how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
139 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| When Runaway Supply and Demand Hurts small artists You fucks think your innocent downloading hurts no one. Did you ever stop to think that the sum effects of 90+ million of you flocking en masse (like cows) to Illegal file share sites Steals money away from the many great smaller Indie Artists who used to earn a decent livelihood at mp3.com & elsewhere before Napster came out?
Whenever an illegal service like Gnutella and also a legal service like Emusic (them too are fucks) advertises "unlimited downloading" of cheap or free major-label content, then us Indies (many undiscovered ones who are just as good or far better) Lose our livelihoods because you flock to their sites instead of ours. It's not the quality of our music, but the easily open availaility of illegal pop radio material elsewhere, which has visibly reduced our site hits where we were once popular.
Prior to Napster, we used to have an audience. So Locke's morality-neutral "Supply and Demand" you learned in schools isn't a very ethical mentality (when left to itself) if the legal property of others isn't protected as promised, in Sectn 8 Article 8 of the US Constitution.
What happens is that we Indies are forced to now offer our own wares and even live performances (in clubs, weddings, churches, etc.) for free or at a bigger loss than before, because your freebie mentality thinks that music we spent $190,000+ in debts to make comes out of nowhere. This piracy has to stop, because it hurts more people than you think--not just the big name acts. If you all don't LEARN to patronize your local artist instead of just the majors, how in the hell do you think great and Innovative music will trive against the filth from major labels?
And some of the best minds in classical & crossover music get hurt too, by this fixation on free pop music. You shoot yourselves in the foot by missing out on the intellectual stimulation and inspiration that such music can give you. Is it any wonder why half the population cannot think past the 3rd grade?
There's a guy here (clrankin) who is a Senior Consultant for Booze Hamilton on Defense contracts in Virginia, near the Pentagon. I know this guy makes real dough, yet he bitches about Emusic over a measly $10 a month, which he can readily afford. It is fucks like him who, at church, say they don't want to give a dime in the basket pay the organist, even though he makes bukku bucks. What a selfish bastard.
Now he has publically admitted he uses "Kazaa Lite, Shareaza..." Good for him--he can now be prosecuted to garnish his wages for violating Federal Copyright Law. (see article below). He can even lose his job, once he's tainted as a white-collar Felon as he desrves. All we have to do is subpoena his ISP and take him to court--and he is a good target because he makes money.
So even though many major labels and Emusic are jerks, I have to side with them against you. Because you hurt indies, merely by flocking to the illegal or cheapo download sites, and missing out on the truly great material that exists elsewhere.
Statutory Federal penalties are min $750 to $30,000 PER SONG for violators. Good luck, clrankin and the rest of you.
Happy the day when bayTSP helps even us Indies to go after all of you Napsterheads and your parents and schools in court, for collaborating on Federal Copyright violation. It's already happening now. Remember: 'Thou shalt not steal'. See:
»www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulp···919.html | |
mitska
join:2001-12-25
Sarasota, FL | I think the subject is people purchasing a service sold to them as unlimited, i.e an "all you can eat mp3" buffet. Afterwards being dropped because they "ate all they could".
I do not condone piracy or stealing, but I don't think people PAYING to download mp3s is a bad thing. Quite the opposite actually, it would stimulate people to buy REAL cds on hearing a band they like. Not these soon to be everywhere audio disks that do not meet minimum cd spec and won't play in your computer or car.
Independent artists always have had a rough time with the financial end of things. That's the way it is currently unless you make a large breakthrough. I should know, I am one. Anything that heads people down the path leading away from excessive file sharing of music is a plus for ind. artists, it is just a pity that a crappy service like this one is in effect, pushing people back to p2p instead of being content with simply making a killing...they need to make a HUGE killing I guess. | |
 strfox18Nothing To See HerePremium
join:2001-08-15
Lake Havasu City, AZ | If the CD industry would sell there product at a resonable price then more people would buy it. When CD burners came out and people actually found out how much a CD costs to make they (and I) were pissed. How could they possibly think that they could continue to sell CD's at $15 a pop?
--
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one.-Albert Einstein | |
 limeygitEverybody Wang-Chung Tonight
join:2001-02-17
Nearest Bar | reply to Think Again
"You f**ks think your innocent downloading hurts no one. Did you ever stop to think that the sum effects of 90+ million of you flocking en masse (like cows) to Illegal file share sites Steals money away from the many great smaller Indie Artists who used to earn a decent livelihood at mp3.com & elsewhere before Napster came out?"
I have dealt with more true indie bands than anyone else on this site, unless I am very mistaken. Literally thousands, from all over the world. »www.indiemonkey.com
Very few of those have any issue with file sharing, it is not hurting them, people are not downloading, via P2P clients, songs from unknown struggling bands. More is the pity.
Lets break it down.
People buy CDs based on one of two things, name recognition, they know, and have enjoyed the artists previous work. Or song recognition, they have heard one, or more, of the songs on the CD and like them.
True indie artists are stumped on both of these, no radio or TV stations play unknown bands. That makes it very, very hard to get either kind of recognition. Getting your music on the net and listened to by people is the only major avenue an unsigned or self-released artists has. As such most of them would be happy to get their music out and traded because it relates eventually to sales, sales they would not have got if they music was not out there at all.
Again this is information gained over the last five years (before that but the net wasn't relevant) talking to bands from as far away as Norway, or Australia, or Japan, or well just about anywhere where people have access to cheap studios and CD duplication.
In fact I think I speak for the vast majority of these artists when I say go out and seek unknown music, no matter where it is from, download it, listen to it, and buy the CD. If you are really interested in supporting indie artists vist »cdbaby.com which has a superb group of CDs, nearly all at $10, of which $9 goes back directly to the artists. A true supporter of all bands, and all styles.
If you are struggling and losing money as an Indie Artists, well guess what, so are nearly every band I talk to. It has nothing to do with Joe Q Public downloading files, it has to do with the corporate mentality of the media industry in this country, and most of the world. It has to do with the lack of adventure breed into generations of consumers.
If a file of yours is out and downloaded 100 times and only leads to 1 sale, that is 1 more than you would have got anyway. Your arguement is invalid when applied to true indie artists. It does apply to the big boys, but you don't need to worry about that till you sign that deal. MP3.com actual does more sales than it used to before the advancement of P2P, the problem lies with the increased amount of bands using it squeezing the marginal acts again.
OK, essay over, I just had to reply to your post. If you truly feel that way, I think you are mistaken, but you are entitled to your opinion, but it is not one shared by the majority of unsigned and self-released artists.
Oh, and really do check out »www.cdbaby.com if you are unaware of them, a lot more real than the ipotastic MP3.com...
--
www.indiemonkey.com
Taking you to Funky Town since 1999! | |
| Freebie mentality is for Dickheads without a clue Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
However, yours only considers Indie Bands (NOT CLASSICAL ARTISTS, ORGANISTS, etc), and what "they" think about downloading. That's like asking "the people" to vote whether killing children is right or wrong, and then go to the Pope, and say, "We think it's OK to kill Children or steal from them, because we do it too."
Yours borders on, in fact, is, moral relativity...the quintessential heresy of mankind. It essentially says, "Do what you want so long as you 'think' it hurts no one'"
You also very lazily DISMISS the indisputable laws of SUPPLY AND DEMAND-- if there is free stuff offered out there all of a sudden flooding the market, and 90 million people spend hours there instead of at your legit site, then there is no question that 100 million hours diverted away from legit sites HURTS SMALL ARTISTS more than Big artists. Your so-called 'indie' bands are just too ****ing dunceheads (and so are you) to realize that.
Your "argument" that so too are everyone else losing money is pig manure. That's been the case since the beginning of music. But this FILE-SHAREING mentality just made it WORSE for small artists (esp. organists, etc. who are regularly asked online to DONATE their recording to a school TV project, for instance, for FREE, simply because he has to compete now with all the illegal FREE shit out there) ie: HIS BARGAINING POWER IS REDUCED, because content producers (TV stations, radio advertisers, etc.) who want to use/license his tracks, or consumers who want to "consume" his tracks, will increasingly tell him (more than before) "Let us have your track free, or we'll just go somewhere else and you'll lose our business."
I've been there, and you haven't. so shut up already, wipe.
What a bunghole. Eat it and die. | |
|
