When I was young, with very limited funds to spend on music, it was often disappointing to purchase an album from which I had heard one or two excellent singles only to find that the rest of the album was utter garbage. It is not cool when the one CD you can afford to buy in a month is crap.

I was already an adult when filesharing became popular, but with somewhat of a limited income. i found that downloading music did not so much reduce the number of CDs I bought, it just meant I knew ahead of time what I was getting, and as a result spent less on crappy CDs.

Fast forward a few years. I am now making very good money. I can afford pretty much whatever entertainment options I want. I still download music. If I like it, I buy the cd (from the band themselves, whenever possible, as that is the only way I can be sure they actually see the money). In the past year, I have purchased around 100 cds, attended a music festival and at least 20 concerts (both local and touring acts), and purchased several hundred dollars worth of assorted merchandise from these shows.

Do not try and tell me that anybody is losing money from my music habits. Anything I download and don’t buy, I would not have bought anyway.

You could get your own website with enough bandwidth to digitally transfer nearly 3 million albums a month for about 50 bucks or less. Since most artists will never sell 3 million albums a month, I’d say that 50 bucks a month is about all they would ever risk spending in their entire carrers to maintain their own distribution site. Worse come to worse, you coul get dedicated servers for less than 200 bucks a month. Storage space is so large and cheap now an artist could store his entire lifes work on a $40 harddrive.

“or to record and produce their own CD’s.”

Using digital equipment found in most music stores today, and a decent PC with some quality software an artist would be more than capable of recording, re-recording, re-mastering, tweaking, and tuning his work till it was as perfect as he/she wants it to be and with a little work could put out a quality product that would rival any record company.

The real issue here is that most musicians want fame, fortune, drugs, women, and they want it now. Big up front advance give them instant gratification and turns their brains to mush. From then on, they are owned.

Do artists really get paid in this world? Is P2P really hurting them as much as claimed? Not a chance. They hurt themselves more by remaining ignorant. If you want proof that artists do get paid, talk to P-Diddy. After all, he is the richest entertainer in the world. Notice I said entertainer? Thats because as a musician, and a producer/songwriter he makes more money than any other artists, bands, Actors, Circus performer, whatever, he tops them all.

Want more proof that music artists do get paid well despite the P2P situation? Can anyone tell me what these women do and what their number represents?

4. Madonna, 325 Million
5. Celine Dion, 250 Million
6. Mariah Carey, 225 Million
7. Janet Jackson, 150 Million
12. Britney Spears, 100 Million
19. Christina Aguilera, 60 Million

My heart bleeds for those poor women who have suffered repeated song thefts via P2P. The RIAA movement is nothing more than a way to extend profits for the already fabulously wealthy. Protecting artists has NOTHING to do with it.

I want to share this quote from another site..

“Yes. Clearly the music industry as it has been over the last 80 years or so is history. The rate of decline of record sales and royalties will be exponential. Musicians will need to perform live to make money. That’s life.” - Andrew Montgomery

What was it that artists did to make money before albums, tapes and CDs? Oh yeah, they performed LIVE. They worked for their money. My advice to them as a fellow musician who has been there, done that, go it alone, screw the major labels and start your own label. Charge people a fair price for your product and they will buy it. In my day, if you made 75 cents per album sold, you were banking bigtime(even though the recording company was making nearly 10 times that amount). An independant artist can get professionally pressed and printed CDs for as little as 1.50 each. Sell them for 3 bucks a pop and you will be making twice per album what you’ll likely get signing the recording contract. And hell, if your music is worth listening to, who wouldn’t pay 3 bucks for the album?

The vast majority of people I know that download “illegal” copies of songs discard the ones they do not like, and buy CD’s containing the ones they do like. So it’s an effect (even if illegal) marketing tool from my perspective.

A common complaint that I have heard is that there is only one or maybe two decent songs on a CD, yet you’re forced to buy the stuff you dislike along with it. It’s time to review marketing techniques.

Try marketing directly to your listeners (if you really have any). Sell them one song at 50% higher than you would get for it when included on a CD. Problem with that is that you wouldn’t be able to force anyone to buy the garbage, would you?

The following article by Steve Albini suggests he would agree with your take on things.

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Between my husband and myself we have over 800 CD’s. We both love music. Fortunately for us, all of our CD players are older versions and don’t incorporate any of the new technologies that limit where, when, and how I can use music that I have purchased. Our computer is an older model too, so it doesn’t have any of this new technology built in to it, but we have to buy a new computer in the next few months, and this is a huge concern, especially as this technology is being built-in and purchasers are not being told this.

A while ago my husband bought the CD of a group that I love - it was produced by Sony Music. Normally, I would download the CD to my computer as MP3 so that I can take compliations with me wherever I go (especially to work), and leave the CD in my 400 CD player to listen to (protecting my master copy/investment), but about the time that he bought me the CD, I learned about Sony’s blocks. This has made me terrified to even put it in my computer. So now, I have the choice of taking the CD with me should I decide to listen to it, risking damage to it, or leave it at home and only listen to it there. Thank you Sony!

I am older (50+), so I’ve been through all sorts of technical changes. Vinyl (78rpm, 45rpm, and 33rpm), 8track, cassettes, CD’s and now DVD’s. Up until the last few years, sharing music has not been a big deal (granted, there wasn’t any way to record copies of 78’s, 45’s or 33’s when they first came out). Copying became an issue once cassettes gained popularity, although 8track brought out the issue. Until the last few years, howver, I do not recall hearing of people being prosecuted for sharing. There is a big differance between individuals “sharing” and commercial piracy.

Individuals being allowed to share the music that they have purchased is good for the artist as it generates word of mouth recognition. Word of mouth isn’t as as important to established artists as it is new (or unknown) artists. For them, often the only way to get the recognition of industry “players” is the grassroots movement. I know that the Bare Naked Ladies were on the music scene for a number of years before they got any radio play, because I used to work with a woman who was a huge fan and tried to see them each time they played in Toronto. This was long before our beloved Mayor made a big issue of their name, bringing them to the attention of the general populace. Forbidding sharing, prosecuting copywrite infringement, will effectively stiffle word of mouth, eliminating the effectiveness of grassroots movements, making artists even more dependant on the industry.

I hope that somebody in the government is listening - doubt it though, as even though the names in the article are big names on the Canadian music scene, they can’t bring to bear the clout that comes with millions (perhaps even billions) of dollars that the likes of muisic industry giants like Sony can. I think that the next few years will be dark ones for the entertainment industry.

Dear songwriter:

Because we do not know anything about, your name, the songs you wrote, your income from songs, who is your publisher, and what record compnies paid you properly and which did not, how much the performance collectives paid you, etc. it is hard to determine if you are saying the truth or what. Frankly, you sound like a music industry mole.

Iam the son of a songwriter. Many say he was one of the greatest. My web page has the data. His income from music: None. His music never paid enough to cover expenses, because, mainly, of theft by the many record companies, big and small, that sold millios of records with his songs. The crooks were also the alleged music publishers (who stole most of the songs the publishers allegedly owned) and their controlled performance collective.

Thiefs are not kids tha share abd copy songs. The real thiefs and pairates of the songwriter’s income stream id the music industry leeches that have become the owners and controllers of the music.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

I’m a songwriter. I don’t get paid until someone purchases a recording of my song. If someone likes my song well enough to add it to their collection but chooses to download an unauthorized copy rather than purchase it, they have stolen the royalty payment due me.

I don’t perform. I don’t sell t-shirts. I have no marketing machine. All I gettin is mugged by those who love my music enough to take its value from me.

Sure, I still have my song … but, that doesn’t do me a whole lot of good if my means of feeding my family is by writing the music you love enough to copy without paying.

Hey, and, did you know that the backup musicians and signers health, welfare and retirement benefits are based on the sale of recorded product … as are the salaries, and perhaps even the availability of jobs of people who work at legal downloads sites and other ancillary services built upon the music I write …

The livelihoods of real human beings are being robbed, and, in many instances snuffed.

As for Oberholz/Strumph, that study is so old and has been so discredited by the truth that I’m surprised to see anyone still bring it up. Next I’m sure you are going to tell me you think Terry Fisher understands what he is talking about.

I’m in the real world… I see my royalty statements … and my friends tell me about theirs. Oberholz/Strumph can’t convince any of us that we’re not being seriously pillaged by people that don’t understand … and, I know, don’t give a damn about anyone else as long as they can get anything they want whenever they want it without paying.

Thousands of writer/artists are gladly giving their music away and are making it easy for you to get it … Please don’t take my music if I’d rather you didn’t. I’ll happily suffer the consequences.

No matter how many times it’s repeated, it STILL isn’t true.
Nothing has been “Stolen”. No one has been deprived of the use
or enjoyment of any physical property by anyone else, therefore
no “theft” has taken place.
Furthermore,
It STILL has not been proven that downloading has cost the
industry, or anyone a DIME in lost sales. It HAS been shown to
have “zero” effect ( Oberholz/Strumph study ).

Don’t be an industry sheep and spout the same tired lies.

Because in the past records were copied by music lovers and collectors, many musical works have been saved from oblivion.

A good example, the music of my father. About 200 of his songs were recorded commercially in the 1930-1950 era, before he decided that the music business was a scam and withdrew from the busines in part, and in part was blacklisted by the American music publishing business that somehow controlled the local music scene. Most of those 1930-1950 recordings are no longer commercially available because the record companies than made the recordings no longer exists.

Only because many music collectors made what is now called criminal and illegal copies have many, if not hundreds, of the songs have been saved. Some of those copies were given to me on cassette so that we copyright owners knew that the song existed and could herar it and could SAVE IT.

Surely record companies cannot guarantee they will be around forever or that they will always market all he recordings they made.

Even music publishers do not save, let alone publish or get recordings done, of most musical scores and materials that songwriters give them, as music publishers have no sense of history or cultural purpose. They are just in the money business. As a matter of fact, publishers have a habit of throwing away as garbage most of the musical material that songwriters give them, as that is less costly than finding the songwriter or his/her heirs and returning it.

Its all very clear. Most record companies and their RIAA and music publishers do not give a damn about the culture of any country, wether it is Canada or my country, Puerto Rico. They are a nationless, culturaless, historyless business. Just in it for the money.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

Could you imagine the publishers running around suing people for lending books?

Sheesh.

The fact is, mp3’s are piss poor quality, in and of the realm of music copied from the radio. People have been doing that for years.

If people like the music, they buy it. Many folks just aren’t into music enough to buy it. I never was. The only time I EVER bought CD’s in any huge amount was when I DJ’d part time. I amassed a crap load of dance music that I would never have bought, because it got people up on the floor. Mind you, I probably should have been paying some insane amount for “public performance” of this music.

The music industry is full of idiocy, and their licensing requirements and restrictions are total crap.

Thank god these fine Canadian artists have banded together to call for sense in the matter.

Keep in mind: In Canada they TAX CD’s, DAT’s and MP3 players…. and the money is SUPPOSED to go to the artists in compensation for copyright infringement. Of course, artists never get the money, instead going to the money-grubbing, corporate skimmers.

I’d never invest in a music company, cuz their days are numbered, in their current form.

Quality will be better than Analog, and no worry about digital restrictions on “copying” because it’s not really copying in the same sense.

Of course, you could also rip it on a Linux box. Windows DMCA/retrictions don’t work there!

We all know what they’re doing with those

If they choose a logical name, it may be CACA, for Coalition of Artists from CAnada.

A simlar move was made by American publisher when songwriters here in Puerto Rico were organized for the purpose of collecting royalties for songwriters, who at the timewere not getting paid by music publishers, broadcasters and record companies.

The Americans made a competing “songwriter organization” organization that could not survive as the Americans had the money.

Just watch out!

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

There wasn’t.
Now there is.

Up Front money, which is actually a loan ( called an “Advance” ), which the labels expects eventually to be paid back. But it never CAN be paid back. Everything from studio time to toothpaste is “charged” to the indentured servant, and creative accounting insures that the indentured servant is always in debt to the label.
So, it’s nothing like a signing bonus at all.
Are Athletes expected to eventually give that money back ??
At one time, signing with a label was the ONLY WAY for a band or artist to be heard outside of it’s own little corner of the world. Payola meant that it was also the only way to get radio airplay as well.
Thats no longer true.
Their contracts are no longer needed.
They fear P2P, NOT because of Copyright infringement, but because with P2P an artist NO LONGER NEEDS THEM.
Those that are already signed had little choice, and since they are in a state of perpetual debt to the label, they CAN’T speak openly about it.
What a marvellous system.

“These people don’t just have ‘recording’ contracts. If they write their own music they have ‘publishing’ deals as well or they have their own publishing company. ”

Like Jessica and Ashley Simpson perhaps ??
Like all the other paper doll figureheads ??
Most of those don’t play any kind of instrument either.
Granted, there are a few, VERY few, that do write there own songs, but the reason there are so few …..
Labels DON’T WANT perfomers that write. They are too expensive to maintain. They pay a smaller blanket fee to a publishing house for the songs, and then cheap pretty “puppet” to perform them ( of course , they charge their puppet for the band, studio time, etc .. ) get the picture ?. A performer that writes may eventually be in “the black” and escape their control.
What an AMAZING system.

“Every time one of their songs is played on the radio, TV, or included in a movie soundtrack…the ARTIST/SONGWRITER makes money. ”

Now I know for certain you are a mole.
This is the single biggest lie being force fed to joe public.
The COPYRIGHT HOLDER makes money.
The COPYRIGHT HOLDER is almost NEVER the ARTIST/SONGWRITER.
That contract you mentioned above …
You see, it assigns all rights to the Label.
The Label is the rights holder.
This is STANDARD on all contracts.
If you don’t like it, you don’t get signed.
Since the Label insures the artists expenses are always greater
than income generated, the ARTIST never sees a dime.
Since they don’t own the rights, they aren’t entitled to it either.

If you don’t like it , Don’t sign.
This USED to be a problem, when the Labels were the only way to be heard.
Home recording, P2P … well,
If you don’t like the contract, do it yourself
It is now VERY possible, and scares the shit out of the Labels.

That is why they MUST criminalize P2P.
That is why they MUST monetize bandwidth.

“When you become a professional musician…it is just that…A BUSINESS. No matter how you all slice it, no matter how you try to justify it…it’s just stealing. ”

No matter how many times you repeat it, It still doesn’t make it true. No one has been deprived of any property. No proveable effect on sales has EVER been shown. No damages have EVER been proven. The Supreme Court even ordered RIAA lawyers to
stop calling it stealing ( Grokster ). But the lie is so much more important to the RIAA. No matter what moles like you say .. We all know it’s NOT stealing.
If you are and ARTIST … you will be one whether or not you “git paid” for it. It’s in the blood. You can’t help it. If you are in it strictly for the money … well .. it shows. Thats what we call a “hack”.