DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Music Business: Two anti-download tracks on the way

Electric guitars, Classical guitars, Guitar amps and more.

zZounds.com offers recording equipment for starting and experienced musicians. Find the best prices on electric guitars, acoustic guitars, classical guitars and more.

Forums > Music Business

Two anti-download tracks on the way

bigfootofget...	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 5:49 PM I have recently been workin' on two anti-download tracks to try to get people at my school to realise that they killin' the music industry. I will upload the songs onto DMusic as well then they are done and I hope you will enjoy them. They will be titled: Grave For An Era People Don't Wanna Pay For CD's (Feat. Sway)
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 6:23 PM WHO is killing the industry? I think you got your wires crossed. They're killing themselves!
BOWILLIE	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 6:44 PM this site is anti* riaa site more or less.. the music bizz* is riaa.. you should get lots of listens
K3VIN	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 7:41 PM Stealing is wrong
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 8:31 PM And where's the theft? Are they going out and pinching discs from the local music store? The correct term is "copying" not "theft", that's the talk of a major label, those with so much money they think they can control what we can do with music. Why the heck do you think we wish to remain independent? It's obvious from many comments here over the years that we don't agree with what the labels are saying and doing, so to start talking like them may well show how little you really understand the problem. If a record deal is what you want with the REAL thieves, fine, that's your decision. Don't go berating anyone for doing what really is the only effective course of action against labels... corporations... who wish to strip our rights to something we have taken for granted since the first day we could hear.
hantu	Date: August 13, 2007 @ 11:05 PM I don't know when was the last time i bought an original music CD.
Thaspian	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 12:39 AM Stealing is wrong. Show me a supreme court ruling that calls this stealing. Have any? Bet not. When I see a major label artist not giving away tracks, I don't care. When some random indie schmuck says you can't download their tracks, I don't even bother listening. You're new to this, or even if you're not, you're not established.. who are you, as a person trying to get anyone to listen to your music, to put restrictions on how they can listen to it?
Thaspian	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 12:40 AM Oh and LOLZ @ people in the hip hop genre bitching about "stealing"
Thaspian	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 12:40 AM another for posterity.
pog	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 6:40 AM ^^I'll translate^^ Brothers and sisters whether straight or gay, Ya'll gettin screwed by the R-I- double A And if ya'll think that downloading is stealin', Then no-one really gets what it is that we're feelin' First of all its copyright infringement not stealin' The corporate fat cats get to keep their damn song, And when indie artists songs have got 'em reelin' They'll understand that try before you buy ain't-so-wrong. When they finally get the DMusic contribution, They'll also see the rights and wrongs of product distribution.
SimonWaldram	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 7:23 AM So, um...will we be able to download these anti-download tracks
ShadowMom	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 10:30 AM "People at my school"-- which may be where you learned the facts that the RIAA want you to know. I would suggest a little homework before you make a stand on an issue that is so complicated. If the RIAA had its way, YOU would not be able to put YOUR music on the internet. You're an indie, and if they think about you at all, they don't like you. For more information, try reading our news pages once in a while, or visit Boycott-RIAA. You have a lot to learn.
NickSawyer	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 11:52 AM On 14th Aug 2008, pog said: ^^I'll translate^^ Brothers and sisters whether straight or gay, Ya'll gettin screwed by the R-I- double A And if ya'll think that downloading is stealin', Then no-one really gets what it is that we're feelin' First of all its copyright infringement not stealin' The corporate fat cats get to keep their damn song, And when indie artists songs have got 'em reelin' They'll understand that try before you buy ain't-so-wrong. When they finally get the DMusic contribution, They'll also see the rights and wrongs of product distribution. Amen
leedsquietman	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 5:51 PM This seems a little bit of a witch hunt of the original poster to me, although I agree with some of what Buzz, Thaspian and Pog say. Dmusic itself does not allow condone illegal filesharing in it's terms and conditions and seeks to search and destroy the accounts of anyone uploading music to which they didn't perform themselves. Everyone else above makes some great points and it's true that a large percentage of independent artists welcome their music being spread around the internet for increased exposure. But there are some who don't and these are not RIAA lackeys, they have a right to their opinion too. It's their music, if they feel that way then who the hell am I to download it. There are millions of musicians on the web, I'd go to someone else who wasn;t hung up about it. And dress it up any way you want, copyright infringement when you download music is illegal if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder. Copyright infringement can be a serious problem, I know someone who got caught copying 2 chapters of a book when our copyright license only allowed us to copyright 1 chapter and they were taken to court and fined 2000 dollars and the employer demoted them. Believe me, I don't get upset that people are filesharing the RIAAs top stars material for free, but that doesn't make it morally right. The arguments that the RIAA overcharge, exploit the artist and the public etc are totally correct and the RIAA sucks donkey balls is a fine slogan by me, but that doesn't mean piracy is valid either. 2 wrongs don't make a right. My solution is not to buy RIAA CDs unless I really need to (bought 4 in 7 years only) and like at Dmusic, find downloadable music that is so at the will of the artist, for independent music, or if I really like it, buy their CDs to support the independent artist. IMHO most people say this rhetoric about morals and anti RIAA stuff (which is fine) but the real reason they do illegal downloads is purely because they are too cheap to buy. Put this question to Family Feud ... the top 3 reasons we download copyrighted material are.. 3) Because we abhorr the fat cat record execs and RIAA and feel morally obliged to bring them down- 9% 2) Because we're ignorant and feel entitled to take anything we want - 11% 1) BECAUSE IT'S FREE AND I'M CHEAP - ding ding ding - you get the prize, 80% This is my opinion. Now I'm getting a fireproof suit before I am flamed by the pirates among us ARRRR
hantu	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 6:10 PM oop! i'm in that 80% - interesting words quietman, i think my brain just ticked
hantu	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 6:46 PM not oop, just ooo
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 6:52 PM I wouldn't say too cheap to buy, I still believe many commercial CDs are OVERPRICED, I don't exactly want to blow a large amount of money on something I no longer actually own anymore, according to them (You buy the right to listen to the music on a CD, not any right to do what you want which includes making a legal backup, flying in the face of fair use policies). I do buy commercial CDs although rarely these days. Why should I spend that kind of money on overcompressed and overhyped physical media when the indies do it just as well, albeit cheaper, plus they accept and embrace the digital format more readily. Furthermore, I wouldn't exactly call it a witch hunt. If the original poster wishes to clarify his position, let him do so and then I will adjust my remarks. In leaving it short and potentially misleading, most people in my position would've thought the same thing because it does sound freakily like the garbage people read into from the RIAA. CDs are a dying breed. I can hold the equivalent of 350 CDs on my spare drive, in full WAV format (although I own and store something in the region of 12000 songs including my own and others from DMusic and other sites). If that's the way I want to store and listen to music, it should be my choice and that is something you WON'T get easily (or at all) from those corporate, artist-exploiting toerags. That aside, you then have the "Stealing Is Wrong" comment. Again, it could be misread - Maybe he meant stealing from a store is wrong, in which case I totally agree. Some laws are correct, after all. Applying the word "Stealing" to what is actually "Copying" is wrong and those with an ounce of sense can see that (major difference in the definitions of those two words, unless you think the dictionary is wrong also). It's unfortunate that indies will inevitably be treated the same way as their commercial "rivals" in many respects but we don't need propaganda, threats or exploitation to get our music across. Lastly, I wouldn't flame you. Maybe a slight grilling on both sides and served with relish?
leedsquietman	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 7:32 PM grilling on both sides with relish sounds tasty !
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 7:44 PM bring your own beer though
hate9wicket	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 8:11 PM [qoute]I have recently been workin' on two anti-download tracks to try to get people at my school to realise that they killin' the music industry. I will upload the songs onto DMusic as well then they are done and I hope you will enjoy them. They will be titled: Grave For An Era People Don't Wanna Pay For CD's (Feat. Sway)[/qoute] Let them kill it, if I remember correctly, when the RIAA lost their price gouging suit a few years ago, before they started targeting individual users dling from conspicious sources they invited everyone and their brother to request a rebate....which I think amounted to something like 5 bucks??? AND donated a bunch of crap CD's to libraries around the country... so you walk into the music section of the library....what do you see? 10 copies of something like Celine Dion or Mariah Carey...all the stuff collecting dust @ the warehouse... Meanwhile...you have brick and mortor stores closing down.... I don't think illegal downloaders are the problem... the problem is people, no matter the source, will always look for the better deal, if they can buy the CD for $9 on Amazon as opposed to $12 at the corner shop...who wins? As far as the RIAA going after the School kid? I suggest a win/win deal... since we are living in an age where the school/loan provider/book seller is ripping off every kid who is going to college, why don't the universities just set every student up with a stipend from the fees they accrue to some form of mp3 subscription? e-music or some other drm free service...
Distilled1	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 8:41 PM can I get my rare and make it dill relish that sweet stuff is
hate9wicket	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 8:45 PM Duh... no wonder my quote thinger didn't work...I CAN'T SPELL!!!
Woof	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 9:17 PM If this was a simple, black-and-white, right vs. wrong issue, people wouldn't still be discussing it all these years after the first Metallica lawsuit began. This is complicated. I'll try to keep the "legal" issue out of my reply, by simply saying that if you love a certain active artist's work, how can you expect any more from them, if you don't support them? Giving their new CD away can affect their career... and maybe even ruin it. That said, there are a handful of commercial artists whose work I won't even copy for people that I know... because I KNOW that they'll make copies, and the people that they give the copies to will make copies... and then there's that much less support for the artist. But there are ONLY a handful of artists (five in total) that I feel that way about. I think there are very few artists currently recording commercially, that are deserving of that kind of loyalty from their fans. Many current commercial artists are just going through the motions in the hopes of making a career... but that's different than making MUSIC. Y'all know the feeling I'm talking about... none of us are strangers to it. Remember when... whenever it was... that you just fell in love with an artist's work... and HAD to have their CD collection? We've all been there. If material with that kind of impact was being released currently, I doubt that people would be so willing and eager to share files of it. That kind of material is so rare... and most of what the majors is putting out is stuff that fans plainly don't care that much about. And that's what I'd like to say about all of this business: People share, because they just don't care. And I have to admit that, most of the time, I feel that they're right not to.
NickSawyer	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 10:40 PM Woof, I support that The only exception for me is, say the artist is on some crap record label and gets none of the profit from the sales anyway, then downloading really doesn't affect them financially --At all. That's why I'm part of that 9% that leedsquietman talked of. Well, also the 80% too, but that's beside the point By the way, what happened way up there? First I'm reading about RIAA and illegal downloading and all kinds of fun stuff like that and then it's all about meat or something? Damn, now I'm craving for a burger...
MickeyBreezy	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 11:11 PM "And dress it up any way you want, copyright infringement when you download music is illegal if you don't have the permission of the copyright holder." -copyright infringement...which is illegal, therefore p2p sites are breaking the law. "2 wrongs don't make a right." -i think alot of the times people overlook what they are defending. these people who are in disagreement of the riaa may be very well within their rights, but they are arguing the wrong points. we all know that if you copy a cd and give it away or re-sell it (doesnt much matter which) you are not stealling, however you do not have the authorization to do so, therefore,you are still breaking the law. copyrights exist for a reason. "I still believe many commercial CDs are OVERPRICED" -honestly though, what isn't nowadays, i dont think anyone can name a product that they have purchased from anywhere recently that they thought wasn't overpriced. the point to any business, no matter what it is, is to generate profitable dollars, if they dont, then they have to go out of business. and if there is no store to buy things from, then the manufacturers cant sell their product to them, which puts them out of business as well, leaving you with no way to ever get that product or service ever again without producing it yourself. "You buy the right to listen to the music on a CD, not any right to do what you want which includes making a legal backup" -you absolutely have the right to make yourself a backup copy for your own personal archives in case anything happens causing you to lose the use of the original. nobody ever said you cant do that. you cannot however make thousands of copys and distribute them across america just so no one else has to spend their hard earned dollars on it. that should just be common sense. "This is complicated. I'll try to keep the "legal" issue out of my reply, by simply saying that if you love a certain active artist's work, how can you expect any more from them, if you don't support them? Giving their new CD away can affect their career... and maybe even ruin it." -think about it from a standpoint you can truly relate to, your own job, whatever you do. what if somebody found a way, to reproduce whatever product or service you provide and gave it away for free. chances are, people will stop coming to your job asking you to provide those products or services causing a drop in revenue which puts your company out of business and leaves you jobless. now how are you gonna pay rent? "Oh and LOLZ @ people in the hip hop genre bitching about "stealing" -i am getting goddamn fucking sick of people always throwing the book at hip hop. they make it seem like this is the only genre that does anything wrong. if you remember, the catalyst to this whole p2p vs. riaa debate was metallica, a ROCK band. if it wasnt for them, this would not have exploded the way it did. its just the same as the powers that be taking the don imus situation and reflecting it back on the hip hop community. are you saying that rap is the only music w/ suggestive lyrics??? because if so you're a fuckin idiot and shouldnt speak in front of people ever again. its just so irritating that rap/hip hop has become the scapegoat and whipping boy of everything, and everyone not involved in rap/hip hop just sits all high and mighty on their ivory towers like they're better than everybody else, and its horse shit. ...to sum up, p2p filesharing IS wrong, copyright infringement IS a crime, and all this bitching and complaining about cd's being overpriced IS rediculous. get the government to lower gas prices or taxes, or even raise wages, when you can do that, then i might be concerned w/ something as petty as the price of a cd, is $15 really gonna break the bank? if it is then you probably have more important things to worry about than buying cd's right now. the fact that this site is so openly against the riaa, yet also has a policy banning the same activity that the riaa is fighting against, which is filesharing of copyrighted material, is just ludicrous. you are fighting the same battle while trying to skew the facts in a way that makes you look like the better person, and for what???
ShadowMom	Date: August 14, 2007 @ 11:55 PM DMusic hopes to level the playing field between indie and majors. Is that wrong? No. It's for you, all of you -- that this fight goes on. And a few points. Filesharing is not illegal, nor is it "wrong"-- we all do it practically every day. If it were illegal, DMusic would not allow you to download-- which is also not illegal or "wrong"-- it is uploading or sharing copyrighted work without the author's permission that is illegal. The RIAA sues people who make their copyrighted tracks available on the internet. So keep an eye on what you "share"-- but downloading is not what gets you sued. And the fact is that the majors want to control all of this, from internet radio all the way down to what you can share. From grade school through college and beyond, they want to control what you hear and how you hear it. Sound fair? Of course not.
MickeyBreezy	Date: August 15, 2007 @ 3:33 AM "And a few points. Filesharing is not illegal, nor is it "wrong"-- we all do it practically every day. If it were illegal, DMusic would not allow you to download-- which is also not illegal or "wrong"-- it is uploading or sharing copyrighted work without the author's permission that is illegal." -thats exactly the point, the copyright infringment side, they could give a shit about how you got it. if an artist puts a track on a website and enables a download feature, then anyone who downloads and shares it is perfectly within their rights. however if someone buys a cd from a retailer and does the same, thats whats illegal. in the first case, anyone could have gotten that song for free. in the second case they attained it in a way it was not meant for it to be distributed, thus making it against the law. the law says if you do not own the copyright to a product, you cannot duplicate and redistribute that product without permission of its creator, thus sharing any song over a p2p network that hasnt been authorized by the artist/record label/riaa whatever is illegal.
TameasDust	Date: August 15, 2007 @ 8:55 PM C'est la vie
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 15, 2007 @ 10:22 PM So generating a huge profit by ripping off artists, and overpricing items to screw their fans, is justified? These aren't tiny margins either. For years everyone's been saying they're getting away with murder but yeah, it's a legit (sic) business so it's justifiable, is that what you're saying? "-you absolutely have the right to make yourself a backup copy for your own personal archives in case anything happens causing you to lose the use of the original." That would be wrong too these days. The RIAA have said that you only purchase the right to LISTEN to that CD, you don't OWN it and therefore you don't have the right to copy it for ANY purpose. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID, thank you very much! "...to sum up, p2p filesharing IS wrong, copyright infringement IS a crime, and all this bitching and complaining about cd's being overpriced IS rediculous." I use p2p to share MY music. Where's the illegality in this? p2p has been used for both legal and illegal activities, so erring on the side of those who use it for the wrong purposes is fine, just don't make all of us p2p users out to be criminals. Although I agree with copyright infringement being a crime, I still believe (and I'm sure many do too) that CDs are overpriced and it's not a ridiculous argument either. I mean, if anything you don't agree with riles you that much you gotta knock it down without doing your homework properly, go work for the Bush administration - They might need a replacement for Rove. "...what if somebody found a way, to reproduce whatever product or service you provide and gave it away for free..." Go ask Microsoft about DOS, Internet Explorer, etc... I mean, you take the attitude that almost appears like you believe that money making adults are the only ones going out and buying music and while it's true that some artists are reasonably priced and affordable even to kids who buy it (not just ones with parents who dish out the dosh without blinking) a lot of it is way more expensive than $15. Gas prices don't really apply directly to a schoolkid, do they? Certainly not when you place it alongside a CD. Everything in life has a price but for what it represents, CDs are definitely a rip off, as is gas, but gas was never a part of the argument to start with. If someone can afford to use the car to drive a 1/2 mile to a store, they shouldn't complain about prices. Get on a fucking bus or a bike. We all have a lot more to worry about than the price of CDs in real life but the WHOLE point of this was about music in general and the way it's heading. "the fact that this site is so openly against the riaa, yet also has a policy banning the same activity that the riaa is fighting against, which is filesharing of copyrighted material, is just ludicrous. you are fighting the same battle while trying to skew the facts in a way that makes you look like the better person, and for what???" I didn't think I'd say it but what the hell. The only person in here skewing the facts is the person trying make a stand for an ageing business model that deems fit to dictate how we, as a whole, are allowed to buy and make music. They don't give a shit for non-label bands, they don't give a shit for THEIR bands either. Everything they do impacts on us, the consumer who buys their music and the artists who they sign up and push to the edge just to make a living. Trying to compare our policy against the RIAA's is showing how uneducated you really are! We have to impliment the policy of copyright infringement BECAUSE OF THE RIAA LAWSUITS AGAINST SITES THAT CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL! Don't you read the news? If this site were to allow copyright infringement, you'd be lambasting us for doing that as well AND they'd be on our case constantly, which would do irrepairable damage to us. Do you see us wanting to control our artists, take their tour and merchandise money wherever in the world they make it, because we can't let go of a dying physical media? NO. Do you see us suing anyone we think MAYBE a criminal, including young kids and deceased people's families? NO. We are the better of the two sides of this industry and our motives are clear. A level playing field in a very unbalanced, heavy biased music industry of which we would all like to be a working part of. Quite honestly, if you can't even see this or understand it... Why are you here?
Woof	Date: August 15, 2007 @ 10:23 PM IMO, if this discussion is really going to get us anywhere, we need to stop focusing on what's legal, and what isn't. We all know that distributing copyrighted works without being licenced to do that is illegal. But is it morally wrong? Genocide was legal in Nazi Germany, and at one time, slavery was legal here in the US. For that matter, Coca Cola got it's name because it was originally a cocaine wine. Which was perfectly legal to sell at the time. With everything that's been going on over here in the States over these last several years, it does appear that laws are determined by one method, and one method only: Majority rule by people in power. I'm not saying that the majority is wrong by agreeing to make sharing copyrighted works illegal. I'm saying that the only approach that will provide a worthwhile discussion here, would be to exchange views about whether or not they ARE wrong. That could lead to some interesting points.
TameasDust	Date: August 15, 2007 @ 10:26 PM The ones that are right are never going to agree with the ones that are wrong so argue away
PrincessTast...	Date: August 16, 2007 @ 7:15 PM Where's Spica when you need him?
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 16, 2007 @ 7:18 PM Thasp will be along sometime later I'm sure... That will be interesting in itself.
Thaspian	Date: August 17, 2007 @ 6:31 PM To sum it up, you're an ignorant prick. Filesharing in and of itself is not wrong, and I doubt you have the right to preach a path of moral sanctity when you can't even spell ridiculous. Copyright was intended for the purpose of preventing me from saying your shit is mine(not that I'd _ever_ want to). Look around a bit. Record stores are dropping like flies, people are only becoming more educated about digital media. Copyright is for information, and ideas. Music sure as hell isn't an idea. Ideas lead to electricity, televisions, the assembly line, plumbing. Music leads to temporary disposable euphoria. Information is meant to be kept secret, or freely available to society. You can't have it both ways. What's wrong, is preventing technological and social progress and change to clutch onto a 50 year old business model that was conceived before the integrated circuit. " id="273783">are you saying that rap is the only music w/ suggestive lyrics??? No, are you? That'd be a pretty stupid thing to say, but after reading your post it wouldn't surprise me. ...to sum up, p2p filesharing IS wrong, copyright infringement IS a crime, and all this bitching and complaining about cd's being overpriced IS rediculous" To sum it up, you're an ignorant prick. Filesharing in and of itself is not wrong, and I doubt you have the right to preach a path of moral sanctity when you can't even spell ridiculous. Copyright was intended for the purpose of preventing me from saying your shit is mine(not that I'd _ever_ want to). Look around a bit. Record stores are dropping like flies, people are only becoming more educated about digital media. Copyright is for information, and ideas. Music sure as hell isn't an idea. Ideas lead to electricity, televisions, the assembly line, plumbing. Music leads to temporary disposable euphoria. Information is meant to be kept secret, or freely available to society. You can't have it both ways. What's wrong, is preventing technological and social progress and change to clutch onto a 50 year old business model that was conceived before the integrated circuit.
Thaspian	Date: August 17, 2007 @ 6:33 PM P.S. I do not own, nor have access to, an ivory tower. It sounds pretty cool, though
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 17, 2007 @ 6:33 PM
Distilled1	Date: August 17, 2007 @ 7:04 PM Thaspian
HenriRoger	Date: August 17, 2007 @ 7:24 PM The critic about the money music producers make is ok , what about the money internet providers, microsoft, apple , used by all indie artists , make ?
LilliFoster	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 2:31 AM I sure don't like to part with money but I also believe that the artist performing and the songwriter need to get paid. Based on the current structure if you don't pay for anything you are hurting the fat-cat yes, but the're guaranteed to find a way to stay fat. The songwriter in particular starves. Would YOU continuously show up for work and do it free?
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 8:24 AM Would you show up for a job knowing your employer was pocketing 95% of your earnings? (That number was made up but I bet I ain't far off, in regards to CD sales)
ShadowMom	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 9:07 AM Just a thought, but why not try thinking of the internet as free advertising for the artist and the songwriter? To me, an mp3 still does not stand up to an audio cd. It's compressed... And I do buy cds, indie and other. But not a penny to anyone associated with the RIAA. I am surprised, I thought indentured servitude would be very unpopular these days. Just because they call it a contract doesn't change the reality.
zedsalt	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 10:52 AM Y'know, Thaspian, Thomas Edison never entertained the delusion that a light bulb was more important than a novel. He understood that, given the average depth and complexity of human thought and emotion, Art is essential, and the Essential will trump the Merely Practical every time.
Snoogans775	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 8:16 PM yeah, the lgiht bulbs just make it easier to read in the dark, like the internet makes it easier to listen when you're poor.
NickSawyer	Date: August 21, 2007 @ 11:44 PM On 21st Aug 2008, LilliFoster said: I sure don't like to part with money but I also believe that the artist performing and the songwriter need to get paid. Based on the current structure if you don't pay for anything you are hurting the fat-cat yes, but the're guaranteed to find a way to stay fat. The songwriter in particular starves. Would YOU continuously show up for work and do it free? I, personally, would never even consider arguing to someone wanting to download my music for free. Although I'm far from being good enough for other to want to buy it, if I WAS, then I would probably feel a little selfish not letting others enjoy it for free. I make music for the fun of it. I don't care if I make a dime! Sure, if I was offered money, I'd take it, but I would not stop a musical career if I didn't get any. That's why I get annoyed by all the "popular" musicians, like the ones you hear on the radio (popular... har har ). All they want is hmm... lets see... oh yes. MONEY MONEY MONEY. I find that most of my favorite artists tend to be indie, and that's not because I'm biased when I first hear them. People like 50cent, who sing about money, compete over money, sleep on money, probably even EAT money, are usually the most untalented people you'll hear.
zedsalt	Date: August 22, 2007 @ 11:31 AM Making portions of music that's available for sale available for free is a REALLY old, tried and true, business model. Every record store used to have listening stations, and no one would even consider buying a copy of an album they hadn't heard, end-to-end, at the store. The industry railed against selling cassette recorders to the general public, claiming that no musician would ever be able to support him/herself by music alone ever again. I've yet to listen to the songs that this thread is promoting, but my hope would be that they're anti-ILLEGAL-downloading, rather than anti-ALL-downloading.
officernarc	Date: August 22, 2007 @ 4:38 PM i think where the confusion comes in is when people begin to equate downloads to sales. rest assured, the only level that one album downloaded equals one sale makes sense on is the theoretical.
gtr1960	Date: August 23, 2007 @ 9:15 AM copyright laws where first in place for plagiarism purposes. If you buy a cd according to copyright law now you can do what you want as long as it is for personal use.(not group) Downloading unauthorized files from p2p currently is illegal.. I am torn here.. on one hand as a indi musician I want my music out there. on the other I would eventually like to move in to getting some cash for my music ( I hate my job and live shows aren't paying enough for me to quit yet lol) I would hope that if someone used one of my songs on a compilation cd and they sold it for some money they'd be cool enough to send me something. Labels have been taking advantage of musicians from the beginning. But at times they have to seems the public itself is partly to blame. So many people don't want to spend money on music unless it is a major artist or artist signed on to a larger label or sub of one. Mainly do to commercial radio (payola). (general public not directed at this site) I'm way off topic but I would love to see the industry leveled out..Radio,tv,web, music in general be distributed and sold in a fashion that is not handled buy so few. jmho
gtr1960	Date: August 23, 2007 @ 9:21 AM oops part of a paragraph didn't make it 2nd one: according to most labels only about 3-5% of the musicians they give money to actually make any real money. Another 5 to 7% might break even and the rest are a loss.. so in there own words they ride the gravy train on the ones that make tne money. and because they are mostly just business men they use the power of dublication law.. if one artist just like this makes is money a exact copy has a great chance of doin the same (McDonalds business plan)(cookiecutter)
gtr1960	Date: August 23, 2007 @ 9:24 AM yeah I know I can't type for shit
Thaspian	Date: August 23, 2007 @ 9:51 AM Would you show up for a job knowing your employer was pocketing 95% of your earnings? (That number was made up but I bet I ain't far off, in regards to CD sales) In all fairness, would you give, drunk, badly dressed, junkie musicians who will most likely fail $300,000 unless you were damned guaranteed a profit if they hit it big? Because most of them will fail and fail miserably.
ChillinBuzz	Date: August 23, 2007 @ 2:42 PM I'm not a drunk!
BOWILLIE	Date: August 26, 2007 @ 12:49 PM