LAist: A sad day for piracy

weston deboer

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:30:15 -0800

and i just got a positive ratio. SUCKS!

khw1204

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:14:07 -0800

The Music Industry is a hugely bloated machine unable to adapt to the new order. The independent labels and the onset of the internet has taken a well deserved bite out of their bottom line. This would be sad if it weren't for the fact that the 'Machine' has little to do with the actual creative process of its artists. No, the majority of money goes to maintaining the status quo. New artists have little hope of recouping the production costs forced upon them. They often sign a record deal for one disc with the option of two more, only to be dropped when their freshman effort fails to ship in quantities the industry deems satisfactory. Never mind the fact that the label failed to promote the music. Never mind the fact that the bulk of production costs are three martini lunches and country club memberships for its executives, not to mention their bloated salaries and bonuses. Artists... Lose the bloated music labels. Create your own labels and support your music through the internet and through touring and merchandise sales. Strike your own distribution deals regionally for a larger slice of the pie. That said, shame to all who articipate in file sharing and illegal downloads. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work. How would you feel is someone decided to take half of your paycheck because they felt like it? Grow up, people. Nothing is free. Those who expect free rarely, if ever, contribute anything of worth anyway.

Toby von Meistersinger

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:09:21 -0800

I think that people have no problems with the artists getting paid for their work, they have problems with large companies making profits while the artists get a small share. That is why the big labels and media companies are running scared, the old exploit the artist for profit model is not working any more. I think most people feel like they are screwing some huge multinational conglomerate instead of artists. And of course they are basically going with boring garbage which they charge too much for. They are dinosaurs and should really be focused on making money off their back catalog and adapting it to the new market while artists can make their own way selling their own work.

csharp7

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:13:25 -0800

Bobzilla: I thought musicians always made the majority of their income off of tours and live performances anyway? That isn't going to diminish any time soon (not with concert scenarios like the Hannah Montana debacle...) so basically we're talking about the record labels here: companies who's sole province is to sit back and collect off the intellectual property rights of the content producers. With online platforms taking off as they are - artists won't have to sell out to labels to get an audience, the good ones will be heard. Another plus side is that without record labels force-feeding us crappy over-produced music, maybe the quality of the art form overall will improve? Well, I can dream.

pd88

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:33:20 -0800

I'd like to point out a factual inaccuracy in this post. With 180,000 paid members, OiNK was the largest invite-only, torrent-based website to go down in the music piracy game. Oink WAS NOT a site with paid membership. As alluded to in the later part of that sentence, the only way to gain membership was to be invited by another member. The only payment was in the form of donations, which were not mandatory for being a member. It seems that the facts are being skewed in an attempt to make the service look bad. Check the Zero Paid forums for more info on this. Its a sad situation that has the music industry spending its money treating music fans like criminals rather than coming up with new, creative ways to sustain themselves and the artists that they represent.

fredcamino

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:08:25 -0800

I truly believe that in the not-so-distant future there will be no "music industry" as we know it. Due to the ease that music translates into the digital form and the ease of that digital form to be copied infinitely at no-cost means there will be no business incentive to create music for a profit (at least the massive profits of the current music industry). The fact is no one is going to spend $15 (or any money for that matter) for something they could get for free just as easily as they can send an email. Music will still be around, and it will probably sound just as good thanks to technology and the democratization of music production equipment, but I don't believe it will remain the huge business it once was.

bobzilla77

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:38:50 -0800

Well on behalf of a content producer: I don't think most people believe that artists should get paid for their work nowadays. The notion seems downright quaint. And never mind the (greedy, self-serving) artists and their (downright evil) record companies. There seems to be a belief that writers, musicians, engineers, studio employees, are no longer entitled to earn a living from their efforts. Any effort to level the playing field on behalf of the content producers is seen as anti-music. While Metallica suing its own fans - and Gene Simmons' threat to do the same - was a bad move in many ways, the European equivalent of RIAA shutting down the equivalent of Napster only makes sense. I don't understand why this gets such an emotional response. It's sure not the end of file-sharing, it's just one tool being taken away.