P2P TORRENTS AND THE EVIL THEY DO

[Angrafan]

How? Where have you seen the actual cost of a CD vs. the profit? I'd be really interested to see it. I bought 3 CD's @ PPUSA because they were all ~10$, I dont mind under 10 it seems fair, but 15 is ridiculous and I dont agree with it. The businesses should meet customer standards, not other way around.

Yes I have seen the costs...

you have unrealistic expectations... You have to realize that the band, label, distributor and vendor are all making money on the process... plus all the costs of making the album...

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

You are so totally wrong dude. Everything that the US judicial system dictates is therefore infallible? The law has NEVER made mistakes before? There are countries (Holland, Sweden, Denmark, France etc) that are legalizing (or at least considering) "illegal" file sharing, so please, don't use this argument again since you are not the king of morals/ethics. (nobody is)

"There is no proof that downloading hurts bands"

Tell that to all the bands who got signed through sharing their music through the internet. Tell that to bands who were previously signed to record labels whose previous catalog is/was out of print. Tell that to the number of fans who download music and then buy merch (which gives more money to the bands) and go to see the bands live- which in turn as Zod said, brings more foreign bands to the US. I highly doubt Swallow The Sun or Insomnium, for example, sell many albums in the US, but that didn't stop them from touring here.

As for Lion music.... How about not signing 100 bands a day and concentrate only a few at a time if you are so worried about funds? Tour support/good marketing will sell much more than signing hundreds of bands per year and hoping one or two makes it big.

This is completely illogical for at least three reasons:

1. No one is arguing infallibility for the judicial system. I am simply stating a fact: it is illegal. If you don't like the law, petition Congress to change it. But you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. That's anarchy, dude.

2. Bands who got signed sharing their music quite often shared it with their permission. In other words, they made a calculated decision to allow their music to be given away free. That's quite a bit different from having it stolen from them.

3. You are not the final arbiter of what a record label should or shouldn't do. And just because you don't agree with Lion's business model does not give you the right to steal their music. Again, that's anarchy. And it opens the door for all sorts of reciprocation. Like, if you follow your own logic, what's to stop someone from seeing what you have, your very own possessions, and deciding you don't deserve them? Essentially, that happens every day. It's called robbery. And robbers use the exact same "logic" that you've just demonstrated.

Please re-think your position. You're on shaky ground.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

You have set yourself up as the final arbiter, rms. You determine what's "fair" or not. Once those horses have left the barn, there's no putting them back in.

Apples and oranges times infinity. First of all, what right do you have to accuse someone of claiming what is "fair" when you yourself have essentially been saying "BOTTOM LINE, IT'S WRONG" BECAUSE I SAID SO"?

Or, I don't think Symphony X put enough time and talent into their latest CD. Therefore, I don't think it should have cost me $15.99. I think they wimped out, took the easy way. I think their latest is only worth about, oh, $6.99.

I could pay 99 cents for a burger at McDonalds, but I know that the quality of the burger is extremely low. Why should the cost for albums with low production values be the same as major label releases? Further- why should I have to pay for an album I thought was horrible? If I had a sandwich that I thought tasted foul (perhaps an ingredient wasn't fresh), I could return it and get my money back... Now- this is not necessarily *my* view, but it definitely proves your point wrong and backs up RMS's.

 

[rms]

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

You have set yourself up as the final arbiter, rms. You determine what's "fair" or not. Once those horses have left the barn, there's no putting them back in.

For example, I think it would be "fair" if I owned your car. After all, it's newer than mine. You can afford another one. I can't.

Or, I think it would be "fair" if food costs less in stores -- like free. So why not take it? They can afford to restock the shelves.

Or, I don't think Symphony X put enough time and talent into their latest CD. Therefore, I don't think it should have cost me $15.99. I think they wimped out, took the easy way. I think their latest is only worth about, oh, $6.99.

What you think is fair is irrelevant, rms. Here are three facts to ponder:

1. Unauthorized downloading is illegal. There's no way to justify it. It doesn't matter how many CDs you bought in a year. You broke the law. Period. Plus, it doesn't really matter if you've achieved parity with your downloads vs. purchases. What matters is you've perpetuated a system, alerted those who create such systems that it's worth maintaining. So while you may be at 100% parity (one purchase -- of the same title -- for one download) others may not. There's no way for those who allow illegal downloads to know that what you downloaded ostensibly to listen to, you actually followed through and bought a hard copy of later on. You're participating in a system that's designed to allow people to circumvent the law. Regardless of what you tell yourself to make it okay, you're breaking the law with every download.

2. Labels, especially independents, cannot survive if their merchandise is stolen from them. Independents are in the fight of their lives these days. I know a guy who owns an independent CD store. He says that within 3-4 years virtually all of his distributors will be out of business, which means he will be too. Why? Because of downloads. If all you want is high-price, poor-selection Barnes & Noble, Best Buy, or Wal-Mart, keep on downloading. But if you looked at the big picture and realized that independents are struggling for their lives, maybe you'd think twice before clicking through an illegal download.

3. People who own independents have a right to make a living. Let's take Lance, for instance. His reputation around the world is solid. He treats his bands extremely well and cares deeply for the bands in his stable of artists. He's a musician as well as a business owner. He has decades of experience behind him. What's that worth? A couple of bucks per disc? Easily. So when you piss and moan that you won't pay above $10, out of whose pocket are you taking the money? Lance? The artist? The distributor? I think Lance's prices are extremely reasonable. Furthermore, I think his CDs are worth every dime for the enjoyment they give me.

Zod is right about the genie. But that doesn't make it right, nor does it provide an excuse to continue doing it. The plain, bottom-line truth is this: Unauthorized free downloads rob bands, drive independents out of business, and cheapen the value of music.

Let me repeat that: Unauthorized free downloads rob bands, drive independents out of business, and cheapen the value of music.

Now, you can decide what's "fair" all you want. But, in the end, can you honestly look someone like Lance in the face and tell him you just stole $5 - $15 out of his pocket because you didn't think it was fair for him to charge that much for a CD?

Jesus, people. Wake up!

How is my opinion on a cost of a cd irrelevant? im a customer and like metal, I am exactly what they are aiming for. Just like I wont pay for a game that costs this much, a movie tahts this much, a shirt that is this much.

I like how your opinion counts towards the cd and mine doesn't. Thats great if you feel like being ass rammed by overpricing, I dont.

 

[Cheiron]

So only like 4 out of 10 people actually paid for the Radiohead album. Not sure the end meaning for this. But i'm curious how many didn't pay for it, got it, and then went back and paid for it.

 

[rms]

Yes I have seen the costs...

you have unrealistic expectations... You have to realize that the band, label, distributor and vendor are all making money on the process... plus all the costs of making the album...

Can I get a link please.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

This is completely illogical for at least three reasons:

1. No one is arguing infallibility for the judicial system. I am simply stating a fact: it is illegal. If you don't like the law, petition Congress to change it. But you can't just pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore. That's anarchy, dude.

2. Bands who got signed sharing their music quite often shared it with their permission. In other words, they made a calculated decision to allow their music to be given away free. That's quite a bit different from having it stolen from them.

3. You are not the final arbiter of what a record label should or shouldn't do. And just because you don't agree with Lion's business model does not give you the right to steal their music. Again, that's anarchy. And it opens the door for all sorts of reciprocation. Like, if you follow your own logic, what's to stop someone from seeing what you have, your very own possessions, and deciding you don't deserve them? Essentially, that happens every day. It's called robbery. And robbers use the exact same "logic" that you've just demonstrated.

Please re-think your position. You're on shaky ground.

1) You said several times that it's illegal. What does that mean? Nothing- since just because something is illegal doesn't mean it necessarily SHOULD be illegal in the first place (SEVERAL countries feel that it shouldn't as is...). You can keep saying that file sharing is illegal, but that doesn't help your argument one bit. You missed the point on this one entirely which only proves to me who is really the informed one here on this subject.

This has nothing to do with whether or not I am displeased with US law or am in favor of anarchy. (I'm not) I am merely saying that the argument of "It's illegal- don't do it," especially when so many other countries are giving this law a second thought, is incorrect.

2) "having it stolen from them."

There are only 2 ways someone can steal music (that I can think of off hand) from a musician: 1) if I were to publish someone else's music as my own, or 2) if I were to steal a physical CD and run off with it without paying for it. When you download an MP3 from a P2P program or website, the artist doesn't lose the rights to that piece of music/recording. Therefore nothing is being stolen in the first place. Someone might be downloading it "illegally" since he doesn't have the license for that piece of music (which costs money), but nothing is being lost on either end. Therefore, nothing is stolen. This is how one can argue that there is more gained from downloading than "lost".

3) "You are not the final arbiter of what a record label should or shouldn't do. And just because you don't agree with Lion's business model does not give you the right to steal their music."

Advice, can be loosely defined as simply "an opinion." Just because I give advice (an opinion), doesn't mean I am the "final arbiter."

 

[Iced Dog]

Oh boy, here we go again I understand Lance's concern, but personally, I will not stop downloading, because without it I wouldn't have purchased a crap load of music (CDs, DVDs, shirts, tickets) and wouldn't be half as passionate about metal as I am today.

 

[DreamThief]

If it were not for downloading songs off the internet, I never would have attended a PP, not listened to 99% of the bands I listen to now. Of course, that means that I wouldn't have purchased any of the CDs that I have purchased. It's a double-edged sword, but there's no stopping it, and anybody who thinks that legislation will do it is either exercising wishful thinking, or they are naive.

This is where I stand.

Take one of Lance's projects for example, Pyramaze. I remember hearing a lot of buzz about them and downloading the Bone Carver album. I was blown away. So blown away that I called it my #1 Album of the Year. I purchased the album a few months after it's release. Without the internet and the ability to download I wouldn't even know who Pyramaze or Lance King was. But instead, now I go to ProgPower and think to myself, "Holy Shit... There's Lance King!"

Try this analogy, say you own a "restaurant." Someone snuck in your establishment and stole a whole bunch of food. They then proceed to stand across the street and handout free samples to anyone that will take some. Now one of two scenario's will happen, either the food is really good and everyone will want to eat there, or the food is shitty and no one will want to eat there.

Now, the "restaurant" with good food will thrive because people will now have a reason to go there and PAY for the food. Not everyone who sampled the food will agree, but the better the food, the higher the chance people will PAY.

The shitty "restaurant" will struggle if all they do is blame the thief and not concentrate on the real problem, the food.

Now, I'm not saying what the thief did is right, or that it doesn't give the restaurant the right to be upset.

Basically, I agree with points made by Zod and DrumRMan.

How is it that bands who once wallowed in relative obscurity (Amon Amarth, Dimmu Borgir, Children of Bodeom, Opeth, etc., the list goes on) now headline large clubs here?

Zod mentioned bands like Amon Amarth, Dimmu Borgir, and Opeth because lots of people have sampled their "food" and have come back for seconds.

Well I can only tell you why *I* havent bought many Lion Music releases, and that is because I dont care for them.

I find most to have really bad production, terrible cover art, and nothing that grabs me. Locomotive Breath's latest one was about the only release I purchased from them in recent months.

The Madman exemplifies the other extreme.

To be honest, there are a few bands in that list from Lion (Seventh Wonder, Moonlight Comedy, From Behind, Engine Of Pain) that I have never even heard of. Wouldn't that be fantastic irony if this thread led me to download and discover a new band that I really love.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

So perhaps your saying we should go to an all digital distribution system like itunes or others and sell the music for $6 to $7 there, but then then itunes wants to get their cut 33% off the top and believe me they're on the really generous side of the digital download sites when they're taking their cut, most are taking 50% or more.

Why do you need iTunes or their ilk at all? Fuck them. They like to make the music industry think they are integral to the success of all bands, but that's bullshit. They are all about massive exposure to already successful popular bands. Independent labels/distributors/bands get lost in the shuffle anyway (unless you blow your marketing wad for the year on one week's advertisement on the front page). You don't need them, not if you start creating the trend yourselves... Make these albums available for download in the $6-8 range on your own sites. It's not that expensive to buy server/bandwidth to support this, not in this day and age.

If I owned an online record store right now and it was my livelihood, I'd be talking to all independent record labels about making albums available in mp3s (with attached cover art, lyrics and liner notes in pdf format) as that is the way of the future. I'm not saying do away with cds completely (because traditionalists/collectors hate mp3s and want to line the walls of their homes with thousands of cds), but jump on the bandwagon while it's gaining momentum and make the best of it. Some bands/labels have already realized that you can use torrents to your advantage by releasing EPs or select songs to create a "buzz", but that should be followed by an AFFORDABLE download-able version to encourage people to pay for the album (without blowing a 20-spot) when it's officially released.

We're moving to a digital world, and even an old-school geezer like me is making the transition. I'm almost done with cds. My home stereo plays mp3s, I listen to most music on my computer (mp3s again), and by next summer I plan to have my car stereo converted to mp3s so I don't have to lug around 300 cds everytime I travel north to spend the summer months in Montana. I still buy cds, but I mostly just rip them to mp3 and then put them on the shelf to make dusting more strenuous. In the future, I'd rather save myself ten bucks and bypass that paper and plastic cd release and the room to store it.

 

[Metalmilitia2000]

I'll throw in my $.02. I download music, I'll admit that in a heartbeat. I download it to listen to it before I buy it. If I don't like it, I have not wasted my money on it. If I do like it, I buy it, knowing that I am helping to support the band. If I didn't download music, chances are, I wouldn't buy too many cds from bands I knew nothing about. By downloading, I am able to "test drive" if you will, a release to see if I like it before I buy it, or before I go to their show. I think people who ONLY download are the ones at fault here, not the ones who download to see if they like it or not, and are supporting the band and industry with their purchases after giving it a few spins. And I am with someone else who said it here, I would not be that stoked about Progpower every year if I couldn't download a few releases from the bands to get me in the mood of their set. If I enjoy the band, chances are, and you can ask Swordlord this, I'll buy their discography at Progpower if it is available. P2P file sharing is much like the tape trading fad of the 80s, a lot of bands are getting started off because of it. If people don't know who you are, they are not going to buy your cd. If they get their name out there on myspace, and P2P networks, and friends burning mixed cds for other friends, then that is FREE advertising that the bands and labels are not having to spend money on. I mean for instance, here are some bands that if it were not for file sharing, I would have never gotten into, and I own cds from all of these bands:

In Flames
Fozzy
Noctournal Rites
Freak Kitchen
Helloween
Gamma Ray
Primal Fear
Attacker
Iced Earth

The list goes on. So the whole argument about how file sharing has done nothing good for the music business is total and complete bullshit. You can argue that point all day long, and at the end of the day, you will still have people like me who download and then buy based on the quality of the release. The whole "its illegal" argument is the only legitimate argument anyone has against it, and that argument means nothing in this day and age of technology.

Brent

 

[Angrafan]

Can I get a link please.

I don't have a link... but just think about it...

so.. you want to pay with less than 10 dollars:

The Artist
The Label
The Distributor
The Retailer

+The production costs of an album.

yeah, totally doable...

 

[General Zod]

Zod, Time is something that the bands your mentioning have had, lot's of time building a fan base...

True. But you can't completely disregard the impact MP3s had on building that fan base. Iced Earth's last disc was in the Billboard Top 100. Have they lost sales to people who simply don't buy CDs? Yes. However, do they sell more CDs today, than they would have otherwise, without MP3s? That's a completely different question, with quite possibly, a very different answer.

...but sure for touring this is a positive, probably for bands other merch items like Shirts etc are better too, because you can't boot those as easily.

Yep. It's why Korn and Madonna sold touring rights and merch rights to their labels (for a small fortune). The first phase of the new business model's evolution.

And your right, the model does have to change, let's have a few brilliant ideas from you and others on how bands can survive in this brave new world.

Brother... if I knew what that model was going to look like, I'd be well on my way to being a multimillionaire. Because someone will build a successful business model out of this mess, and they will make a killing.

Zod

 

[Stingray11214]

If it were not for file sharing, I would not have BOUGHT Katagory V's "The Rising Anger", Zandelle's "Vengeance Rising", or have PUSHED Suspyre's latest release (I had a Suspyre banner on my nic for months! My CD is all scratched now I need me a new one!), an bought the releases from Edenbridge and Stride.

Granted, there are those that could give a damn. However, most of us in the Metal Community, I imagine, are far more honorable than their pop counterparts. If we don't like what we hear, we kill it. If we like, we go out and buy the CD's, go to the festival's, and buy that bands merch.

As zod said, the genie is out of the bottle. Now, you need to deal with it.

 

[AngraRULES]

Can I get a link please.

Angrafan actually owns a record label. If I were you, I'd believe him.

If you think you can do that (pay less than 10 bucks for a cd and cover artist, label, distributor, retailer and album production costs) you're either on drugs or you have no real clue about this.

Try being an artist, or a record label owner, and whenever you start feeling the actual effects of illegal downloading, then we'll talk.

 

[SavaRon]

Can someone tell me this. Why does a CD get recorded, mixed, and mastered and then a label sits on it for months? I know the actual production takes a while, but this is very bad practice these days. Also, why are there different release dates around the world anymore? As soon as it's released ANYWHERE, it's all over the net. What the hell is the point of it. All the limited editions, special editions, tour editions, bonus tracks for different countries, or even stores is getting annoying as well. Just some things that I think are contributing to the situation.

The music made is becoming advertising for your live show these days. Good news for bands that can play, not so good for ones that can't. This genre(and music in general) is hurting, but will survive. The labels unfortunately will probably be phased out more and more. You can record a decent CD with your computer these days. All you need is the distribution. With MP3's and the web, that isn't all that hard anymore either.

 

[Cheiron]

Can someone tell me this. Why does a CD get recorded, mixed, and mastered and then a label sits on it for months? I know the actual production takes a while, but this is very bad practice these days. Also, why are there different release dates around the world anymore? As soon as it's released ANYWHERE, it's all over the net. What the hell is the point of it. All the limited editions, special editions, tour editions, bonus tracks for different countries, or even stores is getting annoying as well. Just some things that I think are contributing to the situation.

The music made is becoming advertising for your live show these days. Good news for bands that can play, not so good for ones that can't. This genre(and music in general) is hurting, but will survive. The labels unfortunately will probably be phased out more and more. You can record a decent CD with your computer these days. All you need is the distribution. With MP3's and the web, that isn't all that hard anymore either.

'Delay's are to put out albums at targeted marketing periods. Albums released late in the year don't tend to do as well. Releasing albums near a tour is a good move. Lots of reasons that this happens. Somebody had a good post somewhere recently about why...

 

[Angrafan]

Can someone tell me this. Why does a CD get recorded, mixed, and mastered and then a label sits on it for months? I know the actual production takes a while, but this is very bad practice these days. Also, why are there different release dates around the world anymore? As soon as it's released ANYWHERE, it's all over the net. What the hell is the point of it. All the limited editions, special editions, tour editions, bonus tracks for different countries, or even stores is getting annoying as well. Just some things that I think are contributing to the situation.

The music made is becoming advertising for your live show these days. Good news for bands that can play, not so good for ones that can't. This genre(and music in general) is hurting, but will survive. The labels unfortunately will probably be phased out more and more. You can record a decent CD with your computer these days. All you need is the distribution. With MP3's and the web, that isn't all that hard anymore either.

Sometimes artists/labels ask labels in other countries to delay the release, so they can sell some imports before the album comes out in a certain territory...


what Cheiron posted is another reason..

 

[Jibrille]

I admit to downloading but I also always make sure to at least eventually purchase what I like. I think the issue lies in people that complain about the cost of a CD but have no problem throwing down $200-300 for an MP3 player.

 

[woosta]

What about the existence of used cds for 2 decades now? Nobody was claiming that "hurt" the industry like they are with downloading. Downloading is a nice scapegoat for lower sales because you can throw numbers right out there and spin them. That may be some of a problem but the rest of it is the RISING cost of cds (how can this even be since most technology gets cheaper over time) along with shitful releases by the dozen now. You can't find anyone at a store to carry a decent selection, online shipping is like highway robbery, and quite frankly, customers are fed up with music industry bullshit. I just started downloading some stuff in the last year or so and I have 500 pounds worth of useless bullshit and about 5 ounces of quality product. That, I buy. And I see the show. And I buy the shirts. We actually have bands like Dick Delicious and the Tasty Testicles running around getting offered for sale and people think it's solely the downloading? No, it's partly to blame but there sure is a pile of hoo-hah being offered that should take a lion's share of responsibility. As an owner of 4000+ actual pressed cds, I can certainly attest to the fact that I have happened across more than a fair share of crap on a blind buy and I've paid dearly for it. But for me, I guess "that's the breaks" according to labels and industry?

Give me a painting and I can look at it for days before I decide if I want to buy it. And if I don't, I can still look at it for as long as it's around for free. With music, I have to blind buy it at $19.99 (FYE) down to $12 (indies) and take what I get along with a "sorry" if I don't like it. That sounds like some real bullshit to me. Labels need to sign quality. That quality artist needs to put some real effort into their cd and songs (and don't even come at me with how all artists do this) and then the "problem solving" needs to be how to market that cheaply and on a grassroots movement over Time Square billboards, plastering buses with full length posters and putting ads on TV. I'm paying for all this overhead? NOOOOO, I'm paying for the music and the music alone. Don't ask me to pay for the fringe details that marketers think they need.