Music industry gets on high horse...

[meglamaniac]

...and misses the point by a wide margin.

BBC Link: Warning over 'illegal' MP3 site.

Firstly, it's not their place to say whether it's illegal or not. It's not yet been tested in UK courts, and I quite like the assumption that Russian law respects our licenses or even works in the same way. But really, I'd like to draw attention to this quote (my emphasis):

Originally Posted by Matt Phillips, BPI spokesman

Because it is a professionally put together site it does look legitimate, although it should be obvious from the price that it isn't.

Your customers are basically telling you, by their actions, that your price is too inflated. To then use a low (and much fairer) price as an indicator of illegality reflects back rather badly on you. If you charged a fair price in the first place, there would be much less of a problem.

It's been said many times before, but I'll say it again. Stop skimming off most of the profit for your fat-cat bosses who make millions a year from other people's creativity, ****ing pay the artists, and pull your heads out of your arses. And charge a fair price for god's sake.

[Dante Hicks]

Look, Music Industry Executives have got to live too. Cocaine isn't free you know.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Firstly, it's not their place to say whether it's illegal or not.

Well it is, theyre saying that British people downloading the music are breaking British law. What Russian law says isnt especially relevant.

Your customers are basically telling you, by their actions, that your price is too inflated.

No, theyre saying that they want to pay less money for the product. If I buy a stolen iPod for 80 quid rather than paying 200 for a new one, am I sending a message to Apple about price inflation? No, of course not - I'm just going for the cheapest purchase possible. If Apple were to drop the ipod price to 50 pound then I'd probably be able to get a stolen one for 20-30. Black markets will always exist regardless of the official price of the goods involved, so interpreting them as being a 'protest' over price inflation is silly.

To then use a low (and much fairer) price

Theres no such thing as a 'fair' price, that phrase is completely meaningless. But in any case, even if CDs were selling for $5 a time, loads of people would still just download them anyway.

It's been said many times before, but I'll say it again. Stop skimming off most of the profit for your fat-cat bosses who make millions a year from other people's creativity, ****ing pay the artists, and pull your heads out of your arses. And charge a fair price for god's sake.

The fact artists are prepared to sign contracts with record companies implies that they are going to make more money with them than they would on their own, so talking about money being 'skimmed off' is fairly misleading. Steve Albini wrote a pretty good article about the horrors of dealing with record compnaies, yet it remains true that most artists want to go through this process anyway. Why? Because without the promotion from the company, they would be lucky to sell more than a handful of records.

In any case, the vast majority of people dont discriminate between major labels and indie labels when they are downloading music, so this whole issue smacks of rationalization.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The fact artists are prepared to sign contracts with record companies implies that they are going to make more money with them than they would on their own

Not really. It just implies that they think it will make them more money not that it will. Otherwise you could say something like that "The fact that Eastern European girls are willing to hand over their passports to mobsters implies that's a great career path"*.

* = Obviously that's not always consensual, but you get the idea. People don't always make the "correct" decision for their own futures, for a variety of reasons.

[meglamaniac]

Yes promotion is a major benefit. However, it doesn't cost nearly as much as the profits raked in, and what is returned to the artist is more often than not completely disproportionate.

An issue you missed is that many industry contacts (gig organisers, radio stations, etc) won't take an artist or group seriously if they're not on a label, regardless of actual talent. This is a huge problem, as those are the very people you need the support of to get off the ground. This perception of no label = shit band more or less forces artists to sign up, which in turn means the labels can bend them over backwards in the contract because the artists are so desperate just to get on board.

So yes, you get some services for your arse-raping, but it's not really much compensation.

It would be perfectly possible to cut the price and still return more money per sale to artists, if the greed of music execs could be countered. You'd also see an increase in sales, so artists would win twice in that respect.

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by BBC

Record industry trade association the BPI said consumers were breaking UK copyright law because allofmp3.com was not licensed to sell recordings.

The Russia-based site, which offers albums to download for as little as £1, claims to be licensed.

Emphasis mine. I'd like to see Yahwe's opinion on whether this is actually prosecutable in the UK. While it may technically be against the law any consumer could very reasonably claim they traded in good faith and were unwilling participants in this alleged fraud being perpetrated by allofmp3. This is supported by:

"Because it is a professionally put together site it does look legitimate..."-BPI spokesperson

Originally Posted by BBC

It said criminal proceedings were ongoing in Russia related to allofmp3.com.

This is half truth and really quite propagandist. Russia is currently an applicant to the WTO but their applictaion is in limbo partly because they allow sites such as allofmp3.com to function. Whether the Russian authorities will make a gesture of appeasement in this regard is a matter I'm sure they are currently considering. That is not the same as a criminal investigation.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Not really. It just implies that they think it will make them more money not that it will.

I think we can assume that most people enter into contracts because they believe it's in their best interests. Who are you to say otherwise? That's not to say artists wouldn't like a better deal (who wouldn't), but we all take the best deals we can get.

Otherwise you could say something like that "The fact that Eastern European girls are willing to hand over their passports to mobsters implies that's a great career path"*.

* = Obviously that's not always consensual, but you get the idea. People don't always make the "correct" decision for their own futures, for a variety of reasons.

I don't think that's a good analogy for a host of reasons (coercion, fraud, and minors entering into contracts), but even so I don't see how not paying for sex with Eastern European prostitutes would be helping the girls. I can see how it would be helping yourself though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think we can assume that most people enter into contracts because they believe it's in their best interests.

Yeah, I just said that.

Who are you to say otherwise?

Well, I'm not. Look at the Nod quote I'm responding to - I'm saying you can't assume that they're going to make more money - you can only assume they think they're going to make more money (which is what you have correctly said).

For the record (lol), screw anyone who signs up to a (major) record label anyway. I like NOFX's lyrics on their recent album :
"We're the band with our own label
That's money under the table, that's answering to no one
Bastions of D.I.Y.

Which means we make more money, we've got better prescriptions
We own most of our own music, no one's got their hands in our pockets
We don't have management, we get to play loaded
and only 3 months a year
Some years we just take off, vacations are a write off"

[Nodrog]

The problem there is that most DIY stuff sounds completely shit. Most bands generally benefit from professional quality productoin, regardless of the punk myth that 'rawness' can somehow replace talent and education.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Yeah, I just said that.
Well, I'm not. Look at the Nod quote I'm responding to - I'm saying you can't assume that they're going to make more money - you can only assume they think they're going to make more money (which is what you have correctly said).

Sorry, it's just such a blindingly obvious point that I assumed you wouldn't have bothered to mention it unless you were being ironic. My apologies.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Of course peopel might benefit from professional music production but the difference is diminishing all the time. Its not like there was no music prior to modern production techniques.

I'm not sure what this is meant to mean. Before 'modern production techniques' most music was just performed live, whether in concert halls or as folk music. I suppose you might be talking about early recorded music between (say) 1890 and 1950, but the production quality of most of that sounda fairly appalling in retrospect.

Production is a skill just like any other, and the idea that someone untrained can do it as well as a person who has dedicated a large part of their life to developing that skill is pretty silly. Of course its no more silly than the DIY ethic applied to most other areas, but there you go.

[s|k]

I think that if the record companies had not promoted <inesert artist here> then most people would not even care to listen it. It has been the case that music I did not like initially grew on me later, for instance the Smashing Pumpkins. When they first came out I thought they were terrible and goofy looking. Sometime in 1998 I bought one of their CD's and completely changed my mind and now I pray daily at TSP shrine I have erected in my closet. I am not so naive to think that the record company's promotion of the TSP had nothing to do with my change in attitude.

The thing is that record companies created a want in a listener for their music, but now the listener goes around the record company to satisfy that want. The record companies then want to punish the listener for not following the rules. The whole thing is retarded, in a less regulated economy the record company should just be forced to innovate a new buisness model or mode of distrubtion and not have the ability to resort to legal action. The current process, I believe, just retards our economy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The problem there is that most DIY stuff sounds completely shit.

Most music (or indeed anything) full stop sounds completely shit so I'm not sure there's any difference there. I'm not really interested in what "most" of any cultural product is like, unless for whatever reason I'm forced to consume it all for some reason. What's that rule about 90% of everything being shit?

Most bands generally benefit from professional quality productoin

DIY doesn't necessarily imply you're not going to have professional production values.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Most music (or indeed anything) full stop sounds completely shit so I'm not sure there's any difference there. I'm not really interested in what "most" of any cultural product is like, unless for whatever reason I'm forced to consume it all for some reason. What's that rule about 90% of everything being shit?
DIY doesn't necessarily imply you're not going to have professional production values.

Some artists gain momentum and popularity by creating low quality studio recordings initially. A lot of critical reviews of music I have read on rolling stones magazine often lauds the pre-fame recordings over their later work. Sometimes artists, such as the White Stripes, Red Hot Chili Peppers' , will create an album that is very decent by not using a professional recording studio.

Edit: removed one too many 'not'

[Achilles]

Originally Posted by T&F

Well what I mean is that of course there is also sorts of digitcal technology and incredibly high grade equipment in use. However using relatively basic equipment you can produce a mroe than adequate sound. In terms of a production professionals, there are literally thousands of underemploymed sound production post graduates. The girl who did the sound for my movie is currently doing a PHD in sound engineering and did everything for free. However my friend band produce their own stuff (they are an electronic band so its basially the point) they don't have much money to speak of but the production is of very high quality. Of course it takes time, but that's the case with anythign worthwhile.

I was just about to make this point with different words and no PHD friend example.

Just because the person producing an album for Band X is not on the payroll of MegaMusicCorp Y does not mean they are without talent. Besides which, there is a certain 'sameyness' to an awful lot of modern music, especially chart music. I think a lot of that can be put down to identical and often poor production by major record labels.