artists generally make the bulk of their income from performances and merchandizing....NOT album sales. the average recording artists is lucky to get 30 to 40 cents an album. millions and millions of albums need to be sold for them to even make any kind of substantial money from album sales. the real losers are the industry moguls themselves. of which i don't personally feel a whole lot of compassion for in the first place. these days artists simply look at their albums as advertising for their performances. that's where they get paid the most........when ya got t-shirts for sale at $40 to $50 a pop and ticket prices at about the same or more, it adds up REAL quickly....also getting royalties on the songs also can pay very nice dividends as well. so i wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over internet downloading. that's not where the money is made for musicians......

Depends on how much I really like a band's music. Nowadays, exploring new territory is safer via downloading. When I have a solid opinion about a band, I don't hesitate to buy.

All music should be free anyways, so i see no problem in downloading my favorite bands albums free. if they dont like it well.. sue me lol

I never illegally download stuff; not only is it stealing, but I see it immorally as well. If I want some music, I'm going to buy it - not just take it. I know many of you share different values about this kind of thing, but I feel like if someone is relying on something as their only source of income, you shouldn't do anything to harm them... I'm rambling.

I'll be completely honest here...I'm kind of undecided on the whole issue though I lean more toward purchasing music. Whether it be CD's or MP3 via i-Tunes and what not. Yes, downloading free stuff is illegal. I can only say that it is handy if you want to preview something before you buy it. Why buy a CD to find out it sucks. Or if you only like one or two songs, you can buy just those songs via the many avenues of MP3 purchase.
I think the biggest issue concerning illegal download is that if the record companies are using album sales as a gauge to determine an artists fan base. They may not always (or ever) use ticket sales to determine artist popularity. Therefore, if the Company sees poor album sales, they wont back the artist. If the artist is "big" enough, they may be able to front some of the expense, but basically it comes down to this: No record deal= no big shows= no money for the artist= no artist.
Simple as that.
I agree that the big shots in the industry are taking the biggest hit, not the artist, but in the long run it will effect the artist also.

Just something to think about...

Oh yeah. Downloading is handy for out of print/hard to find stuff unless you can find it used on amazon or something. In my opinion, if its out of print, it should be downloadable because no one is loosing anything on it at that point.

"the average recording artists is lucky to get 30 to 40 cents an album."

Completely untrue. depends ENTIRELY on the "deal memo".

"All music should be free anyways, so i see no problem in downloading my favorite bands albums free."

Riiiiggghhhttt.. There is so much wrong with that statement I won't even bother to go into it.

First.. how much do you think bands actually go home with after touring? Let's just talk entry and mid level guys.
If they are making a 1500 a night (for mid level guys on a promoted tour ) they are doing VERY well. That's, of course, before expenses. You gotta eat, sleep, get from point a to point b, pay the crew (assuming you have one) pay the agent fees, etc. .(entry level acts are about 1/2 that or somewhere around a grand) and that is ONLY for x weeks.Those days of 250 night's a year "on the road" are OVER. They simply don't exist anymore. These days if you are a "typical" "touring" band promoting yourself you may get 4 nights a week (more likely 3) but, you're still stuck on the road for those other 4 unless you're lucky enough to be able to go home and then go back out and that is not every week to be sure.

Most "new" acts rely on "tour support" from the labels or corp sponsors. You don't sell recordings you don't get tour support, you don't get tour support you can't tour, you can't tour you don't sell product. There is a "new" way of doing business (i.e. internet sales, etc) but it still comes down to getting into a van with x number of other smelly tired people, driving x miles, eating pb&J till you're sick of it, playing sleeping on someone's floor, (or hotel if you are VERY lucky) getting up and doing it all over again. Do that for about a year and then see what you say about people claiming that "music should be free"..

"deal memo" or no "deal memo" most artists(especially newer ones) are getting screwed by these record companies. they ARE only getting pennies for their recordings. even metallica(top of the food chain) only gets about $5 an album. to be honest, royalties from radio play,etc. is where the long term money is most lucrative. and touring IS where they get the biggest chunks of their income. you go see a show...spend $65 on the ticket, $50 on a t-shirt,maybe another $25 on a hat. that's $140 from one person at one show. multiply that by 15 to 20 thousand. multiply that by say, 150 shows in a year. now tell me how that same person buying one album(where the artist get say even, 50 cents) compares whatsoever to what they make from his attendance to a single show. it's pennies versus dollars here. ask the greatful dead or Phish if they care about record sales. and endorsement deals pay nicely as well. point is that album sales are NOT what artists rely on to make their money.

now downloading music is illegal and should not be looked upon favorabley. and there is no doubt that some $$$ are being lost there. but ..ECONOMICALLY speaking, it is of the least importance to most artists if it is happening or not. using Xark's example...100,000 albums at .30 cents=$30,000...split 4 or 5 ways...and after taxes that's hardly enough reason to even continue recording..it's pennies...they could make more money delivering frikkin pizzas...what the eagles did with the wal=mart campagin was really smart. i'm sure they get a much bigger chunk of album sale that way. despite giving up industry support they still sold a hell of a lot of albums and have faired very well with their new record. look for more artist to go that route.

getting signifigant airplay is probably the most important funtion that a record company can provide. video airplay as well. having a friend at clear channel is nice. but it's good to see some artists exploring new terittories like the eagles and radiohead. trent reznor is contemplating the internet free route. and rumor has it that even the mighty metallica may explore internet options with their new album. now that would be irony for ya.....

""deal memo" or no "deal memo" most artists(especially newer ones) are getting screwed by these record companies. they ARE only getting pennies for their recordings. even metallica(top of the food chain) only gets about $5 an album. to be honest, royalties from radio play,etc. is where the long term money is most lucrative. and touring IS where they get the biggest chunks of their income. you go see a show...spend $65 on the ticket, $50 on a t-shirt,maybe another $25 on a hat. that's $140 from one person at one show. multiply that by 15 to 20 thousand. multiply that by say, 150 shows in a year. now tell me how that same person buying one album(where the artist get say even, 50 cents)"

You are talking VERY established acts here.. I dare say no one is paying 65.00 to see you or anyone else that posts on this form.. let alone paying 50 bucks for a t-shirt that has your bands name on it. So, in some cases you are 100% correct.. for the "new" guys it's a MUCH different world. Air play is essential for the life of any touring act (again you reference the Dead and Phish.. not really good examples). Publishing rights are where the money really is. It only takes one song.. and you're golden.

Again you are correct that the 30K split x ways is barely pizza money but, that is the way it works. Which is why you see many new bands just becoming a memory after the front money runs out.

bach... Just so you know... Wasn't trying to diss you here, but most people don't realize how pennies add up. You can look at a few cents a CD going to the artist and saying is isn't really crap, but when you consider that even only 100,000 CDs means little to a "big" record company, but IS a big deal to the struggling artist, things change.

Your take on the touring band is also a bit skewed. The numbers you present are for the big acts, big venues... I'm not cracking on your view. It's mostly right, but if we take this attitude toward ALL musician's, then WE'RE wrong, because it does matter to some.

Take the songwriter, who doesn't make anything off a tour, t-shirts, or a hat. (You also need to know the expenses incured as you can add up the total but that's a gross amount, not at all relating to the "profit.") The songwriter gets about 8 cents per copy per song. If I've got 10 songs on a CD, just as the writer, I should get 80 cents for each one sold. Go back to the equation of 100,000 copies and now you're talking $80,000 for the songwriter. No performing, or anything else, just for writing the songs. There are far more people involved here than just the band, or just the record company, or just the promoter, or just the agent... Lot's of people are making money off the "tour" not just the band. Don't for one minute think that the band is the one reaping the benefits of going on tour. They're getting raped there almost as bad as they do on CD sales. Volume is the thing that saves them all. (Not loud, but quantity.)

If one record were enough to "make it" for the rest of your life, no one would ever put out another record. It's like any other job. Pay is a bit better, but there are no benefits, (you pay for those yourself,) there's no retirement, no matching funds from your employer, no regular hours, etc. Sure there are plenty of bennies for those who want to work the system to make them for themselves, but that's more work too and effectively reduces your net at the end.

All I'm saying here is that just because the record company is screwing their artists, doesn't mean we have the right to. And since they've got the money, they're going to go after illegal downloads, (the artist doesn't make enough to do it, even with the "truckloads" of cash they make on tour selling all that neat stuff that someone else was paid to design, someone else was paid to manufacture, someone else was paid to ship, someone else was paid to hawk, someone else was paid to man the "store.") There's far more to it than handing money to someone and thinking, "Man. 10,000 people at $50 a ticket? Those assholes just made a half million dollars!" More like those hard-working musicians made 10% of that if they're REALLY lucky!

I buy most of my albums. As a matter of fact even the albums someone downloaded for me to try out, I bought eventually, simply because that is what I sacrifice my money to, literally, it's either music or games, musical equipment, etc. My wife just paid $37.50, for Miles Davis Bitches Brew. this past weekend at the Sound Shop. I usually do buy my albums from Wal-Mart. They are always about $9.87-14.99, on CD, and they are in deep with the record companies to lower their prices. Buying the CD, makes me feel like I have something in my hands to show for it, and I am not sorry, but MP3's suck Ass. And not good ass at that. I tried to make a mp3 file on the computeroff of a cd, and it sounded like crap. Someone gave me a mp3 cd of QOTSA "Era Vulgaris," and it sucked too. At any rate, downloading music, it's about to change, because all of these artist are saying F-you to the record companies, which I can't blame them for. And they will probably make a lot more money that way.