Say That Again

by El-P


Filed Under:
cancer4cure, el-p



Asking Fans For Support Isn't Begging, It's Solidifying Our Relationship

from the an-artist's-perspective dept

Yesterday, we wrote about El-P (emcee/producer and co-founder of Definitive Jux records) and his positive reaction to the early leak of his upcoming album, Cancer4Cure. El-P showed up in the comments that evening, and after an email exchange this morning he posted this excellent longer reply and invited us to turn it into a guest post. Big thanks to El for getting involved and giving us a clearer picture of his stance on these issues.


First off, thanks to Leigh for emailing me today and thanks to everyone here for your ideas and comments. It's clear he (and all of you) care about this subject. The truth is I really don't fully know how I feel about it all and I'm not sure that I'm smart enough to fully tackle the subject. It's tricky.

All I know is that I believe in operating within the realties that exist now and treating fans with respect within the context of those realties. I don't agree with the draconian and aggressive manner in which the RIAA and others have reacted to those realities and I wont be caught trying to put band aids on cracks in the dam. I'd rather let that bitch flood and build a boat. That said, I cringe a bit when people disregard how tough it is for working musicians to deal with the new paradigm. Cut us some slack. It's all relatively new and we are trying our best to navigate choppy waters.

I want to trust that if people like my music they will support me. My heart tells me that's the case. I also know for a fact that many of the people that say they will support or even genuinely intend to may not, being that they have the finished product (or at least the most important piece of it) in their hands already. It's just common sense.

So how do I feel? What's the right way? Fuck if I know. But I'll adapt and I'll do it with respect and class and not kicking and screaming. There's a hell of a lot I could say about both sides of this particular subject, but honestly does it matter? You all have formed your opinions on it already and in the end people like me are still out here trying to make a living no matter what those opinions are... right, wrong or in-between.

I will say (and this is a portion of what I wrote to Leigh today):

In these debates (no matter what venue) the artist almost always seems to be treated/viewed as a child. Either we don't understand what's good for us, can't control what's happening to us, can't comprehend what's bad for us or we are not wise enough to be grateful for what we are handed. It's a debate that rages on almost exclusively without the input of the artist themselves.

And maybe thats how it needs to be. At the end of the day we are trying to make a living doing what we love and it's on us to determine how we handle it. I'm not sure any artist owes any explanation to anyone about the nuances of that, and I'm not sure anyone else can really understand what it's like as an artist to negotiate all this unless they deal with it in the same way. Everything takes on a different tone when paying your rent enters in to the debate. But don't make the mistake of treating us condescendingly or with pity. I am not "begging" for anything by asking people to support by pre-ordering if they enjoy the record. I'm trying to solidify and encourage the relationship I have with the people who I make the music for in the context of today's reality. Simple as that.

I for one am determined to make the realities of today's music business work for me as best I can. I do not see the point in blaming the fans for a technological (and now cultural) reality that we all are involved in. They are my fans. They are my supporters. I think if I do my job and make something passionate and good then they'll be motivated to engage with me. Between me and them I'm sure we can figure out how to give each other what we need so we can continue to have a relationship. I'm not too worried about it.

For now I think we are finally settling in to a decent place with it all. Of course if my record drops and I don't sell shit I might end up with a bit of a different take on it all. I reserve that right, but I doubt it.

Anyway thanks for reading and thanks for taking the time to talk about all this. I'm going to drink some coffee and eat a bagel now. Also, my cat won't stop meowing.

— best, el


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 8:23pm

    Inb4 "but...but...piracy!"

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 10:24pm

      Re:

      well el-p, I feel you man, but I hate to break it to you, you ain't gettin' paid from here on out unless you fight for it. these cats don't believe you are owed anything for your work unless you sing for yer suppa every night. sad but true.

      I understand your desire to be reasonable, to be fair, to want to focus on making the best music possible and getting paid for the consumption of that work and labor. but it's not gonna happen.

      haters are gonna hate and thieves are gonna steal. but what's worse is that this isn't about downloaders, it's about the internet and tech corporate fat cats getting rich of your work (like google aint got enough dough, right?), and the pirate bay, and those cats...

      so good luck to you man, but you look like road kill on the information superhighway to me.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:43pm

        Re: Re:

        Fantastic execution, but, still, fuck you man.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Karl (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 11:40pm

        Re: Re:

        but what's worse is that this isn't about downloaders, it's about the internet and tech corporate fat cats getting rich of your work

        Nice rant, but you're totally wrong. The "tech corporate fat cats" treat artists 100x better than record labels ever did, which is why the labels are running scared.

        El-P, I'm glad you stopped by. Artists' voices are always welcome here. But please do not listen to idiot shills like this guy, for everyone's sake (especially yours).

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:56pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Nice rant, but you're totally wrong. The "tech corporate fat cats" treat artists 100x better than record labels ever did, which is why the labels are running scared.

          Puuurleeese.
          Keep dreaming.
          Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did.
          You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss.
          Wake up and smell the coffee dude.
          By the way, I'm an artist so thanks for the welcome invite to have my voice heard here.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did.


            Spotify isn't a label. However, I *did* just see the details of a study done by someone *inside* the recording industry, showing that Spotify actually pays *significantly more than radio* when you compare on a per-play basis. And considering that's what Spotify is really replacing, the evidence certainly suggests Spotify pays quite well.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Spotify is NOT replacing radio. Radio wasn't on demand. Spotify is actually launching an internet radio service to compete with Pandora. Man, you guys don't even understand the most basic concepts do you?

              Pandora = Radio. Spotify = Retail Subscription. Pandora = Win. Spotify = Fail.

              Spotify is a disaster for artists, which is why many of them are leaving the service. Spotify in a panic is now launching a Pandora like service so that 1) no one can opt out (due to it being like radio and not retail) and 2) so they can grow a subscriber base to (hopefully) migrate to the on demand (not radio) service.

              Pitching Spotify's on demand service as a replacement for radio is an outright lie. Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales. Spotify cannibalizes music sales.

              You really need to educate yourself. Actually I'm sure you already know all this, it's just in your interest to not tell the truth.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:51am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                OK, so Spotify is a retailer rather than a radio station. That still doesn't make them a label nor a substitute for a label, which was your original claim.

                Are you capable of presenting an argument without strawmen, misdirections and outright lies? Can you even keep up the same argument without moving goalposts every time you're shown to be wrong? It really doesn't look like it to me...

                "Pitching Spotify's on demand service as a replacement for radio is an outright lie. "

                No, it's not. That's what I use it for, and I suspect a great many other people as well. For many people, it's also a replacement for PIRACY (it's usually far quicker and easier to stream a Spotify album than download a torrent of the album). That means people who would normally pirate actually pay for their content. Why do you oppose this?

                "Spotify is a disaster for artists"

                Citation needed. A few indie labels leaving doesn't prove this, especially since most of those labels seem to have had the same panics over other services (e.g. eMusic).

                At least provide a citation for how artists (not labels) get less from Spotify than they did from labels, because all the figures I've seen suggest the opposite...

                "Spotify in a panic is now launching a Pandora like service"

                Huh? Sorry if I'm not sure what the hell you're blathering on about here, not least because unlike Pandora, I'm actually permitted to use Spotify. Care to explain?

                "Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."

                Citation needed.

                "Spotify cannibalizes music sales. "

                Citation needed.

                "You really need to educate yourself."

                Oh yes, everybody else is wrong apart from you, yet you fail to present even a shred of proof for your own claims. I wonder why...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "At least provide a citation for how artists (not labels) get less from Spotify than they did from labels"

                  The last word there should have been radio stations...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:21am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  wow, just wow, what a great work of delusion fiction.

                  pretty much everything you've posted is dead wrong, but here's one biggie...

                  "Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."
                  http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/active-vs-passive-fans-why-radio-tv-still-rank-tops- for-music-discovery-best-of-hypebot.html

                  Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.

                  http://www.tested.com/news/news/3194-music-distributor-pulls-200-small-labels-from-spotify-and-r dio/

                  "A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "

                  http://digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120207mccartney

                  http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/p ermalink/2012/120113vanhalen

                  http://www.vh1.com/music/tuner/2011-12-13/the-black-keys-discuss-the ir-controversial-spotify-decision/

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:46am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Terrestrial radio LoL

                    Don't know for who, because it certainly isn't where I discover anything.

                    Now about Spotify, you crazy person the study apparently is saying all streaming services are bad for musicians and so is Pandora since it is a streaming service, what an idiot you are.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Jay (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:26am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    This is why nuanced argument is lost on most shills, they never notice the "devil in the details" approach that most people on Techdirt look into. Instead, they can't support their arguments so they must try to inundate people.

                    Active vs Passive

                    I am doubting that the study is as nuanced as need be. In it, it says that 80% of the people considered active find new music from people they're fans of. This begs the question of how does a respondent become a fan via the study? I doubt they've asked that question but maybe you can point to the answer for me.

                    Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.

                    What's amazing is how you've stated this assertion but can't notice what has occurred in the interim. Spotify is its own platform. And seeing as Mike already posted about how they're making more money, they don't seem to be cannibalizing sales, they're just learning how to make better toys for artists.

                    A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music.

                    Key caveat. Individual, as in singular. Such as CDs and tapes. The unbundling of the CD has been going strong since that Napster days.

                    But still, just this one aspect may be occurring but that doesn't mean artists aren't making money.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:32am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    "wow, just wow, what a great work of delusion fiction. "

                    What? Me asking for citations and giving an example of my own personal Spotify usage to back me up? Which claims exactly are delusional?

                    Reality = delusion to you it seems, explains a lot, but at least you've provided multiple citations instead of just the insults this time. Let's have a look...

                    Hypebot link: some commentary on a study (which I don't seem to be able to access with paying for it). The NPD link itself says the following:

                    "AM/FM radio and family/friends/coworkers are the most common avenues for discovery, and discovery via online radio and Web videos were also important for the most active music fans. "

                    So, while they're still the major drivers, but are being complemented and/or replaced by other media. So, while what you say is technically true - for how long? It also doesn't address Spotify specifically, and doesn't mention the scope of the study. I'd assume US only from how it's discussed, so I'll take that with a pinch of salt, especially since Spotify would have been available for less than 4 months in the US before the study was published.

                    Realistic conclusion: doesn't say a damn thing about Spotify, and you're an asshole for calling me a liar when I related my own usage of the service. I'd expect the next study to find major changes since Spotify became mainstream in the US and beyond.

                    Tested.com link: says exactly what I asked you not to use as a crutch (some labels, mostly affiliated with each other have pulled out). It's an opinion piece on the news that some labels pulled out, but doesn't address anything I asked you to cite. Some LABELS are unhappy with Spotify (and Rdio)'s rates. That doesn't mean that ARTISTS (as per your initial claim) are suffering. It also doesn't prove a damn thing about your claim that Spotify cannibalises sales other than that some legacy players are scared of that. Well, duh....

                    Realistic conclusion: you've got nothing.

                    ..and oh dear, the last bunch of idiocy:

                    1st link - says nothing about why the albums were pulled. Also states "That of course encompasses Spotify, though a representative emailed Digital Music News on Wednesday morning to clarify that removals on Spotify actually happened in 2010.", when Spotify was a hell of a lot smaller than it is now.

                    2nd link - Has sod all to do with whether sales are being affected, as it notes that an exclusive period had ended with iTunes and that was causing the delay. Also states "The label screwed up". Also ends with this: "Updated, Saturday, 4:15 pm PCT: The track has now been reinstated on Spotify.". Also states that Amazon sales were affected by the same action. Is this what you consider evidence of your claims, because it actually states the exact opposite?

                    3rd link: An opinion from a band, so nothing binding and nothing to show which data they're basing this on. There's more there than in your other links, but this an opinion, and realistically means nothing more than the opinions of those who are there and happy with the service without additional data.

                    Realistic conclusion - you're talking out of your ass again. You provided 2 links that have nothing to do with what you were claiming, and one that's an opinion at best.

                    Do you have any REAL DATA to back your assertions up? Thought not... back to our regularly scheduled service where AC pretends that Spotify is a record label and personally attacks those who point out he's wrong...

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      posted real data, provide your real data.

                      citations please.

                      again:

                      "Terrestrial radio is still the #1 driver for music sales."
                      http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/12/active-vs-passive-fans-why-radio-tv-still-rank-tops- for-music-discovery-best-of-hypebot.html

                      Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales.

                      http://www.tested.com/news/news/3194-music-distributor-pulls-200-small-labels-from-spotify -and-r dio/

                      "A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "evidence that suing fans and promotion of draconian laws and enforcement, along with alienation of consumers, ignorance to economics of disposable income, Maslov's hierarchy of needs, concepts of competition, concepts of monopolistic control and price fixing" all detrimental to an even greater extent than Spotify or RDio to the sales of individual pieces of music.

                        None as detrimental as quality and obscurity.

                        And you don't graduate from obscurity with the help of terrestrial radio, playing pre-approved play-lists (supported via payola).

                        BTW, citing two articles, one which refers to the second as the source of information, really doesn't count as two separate points.

                        That's the same as "John says Elvis is alive" and "Chris says John says Elvis is alive" counting as two separate sources, which they do not.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:53am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        If spotify is really that harmful then no label would be on there. It wouldn't just be a bunch of indie wub wub bands pulling out it would be the majors.

                        "the Spotify model is adding, and will continue to add, huge value to the music industry. Right now we have already convinced millions of consumers to pay for music again, to move away from downloading illegally and therefore generate real revenue for the music business.
                        In addition, ‘revenue per stream’ totally misses the point when considering the value generated by Spotify. The relevant metrics are: 1) how many people are being monetized by Spotify; 2) who these people are (usually young people previously on pirate services which generate nothing for artists and rightsholders); and 3) how much revenue per user Spotify generates for rightsholders."

                        We can all quote shit its fun isn't it?

                        "Home Taping Is Killing Music" Look I qouted someone saying radio would be the death of music. I guess that means its true right?

                        "Phonographs and Player Pianos Will Kill Music!"
                        The sky, the sky is falling!

                        As far as your love of terrestrial radio, did you actually read the study, or even the press release? https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/pressreleases/pr_111110
                        It doesn't paint the picture you think it does.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:56am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          "“Committed” consumers are the youngest group, with a mean age of 32 (20 percent are age 13 to 17; 42 percent are 18 to 35). They represent 10 percent of all consumers who listened to or purchased music within the prior three months. “Committed” consumers also account for 46 percent of per-capita spending on music, and they are the most engaged consumers in the report. While they use a variety of discovery sources – including radio, video, streaming, and movies – they also value ownership, and they are the most open to discovering new artists. They find their current means to discover new music is good, but still wonder if they are missing something."

                          The larger groups who get their "new" music from radio, don't buy much music and prefer "new" music from familiar bands. You are talking about old people who find out on the radio that one of the three artists they still listen to released a new album.

                          The smaller groups spend the majority of the money. And they do their discovery on new media. But hey skew the data and try to make it look like the sky is green and your ass is clean. Maybe you'll even buy your own bullshit.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:59am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        "posted real data, provide your real data. "

                        No you posted bad interpretations of real data. Try reading the real data and/or posting it. You will find your weak argument is even weaker.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:02pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Haha, you never do your research do you?

                        "[The reason] why this is so debated is that is it is a perceptional issue," added Edgar Berger, president and CEO, international, Sony Music Entertainment, who also spoke at the Digital Music Report launch. "Obviously, for streaming you get way less then you get for a download, but it streams so often and for such a long period then in the long run actually the money might be higher and it's incremental."

                        http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/rob-wells-universal-music-s-g lobal-digital-1005968752.story

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:04pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Oh yeah and your study was published in Nov 11. So it was being conducted as spotify was launching in the US. You mean a few month old service wans't number 1 all ready? It must be a failure.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:51pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Repeating the same links you already posted - and I discredited with no actual defense from you - is hardly a compelling tactic.

                        "Spotify is NOTHING like radio. Radio sells records, Spotify cannibalizes sales."

                        Unproven, and my personal experiences prove you a liar. If you think you have data that alters this, cite it. DATA not summaries on whatever random site you dredged up on Google, not "oh I know someone else who uses it differently". Evidence.

                        ""A recent study conducted by NPD Group and NARM found that streaming music services like Spotify and Rdio are detrimental to the sales of individual pieces of music. "

                        A study which, conveniently, is unavailable to support these claims without payment. Especially if it only covers the US market, where Spotify could hardly have been available for more than a month or 2 before the study was undertaken - and so any such study would be questionable with regards to Spotify's effect..

                        Also a claim which is NOT stated on the actual NPD site (in fact, Spotify's name doesn't even get mentioned). The above you posted is an opinion of a blogger, and only present in the headline. Spotify is not mentioned anywhere else on that page.

                        Again, if you have more information (preferably a full copy of the study itself), cite it.

                        Also, stop posting back to others' opinion blogs as evidence. Isn't that what you attack people here for when they link to Mike's previous articles? I suggest you start by reading beyond the headlines in stories, preferably looking at the linked primary sources as well.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:25pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          I suggest you actually get educated on the facts and stop talking in circles.

                          Where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money?

                          citation please.

                          here's the score:

                          The Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artists Money
                          Artists on Pirate Bay = 0% of the Artists Money

                          FAIL.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:38pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            ...and finally the last tactic of the idiot - move the goalposts and personally attack people instead of admitting to your lies.

                            Perhaps you can tell me where I mentioned TPB in all this? What any of your rant has anything to do with what I posted? Moron.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:50pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I suggest you actually get educated on the facts and stop talking in circles.

                            Where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money?


                            Um, buddy. You have said "where are the contracts from The Pirate Bay that pay artists any money" about fifty times, over and over and over, in this thread - and you're accusing him of talking in circles?

                            You gotta get over it dude.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:52pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            Pirate Bay = not a label

                            /facepalm

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:57pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              pirate bay = no payments to artists ever.

                              FAIL.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:02pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Lo, we know...you said it about 50 times, then proceeded to say someone else was talking in circles

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:04pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                Hang on I have a question, maybe you can help me... How much does the Pirate Bay pay to artists? Do they sign contracts with them or not? I'm super curious.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:11pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  spoofing you now... I think we can get down to single character width... thanks for playing... F A I L

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:49pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  why do you support the pirate bay ripping off artist leigh? single character width here we come! LOL.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:00pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    Wow, no wonder you support the labels ripping people off.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:08pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I support artists getting paid, I do not support labels ripping off artist. I do not support labels ripping artists off.

                                      ok, now that we're clear, show me where mike and leigh say they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists ...

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:12pm

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        did you leave your brain in David Lowery's fridge or something? I don't see you on record anywhere saying you didn't, so I'm going to assume as much

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:33pm

                                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                          why do you support people ripping off artists? explain how the pirate bay is not ripping off artists? this will be good.

                                          who is david lowery?

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:58pm

                                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                            Why do you support eugenics? I mean, you've been in this thread for hours making an excellent case for it...

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:36pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              long time reader, first time poster.

                                              it appears there's nothing you can say changes the fact that you are supporting artists being ripped off by the pirate bay. can you show me when the pirate bay has paid artists?

                                              just tell me why your solution to one injustice (labels) is an even greater injustice (piracy).

                                              go ahead, you seem to be speechless when actually having to use logic.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 9:03pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                long time reader, first time poster.

                                                Wow, seriously? We all can see that you're the same idiot who's already vomited nonsense all over this thread. For fuck's sake, you even have the same gravitar.

                                                By the way, when did you stop beating your wife?

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • identicon
                                                  Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 1:30pm

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  Funny how unhinged you guys get? just answer the question, why do you support the pirate bay ripping off musicians for profit?

                                                  even google's own chief economist hal a varian thinks you guys and john perry barlow are full of BS...

                                                  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/effs-john-perry-barlow-is-wrong/

                                                  welcome to the exploitation economy, tech is ripping off artists WORSE than any label ever did... how is that progress? you are sending artists BACKWARDS 50 years... T-shirt and Touring is an ADMISSION OF FAILURE TO INNOVATE by the tech community that is no sustainable revenue for artists online.

                                                  illegally exploiting artists is an OLD MODEL indeed... digital dinosaurs carry on...

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                  • icon
                                                    Mike Masnick (profile), 5 May 2012 @ 1:17am

                                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                    Funny how unhinged you guys get? just answer the question, why do you support the pirate bay ripping off musicians for profit?

                                                    Funny how you ignore that multiple people answered the question by explaining to you why it's a "and when did you stop beating your wife" type question.

                                                    The fact that you've failed to respond to any of the multiple people who have pointed this out shows that you're not here to engage in any sort of real debate.

                                                    At least we know that you haven't stopped beating your wife.

                                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Its replacing radio, just because its replacing radio does not mean it can not add more features than radio had. Pandora is radio on the internet, Spotify is the next evolution. Why is it so hard for you people to realize that technology moves forward? Also subscription is not required for spotify.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:30am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  radio wasn't on demand. radio sold records.

                  spotify is on demand. spotify does not sell records.

                  also, there's no "discovery" on spotify. radio exposed artists, but people go to spotify to hear what they already know.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:13am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    You have obviously never used spotify if you think there is no discovery. I can see what my friends and acquaintances listen to and check that out. I can search for playlists with bands I like. I find tons of new music on spotify.

                    radio wasn't on demand. Right like I said services evolve.

                    spotify does not sell records. My credit card statements say otherwise.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 9:46am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    thats pretty funny, considering spotify is alot like youtube, and I have bought alot of music due to youtube music videos (user made) that featured songs from a band i had never even heard of.

                    I even imported a few pieces from the EU because nobody sold them on this side of the pond.

                    I also know many people who use "internet radio" or "streaming music" services and just set it to random so they can hear new stuff, one of my friends has bought thousands of songs thanks to services like slacker radio and spotify....

                    Your lies also suggest you cant find new music via torrents, and funny enough, I have found alot of what I have bought over the years via torrents as well, because I was able to find it free at good quality and try it....

                    to this day, I will que up some random stuff thats popular and give it a listen, if I like it, I buy it(on cd, never buy mp3's or aac files, quality sucks compared to a good flac rip.)

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 9:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    spotify does not sell records.

                    "That argument is absolutely bogus. What we are seeing is that all these new services and new subscription packages are exploding without compromising or cannibalizing other revenue streams."

                    Who was it that said that? Some freetard pirate who wants to do nothing but rip artists off?

                    It was Rob Wells, president of Universal Music Group's global digital business sector.

                    ...So, maybe the answer is "yes."

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Well why don't you make your own radio then and stop leeching off of the work of others than you get all the money?

                Oh that is right you can't do it, you depend on others and you don't want to pay them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                fairusefriendly (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Of course spotify pays less then the record labels

                the record label take a cut of the revenue spotify pays. Hijacking most of the money that should go to the artist.

                Drop the record companies from the equation and spotify pays way more then the record labels for the same licensed rights.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2012 @ 11:59pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Spotify is actually launching an internet radio service

                So it's radio, but it's not replacing radio, even though it's radio. Your call to educate ones self seems misguided.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did."

            How much do Wal Mart, Sirius and ClearChannel pay them? You may as well start comparing apples to apples. Spotify are not, nor have ever claimed to be, a record label.

            "You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss."

            I'm sure they also point to the legal retailers selling your stuff as well, Do you also hate them for that, or are you sulking because you don't think legal retailers pay you enough? Judging by your level of business sense and maturity displayed here, you've probably boycotted all legal retailers then whine when your music doesn't sell. Hell, you don't even know the difference between a record label and a radio station, so your business credentials are rather suspect...

            "By the way, I'm an artist"

            As ever, citation needed.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            DC, 2 May 2012 @ 7:01am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            So if you are an artists, why don't you tell us who you are?

            Since you are AC, and that reply was to freaky, why would you think the response was a welcome to you?

            The labels well documented abuse of artists should be undeniable at this point.

            Hating on Google? Really? A search engine?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:25am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              hating on tech companies taking 100% of the money and paying the artists 0%. where are the contracts for artists to get paid from piracy?

              tell you what, when google starts sharing the ad revenue with the artists they are monetizing advertising against on pirate sites you'll have a point, until than you have the usual BS.

              let's just see how fair these artists contracts are from the pirate bay? Oh, what's that? The pirate bay does not give artists contracts or payments? FAIL.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Did you pay royalties for the people who enable you to be a musician like the software people, hardware manufacturers, car manufacturers, farmers and so forth?

                No, why should Google has to pay anything to you then?
                They don't use anything from you, their job is to index the web and they do that and you want a cut?

                That is why don't feel sorry for you people.
                Pirates should take it all and give nothing because you guys are not worth anything.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:57am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                If anyone's giving Google lots of advertising money, it's the major labels, not Pirate Bay. You are the FAIL.

                And Google offers lots of ways for artists to share ad revenue. Make a video of your song and put it on Youtube, and you can share ad revenue. It's pretty simple, and doesn't require any middleman recording industry.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:28am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Tell you what when you understand what a search engine does we can talk because you just sound like an idiot when you say Google monetize artists and forget that Google actually monetizes everybody and it is legal to do so they broke no law, but you seem to think that indexing your shitty crap is somewhat different and should get a cut?

                Blood sucking leech that is what you are.

                The Pirate Bay is not a label either so why should they have the need for a contract, further since they are not the ones doing the sharing why are they responsible? because they didn't block something you wanted it censored?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  the pirate bay pays artists ZERO money. ZERO. they are illegally exploiting the artists work without consent or compensation. if they have such a great model either 1) let the artist decide to participate or not, and/or 2) pay the artist.

                  your right the pirate bay is not a record label. record labels PAY artists. the pirate bay keeps 100% of the money for themselves. uh, yeah, that's fair. 100% Greed.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:52am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    So what?
                    The Pirate Bay does not exploit the artists, users do.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:13pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      the pirate bay exploits artists, users did not create the pirate bay.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:16pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        You do realize that nobody is convinced, and you have successfully wasted an entire day here right?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:24pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          if nobody cares why are the so many responses? seems to me likes the lady doth protest too much! how many of me are there here wasting a day? it's all AC's...

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 6:04pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            I just like to make people like you look like tools.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2012 @ 1:32pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I just like to watch making you respond to the same comment over and over again, and when you get really frustrated, you just resort to censorship, how very SOPA of you, not hypocritical at all... LOL...

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    fairusefriendly (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:54am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    promotion is payment
                    Ask Dan Bull
                    lot of people bought is stuff because they found it on the pirate bay.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:04pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      anyone other than dan bull? anyone? bueller... bueller, bueller... lol... one artist in how many years? versus the pirate bay making MILLIONS of dollars from all the artists while paying those artists NOTHING and giving them NO PROMOTION... how many bands a year can they realistic promote? what are these guys now, rolling stone?! too funny... I thought the pirate bay wasn't about being elitist gate keepers?

                      Ha! Now they've jumped the shark!
                      http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/smells-like-pirate-desperation/

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:07pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Lol "Millions"

                        " In an investigation in 2006, the police concluded that The Pirate Bay brings in 1.2 million SEK (US$168,885.60) per year from advertisements.[39] The prosecution estimated in the 2009 trial from emails and screenshots that the advertisements pay over 10 million SEK (US$1.40738M) a year,[40] but in the indictment used the estimate from the police investigation.[41] The lawyers of the site's administrators counted the 2006 revenue closer to 725,000 SEK (US$102,035.05).[42] The verdict of the trial however quoted the estimate from the preliminary investigation.[43]"

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay

                        I don't think you realize that by lying you're not convincing anyone otherwise.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:08pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        hate to break it to you, but over 5000 artists applied to the Pirate Bay promo program, so clearly they don't all hate it as much as you do.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:27pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          5,000 APPLIED... can you not read either, how many of those will be chosen for promotion? what are these guys now, a record label? they get to chose who get's promotion, and they get to not pay artists! wow, that's progress! what stunning innovation, making artists stand in line to get picked so that they can be ripped off... truly, truly a spectacle of technological innovation... need I say it?

                          FAIL

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            So you have other options...pay a label to market you how they please but no guarantee of successful marketing.

                            Then again, if you are not popular they just ignore you and keep your money.

                            The labels are one side of a criminal spectrum, the other side being piracy.


                            You apprently don't understand that or else you would stop advocating support of a greedy business entity

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:26pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              I agree, I don't know why people here support the pirate bay ripping off artists and keeping 100% of the artists money. It's disgusting to see people advocating that the solution to one injustice is to support and promote an even GREATER injustice that pays artists NOTHING.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:34pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                People here support the pirate bay?

                                (Citation needed)

                                Ohhh wait, ac trolls don't need to provide evidence to their claims or address any points like why they still support labels that steal less of the artists money then pirate bay.

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                  identicon
                                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:47pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  show me leigh and mike saying they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists (citation please) c'mon show me where mike and leigh say that they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists... show it to me ... LOL. c'mon, we can get to single character width! spoofin...

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:04pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    show me leigh and mike saying they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists (citation please)

                                    As multiple people have explained to you in this thread, we don't believe that the Pirate Bay is ripping off artists - or at least that it's not as simple as that, given that the Pirate Bay doesn't host any content and it's users doing all the copying.

                                    You can't ask me if I support something that I don't believe is true. Your argument appears to be fashioned after a 10-year-old's insult: "Duhh, do your parents know you're gay? Yes or no!"

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:13pm

                                      the pirate bay is ripping off artists. that's a fact. other wise show me where the contracts and payments to artists are.

                                      citation please.

                                      and so you support that. I support the artists getting paid.

                                      I know you couldn't say it. I knew you supported the pirate bay ripping off artists. why do you hate artists so much?

                                      you don't think the pirate bay is ripping off artists? not after losing lawsuits? not when it is obvious?

                                      you think it's ok that the pirate bay makes money by exploiting artists illegally. wow, just wow.

                                      you are too funny... single word thread... gotchya!

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • icon
                                        Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:15pm

                                        Re:

                                        um, i'm using chronological view so i'm really not bothered by how narrow the thread is - glad to know you're having to expend extra effort to continue this idiotic crusade of yours, though

                                        anyway, we've already rejected your braindead definition of "ripping off" so sorry, you have still failed to make any kind of point whatsoever

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                          identicon
                                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:27pm

                                          Re: Re:

                                          you haven't done anything except show your support for the pirate bay ripping off artists. please explain how the pirate bay is paying artists, citation please.

                                          this is my first post today, so I don't know what you are talking about.

                                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                          • icon
                                            Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:03pm

                                            Re: Re: Re:

                                            please explain how the pirate bay is paying artists

                                            If not paying artists is the same as ripping them off, then 99.99% of America is ripping me off.

                                            Obviously it doesn't work that way. If one of my albums is shared on The Pirate Bay, then my bank account isn't any lighter because of it.

                                            And, no, The Pirate Bay is not ripping anyone off, because they don't offer, nor make money off of, anyone's content. They make money off of advertising to users, and those users share content, but that's not the same thing. The users are (mostly) not trying to rip anyone off; they're fans who like sharing music. The Pirate Bay is the place where they go to do it.

                                            I'm not saying The Pirate Bay is hunky-dory for all musicians, but they're clearly not the bugaboo the record industry says they are. And, if you're an up-and-coming artist, you can certainly use them (for free!) to get more popular, and make more money. Many have.

                                            this is my first post today

                                            You know, there are these things called "Gravatars." Because of them, we can tell that you're lying.

                                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                            • identicon
                                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:40pm

                                              Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                              "um, i'm using chronological view so i'm really not bothered by how narrow the thread is"

                                              and I can tell you are lying.

                                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                              • icon
                                                Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:53pm

                                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                try the button that says "chronoligical" at the top of the comments idiot - then the posts won't be narrow anymore and you can read them just fine. Jeeze you're dense.

                                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                                • icon
                                                  Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:56pm

                                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                                  actually my mistake, it says "flattened"

                                                  normally I wouldn't bother clarifying that because I would trust a person to be able to figure it out, but you've got that brain-in-David-Lowery's-fridge problem i mentioned so i figure, better safe than sorry...

                                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                nasch (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:43pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                I agree, I don't know why people here support the pirate bay ripping off artists and keeping 100% of the artists money.

                                How did The Pirate Bay get the artists' money?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            fairusefriendly (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 7:09am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            as apposed to having to sign over your copyright in exchange for getting the promotion by the labels.

                            you can stop the pirate bay from pirating your stuff by going after the original seeders

                            no original seeder no one pirating your stuff period.

                            Why do you want to take away the CHOICE from all the people who want to use that model.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        fairusefriendly (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 8:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        how about Paulo Cohelo the best selling author of all time.

                        And he did it without being approved for the pirate bay promo

                        he just pirated his own books on the pirate bay and shared it openly with his fans.

                        Want to name ONE artist who has gotten access to the record companies promo capacity without signing over their copyright to the privilege.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:40pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  blood sucking leach is the pirate bay who takes 100% of the artists money, and pays the artist 0%

                  are you supporting the pirate bay ripping off artists?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Spotify DOES less!

            Does Spotify provide advances? Marketing? Take control of copyrights? Hinder artist creativity? No!

            So why the hell should Spotify pay the artist more?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              One of the recent developments I've noticed in the ACs' loosening grip on reality is that now they're flailing out against anybody in the tech sector, regardless of their actual role. They seem to be trying to apply the same expectations on the likes of Spotify and Tunecore as they would a record label, even though they do completely different things. They whine about Amazon and Apple not doing the same things as a traditional book publisher, despite the fact they don't claim to. They whine that Kickstarter don't get directly involved in the businesses they help fund, even though that's not their aim nor their remit.

              They're increasingly not even addressing reality at this point. It's pathetic, but it makes countering their "points" a lot easier...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:27am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                why is the tech sector so worried about what artists think? why not just keep on illegally exploiting artists work and profiting in the millions just as they have for the past decade? I don't see why you should even care. carry on, just keep ripping off artists, and just keep doing it worse than any label ever did... yup, tech are the good guys, screwing artists in new and inventive ways the labels weren't smart enough to do... yup, it takes a different kind of self entitled selfishness to screw artists in a way that only tech companies and engineers could dream up.

                carry on, just keep ripping off artists, that always ends well. you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  How exactly is the tech sector ripping off artists in any way?
                  The ones apparently doing the ripping off are artists not tech, and talking about ripping off those same artists should be more concerned with their own support platforms(i.e. labels) which are infamous for doing exactly that.

                  As for pirates, well I hope they continue to rip you off, from today till the end of times, because that is exactly what you people deserve.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:37am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I love the fact that you people use the examples of LEGAL service to attack people now. Guess what, if you assholes had licensed legal services 15 years ago when people first demanded it, you wouldn't be in this mess!

                  "carry on, just keep ripping off artists,"

                  Like I proven to you and your ilk many, many times, I'll continue to consume music legally. Then I'll laugh my ass off because your ultimate failure could have been avoided if you'd listened to people like me telling you what they want. Instead, you attacked us as "pirates" when we tried telling you how to take our money. You refused my money, sorry, it's your own fault.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:36pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    here's the math for those of you at home keeping score:

                    The Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artist Money

                    The Artist on TPB = 0% of the Artist Money

                    yes, that is called a rip off.

                    why are you defending a proven illegal business? just blocked in the UK by the way... more to come, house of card, falling... enjoy your post sopa victory lap...

                    http://www.technewsworld.com/story/74996.html

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      " just blocked in the UK by the way... more to come, house of card, falling... enjoy your post sopa victory lap.."

                      One acronym...VPN.

                      It's hilarious how much money the RIAA puts into their endeavors, and yet there's always someone one step ahead of them.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:59pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        keep pushing until there's an "stop online piracy and cyber terrorism protection act."

                        the greater lengths you go to engage in criminal activity, the easier it is to acknowledge the crime.

                        lol.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:03pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          That is...until the RIAA goes under.

                          Hopefully soon because then artists will have true freedom.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:21pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            artist will have true freedom when people like you stop defending tech companies like the pirate bay stealing 100% of the artists money and giving them 0%.

                            the pirate bay makes the RIAA look like saints. the RIAA also has nothing to do with artists rights. the RIAA is looking out for labels not artists.

                            so your solution to one injustice is the support an even GREATER injustice. wow, you're a real genius there with that logic.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2012 @ 1:09am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              The kind of freedom you want is not going to happen because it involves taking away others freedoms and that is not a win win for anybody.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              RadialSkid (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 1:48am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              the RIAA also has nothing to do with artists rights. the RIAA is looking out for labels not artists.

                              The Pirate Bay has nothing to do with artists' rights. The Pirate Bay is about spreading their sociopolitical idea that art and information should be shared freely. They don't care who's producing it, nor should they. It is not relevant.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:36pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      100% of artists money?

                      Where?

                      Where is the work the artist did there to warrant any money at all?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Spotify pays artists way less than any label ever did.

            But they pay more than terrestrial radio, which is their closest analog equivalent.

            You think I'm grateful to Google who post links to my work on pirate sites, then make some money from advertising off my loss.

            You think Google posts links to your work on pirate sites? That's utterly ridiculous. Not even the rabid Google haters claim this.

            And none of the big "pirate sites" use Adwords. I'm sure there are a few that slip through the cracks, but almost none of Google's profits come from them.

            On the other hand, if you're a YouTube partner, most people can make more money from YouTube videos than they ever could from traditional media companies. (Not hard, since the amount of money most artists make from traditional media companies is zero.)

            Besides, "tech corporate fat cats" don't just include Google and Spotify. It also includes iTunes (which pays much more directly to artists than labels ever did), Amazon, SoundCloud, CD Baby, Tunecore, etc.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:16am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Nice rant, but you're totally wrong. The "tech corporate fat cats" treat artists 100x better than record labels ever did, which is why the labels are running scared."

          That's fantastic news, just show me that contract and terms from the Pirate Bay is issuing artists, and how much they are paying and we can compare that to a record label contract.

          Don't worry, I'll wait for you to show me the contract artists are getting from the Pirate Bay? Uh what? The Pirate Bay actually makes 100% of the money and pays the artists 0% of the money... oh, yeah, that's definitely 100xs better... for The Pirate Bay...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            ltlw0lf (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:42am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That's fantastic news, just show me that contract and terms from the Pirate Bay is issuing artists, and how much they are paying and we can compare that to a record label contract.

            First, the Pirate Bay isn't a label. Second, the Pirate Bay isn't distributing music, they are pointing to where music is being distributed, and third, Pirate Bay is not the tech corporate fat cats.

            You complain because nobody else understands what is going on here, but it is quite clear that you sir, are the clueless one.

            But keep thrusting your fist in the air. Eventually you'll stop the world, or get struck by lightening.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:01am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "But keep thrusting your fist in the air. Eventually you'll stop the world, or get struck by lightening."

              I'm always reminded of this, and he's just as effective:

              http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/b/b1/Hi.jpg

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                ltlw0lf (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I'm always reminded of this

                Perfect! Gonna have to store that somewhere.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:45pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                or maybe you will... the house of cards is collapsing:
                http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/uk-high-court-orders-service-providers-to-block-access- to-file-sharing-site-the-pirate-bay/2012/04/30/gIQA2bVkrT_story.html

                tip o the iceberg... enjoy your post sopa victory lap while you can skippy... the wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be...

                oh, and then there's this...
                http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,829124,00.html

                tick, tick, tick... buckle up... how's the CISPA campaign going? uh oh... no black out for that huh? well... you can see who's interest google is protecting now can't you.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Claims that have nothing to do with my opinions, irrational hatred of a single pirate site (whose shutting down would mean exactly nothing), support of freedom-killing legislation that would do jack shit to achieve profits from the customers you attack, and the assumption that anyone who supports freedom, justice and due process must be in the pockets of or infatuated with Google.

                  Almost the perfect idiot post, you just missed out the ad hominems and the kindergarten impression. 8 out of 10 squirrels approve of you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    so you have no substantive reply than... figures... you're out of argument.

                    FAIL.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:35pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      figures... you're out of argument

                      Um, well actually yes: I think everyone is out of arguments. You have heard about fifty different relevant, substantive arguments in this thread - and you have responded to every single one of them by putting your fingers in your ears and shouting something about the Pirate Bay.

                      So yeah: those of us who don't just repeat the same argument over and over do, eventually, run out of arguments... but I'm afraid that says more about you than it does about us

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:43pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        not really, you guys have the same talking points repeated over and over, how's it feel? ... so tell me, do you support the pirate bay ripping off artists and paying them nothing? what's your stand on that?

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:49pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Do you hate fans? Do you hate getting free publicity? Do you hate getting your name out there?

                          Apparently you do, because you don't dare to voice your opinion under your own name, instead hide behind the "anonymous coward" nom de plume.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:53pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          the pirate bay doesn't host any content, and they barely make any money, so honestly I'm still not sure what you're talking about with that whole thing

                          but remind me again, what per cent do they keep? what per cent do they give to artists? i'm not sure if you've told us yet

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:29pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            according to tech crunch the pirate bay makes Four Million Dollars a year and keeps 100% of the artists money and pays the artists 0% of of the money.

                            why do you support the pirate bay ripping off artists? why do you hate artists so much leigh that you think it's OK for tech companies like the pirate bay to rip them off?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Marcel de Jong (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 7:25am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              No, not according to Tech Crunch, according to the prosecutor in a case, where it was proved that the Pirate Bay made nowhere near that amount.

                              You wanna try again, troll, Or have you fled the building already?
                              Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:03pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                          Quote anyone who supported the pirate bay ripping off artists?

                          People are more inclined to pick apart your half assed argument

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:44pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                            can you show me specifically where leigh and mike say that they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists, I'd like to see it. until then, it seems pretty obvious they do.

                            and if they don't it shouldn't be hard for them to say so, themselves and directly.

                            don't let the cat getchyer tongue now, ya hear.

                            citation please.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:01pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              Yawn. You'd be good at politics, you know - trying to reduce everything to a single hot-button item that is not actually a valid question or a relevant point, and regarding which you have completely ignored multiple attempts to respond in greater detail. Sorry, but I won't be baited by someone as childish and stubborn as you've proven to be throughout this whole thread.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:01pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                              You made the claim, burden of proof rests on your shoulders chum.

                              Then again, that's not it's about, is it. There's a certain jealousy to your words regarding this tech blog...that or a teen beat Masnick poster on your wall.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:16pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                just show me where mike and leigh say that they don't support the pirate bay ripping off artists by taking 100% of the artists money.

                                why do you hate artists so much?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • icon
                                  Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:18pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                  why do you hate artists so much?

                                  well I didn't before actually, but assuming you're an artist, then...

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:38pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                    just answer the question leigh, why do you support artists being ripped off by the pirate bay and paying them nothing.

                                    you can always come to the light and just say "I leigh, do not support artists getting ripped off by the pirate bay."

                                    If you don't support artists getting ripped off, just say so.

                                    I won't hold my breath.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • icon
                                      Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:52pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      I'll say this one more time, very carefully:

                                      I don't believe that artists ARE being ripped off by the pirate bay.

                                      So your question is invalid. I neither support nor not-support it, because it's not a real thing - it's a concept you made up.

                                      Anyway, I'm about done listening to you repeat yourself over and over and over again. Good thing you're anonymous, because holy shit do you ever look like a fool on this comment thread.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                                        identicon
                                        Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2012 @ 12:14am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                        you look like a fool who is unable to answer a simple direct question. why do you support the pirate bay ripping off artists?

                                        and I'm loving your censorship, how SOPA of you, LOL... so yes, you look foolish indeed employing the very tactics you say you are against, of the irony!

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:53pm

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                                      Can you answer why do you support censorship and oppressive regimes by supporting the legal frameworks that are used by others to do harm to people?

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2012 @ 2:17pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  No need to campaing against CISPA :) White House is vetoing it despite all the changes to try to make it pass.

                  Lobbyist 0 x 2 Interwebz

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            first, pirate bay isnt a lable, they arent even a distributor, they are for all intents and perpouses free advertising directing to downloads of various forms of content.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            In this world YOU are the person responsible for promoting YOUR own work. And you can use The Pirate Bay for promoting your own work, and then offer links for people to easily pay you.

            But of course, in your worldview, they are all out to get you, and you wouldn't dream of using free stuff to promote your art, would you?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:47pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              when the pirate bay offers contracts and compensation to artists let me know, until then they are ripping off artists and keeping 100% of the money... isn't that your rant against labels? well guess what, the pirate bay is worse than all the labels and the RIAA... the pirate bay pays artists 0% and keeps 100% for the profit for themselves, yeah, that's progress.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                You're retarded..if you had even bothered checking that wikipedia link on pirate bay you'd notice they have to divy the money up to maintain the website...so no they don't keep 100%

                Then you completely miss the point that labels are just as greedy. They tried to lower royalties for artists to 9%.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                No one is forcing me to download your shit.

                And no one is stopping you to promote your legal channels on the pirate bay.

                How about this: "Great, guys, that you found my work. If you like it, here is the link to my itunes page and my amazon page. I'd love it if you bought the album too. And here is the link to my kickstarter project, to help me fund my next album."

                YOU are the one responsible for your own promotion, and the Pirate Bay is offering you a free place to distribute. They don't need to offer contracts and stuff like that. You don't need a contract to get paid.

                The money they raise goes to bandwidth bills, they aren't filthy rich, like you imagine them to be.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 6:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            just show me that contract and terms from the Pirate Bay

            You didn't say The Pirate Bay. You said "tech corporate fat cats," which the Pirate Bay is not.

            Trying to lump in all tech companies with the Pirate Bay is simply libelous.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        Fantastic execution, but, still, fuck you man.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:18am

        Re: Re:

        Oh google leaked it to drive hits to their search engine. That makes plenty of sense

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ophelia Millais (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 11:51am

        Re: Re:

        If El-P does continue to get paid without "fighting for it" and singing for his supper every night, are you going to publicly eat crow and advocate copyright reform, or are you just going to continue to stand under the bridge and shout at every passerby that artists and everyone else in the music is starving on the streets because of piracy?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:14pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          No because no matter how much money he makes they will say "He would have made so much more without piracy."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You'd think for someone all about the artist getting paid, he'd buck up and acknowledge that the labels take too much money and do not give enough to the artists...as demonstrated by his spotify rant.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:10pm

        Re: Re:

        I really, desperately hope the music industry gets all the regulation you want, just so that you have to live through the hell that it would be.

        If you're an artist and you're not making the money you want to, I'll give you a hint- The problem isn't the mean internet people taking your money away. Either not enough people know who you are, or you're music is shitty. Given that you're not even advertising who you are in this thread, where thousands of people would see your name and, even if they despise you, might take a moment to listen to your work, I'd bet the answer is that you're just absolutely terrible at promoting yourself. So, you can work on the problem you can solve (promoting yourself better) or you can yell angrily into the night that your life should be handled for you and everything should be simple and easy for artists.

        Go ahead, try out both solutions, come back and tell me which one works better...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:15pm

        Re: Re:

        these cats don't believe you are owed anything for your work unless you sing for yer suppa every night. sad but true.


        Sad, yes. True, no.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 8:30pm

    honesty

    I really appreciate that he doesn't say it's okay for people to download his music, but understands it's going to happen regardless of his feelings. He's putting the onus on the fan to choose to support him, or not. I truly believe most fans will support the artists they like.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:58pm

      Re: honesty

      the evidence is just not there, even in radiohead's experiment the majority of people (62%) downloaded their album without paying for it.

      http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9811013-7.html

      so much for that theory...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Karl (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 11:48pm

        Re: Re: honesty

        the majority of people (62%) downloaded their album without paying for it.

        You missed the second part of the headline: "Even with only a minority paying for the album, a former record industry executive estimates that Radiohead may not have done too badly."

        The number of people who don't pay for an album means absolutely nothing. What matters is if more people paid than would have otherwise, and how much of that goes directly to the band.

        In the end, it turns out that Radiohead made more from that record than from any record they put out on EMI. That's really the only thing that matters... at least if you're truly pro-artist.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:01am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          he number of people who don't pay for an album means absolutely nothing. What matters is if more people paid than would have otherwise, and how much of that goes directly to the band.

          You guys keep talking like no one can take advantage of the internet without the help of pirates.
          Yeah, the internet is great. because of it I don't need a label to reach fans. because of it I can publicise myself on blogs and forums. But because of pirates my music is taken against my wishes. If you were all doing us such a huge favour, the majority of musicians wouldn't be complaining about it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            drew (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            "But because of pirates my music is taken against my wishes" I think the word is "copied" not "taken"; your music is still there, right where you left it.
            "the majority of musicians wouldn't be complaining about it" citation please? Guess what I can pull a "majority of musicians think that obscurity is a bigger problem than piracy" statement out of my arse too, based on all the musicians I know.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            That just sounds like the arguments people made against radio and still you people make money.

            Everybody takes from the musician apparently except the musician OMG how musicians survive?

            Also explain why you are different from a fashion designer that has no protections and still manage to make a living, how are you different from a carpenter that has no protections and still manages to make a living.

            That you people don't like to talk about it because it exposes, that nonsense you call it yours, your music is the one you perform, is the one you sell to others through your merch, it is not what others enjoy for free, that is a vector and can lead to other places but you don't like that do you, in your little world everybody should pay only you, but that is not going to happen anymore.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            But because of pirates my music is taken against my wishes.

            Change your wishes then - because that is the thing you CAN change.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Torg (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:19am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            "You guys keep talking like no one can take advantage of the internet without the help of pirates."

            No, we're talking like no one needs to put a lot of effort into eliminating piracy in order to take advantage of the internet.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          Radiohead could only have made more because EMI invested millions and millions of dollars into the band being "Radiohead."

          For the bands without the support of millions in corporate financing there is no upshot. More music is stolen than purchased and if every band had no label, the numbers would not grow. Ask all the hobbyists on Tunecore making an average of $277 a year. Wow, that's a living. That will pay the rent.

          FAIL.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Ask all the hobbyists on Tunecore making an average of $277 a year. Wow, that's a living. That will pay the rent.

            Um. And how much do you think hobbyist musicians were making before Tunecore? Were they better off selling hand-burned CDs to the crowd of twenty people at the local bar?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              The point, Marcus, is that the potential of such "DIY" services, as a replacement for label support, have been routinely overblown. If you support art and artists, then ultimately you do want some of them to have the chance to make an okay living from their work. For now, the label system is helping artists do that far more than Tunecore or the battery of "DIY" services.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                In the end you have to consider basic economic maths. The money the labels pay doesn't come from them - it comes from fans. Fans only have a limited amount of disposable income. They will spend that on music whatever the system. Taking the middlemen out of the equation can only mean lore money for musicians. One side effect is that now we have a larger number of musicians making less money each. There are winners and losers from this - but overall musicians are winners.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:40pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  there are 45% less professional musicians from 2001 to 2011 according to the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics.

                  that makes for more hobbyists, not more professional musicians.

                  is this the source of your favorite bands?
                  http://www.soundclick.com

                  which ones?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:42pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    45% less professional musicians from 2001 to 2011 according to the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics.

                    Obviously the school system has cut back on music teachers then - since they are by far the largest group of professional musicians.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:51pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    I don't think people see as being a musician these days as a cool thing. I bet nobody is making any friends in social circles if they say they are a leeching musician that depends on a monopoly that screw others.

                    That is as reasonable as your own assertions.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    RadialSkid (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 1:53am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    No, actually it's this one:
                    www.jamendo.com

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:26am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                "for now"

                So you recognize that the shift is underway, and inevitable. That's good enough for me. The rest is just arguing about where exactly in that process we are.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:33am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  the wild west wasn't wild forever, and neither will the internet be, so "for now" there is lawlessness, but it won't be that way forever. so yes, I'm good with where we are at "for now" as you realize the current path is unsustainable for the tech industry illegally exploiting artists without consent or compensation.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:55am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    The tech people don't depend you artists for sales, you do know that don't you?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:50am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                      No your wrong. No one uses google search or any google product unless its to steal content from artists. Without artists to leech from they would be poor.

                      /sarc

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Jay (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:41am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                        I always wondered why do people not understand that Google does more with their products than the recording industry did in the 50 years of business contracts that screwed over artists...

                        Now I get it. They are just too damned ignorant of the argument that Google helps a lot more than the recording industry.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:06am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                          Google had 0 dollars 30 years ago. The music industry made X% of money spent in America 30 years ago.

                          Now the music industry only makes Y% and google makes billions. Therefore any difference between y% and x% is money google steals from the record labels.

                          Of course ignore all the other new options for entertainment that are taking money use to spend on music. Because if people couldn't get free music they wouldn't buy these other things because they NEED music. The fucking NEED our content they are shitty pop music junkies. We spend millions on marketing getting them to need this content. No way someone could just play video games all the time without playing their pirated Bibier cds.

                          /retard

                          I imagine its some kind of broken logic like that. Works for any *woe is me, piracy!* industry.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:48pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                            Translation needed, anyone be so kind to decipher what he just said above?

                            I know it is not worth it, but I would like to have a laugh.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2012 @ 2:26pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                              I prefer to not translate it and laught at your ignorant ass being incapable of understanding basic writing while spewing out crap on the internet making fools of you and your corporate overlords.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:44pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  Why do you jump to the conclusion that it is inevitable? How do you know this to be true? You don't. So, right there we have identified a key leap in logic on your part. No one knows how things will shake out, or if they ever will. Hence, the wisdom of entrusting artists with the right to decide the best course for themselves, whatever that may be. If labels are as awful as some people here make them out to be, well, obviously artists would gradually (or perhaps abruptly) cease to partner with them. Artists aren't stupid.

                  But that hasn't happened. Just ask A$AP Rocky or Azalea Banks or Bon Iver or Neon Indian or Best Coast. They are choosing the label. Just because you perceive one change or another occurring (and clearly we are observing a massive amount of change in many directions) doesn't mean you can reasonably extrapolate it to some binary extreme that happens to be convenient for your argument. It just isn't sound reasoning.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:55pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    Actually...

                    http://www.app.com/article/20091231/NEWS/91228067/In-digital-age-musicians-flourish-w ithout-major-labels

                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/businesstruth/the_disrupters/35 68130/Artists-Without-a-label.html

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-schmitt/rethinking-the-mus ic-busi_b_857434.html

                    These are all examples of change in motion.

                    Besides, the Rolling Stones, Nine Inch Nails and quite a few other bands have given up on labels because they have been screwed in one way or another.

                    With that in mind, think of things this way...

                    If a newer band signs with a record company and incurs debt, but no success they end up paying back that debt yet if they attempt to market themselves their own way, even if they fail they will probably not accrue the same amount of debt (considering the free advertising avenues available) and still retain the rights to their music.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:18pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                      Your last paragraph is convoluted. In theory, any number of things could happen, sure. and I am all for better profit margins for artists. But you haven't even approached debunking my point that many many artists continue to partner with labels of their own choice. And there are now new opportunities for artists to do what Amanda Palmer is doing or what NIN did and I think that is fantastic, but it is no excuse for piracy -- at all. Why celebrate one choice of the artist to cut ties with a label, and not the other choice to partner with one? If the artist isn't the good guy here, who is? (don't say "the internet")

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:27pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                        I wasn't debunking the fact that some artists choose to side with labels...how would I even debunk that. I linked articles explaining that some musicians have found success without a label to back them up. Frankly, a lot of them are happier collecting more profits than the ones they received from signing on with a label (they're all living proof that you can be screwed by a label).

                        Also, I never advocated piracy, I merely addressed one portion of your argument.

                        And as for the last paragraph, that was meant to emphasize the fact that doing things your own way incurs much less loss than going with a system that puts you into debt.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:59am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                No, artists who go in half-assed get little. Artists who let go of the "old days" mentality and give it all they got, work with people who are marketers and managers who are NOT out to maximize profits, will do well and do.

                Look at what artists really do when they succeed. And don't forget, just because you can sing and play a guitar does NOT mean people feel your creative efforts are worth paying for!

                Right now ANYONE can release music or art online, but NOT anyone will be able to earn a living at it. This is NO different from the days before the web when the Gatekeepers (labels/movie studios) decided what was exposed and what was not.

                So here ANYONE can release and EVERYONE WHO DOES HAS A FAIR CHANCE! But does NOT mean that everyone who releases will be a success.

                Why are major label big earners losing some cash, competition! There's more art being created and more forms of entertainment (especially since video games went mainstream). That's why there's less money for people, but there's still enough for people to earn a living.

                You won't be rich, but you CAN earn a living.

                Caveat: you are NOT entitled to earn a living, you have to have created something people want!!! There's no gatekeeper. If people don't want your material or only a few do, you won't be fileshared much either, so blaming piracy for being unpopular is NOT a means of dealing with the situation.

                But that's what we have. "Oh I suck but if I was with a label I'd have more money than Google will give me." Sorry but if you're not popular now, you would not even be on a label or you'd be dropped for not being profitable. And then without the internet, you would not even be heard!!! that's ZERO chance of exposure or income!

                That's reality. Not a whole lot has changed except you have to do more yourself and you don't have a gatekeeper preventing you from trying and failing. 20 yrs ago you would not even be given that chance. Don't forget that!!!

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:08am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          I read that as 62% of the people who would have never bought my album are now listening to it. That's much better than having a bunch of people NOT listen to my music.

          How does El-P expect me to become a fan? Because of his clever name? I have to hear the music first. The first goal is to get the music into everyone's ears. If radio's not going to do it for you, what are your options.

          Artists complain about people downloading for free, but they have no qualms about people watching their video for free (which is actually much more work to produce), or streaming the music for free, or hearing it on the radio for free. From the fan's point of view - what's the difference?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:16am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            The difference is whether or not your consumption is licensed. You can choose to be aware of that reality or ignore it. Your choice.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              I never got a license to rip off music from the radio was that bad?

              I never got a license for listening to radio is that illegal?

              I never got a license to play VEVO is the legal?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              jupiterkansas (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:16am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              Are you kidding? Nobody needs a license to consume media. When did I sign an agreement to listen to 80s hits at my grocery store?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:26am

        Re: Re: honesty

        From your poor choice of a link to attempt prove your point...

        "Castle, who has represented singer Sheryl Crow and worked for A&M Records, said that the money-generating lifespan of an album can last as long as two years. It starts when an act releases a record and is extended when the performer goes on a concert tour."

        So tell me then, if 2 years is the "money-generating lifespan of an album", how is it in anyway just for copyrights to extend 70 years after the death of the artist?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:22am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          because the lables need to have perpetual control incase like a few rare acts, the music will sell later.

          its not right that they cant have over a hundred year monopoly on anything and everything they paid somebody else to create(or bought the rights to)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2012 @ 2:31pm

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          So they can exploit your name and make money out of your corpse after you died?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:44am

        Re: Re: honesty

        the evidence is just not there, even in radiohead's experiment the majority of people (62%) downloaded their album without paying for it.

        And of those quite a few probably downloaded the album without listening to it (doen that a few times - even for things I have paid for)

        and how many of those 62% would have paid if that was forced on them?

        The point is never how many paople downloaded and didn't pay. The only point is those who did pay and how much they paid.

        I would regard anyone who received the amount of money Radiohead received for the amount of work they did and then proceeded to whine about the people who didn't pay as an ungrateful idiot.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:25am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          "and how many of those 62% would have paid if that was forced on them?"

          ...and the other factor people who whine about this tend to ignore - how many downloaded for free, listened *then* decided to pay? IIRC there was no way to simply donate, so paying for another copy would have meant downloading a "paid" copy on top of the "free" copy, thus skewing the statistics.

          Among the many assumptions made in this by the pro-label folks, the idea that someone may obtain an album for free, and then are guaranteed to never, ever pay a penny later on down the line is one of the silliest. It's not only ridiculous, but it betrays an utter lack of understand of how people actually consume music.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:35am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          no, the point is the OP in this thread asserted, "I truly believe most fans will support the artists they like."

          that is not true as 62% of Radiohead FANS paid nothing for the bands album when the band gave them a choice to pay, or not. So this argument is FALSE.

          you can move the goal posts, and you can change the conversation, but the fact remains the assertion that "fans will support the artists they like" is absolutely false if given the choice to obtain the album for free, even if illegally so.



          FAIL, Next...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:47am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            You do understand that according to observations of the real world only 20% or less would at any given time pay for it anyways right?

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

            There go educate yourself so you don't look so dumb when talking out of your ass.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            You do realize there are a bunch of ways to support an artist right? Radiohead routinely sells out HUGE concerts. And the 62% figure from their experiment does not take into account anyone who also went out and bought the album at a record store or from somewhere online. Pre-release sales of that album beat their previous album, which was not available for free. The vinyl edition was also the top-selling vinyl album of the year.

            Radiohead is doing just fine. Their fans are rabidly supporting them. You can't just pluck one figure and claim that it proves it's "FALSE" that people want to support artists.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:06am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              Yeah it was a huge success, which is precisely why Radiohead chose not to repeat the experiment when they released King Of Limbs.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:29am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                exactly, it worked out so well they chose NOT to do it again.

                FAIL.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:39am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiohead

                  Apparently they did it in 2011 more than once.


                  https://www.youtube.com/user/radiohead

                  Further the first song on their Youtube channel tells people to go download a copy on their website LoL

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:31am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    ouch, that must burn....

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:53pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    Don't get it twisted. Was referring to the much ballyhooed pay-what-you-want scheme -- which they indeed did not repeat for King of Limbs. They returned to setting their own price for downloads.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:44pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                      And I referring to the fact that it worked so well that they keep doing it to this day and it is there to everyone to see it.

                      Why would they keep giving away music for free if they weren't able to get money some way?

                      I bet when you go fishing you tell the freetard fish not to eat your bait right?

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:23am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  typing things in caps does not suddenly make them true. It does make you look like a moron though.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:17am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Correction, 62% of PEOPLE downloaded it didn't pay.

            What percentage of the 62% were fans? Citation needed.

            What percentage of the 62% purchased the album physically or purchased the album by downloading it again, paying for it this time?

            What percentage of the 62% purchased other material from Radiohead?

            You do not have the answers and you cannot assume, because you want to produce an argument, what you have no evidence for.

            And when supplied evidence from IFPI is mathematically impossible, their studies lose credibility.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            "that is true as 62% of the people who downloaded a free Radiohead album paid nothing for the bands album when the band gave them a choice to pay or not. But all of their fans paid for it and they made more money then they did on any label record they released so this statement is TRUE."

            FTFY

            Not to mention that each download was probably not a unique person. You also don't know how many people that never bought a radiohead album before bought that one.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            another point is, how many downloads from the didnt pay catagory where record lable people downloading to scew the numbers and try and drive radiohead back into the "right" way to do things?

            dont tell me that the lables dont do stuff like this, because they have been caught at it quite a few times, having their reps seed stuff just so they can send dmca notices out or even sue people....pretty dishonest if you ask me....

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            TtfnJohn (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Put another way 38% of Radiohead fans paid up on the initial download. We have no way of quantifing what the number who paid after the download and listening to the album paid which would then bring that number up.

            All in all your argument is pointless unless you can do a direct comparison between what Radiohead made of sales of that record even using your numbers and what they would have been paid by EMI for moving a similar number of records. Until you can do that your figures and arguments mean nothing.

            Keep in mind that Radiohead isn't universally loved or liked and that a significant number of people who weren't fans downloaded for nothing, listened to it then deleted it, found that they really did like the band and paid later. How many of those downloads were people who just heard about what they were doing said "why not, I've got nothing to lose" and made up a large proportion of that 62%. The curiosity factor. Let's posit 20% of that number and now you're approaching a different situation where nearly half the downloads were paid for up front. Remembering that Radiohead took that into account with the option to buy now pay later built into the offer.

            If I take the number of records I never bought but had access to, one way or another, compared to what I did buy in the days before the Internet I'd say it's more than half of them I listened to so, in effect, I pirated that music because the owner of the LP/CD/Whatever let me listen more than once or loaned it to me because I said I was curious about the artists. A fairly common practice back in those dark ages. Actually it still is commonplace. Therefore I MUST be a pirate by your definition in that the artist never got paid for what I temporarily had in my possession and listened to before returning it.

            On the other hand I did buy more than 40% of the recordings I was loaned before returning them. Which must mean I became a FAN by your definition because they were loaned to me.

            This was long before the wasteland of the 1990's and early part of this century where it was commonplace to slap down money on a CD and end up with something that had one decent song on it. Not at all unusual there either.

            (Tangential question...was it the label or the artist trying to rip me off?)

            Acts that I know and that I'm a FAN of I always buy, often before any listen. Fan, of course, is the short form of Fanatic so that does mean I'll support them even if "free" is available. I'm not alone there either.

            The OC, as you call him is actually right. FANS will support him. The curious might after listening to the cut or CD as a whole but those who have no interest will never pay for his stuff no matter what. They can download from pirate sites, borrow the CD from a friend burn their own copy but they will never pay. The same way it's always been.

            The only FAIL here is you and your black and white (and angry) world.

            The artist who guest posted here will SUCCEED. Just because you claim to be a musician doesn't mean you'll succeed or make a living off music. That never was or ever will be the case. Like everyone else in this would you're gonna have to work at it. Recording contract or not.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            fairusefriendly (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            you might want to look up the definition of the word fan

            because you obviously don't know what the word means.

            62% of the people who were offered the choice to pay nothing

            took that choice. You still haven't proven that every single person who downloaded the album was a fan.

            Just like everyone who listens to the radio is not a fan of every single band played on that radio.

            There is a difference between down loaders and fans.

            Just like there is a difference between radio listeners and fans.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              the majority of the bands fans downloaded the album without paying. who do you think went to get it for free, beiber fans? the amount of magical thinking you can come up with is amazing.

              FAIL.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                how about people who saw the word "FREE" and downloaded...I know many people, including my past self who download/downloaded everything they see/saw that says FREE on it....

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                fairusefriendly (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 10:56am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                well considering i was one of those people who downloaded the album for free.
                I wasn't a fan of radio head when i downloaded that album.

                I saw the news story about them on ET Canada thought it was a no risk option to just download the album.

                Which i did.

                I didn't like it so i deleted it.

                they did however mail me later on which introduced me a band that i did like (thru an affiliate link btw)

                I wasn't a fan before i downloaded

                and i wasn't a fan after i downloaded it.

                How many other people were exactly like me.

                BTW

                dan bull is the reverse i downloaded all his stuff from the pirate bay

                I happened to like the google+ version of sharing is caring

                so i bought that one.

                I am now a fan of his work, and a fan of his approach.

                If he does the multiple versions of the song thing again odds are good one of them will appeal to me.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 6:06am

        Re: Re: honesty

        I paid fairly little for the download and purchased the physical disc when it came out. I wonder how many of the 62% went out and bought the physical afterward? Essentially that throws your theory out with the trash.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:37am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          "I wonder how many of the 62% went out and bought the physical afterward? Essentially that throws your theory out with the trash."

          no, there's no data to support that claim. what data we do have is that 62% of the bands FANS decided not to pay the band for their album.

          FAIL.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:45am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            You mean like there is no data to prove piracy is harmful either?

            Shocking.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Torg (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            "what data we do have is that 62% of the bands FANS decided not to pay the band for their album."

            No, the data we have is that 62% of albums were acquired without payment. That does not necessarily translate to 62% of fans getting it without payment. For one thing, a person can download an album and then buy it if they like it, contributing to both slices of the pie chart. Then there's the people who hadn't heard of the band before, and so at the time of downloading could not be considered fans.

            And even discounting those, you're still getting mad at the fact that that number of people didn't buy the album. I can't begin to count the number of albums that I haven't bought; whether or not I've listened to them doesn't have any financial effect on the artist.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:45am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              Further, lets be clear here - the number of albums owned by people is increasing, not decreasing (the MP3 generation) - yet the sales of recorded music are 60% lower than they were pre-MP3.

              One can very easily draw a conclusion that, the arrival of MP3s and piracy have directly lead to the falling recorded music sales.

              It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here. Denying it is pretty much admitting you don't want to see anything that blows up your pro-piracy views.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                Liar, the only thing 60% below is the sales of plastic discs, digital venues not included.

                Do you even read the RIAA reports?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Torg (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that a lot of people downloaded the album without paying. I just find it unlikely that the full 62% could be attributed to fans deciding that they didn't ever want to pay for it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                Lets correlate, plot the graph of digital sales along with the physical sales and see what it happens.

                Also plot the piracy numbers that keep growing.
                Further plot mark the dates of the "education campaign" in the US and see how well it lines up with the decline in sales.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                One could make those assumptions. they would be totally wrong, for reasons explained to you and those like you many, many times.

                "It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here."

                It also correlates to people buying singles instead of albums. Also to the rise in popularity in DVD sales. Also to the rise of videogame sales. Also to the rise in the price of gasoline in the US. Also to the unemployment rate. Also to the availability of hybrid cars and the rise in smartphones leading to planking, probably.

                "It would seem that the numbers correlate very nicely here."

                Everything looks like a nail to a hammer owner. That doesn't mean you can make my TV work by smashing it with a hammer.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                khory, 2 May 2012 @ 11:45am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                I don't think you are correct in saying that people own more albums. A lot of people buy tracks, not albums. They buy the one or two songs they like for a couple bucks and avoid the filler that most albums are full of.

                The advent of MP3s made unbundling possible for the consumer so there is a correlation to that and declining sales, but not for the reasons you were implying.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Citation needed for YOUR claim!

            Right, no data for that either!!!

            People downloaded, not necessarily fans.

            Simple logic for you: Sheep have four legs, but not all four legged animals are sheep.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            I am a data point. So suck on that!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 6:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Well, the fact is something those fans are doing it because Radiohead keeps giving them more free stuff, so money must be coming in from somewhere.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:14am

        Re: Re: honesty

        How much did they make compared to previous label supported releases again?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:40am

          Re: Re: Re: honesty

          They made more because they EMI had already spent millions making them "Radiohead." Why don't you show me an example of this model working for a band that wasn't built on millions of dollars of promotion and marketing money?

          Go ahead, let's see that LIST of artists? You know like all the artists on Tunecore making an average of $2179 per year.

          Wow, That's success!

          http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042511tunecore#dLuDbcK_0fMVeNKJf4N0QQ

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:03am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Hmmm...there is this girl called Bibber have you heard of him?
            She started on the internet I believe.

            There are a lot more people though that are making 6 figures just on Youtube alone.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_YouTube_personalities

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Here's a response from Jeff Price, head of Tunecore, on that:

            " ... if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, we are not going to be able to solve our problems...[W]e get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers..."

            This "average income" conversation is the strangest I think I have come across in quite some time. First off, the "Average" income is a useless, silly and non-sensical figure to calculate. Some artists make a lot of money from the sale of their music, others make a moderate amount and still others make very little. I'm not certain what the point is. It would be the same as stating the average amount of money for a band on a major label is Lady GaGa + Eminem + Jay-Z's income added into all the other bands and then divided. Huh?

            In addition, revenue generated is not limited to income from the sale of music: this is a calculation that those unfamiliar with the industry tend to quote. The instant an artist writes or records an original song, whether writing it down on a cocktail napkin or singing it into an iPhone, the artist gets six exclusive legal copyrights as granted by the government.

            These six legal copyrights (in no particular order) are:

            Reproduction
            Derivatives
            Public Display
            Public Performance
            Distribution
            Digital Transmission

            Each one generates revenue for the songwriter/artist. The sale of music just touches on one of the six, "Distribution." The other five also generate revenue, and in some cases, that money comes to more than what they make on the sale of the music. And then there is merch income, touring income and many more (Future Of Music Coalition is going a great study on this)

            But the real story is that actually more music being distributed, bought, sold, streamed, shared, discovered and generating revenue now than at any point in history We are sitting in the middle of a transformation of a sector, and the conversation is about a silly useless statistic around dividing Lady Gags's income into other people's bottom line?

            There are hundreds of thousands of artists who, for the first time, have access to distribution and the opportunity to be discovered, and are actually making at least some money off their art. No, not everyone is going to be a mega superstar--to suggest as much is ridiculous (and also why the major labels have a historical 98% failure rate). Yes, there are still the mega superstars, but now we have an emerging lower, middle and upper class of musicians who are able to generate revenue, fame and notoriety through their craft.

            Let's not get distracted by the sideshows, carnival barkers of other pseudo music sites who make up silly little numbers to be sensational in an attempt to drive web traffic to make money off advertising.

            Jeff Price
            TuneCore

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charice_Pempengco

            Got a gig on Glee and started on Youtube LoL

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:14am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

              and guess which gig is actually paying the bills? youtube or glee? hmmm, let me guess... Glee.

              same with beiber, is youtube paying the bills or interscope records. hmmm, let me guess... Interscope Records.

              pick a lie and stick to it.

              you are just pointing out how youtube can't support artists and they need to get real gigs that really pay. thanks for making the point so clear.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                Now you're changing your argument in an attempt to win a losing argument - true sign of a argumentative, but misinformed individual.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:07am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                  It's the AC moron playbook: make false/unsupportable accusations and claims, change the subject when challenged, when finally cornered act like a 3 year old throwing a hissy fit, throw out random insults and then disappear to the next thread to do the same again.

                  It's stupid, but I fear there's more than one person actually sticking to this tactic, which is as pathetic as it is counter-productive, but there you go...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 10:51am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                    im sure they are paid well to spread FUD, i mean if EA is doing it, you can sure bet that the MAFIAA are doing it.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                The eejit (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:48pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                You're trying to argue a "chicken and egg" situation in which it isn't. Glee may pay the bills now, but without Youtube, and "flagrant copyright infringement", there would have been no role on Glee.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 6:21pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

                Quote:
                They made more because they EMI had already spent millions making them "Radiohead."


                That is what you said.
                Those links shows that people actually can get famous without EMI spending millions on making them, they can do it using Youtube and even get hired by EMI.

                Bieber was made on Youtube, the girl for the Glee was made on Youtube, many others are being made by Youtube with a growing number making six figures on there alone and you are saying it is not possible?

                LoL

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Lowestofthekeys (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:14am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: honesty

            Oh snap...apparently Itunes pays less per song download to artists than Tunecore...

            http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2011/111103labelpays

            I guess Tunecore is not all so bad.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        fairusefriendly (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:01pm

        Re: Re: honesty

        an how many of those people had not heard radio head and simple gave them a try because the content is free.

        you might want to read the statement you are responding too

        I truly believe most fans will support the artists they like.


        people who haven't decided if they like the band yet are not fans.

        They won't be fans until the next album.

        Oh and btw radio head now has all those people on their mailing list.

        And they made more money selling those new fans tickets/merchandise/old albums/ pushing them to their youtube videos and collecting ad payments/ then they would have made selling them the album at full price given the standard record deals.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 8:35pm

    El, thanks for your comments.

    I would have to say that you are pretty much dealing with the shit sandwich of piracy as best you can. But in the end, I think it's clear that you know you are having to eat a lot of shit here to try to make a living.

    Your attitude is wonderful, but it is to me incredibly demoralizing to see the position you are in. It's incredibly hard for you to making a living as a musician when people are taking for free the very product you are trying to sell. You may not think you are begging, but in the end, that is really what you are doing. There is nothing left except hoping that you can convince people to pay you for what they already have for free.

    Good luck with it. I wouldn't wish the current situation on anyone.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      rubberpants, 1 May 2012 @ 9:01pm

      Re:

      It's incredibly hard...to making a living as a musician.

      It's hard to make a living as .

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DC, 1 May 2012 @ 9:12pm

      Re:

      Do you people run in shifts?

      1 copy != 1 lost sale.

      The vast majority of musicians have never made a living solely performing music, even if you add recording to that (which the music industry initially rejected violently -- see player pianos ... etc ... Ad infinitum).

      People seem to think El-P is talented and entertaining, and I wish him the best. He certainly comes off as sincere.

      So ... do subway buskers suffer more from piracy than obscurity?

      So you can digitally copy the experience of a live performance?

      The only shit sandwich here is the one you are serving which has 1 topping of 1 copy = 1 lost sale, and 1 topping of there used to be a golden age where the labels made every promising artist rich.

      I wouldn't wish your world view on anyone.

      Oh ... is shit sandwich the new shill phrase of the month?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:20pm

        Re: Re:

        "Do you people run in shifts?

        1 copy != 1 lost sale.
        "

        Perhaps the ultimate strawman. Can you please find me anywhere, anywhere, ever, anyone on the label side saying that.

        It doesn't exist. Don't believe the hype, right?

        "The only shit sandwich here is the one you are serving which has 1 topping of 1 copy = 1 lost sale,"

        That is your flawed interpretation of things. Again, please point me to a single person on the label side saying that. It doesn't exist.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's because they're on the labels side.

          All the labels care about is money.

          Herp derp.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:35pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            yeah, google doesn't care about money at all... that's why they are giving up cash and moving to a t-shirt economy cause it's worked so well for music, they can't pass it up!

            http://themusicaldisconnect.blogspot.com/2012/01/google-announces-ads-free-just-buy-tee.html

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Hahahaha!

              I'll bet you wrote that all by yourself didn't you, freakyleakydahboatasinky.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:29am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              And you are using Google assets to attack Google.
              Have you paid them already?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:04am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Artists that say the every pirate just tells them to sell tshirts are dumb. They have proven that they have not read a damn thing. Look more into the articles of CwF+RtB. RtB does not say "sell tshirts and you'll do fine."

              You want to be taken seriously? Stop cherrypicking a piece of the argument and extrapolating that premise to the entire argument, thus providing yourself with a strawman fallcy.

              Instead read all presented premises and the actual argument presented. Otherwise expect backlash when you complain "you just want us to sell tshirts and give our music away" which isn't want anyone here suggested.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:46am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                no cherry picking. simple logic. by telling artist the money is in t-shirts and touring, you are admitting there is no money for artists in the cyber/digital/online economy. that is self evident. if it needs further explaining I can't help you.

                also, forcing artists to make money from touring and merchandising is a step BACKWARDS. It's not innovation to take a 40 year leap BACKWARDS. So much for your argument of innovation when the best thing you can offer is sending artists BACKWARDS 40 years.

                if the online models were truly innovative they wouldn't need to illegally exploit artists and creators to get the models to work. the models would work with innovative new content.

                So where are all those bands and movies being financed by the pirate bay and other pirate sites? how come these guys have a business model ONLY when they can monetize the work and labor of someone else?

                Even Google's Chief Economist knows you are WRONG...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:36am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  1) Wrong assumption, still strawman with the "tshirt and touring" argument and the denial that copies can't earn money
                  2) Wrong understanding, copies do not ALWAYS equate to money - meaning you can't say that selling copies is guaranteed income because it isn't - which does NOT mean you cannot sell copies, just means you can't guarantee it will be income
                  3) Exploitation? Talk to Billy Corgan about that, no one exploited artists more than the labels
                  4) Pirate Bay does NOT make enough money to provide FREE distribution AND advances to artists -- can you stop insisting otherwise?
                  5) "How come these guys have a business model ONLY when they can monetize the work and labour of someone else" -- that's EXACTLY what a label does!

                  The work of the artist, producer, mixer, marketing people, etc... - they monetize the work and labour of someone else - provide a loan (and ARE PAID BACK so don't hand me that "unrecouped loss" funded by successful acts) which is akin to your bank lending you $50000 for your dream store you want to open, of which you have to pay for the tellers and loan officers who worked with you, pay for storage of your information in the banking system, and the bank takes all your revenue and gives you back a small portion, from which you have to pay back the $50000. But you can't buy any merchandise to sell because you didn't earn a profit despite selling everything in the store, so you have to get another loan for $20000 to buy stock. Now you're in debt to them $70000 and they take all your revenue and give you a pittance.

                  Don't you get it? The Pirate Bay is not a bank lending you money and taking your revenue. The Pirate Bay provides the roads to your store so people can find you and your stock. And it is free, you didn't have to pay for those roads to be installed.

                  You want to compete with free? Give THEM A REASON TO BUY and THEY WILL!!!! Otherwise the downloaders who never would have bought anyhow will listen to you in the background while they play Wii (which they PAID for - that is the money they COULD have paid to you if you gave them more of a reason than "I recorded this").

                  The real problem is competition now exists amongst the entertainment industry members. It's no longer movies and music. It's movies/music/video games (no longer a fringe group - but instead mainstream!!!!)/social networks etc.. some people pay for some they don't.

                  Who is going to pay for music if they don't feel they get anything from it and would rather play video games free on Facebook while chatting with friends?

                  What is their incentive to purchase the music? If they are a fan, that's the incentive.

                  You have NO idea who was a fan and who was not, neither does Radiohead or EMI. So cut the "62% fan" bullshit.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Ophelia Millais (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Even if your claim about there being no money for artists online were true, why do you feel they are entitled to continue having X% of their income be derived from selling copies of their work (and/or selling at a particular price point)? Talk about being stuck in the past. It is not my job, as a consumer, to ensure that artist revenue sources remain within certain proportions to each other!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 10:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              I can tell whoever designed this blog hates the tech industry, that must be why they decided to make such an ugly looking blog and post it on blogspot which is owned by google. Way to stick it to google by using their products...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh, and look up the definition of strawman. Saying there's nobody on the side against ours rooting for our side is an ultimate strawman.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DC, 1 May 2012 @ 9:30pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Pretty much every label study of losses to copying assume 1 copy = 1 lost sale.

          I'm pretty sure you have access to them, so I'm not going to cite them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:11pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            not true. prove it.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Pretty much every label study of losses to copying assume 1 copy = 1 lost sale. "

            Not true in the slightest. They do indicate that, if all pirate copies were sales, they would be X amount. Nobody specifically says that each pirated item is a lost sale, only that IF they were lost sales, they would be worth X.

            It really isn't the same thing. It's a bad argument from those looking to belittle the recording industry and to deny what is going on.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:31am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              No they actually file lawsuits claiming that crap and get bitch slapped in courts all over the world.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:54am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "No they actually file lawsuits claiming that crap and get bitch slapped in courts all over the world."

                looks to me like it was Jaime Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum who got bitch slapped. Even a Harvard Law Prof couldn't argue effectively against the illegal exploitation of artists work without consent or compensation.

                FAIL.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:36am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "They do indicate that, if all pirate copies were sales, they would be X amount. Nobody specifically says that each pirated item is a lost sale, only that IF they were lost sales, they would be worth X."

              Which is a strawman and an idiotic misdirection. If they're fully aware that this will never happen, why are these figures even discussed?

              Perhaps if these studies were based on realistic figures and not pie-in-the-sky unachievable figures, they would be taken more seriously? Perhaps start with an intellectually honest study that accepts that free downloads can have effects in the opposite direction (e.g. people buying copies and/or supporting artists in other ways after having listened to a pirated copy - and YES this does happen).

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DC, 1 May 2012 @ 9:32pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oops ... forgot ... you didn't reply to any other point.

          FAIL.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Sorry, the only fail here is you flat out assuming that people who download stuff don't buy shit at all.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:40pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ooops. Disregard that. Thought the other AC replied.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              actually they do buy stuff, they buy video games which are harder to pirate, but not much music, which they can get for free. if there were any truth to your argument we would not be having this conversation.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                drew (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Seriously dude? More money is going into the wider music industry now than ever, it's just not going via the recording industry.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:32am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Anything digital that's comprised of 1s and 0s can be downloaded with the same ease. The only difference is how much hard drive space it will use and the actual time of the download.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Since when people couldn't get music for free?

                I do remember radio putting "1 Hr non-stop music" what do you think that was for?

                3M made a fortune in cassette tapes, nobody complained then.

                Even today you can find all the crap you want for free and legally.

                Are you going to stop putting music on VEVO?

                So no, piracy is not really your problem nor is free, is your crazy entitlement mentality and laws that enables you to be that dense.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:52am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                actually they do buy stuff, they buy video games which are harder to pirate, but not much music, which they can get for free.

                Then the solution is to create music for video games then.

                Seriously you need to accept that videogames have created a new option for entertainment spending - and that was always going to reduce the market for music, with or without piracy.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:40am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                " actually they do buy stuff, they buy video games which are harder to pirate, "

                You're either joking, or really, REALLY stupid.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Liz (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 9:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I would imagine the court cases where the copyright holders (namely the members of the major record labels) equate downloads to lost sales would count. It is in the public, legal record, after all.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          DC, 1 May 2012 @ 9:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Sorry for too many posts, but you responded to 1 point.

          I made 6 points, none of which you responded to.

          That's a pretty pathetic argument.

          By the way ... I'll let the more research inclined here support this, but if I recall, the *AAs report each download as more than 1 lost sale. I could be wrong, but I am not wrong about the 1 lost sale equation.

          Funny you call something you know you can not punch down a straw man.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Jay (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 10:21pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Read any IFPI report. They try to complain about the one to one causation but it has been shit down repeatedly. If you want the best research about this, read "media piracy" from joe kataganis and his team. In it, he details exactly which studies have the 1-1 ratio.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:54pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              really, could you cite that... because a 95% piracy rate still only equals a 60% drop in sales. So unless the IFPI think the business should be 20x's bigger I think you are grossly confused on simple math.

              every download does not equal a 1:1 lost sale, but every lost sale can be attributed to an illegal download. there's a difference.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Karl (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                every lost sale can be attributed to an illegal download.

                This is a joke, right?

                A "lost sale" is simply a consumer who decided not to buy your particular product, for any reason. That can't be attributed solely to "illegal downloads" even in the wettest dreams of a lonely RIAA lobbyist.

                Every potential customer who decides the price is too high is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who can't get the product because of regional restrictions is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who won't buy your product because of restrictive DRM is a "lost sale." Every potential customer who decides to pay rent instead is a "lost sale."

                Most importantly of all, every potential customer who buys an MP3 instead of a CD is counted as a "lost sale" - at least if you're talking about the drop in revenue to the recording industry post-2004.

                Illegal downloads have very little to do with it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:36am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Are you aware of the Pareto's Rule?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:48am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "but every lost sale can be attributed to an illegal download. "

                Bullshit. The last album sale a major label lost from me was the soundtrack to The Raid, which I wasn't allowed to buy due to regional restrictions. I can cite other sales lost as a direct result of high pricing, low quality previews or tracks unavailable outside of an album package. None of these have anything to do with piracy.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:13am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                95% to 60%? Citation needed (with actual valid math, not numbers pulled out of one's backside, ie: IFPI).

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Jay, incorrect. As I mentioned above, it's a question of "if every pirated copy was a lost sale, this is the value". There is no direct statement that every pirated copy is a lost sale - at most, it's a lost potential sale.

              The thing is, we know that the recorded music industry dropped 60% in the Napster decade. You would have to be more than slightly daft not to accept that there is some causation here.

              Well, daft or Mike Masnick.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:37am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Liar, the RIAA frequently file lawsuits claiming that all downloads are lost sales, along with their MPAA pals Jack Valenti that may be in hell by now and Chris Dodd.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:59am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The thing is, we know that the recorded music industry dropped 60% in the Napster decade. You would have to be more than slightly daft not to accept that there is some causation here.

                No - there is only correlation - and here are some other correlated things

                1) The cost of CD's stays high - despite the fact that evryone knows they now cost pennies to make.

                2) My generation have completed the process of replacing their vinyl with CD. I stopped buying CDs duriing that period - apart from purchases made direct from the artist at concerts.

                The piracy hypothesis is not required to explain the figures.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Cowardly Anonymous, 2 May 2012 @ 7:22am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                The thing is, we know that the recorded music industry dropped 60% in the Napster decade.


                Getting busted for price fixing and having a new platform that allows indie musicians to functionally compete had nothing to do with it at all.

                /sarc

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:30am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                And the price fixing had nothing to do with that.

                Nor the fact that people were replacing worn out vinyl and stretched/chewed cassette tapes.

                The devil is in the details and the only people will the full demographical information containing proof that new sales were dropping before Napster and people were replacing old, previous purchased formats are the labels. The same companies who won't ever let that cat out of the bag because they know it would discredit their so-called studies. All we have are samples that prove such. No mass collection.

                Want that proof? Indict the labels and subpoena their financial and data records.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:20pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                at most, it's a lost potential sale.
                Many people try before they buy, so even that might not be fully accurate. They might buy it after getting a pirated copy.

                Correlation does not mean causation. The industry drop could equally be caused by the rise of independent artists bypassing the main publishers and dealing with the public directly.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.se/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-theory.html

          "......RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale. ....."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Quote:
          In a 16-page opinion, District Judge James P. Jones, sitting in the Western Disrict of Virginia, denied the RIAA's request for restitution, holding the RIAA's reasoning to be unsound:

          http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2009/01/riaas-download-equals-lost-sale-theo ry.html

          Happy now?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:23pm

        Re: Re:

        They don't run in shifts, they run in shits!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 10:09pm

      Re:

      "But don't make the mistake of treating us condescendingly or with pity."

      Guess you can't follow simple instructions, can you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:43pm

      Re:

      "You may not think you are begging, but in the end, that is really what you are doing. "

      A lot of musicans are fan supported. I hope more and more are. There was a recent article on Amanda Palmer and she appears to be doing better with her fans than with her label. I know Marillion was a pioneer in asking fans for pre-orders and tour locations. I heard about them through their efforts to organize a tour and checked them out.

      One of the falliacies is expecting every download to be a sale or lost sale. I'm going to have to look up who this is and their music to know if it is something I'm interested in. One thing confusing to me is why does anyone expect me to buy something before I've heard it.

      Nearly 100% of what I've bought based on a 30-60 second sample, I've deleted. It wasn't what I thought it was. Most of my all time favorites and must-have's I discovered after I had listened to it for awhile. Good music can take time to grow. I like listening as a single, in context with the album and as part of a compliation. It can mean different things to me at different times.

      I'm not going to buy just "to check it out". Consider it advertising that's better than playing on the radio. I also know that I do buy a lot more music when I can explore a wide variety to find what I like. The only way I have of discovering a new band or music is through the internet and transferred to disc or device so that I can actively listen.

      Before the internet I bought zero. I kept to the same stuff that I had listened to for decades largley because I had no idea what I had been missing. When I run into friends now that are listening to decades old "hits" I try to explain there's a lot more out there and it's kind of hard to do because of this myth that music is dying, no money in it and everything comes from a major label or anything that's worth listening to is on the radio / hit chart (which is rubbish).

      Not everyone is going to like everything anymore than not everyone should make a living in the music business just because they want to.

      I would like to make a living at being a visual artist and it's a gamble. Do I expect to be paid everytime someone looks at my work? How do I handle it when someone buys something and in a few years resells it for much more money - why don't I get a cut off that sale too (based on music major label laws)? Does any visual artist make a living (or even a profit) off of a gallery - and if not, why do they keep showing there?

      I keep showing for exposure, i.e. promotion. One of the foundations of copyright law was to encourage new works - not to live off the old forever. If someone copies or reuses, it's because I did something they liked, iconic maybe. But I'm going to try to do it even better next time and that's where I want to make money - not on something old. I have to love what I do and have something to say or add if I expect to make a living at it. It has to be better than just "good". It has to be great and really special. I would be doing it with or without money.

      I tend to expect that of musicians too. They have to love it and have something unique that puts them above the rest. I am amazed (and a little scared) by how creative and talented the average person is. Sometimes I think the only divide is those that are professionals would do it anyway and can't stop. The hobbiest has other priorities.

      I want to see my stuff out there first. Then I'll look at making a living from it. But I never want to feel entittled to make a living at it.

      I haven't read the first article, nor do I know who this is.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:01am

        Re: Re:

        A lot of musicans are fan supported. I hope more and more are.

        Actually all musicians are fan supported - and always have been - with the notable exception of a few gentlemen of independent means - such as Henry VIII.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 8:53pm

    "In these debates (no matter what venue) the artist almost always seems to be treated/viewed as a child. Either we don't understand what's good for us, can't control what's happening to us, can't comprehend what's bad for us or we are not wise enough to be grateful for what we are handed."

    How true, and it's always been that way - reminds me of those old black and white clips from the early 60s of John Lennon and the other Beatles being interviewed, and the condescending way in which the reporters would speak to them - as though they were children.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:58pm

      Re:

      To some extent this is because many artist's just want to create their art and have given up control to do that. It's only been within the last two decades that artist can interact with their fans and publish / produce their own quality material.

      One way to end the copyright battle is to stop signing away management and the business side of their career. You also have to remember that many labels make all sorts promises, shiny new things, big advances that they are selling. They also have a distribution network. It can be hard to turn down.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        and uhm, labels actually pay the artists, and pirates actually don't. so when it comes time to pay the rent, it's better to get paid.

        but what's worse is, if an artist doesn't sign to a label, they still can't get paid from pirates (who are making 100% of the money)

        so you are asking artists to not get paid, so that they can have no hope of getting paid for the consumption of their music.

        asking artists to tour and sell t-shirts is an outright admission that there is no money for musicians in the online economy, and further more, it's a step backwards of about 40-50 years... that's how artists did it before the internet and you want them to go backwards not forwards.

        of course anyone can put an album up via tunecore, but the average tunecore artist is only making $179 a year...

        http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/042511tunecore#dLuDbcK_0fMVeNKJf4N0QQ

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Pirates are the only people who care others don't even bother looking up some musician let alone pay for it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Your either a troll or just very very very stupid and naive

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:34am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "of course anyone can put an album up via tunecore, but the average tunecore artist is only making $179 a year"

          Yes when anyone can put an album up the average an artist makes goes down. I can upload myself farting on a snare drum it won't sell but it can be on there. It brings down the average of the talented acts that do make money. Also these are acts that did not have access to this revenue stream before. Going from 0 a year to 179 a year is a 80 bazillion % increase.

          Also every time you say that the average goes down. At least keep your bullshit straight.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:47am

      Re:

      Well if the musicians didn't act like spoiled brats they wouldn't be treated condescendingly.

      How condescending is to say "Look you don't understand how hard it is to work as a musician", everybody understand perfectly, everybody knows how hard it is to work, because everybody works or worked at some point so everyone understands how hard it is.

      Which is why nobody is going to accept special treatment for any class of people, specially if it impinges on their own rights.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    DC, 1 May 2012 @ 8:56pm

    I think you have a very clear perspective on reality. Anyone who would treat you as a child is a moron. In fact, admitting what you don't know is a sign of exceptional maturity.

    I do hope, and expect, that your fans will support you.

    I also hope you spend some small bits of time you can afford lurking here so you can see the debate around these topics. Or even comment, or better yet ... guest post again :-)

    I think you would see in the posts (comments are more dodgy) that artists that reject the idea of suing fans, and 1 copy = 1 lost sale are celebrated here as actually having a firm grasp on the sorts of things that they can understand / control / comprehend.

    Thanks again for the post.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The eejit (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:36am

      Re:

      +1. I may disagree with El-P on where his outlook is, but I can absolutely appreciate the why. A well-thought assessment of what may be needed in the copyright arena.

      I've said it before, and I'll say it again: being a human being and explaining why you're unhappy with things is a lot better than demonizing the opposition in opening negotiations.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 8:57pm

    Love it

    I don't agree with the draconian and aggressive manner in which the RIAA and others have reacted to those realities and I wont be caught trying to put band aids on cracks in the dam. I'd rather let that bitch flood and build a boat. That said, I cringe a bit when people disregard how tough it is for working musicians to deal with the new paradigm. Cut us some slack. It's all relatively new and we are trying our best to navigate choppy waters.

    Well said. Just remember that the fans are also navigating these new tides. I think the recent breakout of kickstarter shows that most (or at least enough) people's hearts are in the right place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 9:51pm

    You Will Be Fine

    It is so nice to see you here, El-P.

    Musicians are not children, they are independent business persons. The reason why they were formerly treated as children is because they signed abusive contracts with record labels. The labels then treated them badly, thus they ended up with child status. Arguments have been made that the abusive contracts were inevitable, but musicians need to step up and take responsibility. Signing an abusive contract is never a wise move. Seek alternatives.

    The magic of the internet has now given musicians a way forward with a lot less pressure to sign an abusive contract. The peddlers of abusive contracts are as mad as hell about that, it is costing them money. Their shills comment here regularly, then the community calls them out. However, nobody is entitled to be the beneficiary of an abusive contract, no matter how long they may have been engaged in the practice.

    The economics of infinite goods is difficult and counter-intuitive. Art is difficult, too. So artists have a learning curve. Here at Techdirt we aim to help artists find their way. The answer is the doctrine "Connect with Fans then give them a Reason to Buy", abbreviated here as "CwF+RtB". You are doing fine with connecting with fans. Now you need to give us real scarcities with reasons as to why we might buy them. Infinite goods are infinite and the price of them inevitably goes to zero. Shiny disks and concert tickets are just two of a whole universe of scarce goods possibilities. If you have fans who love you and you offer them reasonable things to buy, you cannot help but make money. There are many stories on Techdirt about artists who have followed the doctrine and succeeded.

    We want you to succeed, but do it without violating our human rights and with giving us art that we want. Do not get misled by the erroneous arguments of the shills. They are not your friends. Your fans are your friends.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:07pm

      Re: You Will Be Fine

      His friends (who ever they are) pay him for his music.
      I don't know where to start, phew.
      This idea that generations of intelligent, articulate and independent thinking musicians ALL signed 'abusive' contracts is beyond demeaning. I wouldn't mind quite so much if I thought the majority of people who parroted this crap had ever had ANY experience of a record label. You believe the crap about abuse because it makes you feel better when you rip off ordinary musicians like EI-P.

      In the end, the whole debacle is about freedom of choice.
      If EI-P is ok with fans downloading his music before it's released, that's absolutely fine. If I'm not OK with that, you should respect my choice to continue to sell my music. If you don't want to buy it, don't take it against my wishes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:13pm

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        agreed. well put.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:21pm

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        Okay, 1) Why are you implying that in the act of accepting a leak, he's not selling his music?

        2) Piracy isn't all black and white. Take this for example. I'd never heard of the band Nightwish before. I downloaded ((re: Pirated)) their latest album, Imaginaerum, to give it a listen. The next day, I went out and brought the 2-CD physical album, having to take busses all over town to find who had it in stock.

        3) Anyone who signs with the RIAA or associated labels is in an abusive contract. If you don't believe me, then point out ways I'm wrong, give citations.

        4) I have never heard of El-P before now. If his album hadn't leaked, I wouldn't have even heard of him. Now I know he's out there, and I feel like taking a look at some of his stuff, and maybe buying an album if I like it.

        5) I respect both of your opinions, but I also have my own. Don't knock it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          "3) Anyone who signs with the RIAA or associated labels is in an abusive contract. If you don't believe me, then point out ways I'm wrong, give citations."

          here ya go:
          http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-post /

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:43pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              and so how do I get a contract with the pirate bay to get paid, could you please provide me with that link?

              Uh yeah...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:47pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                Wow, bringing up the ultimate strawman; something completely unrelated to the labels being asses.

                I'm sure being a part of the RIAA is -great-, I'm /suuuuuuuuuuure/ that you guys can't find /aaaaany/ other method that wont' screw you over.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:09pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                No contract needed.

                http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120430/04432118703/dan-bulls-free-sin gle-hits-charts.shtml

                "Last week we wrote about Dan Bull's experiment to release a song, "Sharing is Caring" for free via The Pirate Bay (and other sites) and to see if he could still get it to show up in various charts. As we discussed, it definitely was making its way onto the lists of Amazon UK's top hip hop sales. And, on Sunday, the official UK charts came out -- with Sharing is Caring coming in at number 9 on the Indie singles chart and number 35 on the RnB singles chart."

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 11:18pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  of course not, Rolling Stone doesn't provide contracts when promoting artists, but then again, Rolling Stone isn't illegally exploiting artists against their will, violating copyright, and ripping off the artist for profit, the pirate bay is... that sounds like real oppression to me.

                  so where are all those contracts for all of those other THOUSANDS of artists? if the pirate bay is not afraid of the way they abuse artists why don't they let them remove their material?

                  the real abuse and oppression is by the pirates who profit and pay artists NOTHING, EVER, not a single penny, while they the pirates continue to get richer and richer.

                  Where are those contracts and payments again? Oh, they don't exist... yup, you got nuthin but BS.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:05am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    Silly you thinking you need a contract to get paid.

                    The only one spewing complete BS here is you. Clearly you must work for a label because every post of yours has "contract" in it somewhere. Either that or you truly enjoy getting bent over the table for your regular flesh to flesh colonoscopy after signing away all your rights.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:57am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    To all those saying "well why doesnt pirate bay give contracts to artists, if their sooo much better then media company's, whahh whahh wahh", which i might add, was started by some twat here, putting words in another commenters mouth, which is usually a sign of someone who values their own opinion above all else, truth honesty and betterment optional, but not required.

                    But back to my point, where is pirate bay gonna get this "mony" to pay artists?
                    What do you think would happen if pirate bay started a business model in order to earn "this cash" which they will be paying to the artists?
                    I tell you what will happen, more direct intervention and cock blocking by those in the same business, and then the inevitable techdirt whiners

                    " YOU SEE, bunch of thiefs making money of media company PROPERTIES, i was right always have been, in your face, freeterds"

                    While convienintly ignoring the reason behind it, and the "in your face" FACT, that these actions would create a direct competitor, in this case superior competitor in regards to delivery, to those that are trying to bash, shame, and creating laws to make it legal to essentially destroy competition

                    In a nut shell, to those particular techdirt commenters putting words in other peoples mouths in order to BASH, and that IS what their goal is, i say

                    "Fuck Y'all, kool aid drinking, motherfckers"

                    Stay stale, and rot, metaphysically speaking

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:26am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    Rolling Stone had the power, back in the day, to give artists a huge burst of publicity and sales via their articles, or the complete opposite. The masses followed like sheep.

                    So they could indeed hurt the artists careers!

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                "and so how do I get a contract with the pirate bay to get paid, could you please provide me with that link? "

                I'd like to know where the attitude came from that thinks anyone who is a musican / artist is entittled to be paid? Some people enjoy making music and would do it whether they got paid or not.

                I'm not saying that no musicians should be paid. What I am saying is that it is a competitive field with a lot of extremely good people in it and a lot more people would like to do it as a profession, but that doesn't mean they should all be successful or making money doing it.

                A lot of people are actors or actresses. Do they all deserve to be in the movies?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:10am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                We'll provide a link when you provide a link that the Pirate Bay charges YOU for services provided.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Nigel (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:14am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                As usual the AC's completely miss the point. There is no crappy contract. Its called free distribution and exposure. Key work there being free. I will take that over all my cash going to the Rubes at the RIAA everyday of the week.

                Nigel

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 10:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              news flash, you can't have a contract dispute without a contract... the only point you've made is that artists actually get contracts and payments from labels. you've also made the point that they can audit the label, and because they have a contract they can move to resolve disputes, in the courts if necessary.

              the same mechanism that makes every link you posted above possible, is the mechanism you are arguing to take away from artists, copyrights.

              so when you can show me an artist contract with a pirate site like the pirate bay (and others), that offers better terms than labels, and pays on those terms, than you'll have a point.

              until than all you have is the usual BS...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                Who the fuck says I'm telling artists to make a contract with pirate sites? Are you delusional? The only BS is coming from you right now.

                Try sites like kickstarter. Or, I dunno, monetize on youtube. Or, I dunno, go independent; sell your music without a third party via digital means.

                I'm not saying it's easy.

                But it's not like the record labels make it easy on you either.

                Oh, and there are plenty of stories floating around about artists who don't get paid royalties from labels. You just block 'em out of your mind because "Oh, artists can sue them. I don't care that the labels fuck up their contracts all the time or screw with artists."

                Labels only care about two things.

                Themselves.

                And money.

                The truth hurts, doesn't it?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 11:07pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  the truth that hurts is that you don't have a point, you seem kinda riled up there... yer an angry fella aren't ya?

                  when the pirate bay offers artists a contract and terms better than the labels you'll have a point, until then you got a hand full of gooey stinky brown stuff.

                  there are NO contracts and payments to artists from pirate sites. the failure of your logic is to promote a greater injustice to replace a lessor one.

                  so where are all those contracts for artists to get paid from the pirate bay? where? let's see those links? you got those? Huh? Where are they?

                  Oh yeah, pirate sites rip off artists so they they the pirate site can profit 100% and pay the artists ZERO, Nothing, Nadda, Zippo...

                  really man, why do you hate artists so much?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:12pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    Yer all "Pirate bay, pirate bay, PIRATE ARRR PIRATE"

                    You sound mightily intent that I'm somehow trying to connect this all to saying artists should go on pirate sites and allow themselves to have music shared? When I said -nothing- of the sort? You really -ARE- delusional.

                    Why do you hate rationality so much? Umad, bro? Or just trollin'?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:22pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                      you want to make a point, provide those fair and non-oppressive contracts that pay artists from the pirate bay?

                      what? the pirate bay and other pirate site rip off artists 100% and don't offer any kind of contract or payment? wow. crazy...

                      just provide a copy of those great artist friendly non-oppressive pirate contracts for artists that actually pay the artists, let's have it.

                      let's see how well artist are being treated by corporations profiting from the artists work without ANY contracts or payments.

                      Go ahead, provide those contracts.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:23pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                        You wanna make a point, provide reference where I said anything about the pirate bay that wasn't in direct response to your stupidity and pulling strawmen out of your ass.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:30pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                          it's all above. you can't answer the point because you know you can't.

                          there are no artists contracts with the pirate sites who profit 100% while paying the artists 0%

                          so are you now saying that pirate site should respect artists and remove any material the artist doesn't want there? are you saying the pirate sites should offer contracts to artists that are more competitive than label contracts and that the pirate sites should honor those contracts?

                          pick a lie and stick to it already!

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:33pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                            Wow, you're taking this into whole new levels of territory. First, you can't even cite a source, insisting it's "ALL ABOVE ZOMG", when it kinda... Isn't. Direct quote pl0x.


                            I'm not going to try an defend an imaginary argument that you are flat out lying I said.

                            This isn't even a strawman any more. It's gotten stupider than that.

                            It's a -chewbacca defence-.

                            http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

                            You're not even worth replying to from here on out.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:49am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                            Do you need a contract to distribute music to your fans?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:40pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                              according to the riaa you damn well do, they raided a music store for selling cassettes and cd's made by indi artists, excuse was they where sure it was piracy, turned out all the stuff they found was being sold by the shop FOR THE ARTISTS, the RIAA defense of their actions was that tapes and cd's that are not pressed/professionally recorded=piracy....

                              so yes, according to the RIAA you need a contract with an RIAA lable to legally distribute, if you dont, they will do their level best to insure your content never sees the light of day.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:32am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                            Go re-read the articles on the court case against The Pirate Bay and see for yourself they DO NOT HAVE PROFITS! They barely earn a living! And many legitimate uses/content is shared through the Pirate Bay.

                            Get off it, you sound like Lowery and his anti-Google/Apple rant.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    Show me a Walmart site or a radio station with a contract with a muscian.

                    P2P is a distribution system. It's also exposure. Radio is dead. They aren't comparable to a record label.

                    Why would anyone buy something they hadn't heard before? There is a much greater chance of selling your music after someone hears it.

                    This whole thing sounds anti-competitive. It used to be the radio was the gateway with apx 50 singles making a rotation. There would be one song that stood out from the rest.

                    Now there are thousands easily available with a handful standing out from the rest. The odds got a lot worse for musicians. As a listener, I can sample regional and foreign markets in addition to traditional national and local acts. I can also sample unsigned or hobbyist musicians. That raises the bar.

                    As a consumer I like to think that talent will be rewarded over marketing and promotion. I know that's not entirely true, but I think a no label, talented musician has a much better shot of making it now than they did 20 years ago. It also means that potential fans need to do a lot of sampling in order to find them.

                    What Pirate Bay offers is exposure to a potential market. People buy zero of what they haven't been exposed to.

                    ttp://boingboing.net/2012/04/17/pirate-bays-promo-bay-fl.html

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    We only hate artists that go "Boohoohoohoo, they are stealing my lunch moneys!" despite there is no such thing happening.

                    YOU are getting FREE exposure from these pirate sites (like free exposure on youtube, and free exposure on the radio and any other distribution methods), YOU can then use that to YOUR advantage.

                    If you don't use it, but instead go and sulk in a corner, then it's your own damn fault that no one is buying your crap.

                    Putting out music for sale is like a real job, you have to put an effort into getting paid. Gee whiz! Who'd ever have thunk it!

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            then point out ways I'm wrong, give citations."

            here ya go:
            http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-boss-worse-than-the-old-boss-full-p ost /


            Well actually the title says it all - "worse than the old boss" already implies that the old boss was bad - so you haven't made your point - you've undermined it!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:00am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Take a read at the comments, remember DeeLite? Well the singer replied and said that Lowery's claims of 30%+ royalties were unheard-of in her circles. 12% was more realistic so she says.

            I would not make the assumption that because Lowery claims the good 'ol days were good and now sucks (the rest of his article(s) were mostly a rant and were built off the concept that you have to sell copies to make money, along with some anti-tech company banter with wrong assumptions for his rant).

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          Anyone who signs with the RIAA or associated labels is in an abusive contract. If you don't believe me, then point out ways I'm wrong, give citations.

          I dunno, maybe you can post the mental health records of David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Sting, Mick Fleetwood, Bruce Springsteen proving how crazy they were to sign a major label contract time and time and time again. And how disturbed they were to come to their senses one day only to realise they'd amassed millions of dollars and several mansions around the world.

          I have never heard of El-P before now. If his album hadn't leaked, I wouldn't have even heard of him. Now I know he's out there, and I feel like taking a look at some of his stuff, and maybe buying an album if I like it.

          It seems to me you actually found out about him because people on a blog you go to are talking about him.
          This is the dumb paradox we are supposed to swallow. The internet helps artists by people downloading their work against their wishes. While apparently the internet has no power to promote artists through thousands of people talking about those artists on thousands of blogs and forums.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            You fail to respond to half of my points.

            Wow.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              Also, see my post above that proves my point. If you aren't uber successful, or do something that the labels don't like, they -will- screw you over.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:51pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                you got a link to where I can get a contract with the pirate bay? I'd like to see their terms and how well they treat artists. You got that right?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:55pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  Wow, bringing up the ultimate strawman; something completely unrelated to the labels being asses.

                  I'm sure being a part of the RIAA is -great-, I'm /suuuuuuuuuuure/ that you guys can't find /aaaaany/ other method that wont' screw you over.

                  Also, reposting your comment after it's been thoroughly burned isn't generally a smart idea.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:11pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    it's not a strawman, if you are arguing about the injustice of labels, why don't you just provide the links to the contracts and payments the pirate bay is offering to artists so we can all see how much more fair that is than a label contract where the artist actually get's paid.

                    it's your argument back up it up, don't be weak and hide behind some bogus strawman claim, you're smarter than that.

                    Where are the contracts and payments to artists from the pirate bay? Why do you hate artists so much? Why?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:15pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                      You're offering a strawman.

                      " if you are arguing about the injustice of labels, why don't you just provide the links to the contracts and payments the pirate bay is offering to artists" Has ZERO relevance to a damn thing I've said, and is completely out of left field.

                      It is *not* my argument. It's the words you're pulling out of your ass.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:28pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                        no, you fail to make a substantive argument, so you claim strawman. oh mommy, strawman, strawman, I can't make a point, starwman, strawman... FAIL.

                        labels may be asses, but they are assess who provide contracts and pay artists. there are no contracts or payments to artists from pirate sites who profit 100% while paying the artists 0%

                        so your solution to one injustice is to create and promote an even larger injustice. sorry, that's not a strawman, that's just a poor argument on your part and you lose on those grounds.

                        the argument is coming from your mouth, so... you might want to watch you are putting your face if you think the argument is coming from my ass, lol.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:35pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                          I never did say a thing about solutions other than "Kickstarter, youtube monetization, or going indie and offering MP3 downloads of your album at a cost".

                          You really are desperate at this point, aren't you?

                          Troll harder, kthnx.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:05am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                            what's desperate is the attempt to justify the wrong doing of the pirate bay who make 100% of the money and pay artists 0%.

                            that's ZERO money paid to artists. ZERO.

                            That's desperate indeed that a business model is sooooo bad, that it requires ripping off artists 100% so that they can make their MILLIONS.

                            Labels Pay Artists. Pirates Don't.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:42am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                              This guy has to be a troll. I can't believe anyone can be so stupid, so bad at having a rational discussion, so horrible at following the thread of conversation and constantly reaching for strawmen without doing it on purpose.

                              Do people like this really exist? Is this level of pigheaded stupidity real? Even the labels know it isn't really about piracy its about control of the market. This guy...this guy can't be for real.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:51am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                              Tell that to members of The Band.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 10:51am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                              "Labels Pay Artists. Pirates Don't."

                              You realize that pirates are consumers/customers right? They are actually the only way labels or artists make money. But suing and condescending and insulting them is surely your best way to get them to support you.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • identicon
                                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:41pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                                I realize the pirate bay is making 100% of the money and paying the artists 0% of the money. Why do you support companies operating illegally ripping off artists?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:54am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                          When was that any musician ever required a contract from fans to share anything?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:30pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                            you need a contract to distribute the artists work for commercial profit which is what the pirate bay does, and takes 100% of the artists money, ripping the artist off and giving the artists 0% of the money earned from that commercial exploitation... at least $4m a year according to tech crunch.

                            why do you support ripping off artists?

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:32pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                f you aren't uber successful, or do something that the labels don't like, they -will- screw you over.

                And yet thousands of less than 'uber successful' artists work with labels all the time, releasing records, making money. I mean getting back to my original point, it's just demeaning to the intelligence of the creative community to suggest even the majority of them (let alone all) blissfully signed abusive contracts, and so far haven't complained other than a few well publicised moans.
                You oh so want it to be true, so you just keep repeating it, hoping it will stick.
                Ask any artist, any artist, almost all of them will tell you they'd prefer a record contract to widespread piracy - if it has to be a choice between the two.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:20am

                  Tell me why it's apparently a fact that the RIAA doesn't abuse artists in favour of money. I'm not saying it's in the contracts, I'm saying that it -happens-. Contracts can be devilishly worded so that they can be twisted in favour of the other party.

                  I never said that piracy was an alternative. I'm arguing that it's shades of grey, and that not every pirated copy is a lost sale, which the labels seem to drive into everything. In fact, labels argue that every pirated copy is worth much, much more than a single sale, to the point where they argue billions of dollars in damages, which, in my opinion, is bullshit. And, any -successful- lawsuits, all the money goes to the lawyers and the labels. Not the artists.

                  The solution to piracy is not attacking it. The solution is actually offering a service that's up to date with technology.

                  I'm in NZ. I can't view netflix. I can't view hulu, or hulu plus. Where can I watch movies online? Where is a legal way to do that?

                  Oh, right.

                  I can't.

                  Arbitrary licensing restrictions placed on by the folks at the MPAA/etc.

                  I can't use Google Movies. I can't watch TV shows through iTunes or buy season passes.

                  The only damn thing the industry does here is provide Steam. And guess how many steam games I own? Over a hundred. Because they're reasonably priced, and readily available, without intrusive, clunky DRM that restricts customer rights.

                  I want to be served. And it's just not happening. This is meerly an example.

                  If they offered Netflix here, with a decent selection? HELL YES I'd pay for it.

                  But, why stop there? Why not go further. You see, pirates are going to pirate, whether they like it or not. What's to stop them from offering DRM-free copies of shows that you can download and store on your hardrive in formats like AVI, MKV and MP4? People would pay through the nose to get that privilege. Instead, the entertainment industry shoves it's foot in the idea, accusing piracy of making them unable to do it. Do they not realise that if they don't offer content in a similar way that pirates do, only paid, people would 100% use it?

                  Sorry, I've gone off on a tangent here, but this is one of the things that really grinds my gears. They bitch about piracy so much, yet the obvious solution is right in their face, and they seem to think that suing people is a better alternative than innovating.

                  It's a similar situation in the music industry. But the difference is, with stuff like iTunes? The music industry is farther along than the movie and TV industry. The web is world wide. Why can't they take advantage of that?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 12:26am

                    Re:

                    And don't get me wrong. I don't pirate often. I go to movies to see ones I like-- I saw Transformers 3 twice, in 3D. I saw The Avengers in 3D.

                    I buy DVD's. I buy CD's. I buy games.

                    What bugs me is that they aren't doing anything to solve the apparent problem that's worth trying to pass draconian laws that shatter privacy and the first amendment.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  drew (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:14am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  "Ask any artist, any artist, almost all of them will tell you they'd prefer a record contract to widespread piracy - if it has to be a choice between the two." aaand let's have that citation again.
                  You're a musician right? You're selling your music right?
                  Where are you selling it? How are you selling it? Who are you even?
                  You obviously really care about this stuff, but here you are in a thread that hundreds of people are reading, and you're not even linking back to your music site?
                  Here's the thing, I'm a musician too. In two clicks you can go from my comment here to my bandcamp site where people can buy my music (this has happened a few times already when I've posted here).
                  But I'm not a great musician.
                  I'm ok and, thankfully, some people like my songs enough to support me and pay me some money to cover things like producing limited run CDs and paying my petrol to gigs and the like.
                  But I am not good enough to have been picked up by a label. That's the way it is. Pre-internet I would have made the square root of fuck-all from my music - I know this, because that's what's happened.
                  Instead I've got many more people listening to our music, I can do gigs further afield (when I can pull my finger out of my arse and sort it out) and I've got people who'll pay for downloads.
                  So a load of people have downloaded and listened to it for free?
                  You know what I say to them?
                  Woohoo! Enjoy! Hope to see you at a gig sometime!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:55am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  Of course they do, the brainwashed always will prefer the shackles instead of freedom, they don't know how to live in a free world.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:53am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Didn't David Bowie dump his record label exactly because he was tired of getting screwed by them?

            http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,623107,00.html

            McCartney I believe founded his on label did he not?

            If I look around I am certain I can find Sting, stinging labels too.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Richard (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:18am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            I dunno, maybe you can post the mental health records of David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Sting, Mick Fleetwood, Bruce Springsteen proving how crazy they were to sign a major label contract time and time and time again.

            You cite artists who had long enough careers to survive the first contract. Once you are an established artist the deals are better because they know you can always walk away and get a better deal somewhere else.

            Those artists you mention will have had a 2% royalty on their first deal (information supplied by Pete Townsend of The Who).

            Richard Branson built a huge company on the basis of offering a better deal than the established labels - according to economic and business theory that should not be possible if those deals were already fair.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Togashi (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 7:57am

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          I take pride in possibly being the one to introduce you to Nightwish. I know I mentioned Imaginaerum a while back on here (specifically here), and it feels good to introduce people to things they end up liking. If it was just independent discovery, then kudos on finding such a great album/band :)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 6:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            I found out about it through a friend over MSN, but thanks! They're an awesome band, I'm gonna try and hunt down their other CD's if they're even available any more.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Josef Anvil (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:37am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        " If I'm not OK with that, you should respect my choice to continue to sell my music. If you don't want to buy it, don't take it against my wishes."

        All I can say to that is, don't be so anonymous AC. Tell us who you are so we can happily avoid paying you or listening to your music.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:49am

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          Yeah, that's what I thought. I don't want to buy his music, but until he outs his identity, I can't be sure I'm not buying it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Niall (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 4:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Oh, it's probably safe that you're in no danger of buying it, it's likely to be *so* obscure... and he's lapping up every RIAA 'promise' that he'll make it big... some day. if it weren't for those pesky pirates!

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 8:33am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              Better safe than sorry... I have a *lot* of obscure music I've bought, especially in my eMusic & DJing days. But, I agree, it's more likely that he's just an outright failure and attacking the wrong target in his rage.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 10:31pm

      Re: You Will Be Fine

      no, your fans are the people who respect your work and pay for it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:58am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        Not really, fans are those who like something and look for it and get whatever they can get their hands on.

        Recently though I don't see crowds of people screaming or stalking musicians anymore do you?

        There are no more superstars is there?

        Keep threading on people and you will have your wishes come true.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          illegal BUSINESSES like the pirate bay should not be able to operate illegally. the pirate bay is ripping off artists, and paying the artists nothing. the pirate bay is a for profit business. you do know the difference between a person and a business right?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 6:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            If it were that simple, the site would be taken down already. But the ship still sails. :3

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2012 @ 1:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            The Pirate Bay is not illegal.

            Illegal was the tactics used to make it illegal in some countries.

            The Pirate Bay should keep any proceedings they so get and the reason is simple they don't exploit any artists they exploit users by offering them something they need and that is a place to share, and share they do, if it is illegal or not, should never be a matter for the Pirate Bay to decide, specially because not even morons like you would be able to say with certainty that something is infringing or not, and that in a nutshell is why copyrights is dead and why people don't, won't and can't respect it, because nobody understands that crap not even people educated on the art of the law.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      freakyleakydahboatasinky, 1 May 2012 @ 10:41pm

      Re: You Will Be Fine

      "The magic of the internet has now given musicians a way forward with a lot less pressure to sign an abusive contract."

      yeah, the internet magic is awesome... no contracts, no payments, nothing... how is replacing on injustice with an even greater injustice progress?

      labels pay artists tens of millions of dollars a year... how much is the pirate bay paying artists? oh, whats' that? Nothing? The Pirate Bay pay's artists nothing? Wow, Really?

      So what would I prefer? Getting paid or not getting paid. I think I'd chose getting paid?

      Hmmm... contracts you say? Where can I get a contract to get paid by the pirate bay and other sites operating illegally? Oh... what? There are no contracts?

      Hahhahahaah I get it, that' funnnny. You can't have oppressive contracts if there are NO contracts! hahahaha! knee slapper...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        drew (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 1:23am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        "So what would I prefer? Getting paid or not getting paid. I think I'd chose getting paid?"
        See my post above, I've already made more money via the internet than I ever would have from a label.
        Funnily enough, I choose getting paid as well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          good for you drew, you get to make choices for yourself, you don't get to make choices for other artists. if you don't mind me asking, how much have you gotten paid from the pirate bay, and, uhm... I don't suppose you work a day job do you?

          hmmmmm....

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:48am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Lol, wow really?

            So anyone who is a musician should have instant success?

            You should really read this http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/09/12/how-record-labels-exploit-bands/

            as it explores the awesomeness of how labels screw over artists for money.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:05am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            The thing is he is not making a choice for anyone.
            The public has made that choice for you already and you don't get a say in it, just like people don't get a seat on the committees.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            drew (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 9:33am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Yep, I get to make the choice for myself, but when it comes to material being released back into the public domain, that choice appears to be only at the behest of the legacy industry players. Funny that.
            But I digress.
            Yes, I choose to accept how the world is working and use that to my advantage. Not accepting this doesn't seem like a good solution to me, let me know how it works out for you.
            As to the Pirate Bay, dude, I would love to be significant enough to figure on the Pirate Bay. That would tell me that people actually liked my music enough to consider sharing it.
            But it one of my friends lends a copy of my album to a friend of theirs (and they take a copy) i don't expect them to pay me either...
            I appreciate that there's a lot of stuff on this thread and you probably haven't read my previous post, so I'll clarify. I'm an average musician. That's all. So yes, I work a day job, I will always work a day job. In the label model that's all that would be open to me. In the new model I can get a few fans and a few contributions from across the globe that both helps me cover a few costs but also gives me a nice little boost about what I do.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:38pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              it's cool that you get to do what you do, I support that, and my hope is that you wouldn't have to work a day job to support yourself and rather you could have a professional creative career, but that choice is taken away from you, and you are supporting the people taking that choice away.

              so no offense dude, but you are a hobbyists. you are not reliant on the income of your music to pay your bills. so, yes, I have hobbies too, but I don't pretend to be a working professional in those fields.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:14pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                may haps thats a lesson for people who want to do music for a living, they shouldnt quit their day jobs...or night jobs...

                I dont think anybody has the right to instantly make money doing what they love, I know a woman who LOVES knitting, shes horrible at it, but she loves it...you couldnt sell her "Sweaters" to a man dieing of hypothermia on the south poll in winter....but she loves it and if she could she would do it for a living....(last blanket she made was...not square...lol)

                please if your a musician let us know who you really are(with some proof) so we can avoid your works if you hate us "freetards" so much...

                note: I duno who decided "Freetard" should be used for anything but free software foundation/stallman types... thats where it originated after all...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                RadialSkid (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 2:15am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                "Waaaahhhhh...It's not enough for me to make music and release it, I want it to be my PROFESSION!"

                There is nothing wrong with being an amateur, and there's nothing special about being a professional. Get over it, you entitled whiner.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 3 May 2012 @ 3:49am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  here is nothing wrong with being an amateur, and there's nothing special about being a professional. Get over it, you entitled whiner.

                  So why do people pay to eat at restaurants?
                  And why do 65,000 go to Giants Stadium, when they could watch football free of charge in Central Park?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 4:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    "So why do people pay to eat at restaurants?"

                    Because, instead of sitting around whining that nobody's paying them, they offer things worth paying for - even though people can eat much cheaper at home? they offer value for money instead of trying to get "protection"?

                    The restaurant analogy is always particularly amusing to me given that so many of them go out of business on a regular basis. Yet, plenty make a lot of money, and plenty still open every week. I don't think I've ever heard a restaurant complain about those "freeloaders" cooking at home or attacking Wal Mart because they sell cheaper microwave meals.

                    Nobody who just wants to be a pro musician is entitled to do so without earning it, just as nobody can simply open a restaurant and expect instant profits. Even good restaurants go out of business if they;re not managed properly.

                    "And why do 65,000 go to Giants Stadium, when they could watch football free of charge in Central Park?"

                    How many sit at home and watch the same game for free (or a least as part of the cable/internet package they already have)?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                drew (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 4:27am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                I'd hope not to work a day job too, but that has absolutely nothing to do with piracy. Really it doesn't. I was working with a little local label for about 4 years, there was half a dozen bands/acts all "signed" on a straight 50-50 split of the profits.
                But the label folded a couple of years ago. Why? Because they didn't have a business plan. They / we had lots of ideas about how to try and sell our product but at the time we still thought the product was little plastic discs sold at gigs to students.
                But it turns out that students aren't buying little plastic discs anymore. (well, for the most part, turns out that if you make them a bit special then they will - but I only really discovered this afterwards).
                I digress again, apologies.
                The "choice" never got taken away from me, the market shifted and the choice was never there. We were too slow to realise that.
                So yes, I'm a hobbyist, as are an absolute shed-load of other musicians who've worked out that there's a democratisation of the music market coming.
                The barriers to entry are constantly lowering, more people competing for the same pot (at best, more realistically a shrinking pot when you factor in video games), that means fewer stars and, yes, fewer professionals.
                No-one is entitled to be successful, and no-one is entitled to be immune from the effects of change. You can try and adapt or try and fight it, but there's coming up to 3 billion people on the internet now and I'd rather be friends with them than fighting them.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              you should pop your own stuff up on TPB's promo page with a link to your site.

              honestly, It couldnt hurt, I would buy your stuff if i wasnt DBMF....I have linked a few friends to it already :)

              another place that could get you some traffic is demonoid, a few bands got a good traffic and sales/donation boost from the noid.(one of them due to me telling an old friend whos a member to toss his stuff up in mp3, flac and vorbis....they got enough to upgrade their sound gear for local gigs!!!)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:59am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        The no payments and contracts is for you to decide.

        The IP laws that grant you certain monopolies is for the people to decide if they agree with it or not.

        The internet will not help you with that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:01am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        How open source people get contracts, when everybody is free to copy, distribute, modify and even sell without asking for permission to do anything?

        How fashion people survive?

        How McDonalds become one of the biggests restaurants business in the world?

        How Coca-Cola managed?

        Why do you believe you are entitled to a monopoly that is so out of reality is now threatening democracy itself?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 3:06am

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          But you guys don't even want to pay once.
          OK, let's talk copyright, but you can't negotiate copyright while you're taking the product without paying for it.. not even once.
          Everyone on your list gets paid at least once.
          Are fashion items free, is coca cola free, the happy meal?
          So why should records be free?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            But you guys don't even want to pay once.

            Who ever said that?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Cowardly Anonymous, 2 May 2012 @ 8:38am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Copyright: the right to make copies.

            "So why should records be free"

            They shouldn't, there is physical stuff in a record.

            A digital copy, however, doesn't cost a darn thing.

            Kickstarter is successful because it moves things to commission model, where you get paid (once) up front and anything else is gravy. This is also the model for work for hire, but that will lock you out of your own work.

            The commission model is very likely to be the future of copyright industries.

            Picture this, a new artist makes a work on the side and releases it while asking for donations so they can spend more time making future works. Once they have a decent fan base and have proven themselves, they make a transition to crowd funding sources and full time artistry.

            Before you go saying that someone can't make a living that way, I'd encourage you to check out some of the more popular webcomics. It generally takes a few years, but the donations eventually reach a point where they can quit any other job they have and go full-time artist. There is no onus on anyone to ever pay beyond understanding that paying means the artist keeps making art, and that is actually sufficient.

            No, you won't strike it big going down this road, but you also won't have to play by the rules of a corporate entity or worry about being dropped or scammed. There is no big leap of faith, as you just need to get a small sample out there every so often to start attracting fans, and you'll have a solid metric to judge the transition.

            It is harder for established artists to make the transition, but most already have the fan base and it is more finding the way to make the connection that is difficult. Kickstarter and social media tend to work pretty well though. I'd recommend advertising a social media outlet of choice if you're going to make the jump over, and then doing an event to introduce the donate button.



            In short, you're still watching the water and the dam, when El P has specifically stated that he's looking to build a boat. He wants to talk with a carpenter, you're directing him to masons.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            That is the point stupid, everybody even open source gets paid and they let everybody copy it freely, so if they can why can't you?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              when google releases all of their source as open let me know, in the meantime watch the patent lawsuits.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 May 2012 @ 3:32pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                Funny, because the source code and the API for Android are there free and open. Your point?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            > But you guys don't even want to pay once.

            Wow, where in the hell did you get that idea from? Are you really that bloody single minded. "Everyone who disagrees with me, will never pay for music"? Is that it?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:00pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine


              Wow, where in the hell did you get that idea from? Are you really that bloody single minded. "Everyone who disagrees with me, will never pay for music"? Is that it?


              That's a ridiculous twisting of my comment. Why am I not surprised.
              many times I've read Techdirters say they wont pay for music. They don't like the label system and they don't like copyright terms.
              So if you downloaded the EI-P record without buying it, and you then claim artists shouldn't be paid for not working (aka copyright), how are you even paying EI-P once, for the WORK HE HAS DONE?
              Just answer the question without twisting my words to suit your agenda.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 10:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                By buying his merch and going to live presentations.

                I don't think you realize that a fucking plastic disc is just another form of merch, piracy has not stopped you or anybody from selling your shit, so do it and stop bothering others with laws that not only are ridiculous they are also harmful to society since they are the same tools used for censorship and a threat to civil liberties everywhere.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Marcel de Jong (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 2:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                I learned the twisting from you and your ilk.

                If I were to download El-P's records, it would be to find out if I like it. If I like it, I'm more than willing to pay money (as I have in the past, and how I'll do things in the future).

                But for the record, I've completely stopped buying movies and music, but also stopped downloading movies and music all together in my year long ban of anything to do with the recording industry and the movie industry.

                I have enough books still to read (most from independent writers, where I've bought their (e)books through Amazon, with the author's affiliate links (thus they make more money that way), and from CreateSpace and Lulu.com), and I'm all the richer for it.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:09am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        "Getting paid or not getting paid"

        False dichotomy, which not only assumes that using TPB will not get you paid, but that using traditional methods will. History is full of people with different experiences than the outcomes you assume...

        "Where can I get a contract to get paid by the pirate bay and other sites operating illegally?"

        Why do you think you need a contract to get paid by a system offering you free advertising?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 7:08am

        Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

        Is the Pirate Bay taking ownership of their rights? No.

        Is the Pirate Bay charging them fees for distribution? No.

        Is the Pirate Bay providing them with an advance which they must fully recoup otherwise the artist has to declare bankruptcy to avoid paying back the advance? No.

        Is the Pirate Bay making money off of the artist and charging them for services (but not paying for said service with the money they already made)? No.

        Is the Pirate Bay's income supporting the FREE distribution mechanism for any artist to disperse (or fans or enemies or people who just want to share and do care or don't care) via ads but charging the artists nothing more? Yes.

        Is the Pirate Bay loaded with money and charging users fees, in addition to ad-revenue, and raking in the cash? No (see the damn court case - proven they ain't got the cash IFPI said they did).

        So when you have a free service, that is free to you, should you be paid in addition to being provided a free distribution service? NO!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:01am

          Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

          Is the Pirate Bay paying artists anything. NO.

          Is the Pirate Bay respecting artists. NO.

          Is the Pirate Bay sharing the profit with artists. NO.

          The pirate bay is NOT a free service, nor does it provide the artists with any service. The Pirate Bay is a FOR PROFIT company making 100% of the money and paying artists 0%.

          If anything you are saying is true, than why not let the artists decide for themselves? Hmmm... probably because the pirate bay has no business without illegally exploiting artists and keeping 100% of the money... that number again is the pirate bay keeping 100% of the money and paying artists ZERO percent.

          FAIL.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 8:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2003/09/12/how-record-labels-exploit-bands/

            Hey, TPB sounds better than this:

            "For instance, if the artists grosses $3 million dollars, that translates to $750,000 of profit for the record label. How much does a band member get? $4031.25.

            But not really. Because the band is also $14,000 in debt to the record company. So for a deal which gave the label $750,000 profit, the band profits approximately $5,000. Put another way, after all expenses are accounted for, and everyone but the band and the label has been paid, of the remaining money 99.4% is paid to the label; the remainder is paid to the artists."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              and... the math for the pirate is even more simple:

              Pirate Bay 100%

              Artist 0%

              FAIL.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                That's because the pirate bay is not making an investment in the artist besides free marketing...then again, logic is definitely not your proudest moment.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 11:43am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                Again, even more simple:
                Fees to Pirate Bay by artists or users for distribution service: 0%

                Therefor, percentage of operating revenue delivered to users or artists for using the service free of charge: 0%

                Hence, profits to Pirate Bay: 100%

                NOTE: a company that keeps 100% of its profits does not necessarily mean they are rich, case and point, The Pirate Bay.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:19pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  it means that the pirate bay is ripping off artists by keeping 100% of the money owed to artists.

                  I'm glad you understand math.

                  The Pirate Bay = 100% of Artists Money
                  Artists on TPB = 0% of the Artists Money

                  Massive Rip Off of Artists.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Leigh Beadon (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    it means that the pirate bay is ripping off artists by keeping 100% of the money owed to artists.

                    I'm glad you understand math.

                    The Pirate Bay = 100% of Artists Money
                    Artists on TPB = 0% of the Artists Money

                    Massive Rip Off of Artists.


                    Ahh, excellent point. I hadn't heard that before. But... do they have contracts with The Pirate Bay? Please, educate me.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:29pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                      are you defending the pirate bay ripping off artists? pick a lie and stick to it.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Marcel de Jong (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 2:43pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    What money? You do realize that The Pirate Bay doesn't charge people for downloading the stuff.

                    So what money is the artist's, actually?

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Cowardly Anonymous, 2 May 2012 @ 8:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            The Pirate Bay doesn't make the decisions either, the users do. The Pirate Bay just offers a way to find torrents, just as Google offers a way to find domain names. The difference is that The Pirate Bay has gone out of its way to try and help artists with promotions.

            Yep, definitely a horrible wretched hive of scum and villainy there. /s

            Tor is an internet protocol. The Pirate Bay is a search engine. Go after the host of the infringing tracker, for there is the distributor.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:50am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

            Is the Pirate Bay CHARGING the artists anything? NO and they are not OFFERING anything beyond distribution for free.

            And what rights are they not respecting? Infringement by pointing PEOPLE (the subclass could be fans and another subclass could be non-fans who just want music numbers because that's impressive to chicks).

            The Pirate Bay is not a free service? Citation needed on that one. Since when does the Pirate Bay send bills to artists for distributing their work?

            How much money does the Pirate Bay make? The court case proved they make barely enough to survive.

            Who gives a shit if they are for profit, their profits are covering the costs of free distribution! Yes free to any artist who wants to.

            True, some don't want it and they are lucked out because people (some might be instantiated objects of the sub-people class known as "fans", or in Java, class Fans extends People) share. But those sharing who ARE fans or who WOULD NOW BECOME fans WILL pay if they feel to do so.

            Again it does NOT matter if the Pirate Bay is for profit, they use their profits to pay for their service, which is NOT charged to the users. If it were, then you could have a point, but since TPB does NOT charge for the service, it is NOT a requirement that they PAY artists for their FREE service.

            And quite with the "FAIL" bullshit, you sound like a damn kid. Grow up. Attempting to sound witty when you argue does not improve your chances of winning an argument.

            And again, TPB IS free and DOES provide a service - it's called exposure and distribution, and many artists ARE taking advantage of that.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:05pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

              no it's called a RIP OFF.

              Pirate Bay = 100% of the Artists Money
              Artists on tpb = 0% of the Artists Money

              RIP OFF.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                AzureSky (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 3:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                what "artists money" is that...where did it come from?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:22pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                  the money comes from the same place it does for everyone else online, advertising. this is "tech" dirt do you really not understand how the web works?

                  http://techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/the-pirate-bay-makes-4-million-a-year-on-illegal-p2p-file-shari ng-says-prosecutor/

                  so yes, the pirate bay makes $4m a year and pays ZERO to the artists by illegally ripping off the artist. why do you support artists getting ripped off?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    I don't understand why a leech needs to get paid.

                    The social leeches you call artists didn't do the work, why they should get any of that money.

                    If I work the land I am entitled to the fruits of that work, if another guy comes in and do better than me is his not mine, why should you or anyone else get some?

                    I don't even believe that somebody playing the same song as you should pay you anything, they should get their money from the people who wants to pay them and not have to deal with people like you.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Marcel de Jong (profile), 3 May 2012 @ 2:23am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You Will Be Fine

                    What a prosecutor claims doesn't have to be the truth.

                    The actual courtcases showed a rather different number all together. But why let facts get in the way of a good shilling argument.

                    Here is the original article, that yours linked to:
                    http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-team-charged-080131/
                    And it paints a different picture than what TechCrunch made of it.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 10:24am

      Re: You Will Be Fine

      "We want you to succeed, but do it without violating our human rights and with giving us art that we want."

      You've got that right. All Black Eyed Peas albums are major human rights violations and should be prosecuted accordingly.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 10:21pm

    It's all relatively new and we are trying our best to navigate choppy waters.

    Well for you maybe, but don't put us all on the same technology inept side.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2012 @ 11:31pm

    they are not your fans, they are not supporting you, they are stealing from you, if the culture is ok with stealing everything becasue they can, stop producing, then they can't steal

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 2:49am

      Re:

      >if the culture is ok with stealing everything becasue they can, stop producing, then they can't steal

      No, then they create instead of throwing a tantrum like you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Niall (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 5:08am

      Re:

      Basically yes, if you define infringing as 'stealing' then yes, as a whole society seems to be ok with that. Just like as a whole, society tolerates limited speeding.

      Notice that actual stealing, i.e. shoplifting, isn't tolerated - but people still make concessions to its effects.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Karl (profile), 1 May 2012 @ 11:36pm

    I wont be caught trying to put band aids on cracks in the dam. I'd rather let that bitch flood and build a boat.

    This deserves to be plastered all over the walls of Congress and every boardroom across the whole of the United States. Seriously.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 4:08am

    Begging for money from "fans" isn't begging? Another Techdirt head scratcher.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John Doe, 2 May 2012 @ 4:10am

    Same could be said of the fans

    In these debates (no matter what venue) the artist almost always seems to be treated/viewed as a child. Either we don't understand what's good for us, can't control what's happening to us, can't comprehend what's bad for us or we are not wise enough to be grateful for what we are handed. It's a debate that rages on almost exclusively without the input of the artist themselves

    This same thing could be said about how the fans/public are treated. The copyright industry is doing their best to turn the public into criminals and locking down content for forever minus a day. We get rootkits, DRM, FBI warnings, license servers that may or may not be up when we play our video games and so on. All this for people who actually paid for their content. As for the pirates, well they circumvent all this stuff so it is of no bother to them.

    The artists are on the other side of the equation and often have little to no control over the situation as well. So what we are stuck with are the middlemen making a lot of noise trying to exert control over the rest of us. So what needs to happen? The middlemen need to be eliminated. They are quickly becoming unnecessary overhead and yet they have all the power. This needs to end.

    Hopefully what you will find here is not a bunch of freetards and pirates, but people who are fully willing to pay for content and Mike advocating ways for artists to make money through smarter, modern business models.

    BTW, thanks for stopping by, it is always nice to hear from someone on the other side of the equation.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 5:56am

    Screw your fans...

    Your cat needs love!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    A monkey with Attititude, 2 May 2012 @ 9:32am

    Thanks

    First thank you El for your input and thoughts, it helps to show the real people affected are the artist (and all the talk by both sides seems to leave this out).

    Just so you know by doing this I have now heard of you and will check out your album, and if I like it I will purchase it, if not I wish you success (and I may still buy it to support you because you spoke out reasonably and intellengently and should be rewarded for it in a time when so few do).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 9:52am

    Free is the right price for music

    Raise it, and people will simply find a more fan-friendly artist to listen to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    writeem (profile), 2 May 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Question

    I'm a songwriter. Just wondering how I, and all the other behind the scenes types who create the content that drives 99% of p2p traffic, get paid? We don't gig (been there, done that), sell CD's or T shirts, we license music to those who do.
    Just checked today's top 10 search results for mp3raid, where my songs are always found, making $ for everybody w every click-everybody but me of course.
    Interesting that all are either from a major label, or an "indie" financed and distributed by a major. Bet the same is true for most p2p'd movies. If the labels and studios are so hated, why, in 2012, are they still responsible for the creations everybody, especially p2p'rs wants?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:02pm

      Re: Question

      It is interesting. It is because many, many people would prefer to continue to get things for free and wrap their entitlement in digital utopian rhetoric than confront the obvious fact that they are choosing to illegally exploit you (and other like you) for your labor and creativity. As Peter Sunde himself said, "If I want it I take it." In most cases, I believe it is as simple as that. Instant gratification.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:12pm

        Re: Re: Question

        Are you retarded? You do know that "instant gratification" is something big corporation use to sell their products?

        Why do you think we have "fast food" and Itunes, so people can get what they want right away.

        The labels cater to this mentality, then when they can't control it, they whine.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: Question

          Yes and we have laws to restrain our worst impulses, when they are determined to be violating the legal rights of others. Fast food and iTunes are lawful and consensual. Labels are in business to make money for themselves and artists can partner with them or not. The labels have legal rights to what they produce (otherwise they wouldn't garner any investment capital). Which is worse, a label with perfectly legal rights "whining" when their rights are being ignored, or a consumer who is knowingly exploiting another person's legal rights "whining" when they are told they can't do it as much as they would like?

          You are not entitled to unlicensed content. Deal with it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 May 2012 @ 1:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Question

            No one said Itunes and fast are not lawful, but the mentality of the average consumer is when I want something, I want it now.

            Why not cater to that, provide consumers what they want when they want. You may say that denotes entitlement, but...I'd feel pretty entitled if it was my money being invested into something I was unsure of.

            Yes, labels do have the right to what they produce and they also have the right to whine about things. They also apparently have the right to screw their artists out of royalties when it suits their needs (http://gizmodo.com/352762/riaa-wants-to-cut-artist-royalties-to-9-apple-wants-them-at-4-artists-jus t-want-to-eat). And sue people. Attempt to strip copyrights from their artists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA). Sue people who did not even pirate music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing).

            Sorry, but I could care less how piracy affects the labels considering that they take most of the earnings of the artists.