To Set The Record (Industry) Straight…

Over the past few years, the music industry has been under speculation; it has been pegged as a dying industry. “Are Record Labels Dead?” asks CNN in one article. Even Rolling Stone declared “The Record Industry's Decline.” The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) blame people who “illegally” download music by use of the web and peer-to-peer (or P2P) software for the decrease in music sales. On February 28, 2007 the RIAA sent 400 pre-litigation settlement letters to 13 different universities, “a rate more than three times higher than the previous academic year” according to their press release.

The RIAA believes that by filing suits against college students, whom they admit are “some of the most avid music fans,” they can “encourage fans to turn to legal music alternatives.” However, it appears the RIAA is misguided. According to Liz Kennedy, a source at the RIAA, “music sales are down” and “the music community has experienced significant losses” despite their efforts. “Right now the music industry is in transition,” said Russell Fink, VP of Digital Media and Commerce at Island Records. The music industry is not dead or dying, it is changing – drastically. Lawsuits cannot change this.

The RIAA has filed thousands of lawsuits against those who pirate music in attempt to stop the amount of music that is downloaded and shared illegally through the web. According to Kennedy, regardless of their efforts, “the global theft of sound recordings cost the U.S. economy more than 71,000 jobs and more than $2 billion in wages.” If years of public “education,” pre-litigation letters, and lawsuits haven’t slowed illegal downloading or increased record sales yet, what makes the RIAA think that suing more people will help their cause? No matter what, “People are going to download [music] anyway,” said Luis Dubuc AKA Triple Crown Records artist The Secret Handshake. It is a fact. Essentially, the RIAA’s lawsuits are about as effective as trying to stop an avalanche with a “Do Not Disturb” sign. It is time for the record industry to wake up and embrace digital advancements.

"What makes the RIAA think that suing more people will help their cause?"

Many people, like Alexa Mantell, who was cited last year by the RIAA and forced to pay a fine, have used P2P software like Limewire and Kazaa to download their music. However, personal file sharing and software including instant messenger programs like AOL Instant Messenger, personal networks, and personal websites have become increasingly popular ways of sharing music illegally, and are almost completely untraceable.

Today, record labels give listeners incentives to buy records. Aside from album art, “there’s a lot of bonus material, a lot of the retailers do have a digital supplement to the physical side,” said Fink. He continued, “[Record labels] offer a wide rang of goodies… from bonus tracks, to video, to interactive experiences with artists, to master tones and ring backs.” However, “I don't even keep album art,” said Mantell. Also, what if a listener only wants one song? “Those things are nice perks to buying an album, but if I don't want the whole thing, then I'm not going to go get it…I can find the videos on YouTube if I really need to, and the rest aren't things I would really use or take advantage of,” she said. Moreover, “why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?” asks Alex Gaskarth of Hopeless Records band, All Time Low. People want music, for free, and nothing less.

The RIAA defines downloading as a crime. However, “It doesn’t feel illegal if you’re sitting behind your computer,” said Gaskarth. “It’s not like walking into a store and walking out with a record under your jacket. It’s just clicking a button and nobody moves a finger.” Besides, “a lot of kids just don't have the money to buy a record,” said Brandon Saller of the Hollwood Records band Atreyu. “Better you should get our music online for free, and still come to our shows, than nothing at all” he said. Bands want their music heard, any way possible. Nevertheless, the RIAA continues to attack their target market of consumers with lawsuits.

"A band needs a label just because not that many people have as much money as an organization does to get the record out there."

With the advent of the Internet and file sharing, music is more likely to find its way to the consumer. “I think people are more aware [today] of the consumption of music, and now they’re more attentive to it,” said Fink. “It’s just more spread out, more user-oriented, so there’s a lot more discovery that way.” More people have access to, and are interested in music than ever before.

While the RIAA goes after avid music listeners, record companies have introduced the “360 deal” as a way to increase profits, and essentially take advantage of their bands. According to Fink, in a “360 deal,” “you have a deal with the artist themselves, and you’re going to put out their music. We (the label) are going to supplement you (the artist) on your tours, but we want a piece of that, and a little piece of your merchandise, a little piece of your DVD releases. Any type of business that an artist goes into, the record label is their partner.” Unfortunately for the labels, the “360 deal” will not suffice as, thanks to technology, it becomes easier daily for artists to produce, promote, and distribute music themselves, just as a label would. Moreover, few established artists have agreed to sign “360 deals” -- thus proof of the failure of that idea. In fact, many established artists such as Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead have already found alternative options to record labels in order to get their music to fans.

“The RIAA should be working to find a way that they can shift their industry to jam with how the rest of the music-loving world operates... while still raking in their oh-so-precious dollars and cents,” said Mantell. The record companies and the RIAA should spend their time and money to research other clever ways to kick-start this great industry into its next phase instead of filing lawsuits. Maybe record companies should take a hint from other forms of multimedia when looking for alternative streams of income.

"Better you should get our music online for free, and still come to our shows, than nothing at all."

With technology like Pro Tools LE, it is easy for artists to record music. Therefore, there is now more new music created on a day-to-day basis than ever before. The world is oozing with new artists striving to release the next big hit. The record industry must embrace its own transformation in order to accommodate the wave of tech savvy music artists and fans. Industry executives need to take a step back to realize that there will always be a need for their service.

“Ultimately in order to be successful, a band needs a label just because not that many people have as much money as an organization does to get the record out there,” said Gaskarth. “As an artist, you need it all to really break through,” said Fink. “You need radio, you need video play, you need those appearances, and you need those placements on TV. To get to a level of superstardom, you need the other traditional means of media.” Major labels can afford and provide this to artists. Fortunately, because of this, record labels will most likely always be around.

Furthermore, artists are generally more concerned about giving their talent exposure than making money anyway. “Absolutely, I’m more concerned about sharing my art,” Andrew Volpe of Island Records band, Ludo acknowledged. The RIAA and major record labels should take risks. It comes down to simple economics. There is an excessive supply of artists, and an even greater demand of listeners. Fear not: there is hope for the music industry because great art exists, and thus there is even greater potential for the industry to thrive.

By Brandon Weiss
Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2008

Comments

[GiantRaven]

“why would you pay for something, if you could have it for free?”

Well I guess its now justified for me to steal everything I want...

[/sarcasm]

[recliner33]

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

[sowhat360]

do people understand that it actually costs bands money to record the music??? so should they just work off of money from shows and forever be in debt.....i dont understand how you think music can continue to be created at a high level without record sales

[iwillrockyou22]

i agree recliner33. its still nice maybe to pick up an album every once in a while....

[Taoistic_Beer]

The only reason I don't buy records these days is because of the medium. The CD.

With the vinyl you sit down and enjoy the music, because there's nothing there but music. But with the CD are instantly reminded of work and everyday's troubles. The hectic lifestyle etc.

[The_Man_IV]

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

[g8erfan1]

The bottom line is, the labels will ALWAYS squeeze as much cash as possible about of the music artists and the fans. I disagree that you need the help of a record label to make it big. As musicians learn more about computers and the internet, they will be able to get their music out on their own terms. It's already happening now. You just need to know where to look. Besides, the fans are the ones who decides which band is going to be huge and which ones suck. Record labels are a dying, outdated breed.

[MattA7Xfan4Life]

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

[g8erfan1]

Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.

[l)ragonForce]

recliner33 wrote:

I think downloading is good for the music industry. I know alot of people will disagree but if I was in a band and I found out people were downloading my music illegaly I wouldn't mind because you music will be more heard which will lead to more fans. Bands these days need to have the mind set that music and a strong following is more important then money.

that is true man but this is a bussiness... its like getting money stolen from their paycheck

[GiantRaven]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

Buy CDs online, its cheap

[GuitarJunkie]

Well, I don't illegally download music, but I don't think it's as big a deal as some people aka the RIAA make it out to be. However, the reasons some people give in this article are pretty lame like "What if I only want one track on the album and not the whole thing." That can't be your only motivation to download the track w/out paying for it since you can download single tracks from Itunes for a buck.

Its a touchy subject for some, but almost everyone on here has written and/or recorded some music and honestly I make music so people can hear it. If I can make a few bucks off it thats great too but if I were ever to hit it big I would pull something like Radiohead did with their newest album.

[zackk]

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

[omarrodrigez]

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

[duncang]

Dropping prices and advertising it is the temporary solution, full album streaming is on the right track for the permanent one.

Stream the album online and people can listen to it and decide if they think it's worth it to go out and make that purchase.

No, this article is very true. Very few artists ever make money off their albums anyway, most of it comes from touring until they hit a certain level of stardom - in which case, it goes about even and it doesn't matter cause they're star rich.

Most major label bands are actually in debt after their first record. What does that say about the music industry?

Download is good for ARTISTS, it is bad for RECORD COMPANIES. This is why they tried to use the 360 deal, but if you're in a band most any legal consultant will advise you to not sign a 360 deal unless they're paying you way more than you're worth right off the bat.


What I mean is, the music industry does have to come up with something new. I thought this article was pretty good.
Download is undeniably bad for the INDUSTRY. It's pretty good for the people making the music, as the album sales were nothing to them except telling their industry counterparts how much money to spend making them more famous.


What I'm saying is, record companies are dumb... but still control everything. Life's tough, get a helmet.

[Quantonyne]

the thing that kills me is CD's cost so much...and yet they are so keen on getting scratched...normal wear and tear. CD's WILL scratch, unless you are anal about it. If i pay 12 bucks for a cd i want that ****er to last, cassette tapes cost more then cds to make and yet they cost less to buy...plus with the hard shell it was harder to damage.

I torrent my music, i can get a whole bands music cataloge in about 2 hours...for free...you would have to be stupid to pass up on that. Also i have over 50 GB of music on an external HD, so if anyone wants some of my music they can just rip it, and it has spread the word of the bands...

Perfect example of how downloading makes money for the band...PaganFest on April 29th, i am getting like 6 or 7 people to go...thats like $120 some bucks, just cause i downloaded some Ensiferum, Turisas, Tyr and Eluveitie, i spread the word of the bands to my friends and now everyone i know is hooked on those bands...money for a band that no one knew of 3 months ago.

sorry for the wall of text...the RIAA just pisses me off.

[madmanomaironed]

The music industry needs a complete revolution. I think that capitalism should be taken out of the equation. At the end of the day the music is what is important. People can choose to download music from official sources or illegal sources. Surely it is unfair on those who legally download that they pay whilst others don't. The fact is, you cant convince all people to pay, so it would make more sense to make music free.
Now, i'm the kind of person who likes to buy CDs if I love the band, etc. So CD sales should increase simply by reducing the price by what the music costs to solely the price of distribution, manufacturing, etc. The record labels undoubtfully would lose millions from such solutions, or atleast most would think they would.
Keeping in mind that the prices of the CDs would reduce, there would be a new wave of people buying CDs as they would be more affordable. Effectively, there would most probably still be an overall reduction in profit, but there wouldn't be a loss.
Lastly, they should make greater investments into gigs and tours. The fact is that records can be reduced to files; digital information. The real life experiance of going to a gig cannot be changed and hence people will still attend gigs. The fact that the music would be free would allow there to be an even larger fan base attending gigs and hence the industry would recover lost profits from there.
In conclusion, the current state of the music industry will result in a colapse. There spending too much money on legal crap when they could do so much more with it. They should undoubtfully change their ways or else music as we know it will change for the worse.

[blue_strat]

A problem with only buying CDs from stores like Virgin/Zaavi and HMV, is that those stores will stock only albums that are relatively popular. You have to go to a big city to find a lot of albums in CD form. The big chains can't stock every CD in all of their stores, and most people won't spend the money on petrol to drive to a store that does stock what they're looking for.

And when you can just go to a website and download near enough any CD you can think of for free, you can hardly blame people for using P2P.

This is basically like YouTube and MetaCafe etc. Maybe record labels could allow people to download music from their sites for free, and gain revenue from adverts on the site.

[duncang]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

[ScaryGuy82]

It takes people money to make the music you have been taking for nothing. I guess some people just don't know what it's like to be a starving artist.

In a few years from now people will treat musicians like they were treated a long time ago. Like servants. It's sad people, it's sad.

[Quantonyne]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.

[GuitarJunkie]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

[duncang]

Quantonyne wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.

Indeed, but I think you and I both know that bands, especially very small ones, don't have home studios. It's as simple as that.

Plus, Americans get it easy. CDs over here (the UK) cost almost twice as much, and I don't even have a job yet I still manage to pay for all my music, so don't give me that 'I CAN'T AFFORD IT! BAWWWW!' bullshit.

[tbarrettl]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

For 300 Bands and 1-20 CDs per band that adds up though if a band has a show near me I will go to it to support them that way though Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.

[RageAgnstUrJaw]

I know a couple guys who work under a major label, and they don't really care about record sales. Ofcourse if they put out an album that sells hundreds of thousands of copies they are happy that their work is getting out there, but in terms of money, they get it all from touring rather than the CD sales.

[ScaryGuy82]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

[Kapalen]

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Wrong, when a band makes an album the label pays for their shit, food transportation etc. If they don't pay back the label with record sales, they're in debt. Also, even if you can record in your home, you still need the label to distribute the album to people like walmart. I'm not for or against downloading music, but a lot of people don't realize that if you don't get paid to make your music you can't afford to make anymore because you'll be too busy getting a JOB.

Also, I disagree with where it says there's more music being made now than before, population wise likely, percentage of population wise, I doubt it. Back in the day you could walk onto someone's porch start playing and everyone in town would show up and jam (I'm from the south).

[whippingpost]

MattA7Xfan4Life wrote:

it's like this
i torrent music i wanna hear,
if i like it i buy it, if the record
industry allowed trials then i for one
would torrent no more

I have to agree with this comment. I don't download, but I think that there should be a trial of some sort. Music is getting expensive these days. Almost outrageously so. I rarely buy new releases due to both the price, and that there's not much out there that strikes me as interesting these days.

There used to be a store - Blockbuster/Warehouse Music - that would allow you to preview a CD before you bought it. With prices what they are today, I'm not going to drop close to $30 on something unless I know I'm going to like it. And, I don't trust reviews either. Everyone who's bought an album with great reviews, only to find that it really sucked, raise your hand.

[the spiker]

The compact disk is a dying medium and I think they are starting to recognize this. Offer DRM-free downloads like on Amazon or better yet, subscription-based services and the money will flow.

[the_extremist00]

now THATS a kick ass article lol

[Quantonyne]

duncang wrote:

Quantonyne wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

if a band has a home studio they more then likeley will produce it themselves, the producer is just there to direct the direction of the music...he tells the band what he thinks sounds good...if the band is recording in their home they probably will produce it and mix it themselves, many musicians are quite competent in mixing, hell they even engineer for other bands.

it dosnt take as many people as you think to record a cd...maybe 10 tops. Producer, Engineer, Assistants, Masterers. its when the big wigs come into the picture that its gets more complicated.


Indeed, but I think you and I both know that bands, especially very small ones, don't have home studios. It's as simple as that.

Plus, Americans get it easy. CDs over here (the UK) cost almost twice as much, and I don't even have a job yet I still manage to pay for all my music, so don't give me that 'I CAN'T AFFORD IT! BAWWWW!' bullshit.

i have a SMALL home studio...i am poor, i think most newer bands are starting to get into recording their own stuff early on, but i know plenty of bands who do their own recording for free. but i know what you mean.

i can afford to buy cd's, i just dont like to because i can get it for free. like the article said...why pay for something when you can get it for free.

[ScaryGuy82]

The only reason it's good for bands THESE days for people to download their music, is because it gets their music around. and the only reason that bands don't make very much at all on an album is because everyone is downloading it!!! Back in the day Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Beatles would release an album and be ****ing rich off the sales ALONE! Crazy, I know!

Times have changed so much that things will never go back to the way things were, there' NO doubt about that. People have to come up with new ways of making money off their own art. Touring is the biggest money maker these days.

[reesy]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

couldnt agree more, this guy omarrodrigez, has been watching way too much cribs thinking that everything is done in one studio. Yes these days the majority of recording is done in one studio but the mixing and mastering is sent away through record label contacts.

The record label will never die they will just adapt, totally agree with the streaming an album or having some kind of taster session ( like maiden's new 3 play policy on their latest album) and lower cd/mp3 prices!

Suprised nobody has mentioned DRM free music, apple has the monopoly on the market by the encoding aloowing on

[reesy]

only playback in ipods or a cd made on i tunes! What about the other thousands of mp3 players!

The major lables need to get their heads together and decide on a universal digital download format and encouragin more live music!!

[Leonheart]

PROTIP: CD's should not cost $15 or over. There are a few record labels who actually acknowledge this and never sell a CD for more than $5. (Plan-It-X Records and Anti-Creative)

[joshjebl]

Why dont they start offering concert tickets with there albums maybe they will sell more.. that or offer bubble gum with the purchase..

[Mihyaeru]

I've always downloaded music to preview it before I buy the CD i agree CD's can be expensive especially for bands that arnt as well known for those of us who are studying at skwl or college still and either dont work or only work part time while they study. I like buying CD's I like supporting bands i like and I like artwork. The album art is part of the package which you dont get with mp3's.

But you knowwhat my opinion doesnt matter to anyone in fact none of your opinionsmatter either, very few people are going ot change thier minds. This arguement has bene going on for years and will go on for years, and to be honest I'm sick of it, but oh well..the industry is changing

[EVD]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

You are quite possibly the most naive person ever.

All the music is "horrible" nowadays according to you, so that's why you don't buy CDs.
So what do you do?
download the music you think is horrible?
C'mon man, get sorted.

This is a seriously huge thing we're talking about here, and it can't be chalked up to over priced CDs because that's in the hands of the store that sells it, not the artist, label or the RIAA.
And your musical preference in this case is just totally irrelevant.

[fredzeskater]

no.

music downloads will never ever stop. they can't stop millions of people over the entire world downloading music. if they try.... they've already lost, they're just wasting a **** load of money imo.

xx

[falsreasoning]

i hate when people say CDs are over priced...your basically looking that artist in the eye and saying **** you, all the work you have put into something you love isnt worth 15 bucks.

[rahnercore]

I used to download entire entire discographies at a time on torrents or limewire. I changed once I started going to shows and seeing a lot of the bands that I like driving around in shitty old vans (which some of them actually live in). From that point on, I felt like a jackass downloading, and I've been buying CDs ever since.

I like having a hard copy of the music that I listen to. I suppose I'm kind of lucky, because a lot of the music I listen to is available at CD Max or Exclusive Co. for $3-$12...sometimes, if I find a CD in a bargain bin that looks interesting, I'll buy it, just to see how it is. Some of my favorite bands were discovered this way.

I think with downloading, that's one thing you're kind of missing out on--there's not as much opportunity to expand your music interest.

[TikiJoe]

Not much anyone can do about it....Like it or not bands have to get paid. And it's OK to want to make a living playing your music. The business surely needs to change - fighting downloading is probably a losing battle

[TikiJoe]

WORD zackk!! No time for a part time job??? really.....

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

[TikiJoe]

Very well put!!

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

It takes people money to make the music you have been taking for nothing. I guess some people just don't know what it's like to be a starving artist.

In a few years from now people will treat musicians like they were treated a long time ago. Like servants. It's sad people, it's sad.

[notoriousF A T]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.

did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"

[lbc_sublime]

i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv, and/or recording it with a dvd recorder, taping it wiht a vcr, borrowing a cd to listen to froma friend, watching it on youtube, listening to it on the radio

there are all these free media devices at our finger tips that cost record compamies money to advertise to me this is cost effective in that aspect

i agree they need to start looking at other alternatives

[latinosuperstud]

^ to scary guy... artists dont see any of the money from their albums if they are with a big label... the only money they really get is from touring and putting on shows... therefore they dont generally care how the fans get their music because they dont a piece of that pie

[iamk0ng]

I've never seen so much intelligence from a UG article.
Way to go.

[ltdf50]

Dudes, are you really complaining about 15$?!
If I could get CDs for 15 bucks, I would never download anything again...
Where I come from (AUSTRIA), one CD costs 18€, thats 28$!!!!
TWENTYEIGHT dollars, and you complain about 15....

[ltdf50]

BTW, some time ago, I talked with a guitarist from a NUCLEAR BLAST band and he said that they don't earn shit with records. He said that all the money comes from TOURING and MERCHENDISING.

[AXE187]

I always thought rec labels took a cut of tour and merch money anyway ;/

[adamungar1]

It’s just clicking a button and nobody moves a finger.

Anyone else notice how stupid of a quote that was.

[goodguyclub]

falsreasoning wrote:

i hate when people say CDs are over priced...your basically looking that artist in the eye and saying **** you, all the work you have put into something you love isnt worth 15 bucks.

I like that. Different point of view than most people think about. It's all a pretty sick circle that eveyone has already overcommented on. Bands need labels, labels need bands, CEO's need money and more money and more money, we need music. CD is a dying technology, it's the only thing that will go away. Not downloading, not "record" companies, not Fallout Boy. . . not soon enough anyhow (sorry, couldn't help it)!

[ScaryGuy82]

latinosuperstud wrote:

^ to scary guy... artists dont see any of the money from their albums if they are with a big label... the only money they really get is from touring and putting on shows... therefore they dont generally care how the fans get their music because they dont a piece of that pie

That is exactally why I said, "The only reason it's good for bands THESE days for people to download their music, is because it gets their music around. and the only reason that bands don't make very much at all on an album is because everyone is downloading it!!! Back in the day Elvis, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Beatles would release an album and be ****ing rich off the sales ALONE! Crazy, I know!"

[ScaryGuy82]

notoriousF A T wrote:

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:



I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.


did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"

Yes I did. Got your attention didn't I? Good. Now you can begin to think.

[Armagedn]

I, for one, think illegal downloading is awful. It IS ruining the record industry.

[brentondig]

I download music when I want to hear what a band is like. This tends to be me downloading a band's discography, but still.
Yet, I also buy music if I like it, so it's fine, I think...
The only problem I have is that after downloading so much stuff in a certain time-frame, my ISP contacted me, saying I was using too much bandwidth ahah

[ScaryGuy82]

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

notoriousF A T wrote:

ScaryGuy82 wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:



I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

Yeah, ok, go see them ,live...yeah...then while they are heading to the next town go sleep with their wives and girlfriend. Good man! Download to boycott...that's such bullshit, you don't wanna pay for the music is all. Just say that. It does hurt the band because if the label didn't get money from the music then...uh oh the band didn't either! Most big established bands have home studies...but those guys out there trying to get their star....nope! not is their parents aren't rich, they don't.

People reaaaly need to think before they speak. or write.


did you just compare downloading their music with sleeping with their spouses? wow "people really need to think before they speak...or write"


Yes I did. Got your attention didn't I? Good. Now you can begin to think.

You must not be an artist of any kind because you don't know what it could be like to have something that you have created, your own art, stole from you. Just like going to my work and picking up MY paycheck. And YES, I know bands don't make much at all on their albums. That's because people download it and so the bands OVIOUSLY will never see a dime from it. How do you expect to get money from something that is being stolen from you?

[RedMoonMan]

i think that most of the people who DL the music wouldn't buy the CD anyways due to lack of money, when i have money i buy the CD but if i don't have money i am not going to pay for the CD in the first place.

[Boy About Town]

People have said that downloading doesn't hurt the bands, it just hurts the labels, and they support bands in other ways, going to gigs, buying merch etc. But if you hurt the label, if you bring down labels you are hurting the band. Labels make a lot of artists exposure possible, they make the quality of music possible a lot of the time. Half the people here I dare say would be unaware of their favourite artists without those very artists being supported be a record label. Furthermore, I don't feel like record labels over price their merchandise, the prices have to cover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in overheads incurred by the production of CDs, not to mention that only something like 1 in 10 major label releases are successful and make money back for the label. That means the 1 that does do the biz needs to go towards making up for losses from the others.

[goodguyclub]

Boy About Town wrote:

People have said that downloading doesn't hurt the bands, it just hurts the labels, and they support bands in other ways, going to gigs, buying merch etc. But if you hurt the label, if you bring down labels you are hurting the band. Labels make a lot of artists exposure possible, they make the quality of music possible a lot of the time. Half the people here I dare say would be unaware of their favourite artists without those very artists being supported be a record label. Furthermore, I don't feel like record labels over price their merchandise, the prices have to cover the hundreds of thousands of pounds in overheads incurred by the production of CDs, not to mention that only something like 1 in 10 major label releases are successful and make money back for the label. That means the 1 that does do the biz needs to go towards making up for losses from the others.

Well said!

[x_themetalfan_x]

Whatever, I'll keep my collection of downloaded music. I can't afford to buy albums (I have to pay rent, insurance, gas, food, etc). I find most people saying "Just buy it you greedy ****" are the ones who don't have bills or responsibilities. I think a band would prefer that I became a fan and come to a show rather than not have any music at all. They make more money off me from one show than from buying every single one of their albums anyways.

$25 for one CD? No thanks. I'd much rather give the band $25 for a T-shirt and $50 for a ticket. Fuck the RIAA.

[Free to Guitar]

g8erfan1
Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.

If it weren't selling, they wouldn't back it. That's the sad part.

lbc_sublime
i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv...watching it on youtube... listening to it on the radio

So you can't tell the difference between stealing a book and reading it in Barnes and Nobles? You have no control over the music on the radio or the TV, which means you have no ownership over it.

tbarrettl
Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.

Those greedy pigs, putting money into "Art." How dare they allow musicians to spend all their time making music instead of having to do it after they get home from their jobs. Just imagine how much artistic output Deep Purple could have made without that damn money. I'm not defending the record industry(*puke*) but putting money and music together isn't a sin.

[jamie_hough]

I have no problem in buying CD's online - theyre really cheap and with sites like www.play.com they have free delivery on everything. having said that, some of the more mediocre music I listen to I download or file share with friends... I dunno this is too dificult a topic for me to come up with an answer!

[ScaryGuy82]

Like I said, If the labels don't make money then the bands don't make money.

Say I was selling candy bars on the street, people were buying them and giving them away for nothing right down and around the corner. What the hell! Think people are gonna buy my candy bars? No...hell no, not when they are free. WHOO! HOO!!

It's human nature. People want free things. It's easy...when it's free. That's something that will NEVER change. So as long as there is free music floating around out there there will always be people getting their hands full. No respect to the artist that is making your day a little better with that song you say is your FAVORITE song.

[ScaryGuy82]

Free to Guitar wrote:

g8erfan1
Besides, look at some of the garbage that is being turned out by record labels these days. You tell me if the record labels have lost sight of things.


If it weren't selling, they wouldn't back it. That's the sad part.

lbc_sublime
i don't see a difference between me downloading a song, watching it on tv...watching it on youtube... listening to it on the radio


So you can't tell the difference between stealing a book and reading it in Barnes and Nobles? You have no control over the music on the radio or the TV, which means you have no ownership over it.

tbarrettl
Music is an art and whoever threw in Capitalism in it was greedy like RIAA.


Those greedy pigs, putting money into "Art." How dare they allow musicians to spend all their time making music instead of having to do it after they get home from their jobs. Just imagine how much artistic output Deep Purple could have made without that damn money. I'm not defending the record industry(*puke*) but putting money and music together isn't a sin.

This is a smart man, people. Listen to him. LISTEN TO HIM!

[stueey]

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Dont undertsand why people cant promote themselves. enter shikari did it and i think still do and they are gettin around fine.

I think you just gotta have the bollocks now, im not gona get my bands signed, im gona do it myself, might take a bit more time and such, but it seems like id make a ****in killing if i pulled it off!

[touji-za-nai]

i'm not sure if downloading music from a major label band is ever a good thing, but anything from small fry to the "almost there" area is a great advantage to them. They wouldn't make much money off of it anyways and its just more publicity

[stueey]

stueey wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.

God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

Dont undertsand why people cant promote themselves. enter shikari did it and i think still do and they are gettin around fine.

I think you just gotta have the bollocks now, im not gona get my bands signed, im gona do it myself, might take a bit more time and such, but it seems like id make a ****in killing if i pulled it off!

also, its not hard to produce ur own music either, the only thing i would worry about is making CDs but then theres downloading, CDs are gona becoma a collectable thing now aint they?

[mhylands]

goodguyclub wrote:
I like that. Different point of view than most people think about. It's all a pretty sick circle that eveyone has already overcommented on. Bands need labels, labels need bands, CEO's need money and more money and more money, we need music. CD is a dying technology, it's the only thing that will go away. Not downloading, not "record" companies, not Fallout Boy. . . not soon enough anyhow (sorry, couldn't help it)!

Haha, I liked what you said, *cough* FOB *cough*, haha. But you know, every band I have ever personally met, I have bought their EPs and LPs. With most bands I love, I usually buy all their CDs at some point or another, my main downloading issue is when the CD gets scratched up, and then I go get the songs. Still, I like having some medium, and I'll go buy their CD again if I have to (I really don't like the look of plain CDs that you burn to, haha). But yeah, I completely agree with what you said.

[ValoRhoads]

the real money isn't actually in the record sales, it's in merchandising and touring revenues. The records do net good cash but not as much as touring.

[ScaryGuy82]

ValoRhoads wrote:

the real money isn't actually in the record sales, it's in merchandising and touring revenues. The records do net good cash but not as much as touring.

That is mainly because people download the music. Why do you think tickets cost have gone up so much in the last several years? They have to make money somehow, and they big way to make money back then is not the same these days. They used to make damn good money off record sales.

[ltdf50]

I personally buy band t-shirts and go to all shows in my area. I also buy CDs, but I can't afford buying the whole discography of a band (ok, i have some original bought discographies, but i really can't do this with all bands). But i try to have at least one CD per artist. I think it's not right buying no CDs at all.
All these people who don't buy CDs should listen to an original and compare the quality to the copy. this is also a point why you should buy CDs i think.
And often bands are simply getting ****ed by record companies, e.g. at a show of a german hardcore band (that was on victory records) they said that nobody should buy their CDs, because Victory hasn't paid a penny to them yet. They said that if people want to support artsits, they should buy T-Shirts, because the merchendising money goes to the artist, the record money to the label... sad but true

[charger356]

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

I attend school full-time, work a part-time job for JUST over minimum wage, and live in my own house with my own bills to pay for. I buy CD's regularly and have yet to experience such financial disaster that I have to liquidate all my belongings to buy bread and water.

Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

[piff665]

Cds really dont give the band a lot of money; it gives the retailer that sells it and the record company alot of money. Most of the money that bands make comes from both touring and merchandising. Financially, what nine inch nails and radiohead are doing is very smart, since distributing their music independently online will give them maximum profits to whatever people decide to pay for the album. I honestly dont download alot of music, since i actually like to physically have cds and all of the songs on them in their entirety. But when i do download, usually its to see whether i want to buy the cd later.

[ScaryGuy82]

charger356 wrote:

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.



Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

Classic.

[LedBeatlesgtrst]

The_Man_IV wrote:

Oh i love how they allways blame the downloading... such bull shit do they ever think people might not want to pay for over-priced CD's ??? Or mabey its because of how horrible all the music is now adays that its not even worth buying??

you read my mind. Why buy CD's if the majority of the music is terrible. I really only buy 2-5 CD's a year and only 1 may be recent because the rest is terrible. And that one may be from a musician that is quite old from the good eras of music. I think that the only good bands out there that didnt start in the 90's or earlier are Wolfmother and The Raconteurs. Thats all I can think of.

[ScaryGuy82]

piff665 wrote:

Cds really dont give the band a lot of money; it gives the retailer that sells it and the record company alot of money. Most of the money that bands make comes from both touring and merchandising. Financially, what nine inch nails and radiohead are doing is very smart, since distributing their music independently online will give them maximum profits to whatever people decide to pay for the album. I honestly dont download alot of music, since i actually like to physically have cds and all of the songs on them in their entirety. But when i do download, usually its to see whether i want to buy the cd later.

Years ago, back before downloading, people would buy albums and the artist got a percentage of each copy sold. When you sell over a million copies...yeah...that percentage adds up to a pretty little penny, buddy.

[Niko12]

I mostly agree with everyones comments, especially how people say you know you spend so much money on cds and they could get scratched, etc. What I tend to do is buy the CDs and never open them or use the CD ill buy the cd and download the songs anyway, but i buy the cds for the simple fact that i like having a cd collection and as an artist myself i would like others to do the same.

[CrabSoldier X]

for a high school or even college kid that cannot work because they are too busy with sports and school, $15 a CD will indeed add up quickly to be a lot. Besides, its easier to just download it than to go out to a music store (for me, the nearest is kinda far) and pay for a cd when i might only like 2 or 3 songs on it. I still buy CD's from my favorite bands, and itunes, but im not trying to pollute the ozone with my exhaust so i'll make less trips to the store.

[anthonyd3ca]

Actually downloading songs from a band sometimes leads me into buying their album. It's kinda like if I really like the album from the songs I downloaded, I will go out and buy the album to support the band. I don't want to buy an album that I might not like.

[Masonpwiley]

reesy wrote:

duncang wrote:

omarrodrigez wrote:

I support the bands by seeing them live,and boycott the greedy record companies by downloading the music. It doesn't hurt the bands at all to download, just the label. And to reply to "sowhat360", most decent bands have studios in their home, therefore costing them nothing to record an album.


God, I hate this argument. Very, very little of the money from an album will go directly to the artist, however the money that goes to the label pays the salaries of label employees, who help promote, record and send the artists out on tour. Just because the artist's aren't receiving any direct cash doesn't mean that they aren't benefitting from album sales. Plus, if an album sells well in a shop, the retailer will stock more copies, meaning that the name can get out there in more ways than just the internet.

Plus, a vast, vast majority of bands don't have home studios, and even if they did, it still costs money to produce the ****ing CD because you will most likely have to hire a producer, engineer, mixer, mastering company, a huge number of people to work on it. In the current system the label takes care of that.

God damn, people are so ****ing stupid.

couldnt agree more, this guy omarrodrigez, has been watching way too much cribs thinking that everything is done in one studio. Yes these days the majority of recording is done in one studio but the mixing and mastering is sent away through record label contacts.

The record label will never die they will just adapt, totally agree with the streaming an album or having some kind of taster session ( like maiden's new 3 play policy on their latest album) and lower cd/mp3 prices!

Suprised nobody has mentioned DRM free music, apple has the monopoly on the market by the encoding aloowing on

Amazon has DRM free too.

[Anti Vicarious]

I'm a musician, and god damn, I would LOVE for millions of people to download my music for free, because that's what it's all about. The music is the most important, not the money. The money can be made from touring, merchandise, ect. Even if the only way to make money was album sales...I'd rather be a poor musician with many fans around the world, than a greedy unknown artist.

As for downloading, I download a lot of bands albums to check out their music and if they are worth paying $17 dollars for the cd. If so, then I go out and buy the cd as well. For example, I downloaded radiohead's entire discography, then after falling in love with them, I went out and bought all their cds.

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

yes, it's alot for some people.

[guitarhead93]

I have to download music in limewire coz I live in peru, and original CDs cost a lot more than in america, almost 15 or 20% more. Its a shame, but its true.

[dudester410]

i'll admit, i download maybe 3 songs form an artist, and if i liek them, then i buy a few of their cd's, i thx to downloading i know own 350 albums from al sorts of different artists, although, if plp downloaded two songs and never bought an album, which is whats hapening, makes a big difference

[weemansyndrome]

I hate when you download an album and all the songs have transitions between them that get ruined by the tiny gap at the end mp3s. Transitions are cool and mp3 ruins them.

/rant

[suppersready21]

People are expected to pay an extra $15 to hear a band they paid $50-$60 previously to hear in concert. I find that amusing.

[Obie]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

not when you have bills to pay and you barely scrape by with your paycheck. ever tried livin on your own?

[inli3u]

charger356 wrote:

GuitarJunkie wrote:

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.


It is when you go to school full time and only have time to work a part time job at minimum wage.

I attend school full-time, work a part-time job for JUST over minimum wage, and live in my own house with my own bills to pay for. I buy CD's regularly and have yet to experience such financial disaster that I have to liquidate all my belongings to buy bread and water.

Based on the few words you said, I honestly think you're just a tight-wadded idiot with pimple face and a pornography addiction.

The best part is "based on the few words you said". You could be right. Just as equally, however, you could be dead wrong as you know nothing about this person's situation other than what was said. So why the **** would you make such bold assumptions?

-----

Why is everyone convinced that a home studio has to cost several thousand dollars? It's not hard to make really nice recordings with cheap equipment and free mixing software like reaper (Don't let the free-ness fool you).

[RG guy]

15 is a little much for a cd but thats why i buy used cd's whenever i can because their not usally damaged much and most of the time dont skip

[JL Sevenfold]

I think a lot of people download music because they don't want to end up with the disappointment of buying a crappy cd. Radiohead was brilliant in letting people pay what they want for their cd- a free cd encourages people to listen to them for the first time without having to worry about burning $15 on a cd they don't want, and an option to pay allows fans to give back to the band for the music they love. This allows for more people to hear the band/pay for a concert ticket and merch which supports the band. Also the band/label (if there is one) can still get some money from cds/mp3s.

[themanintheback]

zackk wrote:

$15 is not that much for a cd, just go out and buy it.

It's more like $20 where i live, even for a 5 year old non-mainstream CD, and if you can't get a job and your parents aren't wealthy enough to just give you that money on a whim, then $20 bucks is a lot of money.

[EZLN libertad]

interesting, i think what radiohead did with rainbows is really gonna be the future of the industry, giving fans the option to pay whatever they want, same with NIN

Checked.

[davedoom]

the RIAA will burn - mark my words - the stone age doesnt exist today - neither will these cavemen in a few years

[the boogieman]

...ffs

the music industry isnt dying, just the riaa is

if i didnt dl music i would have never gone out to see tons of bands play live, nor would i have bought some cds for the bands i really like

not to mention without big record labels we wont have as much shit as miley cyrus, the jonas brothers, and "high school musical" becoming as big as they are

internet is a gateway

[JL Sevenfold]

I can see why some people who are strained for cash would say CDs are expensive and download them instead. However I know a lot of people with jobs (in high school) that don't have to support themselves that say CDs are expensive, too. Sounds like some of them are just trying to cover up the fact they don't want to pay for music when no one else is. I guess it's like when people only want something when they see someone else has it.

[0llie]

Ok so say the RIAA stop people from illegally downloading music.
What are they gonna do about MySpace? And YouTube? And all the other websites that let you listen to bands songs online?
That will lead to a whole bigger arguement because so many people use MySpace TV and MySpace Music as well as using YouTube.

Besides, that being said, I know where I download from I cant get many bands that are on an indie label that actually really need the money because they cant get merchandise or tour. So if I like a band like that then ill go buy their EP or albums if they release them.

Although, im in college, I cant get a job and I currently have no income at all. So I cant afford to pay £20 for albums.

Theres no way to stop people from downloading music illegally, when the RIAA realise that the better it will be for everyone.

[RCT2head]

"wide rang..." looks like someone forgot to edit...

what's going to happen is really anyone's guess tho

[JL Sevenfold]