Napster Rears Its Ugly Head... Again

[Timeline]

Well it's time to sell all the gear and retire i guess. Now anyone can pay 16 bucks and download everybody's music, tape it off their stereo headphone feeds and quit after a month, no royalties for artists and all the work for not.

Am I missing something here? Whay do this anymore?

Now i know why Def Leppard went back on the road.

<small>[ April 20, 2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Timeline ]</small>

[twistedtom]

There is a Russian site www. allxxxxx that you pay only for band with about 50 cents a cd.

[m2]

People are garbage.

[lsdd]

Chin up guys !!!
( I actually found out ,recently , that this old English phrase comes from the time when the hangman told the hangie to hold his "chin up" in order to place the noose around the hangies neck.......)

Lets face it ...Most of us on this site LOVE MUSIC, sound, and any posssibilty that we can be a part of anything do with producing it !!!
We are obsesssed with having ANY control of it...........
Now , with internet......Very little control after the production enters the ether!!!! Most of all..John Doe won't be able to tell the difference between mp3 & CD..........BecAuse John grew up listening to Mp3 on his ipod or whatever & thinks you need to buy a pair of speakers to listen to a CD!!!!

I think Evil People are furthuring ignorance in quality!!!
Thats my first worry.

Cheers?
www.dawnazusa.com

[Timeline]

Unfortunately even artists income from mp3 is in peril.

Subscription music services like Napster and Rhapsody now allow complete song and album downloads to compatible players.

iTunes is still using the sound bites system.

The difference is that you can go to Napster and download every great new album for like 20 bucks, cancel in a few months and output the audio through the headphone jacks back to a digital audio input to have the music forever before the subscription has run out and the music disappears off your player.

The DRM (Digital rights Management) watermark, a hidden audio file, is not heard and there is no way of finding out if someone has copied it unless the break into a computer and check the files. Who's really going to do that? The music police? Sure!

The only thing that would keep someone from this form of threat is the threat iitself and we all know how that will make no difference at all.

Why the courts didn't stop Napster forever is beyond me and we all must remember they said " MUSIC SHOULD BE FREE"

The new subscription services are being used by more and more companies as artists see their rights completely disappear.

This is why many major artist have gone back to the live show for income like Def Leppard and others.

New artists will have a harder time than ever making great records and selling them unless they develop huge followings.

I believe we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the CD and with it the sale of digitally streamed music unless some new method of sales or value added format like 5.1 with safety encryption akin to DVD's is implemented and I was told recently that even that can now be easily copied.

Why would anyone spend much time on making anything more than a live record if for promotion only?

I as well love music and production. I invested over 200K to have a great system.

Is it time to sell this stuff and open a shoe store? Better ask Ed Bundy.

[johnnytucats]

The music business is technology driven so it's no wonder radical changes in technology would cause changes in the business.

In the last several years several regulative and technological changes have caused considerable uncertainty in just about every aspect of the business. Uncertainty causes a reduction in investment. Lower investment usually results in lower output...and people from top to bottom in the business feel it.

It's going to take a while for the uncertainty to subside. When investors (incuding the big corporations) feel good about the music business again watch it take off. Not only will creativity be rewarded again, but there will be a backlog of creative output that will see the light of day.

[dougieb]

Originally posted by Timeline:
The difference is that you can go to Napster and download every great new album for like 20 bucks, cancel in a few months and output the audio through the headphone jacks back to a digital audio input to have the music forever before the subscription has run out and the music disappears off your player.

Unreal! I hear they actually have this new device that doesn't even need to be plugged into the net! You can actually build one yourself that doesn't even require batteries! Anyway, this device allows you to pull music new and old out of the "air" and is called a "radio" (pronounced RAY-DEE-OH!). I've actually witnessed this machine in operation - IT IS NOT A HOAX!

Apparently... without even paying a subscription fee (of which I would assume artists do get some royalties), you can "steal" this music and record it onto your own medium if you have such a high-tech device such as an "8-track recorder" or a "reel-to-reel".

I must really be missing the boat though because I'm not aware of any of these "great new albums" of which you speak.

Originally posted by Timeline:
Am I missing something here? Whay do this anymore?

Trust me... the minute any of us start doing it for any reason other than for the love of music, we'll all be turning out true 100% fertilizer grade crap. (see U2 "Vertigo", Paul McCartney "The Girl Is Mine", Styx "Mr. Roboto", Judas Priest "Turbo Lover", Sting "Desert Rose" - or anything by Sheryl Crow)

I find it very difficult to believe that Erykah Badu, Ben Harper or Sade are thinking with dollar signs in their eyes when they write new songs.

Hopefully when this massive overhanging threat of terror ends (statistically, we're 41 times more likely to be killed by an incorrectly perscribed medication than in an act of terror) our nation can get some attorneys to sue some 13 year old girls and put an end to this madness!

Since you mentioned Def Leppard... I remember being 13 and copying "Pyromania" which of course caused the great entertainment collapse of the 80's.

~d

PS: I believe mp3.com started screwing true artists out of their royalties a long time ago.

[Studio615]

Just one correction, a company bought the name "Napster" and it's logo from it's original owner. It is now a different company.

[James Steele]

Originally posted by dougieb:
Trust me... the minute any of us start doing it for any reason other than for the love of music, we'll all be turning out true 100% fertilizer grade crap. (see U2 "Vertigo", Paul McCartney "The Girl Is Mine", Styx "Mr. Roboto", Judas Priest "Turbo Lover", Sting "Desert Rose" - or anything by Sheryl Crow)

Hey now... don't go throwing Judas Priest in there! Turbo Lover is a cool tune... and Rob Halford is... well... c'mon!

Since you mentioned Def Leppard... I remember being 13 and copying "Pyromania" which of course caused the great entertainment collapse of the 80's.

So YOU'RE the guy! I thought it was Bon Jovi's "Slippery When Wet" album that did it! Oh yeah, and that funky video that Billy Squier did!

[geozero]

This is definitely an interesting topic, and having just finished reading "The Future of Music" by David Kusek, I highly recommend that you pick a copy up and read it (buy one, don't get free at the librabry, mind you).

Anyway, I believe that Kusek is right on the money of describing the current state of the digital revolution and how we got here. It is almost as much the fault (or responsibility) of the major record labels (RIAA) as it is with the kid down the street d/l free stuff.

I don't believe that free is necessarilly bad. About 50% of bands and artists are for it, while the other half are not. Both sides have valid points, but lets take a short look back at the industry:

*** When CD's came out we had to (once again)purchase every album we owned since childhood, and still there are many that were never re-issued as CD's. Thus the record companies mad huge profits for nothing (the artists got very litte $$$ from CD's).

*** It used to be that albums had singles released, but the last 20 years we've been forced to buy over priced CD's with 12 or more crappy songs (thus many 1-hit wonders).

*** Artists get screwed up recording deals by the major labels, and when it comes to CD's they are really screwed.

*** The digital medium allows users to d/l songs they want to hear not being FORCED to purchase a CD with only 1 decent song and the rest crap. Digital provides instant access (have you all noticed there are less record stores out there?).

*** I don't condone stealing music or d/l from priate websites, but not a penny of the lawsuits brought against people illegally d/l music went to the artists!!! How's that for irony?

READ THE BOOK. There are some real good ideas, like providing an international "tax" on iPods, hard drives, memory, computers, etc. This tax would be turned over to the Publishing Rights Organizations which in turn would be used to pay artists. A mere $3-$5 per digital or computer item would raise Billions and artists would make more, but leave the music FREE for all the world.

Imagine getting sued for whistling your favorite song... IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?

[dougieb]

Originally posted by geozero:
There are some real good ideas, like providing an international "tax" on iPods, hard drives, memory, computers, etc. This tax would be turned over to the Publishing Rights Organizations which in turn would be used to pay artists. A mere $3-$5 per digital or computer item would raise Billions and artists would make more, but leave the music FREE for all the world.

Yes! The most efficient way to extract royalties for artists would be to let the government do it - that way it would definitely be "lean and mean" and I'm sure most of it would make it to the artists. I bet after the bureaucracy and infrastructure is in place upwards of 1/4 cent of every 3 dollars collected would make it to Michael Jackson and U2.

While they're at it, they should also add a tax for software such as Microsoft Word to iPods, because it can be used as a hard drive and some people might steal copies of it. They should also have a tax on there for works of pictoral art and even pornography (because I bet some people store porn on their iPods). An additional tax should be on them for people who's jobs are compromised by piracy of all kinds (yo ho ho) - and a tax to subsidize Apple since the cost of an iPod is going to be $10,000. Not to mention memory or computers - nevermind if you just use your iPod as a doorstop, your computer to check email, or your memory to pick your nose - you're gonna pay!

I really have to question the mentality of any idea that has to do with the implementation of a tax.

I personally like the attitude of Mick Jagger who when asked about their upcoming tour said, "you can keep the money". Of course it is easy for him to say, but still, that's the general idea.

What makes me sick is the labels and distribution getting the lion's share. The distribution channels are 90% of the bitching you hear going on now (the RIAA) and they're just getting karma payback for all the artists they've collectively screwed over the years. They could have made deals to distribute music electronically a long time ago, but resisted and are now playing catch up.

and honestly... i resent having to re-purchase music on CD's or chips - or whatever. If I bought it once - I want to own the right to listen to it forever. If I'm "renting" it, I'm not going to pay $10+ a CD.

~ d

PS: Okay... "Turbo Lover" wasn't THAT bad, but then they really weren't "Defending the Faith" were they?

[geozero]

Perhaps "tax" is the wrong "term" to use. However, some sort of payment for use of digital music to the artist should be made. How it is implemented needs to be worked out. Some type of government regulation may be needed (yeah I hate that the Gov would intervene, but they do already with radio, cable, satelite, and lawsuits against kids for d/l music).

How much of the .99 cents per download from iTunes goes to the artist? Something like under 8 cents. That is not fair.

The only ones getting rich out of pumping out crap music on over priced CD's are the major labels, RIAA, etc.

There has got to be an alternative to get artists paid more for digital music and avoid sueing people for sharing or d/l music. Hell there's no packaging involved and overhead costs would be minimal to record labels... so why not give more to the artists?

A solution is out there. But really check out that book... it gives you plenty of ideas of how easy it would be for the music business. And it does not require prosecuting a 10 year old in farmland where there are no record stores, so d/l is the only choice.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by geozero:

*** Artists get screwed up recording deals by the major labels, and when it comes to CD's they are really screwed.

Could you elaborate? A lot of completely unproven artists get very lucrative advances. Granted, a percentage goes to their attorney.

Also there's the "play or pay" clause. These same artists are often terminated before setting foot in a studio and released with tens or sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars as part of that clause.

I have no sympathy for major label artists, nor major labels. And I despise attornies.

-Matthew

<small>[ May 11, 2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: mattymac1000 ]</small>

[geozero]

You'll have to carefully look at a record label contract. If you do not have access to one, check out the book "Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract" by Moses Avalon. This is a very good book that explains contracts clearly, as well as reveals the many hidden "clauses" that will otherwise bankrupt a band (case in point the group TLC going bankrupt eben though they sold millions of records).

There are many well documented cases too. David Bowie, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Cars, and many more went bankrupt or nearly. They only started making money when they took over control of their business, renegotiated contracts, and in some cases started their own labels, etc.

The 2 books I've mentioned are good reads. This last one on contracts will tell you EXACTLY what a major label will pay an artist for downloads and CD's. You'll be shocked!

Those huge "advances" are nothing more than loans. From that all your living expenses, travel, studio time, producers, etc are paid. But they are still "loans", and you have to pay these back. And how can you, if you get no label support if they drop you, or bad distribution, or lack of tour support? It's modern "indentured service". But don't take my word for it...read for yourself, and expand your knowledge.

[mattymac1000]

Originally posted by geozero:
You'll have to carefully look at a record label contract. If you do not have access to one, check out the book "Secrets of Negotiating a Record Contract" by Moses Avalon. This is a very good book that explains contracts clearly, as well as reveals the many hidden "clauses" that will otherwise bankrupt a band (case in point the group TLC going bankrupt eben though they sold millions of records).

There are many well documented cases too. David Bowie, the Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Cars, and many more went bankrupt or nearly. They only started making money when they took over control of their business, renegotiated contracts, and in some cases started their own labels, etc.

The 2 books I've mentioned are good reads. This last one on contracts will tell you EXACTLY what a major label will pay an artist for downloads and CD's. You'll be shocked!

Those huge "advances" are nothing more than loans. From that all your living expenses, travel, studio time, producers, etc are paid. But they are still "loans", and you have to pay these back. And how can you, if you get no label support if they drop you, or bad distribution, or lack of tour support? It's modern "indentured service". But don't take my word for it...read for yourself, and expand your knowledge.

I look at contracts very carefully. I look at them everyday in fact (well, Mondays thru Fridays).

The bands that you mentioned getting screwed over are dated examples. They did get screwed, in a major way. However, that was well before attornies ruled the record business. You even said it yourself - it wasn't until they took control that they started making money. Artists nowadays are extremely business savvy (and there is no excuse for not being so) and those that retain the top lawyers get very, very fair deals.

We can talk about legal downloading being unfair for the artist, but realistically the revenue is so petty in the long run. Hypothetically, even if an artist were to get 60% of the income on songs downloaded, they aren't going to get rich on that.

And I respectfully disagree with you about the advances. Advances DO NOT have to be paid back. Not technically "paid back" at least. You are correct - living advances, travel, producer fees, etc., are deducted from their recording fund (not their advances), however, an artists NEVER has to actually "pay" the label back for any monies spent. The labels recoup from future record sales and other sources of income (i.e. if the label spends $1M on an artist and recoups $250K, the artist is indebted to the label on those masters).

If the artist if dropped, they are free to go to another label and start the whole process again without ever owing the previous label anything. Sure, they may never see a royalty, but it sure was sweet to get that advance. That's why the attornies and the artists try to get the highest possible advance they can. It's gravy. It may also be the only income they ever see. How much it costs to get a record out there these days is a whole different thread.

In reading that, it may not seem like a lucrative business plan for either the artist nor the record company. On top of that record companies lose on nine in ten bands they invest in (they call that tax write-offs), but when an artist makes it big . . . both the record company and the artist make a lot of money.

-Matthew

P.S. I definitely will check out that first book you mentioned. It sounds very interesting.

<small>[ May 11, 2005, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: mattymac1000 ]</small>