File Sharing

[chickennob2]

What do you think about file sharing, downloading music, shows, movies, etc.? The reason im asking is that there has recently been a new emphasis on inordinately ruining college kids lives, especially at MIT. So im scared that my brother (An MIT student) is gonan get screwed over. what do you guys think on this topic?

[IZAAK]

I think it is wrong for that fact that if I made a record and people took it instead of buying it, I would be a little upset. Then again most of them are rich, and it shouldn't matter.

Look at Dave Matthews, he released a single strickly on Napser (when napster was big), because he knows that he is over paid, I have heard him say it in an interview.

People like Lars from Metallica make me sick. Metallica is good and all, but he just cried too much about...

It is a good thing for the fact that it is good promotion for unknown bands. If you know an unknown band, you can come to me and say listen to this, then I like it and do the same to someone else. After a while there are a hundred new listeners. Understand what I mean?


Ask your brother about the MIT BlackJack team!!! I wonder if they still have it around. I saw the show on the history channel!

[Chaji]

Bit Torrent. <3

[Jared]

Most of them come with some sort of spyware bundled in, so beware!


As to the whole 'making money" thing, that was posted.


Most artists make very little on their albums ales, unless they are a multi platinum artists every time out. SO, yeah, DMB is making some cash, but most artists, escpecially new ones, dontl see any money for a while.

FOr every recording, they owe the lable money for the studio time, production costs of the music, productions costs of the CD, marketing and videos. All of that gets paid before the artist sees a penny.

Now, they DO get royalty checks for radio ariplay, so successful singer song writers, like Billy Joel, make millions each year without touring or recording new music.

But a majority of artists never sniff a radio playlist, even on satellite radio.

Also, they do get to keep all of the money they make from touring, after they pay the promoters and crew and band, etc. The label gets none of that, unless you have a REALLY bad contract.

Also, agents and lawyers have to get paid.

So, I understand why artists feel that downloading is theft. They are just trying to protect their income sources. Especially new or emerging artists, regardless of major or independant label affiliation.

And they also generally don't even own the master recordings of their albums for 35 years. Record companies are sucky, man.

A few examples:

in 1976, Aerosmith's "Rocks" went multiplatinum. They had been touring, essentially non-stop since 1972, before they were signed. They were the biggest concert attraction in North America at that point, playing stadiums at times. They took a break to record "Draw The Line" And while they admit they did a LOT of drugs, they found that their check for the total sales royalties of "Rocks", a triple platinum album at the time, was $32,000! For the whole band! They sued their managers. The label was willing to go over their contract with them and renegotiate, and spell out why the money they expected wasn't there. Their management team, however, were not as willing to bargain in good faith. They counter-sued for breach of contract. They did settle, but only after a judge aribitrated and split the royalties 50/50 between the band and the managers. SO every time you hear "Walk This Way", or buy "Toys In The Attic", two NYC lawyers who haven't spoken to the band in years, get 50% of that check. Sucks, eh?

Example 2: The Goo Goo Dolls started as a critically acclaimed post punk garage band on independent Metal Blade records. As an independant, Metal Blade wasn't concerned about airplay, only sales. So they said. After 5 albums, the Goos broke big with the song "Name" in 1995. Since they were on an independent, there were no advances to pay back, no videos to pay back, just the costs of the albums to pay back. Up to that point, the cd's ahd been quick, high energy, and drunken affairs. Three, maybe 4 weeks at the most in the studio. SO when "Name" went top ten and was on the Top 40 for some 38 weeks, and the Goo Goo Dolls were playing to packed arenas, you'd think that there would be some financial reward. Maybe not millions and millions, but something positive. Imagine the anger and dismay felt when the label informed them that the band owed them some $900,000. Even after a 3x platinum album, the band was almost a million in the hole. WHY? Because the label had beenbilling the band for every expense imagniable. Usual things like, promotions, prodcutions costs, etc. But also, they claimed they were owed 80 percent of merchandising and 50 percent of touring monies, as per a clause in the contract signed. Under that arrangement, the band figured out that they would basically need a Def Leppard "Hysteria" sized album just to break even next time. Which is really not going to happen for any one not named Shania Twain these days. They sued as well, and Warner Bros. stepped in to pick up the contract, and the terms were never discloed, and are not going to be due to a non disclosure agreement.

So yes, you can see why bands really want to protect their sales. Its not greed, its because they know the label has their hand in the cookie jar before it gets to them.

Blackie Lawless of W.A.S.P. was once asked if he had any advice for young musicians who wanted a career playing rock music. He laughed and said something along the lines of (I am paraphrasing) "I'd tell them don't do this because you want to do this, do it because you HAVE to do it. It needs to be so much a part of your soul that you'll go insane if you aren't playing or recording. You have to want to starve to death rather than do anything else, because the business side is stacked against you from day one. I'd also say get a real shark for a an attorney. And another attorney to watch the first one!"

[theMileHighGuy]

*You must spread points around before giving to Jared again*

Those were pretty good examples, a lot of people don't realize how much money recording artists don't make.

I don't really download a lot of music because I have dial-up, and I also like displaying the cases in my cd rack. (Same goes for DVDs)

I really lost a lot of respect for Lars Ulrich after the napster case, mostly because I think it was fueled mostly by greed. He just turned into a baby over it and I think the whole mess should've been avoided.

[IZAAK]

Most of them come with some sort of spyware bundled in, so beware!


As to the whole 'making money" thing, that was posted.


Most artists make very little on their albums ales, unless they are a multi platinum artists every time out. SO, yeah, DMB is making some cash, but most artists, escpecially new ones, dontl see any money for a while.



I that is a fact. I have been involved with music my whole life. I know how the business works. That just makes their argument worse. If they don't make that much money off of the albums than who cares. I know that touring is pretty much the money maker. That's why people like DMB are so rich because they tour for like 2 years straight.

I understand their points. Either way I stick with the fact that it is good for newbies, promotion and the rich folks just want to get richer. I am sure they see some money from the records. It's not like all the money from the records go to the recording label, only enough to pay them off. Then the rest is theirs.

[mattos]

Bit Torrent. <3

i'd be wary about bit torrent. it requires you to share to get good downloads and sharing is what gets you in trouble, not downloading. i think kazaa lite w/o allowing sharing (yes it makes you a leech) and not functioning as a supernode is the safest way to go.

[BroncoManiac_69]

Call me old fashioned but I prefer buying the CD of a band/person I like rather than all this internet stuff. You can even scan the CD (example at Wal-Mart) and hear a few selected songs from the disc right there in the store. I always thought that was a pretty cool feature.