> The fact that it's on mp3 isn't really the issue, the issue is that all
> those people who like Metallica music but don't want to pay for it are now
> getting their comeupance. Trying to cast Metallica as the baddie in this
> is a disservice to all music lovers (especialy those of us who have worked
> with bands and understand how hard it is to make a living if everyone is
> stealing your material).
Maybe this is a sign that the people are not going to continue to pay an
exorbitant amount of money for a CD anymore. With the advances of
technology and Just-In-Time distribution at stores like Musicland, there
is no reason that the cost should not have gone down in the past 10 years.
Metallica is no longer a "Master of Puppets", they are a Puppet. A puppet
of the recording industry. (Not that this single event is the only reason
I am saying this) The baddies here are the people who maintain the status
quo or perpetuate the current music distribution scheme. If people want
the music in a digital format, how about each of the labels creating a
website to distribute the music in a digital format -- and maybe charge
the people downloading a small fee. Realistically, I know of noone that
downloads, shares, or trades MP3's that would not gladly pay for the
songs, but don't really care to pay $18 for a CD with one song that they
want to have.
I can see where the recording industry is between a rock and a hard place.
If they start distributing online, they will loose the confidence of their
brick & mortar retailers. They stand to put their only customers
(directly) in a very bad disposition. However, by not doing it, they are
beginning to put the very end-of-the-line customer (us) in a bad
disposition.
I personally own over 400 CDs, and have paid for each one. However, I'd
rather not have new music than continue paying the amount that I'd need to
pay for new CDs when I am in a position where I realize that there are
much better ways to distribute it. Oh, and you can add my name to the
list of people who have heard mp3's, liked the band, and bought their CD.
Most recently, Godsmack, Lords of Acid, and Leonard Cohen.
> The fact is that there is a large group of music fans out there that want
> to listen to the music but don't give a damn that their free access means
> that there won't be another album to steal. For those of us who don't mind
> paying for using others sweat this is an additional insult.
I think you're being a little excessive with this statement. The people
don't want free music. They pay extra money to have a fast connection.
They pay extra money to have CD Burners. They pay extra money to have
more drive space. You know why? Because it's more economical. I'm sure
a majority of your "evil people" (large group of music fans) would be
willing to pay for the music if it was more reasonably priced.
"Smart people are an undesirable market segment. Never market your
product to smart rich or the smart poor. The smart poor will find a way
to steal your product. The smart rich will buy your company and fire your
ass." - Scott Adams, cartoonist
> > In fact most people down load the music, listen to it, if they like it
> > they buy it, now I am not saying everyone does that but most of the
> > people that I have been in contact with have.
>
> Simple BULLSHIT. The fact is that the vast majority of mp3 users don't own
> enough CD's to shake a stick at yet they'll go out and buy Gig's of drive
> space so they can save dozens if not hundreds of CD's worth of music
> purchase. As far as trying before you buy, that's why the radio station
> you alluded too above pays the licensing fee so you can record it (even to
> mp3's).
You do realize that you are backing up your "fact" just as much as he is.
This is the problem, there is no reputable source that is finding these
things out and getting the statistics. Just because this is true where
you see it, doesn't mean it's widespread. I encourage people to take my
statements in the same manner.
> So, the next question is, do most mp3 users record off the air? No, they
> don't. They either buy a CD and then return it for exchange (notice the
> nice infinite loop there) or else borrow CD's from other people.
The reason noone cared about recording off the radio is that there was a
loss. This is the same reason for not caring a lot when people would copy
audio tapes. Now that it's digital, there is a zero-loss way to duplicate
it. If you want to say that just because the radio station paid the fee
so you could listen to it, you're buying into the understanding that the
charge is just for the physical CD. Radio stations don't pay for a
majority of their CDs, they get sent to them by the labels. Otherwise,
if they're a smaller station, they rebroadcast something that's broadcast
to them.
FYI, Under your way of thinking, they didn't pay for the music, they paid
for the physical CD and it's distribution. Does this mean that they can
broadcast it to everyone? If so, would it be okay for people to use
Napster to just stream mp3's of other people's machines when they wanted
to listen to it? A sort of music-on-demand method. The listener isn't
holding the music, they're just listening to it as it comes in and
discarding it after it's been played. The server is paying as much money
to the record company and the artist (assuming they paid for the CD and
mp3'd it) as the radio stations do. However, they do not have the
overhead that the radio station does.
> > Personally I am not a fan of limp bizkit but they have alot more guts than
> > you by giving free concerts to the fans...maybe that is your
> > problem..you have lost touch with your fans...do you know how much they
> > wanted for metallica tickets last time you were in town?
>
> And how much did they get from the ticket? Not a damn cent most likely.
> The reality is that even top draw bands make their money on ancillaries
> like t-shirts and memorabilia. The cost of licensing and executing a large
> scale concert is astronomical.
So then they're not making their money off the CD's.. well, why do they
care how their music is distributed then? You'd think they'd bitch about
low quality mp3's instead of the mp3's at all.
> Oh, that album you sampled and listen to probably dozens of times but
> never bought represents the bands paycheck.
Yeah, but they don't make money off that.. it's the t-shirts. see above.
> One of the reasons for the staggering increase in concert ticket price is
> to make enough money to even pay for the show in the first place because
> of decreased album sales (some of which is directly attributable to mp3
> sampling theft).
Actually the shows cost more because of more pyrotechnics and more
expensive equipment. They have to cover that -- and so the ticket prices
go up. Do you think U2 had to charge $58 a ticket for admission to their
concert because of low ticket sales? It was more likely the cost of that
huge TV screen in the back of the stage.
> > I am sure that you guys put in alot of work on your new albums but when you
> > say 'hard work'...I highly doubt it....when is the last time you worked
> > a ten hour shift and then came home to work on your art
>
> I can say you've never stepped one foot into a sound studio or been
> involved in any sort of album production.
Just because you've never done exactly what they did, doesn't mean you can
call your work harder. If the person you were replying to worked in a
coal mine, you'd be changing your tune.
> Oh god, what a whiner.
Oh god, what a hypocrite.
// chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*************************************************************************
Chris Tobkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Fame is proof that people are gullible."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson, poet, writer, and philosopher
*************************************************************************
