# How much is that song really worth?



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html

(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.

Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents.

She plans to appeal, he said.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the RIIA was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.

The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Wow, this comes across more like a publicity stunt than a legal judgement. You could probably rob a whole cd store and not be found liable for that much.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Diablo said:


> Wow, this comes across more like a publicity stunt than a legal judgement. You could probably rob a whole cd store and not be found liable for that much.



Actually, I would view judgements like this to be an encouragement to rob the CD shop instead as the penalty is far lighter.

Of course there is SUPPOSED to be the concept that penalty match crime. Here at least I think you can find judges that would not allow such a penalty to be awarded. Especially when had she robbed a store she could simply have been ordered to pay damages and the costs of the items stolen.

See, this is why I am happy to pay the tax on blank media. I remember those newspaper headlines. When the record industry tried to sue here, they were told to leave; the money from that tax paid artists more than what they were being paid by their record companies.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

While this case in particular is extreme and the ruling is outrageous, I don't have a whole lot of pity for people who illegally download music. My wife and I buy CDs and we rent movies from the video store or view a select few in theatres. We've made a conscious decision to support these industries. If I had a magic wand, I'd make vinyl records and reel-to-reel tape the *only* availlable music mediums. It's sad that so many folks think music is free.

Shawn


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> While this case in particular is extreme and the ruling is outrageous, I don't have a whole lot of pity for people who illegally download music. My wife and I buy CDs and we rent movies from the video store or view a select few in theatres. We've made a conscious decision to support these industries. If I had a magic wand, I'd make vinyl records and reel-to-reel tape the *only* availlable music mediums. It's sad that so many folks think music is free.
> 
> Shawn


Well I'd bet most teenagers these days have never bought a cd and likely never held a record in their hands. They think music is free.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

I forget what band it was, but there was a pretty big group (Green day, maybe?) who was at an autograph session - there were loads of kids that brought home-burned CDs for the band to sign. just no awareness at all.


/ shuffles feet and mutters about kids these days.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

$80,000 per song? She was just downloading for personal use! It's not like she had a pirate factory going on in her basement and was burning copies to sell on the street! 

Organizations like RIAA and MMPA like to compare downloading to shoplifting but obviously the two are not even close to the same thing in the eyes of the courts. I used to work in retail and shoplifters basically got an arrest and maybe a fine. Sometimes the security staff wouldn't even bother the police and would just take the offender's photo and "ban" them from setting foot in the store again.

Totally, this makes shoplifting seem like a good idea.

Obviously, the RIAA can never expect to actually collect $1.9 million from this woman. This is a stunt to make an example out of someone.


----------



## Krule Music Group (Jun 12, 2009)

Music is not free, downloading is illegal. I support the artists I like, and do buy the physical CD's and DVD's at the store. I don't she should have been fined like this, and yes it is just a publicity stunt. Many think sharing and downloading is music for free. 

Truth is the recorded music had to be paid by someone? it was not recorded for free, the Band/artist and or record company. 

My rant 

Cherrs! 
http://krulemusicgroup.blogspot.com


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Krule Music Group said:


> Music is not free, downloading is illegal. I support the artists I like, and do buy the physical CD's and DVD's at the store. I don't she should have been fined like this, and yes it is just a publicity stunt. Many think sharing and downloading is music for free.
> 
> Truth is the recorded music had to be paid by someone? it was not recorded for free, the Band/artist and or record company.
> 
> ...


 

http://www.webopedia.com/DidYouKnow/Internet/2004/music_downloading.asp

Read paragraph 2 

As I said before, in Canada, musicians are tax compensated.

Actually, there are a lot of very big named bands that openly support and endorse and actively participate in downloading of their music. Some, especially in the USA, get sued for it, and even by their own labels. In the USA you don't have the right to perform your music if you are contracted with a distributor of your music unless that distributor says you can is I think the logic there @[email protected] insane as that sounds.

Once upon a time a band made money on the vinyl and lost it on the live shows but had to do the live events to get people to buy their records. That is no longer the case. At least, if bands are not making money at 100 dollars a ticket in the nosebleeds they sure need a more honest manager.

Times change, how people share change. Musicians need to change with the times or get out of the game. So, someone downloads it. What they are not doing, really, is subjecting themselves to the random nature of broadcast radio and the commercial breaks to slam on the record button of their tape decks or simply giving the 99 cent cd's a pass at road side yard sales or from music re-sellers.

As to the musicians listed, I doubt that a single one of those people receives royaltys or other associated moneys from their works. It is more common to be paid outright a single fee for your work and thats it, from there on it is all the label that gets it, not the artist. I think it was Justin Timberlake that spoke about that not too long ago actually. Meh, could be wrong on the 'who' but it has been in the public media in the last couple years. I know from following other independent bands and their blogs that getting a label to sign them has become hard to impossible. Getting a label to not offer a 'one time deal' when one does offer to take an interest is harder still. So really, who does downloading really hurt? Yard sales, and used car salesmen pitching on the radio are the ones that get it first because that is where I used to go for my music first in the days before mp3's.

I do purchase music. Unsigned or independents only. And only those that sell to/in Canada. LOTS of the third world music I love is ONLY available as mp3 downloads. And it is even harder if I want live video of non North American musicians or performances. The only way around region coded dvd's is downloading ripped ones. Ripped because even IF by some miracle you manage to purchase it (since cross region shopping is blocked BY the industry in general) it still will not usually play on your machine (YAY for being forced to set up your machine and having the one time chance of declairing a region code that you are then locked to).

:rockon2: I like music, I like musicians, I hate the money grubbers that take moms to court for having recorded online rather than onradio some cheese songs that going to be forgotten in another 5 years anywas.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

Now that it's clear that peer-to-peer music sharing is legal in this country, who wants to tell a neo-Luddite the name of some peer-to-peer sites?

FWIW I feel very sorry for this woman, she was handed a fine that far exceeds the "crime" that she committed. Also, I do still buy cd's - mainly because I like the case candy and I want to support the artist. I also can't play MP3s on my stereo -cd player is too old. I'll probably never spring for a 100 dollar nose bleed seat to a concert, so this is how I can do it.

Also, BTW, Phish is issuing free downloads of its concerts and Robert Earl Keen has a free album available too.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

:wave: I remember the headlines when riaa tried to take copyright claims to court here. I remember that the judge noted in his ruling that they had no foundation for their claims of damages in Canada due the tax on media, but further to that, since the money went direct to the artists that the musicians were getting more money from the tax than from their normal cut.

P2P is ubiquitous on the web and google searchable in 0.01 seconds or so  

As to sale sites:

http://cdbaby.com/ great purchasing sight for music, with very reasonable costs and lifetime redownloadablity. 

http://mp3.mondomix.com/ I don't know these guys well enough yet, but they bought out a really great company and they apparently are still doing the free tracks weekly too so...

There are others of course, and it may be *a good thing for this forum to have a sticky of "where to buy/sell" music* with a list of these types of sites. Everyone here that does sell music I think would appreciate that and benefit by it.

I agree, I like the art and the pamphlets and the nice painted CD too. Some of the independent artists I have bought from have been download only (as from cdbaby), some have been a bare cd in a white paper sleeve with the name hand written on it, some have done the full art package and case. It really is a fun way to purchase music. I have also bought some First Nations Flute independently produced music off eBay, and at events like this weekends "sound of music" here in Burlington, from street singing musicians. And even though a few (three I think) of the musicians music I have purchased have all the same song already on youtube for free, I really like the good clean quality recordings from them directly.

To throw another bone on the contention pile. Survivorship and selling of rights are two things that I feel SHOULD be made illegal. You die, your music/art/writings should clear your estate in as timely a manner as any thing else in your estate. 50 or 70 years survivorship is just none sense. Just more money grubbing second cousins you never talked to while you lived trying to make a dime off your work. And the very idea that you can SELL your rights or have your right SOLD to me is abhorrent. The idea that many songs can be held hostage forever because they are "owned" by a companey (that of course never dies and so that 50 or 70 years never comes to pass) does no one in society any good.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

FYI, we Canadians need to pay attention to who we vote for if we want to keep our digital rights. The RIAA and MMPA have been lobbying Ottawa very heavily in the past few years to overhaul Canadian copyright law to bring it more in line with the USA model on digital media. This way they could start hauling us into court in just the same manner. 

When Jim Prentice was Industry Minister last fall, he had a bill on the floor (I think it was C-60) to do just this. Luckily we had an election happen in the fall so the bill died on the floor. I'm not sure if its been reintroduced, but make no mistake that the Conservatives are pro-industry on this issue and if given enough time they will criminalize peer-to-peer in this country.


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2009)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Now that it's clear that peer-to-peer music sharing is legal in this country, who wants to tell a neo-Luddite the name of some peer-to-peer sites?


From what I recall, downloading is legal.
Uploading (sharing) is not. So be careful
if any of you think of goin' the peer to peer
route. But if you must..get some tracker
blocking software as well (free downloads).


----------



## Guest (Jun 20, 2009)

laristotle said:


> From what I recall, downloading is legal.
> Uploading (sharing) is not. So be careful
> if any of you think of goin' the peer to peer
> route. But if you must..get some tracker
> blocking software as well (free downloads).


It isn't quite that simple. Michael Geist puts to rest some myths about file sharing in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4038/159/ -- that's a good read (as are most things Geist writes).


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

iaresee said:


> It isn't quite that simple. Michael Geist puts to rest some myths about file sharing in Canada: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4038/159/ -- that's a good read (as are most things Geist writes).


 Interesting read. I think it still supports that downloading music is legal (or at least not specifically illegal) and does in its way suggest there is ample funds recovered from the taxes.

Really, I feel that it is a brave new world, and if you are going to have such men in it the onus becomes yours in how you mix in with them and not the other way around. No matter what the "industry" will cook up, there will be French courts that say Non Non! and pimply kids with black magic markers that will fix those red wagons.

:shrug: there was a time covered waggon stock traded for lots of money, till the car came along ...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

"The reality is that Canadian law features a private copying exemption that includes a levy on blank media. The Federal Court and the Copyright Board of Canada have intimated that the levy, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars, could apply to personal, non-commercial downloading of sound recordings onto certain blank media. The law therefore opens the door to some legalized music downloading, but it does not cover other content (ie. movies or software) or the uploading of any content."

Sounds to me like it's OK to copy the music you already bought legally onto various media (i.e. copy a cd or convert into mp3) but not legal to download unless you're paying for it. This makes good sense to me. If I ever release an album I will do it privately and online. I would hope that someone who buys it does not then copy it, upload it to the net and let it be distributed for free. Music is intellectual property and also a musicians product. It should be treated that way.


Realistically though, I can't hear the type of music I want to hear on the radio or on tv. Downloading out of curiosity seems almost fair but I know it isn't. Of course, you can always listen to music online without downloading it. Songza.com works great and there's always myspace pages.

Matt


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

WOw...that's just insane. 80 000$,..again, wow. 

One of the problem i see in my inner circle is kids related for downloading music and movies, or even TV shows. my sister's kid, now 20, came at my place last week with his new labtop wich as a 1 terrabyte HD, for those not Computer savy, that's 1000 gig HD. His labtop is basicaly his Home Theater system, and Sound system. For him, the notion of paying 15$ for a Music CD is illogical, and the same goes for movies and TV shows. in terrabyte HD i FULL..and i mean FULL to a point he as a portable HD now to more download. He has on his HD almost every Sci fi show you can think of, stuff like CSI etc etc. 275 gig worth of music, that's just insane, and more movies then i could count.

I was trying to explain the arm he was doing to the industry, but like he said, he's in college in montreal, and his reply was...NO ONE buys cds or pays for movies Uncle...that's just crazy. 

I personnaly have about 100 gig of MP3 myself on my Computer at home...but if you turn around, i have a large shelve system with ALL he original CDs. i use Itune for music when i work, it's a lot better then changing CDs every hrs. a Friend gave me last week, the new Chikenfoot CD in mp3...i loved it..and bought the CD...there's something about having the real thing...what can i say


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Ah indeed the physical product in hand. But what do you do with that? Online streaming travels with you and 300 gigs of song on a 5 pound lap top is a LOT easier to put in your plane baggage than the original CD's

This is partly why I do like cdbaby. Not only is there no drm crap to mess up your enjoyment of the songs, once bought there is no time or count limits on downloading the bought songs. Your drive fails, just redownload. Your in another country for the summer and have a loner comp, just redownload. etc etc.

Air is free and so should be what resides in it. Life did not become improved when the TV industry got a judge to think otherwise, it simply got more expensive to live it. That and, we went from 36 episodes a season for TV entertainment and currently sit at an average of 10 or so and the costs of advertising and production are stupidly astronomical compared to the much freer 1960's and '70's 

And as much as the parental over 30 group or the grand parental over 50 may feel one way or another, it IS the 'under 24' group that is shaping the future. What was the expression? Get hip to it daddyo sdsre


/me sorry if that last line was agrejious I couldn't help myself ;p


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
> http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html


:bow: amazing how much that article articulated so much of what I HAVE been saying for the past 10 years! A very 'all round' enjoyable read and I do thank you much!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

glad you enjoyed it. kinda long read (for some folks) but well worth it, i think.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

There's something wrong with a country where an average person who downloads a few songs worth $1-2 (at MOST), gets penalized $80,000.
But when a superstar worth about a half BILLION dollars (Mel Gibson) gets caught speeding while drunk driving (thereby endangering public safety), he gets fined $1300.9kkhhd
Where are the priorities, and who's running the show really?

God bless america.:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> this guy has a pretty good perspective, i think
> http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html


That was an awesome read! It sums up how I feel very well.


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

So Demonbaby disagees with the way the recored companies handled the football, therefore everything is free. Instead of a small slice of pie an artist get a big slice of nothing. Shiney Happy People will buy your T-shirts and extol your virtues. They'll flock to your gigs(yeah right). I think an artist should be rewarded for their endeavours. With money. What a crock!


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Stonesy said:


> So Demonbaby disagees with the way the recored companies handled the football, therefore everything is free. Instead of a small slice of pie an artist get a big slice of nothing. Shiney Happy People will buy your T-shirts and extol your virtues. They'll flock to your gigs(yeah right). I think an artist should be rewarded for their endeavours. With money. What a crock!


His point is that the major label artist generally seeing next to nothing on the sale of their music because major label artists do not own their own music. The artists make the majority of their bread off of touring and merch sales because the label does not control that part of the business. Therefore, by supporting the artist directly in that regard you cut out the middleman (the label).


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

No, that is not his point. His point is jusifying getting music and not paying for it.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Stonesy said:


> No, that is not his point. His point is jusifying getting music and not paying for it.


Not paying who?


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

Not anybody. Least of all the artist. Y'all want someones elses work for nothin'. Jump thru every digital and moral loophle ya can find. Crusaders against the record companies. Ya want it for free. Period. **** the artist. I'm taking my ball home and I'm going underground. I send you an e-mail how I'm gonna buy a (no middleman) T-shirt and tell all my audiophile friends how great you are. Hope your drummer doesn't break a leg=no tour=no money. Dance Mr. BoJangles, Dance.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

Stonesy said:


> Not anybody. Least of all the artist. Y'all want someones elses work for nothin'. Jump thru every digital and moral loophle ya can find. Crusaders against the record companies. Ya want it for free. Period. **** the artist. I'm taking my ball home and I'm going underground. I send you an e-mail how I'm gonna buy a (no middleman) T-shirt and tell all my audiophile friends how great you are. Hope your drummer doesn't break a leg=no tour=no money. Dance Mr. BoJangles, Dance.


I'm not trying to come off snarky here, but did you read the entire article? The writer describes in detail his background on the subject and how he's arrived at his conclusions (he used to actually work for major labels). Also, if you notice, he only advocates cutting support from the major labels who are in bed with the RIAA and suing fans. He actually says that if the band is independent or on an indie label, you should by all means purchase their music.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

One thing not to forget...lots of people think when you sign a deal for a record you don't get shit...that's not true. if it's anything seriousl you get a signing bonus, even if it's 10 000$..you get one. Second, you get a % of all record sales, again, sometime it's a ridiculous %..but you still get it. Artsit with major labels don't own their music..again, that's their OWN CHOICE...there'a a lot of different contract with any labels, exemple, Sign for 1 000 000$ and we get the right to your cataloghe..or sign for 250 000$ and keep your rights...yougner artists just see the big cash in hand RIGHT NOW thing..and sign everything away. 

This is why indie lables are growing and growing crazy.

as for downloading music freely..it's illegal no mather what we think. Artist should be paid for their work...would any of us work for free?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

al3d said:


> One thing not to forget...lots of people think when you sign a deal for a record you don't get shit...that's not true. if it's anything seriousl you get a signing bonus, even if it's 10 000$..you get one. Second, you get a % of all record sales, again, sometime it's a ridiculous %..but you still get it. Artsit with major labels don't own their music..again, that's their OWN CHOICE...there'a a lot of different contract with any labels, exemple, Sign for 1 000 000$ and we get the right to your cataloghe..or sign for 250 000$ and keep your rights...yougner artists just see the big cash in hand RIGHT NOW thing..and sign everything away.
> 
> This is why indie lables are growing and growing crazy.
> 
> as for downloading music freely..it's illegal no mather what we think. Artist should be paid for their work...would any of us work for free?


The troubles are many for labels, not the least of which is contractual rights. Unlike the FILM industry, musicians have not unionised. The results are very much like the 1920's when The Little Rascals worked Film when you sign a contract today. The common feeling is that NO ONE gets more than the initial payout of a contract (lots of bands have spoken publicly on this in the past few years which is what lends to this point of view, it is not like we actually get to see the contracts of Green Day or New Kids On The Block, be we sure do know that to purchase new pressings of those guys works is not possible AND not one of them guys is out anywhere playing the music they did, they cant, they dont own it). Books are being done the same way in publishing these days too. You get a one time payment, up front and usually on 1/2 to 3 chapters (publishers don't care if the book is written or not, just if it fits their current sales audience or not). You might get a sales target bonus but that is not common. Then you get... nothing. 20 years, 5 re-releases and you still get... nothing. All the artist is doing in terms of work from that point forward is fulfilling their contractual obligations. Even if not a single human on the planet ever listens to a single song of the artist, their work is done. And if every single human on the planet listens to their song, the work the artist did was already done and paid for and the artist ... well, is paid already so pffft their pay/job is done.

What musicians hope to hell for is that people will listen to their songs and then rush to watch them play live or to buy their merch. That is where they get paid (OMG didn't the SPICE GIRLS totally pull a Lucas on marketing merch). Because whether you downloaded their entire catalogue or simple taped all their songs off the radio to them really is the same. It is your going and supporting them in person that pays them and for that they do work (unless they are lip syncing in which case I would want my money back. There is a use for recorded tracks, and an abuse of them, but that would be a whole 'nother thread).

So, standing in front of that glassy CD, for 23.99. The artist is paid already (somewhere between 1 cent and 50 cents of that 23.99, depends), nothing you do in the next 10 minutes in any way impacts on him or her (because they are not waiting on your purchase, they are already paid and at home with their feet up). All that CD is to the store is an inventory number, lets the store know if it met its monthly sales targets or not. All that CD is to the distributor is an inventory number, lets them know what their turn over rate of stock is. All that CD is to a warehouse is an inventory number, lets them know if they need more or not. All that percent sold is to the label is whether or not the band they own has to make a second or third or forth album for them.

*BUT there is some executive that wants to have his limo delivered hot tuna sandwich.* 

YES that is not an uncommon thing for the 'richer than god' group (I have a family member that is a concierge that deals with the wants and demands of the idle rich on a daily basis, a sandwich delivered by limo is actually not even close to outrageous or bizar). Doing anything to enjoy your musical idols music OTHER than paying a share of the limos cost in paying for that CD (remember, the artist is already paid and out of this loop now) is what is illegal and they are protecting their tuna sandwich by making the fine for you doing anything less 80,000USD. HOW many musicians get paid 80,000 per song sold? HOW many musicians even get 80,000 per song per set? Gosh, I would want the video proof of anyone on this forum to show them walk in a bar and get paid 80,000 per song they play. Yea, I would HAVE to believe that when Gilmore gets up on stage for his 90 minutes he has been very well paid. I love that RUSH will do things like, donate an entire shows proceeds to The United Way. These boys are VERY well supported by their fans. I have owned a lot of their merch over the years too.

Most musicians that do own their music past their contracts are ones that BUY them back or SUE to get them back or create their own labels to release under (usually after the suing and then the people we are talking about are bands like RUSH).

So, you are not hurting the musicians when you download, you are interrupting the executives lunches when they want to dine on 1000 dollar plates at four star restaurants on the other side of the planet.

Now if we were talking about sneaking in to a concert to watch our fav performers do their thing ... 

:rockon2: I purchase INDIE music, I LOVE to buy direct from the artist. Heck, I like to email them and talk to them directly too if they are not live on the street performers that I can meet!! I can tell you that John Pascuzzi http://www.youtube.com/user/oddmusic is a really decent all round person that I would invite to dinner with the family and I have, since purchasing his album, having shipping/delivery issues and being pre-sent the album in mp3 format so I could enjoy it while waiting on the mail. I have told MANY people about him and I think I have increased his fan base. This is how it is becoming. We the fans support the musicians we love; we do not support the label executives lobster dinners and idle decisions that they wont be having their bands release an album this year because the marketing department has another project on the go. Not a single musician has made the news in the past 10+ years that they have gone bankrupt due to people downloading their music, they are just as well off now as they ever were and many are (as has been pointed out) fully supporting downloading and free access to their music. Those that raise the cry of cake, well ... you all know what happened the to last idle-out-of-touch-rich-demagogue who suggested that the common person eat cake....


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

Well..i agree on a few things there, but you are generalizing it a bit much. LOTS of bands and aritst gets a share of the CD sales, been Celine Dion or someone smaller like Eric Lapoint here in Quebec. Both are at the end of the spectrum..Celine selling 5 million albums and Eric selline maybe 150 000$. Eric Lapoint's new CD, he was getting 1.10$ a CD Celine gets something like 3.25$ if the magazin i read is right.

I seriously doubt a band like GreenDay does'nt own it's catalogue. When talking about new bands's first deal, ok, a contract based on a one time amount is seen very often, but that usually only last for 1 or 2 albums now a days. Bands are REALY more aware then they were say in the 70's and 80's. All major bands own their own catalogue and that i would bet on it. They are now very buisness savy.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

al3d said:


> Well..i agree on a few things there, but you are generalizing it a bit much. LOTS of bands and aritst gets a share of the CD sales, been Celine Dion or someone smaller like Eric Lapoint here in Quebec. Both are at the end of the spectrum..Celine selling 5 million albums and Eric selline maybe 150 000$. Eric Lapoint's new CD, he was getting 1.10$ a CD Celine gets something like 3.25$ if the magazin i read is right.
> 
> I seriously doubt a band like GreenDay does'nt own it's catalogue. When talking about new bands's first deal, ok, a contract based on a one time amount is seen very often, but that usually only last for 1 or 2 albums now a days. *Bands are REALY more aware then they were say in the 70's and 80's.* All major bands own their own catalogue and that i would bet on it. They are now very buisness savy.


And that is a good thing! Musicians I think need to take control the same as actors did. Celine married her manager and together they run their show, though I do recall that she too was in court as part of what she did to gain that control too.

I am not out to say "nana screw you, Im not paying you" to the musicians and I really do not think anyone anywhere in the majority of file sharers are either (and not anyone here on GC). I LOVE Kate Micucci and her music and I paid for it smiling from CDBaby http://cdbaby.com/cd/katemicucci . I also have all her and Riki's joint music downloaded BECAUSE they also make their music freely available on their web sites and on youtube. But yes, I still paid! for Kate  I think the nature of the game is changing, and the change is away from THE LABEL and more and more to the artist themselves directly. This I cannot see as bad for musicians.

I bet if I posted a thread here on GC that said _"I have 2000 dollars I just won at the lotto, I want to get a CD recorded. Im in the Burlington area but can travel. Anyone with a studio that could help?"_ that I would be in that studio this week recording and have a master that I can, at my leisure, burn on disk and sell on-line and know that 100% of what I sell that for goes to me (after paying back the 2000 and the cost of the blank CD). HAHAH This said, I did post that my singing/play sounds like cats being killed and I am SO not far off from that! I am just exampling  I think that you and I could netwerk an album! I think that you and I and any combination of people here could do it, put it up on youtube, and in a month have sales. The days of the need for a band to have a label to sell their music is basically out I think. Only if you want/need mass production but there are private label companies that will run off music cd's for you so even there the need is not so much there anymore.

My 10 year old son, one of the first people he watched on his youtube account was Katy Perry and when he got an iPod this year, he also got a $20 dollar purchase gift card and off he went and bought her songs for his iPod. That is what sharing does and is doing for musicians I think. You hear them, you like them, you friend them, you buy their music, and all long you tell every one of your friends about them. Even if you do so one song at a time LOL.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

keeperofthegood said:


> My 10 year old son, one of the first people he watched on his youtube account was Katy Perry and when he got an iPod this year, he also got a $20 dollar purchase gift card and off he went and bought her songs for his iPod. *That is what sharing does and is doing for musicians I think.* You hear them, you like them, you friend them, you buy their music, and all long you tell every one of your friends about them. Even if you do so one song at a time LOL.


I think what musicians need to do is figure out how to better exploit all the free press they're getting as a result of file sharing. How many bands out there would have ended up selling 5,000 records without P2P, but ended up selling 100,000 instead? 

Perhaps file sharing is dipping heavily into the well-lined pocket of the labels representing artists selling millions of records, but for most small-time bands, the word-of-mouth is indispensable.

There _are_ people out there who just want a free lunch, but most people who are downloading music are doing so because they are music lovers, and they support the bands they love by either buying the music legitimately once it's available, or seeing the band live when they come to town. Much of the downloading I see is fans who absolutely _must_ listen to a band's album ASAP, so they'll pre-order the disc or record but download the leaked album to listen to it first.


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

Yes, I read the whole article and understand it. If someone does work they should be paid for it regardless of the ethics of the labels. Getting something for nothing and portraying oneself as fighting the good fight? Its a well written essay but elitist and self righteous.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Stonesy said:


> Yes, I read the whole article and understand it. If someone does work they should be paid for it regardless of the ethics of the labels. Getting something for nothing and portraying oneself as fighting the good fight? Its a well written essay but elitist and self righteous.


Well, yes, but artists also make money in other ways as well. If music sales were the _only_ way for an artist to earn a living for their hard work, then yes, I would be completely against it. But the truth is that artists make almost nothing off music sales in any case, and most of their money is earned through live performance.

Downloading alone doesn't explain the drop in CD sales. A good chunk of people who download are "test-driving" to see if it's their cup of tea. They wouldn't have bought the cd in any case, so it's not taking away from sales. CD sales are dropping like flies because there's a complete paradigm shift in the music industry that major labels are having a hard time accepting. Physical, tangible media is going the way of the dodo because downloaded media is so much more convenient. CD sales are plummeting, but sale through online retailers like iTunes are rising. Not enough to offset the problem, but nonetheless, there's been a strong increase in online sales.

What record labels don't like is that they can no longer charge a hefty mark-up for a intangible product. Their cut is minimized and they don't like it. I wouldn't either, if I were them, but whether they want to take their lumps or not, the onus is on them to determine how to best profit off the new standard. No one buys VHS anymore, but who's crying about that? As internet connections get faster and faster, streaming A/V and downloadable media will eventually eliminate tangible products completely. It's just more convenient, takes up less space in your house and doesn't collect dust.


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

If musicians get paid next to nothing, why is Joe Satriani suing Coldplay?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Stonesy said:


> If musicians get paid next to nothing, why is Joe Satriani suing Coldplay?


Cuz he needs the money. I'm pretty sure Coldplay outsells Satch by, oh I don't know, about 1000 to 1 for every cd and ticket.

Make no mistake, that annoying elf who fronts Coldplay isn't rich because he's sold lots of records. It's the sold-out tours that gives him the kind of money to allow someone to name their daughter Apple and get away with it.


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

Apple is better than Moon Unit.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Stonesy said:


> Apple is better than Moon Unit.


Hahahaha! Touché!


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> Cuz he needs the money. I'm pretty sure Coldplay outsells Satch by, oh I don't know, about 1000 to 1 for every cd and ticket.


maybe i'm the only one who feels this way, but that's just sad. i wouldn't buy a coldplay cd if i needed a coaster in an emergency.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

but more on topic, i paid way to much for hundreds and hundreds of discs when i had no other choice. when they got stolen, or lost or whatever, i don't want to pay $20 for british steel just because they "remastered" it. i don't believe in paying new music prices for old stuff. i bought it once, now i can d/l if i need it again. what about ron thal's bumblefoot? try buying that cd. you can't. i saw one on ebay about 4 years ago sell for $75. think ron got a piece of that sale? he makes cool music but no way am i paying that kinda $$ for it. i love mustasch. if it wasn't for downloading i never woulda known they exist. when canadia approves me for work, i'll get a job, and eventually buy what i d/l'd already. but i'll have to order it online because no one here has ever heard of them. same for drain sth. same for monster magnet. oh, you can buy greenday or offspring all day long though. (ugh) i wonder how much more cool stuff is out there that i don't know about because record stores only have room to sell britney spears or soulja boy. prolly alot. just my opinion, ymmv


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2009)

Most of the so-called music being produced these days is, well, mediocre. That's my opinion. The idea of a musician actually making money for creating music is a relatively new thing. Go back a hundred years and this type of thing just couldn't happen. Writing a pop song is easy if you compare it to finding a fix for diabetes or plowing a patato field each spring with a team of horses for say. I think that's a universal feeling amongst folks and why lifting a song off a tape,cd or internet doesn't feel very criminal. The music business made a lot of cash, very quickly, without monumental effort (making a Kiss album and building an atom bomb require different effort commitments) and got spoilt. It really hurts to loose something that good that came this easy. Regardless of who is right or wrong, change is here to stay and this time around change is going to mutate the music business until something new comes around. It could happen to any of us and because we dislike change so much we kick and scream all the way to the maternity ward. I hope this change brings more Frank Zappas to the business and less Fall out Boys.:rockon2:


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

i'm talking about my experience here..to bare withe me. When i started to get into music, late 70's early 80's big time...we were buying Album like crazy, we were into metal stuff and their was a LOT of it in those days. Touring was basicaly a promotional tool for bands to get more record sale. Ticket prices and Album price were almost similar...a record was what..7 or 8$ and ticket for a show at the Montreal Forum were around 12 to 14$...i saw Judas Priest, front row seats for 14$ in 82 i think it was.

NOW..today, average CD Price, 15$ tops, average ticket for a semi-decent act, 75$..big act, 125$ and over. legend stuff, 250 to 500$....that is WHY everyone is touring basicaly.


----------



## The Usual (May 14, 2008)

Not much has really changed in the music industry, as far as the label/management to artist relationship is concerned. Labels have always viewed music as free to them, and have always ripped off artists. That is the industry. The issue they face now, is that kids also think music is free. And while conceptually I disagree, I see no point in paying the companies that rip off, and dilute the talent, reducing the value of the music to nothing, and then wonder why no one thinks it's worth it anymore. Most of it is worthless. 

Talk to a veteren artist some time. I have. One with multiple number one songs, and let him explain the wonders of cross collateralization to you. Living in the crummy part of town, after years of 250+ shows per year, only to be dropped by the label once the band had begun to break even (and the label already had their millions). Record companies don't pay for anything. Nothing. Every expense is charged to the bands. The business is sick, and completely controlled by a handful of companies. It used to be (and some say still is) controlled by the mob. Even indie lables are owned by an arm of one of a half a dozen media conglomorate monstrosities. It's only an issue, because they can't find a way around the good old black market internet. So now they will effectively kill someone to make an example.

I say f$%$ 'em. Good music will always exist. The nice thing about the internet now, is that it offers kids a medium to be heard, for free. Most of these bands don't give a sh&t if they are rich. And selling 20K records on your myspace is more profitable than a #1 hit. That's the truth.

Wanna support an indie band? Give them $10 cash at their next show. You just bought ten albums. Then go rip their album.

I will say that I don't agree with any site that "shares" and sells ad space, or makes profit of any kind. They are just as bad as the labels, and I still don't know how that can be considered legal.

And why is it, that if I buy a $.99 song from Itunes and put it on my iPod, I can't take it off of my iPod? What did I buy? Let me guess, I rented it? Wonder what bands get paid per rental? Probably falls under the "breakage" part of their contract. 

Now there's a rant!


----------



## Stonesy (Oct 7, 2008)

Getting paid for music is not a relatvely new thing. From the Renaissance on there were "rockstars". I was in a violin shop in TO a little while ago. The place was wall to wall ancient sting instruments. $800-$80000. I don't think these were used at many ho-downs.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

The labels have failed to do many things to address the downloading issue, but I don't believe that is the sole culprit in slumping CD sales.

1. As previously mentioned, the product sucks. The music being released is just boring garbage. The SAME EXACT THING happened around 1980 and the music industry responded by blaming cassette tapes, claiming that "home taping is killing music". The industry response to poor album sales was that people were sharing music instead of buying it. Lo and behold, people just didn't like the music that was being put out.

2. The rise of the DVD. Remember 15 years ago when all HMV sold was CD's? I can't even find the CD's when I go in there anymore. I'd estimate about 1/5th of their sales floor is currently dedicated to music now. They are selling DVD's, Video games, even BOOKS. It seems to me that DVD sales have become huge competition for people's entertainment dollars. Used to be you'd buy your friend or family member a new CD for their birthday. Now everyone gifts movies.

3. Have you noticed that DVD's are MOST expensive when they first come out, and then they drop in price as they get older and the sales fall off? CD Albums are the complete opposite: They are CHEAPEST at release and then get progressively MORE expensive... Huh?!? I went out to replace some of my Stones CD's that got stolen when my car was broken in to and they were $25 a CD! Not even special order, they were right on the shelf!

Another thing that's always puzzled me. Just for example, Sony owns BMG and has a record label. They're right in there suing people for copyright violation. On the other hand, Sony also designs and manufactures computers AND CD ripping and burning technology. So they make a product that makes it possible to steal their other product? Zuh?


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

mrmatt1972 said:


> Sounds to me like it's OK to copy the music you already bought legally onto various media (i.e. copy a cd or convert into mp3) but not legal to download unless you're paying for it. This makes good sense to me. If I ever release an album I will do it privately and online. I would hope that someone who buys it does not then copy it, upload it to the net and let it be distributed for free. Music is intellectual property and also a musicians product. It should be treated that way.
> 
> 
> Matt


I remember reading on this site not so long ago that it is ILLEGAL in Canada to change music formats (ie vinyl>tape or vinyl>CD or whatever) without repaying royalties due to the artists. The article in question was imploring us to contact our MP's and get them to overhaul our copyright laws to get this removed so that we could legally do just that. I remember it because I took offense to the fact that downloading the songs I liked from Napster from my legally-purchased albums so I could burn them onto CD's was considered illegal by Canadian laws. Was I mistaken on this? Anybody?
-Mikey


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2009)

Spikezone said:


> I remember reading on this site not so long ago that it is ILLEGAL in Canada to change music formats (ie vinyl>tape or vinyl>CD or whatever) without repaying royalties due to the artists. The article in question was imploring us to contact our MP's and get them to overhaul our copyright laws to get this removed so that we could legally do just that. I remember it because I took offense to the fact that downloading the songs I liked from Napster from my legally-purchased albums so I could burn them onto CD's was considered illegal by Canadian laws. Was I mistaken on this? Anybody?


That would have been the case if Jim Prentice's bill had passed last year. But it died on the floor. You can format shift _any_ media you've purchased. I'm not sure if you can circumvent DRM to do it (one of the provisions in bill C66 would have made DRM circumvention illegal in any circumstance). This falls under the fair use provisions in our current legislation.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

we'll people have been doing this for a long time, and here is the evidence:


----------

