The greedmonsters are at it again

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:12 pm

Oh, alright, so Elvis is against it... thanks for bringing that to my attention.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:39 pm

Another great thng about filesharing is how it makes all of the bootleggs/demos/unreleased material more available. I'm sure artists don't want some random joker in row-4 to be sending their live shows around either... but it is still wonderful.

If the bootlegg world still relied on trees and branches... then it would be a sad, bad quality world.

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:06 pm

Actually, very few bootleg traders rely on kazaa or soulseek as a source of finding good quality bootleg recordings. I know most of the people who I have traded with in the past make very clear that they do not accept anything that has ever been in mp3 format. It's a lossy form of compression that most people who are serious about music don't trust. Sometimes it's more noticeable than others, but it is never true to the source. It also creates gaps in between the tracks, which doesn't work for live shows.

Plus, when something is commercially available it is much different than when something is sold on the black market. I'd rather no one make a profit, than the thiefs that want to sell a bootleg CD for $30 and not give any of the profits to the artist who performed on the disc.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:52 pm

Wehitandrun.....do you sell music for a living? Pub bands or ones that play in their mum's garage might want their stuff downloaded, in the vein hope that they mught get airplay or a media company to listen to a demo, but what do you base your 'MAJORITY of musicians are for it' idea on?

I am not against downloading, and am against the high-price of records (most of which doesnt go to the band).
I happen to be friendly with a couple of small bands in the UK who actually produce records that you could buy in a Virgin or an HMV, and as they are not really household names, they are against their product being ripped by kids - they lose out. I think you'll find that's the case with all the 'smaller' musicians under record contracts.[/b]

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:01 am

Well, these bands that support filesharing are not pub bands.

Thrice, Saves The Day, Glassjaw(with mixed views), Head Automatica, Dashboard Confessional, Face to Face... these bands care for the art of their music, not the material value. These are just few in a large scene who love music.

These are not "unknowns" either. These bands are very popular bands which sell out tours... and are all on major labels. Just because they aren't being jammed down your throat on MTV or whatever, doesn't make them pub bands.

This isn't some new world, filesharing is supported by countless musicians... great musicians.

http://boycott-riaa.com
http://www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/displ ... 80a173a41e
http://www.downhillbattle.org

Post by **BlueChair** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:32 am

wehitandrun wrote:Thrice, Saves The Day, Glassjaw(with mixed views), Head Automatica, Dashboard Confessional, Face to Face... these bands care for the art of their music, not the material value. These are just few in a large scene who love music.

Okay, everybody... all together now...:

Who???

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:55 am

Exactly.

Do some research, you guys need to be more educated on what's going on. The only discussion that you've had on this issue is a multipaged thread filled with you guys agreeing with one another and naming off reasons why my generation has it all wrong.

taz · Post by **taz** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:14 am

Oh come on Blue...even I know Dashboard Confessionals, Face to Face and Saves the Day...

Post by **BlueChair** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:32 am

wehitandrun wrote:Do some research, you guys need to be more educated on what's going on. The only discussion that you've had on this issue is a multipaged thread filled with you guys agreeing with one another and naming off reasons why my generation has it all wrong.

What's going on is millions of people are breaking the law and getting in trouble for it. It's in the news on an almost daily basis. It doesn't matter of your shitty indie bands are okay with downloading, the music business isn't. And I guarantee you are downloading more than just those bands you mentioned.

Winona Ryder is okay with shoplifting, but that doesn't make it legal for all actresses.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:31 pm

There is nobody debating about shoplifting, and there is a reason for that.

People ARE debating about filesharing, because it shouldn't be considered breaking the law.

"Shitty indie bands"? Grow up. Atleast you didn't call them "Shitty emo bands".

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:06 pm

Well, I know who Dashboard Confessional are, and it's fine if they support it for their music, but the bottom line is that the ARTISTS should be in control of this and all related decisions. Not they are now, but filesharing when the artist is against it is a step in the wrong direction. It's like smoking: if you want to smoke in your own home and allow others to do the same, fine, but it doesn't mean you're free to impose your smoke on others whereever you like.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:19 pm

My point exactly. I feel like WHAR has been as disingenious as Bush at a press conference on this. No one has said filesharing should be illegal if an artist supports it. It is (and should be) illegal if the material is being traded for free without the artist's permission. I don't care if its Face to Face, Dashboard Confessional or anybody else. They speak for their own work only, not for any other artist.

wehitandrun · Post by **wehitandrun** » Fri Apr 16, 2004 4:42 pm

Well, if you're gonna make an omelot... you're gonna break some eggs.

And, if you're gonna desegregate, you can't do it half way.

To be honest, I'm just sick of arguing on the board. There is no point to it. I figured I'd try to let you guys understand another perspective, but now I just don't see the point. We have our beliefs, and that's what it comes down to. I've debated to the best of my ability up until now, but I guess I'll just let you take the last word.

I'm retiring from this topic, but feel free to PM me if you have any further comments regarding it.

laughingcrow · Post by **laughingcrow** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:11 am

The only perspective you put across was that you like downloading free stuff and these 'artists' are for it. There is absolutely no evidence to back up your theory about people buying what they download....I wish it was true mate, but the fact is the majority of burners just rip all their music off the net. Not everyone gives as much as a shit about music as you and everyone on this board, if it's easy to take, it will be stolen.

stormwarning · Post by **stormwarning** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:50 pm

Hi y'all. Anybody remember me ?

This is an interesting subject, and I can see a lot of heads stuck in the sand here, and people genuinely believing that we can all go back to pre-Napster days.

I can borrow books from the library and read news on the web, but I still enjoying owning books and buying newspapers. I can watch/record movies and other TV programs as much as I want for an (almost) minimal charge, but I still like to own DVD's. Why should I not be able to have the same choices with music ? The truth is that record companies have brought this situation on themselves by controlling what we are allowed to hear, by controlling the medium, and by keeping prices artificially high to protect their own interests and those of a few big name artists.

Is anybody out there saying that the record companies really deserve our sympathy ? Screw them. Artists will always find a way to create and distribute their work, and make money from it, but the world will be a better place without the big recording multinationals. Don't forget that the new technology not only allows us to download music, it also allows artists to make and distribute good quality music at low cost. The world has moved on and artists, publishers, broadcasters and listeners all need to adapt. Sure, artists definitely need to have their copyright protected but we no longer need the bloated record companies to do this.

I applaud WHAR for his stance on this debate, although the argument that music should be "free" is not acceptable. It should be cheaper, and more money should be directed to the artist, and consumers should have greater choice and access of content and medium.

So let's look forward for once, and I'll put a question to WHAR. We can't honestly expect artists to produce music for free, so what IS a fair way of making sure that their work is rewarded ? And to what extent should a newer, lighter generation of record companies be involved ?

Finally, let's not continue to quote EC's opinions on this. His habit of continually producing re-issues and greatest hits packages means that he's just as much of a businessman as he is a musician.

Post by **BlueChair** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:57 pm

hey stormwarning.. good to see ya.

You make some very strong & valid points.

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Sat Apr 17, 2004 3:26 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _piracy_dc

Interesting article on how the majors are using data from peer sharing services to market their product.

Labels Peer at Pirates for Insights
Sat Apr 17, 7:37 AM ET Add Entertainment - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Scott Banerjee

NEW YORK (Billboard) - Say what you will about Internet pirates, their downloads speak volumes about what's hot in music.

That fact hasn't been lost on record labels, which are increasingly subscribing -- albeit discreetly -- to companies that monitor illegal download traffic on peer-to-peer services.

"If we weren't looking at the data, we'd be pretty foolish," says Jeremy Welt, head of new media at Madonna (news - web sites)'s Maverick Records, one of the few labels that admits to subscribing to services that track illegal downloads.

But John Fagot, a consultant for Webspins, a company that monitors P2P services, says its data is being used at every major label.

BigChampagne, the other major player, acknowledges that Warner Bros., Interscope, Elektra, DreamWorks, Atlantic and Disney's Hollywood label have all used its data, as well as MTV and MTV2.

All of which raises the question, Does the industry's use of peer-to-peer data for marketing purposes somehow add legitimacy to the very services that it is trying to stamp out through an aggressive legal campaign?

"Just as it is valuable to understand how pirated CDs are hawked at flea markets, the same applies to the online world. That in no way is any justification for the illegal activity or those who facilitate it," says a spokesperson for the Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA (news - web sites)), the lobbying arm of the major U.S. record labels.

SEARCHING DATA

BigChampagne, which is based in Beverly Hills, Calif., and opened for business in 2000, tracks the two basic activities that can be monitored on peer-to-peer networks: "queries," or searches, and "acquisitions," or downloads.

Then it matches a computer's IP address to its zip code, creating a map of P2P activity.

Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, says searches can isolate the use of any form of copyrighted material, from music, feature films, software and videogames to instruction manuals or TV episodes.

Webspins, which opened in 2001 in Studio City, Calif., employs a similar strategy, except it monitors traffic across "supernodes," or computers acting as file-sharing devices, Fagot says.

At a client's request, it inserts a searchable digital file into a filter to see who is searching for what by zip code, he says.

Maverick has subscribed to BigChampagne reports since 2000.

"Sometimes you're in a vacuum," Welt says, "and having more information on songs that people in your market helps you stay focused on your goal."

For labels, the instantaneous research into a target audience can translate into increased radio spins and more record sales.

A case in point is Maverick act Story of the Year and its single "Until the Day I Die." It recently ranked among BigChampagne's top 20 downloads.

But the single was getting substantially less radio airplay than adjacent top 20 artists like Blink-182 and Audioslave.

With data in hand, Welt took his case to radio stations.

"Week after week, we looked at BigChampagne reports and data on the conference call," Welt says. "We gave them a different picture of what was happening."

Eventually, Welt persuaded stations in certain markets to play Story of the Year during prime-time listening hours, which he believes helped CD sales. Story of the Year's album, "Page Avenue," recently went gold for U.S. shipments in excess of 500,000 units.

Though BigChampagne's "TopSwaps" chart often mirrors the Billboard Mainstream Top 40, "sometimes it lets you see things before they happen," Welt says. "You might not be aware that the buzz has already started."

BILLBOARD CHART?

Nielsen SoundScan is considering the tracking services to create a standardized metric for P2P activity, similar to how it monitors legal downloading for Billboard charts.

But the industry has let it be known that it would oppose a chart that specifically tracks illegal music downloads.

Some executives liken it to Billboard tracking CDs that have been shoplifted. But the idea isn't without precedent. The news media frequently report on the most widely stolen cars.

"Whenever you have a new technology, it takes a while to get accepted," Fagot says.

Ted Cohen, senior VP of digital development and distribution for EMI music, is taking a longer-term approach to P2P trends, as well as overall digital consumer behavior.

EMI and NPD Music Watch Digital, a service that tracks online music distribution, have developed a method to chart what consumers do with their music after they download it from either a P2P network or a legitimate site.

"The more we know about usage, qualitatively and quantitatively, the better it's going to help us shape the next iteration of business model," Cohen says.

"We've had great first starts, but for them to be great long-term businesses, they have to evolve," he adds.

Over the long term, some industry insiders think P2P services will go legitimate.

The industry is already privately discussing how to eventually monetize file traffic.

That eventuality, however, will hinge on copyright litigation and cooperation among major labels, independent labels, publishers, software manufacturers, artists and Internet service providers.

"It's going to be a difficult transformation, but not impossible," Garland says.

"Our original intent was to treat downloadable music as a proof of concept," he adds. "This can be done."

Reuters/Billboard

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Sun Apr 18, 2004 1:53 pm

Very glad to see you back TSW. For better or for worse, we live in a capitalist society, meaning that things will cost what the market will bear. If CDs cost too much, people should stop buying them- but that doesn't mean they should steal them. Is gasoline too expensive? Hell yes, but it doesn't mean people should be allowed to steal gas. I get tired of hearing people complain about how much athletes get paid, and then continue to spend the money for the tickets and merchandise that justify these ridiculously high salaries. In music, the refusal to buy has had an effect; many labels are offering many more new releases at lower prices, because people aren't buying as many CDs as they used to (I sure know I'm not). Still, I won't accept any justification, short of survival, for stealing. If record companies are too greedy, stop buying their products. But don't steal.