Evanescence, System Of A Down, Gorillaz and Muse. I downloaded lots of song from those bands, and I loved it so much that I bought almost all their CDs/DVDs. Last year, I read about a band called Nightwish, then I downloaded songs and I loved them so much that I went to see them live when they came to Lisbon, last April.

Most bands agree with free downloads because it is just a way of promoting the band! Most bands have free mp3 on their sites!
That's because all the money from the CD sales goes to the recording label. I know that artists work a lot to make music, and downloading is against the copyright, but it was that way that I discovered all my favorite bands/artists. I share my songs and the local bands's songs with all my friends, FREE, it's just a way of promotion.

Now listen to this:
CDs are only a way of PROMOTION for concerts, thats where bands get their money from.
Recording labels get money from CDs,
Artists get money from CONCERTS.

Radiohead had their last album free to download on their site. Lots of bands have WHOLE ALBUMS free to download on their websites. And most artists agree with free music downloads.
But I don't agree with movie piracy. Watching a downloaded movie is so different from going to cinema. And buying a cd is very different from watching a concert, live.
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Hey, I'm stupid!
Reply:81 days 20 hours 17 minutes ago
Member: Leif
    + 1  
985
WebCred
i agree brandon. nice.
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Reply:83 days 4 hours ago
Member: shanejohnson2002
    + 2  
1851
WebCred
I'm still not entirely sure which way I stand on this. Most of your money as an artist will come from playing live shows. I mean, when Sony BMG sells a cd for 13.99 at wal-mart, and the band (as a whole) makes a whopping 1.99 off of each sale split that 3, 4, or 5 ways and you can see how it can get pretty thin. That's why making multi-platinum is such a big deal these days, because if you don't, then you don't make a whole lot, individually speaking.

I think it's cool to release singles and things, and short teaser tracks to get people interested. But the sad reality is that as soon as that first CD leaves the shelf, it is on someone's computer or ipod and therefore free game for the piracy scene.



My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Reply:83 days 2 hours 59 minutes ago
Member: Xarkzila
    + 2  
2675
WebCred
No problem here. MP3s sound like crap so why bother downloading an inferior product? Why convert your CDs to an inferior format? Oh, I know... You can take them with you a lot easier, but I just can't stand how much you lose going from .wav to MP3. Personally, I stick with the CD format. I may have to replace one in a blue moon, (I take excellent care of my CD's and NEVER lend to ANYONE,) but the quality is miles above the other options.

Owning a studio also means that I have great respect for artists rights. Everything we do is protected and archived. We even push clients to copyright if they haven't already.

I could give a rats ass about the record companies. Out of what the band is making for the recording, they first have to pay back the fronted money. My first, last, and only album, in 1969 actually ended up costing me! (Yes, it was a complete flop, sales didn't even come close to the line they handed me, and I blame that completely on the record company.) I ended up paying back and leaving with less than I started with. At that point it was on to acoustical engineering school and the rest of my life.

Back then there wasn't competition of any other format. 8 track wasn't reproducable at home and cassettes were in their complete infancy. You had to buy the vinyl!

You don't need MP3's to kill an artist. The record companies do just fine on their own.
My gear recommendations:
  
"The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench. A long plastic hallway where theives and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side..."
http://www.cleargravy.com
Reply:83 days 2 hours 18 minutes ago
Member: RuiOlasBrandon 's
    + 2  
463
WebCred
Hey, there's a compression method called FLAC, that is just like mp3, but lossless! Pure CD quality in a small file.
http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html
(ipods, some DVD players and some stereos are compatible with this format -WinAmp is compatible as well). I don't use it, but I'll use it soon. It reduces the size of the .wav file a lot!

EDIT: Oh, and the source is free and it runs on any Windows, Linux, Mac and all other computers!
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Hey, I'm stupid!
Reply:81 days 20 hours ago
Member: Leif
    + 1  
985
WebCred
i don't take wav to mp3...that would suck...cd format is AIFF and i convert AIFF to a 192 mp3....I do agree it is slightly a loss but a 256k mp3 through a decent system...i doubt you could tell....rewmember mp3's are encoded and different rates so some sound worse or better than others..also digital music seems to compress much better than other types...just a comment
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Reply:83 days 2 hours 10 minutes ago
Member: Xarkzila
    + 2  
2675
WebCred
Information is information. When you convert a file there is loss. It's a fact of digital. Converting digital to analog to digital results in loss. It's the reason we keep our signals analog as long as possible and why we try to effect things with analog gear BEFORE it's comitted to the digital realm. We still use tape whenever we can!

It's also the reason I don't listen to a lot of music outside of the control room. Most of my listening happens in the car if I'm not in the control room. I have a top notch home stereo, but only use it for background noise, party, etc. NO serious listening is EVER done on my home stereo. When you have an environment designed for critical listening, you tend to get critical about what you hear.
My gear recommendations:
  
"The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench. A long plastic hallway where theives and pimps run free and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side..."
http://www.cleargravy.com
Reply:83 days 1 hours 51 minutes ago
Member: frumsapap
    + 1  
1686
WebCred
Like I have said before, I can not stand the sounds that I have heard from mp3. I have usually bought cds, over the years, but hell in the 80s-90s we recorded it straight off the radio to tape. It was piracy, but we still went to buy the album after we'd saved our allowances, or work money. All of the artists out there know that they make a dollar off of each recording. Except Maynard James Keenan's band Puscifer. They had no record company. It was all done on and Apple computer, and they mixed, and produced, and sent out a bunch of them. Most of the money went straight to their pocket. We don't need record companies anymore/
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Time is a death-lock of the mind, a corporeal, linear insurrection of the spirit.
Reply:83 days 1 hours 43 minutes ago
Member: duane
    + 3  
1066
WebCred
My second favorite topic.. :-)

Okay first.. Leif, yes the file sharing did, in the beginning, spur sales but that was very short lived. As for a form of promotion you're correct but I have never seen any data relating "shared" downloading to concert sales. I would love to see some if you have a reference. I'm really curious about that.
The RIAA shut down "illegal sharing" because of copyright infringement and the loss of revenue for all concerned (Majors, ASCAP, BMI, etc). I would urge you to redo your math on the monies paid per Recording sold. Now, since we are on that topic. The money you make (or don't) is ALL in the deal memo. EVERYTHING is negotiable. Which is why I STRONGLY suggest the artist stay as far away from that as possible. Let the lawyers, accountants, agents negotiate the deal, the artist only has to approve.
Can you make a buck from recording? it's possible but breaking even is a long shot at best and losing money is almost a sure bet (I'm talking new first release recordings by "unknowns" here).

Second: " Artists get money from CONCERTS. " oh Really.. In the world of "breakout artist" that is not true.. Do the math. What is your nut for being out among 'em? Really.. Give me a figure of what you believe you would get paid for a opening act on a major tour (this is the promotion part).

I'll stop rambling now :-) and sorry for all the quotes.
Reply:82 days 21 hours 48 minutes ago
Member: dcunning30
    + 1  
3006
WebCred
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how illegal filesharing increased CD sales by 5%. How can illegally downloading music be attributed to CD sales? I understand the reason given is advertisement. The way advertisement works, as I understand it, is you provide a sample, and if the consumer likes the sample, the consumer goes and purchases more. But if mp3's are illegally shared, you get it all, or at least, everything you want to get. So, if you're getting everything you want for free, how can this be attributed as advertisement? And if you don't find what you want by illegally downloading, you know what human nature tells us? You wait for the rest to become available, since there's no controls over what is presented for illegal downloading. Somebody, somewhere will make that CD you want available for illegal downloading.
My music recommendations:
Reply:82 days 21 hours 21 minutes ago
Member: jobabrinks
    + 3  
989
WebCred
I trace the reasoning of the masses back to my own experiences. Back when Napster first came out, I had dial up and it took me a good half hour to download one song if not longer. Sometimes it would be going for 40 minutes only for me to find out that the connection cut at the very last second or the file was corrupt. So others may have done like I did, d'loaded one song and then ran and bought the album. I'm always willing to pay for convenience and time. That may account for the initial 5% increase.

Nowadays, you can pretty much d'load an entire album in 10 minutes or less so theres no need to go to the store. Most of the people I know have thousands upon thousands of songs of which they have paid for zero of them.

Me, on the other hand, I would say I still buy at least one CD a month. You can't really d'load jazz off Limewire. The general online populace doesnt know crap about jazz. People will label every single jazz song they have with a trumpet player as a Miles Davis song, even if it's Freddie Hubbard, Clifford Brown, etc. I've seen an Ella Fitgerald song labeled with Billie Holiday, etc.

But for the general rock/pop listener, you can pretty much get your entire fill from filesharing...
Reply:81 days 20 hours 6 minutes ago
Member: Leif
    + 1  
985
WebCred
To answer your question simply napster promoted the artists....the average mp3 is at a bit rate of 128 although you can get the full 256...A lot of people began downloading on napster and ended up purchasing the cds....read the net, many articles support the fact that cd sales were initially increased through the use of napster. People would also send others music and they would go and buy the cd as well..it wasn't until after the RIAA shut down napster that it backfired on there own greed.

As i said before about concert sales. Promotion is promotion...Do you think this form of internet based communication your using now didn't help and assist it increasing pupularity of artists. if you don't well o.k. but if you do then there's your answer.

Nonetheless, i buy all my cd's and i pay for my music. My mp3's are 192 k as that saves disc space and the rest isn't too much discernable through the ear although i can tell the difference in quality i don't mind because it still works and its easy format to use. I've purchased many albums more than twice because of disc scratching and i listen to music in my car like so it works for me.
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations:
  
Reply:81 days 19 hours 56 minutes ago
Member: Leif
    + 1  
985
WebCred
Yes, i don't think we need record companies anymore either..We do need distributors and promoters however.

NIN has his own label called nothing...what does that say? nothing. Well when you ourchase his cd most of it goes to his pocket because he owns the label. i would like the future of music to be that way. Develop your own fan base. That was the point i made at an older post...The record companies are up in arms because now they are losing big time due to technology.

You have a decent ear you can make decent demos and promote yourself. Not saying you don't have to have knowledge of sound and mixing etc. Mixing is an art in itself.
My music recommendations:
My gear recommendations: