P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[The Fiddler]

they will want to see them live, buy shirts, which is where bands really get most of their money from anyway, not from CD's which they earn maybe like 10% or less from each CD sold. Fuck the RIAA.

Let's assume the average cost of a CD is $15. A 10% royalty of each $15 CD sold or legally downloaded is $1.50. Now, let's do some math:

Eagles Greatest Hits (vol. 1) = 23 million copies sold. 23 million x $1.50 = $34,500,000 in royalties to the guys in the band (not the label, or RIAA) from album sales alone.

Led Zeppelin IV = 22 million copies sold x $1.50 = #33,000,000.

AC/DC Back in Black = 21 million copies sold x $1.50 = $31,5000,000.

Metallica S/T = 13 million copies sold x $1.50 = $19,500,000.

Does every independent label band expect to strike it rich like Metallica? No.

Did Metallica start out as an unknown band with 0 album sales like everyone else? Yes.

Does every band have the freedom to dream that they can one day make just a fraction of the numbers above? Yes.

Royalties do become a significant course of income when a good band starts selling, and that source of income continues to flow until the death of the artist. It doesn't stop with the one-time sale of a CD or concert ticket.

http://www.classicbands.com/bestsellers.html#top100

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Let's assume the average cost of a CD is $15. A 10% royalty of each $15 CD sold or legally downloaded is $1.50. Now, let's do some math:

Eagles Greatest Hits (vol. 1) = 23 million copies sold. 23 million x $1.50 = $34,500,000 in royalties to the guys in the band (not the label, or RIAA) from album sales alone.

Led Zeppelin IV = 22 million copies sold x $1.50 = #33,000,000.

AC/DC Back in Black = 21 million copies sold x $1.50 = $31,5000,000.

Metallica S/T = 13 million copies sold x $1.50 = $19,500,000.

Does every independent label band expect to strike it rich like Metallica? No.

Did Metallica start out as an unknown band with 0 album sales like everyone else? Yes.

Does every band have the freedom to dream that they can one day make just a fraction of the numbers above? Yes.

Royalties do become a significant course of income when a good band starts selling, and that source of income continues to flow until the death of the artist. It doesn't stop with the one-time sale of a CD or concert ticket.

http://www.classicbands.com/bestsellers.html#top100

Those are FOUR BANDS. In the HISTORY OF MUSIC.... What a horrible argument. You have the freedom to *dream* that you will sell 22 million records one day, but that means nothing... We have the *freedom* to dream about getting Spiderman's powers too.

 

[rms]

Look if u wanna be a rich musician youre not going to play metal. its pretty simple

 

[The Fiddler]

Those are FOUR BANDS. In the HISTORY OF MUSIC.... There were also so many variables in the 70s and 80s (early 90s too) that caused these bands to sell like that. One of which is simply the fact that there weren't as many record labels as there are now. More record labels= more bands. More bands= sales become split up.

Well, if you visited the link to source of that data in my post (and did your research), you will find the top 50 selling albums of all time. #50 sold 9 million copies. Now think of all the bands that sold 9 million copies or less. How many do you think there are?

The new Eagles studio CD, "Long Road Out of Eden" sold 711,000+ copies in the USA just this week (Oct. 31 release)! One week ≠ THE HISTORY OF MUSIC. And BTW, those 711,000+ copies were sold exclusively at WalMart.

October 31, 2007, is not October 31, 1970. Those sales took place this week, and the album competed against the increasingly larger number of record labels and bands that you claim split sales. The numbers above are just one example that more competition doesn't automatically equal decreased sales. Good music is good music. Good music sells.

 

[The Fiddler]

There were also so many variables in the 70s and 80s (early 90s too) that caused these bands to sell like that.

And mp3s had nothing to do with those numbers. Pretty cool, and a damn good band, huh?

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Well, if you visited the link to source of that data in my post (and did your research), you will find the top 50 selling albums of all time. #50 sold 9 million copies. Now think of all the bands that sold 9 million copies or less. How many do you think there are?

Easily in the millions. And that number grows with each band formed. But again, that means nothing given the number of musicians in the world compared to the number of musicians that sold even a million albums. Nice try- but we don't live in the 70s.

The new Eagles studio CD, "Long Road Out of Eden" sold 711,000+ copies in the USA just this week (Oct. 31 release)! One week ≠ THE HISTORY OF MUSIC. And BTW, those 711,000+ copies were sold exclusively at WalMart.

I don't get your point at all but ok. lol

October 31, 2007, is not October 31, 1970. Those sales took place this week, and the album competed against the increasingly larger number of record labels and bands that you claim split sales. The numbers above are just one example that more competition doesn't automatically equal decreased sales. Good music is good music. Good music sells.

First of all, since you are arguing that bands are still selling well nowadays, aren't you disproving your entire extreme anti-filesharing stance?

Second of all, take the number of musicians there are in the world and then the number of musicians that sold 9 million or more albums. Huge discrepancy.

I really don't see how people can be so against file sharing and then totally close themselves off to any other opinions on the matter. Myself, along with several others on this thread have made excellent points that completely disprove every argument y'all have made. Now- if there is full on concrete proof that sharing mp3s is killing bands and indie labels, I'll apologize and retract my statements. However I've not seen this- just what ifs and maybes. If you can't prove that the music industry isn't being hurt- logically it's being helped ...

 

[The Fiddler]

Nice try- but we don't live in the 70s.

I don't get your point at all but ok. lol

You just stated my point for me - we don't live the 70s, but despite all the increased competition for people's dollars (which wasn't as significant as it was in the 70s), bands can still thrive (despite all those un-named conditions in the 70s and 80s you claim were responsible for the Eagles selling like they did). The Eagles are selling new albums just fine in 2007.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3iff716996ae2a7e213c01bce1b63c92a8

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

You just stated my point for me - we don't live the 70s, but despite all the increased competition for people's dollars (which wasn't as significant as it was in the 70s), bands can still thrive (despite all those un-named conditions in the 70s and 80s you claim were responsible for the Eagles selling like they did). The Eagles are selling new albums just fine in 2007.

Thanks for clarifying- and basically disproving everything you've said this entire thread. If The Eagles are selling new albums just fine, and if bands can still "thrive" in 2007, then you've admitted that file sharing does not hurt the industry. Way to go.


Irony of course is that earlier in this thread you insulted my intelligence. Just wow.

/thread

 

[The Fiddler]

First of all, since you are arguing that bands are still selling well nowadays, aren't you disproving your entire extreme anti-filesharing stance?

Obviously, I do not believe all bands are selling well (in part due to illegal downloads), otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The point I'm making, which you still won't acknowledge, is that good bands making good music indeed sell large numbers of albums w/o the aid of BitTorrents (which you equate to helping insure success). I'm saying that you can Eradicate the BitTorrents and you can still be successful if you're good. The cream rises to the top. BitTorrents, which obviously hurt a well-established band like the Eagles (i.e. Everyone knows who the Eagles are, and they don't need the free publicity of an illegal download from a torrent somewhere on the Internet) had nothing to do with the success the Eagles enjoyed this week.

Now I know you're going to say that a BitTorrent did contribute to the Eagle's big sale numbers, so tell me, how many of those 711,000 copies sold do you think were inspired by illegal BitTorrent download "sampling"? And while you're at it, to be fair-and-balanced, how many people do you think made the illegal download, liked it, kept the music, and didn't pay for it?

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3iff716996ae2a7e213c01bce1b63c92a8

 

[The Fiddler]

Thanks for clarifying- and basically disproving everything you've said this entire thread. If The Eagles are selling new albums just fine, and if bands can still "thrive" in 2007, then you've admitted that file sharing does not hurt the industry. Way to go.

Irony of course is that earlier in this thread you insulted my intelligence. Just wow.

You're doing your best to make everyone believe your rationale that the success of one band (The Eagles), in the face of illegal downloads (via BitTorrents) can be applied to all bands across the industry, and hence none of these other bands are negatively affected by illegal downloads. If your want to prove your theory to be fact, then you need to present data that statistically prove that illegal downloading does not significantly affect CD sales (p<0.001).

I certainly don't believe that theory, as I've said all along, otherwise I wouldn't be participating (or more like, wasting my time) in this thread.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Obviously, I do not believe all bands are selling well (in part due to illegal downloads), otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion..

The point I'm making, which you still won't acknowledge, is that good bands making good music indeed sell good music. The cream rises to the top. Furthermore, BitTorrents, while they obviously hurt a well-established band like the Eagles (i.e. Everyone knows who the Eagles are, and they don't need the free publicity of an illegal download from a torrent somewhere on the Internet) had nothing to do with the success the Eagles enjoyed this week.

Now I know you're going to say that a BitTorrent did contribute to the Eagle's big sale numbers, so tell me, how many of those 711,000 copies sold do you think were inspired by illegal BitTorrent download "sampling"? And while you're at it, to be fair-and-balanced, how many people do you think made the illegal download, kept the music, and didn't pay for it?

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3iff716996ae2a7e213c01bce1b63c92a8

Dude you're just taking your argument around in circles and it is clear that you've lost. You take these stances, get proven wrong each time, and go back and fourth with your knee jerk responses.

"The point I'm making, which you still won't acknowledge, is that good bands making good music indeed sell good music. The cream rises to the top."

Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that only what you deem to be "good" sells and what you think sucks gets downloaded...

WHERE did I say that torrents are 100% guaranteed to boost sales with big name bands? This thread was about indie bands and indie labels- not the Eagles. You brought the Eagles up because according to you: all bands, including indie bands should have a right to dream about selling like them... and ok... I have the right to dream about sprouting wings and shooting fireballs out of my eyes... Then you bring up how the band is selling well nowadays, which is followed by your current position- how The Eagles' sales are being affected downloading.

If the cream rises to the top, and if The Eagles are selling "just fine," a DIRECT QUOTE from you, then LOGICALLY, downloading isn't hurting them, otherwise they wouldn't be selling fine. If you're seriously going to argue me that The Eagles should be selling a million copies a week instead of 700,000 then you've proven to everyone here that you know you're wrong and you're just trying to argue for the sake of it. You can't prove what happens to that other 300,000.

End of story. You're done. The end.

 

[The Fiddler]

WHERE did I say that torrents are 100% guaranteed to boost sales with big name bands?

You've since deleted your thread in which you imply that that success of the Eagles in the BitTorrent age means every band can be helped, and not potentially hurt by BitTorrents.

And you also went back and edited-out half of your original post (#242), and then changed the rest of it. Unfortunately for you, I replied to your original post before you edited it, which has since been preserved in it's entirety within my reply (#244).

---

Your original #242 post (as recorded in post #244):

"Originally Posted by ...AndTimeBegan
Those are FOUR BANDS. In the HISTORY OF MUSIC.... There were also so many variables in the 70s and 80s (early 90s too) that caused these bands to sell like that. One of which is simply the fact that there weren't as many record labels as there are now. More record labels= more bands. More bands= sales become split up."

---

Your hence-edit post #242:

"Those are FOUR BANDS. In the HISTORY OF MUSIC.... What a horrible argument. You have the freedom to *dream* that you will sell 22 million records one day, but that means nothing... We have the *freedom* to dream about getting Spiderman's powers too."

---

My full reply (#244) to your original, unedited post:

Well, if you visited the link to source of that data in my post (and did your research), you will find the top 50 selling albums of all time. #50 sold 9 million copies. Now think of all the bands that sold 9 million copies or less. How many do you think there are?

The new Eagles studio CD, "Long Road Out of Eden" sold 711,000+ copies in the USA just this week (Oct. 31 release)! One week &#8800; THE HISTORY OF MUSIC. And BTW, those 711,000+ copies were sold exclusively at WalMart.

October 31, 2007, is not October 31, 1970. Those sales took place this week, and the album competed against the increasingly larger number of record labels and bands that you claim split sales. The numbers above are just one example that more competition doesn't automatically equal decreased sales. Good music is good music. Good music sells.

 

[Magius]

Can this end now?

 

[General Zod]

Can this end now?

There can be only one.

Zod

 

[AMBR]

Can this end now?

This is the thread that never ends...

Good luck Fiddler, I bailed on arguing with this guy back on page 2/3 when he told me how bands make a profit touring through their merch alone due to getting a 100% return. That's when I knew it was pointless to continue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMBR
Oh, lord no. Touring is usually a loss.

Incorrect. The fees required to tour are high, but the merch you sell on tour (with a few exceptions) will see 100% profit on your end. With an album, you've only got mechanical royalties and standard royalties which is only a small amount. Even if you lose money during the first few tours, bands will generally be able to profit from touring through an expanded fanbase. The more tours a band does, the less the band pays for touring-related fees in the future. This is also why it's a lot smarter for labels like Lion who sign 800 million bajillion bands and only have enough money to pay pressing and recording costs to concentrate on a smaller number of bands and invest more in tour support and promotion.

I know far too many bands that can argue against THAT! Unless of course, you're the Eagles, Ozzy, etc. But big successful bands was not really what this thread was originally about. (Read first post - small bands/small label)

 

[sccaldwell]

What I find very interesting is that *they call themselves*..."THE PIRATE BAY", hmmmm

That's what I think is sick. These scumbags are PROUD of the fact that they pirate, or steal, the product of other people's hard work and/or talent.
That says a LOT about them. Pretty much puts 'em right there with gang members, where it's a point of pride to have stolen your first car (or how many you've stolen), or even how many innocent people you've killed.

Both groups are truly despicable, InMyNotSoHumbleOpinion.

Craig

 

[DAVETHEMETALGUY]

like i said in another post...you cant discuss the color of orange juice (the drink, not the guy) with some people.
lets end this.
or maybe we should have a 'bit torrent sub category' where people can discuss this till they die.
regardless, im out

 

[sccaldwell]

Which brings me right back to my first suggestion.

Let's alter it: Let the music industry put ALL of the music from ALL artists out there at a barely tolerable bitrate. 96? Less? Enough so that we know what the song sounds like, but not good enough to really enjoy in the car, ipod or home.

Then we can try before we buy.

Downloading is not going away. In fact, the RIAA would be better off if they stopped wasting their time chasing this impossible dream of stopping people from getting free music. People were downloading before Napster, and will continue to do so no matter what actions the government or RIAA take.

You cannot unpop a balloon; the best you can do is figure out a way to survive going forward.

I still maintain that this is not the problem. Downloading in-and-of-itself is not a problem. I AGREE with the people who are saying that it CAN actually foster sales, by people discovering new bands/CDs.

The problem is that for many people (particularly the "25-and-under" crowd), illegal downloading has simply become "the way" to get new music. Many kids have THOUSANDS of MP3s, but have never bought a single song (I personally know several). It's not a way to sample. It's a way to get whatever you want without paying for it. (Side-note: Fundamentally, I think that this is what is causing the fall of American society, which has already begun (other countries to a varying extents): Getting what you want without working for it, and having no consequences for laziness or negative/illegal actions).

I think the RIAA's problem really isn't with downloading (when it's for "sampling" purposes). Otherwise, why would they possibly have agreed to Microsoft's "sharing" thing on the Zune, where you can "borrow" someone else's song for 3 listens, or the iTunes feature where other people can stream your music library and "try out" your songs?!?!?!

Clearly, they see the value of sharing music, to expose people to new stuff that they might want to buy. The problem is when the sharing is used to AVOID buying.

Craig

 

[sccaldwell]

I think the idea has validity if it's say 50 to 75% of a song at a 96bitrate for FREE, then it may have some possible help, but this costs time and money to
do for all releases obviously. Would be good to get at least $1 for it, but would someone really pay $1 for this even with a discount later on the disc or other realistic possible perks?

Thoughts?

Nice idea, but I honestly don't think it would help at all. As you pointed out, there are costs incurred in generating and hosting the lower-rate "samples" (bandwidth costs, etc), and I really, really doubt it would help with sales, even if the "sample" versions were completely free (and therefore costing you, the artist/label, money).

Why won't it help? Because the people who already download it for free, like it, and then still don't buy it will simply continue to do so. They'll just ignore your low-rate "sample" versions and keep hitting the P2P sites.

The people who *truly* just want to "try-before-you-buy" are ALREADY buying what they like. They're just downloading full-quality versions of full songs, recognizing that they like it and then following up with the purchase.

Personally, I think this is how things *should* be, but it isn't working that way with many people. I certainly wouldn't buy a car without test-driving it, and I think people should be able to "test-drive" music, too. But if you enjoy it, you should pay for it.

Honesty. What a novel concept.

Craig

 

[sccaldwell]

Technically, so does Google for providing links to websites like The Pirate Bay... Even worse- technically so do YOU for even publicly acknowledging The Pirate Bay in the first place.

Please. You're clearly not a lawyer, or you'd know better. Acknowledging that a thief exists does not make someone else a thief.

Fingers have been pointed at Google and other search sites purely because of absurd accusations that they "facilitated" the illegal downloads because thiefs use Google to find P2P sites, which IMHO is an absurd argument.

It's like saying that AT&T is liable for someone being murdered in a shooting incident. "Well, your honor, AT&T published the phone book in which the killer found the gun shop where he bought the murder weapon. Clearly, it's AT&T's fault!!!"

That's simply stupid, IMHO. There have been other lawsuits against cable and DSL providers saying that illegal P2P sharing is their fault because they provide the network over which the crime happened.

Re-visiting my murder example, that's like saying the Department of Highways is liable for a murder, because the killer drove on *their* roads to get to the crime scene!

Absurd.

Craig