PlayFair Shutdown

[MacRumors]

MacSlash claims (http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/09/1057246&mode=thread) that Apple has issued a cease and desist order to Sourceforge regarding the iTunes DRM circumvention software reported earlier in the week (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/04/20040405064947.shtml).

No independent confirmation is available regarding the exact sequence of events, but the project's website (http://playfair.sourceforge.net/) is no longer available.

[AssassinOfGates]

Damn

[pb1212580]

OUCH!
Play nice......

[Doctor Q]

You can't stop progress, but you can throw a wrench into the gears to delay it.

[polyesterlester]

http://playfair.sarovar.org/

[Ajmbc]

Is there anything that Apple can do about a company in India hosting the website?

aj

[ZildjianKX]

Is there anything that Apple can do about a company in India hosting the website?

aj

Nope, no DMCA there.

Also, a nice GUI version is now available.

As a note for anyone who is having problems running the software, your iSight might be causing a conflict.

[lindmar]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Here are some great websites so everyone can learn, This such software to remove the DRM are positive things..Read downhill battle's piece on iTunes..
The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly..
Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...


http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html

http://www.lift-band.com
http://www.canfli.org

[GigaWire]

Good it served no purpose anyway. I would much rather have to burn my iTMS music to a disc then rerip it to to share it than have no iTMS at all.

[polyesterlester]

...The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly...

Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...


So you suggest that we don't give the artists any money, rather than giving them 3%?

[lindmar]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is ****** things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.

[thatwendigo]

So you suggest that we don't give the artists any money, rather than giving them 3%?

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

If everyone would buy directly, and artists realized how easy it is to do so now, then things would be so much nicer. The RIAA is parasitic, not benign, and it needs to be excised.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

[lindmar]

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

Such a great idea...
contact me and lets talk...
But seriously..
Thats the way it should be... Fair Trade, fair use.. fair rights.. fair payment for creation...

Great response man!

[nsb3000]

This was going to happen sometime. I would venture to bet it is almost impossible to build a fool-proof copy protection formate ...One of the prices of being the leader in a industry for once is that hackers and others are going to focus on apple more than it competitors.

I am not quite sure how I feel about this ...as an apple/ OS x fan I want them to be successful, but than sometime Apple takes on that draconian mantra that all cooperation's do sometimes, and it seems un-apple. (Didn't part of Apple initial funding come from selling devices that allowed you to use Pay Phones for free? In that light, this is ironic. )

The fact of the matter is, Playfair does not really matter as long as it does not become a main stream product that people like my Mom could use. Right now it is far too complex to a have any real impact.

This was a logical move for apple, but as the DVD copying legal battles have shone, it will take a lot more than a simple cease and desist order to get rid of something like this.

My two cents..

[sethypoo]

Not at all..

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....



I've thought about this, and at first I thought it was a good idea, but it leaves a very wide gap open where a 3rd party (say, a new RIAA) can come into play. By this I mean somehow intercept that $20 and again leave a small amount for the artists themselves.

Sending the artists money directly won't work, ever. I'm sure that if your idea ever takes flight that all the record companies will just write a stipulation into their contracts that artists can't accept money directly in the way in which you are suggesting.

[supatekmedia88]

So, what about a small label that invests all it's money into an artist's manufacturing, marketing (posters+music videos), and recording costs?

Who pays for all that *****?

Who pays the person that discovered and believes in the band?

If I could make copies of sandwiches, god I would
love one right now!

[sethypoo]

So, what about a small label that invests all it's money into an artist's manufacturing, marketing (posters+music videos), and recording costs?

If we were only living in a perfect world. Which we're not, so too bad, this won't work either!

[Sayer]

So I guess the people who make the CDs, the record stores that sell the CDs, the truck drivers that deliver the CDs, the warehouse workers that manage the logistics of the CDs don't need to get paid? Screw them?

What about the guys running the recording studio with gobs of modern electronics and many years worth of experience producing music? Screw them too?

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

Yes the artist deserves to be compensated, but so does everyone else who makes the end product.

Even if you go directly to downloads someone somewhere recorded, produced, mixed and created the files for download. Someone must host the files, manage the connection and more.

You file-swappers want to paint this picture with 3 colors (artist, label, customer) and it's simply now how it is.

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

[pounce]

yes, the labels were pretty much always screwing the bands. the contracts were terrible.

of course illegal downloading is also screwing the bands. now they are getting it from both sides.

fwiw, downhill battle is full of ****. they tend to put the emphasis on the wrong syllable when it comes to the consumers rights to digitally duplicate. they show a lack of understanding of what the label and band relationship is, and the actual economic reality for labels, bands, and others in the industry.

itunes and other legal digital distribution sources are clearly the way of the future. the idea that some reasonable measures would be taken to assure that the rights of the CREATORS OF THIS DIGITAL CONTENT were protected is the area that's been left out. the are portrayed as being big nameless faceless labels or huge rich bands, missing the fact that the industry has a lot more people in it than that who depend on it for a living. i am one of those people. i am an ascap artist and a full time engineer. my own work and the work i record for others has value, and i find most peoples arguments for copying weak. and this technology to digitally copy is used and abused more than a hooker on nickel night. most people i know steal music and movies since the software and hardware to do so is readily available. we are not talking about people who really buy anything. we are talking about just regular theft.

hey, if apple continues to make legal downloading convenient, and slows down the people who are trying to circumvent the system, good for all of us. to be clear, my itunes arrangement gets me more money than my old record labels cd royalty payments. i like legal digital distribution. go apple.

[thatwendigo]

I am not quite sure how I feel about this ...as an apple/ OS x fan I want them to be successful, but than sometime Apple takes on that draconian mantra that all cooperation's do sometimes, and it seems un-apple. (Didn't part of Apple initial funding come from selling devices that allowed you to use Pay Phones for free? In that light, this is ironic. )

I have the very same issue, since I am almost universally anti-DRM and pro-informational freedom. People ought to pay for things because it's the right thing to do, and the artists should be comnpensated for their music, not the RIAA and industry groups for their ability to maintain a fully parasitic structure. At this point in the game, they add nothing to the market, but they pull ridiculous amounts of money in because that largely have a lock on traditional channels, and are doing their damndest to plug any new ones and stop them before they can really take off.

I like Apple, and I'd rather them hold the keys to DRM than Microsoft or Sony, but I'd still much rather ther not be any DRM at all. Still, I have to grimace and wring my hands, though, because the iTMS is selling iPods like hotcakes, and that's helping bolster Apple's warchest at the moment.

It's a thorny issue.

I've thought about this, and at first I thought it was a good idea, but it leaves a very wide gap open where a 3rd party (say, a new RIAA) can come into play. By this I mean somehow intercept that $20 and again leave a small amount for the artists themselves.

Opening mail is a federal crime. Send them cash, check, or money order through the postal system, and unless there's some ridiculous clause that allows all mail to be censored before it's read, the RIAA or another group can't touch it.

Sending the artists money directly won't work, ever. I'm sure that if your idea ever takes flight that all the record companies will just write a stipulation into their contracts that artists can't accept money directly in the way in which you are suggesting.

So? Anyone with $200,000 in startup capital for two willing programmers, a couple of xserves and xserve RAIDs, and an optical line could have a musicians collective selling directly to the public in a matter of weeks. Apple's shown that WebObjects can power such a thing now, and PayPal (or something similar) could be the payment service.

The only problem is that the music companies own anything produced under their contracts in perpetia. It would have to be new music, indie tracks, and other material, but it could easily be done.

I don't know why it hasn't been, yet, other than fear of the RIAA's draconian reach into the legislative and judicial system.

[maxterpiece]

The heart of this issue is, as usual, the public. Most people don't want to think about what music they really like. They don't want to have to wade through all the wild stuff that gets put out. They just want something that everyone else listens to and that they can bob their heads to - something that they don't have to necessarily have a reason for liking. The record companies are the ones who promote all this stuff and invest huge dollars in making pop bands mainstream. Mainstream music isn't going anywhere until there's some kind of huge worldwide intellectual revolution. Almost all truly financially successful musician is successful 97% because of the hype and production people who surround them and 3% because of the talent that they provide. The record companies are here to stay.

[thatwendigo]

So I guess the people who make the CDs, the record stores that sell the CDs, the truck drivers that deliver the CDs, the warehouse workers that manage the logistics of the CDs don't need to get paid? Screw them?

It's an outdated model of economics, and you're going to see this increasingly drying up as a source of money for anyone. The shipping and warehousing will still exist, but traditional retail is on the way out, especially when it comes to information media like books, music, and movies.

What about the guys running the recording studio with gobs of modern electronics and many years worth of experience producing music? Screw them too?

Two words: **** 'em.

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

I belive in fair compensation to the artist, but not to their greedy owners. Sorry.

Yes the artist deserves to be compensated, but so does everyone else who makes the end product.

Cut out the middle man, because he no longer is necessary.

You file-swappers want to paint this picture with 3 colors (artist, label, customer) and it's simply now how it is.

I know this is a typo, but you accidentally spoke the truth. The paradigm is shifting, and as information technology advances, broadband universal access becomes the lay of the landscape, and artists wise up, then there will only be two colors, with possibly a secondary shade of one (artists' groups).

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

So we're the ones who don't understand the situation, and yet you're suggesting they self-record? Many contracts bind the artists to their label and make it so that they own anything that is created while under their thumb. That makes it a bit difficult, now, doesn't it?

[SiliconAddict]

Too late. The source is on the net now. Its like piss in a pool. Once its in there its in there.

[ITR 81]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is ****** things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.

So your saying F U to all the indi labels trying to just survive in this dog eat dog world...

CD costs rising? WTF are you talking about? I can still buy most CD's for around $10-12 bucks?!?!

Most all surveys are crap anyway...because I can pay someone to make them say just about anything.

[AlbinoPigeon]

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

What it's going to take is a major artist (I hate that term, but you all know what I mean - a U2, Justin Timberlake, etc) to not renew their contract with their record company and go it solo. This could be very possible because:

1) Big artists already have a lot of name recognition and hence dont need a whole lot of record company side publicity (they usually get it free from the media and have money to handle a bit of their own)

2) They have enough money to handle any up front costs (setting up distrubution deals with record stores and other similar stuff)

I really think if something like this happened it would revolutionize the record industry into a more organic business. Only smaller record comanies would be left to help new artists, and there's no problem with that because I think the consensus is that smaller record companies are nicer.

[ITR 81]

It's an outdated model of economics, and you're going to see this increasingly drying up as a source of money for anyone. The shipping and warehousing will still exist, but traditional retail is on the way out, especially when it comes to information media like books, music, and movies.



Two words: **** 'em.

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.



I belive in fair compensation to the artist, but not to their greedy owners. Sorry.



Cut out the middle man, because he no longer is necessary.



I know this is a typo, but you accidentally spoke the truth. The paradigm is shifting, and as information technology advances, broadband universal access becomes the lay of the landscape, and artists wise up, then there will only be two colors, with possibly a secondary shade of one (artists' groups).



So we're the ones who don't understand the situation, and yet you're suggesting they self-record? Many contracts bind the artists to their label and make it so that they own anything that is created while under their thumb. That makes it a bit difficult, now, doesn't it?


You and your job is now outdated.

You are now unemployed.

Do I care? NO!

Does that sound good? No, because you sound as bad as some greedy fat cats I've met.

Now go tell that to the 1,000+'s of workers in the music industry and let them take it out on you.

Most artist I know can not record a decent recording on their own. Maybe techno can be done this way but not your normal rock or indi bands because of all the different instruments and many variables that can popup during a recording.
When bands record their own music most of the time it sounds just like that and that usually means it sounds like Demo tape..with ton's of background noises and echoes.

Remember not everyone is computer guru's or sound guru's.

[Photorun]

CD costs rising? WTF are you talking about? I can still buy most CD's for around $10-12 bucks?!?!

Wow? Like, where? Disc-go-round? The Tower down the hill (Queen Anne) from me in Seattle charges $17.99 or MORE for some first run discs, sure they'll have "super savers" but they're $12.99, I remember when $12.99 was the cost of a CD, super savers used to be $7.99. There's a Tower in LA I was at that was $2 more a record than that. I live in NY now and it's about $18.99 for CDs in the Tower near 96th.Sure maybe Amazon has some CDs for $11.99 but then you have to add shipping, unless you buy bulk. Care to share where you're getting CDs from that are so below the market value set by the big evil record companies that screw consumers in both cost and taste?

[thatwendigo]

You and your job is now outdated.

You are now unemployed.

Do I care? NO!

Does that sound good? No, because you sound as bad as some greedy fat cats I've met.

It's reality, man. Adapt or be phased out... What do you think that companies are doing all the time, as long as we're in a capitalist economy? Did anyone feel bad for the programmers who joined dot-coms, other than perhaps other programmers?

I'm reevaluating my own career path at the moment, and trying to get out of my dead-end job before I'm replaced by someone more naive and willing to take crap for less pay.

Now go tell that to the 1,000+'s of workers in the music industry and let them take it out on you.

Beccause mob rule should be encouraged? :rolleyes:

Most artist I know can not record a decent recording on their own. Maybe techno can be done this way but not your normal rock or indi bands because of all the different instruments and many variables that can popup during a recording.
When bands record their own music most of the time it sounds just like that and that usually means it sounds like Demo tape..with ton's of background noises and echoes.

Remember not everyone is computer guru's or sound guru's.

Actually, I'm in the process of helping someone I work with get a studio together for his band and some of the other local acts. We're looking into options, and it's going to have to be kind of low-end at first, but that doesn't really matter at the moment. The target audience is fine with lo-fi, if that's what we end up doing.

We're still in the informational stages, but it's moving. I am neither technology nor sound guru, though I am quite a bit more informed than the average person on both topics, and where I bring in computer ane electronics, they're going to be advising on some of the sound issues.

In a very small way, I'm practicing what I preach.

[supatekmedia88]

I'm telling you, all the arguments people put up for stealing music are ridiculous...

Just say you stole it, you got it for free! You are the winner!
Mean record companies! Vive l'artiste!

The artist gets to get in the limo and go to the mansion anyway.

sure.

someone e-mail me that sandwich, cause the royalty check was $300.

you guys think I'm kidding !!

[technocoy]

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.

eeeeeehhhhhh!! wrong answer.

Every single artist in existence would have to be pretty damn multi-talented to pull off a real career all by themselves. you are obviouslt pretty ignorant to what goes into production. or you are just ignoring the facts to try and make your argument sound like the right one. look at all the media that goes along with being a successful group. I guess every band "with a little knowledge" can be a professional photographer, print artist, website and graphic designer, video producer, cameraman, lighting technician, roadie, stage engineer, studio technician, event producer, media salesman, accountant, etc, etc.

And they're still going to have time to play and create their art? HA HA HA HA!

for the sake of argument, let's say they didn't tour, advertise, make large sums of money, or do anything for that matter except record their music. even with the software and computers out there that make it easier to pull off your own recordings, whose going to do the monitoring and mixing while they are playing? then they're going to just post it to the web and hope someone finds it? These things aren't cheap. just setting up the acoustics in the studio can be expensive (when done properly).

either you don't know any creatives or aren't one yourself, but most of them just want to make their art and do it well and in volume, not deal with everything under the sun. 80 percent of artist would sound like crap without a good studio tech and producer at least. and you need advertising in this world if you want to be seen, no matter how miniscule it may be. still ain't cheap.

I could go on about it all day, I AGREE that the record labels are crooked and that there needs to be restructuring. as well as more respect for the artist and more money, but your little pipe dream of no middle man is just that. Don't assume to know the business until your in it. there is alot going on behind the scenes of a succesful artist or group, that most people never fathom. I feel for the independent groups and real artists, but don't make the label artists into some kind of martyrs, even the most contract bound make more in a year than any of us will probably see in our lifetimes. boo-hoo.

the point is that there is no magic media machine that makes a band look and sound good. people work their asses off to put them there, and people should respect that. it bothers me when people like you say **** the middle man, wait till' you are the middle man, and your wife and kids depend on that check, and your passion is recording music and helping a good band go stardom-bound. see how it is when you're in those shoes.

sorry for the rant, we just seem to have a lot of new millenium hippies that think that everything in the whole world grows on trees and all you have to do is pick it's fruits.

PEACE,
technocoy

[grahamtriggs]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Actually, that is crap - but there is still a catch...

iTMS has provided another way to distribute music, that 'compensates' the owners. It's not Apple's fault that the artists don't own their own recordings - it's the artists that signed the deals with the record companies.

iTMS wouldn't exist if Apple didn't deal with the record companies. iTMS wouldn't exist if they tried to dictate to the record companies what percentage an artist would get. iTMS can't change the world if it doesn't exist.

I don't know how much it costs Apple to run iTMS, but I would be surprised if everyone claiming that the amount they get is ludicrous considering 'how little they have to do' isn't grossly underestimating the costs involved - writing the iTunes client software, writing the iTMS server, compressing the audio, placing all the artwork, etc. on the server, processing payments, ongoing storage and bandwidth costs, and more besides.

Bottom line is that if the artists want a better deal for themselves, then they have to deal with Apple/iTMS directly - that iTMS exists gives rise to that possibility. The caveats being that Apple were not - and may still not - be in a position to do that yet, that the artists may still be tied into their recording contracts, and there is the threat of record companies withdrawing their support (and therefore catalogue - although that would be an illegal monopolistic - well, more cartell maybe - practise).

[bumfilter]

Is there anything that Apple can do about a company in India hosting the website?

aj

Yes they can. The law applies to the country the files were uploaded from, possibly as well as the country they are hosted in.

Now, I have no idea how Apple could prove it without ISP information but if they could get it, the file would have to be taken down, then someone in India would have to upload it.

I'm not a legal person, so this may not apply in some circumstances but I was told this (by a solicitor and by MCPS UK) when I needed to apply for a licence to broadcast music.

[sonyrules]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Here are some great websites so everyone can learn, This such software to remove the DRM are positive things..Read downhill battle's piece on iTunes..
The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly..
Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...


http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html

http://www.lift-band.com
http://www.canfli.org


Thats a great idea, so lets get this, download a **** load of music, so the artist GETS NO MONEY!! Brilliant idea, you know what, If they get 3%, thats 3% they wernt getting before.

[thatwendigo]

Every single artist in existence would have to be pretty damn multi-talented to pull off a real career all by themselves. you are obviouslt pretty ignorant to what goes into production. or you are just ignoring the facts to try and make your argument sound like the right one. look at all the media that goes along with being a successful group. I guess every band "with a little knowledge" can be a professional photographer, print artist, website and graphic designer, video producer, cameraman, lighting technician, roadie, stage engineer, studio technician, event producer, media salesman, accountant, etc, etc.

Wrong, sir. I am saying, however, that most of that is entirely unnecessary and irrelevant, with a little cooperation among the artists, or a little enterprise by the bands that actually want to do something about their terrible contracts.

The 'media' in question is irrelevant in a format where people can listen before buying (from the comfort of their homes), have databases of similar artists (as reported by users), have the comfort of knowing they're actually supporting the artist, and a whole host of other things that would be possible with an online distribution method (many of which were pioneered by the 'illegal' filesharing networks).

And they're still going to have time to play and create their art? HA HA HA HA!

So hire a sound engineer and a graphics artist on a comission basis. I hate how textbook communist this sounds, but if the people below the level of executives worked together, they could all make more money than they do now.

for the sake of argument, let's say they didn't tour, advertise, make large sums of money, or do anything for that matter except record their music. even with the software and computers out there that make it easier to pull off your own recordings, whose going to do the monitoring and mixing while they are playing? then they're going to just post it to the web and hope someone finds it? These things aren't cheap. just setting up the acoustics in the studio can be expensive (when done properly).

See above. Also, since touring is about the only way that bands make money in the current system, it can hardly hurt to at least make more per sale than they do. The way I've read it, most bands that aren't headliners but who have a contract end up making around $40-60k a year, after everything's said and done, and that's if they do well. That wouldn't be heard to break at all, for a talented group with a little drive.

either you don't know any creatives or aren't one yourself, but most of them just want to make their art and do it well and in volume, not deal with everything under the sun.

As mentioned, I'm helping a friend who's band has been touring a lot lately to try to set up some studio space. I know plenty of "creatives," even if I'm not a "real" musician myself.

and you need advertising in this world if you want to be seen, no matter how miniscule it may be. still ain't cheap.

Dead free, for my friend's band. We do word of mouth, flyers, and internet postings, along with their getting on tours with other bands so that they can group promote.

I could go on about it all day....will probably see in our lifetimes. boo-hoo.

I recall an ad campaign:
Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do. Think Different.

the point is that there is no magic media machine that makes a band look and sound good. people work their asses off to put them there, and people should respect that. it bothers me when people like you say **** the middle man, wait till' you are the middle man, and your wife and kids depend on that check, and your passion is recording music and helping a good band go stardom-bound. see how it is when you're in those shoes.

Ah, I see. Well, calm down, because everyone is forced into this position when they work with technology. I'm sorry if you take personal offense, but I'm not talking about studio and sound personell, but the "fat cats" you spoke of before - the studio executives. You could still find work, and probably better conditions than you have now, but it would take a little different approach.

sorry for the rant, we just seem to have a lot of new millenium hippies that think that everything in the whole world grows on trees and all you have to do is pick it's fruits.

New millenium hippies? Hardly!

I am a technofetishist, in the sense that I look for new applications of existing or emerging technology all around me, and try to have enough to do what interestes me. Opportunity is out there. Have you forgotten that the company that prompted this forum to exist was once two guys in a garage? Many companies start down at the bottom, but even more importantly, many social movements do, too. This country was just some guys griping over taxation, at one point, while under British rule.

[Fireball1244]

What about artists who don't want their works put on P2P networks? Should they just get screwed over to? Does the creator and owner of the product you're spreading about not get any say in how their product is marketed?

I'm a writer. Do you want to screw over me and my publisher, too, by putting our wares on these thievery networks?

At what level do you reach someone you won't screw over in your avarice-driven crusade to take for free whatever you want?

[technocoy]

so every band can and should learn every piece of technology that is required to get their music out there? and you proved my point on so many levels. I realise your point about the big wigs, and i too, agree. but you also are discounting that things like tours and videos and such require large amounts of cash to produce and distribute. yes, if you only want to point to a music download site then thats great, but once you make it your fans are going to want well produced concerts as well as other media: bandsites, memorabilia, videos and the like. this adds up and then lo and behold the artist isn't left with much more than he would have gotten if they were with a record company. I take no offense personally as i myself am a motivated technogeek, but i also feel that the view you have presented is a little skewed by your passion for what you are doing and the optimism off making it work (as i wish you well) and i'm sure that you will be successful. All i am saying is that it's a centric view. what you and your friends are finding easy or common sense may not apply to someone else. better yet they may want someone to take care of those things for them as long as they make a wonderful living and can continue to make their art. it wouldn't take much for me to quit my job and just make artwork all day everyday with a showing several times a month. what comes into play with a lot of groups is greed. 60,000? if the label that supports them is making for times that in profit it starts to be a little screwed up. but how can the band that's making upwards of 500,000yr complain that much? the label markets them, gets their gigs, and makes them sound perfect in the studio. and for more than most people make in ten years, they get to do what they love more than anything else, write and play music that might make a difference in peoples lives. doesn't sound so bad to me. but then again thats MY point of view. make sense? didn't mean to seem like i was attacking you, as i agree with you on much of what you're thinking, just pointing out that that approach wouldn't work for everyone. some artists just want to play and make a good living doing it. let someone else handle the headaches. Thats being a rock star. get to involved and you become a business man, and then you are THE MAN.

[cait-sith]

i think direct access to information, specifically music, has spoiled everyone and stifled their creativity.

i remember when there was no option but to hop down to the music store and buy the cd. and artists were good enough such that you could "trust" their album would probably be at least more good than bad.

i remember being excited to get it home, rip it open, throw it in the stereo, and listen to it. over and over. it was great. music was awesome.

now, you can download all manner of crap in seconds. it's meaningless. you get the track, listen to it a bit, forget about it. there's no excitement there. it's become background noise in workplaces and homes.

just like unlimited access to textual information has made us lazy and cheapened the knowledge accessed, so has unlimited access to music cheapened it.

we all work, or will work. we all have bills. doesn't it feel good to earn something? or are we that detached and driven to consume that we just shovel whatever we can get our hands on into our mouthes as fast as possible, not bothering to taste?

this is a plus for apple. they get to develop better algorithims for encrypting their information. technology will move forward because of this. if they react quickly, they will be reputed for their well organized engineering team that quickly responded to a crisis.

[Sedulous]

I'm on the fence about this issue. Sometimes music I received for free I ultimately buy... but wouldn't have bothered to buy in the first place had I not heard it. iTMS addresses this to a great extent.

Some people here clearly don't appreciate the services that "Labels" provide. It's not like you can set up in your bedroom with your stolen mac, your pirated copy of Garageband, and make the next great rock album with samples from your pirated MP3 collection (but if you want to try, that would be great).

On the other hand "Labels" behave much like monopolists. Artists definitely get the shaft... regardless how much money they end up with. And it isn't just the "Labels". Anyone here recall the Pearl Jam battle with Ticketmaster? Ticketmaster is such a POS. Why doesn't anyone object to all the bloated contrived fees attached to ticket sales?

[eSnow]

I know this is a typo, but you accidentally spoke the truth. The paradigm is shifting, and as information technology advances, broadband universal access becomes the lay of the landscape, and artists wise up, then there will only be two colors, with possibly a secondary shade of one (artists' groups).


What about not patronizing the artists but letting them choose the way they want their work to be distributed?

[amnesiac1984]

You all seem to be missing the point. Those of you saying that bands need to start doing things themselves are missing the point, and those of you saying that we underestimate the value of the system are missing the point too. The point is that its not just the artist getting screwed, its pretty much everyone involved except the record company bosses and the fat cat producer. In a traditional pop music set up you'll have a producer come in and he'll have a bunch of girls to record and promote and then the engineer does all the recording while the producer sits back in a huge chair and kind of tells you whether or not he likes it. Then at the end of it, the engineer will be paid for his time and the girls will be given a bit of money, they studio will be paid a bit then these wads of cash coming from the astronomical sales of the record goes straight into the bank account of the label.

A true producer does loads of work and creates half of the decent sound of a band, Simon Cowell and the like goes round dictating music that we should be listening too and then taking all the money, no wonder mainstream music's so poor because how can anything beautiful come out of something so corrupt.

[redAPPLE]

[QUOTE=AlbinoPigeon]What it's going to take is a major artist (I hate that term, but you all know what I mean - a U2, Justin Timberlake, etc) to not renew their contract with their record company and go it solo. This could be very possible because:
QUOTE]

i think this is what Pearl Jam is doing. their contract with Sony expired(?) and now...uh... i think they are marketing their own stuff.

[NOV]

As I'm involved in the music bussiness myself, I really can follow thatwendigo.

I think that it has to do with some sort of peoples laziness. We have a certain way of how things work, bringing income to a certain group of people and now there are developments that take the money away from the people. It's easy to shout that "things ain't fair" but things are changing so fast that it becomes a question of: eat or be eaten.

Despite the uncertainties of this transition period, I do believe that music industry people should take advantage of the new possibilities. Those possibilities start in the recording process. It's fairly easy and cheap nowadays to make a full blown production for less money than ever before. So yes, it's possible for a new band to finance a production.

Secondly, you have enormous possibilities to promote your material through the Internet and you can easily reach potential customers.

So I really think music industry people shouldn't hang on too much to old paradigms but should invest time and money to use the new possibilities.

Do I believe online shops like iTunes are the end phase of this development?No. I don't. The end phase will be when the artist will publish and sell the music by themselves. Then portals will emerge that give the customer a cumulative overview based on target audiences.

It simply takes time......too many people are yet involved with old thinking patterns that they can not change. But new generations of people will grow up not familiar with these old paradigms but fully biased on the new possibilities and find ways to make money with those possibilities.

[mvc]

Thatwendigo, it seems to me exceedingly arrogant, and possibly a bit ignorant of you to imply that sound engineers are unnecessary to the process of creating quality recorded music. Most musicians cannot record a decent track or create a professional sounding mix on their own, it's an art form and a craft, with it's own skill set which the simple influx of new technology cannot replace, just like being a musician is a craft and an art form. Everyone who contributes should get paid.

Noone gets paid when people share music for free.

Musicians need sound engineers and producers and people to market and promote their music in the real world - they may not appear to need fat cat executives, but that's business. Popular music is a product, like hamburgers.

[greg75]

In mp3.com's heyday, I downloaded indie stuff that was way better than the crap that Britney Spears and her wonderful sound engineers come up with.

Btw, the cease and desist letter Apple sent (http://playfair.sarovar.org/Apple--4_8_2004.pdf).

[greg75]

Yes they can. The law applies to the country the files were uploaded from, possibly as well as the country they are hosted in.
A US law applies to the US, not India. The author might be liable under the DMCA if uploading a file once is considered distribution, but there's nothing Apple can do to stop the site in India from hosting the tool.

[daRAT]

So I guess the people who make the CDs, the record stores that sell the CDs, the truck drivers that deliver the CDs, the warehouse workers that manage the logistics of the CDs don't need to get paid? Screw them?

What about the guys running the recording studio with gobs of modern electronics and many years worth of experience producing music? Screw them too?

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

Yes the artist deserves to be compensated, but so does everyone else who makes the end product.

Even if you go directly to downloads someone somewhere recorded, produced, mixed and created the files for download. Someone must host the files, manage the connection and more.

You file-swappers want to paint this picture with 3 colors (artist, label, customer) and it's simply now how it is.

If the artist really wanted to make some money they just need to go on tour. Or self-record and produce and release their music. OR you can just listen to the radio, it's completely free.

Finally! A common sense post!

As one person siad lets give the artist 100%! Duh, so who pays the costs of delivery, promotion, recording time etc?

Furthermore, why should I buy a whole album, when all I want is one or two songs? This is were online music stores shine, being able to buy the songs you like!!

Most authors of books make between 6% and 8% per book, and from that around 20% that goes to thier agent (if they have one.)

Support the artist, but be realistic

[ITR 81]

Wow? Like, where? Disc-go-round? The Tower down the hill (Queen Anne) from me in Seattle charges $17.99 or MORE for some first run discs, sure they'll have "super savers" but they're $12.99, I remember when $12.99 was the cost of a CD, super savers used to be $7.99. There's a Tower in LA I was at that was $2 more a record than that. I live in NY now and it's about $18.99 for CDs in the Tower near 96th.Sure maybe Amazon has some CDs for $11.99 but then you have to add shipping, unless you buy bulk. Care to share where you're getting CDs from that are so below the market value set by the big evil record companies that screw consumers in both cost and taste?

We don't even have a Tower Records store.
I tend to shop Circuit City, Best Buys, Target, and local indi shops..to get my prices. We also have alot of local area chain stores that carry low cost music as well(high $16.99, low $8.99, avg price on new stuff is $12-13.99)

Mall shops are always normally higher then retail outlets and Tower and Virgin Record stores are always on the high side. The only good thing about Tower and Virgin is they get few exclusives every now and then.

[ITR 81]

I'm on the fence about this issue. Sometimes music I received for free I ultimately buy... but wouldn't have bothered to buy in the first place had I not heard it. iTMS addresses this to a great extent.

Some people here clearly don't appreciate the services that "Labels" provide. It's not like you can set up in your bedroom with your stolen mac, your pirated copy of Garageband, and make the next great rock album with samples from your pirated MP3 collection (but if you want to try, that would be great).

On the other hand "Labels" behave much like monopolists. Artists definitely get the shaft... regardless how much money they end up with. And it isn't just the "Labels". Anyone here recall the Pearl Jam battle with Ticketmaster? Ticketmaster is such a POS. Why doesn't anyone object to all the bloated contrived fees attached to ticket sales?

I'm with you on ticketmaster!!

But I was always told 3% of something is better then 3% of nothing.
If everyone shared my songs on P2P I make no money...to live off of.
I make no money to make that next album...I eventually fall into that "One hit wonder" or "Didn't make it" category.

When some indi bands make more then $100k+ apiece I consider them to doing pretty well. I wish I could make $100k+ a yr doing what I love. But I can't I have to work my arse off to make enough money because I have no investors(labels) to back me and get me out running.
Maybe in 2-3 yrs. By then I wonder will I be too old for this *****.

[nubero]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Here are some great websites so everyone can learn, This such software to remove the DRM are positive things..Read downhill battle's piece on iTunes..
The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly..


The Music LABELS don't do anything for the Artists. And when you have more than 50 Million downloads that all cost 99c I wouldn't say that this is nothing compared to P2P where you can have it for "free".
I took me ages to find something the last time I tried and the quality was fu**ing crap. And I don't think THAT's going to make the artists better known or richer...

--- --- --- --- ---
My free Desktop Pictures!
http://homepage.mac.com/nuber

[Thor74]

We (myself included) are all a bunch of thieves. For all you that posted you want to send the artist money directly but in the mean time "here are links to help you rip them off for now..." your desire to "help out the artists" is a crock.

Pure and simple. There is NO system set up to pay the artists directly and there will not be for years to come... So you will keep spreading the "i wanna help the artist" dribble while you rip-off and help others rip-off the artists of today.

People so obviously hypocritical are..... grrrrr nm Not gonna insult folks... But come on.. drop the nice guy act and just be the pirate you obviously are.

Long ago i collected like 80+ gigs of mp3's (that's right i am a thief to many an artists) but have not collected mp3's in ages.

I am a thief... just like you "helpers of the artists".. but at least I am not a hypocrite. I go to concerts and spend my music money there, but that fails to make up for most, if ANY, of the stuff I stole. No dark cloud hanging over my head. I once felt bad about it but my life is too busy to worry over something like a digital file. It somehow feels less "real" as say stealing dvd from a store. Humans are like that. Some are honest but most have no compunction about stealing if they have little to no chance of getting caught.

We are all thieves folks. Just deal with it, but for god's sake please stop this "I wanna help the artist more" BS.. It's making my nauseous....

:mad: :eek: :mad:

[Thor74]

btw.. asked that lindmar's direct links be edited.. Come on folks.. Wanna get MacRumors into trouble as well?!! Baka..... :mad:

[morkintosh]

You can't stop progress, but you can throw a wrench into the gears to delay it.

eh, so you'll just have to go to the myriad of mirrors that will be popping up all over the place.

[musicpyrite]

I really don't haven any comment on this, as you need a credit card to buy iTMUS songs; but if you didn't need a credit card to use your free song from Pepsi, then I would have nearly 50 songs. I'm a pretty sad Apple fan, I haven't bought one iTMS song :(

[greg75]

btw.. asked that lindmar's direct links be edited.. Come on folks.. Wanna get MacRumors into trouble as well?!! Baka..... :mad:
Why? Did you find anything illegal on the sites he linked to?

[schatten]

What people don't realize is that if they log into ITMS and download ITMS songs, then they're agreeing to ITMS rules. It's a contract. Did anyone read it?

Apple is selling a product- a product they are legally allowed to sell by contract with the record labels. You, as a consumer, have to abide by Apple's rules if you want to use their services, just as Apple has to abide by the labels' rules. Illegally sharing ITMS songs breaks Apple's rules, and in turn the record labels' rules. Pretty soon, the labels will get pissed and stop providing contend for ITMS. Then nobody gets what they want, all because some greedy little bitches can't fork over $.99 per song.

And don't give me that "The artists are getting screwed by ITMS, just like the free (illegal) download apps" crap. A few pennies per download is a damn sight more than nothing (it adds up, you know) and if the artists have a problem with how their music is being sold they should have considered that before signing the rights to their art away.

I don't feel sorry for the artists. The last I checked, "Outkast", Britney, & co. weren't living in poverty. They live far more extravagant lives than I do. I don't feel sorry for the record labels or Apple either. They're not hurting.

I do have a problem with people who are too weak to own up to the fact that pirating music is theft. Take respnsibility. Apple's not in the wrong for filing suit. They have to protect their assets. Apple never promised anybody free music (except the Pepsi campaign, but that's moot). Everyone (and that means EVERYONE) who has downloaded a song from Apple's ITMS agreed to the Terms & Conditions. Those terms & conditions were a legal contract promising NOT to share the music illegally.

PlayFair? hardlly. Take responsibility. It's PlayUnFair.

[pounce]

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.
this is the most hilariously uninformed and incorrect post on the subject. i don't know how often you work with bands. for me its everyday. some of these boys need help wiping their asses, never mind the suggestion that they could record and mix (on what gear?), manage, book, negotiate contracts, etc. on thier own. it's a HUGE undertaking. and despite the history of unfair major label contracts, there still is a NEED for a number of people who are professional to help a band in many different ways. bands absolutely cannot accomplish what you are suggesting on their own. the only ones who come close to being on their own and still having a huge audience (pearljam, prince, etc.) also had a huge label backing them in the first place which is the only reason you even know who they are. no sir, bands aren't and may never be self reliant. i've heard the bands that are. it would be a very rare exception that could really record themselves well, do good business, book shows, handle all those sorts of things. it's much more work than you realize. and as a full time recording engineer, i can tell you the difference between the work of a professional with high end production gear and a bands efforts at home is pretty big. we cannot cut out the people who bands need. we can and should change the model, but your ill informed opinion is a hinderance and not a help. bands and fans need better advice than what you are giving. and your arrogance aside, you sir no nothing about this business at all. i figured that out in three posts of yours. that said. i'll just stick around here long enough to suss out when the new g5's come out so i can get my third daw up and running.

[FunkyGuitarGirl]

What it's going to take is a major artist (I hate that term, but you all know what I mean - a U2, Justin Timberlake, etc) to not renew their contract with their record company and go it solo. This could be very possible because:

1) Big artists already have a lot of name recognition and hence dont need a whole lot of record company side publicity (they usually get it free from the media and have money to handle a bit of their own)

2) They have enough money to handle any up front costs (setting up distrubution deals with record stores and other similar stuff)

I really think if something like this happened it would revolutionize the record industry into a more organic business. Only smaller record comanies would be left to help new artists, and there's no problem with that because I think the consensus is that smaller record companies are nicer.

It's been done! His name is Prince! And he is funky!

[FunkyGuitarGirl]

this is the most hilariously uninformed and incorrect post on the subject. i don't know how often you work with bands. for me its everyday. some of these boys need help wiping their asses, never mind the suggestion that they could record and mix (on what gear?), manage, book, negotiate contracts, etc. on thier own. it's a HUGE undertaking. and despite the history of unfair major label contracts, there still is a NEED for a number of people who are professional to help a band in many different ways. bands absolutely cannot accomplish what you are suggesting on their own. the only ones who come close to being on their own and still having a huge audience (pearljam, prince, etc.) also had a huge label backing them in the first place which is the only reason you even know who they are. no sir, bands aren't and may never be self reliant. i've heard the bands that are. it would be a very rare exception that could really record themselves well, do good business, book shows, handle all those sorts of things. it's much more work than you realize. and as a full time recording engineer, i can tell you the difference between the work of a professional with high end production gear and a bands efforts at home is pretty big. we cannot cut out the people who bands need. we can and should change the model, but your ill informed opinion is a hinderance and not a help. bands and fans need better advice than what you are giving. and your arrogance aside, you sir no nothing about this business at all. i figured that out in three posts of yours. that said. i'll just stick around here long enough to suss out when the new g5's come out so i can get my third daw up and running.

Thanks Pounce... as a working musician TRYING to get signed to an indie or one of the smaller majors, I appreciate your input... Since my bandmates and I, along with our manager (who does booking, PR, Musical directing and 5 million other things) are doing this on our own, I have an understanding of what it takes to make quality product, keep the band in tip top shape (musically and otherwise), tour, promote, etc. This issue is simply not cut and dry. I DO wish that the big boys would wake up and understand that the day of the dinosaur IS coming to an end... If the majors would STOP being so scared of this technology and LEARN about it, I think it would TRULY revolutionize music making and appreciation.

[~Shard~]

What people don't realize is that if they log into ITMS and download ITMS songs, then they're agreeing to ITMS rules. It's a contract. Did anyone read it?

Apple is selling a product- a product they are legally allowed to sell by contract with the record labels. You, as a consumer, have to abide by Apple's rules if you want to use their services, just as Apple has to abide by the labels' rules. Illegally sharing ITMS songs breaks Apple's rules, and in turn the record labels' rules. Pretty soon, the labels will get pissed and stop providing contend for ITMS. Then nobody gets what they want, all because some greedy little bitches can't fork over $.99 per song.

And don't give me that "The artists are getting screwed by ITMS, just like the free (illegal) download apps" crap. A few pennies per download is a damn sight more than nothing (it adds up, you know) and if the artists have a problem with how their music is being sold they should have considered that before signing the rights to their art away.

I don't feel sorry for the artists. The last I checked, "Outkast", Britney, & co. weren't living in poverty. They live far more extravagant lives than I do. I don't feel sorry for the record labels or Apple either. They're not hurting.

I do have a problem with people who are too weak to own up to the fact that pirating music is theft. Take respnsibility. Apple's not in the wrong for filing suit. They have to protect their assets. Apple never promised anybody free music (except the Pepsi campaign, but that's moot). Everyone (and that means EVERYONE) who has downloaded a song from Apple's ITMS agreed to the Terms & Conditions. Those terms & conditions were a legal contract promising NOT to share the music illegally.

PlayFair? hardlly. Take responsibility. It's PlayUnFair.

Nothing really to add, but I just wanted to say nice post - well thought-out, well-conveyed and correct - when it comes down to it, stealing is stealing. :cool:

[bumfilter]

Imagine there was a record company, that was open to all aspects of music technology in the distribution of their music, charged a fair rate to us customers, was fair to musicians, was just basically the Ned Flanders of the music business but possibly not as annoying.

Do you think there is enough artists out there, who would pro-activley search for such a record company, instead of going for all the "glitz and glamour" of say, Sony or Universal?

Secondly, do you think such a business (it is a business after all) could survive for any length of time?

I'd love to see such a record company but unless there is support for it, things will continue the way they do.

[greg75]

What people don't realize is that if they log into ITMS and download ITMS songs, then they're agreeing to ITMS rules. It's a contract. Did anyone read it?
Do you know what the legal definition of a contract is? Somehow I doubt it.

I do have a problem with people who are too weak to own up to the fact that pirating music is theft.
As I suspected, you know much about the law.

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner," that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, "is an infringer of the copyright."
-- Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun back in 1985, in Dowling v. the United States"

[greg75]

Imagine there was a record company, that was open to all aspects of music technology in the distribution of their music, charged a fair rate to us customers, was fair to musicians, was just basically the Ned Flanders of the music business but possibly not as annoying.
http://magnatune.com : "We're a record label. But we're not evil."

[Thor74]

Why? Did you find anything illegal on the sites he linked to?

The same items that were asked to be pulled from SForge. Although not direct links to the files themselves. His post links to the sites that do have direct links. Never underestimate the power of a company like Apple to try and punish sites like MacRumors for small infractions.

If the software violates their rights on the songs, then it is just plain common sense not to have direct links to that software or sites. Even if Apple has not won or even taken the issue to court yet.

Go do a networksolutions.com "whois" on MacRumors.. it's run here in the US, where we do have Copyright laws that are actually enforced at times.

Why even post something dumb that could remotely get a great site like this in trouble? The rumors alone get it into issues with some Apple folks I am sure. Now lets help pirate music from here to?! Uhmmm yeah.. no thanks...
:rolleyes:

[e-coli]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

So who's going to pay for all the PR, tour bookings and related costs, media buys and related advertising costs? Who's going to pay for the studio time, mixing time? Who's going to pay for CD production, warehousing, and distribution?

Although I agree with you the artists need more of a cut, what you're suggesting is highly unrealistic. Besides, the terms of the artists contracts CLEARLY state what they're getting themselves into.

The "alternative" needs to come from the artists themselves, not from the recording industry. Case in point: Dave Matthews. Didn't like the deals coming across the table from the major record studios, so he formed his own label. He did just fine. The White Stripes did the same.

[greg75]

Why even post something dumb that could remotely get a great site like this in trouble?
Indeed. Why did the macrumors administrator post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=781022&postcount=1) a link to the playfair site? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the administrator has heard of a thing called Freedom of Speech and is not afraid to stand up to corporate bullies.

[Sabenth]

Sup guys this debate still going on..??

Simple fact is this if you download music of itms you are in a legal binding contract for the usa seeming usa is the only place were suppose to be based to download the music on there ....

Its like apple vs apple . Apple broke its contract with apple and they are trying to make it quite clear that you can not breake a contract...


Why would you share a music file you just bought in the first place its for your own use plus what about the cd creation hmm come on think on your feet..


As for artists getting a bigger cut iam up for it iam one and i wouldnt see much in the cash flow department hell ill be lucky if i sell 3 cds this year but then again i dont push my stuff like a lable pushes all that crap thats out there:)

[G5orbust]

Well, all I have to say is that if you cut off one head, two more will grow in its place. If their DRM can be circumvented then the shutting down of PlayFair will only force it underground to propigate through the circles only to emerge later stronger than before.

All I have to say to Apple is be smart about this.

[tgilbey]

Personally, I think people are taking thatwendigo et al's posts a little too seriously.....no one in their right mind could doubt the importance of additional creatives in the industry such as studio staff and media designers.

However, I would argue that
a) it is possible to do this kind of stuff on a smaller scale with direct payments to a few key staff, rather than huge contracts with big name graphics studios etc etc.

b)the major labels create and perpetuate an environment where it is impossible to launch a new act without a vast media campaign

c)what the major labels think is best for a band often has more to do with dumbing down the musical content to fit their market demographic and desired sales projections (although I admit that whether this is what the dumb public want vs. what they have made us think we want is a bit of a chicken-and-egg argument)
I could provide lots of examples of excessive production jobs that ruin the feel of a record compared to a version previously released on a demo or EP.

I personally prefer to listen to music made by people who made it because they think it is the best music they can make, NOT because they think it will sell best. However, the major labels sell only what they think will sell best, c.f. labels such as dischord who care about their output.
Alas I have very little choice. Years of unfair contracts, PROVEN illegal price-fixing and general poly-channel media monopolisation by the record companies restrict my choice.

I try to compensate artist's whose music I have truly enjoyed. I do not think (although I have BOUGHT hundreds of legal CDs) that buying major label output at <5% is a good way to do this. I cannot believe that studio staff etc.s wages represent anywhere near the fraction that they should either.

Finally, the majors do not seem to accept that technology is changing their profit margins. Buying lossy-compressed music with DRM restrictions at even 70% of cd cost represents poor value-play it through any decent stereo and you can notice the difference. Nevertheless, rather than dropping the price, they strive to work out just how deeply they can shaft us before we crack....this is their free-market entitlement, except that the market is not so free AND people are therefore enticed by their overpricing to download.

Here in the UK, Itunes tracks will be 99 pence. that is around 1.85 USD. Not sounding like such good value to the sanctimonious apple faithful now, is it? We have always been a more expensive market for CDs, for no good reason. Now the labels want to continue the wallet-rape just because they think joe consumer won't notice the drop. *EDIT* lack of drop

Until recently, the baseline *illegally-fixed* cd price in the uk had never dropped. Even from the days when only one person in your street could afford such leading/bleeding edge tech as a cd deck. Compare this with so many other formats which drop as volumes ramp up.

I'm glad the UK doesn't have a full-blown DMCA equivalent law yet. Only in america where if corporation x gives enough money to senator y's election campaign he will push a bill through could you possibly get such a stupid, consumer-******** law.

I don't dispute that downloading is wrong, but I think the reasons people on here argue so vehemently against "thievery" fall into some obvious camps. Forgive the mildly insulting generalisations, but....
a) they are creatives and empathise with other creatives who need to earn a crust.
b) they are creatives who work in the industry and have thus become slightly indoctrinated
c) they are rich creatives and can afford music (like they can afford dual g5s and phat LCDs. mmmmm.....)
d) they don't listen to that much music, or their taste is far too mainstream
e) they blindly accept everything that apple (I love apple too) does is manna from heaven

so I conclude that we need a music industry, but not one that does nothing to improve the Quality of music and spends most of their fat cat profits on things they can sniff up their ********* noses
*EDIT* one of the nicest and most comforting things i've read on this forum is the assertion that "if you can read the data, you can copy the data"
Anyone in any doubt about the dangers of DRM and/or trusted computing should read prof. Ross anderson's trusted computing FAQ. I can't remember the link but if you google it you'll give more hits to the new internet monopolist threat;)/EDIT
ok i'll get a massage, float in a tank, and listen to mating whales whilst getting my ego stroked by a therapist now;)

[lindmar]

btw.. asked that lindmar's direct links be edited.. Come on folks.. Wanna get MacRumors into trouble as well?!! Baka..... :mad:

trouble for what
free speech?

thats the gayest comment ive read in this entire thread

[lindmar]

So who's going to pay for all the PR, tour bookings and related costs, media buys and related advertising costs? Who's going to pay for the studio time, mixing time? Who's going to pay for CD production, warehousing, and distribution?

Although I agree with you the artists need more of a cut, what you're suggesting is highly unrealistic. Besides, the terms of the artists contracts CLEARLY state what they're getting themselves into.

The "alternative" needs to come from the artists themselves, not from the recording industry. Case in point: Dave Matthews. Didn't like the deals coming across the table from the major record studios, so he formed his own label. He did just fine. The White Stripes did the same.

Hey I agree,,
As for PR, that is only to form your likes/dislikes...makes you buy records,, thus PR bad...CD production extremely cheap...

I am not saying this can all be done.. I am only saying that the case has not even been made that Downloading has cost the Record Companies anything.. infact it has been found that sales may have increased since P2P began...

Holy Crap..
Why are they suing everybody then?
Essentially p2p is free PR,, "Hey I downloaded this new song , check it out",
"hey man thats cool" goes to another friend "check out this tune"

cool, they all buy the album...

[lindmar]

Why? Did you find anything illegal on the sites he linked to?

Exactly,, that was the dumbest remark in the whole thread..
I merely pointed you to sites where you can find information for those of you who may not be aware of how iTMS really works...


Better remove those posts quick,, before macrumors gets shut down....ahhhhh

[lindmar]

The same items that were asked to be pulled from SForge. Although not direct links to the files themselves. His post links to the sites that do have direct links. Never underestimate the power of a company like Apple to try and punish sites like MacRumors for small infractions.

If the software violates their rights on the songs, then it is just plain common sense not to have direct links to that software or sites. Even if Apple has not won or even taken the issue to court yet.

Go do a networksolutions.com "whois" on MacRumors.. it's run here in the US, where we do have Copyright laws that are actually enforced at times.

Why even post something dumb that could remotely get a great site like this in trouble? The rumors alone get it into issues with some Apple folks I am sure. Now lets help pirate music from here to?! Uhmmm yeah.. no thanks...
:rolleyes:

Did you even look at the links??
Brutal man... Downhill Battle, Music Activism , dedicated to music rights or artists and consumers.....
canfli.org - Canadian File Sharing Organization, merely discussion of rights.

If they shut macrumors down for having a discussion about p2p and copyright then we can start to really worry....

[bumfilter]

The only reason major labels need to pay for PR is no-one wants the music and the music can't sell itself. So they spend loads on promoting some generic pop band until twelve year olds give in.

[baby duck monge]

I really don't haven any comment on this, as you need a credit card to buy iTMUS songs; but if you didn't need a credit card to use your free song from Pepsi, then I would have nearly 50 songs. I'm a pretty sad Apple fan, I haven't bought one iTMS song :(

i set up an account without giving my CC#. there was an option not to enter that, but rather to put it in on a purchase by purchase basis. i have still not given them my number, though i have gotten a few songs with the pepsi/itunes promotion.

[603]

1) buy your records direct from the labels. prices are often lower. you sometimes get free stuff like stickers and posters. cut out the middleman. decentralization is the key to just about every problem. dealing directly with the label prevents the bottlenecks that stifle creativity and prevent good music from coming to market.

2) if you insist on buying compressed audio files over the internet, go to a place like Audio Lunchbox. their downloads are offered as DRM-free OGG and high-bitrate MP3 files. they might not have a billion songs like iTunes, but likewise, there's loads of stuff on Audio Lunchbox that i can't find on iTunes. don't let your digital rights get "managed" - support places that sell music without strings attached.

3) if you insist on downloading "por gratis" from P2P networks, and the music is good, send the band some cash. do it anonymously, because more than likely, your cash will be going through some A&R drone who won't appreciate you trying to make him obsolete.

4) if you insist on making copies of your friends' CDs, send the band some cash too. if you don't think it's worth $17.99 for an album, well, how about $15? even $10?

5) ...and for the love of all that is good in this world, don't complain that today's music isn't any good. there has never been so much interesting, compelling, innovative music being made as there is today. i make music myself and i frequently trade MP3s with people living in Argentina, Brazil, and New Zealand. what's for sale in the store represents about 10% of the music being made. don't accept the musical world that Apple, Tower, Virgin, or anybody else wants to sell you.

[tgilbey]

thor, i'll think we'll let arn decide what is and is not suitable for his site, not you and your pathologically submissive opinions.
If he takes down sites that are purely for information purposes then hopefully half the people that post/lurk here will leave, run away and never come back- thats how much it would devalue the entire site.

[lindmar]

thor, i'll think we'll let arn decide what is and is not suitable for his site, not you and your pathologically submissive opinions.
If he takes down sites that are purely for information purposes then hopefully half the people that post/lurk here will leave, run away and never come back- thats how much it would devalue the entire site.

Exactly,,
DownHill Battle Is a Great Site...
And they have a great article right now about how they are throughly opposed to Piracy..
Read it

[pounce]

many of us audio engineers are looking forward to the change in the music industry for lots of reasons. especially those like me who also are musicians with label contracts and so forth.

having said that, ya gotta admit that discussions about the kiddies stealing mp3's has never been about some altruistic sense that they want to help artists who are in unfair contracts. that discussion of unfair industry practices, especially as it relates to bands, comes up a lot in these discussions. usually from people not in the industry. of course folks stealing music aren't doing it for any reason other than to have something for nothing. that's obviously what this is about. if i could have a free copy of my car, tv, or the bowl of ice cream i'm about to have...i'd love to have em. free copies. it'd be great. however in the case of the music industry, taking music without compensating the artist or others involved in the writing, recording, production, etc. is wrong.

i've always said that people who steal music are no more music fans than carjackers are auto enthusiasts.

that's why i like itunes. a viable legal alternative to all the kiddie stealing ************. very nice.

i gotta run. ya'll should stop fussing on the net and have a nice easter. cheers.

[lindmar]

many of us audio engineers are looking forward to the change in the music industry for lots of reasons. especially those like me who also are musicians with label contracts and so forth.

i've always said that people who steal music are no more music fans than carjackers are auto enthusiasts.

that's why i like itunes. a viable legal alternative to all the kiddie stealing ************. very nice.

i gotta run. ya'll should stop fussing on the net and have a nice easter. cheers.

Happy Easter!
Nice Post,,, Although I do think a lot has to do with the artists and cynical record labels..

I will say it again.. iTMS is great and I do truly love it.. But as for what they hype it to be and what it actually is are two different things...

Happy Easter..
Im done too

[nuckinfutz]

Everyone needs to realize as much as a mac fan I am and I love Apple, but the iTMS has done nothing truly positive to solve the file sharing issue..

It does nothing really for the Artists...

Here are some great websites so everyone can learn, This such software to remove the DRM are positive things..Read downhill battle's piece on iTunes..
The Music Store is a crock of crap when it comes to treating artists fairly..
Now, artists get around 3% of a 1 dollar sale... And Apple's suggested profit on the song is far more then they hype..

Download this software, hold on to it.. and if you buy from the iTMS, share...


http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/index.html

http://www.lift-band.com
http://www.canfli.org

Your arguement is pretty much rendered moot by linking that horrible article from downhillbattle. A vast majority of artists do not make their money on CD sales. Sure if you're selling Multi-Platinum record then you can but that's only that top 5% or so. The rest of artists make their money touring. So therefore the asinine comment that "iTunes doesn't do anything for the artists" shows shuch a profound ignorance for the business. It's obvious idiots like downhillbattle and other don't know any musicians personally. LOL making money off a CD. For instance MC Hammer had a great deal that paid him about a buck per CD. That was unheard of at that time and that's why he amassed 22 worth(before squandering it). Many artists may be lucky to receive .50 from a $14 CD. This assumption that people know what the artist is getting paid is ludicrous. Are you the artists lawyer? Manager? Then you have not a clue what deal the artists gets. That amount is encapsulated within the .65 the label gets.


Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%.....

Why? The artists creates the music...the studios distribute the music. Without distribution you have NOTHING. Now did a little light go off in your head? Yes toto iTMS that you slandered before is a distribution network. You guys ranting about itms can't see the forrests through the trees.

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs

Ask a shareware author just how well the "honor" system works. I don't want to mail artists money. Why should I when I have iTunes or other download services that will take my money and they have a method of tracking their sales and marketing. For instance when an artists finds out that they have a huge amount of sales from Milwaukee WI they will book a tour date to Milwaukee. You want to support an artists...buy their music and followup with seeing them in concert. Artists love to perform generally ..they love playing to packed house. It's not always about money.

Music does not fall out of the mouths of artists in a shiny package ready to be experienced by someone who can't be bothered to fork over one measly dollar per song, even if they may only buy a few songs per artist.

Thank you! Voice of reason. Everyone in the chain needs to get paid. Sure the artist created the music but who tracked it? The Engineer. Who mastered it? The Mastering Engineer. Who marketed the music. A Manager. There are so many people deserving compensation simply sending money to the artists will not accomplish the desire to fairly compensate everyone involved in making great music

Bands can entirely manage everything on their own at this point. Technology is fast, easy, and cheap enough that any band that wanted to learn a little bit could entirely bypass the production arm of the music companies, and make at least as much as the non-headliners do now, all without risking the rights to their music or their ability to explore other avenues without being slapped by contract law.

Here's where your arguement will fail. Musicians know music. Many don't know about copyright, marketing, distribution, getting yoru record played in markets. Sure you could do this yourself...but you'll probably quickly find out that it's a lot of work. Sometimes it's better to have someone specialized handle this task. iTMS and other download sites will eventually make it easier for bands to strike out on their own but right I'm sure the coddling one receives from a label is welcomed by many.

[tgilbey]

Yeah, I hear you. Alas, not everyone is doing it because they love music, a lot of people just want something for nothing. This is not so great. But, as in everything, there is a compromise, one that the industry do not want to make. They won't meet us in the middle on price and fair use as long as they have mechanisms to stop it.

Also, a little bit of free distribution of songs is also free publicity. I've lost count of the number of times i've got into a band because someone on a filesharing network has said "yo, 'sup, I see you like XXXX (ok, big shoutout to thrice here as they are a sick, awesome band who have pretty much no weak songs - there is no question of me not owning real copies of their albums as I like them so much), you might also like YYYY, check out this track) cue me downloading, if i like it I'll buy the album, if I don't I may probably never listen to it again.
How big this effect is is a question we'll never answer as the only people who can afford to commission such studies are you-know-who.

I think that the recent "drop" in cd sales was less to do with filesharing as with effects such as the ending of people's Vinyl replacement cycles.

Ultimately I think that the sharing of media will become another uncontrollable ethical question along with "do I lie" or "do I gut my neighbours dog with a steakknife because it won't stop barking". It may upset some, but the digital age is changing possibilities so profoundly that we may just have to move with it and work round it, not fight the flow.

check this for another option:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_legal_downloads/

[lindmar]

Your arguement is pretty much rendered moot by linking that horrible article from downhillbattle. A vast majority of artists do not make their money on CD sales. Sure if you're selling Multi-Platinum record then you can but that's only that top 5% or so. The rest of artists make their money touring. So therefore the asinine comment that "iTunes doesn't do anything for the artists" shows shuch a profound ignorance for the business. It's obvious idiots like downhillbattle and other don't know any musicians personally. LOL making money off a CD. For instance MC Hammer had a great deal that paid him about a buck per CD. That was unheard of at that time and that's why he amassed 22 worth(before squandering it). Many artists may be lucky to receive .50 from a $14 CD. This assumption that people know what the artist is getting paid is ludicrous. Are you the artists lawyer? Manager? Then you have not a clue what deal the artists gets. That amount is encapsulated within the .65 the label gets.

Your probably right, we don't have a clue what artists are getting paid...
heres another article by Steve Albini...
This kind of averages things..
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/albini.html

But if an artists needs to sell 250,000 records to make 4 grand.......
I'd say this is a problem..

Way to go MC HaMMER!

[neonart]

******

Those of you who are saying that stealin-(cough) downloading songs for free and paying the artists is the way to do it.

Ok, please answer these questions HONESTLY.

Have you compensated all of the artists you've stole-(cough) downloaded music from?
Have you sent ANY money to ANY artist after downloading the music for free?
I'm sure the bafoons at Downhill Battle send $1 to Metallica for every song they rip-o-(cough) download. Riiight....

People. Get real. iTunes is LEGALLY selling music based on what the artist/label/Apple agreed. Just like Tower sells CD's or Target.

Saying "The poor, poor artist need us to download their songs for free and send them money" is A BIG FAT LIE.

I'm not a saint, but I don't mind buying my music off iTunes, or at the store (gotta get the new Shakira CD/DVD at the store). I've bought almost 300 songs on iTunes and will continue to do so with a clean conscience and without lame excuses.

[lindmar]

Here's where your arguement will fail. Musicians know music. Many don't know about copyright, marketing, distribution, getting yoru record played in markets. Sure you could do this yourself...but you'll probably quickly find out that it's a lot of work. Sometimes it's better to have someone specialized handle this task. iTMS and other download sites will eventually make it easier for bands to strike out on their own but right I'm sure the coddling one receives from a label is welcomed by many.

Every heard of Payola?
here is where your argument is rendered moot..lol
Another thing that has to go is Pay-Per-Play Radio..
The Labels,, pay what is played,, and essentially what you like and you buy...

The Record Industry buys markets, shapes them and forms them.
I am sure by the sounds of it, your collection is essentially this.. What they told you to like over the past few years since MC Hammer...
I'm done arguing... this is a problem without a solution...

I still like you all,, some of you get really mean though when it comes to having a discussion...

[lindmar]

******

Those of you who are saying that stealin-(cough) downloading songs for free and paying the artists is the way to do it.

Ok, please answer these questions HONESTLY.

Have you compensated all of the artists you've stole-(cough) downloaded music from?
Have you sent ANY money to ANY artist after downloading the music for free?
I'm sure the bafoons at Downhill Battle send $1 to Metallica for every song they rip-o-(cough) download. Riiight....

People. Get real. iTunes is LEGALLY selling music based on what the artist/label/Apple agreed. Just like Tower sells CD's or Target.

Saying "The poor, poor artist need us to download their songs for free and send them money" is A BIG FAT LIE.

I'm not a saint, but I don't mind buying my music off iTunes, or at the store (gotta get the new Shakira CD/DVD at the store). I've bought almost 300 songs on iTunes and will continue to do so with a clean conscience and without lame excuses.

I buy albums all the time.. in fact only 10-20 songs on my 15 gig iPod are songs which have been illegally downloaded.

[thatwendigo]

To clear up a few misconceptions about my attitude and general point:

1) I never said that middlemen are unnecessary, and that sound engineers are unnecessary, though it really could be the case that this is true. Perhaps technology isn't to a point where people can entirely do it on their own without some degree of talent or experience, but we are moving in that direction. If those who had blasted me took the time to actually read and comprehend my later post, what I clarified was that I thought that a more direct agreement between artists and engineers could yield much better work, without the oversight of studio executives that are more interested in the bottom line than in artistic expression and actual talent.

2) There is no way that a single, small group of people is going to completely replace the labels and their promotional machine, simply for reasons of scale an economics. What I am advocating is not some strange world where the tiny, poor artists somehow pull off the huge marketing campaigns that are the hallmark of "success" at this point, but rather a situation where a trade is made - more exposure and freedom for second-tier acts and unsigned bands, in exchange for most likely losing the extravagancy that some seem to think I believe that this format could lead to. You could make a living at music, be directly compensated, and still have more artistic liberty than you do under a contract where the record company owns all your music.

3) I am discounting videos and tours, but I don't think that we really need them. They're a nice distraction, but it doesn't take a whole lot for a band with a little drive to get out and tour. I've helped out with more than a handful of local bands at their shows around town, and I've covered days for my buddy who's in the band I was talking about helping out. If they're necessary, then go hire someone to do it, but don't trust someone who's already signed your artistic soul for the entirety of your contract to not also shaft you on every cost they can.

4) The fact that not everyone could manage a transition is not something I'm terribly worried about, in any case. When I listen to things that some of my peers are holding up as "music" right now, I'd be glad to watch 80% of those "bands" go crashing and burning. However, that being said, I did advocate the formation of musicians' groups or collectives, as a kind of union-like support group that could offer business advice, legal representation, and the other benefits of banding together under a common interest.

5) Specifically to eSnow: In a market that has been specifically set up to require a contract with the industry to gain any measure of financial success, there is little choice to be had. You can go indie and still face some of the same crap, but maybe keep your soul, or you can gamble all of your creative material on the chance that you might, might make it to something bigger, only to have your leash pulled tight by the people who own your creations.

6) I never said that taking music for free and not compensating anyone was right, or that it should be the way things are done. Stop putting words in my mouth, people.

A vast majority of artists do not make their money on CD sales. Sure if you're selling Multi-Platinum record then you can but that's only that top 5% or so. The rest of artists make their money touring. So therefore the asinine comment that "iTunes doesn't do anything for the artists" shows shuch a profound ignorance for the business. It's obvious idiots like downhillbattle and other don't know any musicians personally. LOL making money off a CD. For instance MC Hammer had a great deal that paid him about a buck per CD. That was unheard of at that time and that's why he amassed 22 worth(before squandering it).

I think you missed something, then, futz. Nobody's knowledgeable is arguing that the artists make some huge profit from CD sales, but a lot of us are saying that they ought to get a much bigger cut of their sales than they do. That's what downhillbattle and I are both trying to convince people should be the case - not that music is free and shouldn't be paid for, but that artists should be the ones who are compensated the most, not bureaucratic businessmen who's only concern is that they pimp the lowest common denominator for the most cash possible.

Have you compensated all of the artists you've stole-(cough) downloaded music from?
Have you sent ANY money to ANY artist after downloading the music for free?

Yes and yes.

[tgilbey]

the answer to both your questions is no. However, I would say in my defence that for 80% of the songs I listen to regularly I have paid money for a real copy of one of that artists albums. Additionally, having spent around 7000 dollars on my music addiction, I feel justified in downloading a few albums. That doesn't make it legal, but in my mind I have given my fair share of money.
When you go and by the new shakira album, make sure you go and get one of those "copy protected" discs, which despite the labelling as a cd, does not conform to the "red book" standard, doesn't work in many car stereos, can't be played as CD audio (ie uncompressed) on your mac/pc if you haven't a cd player to hand, and cannot be ripped and put on your ipod (industry forcing another vinyl-cd style upgrade cycle to wring out more money)
on top of this, ensure that it's poorly labelled and thus seems innocuous. Then take it home and enjoy your shakira, i'm sure the new album is great.

[neonart]

the answer to both your questions is no. However, I would say in my defence that for 80% of the songs I listen to regularly I have paid money for a real copy of one of that artists albums. Additionally, having spent around 7000 dollars on my music addiction, I feel justified in downloading a few albums. That doesn't make it legal, but in my mind I have given my fair share of money.
When you go and by the new shakira album, make sure you go and get one of those "copy protected" discs, which despite the labelling as a cd, does not conform to the "red book" standard, doesn't work in many car stereos, can't be played as CD audio (ie uncompressed) on your mac/pc if you haven't a cd player to hand, and cannot be ripped and put on your ipod (industry forcing another vinyl-cd style upgrade cycle to wring out more money)
on top of this, ensure that it's poorly labelled and thus seems innocuous. Then take it home and enjoy your shakira, i'm sure the new album is great.

1- Thank you for the Honest answer up front.
2- I've spend thousands and thousands on cars and Apple computers. I still can't justify stealing even one.
3- As your sarcasm suggests, I'll try to rip-off the new Shakira CD of some P2P network, then I'll have a "good copy" - on second though, I want this CD/DVD combo in the box- thanks for the suggestion.

[tgilbey]

If your bmw sucks, buy a benz. You can. Better than that buy a lexus, better car, less brand=more value.
If your mac sucks, buy a pc. Better than that, buy a few bits, slap them together, download a linux distro and bingo....
If my universal cd sucks, i'll buy an AOL timewarner cd. If that sucks, i'll buy (get idea, runs thru big five...) if that sucks......oh, hang on, there is no competition. They all price fix, they all kick out crap music, they all ruin previously good bands, they all flood the airwaves with advertisements and pay money that no-one else can afford to block out everyone else. Unless I am unusually well informed, I don't even know that independents exist.

ahhhh but wait.....by joining these networks I can find out about other music AND I can get the artists that I do like who are signed to majors without contributing to business practices that I consider should be made illegal. The government's duty is to democratically protect it's citizens. When they fail to make the laws they need to make, I will break the laws I need to break. And it helps that this is so beautifully easy

[tgilbey]

I consider a "good copy" a cd that costs me 10 dollars post paid from an online store, containing a full album, cover art and case etc. This can be had from indies like dischord records.
By contrast, shakira's "laundry service" can be bought from the webstore of one of the biggest UK high street record shops for the equivalent of 31 dollars and 18 cents.

[sethypoo]

1) buy your records direct from the labels. prices are often lower. you sometimes get free stuff like stickers and posters. cut out the middleman. decentralization is the key to just about every problem. dealing directly with the label prevents the bottlenecks that stifle creativity and prevent good music from coming to market.

2) if you insist on buying compressed audio files over the internet, go to a place like Audio Lunchbox. their downloads are offered as DRM-free OGG and high-bitrate MP3 files. they might not have a billion songs like iTunes, but likewise, there's loads of stuff on Audio Lunchbox that i can't find on iTunes. don't let your digital rights get "managed" - support places that sell music without strings attached.

3) if you insist on downloading "por gratis" from P2P networks, and the music is good, send the band some cash. do it anonymously, because more than likely, your cash will be going through some A&R drone who won't appreciate you trying to make him obsolete.

4) if you insist on making copies of your friends' CDs, send the band some cash too. if you don't think it's worth $17.99 for an album, well, how about $15? even $10?

5) ...and for the love of all that is good in this world, don't complain that today's music isn't any good. there has never been so much interesting, compelling, innovative music being made as there is today. i make music myself and i frequently trade MP3s with people living in Argentina, Brazil, and New Zealand. what's for sale in the store represents about 10% of the music being made. don't accept the musical world that Apple, Tower, Virgin, or anybody else wants to sell you.

This is, thus far, the most intelligent post yet.

Although I like what Apple has done so far. DRM is a good idea, it prevents abuse (like p2p file sharing).

And I am accepting of the "musical world" that Apple wants to sell me. For now, it works the best.

[sethypoo]

I still like you all,, some of you get really mean though when it comes to having a discussion...

Yes!

May I quote you in my signature?

Great comment, lol! :D

[grahamtriggs]

Here in the UK, Itunes tracks will be 99 pence. that is around 1.85 USD. Not sounding like such good value to the sanctimonious apple faithful now, is it? We have always been a more expensive market for CDs, for no good reason. Now the labels want to continue the wallet-rape just because they think joe consumer won't notice the drop. *EDIT* lack of drop

As much as I hate to have to say it, but you should only really compare the cost of an iTunes track to the market conditions in a particular country - not back to the US.

In your terms, we are getting bad value. But then the exchange rate isn't constant - a strong dollar would erode a lot of that difference. And 99 pence for one track isn't so bad compared to the £13 or so we pay for an album.

As for 'sanctimonious Apple faithful', aren't you being a touch presumptious? It's not Apple's fault that CDs are so comparatively expensive in the UK - blame that on the record companies. Who is to say that the record companies aren't demanding equally unfavourable terms in the contracts for iTMS?

[nspeds]

I have read the thread thus far and the conversation is getting ridiculous.

1) To those saying that you should mail the artists directly... how is this possible? If I buy a Britney Spears song (although I never will), how will I send money? To her home address? How do you get her home address? Oh wait... YOU CAN'T. But WAIT A MINUTE! The labels have set up a address for you to send stuff to her. No guarentee that it will get to her, but it's an address after all. By attempting to mail artists money, you might satisfy your inner ethics but in reality, it's the equivalent of shooting in the dark.

2) Not all artists have the funding to distribute and market their product in a professional manner. That is why they try to labels (or vice versa) to do it for them. The label is a MECHANISM for artists to distribute their works just as it is for individuals to buy them. The amount of money that goes to the artists is trivial at best but that doesn't matter... THE ARTIST as consented to whatever dividend he recieves from album sales when joining the label so if the ARTIST has a problem, it's the ARTIST'S problem to change their contract with the label, NOT YOURS.

3) You all must remember that the artists *like* the iTMS, and they *don't like* p2p (other than those who say that it's good free publicity). At the point in which they consent to these mechanisms for distribution, it is not our duty to say that the artists are being treated unfairly.

If you think by sending money directly to Moby you are doing him a favor, you really aren't. He consented to the framework of the iTMS, he has no problem with how much money he gets out of it. Therefore, you shouldn't either.

[cait-sith]

more money to disease research and world equality funds. less money to rock stars, footballers, and ceo's.

[Wonder Boy]

If everyone would buy directly, and artists realized how easy it is to do so now, then things would be so much nicer. The RIAA is parasitic, not benign, and it needs to be excised.


Phish does this. they put almost every live concert up on their site and you download it for 10 or 20$. Elektra gets nothing and its all profit for phish (the give most of it to charity anyway).

this difference between phish and a lot of other bands is that phish doesn't need a record company to survive. they have a studio of their own and means to sell it through their on line store. until bands are able to financially and technologicly support themselves, there will always be a need for labels.

[dontmatter]

As to the eternal question of what is fair play with music, and what is theft, I don't think we're really asking the right questions to determine the morality of the subject.The line about the villianous music industry doesn't quite work, because the music industry is not immoral, but amoral, and theft's immorality is not dependent on the theft being from a good person. (the music industry aren't going out to harm anybody, they're just trying to make money. There is nothing villianous in that, it's just not doing anything noble, either). However, clearly we can't just view this as straight up crime, either, because there must be a reason so many morally upright people share music. The solution?

Normally the immorality of theft comes from the harm it does to the person who is losing whatever you're stealing. We don't take issues with getting stuff for free, only with taking what is rightfully somebody else's. But with copying music, you aren't taking anything away from anybody if you weren't going to buy the music anyway. A quick survey of the people on itunes at my college shows that most have between 1000 and 5000 songs in their library, but common sense says that few college freshman have $1000-5000 to spend on music. So, for the vast majority of this music, the artist/label isn't losing any money they would otherwise get, because they wouldn't be getting that money anyway. Where immorality does come in is if people would have gone out and bought music, but decided to get it for free instead.

So, the question is, do people who download music end up buying less, because they can get it for free, or buying more, because they are exposed to more?

[pounce]

So, the question is, do people who download music end up buying less, because they can get it for free, or buying more, because they are exposed to more?

a few quick comments.

you don't have to steal from a good person for the stealing to be unethical. it reflects the ethics of the person stealing, not the person being stolen from. i could steal a car from a bad person and it would still be unethical. that judgement relates to a discussion only of the illegal music downloaders behavior. any other ethical judgements, while possibly warranted, are a totally seperate subject.

also, what is being taken from bands and everyone else is the ability to make some sort of living off of selling work that they created or participated in the creation/distribution/etc. of. if phish says it's ok to tape their shows, than nobody is stealing anything. also, copyright has to do with ownership of recordings and this discussion is much more about the pirating of studio recorded retail ready albums.

someone suggested the word pirate doesn't fit well here and suggested looting. looting is theft, but within a uncontrolled situation where so many people are stealing that everyone decides it's either ok to steal or that they will be less likely to get caught in all the masses of people. it doesn't make the theft more justifiable, it's simply opportunistic. i have no sympathy for anyone caught stealing, we all learned in kindergarten that it was wrong to steal. that's old hat, it's basic, and it's obvious. and the fact that some young teenagers were caught hasn't changed my opinion. if they were caught shoplifting how sympathetic would people be. it seems like it's time for their parents to start acting like parents and say that the kids shouldn't have been stealing. musicians sell cd's, of course the getting something for nothing has a hitch. maybe people need to see a physical thing to understand that theft is occuring. like if the kid went into a record store and took the cd's they would get it? the world is going digital, soon we will simply have to appreciate that digital content and intellectual property have intrinsic value, it's not simply about the medium it's affixed to.

nobody gives the band things for free. years of music lessons, free instruments, recording gear, studio time, mailing, po boxes, travel money, a vehicle to travel in, a fax, money to live while travelling, money to front for cd pressings, etc. the real costs involved are staggering. for any band who has material out there (ie: not just a little local band, but the big indie or major label dudes) has a huge debt and a number of variable expenses to pay for. it would be very easy to underestimate the costs on the big playing field for actually getting this music out there. it's a big reason bands have to charge for cd's, there is such a huge debt that went into them.

last comment, i agree with your guess about how many songs college kids likely have downloaded. we cannot truly know what they would have finally bought or not without the internet. however, i think it's also safe to assume they will not buy what they already have for free. so we only know that it's basically impossible to put a dollar value on actual industry loss related to illegal downloading. but we do know that folks are interested enough to take the free music.

it's why i've always rooted for the itunes concept. making high quality music available online in a convenient way is the future. having no respect for digital delivery or intellectual property will be a HUGE problem in many areas of our culture, however, and this is a small example. reducing illegal downloading and promoting a better music model that includes legal downloading services like itunes is great in my opinion.

ps: the albini article is great, as well as the book "everything you need to know about the music industry". the book is pretty much what the title suggests. it's great. anyone interested in the industry could read those and others. past that, the promotion of legal downloading seems like a good thing. i did mention i get more money from itunes downloads that from physical cd sales, right? it's great as far as i'm concerned, and i don't want to warehouse cd's and deal with shipping and credit cards and so forth.

[plonk420]

i'm just glad i can now play MY iTMS M4A/MP4s in Winamp and Media Player Classic *hugs matrixmixer*

i'm not even gonna get into my (positive) opinion of P2P...

[plonk420]

****it, here i go:

@87/89, i totally agree

@91, sethypoo, DRM is NOT the way to go. with the music *I* buy, i bought it so that *I* could control what happens to the music, for good or bad, NOT the company that made it. i take it WHERE i want and HOW i want, be it MP3CD, portable player, or CDDA on CDR. i DON'T want to play it in iTunes (or the windows-only WMP9), and i DON'T want to lose a fraction of a digital generation converting to MP3 to listen to it in other apps.

one day i'll get off my ass and write a paper/page on why i think p2p is good, but until then i guess i'll have to retype bits and pieces over and over in these silly "discussions."

i KNOW i'm stealing, but when was the last time you heard Ms. Dynamite or Portishead or the Adam Freeland's Smells Like Teen Spirit bootleg on a Clear Channel radio station?

edit1: @98 however, i think it's also safe to assume they will not buy what they already have for free. wrong wrong wrong! at least in my case. i buy most of the music i (downloaded and) like the most. i spend more than i should (hell, i made less than the standard tax deduction last year), so i find that assumption grossly incorrect. in fact, i think it should read more like "they won't buy what they wouldn't pay for in the first place." and i'd like to think i'm not the only person who does stuff like this."

who wants to pay for all the music that's out that that they can't afford to BUY first before hearing? i sure don't have that kind of money...

[sub_version]

A note - if you download and send the artist money, the engineer has almost always already been paid. Engineers get paid before dime one is seen from the CD, for the most part; percentage deals exist, but are generally only for high-priced engineers working for the highest earning bands. Joe Mackietweaker from the $10 an hour studio down the street gets his 10 bucks an hour up front. And most of those guys do work just as good as most of the high priced engineers (there *are* exceptions... listen to a record Steve Albini recorded as compared to a random engineer, you'll hear the difference, but for the most part, engineers are pretty comparable).

Copyright infringement is not theft, by definition. It'd be nice if people would stop calling it theft, but they won't, so we might as well get over it.

On the other hand; those of you suggesting that PlayFair had ANYTHING to do with P2P are wrong. The songs will get onto P2P anyway, from non-protected media. There's really no reason at all for DRM as long as unprotected copies exist, and DRM is worthless anyway because any DRM scheme invented will be cracked sooner or later. So let's adjust to the fact that economics are changing and work out some way to work within these new economics; some way to fairly recompense people for their work while maximizing the use of these new technologies.

Because the truth is, its not like the past. The cost to give someone access to ALL the music recorded is roughly the same as the cost to give someone access to one song. The economic model the RIAA (and by extension, iTMS) runs on is broken now. Let's move on.

[ethernet76]

Actually, I prefer that I give my money directly to the artist. I've been strongly considering supporting an underground campaing I stumbled across late at night, where you mail the artist $5 when you download their songs. I'm thinking that $5 for every ten songs would be a nice gesture, especially since it means that they're making more than ten times what the record companies let them have from online music sales.

If everyone would buy directly, and artists realized how easy it is to do so now, then things would be so much nicer. The RIAA is parasitic, not benign, and it needs to be excised.

Or, everyone could be like Here Are the Facts That You Requested, and make music because they love to do it, put all their tracks on their website in MP3 and RealAudio, and then trust their fans to compensate them.

Here's the problem. You send 5 dollars to the artists, but the recording company gets nothing? That seems fair.

After all, aren't all fledging artist subsidized by some label at some point? Stopping all funds to all recording is an asinine way of dealing with a problem that is limited in scope. Not all record labels rape their artists, and if you are aware of this problem, then you aren't probably listening to those artists that are raped by their label.

Labels such as Saddle Creek and others use their portion of the money to allow up coming artists to have a chance at exposure. By denying companies like this the funds they deserve you're killing up and coming musicians.

Lastly, people who are getting raped in their label signings are doing so at their own greed. Most young artists that get raped by their label do so by the five majors (EMI, Virgin, etc.). Signing with such a label at an early stage of your career can mean only one thing. You no longer are doing it for the passion, mearly the money. Artists are with the big 5 for only a couple of purposes. They are: wide distribution(Radiohead, EMI) and exposure via pay for play.

So if artist want to stop getting screwed, they need to a)Not sign their first contract with a big 5 b)take their head out of their arse

[nspeds]

ONCE AGAIN, don't you guys think that the artists KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEMSELVES??? When they signed with these record labels, THEY CONSENTED to whatever money they earn from song sales. Who the hell are you to tell them what's best for them?

[tgilbey]

If you read what some of the contributors above are actually saying...

I'm sure the artists do know whats best for them. but

a) the good artists may feel that they don't have any option but to go with the corporate marketing rip-off machine
b) and I personally don't want to buy music from artists who think that the major labels business practices are a good idea

[tgilbey]

I'm not familiar with this label but I can't find any mention of major label ownership on their website.
To clarify, I AM NOT advocating the copyright infringement of work from bands such as those on saddle creek, although I do suggest that P2P may actually help these bands publicity-wise, as the sort of "serious" music fans who listen to this stuff have more of a sense of responsibility about buying legal cds when they have heard work that they like.

[encro]

i KNOW i'm stealing, but when was the last time you heard Ms. Dynamite or Portishead or the Adam Freeland's Smells Like Teen Spirit bootleg on a Clear Channel radio station?


Speaking of Adam Freeland:
There is a really funny parody of "We Want Your Soul" called "We want your Dole".

I'm not sure who made it but the track was played/mixed by Brewster before Überzone played live at 33-1/3 in Melbourne (09/04/2004). All the vocals were redone and had a noticable Australian accent to it. Very cool!

[nspeds]

If you read what some of the contributors above are actually saying...

I'm sure the artists do know whats best for them. but

a) the good artists may feel that they don't have any option but to go with the corporate marketing rip-off machine
b) and I personally don't want to buy music from artists who think that the major labels business practices are a good idea

Here's a thought, maybe the artists who don't like their contracts can go to OTHER LABELS when their contract is complete. Artists have their own mechanism for survival in the music industry. Moreover, don't you think that at some point artists don't mind the rip off that they pull on you?

The point is not dependent on CD sales but on the iTMS, the iTMS US is not a rip off, artists consent to it (the one's who participate in it), so it's FINE.

[tgilbey]

Here's a thought, maybe the artists who don't like their contracts can go to OTHER LABELS when their contract is complete. Artists have their own mechanism for survival in the music industry. Moreover, don't you think that at some point artists don't mind the rip off that they pull on you?

The point is not dependent on CD sales but on the iTMS, the iTMS US is not a rip off, artists consent to it (the one's who participate in it), so it's FINE.

Like talking to a brick wall.....
IN MY OPINION
the big 5 have got the industry sewn up in such a comprehensive manner that artists who want to get exposure can only jump to another one of these 5.....their practices make it very difficult for independents to survive and effectively market their stuff.
If the artist doesn't mind ripping me off, I won't buy his records. If I want to listen to it, I may just download it. This is a free market...the public at large stop buying and start downloading until the artist *DOES* mind the rip off because now he doesn't make any money.
Itunes is the best of a bad bunch, nothing more.

[aafuss1]

Siple-it would violate some Sourceforge.net rules:
a) it's illegal in the USA-Sourceforge based there
b)it's circumnventes the DCMA-for a paid for service.
c)he/she could be liable for a jail term, fined,metc.

[nspeds]

Like talking to a brick wall.....
IN MY OPINION
the big 5 have got the industry sewn up in such a comprehensive manner that artists who want to get exposure can only jump to another one of these 5.....their practices make it very difficult for independents to survive and effectively market their stuff.
If the artist doesn't mind ripping me off, I won't buy his records. If I want to listen to it, I may just download it. This is a free market...the public at large stop buying and start downloading until the artist *DOES* mind the rip off because now he doesn't make any money.
Itunes is the best of a bad bunch, nothing more.

Wow, the "brick wall" comment... very professional of you, of course.

My statemenet about the iTMS being fine was in fact relative to sales outside of it. Comparatively, of course, I feel that it is better to buy songs off of iTMS then it is to buy a CD. Also, you tell me that artists are somewhat compelled to go with these 5 labels, however, I know many artists who have decent exposure without consulting any of these labels.

Also, your subscription to the belief that artists only have the labels as a means of promoting their work, and that the iTMS is the lesser of the evils is flawed at best. If I recall, Apple had a conference with independent artists and the rhetoric in that conference entailed the implementation of a system that would better facilitate the usage of its system without the need for any of the "5 major labels", thus making artists who hate their contract with say... EMI quit and promote their music independently in iTunes.

There is a book I read, it's called "Etiquette for Dummies", perhaps you should read it before replying to this post as you responded rudely before.
Also, you commit the logical fallacy of the false dilemma: you inform the readers of this board that artists only have a choice between the "big 5" in order to survive, yet there are many other mechanism available to gain mass exposure.

By the way, I buy music for what suites my taste, not my wallet. If (the wallet-conscious person you are) you think you are getting ripped off then either a) buy from the bargain bin at FYE or b) continue to download music illegally, claiming you know what's best about the pricing of CDs and overall consumer justice.

That's "E T I Q U E T T E F O R D U M M I E S", should be at your local Barnes and Nobles.

My work here is done.

ND
Hated By Many
Confronted By None

[atomwork]

Not at all..
I suggest we continue this battle against the Recording Indsutries and we seek alternative...
I suggest we give the artists 100% or 95%...

Let alone, the report released in the past week showing that Downloading had no affect on CD sales,, so where is the RIAA and CRIA (in Canada) getting their #'s from?>

I think there needs to be an alternative...
Why not, download your favorite album and send the artist 20 bucks in the mail.. a stupid thought, but hey,, the artists who made the creation YOU want.. just got 20 bucks instead of 1.00....

Today, an artists can create a CD from very low costs..
Alternatives are popping up...so why are CD costs rising?

Not at all am I saying that the artists shouldnt get 3%,, I am only saying that iTMS is a crock... and it was a huge media plot hyping it as the saving "heavens" answer to Music...

Look,, there is this huge issue.. and the RIAA and CRIA are saying one thing...
and the artists are actually saying another... besides a few...
And fans are saying another... so it seems there is one party here who is ****** things up and it's the middle man.. the Record Industry.


Well, then the artist should do also their own marketing, design, websites, media buying, research, makeup, stage design and construction, travel booking and so on. Otherwise they should should up and play music. If you want to bring the cost down then don't hate the labels. They have 90% of the work. And in many cases today the Artist don't even write their own songs. They are just branded products.

Apples ITMS is already a first step towards cheaper music.

[nspeds]

Well, then the artist should do also their own marketing, design, websites, media buying, research, makeup, stage design and construction, travel booking and so on. Otherwise they should should up and play music. If you want to bring the cost down then don't hate the labels. They have 90% of the work. And in many cases today the Artist don't even write their own songs. They are just branded products.

Apples ITMS is already a first step towards cheaper music.

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

[atomwork]

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

You cannot just state this for all artist. I mean, what the hell deserves a young group 90% of the earnings if the lables do all the marketing and the group is not even know for making money.

However, I agree with you that established artist should deserve more. The earned it. But I don't know if they already do... But in todays world they can easier distribute their own songs anyway.

[tgilbey]

nspeds, I apologise for being rude, but you weren't exactly gentle yourself, lots of capitals and a "who the hell are you"

My statemenet about the iTMS being fine was in fact relative to sales outside of it. Comparatively, of course, I feel that it is better to buy songs off of iTMS then it is to buy a CD. Also, you tell me that artists are somewhat compelled to go with these 5 labels, however, I know many artists who have decent exposure without consulting any of these labels.
OK, that's good, this is what I like to see, I just don't think it happens enough

Also, your subscription to the belief that artists only have the labels as a means of promoting their work, and that the iTMS is the lesser of the evils is flawed at best. If I recall, Apple had a conference with independent artists and the rhetoric in that conference entailed the implementation of a system that would better facilitate the usage of its system without the need for any of the "5 major labels", thus making artists who hate their contract with say... EMI quit and promote their music independently in iTunes.
OK, great, again, that, if it is Apple's agenda, is excellent. My beef is not so much with Apple but with the labels who drive such a hard bargain, keeping the price IMO above what it should be. Indeed, all the suggestions are that Apple makes very little money from iTMS. As for promoting your work on iTMS, for reasons I discussed above, and the fact that it is currently not available in all territories and takeup is good but not good enough, I do not think that this is viable. And this is the way that the big 5 like it. For the artists who are signed to majors, the labels now have no manufacturing costs and no distribution costs. Apple takes care of that for no profit. The only thing the big five might just be worried about is having to go through apple at all....
There is a book I read, it's called "Etiquette for Dummies", perhaps you should read it before replying to this post as you responded rudely before.
Being from the UK, my etiquette is naturally superb;) I just don't always choose to apply it.
Also, you commit the logical fallacy of the false dilemma: you inform the readers of this board that artists only have a choice between the "big 5" in order to survive, yet there are many other mechanism available to gain mass exposure.
No, I SUGGEST that by prefacing my comment with IMO. Further, I didn't say that alternatives do not exist, simply that the appalling business practices limit their effectiveness

By the way, I buy music for what suites my taste, not my wallet. If (the wallet-conscious person you are) you think you are getting ripped off then either a) buy from the bargain bin at FYE or b) continue to download music illegally, claiming you know what's best about the pricing of CDs and overall consumer justice.
I know what is best for me. I don't claim to know for everyone else, but as this is a discussion board for voicing opinions, that is what I did.

By the way, I am a student not a professional. Hence explaining my wallet consciousness (that and the fact that I do buy a lot of music and have to be), and my propensity to insult;)

[tgilbey]

You cannot just state this for all artist. I mean, what the hell deserves a young group 90% of the earnings if the lables do all the marketing and the group is not even know for making money.

I am saying that by colluding and continually driving up expectations for marketing campaigns, and by buying expensive playtime on radio that independents cannot afford, they shut out other non-major artists. They fund this by overcharging for and price-fixing their cds (this latter allegation has been upheld in a court of law and the labels fined.....but not enough IMO)

However, I agree with you that established artist should deserve more. The earned it. But I don't know if they already do... But in todays world they can easier distribute their own songs anyway.
The established artists may deserve more, but do they need it?? Bands like the Rolling Stones make obscene amounts through tours.....which could be used to support younger bands who need to achieve this critical mass. But I'll admit that this runs into the realms of communism;)

[tgilbey]

No, according to tgilbey, the artists are held at gunpoint and are basically forced to accept whatever marketing and media that is allocated to them by their labels. Oh yeah, and we should mail money directly to the artists so these marketers don't get paid. After all, the CDs are just a rip off, and we don't need to pay those suckers.

If you read back through my posts, I don't actually necessarily agree with this direct-mailing philosophy. BUT I think there is a reasonable level of marketing spend that I am happy to support, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE the "payola" system of buying slots for your music on commercial radio and television, the playlists of which are ostensibly selected in response to public demand. This system makes it impossible for other artists to get airtime.

[atomwork]

The established artists may deserve more, but do they need it?? Bands like the Rolling Stones make obscene amounts through tours.....which could be used to support younger bands who need to achieve this critical mass. But I'll admit that this runs into the realms of communism;)

LOL, this thought just crossed my mind. hehe. But hey, I guess its like any big business.

[nspeds]

If you read back through my posts, I don't actually necessarily agree with this direct-mailing philosophy. BUT I think there is a reasonable level of marketing spend that I am happy to support, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE the "payola" system of buying slots for your music on commercial radio and television, the playlists of which are ostensibly selected in response to public demand. This system makes it impossible for other artists to get airtime.

tgilbey, don't worry, the whole gunpoint post was just a tactless move on my part:D.

[centauratlas]

Sarovar.org Admin - 2004-04-16 17:18 - Site Admin
This is to announce that the project "PlayFair" has been taken down from
Sarovar.org upon receiving a legal notice this morning from Apple's
attorneys. We are awaiting to hear from our attorneys. Here is the notice we received in its full form...

http://sarovar.org/

[centauratlas]

Sarovar.org Admin - 2004-04-16 17:18 - Site Admin
This is to announce that the project "PlayFair" has been taken down from
Sarovar.org upon receiving a legal notice this morning from Apple's
attorneys. We are awaiting to hear from our attorneys. Here is the notice we received in its full form...

http://sarovar.org/

Something that is interesting is that the cease and desist letter says: "When our clients addressed a cease and desist letter to SourceForge, the
website removed the program immediately from its server, in recognition of
the fact that PlayFair compromised the intellectual property rights of our
clients."

I don't think they acknowledged that, anyone know?

(I did submit the story here, but who knows if it will make it up to the news section).

[Doctor Q]

I find it interesting that Apple Legal sends this type of communication by e-mail. It's the easiest way to contact somebody, but provides no proof that the site hosts received or read the message. It was addressed to an individual, but they sent the message to info@linuxense.com.

I also notice that in the e-mail the word revolutionising is spelled the British way, not the American way. I wonder if an overseas Apple office carried this out?

[Doctor Q]

As of yesterday, Playfair is back up, at playfair.org (http://playfair.org/) and at hymn-project.org (http://hymn-project.org). This time, the people running the site say that they are ready to defend themselves legally. When the software removes removes DRM from a protected AAC file, the Apple ID of the user who bought the song is retained, which they claim proves that the purpose of the software is fair use and not piracy.