Walton Goggins
Footballguy
And also have a lot more exposure before the internet. It's a double edge sword.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Torrent Talk (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Walton Goggins
Footballguy
and they make more money with people who buy their songs on the net...unlike before when you couldn't access songs on the internet
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
my godYes. Specifically a criminal from 1992.I take out CDs from my local library on a regular basis and rip them to my computer and then put them on my ipod. Am I a criminal?
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
BTW what is "torrent talk"? Talking about music? All anyone has to do on their own is search on any torrent site, not sure how talking facilitates anything...
I see. I guess it's more a question of how much it takes to make a living. These guys aren't necessarily trying to get rich. Losing out on ten thousand a year in CD money that might have been there before illegal file sharing is a big deal to them.
Apologies I wasn't clear on what I was trying to say there. I didn't mean to imply "touring a little". I meant to say you could tour hard to support the album then be home some. Not constantly be on the road 300 nights a year as the primary way to make income.J
Hi hipple,What I would like to stop is the guys giving instructions here on how to download and the "send me a pm so I can buy a DVD you burned" talk. Obviously that happens, I'd just rather not support it here. Thanks.J
ODoyleRules
Footballguy
I would think that, in addition to file sharing, bands make less because there are more outlets for discovering music and as a result, the total music $ market is now spread among many more artists. I can't say if illegal file sharing is the key culprit, but there are many, many options for getting free music on the internet that aren't illegal P2Ps. People still go to live venues like they did years ago and ticket prices have stayed constant if not increased. I think that's why the money source has shifted.
mon
(T)ool
My :
I download music with the "try before you buy" mentality. I'm a little behind with buying what I like, but I will eventually. A couple of things:
1. I'm still pissed about all the albums I bought in the '70s and '80s that only had one or two good songs. They always led you to believe the whole album was great, but it rarely was, almost never was.
2. This is for Joe. I feel sorry for your friends' band, and I certainly wish everyone could do what they love full time. But in reality, there was just a short period on earth where a plethora of bands could live off of there album sales -- just a couple of decades. 100 years ago or 1000 years ago, musicians would only get paid for live performances -- this is the norm.
:I download music with the "try before you buy" mentality. I'm a little behind with buying what I like, but I will eventually. A couple of things:
1. I'm still pissed about all the albums I bought in the '70s and '80s that only had one or two good songs. They always led you to believe the whole album was great, but it rarely was, almost never was.
2. This is for Joe. I feel sorry for your friends' band, and I certainly wish everyone could do what they love full time. But in reality, there was just a short period on earth where a plethora of bands could live off of there album sales -- just a couple of decades. 100 years ago or 1000 years ago, musicians would only get paid for live performances -- this is the norm.
videoguy505
Footballguy
Why would you be against someone buying a DVD? Or am I misunderstanding that part?Oh, and, are PMs being policed in some way now? If a poster sends a PM to another poster with torrent info in it, does that earn them a timeout now?
Hipple Long Ware & Peete
Footballguy
Ok. I guess all the information you are talking about is so widely available. It just seems like the whole thing is kinda pointless.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think the technology that allows for file sharing and ripping of CDs has brought the bands that captured little niche markets over the past forty years (at least) back from the dead as far as having music careers. So my belief that the technology that they are complaining about has afforded them much greater opportunity to make significantly more money as a band then has ever existed. So while I may agree with the statements that bands use to potentially earn more from CD sales, I disagree with your overall statement.
I'm saying I'd rather people not promote downloading DVDs and then burning them for other people for a price here.J
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks.J
Jason Bourne
Footballguy
If it was torrent talk why would they? It would be free.
Disco Stu
Confirmed FBGal
As others have said, file sharing may cause the CD money to be less but the other money (bigger/better gigs, merchandise, etc) to be more.There's really no way to know if it hurts more than it helps. It's all just speculation, which is why putting the blame on file sharing is kind of silly imo.There are some bands who think file sharing is the devil, and I'm sure it does hurt the bottom line for bands that were big before mp3s (Metallica for one). Some other bands think it's great and recognize that file sharing has increased their exposure. I've been to shows where the band actively encourages people to share their music. I'm sure their record company wouldn't approve though.I see. I guess it's more a question of how much it takes to make a living. These guys aren't necessarily trying to get rich. Losing out on ten thousand a year in CD money that might have been there before illegal file sharing is a big deal to them.
Thanks. It's an interesting discussion for sure. Lots of good stuff in this thread.JAs others have said, file sharing may cause the CD money to be less but the other money (bigger/better gigs, merchandise, etc) to be more.There's really no way to know if it hurts more than it helps. It's all just speculation, which is why putting the blame on file sharing is kind of silly imo.There are some bands who think file sharing is the devil, and I'm sure it does hurt the bottom line for bands that were big before mp3s (Metallica for one). Some other bands think it's great and recognize that file sharing has increased their exposure. I've been to shows where the band actively encourages people to share their music. I'm sure their record company wouldn't approve though.I see. I guess it's more a question of how much it takes to make a living. These guys aren't necessarily trying to get rich. Losing out on ten thousand a year in CD money that might have been there before illegal file sharing is a big deal to them.Apologies I wasn't clear on what I was trying to say there. I didn't mean to imply "touring a little". I meant to say you could tour hard to support the album then be home some. Not constantly be on the road 300 nights a year as the primary way to make income.J
Walton Goggins
Footballguy
Think about it like this:
Person A discovers a band and tells his friends, puts a few songs on their ipod
His friends listen and some end up buying this group's CD or songs off Itunes/Amazon etc.
What bands (record companies) want is that NOBODY get their songs for free, watching their video I guess in their eye for free is fine but they want as many people possible to discover this band and pay for it. How is that possible with so many bands out there?
Personally, if I was in a band I would want as much exposure as possible and know going in that while on the front end, many people getting my music for free takes money out of my pocket but with more people listening to my music, free or not, on the backend I should make money.
Person A discovers a band and tells his friends, puts a few songs on their ipod
His friends listen and some end up buying this group's CD or songs off Itunes/Amazon etc.
What bands (record companies) want is that NOBODY get their songs for free, watching their video I guess in their eye for free is fine but they want as many people possible to discover this band and pay for it. How is that possible with so many bands out there?
Personally, if I was in a band I would want as much exposure as possible and know going in that while on the front end, many people getting my music for free takes money out of my pocket but with more people listening to my music, free or not, on the backend I should make money.
Jason Bourne
Footballguy
I don't think anyone is saying you can't (or even shouldn't) do that.
But the argument is that should be your decision as a band to make - you create content, you do with it what you want.
ETA - I think there is also a disconnect here between the needs/wants of:
Record Label - they get all their money from the sale of songs
Performer - they get most of their money from live performances
Songwriter - they get most of their money (royalties) from sale of songs
In some cases, the songwriter and performer are one and the same - but in most cases they are not. It might be that two members of the band wrote the song (and have song-writing credits), it might be that a 3rd party wrote the song. But, either way - songwriters get royalties from song usage (sales or airplay). Copyright laws really only protect the songwriters - not the performers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
Yes and yes.We developed a unique process but we understand that there are others who could, and eventually will, conscript/emulate our process. In fact our goal is to turn our unique process into a front line approach that is used industry wide. Competition is part of the price of doing business. We plan to maintain our status as industry leaders, which is easy right now as we have no competition, and be better than any competition that arises in the future. I believe we will succeed but I know that success is not guaranteed. As a businessman in your particular industry JB I am certain you understand this line of thinking. Should your friends have a different understanding?
To quote my favorite superhero "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred."
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Bourne
Footballguy
Current Number 1 song on Billboard hot 100:
Rude Boy
Performed by Rihanna
Written by Mikkel S. Eriksen
Rihanna really does not care if the song is purchased or downloaded for free. She will benefit from the publicity, and she will make the bulk of her money performing the song live.
Mikkel Eriksen, on the other hand, has a vested interest in sales of the song. The bulk of his money is coming from purchases - and not from live performances.
He, or whoever he has assigned it to, has the copyright on the song.
Rude Boy
Performed by Rihanna
Written by Mikkel S. Eriksen
Rihanna really does not care if the song is purchased or downloaded for free. She will benefit from the publicity, and she will make the bulk of her money performing the song live.
Mikkel Eriksen, on the other hand, has a vested interest in sales of the song. The bulk of his money is coming from purchases - and not from live performances.
He, or whoever he has assigned it to, has the copyright on the song.
culdeus
Footballguy
Then fix that buisness model.
scoobygang
Footballguy
Eriksen will benefit in much the same way that Rihanna does. If the song makes Rihanna more popular, then Usher will want Eriksen to write his next song. And Eriksen doesn't need to license his song to Usher or Rihanna by a royalty bearing license. He could require a fully paid up license, particularly if his songs become a commodity.
Forgive me if I don't buy this. I'm not talking about competition. We all face that. I'm talking about illegally stealing. If someone was illegally cutting into your profits, I have a hard time believing you'd brush complaints off as a sob story. But that's cool. We can agree to disagree.J
Last edited by a moderator:
Disco Stu
Confirmed FBGal
Exactly. These pop stars need the songwriters. They'll pay up. Guys like this are in high demand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny how timing works. Hugh McLeod from Gapingvoid posted this on his twitter feed a few minutes ago. How artists are paid in the digital age. http://www.psfk.com/2010/04/infographic-wh...igital-age.html Shows what they need to sell of the different formats to make 11,000 a month.
J
J
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I'll echo a lot of the other sentiments here and say that IMO while downloading hurts the big bands, it helps the little guys more now. Most of the people who I know do this look at it as having more access to artists that we wouldn't have 10 years ago. Back then I spent quite a bit on CDs and music/concerts - say $500 to $1K a year. Most of that went to bands that I already knew - new albums from Pearl Jam, Radiohead, etc.. I would go to a few concerts a year as well, but for the most part the little guys didn't get my money unless they were opening for another band.
Now with ticket prices so high, I'll still spend about the same amount a year but mostly what it goes for is going to see local concerts on the cheap, mostly stuff that I came across while downloading music. So instead of Radiohead getting my $100, a smaller/more local band will get my ticket money and a lot of the times I will buy the album at the show. I can't speak for everybody, but I still spend about the same amount - it just spreads out more.
Basically, these problems have always existed but the internet amplifies them so much more. I've always burned CDs - in college we'd just take stacks of Cds from each other and copy them. Same with the libraries, I'd use them in the same way (and still do). Problem was that technology used to be so slow and sound so crappy that you never wanted to do that too much. Now you can download a great sounding copy in minutes. What we have seen over the last decade or so is people's willingness to always get free stuff, combined with a revolt against having to spend $15 for an album and $50+ for concert tickets, combined with the technology to do so with ease.
Pandora's box has been opened on this, and all the artists and companies can do is adapt the best they can. Like others have said - if they are good they should get their music out there and hope people come to the concerts. The days of making money off Cds are basically over.
Now with ticket prices so high, I'll still spend about the same amount a year but mostly what it goes for is going to see local concerts on the cheap, mostly stuff that I came across while downloading music. So instead of Radiohead getting my $100, a smaller/more local band will get my ticket money and a lot of the times I will buy the album at the show. I can't speak for everybody, but I still spend about the same amount - it just spreads out more.
Basically, these problems have always existed but the internet amplifies them so much more. I've always burned CDs - in college we'd just take stacks of Cds from each other and copy them. Same with the libraries, I'd use them in the same way (and still do). Problem was that technology used to be so slow and sound so crappy that you never wanted to do that too much. Now you can download a great sounding copy in minutes. What we have seen over the last decade or so is people's willingness to always get free stuff, combined with a revolt against having to spend $15 for an album and $50+ for concert tickets, combined with the technology to do so with ease.
Pandora's box has been opened on this, and all the artists and companies can do is adapt the best they can. Like others have said - if they are good they should get their music out there and hope people come to the concerts. The days of making money off Cds are basically over.
scoobygang
Footballguy
To be accurate, I should mention that once Rihanna (or Usher) makes a record of an Eriksen song, Eriksen has less leverage to insist on his preferred license terms with another artist who may want to cover the song. That's because there is a compulsory "mechanical license" with fees set by statute.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
This has to be 50/50 thing for their band. While people might be getting their music for free, the internet has given them access to millions of ears they wouldn't be getting without it. Unfortunately there is no way to prove what their careers would be like without the illegal downloading. As I stated in my post above, I justify my use of torrents b/c now bands like theirswill get my money instead of bigger bands.
Walter Slovotsky
Footballguy
This is not true. His ASCAP/BMI royalties from live performances and jukebox sales will far exceed any royalties he receives from individual purchases.
Those labels are skimming too much off the top.
Mass content publishing (of any sort) is dead. RIP.
KGB
Footballguy
Ill be checking them out just because they have a cool name. LOVE the name.It was always my understanding that most bands made money from touring and the record companies made most of the money from the records.
We have more power in a laptop now than record studios had in an entire studio before. Bands dont need them.
What was that band no one knew of before they got popular on my space?
snitwitch
Footballguy
safariplanet said:Mass content publishing (of any sort) is dead. RIP.
I have a buddy who's running a start-up type record company. He's basically enabling bands to do the above list to a T (important add: digital distribution i.e. signing the deal with iTunes / Napster). In the old model, most bands didn't see too much money from record sales anyway, but they made their scratch touring. Granted, the marketing dollars the record companies would outlay would make their tours more successful...
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
bump
Chaka
Footballguy
You can't really steal our process. It's not a program it's a unique approach to settling high exposure Workers' Compensation claims, I can't stop people from copying our approach I can only try to be better than them.It might be a different pew than the music industry but it's the right church.
Your friends have a different type of competition but they still have options to the way they try to have their music earn money and it is not exclusively touring. They can try different pricing schemes like the Radiohead approach or charging only $2-5 per album or even $0.10-0.20 per song. If they're good and market the heck out of their product they will succeed. Downloading music is a reality, how your friends respond to the challenge is up to them.
jwb
Footballguy
I work for myself.
ArcticEdge
Footballguy
safariplanet
Footballguy
By the way, if anyone is curious, I read that Soulja Boy has reportedly earned upwards of $15 million in his career by riding one
into the grave. It has upwards of 70 million views on YouTube. He was 17 years old when the song topped the Billboard 200 three years ago; so young that the music had to be censored to avoid violating indecency laws.I feel he is a great model for the digital age of the music industry because (as I understand it) he releases a video before he ever gets any sort of contract, he explores every avenue of business including ringtone sales, presumably does guest appearances on god knows what programs and formats and probably makes small fortunes playing his song(s) throughout this country.
If the music is right, the fans are ready. I don't think it's fair to say that bands aren't making the big bucks they used to. The consumers are just as impulsive, and with the digital onslaught comes more variety in artists and yesterday's Soulja Boy becomes today's Lady Gaga becomes tomorrow's whoever.
The chance to reign for decades or more just doesn't hold as much weight with millions of songs at every consumer's fingertips. It's a winning situation for everyone because the competition to get millions of views on video sites spurs Capitalism and rewards players up front.
I'm really rambling so I tried to split my thoughts into a lot of paragraphs to keep everyone's attention. I think other people could probably expound on my points.
into the grave. It has upwards of 70 million views on YouTube. He was 17 years old when the song topped the Billboard 200 three years ago; so young that the music had to be censored to avoid violating indecency laws.I feel he is a great model for the digital age of the music industry because (as I understand it) he releases a video before he ever gets any sort of contract, he explores every avenue of business including ringtone sales, presumably does guest appearances on god knows what programs and formats and probably makes small fortunes playing his song(s) throughout this country.
If the music is right, the fans are ready. I don't think it's fair to say that bands aren't making the big bucks they used to. The consumers are just as impulsive, and with the digital onslaught comes more variety in artists and yesterday's Soulja Boy becomes today's Lady Gaga becomes tomorrow's whoever.
The chance to reign for decades or more just doesn't hold as much weight with millions of songs at every consumer's fingertips. It's a winning situation for everyone because the competition to get millions of views on video sites spurs Capitalism and rewards players up front.
I'm really rambling so I tried to split my thoughts into a lot of paragraphs to keep everyone's attention. I think other people could probably expound on my points.
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
But it's not just songs. It's movies, it's books, it's prettymuch any digitized information. So really, let's move off the "give away your music then tour" argument. Because that doesn't hold water for an author. Or a 100-page PDF that teaches you about the finer points of adwords and sells for $50. That kind of stuff is all over torrents also.
Basically, you defenders are saying that all artists (not just musicians, but writers / filmakers / content producers / etc) should just give you their work, and somehow, make money another way. That's what you are arguing. How do you justify that?
Basically, you defenders are saying that all artists (not just musicians, but writers / filmakers / content producers / etc) should just give you their work, and somehow, make money another way. That's what you are arguing. How do you justify that?
over this.J
GoFishTN
Footballguy
He put his stuff out on Limewire under the names of other artists to get exposure. Brilliant move.
dal_boys_phan
Footballguy
Chaka has a good point about price structure. Eighteen months ago, I downloaded an album from an emo/rock band off Amazon. $4. Liked the album so much, saw them on tour. Ask me to take a $10-$12 flier on that album - nope, probably won't happen and that artist may or may not sell that additional set of seats. Now, I have Zune Pass and I can check out all of the albums I want keeping only the ten tracks I like. And I then use that to make decisions on who to see in concert.Similarly, in 2008 when a country artist put unsold seats on sale a week before the show for $10. Saw his show and have now paid full price twice to see him since the first show.And since this is a thread about torrenting, I only use this for music material unavailable for sale now or in the future (i.e., I don't torrent TV shows or movies that are due in DVD form in "x" months). Have seen a number of live music shows from a number of artists as a result. Have also discovered artists I would have never given a first listen to. Bottom line: If Joe says that he does not want this discussed on his board - I respect that and will follow those wishes. And, since I like the Crowes and Stones, will check out the band his friends are in...
safariplanet
Footballguy
My point was basically that the cream will rise to the top. If you are given free season tickets to your favorite baseball game, eventually you'd crack and buy hot dogs, hats and t-shirts (especially if you consider the team is something to brag about and competes at an elite level).Budding filmmakers constantly release material to the internet for free in the hopes of getting noticed for their work. For some, it is a quest to make boatloads of money. For others, it truly inspires people in the way that art should. People take notice of great work, whether it's in a song, the design of a beautiful car that passes you on the road, or your neighbor's flower garden.It should fulfill a desire in the creator. I'm a firm believer in the sort of pursuit of one's ambitions. That is to say, if it pleases you, then just do it. I wouldn't expect my favorite musical artist to go back to his apartment and ponder whether he should quit playing his instrument because no one handed him a check for his performance that day. It should satisfy your brain. If making money satisfies that "musician" then he should've been a stock broker.Listen, all I know is that I wouldn't be happy if someone stole blueprints of the next Taj Mahal from my bedroom and then created the building. But if the person dedicated a shrine to me and solicited funding and swayed opinions so the building could be built, I couldn't be happier. Even if it took the rest of my life as it did Shah Jahan, I would still fulfull its purpose because it is my life's work, something that I care about. [read: metaphor for all great people. start out with nothing, hit a bottom in life, then soar like a phoenix from the ashes]I question why musician is even an occupational title. You play music that people like, great. If you're really good, people will hear about the guy on the corner of the street that plays every weekend night because he likes the crowd response. He may even get tipped in his guitar case. If he's great, he may persuade the local venue to put him on for a night. He may bring fans and followers to the business. Whadd'ya know, next thing the owner sees some receipts and a head-count for the venue and he decides you're really a crowd pleaser. He will put you on and thus you are on track to make a living off of doing what you love. If the bar is empty, then you take a chance in life and head to the metropolitan to get noticed.If bills are piling up and life has you down, then the world needs ditch-diggers too.And I guarantee you someone out there is really handy with a shovel.
jwb
Footballguy
But here's what you have not addressed - everything you point out has been in place for quite some time. Right down to the guitar guy on the street, etc. It still doesn't explain or justify why you should be able to go to a torrent site - against the copyright holder's wishes - and take what you wish. If the artist wishes to charge for his or her work, and you want that work, then you should pay for it. It's really that simple. In the past, people paid to get the works of the best writers / filmmakers / musicians / etc. It WAS essentially "cream rises". Yes, I'm sure some great band went unnoticed, etc, but generally, if you were good, you got a deal, and you were paid to create stuff. If you were really good, you made a nice living. If you stopped creating good stuff, you went to the bargain bin (etc).
Now, I'm not arguing that the model can't be changed. Yes, maybe artists should get more and cut out the middleman, etc etc. But that's always used in the justification of torrents, which is wrong.
Hey, I'm all for a band releasing their stuff for free if they wish to get exposure. But if they want to charge, they should be able to. Why is that a problem?
Last edited by a moderator:
Chaka
Footballguy
I am not saying it doesn't suck for them I am saying that suck or no suck it's reality. It's fine to bemoan reality but at some point you gotta get over it and figure out how to survive in the new reality. It's best to start dealing with that sooner so let's hear some solutions. I've offered a few but there has to be other ways of dealing with this. What's the answer? More aggressive enforcement? Harsher penalties? ISPs shutting down torrent users?That's been my question jwb. I'm really pretty surprised at the people that are just
jwb
Footballguy
There's never going to be a total solution. There will always be those who will take and justify it.To me, things like iTunes and Netflix streaming offer a good solution - make the content reasonable in price, and easy to get. That's going to be the best you can do.I am not saying it doesn't suck for them I am saying that suck or no suck it's reality. It's fine to bemoan reality but at some point you gotta get over it and figure out how to survive in the new reality. It's best to start dealing with that sooner so let's hear some solutions. I've offered a few but there has to be other ways of dealing with this. What's the answer? More aggressive enforcement? Harsher penalties? ISPs shutting down torrent users?That's been my question jwb. I'm really pretty surprised at the people that are justover this.
J
edit: Bought The Dirty Guv'nahs album on iTunes earlier and been listening to it tonight - if you like that kind of music (stones, etc) these guys are worth your ten bucks.
Last edited by a moderator:
safariplanet
Footballguy
Because it's too easy to get away with (read below).If you had a vending machine installed in your basement, and every weekend your friends came over and bought beverages to the tune of thousands of dollars per year, would you declare it to the IRS if you knew they would demand half? I bet not.
It's a crime of simplicity.
This would by far be the most effective solution, but not the most viable. Torrents are just bits of data transferred between peers. Torrents just get a bad rap because the only entities that world governments can crack down on have been exhausted, now they've split the molecular structure (host servers) into millions of atoms (everyday internet users). It's rats on a ship, and whether it [the intangible content ship] sinks depends more on the music industry itself and less on how the government can help without turning this country into sociocommunist China.
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
Actually, that example, I would probably would report. I own a business, and I do stuff on the up and up - almost everyone I've seen cheat in any substantial way has been burned by it. I'd rather not. Now does this mean I report winnings from my $50 poker game? No. Ok, people do it because can get away with it. That's kinda what I was hoping to hear (instead of justification of why it's right.)
Agree with this - torrents are useful. Let's not shut it all down.The ISP level can help here - a friend used to download movies from mininova. One day, he gets an e-mail from his isp. Just something like "hey, we noticed large amounts of bandwidth... that's not a problem, but it seems like a good time to remind you that illegal downloading is bad, and our records can be subpoenaed. Carry on." (It was worded better than that)
That was enough to get him to stop. He doesn't want to be on the wrong end of a lawsuit, unlikely as that may be. He has a house / family / etc. Way too much to risk so he can see Iron Man before it hits Netflix.
Scratch one pirate.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
